1-s2.0-S030544031200218X-main

Accepted Manuscript

Pre-Clovis in Texas? A critical Assessment of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex”

Juliet E. Morrow, Stuart J. Fiedel, Donald L. Johnson, Marcel Kornfeld, MoyeRutledge, W. Raymond Wood

PII: S0305-4403(12)00218-X

DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.018

Reference: YJASC 3273

To appear in: Journal of Archaeological Science

Received Date: 12 March 2012

Revised Date: 22 May 2012

Accepted Date: 23 May 2012

Please cite this article as: Morrow, J.E., Fiedel, S.J., Johnson, D.L., Kornfeld, M., Rutledge, M., Wood,W.R., Pre-Clovis in Texas? A critical Assessment of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex”, Journal ofArchaeological Science (2012), doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.018.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service toour customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergocopyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Pleasenote that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and alllegal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.018

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Pre-Clovis in Texas? A Critical Assessment of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex” Juliet E. Morrowa, Stuart J. Fiedelb, Donald L. Johnsonc, Marcel Kornfeldd, Moye Rutledgee, and W. Raymond Woodf a. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Jonesboro, P.O. Box 820, State University AR, 72467, e-mail: [email protected], telephone: 870-972-2071. Corresponding author. b. The Louis Berger Group, 801 E. Main, Suite 500, Richmond VA 23219, e-mail: [email protected] c. University of Illinois, 220 Davenport Hall, Urbana, IL 61801, e-mail: [email protected] d. University of Wyoming, Anthropology Building 240, Laramie WY 82071, e-mail: [email protected] e. University of Arkansas, 115 Plant Science Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701, e-mail: [email protected] f. University of Missouri, 117 Museum Support Center, Rock Quarry Road and Hinkson Creek, Columbia, MO 65211, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Lithic artifacts from the lowest strata of the Debra L. Friedkin site, located on Buttermilk

Creek in central Texas, have been interpreted as an undisturbed pre-Clovis assemblage

(Waters et al. 2011a). Stone tools and debitage were recovered from sediments stratified

just below diagnostic Clovis artifacts and dated by OSL to between 13.2 and >15.5 cal

kya. Invoking commonly observed cultural and natural site formation processes, we offer

an alternative explanation of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex” as a Clovis assemblage in

secondary association with the dated sediments.

1. Introduction

Waters et al. (2011a) have recently asserted that an assemblage of lithic artifacts from the

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2

Debra L. Friedkin site (41BL1239) in central Texas dates from ~13.2 to ~15.5 kya. If

they are correct, both anthropological models of the initial human occupation of North

America, and geoarchaeological models of site formation processes, would require

fundamental revisions. Waters et al. identify the Buttermilk Creek Complex (BCC) lithic

assemblage (bifaces, blades, gravers, macrodebitage and microdebitage) as pre-Clovis,

perhaps also ancestral to Clovis, and claim that it supports the contested hypothesis that

Clovis technology spread through an already populated continent (Waters and Stafford,

2007; cf. G. Haynes et al., 2007). Friedkin joins the small roster of claimed pre-Clovis

occupations that, unlike the many now-forgotten former contenders (e.g., Tule Springs

[Haynes, 1967; Shutler, 1967], Shriver [Reagan et al., 1978], Sheguiandah [Julig, 2002;

Lee, 1954, 1955], Pedra Furada [Guidon and Arnaud, 1991; Guidon 2002; Guidon and

Pessis, 1996]) have so far survived skeptical scrutiny: Meadowcroft (Adovasio et al.,

1975, 1979, 1999), Monte Verde (Dillehay, 1989, 1997, 2002; Dillehay et al., 1999),

Schaefer and Hebior (E. Johnson, 2006, 2007; Joyce 2006), Cactus Hill (M. Johnson,

1998; McAvoy and McAvoy, 1997), Paisley Caves (Gilbert et al., 2008 contra Poinar et

al., 2008; Goldberg et al., 2009), and Manis (Waters et al., 2011b). Here, we closely

examine the reported evidence from the Friedkin site, offer alternative interpretations of

the stratigraphic evidence, and reiterate the stringent criteria by which all pre-Clovis

claims ought to be evaluated.

In the early 20th century, the anthropological establishment maintained that ancestors of

American Indians had arrived here no earlier than 5,000 years ago. This consensus view

was abruptly and unequivocally shattered in 1927 by the discovery near Folsom, New

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Mexico, of finely made fluted spear points in indisputably close association with

skeletons of an extinct giant bison, Bison antiquus. This animal had not survived into the

Holocene, so the associated artifacts pushed human occupation of the Americas at least to

the end of the Pleistocene (about 10,000 years ago, as then estimated).

