DOCSLIB.ORG

Clovis and Folsom Functionality Comparison by Andrew J. Richard

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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
Recommended publications
  • The Little Clovis Point That Wasn't

    The Little Clovis Point That Wasn't

    The Little Clovis Point that Wasn’t Leo Pettipas Manitoba Archaeological Society The projectile point illustrated in Figure 1 was surface-found at FaMi-10 in the Upper Swan River valley of Manitoba (Fig. 2) in the 1960s. It is made of Swan River Chert, is edge-ground, triangular in outline, and seems to be “fluted” on one face. To all appearances it looks like an Early Indigenous (“Palaeo-Indian”) Clovis point, except for one thing – it’s very small: it’s less than 4.0 cm long, whereas “full-grown” Clovis points when newly made can reach as much as 10.0 cm in length. Archaeologist Eugene Gryba has cautiously classified it as a McKean point, and in size and shape it is indeed McKean- like. However, the bilateral grinding it displays isn’t a standard McKean trait, so I have chosen to orient this presentation around the Clovis point type. Fig. 1. (left)The miniscule point from FaMi-10. Drawing by the present writer. Fig. 2. (Right) Location of the Swan River valley in regional context (Manitoba Department of Agriculture). Actually, bona fide diminutive Clovis points are not unprecedented; several good examples (Fig. 3) were archaeologically excavated in company with typical Clovis points at the Lehner Mammoth site in Arizona. The centre specimen in Figure 3 is 3.6 cm long, slightly less than the corresponding measurement taken from the Swan River artefact. So 1 | P a g e The Little Clovis Point that Wasn’t Leo Pettipas while miniature Clovis points are rare, they’re not unheard of and so the occurrence of one from the Second Prairie Level of Manitoba shouldn’t be problematic at first blush.
  • Ohio History Lesson 1

    Ohio History Lesson 1

    http://www.touring-ohio.com/ohio-history.html http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/category.php?c=PH http://www.oplin.org/famousohioans/indians/links.html Benchmark • Describe the cultural patterns that are visible in North America today as a result of exploration, colonization & conflict Grade Level Indicator • Describe, the earliest settlements in Ohio including those of prehistoric peoples The students will be able to recognize and describe characteristics of the earliest settlers Assessment Lesson 2 Choose 2 of the 6 prehistoric groups (Paleo-indians, Archaic, Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancients, Whittlesey). Give two examples of how these groups were similar and two examples of how these groups were different. Provide evidence from the text to support your answer. Bering Strait Stone Age Shawnee Paleo-Indian People Catfish •Pre-Clovis Culture Cave Art •Clovis Culture •Plano Culture Paleo-Indian People • First to come to North America • “Paleo” means “Ancient” • Paleo-Indians • Hunted huge wild animals for food • Gathered seeds, nuts and roots. • Used bone needles to sew animal hides • Used flint to make tools and weapons • Left after the Ice Age-disappeared from Ohio Archaic People Archaic People • Early/Middle Archaic Period • Late Archaic Period • Glacial Kame/Red Ocher Cultures Archaic People • Archaic means very old (2nd Ohio group) • Stone tools to chop down trees • Canoes from dugout trees • Archaic Indians were hunters: deer, wild turkeys, bears, ducks and geese • Antlers to hunt • All parts of the animal were used • Nets to fish
  • Visualizing Paleoindian and Archaic Mobility in the Ohio

    Visualizing Paleoindian and Archaic Mobility in the Ohio

    VISUALIZING PALEOINDIAN AND ARCHAIC MOBILITY IN THE OHIO REGION OF EASTERN NORTH AMERICA A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Amanda N. Colucci May 2017 ©Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials Dissertation written by Amanda N. Colucci B.A., Western State Colorado University, 2007 M.A., Kent State University, 2009 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2017 Approved by Dr. Mandy Munro-Stasiuk, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Mark Seeman, Ph.D., Co-Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Eric Shook, Ph.D., Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. James Tyner, Ph.D. Dr. Richard Meindl, Ph.D. Dr. Alison Smith, Ph.D. Accepted by Dr. Scott Sheridan, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Geography Dr. James Blank, Ph.D., Dean, College of Arts and Sciences TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………………………………..……...……. III LIST OF FIGURES ….………………………………………......………………………………..…….…..………iv LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………….……………..……………………x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..………………………….……………………………..…………….………..………xi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY AREA AND TIMEFRAME ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 Paleoindian Period ...............................................................................................................................
  • Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint

    Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint

    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
  • Ohio Archaeologist Volume 43 No

