Administered and Produced by The Sheridan Press Cindy Eyler, Reprint Customer Service Rep

The Sheridan Press, 450 Fame Avenue, Hanover, PA 17331 (800) 635-7181 ext. # 8008, (717) 632-3535, or fax (717) 633-8929 cindy.eyler@sheridan.com

Order reprints and pay color figure charges online at www.sheridan.com/aaas/eoc

Dear Author: Science has a combined online form for ordering reprints and paying charges on color figures. You will need to use this form to pay for or receive an invoice for your color figure charges. To start your order, you’ll need to enter the last seven digits of the DOI of your paper (this is a 7-digit number at the end of the references of your paper). After filling out the order form, an email will be sent for your records. An invoice will be sent with the reprints. You can pay at the time of your order, indicate that you have a purchase order, or ask to be billed. Reimbursement for Use of Color in Science As stated in Information for Contributors and your acceptance letter, authors requesting the use of color are required to pay $650 for the first color figure and $450 for each additional figure to help defray costs related to publishing color in the Science issue. These charges are not related to your reprint order, but are billed on the same form. Authors of solicited Reviews, Special Issue Perspectives, and Special Issue Reviews are exempt from these charges. Printed Reprints Author reprints must be used solely for the author's personal use. If commercial or for-profit use is intended, please contact Rockwater, Inc. at brocheleau@rockwaterinc.com or (803) 359-4578. Only one invoice will be issued for group orders to multiple locations. Additional order forms may be obtained by contacting The Sheridan Press. All orders must be received within 60 days of publication date or additional charges will apply. Prepayment or an institution purchase order is required to process your order. The online form will provide an invoice.

Delivery Your order will be shipped within 3 weeks of the Science issue date. Allow extra time for delivery. If quicker delivery is necessary, please call for pricing and availability. UPS ground postage and handling are included in the prices (1-5 day delivery). Orders shipped to authors outside the continental US are mailed via an expedited air service at an additional charge. Orders for articles over 1 year past publication will require additional time to produce.

Corrections If a serious error occurs in the published version of the paper, the error can be corrected in reprints if the editorial office is notified promptly. Please contact the editor or copy editor of your paper with the corrections. Reprint Order Specifications All reprints will include either a title page (in black and white or color, depending upon the type of reprint ordered) or the cover of Science from the issue in which your article appears. If the cover of Science is selected, there will be a $100 additional fee (cover will appear in black & white or color, depending on the type of reprints ordered). This adds one page to the length of your paper. Pricing Reprint pricing is shown in the following tables. Orders are limited to 500 copies per author. To convert color articles to black & white reprints, add $200. For articles over 12 months past publication, please contact The Sheridan Press for pricing. This pricing is valid within 60 days of publication date.

Black and White Reprints

Quantity 100 200 300 400 500 ≤4 pages 300 350 395 435 470 ≤8 pages 460 520 575 625 670 ≤12 pages 600 665 725 780 830

Color Reprints

Quantity 100 200 300 400 500 ≤4 pages 1800 1890 1960 2020 2070 ≤8 pages 2140 2235 2310 2375 2430 ≤12 pages 2485 2585 2665 2735 2795

Air Shipping Charges

(orders shipped outside the continental US only)

$120 – 8 pages or less and 200 copies or less $175 – More than 8 pages or more than 200 copies

Author Reprints and Color Reimbursement

Headquarters 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 USA � Telephone: (+1) 202-326-6550 � Fax (+1) 202-789-4669

Europe Office Bateman House, 82-88 Hills road, Cambridge CB2 1LQ, UK � Telephone: (+44) 1223-326500 � Fax: (+44) 1223 326501

Published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Instructions for Handling PDF Galley Proofs It is important that you return galley corrections within 48 hours directly to your copy editor. Please let your copy editor know immediately if there

will be any delay.

Dear Author: Thank you for publishing in Science. This letter explains how to mark this PDF file and transmit corrections to your galley proofs. This PDF file includes the following: 1. Detailed instructions for marking the proof (pp. 2-3) 2. Instructions for ordering reprints and paying for use of color in figures (p. 4). 3. Galley proofs of your paper (starting on p. 5).

