Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

PALEOAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN VIRGINIA

Wm Jack Hranicky RPA

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

PaleoAmerican Archaeology in Virginia

Copyright © 2017 Wm Jack Hranicky All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,

recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher.

Universal Publishers www.universal-publishers.com

Irvine, California & Boca Raton, Florida • USA 2017

ISBN-13: 978-1-62734-110-3 (pbk.) ISBN-10: 1-62734-110-2 (pbk.)

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

In dedication: Spencer Geasey who collected and preserved prehistoric artifacts in Maryland.

Spencer Geasey at the 2000 Oregon Ridge Knap-In, Maryland. He always maintained his collection (by sites), which now belongs to the Maryland Historic Trust. His artifacts are used throughout this publication. He is an excellent example of an amateur archaeologist who has spent a life time studying and working in and on American prehistory, which has meant major contributions to Maryland archaeology.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

Table of Contents Pre-Log: Is this specimen a PaleoAmerican artifact? ................................................................1 Early American Archaeology........................................................................................................3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................5 Inventory of Eastern PaleoAmerican Sites ................................................................................................................ 6 Blades ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Modified Flaked-Blade Tools ........................................................................................................9 Generalized Physical Chronology for Virginia .........................................................................13

Continental Shelf ................................................................................................................................................. 14 Ocean/River Travel .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Economy .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 European Technology .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Horizontal Blade-Flake Distribution ....................................................................................................................... 15 Trans-Atlantic Contact Proof .....................................................................................................16 First “Human” Technology Revolution .....................................................................................20

Nova America .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Blade-Biface Crossover and Clovis ............................................................................................22 Blade Technology Carryover into the Holocene .......................................................................26

Ergonomics of Tools ....................................................................................................................28 Tool Dimensions ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Tool Structure and Function .................................................................................................................................... 30 Blade Thickness ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Hand-Held Implements ............................................................................................................................................ 33 What is up? .............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Tool Effigies ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 Right-Left Handed Tools ......................................................................................................................................... 35 Tools as Work .......................................................................................................................................................... 45

First Arrival at a Quarry ...................................................................................................................................... 46 Blade-Flakes and Cores ...............................................................................................................49

The Lithic “Platform” .................................................................................................................52 Platform Dimensions ........................................................................................................................................... 53 Platform Coefficient ............................................................................................................................................ 53 Platform Mechanics ............................................................................................................................................. 53

Blade-Flake Model .................................................................................................................................................. 54 Tool’s Cultural/Operational Center ...........................................................................................60 Microflaking Retouch ..................................................................................................................60 A Flake and a Blade .....................................................................................................................65

Blade-Flake .............................................................................................................................................................. 65 Two Flake Examples ........................................................................................................................................... 65

Blade-Flake Distribution .............................................................................................................69

Typical Levallois Blade-Flake Implements ...............................................................................72 Inflection Point .................................................................................................................................................... 76 Compression Stability .......................................................................................................................................... 76 Eknap ................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Bounce Theory .................................................................................................................................................... 77 Rebounce ............................................................................................................................................................. 77

Blade-Flake Size ...........................................................................................................................79 Pleistocene Artifacts.....................................................................................................................81

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

Old World vs. New World Microtools .......................................................................................82

Pleistocene Artifacts.....................................................................................................................84

Flake-Blade Collections and Sites...............................................................................................95 The Arnold Valley Cache in Virginia.......................................................................................102 Thomas Hoskins PaleoAmerican Blade Collection .................................................................103

Solutrean and Transatlantic Migrations ................................................................................................................. 106 The Higgins Site, Clarke County, Virginia ..............................................................................107 Deane’s Cabin Museum .............................................................................................................110 Spout Run Site - A Paleo-Calendar Site ..................................................................................114 Blackberry Hill Site, Franklin County, Virginia ....................................................................122

The Blackberry Hill Solar Complex ...................................................................................................................... 124 Pleistocene Artifacts from the Arkfeld Site .............................................................................126 Unusual Artifact at the Arkfeld Site, Frederick County, Virginia ........................................130

