"Clovis Technology" In

Clovis Technology Introductory article

Metin I Eren, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA Article Contents • Introduction University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA Briggs Buchanan, • The Clovis Toolkit • Geography and Chronology of Clovis Technology • The Emergence of Clovis Technology • Microevolution of Clovis Technology • The Macroevolutionary Transition from Clovis to Post-Clovis Technologies

Online posting date: 16th May 2016

Colonising hunter-gatherer populations in North but instead must infer it from those tools that preserve in the and Central America at the end of the Pleistocene archaeological record. In this article, we discuss aspects of what utilised Clovis technology. Clovis technology is archaeologists refer to shorthand as Clovis technology, a fuzzy known for ‘fluted’ flaked stone points that were set of human–tool interactions found across North and Central America during the terminal Pleistocene. The people who used used to hunt prey and served as knives, but it Clovis technology are generally considered to be among the frst also included the production, use and discard of colonising populations of North and Central America. adiversityofotherimplementsmadefromstone, bone and other materials. Clovis technology lasted for several centuries, perhaps as long as a millen- The Clovis Toolkit nium and a half. Clovis technology shares some similarities with Siberian Paleolithic technology, Clovis flaked stone technology which is consistent with current genetic evidence, indicating that ancestors of the people using Clovis The overwhelming bulk of Clovis artefacts archaeologists fnd and study are those made from cryptocrystalline stone types that technology originated in Asia. Clovis technology, can be faked, such as fint (chert), obsidian and quartzite. The as archaeologists generally recognise it, likely process of faking stone into tools is called ‘knapping’, and people emerged piecemeal as people dispersed into the who used Clovis technology likely used noncryptocrystalline New World – some aspects of it can be tied to stones, antler and possibly wood as percussion and pressure ancestry in Siberia, while other aspects are likely implements to fake stone. These people appear to have knapped indigenous to North and Central America. Several stone via three principal strategies. First, they knapped stone studies have shown that Clovis technology was bifacially, on two sides, to make weapon tips and knives as well as subjected to both micro- and macroevolutionary to create broad, fat fakes that could be used as tools themselves forces. or modifed into other tools (Figure 1). A widely held belief based on intuitive and authoritative reasoning is that knappers who made Clovis stone tools intentionally ‘overshot’ fakes during bifacial knapping such that the stone fake travelled the entire Introduction distance across a piece of stone and removed a part of the opposite margin. Recent modelling and experiments, however, indicate Aworkingdefnitionof‘technology’isasfollows:akindof that overshot fakes were likely mistakes (Eren et al., 2013a). behaviour that involves the interaction between an agent and Moreover, it appears that these overshot mistakes are not limited its physical tool(s) towards a task (Arthur, 2009; Dusek, 2006), to, and thus not necessarily diagnostic of, the Clovis period including, but not necessarily limited to, tool production, tool use (Muñiz, 2014; Sellet, 2015). Second, people who used Clovis and tool discard. Like other biological and cultural phenomena, technology less often knapped stone prismatically, which created technologies can and do evolve as well as go extinct. Given that longer, narrower pieces called ‘blades’, which, like fakes, could archaeologists are limited to the study of artefactual remains, be used immediately after being detached from a nodule or archaeologists cannot, and do not, study technology directly, modifed into other tools (Figure 1). The process of modifying fakes or blades into other tools was accomplished with the third strategy, which is by knapping stone unifacially, on one eLS subject area: Evolution & Diversity of Life side (modifying fakes or blades occurred bifacially as well) How to cite: (Figure 1). People who used Clovis technology on occasion used Eren, Metin I and Buchanan, Briggs (May 2016) Clovis other knapping strategies, for example bipolar knapping, which Technology. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. involves smashing a piece of stone on an anvil (Morgan et al., DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0026512 2015), or more opportunistic fake knapping from blocks of stone

