a regional perspective on clovis blades and blade caching

145

ChAPtEr 9

Although Upper Paleolithic‑ style blades were first associated with Clovis over 45 years ago (Green 1963), only since the 1990s has a sustained research focus been

undertaken on the blade mode of reduction in Clovis technology (Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1999; Collins and Lohse 2004; Condon et al. 2014; Sanders 1990; Waters et al. 2011). An appropriately persistent focus on the bifacial mode of reduction through‑out the history of Clovis research has shed significant light on the important role of bifaces in Clovis technological organization (e.g., Bradley 1982; Bradley et al. 2010; Callahan 1979; Huckell 2007; 2014; Wilke et al. 1991); however, our understanding of the role of blade cores and blades is only now beginning to come into focus.

This chapter examines Clovis blades and blade cores from caches in an attempt to interpret them in the context of the organization of mobility and technology. Dur‑ing this process i argue that the geographic distributions of intensive blade manu‑facture, caches of blades, and caches with blade cores represent organizational varia‑tions resulting from differences in resource distribution. Further, i suggest that blade technology is organized differently from biface technology, requiring researchers to conceive of the blade reduction mode separately from the biface mode.

Clovis Blade technology

Blade technology is increasingly recognized as a typical, perhaps even a diagnostic, Clovis characteristic (e.g., Bradley et al. 2010; Collins 1990; Huckell 2007; Waters et al. 2011). Blade technology is defined here as a specialized reduction process wherein parallel elongated flakes are removed from specially designed and main‑tained cores. These cores may be conical or wedge‑ shaped (Collins 1999), but they generally consist of a well‑ maintained platform surface perpendicular to a core face characterized by a series of strong parallel arises. Blade production is a technologi‑cal trait that historically connects Clovis to other Upper Paleolithic traditions of the Old World, and also helps differentiate Clovis from technologies that immediately follow it (and most likely descend from it), such as Folsom in the American West and Cumberland and Gainey in the East.

While blade manufacture appears to be a part of the technological repertoire wherever Clovis is encountered, it appears to be disproportionately emphasized within the geographic range of Clovis. Specifically, the most abundant evidence for intensive blade production occurs in south‑ central Texas (centered on sources

A Regional Perspective on Clovis blades and Caching behaviorBy David Kilby

<i>Clovis : On the Edge of a New Understanding</i>, edited by Ashley M. Smallwood, and Thomas A. Jennings, Texas A&M University Press, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/txstate/detail.action?docID=1938143.Created from txstate on 2019-08-15 11:11:40.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

146 D AV I D K I L B Y

of varieties of Edwards Plateau chert, e.g., Gault [Collins 2002], Pavo Real [Col‑lins et al. 2003]; and sources of Alibates agatized dolomite as evidenced in caches), the South Carolina‑ Georgia border (centered on Allendale chert, e.g. Topper [Sain 2010], Big Pine [Waters et al. 2009]), and the Kentucky‑ Tennessee area (centered on Hopkinsville chert, e.g. Adams [Sanders 1990]; and Fort Payne chert, e.g. Wells Creek, Sinclair, Carson‑ Conn‑ Short [Broster and norton 1993; 2009; Stanford et al. 2006]), and perhaps northern Sonora, Mexico (centered on basalt, e.g. El Bajio [Sanchez 2001]) (Figure 1). Conversely, blades are only sporadically identified in the northern and far western United States, and are perhaps entirely absent in the far northeast and the southern West Coast.

At this time it remains unclear whether these patterns are apparent (perhaps an artifact of sample size) or real, and if they are real, what lies behind them. Assum‑ing that these patterns in the distribution of blades are valid, three potential expla‑nations for regional differences in emphasis on blade production come readily to mind. First, blades may have been used for specific tasks that were performed more frequently in the southern part of the Clovis range than in the north, resulting in a greater frequency of blades in the archaeological record of the more southerly parts of the range.