The Mountain Road Complexes ...............................................................................................135 Blade/Flakes from Bucks County, Pennsylvania ....................................................................137

John Selmer Collection ..............................................................................................................140

Lithic Materials ..........................................................................................................................143 Principal Stones ..........................................................................................................................144

Jasper Sources........................................................................................................................................................ 145 Limestone .............................................................................................................................................................. 146 Quartzite ................................................................................................................................................................ 148 Stone Choice in Prehistory .................................................................................................................................... 148

PaleoAmerican Inventory .........................................................................................................150 PaleoAmerican Implements ......................................................................................................151 “Elephants” and Ivory ...............................................................................................................212

General References ....................................................................................................................214

Index ............................................................................................................................................246 As Joffrey Coe told this author in the 1970’s, lithic technology is one long technological continuum that started at Olduvai and ended with the discovery of metal. And as added, only archaeologists divide it up.

Archaeology starts when some ancient flintknapper sat on the banks of the Shenandoah River

and broke these jasper rocks in order to make a stone tool… an ancient chipping station.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

1

Pre-Log: Is this specimen a PaleoAmerican artifact? For most archaeologists, the term Paleo means Clovis times. And, Paleoindian generally means Clovis. The following specimen is a uniface object that most archaeologists would classify as Paleo. Its form is not found among published Clovis reports. Then, what is it? Can it be classified as pre-Clovis? The answer depends on the viewpoint of the observer. This publication offers lithic artifacts that can be used to identify and classify pre-Clovis blades and flakes. As a summary1, these physical implement properties are:

1) Striking platform type (see platform text) 2) Surface cortex remaining (see flake/blade model) 3) No bulb scar (see ivory text) 4) Invasive marginal retouch (see retouch types in text) 5) No flaking interior face 6) Distal end modification into a tool, burin, scraper, etc. 7) Thinness 8) Structure axis and functional axis crossing as a hypothetical center 9) High quality stone 10) Medial ridge 11) Flat or curved distal/proximal profile 12) Morphology 13) Thin, uniform flakes 14) Cross-face flaking.

Front (Exterior) Face Back (Interior) Face

Sonora Flint, Fleming County, Kentucky (Measurements: L = 102, W = 64, T = 5 mm)

1 Bordian Method – this publication is based on (Bordes 1953). His method was a statistical and geographical method for comparing lithic assemblages. Indexing was a key part of the method.

No Platform

Cortex

No Platform

Invasive Retouch

Exvasive Retouch

Thin Flakes

Cured Profile

No Flakes

No Bulb Scar

Structure Axis

Function Axis

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

2

Sample of Kentucky’s Ohio River Blade/Flaked Tools

These specimens suggest that blade and flake technology is more complicated when viewed regionally. Naturally, there is a time depth that probably crosses over the geological eras of late Pleistocene and early Holocene time periods. This publication offers study, analytical, and classification methods for archaeology. Two primary tool properties are major factors here, namely the manufacturing platform and surface remaining cortex.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

