ARTICLES

THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES

David J. Meltzer, Lawrence C. Todd, and Vance T. Holliday

Research on the Folsom Paleoindian type site, involving 'renewedfield investigations and an analysis ofextant collections from the 1920s excavations, was undertaken between 1997 and 2000. The preliminary results ofthat research show that all excava­ tions to date have been in the kill area, which took place in a small and relatively shallow tributary to the Pleistocene paleo­ valley ofWild Horse Arroyo as well as in the paleovalley itself. Preliminary butchering of ..... 32 Bison antiquus took place near where the animals were dropped. The kill area is dominated by low-utility bone elements and broken projectile points; high­ utility bones and tools for processing meat and hides are rare or absent, and either occur in another, as-yet undiscovered area ofthe site, or altogether off-site. Faunal remains are generally in excellent condition. Those in the tributary are mostly in pri­ mary context, and underwent rapid burial beneath fine-grained (dominantly aeolian) sediments, which in turn were subs.e­ quently armored by a shingle shale; those in the paleovalley experiencedpostdepositional transport and redeposition. The small lithic assemblage is dominated by projectile points and comprised ofmaterial mostlyfronz two sources in the Texas panhandle, several hundred kilometers southeast ofthe site. It also includes stone obtained from sources at comparable distances north and northwest ofthe site. A series ofradiocarbon ages is available for the stratigraphic units, nearly all from charcoal ofnon­ cultural origins; radiocarbon dates on bison bone put the age ofthe kill at 10,500 B.P.

Entre 1997 y 2000 se llev6 a cabo una nueva investigaci6n en el sitio tipo paleoindio Folsom, que incluy6 trabajos de campo y un analisis de las colecciones existentes de las excavaciones de la decada de 1920. Los resultados preliminares de esa investigaci6n muestran que todas las excavaciones hasta el presente fueron en el area de matanza, que tuvo lugar en un tributario pequeno y angosto del paleovalle del Arroyo Wild Horse, as{ como tambien en el paleovalle mismo. El descuartizamiento preliminarde aprox­ imadamente 32 Bison antiquus se realiz6 cerca de donde los animales fueron lanzados. El area de matanza esta dominada por elementos de hueso de baja utilidad y de puntas de proyectil fracturadas, huesos de alta utilidad e instrumentos para procesar carne y cueros son escasos 0 ausentes, es decir que se encuentran en otra area del sitio aun sin descubrir, 0 fuera del sitio. Los recursos faun{sticos estan en general en condiciones excelentes, los del arroyo estan en gran parte en contexto primario, y fueron cubiertos rapidamente bajo sedimentos de grano fino (predominantemente e6licos), los cuales a su vezfueron cubiertos por una gravilla de esquistos; aquellos encontrados en el paleovallefueron transportados y redepositados. El pequeno conjunto Utico esta compuesto predominantemente porpuntas de proyectil, incluye en gran parte materiales de dos recursos localizadas en el extremo oeste de Texas, a varios cientos de kil6metros al sudeste del sitio. Tambien incluye piedra adquirida de recursos a cientos de kil6metros al noroeste y al norte del sitio. Se encuentra disponible una serie de fechamientos radiocarb6nicos sobre las unidades estratigraficas, practicamente efectuados todos sobre carb6n sin aparente origen cultural, los fechamientos radiocarb6nicos sobre hueso de bisonte ubican ala matanza en los 10,500 anos a.p.

he Folsom (Paleoindian) type site (29CX1, long-standing and bitter controversy over human LA 8121) is one of the best-known archaeo­ antiquity in North America (Meltzer 1983, 1994). Tlogical localities in North America. It is on Yet, because ofthe narrow goals ofthe original exca­ the National Register ofHistoric Places, is a National vations, the field and analytical methods in place at Historic Landmark, and is a New Mexico State Mon­ the time, and the few publications that emerged from ument (Murtaugh 1976:481)-allas a result ofexca­ that early work, Folsom-at least in scientific vations there in 1926-1928, which ended a terms-is also one of the least-known archaeologi-

David J. Meltzer - Department ofAnthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275-0336 ([email protected]) Lawrence C. Todd - Department ofAnthropology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523-1787 ([email protected]) Vance T. Holliday - Department of Geography, University ofWisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1491 ([email protected])

American Antiquity, 67(1), 2002, pp. 5-36 Copyright© 2002 by the Society for American Archaeology

5 6 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

Figure 1. The Folsom site and surrounding region shown on a digital elevation model compiled from 7.5' USGS topographic quadrangles.

cal localities in North America. In an effort to of ....2109 m (....6919 feet) above sea level. The site enhance ourunderstanding ofthe site, underthe aus­ straddles Wild Horse Arroyo, a minor northwest­ pices ofthe QuestArchaeological ResearchProgram southeast trending tributary of the Dry Cimarron at SMU, an interdisciplinary field project was initi­ River. Both Wild Horse Arroyo and the Dry Cimar­ ated at Folsom in 1997, which continued over the ron have their headwaters on nearby Johnson Mesa, next two field seasons and was followed by analy­ the eastern escarpment ofwhich is just 1600 m west ses of museum collections from the site. of the Folsom site and looms 228 m above the val­ Although analyses continue and additionalresults ley floor on which the site is situated (Figure 1). will be forthcoming, we provide here a summary to Johnson Mesa is a prominent regional landform date, detailing the historical background, ourcurrent (Meltzer 2000:Figure 1), butone ofa series ofexten­ understanding of the site's geomorphic and strati­ sive basalt mesas and scattered volcanic peaks and graphic context, its age and paleoenvironmentalcon­ cones thatcharacterizethe Raton Sectionofthe Great text, the structure and taphonomy of the bonebed, Plains province, extending from the Rocky Moun­ and the site's archaeological contents. A detailed tain Front Range to the Oklahoma Panhandle. Vol­ monograph on the site is in preparation. canic activity hadceased well before humans arrived in the area (Anderson and Haynes 1979; Hunt et al. Site Setting 1987:51; cf. Baldwin and Muehlberger 1959), but TheFolsomsite is located inthe far northeastern cor­ the volcanic features dominate the landscape, topog­ ner of Colfax County, New Mexico, at an elevation raphy, and drainages, and because of the consider- Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 7 able variability in elevation over shortdistances influ­ ondary, productivity for the region-a projection of ence the local climate and biotic communities. expected ungulate prey based on empirically derived Based on data from weather stations within a -.5 patterns of animal biomass (formulas in Binford degree radius and ± 152 m elevation ofthe site, this 2001)-is relatively high, and even today this is a is an area ofrelatively low annual precipitation (rang­ game-rich area, supporting large herds of elk, deer, ing from 38-44.5 cm-the higher amounts received pronghorn (atop nearby Johnson Mesa), and game at higher elevations), much of which falls during birds (the richness perhaps enhanced by the frag­ high-intensity summer thunderstorms. Save for atop mentation and loss ofhabitat elsewhere, the absence Johnson Mesa and the area close to the site itself, of a large local human population or urban center, winter precipitation is relatively inconsequential. and contemporary land use practices). Bison were Because of the elevation and the scarp effect of the present in the area in historic times (Findley et al. mesa, snowfall near the site is much heavier than the 1975; Fitzgerald et al. 1994), as they obviously were surrounding, lower elevation areas. In general, this in the late Pleistocene. is a region ofcool, seasonal temperatures with a rel­ Archaeological surveys in the area immediately atively short «145 days) growing season. Summers surrounding the site (Anderson 1975; Meltzer 1998) are cool, temperatures drop quickly and widely bave yielded a limited archaeological record, nearly across the area by early fall (Septe.mber), and win­ all late prehistoric in age. Such finds suggest this has ters are cold. Calculated Effective Temperature (ET) been an area in which human activities were rather values for the weather stations in the arearange from ephemeral, consisting largely of hunting and other 12.05 to- 12.97. limited subsistence activities. As discussed below, The Folsom site is situated in an open grass­ this probably was the case for Paleoindian times as land/meadow, interspersed by oak and locust gal­ well. leries (Quercus gambelii, Q. undulata, and Robinia neomexicana). Because of the topographic and cli­ -History and Previous Work matic variability present over relatively short dis­ The circumstances of the Folsom discovery are tances, the surrounding region is marked by diverse poorly known (Anderson 1975:43-44). The various biotic communities, containing a range ofwarm and accounts, (e.g., Agogino 1971, 1985; Cook 1947; cool season plants (Anderson 1975:46-72; Huckell Folsom 1992; Hewett 1971; Hillerman 1971; Little 1998). Vegetation communities include open grass­ 1947; Owen 1951; Pr~ston 1997; Reed 1940; Roberts land on the exposed uplands of Johnson Mesa; a 1935; Steen 1955; Thompson 1967) are mostly sec­ zone ofponderosapine/spruce/fIT parkland mark the ondary, based on the recollections ofthose who were mesa rim; and on the talus slopes below, a scrub oak not there, and are often contradictory-as one might forest mixed with locust and occasional juniper and expect. Most credit the initial discovery to Crowfoot pine species. At lower elevations to the east/south­ Ranch cowboy George Mcjunkin; others, however, east (down the Dry Cimmaron Valley, which drops grant him only bystander status, belittle his role, or -850 m in elevation in -100 km), the predominant simply ignore him altogether (e.g., Cook 1947; Owen landscape form is relatively level, semi-arid grass­ 1951, Roberts 1935; Thompson 1967). This, too, is land (dominated by C4 [warm-season] grass,es). not unexpected. Despite the floral diversity, primary productivity It seems reasonable to infer, based in part on inde­ and standing biomass are relatively low (there are pendent geological evidence, that the event that set relatively few trees), and the vegetation experiences the discovery in train was an unusually heavy rain considerable annual turnover. Much ofthe biomass on Johnson Mesa, just above the Crowfoot Ranch, may not be edible by humans. Relatively few ofthe onAugust 27, 1908. The runofffrom that storm trig­ edible plants yield a significant return in fatty acids gered downcutting in the Dry Cimarron drainage or carbohydrates that would have provided a viable and incised Wild Horse Arroyo more deeply than it subsistencebase, particularly during the critical win­ had been before (Anderson 1975:43).1 Sometime ter and spring months when game populations are after (how long after, no one knows), Mcjunkin (or low and fat-depleted (Speth and Spielmann someone else) spotted large bones eroding out ofthe 1983:18-21). Nonetheless, this area provides abun­ arroyo wall -2-3 m below the surface-and must dant forage for animals. Thus, the calculated sec- have recognized them as being something of 8 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 interest (otherwise, ofcourse, the bones would sim­ vation worked into the southbankofthe arroyo (Fig­ ply have been ignored). Whether l)e (or whoever the ure 2), in what came to be recognized as the west­ finder) surinised the bones to be old or simply found ern edge of the bonebed. J. D. Figgins instructed artifacts with them has been the ,subject of much Schwachheim to remove the overburden to within a speculation, even ~ome speculative history (e.g., Fol­ few feet ofthe bones over a large area, to "clear the som 1992). But there are no facts bearing on the ground for the recovery ot'the fossils in an orderly question, save that when excavations were begun in way" (J. D. Figgins to Howarth, July 24,1926, 1926, this was not considered an archaeological site. DIR/CMNH). One particularly auspicious element The fIrst secure record we have ofthe site comes of 1. D. Figgins's strategy was to "carry ... the dirt from December 10, 1922 (after Mcjunkin died), away from the creek, not irito it" (J. D. Figgins to when the locality was visited by Carl Schwachheim Howarth, July 24,1926, DIR/CMNH). This was the (a Raton, New Mexico blacksmith), Fred Howarth procedure in 1927 and 1928 as weil, and thus most (a Raton banker), and several oftheir friends. Their ofthe overburden and backdirt was not washed down visit was memorialized in Schwachheim's Diary and the arroyo butremains on site. No screens were used, in a photograph of Howarth pointing to bison bone not surprising given the times arid the paleontolog­ in place. How they learned of the site is also a mat­ ical goals ofthe excavation. ter of speculation. One erigaging scenario has By mid-June bison bones were being uJ?covered, Mcjunkin stopping by Schwachheim's home to and in mid-July the fIrst artifact, the distal end of a admire a fountain made with the antler racks oftwo F~lsom fluted projectile point (Denver Museumcat­ bull elk that became entangled in a mortal contest alog number 1391/3), was uncovered though not in (Folsom 1992; Steen 1955:5). situ (Schwachheiin Diary"July 14, 1926). The dis­ After an apparently unsuccessful attempt to inter­ covery was reported to J. D. Figgins in Denver, who est the State of New Mexico in the site, in late Jan­ urged the crew to watch "forhu:man remains and then uary 1926 Schwachheim and Howarth visited Denver in no circumstances, remove them, but let me know where they met Jesse Figgins, the Director of the at once" (J. D. Figgins to Howarth, July 22, 1926, Colorado Museum of Natural History2 (hereafter, DIR/ClViNH, also Meltzer 1991). While he instructe~ CMNH; Schwachheim Diary, January 25, 1926; them to "scan every particle ofdirt they remove" (J. Roberts 1935:4; Steen 1955:5-6). They told him D. Figgins to Brown, July 23, 1926,VP/AMNH),the about the bison remains and subsequently sent Fig­ crew found no in situ 'points over the remainder of gins a package of the bones (Howarth to J. D. Fig­ the field season, although one additional broken point gins, February 4, 1926, DIR/CMNH3). The bones (a blade and tip) was found close to the end of the were identified as an extinct species of bison by season. This point later proved to refit to a sliver of Harold Cook (Honorary Curator ofPaleoritology at a midsection found adjacent to a rib-the sliver and the Museum). Cook and Figgins visited the site rib having been removed from the field as a block March 7, 1926 (Schwachheim Diary), ultimately and exposed, in the laboratory (Figgins deciding to excavate with the aim of "supplying a 1927:232-234, Figure 3right, and Figure 4~ 1. D. Fig­ mountable [bison] skeleton" (1. D. Figgins to Tay­ gins to Cook, November 16, 1926, HJC/AGPO; lor, June 21, 1926, DIRJCMNH~ Cook to Barbour, Roberts 1935:4). February 15, 1926, EHB/NSM). Thehindsightclaim During the following field season (1927) the exca­ that the Museum initiated excavations in search of vation area was expanded but the techniqu.es human artifacts (Figgins 1927:232) is not corrobo­ remained the same. Only this time the crew-as a rated by contemporary correspondence (Meltzer result of an exchange 1. ,D.. Figgins had with Ales 1991~ Roberts 1935:4). Hrdlicka in Washington that spring (Meltzer 1983, Fieldwork began in early May 1926. The exca­ 1994)-was explicitly instructed to watch carefully vations started on the south bank of the arroyo and for artifacts and leave unexcavated any spotted in were conducted largely by Schwachheim (with help place. OnAugust 29, 1927 ~ a point was found in situ, from several individuals, including Frank Figgins, 1. D. Figgins was notified (Schwachheimto 1. D. Fig­ the son of Jesse). The outlines of the excavation gins, August 29, i927, DIR/CMNH), and he methods and the areas in which the excavation took promptly sent telegrams to "several scientists invit­ place can be gleaned from archival clues. The exca- ing them to study the point in position." Meanwhile, Meltzer et al.] THI; FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 9

x

Old Denver Quarry 1926-1927 x Between dotted lines skeletons Sk4 more or less mixed xd I I I I I X \ \ I G-Sk1 I Sk11~ I Sk7 I I I I I V SkUA"-ogSk5