Over the following three decades, archaeologists realized that Folsom points had been

preceded by a distinct variety of fluted point, called Clovis, which was associated with

butchered mammoths at several sites in the Plains and Southwest. Geoarchaeologist C.

Vance Haynes (1964, 1966) theorized that big-game hunters who used these fluted points

had migrated through a newly opened ice-free corridor about 13,500 cal BP (11,500

rcybp) and expanded into a previously uninhabited New World. This model, positing

Clovis as the earliest widespread cultural complex in North America, has become

commonly known as “Clovis First.” The date of 11,500 rcybp has acquired almost

mystical significance as a barrier to be breached by researchers who have argued that

humans must have arrived in the Americas millennia before the Clovis expansion.

Haynes (1969:714) allowed that earlier sites might indeed exist, but he cautioned that

they must be skeptically assessed: “For establishing man’s presence, the minimum

requirements met for the Folsom site still apply for future excavations. The primary

requirement is a human skeleton, or an assemblage of artifacts that are clearly the work of

man. Next, this evidence must lie in situ within undisturbed geological deposits in order

to clearly demonstrate the primary association of artifacts with stratigraphy. Lastly, the

minimum age of the site must be demonstrated by primary association with fossils of

known age or with material suitable for reliable isotopic age dating.” With respect to the

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Friedkin evidence, we emphasize in Haynes’ criteria the phrases “undisturbed geological

contexts” and “primary association.”

Following the widespread acceptance of a claimed pre-Clovis occupation at Monte Verde

in southern Chile (Dillehay, 1997; Meltzer et al., 1997, contra Fiedel, 1999a, Dickinson,

2011), even former skeptics have joined the search for further evidence of an assumed

pre-Clovis migration. One of these recent “converts” is Michael Waters of Texas A & M

University. In 1985, Waters (a student of C. Vance Haynes) had cited Haynes’ criteria as

the basis for his own skeptical evaluation of 36 ostensibly early sites; he concluded that

“the Clovis culture remains the oldest unequivocal evidence for man in the Americas

south of the former continental ice sheets” (Waters, 1985:137). Today, Waters thinks

that pre-Clovis sites do exist, and he has published three Science articles, each

proclaiming conclusive falsification of the Clovis-first model (Waters and Stafford, 2007;

Waters et al. 2011a; Waters et al. 2011b).

The case for pre-Clovis occupation of the Friedkin site (Waters et al., 2011a) is based on

stratigraphic relationships, artifact attributes, and 18 OSL dates, and on several crucial

assumptions: 1) the BCC artifacts are the same age as the OSL-dated alluvial sediment

matrix from which they were recovered, 2) there has been no vertical displacement of

BCC artifacts, they are “in undisturbed context and have not worked downward or

displaced upward by soil forming processes” (Waters et al., 2011a:1601), and 3) the BCC

artifacts are typologically distinctive from all known Clovis assemblages. We propose

several alternative explanations that may account equally well for the vertical distribution

of the BCC artifacts, their ostensible pre-Clovis age, and their acknowledged close

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


resemblance to the Clovis assemblage from the Aubrey site (Waters et al., SOM; Ferring,

2001).

The chronostratigraphic position of the sediments underlying diagnostic Clovis and

Folsom artifacts is sufficient to indicate that their age exceeds 13 kya. However, we note

that the reported OSL dates have large standard errors and have been corrected by some

unstated increment relying on an untestable assumption about the sediments’ water

content over the millennia since their deposition (Waters et al., 2011a SOM, p. 6). The

reported OSL dates of 13,780+885 cal BP for the Folsom zone and 14,350+910 and

14,070+910 cal BP for the Clovis zone are about 1,000 years too old; Folsom should date

to ca. 12,800-12,200 and Clovis, to 13,200-12,800 cal BP (Haynes, 1992, 1993; Haynes

et al., 1992; Holliday, 2000; Taylor et al., 1996; Waters and Stafford 2007). The dates for

the Paleoindian-Early Archaic cultural transition (equivalent, in this sequence, to the

Golondrina to Angostura point-style shift), located at the same depth in Columns 1 and 2

in Block A, ought to be the same (about 9800 cal BP, based upon known radiocarbon

ages for Angostura points in Texas). However, the reported OSL dates actually differ by

~3,000 years: 10,480+675 cal BP in Column 1, but 7600+500 cal BP in Column 2

(Waters et al., 2011a: Figure 2) (see Table 1). These problematic dates raise the

possibility of systematic over-estimation of other ages. In any case, we focus in the

following remarks not on the age of the sediments (arguably less than 14 kya, given their

error factors) but that of the artifacts they contain and on the nature of the shrinking-

swelling soil, known as a Vertisol (USDA-NRCS 2010:33), in which they occur.

