The Hogeye Clovis Cache (Peopling of the Americas Publications) 9781623492144, 9781623492328, 1623492149

Citation preview

T he Ho gey e C l ov i s C ac h e

il lu str ation s

i

Peopling of the Americas Publications Sponsored by the Center for the Study of the First Americans General Editors: Michael R. Waters and Ted Goebel

ii 

il lust r ations

The Hogeye Clovis Cache

M i c h a e l R . Wat e r s and T h o m a s A . J e n n i n g s

Te x as A&M Uni v ersit y Press College Station

il lu str ation s

iii

Copyright © 2015 by the Center for the Study of the First Americans All rights reserved First edition

Manufactured in the United States of America This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper). Binding materials have been chosen for durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Waters, Michael R., author. The Hogeye Clovis cache / Michael R. Waters and Thomas A. Jennings.— First edition. pages cm “Peopling of the Americas publications.” Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-62349-214-4 (printed case: alk. paper)— ISBN 978-1-62349-232-8 (ebook) 1. Clovis culture—Texas—Bastrop County.  2. Clovis points—Texas— Bastrop County.  3. Tools, Prehistoric—Texas—Bastrop County.  4. Antiquities, Prehistoric—Texas—Bastrop County.  5. Paleo-Indians—Texas—Bastrop County—Antiquities.  6. Excavations (Archaeology)—Texas—Bastrop County.  7. Bastrop County (Tex.)—Antiquities.  I. Jennings, Thomas A. (Thomas Andrew), 1979– author.  II. Title. E99.C832W385  2015 976.4'32—dc23 2014019854

Contents

Preface xiii Acknowledgments

xv

2 6 15 29 31 33 99 111 114 115 122 131 132 137 139 141 References  

145 149

v

illustrations

2 3 6 7 8 9 10 17 18 19 20 20 21 28 29 35 Figure 18. Late stage A projectile point preforms.

36

Figure 19. Late stage A projectile point preforms.

37

Figure 20. Late stage B projectile point preforms.

42

v ii

Figure 21. Late stage C projectile point preforms.

43

Figure 22. Stage A preform (Biface 1).

44

Figure 23. Stage A preform (Biface 2).

45

Figure 24. Stage A preform (Biface 2).

45

Figure 25. Stage A preform (Biface 3).

46

Figure 26. Stage A preform (Biface 3).

46

Figure 27. Stage A preform (Biface 5).

48

Figure 28. Stage A preform (Biface 5).

49

Figure 29. Stage A preform (Biface 8).

50

Figure 30. Stage A preform (Biface 8).

50

Figure 31. Stage A preform (Biface 9).

51

Figure 32. Stage A preform (Biface 9).

51

Figure 33. Stage A preform (Biface 10).

52

Figure 34. Stage A preform (Biface 10).

52

Figure 35. Stage A preform (Biface 11).

53

Figure 36. Stage A preform (Biface 15).

54

Figure 37. Stage A preform (Biface 15).

55

Figure 38. Stage A preform (Biface 16).

56

Figure 39. Stage A preform (Biface 16).

56

Figure 40. Stage A preform (Biface 22).

57

Figure 41. Stage A preform (Biface 22).

57

Figure 42. Stage A preform (Biface 23).

58

Figure 43. Stage A preform (Biface 23).

58

Figure 44. Stage A preform (Biface 25).

60

Figure 45. Stage A preform (Biface 26).

61

Figure 46. Stage A preform (Biface 26).

61

Figure 47. Stage A preform (Biface 28).

62

Figure 48. Stage A preform (Biface 28).

63

Figure 49. Stage A preform (Biface 29).

64

Figure 50. Stage A preform (Biface 30).

65

Figure 51. Stage A preform (Biface 30).

65

viii 

il lust r ations

Figure 52. Stage A preform (Biface 31).

67

Figure 53. Stage A preform (Biface 33).

68

Figure 54. Stage A preform (Biface 35).

70

Figure 55. Stage A preform (Biface 35).

71

Figure 56. Stage A preform (Biface 37).

72

Figure 57. Stage A preform (Biface 37).

72

Figure 58. Stage A preform (Biface 38).

73

Figure 59. Stage A preform (Biface 39).

74



75 76 79 80

Figure 64. Stage B preform (Biface 4).

81

Figure 65. Stage B preform (Biface 7).

