Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico 9781934536728

Citation preview

CLOVIS REVISITED New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico

Frontispiece. Edgar B. Howard (foreground) excavating mammoth bones at the Clovis gravel pit, summer 1933.

University Museum Monograph 103

CLOVIS REVISITED New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico by

Anthony T. Boldurian University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg

and John L. Cotter The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

Published by

The University Museum University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1999

Design, editing, production Publications Department, University of Pennsylvania Museum

Cover illustrations courtesy of Sarah M. Moore

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Boldurian, Anthony T. Clovis revisted : new perspectives on Paleoindian adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico / by Anthony T. Boldurian and John L. Cotter. p. cm. -- (University museum monograph; 103) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-92-417167-7 (hardcover: alk. paper) ISBN 0-92-417168-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Clovis culture. 2. Clovis points--New Mexico. 3. Paleo-Indians--Blackwater Draw Formation (Tex. and N.M.) I. Cotter, John L. II. Title. III. Series. E99.C832 B65 1999 976.4 8--dc21 99-6020 CIP 1

Copyright © 1999 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MUSEUM Philadelphia All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

Dedication To Edgar Billings Howard 1887-1943 Pioneer investigator of early humans in North America 1929-1941

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES FOREWORD

ix xiii xv

PREFACE

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xix

CHAPTER 1 Edgar B. Howard's Southwest Early Man Project Background Historical Summary Starting Out Burnet Cave The Blackwater Draw The Crews and Camp Life More Discoveries CHAPTER 2 Late Pleistocene Environments and Human Ecology of the Southern Plains: A Summary and Perspective Introduction A Paleoenvironmental Sketch Stone Resources Edwards Formation Cherts Alibates Agate Tecovas Jasper Orthoquartzites Influences of Paleoenvironment on Patterns of Land Use and Group Mobility Broilo's Model Core Reduction Clovis Core Reduction Folsom Core Reduction Concluding Note CHAPTER 3 Research Goals and Analytical Methods Goals of the Study Nature of the Collection

1 1 3 3

7 10 13 15

21 21 21 23 23 25 25 25 25 26

27 28 29 30

31 31 32

CLOVIS REVISTED

Vlll

Subassemblage Context A Sample Collection Methods and Procedures of the Analysis Unmodified Debitage Formed Implements 4 Description of the Collection Introduction General Parameters and Limitations Inventory of the Specimens Clovis Folsom Concluding Remarks

32 33 36 36 37 40

CHAPTER

43 43 43 45 56 73 89

5 Analytical Comparisons Introduction Clovis Blademaking Hunting Weaponry Folsom Well-Used Weapon Tips Briefly Used-Workshop New Mobile Biface Cores Recycled Tools Ultrathin Bifaces Parallel Flaked Horizon Non-Fluted Bifaces: Uses Specialized Bifacial Tools

91 91 92 92 93 105 105 108 108 110 110 111 111 112

6 Concluding Observations Introduction Clovis Adaptations Pan-Clovis Tool Kit: A Perspective Water: The Key Resource Clovis-Folsom Relationships Clovis Origins Antecedents: A Westward View The Eastern Woodlands Old World Origins Access: West and East

113 113 113 113 115 116 11 7 118 118 119 120

CHAPTER

CHAPTER

REFERENCES CITED

125

INDEX

139

List of Figures Figure 1. Folsom point and associated fossil bison ribs imbedded in matrix

3

Figure 2. E. B. Howard in 1937, shown with the Clovis beveled bone artifact and mammoth ulna in situ

4

Figure 3. Guadalupe Peak and the Guadalupe Mountains, Culberson County, Texas, in 1930

4

Figure 4a. Basket Maker excavation in Last Chance Canyon, N.M., 1933

6

Figure 4b. Basket Maker excavation in Last Chance Canyon, N.M., 1933

6

Figure 5. The 1930 Carlsbad Expedition field crew

7

Figure 6. Burnet Cave, Eddy County, N.M., in 1930

8

Figure 7. Folsom and Folsom-like points

9

Figure 8. Stratigraphic profile of Burnet Cave excavation

10

Figure 9. Ridgely Whiteman on the Southern Plains near the Pecos River, New Mexico, ca. 1929

11

Figure 10. Fluted and unfluted projectile points from the Blackwater Draw

12

Figure 11. Typical basin site near Clovis, N.M., showing mammoth tusk weathering out of bluish-gray sands

13

Figure 12. Excavation of mammoth bones at the Clovis gravel pit by E. B. Howard, summer 1933

14

Figure 13. Artifact and bone associations at the Clovis gravel pit, summer 1933

15

Figure 14. Blackwater Draw Locality No.1, near Clovis, N.M., in 1933

16

Figure 15. Mammoth Pit as seen from above, Clovis gravel pit excavation, 1936

16

Figure 16. The 1936 Clovis Expedition field crew

17

Figure 17. Type-Specimen Clovis points and side scraper with mammoth bones at Mammoth Pit

17

Figure 18. The Clovis Mammoth Pit exhibit, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia

18

Figure 19. E. B. Howard at the entrance of an unknown cave in the Guadalupe Mountains

19

Figure 20. Base map of the Southern Plains with select Paleoindian sites and stone resource locations

24

x

CLOVIS REVISTED

Figure 21. Sketch of the Blackwater Draw in eastern New Mexico

33

Figure 22. Contour map of the gravel pit near Clovis, compiled in 1933

34

Figure 23. Contour map of Anderson Basin No.2 near Clovis, compiled in 1933

35

Figure 24. The 1936 Clovis Mammoth Pit as seen from above

57

Figure 25. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 1 from Blackwater Draw

59

Figure 26a. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 2 from Blackwater Draw

60

Figure 26b. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 2 from Blackwater Draw

61

Figure 27. Clovis projectile point from Blackwater Draw

61

Figure 28. The 1937 Clovis Gravel Pit

63

Figure 29. End scraper-on-blade from Blackwater Draw

64

Figure 30. Side scraper-on-blade from Blackwater Draw

66

Figure 31. Beveled bone artifact-mammoth ulna association upon discovery in 1936 excavation

69

Figure 32. Stabilized beveled bone artifact-mammoth ulna association

69

Figure 33a. Plan and edge views of the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact from Blackwater Draw

70

Figure 33b. Plan and edge views of the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact from Blackwater Draw

71

Figure 34. Clovis fluted projectile point from Burnet Cave, Eddy County, New Mexico

72

Figure 35. Folsom preform implement from Blackwater Draw

74

Figure 36. Folsom fluted projectile points from Blackwater Draw

76

Figure 37. Folsom fluted projectile point from Blackwater Draw

77

Figure 38. Folsom fluted projectile point fragment from Blackwater Draw

78

Figure 39. Folsom fluted projectile point from Blackwater Draw

79

Figure 40. Folsom ultrathin biface fragment from Blackwater Draw

81

Figure 41. Agate Basin projectile point from Blackwater Draw

83

Figure 42. Agate Basin bifacial cutting tool or "knife" from Blackwater Draw

85

Figure 43. Eden projectile point from Blackwater Draw

85

Figure 44. Scottsbluff projectile point from Blackwater Draw

87

Figure 45. Unknown Parallel Flaked projectile point from Blackwater Draw

88

Figure 46. Inuit toggling whale harpoon collected at Point Barrow, Alaska

96

Figure 47. Examples of Magdalenian Upper Paleolithic tapered and beveled bone artifacts

97

LIST OF FIGURES

Xl

Figure 48. Schematic depicting two types of harpoon technology used for sea mammal hunting

97

Figure 49. Derivation of closed socket toggling harpoon head from neural spine of bison thoracic vertebra

98

Figure 50. Exploded and articulated views of toggling harpoon head and the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact.99 Figure 51. Reconstructed foreshaft and Clovis projectile point composites from the Anzick site in Montana .. 100 Figure 52. Artifacts from the L'anse Amour site in Labrador

101

Figure 53. Derivation of closed socket detachable hafting clip from neural spine of bison thoracic vertebra 103 Figure 54. Exploded and articulated views of socketed hafting clip and the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact. .. 104 Figure 55. Relationship between mean length and range in size of Folsom points and distance from source .. 107 Figure 56. Folsom biface core recovered from Blackwater Draw by FrankJ. Broilo

109

Figure 57. The Clovis tool kit

114

Figure 58. The Folsom tool kit

117

This page intentionally left blank

List of Tables Table 1. Clovis Type-Specimen Artifact Collection

45

Table 2A. Distribution of Clovis Collection-I932

46

Table 2B. Distribution of Clovis Collection-I933

48

Table 2C. Distribution of Clovis Collection-I936

52

Table 2D. Distribution of Clovis Collection-I937

54

Table 3. Comparative Measurements Among Whole Clovis Points

58

Table 4. Comparative Measurements Among Clovis Beveled Bone Artifacts

67

Table 5. Comparative Measurements Among Folsom Points

75

Table 6. Comparative Measurements Among a Sub-sample of Midland Points

82

Table 7. Comparative Measurements Among Agate Basin Points and Other Refined Bifacial Implements

84

Table 8. Comparative Measurements Among Eden Points

85

Table 9. Comparative Measurements Among Scottsbluff Points

86

Table 10. Comparative Measurements Among Plainview Points

88

Table 11. Comparative Measurements Among a Sub-sample of Unknown Parallel Flaked Points

89

Table 12. Comparative Measurements Among Whole and Proximal-End Clovis Blades

93

Table 13. General Distribution of Folsom Points from Blackwater Locality No.1

106

Table 14. Summary of Folsom Projectile Point Axial Length Metric Data

108

This page intentionally left blank

Foreword Often more than just an occupation to its practitioners, archaeology sometimes fulfills the dreams of those who spend countless hours and tremendous energy over the span of their career in pursuit of knowledge about humankind's past. Born of simple curiosity, the search occasionally develops into a consuming quest to solve very difficult problems. Edgar B. Howard's exploration for evidence of the earliest Americans was such a journey, taking the scientist far from his starting point to strange, unforeseen places. Along the way he encountered numerous interesting individuals, while the work itself entailed myriad frustrations punctuated by simply wonderful discoveries. By all accounts, it turned out to be a true adventure. Despite his breakthroughs, however, other mysteries persisted that he never had a chance to resolve. The opportunity for me, so many years after the fact, to retrace Howard's steps toward the discovery of Clovis culture has been an adventure in itself. Traveling the bumpy trails of the Guadalupe Mountains, scaling the steep and thorny cliff below Burnet Cave, and standing amid the panorama of flatness on the Llano Estacado while supervising my own excavations at Clovis helped me capture some of that which Howard experienced. Meeting and speaking with people across the country who worked beside Howard and admired him, as well as poring over his published articles and correspondence at the Academy of Natural Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, have granted me insight into his motivations and thoughts. Finally, working with the Clovis type-specimen artifacts has added special relevance and closure to these various activities. This sense of adventure has extended to the artifact analysis in a highly personal way. Working with these materials has fulfilled a dream that began at

the age of 11 during my first visit to the University Museum on Penn's campus, only a mile from my South Philadelphia neighborhood. Tall, masterfully carved Maya stele from Guatemala, the famous "Ram in the Thicket" gold-and-Iapis statuette among other dazzling treasures from the 4,500-year-old Royal Cemetery at Dr in Sumeria, and superbly preserved mummies from Egypt-it was all quite overwhelming. Of the many exhibits with their fabulous artifacts from all over the ancient world, the most lasting impression was made on me by a handful of stone objects under glass in the Museum's North American gallery. There on display were the Clovis artifacts, the actual tools used by Native Americans more than ten thousand years ago in New Mexico to hunt humongous mammoth and bison of the Ice Age. The opportunity to hold and examine the same artifacts that during childhood inspired me to pursue a career in archaeology has been an exceptional one. Among the host of recollections raised by the experience is the raw fascination that images of the Clovis paleohunters ignited in the mind of a youngster. John Cotter and I believe that it would be impossible to gain a holistic view of the original Clovis artifacts in the absence of a retrospective of Howard's expeditions. Contributing to the collection's archaeological uniqueness are details on where the artifacts were discovered, how they were collected, and why they were recognized as holding great scientific importance over 60 years ago. Therefore, in the first chapter, we have tried to provide the necessary historical context for evaluating the collection. Thereafter, we have attempted to describe and reassess the original Clovis artifacts in ligh t of con tem porary knowledge on North American Paleoindians. Anthony T. Boldurian

This page intentionally left blank

Preface I first met Edgar B. Howard by correspondence while I was working on my thesis for a Master of Arts degree at the University of Denver in 1935. The thesis was entitled Yuma and Folsom Artifacts (Cotter 1935) and represented 1,263 flaked stone lithic paleoAmerindian points I had located, and when possible measured, from the Rocky Mountain West. In this region they had first been identified and apparently centered in quantity, although by that time fluted pressure-flaked points had been reported sparsely from coast to coast. Dr. Howard saw a reference to my work in Science News Letter (Anonymous 1935) and wrote to me, and so our acquaintance began. A successful application for a Harrison Scholarship to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of the University of Pennsylvania brought me to Philadelphia in September of 1935, and I was soon walking from the Department of Anthropology to the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. There I met Dr. Howard (and his Graduate Latin Studies secretary, Miss Virginia Tomlin, whom I married six years later), who introduced me to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. At the Academy Howard served as the paleontologist in the Mammals Department. When the Museum and the Academy sponsored, through Dr. Howard, the Clovis type-locality excavations of 1936 and 1937, I was my mentor's chief-of-party, and made the field notes that he most generously allowed me to work up for publication in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (Cotter 1937,1938). As written elsewhere (Cotter 1994:2-3), at the Clovis site I assumed that we had found a freshwater pond bottomed by clean stream sand overlaid by organic muck deposited beneath shallow water, in a post-Pleistocene draw. I reasoned that mammoths could have been watering when they were set upon by paleoAmerindian hunters, armed with atlatls, darts, and possibly spears, as well as unpreserved entangling cordage, who killed two beasts and left evidence of their butchering on the spot: a retouched

flake dressing tool and two cylindrical tapered bone foreshafts from darts or spears using fluted blades either in a toggle device or lashed directly at the end of the foreshaft. There were the fluted blades to complete the evidence. I envisioned a party of paleohunters lying in the tall grass where the wind would blow across the pond toward them so that they could not be scented by the game. If they waited for the mammoths to lie and wallow in the pond, they could strike, perhaps entangling the legs of the beasts with cords to impede their rising and escaping. Both during and after my two field seasons at Clovis, I pursued my studies at the Department of Anthropology. I intended to base my doctoral thesis on a continued study and analysis of the evidence of early human material culture in North America, its origins and continuity. Before and during my field experience at the Clovis site, I had assumed that, because of the unique New World technology of fluted blades, not to be found in the records of pressureflaked points elsewhere in the world, there had to be the invention of this technique of point making by people after their arrival in the New World. This meant that prior to this invention, there must have been an undetermined length of time during which pressure flaking of points had been practiced and other lithic and non-lithic toolmaking had gone on since the introduction of humanity to the Americas. When I compared the pointed or slipped end bone foreshaft portions found at Clovis with Upper Paleolithic shaft examples in Europe, and with similar Eskimo bone shaft design, I viewed the possibility that post-glacial peoples of Eurasia must have passed this cultural trait to America (along with, I noted later, the shaft straightener, which was associated with Clovis artifacts at Murray Springs, Arizona). Accordingly, I assumed that the pre-recent Eskimo introduction of Upper Paleolithic bone artifact types into America must have been related in time and culture to Eurasian people at the end of the final glacial advance. I should have thought it quite logical that