Sk15j' Sk2~~Pillar '" "'~ .... PitD NObO~ <:)PitA MN

PitB~ Folsom Quarry Nobonef;V o 10 20 Feet X=Arrow djm Sk =Skeleton

Figure 2. Facsimile ofa plan map of the 1920s Folsom site excavations, based on an unpublished map made by the American Museum of Natural History in' 1928. "Arrow" indicates the location of Folsom fluted projectile points. Because of discrep­ ancies in the map and in the sparse field notes, it is not possible to specify with complete confidence which points (listed in Table 2) ,were found at which location. "Skeleton" should not be taken literally as the location of a complete bison skeleton, but inste~d as the presence of bison bone, which may include elements from one or more individuals. Sc~wachheim was urged to keep his eyes on the tember 4, 1927, when J. D. Figgins, Barnum Brown point "every minute and do not let anyone remove (vertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum it or dig around it ... regardless ofwho it is or what ofNatural History, who happened to be in Denver), reason they give" (1. D. Figgins to Schwachheim, and Frank Roberts (archaeologist at the Bureau of August 31,1927, DIR/CMNH). American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution), came Schwachheim duly awaited the arrival of "Sci­ to the site. Brown examined the site stratigraphy and entists, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, Zoologists, geology (B. Brown, unpublished fieldnotes, or other bugs" (Schwachheim to 1. D. Figgins, Sep­ VP/AMNH) and had his picture taken with the in tember 4, 1927, DIRlCMNH), which began on Sep- situ point (see Meltzer 1993:53). Roberts studied the 10 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 ground, was similarly convinced by the association, nates relative to an earthen pillar left in the center of and thought it sufficiently important that he returned the excavations, and as depth below surface (the sur­ on September 6, and again on September 8 with A. face being the top ofthe earthen pillar). Provenience V. Kidder (of the Carnegie Institution of Washing­ was recorded in this manner for individual artifacts ton-both Roberts and Kidder had been attending and clusters ofbone (not individual bone elements), the fIrst Pecos Conference [Roberts 1935:5]). All then (apparently after the completion of the 1928 agreed the point and the bones of the extinct bison excavations) on a plan map of the site (Figure 2). were contemporaneous (Meltzer 1983:35-37, 1994; Unfortunately, as noted below, that map contains Roberts 1935:5) and provided the fIrst unequivocal some inaccuracies and is internally contradictory. testimony that humans were in America by at least The earthen pillar has long since disappeared, lim­ the late Pleistocene. That discovery, of course, pro­ iting the utility of the map and the measured prove­ foundly changed American archaeology (for a nience of the mapped items. thoughtful contemporary assessment of Folsom's Ultimately, the 1928 AMNH excavations opened implications, see Kidder 1936). an area of ,..,233.7 m2 (Todd and Hofman 1991), Altogether, the 1926-27 excavations of the Col­ mostly on the south bankadjoining the CMNH exca­ orado Museum removed ,..,34.7 m2 of the bonebed, vations. A smaller excavation on the north bank in an area (Figure 2) that extended,..,11 m along the included cleaning a vertical face along that bank for south bank of the arroyo ,and 3.8 m into the south a distance of ,.., 10.3 m. By late August, Peter Kaisen bank at its eastern end (Todd and Hofman 1991). (in charge oftheAMNHexcavations) was convinced Unfortunately, only rough sketch maps and pho­ they had exhausted the bison quarry (Kaisen to tographs indicate the precise position ofartifacts and Brown, August 29,1928, VP/AMNH), a claim that bones (e.g. F. Figgins, unpublishedfieldnotes, 1926, would be repeated in later months and years (Brown DIR/CMNH; Schwachheim to J. D. Figgins, Sep­ 1928; also Howarth to 1. D. Figgins, October 12, tember 4 and September 29, 1927; DIR/CMNH; 1928, DIR/CMNH; Brown to J. D. Figgins, Febru­ Brown 1928). The archival materials present a basic ary 1, 1929, DIR/CMNH; but see Cook to Jenks, picture ofthe deposits in which remains were found: March 31, 1929, HJC/AGFO). the in situ point was found eight feet below ground That same season, at the behest ofthe Smithson­ surface (Schwachheim to J. D. Figgins, September ian Institution, Kirk Bryan of the USGS and Har­ 11, 1927, DIRICMNH), and it-along with the bison vard University visited the site and mapped the skeletons-appeared to be "rest[ing] on a sloping regional geology. He concluded "the age ofthe mate­ bank" ofa south-north channel (Brown, unpublished rial containing B. taylori and the implements must field notes, VP/AMNH). be late Pleistocene or perhaps early Recent" (Bryan In order to expand the sample of artifacts and 1929:129). Brown reached a similar opinion based bison remains and resolve more precisely the age of on the bison bones (Brown 1929). the site, the American Museum of Natural History By the end of three years of work at the site, the (hereafter, AMNH) joined the excavations in 1928. bonebed had yielded at least 14 Folsom fluted pro­ They first dug four perimeter "test holes" (identified jectile points (see published photographs in Worm­ as Pits A-D in Figure 2) to establish the outer limits ington 1957:28). More would subsequently appear ofthe bonebed, then excavated the area within those during laboratory preparation ofthe plasterjacketed boundaries. As before, mule-drawn fresnos moved skeletal remains (e.g., J. D. Figgins to Brown, Octo­ the overburden onto the uplands south ofthe site, ulti­ ber 23, 1929, VP/AMNH).At least two fluted points mately forming a semi-circular berm around its (one from the Colorado Museum excavations, the southern edge. As in previous years, much of the otherfrom theAmerican Museumwork) were recov­ excavation close to the bonebed was done with picks ered by the excavation crews in the back dirt and shovels, with not unexpected results: "We have (SchwachheimDiary). Infact, it was not uncommon found to date 9 broken points. Oh!Yes, one was a fine in the years after the excavation for artifacts to be one, but Ernie struck it with a pick breaking it ... " found eroding out ofthe back dirt. Brown found one (Schwachheim to Brown, August 10, 1928, there on a 1931 visit (Howarth to Cook, February VP/AMNH). 26; 1932, AHC/uwY), and in 1934 E. B. Howard Provenience was measured in Cartesian coordi- found the base of one that he believed joined with a Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 11 tip found earlier (Howard 1943: 228). Severalappar­ ogy (e.g., Brown 1928, 1929, 1936; Bryan 1937; ently were also found in the 1950s by Homer Farr, Hay and Cook 1928, 1930), as well as a couple of the longtime caretaker of Capulin Volcano (now popular (and still somewhat polemical) pieces on the Capulin Volcano National Monument). More site (e.g., Cook 1928; Figgins 1928). However, recently (1994), a group from the Denver Museum detailed descriptions of the excavation data and recovered a point (Dixon and Marlar 1997). Alto­ results were never published-not unusual, given gether, perhaps two-dozen fluted projectile points the contemporary standards. have come from the site, although the current where­ There was no further fieldwork at the Folsom site abouts of some are unknown; there may be for several decades. Later visits by various individ­ unrecorded points in private collections. uals added to the artifact inventory and led to the col­ Finally, the site yielded a considerable amount of lection of a charcoal sample that produced the frrst bison skeletal remains (we have inventoried over radiocarbon date from the area-though not, as ini­ 3,000 identifiable elements intheAmerican and Den­ tially supposed, from the Paleoindian occupation at ver museum collections). Brown believed they rep­ the site (Arnold and Libby 1950:10; Roberts 1951).5 resented at least 30 bison and possibly as many as Fieldwork at the site was renewed in the early 1970s 50, which he and others referred to as the extinct when Adrienne Anderson, then a doctoral candidate species Bison taylori (andBison oliverhayi, now syn­ at the University of Colorado, undertook an inten­ onymized with B. antiquus occidentalis; see Figgins sive archaeological site survey with the additional 1933; Hay and Cook 1930; MacDonald 1981:85, aim of developing a paleoenvironmental record for 94). The herd consisted of "male, female, and year­ the region. Limited testing was also carried out at the lings ... [all] killed at the same time" (Brown to Hay, Folsom site to determine: "(1) the remaining extent January 10, 1929, VP/AMNH; also Brown 1928, of the Folsom-bearing deposit, (2) the feasibility of 1936). additional excavation, and (3) the presence of Other species besides bison were also found over diatoms, snails, pollen, and other information the course ofthe 1920s excavations. These included enabling paleoenvironmental reconstruction" "a deer midway between the size ofa black-tail and (Anderson 1975:19). Samples were also collected for an elk" (J. D. Figgins to Brown, July 14, 1926, radiocarbon dating, partly with an eye on correlat­ VPIAMNH), as well as a variety ofsmall mammals ing the deposits with local volcanic events (Ander­ (Hay to Brown, undated, but ca. September 15,1928, son 1975:39; Anderson and Haynes 1979; Haynes VP/AMNH; the fauna is reported in Hay and Cook et al. 1992:83-84). 1928, 1930). All of the identified species, save the The fieldwork involved excavation of <10 small bison, occur in this area historically; several of the test pits and backhoe trenches in and around the site, small mammals are burrowers, which occupy the though mostly on the south bank. In addition, the site even today. Excavation techniques being what arroyo walls were cleaned, and pollen profiles were they were in the 1920s, the taphonomic history of obtained from two sections near the site. Radiocar­ those remains and their association with Folsom bon samples were also collected from the arroyo Paleoindian activities is unknown.4 walls; these included bone fragments and a very Brown (1928) observed that theAMNH excava­ small amount ofcharcoal flecks dispersed through­ tions-despite covering a larger area-yielded out the sediment in what appeared to be a secondary remains of only 14 bison, compared to 16 from the context (Haynes et al. 1992:87). CMNH work the previous two seasons. Clearly, the Anderson's survey of the area surrounding Fol­ density of skeletal remains was higher in the area som yielded some 74 sites and 192 isolated artifact excavated by the Colorado Museum. occurrences (Anderson 1975:14, 80), though only a Theresults ofthe three years ofexcavation at Fol­ very small number ofthose were Paleoindian in age. som were not well published. The original papers by Despite the fact that at each site a "one hundred per­ Cook (1927) and J. D. Figgins (1927) were largely cent artifact collection was attempted" (Anderson polemical pieces, written before any fluted points had 1975:79), the sumtotal ofmaterial recorded from all been found in situ, and which advocated other can­ these sites was just 2,087 artifacts, of which 108 didates for great antiquity besides Folsom. Later, were projectile points, and 345 (16.5 percent) arti­ there were a few briefpapers on the fauna and geol- facts came from a single rockshelter (Anderson 12 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

1975:21 andAppendix B). Ourown muchless-exten­ latter are often less visible archaeologically and can sive survey ofthe surrounding area in 1997 yielded be distant from the kill. even less material, confirming Anderson's results. By the time we began fieldwork in 1997, the Fol­ Human use of this area in prehistory was evidently somsite had eroded signficantly, perhaps in large part ephemeral and consisted largely of limited hunting because the 1920s excavations were not backfilled, activities (Anderson 1975:4, Table 23). but also because of game and domestic animal traf­ Aspects ofthe 1970s work at the Folsom site are fic through the area. Onthe south bank, the old exca­ touched on by Anderson (1975), though the atten­ vation area forms a semi-circularbowl, cutby gullies tion there is primarily on the results of the survey. that run down to the arroyo (south to north). The The Folsom site stratigraphic results are discussed upland, southern edge of the 1920s excavation area in Anderson and Haynes (1979), which also is still ringed by a semi-circular back dirt berm, addresses the age ofthe Folsom occupation relative thoughjudgingbyarchival photographs, it has dimin­ to local volcanic activity. The outcome ofthe radio­ ished in height since 1928. While only a small carbon-dating efforts are summarized by Haynes et amount of excavation took place on the north bank al. (1992:84), who report that analysis ofbison bone in the 1920s, the vertical face cut in 1928 has eroded collagen from the site yielded an age of10,260 ± 110 and retreated considerably and now forms a ...,45 0 B.P., while dated charcoal gave a mean age of10,890 slope (it remains an active erosional slope). No per­ ± 50 B.P. (an average of six samples, five of which manent datummarkers exist from the 1926-28 work, were individual charcoal flecks, the sixth a com­ and the earthen pillar used as a datum in 1928 has posite sample from the other five). long since disappeared. In 1970, Anderson estab­ In the spring of 1972Willard Louden, other local lished a concrete datum on site, and it serves as the avocational archaeologists, and a group from primary datumfor ourwork as well; we have setfour Trinidad State Junior College excavated a cranium additional concrete datums. ofa relatively large bison cow, along with other skele­ Initial testing in 1997 focused on the west side of tal elements (ribs and a thoracic vertebra, according the south bank for two reasons: clues in the archival to photographs taken at the time) on the north bank records indicated this was the mostly likely area ofWild HorseArroyo. Thecranium and photographs where intact bonebed deposits might be found and, are curated at the Louden-Henritze Archaeology second, Kaisen observed there were "a lot ofbones MuseumatTrinidad State Junior College; the where­ all along the west side," noting they were from "more abouts ofthe axial elements are not known. None of or less mixed" skeletons (Kaisen to Brown, August this material was published. 19, 1928, VP/AMNH; also, Figure 2). Among the mixed remains were several closely spaced crania Recent Investigations of the Folsom Site (Kaisen to Brown, August 19, 1928, VP/AMNH). and Assemblages These hinted that this might be a possible bison-pro­ We renewed field investigations at the Folsom site cessing area. for several reasons: to assess its stratigraphy, geol­ In an effort to relocate that part ofthe bonebed as ogy, and paleoenvironmental history; to ascertain if well as ground-truth the 1928 map, a series of shal­ any intact deposits remained and, if there proved to low exploratory trenches were dug seeking the be portions of the kill area remaining, to see if we perimeter test pits excavated in 1928 (AMNH Pits could gain an understanding of the spatial structure A-D in Figure 2). Those test pits were sought on the and taphonomy of the bonebed; and finally to go assumption that since they were positioned outside beyond the bonebedto seek otherbutchering and pro­ the main excavation block and were discrete hand­ cessing areas, or perhaps an associated camp. The dug units, their outlines might be better preserved latter is of particular interest, as ethnoarchaeologi­ and more readily recognized than the sloping and cal (e.g., Fisher 1992; O'Connell et al. 1992) and more irregular fresno-dug walls ofthe main excava­ Paleoindian archaeological studies (Frison and Stan­ tion block. ford 1982; Hofman 1996:56,62, 1999b:394; Hof­ Ultimately, three ofthose pits (AMNH B, C, and man etal. 1990; Jodry 1992, 1999b:73, 80; Jodry and D) were located. However, their locations on site Stanford 1992; Stanford 1999:302) have shown kill and relative to each other do not match the positions sites are often accompanied by camps, though the as shown on the 1928 AMNH map. Pit C, for exam- Meltzer et at] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 13 pIe, instead ofbeing within""'.5 m ofthe western edge extensive Giddings machine coring and hand auger­ ofthe main block excavations (note the scale in Fig­ ing across the site (Figure 3). Electrical resistivity ure 2), proved to be -4 m distant. In effect, the area and seismic refraction surveys were also conducted where the bonebed was removed in 1928 did not to complement and enhance the coring and auger­ extend all the way to the edge ofthe excavation area ing data on bedrock topography. This work has as shown on the map. Thus, there were potentially shown that the Paleoindian remains at Folsomextend unexcavated areas remaining between the edge ofthe from the lowerportions ofa small, two-pronged trib­ 1928 bonebed excavations and the perimetertest pits utary into the deeper and wider adjoining paleoval­ (and perhaps outside the perimeter test pits). ley (the ancestral Wild Horse ArroyO).6 Because of Our excavations over the 1997-1999 seasons the greaterfluvial activity within the paleovalley, the focused on a 17.5 m2 area ofthe bonebed (within the stratigraphic histories of the tributary and paleoval­ 5-x-5 m M17 and N17 blocks in Figure 3). This area ley, although generally similar, also differ in impor­ falls between the western edge of the 1928 excava­ tant ways, as do the taphonomic histories of tions and AMNH Pit C-the outlines ofwhich were archaeological remains found in these different areas found in the western half of the M17 block. Those ofthe site. excavations produced a concentration ofbison bone Boththe paleovalley and the tributary were incised (NISP =259). Although all sediment from that exca­ into the local bedrock (Cretaceous-age Smoky Hill vation was water screened through nested 31.75-mm Shale [Scott and Pillmore 1993])7 and are filled with (~-inch) and 15.875-mm (X6-inch) mesh, no points sediments of late-Quaternary age. The lithostrati­ or tools were found. However, 25 tiny flakes (mean graphic subdivisions and terminology we use in length =4.6 mm) from use or resharpening were describing these sediments generally follow the tri­ recovered in the water screens. partite scheme developed by Haynes on the basis of Severall-m2 units opened in the M15 block 5 m lithologic characteristics (Anderson and Haynes south of M17 (the outlines of AMNH Pit D were 1979) and includes three major stratigraphic units found within the M15 block) aimed at delimiting the (Figure 4). From bottom to top, the Folsom forma­ southerly extent of the bonebed. Only a few bone tion (stratum}), the Mcjunkin formation (m), and the fragments were recovered in this area of the site, Wild Horse formation (w) (Anderson and Haynes indicating the bonebed does not extend to this point. 1979:Table 1). We have made some modifications to In addition, several 1-m2 test units were excavated Haynes's terminology, however, based on the recog­ on the uplands to the west (n =6), southwest (n =1) nition ofthe differences in the stratigraphic histories and east (n = 3) ofthe bonebed, in search of associ­ ofthe paleovalley and the tributary. Nearly 50 radio­ ated habitation areas; none yielded any hints of a carbon ages, primarily on charcoal (which appears to Paleoindian presence. Limited testing and excava­ be almost entirely noncultural in origin [also Bryan tion also took place on the north bank in an effort to 1937:142]) but also on bison bone, provide chrono­ betterunderstand the stratigraphic context ofremains logical control for the stratigraphic sequence (ages in this area. are summarized in Figure 4, and are all in radiocar­ Not all ofour field efforts, results, and analytical bon years B.P.). In-filling ofthe tributary and paleo­ interpretations can be discussed here, but will be valley began at least 12,400 B.P., with the detailed in a subsequent monograph. Forthe remain­ accumulation of fluvial and colluvial deposits (the der of this paper, we will focus on the stratigraphy basal part of the Folsom formation, stratum/I) that and geochronology of the site, the faunal remains by the time ofthe Paleoindian occupation had filled recovered from the M171N17 block, as well as those -1-2 m of the lower reaches of these channels. The examinedin the collections at theAmerican and Den­ /1 deposit is silty with layers ofredeposited calcare­ ver museums, and the artifacts. ous, angular shale fragments common along with occasional gravel lenses. Stratum /1 represents Stratigraphy, Geochronology, and episodic accumulation of shale fragments, derived Paleoenvironments from what were then relatively steep and highbedrock The geological history of the Folsom site has been walls (varying from 5-10 m). Between periods of reconstructed through stratigraphic mapping of the shingle accumulation, the valley filled with layers of exposed arroyo and excavation walls, as well as silty clay. Locally, some time after burial, these basal 14 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

