Across Atlantic Ice

by Dennis J. Stanford

  Three distinct groupings emerge at the third level of clustering (figure 6.3). The first includes Pre-Clovis, Ushki/Early Dyuktai, Mesa/Sluiceway, Nenana, and Denali. This incorporates all of the Beringian assemblages and the very limited pre-Clovis sample. The second cluster includes all of the Solutrean assemblages, with the exception of Early French Solutrean, and the fluted point assemblages, including fluted point and Late Dyuktai. The final cluster contains three Upper Paleolithic European archaeological cultures that did not have biface technology: French Gravettian, French Magdalenian, and early French Solutrean.

  For us the only surprises are the clustering of pre-Clovis with the Beringian assemblages and of Late Dyuktai with Solutrean and Clovis. Both may be attributed to small sample sizes. Pre-Clovis consists of just a few tool types from only two sites. By contrast, there are relatively huge collections from fluted point and western European Upper Paleolithic sites. It is also possible that the pre-Clovis sites clustered with the Beringian sites because they represent similar functions, or because pre-Clovis significantly contributed to Beringian technology, especially in eastern Beringia. This analysis does not take flaking technology into account, so we do not think it is the best method to investigate possible historical connections. Although most researchers consider them to be closely related, Late Dyuktai did not cluster with Denali. This is curious, as the site functions and sample sizes were similar, and it is a good example of how tool typology is not particularly indicative of technological traditions.

  Our next analysis considered flaking technology, handled in much the same manner as tool types: we noted presence and absence and did not weight any attributes. Here we looked at such technological traits as bifaces, microblades, and blades, as well as the technological details of each. We used the same collections, but the variables were obviously different, as shown in Appendix table A.3.

  FIGURE 6.3.

  Cluster analysis dendrogram of selected Beringian, Early Paleo-American, and Late Paleolithic European assemblages by tool type.

  FIGURE 6.4.

  Cluster analysis dendrogram of selected Beringian, Early Paleo-American, and Late Paleolithic European assemblages by technology.

  The cluster analysis results again produced three groupings at the third level, but now pre-Clovis clustered with the fluted point and Solutrean assemblages (except early French Solutrean), and Late Dyuktai clustered with Ushki/Early Dyuktai, Denali, Mesa/Sluiceway, and Nenana (figure 6.4). This analysis seems to indicate that small samples of artifacts can reveal the underlying technology even when tool type variability is low. The main distinguishing characteristics between these lithic manufacturing systems are blade/microblade and biface technologies, separating the non-bifacial-dominated Upper Paleolithic Eurasian and Asian from the Solutrean and American assemblages.

  The distinction between weapons with single stone components (such as hafted Clovis points) and composite points (inset with multiple stone pieces) is also apparent. At lower cluster levels the non-microblade, eastern Beringian assemblages (Nenana and Mesa/Sluiceway) break away from the microblade assemblages (Denali and Dyuktai) in both eastern and western Beringia. Fluted point assemblages separate from the Solutrean at the next to lowest level, and we have to go to the final level before we see the separation of pre-Clovis from the fluted point and Solutrean assemblages. Even more significant, the assemblages that hang together the longest are fluted point and Solutrean.

  In considering both cluster analyses, it is clear to us that there are three distinctly different traditions. One is present in the greater Beringian area concurrent with and immediately following Clovis times. Its few similarities with the fluted point tradition can be attributed to a Paleo-Indian penetration into northern Alaska and possibly Siberia after 13,000 years ago, rather than the other way around. The other two clusters are in southwestern Europe, one of which extends west to include continental North America. Even though the Upper Paleolithic cluster that includes the Gravettian, early French Solutrean, and Magdalenian occupies the same territory as the other Solutrean assemblages, these analyses show them to be distinctly different. Clustering also indicates that the Beringian assemblages have more in common with the Upper Paleolithic blade traditions than with the Solutrean and fluted point traditions, probably resulting from a common ancestral technology.