3

Early American Archaeology2 For most of American archaeological history, the Bering Strait entrance into the New World for early populations was the a priori reasoning of most archaeologists. And, for many, it is still the starting place to look for early Americans. Baldwin (1871), Holmes (1918), Sollas (1924 and 1952), Roberts (1937), Jolly (1894), Grote (1877), MacCurty (1929), Wright (1892), Simpson (1933), Harrington (1934 and 1938), Rogers (1929 and 1930), Peake (1927), Putnam (1906), Hibben (1941 and 1946), Norris (1953), Pickle (1946), Sellards (1917, 1936, and 1952), Bullen (1950), Bushnell (1940), Crozier (1939), McCown (1939), Figgins (1927), Gildey and Loomis (1926), Howard (1930, 1935, and 1936), Hrdlicka (1918), Leighton (1936), Rogers (1939),3 Carter (1954), Cook (1927), Goggin (1950), Haag (1942), Orr (1956), and Cook (1926) addressed the antiquity of mankind in (and into) the Americas; thus, the New World topic is not a new one. For the Pacific northwest coast, Bryan (1965 and 1968) was among the first to discuss bipoints, or as he called it … the willow-leaf bipoints. Bryan (1978) also proposed a circum-Pacific model for bipoints. The Cinmar bipoint started early inhabitants into the eastern Atlantic coast area, namely Virginia. Father Duran4 in his 1585 History of New Spain was convinced that: the natives had a foreign origin, and that they performed a long journey of many years in their migration to the new world. This publication probably influenced Short (1882) who advocated a trans-Atlantic migration and origin for Native Americans. He argued that numerous Indian words had Old World origins, dolichocephalic skulls,…and Platonis Atlantis. He also speculated about the Pacific Ocean as: Northeastern Asia would have naturally passed for the fatherland of Northwestern America.5 Numerous early scholars advocated the Bering’s Straits as a port of entry for the West, namely Grote (1877). All of which indicate, the discovery of prehistoric America is not a recent topic. Finally, Short (1882) comments:

May not the beginning be pushed even farther back, and the ancient history of America receive the attention of the historiographer? …the fact that the evidence is of preponderating character that the American continent received its population from the old world.

Magoffin and Davis (1929) offered an early review of world-wide archaeology in which they were probably the first

to publish the Folsom6 point find after its initial publication. Also, they provide an argument for a very early entry time for the First Americans.7 They comment:

Florida has been the happy hunting ground chosen by a number of scientists bent on unearthing America’s past. Sellards, a Florida geologist, Lommis of Amherst, Gidley of the Smithsonian, and others have dug into Florida soil and found arrowpoints and human bones buried in a layer of earth which contained the bones of mammoths and mastodons. These giants of the elephant family have been extinct since the Ice Age, it is generally believed. If men shot darts into these creatures, it implies that those men were living at least 20,000 years ago (1929:200).

The mammoths and mastodons were hunted (Big Game Tradition) worldwide until their probable extinction by

Nature’s climate…not humans. Far too many mega-animals became extinct at the same time as to blame humans (Lister and Bahn 2007).

Over the last 50 years, more archaeologists began to suggest that various aspects of early Americans’ lithic toolkit suggested Europe as the source, and that these tools were a legacy that was transferred into the New World via various transoceanic voyages…a long time ago. Even with this shift, archaeologists are evenly divided on whether humans were in the Americas before/after 15,000 YBP (Wheat 2012).

And…, Dana (1863) wrote of a French cave that contained human remains along with bones of extinct mammals. Harrington (1933) was among the first to suggest that the Europeans, namely the Magdalenians, crossed the Atlantic via Iceland to Canada. However, Huntington’s (1919) wind-bridge across the Atlantic was a course that would lead many American archaeologists to look for new trails for the first Americans.

2 In geometry, to prove something, use previous axioms or statements. 3 San Deguito Technology - first identified by Malcom J. Rogers in 1938 in California. Early lithic technology where part of the toolkit has unifacial flaking. It involves removing a flake and working one side to form a workend. The striking platform is often present. 4 Historia Antigua de la Nueva Espana con Noticias de los Ritos y Costumbres de los Indios y Explicacion del Calendario Mexicana (copy at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC). 5 Man and His Migrations, pp. 129-30. 6 The association in archaeology of a flaked tool with extinct mammals dating to the 1880s (Russell 1885). 7 Magoffin and Davis’ (1929) publication was the first to refer to the First Americans.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

4

Archaeology has been restricted to the physical evidence, via stone tools, to explain the history of humans. Like most sciences or humanities, a classification scheme was needed to organize the social objects into a logical progression, none of which ever satisfied all archaeologists. On a world-wide perspective, too many ancient tools were similar. To overcome the problem, archaeologists began to subdivide various toolkits into classification based on micro-attributes by regions. When, in fact, technology is pan-human with cores, blades, denticulates, scrapers, burins, perforators, wedges, spokeshaves, choppers, hammerstones, etc., and bipoints occurring nearly everywhere over the last 100,000 years. Naturally, there are various regional tools that have a technological coincidence, but when analyzed correctly, it is simply a legacy toolkit. The American projectile point is unique in World prehistory, which has caused more problems rather than solutions in archaeology.