940 990 1040 1090 1100 1\~-'--'--,r-a---'"~~~--l-...L-..L-L-'-L-L====:!::=:!:=!~~::!:::::::!::d!-L-L--L-L.L...L...J-7--L--l..-L.L...L...J-LL--L.L.:::!:,..L--l-LL..L..LLY--L.L...L.L.LL.l--L.L..L.L.L.t-1100

NK

1050 1050

1000 1000

940 990 1040 1090 grid meters East

Figure 3. Topographic map of the Folsom site, showing the location of core/auger holes (black dots), select 5-x-5 m excava­ tion blocks (MI5, M17, MIS), and smaller (l-m2 and 2-m2) test units (open squares) from 1997-1999. Ticks along the edges mark the site grid. Black dots within gray circles identify core/auger holes where stratum12 was present, and also very roughly indicate the course of the two prongs of the tributary (which come in from the south and southwest on the south bank), and the location of the paleovalley, which is located beneath the north bank, in a course that approximately parallels the present arroyo. The plan map of the 1920s excavations is superimposed (in bold outline), although its position is at best an approximation, for reasons discussed in the text. layers were subjected to a fluctuating water table that not elaborate. Allen (1959), in examining soils produced distinctive iron-oxide mottles. formed on the basalt uplands, observed that loess Beginning around 11,500 B.P. and lasting until (and volcanic ash) is an important component ofthe -10,000 B.P. the tributary and the paleovalley filled parent material of some soils. Loess would not be with sediments of stratumj2, fine-grained, calcare­ out of place in the region given the site's proximity ous, light yellowish brown silts (silt loam/silty clay to glacial and periglacial processes in the Southern loam) that are similar in physical characteristics to Rocky Mountains during the late Pleistocene. The loess. Loess is not widely reported for the region, but timing ofj2 deposition (Late Glacial) would also be its presence has been noted. In a study of volcanic appropriate for loess accumulation. rocks of the area, Collins (1949:1023) remarks that Thej2 may not be primary airfaliloess, but rather on some of the basalt mesas "Quaternary loess has a redeposited loess; evidence from thin sections been added to the decomposition products" but does shows fine bedding with stringers ofclay, indicating Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 15

South Bank North Bank

Wild Horae Arroyo

Figure 4. Generalized south-north geologic cross section of Wild Horse Arroyo at the Folsom site, showing major strati­ graphic units and select radiocarbon ages and age ranges.

syndepositional reworking (Goldberg and Arpin aggradation and surface stability during the accu­ 2000). Still, the absence of coarse clastics or pro­ mulation of this stratum. nounced bedding (except for several widely sepa­ Around 10,500 B.P. (five radiocarbon ages on rated lenses of shale gravel) suggests the loess was bone average 10,489 ± 21), Paleoindian hunters not extensively reworked by fluvial/colluvial runoff killed a herd of -32 bison, dropping the animals in or sheetflow and may have washed out of the air both the tributary and in the adjoining valley. (Vir­ ("wash-out loess") and accumulated in this topo­ tually all of the 1920s excavations were within the graphic low. tributary, and not the paleovalley-even those exca­ ;Sediments are, at best, a coarse indicator ofenvi­ vations that in 1928 cut into the north bank, which ronmental conditions, but the presence oftheflloess then still was situated south of where the tributary or "wash-out loess" at the site suggests a cooler and and paleovalley merge.) It seems likely that the drier landscape than at present. Support for that pos­ hunters would have maneuvered or otherwise dis­ sibility is available in the preliminary results of the advantaged the animals, thereby reducing their risks, analysis ofthe isotopic chemistry ofgastropod shell by using the high bedrock walls ofthe valley and the (from Vallonia gracilicosta, V parvula, Gastrocopta~ tributary and perhaps a knickpoint within the tribu­ and Succineidae) recovered from the bonebed. These tary headcut. However, postdepositional colluvial have more positive 813C and 8180 values than occur movement ofshingle shale offthose valley walls has among contemporary species. While this too sug­ obscured the precise configuration of the land sur­ gests the environment at the site during the time of face at the time of the kill. the occupation was marked by cooler and drier cli­ The kill was made on a surface that was essen­ mates and greater amounts ofC4 plants than at pre­ tially dry underfoot~atleast within the tributary. The sent, such a hypothesis needs to be (and will be) fl within the adjoining, topographically lower val­ tested with ongoing isotopic analysis (as well as ley may have had more moisture, but unfortunately analysis of pollen extracted from a sediment core we cannotbe certain as we have virtually no evidence obtained from a nearby lake atop Johnson Mesa). that bears on this question. In neither area do the The fl deposition continued essentially uninter.,. bones occur on a distinct stratigraphic surface or rupted through the time ofthe Folsom kill-:- the top unconformity, although in the tributary a backplot of the bison bone (at least in the tributary) is cov­ shows there is a well-defined archaeological surface ered' if thinly, infl sediments. There are no distinct on which the bones are resting, and there are subtle horizons within thefl, although there is evidencefor differences in soil texture and chemistry just below weak pedogenesis, indicating periods of slower the bonebed. There is no stratigraphic evidence for 16 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 more than a single Paleoindian bison kill having indicative of fluvial transport. These bones are situ­ taken place at this locality. ated in and among multiple, complex lenses ofj3 Erosion began in the drainage sometime around and gravel, including in some instances dispersed 10,000 B.P. and lasted until ....9800 B.P., at which nodules of calcium carbonate, marking repeated point the depositional histories of the tributary and episodes of low-gradient fluvial erosion and rede­ paleovalley began to diverge significantly. In the trib­ position. The size of the gravels (packets of which utary, t~e eroded top of the.f2 and the Paleoindian range from coarse to very fine, i.e., <8 mm) suggest bonebed were covered by a slopewash of angular, that water velocity and turbidity-here on the edges platy fragments of Smoky Hill shale (generally <5 of the valley-was irregular, as was stream compe­ em in maximum length) that came off the nearby tence. bedrock walls across the tributary basin. The shin­ There are presumably some areas in the paleo­ gle shale-which constitutes stratumj3 in the trib­ valley where portions ofthe bonebed are in primary utary-is heaviest (but discontinuous) in the area of context (e.g., where the cranium and associated ele­ the bonebed; in the upper reaches of the tributary it ments were found in 1972). Importantly, not all of thins and ultimately disappears. For the most part, the bone found in the paleovalley could have simply the shingle shale flowed across the top of the.f2; in "washed out" from the tributary deposit, as bison justa few places itcame to rest directly onbison bone. remains have been found in the paleovalley at least Otherwise, itforms a lens (sometimes sets oflenses) 35 m upstream ofthe mouth ofthe tributary (Figure 10-30 cmthick, which effectively armored and pro­ 3). Although the greatestconcentration ofbison bone tected the unqerlying bonebed from subsequent dis.;. was found in the tributary, this is not necessarily the turbance (e.g., erosion, rodentburrowing). This shale main area ofthe kill (in fact, the density ofcarcasses slope wash testifies to a scarcity ofvegetation on the here is relatively low in comparative terms [Hofman landscape. If the bedrock walls were overlaid by a 1999a]). Indeed, it is quite possible that the kill was vegetative ground cover, itwould have been unlikely centered in the paleovalley, and a comparable or that the shingle shale could have' moved SQ readily greaternumberofanimals were dropped there where and en masse downslope. their traces were either moved/removed by subse­ In contrast to the relatively homogeneous shin­ quent erosion, or still remain buried and archaeo­ gle shale capping the bonebed in the tributary, the logically invisible beneath the deep Holocene clasts comprising stratumj3 in the paleovalley tend deposits of the north bank. ~o be more ro~nded (i.e., gravel), show more size­ The erosion of.f2 sediment and its redeposition sorting, and occur in multiple, complex lenses of as /3 complicates efforts to establish a precise gravels, secondary carbonate nodules (as Anderson chronological relationship between these units. In the and Haynes [1979] also observed), as well as silts­ tributary, where the.f2 was not extensively eroded, the latter appearing to represent continued deposi­ the youngest age from the unit is 10,010 ± 50 B.P. tion offine-grained "wash-outloess." Thej3 deposits By contrast, in the paleovalley the youngest age on also are substantially thicker (locally>100 cm) and the.f2 (excluding the bison bone dates) is 10~760 ± tend to be more complexly bedded and finely lami­ 140 B.p., likely reflecting the removal of the upper, nated than those in the tributary; the laminated younger portion of that stratum. Charcoal from tp.e interbeds of silty clay mark repeated episodes of .f2 in the paleovalley was apparently redeposited in iow~gradie~tfluvial erosion and redepositIon. younger, overlyingj3 sediments, which have yielded , Because of the action of these different geomor­ ages as old as 11,100 ± 130 B.P. (even older than the phic processes, the taphono~c history of the bone oldest radiocarbon age currently av~i1able on the.f2 in the tributary differs fro~ that found in the paleo­ in the tributary). valley. The bison remains in the paleovalley do not The majority of the ages on thej3 in the paleo­ form-as they do in the tributary-adiscrete archae­ valley postdate 10,000 B.P. Stratumj3 deposition ological horizon (or even a recognizable "bonebed"). continued until .... 9200 B.P. The middle-to-Iate Nor are'they solely within.f2 sediments or protected Holocene stratigraphic history of the site need not by an overlying shingle shale. Instead, they tend to concern us here, save to observe that following the occur as isolated elements in secondary context and deposition of stratumj3, there were a series of cut­ at high angles (a maximum of 79°, mean of 27.7°), and-fill episodes. These produced the Mcjunkin Meltzer et at] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 17 units, ml and m2: dark, organic- and charcoal-rich, texts-forexample, complete crania, including hom massive silt loam/silty clay deposits ranging in age cores and tips of premaxillae, and extremely fragile from ca. 7500-4400 B.P. The Mcjunkin filled and hyoid bones-occur in the Folsom bonebed. A few ultimately obscured the paleovalley and its bone­ of the remains collected in the 1920s, however, do bearing tributary. Thelastmajordepositional episode show the damaging effects of ~ontemporary exca­ in the valley is markedby sediments oftheWildhorse vation and laboratory preparation techniques, includ­ fOnllation (stratum w), which are latest Holocene in ing pick and/or shovel cuts and preaks, shellacking, age. plastering, sanding, and carving of bone surfaces. The preservation ofthe boneis attributable to sev­ Bison Skeletal Remains from the eral factors. First, surface weathering (using criteria Folsom Bonebed in Todd et al. 1987) ofthe Folsom bone proved to be A total of -3,300 identifiable bison bone elements minimal, with over 75 percent (n =1141) ofthe ele­ have been recovered from all the excavations in the ments for which data are available (n =1488) falling Folsom bonebed. The aggregate tally and counts are Into weathering stage 1, and just over 99 percent in given in Table i, and the area of the bone bed as it' weathering stages 1-3. This suggests the carcasses appeared in ourexcavations is shown in Figure 5. As were subaerially exposed for only a brief period of noted, Bison antiquus is the only species represented time prior to burial (perhaps no more than a few (MacDonald 1981:94). years). Thebones were eventually buried by the fine­ Ourestimates place the minimum number ofani­ grained silts of unit.f2 and then in the tributary by mals at the site at -32 (based on counts of astragali the shingle shale. However, there is some variabil­ andfused 2nd and 3rdcarpals; Brown, as noted, esti­ ity in surface weathering across the bonebed. A few mated 30 animals). Younger animals are well repre­ of the elements recovered in 1928 from the eastern sented with calves and yearlings having a combined side of the bonebed are in poorer condition (weath­ MNI of 7 (Todd et al. ~ 996:170). Based on mea­ ering stages 4-5, occasionally with substantial evi­ surements of distal humeri, nearly 60 percent ofthe dence of crushing or other damage). This spatial skeletally mature animals are cows. Although many difference in bone preservation was observed by of the crania are very fragmentary, two are bull cra­ Kaisen in 1928, buthe offered no explanation for the nia (one each at Denver and the AMNH) and four disparity (Kaisen to Brown, and Kaisen to Cook, are cow crania (one at the AMNH, two from the both July 8, 1928, VP/AMNH). There are several QUEST excavations [Figure 5], and one from the possibilities (e.g., slightly longer initial exposure, Louden excavation). With nearly two-thirds of the re-exposure and weathering at a later time, an cranial remains and limb bones coming from sexu­ absence of the shingle '~armor," different moisture ally mature cows, and taking into account the fact regimes, snowdriftlocations, vegetation or shade dif­ that the bulls probably include both young (less than ferences), but we have been unable to resolve these 7 years; Berger and Cunningham 1994:162) and a as our test excavations in this area ofthe site did not lower number ofthe more reproductively active and yield any faunal remains. aggressive prime and old bulls, the age and sex evi­ Second, there is little or no evidence ofcarnivore dence from Folsom seems to represent a cow-calf modification or trampling. Only a very few (n = 63 herd. or2.9 percent) ofthe more than 2,100 specimens for Basedon the relatively uniform weathering ofthe which data are available show gnaw or tooth marks, bones e~amined in the extantcollections, the within­ and many of those in the 1920s coll~ctions are cohort uniformity of eruption and wear patterns of ambiguous and not securely referable to carnivore mandibular molars, and the stratigraphic and depo­ action. The low long-axis inclinations of the bone sitional context of the faunal remains in the limited elements-at least in the tributary area-are also area of the bonebed we have been able to examine, inconsistent with animal trampling (Fiorillo 1989). we believe, as Brown did in 1928, that the remains Finally, there is evidence (including a lack ofpat­ all come from a single kill. This is typical ofFolsom terning in inclination or orientation) that the bone in sites (Stanford 1999:301). the tributary was not moved or transported any sig­ In genera~, the skeletal preservation is excellent. nificant distance by natural processes. Infact, we sus­ Elements not ofte~ preserved in Paleoindian con- pect the location of the bone piles in this area of the 18 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

Table 1. Summary Inventory and Element Counts of Folsom Site Bison Bone.

