A Flute Runs Through It, Sometimes… Understanding Folsom-Era Stone Tool Variation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-2013 A Flute Runs Through It, Sometimes… Understanding Folsom-Era Stone Tool Variation Robert Detlef Lassen University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Lassen, Robert Detlef, "A Flute Runs Through It, Sometimes… Understanding Folsom-Era Stone Tool Variation. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2013. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2589 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Robert Detlef Lassen entitled "A Flute Runs Through It, Sometimes… Understanding Folsom-Era Stone Tool Variation." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Anthropology. David Anderson, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Boyce Driskell, Gerald Schroedl, Theodore C. Labotka, Michael B. Collins Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) A Flute Runs Through It, Sometimes… Understanding Folsom-Era Stone Tool Variation A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Robert Detlef Lassen December 2013 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Peter and Carol Lassen, for all their love and support, and for their heartwarming acceptance of my beloved career choice. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must extend my heartfelt appreciation to my advisor, David Anderson, whose knowledge, guidance, friendship, and mead made all of this possible. I am also thankful for his eagerness to work with me despite my choosing a topic that is slightly removed from the southeastern United States. My thanks also goes to the other members of dissertation committee: Boyce Driskell, Gerald Schroedl, Theodore Labotka, and Michael Collins, who have provided valuable insight and advice in the course of my studies. All my friends at the University of Tennessee deserve acknowledgement for keeping me sane over the years and for being willing to bounce ideas back and forth as I drifted between hypotheses, some more silly than others. Particularly, Katie Corcoran, Thaddeus Bissett, Doug Sain, Amanda Reinke, Bobby Braly, Erik Johanson, Jessica Dalton-Carriger, Sean Cary Gunter, Sarah Walters, Kimberly Wren, and Katherine McMillan Barry get my thanks for all our important and not-so-important discussions. A big thanks goes to everyone at the Gault School of Archaeological Research. As mentioned already, Michael Collins has been an unending source of wisdom on all things Folsom, Midland, and beyond (not to mention bad puns). Nancy Velchoff, Clark Wernecke, Sergio Ayala, Tom Williams, Andy Speer, Jennifer Gandy, Steve Howard, Toni Fischer, Jon Lohse, and Ashley Lemke have all been a big help between our lab discussions and “brain trust” meetings. A special thanks goes to Anna Gilmer for her helpful proofreading and hummus, and another goes to Jen Boehle Anderson for compressing my artifact photos. Finally, Brit Bousman of Texas State University provided useful suggestions for my statistical analyses. iii A lot of travel was required to make this dissertation possible, and every individual I encountered was extremely gracious and accommodating. First, the folks at TARL in Austin get my appreciation for granting me access to numerous assemblages from Texas and beyond. Particularly Laura Nightengale, Diane Ruetz, and Carolyn Spock were instrumental in providing me with the passes, artifacts, and documents I needed to conduct my research. Richard Rose of Midland was kind enough to let me into his home to study the Shifting Sands assemblage, as well as a host of other Folsom and Midland materials. Jim Warnica gave me the opportunity to photograph his Folsom materials during my visit to Blackwater Draw. Bruce Huckell took the time to let me visit his office at the University of New Mexico to analyze the Rio Rancho, Boca Negra Wash, and Deann’s site materials. Sue Weissinger of the No Man’s Land Museum in Goodwell, Oklahoma was kind enough to grant me access to the Folsom and Midland materials from the Baker Collection. Steve Holen and Isabel Tovar were essential in helping me navigate the collections at the Denver Museum, and our discussions were greatly appreciated. Tom Westfall was an amazing host and allowed me to spend several days with his collection at his home on short notice. Marcel Kornfeld, Nicole Waguespack, and George Frison managed to squeeze me into their tight schedules to allow me to look at the Folsom materials at the University of Wyoming. Wendi Murray and rest of the staff at the State Historical Society of North Dakota made me feel right at home even though I was far from it. Jim Cox of Norman, Oklahoma went well out of his way to give me the opportunity to examine his Folsom collection, and Liz Leith was kind enough to show me around the Sam Noble Museum. Finally, Dennis Stanford, Pegi Jodry, Joe Gingrich, and Judy Knight were all extremely helpful during my visit to the Smithsonian, and I would have been lost without them. iv ABSTRACT This dissertation addresses the “Folsom-Midland Problem,” in which two distinct varieties of stone projectile points occur together in many Folsom-age sites from the terminal Pleistocene in North America. In order to understand why these point types co-occur, a sample of measurements and photographs of 1,093 artifacts including points, preforms, and ultrathin bifaces has been amassed from 27 archaeological sites and three private collections across the Great Plains region of the United States. Analysis of the Folsom and Midland diagnostic artifacts from the Gault site in Central Texas provides the basis of subsequent analyses of the larger sample and indicates that the Folsom-Midland dichotomy is too simplistic to encompass the technological variation that was present during this period. Instead, Folsom-era point forms are subdivided into the following varieties: Folsom, Midland, unifacially fluted, pseudo-fluted, and miniature. Technological analyses of the total sample indicate that the five Folsom-era point types have slightly different morphologies on average with regard to maximum width, basal width, and edge grinding, suggesting that they may have been hafted differently. An analysis of flintknapping skill for each of the point types indicates that Folsom points consistently emerge as the most skillfully made on average, followed by unifacially fluted, Midland, and pseudo-fluted, respectively. Raw materials analysis reveals that Folsom points are more often made from a wider variety of raw materials than the other point types, while Midland points are more often made from the most abundant raw materials than the other points. This difference appears to be the result of Folsom preforms being carried in an unfinished state for some time before being completed and employed as points, while the other point types are more often completed in one v sitting and hafted immediately. Regional analyses show that Midland and miniature points are more common in the southern part of the Folsom geographic range, but there is no a discernible correlation with Folsom radiocarbon dates or faunal remains. Overall, flintknapping skill is determined to be the most significant factor in Folsom-era projectile point variation, although differing morphologies and raw material use also contribute to this variation. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 History of Research in Folsom Technology ................................................................................ 2 The Role of Typology ................................................................................................................. 5 Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2: THE SAMPLE ....................................................................................................... 11 Type Descriptions ..................................................................................................................... 18 Variables.................................................................................................................................... 27 Projectile Point Variables ...................................................................................................... 27 Ultrathin Biface Variables ..................................................................................................... 33 Repositories Visited .................................................................................................................. 34 Gault School of Archaeological Research ............................................................................