A separate PDF file showing editorial changes to your paper has been, or shortly will be, e-mailed to you by your copy editor. Please use this in checking your proofs, but do not mark corrections on it.

In order to make galley corrections: 1. Please pay color figure charges online at www.sheridan.com/aaas/eoc. The same online form can be used

to order reprints. 2. Mark all changes on the galley proofs (this file) directly using Acrobat Reader (free) v. X (available at:

http://get.adobe.com/reader/). 3. Additional instructions for marking text are given on the next two pages. To start, select the Comment

button on the upper right side of the Adobe Reader screen. a. All edits of the text and text corrections should be made with “Text Edits” using insert, replace, or

delete/cross out selections. Please do not use sticky notes, comments, or other tools for actual text edits.

b. You can control formatting (e.g., italics or bold) by selecting edited text. c. Indicate edits to special or Greek characters with a comment. Use the “sticky note” for comments.

Please refrain from using other tools. d. Please collect all corrections into one file; import comments provided by multiple authors into one

file only (Document menu/Comments/Import Comments). e. Be sure to save the marked file and keep a copy.

4. Respond to all of the copy editor’s queries listed at the end of the edited manuscript or as embedded PDF notes in the copyedited manuscript, by directly editing the galley text in the PDF with the annotation tools or using sticky notes on the galley PDF.

5. Check reference titles and additional supplementary references on the edited word file sent to you by your copyeditor. Address any edits here in the note back to your copyeditor.

6. Check all equations, special characters, and tables carefully. Check spelling of all author names for accuracy.

7. Make a copy of the corrected galley proofs for yourself. Return the corrected galley proofs to the Science copy editor as an attachment to an email.

8. If you cannot mark the proofs electronically, please e-mail a list of corrections to the copy editor. Thank you for your prompt attention, The Editors

If your manuscript contains color figures, the colors and resolution in the proofs may appear different from those of the final published figures. Our art department will send separate color figure proofs. Also, although your paper begins at the top of a page in the proofs, it may not when printed in Science.

E-Corrections through PDF Annotation

Instructions on how to annotate your galley PDF file using Adobe Acrobat Reader X To view, annotate and print your galley, you will need Adobe Reader X. This free software can be downloaded from: http://get.adobe.com/reader/. It is available for Windows, Mac, LINUX, SOLARIS, and Android. The system requirements can also be found at this URL. To make corrections and annotations in your galley PDF with Adobe Reader X, use the commenting tools feature, located by clicking Comment at the upper right of your screen. You should then see the Annotations Palette with the following annotation tools. (These tools can also be accessed through View>Comment>Annotations. Although all the files from SPI will have these commenting tools available, occasionally this feature will not be enabled on a particular PDF. In these cases, you can use the two default commenting tools to annotate your files: Sticky Note and Highlight Text.

To start adding comments, select the appropriate commenting tool from the Annotation Palette. TO INDICATE INSERT, REPLACE, OR REMOVE TEXTS

• Insert Text

Click the button on the Commenting Palette. Click to set the cursor location in the text and start typing. The text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into the commenting box.

• Replace Text

Click the button on the Commenting Palette. To highlight the text to be replaced, click and drag the cursor over the text. Then type in the replacement text. The replacement text will appear in a commenting box. You may also cut-and-paste text from another file into this box.

• Remove Text

Click the button on the Commenting Palette. Click and drag over the text to be deleted. The text to be deleted will then emphasize with a strikethrough.

E-Corrections through PDF Annotation

LEAVE A NOTE / COMMENT

• Add Note to Text

Click the button on the Commenting Palette. Click to set the location of the note on the document and simply start typing. Kindly refrain from using this feature to make text edits • Add Sticky Note

Click the button on the Commenting Palette. Click to set the location of the note on the document and simply start typing. Kindly refrain from using this feature to make text edits

HIGHLIGHT TEXT / MAKE A COMMENT

• Click the button on the Commenting Palette. Click and drag over the text. To make a comment, double click on the highlighted text and simply start typing.

REVIEW All comments added in the active document are listed in Comments List Palette. Navigate by clicking on a correction in the list.

ATTACH A FILE For equations, tables and figures that need to be added or replaced, or for a large section of text that needs to be inserted, users will find it better to just attach a file.