ELEMENT CODE NISP MNE MAU MAU% Axial Skeleton cranium CRN 136 10 10.0 32.8 mandible MR, 144 57 28.5 93.4 hyoid HY 12 7 3.5 11.5 atlas AT 14 13 13.0 42.6 axis AX 25 23 23.0 75.4 cervical vertebra CE 122 84 16.8 55.1 thoracic vertebra TH 276 184 13.1 43.1 lumbar vertebra LM 114 88 17.6 57.7 sacrum SAC 23 15 15.0 49.2 caudal vertebra CA 38 33 2.2 7.2 rib RB 459 proximal rib RBPR 240 8.6 28.1 costal cartilage CS 11 '9 ForeLimb scapula SC 37 26 13.0 42.6 humerus HM 32 complete humerus HMCO 20 10.0 32.8 proximal humerus HMPR 23 11.5 37.7 distal humerus HMDS 29 14.5 47.5 radius RD 59 complete radius RDCO 32 16.0 52.5 proximal radius RDPR 39 19.5 63.9 distal radius RDDS 35 17.5 57.4 ulna UL 51 29 14.5 47.5 accessory carpal CPA 41 41 20.5 67.2 fourth carpal CPF 47 47 23.5 77.0 in~ermediate carpal CPI 46 46 23.0 75.4 radial carpal CPR 50 50 25.0 82.0 fused 2nd & 3rd carpal CPS 53 53 26.5 86.9 ulnar carpal CPU 45 45 22.5 73.8 metacarpal, MC 51 complete metacarpal MCCO 40 20.0 65.6 proximal metacarpal MCPR 43 21.5 70.5 distal metacarpal MCDS 43 21.5 70.5 5th metacarpal MCF 18 18 9.0 29.5 HindLimb os coxae 1M 47 27 13.5 44.3 femur FM 42 complete femur FMCO 20 10.0 32.8 proximal femur FMPR 23 11.5 37.7 distal femur FMDS 22 11.0 36.1 patella PT 13 13 6.5 21.3 tibia TA 44 complete tibia TACO 36 18.0 59.0 proximal tibia TAPR 36 18.0 59.0 distal tibia TADS 36 18.0 59.0 lateral malleolous LTM 32 32 16.0 52.5 talus AS 61 61 30.5 100.0 calcaneus CL 61 47 23.5 77.0 fused central & 4th tarsal TRC 45 45 22.5 73.8 1st tarsal TRF 9 9 4.5 14.8 fused 2nd & 3rd tarsal TRS 38 38 19.0 62.3 metatarsal MT 58 complete metatarsal MTCO 48 24.0 78.7 proximal metatarsal MTPR 49 24.5 80.3 distal metatarsal MTDS 48 24.0 78.7 Meltzer et at.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 19

Table 1. Summary Inventory and Element Counts of Folsom Site Bison Bone (continued).

ELEMENT CODE NISP MNE MAU MAU% 2nd metatarsal MTS 12 12 6.0 19.7 Feet 1st phalanx PHF 197 178 22.3 73.0 2nd phalanx PHS 189 182 22.8 74.6 3rd phalanx PHT 147 148 18.5 60.7 proximal sesamoid SEP 249 249 15.6 51.0 distal sesamoid SED 96 96 12.0 39.3 dew claw DC 8 8 1.0 3.3 Miscellaneous unidentified metapodial MP 12 unidentified tooth fragment TTH 22 unidentified vertebra fragment VT 23 unidentified bone fragment UN 331

Total 3640

site roughly approximates the position ofthe animals Hofman and Todd 1996; Todd et al. 1997), and in at the time of their death, with subsequent butcher­ contrastwith, for example, late prehistoric kills (e.g., ing and processing apparently having taken place Bartram 1993:121; Frison 1982; Todd 1991; Todd close to where the animals were dropped. In contrast, et al. 1997). and as noted above, skeletal elements found in the This herd of animals would have had consider­ paleovalley show clear evidence ofpostdepositional able potential food value. The ....32 bison in this cow­ transport-whichin many cases led to breakage, loss calfherd were killed in the fall, based on patterns of of projecting articular ends, etc. Even so, the skele­ dental eruption and wear (Todd etal. 1996:169-170), tal elements from the paleovalley do not show appre­ which indicate ages of .4-.5 years for the group 1 ciably greater surface weathering, suggesting they animals and 1.4-1.5 years for the group 2 animals. too were rapidly buried even after reworking. That time of year, fat reserves in cows are greater The butchering may have been thorough: bison than they are at other times ofthe year (Speth 1983; remains uncovered during ourexcavations were from Todd 1991:232-233). mostly disarticulated skeletons, save for a few artic­ The bison bone recovered from our excavations ulated and/or conjoined skeletal elements. Yet, yielded disproportionately fewer long bones (femora, despite the apparent thoroughness with which the humeri, tibiae) and appeared to be dominated by bison carcasses were taken apart, the recovered bones skeletal parts traditionally considered low-utility (including those in the museum collections) show (low meat-yielding) elements such as lower legs and few cutmarks on their surfaces. Obviously, given the mandibles (e.g., Wheat 1972:102-103; also Emer­ (generally) excellent surface condition of the bone, son 1993). These are parts generally discarded in the butchering marks ought to be visible if present. We course ofbutchering. Subsequent statistical analysis cannot yet determine whether the observed patterns ofthe assemblage indicated there was no correlation of skeletal disarticulation and scattering resulted between ranking of element utility and recovered

from dismemberment during butchering or through complete elements (rs =.217, t = 1.07, not signifi­ diagenesis. cant). For that matter, none of the elements recovered This preponderance of low-utility bones in our from the site were broken for marrow. There is vir­ excavations was in apparent contrast to the results of tually no evidence ofbone impact fractures. Nor do the earlier excavations, which archival records any elements show signs of on-site processing for implied yielded more or less complete skeletons bone grease. In effect, the nutritional value of each (Kaisen, unpublished fie1dnotes, VP/AMNH). That carcass was not completely exhausted, in keeping difference raised the question ofwhether ourrespec­ with the general pattern seen at other Pa1eoindian tive excavations had uncovered spatially distinct kills (e.g., Bement 1999; Hill and Hofman 1997; activity areas within the bonebed-despite their 20 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

998

997 1035

1034 1034

1033 1033 f zo U) s.. ~ o 1m E 1J 1032 1032 'I: ~

..,

1031 1031

~ I ~

1030 ...... ------...... ------..,,.....-~.....,Q,---.....f' 1030 998 999 1000 1001 gridmetera East. Ict/djrn

Figure 5. Composite map of the Folsom site bonebed, as it appeared in 1997-1999 within the M171N17 block. This portion of the bonebed is situated in the area between AMNH Pit C and the western edge of the main block of the 1928 excavations (the latter, where it intersected our excavations, is shown in gray).

proximity-or, whether ourresults were actually the No maps ofsufficient detail exist from the earlier same but were only described differently. In the excavations that enable us to assess the spatial pat­ 1920s, the analytical focus was on skeletons rather teming ofbone elements in those excavations. How­ than skeletal parts and their taphonomic history, with ever, our inventory of the bone recovered by the the result that a cluster of bones would commonly CMNH and AMNH can be used to test whether dif­ be referred to or mapped as "a skeleton," rather than ferences existin the elements recovered in these sam­ as individual elements. ples. When the number of identified specimen Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 21

(NISP) values from the CMNH, AMNH, and our preservation of fragile bone elements). own (denoted as QUEST) excavations are plotted and Accordingly, the Folsom faunal assemblage statistically compared, it is immediately clear the appears to be dominatedby low-utility skeletal parts, several assemblages are, in fact, quite similar (the having been stripped ofthe high-yield elements. This Spearman's rank order correlation between the sev­ is a pattern characteristic of initial butchering and eral assemblages range from rs = .69 [CMNH x processing in a kill area (e.g., Jodry 1999a)-which, QUEST] to rs =.78 [AMNH x QUEST] to rs =.87 as noted below, also fits with the kinds of artifacts [AMNHxCMNH], t=6.45, 8.67, and 12.29respec­ recovered (broken points and a few flake tools). We tively, all significant at p <. 001 [n =49] [t test fol­ infer this initial round ofprocessing tookplace essen­ lowing Siegel 1956:202- 212]). tially where the animals were dropped, on the The only significant difference among the recov­ assumption that heavy elements like crania (ofwhich ery patterns of the various projects is one of sample at least halfa dozen complete specimens were found) size: the AMNH remains are from a much more would not be moved any significant distance. In the extensive excavation area, producing a faunal assem­ absence of bonebed maps from the 1920s, we can­ blage 1.65 times larger (in terms of NISP, although not say whether there were more subtle differences as noted above, not in MNI) than the CMNH, and in the character of this initial butchering across the over 7 times larger than that from our excavations. kill area. That said, the 1928 map does indicate that Despite the apparently more destructive nature ofthe the west side ofthe bonebed yielded skeletons "more 1926-1928 excavations (which involved heavy or less mixed" and apparently a higher density of picks, among other tools), there was no appreciable bison remains (Brown 1928). Given the overall struc­ difference in relative recovery rate of complete ele­ ture of the faunal assemblage, and in the absence of ments. It would appear that the 1920s excavations additional spatial information, this can beinterpreted also recovered single elements rather than whole as an area in which animals were simply more closely skeletons. It seems statistically appropriate, there­ spaced (rather than an area in which different kinds fore, to combine the faunal assemblages from the var­ of activities were taking place). ious excavations to provide a fuller and perhaps more The observed patterns ofbutchering leave unan­ representative picture of the assemblage-with the swered many details of the bison processing and explicit caveat that even this combined sample may indirectly raise questions about other aspects of the represent only a portion of the total bonebed. site and occupation-notably, whether there exists Plotting NISP against bone utility shows that the (or once existed) other areas to the Folsom site. Folsom faunal assemblage, with the exception of a Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence few highly fragmented outliers (ribs), fits a general­ suggests the rough rule ofthumb that it takes a min­ ized low-utility curve; there was no correlation imum of 1-2 hours of processing time per animal between element utility and NISP in the combined (L. R. Binford, personal communication, 1999;

samples (rs =.002, t =.01, which is not significant Ewers 1955:160; Wheat 1972:109-110, 116; Wissler [n =24]). Lyman (1985, 1994) and others rightly cau­ 1910:41). That figure varies, of course, depending tion such curves may also reflect differential preser­ on the size of the animals, the spatial scatter of the vation of high-density elements (see also Rogers carcasses, the extent of the butchering, the size of 2000). To test this, NISP and (separately) complete the labor force working on the task, the skill of the element counts were plotted against bison bone-den­ individual doing the processing, the available tools, sity values (utility and density data from Kreutzer whether carcasses were processed serially or in par­ 1992, and Lyman 1994:Tables 7.3 and 7.6). Statis­ allel, and even temperature-among other factors tical analysis shows no correlation between the two (Frison 1991:141,299-302). Still, taken as no more (the Spearman's rank order correlation between than a rough estimate, one can argue the initial

