1
THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE
MESA PROJECTILE POINT
B Y : M A R J O L E I N A D M I R A A L S 1 7 1 6 7 9 4
V 2 . 0 A U G U S T 1 4 , 2 0 1 3
University of Groningen, the Netherlands
“The Origin and Evolution of the Mesa Projectile Point”
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Archaeology By
Marjolein Admiraal
Supervisors:
Prof. Dr. Louwrens Hacquebord Dr. Dennis Stanford
Dr. Hans Peeters
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe thanks to many people for supporting and guiding me during the process of writing this thesis. First of all, many thanks to my three supervisors: prof.dr. Louwrens Hacquebord, Dr. Dennis Stanford and Dr. Hans Peeters. Louwrens, as my professor at the University of Groningen has been my mentor for four years and has inspired me to choose an Arctic specialization during my study Archaeology. He has been a great support and a source of motivation. Many thanks to Dr. Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History where I did my internship during the summer of 2012. Dennis inspired me with his inexhaustible enthusiasm and has been a great help in discussing the thesis subject, which he handed to me in the first place. And thanks to Dr. Hans Peeters for spiking my interest in the subject of the Peopling of the Americas and stone tool technology as well as guiding me through the process of writing my thesis.
I owe an amazing experience of great educational value to Mike Kunz, now retired from the Bureau of Land Management in Fairbanks, Alaska who has also reviewed this thesis. Mike took me along for a five-‐day trip along the Northern Brooks Range where I learned first hand about the Mesa projectile point complex. I want to thank the Western Cultural Resource Management Inc. in Reno for inviting me to come to the Great Basin area and letting me study the Fire Creek assemblage of Cougar Mountain points. Many thanks to Tom Lennon, Chuck Wheeler, Ed Stoner, Geoff Cunnar and Mark Estes for taking me along on a survey and trip to the Nevada State Museum in Carson City as well as sharing ideas and knowledge.
Thanks to Eugene Hattori for allowing us access to the museum collection.
I want to thank Bill Fitzhugh of the Smithsonian Arctic Center for introducing me at the Smithsonian as an intern. Thanks to the late amateur archaeologist Tony Baker who showed great interest in my thesis subject which we discussed multiple times on the phone. Sadly I did not get the chance to meet him in person before he passed away in spring, 2012. Many thanks to Frances Seay for believing in me and supporting me. Thanks to Marcia Bakry of the Smithsonian for providing me with the map used in this thesis and offering assistance in putting in site locations. Thanks to Jeff Rasic for discussing my thesis subject with me during my stay in Fairbanks.
INDEX
Acknowledgements ... 3
List of figures and tables ... 6
Abstract ... 8
1. Introduction ... 8
2. Theory, Material and Methods ... 10
2.1. Problem definition ... 10
2.2 Working Hypothesis and Research Questions ... 15
2.3. Material and approach ... 18
3. Thick-‐bodied Lanceolate Projectile Point Types ... 21