Mastodon Skeleton at the Museum of the Middle Appalachians. Photograph by Jordan Wright.

The discipline is full of professional papers arguing diffusion and independent inventions of stone toolmaking. And, perhaps there are specific tools that are not found elsewhere, but the major problem is the failure of archaeologists to recognize the mechanics and functions of all tools, especially those placed in special categories by archaeologists (Barton 1990). Case in point is the mess caused by typologists for the American projectile point…no point type can exist prior to the lanceolate Clovis point?

The problem with classification is not recent; McGuire (1896) comments:

The various ancient remains of man throughout the world have been so divided and subdivided by archaeologists as to present great difficulties when we attempt to study them chronologically. Is there sufficient evidence to sustain any such mechanical difference among the races of the world? By the majority it is contended there is an abundance of such evidence; the writer (McGuire) contends the contrary.

From: Crabtree 1972 A lithic technology continuum is a time-dependent transition of human’s

knowledge of toolmaking. Archaeologists often used the term terminal to refer to the ending of various archaeological cultures and time periods. Of course, various technologies disappear; best case example is Clovis; however, except for the Clovis point,8 Clovis toolmaking techniques continue into the so-called Archaic Period. Change is simply a gradualism in technology. It is a modification, discontinuance, or addition of attributes to a specific tool industry. And, change can be short-term (several generations) or long-term (last for millennia). For a further discussion of this philosophy and approach, see Straus (2011), Clark (2011), or Bar-Yosef and Kuhn (1999) for other opinions or tool definitions in Hranicky (2004 and 2013).

8 Stanford (1979) was among the first to use the term “pre-Clovis.”

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

5

Introduction When and where humans actually reached the New World is an endless debate in American archaeology. At least, there is a geological timetable for these migrations between the Late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene. Of course, migrations occurred throughout the Holocene. This publication argues that the legacy for the American Atlantic coast is Europe, as in Stanford and Bradley (2012) and Hranicky (2013). This time period of cultural occupation is called the PaleoAmerican era of human history in the New World.

TIME LINE FOR VIRGINIA PREHISTORY PALEOAMERICAN ERA 35,0009 to 13,000 Years Before Present

PALEOINDIAN 13,000 to 9000 YBP ARCHAIC 9000 to 4000 YBP

WOODLAND 4000 to 400 YBP PROTO-HISTORIC 400 TO 300 YBP

Then there is geologic TIME! As in the following:

Regardless of the time entry, people here have lithic technologies that can be divided into two major industries:

1. Blade and core artifacts 2. Biface and core artifacts

and, • Perhaps, simple rock fractures from cobbles.

Archaeological studies: Involve the social complexity within lithic industries across time…

9 As from: Hranicky (2013) and Cambridge Publication (Adams and Macleod 2000).

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

6

Proposed Blade and Biface Technology in Relationship to the Environment

Inventory of Eastern PaleoAmerican Sites

There are over 200 paleosites that have been investigated in the United States (Graf, Ketron, and Waters 2016). For a comprehensive listing see Collins, Stanford, Lowery, and Bradley (2013) – North America before Clovis: Variance in Temporal/Spatial Cultural Patterns, 27,000-13,000 cal yr BP. Table 1 lists those sites relevant to this study; only one relevant date is used, see references for more dates. These sites, other than RC dates, have produced blades with platforms, bipoints, and deep Pleistocene data. All sites pre-date the Younger Dryas geological epic.