XVlll

CLOVIS REVISTED

the arrival of Homo sapiens in the New World-either by the Bering Strait or by skirting the land and ice westward from western Europe to the northeast coast of America-could have extended as far back in time as the sea level and ice extent made passage possible, 20-50,000 years ago. The interval of 60 years has not caused me to change this view (e.g., Cotter 1954, 1962,1963,1981,1983,1991). The main progress in addressing the problem of the peopling of the New World has been made in the proof that humans with planned and practical shelters, cordage, and other implements quite adequate for the acquisition and preparation of food extended to southern Chile a thousand years at least before Clovis people in the Blackwater Draw witnessed a mammoth kill, and quite possibly humans had been

there 30,000 years ago (Dillehay 1989, 1997). Progress has also been made in our concepts of the material and, by inference, the cultural life of the paleoAmerindians, thanks in part to the development of reasonable ethnographic analogs. Modest as this renewed analysis of the artifacts associated with the Paleoindians of Blackwater Draw may be, it is hopefully a useful extended reference to the lifeway of these people. The great labor involved in measuring and performing analysis of the Clovis Blackwater area artifacts is entirely Anthony Boldurian's. I am gratefully indebted to him for conceptualizing and undertaking this work. John L. Cotter

Acknowledgments Our Clovis Revisited project began with funding support in July 1996, although the principal author had been engaged in background research for Chapter 1 as early as 1990. Consequently, the list of people to whom we owe special thanks extends much farther in time than the two-and-a- half years required for us to finish our analysis and report. On all counts, Clovis Revisited would have been impossible to complete without the participation of these many dedicated, talented, generous, and accommodating individuals. By lending their skills and expertise, sharing their thoughts and ideas, extending their hospitality and kindness, and through their financial support, these people sacrificed in order that the work to which some of them had become quite attached could reach fruition. Therefore, to the institutions and many individuals listed below we acknowledge our debt of gratitude and express our sincere thanks: for funding: two grants from the University of Pittsburgh Central Research Development Fund the Philadelphia Archaeological Research Fund administrative and logistical support from the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for contributions toward printing and publication: George M. Cheston, Philadelphia, PA Ambrose C. Cramer, III, Charlottesville, VA Charles N. Howard, Newtown Square, PA Robert P. Howard, New Orleans, LA Robert R. Solenberger, Tucson, AZ at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology: Harold L. Dibble, Curator Sylvia S. Duggan, Assistant Registrar, Loans Melissa S. Elsberry, Assistant Keeper, American Section Charles S. Kline, Photographic Archives Toni Montague, Editor Assistant

Alex Pezzati, Reference Archivist Robert W. Preucel, Associate Curator, American Section Jeremy A. Sabloff, Director Fred Schoch, Photographer Karen B. Vellucci, Assistant Director for Publications Lucy Fowler Williams, Keeper of the North American Collections Tobia Worth, Copy Editor, Publications at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Edward B. Daeschler, Curator, Department of Vertebrate Biology Carol Spawn, Librarian

to all participants ofE.B. Howard's Southwest Early Man Project (1929-1937), for assistance with Chapter 1, especially: John P. Barber, Carlsbad, NM Alexander Biddle Brock, Philadelphia, PA George M. Cheston, Philadelphia, PA Virginia T. Cotter, Philadelphia, PA Ambrose C. Cramer, III, Charlotesville, VA Jake D. McGee, Raymondville, TX George Murnane,Jr., Vero Beach, FL Norman Riley, Carlsbad, NM Robert R. Solenberger, Tucson, AZ James R. "Ridgely" Whiteman, Clovis, NM also: Arthur Eugene "Pete" Anderson, Hobbs, NM M.A. Boldurian, Pittsburgh, PA Margaret Bull, Post, TX Jim Goodbar, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, NM Hank Hankins, Portales, NM Willing Howard, Haverford, PA Kathy and Don McAlavy, Clovis, NM J.D. Murray, Portales, NM Arnol Richardson, Clovis, NM

xx

CLOVIS REVISTED

Thelma Sanders, Portales, NM Janice Shank, Somerset, PA Romy Shinn, Liberty, PA E. Parker Stirman, Portales, NM James M. Warnica, Portales, NM Edna Hull Whiteman, Clovis, NM for library research: Gene Bundy, Golden Library, Eastern New Mexico University Bonnie Chambers, Millstein Library, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg JoAnn and Jerry Stevens, Carlsbad Family History Center, Carlsbad, NM Sandy White, Carver Public Library, Clovis, NM Betty Williamson, Pep, NM Nancy Young, Millstein Library, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for artifact photography: Dawn M. Bradley, Irwin, PA Stanley Katzman, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for maps & artifact illustration: Susanne M. Haney, Slickville, PA Sarah M. Moore, Pullman, WA for artifact casting: Peter A. Bostrom, Lithic Casting Lab, Troy, IL Elaine R. Hughes, Registrar, Arizona State Museum, Tucson Michael Lee, Tucson, AZ Phyllis Oppenheim, Collections Manager, The Herrett Center for Arts and Science, College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls especially Joanna L. Houston, Artifact Casting Facility, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for reviewing manuscript drafts and/or personal correspondence: Leslie G. Freeman, University of Chicago

Vance T. Holliday, University of WisconsinMadison Joanna L. Houston, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Arthur J.Jelinek, University of Arizona Margaret A. Jodry, Smithsonian Institution Philippe D. LeTourneau, Washington State University DavidJ. Meltzer, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX Kenneth W. Mohney, GAl Consultants, Inc, Monroeville, PA Michele L. Montag, State University of New YorkBinghamton John L. Montgomery, Eastern New Mexico University Matthew J. Root, Washington State University Phillip H. Shelley, Eastern New Mexico University DennisJ. Stanford, Smthsonian Institution James C. Woods, College of Southern Idaho especially Robert W. Preucel, University of Pennsylvania for internal editing and proofreading: Joanna L. Houston, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for computing consultation: Tanya Conde, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg Patrick McKula, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg for consultation on hunting and bone experiments: Richard S. Darrow, The Bison Corral, Schellsburg, PA Robert S. McGovern, Erial, NJ in Southern New Jersey: Kathyrn and Frank Boldurian Dorothy and Tom Elvins especially Robert A. Reeves and Catherine T. Boldurian

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Edgar B. Howard's Southwest Early Man Project Background The earliest Clovis archaeological expeditions, from 1933 through 1937, were led by Edgar B. Howard through research sponsored jointly by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the Academy of Natural Sciences, in Philadelphia. This work, conducted in dry lake beds on the windswept Llano Estacado(i.e., "Stockaded" or "Staked" Plains) of eastern New Mexico, was both the culmination and the conclusion of Howard's Southwest Early Man Project. In many ways reflecting the character of its leader, this industrious enterprise took place when knowledge about the first Americans, though in its infancy, was expanding at a rapid pace. It was an exciting time, whereby every alleged new site of ancient humans in America held promise of attracting attention not only from scholars but also from a curious general public. Prior to 1927, not a single purported early site had endured careful scrutiny by the scientific community. This outcome was due in part to heated arguments over what exactly constituted acceptable evidence. However, typical of this period were numerous finds of uncertain integrity and poor documentation, which, in retrospect, deserved the dismissal they received (Meltzer 1983). In the absence of one clearly valid case, the string of unconvincing claims only exacerbated the problem (Meltzer 1993a; Willey and Sabloff 1993). Also, a few of anthropology's influential elite seemed firmly opposed to the notion of an American Paleolithic. Disagreement on all fronts inevitably led to quarreling, which in turn bred hard feelings among some scholars. The resentment stirred by the entire controversy, especially bitter at times, even left some archaeologists unsure about

their career standing and job security. Amid the hotly debated issues of Early Man in America by the late 1920s, the only safe path for a field researcher lay in the mute diligence of hoping for, but never expecting, instant recognition of his findings. The tender status of Early Man studies in America was quite different from that of western Europe and existed partially as a consequence of it. Between roughly 1850 and 1875, discoveries of large fossil bones in undisturbed association with stone artifacts led to an acceptance of Old World "Paleolithic Man" (see Grayson 1983). At localities such as Hoxne and Brixham Cave in England, and especially, near Abbeville in France's Somme River valley, earth scientists established a basis upon which to acknowledge the contemporaneity of humans and beasts of the last Ice Age (e.g., Boucher de Perthes 1847; Prestwich 1861; Lyell 1863). By comparison, archaeological activities in the United States during these years were overshadowed by events leading to the Civil War, followed by the Reconstruction. Still, by 1880 there was great interest in establishing the framework of an American Paleolithic that was comparable to the record of "Antediluvian Man" throughout Europe (see Meltzer 1993a). Seen in retrospect, hope and interest gave way to blind inspiration and unbridled enthusiasm in laying claim to early sites in North America. Arguably the most notable among the localities proffered for great antiquity during this time was the Abbott farm near Trenton, New Jersey. Allegedly, here in the "Trenton gravels" of Pleistocene age, were uncovered crudely made tools strongly reminiscent of the Paleolithic period. Though widely celebrated in academic circles

2

CLOVIS REVISITED

and in print by their principal investigator, Charles Conrad Abbott, and his staunch supporter, Frederic Ward Putnam, of Harvard's Peabody Museum, the New Jersey "paleoliths" ultimately failed to withstand hard scientific scrutiny. Largely through the efforts of one individual, William Henry Holmes, of the Bureau of American Ethnology in Washington, D.C., the artifacts commingled among the Trenton gravels instead were found to be quarry blanks or bifaces of the Archaic, a later period of American prehistory (see Meltzer 1993a). A significant outcome of these early discoveries and the heated debates surrounding them was a recognition that age cannot be determined by similar morphology in the absence of carefully documented geological context (e.g., Meltzer 1983, 1993a; Willey and Sabloff 1993). The controversial Abbot farm constituted the first battlefield of many over the legitimacy of Early Man in America, a struggle that Holmes vigorously extended into the next century. The early 1900s brought a change of strategy but not intensity in the arguments for substantial antiquity, the subject turning from stones to human bones. This time, it was Ales Hrdlicka, physical anthropologist of the Smithsonian Institution, leading the cause of skepticism and caution. Perhaps not coincidentally, Hrdlicka also was in the employ of W. H. Holmes. The human bones, purportedly of Pleistocene age, came to light-from a farm in Lansing, Kansas, and the Gilder Mound in Nebraska, from the fossil-rich graveyards of Melbourne and Vero in Florida, and from the famed Rancho la Brea tar pits in California. Early in the bone debates, one specimen even had surfaced from the Trenton gravels. In each instance, Hrdlicka challenged and methodically refuted these claims (e.g., Hrdlicka 1907, 1918). The basic argument used by the expert was that allegedly ancient bones should look like those of Neanderthals or other pre-modern humans of Eurasia (see Meltzer 1983). Hrdlicka's reputation and his ability to intimidate grew with each confrontation, frequently stifling Early Man enthusiasts, preventing them from bringing forth new claims. Drawing from a 1936 face-toface encounter with the renowned Hrdlicka (by which time he had reached the age of 67), Cotter recalls the man's stern-faced but clearly distinguished appearance, highlighted by a formidable head of gray-white hair combed straight back and worn long at the back. Though years ago having emigrated from Czechoslovakia, Hrdlicka retained a distinctive accent, delivered in a soft and well-modulated voice. An imposing figure, Ales Hrdlicka became the gatekeeper of humankind's recent origins in the New World. A little-known and under-appreciated fact concerning artifacts and bones of extinct animals in America during this turbulent period is represented by a discovery in 1895 not far from Smoky Hill, in Logan

County, Kansas. A team of paleontologists working a small fossil bone bed of the type-specimen remains of Bison occidentalis found an "arrowhead" lying in situ beneath the right scapula of the largest animal. The stratum containing the bones and associated weapon tip was comprised of blue-gray silt, which in turn was overlain by 20 feet of sediments. As reported by S. W. Williston (1905) eight years following the event, the chance of accidental intrusion of the find was nil, as it was made in a portion of the bone bed 10 feet back from the stream-cut bank where the bison bones initially lay exposed. The artifact, long since missing from the University of Kansas, appears to have been a resharpened lanceolate, either fluted or extensively thinned at the base (see Williston 1905, fig. 1). However unfortunate, the Smoky Hill discovery went unrecognized. As America entered the Great Depression in 1930, only one site of indisputable antiquity had been widely accepted, even by the most callous skeptics; in 1926-1927, discoveries were made of stone artifacts in unmistakable association with the bones of extinct bison near Folsom, New Mexico. The significance of Folsom to American archaeology actually had begun almost 20 years earlier, when a scouring flash-flood of August 27, 1908, created a deep gully in Wild Horse Arroyo as it flowed through the Crowfoot Ranch, near the tiny New Mexican town. Checking fence lines after the flood, ranch foreman George Mcjunkin found large bison bones poking out of the eroded gully walls. Mcjunkin, an Mrican American born a slave in pre-Civil War Texas, was an extraordinarily curious and observant fellow (Preston 1997a). Several years before he died in 1922 at age 66, Mcjunkin had shown his finds to Carl Schwachheim, a blacksmith in the town of Raton who visited the cowboy's "bone pit" several times thereafter. In January 1926, Schwachheim prevailed upon Jesse D. Figgins, Director of the Colorado (now Denver) Museum of Natural History, to make two trips to Folsom. The paleontologist tested the pit for evidence of fossil bison bones, thereby exposing in the bone-bearing deposit a stone artifact (Figgins 1927; see also Meltzer 1993a). On August 29, 1927, another one of the distinctive artifacts, a grooved spear point, was found in direct association with a bison skeleton. Figgins immediately covered up the excavation and awaited confirmation of the finds by qualified scholars from various institutions around the country (Fig. 1). The fieldwork led by Figgins in 1927 confirmed the presence of humans in the New World at the end of the Ice Age. The Folsom discovery represented not only an intellectual watershed in American archaeology but also opened a brand-new field of inquiry. However, the sting of acrimony from the years leading to Folsom was still sharp. It remained prudent for archaeologists investigating sites of what then was known as "Folsom Man" to proceed with extra cau-

EDGAR B. HOWARD'S SOUTHWEST EARLY MAN PROJECT

~.

'".'

..

'.

3

~A'"

. ".":0',,:_ .". .;. .