FIGUrE 1. Raw material source areas exhibiting evidence for intensive blade production.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

A r E G I O N A L P E r S P E C t I V E O N C LO V I S B L A D E S A N D C A C h I N G B E h AV I O r 147

Second, the tendency to rely heavily or weakly on blade technology might be a result of historical processes associated with cultural transmission. in other words, the same tasks accomplished with the use of blades in one area may be accomplished using some other tool type in another. in this case, differences in the northern and southern regions regarding blade manufacture and use might reflect diverging techno‑ cultural traditions.

A third possibility is that the successful production of blades of acceptable quality (which is in turn contingent upon the successful production of blade cores of accept‑able quality) is constrained by raw material characteristics, including isotropic ness, size, and form. in other words, a well‑ developed tradition of blade technology may be made possible by the existence of, for example, the fine‑ grained, high quality raw material occurring in large nodular form in portions of the Edwards Plateau formation.

Currently, it is unclear which of these explanations best explains the distribu‑tion of intensive blade production, or whether some other explanation is better. The third explanation, that of raw material constraints, seems to be weakened by the cases of high quality raw materials that occur in relatively large sizes in the north‑ern part of the Clovis range (e.g., Hartville Uplift chert, Spanish Diggings quartzite, Knife River flint, Green River chert). The view that Clovis may not represent a single uniform adaptation has received considerable attention (e.g., Haynes 2002; Meltzer 1993), and it would follow that variability in lifeways would include corresponding variability in the nature and frequency of specific tasks; however, the effects of dif‑fering trajectories in cultural transmission processes (perhaps a more specific cor‑ollary of regional cultural differences) is only beginning to draw focused attention (e.g., Buchanan 2005; Hamilton and Buchanan 2009; O’Brien et al. 2012). i suspect that some combination of regional variation and corresponding divergence in cul‑tural transmission trajectories will ultimately be identified as underlying the pat‑tern. no matter what explanation ultimately prevails, currently it seems apparent from the records of kill sites, campsites, caches, and source area workshops that blade technology was particularly emphasized in the US South and Southern Plains, and a relatively less important component of Clovis lithic technology in the north‑ern tier of the unglaciated north American continent.

Manufacture and transport of Blades

investigation of blades themselves and their manufacturing debris at workshops has resulted in a substantial increase in our understating of the techniques and methods behind blade technology. Perhaps even more so than other modes of lithic reduction, blade production is contingent on careful production and maintenance of the core. Collins (1999) has elucidated two primary blade reduction strategies based upon conical and wedge‑ shaped cores and has delineated the necessary steps for pro‑ ducing and maintaining the two types of cores.

Studies of lithic raw material source areas, sometimes referred to as quarries, indicate that blade production was primarily carried out at these locations (Col‑


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


lins 1999; Collins et al. 2003; Sain 2011; Waters et al. 2011). nodules were selected, shaped, and maintained as cores while blades were systematically detached. Main‑taining cores typically requires periodic alterations such as platform rejuvenation, step and hinge recovery, and guide ridge adjustment (Collins 1999; Bradley et al. 2010). Again, the debris from these activities is primarily limited to source area workshops. in contrast, even those activity areas separated from source area work‑shops that contain relatively abundant blades, such as Blackwater Draw, exhibit little or no evidence of blade production. Thus, the available data indicate that, unlike bifacial cores that were consistently roughed out at source areas and subsequently transported away, blade cores appear to have been rarely curated for transport, per‑haps owing to their weight. it appears that blades were typically produced at raw material sources and were themselves the objects of transport (Kilby 2008; Sain 2011). This observation potentially explains why kill and campsites located away from source areas (e.g., Blackwater Draw, Murray Springs, Sheaman, Domebo, and others) contain blades but not blade cores. Microscopic polish and abrasion con‑sistent with transport wear (Huckell et al. 2002) identified on the interior surfaces of blades from cache contexts further supports the idea that blades themselves (as opposed to blade cores) were transported (Kilby 2008).