Prismatic knapping

Bifacial knapping

Opportunistic knapping

Unifacial Bifacial Unifacial knapping knapping knapping Bifacial knapping

Bipolar knapping

Figure 1 Examples of Clovis flintknapping strategies. A person knapping Clovis technology would start off with a nodule of chert (centre top, Wyandotte variety, image by M. Eren). By knapping two sides of the nodule, referred to as bifacial knapping, they would produce a biface (left middle, DeGraffenreid cache, Texas, image permission courtesy of D. Kilby) as well as a number of flakes (centre middle, image by M. Eren). The biface could be used as is, or bifacially knapped into a different bifacial tool, such as a fluted point (left bottom, Paleo Crossing, Ohio, image by M. Eren). The flakes could be used as is, or knapped bifacially or unifacially (centre bottom, Welling, Ohio, image by M. Eren) into tools. A second Clovis strategy would be for a person to knap flakes more opportunistically from a stone nodule. A third strategy would be for a person to knap stone prismatically. This produces long, thin pieces called blades (right middle, image by M. Eren), as well as a prismatic blade core (right top, Debra Friedkin, Texas, image permission courtesy of M. Waters). These blades could be used as is, or be unifacially knapped into other tools. People making Clovis technology also utilised bipolar percussion (right bottom, Paleo Crossing, Ohio, image by M. Eren), which involved smashing artefacts on an anvil resulting in crushed, angular bits and small sharp pieces. Specimens shown here are not necessarily to scale.

(Lothrop, 1989). The widespread beliefs that Clovis stone tool the breakage of the point (Meltzer, 1993). Fluted points often production was conducted by select occupational craft specialists, exhibit impact scars, which is strong observational evidence that required more skill and was inherently more sophisticated or they were hafted and functioned as tips of thrusting or projec- complex to knap than other prehistoric technologies or held tile weaponry. Current experimental and observational evidence artistic or symbolic signifcance to its makers currently lack of microfracture features on damaged futed point tips suggests evidential support. that Clovis hunters used spear-throwers (Hutchings, 2015). Suc- There are several broad categories of Clovis tools made by cessful experimental use of replica futed points in penetrating late Pleistocene knappers, the most iconic being the futed point the hide of deceased elephants is consistent with the idea that (Figure 2a,b), a bifacially faked implement that has paral- they could have similarly been used to infict lethal wounds on lel to slightly convex sides, a concave base and fake-removal mammoths (Frison, 1989), the latter on occasion being found scars – termed ‘futes’ – on one or both faces that extend on aver- with futed points at archaeological sites. Analysis of microwear age from the base to about one-third of the way to the tip. Flutes on futed points indicates that these items also served as cutting are visually distinctive, and archaeological and experimental and butchery implements (Miller, 2013;Smallwood,2015), also studies suggest that they are costly to knap, often resulting in consistent with experiments (Frison, 1989). Some futed points

(e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Figure 2 Examples of some Clovis tool classes: ﬂuted points from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, and Vail, Maine (a,b, images by M. Eren); endscrapers from Paleo Crossing, Ohio (c,d, images by M. Eren); spurs from Paleo Crossing, Ohio (e,f, images by M. Eren); bone rod from East Wenatchee, Washington (g, image permission courtesy of P. Bostrom); bone point from Sheriden Cave, Ohio (h, image permission courtesy of B. Redmond); bone wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona (i, image permission courtesy of P. Bostrom). Arrows in (a) and (b) indicate ﬂute scars. Arrows in (d) are pointing to an accessory spur (top) and to lateral notches (bottom). Arrows in (e) and (f) are pointing to prominent spurs. Specimens shown here are not necessarily to scale. were likely long-life tools in that they were resharpened and used (Eren et al., 2013b)(Figure 2d). Beyond these three broad stone time and again (Haynes and Huckell, 2007), but recent analyses tool categories, there exist other less common forms, referred suggest that this is not always the case (Buchanan et al., 2015). to by archaeologists as ‘sidescrapers’, adzes, chopping tools, AsecondcommonClovistoolcategoryistheendscraper knives, ‘spokeshaves’, drills as well as a variety of otherwise (Figure 2c,d), a predominately unifacially faked specimen that modifed or expediently used fakes or blades (Meltzer, 1988; is roughly triangular to rectangular in plan-view shape, possesses Smallwood, 2010). abroaddistalbitandsometimeslateralnotches.Microwearanal- Geochemical analyses of stone tools indicates that people ysis suggests that endscrapers were hide- or plant-working tools who used Clovis technology acquired their stone raw material and were often hafted onto a handle (Loebel, 2013;Miller,2014), from widely varying distances; sometimes they camped directly fndings consistent with morphological studies (Eren, 2012). A on stone sources, while other times they acquired stone from recent study of endscraper allometry suggests that Clovis end- sources over 500 km away (Boulanger et al., 2015). Stone scrapers (and other unifacially knapped tools) were produced on fakes and blades with high surface area to thickness ratios in was likely acquired by people directly, but trade via intermedi- order to enhance tool portability, longevity and functional fex- aries perhaps occurred as well. Direct acquisition of stone from ibility (Eren, 2013). far distances is consistent with the hypothesis that people who A third Clovis tool category is the graver spur (Figure 2e,f), a used Clovis technology were highly mobile and as a colonising sharp, at times needle-like, projection used for a variety of tasks, population had essentially unrestricted access to the landscape. such as ripping, tearing or piercing hide, engraving materials like Archaeologists often state that people who used Clovis technol- bone (Miller, 2013) or possibly tattooing. Spurs are sometimes ogy favoured high-quality raw materials, but this hypothesis is added as accessories to other tool categories, such as endscrapers currently unsupported given that ‘quality’ is not defned and thus