Site Radiocarbon Age Basic Reference Cinmar 22,760 +/- 90 Lowery (2010) Meadowcroft 12,850 +/- 870 Adavasio, et al. (1990) Cactus Hill 16,670 +/- 730 McAvoy and McAvoy (2015) Oyster Cove 25,800 +/- 120 Lower (2010) Miles Point 21,490 +/- 140 Lowery (2010) Cators Cove 22,050 +/- 100 Lowery and Wah (2011) Page-Ladson 12,290 +/- 60 Webb (2006) Boston Knob Ongoing None Thunderbird No Date for Pre-Clovis This paper Arkfeld Up to 40,000 yrs Hranicky (2016) Johnson 12,660 +/- 970 Stanford and Bradley (2012) Higgins Ongoing TBS Peters Mountain PaleoAmerican None Topper Up to 50,000 yrs Goodyear (2005) Saltville 14,510 ± 80 McDonald (1985) Cooperation 13-15, 000 yrs Purdy (2008) Brook Run 11,200 – 11,080 Voigt (2004)

This publication covers the following topics:

• Basic blade morphology and identification • Blade platform mechanics • Blade placement in prehistory • Blade legacy and geographic sources • Sites with blade tools • Various technological conditions in tool manufacture • Core descriptions and shapes • Marginal retouching definition • Platform mechanics and design • Blade-flake model

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

7

• Tool listing inventory • Levallois blade-flake technology • PaleoAmerican caches • Ivory usage • Blade distributions.

There is no order to this publication because there is no standardized terminology or chronology for artifacts from

the Pleistocene. The basic focus is the eastern U.S. There is an index for artifact organizational listing.

Map Showing Sites

Blades

As an opening example of blade artifacts, the following are presented as the basic morphology for the Pleistocene era in Virginia. Naturally, there are numerous shapes and cultural designs over the vast area of the state, including the entire Atlantic coastal plain. This publication can only present a sample of the countless tens-of-thousands of prehistoric artifacts. Also as will be argued in text, these artifacts represent a 10,000+-year timespan of prehistory during the Late Pleistocene which is before Clovis. The classification and typing of this world of archaeology is just beginning. Up to a few years ago, most archaeologists would not accept the Late Pleistocene as having a human occupation…let alone cultural remains. While sites for this era are rare, it is not difficult to find blade-flake artifacts in surface collections. It is simply a matter of identifying them as pre-Clovis. The provenance for the following specimens is not given in order to illustrate the difficulty in typing and classifying blade-flakes.

One of the major questions is: what is a pure blade as opposed to a pure flake. While Bordes (1964)) offers the definition for European artifacts, the American scene has range of varieties which seem to defy classification and identification. Probably, again, the major problem is time as we are dealing with 10,000+ years of occupation. For blades, the following is considered here as the classic blade.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

8

A Pure Flint Blade from Southwestern Virginia, and the following…

Blades (?) or Flakes (?) from Virginia

Interior (Back Side) Face View Exterior (Front Side) Face View

All Specimens are made from Jasper

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

9

And, now with provenance, the following are all made from Coastal Plains chert. They were found in two-three-foot

surface area on a river bank. They have blade properties, but one specimen has a striking platform; thus, they are argued here that they date to the Pleistocene era. They do have a heavy patination.

Exterior (Front Face) View

Interior (Back Face) View

Off the Suwannee River in Florida

Modified Flaked-Blade Tools While flaked tools are the main course of humanity in the Pleistocene, flaked implements occur which reflect the Old World antiquity. As they are rare, and presently from non-buried contexts, high-quality (non-arrowhead) tools occur in private collections. These people have spent countless hours walking the terrain called the modern geography of Virginia. By studying these collections, and with the knowledge to recognize Pleistocene artifacts, unique PaleoAmerican artifacts can be found.10 The following artifacts would probably have not been found if not for their collectors.

The quality of Virginia prehistoric tools depends on another factor, namely one’s cultural and artistic view. The primary factor is tool utility in a specific cultural setting. The second factor is the stone from which the tool was made. And, how was the tool used, all of which makes quality a very subjective appraisal? Probably the major factor is implement completeness.