3.1. Mesa and Sluiceway ... 21
3.1.1. Distribution ... 22
3.1.2. Environment ... 24
3.1.3. Dating ... 27
3.1.4. Lithic Technology ... 29
3.1.5. Associated Lithic Assemblages ... 34
3.1.6. Site Characteristics and inferred activities ... 35
3.1.7. Mesa and Sluiceway: the differences ... 36
3.2. Agate Basin ... 38
3.2.1. Distribution ... 39
3.2.2. Environment ... 41
3.2.3. Dating ... 43
3.2.4. Lithic technology ... 44
3.2.5. Associated lithic assemblages ... 47
3.2.6. Site characteristics and inferred activities ... 48
3.2.7. Developed out of Agate Basin: Hell Gap ... 49
3.3 Haskett ... 51
3.3.1. Distribution ... 52
3.3.2. Environment ... 55
3.3.3. Dating ... 57
3.3.4. Lithic technology ... 58
3.3.5. Associated lithic assemblages ... 62
3.3.6. Site characteristics and inferred activities ... 63
3.3.7. Cougar Mountain ... 64
3.4. El Jobo ... 65
3.4.1. Distribution ... 66
3.4.2. Environment ... 67
3.4.3. Dating ... 69
3.4.4. Lithic technology ... 71
3.4.5. Associated lithic assemblages ... 73
3.4.6. Site characteristics and inferred activities ... 74
3.4.7. Monte Verde: an El Jobo site? ... 75
5
4. Comparison ... 76
4.1 Distribution ... 77
4.2 Environment ... 81
4.3 Dating ... 82
4.4 Lithic technology ... 84
4.5 Associated lithic assemblages ... 87
4.6 Site characteristisc and inferred activities ... 87
5. Discussion and Conclusions ... 89
5.1 Aspects of technology ... 89
5.2 Chronology and Succession ... 92
5.3 Tracking the movement of a technological tradition ... 93
5.4 Conclusions ... 97
References ... 102
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURE 1: FLAKING PATTERNS (WCRM, 2012: MODIFIED FROM BECK AND JONES, 2009) ... 13
FIGURE 2: THE FOUR STUDIED PROJECTILE POINT TYPES AS PROPOSED BY KUNZ AND BAKER (2011) ... 14
FIGURE 3: VARIATIONS IN RADIOCARBON CALIBRATION (INTCAL09) DURING THE YOUNGER DRYAS (BRONK RAMSEY, 2009). ... 16
FIGURE 4: THE MESA RIGHT OF ITERIAK CREEK (VIEW FROM THE SOUTH) (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 21
FIGURE 5: DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNIFICANT MESA-‐ AND SLUICEWAY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO TABLE 1) ... 22
FIGURE 6: ARCTIC FOOTHILLS (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 24
FIGURE 7: COASTAL PLAIN (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 25
FIGURE 8: CALIBRATION CURVE FOR THE AMS DATES OF THE MESA TYPE-‐SITE. AS THE CALIBRATED DATA IS NOT USED IN THIS THESIS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS ON THE Y-‐AXIS OF THE GRAPH (BRONK RAMSAY, 2009) ... 27
FIGURE 10: MESA TYPE-‐SITE POINTS (KUNZ ET AL, 2003: P. 28) ... 30
FIGURE 11: DAMAGED MESA BASE FROM THE TUPIK SITE (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 31
FIGURE 12: MESA WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIO'S (DATA WAS COLLECTED BY THE AUTHOR FROM A SELECTION OF MESA PROJECTILE POINTS FROM VARIOUS SITES, ALL SPECIMENS WERE COMPLETE AND MEASURED AT THE WIDEST PART OF THE POINT) ... 32
FIGURE 13: GRAVERS FROM THE MESA TYPE-‐SITE (PHOTO: WWW.LITHICCASTINGLAB.COM) ... 34
FIGURE 14: MESA (22 SPECIMENS) AND SLUICEWAY (17 SPECIMENS) WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIO'S (DATA WAS COLLECTED FROM A SELECTION OF POINTS FROM THE COLLECTION OF THE BLM, SOME SLUICEWAY SPECIMENS WERE DAMAGED) ... 36
