the mammoth steppe hypothesis: the middle … chapter 25 the mammoth steppe hypothesis: the middle...

429

Chapter 25

The Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis: The Middle Wisconsin (Oxygen Isotope

Stage 3) Peopling of North AmericaSteven R. Holen1 and Kathleen Holen

AbstractIn this chapter we introduce the Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis suggesting an Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (OIS3), human movement into the Americas sometime between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago. OIS3 was character-ized by a relatively mild climate that created a vast contiguous grassland, which was capable of supporting abundant fauna. Humans had adapted to this Mammoth Steppe biome during the latter part of OIS3 as demonstrated by material cultural evidence from the Yana Rhino Horn site and other northern Siberian sites. Ecological data from the Mammoth Steppe support the assertion that humans could have followed the Mammoth Steppe into the Americas during OIS3. We suggest that human populations from northern Siberia were able to disperse across Beringia and down the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains when an interior corridor was open prior to 22,000 14C yr BP. Support for the hypothesis is based on evidence from multiple North American mid-continent archaeological sites dating to OIS3 and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Evidence from 14 sites, 5 of which contain stone artifacts, is summarized. The dispersal of small pre-LGM populations left a sparse archaeological record in North America that warrants ongoing investigation through systematic research in geological deposits greater than ca. 20,000 14C yr BP.

KEYWORDS: Early humans in the Americas, Mammoth Steppe, Middle Wisconsin, Taphonomy

1 Center for American Paleolithic Research, 1120 S. Summit View Dr., Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]

IntroductionThe ecological model of a Mammoth Steppe was developed by R. Dale Guthrie (1968, 1982, 1984a, 1984b, 1991, 2001; Guthrie and van Kolfschoten 1999) over many years of paleon-tological research in Alaska. Guthrie described an extensive, cool grassland (Figure 25.1) with a diverse floral and faunal biota that extended from central Europe to Alaska and the Yu-kon during Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (OIS3), ca. 65,000–27,000 cal yr BP. The Mammoth Steppe concept defined by Guthrie, as presented here, is a simplified version of a changing OIS3 climate and biotic community in northern Siberia and Berin-

gia (see Hoffecker and Elias 2007 for a more complete discus-sion of OIS3 environments). The Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis proposes that Up-per Paleolithic groups had developed technological innova-tions including efficient shelter, tailored clothing, new heat sources, and a lithic and bone/ivory tool kit that allowed them to adapt to the Mammoth Steppe in northern Siberia and Beringia during OIS3. A small number of hunter-gatherer groups from Siberia moved across the steppe environment, through Beringia, and then south following an American steppe biome east of the Rocky Mountains, into the central part of North America. These small populations were sub-sequently cut off from groups in Siberia and Beringia when Canada was glaciated from coast to coast during the LGM. Hunter-gatherer groups, although small in number, left an

The Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis: The Middle Wisconsin (Oxygen Isotope Stage 3) Peopling of North America

430

archaeological record in the American mid-continent during the latter part of OIS3 and the LGM, and later developed the Clovis techno-complex at about 11,500 14C yr BP. The idea of OIS3 peopling of North America is not new. Muller-Beck (1966, 1967) envisioned an expanding popula-tion of Upper Paleolithic hunters adapted to the vast open plains, armed with a bifacial projectile-point technology de-rived from the Kostenki area of the Russian plain. These pop-ulations reached the “Asiatic coast of the Pacific” during the “Aurignac oscillations” approximately 35,000–27,000 years ago. Muller-Beck (1966:1207) stated that “the first invasion of man in the New World for which a reliable archaeologi-cal reconstruction seems possible—there could have been earlier invasions—took place about 28,000 to 26,000 years ago.” After this time “the invaders were isolated by the ice advances of the Wisconsin maximum in the southern part of North America and separated from the continuing techno-logical evolution of the Old World” (ibid:1208–09, Figure1). In this contribution, Muller-Beck’s ideas are revisited and a Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis, based on R. Dale Guthrie’s ecological model, is developed and tested. To test the Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis we take into consideration archaeological, paleoecological, and genetic information from Siberia, Beringia, and the North American mid-continent to determine if evidence exists that supports the hypothesis that humans entered North America via the Mammoth Steppe during OIS3. We focus on evidence from early mid-continent North American sites reported to date older than 14,000 14C yr BP. A significant part of this research stems from fieldwork and collections research conducted by the senior author over the last 25 years.

The Middle Wisconsin (OIS3) Mammoth SteppeDuring OIS3, a warm interstadial, the guild of large mam-malian fauna was species-rich from central Europe to northeastern Asia and Alaska, more diverse in the southern parts of the biome than in the north, and was larger dur-ing OIS3 than in either OIS2 or OIS4 (Guthrie and van Kolf-schoten 1999). Major mammalian herbivorous species of

the Mammoth Steppe included: bison, woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, caribou, horse, and saiga antelope that are all predominantly grazers. Lion, wolf, and hyenas were major carnivore species preying on the herbivores. In North America during OIS3, a vast grassland that we term the American Steppe, extended from the Mammoth Steppe of Alaska and the Yukon into the present Great Plains of North America and as far south as central Mexico (Johnson 2005). An inhabitable corridor from Beringia to the American mid-continent was open throughout the later part of OIS3 until the LGM. Based on dated faunas from Alberta (Burns 1996) and on cosmogenic 36Cl dating of glacial erratics in Al-berta (Jackson et al. 1997) the corridor closed about 22,000 14C yr BP when the Cordilleran and Laurentide glacial systems coalesced. Faunal and floral diversity was the hallmark of this vast grassland. On the American Steppe, mammalian species di-versity was high owing to a long growing season that sup-ported a diversity of floral resources. Columbian mammoth, camel, bison, horse, and llama were the major herbivorous species, while lion, sabertooth cat, dire wolf, and giant short-faced bear were the primary carnivores. Mammalian species in North America, including Colum-bian mammoth, mastodon, camel, and giant short-faced bear, extended their range north into Alaska and the Yukon during OIS3. Guthrie (2001) postulated the presence of a moderately moist, mesic, ecological barrier between present-day Alaska and Siberia in central Beringia that kept certain species from crossing in either direction. The North American species listed above did not move into the area of western Beringia now known as eastern Siberia, and woolly rhinoceros and hy-ena did not reach Alaska. Guthrie and van Kolfschoten (1999) suggested the Mam-moth Steppe grassland contained a large variation in species composition between regions that was preserved by climatic variability and short climatic episodes quite dissimilar to the Last Glacial Maximum or the Holocene. Overall the steppe biome was continuous from Europe to Siberia and Beringia, and into North America and Mexico, with some spatial varia-

Figure 25.1 The Mammoth Steppe in Siberia and Beringia and the American Steppe in North America.

Holen and Holen

431

tions in faunal and floral composition, but, most importantly, there was general homogeneity of the biome over this large area (Madsen 2004).

Research HistoryResearchers have occasionally discussed, and a few have ad-vocated a human dispersal into North America during OIS3 (Bonnichsen 1978, 1979; Morlan 2003; Stanford et al. 2005). Others have supported the possibility (Butzer 1991; Madsen 2004) or have at least considered it (Goebel et al. 2003; Goe-bel et al. 2008; Pitblado 2011). However, the idea has never been widely accepted (Meltzer 2009). Evidentiary arguments against a human presence in the Americas during the OIS3 have focused on the purported in-ability of OIS3 human populations in Asia to adapt to and populate a far northern steppe environment, and also on cri-tique of bone-modification patterns found in the Yukon that were put forward as evidence of human technology (Bever 2001; Dixon 1999; Goebel 1999; Guthrie 1984c, 1991; Hof-fecker 2002; Hoffecker and Elias 2003, 2007; Adams et al. 2001). Guthrie (1984c, 1991) provided detailed arguments against a human entry into North America during OIS3, sug-gesting it was technologically impossible for human hunters to have lived north of 60°N latitude owing to lack of necessi-ties that included tailored clothing, wood, suitable housing, and an advanced lithic technology to produce efficient stone projectile points. Guthrie (1991:275–76) concluded, “Inter-stade people 35,000 years ago still faced a limit at 60° north. Yet the warm and wet interstade probably allowed people to move farther north in Eurasia than they had ever been, an expansion that was slowly driven southward during the last glacial.” Guthrie (1991:273–77) suggested that human technology was the key to adapting to the Mammoth Steppe north of 60°N latitude and included as requirements for this adaptation “well-insulated housing, tailored clothing, effi-cient heat sources, and a suite of tools that reduce danger, frustration, and expended energy.” In Eastern Europe, Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) societ-