10 Many in the professional community have the greatest “outright hate” for the people who collect. See The Pros and Cons of Consulting Collectors in the SAA Archaeological Record (Shott and Pitblado 2015).

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

10

Prehistoric manufacturing techniques play an important role in the quality of a tool. Naturally, throughout prehistory, toolmaking ability varied for cultural groups and by time. The following blade is well made showing parallel flaking in jasper which is a hard stone. However, every prehistoric stone in Virginia was used to make tools; thus, quality once again becomes a set of conditions the society had that made them and, subsequently, the archaeologist that analyzed them by a completely different set of modern conditions. Basically said, analyzing stone tools is just an opinion, usually based on experience, as to how and why it was made originally. But, there are artifacts that become a treasure in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Hopefully, they become part of the public realm.

This jasper specimen is from Mecklenburg County, Virginia. It was made off a blade which was struck from a large core. It is heavily weathered; as such, the flake scars are starting to disappear. It has a rectangular, well-defined platform. It has small areas of remaining cortex. It has numerous cross-face, diagonal flake scars. And, it has Pleistocene marginal retouch. One lateral margin has minor chippage which occurred during the implemen’ts life span. Both faces are at the pointed end medial ridge lines which were produced by the knapper. This flaking gives a beveled appearance; however, it has a D-shaped cross section. The most important factor is: there are no henged flake scars on either face. It measures: L = 162, W = 36, T = 6 mm. It has a D-Shaped platform. With these properties under study here, the jasper artifact is an early PaleoAmerican artifact in Virginia.

Note: There was some banding in the upper level of the tool’s jasper.

Face A

Platform

Closeup

Face B

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

11

Edge Flake Scar Close Up

Flake Angles – Component 78.9º

This jasper bipoint was found in Southwest Virginia (anonymous) by a collector in the 1990s. It is an extremely well-made knife. It has about 3 mm of the striking platform remaining. The knapper told us it was made off a blade. Its best property is cross face flaking. However, one face has major henge fractures. It has microflaked retouching which is of the Pleistocene technique. And, one face has a small area of cortex remaining. It measures: L = 130, W = 35, T = 5 mm. Ok course, its age cannot be determined, but its physical properties argue the PaleoAmerican era.

Face A

Closeup

Face B

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

12

Blade-Knife The blade-knife is the basic macrotool in Virginia’s PaleoAmerican toolkit. It is a large, hand-held implement usually made from high quality stones. This specimen was recovered from the Spout Run site in Clarke County, Virginia. The principal structure is the medial axis (ridge line) of the blade or workend, which was produced by the anvil technique. As natural outcrops of jasper do not occur in Clarke County, the source of its jasper probably is nearby Warren County. It appears to be an unfinished knife and was probably never used. The distribution of this tool class occurs all over the eastern geographical area.

Top View

Bit (workend) View

Bottom View

Jasper Blade-Knife, Clarke County, Virginia (L = 145, W = 46, T = 32 mm)) One hypothesis here is that most PaleoAmerican tools were hand-held and not generally hafted.

Hand-Holding

Comparative Spout Run Examples

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

13

Generalized Physical Chronology for Virginia The following chart shows an overview of the chronology for the eastern U. S. as reflected from Virginia. Also, it presents the basic model for the PaleoAmerican era. For this study, these factors are involved:

• Expanse of the Continental Shelf • Inland expansion via river travel • Economy and living conditions • Source or legacy for toolmaking • Stone sources • Distribution of blades.