  7

  QUALITATIVE CULTURE COMPARISON

  Although quantitative analyses and statistical manipulations are useful, a lot of what we infer relies on more subjective assessments and comparisons. This is frequently because we don’t have the information required for more vigorous approaches. For better and for worse, the great need for large, long-term studies of the original collections leaves a lot of scope for future research. Since this work has yet to be done, the following observations are not based on detailed analyses, but we think they are nonetheless interesting. We have tried not to fall into the cherry-picking trap of considering only those items that exhibit the characteristics helpful to our theory. We look at not only tangible evidence, such as artifact forms and signs of the heat treatment of materials, but also less tangible evidence, such as artistic expression and behaviors like caching large bifaces. We also consider cases in which a lack of evidence (about burial practices, for instance) might be meaningful.

  STONE TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY

  END SCRAPERS

  End scrapers are common in Upper Paleolithic, Paleo-Indian, and many other archaeological assemblages around the world. In fact, they were probably the most common type of formal stone tool in Late Stone Age hunting and gathering cultures. Generally speaking, they are highly standardized, and the shape of their working edge is greatly influenced by its function, which is usually hide working. Nevertheless, their forms and method of manufacture do vary among archaeological cultures.

  FIGURE 7.1.

  Comparisons of Solutrean, pre-Clovis, and Clovis lithic tools: (a) Solutrean end scraper made on a blade; (b) Clovis end scraper made on a blade; (c) Southeast Early Paleo-American (proto-Clovis) end scraper made on a blade; (d) Solutrean spurred end scraper; (e) Clovis spurred end scraper; (f) Solutrean microscraper; (g) Early Southeast proto-Clovis microscraper; (h) Clovis microscraper; (i) Clovis graver; (j) Solutrean graver; (k) Solutrean retouched blade; (l) Solutrean plane face point; (m) Southeast Early proto-Clovis plane face point from the Johnson site; (n) Southeast Early Paleo-American plane face point from Florida; (o) Solutrean indented base point; (p–r) Early Mid-Atlantic Paleo-American indented base points; (s) Early Southeast Proto-Clovis steeply retouched blades.

  Nearly all the Paleolithic assemblages we have examined have end scrapers, made on either flakes or blades, and for the most part their forms are not distinctive. Those produced by unifacial percussion or pressure flaking that extends up over much of the dorsal surface of the scraper blank are an exception (figure 7.1a–c). This flaking style is present in only French Solutrean and the earliest North American Paleo-Indian assemblages. In fact, these are called Solutrean scrapers in the French tool typology, which considers them, like laurel leafs, a diagnostic type.

  Does this mean that the same type of end scraper is a normal product of the general flaking technology, especially pressure flaking, and not really distinctive? This is unlikely, because many Beringian and post-Clovis flaking technologies include both biface manufacture and pressure flaking but lack this form of end scraper. Thus, it appears that this trait may be the result of technological continuity.

  The second distinctive type of end scraper has a different style rather than a different flaking method. It is called spurred because it exhibits small well made sharp points on one or both corners of the working edge (figure 7.1d–e). These spurs are the product of intentional pressure flaking and should not be confused with scrapers that have incidental points on their corners. Some of the intentional spurs are fine enough to be used as gravers, but their purpose is unknown. These scrapers were frequently made on biface reduction flakes.

  Spurred
scrapers are characteristic of most Paleo-Indian and Solutrean tool kits but are rare to nonexistent in Beringian and other Upper Paleolithic assemblages. They do occur in the Mesa lanceolate point assemblage, which was introduced from the south and is not part of the western Beringian technology, making it unsurprising that the Mesa tool kit would include this scraper form. Are spurred scrapers another link between Solutrean and Clovis? We think they may be.

  A third distinctive form is the microscraper, which is found in Solutrean (figure 7.1f), pre-Clovis (figure 7.1g), and Clovis (figure 7.1h) assemblages. These are basically the same as other end scrapers in proportions and configuration, but they are less than 3 centimeters long. They seem to have been intentionally made small and not the result of resharpening. In the French Upper Paleolithic these forms first appear in Solutrean assemblages, and they are absent from Beringian assemblages.1

  GRAVERS

  Gravers have very small, sharp projections flaked on a thin flake or blade (figure 7.1i–j). It is unclear what they were used for. Gravers with single and multiple projections are present in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages, but they are absent from the Dyuktai/Denali collections. Like the earliest spurred end scrapers, fine point gravers first appear in Beringia at the Mesa Site and are also associated with lanceolate and fluted projectile points that likely had their origins in the south.