    Ohio Archaeologist Volume 43 No

    OHIO ARCHAEOLOGIST VOLUME 43 NO. 2 SPRING 1993 Published by THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF OHIO The Archaeological Society of Ohio MEMBERSHIP AND DUES Annual dues to the Archaeological Society of Ohio are payable on the first TERM of January as follows: Regular membership $17.50; husband and wife EXPIRES A.S.O. OFFICERS (one copy of publication) $18.50; Life membership $300.00. Subscription to the Ohio Archaeologist, published quarterly, is included in the member­ 1994 President Larry L. Morris, 901 Evening Star Avenue SE, East ship dues. The Archaeological Society of Ohio is an incorporated non­ Canton, OH 44730, (216) 488-1640 profit organization. 1994 Vice President Stephen J. Parker, 1859 Frank Drive, Lancaster, OH 43130, (614)653-6642 BACK ISSUES 1994 Exec. Sect. Donald A. Casto, 138 Ann Court, Lancaster, OH Publications and back issues of the Ohio Archaeologist: Ohio Flint Types, by Robert N. Converse $10.00 add $1.50 P-H 43130,(614)653-9477 Ohio Stone Tools, by Robert N. Converse $ 8.00 add $1.50 P-H 1994 Recording Sect. Nancy E. Morris, 901 Evening Star Avenue Ohio Slate Types, by Robert N. Converse $15.00 add $1.50 P-H SE. East Canton, OH 44730, (216) 488-1640 The Glacial Kame Indians, by Robert N. Converse .$20.00 add $1.50 P-H 1994 Treasurer Don F. Potter, 1391 Hootman Drive, Reynoldsburg, 1980's & 1990's $ 6.00 add $1.50 P-H OH 43068, (614)861-0673 1970's $ 8.00 add $1.50 P-H 1998 Editor Robert N. Converse, 199 Converse Dr., Plain City, OH 1960's $10.00 add $1.50 P-H 43064,(614)873-5471 Back issues of the Ohio Archaeologist printed prior to 1964 are gener­ ally out of print but copies are available from time to time.
  • ROCK PAINTINGS at HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D

    ROCK PAINTINGS at HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D

    PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page A ROCK PAINTINGS AT HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D. PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page B Mescalero Apache design, circa 1800 A.D., part of a rock painting depicting white dancing figures. Unless otherwise indicated, the illustrations are photographs of watercolors by Forrest Kirkland, reproduced courtesy of Texas Memorial Museum. The watercolors were photographed by Rod Florence. Editor: Georg Zappler Art Direction: Pris Martin PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page C ROCK PAINTINGS AT HUECO TANKS STATE HISTORIC SITE by Kay Sutherland, Ph.D. Watercolors by Forrest Kirkland Dedicated to Forrest and Lula Kirkland PWD BK P4501-095E Hueco 6/22/06 9:06 AM Page 1 INTRODUCTION The rock paintings at Hueco Tanks the “Jornada Mogollon”) lived in State Historic Site are the impres- small villages or pueblos at and sive artistic legacy of the different near Hueco Tanks and painted on prehistoric peoples who found the rock-shelter walls. Still later, water, shelter and food at this the Mescalero Apaches and possibly stone oasis in the desert. Over other Plains Indian groups 3000 paintings depict religious painted pictures of their rituals masks, caricature faces, complex and depicted their contact with geometric designs, dancing figures, Spaniards, Mexicans and Anglos. people with elaborate headdresses, The European newcomers and birds, jaguars, deer and symbols settlers left no pictures, but some of rain, lightning and corn. Hidden chose instead to record their within shelters, crevices and caves names with dates on the rock among the three massive outcrops walls, perhaps as a sign of the of boulders found in the park, the importance of the individual in art work is rich in symbolism and western cultures.
  • The Folsom Point

    The Folsom Point

    The Folsom Point Northern Colorado Chapter / Colorado Archaeological Society Re-Evaluation of Castle Gardens Volume 25, Issue 3 March 2010 Petroglyphs Site, Wyoming Special points of interest: March 17 (Wednesday) - Social Time, 2009-53), some of which are considered to Business Meeting and Program. Dinner is be authentic, while others are of • March 17—CAS/NCC at 5:30 p.m. and program is at 7:00 p.m. at questionable authenticity or are probably Program—Perkins not authentic. The history of research at Restaurant, 301 S. College, Perkins Restaurant (note different Fort Collins location this month only!), 310 S. College Castle Gardens will be reviewed, and the • March 27—Loveland Ave, Fort Collins. Program: Re-evaluation findings from our 2009 season will be Archaeological Society of Castle Gardens Petroglyphs Site, discussed. Fair, Poudre Valley REA Wyoming. The petroglyphs at the Castle John Williams is an archaeologist with over building, Windsor, Gardens Petroglyphs site in central fifteen years of research and consultancy Colorado Wyoming were re-evaluated with the spanning the Rocky Mountain region, High • March 27—CAS Quarterly purpose of photographing and mapping Plains, Great Basin, Four Corners, Middle Meeting, Montrose with a GPS all previously recorded rock art East and Europe. His academic panels. A total of 73 petroglyph panels or background focused on the Paleolithic of • March 26-28—CCPA portions of panels have been previously the Near East and Europe, and his Annual Meeting, Montrose recorded at Castle Gardens, of which 59 is currently owner of Atlatl Industries LLC, • May 8—OCTA Program: were relocated and recorded during this an archaeological consulting firm focusing Finding Your Ancestors inventory.
  • Marking Time