NISP and average bone density is rs =-.048, t=-.23, butchering and processing of-32Folsom bison must and between complete elements and average bone have taken at least several days. Presumably, the r [n density, s = .136, t = .65 = 25 in both cases; not group would have camped nearby during that time significant in either case]). In effect, element fre­ to protect the kill from scavengers (Frison 1991:301). quency varies independently ofbone density (a con­ What activities might have taken place in an asso­ clusion not unexpected, given the excellent ciated camp area depend on what followed the ini- 22 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 tial processing of the carcasses in the kill area. The 40 m, and an east-west distance of just under half relative scarcity of high-utility elements in the that, suggesting the carcasses may have been scat­ 2 bonebed suggests those parts were removed, but to tered over a total area of-800 m • At best, however, where is unknown. There are at least two possibili­ that is a ballparkfigure and makes some assumptions ties, each ofwhich has different implications for the (about the accuracy ofthe 1928 map and the spatial kinds of activities that might have taken place and extent of carcasses) that ultimately may not be sup­ the amount of time that might have been spent on portable. Nonetheless, a bonebed ofthis extent is not site: unlikely: indeed, O'Connell and others (1992) show (1) the high-utility elements were not processed it may even be on the small side--even for a kill of on site, but transported off site in meat/bone over 30 large mammals (and, of course, were there packages (e.g., rib racks) for subsequent pro­ additional excavations across the entire area, the total cessing. This implies that only the minimum number ofbison might be larger). At this scale, and amount of time and activities (those necessary given the current estimated number of animals, the to the initial butchering and processing) were spent on site; or bison carcasses were very widely dispersed. Skeletal elements on the north bankofthe arroyo, (2) the meat stripping/drying of the high-utility as Kaisen observed in 1928, were at a much deeper elements took place on site, in an as-yet undis­ covered nearby area. This implies more activi­ elevation than the material on the south bank. ties and a longer period of time spent in the According to archival data, the bonebed was within area, but how much more and how much longer 1.5 m of the surface at the upper (southern) end of would depend on whether the group stayed only the tributary, and nearly 3.65 m below the surface for the time it took for meat stripping and dry­ some 25 m distant at the lower (northern) end where ing, or whether they chose to make an extended stay in the area. the tributary joins the paleovalley-a vertical dif­ ference of just over 2 m. Our recent evidence sup­ Which strategy might have been taken depends ports this: on average, the elevation of bone on the on many variables, several of which attend to the north bank was 2.5 m below the level ofthe bonebed costs of transport such as the size of carcasses, the on the south bank (some 15 m away). number of carcasses, the number of available carri­ Elevations recorded on skeletal remains recovered ers, the distance to the next camp(s), and the cli­ in 1928 suggest the surface was relatively level over mate/season when the kill took place (Bartram a large area and began to drop off only as it neared 1993:121; Emerson 1993:139-140, 150; see also thejunction with the paleovalley. As ourrecent exca­ Roberts 1936:15; Wissler 1910:41-42). The number vations on the south bank have been on the higher of animals killed and their size are relevant insofar and more level areas of the site and exposed the as large-animalkills permittransportdecisions based bonebed over a north-to-south distance of less than more on body-part utility than do small-animal kills 6 m, most of the skeletal material recovered by us (i.e., one can afford to be selective in regard to what has been at nearly the same elevation. is transported when the animals are large and abun­ dant [Emerson 1993:139]). The climate/season is Artifacts from the Folsom Site relevant, since temperature and precipitation may Like the faunal remains, the artifact assemblage from have influenced how easily groups could have Folsom is consistent with that of a kill and initial butchered the animals and dried the meat (removing butchering locality, as opposed to a camp or more the meat from bones and drying it significantly intensive processing area (Jodry 1999a:273-276). reduces its weight and makes it easier to carry [Bar­ The majority ofthe artifact assemblage is comprised tram 1993:121, 131-132]), and/or whether the area of projectile points, while formal tools from more would be suitable for an extended stay. Resolving intensive butchering, meat and hide preparation, or which of these possibilities might be correct would other activities-such as end and side scrapers, be helped by locating an associated camp or habita­ gravers, ultrathin bifaces, preforms, channel flakes, tion area, but none has been found. etc.-are absent. A few flake tools have been recov­ Based on our work and information from the ered over the years but, unfortunately, none in situ. 1920s notes and map, it appears the bonebed While the artifact assemblage at the Folsom site extended over a north-south distance of as much as is dominated by projectile points, precisely how Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 23 many have been recovered from the site is uncertain, mon standard" for these points. But, in fact, within partly because ofsometimes-lax curation procedures any assemblage ofFolsompoints, and the ones from over a half-century ago, the rumoredfinding ofpoints Folsom and Lindenmeier are no exceptions, there is at the site by later site visitors, and because of con­ considerable morphometric variability about a "typ­ fusion in counting broken specimens that were sub­ ical" form, as a result of variation in manufacture, sequently refit. Contemporary sources record only raw material availability, point reworking, the num­ 14 points (SchwachheimDiary), or 16 points (Brown ber of kill or retooling events, the temporal/spatial 1928:128; Figgins 1929:9) from the 1920s excava­ distance from the last (or to the next) quarry visit, tions at the site. Less than a decade later, Roberts etc. (Amick 1995:34; Hofman 1992:193; Ingbar and (1935: 17; see also Wormington 1939:6) put the total Hofman 1999; LeTourneau 1998a) a matter antici­ at 19 points, which apparently included specimens pated by Figgins (1934:4). recovered from the back dirt in 1931 and 1934 by Given the relatively small size and fragmented Brown and E. B. Howard, respectively (Howarth to condition ofthe sample from Folsom, detailed met­ Cook, February 26, 1932, HJC/AGFO; Howard ric analyses are not especially informative. That said, 1943; Roberts 1935:17). descriptive statistics on this assemblage of projec­ Our total, based on what we believe is a reason­ tile points (data not shown) indicate this sample is ably complete inventory of points from public and well within the quantitative range of other Folsom private collections, comes to 23 or 24 points (Table projectile-point assemblages (comparative data from 2; many ofthe points are illustrated in Figgins 1927; Amick 1995; Bement 1999; Hofman 1991; Hofman Howard 1935;Wormington 1957). Ourtotal depends et aL 1990; Jodry 1999a; Judge 1973; Wilmsen and on whether the base found by Howard in 1934 actu­ Roberts 1978:111). Not surprisingly, measured ally joins the tip found in 1928 (UM34-30-1), and if attributes in the haft area-e.g., basal width and flute two ofthe points (CAVO-115 and CAVO-116) acces­ thickness-show the relatively low coefficients of sioned as coming from "near the original Folsom variation (CV < 15) evident in other Folsom fluted­ site" actually came from the site. Three ofthe points point assemblages (e.g., Amick 1995:31-32; Judge recorded from the site are now missing: these include 1973:261-264; in other Folsom assemblages, CV one specimen found in 1927 and two in 1928 values for basal width dip as low as 5.42). These sug­ (AMNHA andAMNH J). Casts and photographs of gest a standardization in manufacture (Eerkens and two of those are available (Wormington 1957: Fig­ Bettinger2001), which is argued to be a consequence ure 7, top row, third from right, and bottomrow, third ofknapping these tools to fit their hafts, and not vice from right). As it happens, two of the specimens versa (Judge 1973:264). curated at the Denver Museum (catalog numbers Virtually all ofthe points for which data are avail­ 1391/2 and 1262/1A) do not have secure provenience able are fluted-generally on both faces. The high or match descriptions or sketches in Schwachheim's incidence offluting, arguably, marks a circumstance Diary. To complicate matters, they do not appear to where lithic raw material was available in sufficient correspond to the two specimens missing from the quantity that the potential cost ofproduction failure 1928 excavations. while fluting was mitigated (Amick 1999a:3; Hof­ Roberts (1935:5) considered the point found in man 1992; Ingbar and Hofman 1999:103). There is situ at Folsom in 1927 to be the type specimen, no evidence for point production; no preforms, man­ although there is no "type" description for this form. ufacturing failures, or channel flakes have been Nonetheless, he and others (e.g., Howard 1935:112) recovered, although again this might reflect the por­ used this point's attributes as the standard against tion of the site excavated (the kill area). which others were deemed Folsomornot. Ofcourse, Only four ofthe points are complete (one ofthose this specimen is not "typical" in any meaningful was refit from fragments, as the point was broken sense (Roberts himself did not even see it as being during excavation). Theremainder ofthe assemblage typical of the pQints from the site [1935: 16]), nor is is comprised oftips, midsections, and bases, with dis­ the type well defined (for a full discussion ofthe con­ tal (tip) and proximal (base) portions of the points sequences of this, see LeTourneau 1998a). More represented in about equal frequency (n =10 and 9, recently, Ingbar and Hofman (1999:99) have identi­ respectively). In keeping with Hofman's (1999a: 122) fied one ofthe Lindenmeier specimens as "the com- argument, there is no isomorphism between point Table 2~ Summary Data on·Projectile Points from the Folsom Site. I\) "I:::l.

Maximum Maximum'_ Maximum Basal Flute Lithic raw Specimen length width, thiCkness - width thickness .material Comments (published photographs) DMNS 1391/3 56.07 23.50 4.75 - 4.10 BlackForest petrified wood Found July 14, 1926. Lacks base,-but includes a portion of haft area, as . indicated by presence of small. amount ofedge grinding (Figgins 1927, Fig. 3 left;·Howard 1935:top row, 2nd from right; Wormington 1957:Figs. 6 & 7, top row, 2nd from left) DMNS 1261/1A 52;96 24.90 4.71 - 2.97 Alibates agatized dolomite Found October, 1926. Lacks base; edge grinding absent. Blade portion was 'refit' to small midsection· wedge in CMNH laboratory (Figgins 1927:Fig. 3-right, Fig. 4; Howard 1935:top row, 3rd from right; Wormington 1957:Fig. 5) DMNS 1262/lA 45.43 21.42 3.77 18~88 2.83 Flattop chert Found August 29,1927. Reworked, and complete except for missing comer. This is the specimen examined in-situ in September, -1927. Data from cast (Howard 1935-:top row, 1st on left) missing 25.76 23.13 3.66 20.59 2.67 Alibates' agatized dolomite Found August 29, 1927. Base only, with missing comer. Whereabouts of original unknown. Data from cast (Howard 1935:bottom row, 2nd from » :s: right; Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom row, 3rd·from right) m 1927~ DMNS 1391/2 40.13 25.77 4.22 3.19 Tecovas jasper Found Lacks base, but includes a portion of haft area, as indicated o:rJ by presence of small amount of edge' grinding (Howard 1935, top row, 3rd » from left; Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom row, 2nd from left) z »z DMNS 126311A 17.71 21.37 3.44 2.37 Alibates· agatized dolomite Found 1927. Point tip, with only small part of flute visible on one face -t (Wormington 1957:Fig. 3 incorrectly shows this tip refit to midsection is c: Denver 1391/1) ~ missing Found June 25, 1928.- Whereabouts of.original unknown; no cast exists. Schwachheim Diary sketch is the only record. Sketch shows a point mid­ section, perhaps-longitudinally split AMNH 20~2.5871 31.39 19.99 3.59 2.29 Tecovas jasper Found June 27, 1928. Lacks base and tip shows signs of reworking and impact fracture (Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom row, 1st on left) AMNH20.2.5865 56.20 24.15 3.91' 19.17 3.08 Tecovasjasper Found July 13,1928. Complete, but with excavator breaks. Data from cast (Howard 1935: top row, 1st on right; Wormington 1957:Fig. 7; top row, 1st on left) AMNH 20.2.5867 27.52 25.67 . 3~93 22.43 3.89 Tecovas ja,sper FoundJuly 16, 1928. Base only, with lateral snap occurring just beyond . haft area. Found in backdirt in 1928 (Howard 1935:bottom row, 3rd from . right; Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom row, 2nd from right) AMNH 20.2;5866 35.51 22.44 3.78 17.12 2~83 Black Forest petrified .wood Found July 17, 1928. Nearly complete, but impact fractured and burinated ~ tip,. and slight damage to base. Data· from. cast (Howard 1935:bottom row, ,.~ 3rd from left; Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom row, 3rd from left) z AMNH 20.2.5868 30.06 20.89 3.65 19.82 2.16 Alibates agatized dolomite Found July 23, 1928. Reworked, but otherwise complete. Impact fractured ? ,..J. tip. Data from cast (Howard 1935:bottom row, 1st on left; Wormington I\) o o 1957:Fig. 7, top row, 2ndfrom ·right) I\) Table 2.. Summary Data on Projectile Points from- the Folsom Site. (continued). :s: (I) ;::;:- Maximum Maximum Maximum Basal Flute Lithic raw ~ S~clm~n _ length width thickness width _ thickness material ~oITl!ll~nts (published photographs) ~ UM 34-30-1 "(tip) 26.62 22.69 5.20 3.06 Dakota? quartzite Found July 27, 1928. Pointtip, found by AMNH and later refit to base' 1: found by Howard in' 1934. (Howard 1935: bottom row; 1st on right; row~ -t Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, bottom 1st on right) :::E: AMNH 20.2.5872 35.31 28.22 3.87 3.25 Alibates agatized dolomite Found July.27, 1928. Lacks base and tip (which is impact fractured), but m oII includes a portion of haft area, as indicated by presence of edge grinding. r­ CJ) Excavator breaks (Howard'1935:top row, 2nd on left; Wormington· o 1957:Fig. 7, top row, 1ston right - but shown upside· down) :s: DMNS 1391/1 19.57 24.42 3.49 2.5 Alibates agatized dolomite Found July 30, 1928. Midsection only (Wormington 1957:Fig. 3 j r­ incorrectly shows this midsection refit to point tip; Denver 1263/lA) m o missing 34.99 21.68 3.73 18.4 2.99 Tecovas jasper Found August 28, 1928, on North Bank. Tip broken, and apparently_ Z o reworked, but otherwise complete; whereabouts of original unknown. Data i> from cast (Howard 1935:bottom row, 2nd from left; Wormington 1957:Fig. 6 7, top row, 3rd from right) ~ AMNH 20.2.5869 35.03 21.57 - 3.37 2.76 Alibates agatized dolomite Found August 29, 1928, on North Bank. Point tip and blade; point broke: "'tJm above the haft area; fluted on one face only. Excavator breaks CJ) =i (Wormington 1957:Fig. 7, top row, 3rd from left) f!I AMNH 20.2.5870 28.94 18.95 4.3 - Flattop chert Found in 1931 by B. Brown on backdirt pile. Lacks base and tip, but ;g CJ) includes a portion of haft area, as indicated by presence ofsmall amount -t of edge. grinding. Possibly reworked. Remnantflute visible on one face only. Z