eLS © 2016, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net 3 Clovis Technology not operational, nor have any systematic, quantitative or experi- geometric lines or patterns and the presence of ochre on artefacts mental studies on this topic been conducted. have been asserted to be expressions of Clovis portable art and personal adornment, although more utilitarian functions are also Clovis bone and ivory technology possible, and not mutually exclusive (Lemke et al., 2015). Subsurface features (sediments discoloured relative to sur- Tools made of bone and ivory (referred to hereafter as bone tools) rounding sediments) of various sizes at archaeological sites may represent a relatively small proportion of the Clovis toolkit. How- possibly be Clovis trash pits or postmolds, the latter indicative ever, it is clear from the distribution of bone tools across North of posts stuck in the ground to serve as part of some sort of America that preservation is a signifcant biasing factor in the structure. One type of prominent Clovis subsurface feature is the recovery of these organic artefacts, and thus the bone tool compo- ‘cache’, a collection of artefacts, often many of the same type nent of Clovis technology likely may have been more substantial (e.g. faked stone points), found closely together and interpreted than archaeologists currently recognise. Well-documented and to be buried intentionally by people who used Clovis technology well-dated Clovis bone artefacts have been recovered from sites (Huckell and Kilby, 2014;WatersandJennings,2015)(Figure 3). in only nine states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Mon- tana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon and Washington) and one Cana- Meltzer (2002)interpretsCloviscachesasprecautionaryresup- dian Province (Saskatchewan). ply depots for a colonising population. Travelling far across the The majority of the well-documented bone tools are bevelled foreign Ice Age North American landscape, by caching artefacts, bone rods (O’Brien et al., in press) (Figure 2g). These worked Clovis colonisers would not have had to travel the entire way back bones are cylindrical in shape and have bevelling on one or to a known stone source for resource resupply in the event that both ends; when both ends are bevelled they are usually angled they could not fnd stone sources in unfamiliar territories. in opposite directions. There has been much speculation con- Direct evidence of hearths is surprisingly rare in the Clovis cerning the function of Clovis bone rods. The majority opin- archaeological record, although Clovis faked stone tools often ion seems to indicate that the bone rods were probably used as show signs of damage from burning in the form of crazing and foreshafts or handles on which Clovis faked stone points were pot-lidding. This fre damage could have come from controlled hafted (O’Brien et al., in press). Replica Clovis points and bone or uncontrolled (natural) fres. rods have been used to demonstrate possible hafting methods for bone rods as parts of composite weapons (Pearson, 1999) and as handles for hand-held saws (Lyman et al., 1998). Com- parison of the range and average widths of bone rods (n = 44, Geography and Chronology of mean = 17.2 mm, 95% CI 15.2–19.2, range = 4.9–30 mm) and a Clovis Technology large sample of Clovis points (n = 313, mean = 27.7 mm, 95% CI 26.7–28.6, range = 5.5–66 mm) indicates that Clovis points are Evidence for Clovis technology can be found across the lower on average wider than bone rods, suggesting that, if hafted, bone 48 states of the United States, throughout southern Canada, and rods may have pinned or been set within a notch of the futed basal Central America (Figure 4). It is important to note, however, that sections of Clovis points. most aspects of Clovis technology are rarely, if ever, found at a Other bone tool types are less common and include probable single site, or even within a broad geographical region. There bone projectile points (Waters et al., 2009)(Figure 2h)and are many factors likely infuencing the distribution of different a possible shaft straightener (Figure 2i). The single bone tool aspects of Clovis technology, such as cultural transmission pro- inferred to be a shaft straightener was recovered from the Murray cesses, demography, functional necessities, environmental fac- Springs site in Arizona (Haynes and Huckell, 2007). This artefact tors, discard rates, drift, selection and postdepositional processes is cylindrical with one circular end. The hole is believed to have such as preservation and survey and excavation biases. been used to straighten wooden spear shafts; however, there is There are two models for the timing and duration of Clovis no evidence beyond the form of the specimen to support this technology. The ‘short chronology’ model suggests that Clovis hypothesis. It may alternatively be some sort of wrench-like technology lasted as little as 200–450 years, between 13 125 and implement. 12 925 calBP or between 13 250 and 12 800 calBP (Waters and In addition to the bone tools mentioned above, there is a single Stafford, 2007). This result was derived from a small, highly carved segment of mammoth ivory from the Clovis type site selective sample of radiocarbon ages from only 11 Clovis sites (Blackwater Draw Locality #1) that has been interpreted to be a across the United States, and thus is not likely correct (Haynes ‘semifabricate’, or an ivory piece in the early stages of production et al., 2007). The short chronology model, however, does pro- (Saunders et al., 1990). There are also bone specimens that vide a valuable minimum benchmark for the duration of Clovis have been found in several locations across North America with technology. The second model is the ‘long chronology’ model, questionable status as to whether they were modifed by people which suggests that the duration of Clovis technology could have who used Clovis technology or by some other taphonomic or been as long as 1500 years (Prasciunas and Surovell, 2015). noncultural process (Laub, 2000). This result was derived from Clovis radiocarbon ages, computer Other aspects of Clovis technology simulation and mathematical modelling and provides compelling evidence that Clovis technology spread across North America via Beyond faked stone and bone tools, there are only a few other the expansion of colonising populations, as opposed to the spread preserved aspects of Clovis technology. Rare stones incised with of technology across already established populations.