"

4,

-----:r:~~

Figure 1. Folsom point and associated fossil bison ribs imbedded in matrix, Type Station, Folsom, New Mexico. Photo courtesy of the Denver Museum ofNatural History. All rights reserved, Photo Archives, Denver Museum ofNatural tion in presenting their claims. Modest and friendly, honest and incredibly energetic, the genteel Edgar Billings Howard was of old New Orleans roots transplanted to Philadelphia's posh Main Line (Colbert 1943; J. A. Mason 1943; Cotter 1992). The patrician gentleman with a soft Southern accent, who had re-

turned from the First World War an army captain, fathered a family of five boys, and retired on his considerable resources to pursue a scientific career. Although a newcomer to archaeology in his early 40s, with these qualities he arrived well suited for the challenging new discipline (Fig. 2).

Historical Summary STARTING OUT The impact of the Folsom discovery could never be truly appreciated without an understanding of its broader scientific context. Likewise, the contributions to archaeology that resulted from the work near Clovis in the mid 1930s, though beyond question, are best understood against the backdrop of Howard's Southwestern project. His search for evidence of the early Americans began in 1929 in New Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert, with exhausting surveys in the foothills of the Guadalupe Mountains (Fig. 3). Osten-

sibly, the objective was to "fill in some of the missing parts of the picture" concerning pre-Puebloan Basket Maker culture, ca. 1000 B.C. (Howard 1930b:180). Howard instinctively felt, however, that in these desert mountains, far from northern New Mexico's Anasazi ruins and the swarm of archaeologists devoting attention to them, signs of much earlier human activity might be awaiting discovery. With this hope in mind, Howard calmly proceeded on a perfectly unpretentious mission. The scientist started out by prowling the foothill canyons of the mountains' western flanks, not far from Alamogordo, where he set up headquarters. Although at the time he had nearly

4

CLOVIS REVISITED

Figure 2. Edgar B. Howard in 1937, shown with the Clovis beveled bone artifact (36-19-5) and mammoth ulna in situ. Courtesy of the Academy ofNatural Sciences, Philadelphia.

Figure 3. Guadalupe Peak and the Guadalupe Mountains, Culberson County, Texas, in 1930 (from Howard 1930, Plate XXVI). Courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum Photographic Archives.

EDGAR B. HOWARD'S SOUTHWEST EARLY MAN PROJECT

finished his M.A. degree in anthropology, Howard lacked training as a field archaeologist and, therefore, was ill prepared for the hardships of surveying in such rugged country. In letters from the field sent to Dr. Horace H. F. Jayne, Director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum (which was underwriting his project), Howard complained of the filthy work, constant physical exertion, desert varmints (including wood scorpions and rattlesnakes), and the need twice to resole his shoes (Howard 1930a). The Guadalupe Mountains were a far cry from Bar Harbor, Maine, where Howard normally spent the summers relaxing with his family. Added to Howard's tenderfoot status as a field man were his naive preconceptions about physical remains from Basket Maker sites. It is worth quoting directly from the same letter to Jayne: The picture I had in my mind of this cave work was of a nice clean cave near a bubbling spring, on a good road, & with baskets & sandals hanging up on pegs or neatly piled in the corners, & well preserved mummies sitting huddled up around the walls! But it does not seem to work that way (Howard 1930a). Over the next year, Howard did much to overcome his handicaps. To gain a better grip on field procedures, he visited on-going excavations in northern New Mexico's San Juan Basin, absorbing many helpful tips from Earl Morris. Morris, a highly regarded archaeologist, had investigated Basket Maker sites near Durango, Colorado, and taught at the University of Colorado. Mter having abandoned the canyons around Alamogordo and shifting operations to Carlsbad, Howard had become better at making field decisions and hardened both to the back country and to the realities of looted prehistoric sites. Howard had also become attracted to the eastern portion of the Guadalupe's vast erosional apron after learning about explorations among its bristly valleys by Carl B. Livingston. Livingston, a native of Carlsbad by way of a prominent cattle-ranching family, took to searching the canyons for prehistoric sites in the early 1920s. Having assisted geologist Willis T. Lee on the National Geographic Society's 1924 expedition to explore the Carlsbad Cavern National Monument, Livingston fancied himself an authority on caves and ancient ruins of the region (Balgemann 1977:6). An educated man, Livingston published articles in the New Mexico Highway Journal, the New Mexico Magazine and the New York Times, and even made a lecture tour of the eastern United States (Livingston 1926, 1929, 1932). While inspecting several dry caves, he chanced upon Basket Maker human burials, along with sandals, wood utensils, and, of course, beautifully woven baskets (Fig. 4a, b). The region's hot, dry climate was perfect for preserving such perishable artifacts and even human tis-

5

sue, which sometimes was naturally mummified. Howard's idea was that the actual bones of Folsom Man might turn up in one of these caves(see Howard 1933a). Howard (1935:62) knew that caves, such as those in western and central Europe, sometimes contained Paleolithic human remains. The dream of finding a human skeleton from this much earlier period may have been a bigger push behind his project than supposed. According to anthropologist Loren Eiseley (who worked for Howard during the summer of 1934 in the Guadalupe caves as a graduate student at Penn), the man was obsessed with finding a skeleton of Folsom Man (see Christianson 1990:146). This obsession Eiseley did not readily indulge, as Howard was generally displeased with Loren's performance in the field. An exemplar of the adage that revenge is a dish best served cold, Eiseley (1975:98-99), 40 years later, recounted his dreadful summer in the Guadalupes and for posterity labeled his boss's desire a "driving mania." In fact, Howard's writings are peppered with thoughtful remarks about the apparent absence of early human remains and his frustrations over their elusive nature (see Howard 1936b:41, 1943:257-258) . Howard's field crew in 1930 and 1931 consisted of two youths recruited from Carlsbad, Julian Shattuck and Norman Riley, along with R. M. P. "Bill" Burnet, a local tinsmith and relic collector (Fig. 5). Above Bill's shop in Carlsbad hung a sign which read, "We work iron and steal for a living," a mild example of his usually profane expressions. The boys hired on at $3.50 per day plus food, handsome wages during the Depression crunch along with the chance to work outdoors (N. Riley, personal communication 1993). The rough-cut, humorous, and colorful Burnet, who knew the Guadalupe Mountains well, served as Howard's guide to the back country. Canyon by canyon, cave after cave, the men slowly advanced. Riding in a rented Chevrolet and Bill's old Ford panel truck, the excursion bounced and bumped down precipitous slopes and along boulder-laden dry streambeds, stopping when Howard or Burnet noticed a promising spot along the cliff. Each day the wiry, energetic lads scaled the slopes to inspect caves spotted from below. This activity required the boys to squeeze into more than a few crevices where, on occasion, they were greeted by the buzz of a rattlesnake or a swarm of bats (N. Riley, personal communication 1993). Some caves, being very damp or wet, were quickly passed over. Too many, it seemed, had been riddled with holes of treasure hunters, and others simply appeared devoid of prehistoric remains. A few were, in fact, barren but did not look that way. The ceilings of these cavities were blackened with feces of the spiderlike daddy longlegs, whose excreta on rock keenly resembles the stain caused by campfire smoke (Howard 1930b). The nests and middens of another cave-

6

CLOVIS REVISITED

Hgure 4a. Basket Maker excavation in Last Chance Canyon, N.M., 1933. Note preseroed textiles and human bones. Courtesy ofJ Howard, Carlsbad Family History Center.

Figure 4b. Basket Maker excavation in Last Chance Canyon, N.M., 1933. Note preseroed textiles and human bones. Courtesy ofJ Howard, Carlsbad Family History Center.

EDGAR B. HOWARD'S SOUTHWEST EARLY MAN PROJECT

7

Figure 5. The 1930 Carlsbad Expedition field crew (left to right): Julian Shattuck, Norman Riley, and R. M. P. Burnet at the entrance of a cave in Anderson Canyon. Courtesy of N. Riley, Carlsbad, New Mexico. dwelling trickster, the white-throated packrat, were often encountered during the expedition. Added to the accumulated debris of the rodents' homes were pebbles, splinters of bone, and occasionally potsherds, bits of basketry, and even projectile points rummaged from the desert during their innumerable forays. Frustrations other than the disappointment of an unavailing search hampered the expedition, as occasionally the team had to dynamite the obstructed opening of a cave or smoke out bats before one could be examined. Once, the Chevy truck was crippled by two flat tires. There was even a reclusive old goat rancher who surprised Howard with a loaded shotgun, having mistaken him for an intruder who had dug up one of the caves without permission (Howard 1930b). For their share of disappointment, camp life for the hardworkers was tolerable, if not enjoyable. Possessing many talents, Bill Burnet also served as cook, performing wonders with a Dutch oven and skillets. In the evening, the versatile tinsmith often played his violin and guitar, telling stories and jokes by the campfire (N. Riley, personal communication 1993). Howard and Burnet would discuss the day's work at length over coffee, after which the scientist scribbled notes in his diary. The days were warm, not hot, and it hardly ever rained. Shattuck and Riley, often exhausted from the daily workout, spread out their bedrolls and slept under the stars (N. Riley, personal communication 1994).

BURNET CAVE Eventually, careful searching of the craggy lime-

stone walls by the small scouting party led them to a few of the Basket Maker's caches. It also brought them to Burnet Cave, which Howard excavated for three successive field seasons (Fig. 6). Digging in Burnet Cave, named for Old Bill, was a carefully executed affair. Initially, Howard noted and recorded all of the cave's features and dimensions, which included an inner overhang that jutted from the limestone roof. Also, most of the interior floor space had only about three feet clearance beneath the ceiling, a cramped setup that extended over 40 feet to the back wall. A metal pipe was set into the cave's west wall to serve as a datum. The cave's floor was divided into equal squares, each four feet on a side and extending north-south, which allowed the location of artifacts to be marked (Howard 1935). The actual digging was accomplished by use of trowels and whisk brooms. Toward the back of the cave it was necessary for the men to use lanterns and battery lamps while working on their hands and knees. The cave's fill was comprised mostly of fine dust from the disintegrating walls and ceiling. Once disturbed, this dry powder hung in the air like smoke, making it necessary for the crew to wear respirators. The matrix was hauled to the lip of the cave and passed through a screen of one-quarter inch mesh, making it possible to recover even tiny remains (N. Riley, personal communication 1993). The backdirt, along with loose rock and other debris encountered during excavation, was dumped over the edge into Rocky Arroyo below. Described as looking like "coal passers" from the sweat, grime, and choking dust, the crew enjoyed dunking in a nearby cattle tank to wash up before dinner (Howard 1930b; N. Riley, personal communication 1995). By the summer of 1932, Shattuck had taken a permanent job elsewhere and Riley

8

CLOVIS REVISITED

Figure 6. Burnet Cave, Eddy County, N.M., in 1930 (jromHoward 1935, Plate XXVII). Courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum Photographic Archives. had departed for college. Howard replaced them with Albert Ares and Johnny Barber, also youths from Carlsbad. By this time, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia had joined in sponsoring Howard's work, and botanist Hans Wilkens of that institution was sent to Carlsbad. This new team assisted Burnet and Howard in completing the work at Burnet Cave (J. Barber, personal communication 1995). Overall, Howard's team was richly rewarded for its persistence and strenuous efforts. In addition to five Basket Maker cremation burials, Burnet Cave contained a grooved spear point similar to those of genuine antiquity found earlier near Folsom (Fig. 7). Associated with the stone weapon tip deep beneath the floor of the sealed grotto, at the edge of a hearth, were charred bones of Ice Age musk-ox, caribou, camel, horse, and bison (Fig. 8; Howard 1932a, 1935). The lush habitat that these creatures roamed, grassy and dotted with trees, bore only a slim resemblance to the cactus-strewn Chihuahuan Desert with its mere hint of green. Late in 1931 and after the discovery of the fluted point, Barnum Brown, an eminent paleontologist from the American Museum of Natural History, visited the site at Howard's invitation. Brown, considered by many, including the popular media, as the world's most famous fossil hunter, had earned his laurels between 1902 and 1908 as the discoverer of the first Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton in Montana's Hell Creek (see Wallace 1994). Howard's

idea was to have Barnum Brown verity the hearth and associated bones at Burnet Cave, thus throwing more weight behind the claim. A full reporting of the fossil vertebrate remains from Burnet Cave was accomplished subsequently by Schultz and Howard (1935). However, "Mr. Bones" turned out to be more trouble than he was worth. Brown had witnessed the original Folsom discovery in 1927 and continued his own excavations there in 1928. Accustomed to publicity and the spotlight from his bygone days as a premiere dinosaur hunter, Brown's activities at Folsom made a splash in the New York Times on September 23, 1928. The article, a summary of Brown's paper read before the International Congress of Americanists in New York, failed even to mention J. D. Figgins, who had carried out the seminal work at Folsom. Although the Denver (Colorado) Museum received passing mention for institutional collaboration, the clear impression was that Brown had been solely responsible for the Folsom investigations. Brown remained at Burnet Cave for about a week, lending a hand with the dig and identifying some of the Pleistocene bones. Not long afterward, congenial relations between Howard and Brown ended abruptly when the old fossil hunter falsely claimed to have discovered the fluted point in Burnet Cave (Meltzer 1993a). The impossibility of this assertion is revealed in two letters from Howard to Horace Jayne. The documents prove that Howard had shown the artifact to A.v. Kidder,

EDGAR B. HOWARD'S SOUTHWEST EARLY MAN PROJECT

9

2.

3

4

Figure 7. Folsom and Folsom-like points: 1) NewJersey, 2) Clovis, NM., 3) Burnet Cave, NM., 4) Folsom, NM., not to scale (from Howard 1935, Plate XXXV). Courtesy oj the University ojPennsylvania Museum Photographic Archives.

10

CLOVIS REVISITED

.

.

.

. c::J: ~1yJP··· .

.-.' -:-~---~Q

.

Excavo+ed

D···.

·:··6·'Cy

,!m~··.:

.'.-: ~ ....:...:

Area

.:.. C).·····s·· ··R'+·· as,oun !. d ·'C'- '-7: _." . . . [j" ." . pe?r ·.··1··." .'-:'"d:.': ..... : ·b ..·: o.··.-:.·.·... ~ "7\~ :'., I e'. '. ' .. ' .. Taken from sketch map in Howard (1935), Plate XVII Beck Forest Lake (3) Anderson (Lake) Basin (10, 11) Gravel Pit (7)

there are 48 end scrapers from deflation hollows, many of which are of probable Paleoindian origin. In the absence of stratigraphic correlation or even general provenience data, however, it is impossible to assign them to a particular Paleoindian complex (e.g., Clovis, Folsom). Although highly diagnostic of the Paleoindian period, such implements were also manufactured during Archaic and Late Prehistoric times. The unfortunate but prudent approach was to omit these end scrapers from further examination. Although the remaining 105 artifacts constitute a much smaller portion (28.0%) of the overall collec-

tion, they are more than twice the number of specimens referred to in the initial Clovis reports. Coupled with our comprehensive descriptions of the artifacts originally reported upon in the 1930s, these "new" specimens will complement the existing data base for Blackwater Draw and provide additional information on regional Paleoindian lifeway patterns. As a consequence of this descriptive assessment and comparative analysis with the contemporary Paleoindian record, the Clovis type-artifact collection has a renewed utility more than 60 years after it had been assembled.