ies were developing technological innovations including new blade and bifacial lithic tools, efficient structures, new fuel sources, and sophisticated osseous tools (Soffer 1985; Hof-fecker and Elias 2003; Bradley et al. 1995). The earliest record of these new technologies is present at Kostenki on the Rus-sian Plain and appears to date 45,000–42,000 cal B.P. Lithic technological advances include prismatic blade cores, blade-lets, endscrapers, burins, and small bifaces (Hoffecker 2009; Anikovich et al. 2007). Non-stone technology included bone awls and points, antler mattocks, and carved ivory art. There is circumstantial evidence for the rotary drill and traps for small animals. Animals also provided resources for fuel and for manufacturing tools and shelters. Canids may have been domesticated (Germonpré et al. 2009; Ovodov et al. 2011) and assisted in hunting, acted as companions, provided pro-tection, and served as an emergency food source. Another site, Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucasus, pro-vides the earliest conclusive evidence for the invention of bone needles, indicating sewn clothing. Two bone-needle fragments were found in layer 1C dating to 38,000–37,000 cal B.P. (Golovanova et al. 2010). Earlier invention of the eyed needle is possible because they are also reported from lay-ers 9 and 11 of Denisova Cave in southern Siberia (Derevi-anko and Shunkov 2004). Radiocarbon dates of greater than 37,235 14C yr BP (SOAN-2504) from layer 11 (Vasil’ev et al. 2002) indicate that eyed needles appeared in central and eastern Europe and Siberia much earlier than traditionally thought (Kuzmin 2008). These new technologies allowed EUP people to move into southern Siberia by 46,000 cal BP (Goebel 2004; Graf 2009). EUP people also moved northward to the Arctic Circle in western Siberia between 40,000 and 30,000 BP. Pavlov and Indrelid (1999) and Pavlov et al. (2004) discuss four sites in the western foothills of the Ural Mountains (Figure 25.2). These sites, Talisky, Garchi, Bryzovaya and Mamontovaya Kurya, range between 58°N and 66°N latitude. Mamontovaya Kurya at the Arctic Circle dates to more than 40,000 cal B.P. and contains artifacts similar to the earliest Upper Paleolithic horizon at Kostenki 12 (Hoffecker 2009).

Figure 25.2 OIS3 sites in Siberia near or above 60°N latitude and the location of Denisova Cave.


432

In 2004, Pitulko et al. (2004) reported the Yana Rhino Horn site (RHS) on the Yana River at 71°N latitude, the first pre-LGM site in western Beringia (Figure 25.2). The site is buried deep in a permafrost terrace fill and is securely dated at ca. 27,000 14C yr BP by 10 radiocarbon ages that fit well with the stratigraphic position deep in stratified second ter-race fill. Numerous stone tools, four bone tools, and faunal material from several extinct and extra-local species includ-ing mammoth, horse, bison, musk ox, lion, and hare were discovered. Stone tools include choppers, bifaces, unifacial scrapers, chisel-like tools, and retouched flakes. Three bev-eled osseous rods are present; two are made of mammoth ivory and one is of rhinoceros horn. The Yana RHS was occupied during a warm interval near the end of OIS3. Based on evidence from Yana RHS and the Ural Mountains foothills in northeast Siberia it is evident that humans were in far northern Siberia during the latter part of OIS3. Hoffecker and Elias (2003:38–39) asserted that “mod-ern humans were unable to occupy areas of northeast Asia above 60° north before 24,000 cal. BP because of a persistent warm climate adapted body morphology”; however, discov-ery of the Yana RHS and Mamontovaya Kurya site demon-strated that humans were adapted to areas north of 60°N during OIS3. These discoveries immediately changed the dis-cussion about early peopling of the Americas. Hoffecker and Elias (2007) suggested that Yana RHS rep-resents a northward movement of hunter-gatherers during the warm months with a retreat to southern Siberia during the cold winter months, and Hoffecker (2009) also suggested the Mamontovaya Kurya site may represent only seasonal oc-cupation of northern Siberia. This hypothesis of seasonal use of northern Siberia suggests a highly mobile adaptation. Graf (2009, 2010) hypothesized a low-mobility residential adapta-tion by populations in southern Siberia during the Middle Upper Paleolithic, late in OIS3, which seems to contradict the seasonal long-distance movements into northern Siberia. It

would be important to determine seasonality of the Yana RHS and Mamontovaya Kurya sites to determine if the occupa-tions occurred only in the summer months. Climate change associated with the LGM is suggested to have forced Siberian populations southward (Graf 2009), but Kuzmin and Keates (2005); Kuzmin (2008); and Vasil’ev et al. (2002) take the position that humans were able to live in northern parts of Siberia during the cold LGM, which sug-gests that humans would have been able to live in northern Siberia year-round during the latter part of the relatively warm OIS3. In the late 1970s, evidence for an OIS3 human popula-tion in eastern Beringia at the Old Crow locality in the Yukon (Figure 25.3) was presented (Bonnichsen 1978, 1979; Haring-ton 1975; Irving 1985; Morlan 1978, 1980, 1984, 1986) based on impacted and flaked mammoth limb bone and cutmarks on bison bone. The evidence was most recently summarized by Morlan (2003). Impact-fractured and flaked proboscidean long bones dating between 40,000 and 25,000 14C yr BP appear to indi-cate a long human occupation in Beringia. Morlan (2003:127) stated, “These findings support the hypothesis that a new agency and process entered the taphonomic histories of proboscidean bone in the Old Crow Basin around 40,000 yrs ago,” and later, “The arrival of Homo sapiens, practicing pro-cesses such as marrow extraction and percussion flaking on proboscidean bones, as well as butchering bison carcasses, could be the new agency in these taphonomic histories”. Additional evidence of early humans in Beringia from Bluefish Caves (Figure 25.3) is in the form of a flaked mam-moth limb-bone segment dated to 23,910–23,200 14C yr BP and a whittled and polished caribou tibia dated to 24,280 14C yr BP found just below a mammoth bone flake (Morlan 2003; Cinq-Mars and Morlan 1999). Other bones from Blue-fish Cave dating from 24,000 to 12,000 14C yr BP exhibit cut-marks (Cinq-Mars 1990; Morlan 2003; Cinq-Mars and Morlan

Figure 25.3 OIS3 and LGM sites in mid-continent North America and the Yukon.

Holen and Holen

433

1999). Evidence from Old Crow and Bluefish Cave suggests a human presence in Beringia by 42,000–40,000 14C yr BP. Mor-lan (2003) correctly pointed out that critics of the hypoth-esis that humans were present in Beringia during OIS3 have not disproved the evidence from cutmarks on bison bones or from impacted and flaked proboscidean limb bone. Cutmarks on bone are taphonomic evidence of human agency and can be identified with accuracy (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009). The Bluefish Cave cutmarks should be reexamined with mod-ern methods. Taphonomic evidence from the Yukon and Beringia has been critiqued because the bones were found in secondary contexts and because alternative causes, such as ice-flow activity, may have caused the fracture patterns based on an experiment by Thorson and Guthrie (1984). However, the experiment was flawed primarily because large ungu-late limb bones, not proboscidean limb bones, were used. The suggestion that natural causes are responsible for the fracture patterns found at Old Crow and Blue Fish Caves does not take into consideration the unique thickness and strength of proboscidean limb bone (Morlan 1984). Exper-imental work replicating Pleistocene percussion technol-ogy has demonstrated that breaking fresh elephant limb bone requires the force of multiple hammerstone blows (K. Holen and S. Holen 2010, S. Holen and K. Holen 2006, 2009, 2011; Stanford 1987; Stanford et al. 1981). In addi-tion, these elephant-bone experiments created breakage patterns like these found on mammoth bone from Clovis-age archaeological sites. Archaeological evidence from northern Siberia and Berin-gia demonstrates that humans were adapted to the steppe biome and inhabited these regions during OIS3. Ecological evidence shows that neither climate nor environmental bar-riers blocked the path to the Americas. Once adapted to a steppe biome human migration into the North American mid-continent was possible, but what evidence of early human presence exists there?