(a) (b)

Figure 3 Excavation of the East Wenatchee Clovis cache in Washington state, USA. R. Michael Gramly examines stone and bone tools, November 1990 (a). Betty Knop excavates large bifaces, October 1990 (b). Images permission courtesy of R. Michael Gramly.

1 Select archaeological sites with evidence of Clovis technology

2 31 6 29 3 23 7 30 10 19 24 16 21 27 8 20 12 26 17 11 18 28 9 13 25 5 15 4 14 22 N

0 500 1000 km

Figure 4 Prominent select Clovis sites across North America. 1 = Charlie Lake Cave; 2 = East Wenatchee; 3 = Dietz; 4 = El Fin del Mundo; 5 = Escapule, Lehner, Murray Springs, Naco; 6 = Anzick; 7 = Colby; 8 = Dent; 9 = Blackwater Draw (Clovis type site); 10 = Lange-Ferguson; 11 = Jake Bluff; 12 = Eckles; 13 = Domebo; 14 = Debra L. Friedkin; 15 = Aubrey; 16 = Rummells-Maske; 17 = Kimmswick, Ready/Lincoln Hills; 18 = Carson-Conn-Short; 19 = Butler, Gainey, Leavitt; 20 = Sheriden Cave; 21 = Nobles Pond, Paleo Crossing; 22 = Sloth Hole; 23 = Udora; 24 = Hiscock; 25 = Topper; 26 = Thunderbird; 27 = Shawnee-Minisink; 28 = Williamson; 29 = Vail; 30 = Bull Brook and 31 = Debert.