82

Figure 66. Stage B preform (Biface 7).

83

Figure 67. Stage B preform (Biface 12).

84

Figure 68. Stage B preform (Biface 14).

85

Figure 69. Stage B preform (Biface 14).

85

Figure 70. Stage B preform (Biface 17).

86

Figure 71. Stage B preform (Biface 17).

87

Figure 72. Stage B preform (Biface 18).

88

Figure 73. Stage B preform (Biface 20).

90

Figure 74. Stage B preform (Biface 20).

90

Figure 75. Stage B preform (Biface 21).

91

Figure 76. Stage B preform (Biface 24).

92



93 95 96 97 98 100

il lu str ation s

ix



101 102 103 104 105 106

Figure 89. Ovate biface (Biface 19).

107

Figure 90. Ovate biface (Biface 32).

108

Figure 91. Ovate biface (Biface 36).

109

Figure 92. Ovate biface (Biface 36).

109

112 112

117 127 128 129 130 133

x 

il lust r ations

tables

Table 1. History of Clovis biface discoveries.

5



11



12



13



14



16

Table 7. Knife types.

16



20

Table 9. Paleoindian projectile point attributes.

22



38



40

Table 12. Average measurements of Hogeye bifaces by category with ANOVA p-values.

111

Table 13. Pair-wise Bonferroni comparison significant p-values (in bold) for average differences in metric measurements.

113



113

Table 15. Average shape ratios of Hogeye bifaces by category with ANOVA

114

Table 16. Pair-wise Bonferroni comparison significant p-values (in bold) for

114



116

Table 18. Number of bifaces with at least one overshot scar (OS) by biface group. 117

117



118

Table 21. Average measurements of end-thinning scars for point trajectory bifaces by 120

xi

122 124

table 23. Overshot and overface flake scar directionality.

134 136 136 Table 27. Clovis cache artifact composition.

141



142

143

xii 

il lustr table ationss

preface

R

oughly thirteen thousand years ago, Clovis hunters cached over fifty bifaces at the toe of a hillslope in central Texas. The deposition that followed over the next thirteen millennia buried the cache several meters below the surface. The entombed artifacts lay undisturbed until 2003, when commercial sand mining uncovered this stash of ancient tools. This is the story of the Hogeye cache—a remarkable collection of Clovis artifacts—a time capsule from the past. In the first chapter, we present the history of the cache discovery. This is followed by the results of our 2010 excavation, a description of the geological and chronological context of the site, and an analysis of a collection of projectile points found at the site. In chapter 2, we discuss general aspects of Clovis biface technology, and then describe and illustrate the bifaces that make up the Hogeye cache. The third chapter provides an analysis of the metric attributes and flaking patterns of the Hogeye bifaces and puts them into the context of the entire chain of biface reduction, with special comparisons to the nearby Gault site to reveal strategies used by Clovis knappers to produce projectile points and large ovate bifaces. The final chapter summarizes our findings and discusses the role of caching in Clovis settlement behavior and the role of the Hogeye cache to Clovis hunter-gatherers living in central Texas at the close of the last Ice Age.

Michael R. Waters Thomas A. Jennings

xiii

acknowledgments

A

number of people and institutions helped to make the investigation of the Hogeye cache possible. We owe special thanks to Lee and Cindy Jones for allowing us to study their portion of the Clovis cache and their impressive projectile point collection, allowing us to investigate the discovery location, bringing the field crew barbeque for lunch, and participating in the research. Thanks also to Mark Mullins and Dana Harper for sharing their portions of the Clovis cache. We also thank Leslie Pfeiffer and Curtis Hodge for their help in the study of the Hogeye cache. Funding for the fieldwork was provided by the North Star Archaeological Research Program established by Joe Cramer and Ruth Cramer. The 2012 excavation crew included: John Blong, Tim DeSmet, Jessi Halligan, Thomas Jennings, Larkin Kennedy, and Michael Waters. Funding from the Chair in First Americans Studies supported the laboratory analyses. Optically Stimulated Luminescence samples were analyzed by Steve Forman of the Luminescence Dating Research Laboratory, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Chicago. Charles “Andy” Speer of the University of Texas at San Antonio kindly conducted LA-ICP-MS chert sourcing analyses on three of the Hogeye cache bifaces. William Dickens identified the Paleoindian, Archaic, and Late Prehistoric projectile points and knives. Jim Wiederhold conducted the microscopic usewear analyses. Darryl de Ruiter of Texas A&M University identified the faunal remains. Ashley Smallwood helped conduct preliminary analyses of the cache and helped develop the analytical methodology. Josh Keene created all the artifact drawings and prepared the final illustrations. Bruce Huckell and David Kilby reviewed the manuscript and provided many useful comments that helped to improve the manuscript. Mark Mullins provided most of the publication support for this volume, with supplemental funds coming from the Chair in the First American Studies. To all these people and organizations, we say thank you.