I\) en 26 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 tips:kills and point bases:camps-allofthe points in they were thrust or thrown, or the degree of carcass this assemblage came from the kill area (cf. Roberts dispersal. After all, if dispersed carcasses and, pre­ 1936:20). Relying just on the material from the kill sumably, the cool weather and extended occupation could skew interpretation of the "site" assemblage at Folsom (as Hofman 1999a:128 infers) enabled (Hofman 1999a:123). more thorough processing and the recovery ofmost Reworking, which took place in advance of the of the useable artifacts, then the recovered material kill at Folsom, is evident on seven of the points, should also include complete projectile points. To be including both complete (n =3) and broken (n =4) sure, butchering tools may be more easily retriev­ specimens, while impactfractures are present on five able, since they start out in the hands and not embed­ of the points (including one of the comple~e speci­ ded in the animal. So we would add to Hofman's mens). It should be noted that only two specimens argument the suggestion that the recovery (or loss) that were reworked also had impactfractures. In sev­ ofprojectile points may have as much or more to do eral instances, the impact fractures are accompanied with factors such as where in the animal the projec­ by what may have been end shock (which snapped tile points were embedded, the degree ofbutchering, the point while still in the haft). While one might whether the point-bearing parts of the animal were expect reworking to be more common in lithic raw removed from the kill area and further processed, and material from sources distant in time/space and late perhaps whether there was a need to recover the arti­ in their use-lives (e.g., Ingbar and Hofman facts. 1999: 103), there is no apparent correlation between Unfortunately, the position within the skeleton is the occurrence ofreworking and types of lithic raw known for only three projectile points from Folsom, material, orfor that matter between material type and all ofwhich were adjacent to ribs. Two ofthose points impact fractures or other breakage patterns (see lack bases (Figgins 1927:Figures 3 and 4) and may below). have been detached from their hafts, and thus per­ Hofman has argued that the proportion of"com­ haps were invisible when butchering began. How­ plete (lost) points" will be positively correlated with ever, these two are among the largest specimens in the density of carcasses at the kill, reasoning that the assemblage and certainly could have been widely dispersed carcasses indicate a "less accessi­ reworked into useable points if spotted and needed ble herd where the use ofatlatls was required result­ (Hofman 1999a:124). That these points were not ing in a higher loss of projectile points per animal" recovered may indicate that the rib units associated (Hofman 1999a:128). As the carcasses at Folsom with these points were not processed. tend to be widely dispersed (perhaps as much as -1 Even ifthey were, there are circumstances under animal per 25 m2, if our current estimate [800 m2] which points were visible and recoverable but were ofthe size ofthe kill area is correct), he suggests this not-that is, were not lost but instead were aban­ accounts for the loss ofweaponry at this site. It seems doned. The latter would likely occurwhen groups had reasonable to assume in this instance that the car­ sufficiently abundant lithic raw material or antici­ casses were not moved significantly from the spot pated soon refurbishing their supply. In such cases, where the animal collapsed (though certainly this it would not be necessary or economically worth­ assumption might not hold true in other cases). But while to spend the time oreffort to locate spentpoints, the spot where the animal collapsed may not be the or if located invest the time and cost in cleaning or same spot where the animal was struck by the reworking them for re-use and transport. In contrast, weapon. Hence, it might not bereasonable to assume groups low on stone may have gone to considerable that the relative dispersal of the carcasses necessar­ lengths-evenifthe points were not readily visible­ ily informs on whether atlatls or thrusting spears to find brokenpieces and ascertain whetherthey might were necessary to bring the animals down. still be serviceable. That large specimens were not Italso seems reasonable to argue that hunters who recovered, therefore, may say as much (or more) held onto their thrusting spears had a better chance about the supply ofstone as about the dispersal ofthe of recovering their weapons, to the degree those carcasses (which in this instance seemingly allowed weapons remained hafted and attached to the spear a greater recovery potential ofuseable stone). shaft. Yet, it might not be the case that the recovery In addition to the projectile points, four tools have of projectile points is solely a function of whether been found at the site. Roberts (1939:534,1940:59) Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 27 reported on two ofthem: a "nondescript flake knife, tools by the hunters. While this seems a reasonable and ... a generalized type ofscraper." Unfortunately, argument, the absence (or scarcity) oftools may also their current whereabouts are unknown and the only be a function of the size of the excavation area, the record we have found is a 35-mm slide. Both appear lack of screening in the 1920s excavations, and the to be expedient flake tools. One is apparently made fact that excavations to date have been concentrated of an orange-brown, mottled chert-perhaps Black in the kill area where tools might be expected to be Forest silicified wood, which principally outcrops rare. We have not located any areas ofthe site (ifsuch north and eastofColorado Springs (Jodry 1999a:88). remain) where more intensive processing of high­ The other specimen seems to be made ofchert from utility elements and short-term habitation may have the Hartville Uplift area ofeastern Wyoming. While taken place. silicified wood is not out ofplace in this assemblage, The Folsom lithic assemblage-and particularly Hartville Uplift chert would be; however, given the the projectile points-is dominated by high-quality poor quality of the slide colors, and the absence of exotic raw materials (Table 2), in keeping with pat­ this material among the other specimens from the terns seen in Folsom sites elsewhere (Amick site, this identification ofHartville Uplift should be 1999b:181; Hofman et aL 1991; LeTourneau 2000). taken with considerable skepticism. This pattern is partly related to the technological Theothertwo specimens are extant: one is a large demands of point production and the distance to (maximum length 95.55 mm) gray quartzite speci­ quality stone sources (Amick 1999b; Hofman 1991, men found eroding from the face of the north bank 1999b; Hofman et aL 1991; Ingbar and Hofman inNovember 1936 by Ele Baker. Identified as a "side­ 1999:100). These particular sources testify to move­ scraper," the specimen has bifacial usewear indica­ ment ofraw material on the order ofseveral hundred tive of having functioned primarily as a knife. Its kilometers (Hofman 1991 :341; Hofman et al. rounded edges (from grinding and use), and lack of 1991 :302; LeTourneau 2000:Appendix A) and pro­ evidence for damage from hitting bone, raise the vide some hint as to the direction ofmovement and possibility this specimen was used for skinning. Such range of this group, which appears to have been large quartzite tools are not uncommon in Folsom­ across an area trending southeast to west/northwest. age sites, given their ability to hold an edge (Frison This is in keeping with the general pattern seen on 1991:324; Frison and Bradley 1980; Jodry the Southern High Plains and roughly mirrors the 1999a:109). The otherspecimen is a flake tool (max­ overall trend in the drainages (Hofman 1999b:387, imum length 27.76 mm) made ofBlackForest chert, 406). Given the dominance ofstone from Texas Pan­ found in 1999 just downslope ofthe 1920s back-dirt handle sources, it would appear their last gearing up berm. Minor edge damage from use and slight (or most recent occupation) prior to arriving at Fol­ retouch is present along one edge, while a burina­ som took place in that area. tion blow is present along the opposite edge. That said, caution is appropriate, given the pos­ None of these tools shows evidence of formal sibility the stone was not procured at the well-known preparation and manufacture but appearto have been primary sources (outcrops), but in secondary cobble used without modification in an expedient manner, sources (in river gravel trains [Wyckoff 1993; also dulled or broken in use, and then discarded. This is Kraft 1997]), or from lesser-known look-alike in keeping with the pattern seen in other Folsom sources in other areas (Banks 1990), either ofwhich kill/initial butchering localities (e.g., Jodry 1999a). would potentially skew the distances and directions More formal, complex, and substantially modified noted (also Hofman 1999b:396-397). In general, tools tend to be characteristic of assemblages from however, the use of secondary sources and look­ more intensive processing or habitation localities alikes in Folsom assemblages is relatively rare (Amick 1999a:3-4; Jodry 1999a). (LeTourneau 1998b:78). Alternatively, it is possible The scarcity oftools-formalorotherwise-may the stone was acquired via exchange (e.g., Hayden result from one of several factors. Hofman (1999a) 1982). For a variety of reasons (Meltzer 1989), we argued tools ought to be rare at the Folsom site, on discount this possibility in favor of the suggestion the assumption that the relatively dispersed carcasses the bulk of this exotic raw material was procured and cool weather at the time of the kill permitted directly at the source by the groups who used it (also more thorough processing and greater recovery of Hofman and Todd 1996). 28 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

It is noteworthy that all of the stone used at Fol­ ing areas, the latter possibly including more tools, som is from sources east of the Rocky Mountains flakes, and debitage (see Amick 1999a:2; Hofman (though including the Front Range) and that it lacks 1996, 1999a:123;Hofmanetal.1990;Jodry 1999a). Edwards Formation chert, which outcrops in a large Suchevidence would potentially provide a more rep­ area of central Texas. The latter is often present in resentative measure ofthe different types and quan­ Folsom assemblages of the Southern Plains (e.g., tities of tools and raw materials brought onto the Amick 1999b; Bement 1999:75,97, 115; Hofman site, and how, where, and in what form they were 1991, 1999b:398; Stanford 1999:303).8 The Folsom used. It might also help to resolve the intensity of site also has a very different complement of stone bison carcass use by showing, for example, whether than that used in the several Folsom sites in the San bones were removed from the site as "complete limb Luis valley just200 kmto the west (but separated by units rather than as segmented subsets," and where the spine of the southern Rocky Mountains), sites high-utility skeletal parts may have ended up (Todd which also include low levels of Alibates and 1991 :224,229). Finally, it might also give a broader Edwards in their assemblages (Jodry 1999a:86-88, picture of Folsom diets, as any smaller-bodied prey 115, 128, Table 10; Jodry 1999b:75, 78; Stanford and plants are unlikely to be present in kill sites and 1999:303). bonebeds, though may occur in associated camp In order to gain a better measure of the use lives areas (O'Connell et al. 1992:341; see, for example, and attrition of the kinds of raw material at the site, Davis et al. 1997). the assemblage of projectile points was partitioned The search for a "habitation site of the Folsom by raw material, and metric variables were grouped bison hunters" (A. E. Jenks to H. J. Cook, April 29, by the two materials (Alibates and Tecovas) for 1929, HJC/AGFO) began soon after the initial dis­ which there were sufficient sample sizes (>5 speci­ covery ofthe site. ClarkWisslerhired Gerhard Laves mens). Statistical analyses failed to demonstrate any (then a graduate student at the University ofChicago) significant difference in these attributes by raw mate­ in 1928 to accompany theAMNHpaleontologists to rial type. Furthermore, there was no significant sta­ Folsom and survey the region for a Folsom-age camp tistical relations'hip between raw material and (Wissler to Laves, April 17, 1928, ANTH/AMNH). breakage patterns (chi-square = 5.139, df = 6, p = Laves was unsuccessful, reporting to Wissler that .526). local collectors (including Schwachheim) described However, raw material patterns apparent among the area as "barren" of artifacts (Laves to Wissler, the tools differ from that ofthe projectile points (we July 3, 1928, ANTH/AMNH). use the term "apparent" because two of the tools Our archaeological surveys and limited testing could not be examined firsthand). Specifically, none yielded no traces ofany Folsom-age activities on the ofthe high-quality raw materials from theTexas Pan­ interfluve area and uplands surrounding the site. handle was used in the production ofthe flake tools Rather, they confirmed Anderson's (1975) observa­ at the site. Fromthis, one might suggest that artifacts tion that archaeological material ofany age is scarce from more distant (timelspace) sources that had in this area. This suggests that ifa camp is to befound, already reached the end of their effective use lives it will likely be closer to the kill-areas where Pale­ were, as the need arose, reworked and pressed into oindian groups would have had easier access to water service as flake tools-along with tools made of and ability to protect the bison carcasses from scav­ local stone (also Amick 1999b:181). Testing this engers. Scale is relevant here: camps may be situ­ model will require examining lithic debitage, but to ated 10-70mfromkills(Fisher 1992:73; Jodry 1992; date that has been comprised only ofmicrodebitage 0'Connell et al. 1992). The original excavations did (n =25), whichis not especially useful in this regard. not extend any distance away from the kill, so an associated camp may yet be found. Looking for the Folsom Camp Moreover, one might exist in areas that are cur­ Finding a camp associated with the kill area at Fol­ rently archaeologically invisible, such as within the som would be desirable for many reasons, not the paleovalley. Were it relatively cool at the time ofthe least that such might yield important site features, kill, the group may have elected to camp within the such as hearths, bone piles from processing ofhigh­ broad, low-lying channel that would have afforded utility elements, and point resharpening and retool- some protection from the wind. TheFolsom-age sur- Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 29 face in the paleovalley, however, is now buried 4-6 could have readily been used to maneuver and trap m beneath the present surface. Of course, a camp the animals. either in the paleovalley or on the uplands may have We have further established that the material eroded away. Further fieldwork will be necessary to recovered to date has come entirely from the kill determine if (or where) an associated camp or habi­ area, which limits the archaeological window we tation area is to be found. have into the range ofactivities that may have taken place at this locality. There is a reasonably repre­ Summary Notes and Concluding Thoughts sentative sample of faunal remains and artifacts The fieldwork conducted at the Folsom site in the marking the initial butchering and processing ofthe 1920s was directed toward very specific goals: to carcasses. The faunal assemblage is comprised recover bison skeletons for museum display and, largely oflow-utility elements; the lithic assemblage once the site's archaeological significance became consists ofbroken projectile points, a few flake tools, known, to document the association of the artifacts and tiny retouch flakes from tool use. We can only with the bison skeletons and determine the site's speculate from this sample about any additional Pleistocene antiquity. That was done well. In the activities related to the kill that may have taken decades that followed, knowledge of Folsom Pale­ place-either on site or offsite. oindians grew considerably with the discovery of There is reason to suspect the group making the additional Folsom-age sites, yet knowledge of the kill would have stayed in this area for at least a few type site lagged behind. The Folsom site did not tell days, the time it would take for initial butchering and us very much about Folsom-period adaptations, and processing. As yet, we have no evidence they would there was some question whether it ever would, given have stayed longer. In fact, there are reasons to the ostensibly exhaustive excavations that tookplace hypothesize they would not. Given the elevation of in 1928. the Folsom locality (-2100 m above sea level), the Although the areas excavated in the 1920s are now season ofthe kill (fall), and our current, preliminary badly eroded, portions of the site still exist in both knowledge of the climate and environment at the the tributary headcut area where skeletal remains are time ofthe Folsom occupation (cooler and possibly in primary context and in the paleovalley where much drier than at present), it is not likely that human for­ ofthe skeletal remains appear to have been reworked. agers would have stayed for extended periods. Bone preservation was very good to excellent (espe­ That said, Amick (1996) has raised the interest­ cially in the tributary headcut), owing to a combi­ ing hypothesis that Folsom groups may have fol­ nation offactors-notably, minimal postdepositional lowedbison into protected foothills and intermontane movement~ a lack of carnivore or rodent activity~ basins and wintered there. Historically, bison in some rapid burial by fine-grained, predominantly aeolian parts oftheir range-primarily the northern Plains­ sediment (stratum}2); a sheet-wash shale shingle did abandon the open plains in winter in favor ofareas (stratumj3) that subsequently covered and armored where vegetation cover and/or topographic features the bonebed~ and, finally, burial by middle-to-late provided shelter from the elements. But they did not Holocene pond sediments, which filled the valley and do so every winter, and not in predictable ways (Bam­ diverted the channel of Wild Horse Arroyo away forth 1988:83-84~ Hanson 1984:110; Malainey et. from the bonebed until (we infer) the 1908 flood al. 2001~ Moodie and Ray 1976:49-51~ Morgan reopened the channel. 1980: 156~ Roe 1951:194,533). Moreover, bison may Having parts ofthe bonebed in both the tributary not have favored the Folsom area as a wintering area and the paleovalley raises the interesting but pos­ locality. Physiological and anatomical studies show sibly unanswerable question of whether the bison thatbison can cope with extremely cold temperatures were initially attacked in the channel and tried to (down to -30°C~ see Christopherson and Hudson escape via the tributary, or whether the animals were 1978~ Christopherson et al. 1976~ Telfer and Kelsall corralled in the tributary and a few tried to flee down 1984). However, they can do so only as long as there and out the channel, or some combination thereof. are not also high winds that can disrupt the winter In either case, it seems likely that the hunters took hide's insulating properties (Christopherson and advantage ofthe natural topography, which-based Hudson 1978:41). Moreover, bison do not fare well on our mapping ofthe deep and steep valley walls- in areas that receive heavy snow-as Folsom does 30 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002 today. When compared on a series of morphologi­ which, ofcourse, may have had long-vanished game cal attributes and behavioral characteristics with trails pointing arrow-like toward them), coming to other large North American ungulates, bison rank or through the Folsom area need not (and may not) near the bottom ofthe list in their ability to cope with have been a random movement with respect to snow (Telfer and Kelsall 1984:Table 3; see also topography (as it could be on the featureless and Guthrie 1990:200-202, and historical evidence open plains). detailed in Roe 1951:180-203). Indeed, there are only a few places where Pale­ Of course, we have no direct evidence whether oindian groups following those regional drainages this was an areathat received heavy snow during win­ would have been able easily to traverse the moun­ ter in the late Pleistocene. But we do know that tainous and brokenterrain and high mesas that extend because of the effects of nearby Johnson Mesa on from the eastern flank ofthe Sangre de Cristo Moun­ local air mass and climate (an influence that would tains across a 200-km stretch of the border between have been present in late Pleistocene times), winter Colorado and New Mexico. While hardly an obsta­ snowfall is much heavier in this area today than it is cle on the scale of the Rocky Mountains, this was a in the surrounding region. A priori, then, we hypoth­ barrier to easy north-south movement, and histori­ esize this would not have been an area suitable for cally much of the movement of animals and people bison to over-winter. through the area was channeled through one of sev­ In the absence of bison, human foragers intent eral passes, including Trinchera Pass. This saddle on staying in the area for an extended period would between Johnson and Kelleher Mesas is just 8 km have to rely on other animals and plants. In regard north of the Folsom site. Of course, the speculation to the latter, we would again observe that edible that the Paleoindian group that made the kill at Fol­ plants, and particularly ones that provide a signifi­ som may have been headed toward Trinchera Pass, cant return in fatty acids or carbohydrates during the and encountered and killed a herd of bison in Wild critical winter and spring months, are presently rare Horse Arroyo en route, will likely remain safely in this region. Ifplant foods exploitable by humans untestable. were also rare in Folsom times, it suggests Pale­ Finally, unlike, for example, the San Luis Valley oindians would not have had sufficient food to the west (Jodry 1999a), the Folsom area does not resources to linger beyond the period necessary to show repeated use by Paleoindian groups-or, for prepare the meat from their kill-let alone winter that matter, by later groups (Anderson 1975). Why over in the area. that shouldbe so is not altogether clear, since the area There is evidence of only a single kill at this is well watered and presents abundant game locality, made by groups whose range (based on resources (at least today and, judging by the scanty their stone sources) extended from the panhandle archaeological record, in the past as well). Further of Texas into the plains of northeastern Colorado. clues to the local environment ofthe late Pleistocene It is perhaps not irrelevant to observe that traveling may help resolve this matter and test the hypothesis up anyone of several rivers and streams out of the that plant foods were simply not sufficient to sup­ panhandle (such as the Canadian and its tributaries port repeated or prolonged occupations. or the Dry Cimarron) would have brought groups We now have a clearer view of the Folsom site: into the general vicinity of the Folsom site (major its extent, history, bison bonebed, stone-tool assem­ river courses, in addition to possibly serving as cor­ blage, and geology. While each of these contributes ridors of travel, may-along with oth~r distinctive to the basic inventory of data on the Folsom period, topographic features-have served as boundaries none approaches the significance of the basic ques­ of traditional areas of exploitation, based on raw tion answered by the 1926-1928 excavations. Why material use patterns [Stanford 1999:303]). This is is that? At this point it would beeasy to use the shop­ not to say that following these drainages would worn (but legitimate) excuse that the "best parts of inevitably deposit foragers at the Folsom site. the site" were removed by the previous generation. Rather, unlike Paleoindian sites that occur, for As with most easy answers, this one would proba­ example, at springs or small lake basins on the High bly not be the most useful or interesting, and we sug­ Plains where there are no obvious topographic fea­ gest that a more relevant and productive conclusion tures to guide movement across the landscape (but may be that few of the contemporary central ques- Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 31 tions about Folsom archaeology can be answered Acknowledgments. Work at the Folsom site was conducted from any individual site or assemblage. under Archaeological Excavation Easement permits from the State of New Mexico to DJM (Permit Reference numbers AE­ Today's concerns with the ecological interac­ 74 [1997]; AE-78 [1998], and AE-83 [1999]). For their help tions of humans, bison, and other components of with the permit process, and discussions about the site and its their physical and social environment will never be preservation, we thank David Eck, Daniel Reilley, and Norman solved through a site-based archaeological discov­ Nelson. Our fieldwork could not have been accomplished ery, no matter how spectacular. We definitely see without the gracious hospitality and support ofLeo and Wende Quintanilla, Fred and Jane Owensby, and Stuart and Sue the need for additional site-based investigations and Owensby. Additional local help was provided by Willard and re-investigations, but also are well aware that seek­ Richard Louden, who freely gave of their knowledge of the ing solutions to questions about Folsom, or any site and the history of archaeological work here and in the other archaeological culture, requires us to tackle region. Tom Burch and Emily Burch Hughes generously the difficult problems of scaling-up from sites to shared the diary and photographs of their uncle, Carl SChwachheim. landscapes to regions. Having better information Folsom-site material is scattered in various museums, and from Folsom, or any other of the landmark sites we are indebted to the many curators who have made access to obviously has important, substantive implications~ that material possible. These include, at the American Museum But the most exciting and challenging aspects of of Natural History, David H. Thomas and Lori Pendleton research questions current three-quarters of a cen­ (Anthropology), and Mark A. Norell and John Alexander (Vertebrate Paleontology); at Capulin Volcano National tury after the initial excavations in Wild Horse Monument, Abbie Reaves and Margaret Johnston; at the Arroyo require a more broadly focused perspective. Denver Museum of Science, Ryntha Johnson and James Dixon Whether the Folsom site was used by peoples trav­ (Apthropology) and Russell W. Graham and Logan Ivy eling toward Trinchera Pass may not be directly (Paleontology); at the Louden-Henrickson Museum, Loretta testable, nor may we ever be able to say how long Martin; and, at the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Lucy Williams. We also would like to thank Tony Baker, Darien the group remained near the kill, but our failure to Brown, and Boyd Burchard for allowing us to examine mater­ answer such site-specific questions may be of less ial in their care from the site, as well as Fred Wendorf for pro­ importance than the other sorts ofresearch domains viding the only known picture of the missing Folsom flake that can be addressed with the ongoing and future tools. integrative regional studies (e.g., Holliday 1997). The fieldwork has involved many crew members over the several years, and while too numerous to mention we would be In isolation, no site will ever produce answers to remiss in not specifically acknowledging the long hours, today's questions. expertise, and efforts of Rusty Greaves and Jason M. LaBelle; That notwithstanding, there is much that can be Jemuel Ripley was the field assistant for all the stratigraphic learned from this re-investigation of the Folsom work. We have also benefited from the aid of several col­ site, and our analysis continues. In the end, and leagues who joined us at the site and offered help and advice, including Stephen Durand, Grant Hall, C. Vance Haynes, despite the limitation of having to rely on materi­ Bruce and Lisa Huckell, Bonnie Jacobs, Robert Kelly, and als excavated in another era for other purposes, the Richard Reanier. We are especially grateful to Haynes for gra­ type site can ultimately shed new light on the cul­ ciously sharing his firsthand knowledge of the site, not to men­ tural period that it named. The active, in-field col­ tion his fieldnotes and photographs. VTH and DJM would like laboration of archaeologists, vertebrate to thank Adrienne Anderson for introducing us to the site. Meena Balakrishnan, Todd Surovell, and Crayton Yapp paleontologists, and geologists in the original exca­ provided important data and information on the site chemistry. vations at Folsom helped to make this site one of Jim Theler analyzed the gastropod samples. Roger Phillips, the hallmarks ofNorthAmerican archaeology. Even Doug Weins, and Patrick Shore arranged and oversaw the seis­ though the scale ofquestions has changed, the inter­ mic and resistivity surveys on the site. Donald Grayson, Jack disciplinary focus initiated for this type site ofPale­ Hofman, and Phil LeTourneau provided valuable advice on archaeological and zooarchaeological matters. oindian studies continues to provide the most likely Very useful comments on a draft of this paper were pro­ avenue for yielding interesting answers. The rele­ vided by A. Anderson, P. LeTourneau, Diane Young Holliday, vance of our site-scale work at Folsom will come and an anonymous reviewer. Elizabeth Pintar provided a from having a much better understanding of the Spanish translation of the abstract. site with which to examine, re-evaluate, and refine The work at the site was supported by the Quest Archaeological Research Fund, and by the Potts and Sibley existing regional-scale models of Folsom-period Foundation, and for that we are most grateful (respectively) to adaptation. Joseph L. and Ruth Cramer, and Robert Bechtel. 32 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