The Emergence of Clovis unknown, and indeed the notion that there should necessarily be a holistic, obvious ‘proto-Clovis’ technology located somewhere Technology in Asia is a mistaken one. It is likely that there was no single ori- gin point for the entire Clovis technology ‘package’, but instead Studies of modern and ancient DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) particular aspects of Clovis technology may have emerged piece- indicate that the frst Late Pleistocene colonists of the New World meal at different times and places during the dispersal of Homo came from Asia (Rasmussen et al., 2014;RaffandBolnick, sapiens ‘Out of Asia’ into North America. Indeed, consistent with 2015). Where Clovis technology originated, however, is currently this scenario, Hamilton and Buchanan (2007, 2010)foundthat

eLS © 2016, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net 5 Clovis Technology spatial gradients of radiocarbon-dated occupations across Eurasia Southwest. In this area, Clovis hunters appear to have modifed and North America support a post-Last Glacial Maximum dif- the size and shape of their points to hunt different-sized prey. fusion that stalled in Beringia and then followed a northwest Clovis points used to hunt mammoth and bison in this region were to east dispersion across the contiguous United States (Tackney found to have signifcantly different forms. et al., 2015). Clovis bone technology, for example, may have ancestry in Siberia (Pitulko et al., 2004)basedonsimilarities in the form and inferred function between Siberian and Clovis The Macroevolutionary Transition specimens. The same can be suggested for stone tool produc- from Clovis to Post-Clovis tion practices such as bifacial knapping. It is also possible that certain size and shape attributes of Clovis prismatic blades is Technologies autochthonous to North America, but the strategy of producing blades is ultimately derived from the Siberian practice of pro- In recent years macroevolutionary studies examining the tran- ducing microblades (Buchanan and Collard, 2008). Other aspects sition from Clovis to post-Clovis technologies have become of Clovis technology, however, may be completely indigenous to quite common. General observational studies suggest that Clovis North America, such as the practice of futing points. futed points appear to have evolved into several regional forms (Meltzer, 2002)(Figure 5). Furthermore, in recent years, several formal, quantitative studies have examined how and why Clo- Microevolution of Clovis vis points differ from post-Clovis ones. One example is that by White (2013), who examined several morphometric traits from Technology Clovis, Late Paleoindian, and Early Archaic faked stone points from the North American Lower Great Lakes region. Among Microevolutionary studies of Clovis technology are relatively several interesting fndings, White (2013)showedthatvaria- recent, and thus far have predominately focused on futed points. tion in point morphometric traits related to hafting remained These types of studies test for, and model the impact of, evolu- relatively steady across the Clovis–post-Clovis transition, while tionary forces such as drift and selection on the form of artefacts. variation in morphometric traits related to style progressively Studies of drift and selection at the continental scale suggest increased or decreased over time. However, while variation in that both processes may have modifed Clovis points. A pro- hafting attributes remained steady, mean hafting width gradually gressive reduction in Clovis point size from the northwestern declined from Clovis to post-Clovis times. White (2013)sug- United States to the east fts the predictions of a drift model that gested that a general shift to lighter projectiles may have been accounted for the accumulation of copying errors made during tied to reductions in the sizes of available game animals during the learning process (Hamilton and Buchanan, 2009). Hamilton the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene. and Buchanan’s (2009)modelalsoaccountedforbiasesinthe Beyond futed points, many other aspects of technology learning process that refected a reduction in variance consistent evolved between Clovis and post-Clovis technology. For with there being only a small number of knapping teachers. Other instance, Andrews et al.(2015)showedthatClovisand studies have shown that the shape of Clovis points across the post-Clovis samples of unifacially knapped tools possess continent is regionally patterned (Buchanan et al., 2014; Smith inverse allometric patterns. Large Clovis unifacial tools are fat et al., 2015), perhaps suggesting that shape was adapted to the relative to plan-view surface area, while small Clovis unifacial environmental differences between these regions. However, it is tools are round. This pattern is consistent with steady resharp- possible that drift alone could also explain the shape difference. ening and reuse of stone fakes possessing geometric shapes To help differentiate between these two possibilities, experiments engineered for a long-use life, which would be useful for mobile are needed to test the performance characteristics of the particular Clovis colonising populations who would be unfamiliar with the shapes of Clovis points. location of stone sources in new territories. Alternately, large The infuence of drift on Clovis points has also been docu- post-Clovis unifacially knapped tools are round, while small mented at the regional scale. Eren et al.(2015)documentedsmall ones are fat. Because it is impossible to unifacially knap a round but signifcant changes in point shape among three samples of tool into a fat tool, the post-Clovis tool pattern suggests that Clovis points from a relatively small region within the midconti- post-Clovis foragers were not as concerned with possessing tools nental United States. The three samples were each made from with resharpening potential and long-use life. This is because adistinctcherttypethatoutcroppedwithinthestudyregion. with their increased knowledge of the landscape, noncolonising Because the samples were from a small region where environ- post-Clovis populations would have more likely known where ment was relatively homogenous, the point shape differences they could have resupplied their stone, making unnecessary could not be tied to environmental adaptation (selection), but the need for tools with long-use lives. In another example, instead only to drift processes. Specifcally, knappers who made Jennings et al.(2010)conductedanexperimentalassessment Clovis tools preferentially used each of the three outcrops and of stone-nodule knapping effciency using a modern knapper became increasingly isolated from one another (a form of sam- to replicate different Paleoindian knapping strategies. Their pling bias), and a subsequent infusion of innovation and copy experiments showed that the knapping strategies employed by error caused differences in Clovis point shape. people who used Clovis technology (bifacial and prismatic) Potential selection processes at the regional scale have been were less effcient in terms of transport costs than were those documented by Buchanan et al.(2011)intheSouthernPlainsand employed by post-Clovis people (discoid and amorphous).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Clovis points