Inventory of the Specimens In this section a general description of the artifacts is provided. Basic descriptive information for the specimens appears in the nine summary charts that support Table 2A-D. Additional tables and supporting charts to Table 2 are used to convey technical facts or compara-

tive measurements. Any comparative data from Blackwater Draw or other sites that may appear in this chapter are used to support the artifact descriptions. Such comparative information is employed in the following chapter for analytical and interpretive purposes.

46

CLOVIS REVISITED

TABLE 2A. Distribution of Clovis Collection Artifacts ofKnown Cultural Affiliation by Collection Locality in the Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, for 1932*

FOLSOM Gravel Pit

32-25-292 32-25-286 32-25-320 32-25-328

Artifact Type** preform projectile point preform projectile point

32-25-256 32-25-299

projectile point projectile point

32-25-265 32-25-269

projectile point projectile point

Anderson Basin

32-25-250 32-25-260 32-25-261 32-25-262 32-25-270 32-25-307

bifacial cutting tool or "knife" projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point

Gravel Pit

32-25-259

projectile point

32-25-273 32-25-276 32-25-285

projectile point projectile point projectile point

Anderson Basin

PLAINVIEW Gravel Pit Other Locality

MIDLAND Gravel Pit

AGATE BASIN Gravel Pit

EDEN

SCOTTSBLUFF Gravel Pit

UNKNOWNP~LELFuumD

Gravel Pit Other Locality

* **

32-25-263 32-25-275 32-25-297 32-25-300

projectile projectile projectile projectile

All specimens are listed by University Museum catalog number. See corresponding chart for details.

point point point point

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

47

Summary of provenienced 1932 Clovis site artifacts for inclusion in Table 2A Specimens are listed in Table 2A data cells by catalog number Specimen

Description

32-25-256 32-25-299

whole Plainview point of gray orthoquartzite basal portion of Plainview point of Alibates agate

32-25-286 32-25-292 32-25-320 32-25-328

medial portion of Folsom point of Edwards chert, unifacially fluted with multiple removals distal portion of Folsom preform of Edwards chert nearly whole unfluted Folsom preform of Edwards chert, extreme basal element missing, heavily utilized and abraded along one lateral edge basal portion of Folsom point of Alibates agate, flexion break distal margin, multiple fluting one face

32-25-265 32-25-269

whole Midland point of reddish orthoquartzite, tip and blade edges resharpened basal portion of Midland point of Alibates agate

32-25-250 32-25-260 32-25-261 32-25-262 32-25-270 32-25-307

whole Agate Basin refined biface of Edwards chert basal portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert whole Agate Basin point of Edwards chert, extreme tip reworked following impact fracture basal portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert medial portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert basal portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert

32-25-259

medial portion of Eden point of Edwards chert, reworked along distal margin into spurred scraping edge

32-25-273 32-25-276 32-25-285

medial-distal portion of Scottsbluff point of gray-brown orthoquartzite whole Scottsbluff point of Edwards chert, incurvate base medial portion of Scottsbluff point of Edwards chert

32-25-263 32-25-275 32-25-297 32-25-300

medial portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Edwards chert medial-distal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Edwards chert basal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of brown orthoquartzite medial portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Edwards chert

Specimen

Provenience

32-25-250 through 32-25-292 inclusive-no specific data reported; all were found on surface of dumps at Gravel Pit 32-25-297 through 32-25-300 inclusive-no specific data reported; all were found on surface at Old Lake 32-25-307 through 32-25-328 inclusive-no specific data reported; all were found on surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin

48

CLOVIS REVISITED

TABLE 2B. Distribution of Clovis Collection Artifacts of Known Cultural Affiliation by Collection Locality in the Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, for 1933* CLOVIS Beck Forest Lake 33-36-27 33-36-42 33-36-154 33-36-17 33-36-148 Gravel Pit 33-36-172 Anderson Basin 33-36-80

Artifact Type** projectile point projectile point projectile point end scraper-on-blade end-scraper-on-blade projectile point end scraper-on-blade

FOLSOM Beck Forest Lake 33-36-29 33-36-76 33-36-198 33-36-40 33-36-164 Gravel Pit 33-36-11 33-36-134 33-36-177 Anderson Basin 33-36-82 33-36-83 33-36-84 Other Locality 33-36-195

preform preform preform projectile point projectile point ultrathin refined biface preform projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point

PLAINVIEW Other Locality

projectile point

33-36-229

MIDLAND Beck Forest Lake 33-36-31 33-36-38 33-36-70 Gravel Pit 33-36-136 33-36-137 33-36-138 Anderson Basin 33-36-58 33-36-85

33-36-201

projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile

point point point point point point point point point

AGATE BASIN Beck Forest Lake 33-36-3 33-36-14 33-36-16 33-36-68 Gravel Pit 33-36-6 33-36-176 Other Locality 33-36-194

projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile projectile

EDEN Beck Forest Lake 33-36-15

projectile point

SCOTTSBLUFF Beck Forest Lake 33-36-169 33-36-2 Gravel Pit 33-36-171

projectile point projectile point projectile point

UNKNOWN PARALLEL FLAKED Beck Forest Lake 33-36-41 projectile 33-36-46 projectile 33-36-55 projectile 33-36-63 projectile 33-36-204 projectile Gravel Pit 33-36-1 projectile Anderson Basin 33-36-114 projectile 33-36-173 projectile 33-36-218 projectile

point point point point point point point

point point point point point point point point point

* All specimens are listed by University Museum catalog number. ** See corresponding five charts for details.

Summary of provenienced 1933 Clovis site artifacts of Clovis and Plainview-age for inclusion in Table 2B Specimens are listed in Table 2B data cells by catalog number Specimen

Description

33-36-17

whole Clovis "punched" blade of Edwards chert (cf. Colorado City, Texas), unifacially utilized and retouched along distal margin into classic end-of-blade scraper, no spur whole Clovis point of Edwards chert, axial length =31.6mm, morphology closely resembles other small Clovis points from BWD (see Warnica 1966) whole Clovis point of Edwards chert, axial length =30.6mm, morphology closely resembles other small Clovis points from BWD (see Warnica 1966) whole Clovis "punched" blade of Edwards chert, unifacially utilized and retouched along distal margin into classic end-of-blade scraper, spur on left corner whole Clovis "punched" blade of Edwards chert, unifacially utilized and retouched along distal margin into end-of-blade scraper, no spurs basal portion of Clovis point of Edwards chert, single fluting scar on each face, flexion break at truncation

33-36-27 33-36-42 33-36-80 33-36-148 33-36-154

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

49

33-36-172

nearly whole Clovis point of Edwards chert, extreme tip missing from flexion break, morphology closely resembles other small Clovis points from BWD (see Warnica 1966)

33-36-229

whole Plainview point of Edwards chert

Specimen

Provenience

33-36-17 33-36-27 33-36-42 33-36-80 33-36-148 33-36-154 33-36-172

no no no no no no no

33-36-229

no specific data reported; found on surface at Lake Clovis

specific specific specific specific specific specific specific

data reported; found data reported; found data reported; found data reported; found data reported; found data reported; found data reported; found

on on on on on on on

surface surface surface surface surface surface surface

at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Anderson (Lake) Basin at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Gravel Pit

Summary of provenienced 1933 Clovis site artifacts of Folsom-age for inclusion in Table 2B Specimens are listed in Table 2B by catalog number Specimen

Description

33-36-11

33-36-198

fragmentary Folsom ultrathin refined biface of Edwards chert (mean thickness= 4.0mm, width: thickness ratio=14:1), extremely flat and broad with laurel leaf plan shape, flexion break at truncation, broken upon discovery into four conjoinable pieces nearly whole unfluted Folsom-Midland preform of Tecovas jasper, tip missing from flexion break, only one face fully modified, abandoned work in-progress whole Folsom point of Tecovas jasper, unifacially fluted with parallel blade margins whole Folsom point miniature of Edwards chert (axial length=29.9mm) , made on channel flake, specimen is a preform abandoned in-progress nearly whole Folsom point of Edwards chert, tip missing from impact fracture, multiple fluting on one face nearly whole Folsom point of Edwards chert, extreme tip missing from flexion break basal portion of Folsom point of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation, channel scar on one face nearly obliterated by post-fluting lateral retouch medial-distal portion of bifacially fluted Folsom preform of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation, each face fluted to the distal margin basal portion of Folsom point of Edwards chert, single flute removed on each face, abraded lateral edges with manufacture-related perverse fracture at truncation basal portion of Folsom point of Edwards chert, unifacially fluted with flexion break at truncation longitudinally-split basal portion of bifacially fluted Folsom point of Edwards chert, use-related flexion break at distal margin extreme distal end of unfluted Folsom-Midland preform of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation

Specimen

Provenience

33-36-11

west side of Gravel Pit in Blue Clay, dislodged by gravel mining and found next to mammoth tooth; recovered in 1932 by George O. Roberts and donated to University Museum no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake by J. R. Whiteman prior to 1932 and donated to University Museum no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake no specific data reported; found on surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin no specific data reported; found on surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin no specific data reported; found on surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit

33-36-29 33-36-40 33-36-76 33-36-82 33-36-83 33-36-84 33-36-134 33-36-164 33-36-177 33-36-195

33-36-29 33-36-40 33-36-76 33-36-82 33-36-83 33-36-84 33-36-134

50

33-36-164 33-36-177 33-36-195 33-36-198

CLOVIS REVISITED

no no no no

specific data reported; specific data reported; specific data reported; specific data reported;

found found found found

on on on on

surface surface surface surface

at Beck Forest Lake at Gravel Pit at Lake Clovis at Beck Forest Lake

Note: All provenience data taken from Howard (1935).

Summary of provenienced 1933 Clovis site artifacts of Midland-age for inclusion in Table 2B Specimens are listed in Table 2B by catalog number Specimen

Description

33-36-31 33-36-38 33-36-58

nearly whole Midland point of Edwards chert, one basal corner missing from flexion break basal portion of Midland point of Tecovas jasper distal portion of Midland point of Edwards chert, fine bifacial pressure flaking in final series, basal element missing from manufacture-related perverse fracture distal portion of Midland point of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation basal portion of Midland point of Tecovas jasper, flexion break at truncation basal portion of Midland point of Alibates agate, flexion break at truncation basal portion of Midland point of orthoquartzite, flexion break at truncation basal portion of Midland point of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation medial-distal portion of Midland point of Edwards chert, extensive bifacial utilization on one distal blade edge

33-36-70 33-36-85 33-36-136 33-36-137 33-36-138 33-36-201

Specimen

Provenience

33-36-31 33-36-38 33-36-58 33-36-70 33-36-85 33-36-136 33-36-137 33-36-138 33-36-201

no no no no no no no no no

specific specific specific specific specific specific specific specific specific

data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported;

found found found found found found found found found

on on on on on on on on on

surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface surface

at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Anderson (Lake) Basin at Beck Forest Lake at Anderson (Lake) Basin at Gravel Pit at Gravel Pit at Gravel Pit at Anderson (Lake) Basin

Summary of provenienced 1933 Clovis site artifacts of Agate Basin, Eden, and Scottsbluff-age for inclusion in Table 2B Specimens are listed in Table 2B by catalog number Specimen

Description

33-36-3 33-36-6

nearly whole Agate Basin point of Alibates agate, resharpened tip whole Agate Basin point of Edwards chert, broken and extensively resharpened along tip and blade edges nearly whole Agate Basin point of Edwards chert, extreme basal element missing from flexion break whole Agate Basin point of Alibates agate, blade edges moderately resharpened basal portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation basal-medial portion of Agate Basin point miniature(?) of Edwards chert (axial length=26.4mm) , tip missing from impact fracture medial-distal portion of Agate Basin point of Edwards chert, impact fracture at truncation, extant blade edges have severe attrition typical of heavily-used Agate Basin refined bifaces (see Frison and Stanford 1982)

33-36-14 33-36-16 33-36-68 33-36-176 33-36-194

33-36-15

whole Eden point of Edwards chert, extremely symmetrical in plan and cross section, flawless in manufacture, excellent example of collateral pressure flaking

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

33-36-2 33-36-169 33-36-171

whole Scottsbluff point of Alibates agate, resharpened tip whole Scottsbluff point of Edwards chert medial portion of Scottsbluff point of Edwards chert, flexion break at both ends

Specimen

Provenience

33-36-3 33-36-6 33-36-14 33-36-16 33-36-68 33-36-176 33-36-194

no no no no no no no

33-36-15

no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake

33-36-2 33-36-169 33-36-171

no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit

specific specific specific specific specific specific specific

data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported;

found found found found found found found

on on on on on on on

surface surface surface surface surface surface surface

51

at Beck Forest Lake at Gravel Pit at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Gravel Pit at Lake Clovis

Summary of provenienced 1933 Clovis site artifacts of unknown Parallel Flaked and unknown Paleoindian-age for inclusion in Table 2B. Specimens are listed in Table 2B by catalog number. Specimen

Description

33-36-1

nearly whole unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, extreme basal element missing from flexion break medial-distal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, flexion break at truncation distal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Tecovas jasper, flexion break at truncation medial-distal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, flexion break at truncation basal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Tecovas jasper, flexion break at truncation nearly whole unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, extreme tip missing from flexion break nearly whole unknown Parallel Flaked point of Tecovas jasper, tip missing from flexion break basal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate medial fragment of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, radial fracture at truncation

33-36-41 33-36-46 33-36-55 33-36-63 33-36-114 33-36-173 33-36-204 33-36-218 33-36-5 33-36-7 33-36-8 33-36-28 33-36-33 33-36-43

whole Paleoindian biface thinning flake of Edwards chert, unifacially utilized and retouched along both lateral margins, "knife-like scraper" (Howard 1935:93) whole Paleoindian biface thinning flake of Alibates agate, unifacially utilized on one lateral margin, "flake-knife or scraper" (Howard 1935:94) fragmentary Paleoindian biface thinning flake of Edwards chert, unifacially utilized and retouched into spokeshave edge along one margin whole Paleoindian end scraper on blade of Edwards chert, spur on left corner whole Paleoindian end scraper on blade of Edwards chert, spur on right corner medial-distal portion of Paleoindian primary core trimming flake of Edwards chert, unifacially utilized on one lateral margin, "heavily patinated side scraper" (Howard 1935:97)

Specimen

Provenience

33-36-1 33-36-41 33-36-46 33-36-55 33-36-63

no no no no no

specific specific specific specific specific

data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported; data reported;

found found found found found

on on on on on

surface surface surface surface surface

at Gravel Pit at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake at Beck Forest Lake

52

CLOVIS REVISITED

33-36-114 33-36-173 33-36-204 33-36-218

on "Erosion Island" (Howard 1935) and bison bones no specific data reported; found on no specific data reported; found on no specific data reported; found on

of Anderson (Lake) Basin in Blue Clay, in association with charcoal surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin surface at Beck Forest Lake surface at Anderson (Lake) Basin

east side of Gravel Pit, in Blue Clay and in direct association with extinct bison bones, observed in situ by

33-36-5

J. C. Merriam and others in E. B. Howard's party east side of Gravel Pit, in Blue Clay near contact with Speckled Sand, observed in situ by Howard east side of Gravel Pit, in Blue Clay and in direct association with extinct bison bones no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake no specific data reported; found on surface at Beck Forest Lake opposite side of "Erosion Island" (Howard 1935) of Anderson (Lake) Basin in Blue Clay ca. 24" below contact with Tan Aeolian Sand, found in direct association with extinct bison bones

33-36-7 33-36-8 33-36-28 33-36-33 33-36-43

Note: All provenience data taken from Howard (1935).