Jasper, Clarke County, Virginia

Jasper, Warren County, Virginia

Clovis Point

Strasburg, Virginia

Generalized Early Chronology for Virginia Note1: For the PaleoAmerican, the Pleistocene animal community contains numerous species which, of course, are no longer present today. Blood residues can indicate megafauna, but not generally to the species level. This capability varies by laboratory, but possible animals are camel (camelops), horse (equus), sloth (paramylodon), llama (hemiauchenia), mastodon (mammut), mammoth (mammuthus), saber cat (smilodon) and peccary (platygonus) (Lange 2002). Camel blood residue was found on artifacts on Maryland’s eastern shore by the Smithsonian (Stanford 2015). Note2: Beginning around 15,000 years Before Present (YBP), the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an “ice age”; this is known as a glacial termination. A climatic optimum known as the “Bölling-Allerød” was reached around 14,700 YBP. However, starting at about 12,800 YBP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e., cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD). It is dated approximately 12,900-11,500 YBP calibrated, or 11,000-10,000 YBP uncalibrated (radiocarbon dating). During this period, the U.S. saw Clovis toolmakers come and go, historically speaking. Clovis starts with the YD and ends with it.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

14

Note3: Solutrean Technique – pressure flaking on the edge of a flint rough-out not just to remove tiny flakes and alter the angle of the point and shape of the blade, but also to take off large and relatively thin flakes from the surface (Semenov 1964). It increased the plastic possibilities of knapping. While initially an Old World technique, the early Americans discovered/borrowed, transferred, and used it in the New World. However, term was rarely used in American archaeology, but with pre-Clovis sites, the technique is now being examined. Note4: Even William Gardner (1992) argued (questioned) why the local cultures in the Middle Atlantic area would give up blade and core technology and switch to biface and core technology? Also, Wormington (1957) recognized her pre-projectile point sites.

Continental Shelf: Sea-level varied with climate during the Pleistocene. The water levels along coasts have several factors. It starts from land and shore, epicontinental sea-level, and finally sea level of the ocean. Below the water is the shore, continental shelf, end of the shelf, and ocean basin. All these factors affect archaeological research and interpretation, including locating sites. The shelf, then and now, was subject to constant tidal and wave actions which caused erosions which erased numerous sites. Finding what is left is almost impossible in archaeology; however, accidental discoveries are found. The shelf, of course, is argued as the occupation area in prehistory. As such, the sea is an ever-ending condition of storms, ground-swell and depilation of the shelf, is always changing. The surface of the ocean is like an ever-moving horizontal scraper which ceaselessly cuts, gnaws, and erodes the shelf. With all this said, early cultural artifacts still survive. This map shows the USGS’s interpretation of the Pleistocene land mass around 30-20,000 years ago, as in Gardner (1996), Edwards and Merrill (1997), Hranicky (2008), Poag (1978), Straight (1990), and Wylie (1978). As an associated reference, see Oaks and Coch (1963) – Pleistocene Sea Levels, Southeastern Virginia.

U.S. Atlantic Coastal Plain Showing Continental Shelf and Eastern Area for Early Human Occupations During the Late Pleistocene (Map Source: USGS).

Ocean/River Travel: the principal river in this study is the Shenandoah River which joins the Potomac River and flows to the Chesapeake drainage; thus, river travel via the boat to sites was relatively easy. One piece of evidence for this travel route is a piece of mica shiest which only occurs at the Potomac fall line, not on the site. Someone carrying boats around the fall line picked it up and transported it to the Arkfeld site. Basic references for water travel are Babits and Van Tilbury (1998), Bednarik (1989 and 1995), Blue, et al. (2006), Casson (1994 and 1995), Dixon (1999), Engelbreck and Seyfert (1994), Painter (1960), Greenhill (1976), Hill (2011), Johnston (1980), Macgrail and Johnson (1980), Treat (1931), Webb (2006), and Jett (2017). Economy: The economy was a lithic industrial social complex which controlled every phase of daily life. It has the capability to support life by providing all the necessities for a successful occupation in the Western Hemisphere which was a reflection of ways and means developed in the Old World, namely sea-faring travel. Numerous examples of this economy are presented in this publication.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

15

European Technology Sources: Hypothesis that American prehistoric technology has its origins in the Paleolithic of Europe is argued here. Later Clovis pointmakers probably had the boat and so did earlier people of Europe, so it was relatively easy to cross the Atlantic. These early people sailed along the frozen ice, fishing and killing seals, and drank water from frozen snow to reach North America (Hranicky 2012 and Stanford and Bradley 2011).