Evidence for Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and Middle Wisconsin (OIS3) Humans in the North American Mid-ContinentEvidence of human technology from LGM (20,000–14,000

14yr BP) and OIS3 (40,000–20,000 14C yr BP) North American sites in the Great Plains and Midwest (Figure 25.3) is summa-rized below and in Tables 25.1 and 25.2. We are not advocat-ing the archaeological legitimacy of all the sites presented. Some sites have more data than others, and some sites are in a preliminary stage of research, for example, the Schulz Mammoth, New Mammoth site and Villa Grove Mammoth site. In the discussion below, we are documenting what oth-ers have reported and what we have learned during our field and collections research. In the conclusion of this section, we will offer our thoughts on the status of these sites. We also discuss dna research that may support the Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis.

Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) Sites (20,000–14,000 14C yr BP)Five of the seven sites discussed below, La Sena, Hamburger, Prettyman, Jensen, and Shaffert are situated in LGM Peo-rian loess. The radiocarbon ages of these sites (Table 25.1) are consistent within this well-dated geological deposit. La Sena and Hamburger were found deep in cutbanks along a reservoir, and a backhoe was required to remove overbur-den before excavation. Prettyman was found on a reservoir beach, while Shaffert was discovered in a modern gully cut. The Jensen site was found in the bottom of a borrow pit. Two sites, Cooperton and Lovewell Mammoth II, were ex-cavated from fine-grained alluvium. Low-energy loess and fine-grained alluvial deposits eliminate geological factors in the breakage of thick cortical mammoth limb bones, thus making taphonomic interpretations of bone breakage less complicated. Table 25.1 lists the sites, radiocarbon ages and geological context, and taphonomic indicators of hu-man technology.

La Sena Mammoth Site, Nebraska The La Sena Mammoth site, consisting of the partial skeletal remains of a single adult male mammoth was excavated by the senior author at Medicine Creek Reservoir in southwest Nebraska (Holen 2006; Holen and May 2002; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011). Evidence for human association with the mammoth skele-ton is in the form of broad arcuate impact notches on thick cortical bone, both longitudinal and side-struck bone flakes, and preferential breakage of the limb bones. The lightest


Definitions of human-induced modificationsImpact notches Semicircular or arcuate indentations on the

fracture edge of a long bone produced by percussion.

Spiral fractures Tensile failures along a helical path produced by breaking at oblique angles to the longitudinal axis of the bone.

Bone flakes Debitage produced by bone percussion that have features characteristic of lithic flakes produced by human agency.

Flake scars Patterned indentations on bone surfaces indicating flakes have been removed.

Patterned distributions of bone Human-induced arrangements of skeletal elements.

Preferential breakage The intentional breaking of thick cortical limb bones while leaving lighter bones unbroken.

Modified bone tools Skeletal elements with evidence of modi-fication or use wear.

Chipped-stone tools Manufactured lithic artifacts exhibiting multiple flake scars.

Anvils or hammerstones Cobbles associated with bone assem-blages interpreted as percussors or anvils.

Lithic flakes Utilized or waste flakes.

434

bones, ribs and vertebrae, are either complete or far less fragmented than the thick cortical limb bones that were broken at mid-shaft by an object 5 cm in diameter at the point of impact. Holen (2006) eliminated carnivores and trampling by other large mammals as causes, thus strength-ening the argument that human agency was responsible. A radio carbon age on mammoth bone (18,440 ± 90 14C yr BP AA6972) and stratigraphically consistent radio carbon ages on sediments above and below the mammoth horizon indi-cate the site dates to the LGM.

Hamburger Mammoth, Shaffert Mammoth, Prettyman Mammoth and Jensen Mammoth Sites, Nebraska These four single-adult mammoth sites are situated in south-central Nebraska and were excavated from Peorian loess. Hamburger (Holen and May 2007; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011) and Shaf-fert (Holen and May 2002; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011) are

Impac

t not

ches

Site Date, 14 C yr BP Date, non-14 C method

Table 25.2 Evidence for human technology at OIS3 sites in mid-continent North America (14C 40,000–20,000 yr BP).

Spira

l frac

ture

Bone fl

akes

, flak

e sca

rs

Patte

rned

distrib

ution

of bo

nes

Prefe

rentia

l bre

aking

Tools

—mod

ified bo

ne

Tools

—ch

ipped st

one

Anvil, h

ammer

stone

Lithic

flakes

Burnham 36,000–35,000 X X X

Miami 34,000±1600 (IRSL) X X X X

Frye 40,000–35,000 (stratigraphic) X

Lovewell I 20,430±300 X X

Villa Grove 33,405±340 X X X

Schulz 37,567±590 39,350±770 X X

New Nebraska 33,590±450 33,220±420 33,170±370 33,540±400 X X X

in the Medicine Creek drainage near the La Sena site. Pretty-man is at Harlan County Lake (Holen et al. 1998) and Jensen (S. Holen and K. Holen 2011; May and Holen 2005) is in the Platte River valley. These sites all exhibit preferential break-age of thick limb bones and impact notches on thick limb bones. Evidence of bone flaking is present at the Jensen site (see Table 25.1).

Cooperton Mammoth Site, Oklahoma The Cooperton Mammoth in southwestern Oklahoma was excavated in 1961 by Adrian Anderson (Anderson 1962, 1975; Northcutt 2007). The single adult mammoth skeleton is situated in fine-grained silt/sand alluvium. Our research indicates that the limb bones were broken at mid-shaft by impacts that formed notches. One flake scar is present. Limb bones were prefer-entially broken, while the left scapula and right side of the pelvis and many thoracic vertebral spines are intact. One 8.6-

Holen and Holen

Site Date, 14 C yr BP

Cooperton 17,575–20,000 X X X X X X

La Sena 18,440±90 X X X X X

Hamburger 16480±60 X X X

Shaffert 15,600±60 X X X

Prettyman 17,880±260 X X X

Jensen 14,830±220 X X X X

Lovewell II 19,530±80 19,570±60 X X X X

Table 25.1 Evidence for human technology at LGM sites in mid-continent North America (14C 20,000–14,000 yr BP).

Impac

t not

ches

Spira

l frac

ture

Bone fl

akes

, flak

e sca

rs

Patte

rned

distrib

ution

of bo

nes

Prefe

rentia

l bre

aking

Tools

—mod

ified bo

ne

Tools

—ch

ipped st

one

Anvil, h

ammer

stone

Lithic

flakes

435

0 5cm

0 2cm

BA

cm0 10

kg granite cobble with an area of battering on the upper sur-face (Figure 25.4) is associated with fractured limb-bone seg-ments. Because numerous small bone fragments were found around the large cobble it was interpreted by Anderson as an anvil. Three fist-sized cobbles were also associated with the skeleton, one of which exhibits two flake scars. Ander-son (1975) interpreted the cobbles to be hammers and an anvil used to break the fresh limb bone for marrow extraction or bone tool production. That there are no naturally occur-ring cobbles in the fine-grained alluvium indicates humans must have brought the cobbles to the site location to break mammoth bones. The site was dated to between 20,400 and 17,575 14C yr BP based on three bone-apatite radiocarbon dates (GX1212, 1215, 1216) (Anderson 1975). Radiocarbon ages run on bone apatite are generally unreliable, but they may provide an approximate age of the site.

Lovewell Mammoth II Site, Kansas The Lovewell Mammoth II site was discovered at Lovewell Reservoir in northern Kansas in 1991 when the reservoir level was low. At first, investigators thought this was the same mammoth (Lovewell Mammoth I) that was excavated in 1969. Later excavations indicated that this was a second mammoth located about 80 m from the 1969 excavation. The Lovewell Mammoth II site is situated within a shallow U-shaped swale. Impact notches on the mid-shaft of thick cortical limb bones, numerous bone flakes, a bifa-cially flaked fist-sized “chopper” (Figure 25.5A), and a small highly polished tip of a bone tool (Figure 25.5B) indicate that humans were involved in breaking some of the bones (Holen 2006, 2007; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011). The two most re-cent radiocarbon ages from the site, 19,530 ± 80 14C yr BP

(UCIAMS-11211) from the bone biface and 19,570 ± 60 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-53543) from the highly polished bone tool, are consistent with the geological context.