Click button on the Commenting Palette. And then click on the figure, table or formatted text to be replaced. A window will automatically open allowing you to attach the file.

Clovis Age Western StemmedProjectile Points and HumanCoprolites at the Paisley CavesDennis L. Jenkins,1*† Loren G. Davis,2* Thomas W. Stafford Jr.,3,4* Paula F. Campos,3,5*Bryan Hockett,6 George T. Jones,7 Linda Scott Cummings,8 Chad Yost,8 Thomas J. Connolly,1

Robert M. Yohe II,9 Summer C. Gibbons,9 Maanasa Raghavan,3 Morten Rasmussen,3

Johanna L. A. Paijmans,10 Michael Hofreiter,10 Brian M. Kemp,11 Jodi Lynn Barta,11,12

Cara Monroe,11,13 M. Thomas P. Gilbert,3 Eske Willerslev3*†

The Paisley Caves in Oregon record the oldest directly dated human remains (DNA) in the WesternHemisphere. More than 100 high-precision radiocarbon dates show that deposits containingartifacts and coprolites ranging in age from 12,450 to 2295 14C years ago are well-stratified.Western Stemmed projectile points were recovered in deposits dated to 11,070 to 11,340 14C yearsago, a time contemporaneous with or preceding the Clovis technology. There is no evidence ofdiagnostic Clovis technology at the site. These two distinct technologies were parallel developments,not the product of a unilineal technological evolution. “Blind testing” analysis of coprolites by anindependent laboratory confirms the presence of human DNA in specimens of pre-Clovis age.The colonization of the Americas involved multiple technologically divergent, and possiblygenetically divergent, founding groups.

Despite increasing evidence for pre-Clovissites in North and South America (1–6),debate continues as to whether the tech-

nological tradition that led to Clovis was thefirst to arrive in the Americas. Was Clovis thefirst in a long, unilinear technological evolu-tion spreading throughout the Americas? Orwere other Pleistocene technological complexesinvolved (6–10)? In the American Far West, theWestern Stemmed Tradition (WST) is recog-nized as the oldest nonfluted lithic technology.Stemmed points were present earlier in EastAsia and Siberia, and the basic form could havearrived in the Americas before Clovis developed(11–15). Like Clovis, the WST is a New Worlddevelopment sharing basic morphological andtechnological characteristics with Old Worldforms.

Western Stemmed (WS) projectile points aregenerally narrow bifaces with sloping shoulders,and many have relatively thick contracting bases(F1 Fig. 1, A to C). They were commonly made onflakes by broad collateral, midline, percussionflaking and finished by pressure flaking. In this,they are morphologically and technologically dis-tinct from the generally broader, concave-based,fluted Clovis points made on large bifacial pre-forms often thinned by overshot flake technol-ogy (16–19) (Fig. 1D). Prismatic blades—long,narrow flakes with triangular cross sections drivenfrom specially prepared cores—are common toClovis sites outside of western North America(16, 17) and are less common to WST assem-blages. Most dated WS projectile points areyounger than Clovis, and it has been proposedthat they evolved from a single tradition. Thepossible exceptions are WS projectile pointsfound in strata dated to the Clovis era at theSmith Creek Cave, Cooper’s Ferry, and Bonne-ville Estates Rockshelter sites. The associationof the dates with the points at these sites hasnot been confirmed and is not widely accepted(fig. S1) (13, 20–24). Here, we describe WSTassemblages—including human coprolites—atthe Paisley Caves and show that these date tobetween 11,070 and 11,340 radiocarbon yearsbefore the present (14C yr B.P.), confirming thatthey overlap or precede Clovis (20).

We continued to excavate the Paisley Cavesfrom 2009 through 2011. To resolve the ques-tion of stratigraphic integrity, we acquired 121new AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) ra-diocarbon dates on samples of terrestrial plants(e.g., Artemisia sp., Atriplex sp.), macrofossils fromcoprolites, bone collagen, and water-soluble ex-

tracts recovered from each of these categories.To date, a total of 190 radiocarbon dates havebeen produced from the Paisley Caves (tablesS1 to S9). These are distributed throughout fourof the caves, although the primary set of high-precision dates represents six dating columns inCaves 2 and 5. DNA analysis has been com-pleted on 65 coprolites from the site. To inves-tigate whether non-endogenous human DNAmay have leached into samples, we also testedCamelidae, Felidae, and Caprinae coprolites forthe presence of ancient human DNA (25).