Insert somewhere near here: [Table 1. Expected calibrated radiocarbon ages compared with OSL dates associated with cultural components in Block A at the Friedkin site.]

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Waters and his co-authors contend that the artifacts must be as old as their present matrix

because the cracks that can be observed today in this Vertisol are too small in diameter to

permit the downward displacement of most of the BCC debitage pieces from the

overlying artifact-bearing strata. This observation can only preclude such displacement if

we accept that 1) all cracks that were ever present in this sediment over the past 14 kya

are still extant and visible, and 2) no other processes might have caused downward drift

of lithic debitage and tools.

Waters et al. (2011a:1601) cite Wilding and Tessier (1988) in support of their assertion

that Vertisols are minimally mixed. This generalization, however, does not necessarily

apply to all Vertisols, even within this region. A soil classified in the soil order Vertisol is

one that, by definition, develops cracks during periods of drying (USDA-NRCS

2010:33). Kishue’ et al. (2009) reported on a 10-year in situ study of crack formation and

closure in a 100-m2 area of Texas prairie. Their study area contained microhighs,

microslopes, and microlows. The average widths of cracks were similar on the three

landscape positions, about 1.6 cm, but ranged up to 7 cm. The average lengths of crack

segments ranged from 9 to 13 cm. Kishue’ et al. took 333 measurements of crack depths

during the 10-year study. Average depths on the three landscape positions ranged from 37

to 51 cm, but the maximum depths of cracks ranged from 107 to 140 cm. We note that

the maximum depth of 140 cm is equivalent to the thickness of the entire artifact-bearing

Vertisol at the Debra L. Friedkin site (Waters et al., 2011a). When artifacts fall into such

Vertisol cracks, as we know they do (for lithics see D. Johnson, 1972:Fig. 46, and for

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


ceramics, Muhs, 2001:Fig. 3), they instantly become intrusive. The depth of intrusion

depends on the size of the artifacts and the width and depth of cracks. The character of

the Vertisols as they were observed during recent fieldwork at the Friedkin site gives no

indication of how wide the cracks could have been when the soil dried out during or after

any of the prehistoric occupations.

Figure 1 is based on Table S11 of the online supporting material (Waters et al., 2011a). It

shows a regular decrease in artifact frequency with depth below Level 32b (the Clovis

zone), a decrease that actually begins about 40 cm higher in Level 24b, the Angostura

component (Waters et al., 2011:S10). In arguing against the possibility of downward

drift, Waters et al. (2011:1601) assert that there has been “no sorting of artifacts by size

from the surface through the Buttermilk Creek Complex.” However, as would be

expected if drift did occur, the smallest pieces of debitage (microdebitage: <1/4 inch or

0.63 cm) comprise a greater proportion of the total assemblage with increasing depth

(Table 2, Figure 1). The ratio of microdebitage to macrodebitage (>1/4 inch) increases

consistently from level 32a (3.05) to 36b (8.15), i.e., microdebitage increases from 75%

to 89% of the total assemblage (Figure 2). At least from the Folsom level down through

level 36b, a total thickness of less than 30 cm, strong and significant size sorting is

evident (see Figure 2). The downward decrease in artifact numbers coupled with a

proportional increase in microdebitage fits well with the model of post-depositional

mixing developed by Brantingham et al. (2007) and applied by them to actual deposits at

the Barger Gulch Folsom site.

Insert somewhere near here:

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


[Figure 1. Artifact Count by Excavation Level, Debra L. Friedkin site, Block A. Each level is 2.5 cm thick and the total thickness of the section referenced here is 25 centimeters. Elevation is in meters above datum.] [Table 2. Debitage data for Block A, Debra L. Friedkin site from Waters et al. (2011a)] [Figure 2. Relationship between elevation and microdebitage ratio (see column mic/mac1, Table 2).] We note that the several hundred pieces of lithic debitage reported from level 36b are

stratigraphically older than 16 kya. Indeed, artifacts were found even deeper, down to

level 39b (see SOM Figure S10). Waters et al. do not assign these deeper artifacts to the

BCC cultural horizon, or use them as the basis for extending the age of the BCC by

another half-millennium or more. We surmise that this decision reflects their tacit

acknowledgment that the small artifacts at this depth have indeed drifted downward and

do not manifest a still-older occupation. Nevertheless, these artifacts conform to a

broader pattern, also visible in the overlying levels, of regular decreasing frequency of

debitage with depth.

An argument could be advanced that the increasing frequency of debitage over time is a

direct index of an exponentially growing human population and/or more frequent

occupation of the site. At a smaller scale, the same pattern seems to be evident in Unit

N1305 E1361 from Clovis up to the Middle Archaic in Level 23 (SOM Figure S10).

However, in Table S11 there is no evident peak in artifact frequency below Clovis that

resembles those that manifest successive intermittent occupations after Folsom in Figure

S10.