FIGURE 15: THE AGATE BASIN SITE AREA (ARROW INDICATES SITE LOCATION) (FRISON, 1978 P.151) ... 38
FIGURE 16: DISTRIBUTION OF AGATE BASIN AND HELL GAP ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES USED IN THIS STUDY (NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO TABLE 2) ... 39
FIGURE 17: BISON HERD ON THE GREAT PLAINS (PHOTO: MARK THIESSEN FOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE D.O.A. 24-‐02-‐2013) ... 42
FIGURE 18: CALIBRATION CURVE OF VARIOUS DATES OF SITES YIELDING AGATE BASIN PROJECTILE POINTS. AS THE CALIBRATED DATA IS NOT USED IN THIS THESIS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS ON THE Y-‐AXIS OF THE GRAPH (BRONK RAMSAY, 2009). ... 43
FIGURE 19: AGATE BASIN POINTS FROM THE TYPE SITE (TAYLOR, 2006). ... 44
FIGURE 20: AGATE BASIN WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIOS (DATA WAS COLLECTED FROM BAKER, 2009) ... 45
FIGURE 21: FLAKE TOOLS OF THE AGATE BASIN SITE (FRISON, 1978, P. 163) ... 47
FIGURE 22: AGATE BASIN TYPE-‐SITE BONE BED (FRISON, 1978 P.155) ... 48
FIGURE 23: HELL GAP PROJECTILE POINT FROM THE CASPER SITE (FRISON, 1978: P. 175) ... 50
FIGURE 24: HASKETT TYPE-‐SITE LOCATION (BUTLER, 1978) P.16 ... 51
FIGURE 25: HASKETT (AND SOME COUGAR MOUNTAIN (WCRM)) ESTIMATED SITE LOCATIONS ... 52
FIGURE 26: PROPOSED HASKETT POINTS FROM THE COOPERS FERRY SITE (BUTLER, 1969) ... 53
FIGURE 27: HASKETT POINT FROM THE TYPE-‐SITE (BUTLER, 1964) ... 53
FIGURE 28: STEMMED POINTS FROM THE PAISLEY CAVES SITE (BRON) ... 55
FIGURE 29: PYRAMID LAKE (NEVADA) IN THE GREAT BASIN (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 55
FIGURE 30: FALCON HILL/COLEMAN LOCALITY NEXT TO DRAINED WINNEMUCCA LAKE IN THE GREAT BASIN (PHOTO: M. ADMIRAAL) ... 56
FIGURE 31: CALIBRATION CURVE OF THE VARIOUS HASKETT COMPLEX DATES. AS THE CALIBRATED DATA IS NOT USED IN THIS THESIS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIOCARBON DETERMINATIONS ON THE Y-‐AXIS OF THE GRAPH (BRONK RAMSEY, 2009) ... 57
FIGURE 32: HASKETT POINTS FROM THE TYPE-‐SITE (BUTLER, 1965 P.19). THE HASKETT POINT ON THE LEFT (H) PROBABLY HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY REFITTED (JEFF RASIC PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, 2012) ... 59
FIGURE 33: HASKETT WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIO'S. DATA WAS COLLECTED FROM: (BUTLER, 1965; BUTLER, 1967) AND ORIGINATES FROM THE HASKETT TYPE-‐SITE. ... 60
7
FIGURE 34: SCRAPERS (A-‐C), FLAKE KNIFE (D) AND UTILIZED FLAKE (E) FROM THE RUNNINGANTELOPE SITE (RUSSELL, 1993) ... 62
FIGURE 35: COUGAR MOUNTAIN POINTS FROM COUGAR MOUNTAIN CAVE (LAFAYETTE, 2006: P.51) ... 64
FIGURE 36: TAIMA-‐TAIMA SITE (OLIVER, 2013) ... 65
FIGURE 37: DISTRIBUTION OF EL JOBO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO TABLE 4) ... 66
FIGURE 38: TAIMA-‐TAIMA SITE SETTING (KUNZ AND BAKER, 2011) ... 68
FIGURE 39: CALIBRATION CURVE FOR THE RADIOCARBON DATES OF THE EL JOBO COMPLEX. AS THE CALIBRATED DATA IS NOT USED IN THIS THESIS PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE RADIOCARBON DETERMINATION ON THE Y-‐AXIS OF THE GRAPH. DATA COMES FROM THE MUACO, TAIMA-‐TAIMA AND EL VANO SITES (BRONK RAMSAY, 2009). ... 70
