FIGURE 1.3.
Blade core production initiation options: (a) natural ridge; (b–c) simple ridge shaping; (d) all over complex shaping. Arrows indicate the place and angle used to strike the first blade.
BLADE MANUFACTURE
Blade and inset blade technologies developed along the same technological lines and had similar production strategies; the main difference was how the blades were used. Knappers had three main choices for blade production initiation: selection of raw material forms that allowed blade production without preshaping (figure 1.3a); simple preshaping of the material (figure 1.3b–c); and complex preshaping (figure 1.3d). The method chosen seems to have been culturally or traditionally determined.
The shaping options of complex precores—blade cores shaped by knappers before detaching the first blade—provide the greatest opportunity to assess whether similarities between traditions were historically connected or the result of independent invention: the more complex the blade technology, the more likely it was to be related to similar technologies.
BIFACE MANUFACTURE
Biface technology may also be relatively simple or extremely complex. Once again, different methods and techniques were developed to achieve the desired products from the available raw materials. Sometimes the materials were less important than the methods: in some archaeological examples, it is possible to observe that although a specific technology did not work well with a particular stone, the knapper persisted without major modification of his or her traditional knapping habits.
It is clear in other cases that the strategy did change during production. This most often involved switching from proportional to thickening or thinning biface flaking (figure 1.4). Proportional flaking is accomplished by removing flakes that end just past the longitudinal midline of the biface (figure 1.4a1), proportionally removing as much from the face as from the edge. The resulting biface is lenticular in cross section and has a width-thickness ratio between 3:1 and 4:1 (figure 1.4b). In thickening, flaking does not extend through the thickest area (figure 1.4a2), so only the width is reduced. The resultant piece has a width-thickness ratio of less than 3:1. Thinning produces flakes that remove proportionally more of the face than the edge (figure 1.4a3), creating bifaces with flat or slightly biconvex cross sections and width-thickness ratios greater than 4:1 (figure 1.4c). As might be imagined, thinning was a risky business, with a probability of failure greatly exceeding that of proportional or thickening flaking.
The best-known and best-described example of biface thickening in North America is Eden point manufacturing technology (figure 1.4d). This point style was clearly intended to be relatively thick, and it took several sequences of carefully controlled pressure flaking to achieve the desired goal.12 Modern knappers have had a tendency to try to make everything thin because this is one of the greatest challenges, yet Eden points are one of the most difficult technologies to reproduce. The control exercised by Eden knappers was extraordinary, especially considering the fact that the same people were also making some of the thinnest bifaces, known as Cody knives.13
Along with proportional flaking, at least three strategies can produce bifaces with high width-thickness ratios: diving, full-face, and overshot flaking. Diving flaking drives thinning flakes to near the midline, where they end in either hinge or step fractures (figure 1.4a2), which look the same as thickening because both methods result in flakes meeting at the midline. Hinge and step flakes end abruptly, leaving a relatively deep gouge on the surface, which the removal of a flake from the opposite edge can eliminate, creating a flat and even concave area in the middle. Individual platform preparation and the angle and force of the blow control flake termination. Although this method produces many flakes, they tend to be thin and fragile and of little use except for light cutting. Carefully controlling this process on both faces, however, makes it possible to produce extremely thin bifaces. These tools are very efficient for tasks such as slicing meat, and they can also be used as large but relatively light projectile points. At times they may have been an expression of aesthetics and style: many of the largest flaked pieces used for ritual purposes were thin bifaces. Most archaeological cultures that made very thin bifaces, for example Folsom, used diving flaking.14 The many examples separated by time and space suggest that this method was independently developed a number of times in different parts of the world.
In full-face flaking, flakes travel all the way across the biface, terminating just before the opposite edge (figure 1.4a3). This method is difficult to control and, as the bifaces become thinner, often results in breakage. However, if carefully controlled, this method can produce thin, flat bifaces. Overshot flaking is a variation of full-face flaking. In this case flakes travel all the way across the face and remove a portion of the opposite edge (figure 1.4a4). Although this technique may seem counterproductive in that it removes parts of both edges, it eliminates enough mass to significantly thin the biface. It also forms a beveled angle on the edge opposite the platform that frequently requires only minor preparation to be ideal for flaking the other face. Both full-face and overshot flaking require the removal of only a few large flakes from each face to produce a biface that is both thin and uniformly flat. This regularity allows edge and surface finishing, resulting in symmetrical and attractive products, and probably enhances the flakes’ functionality. In addition, the flakes are relatively large and straight and are useful as tools themselves. However, these flaking methods are difficult to control, and even small mistakes can result in total failure.
FIGURE 1.4.
Examples of biface flaking options: (a) initial biface; (b) proportional; (c) thickened; (d) thinned. W is width, th is thickness, and w/th is width-to-thickness ratio.