TABLE 2C. Distribution of Clovis Collection Artifacts of Known Cultural Affiliation by Collection Locality in the Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, for 1936*

CLOVIS Gravel Pit

36-19-9 36-19-10 36-19-21 36-19-2 36-19-3 36-19-4 36-19-12 36-19-17 36-19-1 36-19-5 36-19-6

Artifact Type** biface thinning flake biface thinning flake biface fragment projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point side scraper-an-blade beveled bone artifact beveled bone artifact

36-19-29 36-19-16 36-19-18 36-19-19 36-19-26 36-19-44

preform projectile point projectile point projectile point projectile point preform implement

FOLSOM Gravel Pit

Anderson Basin

UNKNOWNP~LELFuumD

Gravel Pit

* **

36-19-15

projectile point

All specimens are listed by University Museum catalog number. See corresponding two charts for details.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

53

Summary of provenienced 1936 Clovis site artifacts of Clovis-age for inclusion in Table 2C Specimens are listed in Table 2C data cells by catalog number Specimen

Description

36-19-1

36-19-10 36-19-12 36-19-17 36-19-21

large, whole Clovis "punched" blade of Edwards chert, bilaterally and unifacially utilized and retouched, "sub-triangular flake retouched as side scraper" (Cotter 1937) bifacially fluted Clovis point (type-specimen 1) of Edwards chert (cf.Junction, Texas), tip missing whole bifacially fluted Clovis point (type-specimen 2) of Edwards chert (cf. Ballinger, Texas), heat treated, both faces along each margin pressure flaked in final series distal half of Clovis point of Edwards chert, impact-crushed tip and flexion break at proximal end whole Clovis bone artifact, rod or foreshaft (not available for analysis*) whole Clovis bone artifact, rod or foreshaft, tapered proximal end and beveled or slipped distal end whole Clovis biface thinning flake of Alibates agate, unifacially utilized and retouched along one lateral margin whole Clovis biface thinning flake of Edwards chert, bilaterally and unifacially utilized bifacially fluted whole Clovis point of Alibates agate bifacially end thinned whole Clovis point miniature of Alibates agate, "midget point" (Cotter 1937) distal portion of Clovis refined biface of Edwards chert

Specimen

Provenience

36-19-1

Mammoth Pit, in Blue Clay 7" above contact with Speckled Sand and 3" above left tusk sheath of Mammoth #2 Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 1" below contact with Blue Clay and 2" beneath ventral border of Mammoth #1 vertebra Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 1" below contact with Blue Clay and between ulna (distal end) and humerus (proximal end) of Mammoth #2,4" from each bone respectively Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 3" below contact with Blue Clay, and 1" below ventral surface of Mammoth #2 left scapula Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 6" below contact with Blue Clay and 1" below distal end of Mammoth #1 ulna (10" from artifact 36-19-2) Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 7" below contact with Blue Clay and 11" south of Mammoth #2 right tusk Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand 3" below contact with Blue Clay, near Mammoth #1 tooth Mammoth Pit, in Blue Clay 6" above contact with Speckled Sand and 6" above center of Mammoth#2 ulna Mammoth Pit, in Speckled Sand minimum of 12" below contact with Blue Clay, near Mammoth #2 left scapula no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit

36-19-2 36-19-3 36-19-4 36-19-5 36-19-6 36-19-9

36-19-2 36-19-3 36-19-4 36-19-5 36-19-6 36-19-9 36-19-10 36-19-12 36-19-17 36-19-21 Note:

All provenience data taken from Cotter (1937); see 1936 Mammoth Pit plan map (from Cotter 1937) for specific artifact and bone positions. *Specimen curated in situ at Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

Summary of provenienced 1936 Clovis site artifacts of Folsom and Plano-age for inclusion in Table 2C Specimens are listed in Table 2C by catalog number Specimen

Description

36-19-16 36-19-18 36-19-19

whole Folsom point of Edwards chert, elongate (77.3mm), possible prototypical specimen whole Folsom point of Edwards chert Folsom point medial-distal fragment of Edwards chert, elongate (74.5mm) possible prototypical specimen, base missing from manufacture/refurbishing-related perverse fracture whole Folsom point of Edwards chert, "perfect Folsom point" (Cotter 1937) probable Folsom preform of Edwards chert, unfluted distal portion bifacially fluted Folsom preform of Edwards chert, distal end missing, classic multiple fluting on one face, broken, repaired, and used

36-19-26 36-19-29 36-19-44 36-19-15

whole unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, "complete Yuma blade" (Cotter 1937)

54

CLOVIS REVISITED

Specimen

Provenience

36-19-16 36-19-18 36-19-19 36-19-26 36-19-29 36-19-44

no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit screened from Gravel Pit southeast dump in test trench emplaced in Blue Clay no specific data reported; found on Gravel Pit dump surface no specific data reported; found on surface at BWD Site #2

36-19-15

no specific data reported; found on surface at Gravel Pit

Note: All provenience data taken from Cotter (1937).

TABLE 2D. Distribution of Clovis Collection Artifacts of Known Cultural Affiliation by Collection Locality in the Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, for 1937*

CLOVIS Gravel Pit

37-26-15 37-26-1 37-26-41

FOLSOM Gravel Pit

no number 37-26-6 37-26-13 Other Locality 37-26-50

Artifact Type** channel flake tool projectile point blade tool

projectile point projectile point projectile point preform

PLAINVIEW Gravel Pit

37-26-12

projectile point

AGATE BASIN Gravel Pit

37-26-4

bifacial cutting tool or "knife"

UNKNOWNPARALLELFUUffiD Gravel Pit 37-26-42

* **

projectile point

All specimens are listed by University Museum catalog number. See corresponding chart for details.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

55

Summary of provenienced 1937 Clovis site artifacts for inclusion in Table 2D Specimens are listed in Table 2D data cells by catalog number Specimen

Description

37-26-1 37-26-15 37-26-41

basal half of Clovis point of Alibates agate, pronounced impact fracture with a reworked tip and blade bifacially utilized Clovis channel flake of Alibates agate fragmen t of Clovis blade of Edwards chert, bilaterally and unifacially utilized

37-26-12

nearly whole Plainview(?) point of Edwards chert, "Yuma point" (Cotter 1938)

no number 37-26-6

37-26-50

whole Folsom point, found in situ with bison atlas, for many years (still) missing from Penn Museum whole Folsom point of Edwards chert, reflaked in channel scar to resemble Midland, "ungrooved point" (Cotter 1938) nearly whole, elongate (78.0mm) Folsom point of Edwards chert (cf. Brooks County, Texas), with "extensive channeling on both faces" (Cotter 1938), possible prototypical specimen, extreme basal element missing from flexion break medial-distal portion of bifacially fluted Folsom preform of Edwards chert, flexion break at truncation

37-26-4

whole Agate Basin refined biface "knife" (Cotter 1938) of Edwards chert with one lunate plan margin

37-26-42

medial-distal portion of unknown Parallel Flaked point of Alibates agate, flexion break

Specimen

Provenience

37-26-1 * 37-26-15* 37-26-41

Unit A-14 South, in Speckled Sand ca. 12" below contact with Blue Clay, associated with ribs of (undesignated) Mammoth #3 Unit A'-12 South, in Speckled Sand ca. 5" below Blue Clay contact not in situ, found on surface of Gravel Pit west dump

37-26-12*

Unit C'-2 North, in Blue Clay

no number* 37-26-6* 37-26-13* 37-26-50

Unit C'-15, in Blue Clay ca. 1" below and in direct association with B. Antiquus atlas vertebra Unit A-4 South, in Blue Clay 4'6" below ground surface and 10" above Speckled Sand contact Unit C'-9 South, in Blue Clay no specific data reported; found on surface at Basin site near Clovis

37-26-4*

Unit A'-14 South, in Blue Clay ca. 1" below Brown Sand-Blue Clay contact and 28" above Speckled Sand contact

37-26-42

70' north of 1937 excavation in west wall of Gravel Pit; found in situ in Blue Clay 6" below Brown Sand contact, associated with extinct bison bones

37-26-13

Note:

All provenience data taken from Cotter (1938); see 1937 expanded Mammoth Pit plan map (from Cotter 1938) for more information. *Specimen from Gravel Pit, in expanded Mammoth Pit excavation.

56

CLOVIS REVISITED

Clovis A total of 21 artifacts, representing 20.0% of the study collection, are reliably identified as Clovis. The timing of the Clovis horizon, which marks the initial human occupation in the Blackwater Draw and many other parts of western North America, has been dated by radiocarbon assay to ca. 11,200-10,900 B.P. (Haynes 1993, 1995b). The majority (15) of the artifacts were recovered from the Gravel Pit, 11 of which were derived in situ during the 1936 and 1937 excavations (Cotter 1937, 1938). Although in 1933 only one Clovis specimen was found at the Gravel Pit, five were found at Beck Forest Lake and one at Anderson Basin (Table 2B and charts). Unfortunately, all the 1933 Clovis artifacts were from deflation basins, not in buried contexts. All of these artifacts are whole or fragmentary implements (i.e., no unmodified debitage). Represented among the formal tools are the two bone foreshafts, projectile points (10), end scrapers (3), and a side scraper. One fragment of a large biface was identified. Specimens having a combination of utilization and retouch but lacking any patterned modification into a manufactured or formal tool include a blade fragment and three biface thinning flakes. Within the latter category, one is easily identified as a channel flake tool. Ten fluted projectile points constitute the largest artifact sub-category. Of these, seven are made of Edwards chert and three are of Alibates agate. The points vary in axial length from 29.5 to 110.5 mm. Although the mean length is 54.0 mm, four of the specimens measure less than 40.0 mm (Table 3). This range is not solely an expression of resharpening activity, as a few genuinely small examples of the Clovis variety were observed. Overall size range in functional Clovis weaponry is represented in other Clovis assemblages from the western United States, for instance the Naco (Haury 1953) and Lehner (Haury, Sayles, and Wasley 1959) sites, in Arizona. However, the diminutive size of weapon tips from Blackwater Draw is comparatively greater, as demonstrated by other samples from Clovis (Warnica 1966). This fact is further supported by the specimens from the University Museum. Following a notation made by Warnica (1966) and from an inclusive analysis of Clovis points from Blackwater Locality No.1, Hester (1972:97) proposed a separate category of projectile tips. Termed "Type 2" points, they are distinguished by their overall small size, especially axial length between 1.2 and 2.0 inches (ca. 30-50 mm) . Four of the seven complete specimens from the museum fit this range. Four projectiles, including the two type-specimen points upon which the Clovis variety was initially defined, were recovered from the 1936 Mammoth Pit

excavation at the Gravel Pit (Cotter 1937). A detailed description of each specimen follows.

TYPE-SPECIMEN 1 CLOVIS POINT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-2 (no. 9-4 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Figs. 24 and 25. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 3, fig. 2) Other: Boldurian (1990); Haynes (1966); Hester (1972); Holliday (1997); Sellards (1952); Wormington (1957)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Southeast corner of Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered on July 2,1936, in the Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit one inch below contact with the overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The artifact was two inches beneath the ventral border of Mammoth #1 vertebra and in direct association with it (see Cotter 1937). Material: Edwards chert, of a variety which in hand specimen resembles stone from Junction, Texas. The color is a loosely mottled combination of dark grayish brown (Munsell 10YR4/2) at the distal end and grayish brown (Munsell 10rR5/2) throughout the remaining portions of the artifact. Description: The specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline with narrow width in relation to length. Cross sections of the blade and base are lenticular with the maximum thickness at the artifact's approximate midpoint. The maximum width appears in the same area, specifically at the juncture of the base and blade portions. Blade element lateral margins are slightly excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip, the extreme portion of which has an impact fracture. This tiny break is assumed to have occurred through use in antiquity. Lateral margins along the basal element are straight and converge slightly toward the basal margin, which is moderately concave. All edges are straight (i.e., not sinuous) and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity extend

~

IW

s+~

~

t

9-22

!

4 1-14

1 o

~ U

M

IJ)

CJ

~

l-O ~

o z

~

SCALE IN FEET

~J~

o ~

~

o

(t\

~

~

~ M

CJ

or r

M

CJ ~

o z

Figure 24. The 1936 Clovis Mammoth Pit as seen from above (taken from Cotter 1937, plate 2). Artifact Key: 9-4 = 36-19-2 9-7 = 36-19-1 9-8 = 36-19-7 9-9 = 36-19-5 9-10 = 36-19-6 9-14 = 36-19-9 9-21 = 36-19-4 9-22 = 36-19-3 9-34 = 36-19-10

complete projectile point side scraper-on-blade "retouched flake" (missing) beveled bone artifact beveled bone artifact biface thinning flake tool impact-broken projectile point complete projectile point biface thinning flake tool \Jl '-J

58

CLOVIS REVISITED

TABLE 3. Comparative Measurements (mm) ofAxial Length Among Whole Clovis Points

CLOVIS Specimen

Specimen

Specimen

(University Museum)

33-36-27 33-36-42 33-36-172 36-19-2 36-19-3 36-19-12 36-19-17

31.6 30.6 37.9 81.2 110.5 56.4 29.5

NACO*

(Arizona State Museum)

X-I X-2 X-3 X-4 X-5 X-6 X-7 X-8

57.6 71.4 67.5 95.3 117.0 96.5 80.6 68.0

LEHNER*

(Arizona State Museum)

X-I X-2 X-3 X-4 X-5 X-6 X-7 X-8 X-9 X-10 X-II

73.0 78.4 78.5 30.8 35.6 50.4 55.3 46.6 61.2 82.4 95.4

range: 81.0

mean: 54.0

range: 59.4

mean: 81.7

range: 64.6

mean: 62.5

(extreme tip missing) (extreme tip missing)

(extreme tip missing)

(extreme tip missing)

* Measurements recorded from artifact casts. slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting is recorded below. Edges along the base and basal lateral margins were heavily polished to facilitate hafting. This polish is truncated at the baseblade juncture by minute negative flake scars emplaced during the final shaping and/or refurbishing of the blade edges. Measurements: Axial length: 81.2 mm Maximum width: 25.4 mm Maximum thickness: 6.8 mm Base width: 22.8 mm Flute scar length: 16.0/23.6 mm

Hafting edge polish: 33.0 mm (from base toward tip) Weight: 16.5 g

TYPE-SPECIMEN 2 CLOVIS POINT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-3 (no. 9-22 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Figs. 24 and 26a, b. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg.