FIGURE 40: EL JOBO WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIOS. DATA WAS COLLECTED FROM THE EL JOBO TYPE-‐SITE (NAMI, 1994) AND FROM THE TAIMA-‐TAIMA SITE (CRUXENT, 1979) ... 71
FIGURE 41: EL JOBO PROJECTILE POINTS (KUNZ AND BAKER, 2011) ... 72
FIGURE 42: EL JOBO MIDSECTION WITH SERRATED EDGES (PHOTO: MOJAVE, WWW.ARROWHEADOLOGY.COM) ... 73
FIGURE 43: TOOLS ASSOCIATED WITH EL JOBO POINTS (PERFORATING TOOL, PLANO-‐CONVEX SCRAPER, BLADE, HAND AXE) (OLIVER, 2013) ... 74
FIGURE 44: POINTED TOOL FROM THE MONTE VERDE SITE, CHILE (WWW.ELE.NET) ... 75
FIGURE 45: DISTRIBUTION OF SITES CONTAINING THE FOUR PROJECTILE POINT TYPES ... 77
FIGURE 46: SANTA ISABEL IZTAPAN BIFACES (AVELEYRA A. DE ANDA, 1956) ... 78
FIGURE 47: BIFACE FROM UNIT E, HUEYATLACO SITE IN PUABLA, MEXICO (PHOTO: JOE GINGERICH) ... 78
FIGURE 48: SITE DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENT FROM RAW MATERIAL SOURCES. RED ARROWS SHOW THE MOVEMENT OF THE RAW MATERIAL SOURCE LOCATION TO THE SITE WHERE THE MATERIAL WAS EXCAVATED. (LOCATIONS ARE ESTIMATED WITH LITTLE CONSEQUENCE FOR SCALE). ... 80
FIGURE 49: RADIOCARBON DATES OF THE FOUR PROJECTILE POINT COMPLEXES COMBINED (MESA: RED; AGATE BASIN: GREEN; HASKETT: YELLOW; EL JOBO: BLUE) ... 82
FIGURE 50: OLDEST TWO DATES OF EACH PROJECTILE POINT COMPLEX COMBINED (MESA: RED; AGATE BASIN: GREEN; HASKETT: YELLOW; EL JOBO: BLUE) ... 83
FIGURE 51: WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIOS OF ALL FOUR PROJECTILE POINT COMPLEXES ... 85
FIGURE 52: SOCKETED SHAFT HAFTING (DIXON, 1999) ... 90
FIGURE 53: PROPOSED ROUTES OF THE THICK-‐BODIED LANCEOLATE PROJECTILE POINT TECHNOLOGY ... 94
T A B L E S
TABLE 1: MESA AND SLUICEWAY SITES, LOCATIONS AND 14C DATES ... 23TABLE 2: BASAL CONDITIONS FOR 66 EXAMINED MESA PROJECTILE POINTS ... 31
TABLE 3: AGATE BASIN (AND HELL GAP) SITES, LOCATIONS AND 14C DATES ... 40
TABLE 4: HASKETT (AND SOME COUGAR MOUNTAIN) SITES, LOCATIONS AND 14C DATES ... 54
TABLE 5: EL JOBO SITES, LOCATIONS AND 14C DATES ... 67
TABLE 6: TAIMA-‐TAIMA RADIOCARBON DATES (BRYAN, ET AL., 1978) ... 69
TABLE 7: CALIBRATED AGES OF THE FOUR COMPLEXES ... 84
TABLE 8: MANUFACTURING TRAITS OF THE FOUR PROJECTILE POINT TYPES ... 85
TABLE 9: AVERAGE WIDTH/THICKNESS RATIOS FOR ALL FOUR PROJECTILE POINT COMPLEXES ... 86
TABLE 10: FINAL STAGES OF PROJECTILE POINT MANUFACTURE ... 86
TABLE 11: PRESENCE OF TOOL TYPES OF THE FOUR PROJECTILE POINT TYPE COMPLEXES ... 87
TABLE 12: PROJECTILE POINT COMPLEX CHARACTERISTICS ... 97
ABSTRACT
Approximately 10.500
14C years ago a people lived in Arctic Alaska that made a typical kind of projectile points. These points were tipped on atlatl darts and used to hunt animals such as horse and bison. We refer to these points as Mesa points. These bifacial projectile points represent the Paleoindian type that is found south of the continental ice-‐sheets covering North America during the last ice age. No other bifacial technologies are known north of the ice-‐sheets. So the question is: where lies the origin of this technological tradition?