Middens of wood rat (Neotoma sp.) are com-mon in the Paisley Caves, particularly in theNorth Block of Cave 5 (fig. S2). To investigatewhether excavations by rodents disturbed thestratigraphic integrity of the deposits, we datedtwo profiles there ( F2Fig. 2A and tables S2 and S3)(25). The dates in each are stratigraphically andchronologically well ordered. Beginning justbelow a layer of Mount Mazama O tephra—datedto 6790 T 15 14C yr B.P. in Cave 2 and ~6850years regionally (26)—the ages in profiles I andII range from 6980 T 15 to 12,450 T 30 14C yrB.P. WS projectile point 1294-PC-5/6D-47-1(Fig. 1B), a biface, a polished probable food-processing stone (fig. S3), and eight pieces oflithic debitage were recovered from lithostrati-graphic units LU1 and LU2 in the North Block,which are of late Pleistocene–early Holocene age.Projectile point 1294-PC-5/6D-47-1 was recov-ered from sifted LU2 [LU1a in (4)] sediments inexcavation unit 5/6D (fig. S2) and may date from11,135 to 11,600 14C yr B.P. ( T1Table 1) (25).

A trench connecting the North and SouthBlocks provided continuous stratigraphic expo-sure across the mouth of Cave 5 (fig. S2). Pro-files III and IV, at the intersection of this trenchwith the South Block, reveal well-stratified, high-ly indurated sandy sediments (LU2 and LU3)underlain by gravelly LU1 deposits. Ages hererange from 7700 T 20 to 12,410 T 25 14C yr B.P.(Fig. 2, B and C, and tables S4 and S5). Organicmaterials in basal LU1 sediments of profile IIIdate to 12,410 14C yr B.P. The lower portion ofoverlying LU2 is dated between 11,070 T 25and 12,405 T 25 14C yr B.P. and is composed ofmore organic, loamy, and gravelly sand, varyingportions of which are highly indurated. The up-per portion is dated between 10,855 T 30 14C yrB.P. and ~9500 14C yr B.P.

Rodent disturbances were traceable as ovalvoids filled with loose organic sediments intrudedinto less organic, compact to cemented LU2 sandy-silt or loworganicgraysandy-gravellyLU1sediments.Dated artifacts, charcoal, and theKOH-soluble frac-tion from the charcoal within stratigraphic distur-bances indicate that they occurred between 9500and 10,250 14C yr B.P. (table S10).

Three additional WS projectile point frag-ments were recovered from LU2 sediments witha chert flake tool and 165 lithic debitage ( F3Fig.3A) (25). Point 1895-PC-5/16A-24 (Fig. 1C) wasfound in situ laying horizontally, solidly encased

REPORT

1Museum of Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon,Eugene, OR 97403, USA. 2Department of Anthropology, OregonState University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. 3Centre for GeoGenetics,University of Copenhagen, DK 1350 Copenhagen, Denmark.4Stafford Research Laboratories Inc., 200 Acadia Avenue, La-fayette, CO 80026, USA. 5Museu da Ciência, Universidade deCoimbra, Largo Marquês de Pombal, 3000-272 Coimbra, Por-tugal. 6Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office,1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno, NV 89502, USA. 7Depart-ment of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323,USA. 8PaleoResearch Institute, 2675 Youngfield Street, Golden,CO 80401, USA. 9Anthropology Program, California State Uni-versity, Bakersfield, CA 93311, USA. 10Department of Biology,University of York, York Y010 5DD, UK. 11Department of An-thropology and School of Biological Sciences, WashingtonState University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. 12Department ofBiological and Health Sciences, Madonna University, Livonia,MI 48150, USA. 13Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.