    Marking Time

    Office of Historic Alexandria City of Alexandria, Virginia Marking Time Prehistoric Points Alexandria Times, December 27, 2007 Image: This past summer Alexandria archaeologists at the site discovered a significant number of flakes, the slivers of rock left behind as stones are chipped and fashioned into projectile points, scrapers and other tools. From the collection of the Alexandria Archaeology Museum. Photo, Office of Historic Alexandria. rchaeologists working at Freedmen’s Cemetery expected they might find something much older than the grave A shafts where 1,800 African-Americans were buried in the 1860s. Based on earlier studies, they thought their dig might yield evidence of prehistoric peoples. Decades before the Capital Beltway was built, the site was a bluff overlooking Hunting Creek. The area would have been an ideal location for Indians to manufacture and re-shape stone tools for hunting and fishing. This past summer Alexandria archaeologists at the site discovered a significant number of flakes, the slivers of rock left behind as stones are chipped and fashioned into projectile points, scrapers and other tools. They also recovered points representing multiple distinct periods of use, from Middle Woodland around 1,200 years ago to Late Archaic around 4,000 years ago to Paleoindian around 13,000 years ago. Variations in the points, such as fluted stems and notched corners, indicate how they were attached to the handles of spears and knives. Serrated edges also reflect changes in lithic technology, or stone tool manufacturing. Among those recovered at Freedmen’s Cemetery are (clockwise from bottom left) a quartzite Potts point ca.
  • A North American Perspective on the Volg (PDF)

    A North American Perspective on the Volg (PDF)

    Quaternary International xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint A North American perspective on the Volgu Biface Cache from Upper Paleolithic France and its relationship to the “Solutrean Hypothesis” for Clovis origins J. David Kilby Department of Anthropology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The “Solutrean hypothesis” for the origins of the North American Clovis Culture posits that early North American Volgu colonizers were direct descendants of European populations that migrated across the North Atlantic during the Clovis European Upper Paleolithic. The evidential basis for this model rests largely on proposed technological and Solutrean behavioral similarities shared by the North American Clovis archaeological culture and the French and Iberian Cache Solutrean archaeological culture. The caching of stone tools by both cultures is one of the specific behavioral correlates put forth by proponents in support of the hypothesis. While more than two dozen Clovis caches have been identified, Volgu is the only Solutrean cache identified at this time. Volgu consists of at least 15 exquisitely manufactured bifacial stone tools interpreted as an artifact cache or ritual deposit, and the artifacts themselves have long been considered exemplary of the most refined Solutrean bifacial technology. This paper reports the results of applying methods developed for the comparative analysis of the relatively more abundant caches of Clovis materials in North America to this apparently singular Solutrean cache. In addition to providing a window into Solutrean technology and perhaps into Upper Paleolithic ritual behavior, this comparison of Clovis and Solutrean assemblages serves to test one of the tangible archaeological implications of the “Solutrean hypoth- esis” by evaluating the technological and behavioral equivalence of Solutrean and Clovis artifact caching.
  • The Archeological Heritage of Kansas

    The Archeological Heritage of Kansas

    THE ARCHEOLOGICAL HERITAGE OF KANSAS A Synopsis of the Kansas Preservation Plan by John D. Reynolds and William B. Lees, Ph.D. Edited By Robert J. Hoard and Virginia Wulfkuhle funded in part by a grant from the United States Department of the Interior National Park Service KSHS Archeology Popular Report No. 7 Cultural Resources Division Kansas State Historical Society Topeka, Kansas 2004 1 Preface This document is a synopsis of the archeology section of the Kansas Preservation Plan, which was financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, a division of the United States Department of the Interior, and administered by the Kansas State Historical Society. The contents and opinions, however, do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the United States Department of the Interior or the Kansas State Historical Society. The Kansas Preservation Plan is a technical document that was developed for the Historic Preservation Department of the Kansas State Historical Society that is designed to provide the background for making informed decisions in preserving the state's heritage. The size and technical nature of the plan make it inaccessible to many who have interests or responsibilities in Kansas archeology. Thus, the following synopsis of the archeology sections of the Kansas Preservation Plan is designed as a non-technical, abbreviated introduction to Kansas archeology. William B. Lees and John D. Reynolds wrote the original version of this document in 1989. These two men were employed by the Kansas State Historical Society, respectively, as Historic Archeologist and Assistant State Archeologist. Bill Lees moved on to work in Oklahoma and Kentucky.
  • Teoc Creek a Poverty Point Site in Carroll County