xv xv

T he Ho gey e C l ov i s C ac h e

xviii 

il lust r ations

chapter one

The Hogeye Clovis Cache

A

cache is a group of artifacts that were intentionally left together on the land scape. Tools and raw materials have been cached throughout time for various reasons. Caches of artifacts dating to the Clovis time period are unique, but not rare. There are 18 caches recognized as Clovis, most of which are found in the Plains and Midwest (Kilby 2008). Some Clovis caches have only bifaces, others blades, and others combinations of both along with other items. Some are associated with Clovis sites, but most are not, occurring as isolated finds. Here we report on the Hogeye cache—a Clovis cache from central Texas. The Hogeye cache was found in Bastrop County in the upper Gulf Coastal Plain. Ecologically, the cache site sits on the western edge of the Post Oak Savannah on the border with the Blackland Prairie (Figure 1), only 40 km from the Balcones Escarpment and the Edwards Plateau to the west.

Alibates Agate Anadarko

Grand Prairie

Blackwater Draw

High Plains

North-Central Plains

Blackland Prairies

Aubrey

Lewisville

Yellow Hawk

Basin and Range

Edwards Plateau

Keven Davis

Central Texas Uplift

Kincaid

Gault

Interior Coastal Plains

Wilson-Leonard

Pavo Real

Hogeye

Coastal Prairies McFaddin Beach

Figure 1. Physiographic map showing the location of the Hogeye site and other Clovis sites in the region.

N 0 50 100

200

300

400 km

11

Discovery and Naming of the Cache The Hogeye cache was discovered in a commercial sandpit about 5 km west of Elgin, Texas (Figure 2). The sand mined from the pit was used as temper in the manufacture of ceramic tiles and bricks at a nearby plant. This particular pit was opened in 1992, and over 20,000 m3 of sand was removed from an 800-m2 area (Figure 3). During the years of sand mining, thousands of Late Prehistoric and Archaic projectile points were found by workers as they stripped the upper sands. Machine operators recall seeing many stone-filled features (likely hearths and roasting pits) during the removal of the sand. As they mined deeper into the sand, they found Paleoindian projectile points. These artifacts were kept by whoever found them, and several large collections were amassed. The Hogeye cache was discovered on April 22, 2003, during a normal day of sand mining. John Wayne Farris was operating a front end loader with its five-cubic-yard bucket. As usual, he drove the loader to the steep sand wall, dug the bucket into the base of the 3-m-high wall of sand and scraped upward to the surface until his bucket Figure 2. Photograph of the quarried sandpit (facing was filled with sand. John was working along a 30-m-long segment of the pit wall. northeast). He worked his way from one end to the other and back again. The sand he collected