Similar artifact distributions have been observed on archaeological sites in both alluvial

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


and upland landscape positions (e.g., Hofman, 1986; Surovell et al., 2005, Brantingham

et al., 2007; Kornfeld et al., 1995, Fiedel et al., 2004). It is particularly important to note

a similar pattern in the reported artifact frequencies from the claimed pre-Clovis site of

Cactus Hill, Virginia. As stated by the excavators themselves: “In summary, natural

forces and down drift of later artifacts could be an explanation for the early (core blade)

tradition postulated for Cactus Hill. Since no other identical early assemblages have been

reported, the burden of proof rests with the investigators of the Cactus Hill Site”

(McAvoy and McAvoy, 1997:180).

Diminishing artifact frequency with depth can result from a variety of non-mutually-

exclusive factors, including human and/or animal trampling, and such turbative forms of

pedogenesis as argilliturbation (shrinking and swelling of clayey soils), bioturbation (e.g.,

animal burrowing), and floralturbation (disturbance caused by plant roots, tree throws)

(Wood and Johnson, 1978; Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1990).

Downward displacement of artifacts often occurs through bioturbation (e.g., animal and

insect burrows, crayfish, roots). Filled burrows (krotovinas) are often observed and

documented in stratigraphic profiles at archaeological sites. Indeed, at Friedkin an Early

Archaic Martindale point was found in a “sediment-filled burrow” within the Clovis

horizon (Waters et al., 2011a SOM, p. 22). Such visible burrows are only the most recent

examples of processes that affected the site in the distant past, but have become

imperceptible over the years. The dynamic nature of soil often precludes the preservation

of ancient cracks, root casts, insect burrows and similar features in a soil profile.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


According to Waters et al. (2011a:1600), “Stratification that may have existed within the

floodplain deposit has been obscured by pedogenesis (A-Bss horizons);” yet somehow

still discernible in this deposit are very thin (2.5-cm thick) intact Folsom and Clovis

horizons. The soil cracks they have documented at the Friedkin site formed within the

relatively recent past and do not preclude the operation of older soil-disturbing

phenomena that could have displaced artifacts. Long-term effects of various soil

formation and soil disturbance processes often can be inferred only indirectly through

artifact distribution studies, which have not yet been fully applied to the Friedkin site

artifact assemblage. Despite their careful excavation and excellent documentation at the

Friedkin site, Waters and colleagues have not considered the most obvious alternative

agency for downward displacement of artifacts: trampling by the site’s successive

occupants during the Clovis, Folsom, and subsequent periods.

Numerous studies have shown that artifacts can be vertically displaced by human and

animal trampling (Stockton, 1973; Gifford, 1978; Gifford-Gonzalez et al., 1985; Nielsen,

1991; Pintar, 1987; Villa and Courtin, 1983). The extent of vertical displacement by

trampling depends on the texture and consistency of the soil matrix (Schiffer, 1987).

Smaller artifacts are more likely to be displaced downward (Gifford, 1978; Nielsen,

1991; Pintar, 1987), particularly in silty or clayey substrates (Schiffer, 1987:127).

Experiments conducted on substrates of various soil textures demonstrate downward

displacement of artifacts ranging from 1.5 centimeters to as much as 10 cm below the

surface over a period of just a few hours to a few days of human treading (Stockton,

1973; Gifford-Gonzalez et al., 1985; Villa and Courtin, 1983).

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Refitting studies can be used to assess the vertical displacement of artifacts (e.g.,

Hofman, 1986; Miller, 2010; T. Morrow, 1996; Surovell et al., 2005), but only a limited

effort has been made to refit lithic artifacts from the Friedkin site (Waters et al., 2011a

SOM, page 35). Four refits are reported within Level 34b (Table S16). Two of these

pieces were found only a few millimeters from each other—not a surprising outcome if

trampling had pushed flakes downward.

For the sake of argument, suppose that the issue of downward drift can be successfully

addressed and the BCC artifacts do represent an occupation dating from at least several

hundred years before 13 kya. Is the BCC assemblage pre-Clovis or is it simply early

Clovis? Waters and Stafford (2007) have biased this question by setting the temporal

limit of Clovis at 11,100 rcybp (ca. 13,100 cal BP). Clovis may be several centuries

older than that, however. For example, redating of Glacier Peak tephra indicates that the

East Wenatchee Clovis cache in Washington may date to ca. 13,600 cal BP (Kuehn et al.,

2009). Two radiocarbon dates from the Aubrey Clovis site in northern Texas (Ferring,

2001) of ca. 11,550 rcybp suggest the same age. Waters et al. (2011a: SOM p. 32) affirm

that “Overall, the Aubrey and Buttermilk Creek Complex debitage and tool assemblages

are remarkably similar.” The BCC debitage includes hallmarks of Clovis lithic

reduction: end-thinning flakes, partial overshot flakes (also known as “transverse

percussion” flakes [J. Morrow, 1996; Morrow and Morrow, 2002] and an overshot flake.