The production and transport norms for blade technology stand in direct con‑trast to those for biface technology. Whereas bifacial cores can be rightly conceived of as multi‑ function lithic tools with characteristically flexible trajectories (e.g., Huckell 2007; Kelly 1985), blade cores were considerably less flexible and appear to have served primarily (if not solely) as a source of blades. The blades themselves were used and maintained as cutting or scraping tools, or segmented and steeply retouched for use as endscrapers. Some endscrapers show evidence of notches pre‑sumably created to facilitate hafting. Gravers and punches were also sometimes pro‑duced from blades. They do not appear to have served as blanks for biface or projec‑tile point manufacture. Still, their frequency in Clovis tool kits makes it apparent that blades were preferred for particular tasks, and that they were considered important enough to be worth transporting in addition to bifaces and their associated products.

Occurrence of Blade technology in Cache Assemblages

in certain regions of the geographic range of Clovis, the products of blade tech‑nology were cached. The term cache as traditionally used in Clovis archaeology refers to discrete concentrations of artifacts that are not deposited as the result of activities other than their placement (in other words, they are not the result of use or manufacture). As i have argued elsewhere (Kilby 2008; 2011; Kilby and Huckell 2013), these assemblages appear to represent a range of functions, some of which are in line with the implied meaning of caching—the temporary storage of useful items—and some of which are not (for example, burial or votive offerings). Like blade technology itself, caching behavior (in the broad sense) is characteristic of Clovis and sets it apart from the Paleoindian cultures that immediately succeed it (Huckell 2012; but see also Kilby and Huckell 2013).


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


As they are in other Clovis assemblage types, blades are a common component of caches throughout the geographic range of Clovis caches. Cached blades, how‑ever, are variable in their distribution. The occurrence of blades in Clovis caches fits one of three basic patterns (Figure 2).

Blades as Minor Cache Constituents

Blades are present as a minor constituent of many if not most Clovis caches. indeed, of the 19 caches i have examined blades are entirely absent from only four (Crook County, De Graffenried, Drake, and Simon). it is unclear if the large flake tool in the Crook County cache represents a blade or large flake, but for the present pur‑pose it is not considered a blade. Anzick, Beach (Figure 3), East Wenatchee, Fenn, and Mahaffey each contain from 1– 7 blades (Table 1). The Busse cache contains 33 blades and blade‑ like flakes, and the JS cache contains 30 blades; both representing fewer than half of the items in large caches that also include bifaces. The geographic distribution of caches with blades as minor constituents appears to be consistent

FIGUrE 2. Distribution of Clovis caches containing blades within the known range of Early Paleoindian caching (indicated by the white line). Early Paloeoindian caches in the Great Lakes and northeast are believed to be younger than Clovis (Kilby and Huckell 2014).


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

tABLE 1. Caches with blades as minor constituents.

Cache Lithic

Artifacts ( f) Blades

( f) Blades

(%) Primary Reference

Anzick, MT 86 1 1.2 Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974Beach, nD 103 4 3.9 Huckell et al. 2011Busse, KS 78 33 42.3 Hofman 1995East Wenatchee, WA 46 4 8.7 Mehringer and Morgan 1988Fenn, iD 56 1 1.8 Frison and Bradley 1999JS, OK 112 30 26.8 Bement 2014Mahaffey, CO 82 7 8.5 Bamforth 2014

FIGUrE 3. F.E. Green cache from Blackwater Draw, nM, a blade‑ dominated Clovis cache.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


with the northern pattern in Clovis assemblages having less emphasis on blade technology.

Blades as Primary Cache Constituents

Seven caches can be seen as being predominately blade‑ oriented (Table 2). The Green (Figure 4A and 4B), Keven Davis, and Pelland caches consist entirely of blades, ranging in number from 9 to 17 blades. The Dickenson cache from Blackwater Draw (elsewhere referred to as the West Bank cache) contains four true blades and one large blade‑ like flake (which may actually be derived from a large biface). The three remaining blade‑ dominated caches—Anadarko, Franey, and Sailor‑ Helton—are dif‑ferentiated from the above caches based on the relatively unusual characteristic of containing blade cores, and thus constitute the third pattern. With the exception of Pelland, blade‑ dominated caches mimic the distribution of intensive blade produc‑tion, but like Clovis caches in general, are absent from the US Southeast altogether.