  PLANE FACE POINTS

  A hallmark of early Solutrean assemblages is the plane face point (figure 7.1l–n). These are primarily unifacial and are found in varying proportions throughout Solutrean times. They also appear in the New World. One was found at the Johnson Site in Tennessee (figure 7.1m). This artifact was seemingly made from a blade and produced with intent, and it displays the typical manufacture technology of Solutrean plane face points. Another specimen was found near Rum Island in the Santa Fe River, Florida (figure 7.1n). It was not recovered from an in situ context, but Clovis and pre-Clovis artifacts, also not in situ, were in its immediate vicinity. This point was also made on a blade (blades are not found in post-Clovis assemblages in Florida) and conforms to Solutrean technology.

  INDENTED BASE POINTS

  Another important artifact type is the indented base point from northern Spain, some southern French Solutrean sites, and pre-Clovis sites in eastern North America. We noted in chapter 5 that the Spanish Solutrean points were made with a distinct technology that was probably strongly influenced by the unavailability of easily flakable stone. These are relatively small points, some of which are unifacial but many of which are fully bifacial (figures 5.10 and 7.10). Even the points that are considered unifacial are often partially bifacial, especially at the tip and base. Indented base points from pre-Clovis contexts are usually fully bifacial, although some are partially unifacial. Like the Spanish Solutrean points, the earliest pre-Clovis points were made with a combination of percussion and pressure flaking (figure 7.1p–r). Many of the Spanish Solutrean and pre-Clovis indented base points are similar in size, form, and manufacturing technology. It should not escape our attention that Clovis points have indented bases. In addition, while the incidence of unifacial Clovis points is low, they do exist, and although some were expedient forms, hastily made on flakes, others, like Solutrean examples, are well made (figure 2.6b–c, i).

  As our pre-Clovis point sample continues to expand, we are beginning to see developmental trends in sizes and technologies. Spanish Solutrean (figure 5.10) and Cactus Hill/Miller points are small and subtriangular (figures 4.2, 4.3a–b, and 4.4d). The later Jefferson Island, Page-Ladson, and Suwannee point styles range from small to larger sizes more typical of Clovis forms (figure 4.10a–c and m–p). Although fluting occurred only in the Western Hemisphere, some Spanish Solutrean points have significant basal thinning that may presage fluting technology (figure 5.10f–h). In addition, the first incidence of an end-thinning flute scar on an unfinished point preform is seen in the 21,000-year-old Miles Point pre-Clovis assemblage (figure 4.4e). By the time of the Johnson Site occupation, flintknappers were experimenting with significant basal thinning on nearly completed bifaces (figure 4.11, b, d and f). It isn’t possible to get an idea of success rates from this assemblage—completed points would have been removed from it after manufacture—but there were clearly a lot of errors, as one would expect in the development of this risky flaking method. It appears that Solutrean flintknappers in northern Spain developed the technique of basally thinning projectile points, perhaps only to remove the center ridge of a blade. However, the advantage of a concave-based point is for ease of hafting to a spear or harpoon. The bottom line is that there is a chronological, typological, and technological continuum from the earliest indented base points in southern France and northern Spain to the inception of fluting technology in eastern North America.

  FIGURE 7.2.

  Laurel leaf bifaces: (a) Fourneau-du-Diable southwest France; (b) Cinmar Site, obverse, reverse, and cross section; (c) Aquitaine region of southwest France.