2 

cha p te r one

Hogeye Site Excavation Unit Pit Contour Intervals: 0.5m

Excavation Area A Excavation Area B

Cache Location

N

0 Figure 3. Topographic map showing the quarried sand pit, cache location, and Excavation Areas A and B.

50

was placed in piles at the opposite end of the pit near a road for dump trucks. When a truck arrived, the sand was taken from the piles and loaded into the trucks. Each truck held about 12 cubic yards of sand. The trucks hauled the sand to the processing plant and dumped it in piles. It remained in piles until it was needed for tile and brick making. That morning, John was digging into the bank and dumping sand. When he dumped one load onto a pile he saw several large bifaces. He stopped and picked up a half dozen large bifaces. Lee Jones, the mining supervisor at the time, arrived at the sandpit mid-morning to find John waving him to his loader. Lee stepped on the loader and saw the large bifaces lying on the floor of the cab. Lee had never seen this type of biface come from the pit before, but he recognized them as Clovis. Given their size and quantity, he suspected that they may have come from a cache. Lee walked to the pile where John had just dumped his load of sand and found two more bifaces. Upon more searching, no more bifaces were found. Most of the sand excavated by John that morning had already been sent to the plant. Lee instructed John not to send the last pile of sand at the pit to the plant and to stop digging in the area where the artifacts were found. John was told to dig sand from another wall of the pit and send only that sand to the plant. The sand already in the dump trucks was taken to the plant a short distance away and dumped in piles. While the sand was stockpiled at the plant, Cindy Jones searched the piles and found another Clovis biface. The sand stockpiled at the plant was processed in batches over the next three to four months. John was in charge of operating the screening system. He scooped up sand from the piles with his front end loader and dropped the sand down a metal hopper. The sand was transferred from the hopper onto a conveyor feeder, where John would watch for roots or anything that could cause problems while screening the sand. This is where John found one of the large bifaces. At the end of the feeder the sand fell into a large rotating metal drum; a flame inside the drum heated the sand to 500°F. The sand remained in the heated and rotating drum for about 3 to 5 minutes, until it was completely dry. Then the sand passed over a vibrating metal screen (9 mesh—9 openings per square inch); the sand that fell through the screen was collected for tile and brick making. Larger items, such as rocks and artifacts, remained on the screen and were vibrated down a metal chute onto a conveyer belt where they were transported to a reject pile, falling 10 to 16 feet depending on the height of the pile below. Most of the artifacts that went through this process suffered some kind of damage. Lee, Cindy, and John all watched for artifacts on the conveyer belt. This is where many of the Clovis bifaces were found. They all recalled that the artifacts were so hot that they burned their hands as they picked them up, so that they had to use a glove or a cloth to pick artifacts off the conveyer belt. Some of the bifaces Lee and Cindy found also came from the pile of rejected material. When the pile became too high, John would use the front end loader to move this material away from the conveyor belt. Lee and Cindy also found several bifaces when they searched the moved reject piles. One biface was also found by an employee of the plant and given to Lee. Counting the artifacts that were found that April day in the sandpit and after all the sand that had been dug that day was processed, John had a total of 13 complete bifaces, and Lee and Cindy had 21 complete and 3 biface fragments (Table 1).

4 

cha p te r one

TABLE 1. History of Clovis Biface Discoveries Discoverer John Wayne Farris

Discovery date 2003

Biface 1–13 Lee and Cindy Jones

2003

Biface 27, 28a, 31–52 Texas A&M University

2010

Biface 14–26, 28b–30

Lee and Cindy selected the name “Hogeye” for the cache, and this name was applied to the 24 bifaces in their collection (Lohse et al. 2014). This name was selected by Lee to honor his uncle who had lived near Elgin on Hogeye Lane. His uncle grew up in a small house with Lee’s father and grandparents in the 1940s in the immediate vicinity of the modern pit. Remains of the house are still visible next to the pit; oddly, the house was located only 100 yards from where the cache was eventually found. The name Hogeye is used to designate both the Clovis biface cache and the archaeological site. A local collector got wind of the discovery and learned that John Farris had part of the cache. The collector vigorously pursued Farris until he eventually agreed to sell his collection of 13 Clovis bifaces. This collector eventually began to sell individual pieces of the cache to different collectors across the country. At this point, Mark Mullins stepped in and, believing that the artifacts from the cache should stay together, purchased the entire collection in 2005. During this time, the collection of 13 bifaces became known variously as the Wall cache, later the Mullins cache, the Mullins Texas cache, the Texas cache, and the Bastrop County cache (Kilby 2008; Pfeiffer 2005). When Mullins purchased the collection, he was given little information about the location where the artifacts were found. He was told only that they came from a sandpit somewhere in Bastrop County. He loaned the collection to Michael Waters, who began studies of it, first with Victor Galan and then with Tom Jennings. Attempts by Waters and Galan to locate specifically where the cache came from failed. Some archaeologists who examined only the collection of 13 bifaces felt that these artifacts might have been made by a modern knapper because of their fresh appearance and the occasional metal streak on the surface of some of the artifacts (Kilby 2008). Clearly this is not the case. The metal streaks on these 13 bifaces were acquired during the excavation and processing of the sand, and as they bounced around on the metal floor of the front end loader’s cab. In 2010, Leslie Pfeiffer and Curtis Hodge arranged a meeting between Michael Waters and two students (Tom Jennings and Ashley Smallwood) with Lee and Cindy Jones to examine the 24 Clovis bifaces. Waters brought the 13 bifaces that Mullins had allowed him to study, and Lee and Cindy confirmed that these were indeed the artifacts that Farris had found and sold. Shortly after this meeting, Lee Jones took Michael Waters and several students to the sandpit where the cache was found. Lee then granted them

th e h o g eye c l ov i s c ac h e

5

permission to examine the site, and to study his portion of the cache and the other artifacts they had collected from the site.

