/rum' R. S. Laub (ed.). 2003. me Hiscock Site: Late Pleicrocene and Holocene Paleoecology and Archaeology of Western New York State. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, vol. 37.

DISCUSSION: THE HISCOCK SITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

National Park Service. Southea~tArchaeological Center, 2035 East Paul Dirac Drive, Box 7, Tallahassee, Florida 32310

What is remarkahle about the Hiscock Site found in the deposits may have been killed by archaeological record, above and beyond the these peoples, with caribou perhaps the largest important new insights that it offers about the prey species represented. Tomenchuk (this vol- Paleoindian occupation of the Great Lakes area, ume) convincingly demonstrates that at least some are the extensive and diversified research ap- of the mastodon bone and ivory and caribou antler proaches brought to bear in its interpretation. The found at the site was humanly modified. The well conceived and integrated multidisciplinary worked materials did not appear to be ancient, but team effort that has cycled between fieldwork, given the evidence for some weathering, staining, analysis and publication, with continual retine- and erosion, and an absence of butchering marks ment in approach and rethinking of ideas, is or cooking and processing surfaces, scavenging a model of collaborative research that all those rather than hunting is indicated, at least for the interested in exploring the past and maximizing mastodon remains. Whether Paleoindian peoples what we can leam from it should strive to emulate. and these soon-to-be-extinct animals were con- Hiscock shows how public involvement can be temporaneous cannot be determined, but given the used to further scientific research, simultaneously direct dating of three mastodon bone took to educating and developing a constituency for the between ca. 10,700 and 1 1,000 radiocarbon years enterprise. Hundreds of volunteers worked at B.P. (Laub et a/., 1996; Laub 2000; Laub & Hiscock down through the years, many for up- Spiess, this volume), they could vely well have ward of ten field seasons. Their dedication and been. Hiscock thus offers a somewhat nontradi- support has been crucial, and that the project was tional view of Paleoindian interaction with late organized in such a way as to maximize public Pleistocene fauna, one where scavenging car- involvement stands as another remarkahle accom- casses for useful raw materials was as important as plishment that should be widely adopted. Science killing these animals outright. advances as much from having good examples An association between the fluted point users of how to proceed as through good ideas and and mastodons, as well as other species of late accomplishments. This project succeeds admira- Pleistocene fauna, appears indisputable, however, bly in both areas. for a number of reasons. Even if the evidence for The work at Hiscock also highlights the hone and ivory working was ambiguous or absent, importance of long-term, multi-year field pro- the presence of four Ruted points and four other grams. It often takes a long time to understand the presumably contemporaneous stone tools in the information content and potential of complex same Fibrous Gravelly Clay deposit as the sites, to get a sense of what is present, the research mastodon remains, and a fifth Ruted point nearby, questions that can be asked, and the kind of is itself remarkable (Ellis, Tomenchuk & Holland, specialized samples that need to be collected and this volume). Only a few thousand fluted points analyses that should be undertaken. The first hone have ever been found and recorded in all of tool did not tum up until after almost a decade of eastem North America in over 75 years of in- fieldwork. As Storck and Holland (this volume) tensive search for these artifacts. To find four in note, our archaeological interpretations of His- direct association with mastodon remains strains cock would be far different had the work stopped coincidence. The absence of later diagnostics, after only one or two seasons. furthermore, indicates that the scavenging and Hiscock has been interpreted as a hone bed or working of the mastodon remains was by Paleo- "quany" and possible salt lick where the indian and not subsequent peoples. carcasses of deceased mastodon and quite likely Although not included in the volume, an ex- other species of animals were exploited by tensive archaeological survey of the area around Paleoindian groups. Some of the smaller animals the Hiscock Site in the upper Spring Creek )I drainage was conducted under the direction of of thorough description, including raw material Kevin Smith, whose data were presented in sourcing and microwear studies, that should be preliminary fashion at the 2001 syn~posium.The standard for all Paleoindian assemblages. Man) Hiscock Site does