References Cited Binford, L. R. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Agoglrio, G. Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethno­ 1971 The Mcjunkin Controversy. New Mexico 49:41-47. graphic and Environmental Data Sets. University of Cali­ 1985 The Amateur Involvement in the Discovery ofthe Fol­ fornia Press, Berkeley. som Type Site. The Chesopiean 23:2-4. Brown, B. Allen, B. 1928 The Folsom Culture. Paper presented at the 23rd Inter­ 1959 A Mineralogical Study of Soils Developed on Tertiary national Congress of ~mericanists,New York. and Recent Lava Flows in Northeastern New Mexico. 1929 Folsom Culture and Its Age. Geological Society ofAmer­ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, ica Bulletin 40:128-129. East Lansing, Michigan. 1936 The Folsom Culture-An Occurrence of Prehistoric Amick,D. S. Man with Extinct Animals Near Folsom, New Mexico. 1995 .Patterns ofTechnologicalVariation Among Folsom and Report ofthe XVI Session, United States ofAmerica, 1933, Midland Projectile Points in theAmerican Southwest. Plains International Geological Congress, Volume 2:813. Anthropologist 40:23-38. Bryan, K. 1996 Regional Patterns ofFolsom Mobility and Land Use in 1929 Discussion of "Folsom Culture and Its Age," by B. the American Southwest. World Archaeology 27:411-426. Brown. Geological Society of American Bulletin 1999a New Approaches to Understanding Folsom Lithic 40: 128-129. Technology. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in 1937 Geology of the Folsom Deposits in New Mexico and Structure and Variation, edited by D. S. Amick, pp. 1-11. Colorado. In Early Man, edited by G. G. MacCurdy, pp. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological 139-152. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Series 12. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Christopherson, R. 1., and R. J. Hudson 1999b Raw Material Variation in Folsom Stone Tool Assem­ 1978 Effects ofTemperature and Wind on Cattle and Bison. blages and the Division of Labor in Hunter-Gatherer Soci­ Annual Feeder's Day Report 57:40-41. eties. InFolsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure Christopherson, R. 1., R. J. Hudson, and R. J. Richmond. and Variation, edited by D. S. Amick, pp. 169-187. Inter­ 1976 Feed Intake, Metabolism and Thermal Insulation of national Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series Bison, Yak, Scottish Highland and Hereford Calves During 12. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Winter. Annual Feeder's Day Report 55:51-52. Anderson, A. B. Collins, R. F. 1975 "Least Cost" Strategy and Limited Activity Site Loca­ 1949 Volcanic Rocks ofNortheastern New Mexico. Geolog­ tion, Upper Dry Cimarron River Valley, Northeastern New ical Society ofAmerica Bulletin 60: 1017-1040. Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Cook, H. 1. Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1927 New Geological and Paleontological Evidence Bearing Anderson, A. B., and C. V. Haynes on the Antiquity of Mankind in America. Natural History 1979 How Old Is Capulin Mountain? Correlation between 27:240-247. Capulin MountainVolcanic Flows and the FolsomType Site, 1928 Glacial Age Man in New Mexico. Scientific American Northeastern New Mexico. In Proceedings ofthe First Con­ 139:38-40. ference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, Vol- 1947 Some Background Data on the Original "Folsom L(me II, edited by R. Linn, pp. 893-898. U.S. Department of Quarry" Site: and of Those Connected with Its Discovery the Interior, NPS Transactions and Proceedings, No.5. Gov­ and Development. Manuscript on file, Agate Fossil Beds ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. National Monument, Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Arnold, J., and W. Libby Davis, L., M. Baumler, K. Bovy, M. Cannon, and D. K. Grayson 1950 Radiocarbon Dates (September 1, 1950). Institute for 1997 Folsom Resource Use and Disposal Behavior, Indian Nuclear Studies, The University of Chicago. Creek, Montana. Current Research in the Pleistocene Baldwin, B., and W. R. Muehlberger 14:18-20. 1959 Geologic Studies ofUnion County, New Mexico. State Dixon, E. J., and R. Marlar Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 63. New 1997 A New Discovery at the Folsom Type Site. Plains Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro. Anthropologist 42:371-374. Bamforth, D. Eerkens, J. W., and R. Bettinger 1988 Ecology andHuman Organization on the Great Plains. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Plenum Press, New York. Assemblages: CanWe Scale MaterialVariability? American Banks, L. Antiquity 66:493-504. 1990 From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review Emerson,A. ofLithic Sources in the Trans- Mississippi South, the South­ 1993 The Role of Body Part Utility in Small-Scale Hunting ern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropo­ Under Two Strategies of Carcass Recovery. In From Bones logical Society, Memoir 4. to Behavior, editedby1. Hudson,pp. 138-155. SouthernIlli­ Bartram, L. nois University Press, Carbondale. 1993 Perspectives on Skeletal PartProfiles and Utility Curves Ewers, J. from Eastern Kalahari Ethnoarchaeology. In From Bones to 1955 The Horse in Blackfoot Indian Culture: with Compar­ ~ehavior, edited by J. Hudson, pp. 115-137. Southern Illi­ ative Materialfrom Other Western Tribes. Bureau ofAmer­ nois University Press, Carbondale. ican Ethnology, Bulletin 159. Bement, L. Figgins, J. 1999 Bison Hunting at Cooper site. University ofOklahoma 1927 The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History Press, Norman. 27:229-239. Berger,1. B., and C. Cunningham 1928 .How Long has Man Hunted? The Light Fossils Shed 1994 Bison: Mating and Conservation in Small Populations. on the Question. Outdoor Life 61:18-19,82. Columbia University Press, New York. Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 33

1929 Report of the Director. Annual Report ofthe Colorado Hewett, J. Museum ofNatural Historyfor 1928:9-19. 1971 The Bookish Black atWild HorseArroyo. How the Fol­ 1933 TheBison oftheWesternArea ofthe Mississippi Basin. som Man Came to Light: New Mexico 49:20-24. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum ofNatural History Hill, M. E., and J. Hofman 12(4). 1997 The Waugh Site: A Folsom-Age Bison Bonebed in 1934 Folsom and Yuma Artifacts. Proceedings of the Col­ Northwestern Oklahoma. Plains Anthropologist, Melnoir orado Museum ofNatural History 13(2). 29:63-83. Findley, J., A. Harris, D. Wilson, and C. Jones Hillerman, T. 1975 Mammals ofNew Mexico. University of New Mexico 1971 Or: How Folsom was Saved to History. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 49:25-27. Fiorillo, A. R. Hofman, J. 1989 An Experimental Study ofTrampling: Implications for 1991 Folsom Land Use: Projectile PointVariability as a Key the Fossil Record. In Bone Modification, edited by R. Bon­ to Mobility. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric nichsen and M. Sorg, pp. 61-72. Center for the Study ofthe Hunter-Gatherers, edited byA. Montet-White and S. Holen, First Americans, Orono, Maine. pp. 335-355. University ofKansas, Publications in Anthro­ Fisher, J. pology 19, Lawrence. 1992 Observations onthe LatePleistoceneBoneAssemblage 1992 Recognition and Interpretation of Folsom Technologi­ from the Lamb Spring Site, Colorado. In Ice Age Hunters of cal Variability on the Southern Plains. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by D. J. Stanford and J. S. Day, pp. 51-81. the Rockies, edited by D. J. Stanford and 1. S. Day, pp. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 193-224. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. Fitzgerald, J., C. Meany, and D. Armstrong 1996 Early Hunter-gatherers ofthe Central GreatPlains: Pale­ 1994 Mammals ofColorado. Denver Museum ofNatural His­ oindian and Mesoindian (Archaic) Cultures. InArchaeology tory and University Press of Colorado, Denver. and Paleoecology ofthe Central Great Plains, edited by 1. Folsom, F. Hofman, pp. 41-100. Arkansas Archaeological Survey 1992 Black Cowboy: The Life and Legend of George Research Series, No. 48, Fayetteville. Mcjunkin. Roberts Rinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado. 1999a Folsom Fragments, Site Types, and Assemblage For­ Frison, G. C. mation. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Struc­ 1982 Paleo-IndianWinter Subsistence Strategies on the High ture and Variation, edited by D. S. Amick, pp. 122-143. Plains. In Plains Indian Studies: A Collection ofEssays in International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Honor ofJohn C. Ewers and Waldo R. Wedel, edited by D. Series 12. Ann Arbor, Michigan. H. Ubelaker and H. 1. Viola, pp. 193-201. Smithsonian Con­ 1999b Unbounded Hunters: Folsom Bison Hunting on the tributions to Anthropology No. 30, Smithsonian Institution, Southern Plains, circa 10500 BP, the Lithic Evidence. In Le Washington, D.C. Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du 1991 Prehistoric Hunters ofthe High Plains. 2nd ed. Acad­ Paleolithique aux Paleoindiens des Grandes Plaines, edited emic Press, New York. by J. Jaubert, J. Brugal, F. David, and J. Enloe, pp. 383-415. Frison, G. C., and B. Bradley Editions APDCA, Antibes, France. 1980 The Hanson Site. University of New Mexico Press, Hofman, J. L., and L. C. Todd Albuquerque. 1996 Plains Paleoindian Hunters and Bison Paleoecology. Frison, G. C., and D. J. Stanford (editors) Paper presented at the 23rd Alaska Anthropological Asso­ 1982 The Agate Basin Site. Academic Press, New York. ciation Annual Meeting, Fairbanks, Alaska. Goldberg, P., and T. Arpin Hofman, J., D. Amick, and R. Rose 2000 Micromorphological Study of Selected Samples from 1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-MidlandAssemblage from a the Folsom Site. Manuscript on file, Department ofAnthro­ Campsite in Western Texas. Plains Anthropologist pology, Southern Methodist University. 35:221-253. Guthrie, R. D. Hofman, J., L. C. Todd, and M. B. Collins 1990 Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe. University of 1991 Identification ofCentralTexas Edwards Chertat the Fol­ Chicago Press, Chicago. som and Lindenmeier Sites. Plains Anthropologist Hanson, J. 36:297-308. 1984 Bison Ecology in the Northern Plains and a Recon­ Holliday, V. T. struction of Bison Patterns for the North Dakota Region. 1997 Paleoindian Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains Anthropologist 29:93-113. Plains. University ofTexas Press, Austin. Hay, O. and H. J. Cook Howard, E. B. 1928 Preliminary Descriptions ofFossil Mammals Recently 1935 Evidence ofEarly Man in NorthAmerica. The Museum Discovered in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Pro­ JoumaI24(2-3). ceedings ofthe Colorado Museum Natural History 8:33. 1943 The Finley Site: Discovery ofYuma Points, in situ, near 1930 Fossil Vertebrates Collected Near, or in Association Eden, Wyoming. American Antiquity 8:224-234. with, Human Artifacts at Localities Near Colorado, Texas; Huckell, L. Frederick, Oklahoma; and Folsom, New Mexico. Proceed­ 1998 Appendix D in "Testing for additional Folsom-age com­ ings ofthe Colorado Museum Natural History 9:4-40. ponents at the Folsom type site (29CX1), New Mexico. Hayden, B. Report on archaeological fieldwork conducted under State 1982 Interaction Parameters and the Demise of Paleoindian of New Mexico Permit Number AE-74," by D. J. Meltzer. Craftsmanship. Plains Anthropologist 27:109-123. Report on file, Office ofCulturalAffairs, State ofNew Mex­ Haynes, C. V., R. Beukens, A. T. Jull, and O. K. Davis ico, Santa Fe. 1992 New Radiocarbon Dates for Some Old Folsom Sites: Hunt, A., S. Lucas, and B. Kues Accelerator Technology. In Ice Age Hunters ofthe Rockies, 1987 Third-Day Road Log, from Clayton to Des Moines, edited by D. J. Stanford and 1. S. Day, pp. 83-100. Univer­ Capulin, Capulin Mountain National Monument, Folsom, sity Press of Colorado, Niwot. Raton and the Cretaceousrrertiary boundary on Goat Hill. 34 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002