Middle Wisconsin (OIS3) Sites, (40,000–20,000 14C yr BP)The seven sites described here have all been dated to the latter half of OIS3 by radiocarbon (14C), thermoluminescence (TL) and infra-red stimulated luminescence (IRSL) dating, or

Figure 25.4 The 8.6-kg cobble from the Cooperton site used as an anvil for fracturing mammoth bone. Arrow points to battering on upper surface. Photo courtesy of the Museum of the Great Plains.

Figure 25.5 Lovewell Mammoth II. A, bone biface with arrows pointing to flake scars; B, tip of a highly polished bone rod.


436

0 5mm

0 2cm

A

B

F E D

C

G

stratigraphic correlation (Table 25.2). The dates used here are somewhat arbitrary because the OIS3 transition to the LGM in the Great Plains and Midwestern United States is usually dated to ca. 20,000 14C yr BP, while in more northern areas the transition took place earlier, ca. 25,000 14C yr BP. We use the 20,000 14C yr BP age because the sites discussed here are in the Midwest or Great Plains. Three of the sites discussed, Schulz, Villa Grove, and New Mammoth, have been tested in the last two years by the authors, and the information pre-sented is preliminary and published for the first time. Four of the seven sites contain stone artifacts. Two of the sites discussed below, Miami and Frye, were found in OIS3 loess; three other sites, Burnham, Lovewell Mammoth I, and New Mammoth, were excavated from fine-grained alluvial or lacustrine deposits. Loess and fine-grained alluvial/lacustrine deposits represent low-energy deposition that eliminates geological explanations for the associated stone artifacts at three of the sites, Burnham, Miami, and Frye, and for the bone-breakage patterns at the Lovewell Mammoth I and New Mammoth sites. The Schulz Mammoth and Villa Grove Mammoth were excavated from higher-en-ergy geological situations that will be described below.

Burnham Site, Oklahoma This site was excavated from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s by Don Wyckoff of the Univer-sity of Oklahoma and an interdisciplinary team from several institutions (Wyckoff et al. 2003). A bison skull and other bison post-cranial elements were found in OIS3 pond sediments. As-sociated with the bison bone are two lithic tools, 40 flakes and flake fragments, 11 pieces of shatter, and one chert cobble, all thought to be cultural in origin. One lithic tool is a utilized flake with retouch caused by use; the second is a biface frag-ment. The lithic cobble with two flake removals was found next to the bison skull and appears to be too large to have been moved by fluvial action. Twelve flakes exhibit a ventral lip plat-form most commonly characteristic of soft hammer percussion or pressure flaking (Figure 25.6G). One non-local lithic flake was identified as Edwards chert from the central Texas source area, ca. 400 km from the site (Figure 25.6C). Lithic flakes and tools interpreted as cultural were concentrated in eight exca-vated units with the bison bones. The pond deposits and asso-ciated bison bone are radiocarbon dated to ca. 36,000–35,000 14C yr BP (Wyckoff et al. 2003).

Miami Mastodon, Missouri The Miami Mastodon site was excavated by Carl Chapman of the University of Missouri in 1973 in a new road cut about 4 m deep in middle-Wisconsin loess (Chapman 1975; Hamilton 1993; Dunnell and Hamilton 1995; O’Brien et al. 1998). Excavation of the site produced evidence of one mastodon skeleton associated with three or four stone tools and some limestone slabs. One of the stone tools (Figure 25.7) had wear on one surface (Chapman 1975) and was reported to have been found among the long bones according to Hamilton, who also reported a pile of ribs sep-arate from the main concentration of bones (O’Brien et al. 1998). The age of the site is thought to be ca. 41,700–35,000

Figure 25.6 Lithic artifacts from the Burnham site. A, upper ventral face of distal end of Ogallala quarztize flake; B, ventral face of brown agate flake; C, ventral face of midsection of exotic Edwards chert flake; D, dorsal face of Day Creek chert flake; E, ventral face of unidentified chert flake; F, ventral view of Day Creek chert flake. G, ventral face of a lipped platform flake (left) and dorsal face of the flake exhibiting multiple flake scars (right). Photos courtesy of the Sam Noble Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma.

years old based on radiocarbon and thermoluminescence dating (Dunnell and Hamilton 1995). The most recent dat-ing for the site is the weighted average of eight IRSL ages, 34,000 ± 1600 yr BP (Early et al. 2003). There is no lithic mate-rial higher in the landscape that could have been redeposited down slope into the loess. The only logical explanation for lithic tools and limestone slabs associated with the mastodon in loess is that humans were present processing the carcass. Unfortunately the collection was destroyed by a fire at the University of Missouri Archaeological Collections Facility in 1977 and is no longer available for study.

Holen and Holen

437

0 2cm

Frye Site, Illinois The Frye site consists of one percussion flaked lithic artifact found 5.5 m deep in the freshly exposed face of a loess road cut by Leonard Frye, a soil scientist from the Illinois Geological Survey (Munson and Frye 1965). The piece was identified as an artifact by Patrick Munson, an ar-chaeologist at the University of Illinois. The estimated age of the middle Wisconsin Roxanna loess in which the artifact was found is 40,000–35,000 years old based on its position in a well-known regional stratigraphic sequence.

Lovewell Mammoth I Site, Kansas The Lovewell Mammoth I site was excavated in 1969 by Kansas State Historical Soci-ety archaeologists at Lovewell Reservoir (Holen 2006, 2007; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011). Evidence of possible human as-sociation reported by the initial excavators included spirally fractured limb bone, stacked bone, and the skull and tusks orientated with the tusks pointing toward the axial skeleton, 180 degrees from the anatomical position. Unfortunately, af-ter a consulting geologist reported that the site was more than 100,000 years old the archaeologists abandoned the ex-cavation and did not collect the skeleton. More recent work at the site indicates that the mammoth is situated in OIS3 alluvium, and a radiocarbon age on a mammoth rib places the site at 20,430 ± 300 14C yr BP (CAMS-112739). By the time the site was rediscovered in 1991 almost all the mammoth bones except one in situ rib had eroded and were scattered by reservoir wave action.

Villa Grove Site, Colorado The Villa Grove Mammoth site was discovered in an alluvial fan gravel pit in the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado (Holen 2012). Mammoth limb bone was found in a gully fill containing small gravel and sand within an organic-rich channel fill. All the mammoth bone had been moved downstream in the gully fill and there-

fore was not in primary context. The site was overlain by 12 m of LGM sand and gravel that was removed by gravel min-ing. Evidence for human association with the mammoth is in the form of flaked mammoth limb bone. Both longitudinal and side-struck flakes are present (Figure 25.8). Limb-bone fragments were broken while still fresh. Downstream deposi-tion in the gully fill apparently is not the cause of the flaked limb bone because lighter bone like ribs and vertebrae were complete or more complete than the limb bones. One radio-carbon date from mammoth molar dentine places the site at 33,405 ± 340 14C yr BP (NZA-51383).

Figure 25.7 Lithic artifact from the Miami mastodon site (after Hamilton 1993).

Figure 25.8 Flakes produced from mammoth limb bone at the Villa Grove mammoth site. A, longitudinal flake; arrows point to flake scars. B, side-struck flake, arrows point to impact notch and bulb of percussion.

0 10cm

A

B


438

0 10cm

Impact notch

a

a’

0 2cm

Schulz Mammoth Site, South Dakota The Schulz mammoth site consists of a single adult mammoth that was discovered during a sewer-line excavation in the backyard of a home in western South Dakota in 2012 (Fosha et al. 2012). The mam-moth skeletal material is situated in an alluvial fan deposit that alternates between high-energy flood deposits and fine-grained alluvial deposition. Some faunal elements and the as-sociated lithic flake are in primary context in fine-grained al-luvium, and other elements are in coarser deposits that have been moved a short distance in a flood. Preliminary evidence for a human presence at the site comes from the discovery one high-quality tertiary chert flake associated with the mam-moth (Figure 25.9). There are a few fragments of spirally frac-tured limb bone; the bone, however, is in poor condition. Two radiocarbon ages of 37,567 ± 591 14C yr BP (NZA 51828) and 39,350 ± 770 14C yr BP (Aeon 1351) were obtained from mam-moth molar dentine. Additional test excavations in 2013 were unable to confirm the archaeological nature of this site, and we now think the associated flake is probably a geofact.

