Morphological Variability in Clovis Hafted Bifaces
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MORPHOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CLOVIS HAFTED BIFACES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA By JUSTIN PATRICK WILLIAMS A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology MAY 2016 ©Copyright by JUSTIN PATRICK WILLIAMS, 2016 All Rights Reserved ©Copyright by JUSTIN PATRICK WILLIAMS, 2016 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of JUSTIN PATRICK WILLIAMS find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. _____________________________________ William Andrefsky, Jr., Ph.D., Chair _____________________________________ Colin Grier, Ph.D. _____________________________________ Luke Premo, Ph.D. _____________________________________ David Anderson, Ph.D. ii Acknowledgements There are so many people who helped with this and somehow I have to thank them on a couple pages. First off I have to thank all of the museums, individuals, and organizations, each with their own wonderful staff, who allowed me to work with their artifacts. This long list includes: The Milwaukee Public Museum, The Gilcrease Museum, The Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, The brave souls who work on the PIDBA, The Washington State Museum of Anthropology, The Gault Archeological Project, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History, The Alabama Archaeological Society, The Office of Archaeological Research at The University of Alabama, the Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Wyoming State Museum, the Amerind Museum and Research Center, the Montana Historical Society, David Thulman, and Ashley Smallwood. I really fear I left folks out and if so I am sorry! To Mike Mucio who taught me how to find a feature. To Jo Ann who gave me my first job in archaeology. To David and Jenny Harder who were the first two people to actually let me run a project. To Randy Cooper and Andrew Bradbury who convinced me that studying lithics was a legitimate career. To Phil Fisher, Louis Fortin, Matt Marino, Matt Landt, Charlie Reed, Rand Greubel, Kimberly Redman, Jack McNassar, and Michelle Hannum, because, honestly, I did not know you could have that much fun at work. To DMB! To Fenris, Nanook and Suma the best foot warmers (in dog form) a guy could ever need. To Kristin Safi and Patrick Dolan who held the best graduate student office hours ever. To Kelly Derr, because I needed a big “sister” in archaeology, and until I met you, I did not know it. iii To my committee. Luke Premo, I cannot believe how much I learned from you in just a short time. To David Anderson, who, to me, has always been the authority on Paleoindian archaeology. To Colin Grier, who took me on the best project I have ever had the pleasure to work on. To William Andrefsky, Jr. When all the graduate students met to complain about their adviser’s, I never had a single word to say and I have you to thank for that. I have learned so much from you. To Fernando Villanea, the best buddy a guy could have. To Jason and Nikki Williams who never let me get 100 miles from Louisville without having a great time. To my parents, Patricia and Danny Williams. In their house, learning was what you did. To Rachel Williams, who, to me, is everything. iv MORPHOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CLOVIS STYLE HAFTED BIFACES ACROSS NORTH AMERICA Abstract by Justin Patrick Williams, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2016 Chair: William Andrefsky, Jr. This study examines morphological variability of Clovis style hafted bifaces from across North America. In total 695 Clovis hafted bifaces were analyzed. These data are analyzed using a Lithic Technological Organization perspective. The effects of raw material availability, site type, retouch and resharpening are considered. Several interesting trends in the morphological variability of Clovis hafted bifaces are revealed. Each of these factors are revealed to have significant effects on the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. These effects can bias future studies of Clovis hafted biface morphology. In addition, the Northeast culture area is found to be significantly different from the rest of the Clovis hafted biface sample. This study advances the knowledge of Clovis hafted biface technology and surveys the variability in this artifact type across geographic space and present a firm foundation on which further studies of Clovis hafted bifaces may stand. v Table of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................1 2. A Short History of the Clovis Type ...........................................................................2 3. Clovis Hafted Biface Type vs Clovis Culture………………………………………5 4. A Review of Wide Ranging Studies of the Clovis Type……………………………6 5. Others Types within the Clovis Type……………………………………………...14 6. Scenarios of the Spread of Clovis Hafted Biface Technology ................................16 7. Research Questions………………………………………………………………...19 8. Summary…………………………………………………………………………...19 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PREVIOUS CLOVIS HAFTED BIFACE STUDIES ...........................................................................................................21 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................21 2.Evolutionary Theory, Cultural Transmission, and Clovis Hafted Bifaces ...............21 3. History of Cultural Transmission Theory ................................................................22 4. Style and Function ...................................................................................................23 6. Time Average Assemblages ....................................................................................26 7. Forces of Cultural Evolution and Their Estimated Effects on Clovis Style Hafted Bifaces..........................................................................................................................27 8. Natural Selection ......................................................................................................27 9. Cultural Selection.....................................................................................................29 10. Drift ........................................................................................................................29 11. Random Variation ..................................................................................................30 12. Guided Variation ....................................................................................................32 vi 13. Biased Transmission ..............................................................................................35 14. Application of Evolutionary Theory to Lithics ......................................................36 15. Cladistics as Applied to Lithics .............................................................................36 16. Human Behavioral Ecology and its Application to Lithics ...................................39 17. Accumulated Copy Error .......................................................................................42 18. Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................44 CHAPTER THREE THE SAMPLE ..................................................................................45 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................45 2. Defining Clovis ....................................................................................................45 3. Sampling Methods ...............................................................................................51 4. Short Backgrounds of the Sites in the Sample .....................................................55 5. Representativeness of the Sample ........................................................................71 6. Summary ..............................................................................................................72 CHAPTER FOUR METHODS .........................................................................................73 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................73 2. Why Images are Used ..........................................................................................73 3. Digital Image Use in Archaeology ......................................................................74 4. Image Measurement Methods ..............................................................................77 5. Definitions of Measurements Taken ....................................................................76 6. Summary ..............................................................................................................83