In Northeastern New Mexico, edited by S. Lucas and A. lution. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hunt, pp. 41-54. New Mexico Geological Society Guide­ Malainey, M., R. Przybylski, and B. Sheriff book, 38thAnnual Field Conference. New Mexico Geolog­ 2001 One Person's Food: How andWhy FishAvoidance May ical Society. Affect the Settlement and Subsistence Patterns of Hunter­ Ingbar, E., and J. L. Hofman Gatherers. American Antiquity 66: 141-161. 1999 Folsom Fluting Fallacies. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Meltzer, D. 1. Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by D. S. 1983 The AntiquitY of Man and the Development ofAmeri­ Amick, pp. 98-110. International Monographs in Prehistory, canArchaeology. InAdvances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Archaeological Series 12. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Theory, vol. 6, edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 1-51. Academic Jodry, M. Press, New York. 1992 Fitting Together Folsom: Refitted Lithics and Site For­ 1989 Was Stone Exchanged among Eastern North American mation Processes at Stewart's Cattle Guard Site. In Piecing Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleo- indian Lithic Resource Pro­ Together the -Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in curement and Processing, edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, Archaeology, edited by 1. Hofman andJ. Enloe, pp. 179-209. pp. 11-39. Westview Press, Boulder. BAR International Series 578, Oxford. 1991 Status and Ranking at Folsom. Paper presented at the 1999a FolsomTechnological and Socioeconomic Strategies: 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archae­ Views from Stewart's Cattle Guard and the Upper Rio ology, New Orleans, Louis'iana. Grande Basin, Colorado. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1993 Search for the First Americans. Smithsonian Books, Department ofAnthropology, American University, Wash­ Washington, D.C. ington, D.C. 1994 The Discovery of Deep Time: A History of Views on 1999b Paleoindian Stage. In Colorado Prehistory: a Context the Peopling of the Americas. In Method and Theory for for the Rio Grande Basin, by M. Martorano, T. Hoefer, M. Investigating the Peopling of the Americas, edited by R. Jodry, V. Spero, and M. Taylor, pp. 45-114. Colorado Coun­ Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 7-26. Center for the Study cil ofProfessional Archaeologists, Golden. of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon. Jodry, M., and D. Stanford 1998 Testing for Additional Folsom-Age Components at the 1992 Stewart's Cattle Guard site: An Analysis of Bison FolsomType Site (29CX1), New Mexico. Report onArchae­ Remains in a Folsom Kill-Butchery Campsite. In Ice Age ological Fieldwork Conducted under State of New Mexico Hunters of the Rockies, edited by D. J. Stanford and 1. S. Permit Number AE-74. Report on file, Office of Cultural Day, pp. 101-168. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. Affairs, State of New Mexico, Santa Fe. Judge, W. J. 2000 Renewed Investigations at the FolsomPaleoindianType 1973 Paleoindian Occupation ofthe Central Rio Grande Val­ Site. Antiquity 74:35-36 ley. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Moodie, D. W., andA. J. Ray Kidder, A. V. 1976 Buffalo Migrations in the Canadian Plains. Plains 1936 Speculations on New World Prehistory. In Essays in Anthropologist 21 :45-52. Anthropology, edited by R. Lowie, pp. 143-151. University Morgan, R. G. of California Press, Berkeley. 1980 Bison Movement Patterns on the Canadian Plains: An Kraft, K. C. Ecological Analysis. Plains Anthropologist 25:143-160. 1997 The Distribution ofAlibates Silicified Dolomite Clasts Murtaugh, W. J. along the Canadian River. Current Research in the Pleis­ 1976 The National Register ofHistoric Places. U.S. Depart­ tocene 14:106-109. ment of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, Kreutzer, L. D.C. 1992 Bison and Deer Bone Mineral Densities: Comparisons O'Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes, N. G. Blurton-Jones and Implications for the Interpretation of Archaeological 1992 Patterns in the Distribution, Site Structure and Assem­ Faunas. Journal ofArchaeological Science 19:271-294. blage Composition ofHadza Kill-butchering Sites. Journal LeTourneau, P. ofArchaeological Science 19:319-345. 1998a The 'Folsom Problem.' In Unit Issues in Archaeology: Owen, T. Measuring Time, Space, and Material, edited by A. 1951 Tom Owen Describes MenWho FirstUncovered Bones Ramenofsky and A. Steffen, pp. 52-73. University of Utah of Folsom Bison. The Raton Daily Range, 28 June. Raton, Press, Salt Lake City. New Mexico. 1998b Folsom Use of Eastern New Mexico Look-Alike Preston, D. Cherts on the Llano Estacado. CurrentResearch in the Pleis­ 1997 Fossils and the Folsom Cowboy. Natural History tocene 15:77-79. 106:16-22. 2000 Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest and Reed, E. K. Southern Plains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart­ 1940 Archaeological Site Report on Folsom, New Mexico ment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albu­ (Theme I: Early Man). Manuscript prepared for the Historic querque. Sites Survey, Region ill, National Park Service. Santa Fe, Little, C. New Mexico. 1947 The Folsom Man in Colorado. Rocky Mountain Empire Roberts, F. Magazine. 2 February: 3-4. Denver, Colorado. 1935 A Folsom Complex: Preliminary Report on Investiga­ Lyman,R. L. tions at the Lindenmeier Site in Northern Colorado. Smith­ 1985 Bone Frequencies: Differential Transport, in situ sonian Miscellaneous Collections 94(4). Destruction, and the MGUI. Journal ofArchaeological Sci­ 1936 Additional Infonnation on the Folsom Complex: Report ence 12:221-236. on the Second Season's Investigations at the Lindenmeier 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Site in Northern Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col­ Cambridge. lections 95(10). MacDonald, J. N. 1939 The Folsom Problem in AmericanArchaeology. Smith­ 1981 North American Bison: Their Classification and Evo- sonian Institution Annual Reportfor 1938:531-546. Meltzer et al.] THE FOLSOM (PALEOINDIAN) TYPE SITE: PAST INVESTIGATIONS, CURRENT STUDIES 35

1940 Developments in the Problem of the North American A. Hannus, L. Rossum, and R. P. Winham, pp. 136-157. Paleo-indian. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Archaeology Laboratory Augustana College, Occasional 100:51-116. Publication No.1. Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 1951 Radiocarbon Dates and Early Man. In Radiocarbon Wheat, 1. B. Dating, assembled by F. Johnson, pp. 20-22. American 1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck Site: A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. Antiquity, Memoir 7. American Antiquity, Memoir 26. Roe, F. G. Wilmsen, E. N., and F. H. H. Roberts 1951 The North American Buffalo: A Critical Study of the 1978 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974: Concluding ReportofInves­ Species in Its Wild State. University of Toronto Press, tigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Num­ Toronto. ber 24. Washington, D.C. Rogers,A. Wissler, C. 2000 On Equifinality in Faunal Assemblages. American 1910 Material Culture of the Blackfoot Indians. American Antiquity 65:709-723. Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers 5(1). Scott, G., and C. Pillmore Wormington, H. M. 1993 Geologic and Structure-Contour Map ofthe Raton 30 ' 1939 Ancient Man in North America. 1st ed. Colorado x 60' Quadrangle, Colfax and Union Counties, New Mex­ Museum ofNatural History, Denver. ico, and Las Animas County, Colorado. U.S. Geological 1957 AncientMan in North America. 4th ed. Denver Museum Survey, Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-2266. ofNatural History, Denver. Siegel, S. Wyckoff, D. 1956 Nonparametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Com­ 1993 Gravel Sources of Knappable Alibates Silicified pany, New York. Dolomite. Geoarchaeology 8:35-58. Speth, J. 1983 Bison Kills and Bone Counts: Decision Making by Notes Ancient Hunters. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Speth, J., and K. Spielmann 1. Immediately above the site, the channel is extremely 1983 Energy Source, Protein Metabolism, and Hunter-Gath­ narrow (...... 5 m wide) with nearly vertical walls that follow a erer Subsistence Strategies. Journal of Anthropological joint plane in the Smoky Hill Shale, all of which indicates lit­ Archaeology 2:1-31. tle elapsed time of erosion. Moreover, water passing through Stanford, D. that constriction in the channel would have emerged on the 1999 Paleoindian Archaeology and Late Pleistocene Envi­ downstream end with considerable force (owing to the ronments in the Plains and Southwestern United States. In Bernouli Effect). That the site is just downstream of that con­ Ice Age Peoples ofNorth America, edited by R. Bonnichsen striction, and yet was still largely intact at the beginning of and K. Turnmire, pp. 281-339. Center for the Study of the First Americans, 'Corvallis, Oregon. excavations in 1926, suggests that the channel had not by Steen, C. then been in its present position long enough to cause sub­ 1955 Prehistoric Man in the Arkansas-White-Red River stantial erosion-hence, the suspicion that it might first have Basins. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. been incised following the 1908 flood. Telfer, E. S., and 1. P. Kelsall 2. The Colorado Museum of Natural History was known 1984 Adaptation of Some Large North American Mammals by that name during the 1926-1927 work at Folsom. It later for Survival in Snow. Ecology 65:1828-1834. (the late 1940s) became the Denver Museum of Natural Thompson, F. History, and more recently, the Denver Museum of Nature 1967 FolsomFind Claimed by Canadian Cowboy. The Raton and Science. For historical accuracy and to avoid confusion, Daily Range, 11 November:1, 4. Raton, New Mexico. Todd, L. we will refer to the 1926-1927 fieldwork, results, and col­ 1991 Seasonality Studies and Paleoindian Subsistence Strate­ lections by the original name of the institution (or the gies. In Human Predators and Prey Mortality, edited by M. acronym CMNH), though of course all such material is Stiner, pp. 217-238. Westview Press, Boulder. housed at what is now the Denver Museum of Nature and Todd, L., and J. Hofman Science. 1991 Variation in Folsom Age Bison Assemblages: Implica­ 3. Archival sources consulted in the research are cited in tions for the Interpretation of Human Action. Paper pre­ this paper using the following acronyms: sented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Society for AHC/UWY-Harold J. Cook Papers, American Heritage American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana. Center, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Todd, L., D. Rapson, and J. L. Hofman 1996 Dentition Studies ofthe Mill Iron and other Early Pale­ ANTH/AMNH-Department of Anthropology Archives, oindian Bison Bonebed Sites. In The Mill Iron Site, edited American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. by G. C. Frison, pp. 145-175. University of New Mexico DIR/CMNH-Papers of the Director, Colorado Museum of Press, Albuquerque. Natural History~ Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Todd, L., R. Witter, and G. C. Frison Denver, Colorado. 1987 Excavation and Documentation of the Princeton and EHB/NSM-Erwin Barbour Papers, Nebraska State Smithsonian Homer Site Assemblages. In The Horner Site: Museum, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The Type Site ofthe Cody Cultural Complex, edited by G. HJC/AGFO-Harold J. Cook Papers, Agate Fossil Beds C. Frison and L. C. Todd, pp. 39-91. Academic Press, New National Monument, Gering, Nebraska. York. Todd, L. C., M. G. Hill, D. J. Rapson, and G. C. Frison VP/AMNH-Vertebrate Paleontology Archives, American 1997 Cutmarks, Impacts, and Carnivores at the Casper Site Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. Bison Bonebed. In Proceedings ofthe 1993 Bone Modifi­ 4. At the Denver Museum, the Folsom faunal collection cation Conference Hot Springs, South Dakota, edited by L. includes remains from 16 species in addition to bison~ some 36 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 67, No.1, 2002] of those elements clearly are out of place in this site and col­ graphic context from which the charcoal was obtained, this lection (e.g., Equus). From this and other evidence we sus­ age matches well with more recently obtained dates from pect that material from different sites has become mixed what appears to be the same stratum. Obviously, however, the together and ended up in the Folsom drawers at the museum. date has no bearing on the Paleoindian occupation. Brown (1928) makes reference to non-bison species being 6. The tributary entered from the south/southwest, and found at Folsom, but whether he was referring to material joined the paleovalley at approximately the present position found in 1926-1927, or during his excavations in 1928, is of the 1926-1928 excavations. Knickpoints are common at unclear. A query of the AMNH Collections database yielded the upper end of tributaries that drain into Wild Horse Arroyo no mammals other than bison from the Folsom site itself. today, and the Pleistocene tributary may have been similarly 5. In July 1933, Cook collected charcoal hoping to obtain constricted at its upper end. At the lower end, where the trib­ a dendrochronological age-radiocarbon dating, of course, utary joined the paleovalley, it was ..... 35-40 m across. not having been invented in 1933. Soon after the technique 7. The bedrock in the site was identified as Pierre Shale was invented, Cook submitted the sample to Willard Libby, original'ly (Brown 1928). However, detailed geologic maps explaining it came from "below the Folsom bison and artifact show that the closest Pierre Shale occurs on the west side of level, in the arroyo of the type site of that cultural group ... Johnson Mesa, some 50 km distant, and the geological just a little below, and downstream from the horizon in which descriptions of the Smoky Hill Shale match more closely the the bones occurred" (Cook, in Arnold and Libby 1950:10). material observed at the site (Scott and Pillmore 1993). Using the original solid carbon method, two ages were 8. Hofman et al. (1991) identify Edwards chert in the obtained on the sample: 4575 ± 300 and 3923 ± 400, which Folsom assemblage (specifically, Denver Museum specimen were averaged to 4283 ± 250 (C-377). Arnold and Libby number 1262/1A), but for several reasons LeTourneau (1950:10) observed the age was "surprisingly young," and it (2000:341) believes the specimen in question is made of apparently "caused considerable comment" when it was Flattop chert from northeast Colorado. We follow released (Roberts 1951 :20). Cook then corrected the sample LeTourneau in this matter. provenience, noting it came from a side arroyo "some hun­ dred feet, plus or minus, to the westward" of the bonebed (in Received February 27,2001; Revised September 5,2001; Roberts 1951 :20). Based on his descriptions of the strati- Accepted September 11, 2001.