West East

Folsom style Dalton style Cumberland style Barnes style Michaud style

Post-Clovis point varieties

(f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Figure 5 Clovis points across North America evolved into several distinct regional post-Clovis styles. (a) Dent, Colorado (image by M. Eren); (b) Kimmswick, Missouri (image by M. Eren); (c) Carson-Conn-Short, Tennessee (image permission courtesy of A. Smallwood); (d) Welling, Ohio (image by M. Eren); (e) Bull Brook, Massachusetts (image by B. Buchanan); (f) Hell Gap, Wyoming (image by B. Buchanan); (g) Sloan, Arkansas (image permission courtesy of D. Morse, photo credit Jane Kellett, Arkansas Archaeological Survey); (h) 40HR370, Tennessee (image permission courtesy of J. Tune); (i) Thedford II, Ontario (image permission courtesy of C. Ellis); (j) Michaud, Maine (image by B. Buchanan). Specimens shown here are not necessarily to scale.

These differences were explained by the hypothesis that people variation in Clovis point shape. Archaeological and Anthropologi- who used Clovis technology were less residentially mobile, cal Sciences 6:145–162. but more logistically mobile, than the post-Clovis people in Buchanan B, Eren MI, Boulanger MT and O’Brien MJ (2015) Size, question. shape, scars, and spatial patterning: a quantitative assessment of late Pleistocene (Clovis) point resharpening. Journal of Archaeo- logical Science: Reports 3:11–21. References Dusek V (2006) Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction.Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Andrews BN, Knell EJ and Eren MI (2015) The three lives of a Eren MI (2012) Were unifacial tools regularly hafted by Clovis for- uniface. Journal of Archaeological Science 54:228–236. agers in the North American Lower Great Lakes region? An empir- Arthur WB (2009) The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it ical test of edge class richness and attribute frequency among distal, Evolves.NewYork:FreePress. proximal, and lateral tool-sections. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 2: Boulanger MT, Buchanan B, O’Brien MJ, et al. (2015) Neutron 1–15. activation analysis of 12,900-year-old stone artifacts confrms Eren MI (2013) The technology of Stone Age colonization: an empir- 450–510+ km Clovis tool-stone acquisition at Paleo Crossing ical, regional-scale examination of Clovis unifacial stone tool (33ME274), Northeast Ohio, USA. Journal of Archaeological Sci- reduction, allometry, and edge angle from the North American ence 53:550–558. Lower Great Lakes region. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: Buchanan B and Collard M (2008) Phenetics, cladistics, and the 2101–2112. search for the Alaskan ancestors of the Paleoindians: a reassess- Eren MI, Patten RJ, O’Brien MJ and Meltzer DJ (2013a) Refuting ment of relationships among the Clovis, Nenana, and Denali the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing archaeological complexes. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:2934–2941. 1683–1694. Eren MI, Jennings TA and Smallwood AM (2013b) Paleoindian Buchanan B, Collard M, Hamilton MJ and O’Brien MJ (2011) Points unifacial stone tool ‘spurs’: intended accessories or inciden- and prey: an evaluation of the hypothesis that prey size predicts tal accidents? PloS One 8 (11): e78419. DOI: 10.1371/jour- early Paleoindian projectile point form. Journal of Archaeological nal.pone.0078419. Science 38:852–864. Eren MI, Buchanan B and O’Brien MJ (2015) Social learning and Buchanan B, O’Brien MJ and Collard M (2014) Continent-wide or technological evolution during the Clovis colonization of the New region-specifc? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of World. Journal of Human Evolution 80:159–170.