In addition to the biface reduction debris, the edge-modified flakes, utilized blades and

bladelets, graver, notches, bend-break tools, and tools made on radially broken pieces in

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


the BCC assemblage also occur in Clovis assemblages. The only obvious difference

between the Aubrey Clovis and Friedkin BCC assemblages is that the distal portion of

one Clovis point was found at Aubrey, but no fluted points have yet been found in the

deepest levels of the Friedkin site.

Preliminary reports on the Gault site, located only a few hundred meters away from the

Friedkin site, suggest that a 30- to 40-cm-thick Clovis zone may contain three sequential

occupations spanning as much as 450 years (Anonymous, 2001; Collins, 2003; Waters et

al., 2011c). Waters et al. (2011c) observed two temporally discrete Clovis occupations in

Area 8 at Gault, separated by an episode of colluvial deposition. They also note that

increased frequency of edge damage on artifacts in the upper zone (Unit 3b) was

“possibly due to trampling” (Waters et al., 2011c:28). Roots penetrated into the Area 8

Clovis deposits and there is evidence of microbioturbation in Unit 3a (the lower Clovis

zone) such as burrows and chambers made by earthworms and insects (Luchsinger,

2002). This could explain the modern 14C ages obtained on charcoal pieces from the

Clovis horizon (Waters et al., 2011c:12). Among the 30 refitted lithic artifacts from Unit

3a, several were separated vertically by 19 cm (Waters et al., 2011c:20-23). Thus, the

same factors that we suggest as responsible for vertical dispersion of Clovis artifacts at

the Friedkin site have also been documented or hypothesized at the nearby Gault site.

A parsimonious explanation for the undisputed Clovis traits in the BCC assemblage and

the artifacts’ vertical distribution is that the BCC is a composite of multiple, perhaps

early, Clovis-era deposits subjected to human and/or animal trampling, and probably also

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


affected by soil formation turbative processes. Alternatively, further analysis of lithic

technology may show the BCC to be a distinctive “proto-Clovis” (Davis, 1978; Fiedel,

1999b; G. Haynes, 2002:253) ancestral precursor of the full-blown, continent-wide

Clovis culture of 13 kya. In any event, we strongly question whether this assemblage is

actually pre-Clovis as the term is usually defined, that is, both older than 13.5 kya, which

it may be, and culturally distinctive from Clovis, which, on present evidence, it is not.

In conclusion, we have provided evidence that negates the three assumptions underlying

identification of the BCC assemblage as pre-Clovis. First, the OSL dates for the

associated sediments do not provide a precise age for the BCC assemblage. Second, our

analysis of the debitage distribution suggests that some artifacts have drifted downward

through the sedimentary deposits; this raises doubts about the primary association of

artifacts and their present stratigraphic context. Third, the BCC assemblage does not

differ significantly from known Clovis assemblages. Consequently, we question the

identification of the BCC complex as a pre-Clovis cultural manifestation.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Patty Jo Watson for editing an early version of this manuscript and to

JAS editor Richard Klein. Comments from three anonymous reviewers and several

colleagues greatly improved the manuscript. Morrow wishes to thank Tom Green,

Director of the Arkansas Archaeological Survey, for his support and encouragement.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


References Cited

Adovasio, J. M., Gunn, J. D., J. Donohue, J., Stuckenrath, R. 1975. Excavations at

Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1973-1974: A Progress Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist

45,1-33.

Adovasio, J. M., Gunn, J. D., Donohue, J., Stuckenrath, R., Guilday, J., Lord, K., 1978.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter, in: Alan Bryan (Ed.), Early Man from a Circum-Pacific

Perspective. Occasional Papers No.1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, pp. 140-180.

Adovasio, J. M., Pedler, D., Donohue, J., Stuckenrath, R., 1999. No Vestige of a

Beginning nor Prospect for an End: Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft

Rockshelter, in: R. Bonnichsen and K. Turnmire (Eds.), Ice Age Peoples of North

America. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis,

pp. 416-431.

Anonymous, 2001. The Gault Site, Clovis Reconsidered. Accessed at

http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/gault/clovis.html on 11/25/2011.

Brantingham, P. J., Surovell, T.A., and Waguespack, N.M., 2007. Modeling post-

depositional mixing of archaeological deposits. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

26:517-540.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Collins, M. B., 2003. The Gault site, Texas, and Clovis Research. Athena Review Vol. 3

No. 2. Accessed at http://www.athenapub.com/10gault.htm on 12/13/2011.