Caches with Blade Cores

Three caches contain, in addition to blades and blade‑ like flakes, blade cores (Table 3). The Anadarko cache contains two prismatic cores, two blocky wedge cores, and two bifacial cores. The Franey cache contains a single wedge‑ shaped blade core1. The Sailor‑ Helton cache (Figure 5) contains 10 cores including four wedge‑ shaped cores, one conical core, and five early stage cores appropriate for being reduced to coni‑cal or wedge‑ shaped blade cores. Recall that the preponderance of evidence indi‑cates that blade cores were not typically transported as part of the mobile toolkit, thus these caches stand out as exceptional. The fact that blade cores that otherwise were not often carried away from source areas occur in these caches suggests that the caches may have been planned in advance, with the intention of stockpiling sub‑stantial lithic raw material for blade production in those particular areas.

Clovis Blade Caching and resource Structure

Worth noting is that all caches from both of the blade‑ dominated categories (caches of blades and caches of blades with cores) meet the criteria for caches with a primar‑ily utilitarian as opposed to a ritual function (Kilby 2008; 2011). Possibly relevant, no

tABLE 2. Caches with blades as major constituents.

Cache Lithic Artifacts ( f) Blades ( f) Blades (%) Primary Reference

Green (BWD), nM 17 17 100.0 Green 1963Keven Davis, Tx 14 14 100.0 Collins 1996Pelland, Mn 9 9 100.0 Stoltman 1971Dickenson (BWD), nM 5 4 80.0 Montgomery and Dickenson 1999


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


blade‑ dominated caches are associated with red ochre. A systematic study of cache function (Kilby 2008) identifies the majority of blade‑ dominated caches served as insurance caches in which artifacts were stored to avoid future shortfalls. in addi‑tion, all blade‑ dominated caches are characterized by low raw material diversity, typically dominated by a single raw material.

Within the geographic range of Clovis caches, the distribution of cached blades reflects the distribution of intensive blade production. Blades are minor constitu‑ents of caches throughout the range of caching (including the northern areas), but caches dominated by blade technology occur only in the southern portion of the range (with a single exception2). Thus, it might be expected that whatever expla‑nation lies behind the southern emphasis on intensive blade production also lies behind the emphasis on blades in southern caches.

While intensive blade production may be primarily a southern phenomenon, blade caching is almost entirely a Southern Plains phenomenon. There are no known blade caches (and few Clovis caches of any kind) east of about 950 longitude (Figure 3;

FIGUrE 4A AND 4B. Beach cache from north Dakota, a Clovis cache with blades as a minor constituent (one of a total of four blades in the cache is depicted).

a


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

b


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

tABLE 3. Caches with blades as major constituents that include blade cores.

Cache Lithic

Artifacts ( f) Blades

( f) Blades

(%) Cores

( f) Cores (%)

Primary Reference

Anadarko, OK 32 26 81.3 4 12.5 Hammatt 1970Franey, nE 73 35 47.9 1 1.4 Grange 1964Sailor‑Helton, KS 165 40 24.2 10 6.1 Mallouf 1994

FIGUrE 5. Sailor‑ Helton cache from Kansas, a blade‑ dominated Clovis cache that includes blade cores.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


a line from eastern Texas north to central Minnesota) or west of 1050 longitude (roughly central new Mexico north to eastern Montana). With a single exception2, all caches dominated by blades occur in a swath that includes Texas, eastern new Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and nebraska. Areas west of this region appear to lack the emphasis upon blade production seen in the Southeast and Southern Plains and this lack of emphasis is reflected in caches; however, areas to the east are character‑ized by intensive blade production but lack blade caches altogether. Thus, the east‑ern boundary of blade caching, which roughly correlates to the modern boundary between forest and grassland biomes, calls for a more complex explanation.