New Nebraska Mammoth Site The New Nebraska mammoth site is situated on a reservoir beach below a 10-m cutbank of OIS3 alluvial fan and LGM loess (Holen 2012). Evidence for a human presence at the site consists of mammoth (Figure 25.10) and bison limb bone with impact notches on the mid-shaft. A distal bison humerus exhibiting a marrow-extraction impact notch was still articulated with a spirally fractured prox-imal radio-ulna when excavated from in situ deposits. Before the site was dated, an expert on bison butchering identified this articulation as a bison-bone butchering unit produced by humans. A large mid-section of spirally fractured mammoth femur with a broad arcuate impact notch from the surface of the site is also suggestive of human association.

Radiocarbon ages from different laboratories on the impact-fractured butchered bison bone, 33,590 ± 450 14C yr BP (NZA-22968) and 33,220 ± 420 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-61658), and a radiocarbon age from the impact-fractured mammoth femur, 33,170 ± 370 14C yr BP (UCIAMS-61663), are consis-tent with another date on excavated unmodified horse bone of 33,540 ± 400 14C yr BP (NZA-36316). Radiocarbon ages fit the well-known geological sequence in the western central Great Plains. Preliminary test excavations indicate several buried soils in the alluvial fan that contain fractured bone.

dna Research A detailed overview of dna evidence related to human dis-persal into the Americas is beyond the scope of this chapter; recent studies, however, have shown to be promising, albeit controversial, adjuncts to archaeological data. Tamm et al. (2007) describe the Beringian Standstill hypothesis, which suggests that humans entered Beringia about 30,000 years ago and in that location their founder lineages differenti-ated from their Asian relatives. These populations moved south into the Americas about 15,000 years later. A study by O’Rourke and Raff (2010) postulates a migration along

Figure 25.9 Lithic flake associated with the Schulz mammoth.

Figure 25.10 Midshaft of mammoth femur from the New Nebraska mammoth site. Impact notch was produced by an object 5 cm in diameter; arrows a and a’ point to flake scars.

Holen and Holen

439

the north coast of Beringia before the LGM, and then move-ment down the east coast of North America. They offer the alternative early-migration route as a hypothesis subject to rigorous testing by geneticists and archaeologists working in tandem. However, Dulik et al. (2012) and Regueiro et al. (2013) suggest the migration into North America may have taken place after 15,000 years ago. dna research cannot at present provide a conclusive date of the initial human entry into the Americas.

DiscussionOf the seven LGM sites, the site with the best evidence for human association is the Cooperton mammoth, where stone tools consisting of a large cobble and several smaller cobbles were found associated with impact-fractured mammoth limb bone. Small bone fragments situated around the large cobble and battering on the upper surface of the cobble indicate it was used as an anvil. The mammoth and associated cobbles were excavated from a primary context in fine-grained allu-vium. There are no cobbles found naturally in this matrix, which indicates the cobbles are manuports used to break the mammoth limb bone. The other six LGM sites consist of single-mammoth death sites, five situated in loess and one in fine-grained alluvium. These sites all exhibit breakage of mammoth limb bone while it was still fresh, with impact notches on thick cortical limb bone. Geological context in low-energy deposits indicates that geological processes can be eliminated as the cause of limb-bone breakage. La Sena mammoth and Lovewell mam-moth II sites have the best record of mammoth limb-bone modification by humans. La Sena exhibits preferential break-age of limb bones into small spirally fractured fragments, while the lighter bones like ribs and vertebrae are intact or much less broken than the limb bones. Both sites have nu-merous bone flakes, and one bifacially flaked “chopper” is present at the Lovewell site (Holen 2006; Holen 2007). One small highly polished bone object at Lovewell appears to be the broken and worn tip of a bone rod. Seven OIS3 sites exhibit evidence that humans were pres-ent in the North American mid-continent between 40,000 and 20,000 14C yr BP. Two of these sites, Burnham and the Miami mastodon, provide evidence for human presence in the form of stone artifacts associated with extinct fauna in fine-grained low-energy geological deposits. The Frye site contains a single stone artifact in loess, and the Schulz site has one flake associ-ated with a mammoth that is probably a geofact. Evidence for humans at the Burnham site consists of two stone tools, one tested cobble, and numerous flakes, some with lipped platforms, associated with a bison skull and some postcranial elements. Chipped stone was concentrated around the bison skeletal remains, but was not found in exca-vated units away from the skeleton. The cobble appears to be too large to have been moved by fluvial action. The presence of one lithic flake of exotic material also indicates humans were present. The site was well excavated and well reported (Wyckoff et al. 2003).

The Miami mastodon was found deep in loess and has evidence that humans were involved with the carcass. This evidence is in the form of three or four lithic flakes and lime-stone blocks associated with the carcass. One of the flakes was reported to exhibit heavy use wear. There is no geologi-cal process known that can move flakes and limestone blocks upward in the geological profile more than 8 m, and there is no lithic material higher in the landscape that could have been transported down into the loess. The only logical expla-nation for stone tools and limestone blocks to be associated with the mastodon is that humans were processing the car-cass at ca. 34,000 years ago. Further evidence of OIS3 humans in the American mid-continent comes from fractured mammoth bone at the Villa Grove mammoth site, where both longitudinal and side-struck bone flakes produced on mammoth limb bone are present, while lighter bones like ribs and vertebrae are unbroken or broken to a lesser degree. Impact fractures on both mam-moth and bison limb bone are present at the New Nebraska mammoth site. Both these sites are ca. 33,000 14C yr BP. Impact notches and bone flaking at several of the sites discussed here duplicate the mammoth-bone technology at a Clovis site, Lange/Ferguson (Hannus 1989, 1990). The Lange/Ferguson site dates to ca. 11,000 14C yr BP and is associated with bone and stone tools, including Clovis fluted projec-tile points. The Clovis-age Owl Cave site (Miller 1989) has evidence of human association including impacted and flaked mammoth limb bones and associated fluted points that are more similar to Folsom points than Clovis points. Mammoth limb-bone-reduction technology is also pres-ent in Upper Paleolithic sites in Siberia and central Europe (Goebel 1999; Morlan 2003) and represents a standard part of the preliminary reduction sequence used to produce highly patterned bone and ivory tools like foreshafts, projectile points, and shaft wrenches. These tool types are shared by Upper Paleolithic cultures and the Clovis culture at the termi-nal Pleistocene in North America. The presence of mammoth ivory and rhinoceros horn foreshafts at Yana RHS in Siberia places this technology far north on the Mammoth Steppe at 27,000 14C yr BP (30,000 cal yr BP) (Pitulko et al. 2004). The tip of a bone tool, dated to 19,570 ± 60 14C yr BP, discovered at the Lovewell II mammoth site suggests this technology was present during the LGM on the central Great Plains of North America. The artifact may be the tip of a bone projectile point, with the distal end broken by impact or le-verage; then the broken surface was highly polished. One lateral segment of a mammoth limb-bone diaphysis dated 19,530 ± 80 14C yr BP exhibits flakes that were removed from both faces producing a biface with a sinuous edge. This arti-fact appears to be an expedient chopper. It is also significant that the proboscidean sites dis-cussed here represent single-carcass assemblages. Haynes’s (1991) overview of actualistic studies of elephant death sites in Africa does not record any location where fresh elephant limb bones are broken into small pieces while lighter bones like ribs are more intact, that is, evidence for the preferential


440

breakage patterns noted at the sites reported here. Indeed his research reports exactly the opposite. At single-elephant death sites, limb bones are rarely broken (Haynes 1988). A recent experimental study of a small sample of elephant limb bones (Krasinski 2010) demonstrated that trampling did not result in impact notches like those noted at the sites dis-cussed here. Although more actualistic and experimental re-search is needed to support this finding, trampling is not the likely cause of the breakage patterns and notches found at the single-proboscidean death sites we have discussed. Proboscidean limb bones exceed the effective gape of even the largest bone-crunching carnivore jaws (Stuart and Larkin 2010), and the pattern of carnivore modification dif-fers from that of human modification (Egeland 2007; Haynes 1984; K. Holen 2011; Morlan 1984; Egeland and Domínguez-Rodrigo 2008; K. Holen and S. Holen 2012; Marean and Ber-tino 1994; Pickering and Egeland 2006; Galan et al. 2009; Pickering et al. 2005). Carnivores attack proboscidean limb bones at the articular ends, while humans break them at mid-shaft with hammerstones. Holen (2006) eliminated carnivores and trampling by other mammoths as causes of the observed limb-bone break-age at La Sena and Lovewell. Human technology utilized dur-ing the Clovis techno-complex, for example, at the Lange/Fer-guson mammoth site, and at Upper Paleolithic sites in Europe and Asia (Morlan 2003) exhibit the same type of mammoth limb-bone reduction by impact and flaking. The purpose of this limb-bone reduction was, in some cases, to produce ex-pedient butchering tools. Marrow extraction and bone-core manufacture for the later production of the well-known suite of highly stylized shaft wrenches, bone rods, and other pat-terned tools was also practiced. Thus the system of mam-moth limb-bone reduction in all sites discussed here fits well within a broad pattern of late Paleolithic tool production in both Eurasia and North America.