Archaeological and Geoarchaeological Field Investigations

Figure 4. Photograph of the excavation of the unprocessed sand pile.

Archaeological and geoarchaeological field investigations were undertaken in May 2010. This included the investigation of the sand pile left at the sand quarry in 2003 and excavations at the location where the cache was found. The sand pile was excavated with shovels. The sediment removed from the pile was broadcast and examined for bifaces (Figure 4). Over several days, 16 Clovis bifaces were recovered, 15 complete and one base fragment. In the sand pile, a clear stratigraphy of individual dumps by the front end loader could be seen (Figure 5). Three of the bifaces were found at the base of the sand, but the majority (n = 13) were found in the middle of the sand pile in a lens of white sand with clasts of the underlying red Tertiary clayey sand bedrock. This observation was important for two reasons. First, it showed that the bifaces had been buried in loose white sand and in a unit with bedrock clasts. This suggested that the sand with the Clovis artifacts must have been in close proximity to the bedrock, likely at the base of the sand deposit. Second, it showed that John Farris did not see the biface cache on his first pass, because he continued digging and piling more sand on top of the first excavated bifaces. The artifacts from the cache were only seen by Farris on his second

Figure 5. Photograph of the partially excavated sand pile (a) and close-up of three Clovis bifaces recovered within the pile (b).

pass across the cache. It was clear that when Farris dumped the first artifact-bearing load of sand from his bucket, most of the bifaces remained entombed in the sand, but that a few slid down the front and sides of the sand pile. The tip of a biface found in 2003 fit snugly onto a broken base that was found in the sand pile in 2010. This evidence strongly indicates that the bifaces had come from a very confined area. Also, it appeared that the entire cache was removed in two passes by the front end loader. The artifacts removed in the first pass ended up in the sand pile and were excavated in 2010. The artifacts excavated from the second pass were those collected at the pit and during processing in 2003. Since the cache was found, the wall of the pit in the discovery area had never been excavated again and had slumped. Archaeological excavations were undertaken at the location where the cache was found. Both Lee Jones and John Farris examined the sandpit wall and agreed on the general location of the find spot, but each defined a different spot where the

th e h o g eye c l ov i s c ac h e

7

Figure 6. Photograph of the south wall of the sandpit showing the location of 2010 excavation units and location of the cache.

cache came from, the spots being 10 m apart. As a result, we investigated both areas, digging a 3 × 1 m block (Area A) where Lee Jones thought the bifaces had been discovered and a second 2 × 1 m block (Area B) in the area where John Farris recalled the bifaces were found (Figures 3 and 6). The purpose of these excavations was to examine the site stratigraphy, collect samples for dating, identify the geologic layer in which the cache had originally been buried, and understand the contexts of thousands of Archaic and later points that had been found over the years. Each 1 × 1 m unit was dug in 10-cm levels using shovels from the surface to the bedrock. All sediments were screened through quarter-inch mesh and all artifacts were collected. Several fire-cracked rock features were found and recorded. After the excavations were completed, a Bobcat with a front end loader was used to excavate and examine the sediments that had slumped from the walls of the pit since 2003 for any additional overlooked Clovis bifaces. This was done because there was a possibility that Clovis artifacts might be buried in the slump, and there may have been intact sediments with additional artifacts behind the slump. The sand excavated from the sidewalls was spread on the pit floor and examined for additional Clovis bifaces. The freshly exposed banks were also monitored and examined. No additional Clovis bifaces were encountered.

Geologic Setting, Stratigraphy, and Geochronology The Hogeye cache was found at the toe of a southeast-facing sandy colluvial slope. Two small streams skirt the edge of the slope to the south and east. These creeks flow into a larger tributary that drains into the Colorado River, which is about 20 km to the south. The location of the cache and surrounding terrain is not distinctive in any way.