Utilitarian caching, whether of food or gear, serves to ameliorate temporal (e.g., seasonal) or spatial (e.g., “patchy”) incongruity among critical resources (Binford 1980). From that perspective the geographic distribution of caches can be expected to reflect geographic variation in gross resource structures. Accordingly, i propose that the eastern boundary of blade caching reflects a threshold in spatial incongru‑ity among critical resources (Figure 6). This incongruity threshold is a point wherein more than one critical resource (i.e., prey animals and lithic raw materials) is char‑acterized by distribution in widely spaced patches that require logistical strategies to exploit efficiently. One effective strategy is to manipulate the distribution of a resource that can be controlled (lithic raw material) to render it more congruent with the distribution of the uncontrollable resource (prey animals). in other words, east of this threshold prey items were sufficiently abundant and evenly distributed that Clovis foragers could “tether” themselves to unevenly distributed lithic raw material sources while still maintaining access to critical prey animals (Goodyear 1979); west of this threshold both lithic raw materials and prey items were unevenly distributed (the latter in more mobile grazing herds) and Clovis foragers strategi‑

FIGUrE 6. Area in which blade production is emphasized extends discontinuously across the Southeast and Southern Plains; however, evidence for blade caching only occurs west of the dotted line, which is proposed to correspond to the incongruity threshold.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


cally cached raw materials in order to maintain access to mobile herds, perhaps structured by seasonality (Kilby 2014).

The existence of blade caches that (unlike other Clovis sites located away from source areas) contain transported blade cores suggests that this strategy of storing blades at strategic points on the landscape was successful enough for a sufficient period of time to eventually lead to taking the strategy a step farther. Anadarko, Sailor‑ Helton, and Franey reflect a more intensive strategy for blade caching that involved the otherwise unusual practice of transporting blade cores away from source areas, presumably with the intent of caching them along with blades. The number of blades that can be manufactured from each core is difficult to ascer‑tain with any precision, but one might expect that each of these cores represents utility equivalent to a smaller blade cache such as Keven Davis, Green, Pelland, or Dickenson. By this estimation, Sailor‑ Helton represents the equivalent of greater than twenty Green caches in one location. it follows that caches with blade cores represent the storage of substantial blade production material on particular parts of the landscape, creating what might be considered an artificial source area. The fact that Sailor‑ Helton and Anadarko are located in relatively close proximity to a number of Clovis kill and campsites in western Oklahoma (e.g., Domebo, Jake Bluff, and perhaps Badger Hole and nall Playa) suggests that these caches may have served to supply an area of particularly intensive subsistence‑ oriented activity that lies beyond the incongruity threshold. Additional work will be needed to refine this model and to identify, and if possible to quantify, specific variables that define the incongruity threshold. indeed this explanation may not solely relate to the distri‑bution of blade caches, but may underlie the distribution of utilitarian caches in general.

Acknowledgments

This chapter was improved by comments and criticism from George Crawford, Samuel Duwe, Bruce Huckell, David Meltzer, Brian Pasko, and two anonymous reviewers. As much as i would like to blame any shortcomings on these reviewers, all errors in data or logic are the responsibility of the author.

Notes

1. The owner of the Franey cache further recalled that a large conical core was part of the cache but has been misplaced—it was described as being “shaped like half a football with grooves on the sides.”

2. The Pelland cache located in extreme northern Minnesota remains an exception to many of the patterns seen among Clovis caches and remains somewhat of an outlier, partic‑ularly regarding its location. it consists of nine blades of Knife River flint located in an area that most likely would have been periglacial in the terminal Pleistocene. Pettipas (2011) notes that the location of Pelland may have been under water during the latest Pleistocene and thus argues that the Pelland cache cannot be a Clovis assemblage; however, Kilby and Huckell (2013) tentatively accept it as Clovis.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


references

Anderson, D.G. and K.E. Sassaman. 1996. Recent Paleoindian Research in Tennessee. In Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, 288– 297. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Bamforth, D.B. 2014. The Mahaffy Cache and Clovis Knowledge of the north American Landscape. in Clovis Caches: New Discoveries and New Research, edited by B.B. Huckell and J.D. Kilby. Albuquerque: University of new Mexico Press.