ConclusionHumans became adapted to the Mammoth Steppe in western Siberia around 40,000 cal BP, and the Mammoth Steppe Hy-pothesis proposes that these populations spread rapidly across Beringia and into the American Steppe of mid-continental North America. The timing of this adaptation to the Mammoth Steppe would have allowed several thousand years for humans to move into the American mid-continent before the route was blocked by ice. Archaeological evidence indicates that Upper Paleolithic populations had reached northwestern Siberia by at least 40,000 cal. yr BP and that they were in western Berin-gia by 30,000 cal. yr BP. These groups were well adapted to the OIS3 Mammoth Steppe that extended from central Europe to Beringia. Development of new technologies like bone needles that allowed production of sewn clothing, efficient shelters, use of bone as fuel, specialized bifacial and unifacial lithic tech-nology, and a utilitarian bone and ivory technology allowed humans to survive and flourish in this vast treeless steppe. A relatively mild climate during the OIS3 and productive steppe biome supported a diverse faunal community. This faunal com-

munity formed the primary nutritional resource for humans liv-ing on the Mammoth Steppe. Evidence from mid-continental North American LGM and OIS3 archaeological sites reviewed here suggests that Upper Paleolithic groups were in North America. These pop-ulations arrived before the route from Beringia was blocked by ice, arriving in North America during OIS3 prior to 22,000 14C yr BP (Holen 2006, 2007; S. Holen and K. Holen 2011) and bringing with them adaptive and technological skills suited to the steppe environment. Five of the archaeological sites in the North American mid-continent described here contain stone artifacts, and other sites exhibit evidence of large prey-animal bones being processed by humans utiliz-ing percussion technology. Numerous similarities between Upper Paleolithic tech-nology and Clovis technology have been documented (C. V. Haynes 1987). Both Clovis and Upper Paleolithic technology included bifacial projectile points, bone and ivory projectile points and foreshafts, and other specialized lithic and bone/ivory tools. Goebel et al. (2003) conclude it is possible that the Clovis technological complex developed in North America from a population that migrated from Siberia before the LGM more than 24,000 cal yr BP. Clovis culture probably developed from these Paleolithic people in the southern United States and/or Mexico and spread rapidly northward into Canada as the ice sheets retreated. When these groups reached Beringia they came into contact with populations from which they had been separated by a thousand kilometers of ice for more than 10,000 years. Evidence presented in this study demonstrates that hu-mans were adapted to the Mammoth Steppe during the latter part of OIS3. Archaeological evidence from LGM and OIS3 sites in the North American mid-continent presented here indicates that the Mammoth Steppe Hypothesis is supported. Therefore we acknowledge an American Paleolithic as defined by Yellow-horn (2003) and others who have used this term in the past. This contribution does not pretend to document the only adaptation that led early humans to enter the Ameri-cas; indeed we acknowledge a probable migration along the west coast of North America (Dixon 2001; Erlandson 2004; Fladmark 1978, 1979; Gruhn 1994) that may have been quite early based on evidence from the 33,000 14C yr BP component at Monte Verde (Dillehay and Collins 1988). Trans-Atlantic migration by Solutrean people from Europe during the LGM (Stanford and Bradley 2012) is also a possibility. We do not claim to have documented the earliest evidence of humans in the Americas; there could have been earlier migrations, some of which may have failed (Meltzer 1989). Archaeologists do not know when humans first entered the Americas; that remains an open question. Only by conduct-ing research with open minds and systematically investigating older geological deposits will the question be answered.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the organizers of the Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference and the editors of this volume for in-

Holen and Holen

441

viting us to participate. We thank the donors who support the Center for American Paleolithic Research and fund our efforts. This research would not have been possible with-out the dedicated work of many scientists who inspired us. We especially acknowledge Rob Bonnichsen, Dick Morlan, Alan Bryan, Ruth Gruhn, Richard Harington, Larry Martin, and Hansjürgen Müller-Beck, who have been leaders in the study of early humans in the Americas. Much of this re-search has been supported over the last 25 years by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Nebraska/Kansas Projects Office, and two archaeologists there, Bob Blasing and Bill Chada. Two anonymous reviewers helped us clarify and organize our thoughts and we thank them for their input. Eric Parrish prepared the figures, and his efforts are appreciated.

References CitedAdams, J. M., G. R. Foote, and M. Otte 2001 Could pre-Last Gla-cial Maximum humans have existed in North America undetected: An interregional approach to the question. Current Anthropology 42(4):563–66.

Anderson, A. D. 1962 The Cooperton mammoth: A preliminary report. Plains Anthropologist 7(16):110–12.

——— 1975 The Cooperton mammoth: An early man bone quarry. Great Plains Journal 14:131–73.

Anikovich, M.V., A. A. Sinitsyn, J. F. Hoffecker, V. T. Holliday, V. V. Popov, S. N. Lisitsyn, S. L. Forman, G. M. Levkovskaya, G. A. Pospelova, I. E. Kuz’mina, N. D. Burova, P. Goldberg, R. I. Macphail, B. Giaccio, N. D. Praslov 2007 Early Upper Paleolithic in Eastern Europe and im-plications for the dispersal of modern humans. Science 315:223–26.

Bever, M. R. 2001 An overview of Alaskan Late Pleistocene ar-chaeology: Historical themes and current perspectives. Journal of World Prehistory 15:125–91.

Bonnichsen, R. 1978 Critical arguments for the Pleistocene arti-facts from the Old Crow Basin, Yukon: A preliminary statement. In: Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, Occasional Pa-pers No. 1 of the Department of Anthropology, edited by A. L. Bryan, pp. 102–18. University of Alberta, Edmonton.

——— 1979 Pleistocene bone technology in the Beringian Refugium. Mercury Series Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 89. Na-tional Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Bradley, B. A., M. Anikovich, and E. Giria 1995 Early Upper Pa-leolithic in the Russian plain: Streletskayan flaked stone artifacts and technology. Antiquity 69:989–98.

Burns, J. 1996 Vertebrate paleontology and the alleged ice-free corridor: The meat of the matter. Quaternary International 32:107–12.

Butzer, C. 1991 An Old World perspective on potential mid-Wis-consin settlement of the Americas. In: The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by T. D. Dillehay and D. J. Meltzer, pp.137–56. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Chapman, C. H. 1975 The Archaeology of Missouri, I. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

Cinq-Mars, J. 1990 La place des grottes du Poisson-Blue dans la prehistoire beringienne [Bluefish Cave in the prehistory of Beringia]. Revisita de Arqueologia Americana 1:9–32.

Cinq-Mars, J., and R. E. Morlan 1999 Bluefish Caves and Old Crow basin: A new rapport. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Envi-ronments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americans, edited by R.

Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, pp. 200–12. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Derevianko, A. P., and M. V. Shunkov 2004 Formation of the Up-per Paleolithic traditions in the Altai. Archaeology, Ethnology, and An-thropology of Eurasia 5(3):12–40.

Dillehay, T. D., and M. Collins 1988 Early cultural evidence from Monte Verde in Chile. Nature 332:150–52.

Dixon, J. 1999 Bones, Boats and Bison: Archeology of the First Colo-nization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

——— 2001 Human colonization of the Americas: Timing, technology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20:277–99.