8 

cha p te r one

Above the site is a low hill composed of weakly cemented, fine- to mediumgrained sandstone. This Eocene bedrock, known as the Sparta Sand, is part of the Wilcox Group (Barnes 1981). The upper meter of the bedrock has been weathered by pedogenic processes. Soil development on the bedrock consists of a red (2.5 YR 4/8) argillic horizon with prismatic and blocky structure and a horizon with CaCO3 nodules and root casts. This soil is eroded in most places, and the bedrock forms an undulating surface that gently slopes toward the creek. At the location where the cache was found (Excavation Areas A and B), the colluvium is about 3 m thick (Figure 7). The colluvium here is divided into two main units that have been altered by pedogenic processes. Figure 7. Photograph of the east wall profile of Excavation Area B.

Unit 1, which is about a meter thick, lies directly above the eroded and weathered Eocene bedrock surface (Figure 8). The lower 20–25 cm of this unit is yellowish brown (10 YR 6/4), angular to subangular, medium to fine sand. This unit contains no lamellae and displays some redoximorphic features. Contained within the sand are clasts of the underlying red Eocene bedrock. The absence of lamellae and the white color of the sand indicate leaching due to a perched water table. Only a few flakes were found in this unit. The unit is identical in appearance to the sand in the pile that contained the bifaces and is likely the unit from which the Clovis cache originated. The upper portion of Unit 1 is massive, fine to medium sand that is strong brown (7.5 YR 4/6) in color and is about 70 cm thick. This unit is distinctly more reddish in color than the overlying colluvium. Its color may have been the result of in situ soil formation, but it could also be color-inherited when the soil developed on the bedrock was eroded and reworked downslope. Clay lamellae are abundant and 2–5 mm

Area B

Levels

10 

Perdiz Point

Area A

Axtell Point Montell Point

2175 ± 290 BP (UIC-2776) Bulverde Point

Unit 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

3060 ± 405 BP (UIC-2774)

3590 ± 480 BP (UIC - 2771)

3720 ± 310 BP (UIC - 2775) Montell Point Montell Point

Wells Point

1m

7520 ± 630 BP (UIC-2772)

Unit 1

Figure 8. Geologic profiles of Excavation Areas A and B showing the locations of OSL ages, diagnostic projectile points, and hearths.

0

cha p te r one

TABLE 2. Luminescence Ages Geological unit

Depth below surface (m)

Lab no.

2

0.75

UIC2776

2

1.15

2

Equivalent dose (Gy)a

Dose rate (Gy/ky)

OSL age (yrs)c

5±2

1.14 ± 0.07

2175 ± 290

0.62 ± 0.01

5±2

1.18 ± 0.07

3060 ± 405

2.7 ± 0.1

0.53 ± 0.01

5±2

1.11 ± 0.06

3590 ± 480

1.1 ± 0.1

2.7 ± 0.1

0.52 ± 0.01

5±2

1.07 ± 0.06

3720 ± 310

1.1 ± 0.1

2.8 ± 0.1

0.56 ± 0.01

5±2

1.09 ± 0.06

7520 ± 630

b

U (ppm)

b

Th (ppm)

K2O (%)

2.49 ± 0.30

1.2 ± 0.1

2.9 ± 0.1

0.54 ± 0.01

UIC2774

3.73 ± 0.45

1.2 ± 0.1

3.1 ± 0.1

1.05

UIC2771

4.00 ± 0.48

1.2 ± 0.1

2

1.50

UIC2775

3.99 ± 0.25

1

2.50

UIC2772

8.21 ± 0.51

b

H2O (%)

150 to 250 µm quartz fraction analyzed under blue-light excitation (470 ± 20 nm) by single aliquot regeneration protocol (Murray and Wintle 2003) U, Th, and K2O content analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry analyzed by Activation Laboratory Ltd, Ontario, Canada. c Ages calculated using the central age model of Galbraith et al. (1999). All errors are at 1 sigma and ages from the reference year 2010. a