*These authors contributed equally to this work.†To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:djenkins@uoregon.edu; ewillerslev@snm.ku.dk

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 000 MONTH 2012 1

MS no: RE1218443/JEC/ANTHRO

in a compact silt lens formed by a brief poolingof water on the cave floor (Fig. 3, fig. S4, andtable S11). This projectile point was on the cavefloor when the lens formed and remained un-disturbed until discovery (25). Atriplex sp. andArtemisia sp. twigs sampled in the east wall ofunit 5/16A ~40 cm east of point 1895-PC-5/16-24,at elevations 1365.97, 1365.93, and 1365.89 m,were dated to 11,070 T 25, 11,500 T 30, and11,815 T 25 14C yr B.P., respectively. Two humancoprolites at the same elevations in unit 5/16Awere dated to 11,205 T 25 and 11,340 T 30 14Cyr B.P. Projectile point 1895-PC-5/16A-24 wasdated between 11,070 and 11,340 14C yr B.P.(Figs. 2B and 3B, fig. S4, and table S11).

WS projectile point 1895-PC-5/16A-23-6a (notillustrated) was recovered with 37 pieces of lithicdebitage sifted from organic sediments directlyoverlying the silt lens. Bracketing dates for thisprojectile point are 10,855 14C yr B.P. (1366.05 to1366.00 m) and 11,070 (1365.97 m). WS projectilepoint 1895-PC-5/18a-10-1 was recovered ex situfrom sifted sediments in excavation unit 5/18a—located 75 cm from projectile point 1895-PC-5/16A-24 (Fig. 3) (25)—between 1366.10 and

1366.05 m and is bracketed between dates 10,200and 10,855 14C yr B.P. (Table 1).

A Camelidae coprolite was recovered in situbelow the silt lens at 1365.85 m (table S11). Itproduced a macrofossil age of 12,125 T 30 14Cyr B.P.; however, the age of its water-soluble ex-tract was 11,315 T 25 14C yr B.P. This is the onlyinstance of significant age difference between mac-rofossils and their extracted solutes in 12 suchtests (25). Three coprolites containing ancient hu-man DNA (aDNA)—results from two of whichwere replicated by laboratories in Copenhagenand York in blind testing and found to relate tomitochondrial DNA founding haplogroup A(25)—were recovered in close horizontal prox-imity. Dates on the macroflora and solute frac-tions, respectively, from these three coproliteswere 12,265 T 25 and 12,260 T 30 14C yr B.P.;12,165 T 25 and 12,050 T 25 14C yr B.P., and11,205 T 25 and 11,250 T 25 14C yr B.P. (tablesS1 and S12). The two oldest of these were re-covered lower in the deposits of adjacent ex-cavation unit 5/11B (fig. S2). Presumably, theywould have been contaminated in the mannerof the Camelidae coprolite had water reached

them. Their concordant ages indicate that theeffects of water were limited spatially, stratigraph-ically, and in volume. The new human aDNAresults (table S12) confirm our previous find-ings that humans with DNA founding hap-logroup A had occupied the site in pre-Clovistimes (3).

In Cave 2, dates for profiles V and VI, begin-ning at the base of the Mount Mazama tephra,range between 6790 T 15 and 12,320 T 35 14C yrB.P. ( F4Fig. 4 and fig. S5). All Cave 2 dates be-tween 10,980 T 20 and 12,425 T 30 14C yr B.P.come from LU1 and LU2, both of which areeasily distinguished from LU3 by their low or-ganic, sand, and gravel content. LU1 containswater-rounded boulders and sandy gravels. It iscovered by up to 30 cm of brown gravelly sand(LU2). The LU2 sands are partially capped by athin alluvial silt lens with a mean age of 11,03514C yr B.P. Artemisia charcoal from the surface ofhearth 2/6-4 at elevation 1365.48 m was dated to10,020 T 30 14C yr B.P., whereas Artemisia char-coal recovered at lower elevations—1365.40 mand 1365.35 to 1365.30 m from within the hearthdepression—was dated to 11,005 T 30 and11,055 T 35 14C yr B.P (Fig. 4B and table S1).Because the younger sample was taken from theLU2-LU3 stratigraphic boundary where charcoalis common, and LU2—into which the hearth wasexcavated—is an incombustible, low-organicmatrix, the 10,020 T 30 14C yr B.P. sample is in-terpreted as younger charcoal associated withLU3. We accept the age of 11,005 14C yr for thishearth. The hearth was surrounded by obsidiandebitage and burned bone. Stone artifacts in un-disturbed LU2 deposits at and below the hearthinclude 228 pieces of lithic debitage, a biface, apolished and chipped probable food-processingstone (fig. S6), and a flake tool. The pre-Cloviscontext of the probable food-processing stone atelevation 1365.28 m (not associated with thehearth) is established by dates on an Artiodac-tyla rib (11,930 T 25 14C yr B.P.) and an Equussp. maxilla (11,740 T 25 14C yr B.P.) found be-low and above it at elevations of 1365.25 and1365.31 m, respectively. LU2 transitions abruptlyupward into more organic LU3 sediments that arerich in bat guano and are dated between 6790 T15 and 10,585 T 30 14C yr B.P. (table S1).