Bement, L.C. 2014. The JS Cache: Clovis Provisioning the Southern Plains Late Pleistocene Landscape. in Clovis Caches: New Discoveries and New Research, edited by B.B. Huckell and J.D. Kilby. Albuquerque: University of new Mexico Press.

Binford, L.R. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter‑ Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4– 20.

Bradley. B.A. 1982. Flaked Stone Technology and Typology. in Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains, edited by G.C. Frison and D.J. Stanford, pp. 181– 208. new york: Academic Press.

Bradley, B.A., M.B. Collins, and A. Hemmings. 2010. Clovis Technology. Ann Arbor: Archae‑ological Series 17, international Monographs in Prehistory.

Broster, J.B., and M.R. norton. 2009. Sinclair Site (40Wy111): A Clovis Quarry along the Buf‑falo River in Wayne County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:35– 36.

Buchanan, B. 2005. Cultural Transmission and Stone Tools: A Study of Early Paleoindian Technology in north America. Ph.D. diss., Department of Anthropology, University of new Mexico, Albuquerque.

———. 1999. Clovis Blade Technology. Austin: University of Texas.Collins, M.B. 1996. Keven Davis Cache (41NV659) and Clovis Blade Technology in the South

Central United States. Report submitted to the Office of the State Archaeologist, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.

Collins, M.B., D.B. Hudler, and S.L. Black. 2003. Pavo Real (41BX52): A Paleoindian and Archaic Camp and Workshop on the Balcones Escarpment, South- Central Texas. Austin: Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas.

Condon, P.C., G. Crawford, v.T. Holliday, C.v. Haynes Jr., and J. Onken. 2014. A Contex‑tual and Technological Reevaluation of the Dickenson Blade Cache, Blackwater Local‑ity no. 1, Roosevelt County, new Mexico. in Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research, edited by B.B. Huckell and J.D. Kilby. Albuquerque: University of new Mexico Press.

Frison, G.C. and B. Bradley. 1999. Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools. Santa Fe: One Horse Land and Cattle Company.

Goodyear, A.C. iii. 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups in North America. Research Manuscript Series 156. Columbia: Uni‑versity of South Carolina.

Grange, R.T., Jr. 1964. A Cache of Scrapers near Crow Butte, nebraska. Plains Anthropolo-gist 9:197– 201.

Green, F.E. 1963. Clovis Blades: An important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29:145– 165.

Hamilton, M.J. and B. Buchanan. 2009. The Accumulation of Stochastic Copying Errors Causes Drift in Culturally Transmitted Technologies: Quantifying Clovis Evolutionary Dynamics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 55– 69.

Hammatt, H.H. 1970. Paleoindian Butchering Kit. American Antiquity 35:141– 152.Haynes G. 2002. Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hofman, J.L. 1995. Busse Cache: A Clovis‑ Age Find in northwestern Kansas. Current

Research in the Pleistocene 12:17– 19.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


Huckell, B.B. 2012. By Design: Early Paleoindian Lithic Technological Organization and For‑aging on the north American Plains. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tn.

Huckell, B.B. and J.D. Kilby. 2009. Beach: A Clovis Cache in Southwestern north Dakota. Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:68– 70.

———. 2014. But How Do We Know it’s Clovis? An Examination of Clovis Overshot Flak‑ing of Bifaces and a north Dakota Cache. in Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research, edited by B.B. Huckell and J.D. Kilby. Albuquerque: University of new Mexico Press.

Huckell, B.B., J.D. Kilby, B. Buchanan, and L. Huckell. 2002. Bifaces to Go: An Experiment in the Genesis of Transport Wear. Poster presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Soci‑ety for American Archaeology, Denver.