59

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

Primary: Cotter (1937, pi. 3, fig. 1) Other: Boldurian (1990); Haynes (1966); Hester (1972); Holliday (1997); Sellards (1952); Wormington (1957)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Northwest portion of Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered on July 25, 1936, in Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit one inch below contact with overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The artifact was equidistant from the ulna (distal end) and humerus (proximal end) of Mammoth #2, lying in direct association four inches from each bone, respectively. Material: Edwards chert, of a variety which in hand specimen resembles stone from the vicinity of Ballinger, Texas. The color is a highly mottled combination of gray (Munsell 2.5Y5/0 and 2.5Y6/0) and dark brown (Munsell 10YR4/3), with the latter color predominating around the lateral margins. The specimen has a vitreous luster akin to heat-treated Edwards chert from Ballinger. Description:

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

~

o

1

21n

The specimen is Ianceolate and symmetrical in outline with very narrow width in relation to length. Cross sections of the blade and base are lenticular with the maximum thickness almost exactly at the midpoint. The maximum width appears in the same area, specifically at the juncture of the base and blade portions. Blade element lateral margins are parallel-to-slightly excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip, which was broken during excavation and later re-conjoined. Lateral margins along the basal element are straight and articulate with a moderately concave basal margin. All edges are straight (i.e., not sinuous) and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity generally overlap and/or meet at the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single long channel flake from one face and two channel flakes from the opposite face. The extent of this bifacial fluting is recorded below. Edges along the base and basal lateral margins were moderately polished to facilitate hafting. This polish is truncated at the base-blade juncture by pronounced pressure flaking. The pressure flaking was performed along both blade edges and toward both faces, resulting in extremely thin and sharp edges (see Fig. 26a).

Measurements: Axial length: 110.5 mm Figure 25. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 1 (36-19-2) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Drawing lJy Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Maximum width: 26.8 mm Maximum thickness: 8.2 mm Base width: 24.8 mm Flute scar length: 22.8/43.3 mm

en o

()

5 :s

en

~

en

~

o

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

pt:erES1

o

1

21"

Figure 26a. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 2 (36-19-3) Jrom Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Courtesy the University ojPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

61

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

Hafting edge polish: 30.0 mm (from base toward tip) Weight: 24.7 g

CLOVIS POINT FRAGMENT

co. East-central portion of Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered in July 1936, in Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit three inches below contact with the overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The artifact was one inch below the ventral surface of Mammoth #2 left scapula, and in direct association with it (see Cotter 1937).

Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-4 (no. 9-21 in Cotter 1937)

Material: Edwards chert. The color is highly mottled with a matrix color of gray (Munsell 5Y5/1).

References:

Text: Figs. 24 and 27 Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 3, fig. 4)

Description:

Provenience:

Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexi-

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

o

21"

o

~I

o

1

The specimen represents the distal half(?) of a Clovis point. The extant portion is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline. Broken above the point of maximum fluting, it appears to have been derived from an implement of narrow-to-very narrow width in relation to length. Cross section of the blade is lenticular and maximum thickness is at the fracture, which also marks the approximate midpoint of the original implement. Blade element lateral margins are slightly excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip, which has pronounced crushing from impact force. This fracture is assumed to have occurred through use in antiquity. The blade edges are straight (i.e., not sinuous) and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity extend slightly beyond the median line. The basal element of the specimen is missing due to a flexion break. This bending fracture probably is associated with the excessive force that crushed the projectile's tip. Simultaneous tip crushing and snap-

Figure 26b. Clovis fluted projectile point type-specimen 2 (36-19-3) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington.

1

2

3

4

5cm

~I 1

21"

Figure 27. Clovis projectile point (36-19-4) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Courtesy ofthe University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

62

CLOVIS REVISITED

ping at the midpoint, resulting in an artifact with this exact morphology, has been documented on a Clovis point replicate broken upon impact with elephant ri bs (see Frison 1991 a). According to Cotter (1937: 13), though lacking the basal portion, the point gives noticeable indication of having been of the same type as the first two points (36-19-2 & -3).

Measurements: Axial length: 41.5 mm Maximum width: 25.9 mm Maximum thickness 6.7 mm Base width: - Flute scar length: - Hafting edge polish: - Weight: 8.0 g

CLOVIS POINT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-12 (no. 9-33 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: none Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 4, fig. 4)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered in July 1936, in Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit at least 12 inches below contact with the overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The specimen was not recovered in situ, but was located near Mammoth #2 left scapula (see Cotter 1937). Material: Alibates agate, cream interbanded with weak red (Munsell 10R4/2) is the predominant color pattern. Description: The specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline, with narrow width in relation to length. Cross sections of the blade and base are lenticular with the maximum thickness approximately one-third the distance from the base. The maximum width appears in the same area, specifically at the juncture of the base and blade portions. Blade element lateral margins are straight, and they converge in a slightly asymmetrical fashion toward an acute tip. Lateral margins along the basal element are straight and articulate with a moderately concave basal margin. The edges are generally straight with slight sinuosity in the area of the blade element. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity generally meet at or slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting is recorded below. Edges along the base and basal lateral mar-

gins were only slightly polished to facilitate hafting. This polish is truncated at the base-blade juncture by minute negative flake scars emplaced during resharpening of the blade edges. Blade element refurbishing is also evident by the degree of edge sinuosity and roughly asymmetrical plan outline.

Measurements: Axial length: 56.4 mm Maximum width: 17.2 mm Maximum thickness: 5.5 mm Base width: 16.6 mm Flute scar length: 12.0/13.1 mm Hafting edge polish: 16.8 mm (from base toward tip) Weight: 4.8 g Although the partial remains of two mammoths were identified and reported upon as a consequence of the 1936 Mammoth Pit excavation, the tightly clustered bones of another individual were exposed the following year, in the expanded excavation (Cotter 1938). From within the Speckled Sand, just 25 feet north of the original pit, emerged a femur and two tibiae, a pelvis, fibula, several vertebrae, and many ribs and foot bones, all of mammoth (Cotter 1938:116). Found beneath some of the ribs was a bifacially utilized Clovis channel flake of Alibates agate and a fluted point. The latter specimen is described below.

CLOVIS POINT Catalog No.:

University Museum 37-26-1

References:

Text: Fig. 28 Primary: Cotter (1938)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Clovis Mammoth Pit expanded excavation. Recovered in July 1937, from square A-14 South in Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit 12 inches below contact with overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The artifact was underneath and in direct association with several ribs of undesignated Mammoth #3 (see Cotter 1938). Material: Alibates agate. The color is a loosely mottled combination, dominated by gray (Munsell10\R6/1). Description: The specimen is lanceolate and asymmetrical in outline with broad width in relation to extan t length. Cross sections of the blade and base are lenticular, with the maximum thickness slightly beyond the midpoint. The maximum width appears in the same area, specifically at the juncture of the base and blade portions. Blade element lateral margins are irregular and converge in asymmetrical fashion toward a blunted tip. The blade element has a pro-

w F

--N

S

E I

0

WES .)

(LETTERS C

NOTE:

FIGURES

ALL

MAMMOT H EXCE PT B

A

FIVE BISO N SKULLS MAR KED B

t:1

~

Vl

n

~ ~

;-3

A XIS

o z

L( NE

o

A'

(L E T T E R S

EAST)

~

;-3

::c ~

n

o

c'

rJ 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

'5

16

I

2

3

~ ~ ~

n;-3

o z

4

l>

x

NUMBERS

SOUTH

t/)

!:

NUM6ERS

Nt

'2

f'I

Figure 28. The 1937 Clovis Gravel Pit (from Cotter 1938:115). OJ

uo

64

CLOVIS REVISITED

nounced impact fracture with a deep hinge termination above the flute scar. Lateral margins along the base element are straight and articulate with a slightly concave basal margin. The blade edges are sinuous and generally not centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity generally meet at the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. Edges along the base and basal lateral margins were slightly polished to facilitate hafting. This polish is truncated at the base-blade juncture by negative flake scars emplaced during extensive blade reshaping and resharpening. The focus of this activity was to re-turn the area of the severe impact fracture into a functional bifacial edge. Slight bifacial utilization along the refurbished tip attests to the success of this effort.

Measurements: Axial length: 38.8 mm Maximum width: 27.9 mm Maximum thickness: 8.2 mm Base width: 26.5 mm Flute scar length: not recorded Hafting edge polish: 20.0 mm (from base toward tip) Weight: 9.6 g In addition to fluted bifaces, large prismatic blades have been considered a hallmark of Clovis lithic technology and a defining characteristic of the Llano complex (Sellards 1952; Haynes 1980). The first welldocumented association of Old World Upper Paleolithic-style blades with the Clovis tradition was at Blackwater Locality No.1. In 1962, 17 long prismatic blades were recovered in an area recently disturbed by gravel mining. These artifacts, evidently from a cache exposed by the bulldozers, were described by Green (1963). Such implements, presumably manufactured using indirect percussion or a "punched" blade technique, are indicative of skilled flintworking (e.g., Bordes and Crabtree 1969). Blademaking is a highly visible aspect of some Upper Paleolithic big game hunting traditions of Western and Central Europe. Punched blades have been discovered at a number of Clovis sites in the western United States and elsewhere. Many additional specimens, frequently transformed into end scrapers, or occasionally side scrapers, have been identified at Blackwater Locality No.1 (Warnica 1966; Hester 1972). More large prismatic blades, this time from a context disturbed by erosion, were recently discovered at Blackwater Locality No.1 (Montgomery and Dickenson 1992). Comprised of five large specimens, this cache is very similar to the one reported from the Gravel Pit 30 years earlier. The University Museum's Clovis collection contains a number of artifacts, particularly end scrapers,

fashioned from blades. Of these, only three are by specific or general provenience directly attributable to the Clovis occupation of the site. Along with two additional examples of blades, they constitute the next section of the artifact inventory. Each blade artifact within the collection has defining attributes of this special sub-category of core trimming flake, induding a rectangular or sub-rectangular outline with narrow width relative to length, a dorsal surface with at least two parallel or nearly parallel negative flake scars, a diffuse bulb of force from which emanate compression rings indicating a parallel direction of flake detachment, and a small platform remnant with evidence of careful preparation to the striking platform prior to an application of force. The specimens of this sub-category are nos. 33-36-17, 33-36-80, 33-36148,36-19-1, and 37-26-41. Two of these artifacts are described below.

END SCRAPER-ON-BLADE Catalog No.:

University Museum 33-36-17

References:

Text: Fig. 29. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Howard (1935, pI. XXXI, fig. 8)

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

~

o

1

21"

Figure 29. End scraper-on-blade (33-36-17) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.3, New Mexico. Beck Forest Lake. Recovered from the surface of a deflation basin in July 1933. Material: Edwards chert, of a variety that in hand specimen resembles stone from Colorado City, Texas. The color is a largely uniform dark-to-very dark gray (Munsell 10YR4/1 to 10YR3/1) with isolated mottling of light brownish gray (Munsell 10YR6/2). Description: The specimen is elongate and symmetrical in outline, with narrow width in relation to length. Cross section of the specimen at midpoint is trapezoidal, which defines the three parallel negative flake scars on the dorsal surface. Maximum width appears at the juncture of the lateral and distal margins. The artifact has a diffuse bulb of force with compression rings oriented exactly parallel to the dorsal surface scars. The platform remnant is small and appears to have been from a single negative flake scar on the core top or striking platform. The angle created by the juncture of the platform remnant and the ventral surface is 130 degrees. There is evidence of slight dragging to remove core overhang. Also, on the platform remnant, there are heavy polish and minute flaking to insure maximum purchase and a firm setting for the flintworking tool employed in flake detachment. The posterior of the platform remnant at the area adjoining the ventral surface of the artifact has a pronounced lip. This feature, along with a diffuse bulb and small, well-prepared platform remnant, suggests the use of an intermediary tool or punch for indirect percussion removal from a prepared blade core. The distal or "bit" end of the blade has a combination of steep unifacial retouch and utilization directed entirely toward the dorsal surface of the specimen. The finished implement may have been used in either a hand-held or hafted fashion. Measurements: Length: 56.4 mm Maximum width: 28.3 mm Maximum thickness: 13.2 mm Working edge length: 26.8 mm Weight: 17.9 g

SIDE SCRAPER-ON-BLADE Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-1 (no. 9-7 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Figs. 24 and 30. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1937, text illustration p.12)

65

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Central portion of Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered on July 7, 1936, in Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit seven inches above contact with underlying Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit. The artifact was three inches above the left tusk sheath of Mammoth #2 and in direct association with it (see Cotter 1937) . Material: Edwards chert. The color is a two-tone combination of gray (Munsell 10YR5/1) and grayish brown (Munsell 1OYR5/2). Description: The artifact was originally described by Cotter (1937: 11) as a sub-triangular flake retouched as a side scraper. The specimen is elongate and asymmetrical in outline, with moderate width in relation to length. Cross section of the specimen at midpoint is triangular, which defines the two nearly parallel negative flake scars on the dorsal surface. Maximum width appears at roughly the midpoint, and the specimen has only minimal curvature from platform remnant to termination. The artifact has a diffuse bulb of force with compression rings oriented parallel to the dorsal surface scars. The platform remnant is small and appears to have been from a single, slightly concave negative flake scar on the core top or striking platform. The platform remnant forms an angle of approximately 105 degrees with the undulating ventral surface. On the platform remnant there is evidence of slight dragging to remove core overhang and moderate polish to insure maximum purchase and a firm setting for the flintworking tool employed in flake detachment. The small size of the platform remnant, intentional platform preparation, and diffuse bulb suggest the use of an intermediary tool or punch for indirect percussion removal from a prepared blade core. Following detachment, the blade was modified into an implement as described below. The right lateral or "side scraping" margin of the artifact is moderately excurvate and on the edge has a combination of acute unifacial retouch and utilization directed toward the dorsal surface. This edge modification extends along the entire margin. The left lateral margin has a pronounced excurvate outline and on the edge has minute negative flake scars indicative of slight-to-moderate bifacial utilization. This edge attrition extends along the entire margin. The finished implement is assumed to have been employed in a hand-held fashion. Measurements: Length: 114.6 mm Maximum width: 48.8 mm Maximum thickness: 13.9 mm Working edge length Right: 94.0 mm Left: 106.7 mm Weight: 56.2 g

66

CLOVIS REVISITED

~cm o

1

21"

Figure 30. Side scraper-on-blade (36-19-1)from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Drawing by Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

67

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

TABLE 4. Comparative Measurements (mm) ofLength, Width, Thickness, and Weight(g) Among Clovis Beveled Bone Artifacts * L

Specimen

Specimen

Specimen

Specimen

W

T

CLOVIS (University Museum) 36-19-5 (Academy of Natural Sciences) 36-19-6

252.0 234.0

15.0 17.0

13.1

AGATE BASIN, Wyoming no number (tip missing)

203.4

13.6

12.0

17.0 19.0 15.0 18.0 18.0 15.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 20.0