DNA can be carried through sedimentary de-posits by water (rain, sheet wash, capillary fringesolutions) and urine (3, 27). We initially (3, 28–30)addressed the question of DNA leaching bytesting sediment around the coprolites, as well asNeotoma fecal pellets, for human aDNA; how-ever, no human aDNAwas detected. Neotoma sp.(wood rat) aDNA was extracted from Neotomafecal pellets, and Callospermophilus lateralis(golden-mantled ground squirrel) aDNAwas ob-tained from rodent bones near the coprolites,demonstrating that endogenous DNA survivesin the material and the aDNA extraction tech-niques were producing reliable results (3, 28).Further tests were undertaken to investigate forpotential leaching of modern DNA or aDNA

Fig. 1. Western Stemmed projectile point fragments. (A) 1961-PC-5/18a-10-1. (B) 1294-PC-5/6D-47-1.(C) 1895-PC-5/16A-24. (D) Clovis point from Dent site, Colorado. Edges of (A) and (C) are intenselyground, as indicated by lines paralleling edges and stippling in edge-on view. The notch in (B) is anobsidian hydration cut. [Illustrations by Eric Carlson and George T. Jones]

MONTH 2012 VOL 000 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org2

REPORT

MS no: RE1218443/JEC/ANTHRO

by attempting to extract human aDNA from dryNeotoma urine and from Neotoma, pronghorn,and mountain sheep fecal pellets. Again, no hu-man aDNA was detected.

DNA moving in rainwaters or urine couldcontaminate underlying coprolites with youn-ger DNA. To detect DNA translocation, we made26 14C measurements on paired macrofossils andwater-soluble fractions on nine coprolites and three1-cm-thick sediment samples. Younger soluteswould indicate potential DNA contaminationfrom younger overlying strata (table S9).

In seven coprolites, paired fractions had sta-tistically similar ages. Another coprolite’s soluteswere 165 14C yr older than macrofossils, and acamelid coprolite’s solutes were 810 14C yr youn-ger than macrofossils. Sediment solutes and mac-rofossils exhibit differential dating of 85 to 18014C yr. Urine-cemented sands accumulating at~1 cm per 50 to 80 years have time-averagingproblems, whereas instantaneous deposits suchas coprolites enable accurate solute-macrofossilinterpretations.

Radiocarbon data, mummified macrofossils,and struvite accumulations are evidence that thePaisley Caves did not experience significant wet-ting events that transported aDNA into olderstrata. Radiocarbon measurements detect nano-grams of carbon contamination, but a few hun-dred exogenous DNA base pairs—femtogram andsmaller amounts—could be present and not de-tectable by 14C dating. Younger DNA contami-nation is not indicated but could exist.

Deposition in the caves is generally rapid, nor-mally burying human-size (diameter 2 to >3 cm)coprolites below the penetration depth of surfacewater or urine within 225 radiocarbon years. Ifhuman DNA were introduced into nonhumancoprolites, it was most likely within a few hun-dred years of deposition, not thousands of years.Previous DNA findings of mitochondrial found-ing haplogroup A were confirmed by obtainingmatching sequences from coprolites in blind testexperiments at two independent laboratories, ofwhich one (1830-PC-5/11B-33-101) is dated toa pre-Clovis age (12,165 T 25 14C yr B.P.), oneto about Clovis times (11,205 T 25 14C yr B.P.),and one to the mid-Holocene (5750 T 15 14C yrB.P.). The Paisley Caves’ archaeology, geoarchae-ology, and DNA analyses all indicate initial hu-man occupation of the northern Great Basin byat least 12,300 14C yr B.P. (3, 28).