Frison GC (1989) Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on Miller GL (2014) Lithic microwear analysis as a means to infer African elephants. American Antiquity 54:766–784. production of perishable technology: a case from the Great Lakes. Hamilton MJ and Buchanan B (2007) Spatial gradients in Clovis-age Journal of Archaeological Science 49:292–301. radiocarbon dates across North America suggest rapid colonization Morgan B, Eren MI, Khreisheh N, Hill G and Bradley B (2015) from the north. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Clovis bipolar lithic reduction at Paleo Crossing, Ohio: a reinter- USA 104:15625–15630. pretation based on the examination of experimental replications. Hamilton MJ and Buchanan B (2009) The accumulation of stochastic In: Smallwood A and Jennings T (eds) Clovis: On the Edge of a copying errors causes drift in culturally transmitted technologies: New Understanding,pp.121–143.CollegeStation:TexasA&M quantifying Clovis evolutionary dynamics. Journal of Anthropo- Press. logical Archaeology 28:55–69. Muñiz MP (2014) Determining a cultural affliation for the CW cache Hamilton MJ and Buchanan B (2010) Archaeological support for from Northeastern Colorado. In: Huckell BB and Kilby JD (eds) the three-stage expansion of Modern Humans across northeastern Clovis Caches: New Discoveries and New Research,pp.107–132. Eurasia and into the Americas. PloS One 5:1–9. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico Press. Haynes CV and Huckell BB (eds) (2007) Murray Springs: A Clovis O’Brien MJ, Lyman RL, Buchanan B and Collard M (in press) Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona A review of late Pleistocene North American bone and ivory (No. 71).Tucson:UniversityofArizonaPress. tools. In: Langley MC (ed.) Osseous Projectile Weaponry: Towards Haynes G, Anderson DG, Ferring CR, et al. (2007) Comment on an Understanding of Pleistocene Cultural Variability.NewYork: “redefning the age of Clovis: implications for the peopling of the Springer Press. Americas”. Science 317:320. Pearson GA (1999) North American Paleoindian bi-beveled bone and Huckell BB and Kilby JD (2014) Clovis Caches: New Discoveries ivory rods: a new interpretation. North American Archaeologist 20: and New Research. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico Press. 81–103. Hutchings WK (2015) Finding the Paleoindian spearthrower: quanti- Pitulko VV, Nikolsky PA, Girya EY, et al. (2004) The Yana RHS site: tative evidence for mechanically-assisted propulsion of lithic arma- humans in the Arctic before the last glacial maximum. Science 303: tures during the North American Paleoindian Period. Journal of 52–56. Archaeological Science 55:34–41. Prasciunas MM and Surovell TA (2015) Reevaluating the duration of Jennings TA, Pevny CD and Dickens WA (2010) A biface and Clovis: the problem of non-representative radiocarbon. In: Small- blade core effciency experiment: implications for early Paleoin- wood A and Jennings T (eds) Clovis: On the Edge of a New dian technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Sci- Understanding,pp.21–35.CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniver- ence 37:2155–2164. sity Press. Laub RS (2000) A second dated mastodon bone artifact from Pleis- Raff JA and Bolnick DA (2015) does mitochondrial haplogroup tocene deposits at the Hiscock Site (western New York State). X indicate ancient trans-Atlantic migration to the Americas? A Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:141–154. critical re-evaluation. PaleoAmerica 1:297–304. Lemke AK, Wernecke DC and Collins MB (2015) Early art in North Rasmussen M, Anzick SL, Waters MR, et al. (2014) The genome America: Clovis and later Paleoindian incised artifacts from the of a Late Pleistocene human from a Clovis burial site in western Gault site, Texas (41bl323). American Antiquity 80:113–133. Montana. Nature 506:225–229. Loebel TJ (2013) Endscrapers, use-wear, and early Paleoindians in Saunders JJ, Haynes CV Jr,, Stanford D and Agogino GA (1990) Eastern North America. In: Gingerich J (ed.) The Eastern Fluted Point Tradition,pp.315–330.SaltLakeCity:UniversityofUtah A mammoth-ivory semifabricate from Blackwater Locality No. 1, Press. New Mexico. American Antiquity 55:112–119. Lothrop JC (1989) The organization of Paleoindian lithic technol- Sellet F (2015) A fresh look at the age and cultural affliation of the ogy at the Potts site. In: Ellis CJ and Lothrop JC (eds) Eastern Sheaman site. PaleoAmerica 1:81–87. Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use,pp.99–138.Boulder:Westview Smallwood AM (2010) Clovis biface technology at the Topper site, Press. South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological fexibility. Lyman RL, O’Brien MJ and Haynes CV (1998) A mechanical and Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2413–2425. functional study of bone rods from the Richey–Roberts Clovis Smallwood AM (2015) Building experimental use-wear analogues cache, Washington, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: for Clovis biface functions. Archaeological and Anthropological 887–906. Sciences 7:13–26. Meltzer DJ (1988) Late Pleistocene human adaptations in eastern Smith H, Smallwood AM and DeWitt T (2015) Defning the nor- North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2:1–52. mative range of Clovis futed point shape using geographic Meltzer DJ (1993) Search for the First Americans.WashingtonD.C.: models of geometric morphometric variation. In: Smallwood A Smithsonian Books. and Jennings T (eds) Clovis: On the Edge of a New Under- Meltzer DJ (2002) What do you do when no one’s been there before? standing,pp.161–182.CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniversity Thoughts on the exploration and colonization of new lands. In: Press. Jablonski N (ed.) The First Americans: The Pleistocene Coloniza- Tackney JC, Potter BA, Raff J, et al. (2015) Two contemporane- tion of the New World,pp.27–58.SanFrancisco:Issue27ofMem- ous mitogenomes from terminal Pleistocene burials in eastern oirs of the California Academy of Sciences, California Academy Beringia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: of Sciences. 13833–13838. Miller GL (2013) Illuminating activities at Paleo crossing Waters MR and Stafford TW (2007) Redefning the age of Clo- (33ME274) through microwear analysis. Lithic Technology vis: implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315: 38:108–197. 1122–1126.