Huckell, B.B., J.D. Kilby, M. Boulanger, and M. Glascock. 2011. Sentinel Butte: neutron Acti‑vation Analysis of White River Group Chert from a Primary Source and Artifacts from a Clovis Cache in north Dakota, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:965– 976.

Kelly, R.L. 1988. Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717– 734.Kilby, J.D. 2008. Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological Organization. Ph.D.

diss., Albuquerque: University of new Mexico.———. 2011. Les Caches Clovis Dans le Cadre du Paléoindien Ancien en Amérique du nord

(Clovis Caches and the Early Paleoindian Record of north America). in Peuplements et Préhistoire de l’Amérique, edited by Denis vialou. Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle.

———. 2014. Direction and Distance in Clovis Caching: The Movement of People and Lithic Raw Materials on the Clovis‑ Age Landscape. in Clovis Caches: New Discoveries and New Research, edited by B.B. Huckell and J.D. Kilby. Albuquerque: University of new Mexico Press.

Kilby, J.D. and B.B. Huckell. 2013. Clovis Caches: Current Perspectives and Future Direc‑tions. in Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by Kelly Graf. College Station: Center for the Study of the First Americans.

Lahren, L.A. and R. Bonnichsen. 1974. Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southwestern Montana. Science 186:147– 150.

Mallouf, R.J. 1994. Sailor‑ Helton: A Paleoindian Cache from northwestern Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:44– 46.

Mehringer, P.J., Jr. 1988. Weapons Cache of Ancient Americans. National Geographic 174:500– 503.

Meltzer, D.J. 1993. is There a Clovis Adaptation? in From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic- Paleo- Indian Adaptations, edited by O. Soffer and n.D. Praslov, pp. 293– 310. new york: Plenum Press.

Montgomery, J. and J. Dickenson. 1999. Five More Llano Complex Blades at Blackwater Draw Locality no. 1, Portales, new Mexico. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Plains Anthro‑pological Conference, Lincoln, nE.

O’Brien, M.J., B. Buchanan, M. Collard, and M. Boulanger. 2012. Cultural Cladistics and the Early Prehistory of north America. in Evolutionary Biology: Mechanisms and Trends, pp 23– 42, edited by Pierre Pontarotti. new york: Springer.

Pettipas, L. 2011. Environmental and Cultural History of the Central Lake Agassiz Region 12,000– 7,000 BP. Manitoba Archaeological Journal 21:113– 114.

Sanchez, M.G. 2001. Synopsis of Paleo‑ indian Archaeology in Mexico. Kiva 67:119– 136.Sain, D. 2011. Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23). Master’s thesis, Eastern new

Mexico University, Portales.Sanders, T.n. 1990. Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in

Western Kentucky. Buffalo: Persimmon Press.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.


Stanford, D.J., E.L. Canales, J.B. Broster, and M.R. norton. 2006. Clovis Blade Manufac‑ture: Preliminary Data from the Carson‑ Conn‑ Short Site (40Bn190), Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:145– 147.

Stoltman, J.B. 1971. Prismatic Blades from northern Minnesota. Plains Anthropologist 16:105– 110.

Waters, M.R., S.L. Forman, T.W. Stafford Jr., and J.Foss. 2009. Geoarchaeological investiga‑tions at the Topper and Big Pine Sites, Allendale County, Central Savannah River, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(7):1300– 1311.

Waters, M.R., C.D. Pevny, D.L. Carlson, W.A. Dickens, A.M. Smallwood, S.A. Minchak, E. Bartelink, J.M. Wiersema, J.E. Wiederhold, H.M. Luchsinger, D.A. Alexander, and T.A. Jennings. 2011. Clovis Lithic Technology, Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.


Cop

yrig

ht ©

201

4. T

exas

A&

M U

nive

rsity

Pre

ss. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

a regional perspective on clovis blades and blade caching

Documents