The only chronologically diagnostic late Pleis-tocene technology at the Paisley Caves is re-lated to the WST. We have firmly dated two WSprojectile points to Clovis (10,800 to 11,050 14Cyr B.P.) (31) and earlier times (Table 1) and stra-tigraphically dated a third to about the sameor even earlier times. There is no evidence of di-agnostic Clovis technology in the site assem-blage (25).

Although stemmed points and seaworthywatercraft were present in late Pleistocene Asiathousands of years before the Paisley Caveswere occupied, there is no direct correlate for

Fig. 2. (A) Dating column profiles I and II in North Block, Cave 5. (B) Dating column profile III. (C)Dating column profile IV.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 000 MONTH 2012 3

REPORT

MS no: RE1218443/JEC/ANTHRO

WST technology in Asia. The Paisley Caves evi-dence suggests that the WST and Clovis com-plexes were contemporaneous and parallel—notunilineal—North American technological devel-opments (18, 19). The Paisley Caves evidencesupports the hypothesis that the WST was an in-digenous development in the far western UnitedStates, whereas Clovis may have developed inde-pendently in the Plains and Southeast (11, 19).

References and Notes1. T. D. Dillehay et al., Science 320, 784 (2008).2. J. M. Adovasio, D. R. Pedler, in Entering America:

Northeast Asia and Beringia Before the Last GlacialMaximum, D. B. Madsen, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press, SaltLake City, 2004), Chap. 5.

3. M. T. P. Gilbert et al., Science 320, 786 (2008).4. D. L. Jenkins, in Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great Basin

Human Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition,K. Graf, D. Schmidt, Eds. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, 2007), Chap. 4.

5. M. R. Waters et al., Science 334, 351 (2011).6. B. T. Lepper, R. Bonnichsen, New Perspectives on the

First Americans (Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station,TX, 2004).

7. D. J. Meltzer, First Peoples in a New World: ColonizingIce Age America (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley,2009).

8. R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire, Eds., Ice Age Peoples ofNorth America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptationsof the First Americans (Center for the Study of theFirst Americans, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station,TX, 2005).

9. G. Haynes, The Early Settlement of North America:The Clovis Era (Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge,2002).

10. G. Haynes, Paleoanthropology 2009, 271 (2009).11. C. Beck, G. T. Jones, Am. Antiq. 75, 81 (2010).12. J. M. Erlandson et al., Science 331, 1181 (2011).13. A. Bryan, in The Archaeology of Smith Creek Canyon,

Eastern Nevada, D. R. Tuohy, D. L. Rendall, Eds.(Anthropological Papers No. 17, Nevada State Museum,Carson City, NV, 1979), pp. 162–253.

14. A. Bryan, D. R. Tuohy, in Ice Age Peoples of NorthAmerica: Environments, Origins, and Adaptationsof the First Americans, R. Bonnichsen, K. L. Turnmire,Eds. (Center for the Study of the First Americans,Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, TX, 2005),pp. 249–263.

15. F. Ikawa-Smith, in Entering America: Northeast Asiaand Beringia Before the Last Glacial Maximum,D. B. Madsen, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,2004), Chap. 10.

16. B. A. Bradley, M. B. Collins, C. A. Hemmings, ClovisTechnology (International Monographs in Prehistoryno. 17, Ann Arbor, MI, 2010).

17. M. R. Waters, C. D. Pevney, D. L. Carlson, Clovis LithicTechnology: Investigation of a Stratified Workshopat the Gault Site, Texas (Center for the Study of theFirst Americans, Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station,TX, 2011).

18. C. Beck, G. T. Jones, in Meetings at the Margins:Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in the IntermountainWest, D. Rhode, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,2012), Chap. 2.

19. L. G. Davis, S. C. Willis, S. J. Macfarlan, in Meetings at theMargins: Prehistoric Cultural Interactions in theIntermountain West, D. Rhode, Ed. (Univ. of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, 2012), Chap. 3.