Waters MR, Stafford TW Jr,, Redmond BG and Tankersley KB Meltzer DJ (2004) Modeling the initial colonization of the Americas: (2009) The age of the Paleoindian assemblage at Sheriden Cave, issues of scale, demography, and landscape learning. In: Barton Ohio. American Antiquity 74:107–111. CM, Clark GA, Yesner DR and Pearson GA (eds) The Settlement Waters MR and Jennings TA (2015) The Hogeye Clovis Cache. of the American Continents,pp.123–137.Tucson:TheUniversity College Station: Texas A&M University Press. of Arizona Press. White AA (2013) Functional and stylistic variability in Paleoin- Meltzer DJ (2009) First Peoples in a New World.Berkeley:Univer- dian and early archaic projectile points from midcontinental North sity of California Press. America. North American Archaeologist 34:71–108. Miller DS, Holliday VT and Bright J (2013) Clovis across the continent. In: Graf KE, Ketron CV and Waters MR (eds) Paleoamerican Odyssey,pp.207–220.CollegeStation:TexasA&MUniversity Further Reading Press. Patten RJ (2005) Peoples of the Flute: A Study of Anthropolithic Ellis CJ (2008) The futed point tradition and the arctic small tool tra- Forensics.Lakewood:StoneDaggerPublications. dition: what’s the connection? Journal of Anthropological Archae- Prasciunas MM (2007) Bifacial cores and fake production eff- ology 273:298–314. ciency: an experimental test of technological assumptions. Ameri- Eren MI, Patten RJ, O’Brien MJ and Meltzer DJ (2014) More on the can Antiquity 72:334–348. rumor of “intentional overshot faking” and the purported Ice-Age Smallwood AM and Jennings TA (eds) (2015) Clovis: On the Edge Atlantic crossing. Lithic Technology 39:55–63. of a New Understanding. College Station: Texas A&M University Holliday VT and Miller DS (2013) The Clovis landscape. In: Graf Press. KE, Ketron CV and Waters MR (eds) Paleoamerican Odyssey,pp. Waters MR, Pevny CD and Carlson DK (2011) Clovis Lithic Tech- 221–245. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. nology. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.