Davis, E. L., 1978. The ancient Californians” Rancholabrean hunters of the Mohave

Lakes Country. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 29, Los

Angeles.

Dickinson, W. R., 2011. Geological Perspectives on the Monte Verde archaeological site

in Chile and pre-Clovis Coastal Migration. Quaternary Research. 76, 201-210.

Dillehay, T. D. (Ed.), 1989. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile,

Volume I: Palaeoenvironment and Site Context. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, D.C.

1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume II: The

Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,

D.C.

2002. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Volume I:

Palaeoenvironment and Site Context, Errata. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,

D.C.

Dillehay, T. D. et al. 1999. Reply to Fiedel, Part I. In, Special Report: Monte Revisited.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Discovering Archaeology 1(6), 12-14.

Ferring, C. R., 2001. Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis Site

(41DN479), Denton County, Texas. Center for Environmental Archaeology, University of

North Texas.

Fiedel, S. J., 1999a. Artifact Provenience at Monte Verde: Confusion and Contradictions.

In, Special Report: Monte Verde Revisited. Discovering Archaeology 1(6),1-12.

1999b. Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians.

American Antiquity 64, 95-115.

Fiedel, S., Forada, J. G., Gould, D., Elsinger, L. J., 2004. Phase III Archaeological Data

Recovery at the Skunk Bottom Site (13HN354), Henry County, Iowa. Report from the

Louis Berger Group, Inc., to the Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa.

Gifford, D. 1978. Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes Affecting

Cultural Materials, in: R. Gould (Ed.), Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. University of

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 77-101.

Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P., Damrosch, D. P., Damrosch, D. R., Pryor, J., Thunen, R. L.,

1985. The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical

Dispersal. American Antiquity 50, 803-818.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Gilbert, T., Jenkins, D, Gotherstrom, A., Naveran, N., Sanchez, J., Hofreiter, M.,

Thomsen, P., Binladen, J., Higman, T., Yohe, R., Parr, R., Cummings, L., and E.

Willerslev, E., 2008. DNA from pre-Clovis human coprolites in Oregon, North

American. Science 320, 786-789.

Goldberg, P., Berna, F., Macphail, R. I., 2009. Comment on “DNA from Pre-Clovis

Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America.” Science 325:148-c.

Guidon, N., 2002. Pedra Furada, Brazil: Paleoindians, paintings, and paradoxes. Athena

Review 3:42-52.

Guidon, N., Arnaud, B., 1991. The chronology of the New World: Two faces of one

reality. World Archaeology 23, 167-178.

Guidon, N., Pessis, A-M. 1996. Falsehood or untruth? Antiquity 70, 408-21.

Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1964. Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion. Science 145,

1408-1413.

1966. Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214, 104-112.

1967. Quaternary Geology of the Tule springs area Clark County, Nevada, in: H. M.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Wormington and D. Ellis (Eds.), Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada. Nevada State

Museum, Carson City, pp. 16-104.

1969. The Earliest Americans. Science 166, 709-715.

1992. Contributions of radiocarbon dating to the geochronology of the peopling of the

New World, in: R.E. Taylor, A. Long, and R. S. Kra (Eds.), Radiocarbon after four

decades: An interdisciplinary perspective, Springer-Verlag, New York, 355-374.

1993. Clovis-Folsom geochronology and climatic change, in: O. Soffer and N. D. Praslov

(Eds.), From Kostienki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian adaptations, Plenum

Press, New York, pp. 219-236.

Haynes, C. V., Jr., Buekens, R.P., Jull, A.J.T., Davis, O. K., 1992. New Radiocarbon

Dates for some old Folsom sites, in: D. J. Stanford and J.S. Day (Eds.), Ice Age Hunters

of the Rockies, Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado, Denver,

pp.83-100.

Haynes, G., 2002. The Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Haynes, G., Anderson, D. G., Ferring, C. R., Fiedel, S. J., Grayson, D. K., Haynes, C. V.,

Jr., Holliday, V. T., Huckell, B. B., Kornfeld, M., Meltzer, D. J., Morrow, J., Surovell, T.,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Waguespack, N. M., Wigand, P., Yohe II, R. M., 2007. Comment on “Redefining the

Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas.” Science 317, 320b

(online).

Hofman, J. L., 1986. Vertical Movement of Artifacts in Alluvial and Stratified Deposits.

Current Anthropology 27, 163-171.

Holliday, V., 2000. The Evolution of Paleoindian Geochronology and Typology on the

Great Plains. Geoarchaeology 15, 227-290.

Johnson, D. L. 1972. Landscape evolution on San Miguel Island, California: Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence. University Microfilms, University of

Michigan, Cat. No. 73 11902.

Johnson, D. L., Watson-Stegner, D., 1990. The Soil-Evolution Model as a Framework for

Evaluating Pedoturbation in Archaeological Site Formation, in: N. P. Lasca and J.

