University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Occasional Papers – Southeastern Paleoamerican Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Survey Institute of 2012 Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and Regional Patterns of Technological Organization Douglas A. Sain Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/ archanth_occasional_paleoam_papers Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Sain, Douglas A., "Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and Regional Patterns of Technological Organization" (2012). Occasional Papers – Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey. 2. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_occasional_paleoam_papers/2 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers – Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and Regional Patterns of Technological Organization Douglas A. Sain Occasional Papers 2 2012 Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology University of South Carolina Occasional Papers, Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina Titles in the series 1. Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005–2007: Examining Site Formation Processes at an Upland Paleoindian Site along the Middle Savannah River, by D. Shane Miller. 2010 2. Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and Regional Patterns of Technological Organization, by Douglas A. Sain. 2012 Instructions for Authors Prospective authors are encouraged to submit manuscripts for consideration for publication in this series. These manuscripts will be evaluated on the basis of their technical merit and relevance to the goals of the Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey (SEPAS) by the series editor and other members of the SEPAS research team. Upon a decision to proceed, manuscripts will be sent to two outside experts for formal peer review. All submitted manuscripts must conform to American Antiquity formatting guidelines for text, references, and figures. Manuscript submissions must be made electronically, in pdf or word processing format. This series publishes original manuscripts. Prospective authors are cautioned not to submit papers that have been submitted, accepted, or published elsewhere. Inquiries about possible publications should be sent to the series editor at the address below. David G. Anderson, Ph.D., RPA Professor, Department of Anthropology The University of Tennessee 250 South Stadium Hall Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-0720 [email protected] <[email protected]> Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site (38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and Regional Patterns of Technological Organization Douglas A. Sain 2012 Occasional Papers 2 Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology University of South Carolina Acknowledgements This research was not possible without the guidance and support of many individuals. I thank the members of my committee for their time, patience and efforts. Dr. David Kilby served as my committee chair. Through him I have gained much insight into Paleoindian archaeology and archaeological field techniques. Dr. John Montgomery introduced me to archaeological method and theory, and taught me how to keep my writing concise. Dr. David Batten shared his editorial and organizational advice. I would also like to thank Dr. Phillip Shelley. He introduced me to lithic analysis and the field of geoarchaeology. Dr. Stephen Durand, as my advisor, gave his time, intellect, and patience in assisting me with advice, and answering any questions I approached with during this research. I would like to thank Dr. Al Goodyear of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology for providing me with access to the archaeological collections housed at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology (SCIAA). Through his guidance and suggestions regarding my analysis, I have learned a great deal. I thank the faculty of the Anthropology department at Eastern New Mexico University for providing me with the space necessary to conduct and complete my analysis. I thank the many staff, visiting lecturers, and volunteers that frequent the Topper Site and Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey for offering their intellectual input: D. Shane Miller, Ashley Smallwood, Dr. David G. Anderson, Derek Anderson, Andy Hemmings, Dennis Stanford, William Andrefsky, and Tom Pertierra. The help and insight of many fellow graduate students, peers, and colleagues was also beneficial to the final product. I would like to thank Jessica Beltman for her time and dedication in assisting me with the photography, design, and visual layout involved in the final version of this monograph. Finally, I would like to thank the editorial advice of two anonymous reviewers. Their comments greatly enhanced the final product. To the people I have listed above, and many others that I am sure to have missed, I am utmost grateful. i Foreword It is a pleasure to introduce this monograph by Douglas A. Sain, which is based on his master’s thesis research on the organization of Clovis blade technology. This second monograph of the Occasional Papers series of the Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey closely follows the first in terms of the meticulousness of the study, and the new information it provides about the Topper Site. Detailed studies of Clovis material are eagerly sought by Paleoindian archaeologists, enthusiasts, and particularly by lithic analysts. Sain provides a well-rounded literature review for these groups, and an innovative approach to identifying technological blades. The “mixed assemblage” problem resulting when multiple lithic technologies were used at a single site is one with which lithic analysts continue to struggle. With a quarry site such as Topper and the wide variety of core forms and tools recovered, a nuanced and consistent approach to blade identification is a necessity if one wants to consider broader questions of technological organization. Recognizing variability in the end-product of blade manufacture and the relative importance of some characteristics over others, Sain weights six attributes from three to one and through detailed study of individual detached pieces produces a score. With a maximum value of 12, those with a score of seven or higher are considered a blade. This provides a consistent, replicable procedure for separating blades from blade-like flakes, and using these data in the consideration of Clovis lifeways. The small percentage of blades at Topper with modification, when coupled with a consideration of assemblages in the local and broader region, provide evidence that blades were part of a curated technology and toolkit, a transportable and reliable product that could be maintained as people moved across the landscape. This work provides a specific reconstruction of Clovis technological organization in the Savannah River Valley, and should inspire broader considerations of blade technology elsewhere in the Americas. Philip J. Carr, Professor Department of Sociology, Anthropology, & Social Work University of South Alabama ii Table of Contents Foreword Acknowledgments Chapter I. Introduction ...............................................................................................1 Chapter II. The Clovis Culture .....................................................................................7 Clovis Origins .......................................................................................10 Clovis Sites ...........................................................................................10 Clovis Subsistence ................................................................................13 Lithic Technology and the Clovis Toolkit ............................................13 Technological Organization and Models of Mobility ...........................15 Chapter III. Clovis Blade Technology and History of Research ...............................20 Blade Manufacture ................................................................................20 Blade Research......................................................................................34 Archaeological Evidence ......................................................................34 Chapter IV. Regional Context and Site Setting ..........................................................42 Site Setting ............................................................................................44 Excavation History................................................................................45 The Topper Lithic Assemblage .............................................................51 Chapter V. Research Design .......................................................................................53 Blade Analysis ......................................................................................54 Core Analysis ........................................................................................63 Chapter VI. Analytical Results.....................................................................................66