    Teoc Creek a Poverty Point Site in Carroll County

    ... Archaeological Report No. 3 TEOC CREEK A Poverty Point Site .. in Carroll County, Mississippi by John M. Connaway Samuel o. McGahey Clarence H. Webb With Geological Analysis by Roger T. Saucier Edited by Priscilla M. Lowrey Mississippi Department of Archives and History Jackson, Mississippi Elbert R. Hilliard, Director 1977 - - - CONTENTS Page List of Illustrations v List of Tables vii Preface viii Acknowledgements ix 1. The Teoc Creek Site 1 .. 2. Explorations and Excavations 5 1966 Explorations 5 1969 Explorations 9 1970 Excavation 15 3. Artifacts and Raw Materials 34 .. Core Tools . 34 Blade Tools 50 Flake Tools, Flakes, and Chipping Debris 52 Raw Materials of Flaked Stone Tools • • 57 Miscellaneous Raw Materials , . • 62 Ground Stone Artifacts • 65 Miscellaneous 73 Poverty Point Objects • 74 Basketry-Impressed Baked Clay Objects 81 Pottery and Stone Vessels 87 4. Geological Analysis ••.•.. 90 5. Radiocarbon and Thermoluminescence Dates .106 iii 6. Comparisons with Other Sites .109 7. Summary and Conclusions .•117 References • .120 Index • • • • . • .124 ... ... - - - iv .. ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURES Page 1. Teoc Creek Site Map • . • . • • . 2 2. 1966 Traverse 2 and 1970 Profile Trench 7 3. Details of Test Pit 3 (1969)· . 12 4. Horizontal Plan, Levell (1970) •. 14 5. Horizontal Plan, Levels 2-6 (1970). 19 ... 6. Engraved Slate Gorgets· • 68 7. Mississippi River Meander Belts · · · . 94 ... 8. Stream Channel Changes in the Teoc Creek Site Area - Stage A · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 96 ... 9. Stream Channel Changes in the Teoc Creek Site Area - Stage B · · · · · ·· · · ·· · ·· ·· · · · · · · · 98 10. Stream Channel Changes in the Teoc Creek Site ... Area - Stage C · · · · · ·· ·· · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · 100 11. Stream Channel Changes in the Teoc Creek Site ..
  • Over 5,000 Years of History in Eastern Connecticut

    Over 5,000 Years of History in Eastern Connecticut

    OVER 5,000 YEARS OF HISTORY IN EASTERN CONNECTICUT The Story of the Tower Hill Road Site WHAT ARE CULTURAL RESOURCES AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT? Cultural resources may be anything that shows Unfortunately, these resources are fragile and evidence of having been made, used, or altered by nonrenewable. Unlike forests that can be replanted, humans. They represent the continuity of events once destroyed archaeological sites are gone forever. from the earliest evidence of human existence to the Objects from a site have little meaning unless they present day. Cultural resources that are pre-written can be related to specific soil layers (stratigraphy) record or pre-European contact in the New World and associated with other evidence of human activity, are called pre-contact or prehistoric, and those that such as a fire hearth, a trash pit, a burial pit, or the are post-written record/European contact are called structure of a building. Archaeologists call this post-contact or historic. Cultural resources range context . Any activity that disturbs the soil may from ruins that are thousands of years old to a destroy context and the scientific value of the nineteenth-century farmstead; from a small scattering archaeological site. A trained archaeologist manages of stone tools to an abandoned cart path. a site and records the information to preserve it for future generations. DIFFERENT TYPES OF CULTURAL RESOURCES bc a) Statue of Liberty in NY b) Kent Falls covered bridge in Litchfield County, CT c) Eighteenth century house foundation in Connecticut d) Native American pottery from New England d 2 IMAGINE EASTERN CONNECTICUT WITHOUT ROADS, BUILDINGS, OR FARM FIELDS AND WITH rich and varied forests, rolling hills, and free-flowing rivers and you have a picture of the landscape Native Americans inhabited thousands of years ago.