Donohue (Eds.), Archaeological Geology of North America, Geological Society of

America, Centennial Special Vol. 4. Boulder, Colorado, pp. 541-560.

Johnson, E., 2006. The taphonomy of mammoth localities in southeastern Wisconsin

(USA). Quaternary International 143, 58-78.

2007. Along the ice margin—The cultural taphonomy of Late Pleistocene mammoth in

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


southeastern Wisconsin (USA). Quaternary International 169-170, 64-83.

Johnson, M., 1998. The Cactus Hill Site (44SX202) and its Implication for the Early

Peopling of the Southeast. Paper presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for

American Archaeology, Seattle.

Joyce, D. J., 2006. Chronology and new research on the Shaefer mammoth

(?Mammuthus primigenius) site, Kenosha County, Wisconsin, USA. Quaternary

International 142-143, 44-57.

Julig, P. (Ed.), 2002. The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, geological and

paleobotanical studies at a Paleoindian site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario. Canadian

Museum of Civilization, Toronto.

Kishue’, A. Szi, Morgan, C.L.S., Mille, W. L., 2009. Vertisol Crack Extent Associated

with Gilgai and Soil Moisture in the Texas Gulf Coast Prairie. Soil Science Society of

America Journal 73, 1221-1230.

Kornfeld, M., Larson, M. L., Walker, D. N., 1995. McKean site testing: general results,

in: M. Kornfeld, G. C. Frison, and M. L. Larson (Eds.), Keyhole Reservoir Archaeology:

Glimpses of the Past from Northeast Wyoming. Occasional Papers on Wyoming

Archaeology, Number 5. Laramie, Wyoming, pp. 233-266.

Kuehn, S. C., D. G. Froese, D. G., Carrara, P. E., Foit, F. F., Jr., Pearce, N. J., Rotheisler,

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


P., 2009. Major- and Trace-element Characterization, Expanded Distribution, and a New

Chronology for the Latest Pleistocene Glacier Peak Tephras in North America.

Quaternary Research 71, 201-16.

Lee, R., 1954. The First Sheguiandah Expedition, Manitoulin Island, Ontario. American

Antiquity 20, 101-110.

1955. The Second Sheguiandah Expedition, Manitoulin Island, Ontario. American

Antiquity 21:63-71.

Luchsinger, H. M., 2002. Micromorphological analysis of the sediments and soils from

the Gault Site, a Clovis site in Central Texas. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department

of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

McAvoy, J. M., L. D. McAvoy, (Eds.), 1997. Archaeological Investigations of Site

44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic

Resources, Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond.

Meltzer, D. J., Grayson, D. K., Ardila, G., Barker, A.W., Dincauze, D. F., Haynes, C.V.,

Jr., Mena, F., Nunez, L., Stanford, D. J., 1997. On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte

Verde. American Antiquity 64, 659-663.

Miller, D. S., 2010. Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005-2007: Examining Site Formation

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Processes at an Upland Paleoindian Site along the Middle Savannah River. South

Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Occasional Papers 1, University of

South Carolina, Columbia.

Morrow, J. E., 1996. The Organization of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the

Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D.

Dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis.

Morrow J. E., Morrow, T. A., 2002. Exploring the Clovis-Gainey-Folsom Continuum. In

Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, 140-

157. Lithic Technology Special Publication No. 4.

Morrow, T. A., 1996. Lithic Refitting and Archaeological Site Formation Processes: A

Case Study from the Twin Ditch site, Greene County, Illinois, in: G. H. Odell (Ed.),

Stones Tools: Insights into Human Prehistory, pp.345-373.

Muhs, D.L., 2001. Evolution of soils on Quaternary reef terraces of Barbados, West

Indies. Quaternary Research 56, 55-78.

Nielsen, A. E., 1991. Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study.

American Antiquity 56, 483-503.

Pintar, E., 1987. Controles experimentales de desplazamientos y alteraciones de

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


artefactos liticos en sedimentos aresnsos: Aplicaciones arquelogicas. Unpublished Tesis

de Licenciatura, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires,

Buenos Aires.

Poinar, H., Fiedel, S., King, C. E., Devault, A. M., Bos, K., Kuch, M., Debruyne, R.

2009. Comment on "DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North

America." Science 325, 148.

Reagan, M. J., Rowlett, R., Dort, W., Jr., Bryant, V. M., Jr., Johannsen, C. J., 1978. Flake

Tools Stratified Below Paleo-Indian Artifacts. Science 200, 1272-1275.

Schiffer, M. B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of

New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Shutler, R., Jr., 1967. Archaeology of Tule Springs, in: H. M. Wormington and D. Ellis

(Eds.). Pleistocene Studies in Southern Nevada. Nevada State Museum, Carson City,

pp. 298–303.