Three projectile point complexes in the Americas show close similarities to the Mesa type:
Agate Basin from the Great Plains, Haskett from the Great Basin and El Jobo from Venezuela.
The points are lanceolate in shape, relatively thick with respect to their width and have many technological traits in common. Could these complexes be connected to the Mesa complex? The dating of these four complexes has shown a succession in time. From old to young: El Jobo -‐> Haskett -‐> Agate Basin -‐> Mesa. This is an indication for a possible migration or transmission of technological knowledge through contact from Venezuela all the way to the Arctic. Or could this similarity be the result of independent innovation? The reason why these projectile points are so similar is most probably found in the employment of socketed shaft hafting. This technique required a specific kind of projectile point shape.
However, flaking patterns are also generally the same with the exception of Agate Basin, which has more parallel flake scars opposed to the collateral flaking of the other three types.
El Jobo (13.000 – 11.000
14C BP) might have migrated towards the north because megafauna was becoming extinct in Venezuela and they were looking for new hunting grounds.
However, there is little evidence for such a migration. The area between El Jobo and Haskett encompasses some 6000 km without any sites similar to El Jobo and thus this idea has been rejected. Haskett (10.800 – 9.800
14C BP) might very well have been in contact with Agate Basin (10.500 -‐9.700
14C BP) as the Great Basin and Great Plains areas are bordering. Both hunting traditions probably hunted bison. At 10.500
14C BP Bison antiquus from the Great Plains migrated northward and is found in the ice-‐free corridor. Agate Basin is known to have moved northward during this period. They may have followed their prey species and ended up in the Arctic where they adapted their way of projectile point manufacture due to environmental differences, and become what we refer to as Mesa (10.300 – 9.700
14C BP).
1. INTRODUCTION
10.500 (
14C)
years ago a people lived on the Northern slope of the Brooks Range in the Arctic part of Alaska. It was a period of climatic change. Summers began to get warmer as the last ice age came to an end. These people left behind traces of their existence on hilltops and other localities on higher ground. On these high spots they were able to see far and wide in most directions. They were scouting for migrating herds of big-‐game animals on which they depended as a means of subsistence. In 1978 Michael Kunz, archaeologist at the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska started excavations on a mesa (a flat-‐topped elevation with steep sides) situated at the foothills of the Northern Brooks Range. In the preserved deposits of the site he found projectile points made in a certain, to American archaeologists, recognizable fashion. The points were thick-‐bodied, lanceolate shaped and bifacial (worked on both sides). They bear the name of their type-‐site: Mesa (Kunz et al, 2003).
9 When and from where humans first migrated to the American continent has been a topic of extensive research for decades. The general belief is that the Arctic functioned as a gateway to the New World. During the last ice age sea-‐levels were lowered due to the storage of water in land ice and the Bering Land Bridge was exposed for an extensive period of time (Goebel et al, 2008; Stanford, 2006; Waguespack, 2007; Yesner, 2001). People may have crossed the Bering Land Bridge and ended up in Alaska where they met two great continental ice-‐sheets blocking their way. The earliest possible terrestrial migration into the Americas is through the ice-‐free corridor and not before 11.500
14C BP. Because there are various sites south of the ice-‐sheets that are dated beyond 11.500
14C BP another possible migration route has been suggested: the Coastal Route. This route, along the western coast of the American continent, was passable already by 14.000
14C BP (Dixon, 2011; Mandryk et al, 2001).
As organic material is often poorly preserved, even in the Arctic, the evidence consists of lithic artefacts. Studies of stone tools of the period of the proposed entry into America have shown a significant difference between the stone tool industries of Northeastern Asia and those of the Americas south of the ice-‐sheets (Dumond, 2001; Slobodin, 2001). In Asia and north of the North American ice-‐sheets microblade technologies prevail while in the Americas biface technologies with large projectile points of the Paleoindian type, such as the famous Clovis and Folsom traditions, predominate.
The discovery of the Mesa site and associated projectile points that closely resemble those of the Paleoindian type of the mid-‐latitudes was big news among New World archaeologists.