not appear to have seen classic Paleoindian sites are all too poorly extended visitation during the Paleoindian era. reported. That is not the case with the anifacts or indeed at any time afterwards, and there are no from Hiscock, which are thoroughly described obvious Paleoindian base camps nearby. This is and interpreted from several author's perspec- not, however, particularly unusual or unexpected. tives, for which the overall proiect team should be The technological organization and mobility of commended. The box plots Ellis rr al. (this these early peoples was such that they could easily volume) present are a particulwly elegant way of have lived many miles away, checked out the expressing the variability within and between site Hiscock locale once a month or so as pwt of assemblages and, as they have done here, serve to normal foraging activity (perhaps as pan of placc the Hiscock fluted point assemblage in a routine round visiting many such locales), and a n~orphological continuum that suggests they then sent task groups to the area for short visits. resemble early Paleoindian points found at sites possibly even day trips, when a harvestable like Shoop in Pennsylvania and Paleo Cnissing in animal or other resource was present. While Ohio. Whether these points are more closely extensive later prehistoric use of the surrounding related to Gainey or subsequent Barnes forms, area is indicated, particularly during the Middle however, remains unclear (cf. Storck & Holland. and Late Archaic, therc is little evidence that the and Ellis el ul., this volume). If related to Gainey, Hiscock Site area itself was used, suggesting that these artifacts may have been used by people who the resources procurcd here during the Paleoin- were contemporaneou.s with living mastodons, dian period wclr no longer present or needed. The even if they perhaps didn't typically hunt them. If bone deposits that were a clear attraction were the Hiscock points are more closely related to likely long eroded away or buried hy natural de- Barnes foims, use of Hiscock prohably occu~red position by these times. This was fortunate, since somewhat after these animals became extinct, it meant that the late Pleistocene remains at His- which would fit inore closely with the scavenging cock were minin~allydisturbed by later peoples. hypothesis. These kmds of questions highlight the Human beings typically do not live right on top importance of dating as precisely as possible the of, or even overly close to, important water range of occurrence of fluled p(lint forms. sources or salt licks. The presence of people Tomenchuk's dctailed use-wear analyses con- would acare away game, for one thing. and they vince mc th:~t at least some of the reported bone might even get eaten themselves. Richard Laub tools :ire indeed just that. But the assemblage is (this volume) ohserved that a large carnivore, unusual. At several locations of a comparable age possihly a yrizzly. gnawed on some of the bones in Florida, fairly large numbers of unequivocal that were found at the site. It is likely that thc tools of bonc and ivmy have been found, fluted point peoples vihiting the site would want to including hafting foreshafts. scrapers, anvils and reduce their own possibility of being gnawed on. awls (Dunbar el a/, 1989; Dunbar & Webb, As Ellis, Tomenchuk and Holland (this vol- 1996). My own belief is that if the evidence for ume) ruperbly document, the fluled points found classifyin: something as an artifact is cquivocal, at Hiscock are extensively reworked. This is not we should he conservaLive and assume the the assemblage of :I kill site, where intact. well- negative, that it probably isn't. Some of the sharpened points are often found, nor is it large Hiscock items look like good tools to me; and and diversified enough to be from a habitation sile some don't. Aa Richard Lnub said, however. or base camp. It strikes me more :IS a collection of during the symposium question-and-answer pe- tools brought to the site for fairly limited and quite riod, while we may algue about individual pieces, likely highly specialized processing tasks, pcrhaps it is impossible to dismiss everything. I'd like to to extract specific resources, like hide, hair, ivory see more discusaion of what skeletal clements are or meat or possibly, as McAndrews (this volume) missing from the assemblage, that might have suggests, salt or other minerals. In later prehistory been lost to taphonomic processes, or removed to people went to it lot of trouble to obtain salt or other locations, as well as more evaluation of the gypsum: why not in Paleoindian times as well'! possibility that bone manufacturing debris was Christopher Ellis, John Tomenchuk and John present. One thing we have leamed in recent Holland's paper (this voluniel provides the kind years, however, is that wc have a long way to go