To a modern flintknapper the overshot method is counterintuitive. It seems to waste material, decreases thinning (because parts of both edges are removed), and is extremely difficult to control. Most flintknappers have denied its practicality even in the face of clear archaeological evidence of widespread use. After extensive experimentation, practice, and examination of Clovis and Solutrean assemblages, however, we are completely convinced of its advantages and that it was intentionally used in both traditions. Overshot flaking’s complexity and difficulty suggest that it is unlikely to have been independently invented very often. Indeed, we have examined many of the biface traditions around the world and so far have recognized purposeful overshot biface thinning only in Clovis and Solutrean assemblages and on bladelet cores in the Neolithic of Qatar.15 As this method becomes better known by archaeologists, more overshot technologies may be identified. Nevertheless, it is apparent that this technique was rare.
SPACING AND SEQUENCING
Two other integral parts of knapping are flake sequencing and flake spacing. As stated earlier, each flake removal is enabled and influenced by what came before and affects what is possible after. To create products with specific characteristics, such as blades with two parallel ridges running down the outside surface, the spacing of the flake removals is critical for establishing the proper morphology of the core (for more on blade characteristics, see chapters 2 and 7).
Spacing and sequencing of flake removals are integrally linked, but sequencing may also be done to create a particular surface pattern. Some knapping sequences produce distinct, sometimes culturally diagnostic, flake scar patterns. For example, special flint knives were produced in predynastic Egypt with a unique pressure flaking pattern called S-flaking.16 This is tricky to accomplish, and we can see no functional advantage to it, so it may have had aesthetic significance.
Those of us over forty years old may remember the cowboy and Indian movies in which a corpse full of arrows is discovered. The hero (often John Wayne) would pull out one of the arrows and after close examination proclaim “Apache.” Not only does this make for good movies, but there is also plenty of historical support for the idea that certain artifacts are identifiable with a particular culture, ethnic group, or even individual maker. This was cer
tainly true in the past, and it may have been an important aspect of flaked stone style or even technology in some cultures.17 Highly sophisticated and complex techniques, such as controlled overshot flaking, may be the traits that indicate historical connections.18
FIGURE 1.5.
Variations in fluting technology: (a) Clovis diagonal/angled fluting; (b) Cumberland parallel fluting; (c) Barnes parallel first fluting of both faces, followed by angled fluting of both faces; (d) Folsom parallel fluting and angled fluting.
FLUTING
Longitudinal thinning is another important aspect of early North American technologies. When accomplished during the course of producing preforms (unfinished bifaces whose final form is evident) it is called end thinning, even when done to a tip rather than a base. When applied so that the finished piece retains the resulting flake scar or scars on its base, it is called fluting. While some bifaces have basal thinning, it is not well enough developed and the flake scars are not long enough for it to be considered fluting. Intentional patterned fluting as part of specific techno-complexes is clearly an American invention. There is some evidence of the development and adoption of this technique in the pre-Clovis materials in eastern North America, but it is totally developed and nearly universally applied in Clovis biface technologies. Clovis is the first assemblage where fluting is well established but by no means the last, and it is even possible to distinguish between several variations in application in post-Clovis fluted point technologies.
We recognize two basic approaches to fluting through the intentional removal of substantial flakes (channel flakes) from the bases of points near the end of manufacture. Diagonal or angled fluting happens when flake removal originates so that the resulting basal edge, on the longitudinal section, is directly in line with the biface plane formed by the rest of the point but the scar is at a diagonal to this plane (figure 1.5a). The second approach is to set up the channel flake platform to project toward the face to be fluted so that when the flake is removed the resulting edge still projects parallel to the biface plane (figure 1.5b). We call this parallel fluting.
We can see little advantage of one of these methods over the other, and the approaches were used separately and in combination. For example, in Clovis the flutes on both sides were diagonal, resulting in a sharp basal edge that was in the point’s biface plane without additional flaking. A third combination is seen in the point fluting in the Cumberland and Barnes sites of eastern North America. Both faces were fluted with parallel removals, necessitating significant post-fluting flaking to obtain a sharp base in line with the point’s biface plane. This was sometimes accomplished with multiple small pressure flakes (figure 1.5b), but another, very distinct option was also used, called flute under flute: following the long parallel flute removals, shorter, diagonal flutes were removed from both faces, producing a superimposed channel flake scar on each face (figure 1.5c, 3rd and 4th). Finally, the first flute of a Folsom point was a parallel removal and the second, on the opposite face, a diagonal removal (figure 1.5d).19 After the first fluting, a substantial adjustment of the basal margin was necessary to set up the diagonal flute, but its removal created a sharp edge in line with the point’s biface plane.
The action of flaking stone leaves a record of human thought and behavior not unlike the combining of letters to form words, phrases, and sentences. Archaeologists recover fragments of evidence; now we just need to learn to decipher the languages. This primer presents the background needed to allow a basic understanding of the technological stories we have gathered.
2
CLOVIS
The First American Settlers?