b

thick in this unit. Unit 1 contains numerous artifacts. An early Archaic Wells projectile point and an OSL age of 7520 ± 630 B.P. (UIC-2772) were obtained from the sand (Table 2). This unit was deposited during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. A sharp contact separates Unit 1 from the overlying Unit 2. Unit 2 is the thickest unit (225 cm); it consists of angular to subangular, fine to medium sand that is massive and yellowish brown (10YR 3/6) in color. In most areas the upper 50 cm displays weak subangular blocky structure and no lamellae. Below this the texture and structure remain constant, with lamellae increasing in density and thickness (0.5 to 7 mm) with depth. In Excavation Area B, lamellae formation was disrupted by human activity. These sediments are dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4) in color. More firecracked rock was encountered in Area B than in Area A, and three hearth features with fire-cracked rock were also present. Many artifacts, including Montell, Bulverde, Axtell, and Perdiz projectile points, were found in Unit 2. Four OSL ages from these sediments range from 2175 ± 290 B.P. (UIC-2776) to 3720 ± 310 B.P. (UIC-2775).

Geologic History and Site Formation Processes At the Hogeye site, the Eocene bedrock was exposed and weathered for some time. Water flowing off the bedrock hillslope eroded the bedrock, creating a slightly undulating surface. During the late Quaternary, colluvial deposition dominated. Loose grains of sand derived from the friable Eocene sandstone moved downslope and accumulated. The first colluvial deposits were laid down (Unit 1) during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. After a hiatus in deposition during the middle Holocene, a pulse of colluvial deposition followed during the late Holocene, creating Unit 2.

th e h o g eye c l ov i s c ac h e

11

At the time of Clovis, most of the hillside would have been exposed bedrock with red-colored soils. A small amount of sand would have been present at the toe of the slope (the lowest portion of Unit 1). Adjacent to this deposit were the floodplains of two small creeks. Clovis people probably dug a pit into the soft colluvial sands and buried the bifaces to conceal them for later use. During the late Paleoindian and early Archaic periods, colluvial deposition followed, and people utilized the site area. The artifacts they left behind were incrementally buried by sand (Unit 1) coming down the slope. During the middle Archaic, sedimentation slowed significantly and may even have stopped. Any middle Archaic remains would likely be on the surface of the sharp contact separating Units 1 and 2 or perhaps may be present at the very base of Unit 2. Rapid sedimentation dominated during the late Holocene (Unit 2). This led to the rapid burial of late Archaic and Late Prehistoric features and artifacts.

Archaeological Findings A large number of artifacts, mostly debitage, were recovered during excavation at Areas A and B. Because both geological Units 1 and 2 are present in both excavation areas, the artifacts from these geological units are combined for this discussion (Tables 3–5). A total of 426 artifacts were recovered from Unit 1. Tools included one Wells projectile point, one expedient unifacial tool made on a flake, one hammerstone, nine late-stage biface fragments, and two irregular cores. One hundred eighty-five pieces of macrodebitage (flakes and flake fragments >2.5 cm) were recovered, including 38 normal flakes, 70 biface thinning flakes, and 77 flake fragments. Two hundred seventyseven pieces of microdebitage (flakes and flake fragments 2.54 cm.

12 

cha p ter one

TABLE 4. Excavation Area A Artifacts by Level Level

Fragments1

Normal flakes

Biface thinning flakes

Flake tools

Bifaces

Cores

Microdebitage

Geologic Unit 2 5

4

1

1

6

6

1

5

25 47 1

7

5

2

8

2

1

4

53

9

9

2

3

67

10

12

1

42

11

8

1

35

4

61 1 (Bulverde)

13

13

19

5

14

12

2

4

15

16

3

14

1

16

18

1

11

1

17

16

2

9

91

18

23

8

22

167

19

18

5

18

4

132

25

1

128

2

134

1 (Montell)

93

1 (Montell)

101

20

3

71

12

33

7

7

21

34

4

23

22

30

3

21

23

30

6

17

24

27

4

16

25

16

8

9

26

11

2

15

64 84

1 2

1

90 113

1

81 3

70

1

57

Geologic Unit 1 27

6

6

7

1

42

28

9

2

8

47

29

15

3

10

1 (Wells) 3

30

9

5

5

48

1

41 1

31

5

3

11

32

8

6

10

33

5

1

4

17

34

7

4

4

18

35

4

36

3

16 18

2 1

37 Total

1 1

8 1

2

3

1 433

98

297

8

22

2

2064

Fragments, normal flakes, biface thinning flakes, flake tools, and biface columns represent counts of artifacts that are >2.54 cm. Microdebitage consists of artifacts that are 2.54 cm. Microdebitage consists of artifacts that are