From the Virginia perspective, Carl Miller (1962) was among the first to understand an Old World connection for lithic technology. He referenced Old World as opposed to Asian sources. Hranicky and Painter (1989) were the first to argue a pre-Clovis date in Virginia. Their dates of 17,000 to 14,000 YBP were influenced by excavations and dates at Meadowcroft rockshelter in Pennsylvania. Miller (1962) comments on the topic:

Various Virginia forms appear to display certain typological analogies to some of the Old World types, but these cannot be judged to be synchronous because there is a putative age difference. This conjecture is based on a series of geological and cultural chronologies. However, whenever absolute chronologies, based upon controlled conditions, are once established, it is surmised that the presumed older Old World artifacts will be found to be much younger and the New World specimens to be much older, with a meeting and possible overlaps of the two chronologies. It is inconceivable to the writer (Miller) that Early Man in the Old World took a couple of hundred thousand years to develop and overspread Eurasia and Africa and only twenty or more thousand years to completely people the New World, and to set up various complicated linguistic families and ideologies with varying degrees of cultural advancement, in such a short time span.

Horizontal Blade-Flake Distribution: these tools/implements are found all over the eastern U.S. Until recently, few archaeologists would accept human occupation prior to Clovis. Now, the problem is the lonely flake goes against the overall archaeological philosophy of: if there is not a projectile point in the context, then it is not a site. Thus, flakes are considered debitage and rarely studied. This situation is often called a “lithic scatter.” The following are examples of non-Virginia blade-flake implements. The best approach around these problems is archaeological training on blade tools, especially the approaches used in Old World Paleolithic archaeology.

Jasper

Flint

Blade-Flake Tools from Indiana

Archeology/Archaeology - 1. (genr.) Ancient history generally; systematic description or study of antiquities. 2. (spec.) The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the prehistoric period. (Oxford Universal Dictionary, 1955). 3. (prof.) It is the science of human time and the study of ancient societies – the scientific recovery of historical data. 4. (discipl.) Archaeology is basically eclectic and has few of its own established scientific basis for research investigative operations; however, most of its practioners assume it is a discipline. 5. (Microp.) Microscopic examination of cultural remains.

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

16

Trans-Atlantic Contact Proof This publication contains hundreds of artifacts which are argued as being PaleoAmerican specimens. Naturally, there would be no universal agreement; the following artifacts have interesting comparisons with same-like artifacts from Europe. Each implement is discussed in text.

Suffolk Bipoint - Slate (L = 100, W = 36, T = 13 mm)

Bipoints (berate Blattspitzen) Left: Virginia and Right: Europe (Debenath and Dibble (1994) and Gamble (1986:164)). Both specimens have D-cross sections and notched bases.

Arkfeld Site, Virginia

France

Arkfeld Site, Virginia

French Levallois Point

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

17

Arkfeld Site

(Red Ochre Coated)

Found Near Paris, France

(Red Ochre Coated)

Limestone, Arkfeld Site

French Heavy Duty Borer or Perforator

Higgins Site

Southern Germany

Virginia’s Recloir Compared to the Germany Recloir

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

18

Arkfeld Bipoint

Europe - Fourneau du Diable

Bison Cave Painting Altamira, Spain

Franklin Buffalo, Franklin County, Virginia

Denmark

Warren County

Arkfeld Site

Flint Bar from Sealand, Denmark

Unive

rsal

-Pub

lishe

rs.c

om

INTRODUCTION

19

Northern Florida

Algeria

The famous flintknapper, Don Crabtree, once told this author that there are just so many ways to break stone. He was referring to projectile points, but this statement represents the world of flintknapping. There are literally billions of prehistoric artifacts around the world. There are bound to be exact duplicates. The problem is archaeologists name them differently from place-to-place and from time-to-time. And, with different criteria, viewpoints, and philosophies. However, this is what we do in archaeology. It is called a technological coincidence.

Pennsylvania

Denmark