12.0 13.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 10.0 14.0 11.0 13.0 14.0

24.0 24.0 24.0 29.0 28.0 26.0 30.0 26.0 30.0 27.0 28.0 13.0

18.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 18.0 22.0 18.0 21.0 19.0 20.0 12.0

ANZICK, Montana 37 (broken) 38 (fragment) 67 94 (broken) 95 (broken) 117 (fragment) 118 / 119 120 (fragment) 122 (fragment) 123 (fragment)

220.0

281.0

RICHEY-ROBERTS, Washington A (decorated) B (decorated, recent damage) C (well-preserved) D (badly gnawed) E (gnawed heavily) F G (sections missing) H (end gnawed away) I (massive) J (recent damage) K (recent damage) L (severely gnawed)

263.0 209.0 252.0 242.0 231.0 190.0 232.0 177.0 215.0 171.0 193.0 115.0

Wt

35.8

48.5

75.0

75.1 52.8 69.2 62.0 58.9 49.7 83.6 44.2 89.7 59.7 66.2

9.9

* Linear measurements taken at point of maximum dimension. Data Sources:

Agate Basin (Frison and Stanford 1982) Anzick (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974) Richey-Roberts (Gramly 1993)

Other artifacts of uniquely Clovis design recovered from the 1936 Mammoth Pit excavation were elongate, beveled bone rods. Though found at a handful of other Clovis sites throughout North America, 60 years of investigation have produced relatively few of these artifacts, thereby constituting a diagnostic but rare item in the Clovis tool kit. Artifacts of this type, which are indisputably associated with Clovis, are known from the Anzick site, Montana (Lahren and Bonnischsen 1974), and the Richey-Roberts cache near East Wenatchee, Washington (Mehringer 1988; Gramly 1993), where in both cases multiple specimens were found in a cache along with Clovis bi-

faces. At both sites the artifacts were associated with liberal amounts of red ocher, suggestive of some as yet unexplained context of Clovis ritual behavior. There is a strong indication that in the Anzick case the cache accompanied cremated human remains. Another bone artifact was found in the Clovis component of the Agate Basin site, Wyoming, though in a context not suggesting ritualism (Frison and Stanford 1982). Additional slender bone shafts of probable early assignation have been recovered from a number of localities throughout North America, including the Tanana Valley in Alaska (Rainey 1940), the Grenfel site in southeastern Saskatchewan (Wil-

68

CLOVIS REVISITED

meth 1968), the Lind Coulee site in Washington (Daugherty 1956), and in northern Florida's Itchtucknee and Aucilla rivers (Jenks and Simpson 1941; Dunbar 1991). A few artifacts of this general type have also been reported from California (Riddell 1973). Though indicating a widespread usage, these additional examples are either lacking indisputable associations with Clovis artifacts or have no credible stratigraphic context to indicate positively their age, thus limiting their utility for comparative purposes. Though initially referred to as foreshafts by Cotter (1937), the function of these objects has become very open to question. Over the years and with additional discoveries, the items have also been interpreted as bone rods (Jelinek 1971), bone projectile points (Jenks and Simpson 1941; Frison 1991a), and fleshers. To date, the most detailed models suggesting their actual use are from Lahren and Bonnichsen (1974), who support the idea that they were used as foreshafts, and Saunders and Daeschler (1994), who offer a unique suggestion of the shafts as sophisticated pry bars used in primary butchery of scavenged mammoth carcasses. Parting the fray of notions but leaving the issue unresolved, Lahren and Bonnichsen have pointed out that perhaps not all the bone artifacts served the same function in the Clovis tool kit. A discussion of the possible function of these highly unusual and enigmatic artifacts appears in Chapter 5. Whatever their actual function (s), these items are usually made of bone, presumably the shaft portion (diaphysis) of either mammoth or mastodon long bone would have served as suitable raw material for their manufacture. A few of the artifacts, such as the single specimen recovered from the Clovis component at the Agate Basin site, are made of ivory. Although they vary slightly in overall dimensions and specific design, general resemblances are sufficient to designate anyone specimen as belonging to this artifact category. All are slender, cylindrical-shaped, and tapered so as to be slightly wider and thicker at one end. Specimens of this type may be further described as either single-beveled or bi-beveled, with one or both ends having been carefully slipped to create a flat face. In many instances, the slipped face is cross-hachured or cross-striated. These obliquely oriented transverse cuts or scratches are the result of intentional modification to improve purchase. On single-beveled shafts, the opposite end is always tapered to a roughly conical shape. Table 4 illustrates measurements for the two artifacts in the University Museum's collection, compared to similar data for the Agate Basin, Anzick, and Wenatchee artifacts, for which the Clovis contexts are firmly established. The two bone artifacts from the 1936 Mammoth Pit excavation remain the only known examples from the Southern Plains and American Southwest. Additionally, they are the only ones currently found in a strictly utilitarian or subsistence-related context. Arti-

fact 36-19-5 (no. 9-9 in Cotter 1937) was the first such item, discovered by Malcolm Bull on July 11, 1936. It occurred in the Speckled Sand unit, one inch below the distal end of an ulna of Mammoth #1 and in direct association with it (Figs. 24 and 31). Upon discovery, the bone artifact and ulna were permanently stabilized in situ, having never been separated. Removed en bloc and shipped to the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, they remain presently in storage, exactly as they had been found. Consequently, the artifact cannot be removed for detailed analysis or illustration. There is only one photographic angle that details much of the artifact's overall morphology (Fig. 32). Cotter (1937:14) provided a general description and measurements for the artifact, which is of the bi-beveled variety. A detailed description of the second bone shaft discovered by Bull two days later in the Blackwater Draw follows.

CLOVIS UNI-BEVELED BONE ARTIFACT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-6 (no. 9-10 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Figs. 24 and 33a, b. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 2) Other: Boldurian (1990); Haynes (1966, 1980); Hester (1972); Sellards (1952); Wormington (1957)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Central portion of Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered on July 13, 1936, in Speckled Sand (Gray Sand) unit seven inches below contact with the overlying Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit. The artifact was 11 inches south of Mammoth #2 right tusk (see Cotter 1937). Material: Bone, presumably Columbian mammoth long bone fragment. As with specimens of this type from other Clovis sites, the bone retains observable structure but gives no clear indication of source. The color is a mixture of very pale brown (predominantly Munsell 10YR7/3, confined areas of 10YR8/3) , although it has darkened from its original off-white hue through natural discoloration of the white shellack used as a field preservative. Description: The artifact was originally described by Cotter (1937: 14) as "cylindrical in shape, tapers, and has a well-defined bevel marked with oblique transverse cuts or scratches. It differs, however (from artifact 36-19-5), in that it has only a very slight bevel

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

Figure 31. Beveled bone artifact-mammoth ulna association upon discovery in the 1936 Clovis Mammoth Pit excavation. Courtesy ofJ L. Cotter.

Figure 32. Stabilized beveled bone artifact-mammoth ulna association. Courtesy of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

69

70

CLOVIS REVISITED

~cm o

1

21"

Figure 33a. Plan and edge views of the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact (36-19-6) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

71

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

o

o

1

3

2

1

4

5cm

21n

Figure 33b. Plan and edge views of the Clovis uni-beveled bone artifact (36-19-6) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington.

72

CLOVIS REVISITED

at the tapering end, which shows no scratches." To this may be added that the specimen is elongate and roughly symmetrical in outline, of extremely narrow width in relation to length. Following Frison and Stanford (1982) and the reverse of Lahren and Bonnichsen (1974), our orientation of the specimen for description and analysis is with the beveled face designated the proximal end (see Fig. 33a, b). This orientation matches that used by Cotter (1937, pI. 2). Cross sections of the artifact at several points are subrectangular. Maximum width and thickness appear toward the proximal end, approximately 10.0 mm above juncture with the beveled face. The distal end of the artifact tapers to a conical shape and has two small impact fractures, which were initiated from the distal end. Inspection under low power (10-25x) magnification using a binocular microscope indicates the presence of numerous scratches, which resulted from carving activity employed to shape the bone blank. A majority of these features are oriented either perpendicular or oblique to the long axis of the artifact. Presumably, the carving was accomplished using flaked stone tools. The deeper and more numerous of the scratches appear on the beveled face. Other areas express remnants of a high surface sheen produced by polishing to smooth the implement into its final dimensions and overall shape. The dorsal surface (i.e., the one containing the beveled face) is very straight and, although scratched and polished from manufacture modification, may represent the inside surface of the bone from which the blank was initially removed.

CLOVIS POINT Catalog No.: References:

University Museum 31-47-36 Text: Figs. 8 and 34. Cast in epoxy by L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Howard (1932a, 1935)

J.

Provenience: Burnet Cave, Eddy County, New Mexico. Recovered by R. M. P. Burnet during summer 1931 excavation of non-stratified cave fill. The artifact was five feet, seven inches below the ground sur-

Measurements: Length: 234.0 mm Maximum width: 17.0 mm Maximum thickness: 13.1 mm Beveled surface Length: 55.0 mm Proximal width: 9.2 mm Distal width: 14.7 mm Midpoint width: 13.4 mm Weight: 35.8 g

In closing this section on Clovis, it is appropriate to add a technical description of the fluted point recovered from Burnet Cave (see Chapter 1). This Clovis point has never been fully attributed to that category, perhaps owing to the fact that Howard returned to the Guadalupes for only a brief time following Clovis. Also, in 1932, just one year after the artifact's discovery, the project's focus turned rapidly and intensely toward the Blackwater Draw. Though only briefly, the fluted point was the prize of Howard's field efforts in the Southwest. It holds more than historical significance, representing the first scientifically d~c~­ men ted Clovis point from in situ context. Also, It IS the first Clovis point recovered from a domestic setting in a closed site such as a cave or rockshelter.

o

1

2

3

4

Scm

~I

o

1

21n

Figure 34. Clovis fluted projectile point (31-47-36) from Burnet Cave, Eddy County, New Mexico. Drawing I7y Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

73

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

face at the edge of a hearth containing extinct bison and musk-ox bones. Material: Unknown chert or possibly Edwards chert, apparently not the chert in the limestone that constitutes the cave's structure. The color is a twotone combination of vitreous brown (Munsell 10YR5/3) and dull yellow (Munselll0YR7/6).

The specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline, with moderate width in relation to length. Cross sections of the blade and base are lenticular, with the maximum thickness at the artifact's approximate midpoint. Maximum width appears in the same area, specifically, at the juncture of the base and blade portions. Blade element lateral margins are slightly excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip, the extreme portion of which has an impact fracture. Lateral margins along the basal element are straight and articulate with a moderately concave basal margin. All edges are Description:

straight (i.e., not sinuous) and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel overlapped flaking in late-stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity extend slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting is recorded below. Edges along the base and basal lateral margins were heavily polished to facilitate hafting. This polish is truncated at the base-blade juncture by minute negative flake scars emplaced during final shaping and/ or refurbishing of the blade edges. Measurements: Axial length: 51.6 mm

Maximum width: 23.8 mm Maximum thickness: 8.4 mm Base width: 22.9 mm Flute scar length: 20.2/31.2 mm Hafting edge polish: 24.7 mm Weight: 11.0 g

Folsom The time frame recognized for Folsom in the Southern Plains ranges between roughly 10,490 and 10,170 years ago, an assessment based on four radiocarbon assays from Blackwater Locality No.1 (Haynes 1993). These dates correspond well, but not exactly, with the temporal span demonstrated for Folsom in the Northwestern Plains, which has been precisely marked through AMS radiocarbon dating from ca. 10,930 to 10,260 B.P. (see Frison 1990; Haynes 1993). In general, cultural relationships between Folsom and the slightly antecedent Clovis or Llano complex have always seemed obvious on the basis of lithic technology and general subsistence patterns. However, archaeological information upon which historical affinities have long been assumed are only recently becoming well documented. Research in the Northwestern Plains/Rocky Mountain Intermontane region is shedding new light on the Clovis-Folsom continuum. Here, Frison (1988, 1990, 1991 b) has identified the Goshen complex, a Paleoindian manifestation that was apparently a direct predecessor of Folsom. A total of 26 artifacts, representing 24.8% of the study collection, are attributable to Folsom (Table 2A-D and charts). Exactly half (13) of the artifacts were recovered from the Gravel Pit, only three of which, in 1937, were derived from in situ con texts (Cotter 1938). The majority of Folsom artifacts were found either on mining spoil piles at the Gravel Pit or on the surface of eroded deflation hollows elsewhere in the Blackwater Draw (Table 2A-D and

charts). For the most part, these isolated surface manifestations resulted from the broad reconnaissance activities performed in 1933, when five specimens were found at Beck Forest Lake, three each at the Gravel Pit and Anderson Basin, and another one at the currently unknown locality called Lake Clovis. The overwhelming absence of high-resolution context has restricted all the Folsom artifacts to diagnostic formal tools (i.e., no unmodified debitage). Subcategories represented include preforms and fragments thereof (9), fluted projectile points (16), and a single example of an ultrathin refined biface. Though our description and assessment of Folsom is necessarily restricted to these few examples, most of which lack specific provenience, the data contribute to a better understanding of the Folsom occupation of the Blackwater Draw. Nine preforms constitute the first artifact sub-category. Of these, eight are made of Edwards chert and one is of Tecovas jasper. The artifacts vary widely in the portion preserved, from nearly complete in missing only a tip or small basal fragment (3), medial-distal portions (2), to snapped distal ends (3). One complete specimen (33-36-76) is the preform of a projectile point miniature, made on a Folsom channel flake (see Table 2B and charts). It measures only 29.9 mm and, though categorized as a preform, has been omitted from further summary description. Of the remaining eight artifacts, three have either unifacial or bifacial fluting and four were unfluted. One specimen, a distal tip, was too small to ascertain pres-

74

CLOVIS REVISITED

ence or absence of fluting. One specimen (33-36-29) gives indication of the method of Folsom preform production at Blackwater Draw, which called for full flaking of one face followed by modification of the opposite one. This method has been documented in other Folsom artifact samples from Blackwater Locality No.1 (Boldurian 1981; Boldurian and Hubinsky 1994) and appears at other Folsom sites (Judge 1973; Flenniken 1978). Six artifacts have clear evidence of use-related attrition and, of these, five also have flexion breaks at the line of truncation. Although flexion failure can occur during manufacture as well as use (or even as a consequence of simple crushing underfoot), its occurrence along with evidence of use-wear suggests some association. One specimen in the collection demonstrates particularly interesting elements of manufacture, use, and breakage, that in its complexity typifies the very character of Folsom technology and tool kits in the Blackwater Draw. This artifact is described below.

FOLSOM PREFORM IMPLEMENT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-44

References:

Text: Fig. 35. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg.