  LAUREL LEAF BIFACES

  Thin leaf-shaped bifaces with well-controlled percussion thinning flake scars on both faces, common in many Solutrean assemblages, have been found in the Mid-Atlantic region of North America. The geologic context of the North American specimens indicates that they overlap in time with their Solutrean counterparts. Both Solutrean and early North American laurel leafs have non-invasive percussion retouch along the distal margins, which seems to be a by-product of resharpening and, along with edge dulling and the scarcity of impact breaks on many of the medium to large specimens, leads us to think that they served as knives. Pressure burin fractures—the loss of flakes from the tip of a blade pressed against a resilient object such as tight skin or bone—common on the tips of many Solutrean laurel leafs are also indicative of knife use (figure 7.2c).

  BLADE TECHNOLOGY

  We have focused our attention on bifacial technologies for our comparisons of flaked stone assemblages, but the manufacture of other specialized flake and blade forms can be equally complex and variable. With the exception of Mike Collins’s discussion of Clovis blade technology and detailed analyses of some of the non-Solutrean Upper Paleolithic blade and microblade technologies in Eurasia, relatively little attention has been paid to this aspect of flaked stone technology.2

  Although there are almost unlimited ways to produce blades, bladelets, and microblades, two basic approaches were used in the assemblages in this study. The first was production from natural unmodified stones or flakes, with little or no core preshaping. This is typical of bladelet technologies, whose process is much like that of generalized flake production except that the removals are spaced and sequenced so that many of the flakes are elongated (at least twice as long as wide). This approach was used in the northern Spanish Solutrean sites; the pre-Clovis sites of Cactus Hill, Miles Point, Meadowcroft, and Oyster Cove; some Clovis sites; and some Beringian assemblages. A lack of high-quality or large enough raw material may in some cases have heavily favored the selection of this method: expedient bladelet production is common where coarse quartzite and other grainy-textured pebbles and cobbles make up the majority of available materials. It is of course difficult to determine whether the technology was a response to the raw material or the stone was selected because it suited a traditional bladelet technology.

  Bladelets and microblade technologies found in the Solutrean, pre-Clovis, Clovis, and various Beringian technologies were frequently created with the same form as a blade wedge-shaped core, but smaller (figure 7.3a–c).3 In some cases, especially in northern Spain and on the East Coast in North America, the production of bladelets was heavily influenced by the predominant availability of mainly poor-to-medium-quality small raw material. There are also bladelet cores in Clovis and Solutrean sites where large high-quality raw material was available, but these often seem to be the result of large blade core reduction rather than a separate bladelet technology.

  The second basic approach to the production of blades and microblades is to shape the raw material into
a suitable form, or precore, before blade production begins. Two different strategies are visible in our assemblages: preparation of a single core face for blade removal and complete precore shaping by the production of a thick biface (see chapter 1 for a discussion of these techniques). The latter is widespread in the early and late Upper Paleolithic assemblages in southwestern Europe. Most cores from these technologies end up with a remnant bifacial ridge on the back, opposite the main blade-producing surface. The same basic strategy was used in the production of microblade cores in Beringia, but most of the microblades themselves were produced by pressure.

  FIGURE 7.3.

  Bladelet and blade cores: (a) Solutrean bladelet core; (b-d) pre-Clovis bladelet cores; (e) face and top view of Solutrean polyhedral blade core; (f) face and top view of Clovis polyhedral blade core; (g) face and side view of Solutrean wedge-shaped blade core; (h) face and side view of Clovis wedge-shaped blade core.

  The Solutrean is the only assemblage in Upper Paleolithic southwestern Europe with precores prepared with single bifacial ridges and flat, often unmodified backs. The resulting cores regardless of form do not have bifacial back ridges.

  Two large blade production strategies were shared by Solutrean, pre-Clovis, and Clovis knappers, resulting in different core types: wedge-shaped and conical. Conical cores have a single platform and unidirectional blade removals (figure 7.3d–f). Wedge-shaped cores have a single primary platform and mostly unidirectional blade removals (figure 7.3g–h). Occasionally a blade would be struck from their distal end, but this seems to have been done to correct flaking errors rather than systematically to produce the desired blades. Intentional bi-directional flaking from opposed platforms occurs in some Solutrean assemblages. This technique was also common in earlier and later technologies in Eurasia; however, Solutrean cores are the only ones with flat backs.