Clovis and Folsom Functionality Comparison by Andrew J. Richard
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Clovis and Folsom Functionality Comparison Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Richard, Andrew Justin Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 07:50:51 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/556853 Clovis and Folsom Functionality Comparison by Andrew J. Richard ____________________________ Copyright © Andrew J. Richard 2015 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ANTHROPOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2015 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder. SIGNED: Andrew J. Richard APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: _____ ____27 April 2015____ Vance T. Holliday Date Professor of Anthropology and Geosciences 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea to use ceramic as a medium was made based on conversations with Jesse Ballenger Ph.D., Kacy Hollenback Ph.D., Michael Schiffer Ph.D., C. Vance Haynes Ph.D. and Steve Kuhn Ph.D. Vance Holliday Ph.D. asked me to determine which projectile point was stronger, Clovis or Folsom. Jesse Ballenger had spoken to me about possibly using ceramics to use as a medium for duplicating projectile points. Kacy Hollenback, at the time a Ph.D. Candidate, gave me the results of her experiment using ceramics to produce knappable cores. Michael Schiffer had wanted to produce projectile points from ceramic for some time and gave me guidance during the ceramics process. C. Vance Haynes mentored me with advice with casting processes and answered numerous questions about tool technology. Steve Kuhn guided me on theoretical perspectives and helped define my research on functionality. I thank you all for the time you took to help me in this endeavor without all of your help this thesis would not have been written. Access to Arizona State Museum Collections could not have happened without help from the Curator of Archaeological Collections, Mike Jacobs. I would especially like to thank my wife Gina D. Stuart-Richard for putting up with casts being made in her kitchen, my obsession with lithics and my absence while working on this project and others. To my parents, who taught me that perseverance, hard work, sacrifice and dedication to your goals is the only real formula for success. To my Grandfather, John Justin Severn who put up with all those questions about obsidian points, hunting strategies and the landscape. No seven year-old had a better mentor and teacher I will always measure myself against your yard stick. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. 6 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 7 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 11 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 16 Mammoth and Bison Ecology ....................................................................................... 18 Theoretical Background ................................................................................................ 20 METHODS AND THEORETICAL APPROACH ........................................................... 23 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 23 Breakage Experiment Data Information ....................................................................... 29 Theoretical Approach .................................................................................................... 31 CLOVIS AND FOLSOM TOOL TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 33 Sites ............................................................................................................................... 42 Past Thrusting Experiments .......................................................................................... 44 ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 50 Which point was more functional? ................................................................................ 57 How does time spent producing the functional projectile point increase the efficiency of subsistence strategies? .................................................................................................. 58 Which point was curated at a higher rate? ................................................................... 60 Can use-breakage determine which hunting weapons system was used: atlatl or thrusting spear?............................................................................................................. 61 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 64 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 74 APPENDIX A: CFBE POINT PHOTOGRAPHS AND ANALYSES ............................ 77 APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTILE POINT MEASUREMENTS ............ 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 99 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Hafted Clovis and Folsom Points from the CFBE ............................................ 24 Figure 2: Example of Folsom point hafted using adhesive mastic ................................... 25 Figure 3: Preliminary experimental set-up ....................................................................... 26 Figure 4: Close-up of firing mechanism and mainshaft attached to crossbow bolt .......... 27 Figure 5: Denoyer copies of Domebo point and casts (top row). Folsom points from Lithics Casting Lab and casts (bottom row). Shrinkage between originals and casts is apparent at 11%................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 6: Folsom models with casts showing sharpening ................................................ 31 Figure 7: Folsom point energy absorption ........................................................................ 53 6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Point Analysis and Penetration ........................................................................... 51 Table 2: Clovis and Folsom Breakage by Site .................................................................. 54 Table 3: Folsom Sites Minimum Number of Individuals .................................................59 Table 4: Clovis Experimental Projectile Point Measurements .........................................97 Table 5: Folsom Experimental Projectile Point Measurements ........................................98 7 ABSTRACT This thesis uses experimental archaeology as a method to discover the functional differences between Clovis and Folsom projectile points filtered through a behavioral ecology paradigm. Porcelain is used as a substitute for tool stone for its consistency and control value. The experiment was devised to find out which technology, Clovis or Folsom, was more functional, had a higher curation rate and contribute to increased group subsistence. Paleoindian tool technology transitions can be seen as indicators for adaptation triggered by environmental conditions and changes in subsistence. Folsom technology, when compared to Clovis technology, was functionally superior in performance, refurbishment and curation. Technological design choices made by Folsom people were engineered toward producing a more functional tool system as a sustainable form of risk management. The Clovis Folsom Breakage Experiment indicates that Folsom tool technology was specifically adapted to bison subsistence based on increased functionality and curation. 8 INTRODUCTION The comparison in breakage between Folsom and Clovis projectile points in this thesis is used to assess the functionality and strength between the two projectiles. Projectile points are the key diagnostic artifacts of Clovis and Folsom assemblages (Buchanon et al. 2011:852). Ceramic copies of complete Clovis and Folsom projectile points were broken to demonstrate the functional differences between