For decades the Clovis culture has been our anchor to understanding the peopling of the New World. It has been a touchstone for archaeologists, a rare “truth” and comfort regarding the unknowable archaeological past. We have recognized who was first in the Americas and whence they came. Even so, the interest in just how they came to be and where they came from has driven Clovis research, which has resulted in questions challenging even our very basic beliefs. What is the evidence that has started to shake the foundations of this long-accepted theory? Could it be that there were people in the Americas before Clovis?
The amount of evidence for Clovis has grown at a relatively fast rate since the first discovery of this archaeological culture. Clovis points have been found throughout most of continental North America, extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the plains of Alberta, Canada, into northern South America (figure 2.1). The wealth of data provided by the excavation and analysis of Clovis sites is giving us a new understanding of Clovis culture. Although Clovis hunters killed now extinct ice age animals, a conservative view of radiocarbon dates indicates that these people first appeared in the New World some 13,000 years ago, and in less than 200 years they had explored, exploited, and inhabited the two continents of the Americas.1 By comparison, the historic European residence in the Americas began barely 500 years ago. If the actual tenure of Clovis is only 200 years, they achieved the most rapid terrestrial expansion and extensive colonization in the history of pre-literate people.
FIGURE 2.1.
Locations of major Clovis sites and extent of glaciation, 12,000 BP.
The Clovis expansion across the Americas coincided with a period of dramatic climatic fluctuations that altered landscapes and their associated resources.2 Clovis people must have been highly adaptive generalists who could take advantage of a wide variety of resources. Their secular worldview must have centered on the edible and the inedible and how to attain the former. At the end of Clovis times we see users of descendant technologies adapted to every available ecological zone: tundra in the north; boreal forest with deciduous and coniferous woodlands in the northeast; deciduous forest and parklands; mixed hardwood and piney woods in the South; pluvial lakes and rivers in the relatively arid plains; desert in the southwest; and the tropics of Central America. Moreover, dredging along the Atlantic coast and sports divers on the Atlantic continental shelf have recovered Clovis artifacts from an ocean margin environment. Although Clovis sites and artifacts are rare on the West Coast and in the Great Basin and range country, scattered evidence around pluvial lakes and river courses suggests at least minimal Clovis occupation of these areas.
Fluted projectile points are the most readily identifiable Clovis artifacts, but there are many other items that make up the Clovis inventory. Among these are tools made from blades and flakes struck from specialized cores, plus bifacially flaked knives and adzes. Bi-beveled bone, antler, and ivory rods of unknown use, foreshafts (made to hold projectile points for use with a spear shaft), and projectile points as well as barbed harpoons are also characteristic of Clovis.
SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
The history of Clovis archaeology has had a profound influence on our perception of Clovis culture. The first recognized sites, Blackwater Draw and Dent, were found in semi-arid environments; both included mammoth remains. Many other Clovis localities were subsequently discovered in the West. But even though archaeologists have become aware that the climate and landscape of North America were much different at the end of the Pleistocene than they are today, the popular view of Clovis continues to emphasize mammoth hunting in an arid to semiarid region. Yet Clovis artifacts and sites with Clovis-like fluted points have now been found from coast to coast and from Canada to as far south as Venezuela.
In North America, Clovis artifacts are relatively rare in the northeastern and north-central states, and some scholars believe this is because these areas were then recently deglaciated and not settled until late in Clovis times.3 Clovis sites are most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic and southeastern states and exhibit a wide diversity of activities, whereas diversity decreases to the north and west, where activities are focused on hunting. Western sites are either small campsites or kills that are sometimes associated with small temporary hunting camps. To the east and southeast, by contrast, they include not only kills but also stone processing areas, us
ually associated with large campsites; large overlook and upland surface sites; and at least one cave/rockshelter. Some of these differences in settlement patterns and site types may be the result of preservation or just plain luck in finding sites, but consistent patterns are emerging. The archaeological evidence suggests that the contrast between the east and the west can be explained by the late ice age prairie-forest border. The abundance of resources in the woodlands allowed at least semi-permanent settlements, while the prairies, plains, and deserts offered large game but little else at the time. Because plant and animal habitats were responding to abrupt and fluctuating climatic changes at the end of the ice age, this margin cannot be identified with great precision, but the general distribution of different Clovis site types gives a general indication of the location of this change.
Evidence of Clovis dwellings is sparse. Based on lack of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that Clovis people occupying western sites had highly portable or ephemeral structures, but even hearth features are almost nonexistent. In the east, where larger campsites have been found, one would expect evidence of more substantial housing because of the length of time people could remain in this area. By and large, however, this is not the case, save for the appearance of a pattern of post molds at the Thunderbird Site in Virginia from which Errett Callahan has reconstructed the shadowy outline of a rectangular longhouse.4 If the evidence from Thunderbird has been interpreted correctly, the people who lived there may have constructed longhouses at sites where they intended to reside for extended periods or those to which they returned on a regular basis.
Across Atlantic Ice Page 5