20. L. G. Davis, C. E. Schweger, Geoarchaeology 19, 685(2004).

21. J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, in Early Human Occupationin Far Western North America: The Clovis-ArchaicInterface, J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, J. L. Fagan, Eds.(Anthropological Papers No. 21, Nevada State Museum,Carson City, NV, 1988), pp. 1–40.

22. T. Goebel, K. Graf, B. Hockett, D. Rhode, in On Shelter’sLedge: Histories, Theories and Methods of RockshelterResearch, M. Kornfeld, S. Vasil’ev, L. Miotti, Eds.(British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, 2007),pp. 147–161.

23. K. Graf, in Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic: Great BasinHuman Ecology at the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition,K. Graf, D. Schmidt, Eds. (Univ. of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, 2007), Chap. 5.

24. R. L. Kelly, Quat. Int. 109–110, 133 (2003).25. See supplementary materials on Science Online.

Fig. 3. (A) Horizontal distribution of Western Stemmed projectile points and in situ lithic debitagein excavation units 5/16A and 5/18A. (B) Vertical distribution of artifacts relative to acceptably datedcoprolites and dating column samples.

Table 1. Western Stemmed projectile point proveniences and their bracketing radiocarbon dates.

Specimen no. Unit Elevation (m) Upper bracketing age and elevation (m) Lower bracketing age and elevation (m)

1294-PC-5/6D-47-1 5/6D 1366.06 to 1366.01 10,050 T 50 (1366.40 to 1366.35)10,965 T 50

12,140 T 70 (1365.91 to 1365.86)12,260 T 60

1895-PC-5/16A-24 5/16A 1365.93 11,070 T 25 (1365.97) 11,340 T 50 (1365.88)1895-PC-5/16A-23-6A 5/16A 1366.01 to 1365.96 10,855 T 30 (1366.05 to 1366.00) 11,070 T 25 (1365.97)1961-PC-5/18a-10-1 5/18a 1366.10 to 1366.05 10,200 T 35 (1366.09) 10,855 T 30 (1366.05 to 1366.00)

MONTH 2012 VOL 000 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org4

REPORT

MS no: RE1218443/JEC/ANTHRO

26. C. R. Bacon, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 18, 57(1983).

27. J. Haile et al., Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 982 (2007).28. See supplementary materials in (3).29. H. Poinar et al., Science 325, 148a (2009).30. M. T. P. Gilbert et al., Science 325, 148b (2009).31. M. R. Waters, T. W. Stafford Jr., Science 315, 1122

(2007).

Acknowledgments: Support for the Paisley Caves Projectwas provided by NSF grant 0924606; the Danish NationalResearch Foundation; the U.S. Bureau of Land Management;the archaeological field school and the Museum of Naturaland Cultural History, University of Oregon; the Keystone

Archaeological Research Fund, Oregon State University; theBernice Peltier Huber Charitable Trust; the Great BasinPaleoindian Research Unit of the University of Nevada, Reno;Playa Residency Grants; and D. Dana, A. Hurley, S. Kohntopp,R. Engle, Origer Associates Inc., and other private contributors.D. Kennett and B. J. Culletan contributed ultrafiltration andXAD AMS radiocarbon dating of three paleontological andtwo cordage samples. M. Rondeau analyzed all of the lithicdebitage and tools from reliable contexts at the site, verifyingJones’ analysis. E. Carlson illustrated the projectile points.T. Goebel, D. Grayson, D. Madsen, and an anonymousindividual reviewed drafts of the manuscript. G. McDonald,E. Scott, and E. Davis identified paleontological specimens andconsulted us about taxonomy. Paisley Caves archaeological

materials are stored at the University of Oregon under accessionnumbers 1294, 1374, 1704, 1829, 1830, 1895, 1896, and1961. The 16S rRNA sequences have been deposited inGenBank under accession numbers JQ734469 to JQ734473.

Supplementary Materialswww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/336/ISSUE/PAGE/DC1Materials and MethodsFigs. S1 to S12Tables S1 to S19References (32–47)

27 December 2011; accepted 31 May 201210.1126/science.1218443

Fig. 4. (A) Dating column profile V, excavationunit 2/4. (B) Dating column profile VI, excavationunit 2/6.

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 000 MONTH 2012 5

REPORT

MS no: RE1218443/JEC/ANTHRO