Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts by Amanda Nicole Mullett December, 2009 Thesis written by Amanda Nicole Mullett B.A. Western State College, 2007 M.A. Kent State University, 2009 Approved by _____________________________, Advisor Dr. Mark F. Seeman _____________________________, Chair, Department of Anthropology Dr. Richard Meindl _____________________________, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dr. Timothy Moerland ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... v List of Appendices .................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... vi Chapter I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 II. Background ...................................................................................................................5 The Environment.............................................................................................................5 Early Paleoindian Complexes: Clovis and Gainey.......................................................15 III. Models for Early Paleoindian Mobility.....................................................................20 Model 1: The Lithic Centered Model............................................................................21 Model 2: The Logistical Forager Model.......................................................................23 Previous Research on Mobility.....................................................................................24 Tests for Models............................................................................................................25 IV. Assumptions and Test Expectations..........................................................................29 V. Materials and Methods...............................................................................................33 Materials ......................................................................................................................33 Methods.........................................................................................................................35 VI. Resharpening Results .................................................................................................40 Statistical Results .............................................................................................................. Graphical Results.............................................................................................................. Spatial Results................................................................................................................... VII. Supply Range Results ................................................................................................55 iii iv VIII. Discussion, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Future Work .................................71 Bibliography .....................................................................................................................79 List of Figures Figure 1 Lithic Outcrop Map of Ohio 10 Figure 2 Examples of Upper Mercer Flint 11 Figure 3 Examples of Flint Ridge Flint 12 Figure 4 Distance-Based Supply Range: UM 14 Figure 5 Distance-Based Supply Range: FRF 14 Figure 6 Sketches of Clovis Points 15 Figure 7 Sketches of Gainey Points 17 Figure 8 Seeman Supply Range Model 26 Figure 9 Anderson and Hansen Supply Range Model 27 Figure 10 Upper Mercer Length/Distance Bar Graph 42 Figure 11 Upper Mercer Width/Distance Bar Graph 43 Figure 12 Upper Mercer SI/Distance Bar Graph 44 Figure 13 Flint Ridge Flint Length/Distance Bar Graph 46 Figure 14 Flint Ridge Flint Width/Distance Bar Graph 46 Figure 15 Flint Ridge Flint SI/Distance Bar Graph 47 Figure 16 UM Average Length Interpolation 49 Figure 17 UM Average Width Interpolation 50 Figure 18 UM Average SI Interpolation 51 Figure 19 FRF Average Length Interpolation 52 Figure 20 FRF Average Width Interpolation 53 Figure 21 FRF Average SI Interpolation 54 Figure 22 UM Density Distribution 56 Figure 23 UM Supply Range 57 Figure 24 UM Line Profiles 59 Figure 25 FRF Density Distribution 62 Figure 26 FRF Supply Range 63 Figure 27 FRF Line Profiles 65 Figure 28 Combined Density Distribution 69 Figure 29 Combined Supply Range 70 v List of Tables Table 1 Upper Mercer Statistical Results 41 Table 2 Flint Ridge Flint Statistical Results 41 List of Appendices Appendix A Description of Other Flints 87 Appendix B West Virginia Point Data 89 vi AKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to offer my appreciation for the extensive time, effort, and encouragement that my thesis advisor, Dr. Mark Seeman, offered me throughout my career as a Master’s Student in the Department of Anthropology at Kent State University. Dr. Seeman spent countless hours reviewing and editing my thesis, as to ensure an excellent product. He also assisted in the process of locating and identifying dozens of projectile points from areas not well represented in my original dataset. I would also like to thank both of the other members that were on my committee, Dr. Kam Manahan (Kent State- Anthropology), and Dr. Jay Lee (Kent State- Geography). The suggestions made by both of these members during my defense were extremely helpful and added quality to the final draft of this thesis. Next, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues (both inside and outside of the Anthropology Department). They provided much needed encouragement and support throughout the past few years. I should also thank my family for allowing me to chase my dreams, even if it means being a student until I am thirty! Mom, Dad, Mama, Angie, Krissi, Quentin, Lily, and Max, you will never know how much you all mean to me, and I owe any success I have to each of you! vii Chapter I. Introduction Homo sapiens sapiens has inhabited North America for over 12,000 years. The first North Americans entered the continent by crossing the Bering Land Bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska during the Wisconsinan glaciation. Equipped with the same mental and physical capabilities as other modern human populations, the early colonizers of the western hemisphere spread quickly across the landscape while perfecting the techniques required to be successful in their new environments. The evidence for the exploitation of the Great Lakes Region (the geographic focus of this thesis) has been dated to about 11,500 years ago (Anderson 1990; Anderson 1995:9). These first settlers of North America are termed “Paleoindians”, and North American archaeologists designate the time period between 11,500 BP and about 10,900 BP as the early Paleoindian period (Anderson 1990:4, Morse et al. 1996). Different „culture groups‟ succeed one another throughout this period as evidenced by radiocarbon dates and different assemblage characteristics. “Clovis” populations were the earliest, and they were distributed across the entire North American continent. Depending on location in North America, either Folsom or Gainey groups follow Clovis populations in time. Folsom groups are limited mostly to the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains (Haynes1964). Gainey extends across the Great Lakes Region and adjacent areas of the Ohio 1 2 and Mississippi Valleys (Morrow and Morrow 2002:142). Regardless of group classification, early Paleoindians were hunters and gatherers, exploiting a vast landscape filled with a variety of organic and inorganic resources. The questions asked by many archaeologists center on determining how these people went about acquiring these resources. Was their lifestyle and mobility patterning determined largely by the migration of animals, the location of unchanging lithic raw material sources, or something else? The long-term practice of exploiting two high quality lithic raw materials in Ohio by early Paleoindians provides a useful context for examining questions about the first human inhabitants in North America. It is the assumption of many archaeologists that lithic supply zones are directly related to the relative mobility of early Paleoindians (Carr 2005:26; Anderson and Hanson 1988:267; Gardner 1977). As a result, the lithic supply range developed and described in this thesis will be compared to two mobility models. The first model, in which flint outcrops were at the center of early Paleoindian ranges, can be traced at least to the early works of Gardner (1977). The second introduces other natural resources as variables affecting Paleoindian movement across the landscape, and follows more directly the research of Kelly and Todd (1988). The degree to which the Ohio data supports one of these models over the other should clarify a key dimension of the technological organization in these early hunter-gatherer societies. Within the context of this thesis, a number of assessments were completed to illustrate relationships within the data. More specifically, statistical correlation tests were used to examine the relationship