Domínguez-Rodrigo, M., S. de Juana, A. B. Galan, and M. Rodrí-guez 2009 A new protocol to differentiate trampling marks from butchery cut marks. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2643–54.

Dulik, M. C., S. I. Zhadanov, L. P. Osipova, A. Askpuli, L. Gau, O. Gok-cumen, S. Rubinstein and T. G. Schurr 2012 Mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome variation provides evidence for a recent com-mon ancestry between Native Americans and indigenous Altaians. The American Journal of Human Genetics 90:229–46.

Dunnell, R. C., and T. M. Hamilton 1995 The age of the Miami mastodon. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12:91–92.

Early, A., J. Feathers, R. Dunnell, and M. O’Brien 2003 Luminescence Dating the Miami Mastodon. Poster paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee.

Egeland, C. P. 2007 Carcass processing intensity and cutmark cre-ation: An experimental approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, De-partment of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Egeland, C. P., and M. Domínguez-Rodrigo 2008 Taphonomic perspectives on hominid site use and foraging strategies during Bed II times at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Human Evolution 55:1031–52.

Erlandson, J. M. 2004 Anatomically modern humans, maritime voyaging, and the Pleistocene colonization of the Americas. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World edited by N. G. Jablonski, pp. 59–92. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences 27, San Francisco.

Fladmark, K. R. 1978 The feasibility of the northwest coast as a migration route for early man. In Early Man in America from a Cir-cum-Pacific Perspective edited by A. L. Bryan, pp. 119–28. Occasional Papers No. 1, Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

——— 1979 Routes: Alternate migration corridors for early man in North America. American Antiquity 44:55–69.

Fosha, M., S. Holen, and J. Donahue 2012 Virgil Schulz mam-moth. Newsletter of the South Dakota Archaeological Society 42(2):1–3.

Galan, A. B., M. Rodríguez , S. de Juana, and M. Domínguez-Rodrigo 2009 A new experimental study on percussion marks and notches and their bearing on the interpretation of hammerstone-broken fau-nal assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:776–84.

Germonpré, M., M. V. Sablin, R . E. Stevens, R. E. M. Hedges, M. Ho-freiter, M. Stiller, and V. R. Després 2009 Fossil dogs and wolves from Paleolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia: Osteom-etry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 36:473–90.

Goebel, T. 1999 Pleistocene human colonization of Siberia and peopling of the Americas: An ecological approach. Evolutionary An-thropology 8:208–27.


442

——— 2004 The early paleolithic of Siberia. In The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Europe, edited by J. Brantnigham, S. L. Kuhn, and K. W. Kerry, pp. 162–95. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, and M. Dikova 2003 The archaeology of Ushki Lake, Kamchatka, and the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Science 301(5632):501–05.

Goebel, T., M. R. Waters, and D. H. O’Rourke 2008 The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science 319:1497–1502.

Golovanova, L. V., V. B. Doronichev, N. E. Cleghorn, M. A. Koulkova, T. V. Sapelko, and M. S. Shackley 2010 Significance of ecological factors in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. Current Anthro-pology 51(5):655–91.

Graf, K. E. 2009 Modern human colonization of the Siberian mam-moth steppe: A view from south-central Siberia. In Sourcebook of Paleo-lithic Transitions, edited by M. Camps and P. Chauhan, pp. 479-501, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-76487-0_32, Springer Science Business Media.

——— 2010 Hunter-gatherer dispersals in the mammoth-steppe: Technological provisioning and land-use in the Enisei River valley, south-central Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:210–23.

Gruhn, R. 1994 The Pacific coast route of initial entry: An overview. In Method and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by R. Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 249–56. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State Univer-sity, Corvallis.

Guthrie, R. D. 1968 Paleoecology of the large mammal commu-nity in interior Alaska during the late Pleistocene. American Midland Naturalist 79:346–63.

——— 1982 Mammals of the mammoth steppe as paleoenvi-ronmental indicators. In The Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by D. M. Hopkins, J. V. Matthews, C. Schweger, and S. Young, pp. 307–26. Academic Press, New York.

——— 1984a Mosaics, allochemics, and nutrients: An ecologi-cal theory of late Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by P. S Martin and R. G. Klein, pp. 259–98 University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

——— 1984b Alaskan megabucks, megabulls, and megarams: The issue of Pleistocene gigantism. In Contributions in Quaternary Ver-tebrate Paleontology: A Volume in Memorial to John E. Guilday, edited by H. H. Genoways and M. R. Dawson, pp. 482–510. Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Special Publication No. 8, Pittsburg.

——— 1984c The evidence for middle Wisconsin peopling of Beringia: An evaluation. Quaternary Research 22:231–41.

——— 1991 Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe: The Story of Blue Babe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

——— 2001 Origin and causes of the mammoth steppe: A story of cloud cover, woolly mammal tooth pits, buckles, and inside-out Beringia. Quaternary Science Reviews 20:549–74.

Guthrie, R. D., and T. van Kolfschoten 1999 Neither warm and moist, nor cold and arid: The ecology of the Mid Upper Paleolithic. In Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Palaeolothic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 BP, edited by W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svodoba, and K. Fennema, pp. 13–20. University of Leiden, Leiden.

Hamilton, T. D. 1993 The Miami mastodon, 23SA212. Missouri Archaeologist 54:79–88.

Hannus, A. 1989 Flaked mammoth bone from the Lange/Fergu-son Site, White River Badland area, South Dakota. In Bone Modifica-

tion, edited by R. Bonnichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 395–412. Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine, Orono.

——— 1990 The Lange-Ferguson site: A case for mammoth bone-butchering tools. In Megafauna and Man: Discovery of America’s Heartland, edited by L. D. Agenbroad, J. I. Mead, and L. W. Nelson, pp. 86–99. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, Inc.

Harington, C. R. 1975 Evidence of early man in the Old Crow basin, Yukon Territory, Arctic Circular 22:118–28.

Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1987 Clovis origin update. The Kiva 52(2):83–93.

Haynes, G. 1984 Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures of ungulate limb bones in modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48(1):102–14.

——— 1988 Longitudinal studies of African elephant death and bone deposits. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:131–57.

——— 1991 Mammoths, Mastodonts, & Elephants: Biology, Behav-ior, and the Fossil Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hoffecker, J. F. 2002 Desolate Landscapes: Ice-age Settlement in Eastern Europe. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

——— 2009 The spread of modern humans in Europe. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(38):1640–45.

Hoffecker, J. F., and S. A. Elias 2003 Environment and archeology in Beringia. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:34–49.

——— 2007 Human Ecology of Beringia. Columbia University Press, New York.

Holen, K. 2011 An exploration of the feasibility of using metric indices to identify human modification of camel and proboscidean bones. Paper presented at the 69th Plains Anthropological Confer-ence, Tucson, Arizona.

Holen, K., and S. R. Holen 2010 Modification of modern ele-phant bone: An experimental replication of Pleistocene mammoth bone technology. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

——— 2012 An application of metric analysis to proboscidean bone notches. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Holen, S. R. 2006 Taphonomy of two Last Glacial Maximum mammoth sites in the Central Great Plains of North America: A pre-liminary report on La Sena and Lovewell. Quaternary International 142-43:30–43.

——— 2007 The age and taphonomy of mammoths at Lovewell Reservoir, Jewell County, Kansas, USA. Quaternary International 169–70:51–63.

——— 2012 Evidence for a mid-Wisconsin human presence in the Americas. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee.

Holen, S. R., and D. W. May 2002 The La Sena and Shaffert mam-moth sites: A history of investigations. In Medicine Creek: Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations, edited by D. Roper, pp. 20–36. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

——— 2007 Excavations at the Hamburger Mammoth site, 25FT44, Medicine Creek Reservoir, Frontier County, Nebraska. Den-ver Museum of Nature & Science Technical Report 2007–07.

Holen, S. R., and K. Holen 2006 Testing the hypothesis of human induced fracture and flaking patterns on Last Glacial Maximum mam-moth limb bone: Experimental replication using hammer stones to break and flake a modern African elephant femur. Poster presented at the 64th Plains Anthropological Conference, Topeka, Kansas.

Holen and Holen

443

——— 2009 Experimental elephant limb bone breakage as an analogy for mammoth bone breakage patterns: Implications for the early peopling of North America. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Plains Anthropological Conference, Norman, Oklahoma.