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.2, New Mexico. Recovered from the surface of a deflation basin in June or July 1936. Material: Edwards chert. The color is a largely uniform dark grayish brown-to-dark brown (Munsell 10YR4/2 to 10YR4/3) and extremely vitreous. Description: Prior to its breakage and repair in antiquity, the specimen was rectangular and symmetrical in outline, with moderate width in relation to length. Cross section at the midpoint is flat/rectangular though slightly concave on the obverse fluted face. Maximum width is approximately one-third the distance from the base, and maximum thickness is almost at the distal end. Lateral margins are parallel and blade edges are straight (i.e., not sinuous), uniformly centered within the available mass. There is no polishing of the base or basal lateral margins to facilitate hafting. Initially, the preform was fluted on the obverse face through the removal of a single wide channel flake. The reverse face was then fluted through removal of two long, narrow channel flakes. In each instance, fluting appears to have extended almost to the distal end of the preform. Following the fluting procedure the artifact became broken in two places,

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

~

o

1

21n

Figure 35. Folsom preform implement (36-19-44) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Note multiple fluting on reverse face. Drawing !Jy Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

thus altering its initially intended function. The first fracture extended from slightly beyond the midpoint to the distal end, severing a substantial portion of the artifact's distal half(?). A related fracture truncated the distal end transverse to the long axis. Intentional modification of the fractured areas indicates attempts to refurbish the edges, thus extending the use-life of the implement. Along the oblique fracture, retouch appears as a series of steep unifacial negative flake scars directed toward the obverse face, re-forming the break into a scraping edge. The transverse fracture was modified through alternate face bifacial flaking to re-turn the right-angled edge. There are three parallel negative flake scars initiated from the tip on the reverse face, hinting that the rejuvenated edge served as a burin-like projection. Both repaired edges have only slight attrition under low power (25x) magnification, suggesting that the recy-

75

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

cled tool was used to only a limited extent in its new function before it became lost or discarded. For the Folsom occupation of the Blackwater Draw, the use of preform implements in various domestic and hunting-related contexts has been proposed upon limited evidence (Boldurian 1990; Boldurian and Hubinsky 1994). Multiple fluting during Folsom times in the Blackwater Draw has been the subject of similar discussion (Boldurian 1990; Boldurian and Mohney n.d.). Although only a single artifact, no. 3619-44 is a classic example of both phenomena. Measurements: Axial length: 40.1 mm

Maximum width: 21.8 mm Maximum thickness: 4.9 mm Base width: 21.5 mm Working edge length: 28.8 mm Weight: 4.5 g Sixteen fluted projectile points constitute the largest Folsom artifact sub-category in the collection. Of these, one is deleted from summary description, apparently having been misplaced many years ago. The artifact was discovered during the 1937 expanded Mammoth Pit excavation in direct association with the atlas of an extinct bison (Cotter 1938:116). Treated in similar fashion as the beveled bone artifactmammoth ulna association, it was preserved in situ and shipped to the Academy of Natural Sciences where, unfortunately, there is no record of either the bone or the artifact (E. B. Daeschler, personal communication 1997). This artifact is listed as "no number" in Table 2D along with the supporting data chart. Among the remaining 15 artifacts available for

study, 13 are made of Edwards chert, and one each is made of Alibates agate and Tecovas jasper. The points vary in the portion preserved, with eight either complete or missing only a minimal portion of the tip or basal ears, four base portions, two distal portions, and a single medial section. Comparative metric data for the artifacts are presented in Table 5, and photographs of Folsom points having more-or-less characteristic morphology are depicted in Figure 36. It is important to note that the typological distinctions between these exact specimens and those which ultimately became termed "Clovis" were specifically noted by Cotter (1937:15). At the time, the larger, robust projectiles discovered with the mammoth remains were called "Folsom-like" points. Referring to artifacts in the former category as "true Folsoms," Cotter framed his observations on a similarity in overall morphology and technical design of the smaller points with those from the Folsom type-site. Further support for his observations came in 1937, with the discovery of these projectiles along with the bones of extinct bison slightly higher in the Gravel Pit's stratigraphic sequence. The remainder of this section is devoted to a detailed description of three Folsom points within the collection which are uncharacteristic by virtue of their length, extraordinary among Folsom points found anywhere in the Southern Plains or elsewhere. These specimens may represent un-resharpened or prototypical projectile points that entered archaeological context soon after having left the flintknapper's hands. A discussion of the implications of these specimens for Folsom occupation in the Blackwater Draw and Southern Plains appears in Chapter 5.

TABLE 5. Comparative Measurements (mm) ofAxial Length, Base Width, and Maximum Thickness Among Folsom Points Specimen

Portion

Axial Length

Base Width

32-25-286 32-25-328

medial proximal/base

20.0 12.9

33-36-40 33-36-164 33-36-177 33-36-82 33-36-84 33-36-195

complete proximal/base proximal/base tip missing proximal/base base missing

47.9 21.3 20.0 33.2 24.1 26.2

18.5 22.4 18.4 19.9 19.1

3.9 4.7 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.3

36-19-16 36-19-18 36-19-19 36-19-26

complete complete base missing complete

77.3 45.9 74.1 48.9

21.5 19.1

5.1 4.6 5.4 4.4

37-26-6 37-26-13

complete ears missing

38.5 78.0

16.8

20.7 15.0

Maximum Thickness 4.0 3.1

4.4 4.7

76

CLOVIS REVISITED

o

1

2

3

4

Scm

~I

o

1

21"

Figure 36. Folsom fluted projectile points, top (33-36-40), middle (36-19-18), and bottom (36-9-26), from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

77

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

FOLSOM POINT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-16 (no. 9-17 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Fig. 37. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 1, fig. 1)

Provenience:

Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Recovered from the surface of a gravel-mining spoil pile in July 1936.

Material: Edwards chert. The color is uniform and vitreous gray (Munsell 5Y6/1 to 5Y5/1). Description:

o

The artifact was originally described by Cotter (1937) as a complete true Folsom point. To this may be added that the specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline, with narrow width in relation to length. Cross sections of the blade and base are very lenticular and flat, respectively, with the maximum thickness approximately two-thirds the distance from the base. The maximum width appears at the midpoint and corresponds with the juncture of the base and blade portions. This juncture is also demarcated by the maximum extent of edge polishing. Blade element lateral margins are excurvate and converge symmetrically toward a blunted tip. Lateral margins along the basal element are straight and converge slightly toward an extremely concave basal margin. All edges are exceedingly straight and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel flaking via carefully controlled pressure application in late-stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity are perpendicular to the lateral margins and extend slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting is recorded below. Edges along the base and basal lateral margins were slightly polished to facilitate hafting.

1

2

3

4

Scm

f$ETES,

o

1

21n

Figure 37. Folsom fluted projectile point (36-19-16) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Note elongate form. Drawing by Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

Measurements: Axial length: 77.3 mm Maximum width: 26.5 mm Maximum thickness: 5.1 mm Base width: 21.5 mm Flute scar length: 20.4/35.4 mm Hafting edge polish: 35.3 mm Weight: 11.5 g

78

CLOVIS REVISITED

FOLSOM POINT FRAGMENT Catalog No.:

University Museum 36-19-19 (no. 9-1 in Cotter 1937)

References:

Text: Fig. 38. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1937, pI. 1, fig. 2)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Recovered in the Blue Clay (Diatomite) from the surface of a gravel-mining spoil pile on June 29-30, 1936. Material: Edwards chert. The color is a loosely mottled combination of gray-to-grayish brown (Munsell 10YR5/1 to 10YR5/2) and light brownish gray (Munsell 1OYR6/2).

o

1

2

3

4

5cm

~

o

1

210

Figure 38. Folsom fluted projectile point fragment (3619-19) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Note elongate form. Drawing lJy Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University ofPennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

The artifact was originally noted by Description: Cotter (1937) as a true Folsom point, with the reverse side having a short groove. To this may be added that the specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline, with very narrow width in relation to extant length. Cross section of the blade is lenticularto-flat, with a concavity on one fluted face. Maximum thickness is at the proximal end where the proximal fracture occurs. The maximum width also appears at this fracture, slightly beyond the point where the base and blade elements join. Blade element lateral margins are slightly excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip. The extant lateral margins toward the base have very slight polishing to facilitate hafting. The extant edges are exceedingly straight and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel flaking via carefully controlled pressure application in late-stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity are perpendicular to the lateral margins and extend slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting, although longer than our ability to measure it, is recorded below. Most of the base portion was removed by a manufacture-related perverse fracture, which may have occurred during final edge shaping. This fracture is thought to have removed a minimum of 10.0 mm from an already elongate specimen. Measurements: Axial length: 74.1 mm (extant); 85.0+ mm (minimum projected) Maximum width: 23.9 mm Maximum thickness: 5.4 mm Base width: - Flute scar length: 29.4/47.5 mm (extant)

79

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTION

Hafting edge polish: (maximum extant) Weight: 14.9 g

16.5 mm

FOLSOM POINT FRAGMENT Catalog No: References:

University Museum 37-26-13 Text: Figs. 28 and 39. Cast in epoxy by L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Cotter (1938)

J.

Provenience:

Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Clovis expanded Mammoth Pit excavation. Recovered in July-August 1937 in Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit, from square C'-9 South (see Cotter 1938).

Material: Edwards chert, of a variety which in hand specimen resembles stone from Brooks County, Texas. It is highly siliceous, and the color is a largely uniform dark brown-to-very dark brown (Munsell 10YR3/3 to 10YR2/2) with tiny mottles of dark yellowish brown (Munselll0YR4/4). Description:

o

1

2

3

4

Scm

~I

o

1

21n

Figure 39. Folsom fluted projectile point (37-26-13) from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Note elongate form. Drawing by Sarah Moore Illustration Services, Pullman, Washington. Photo courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia.

The artifact was originally described by Cotter (1938:116) as a large true Folsom point with extensive channeling on both faces. To this may be added that the specimen is lanceolate and symmetrical in outline, with narrow width in relation to extant length. Cross sections of the blade at two intervals are flat, with a noted concavity on the obverse fluted face. Maximum thickness and maximum width are at the approximate midpoint of the artifact, where the base and blade elements join. Blade element lateral margins are excurvate and converge symmetrically toward an acute tip. The lateral margins have very slight polishing to facilitate hafting. All edges are straight and uniformly centered within the specimen's mass. The projectile point has parallel flaking via carefully controlled pressure application in late-stage biface thinning and shaping. Negative flake scars from this activity are perpendicular to the lateral margins and, where visible due to extensive fluting, extend slightly beyond the median line. Basal thinning was accomplished through the removal of a single long and wide channel flake from each face. The extent of this bifacial fluting, though slightly longer than what appears on the artifact, is recorded below. The base corner was removed by a flexion break, which may have been due to use-related end shock. The observed as well as the minimum projected axial lengths of the specimen are recorded below.

Measurements: Axial length: 78.0 mm (extant); 80.0+ mm (minimum projected)

80

CLOVIS REVISITED

Maximum width: 28.0 mm Maximum thickness: 4.7 mm Base width: - Flute scar length: 61.2/42.1 mm (extant) Hafting edge polish: 31.0 mm (maximum extant) Weight: 10.7 g The final sub-category of Folsom artifacts from the University Museum's Clovis collection to be described contains only one example. This form, termed "ultrathin bifaces," is a recently recognized variety of implement in the Folsom tool kit. These artifacts are characteristically broad, extremely thin and flat, having a long bifacial working edge ideal for cutting and slicing. Central thickness varies between 4-5 mm and width:thickness ratios often range between 12:1 and 15:1, but may approach 20:1 (Root et ai. in press). Ultrathin bifaces are the result of extraordinary control in biface thinning, and exhibit either a slightly biconcave or flat cross section, as opposed to lenticular. Their shape describes a medial area that is slightly thinner (i.e., 1-2 mm) than the lateral margins, the result of well-controlled, soft hammer direct percussion flaking known as opposed diving biface thinning. This technique, evident in Clovis lithic technology, combines the intentional use of overshot terminations from one margin with hinge/step terminations from the opposite margin, meeting at the biface midline (Bradley 1982). Apparently, opposed diving biface thinning was employed to avoid breakage during manufacture while achieving maximum thinness. Root et ai. (in press) perceive its presence as diagnostic of Folsom ultrathin bifaces. Among the places where Folsom ultrathin bifaces were first formally recognized are a cluster of sites along Spring Creek in the Missouri River drainage/Knife River Flint quarry area of western North Dakota, including the Bobtail Wolf, Big Black, and Young-Man-Chief sites (Root and Emerson 1994; William, Root, and Shifrin 1997; Root et al. in press). Since their initial identification, they have been observed in other Folsom assemblages, including Shifting Sands, Texas (Hofman, Amick, and Rose 1990), Hanson, Wyoming (Frison and Bradley 1980), Cattle Guard, Colorado Uodry and Stanford 1992), and possibly the Lindenmeier, Colorado, assemblage (M. J. Root, personal communication 1997). One interpretation is that these specialized bifacial implements were flaying knives employed in bison butchery (Jodry 1997, 1998). A single ultrathin from Blackwater Draw has been recognized by way of two conjoinable fragments-one from Frank's Folsom site (Stanford and Broilo 1981) and a larger cross-mendable piece from the nearby Mitchell Locality (Boldurian 1990). Although fragmentary, the additional Black-

water ultrathin described below is a potentially informative specimen. Some thoughts concerning these implements in the Folsom tool kit in the Blackwater Draw appear in Chapter 5.

FOLSOM ULTRATHIN BIFACE FRAGMENT Catalog No.:

University Museum 33-36-11

References:

Text: Fig. 40. Cast in epoxy by J. L. Houston, Archaeology Program, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg. Primary: Howard (1935, pI. XXIX)

Provenience: Blackwater Locality No.1, New Mexico. Recovered from the west side of the Gravel Pit in the Blue Clay (Diatomite) unit by George O. Roberts in 1932. The artifact was dislodged by a two-horse scraper removing overburden at the Gravel Pit. Upon discovery, the artifact was broken by a radial fracture into four conjoinable pieces. It was also covered on one surface by a "limy encrustation" of calcium carbonate, removed before the artifact was donated to the University Museum. The specimen was found immediately next to a mammoth tooth (see Howard 1935:92-93) . Material: Edwards chert. The color is a highly mottled combination of dark gray (Munsell 2.5Y4/0) and gray-to-grayish brown (Munsell 10YR6/1 to 10YR5/2). Description: The artifact was originally described by Howard (1935:92-93) as a blade, extraordinarily thin-one-eighth of an inch at its maximum thickness-and for its (overall) size represents remarkably fine work. To this may be added that the specimen is leaf-shaped and slightly asymmetrical in outline, with broad width in relation to extant length. This ratio is influenced by the fragmentary nature of the specimen. Cross sections of the artifact at three intervals are flat, generally lacking the noticeable biconcavity eviden tly characteristic of this form. The biface is uniformly thin and flat, with a minimal curvature along its length. Maximum width and maximum thickness are at the point where the specimen was broken in antiquity. This flexion or bending break may have occurred during manufacture or refurbishing, through use, or from being crushed underfoot. The lateral margins are excurvate and converge toward an acute tip. All edges are straight and, except for the aforementioned curvature, are centered within the specimen's available mass. The implement has several shallow hinge terminations at the midline, evidence of opposed diving biface thinning in late-

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLLECTIO

o

81

5