Stockton, E. D., 1973. Shaw’s Creek Shelter: Human Displacement of Artifacts and Its

Significance. Mankind 9, 112-117.

Surovell, T. A., Waguespack, N. M., Mayer, J. H., Kornfeld, M., Frison, G. C., 2005.

Shallow Site Archaeology: Artifact Dispersal, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Dating at

Barger Gulch Locality B Folsom site, Middle Park, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 20, 627-

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


649.

Taylor, R. E., Haynes, C. V., and Stuiver, M., 1996. Clovis and Folsom age estimates:

stratigraphic context and radiocarbon calibration. Antiquity 269, 515-525.

USDA-NRCS. 2010. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, eleventh ed. Washington D.C.

Villa, P., Courtin, J., 1983. The interpretation of stratified sites: a view from

underground. Journal of Archaeological Science 10, 267-281.

Waters, M.R., Forman, S. L., Jennings, T. A., Nordt, L.C., Driese, S. G., Feinburg, J. M.,

Keene, J. L., Halligan, J., Lindquist, A., Pierson, J., Hallmark, C. T., Collins, M. B.,

Wiederhold, J. E., 2011a. The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the

Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas. Science 331:1599-1603.

Waters, M. R., Stafford, T. W., Jr., McDonald, H. G., Gustafson, C., Rasmussen, M.,

Cappelini, E., Olsen, J. V., Szklarczyk, D., Jensen, L. J., Gilbert, M. P. T., Willerslev, E.,

2011b. Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years ago at the Manis Mastodon Site,

Washington. Science 334, 351-354.

Waters, M. R., Pevny, C. D., Carlson, D. (Eds.), 2011c. Clovis Lithic Technology:

Investigations at a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site. Texas A&M University Press,

College Station.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED


Waters, M. R., Stafford, T. W., Jr., 2007. Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for

the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315, 1122–1126.

Waters, M. R., 1985. Early Man in the New World: An Evaluation of Radiocarbon

Dated Pre-Clovis sites in the America, in: J. I. Mead and D. J. Meltzer (Eds.),

Environments and Extinctions: Man in Late Glacial North America. Center for the Study

of Early Man, University of Maine-Orono, pp. 125-143.

Wilding L., D. Tessier, D., 1988. Genesis of vertisols: shrink-swell phenomena, in: L. P.

Wilding and R. Puentes (Eds.), Vertisols: Their Distribution, Properties, Classification,

and Management. Texas A & M University, College Station, pp. 55-79.

Wood, W. R., Johnson, D. L., 1978. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological

site formation, in: M. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1,

315-381.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

• We critically evaluate the claim for a pre-Clovis occupation at the Debra L. Friedkin site in Texas.

• Results indicate trampling and turbation can explain the unusually old dates for a

Clovis-like lithic assemblage. • We interpret the Buttermilk Creek Complex as Clovis tools and debitage in

secondary context.

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Expected calibrated radiocarbon ages compared with OSL dates associated with cultural components in Block A at the Friedkin site. Clovis Folsom Late Paleoindian Paleoindian-Early

Archaic Transition Expected calibrated C-14 age

12,800 to 13,150

11,500 to 12,900

9800 to 11,500 ~9800

OSL dates within expected range-Block A

12,000 + 770 12,100 + 860 12,240 + 800 12,925 + 845

11,870+ 760 9930+ 640

10,480 + 675c

OSL dates older than or younger than expected, Block A

14,070 + 910 14,350 + 910 15,270 + 960 a

13,090 + 830 13,780 + 885

12,910+ 830 b 9405+ 610b 12,690+ 955

7,600 + 500c

a immediately below Clovis, b dates at same stratigraphic level, c dates at same stratigraphic level

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Debitage data for Block A, Debra L. Friedkin site from Waters et al. (2011a) Excavation Level Elevation Macrodebitage Microdebitage Total Mic/Mac1 %Micro2

32a 90.425 571 1742 2313 3.05 75.31345

32b 90.400 612 2745 3357 4.48 81.76944

33a 90.375 500 2494 2994 4.98 83.29993

33b 90.350 455 2350 2805 5.16 83.77897

34a 90.325 406 2032 2438 5.00 83.34701

34b 90.300 313 1809 2122 5.77 85.24976

35a 90.275 206 1502 1708 7.29 87.93911

35b 90.250 159 1201 1360 7.55 88.30882

36a 90.225 136 1058 1194 7.77 88.60972

36b 90.200 93 758 851 8.15 89.07168 1ratio of microdebitage to macrodebitage, 2percentage of microdebitage

MANUSCRIP

T

ACCEPTED

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1-s2.0-S030544031200218X-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S030544031200218X-main