——— 2011 Evidence of a human occupation of the North American Great Plains during the Last Glacial Maximum. In IV Sim-posio Internacianal: El hombre temprano en America, [IV International Symposium: The first humans in America] edited by J. C. Jimenez Lopez, C. Serrano Sanchez, A Gonzalez Gonzalez, and F. J. Aguilar Arellano, pp. 85–105. Instituto Nacional de Anthropologia and His-toria, Mexico City.

Holen, S. R., D. W. May, and P. M. Prettyman 1998 An archaeo-logical and geomorphic survey of Paleoindian sites at Harlan County Lake, Harlan County, Nebraska. Nebraska Archaeological Survey Techni-cal Report 96-01, University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln.

Irving, W. N. 1985 Context and chronology of early man in the Americas. Annual Review of Anthropology 14:529–55.

Jackson, L. E., K. Shimamura, F. M. Phillips, and E. C. Little 1997 Cosmogenic 36Cl dating of the foothills erratics train, Alberta, Canada. Geology 25(3):195–98.

Johnson, E. 2005 Late-Wisconsinan mammoth procurement in the North American grasslands. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clo-vis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters, pp. 161–82. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Krasinski, K. E. 2010 Broken bones and cutmarks: Taphonomic analyses and implications for the peopling of North America. Unpub-lished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno, U.S.A.

Kuzmin, Y. V. 2008 Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum: Environ-ment and archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 16(2):163-221.

Kuzmin, Y.V., and S. Keates 2005 Dates are not just data: Paleo-lithic settlement patterns in Siberia derived from radiocarbon re-cords. American Antiquity 70(4):773–89.

Madsen, D. B. 2004 Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia Before the Last Glacial Maximum. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

May, D. W., and S. R. Holen 2005 Stratigraphy at the Jensen Mammoth site in the central Platte River valley, Dawson County, Ne-braska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:87–89.

Marean, C. W., and L. Bertino 1994 Intrasite spacial analysis of bone: Subtracting the effect of secondary carnivore consumers. American Antiquity 59(4):748–68.

Meltzer, D. J. 1989 Why don’t we know when the first people came to North America? American Antiquity 54:471–90.

——— 2009 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age Amer-ica. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Miller, S. J. 1989 Characteristics of mammoth bone reduction at Owl Cave, Wasden site, Idaho. In Bone Modification, edited by R. Bon-nichsen and M. H. Sorg, pp. 381–95. Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine, Orono.

Morlan, R. E. 1978 Early man in Northern Yukon Territory: Per-spectives as of 1977. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Per-spective, edited by A. L. Bryan, pp. 78–95. Occasional Papers No. 1 of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

——— 1980 Taphonomy and Archaeology in the upper Pleistocene of the Northern Yukon Territory: A glimpse of the Peopling of the New World. Mercury Series Paper No. 94. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Na-tional Museum of Man, Ottawa.

——— 1984 Toward the definition of criteria for the recognition of artificial bone alterations. Quaternary Research 22:160–71.

——— 1986 Pleistocene archaeology in Old Crow Basin: A criti-cal reappraisal. In New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Ameri-cas, edited by A. L. Bryan, pp. 27–48. Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of Maine, Orono.

——— 2003 Current perspectives on the Pleistocene archaeol-ogy of Eastern Beringia. Quaternary Research 60:123–32.

Muller-Beck, H. 1966 Paleohunters in America: Origins and diffu-sion. Science 152(3726):1191–1210.

——— 1967 On migrations of hunters across the Bering Land Bridge in the Upper Pleistocene. In The Bering Land Bridge, edited by D. M. Hopkins, pp. 373–408. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Munson, P. J., and J. C. Frye 1965 Artifact from deposits of mid-Wisconsin age in Illinois. Science 150(3704):1722–23.

Northcutt, J. D. 2007 Prehistoric discoveries in the Wichita Mountains. Great Plains Journal 43:3–45.

O’Brien, M. J., W. R. Wood, and M. J. O’Brien 1998 The Prehistory of Missouri. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.

O’Rourke, D. H., and J. A. Raff 2010 The human genetic history of the Americas: The final frontier. Current Biology 20: 202–07.

Ovodov, N. D., S. J. Crockford, Y. V. Kuzmin, T. F. G. Higham, G. W. L. Hodgins, and J. van der Plicht 2011 A 33,000-year-old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia: Evidence of the earliest do-mestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22821. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022821.

Pavlov, P., and S. Indrelid 1999 Human occupation in northeastern Europe during the period 35,000–18,000 bp. In Hunters of the Golden Age: The Mid Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia 30,000–20,000 BP, edited by W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda, and K. Fennema, pp. 165–72. Ana-lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 31, University of Leiden Press, Leiden.

Pavlov, P., W. Roebucks, and J. I. Svendsen 2004 The Pleistocene colonization of northeastern Europe: A report on recent research. Journal of Human Evolution 47:3–17.

Pickering, T. R., and C. P. Egeland 2006 Experimental patterns of hammerstone percussion damage on bones: Implications for infer-ences of carcass processing by humans. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 33:459–69.

Pickering, T. R., M. Domínguez-Rodrigo, C. P. Egeland, and C. K. Brain 2005 The contribution of limb bone fracture patterns to recon-structing early hominid behavior at Swartkrans Cave (South Africa): Archaeological application of a new analytical method. International Journal of Osteology 15: 247–60.

Pitblado, B. L. 2011 A tale of two migrations: Reconciling recent biological and archaeological evidence for the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Journal of Archaeological Research 19(4):327–75.

Pitulko, V. V., P. A. Nikolsky, E. Y. Girya, A. E. Basilyan, V. E. Tumskoy, S. A. Koulakov, S. N. Astakhov, E. Y. Pavlova, and M. A. Anisimov 2004 The Yana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the Last Gla-cial Maximum. Science 303:52–56.

Regueiro, M., J. Alvarez, D. Rowold, and R. J. Herrera 2013 On the origins, rapid expansion and genetic diversity of native Ameri-cans from hunting-gatherers to agriculturalists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 150:333–48.

Soffer, O. 1985 The Upper Paleolithic of the Central Russian Plain. Academic Press, San Diego.

Stanford, D. J. 1987 The Ginsberg experiment. Natural History 96:10–14.


444

of Native American founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829.doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0000829.

Thorson, R. M., and R. D. Guthrie 1984 River ice as a taphonomic agent: An alternative hypothesis for bone “artifacts.” Quaternary Re-search 22:172–88.

Vasil’ev, S. A., Y. V. Kuzmin, L. A. Orlova, and V. N. Demetiev 2002 Radiocarbon-based chronology of the Paleolithic in Siberia and its relevance to the peopling of the New World. Radiocarbon 44:503–30.

Wyckoff, D. G., J. L. Theler, and B. J. Carter 2003 The Burnham Site in Northwestern Oklahoma: Glimpses beyond Clovis? Oklahoma An-thropological Society, Memoir 9. Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History.

Yellowhorn, E. 2003 Regarding the American Paleolithic. Cana-dian Journal of Archaeology 27:62–73.

Stanford, D. J., and B. A. Bradley 2012 Across Atlantic Ice: The Origins of America’s Clovis Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Stanford, D. J, R. Bonnichsen, B. Meggers, and D. G. Steele 2005 Paleo american origins: Models, evidence, and future directions. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters, Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Stanford, D. J., R. Bonnichsen, and R. E. Morlan 1981 The Gins-berg experiment: Modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone-flaking technology. Science 212:438–39.

Stuart, A. J., and N. R. Larkin 2010 Taphonomy of the West Run-ton mammoth. Quaternary International 228:217–32.

Tamm, E., T. Kivisild, M. Reidla, M. Metspalu, D. G. Smith, C. J. Mulli-gan, C. M. Bravi, O. Rickards, C. Martinez-Labarge, E. K. Khunsnutdi-nova, S. A. Fedorova, M. V. Golubenko, V. A. Stepanov, M. A. Gubina, S. I. Zhadanov, L. P. Ossipova, L. Damba, M. I. Voevoda, J. E. Dipierri, R. Villems, and R. S. Malhi 2007 Beringian standstill and spread

Holen and Holen

the mammoth steppe hypothesis: the middle … chapter 25 the mammoth steppe hypothesis: the middle...

Documents