It was reason for the renewal of old discussions about the origin and timing of the first migration. Some believe that the origin of the Mesa points is to be found in Asia among the microblade industries. Others look to the south for ancestral traces of this northern archaeological complex. In 2011, Kunz and Tony Baker compared the Mesa points to other thick-‐bodied lanceolate shaped projectile points of the continent (Agate Basin, Haskett and El Jobo) and suggested a possible technological and chronological connection between these point types (Kunz and Baker, 2011). A Paleoindian complex north of the ice-‐sheets could indicate many things. The Mesa complex could be the link between the Paleoindian complexes of the south and their, up to this day still undiscovered, Asian counterpart. Then there is also the possibility of a migration from the south to the north. This is an interesting notion that deserves further investigation. In this thesis the ideas of Kunz and Baker will be further examined and the four projectile point complexes will be discussed in detail.
The background to this research as well as methods and material will be discussed in chapter
two. Chapter three is a descriptive chapter of the four point complexes. The comparison
between the four complexes will be made in chapter four. In the discussion the relevant
data will be discussed with a focus on the meaning of similarities and differences between
the projectile points. A possible scenario will be drawn on the basis of the comparison of the
point types in hopes of answering the main research question: “What can be said about the
origin and migration patterns of the Palaeolithic people of the Mesa archaeological site by
examining the various thick-‐bodied lanceolate projectile points of the Americas?”
2. THEORY, MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1. PROBLEM DEFINITION
In this thesis four different projectile point types from different regions in the Americas are studied by looking at several characteristics. The main aspect that is studied is the lithic technology that was employed to manufacture these projectile points. The four projectile point types occur during a period between approximately 12.000 and 10.000
14C BP (uncalibrated radiocarbon years before present). It seems that these four projectile point complexes are occurring more or less as successors through time in the following order: El Jobo –> Haskett –> Agate Basin –> Mesa (Kunz and Baker, 2011).
Based on similar technological traits Kunz and Baker (2011) suggested that a relationship between these projectile point complexes might exist. If these lithics complexes are related then the question is what may be the mechanism behind the spread of this technology.
Three possible explanations are given:
1) Diffusion of technological knowledge through social contact 2) Dispersal of material culture through migration
3) Convergence of the technological trait through independent innovation
In this context it should be kept in mind that a certain projectile type (such as Mesa, Agate Basin, Haskett and El Jobo but also, for example, Clovis and Folsom) differs from a technological tradition. Usually certain projectile point types are confined to a specific area and time frame. It is assumed that this pattern reflects the use of a point type by a specific group of people. A technological tradition can reach further in both time and space than a specific tool type. Multiple groups of hunters may have used different types of projectile points made with the same manufacturing techniques during the same time (Bryan, 1980).
Terminology and background
It is important to distinguish between cultural, stylistic and technological traditions. One
cannot be sure that one cultural group did not use multiple types of projectile points with
different styles and/or technologies for different purposes. Moreover, often a ‘cultural
group’ cannot be distinguished in the archaeological record (even though many have
attempted to do so anyway). Often it cannot be determined whether different kinds of sites
(kill-‐ vs. base camps, ect.) are the product of the same group of people because these
different activity sites often yield different kinds of archaeological remains. Binford and
Bordes discussed this topic extensively with reference to explaining the variability in
Mousterian assemblages (Binford, 1972; Binford and Binford, 1966; Bordes and
deSonneville-‐Bordes, 1970). Similar stylistic assemblages can be defined as cultural groups
(Bordes and deSonneville-‐Bordes, 1970) while functional similarities represent different
activity areas (Binford, 1972; Binford and Binford, 1966). However, distinguishing a cultural
group in the archaeological record remains problematic. It can be stated that the artefacts
central to this study (projectile points) represent a specific activity: hunting. I will refer to
the proposed group of people as hunters that use the specific projectile point (e.g. Agate
Basin hunters, Mesa hunters, etc). But can you define a hunting culture by looking at the
lithic technology? This question will be discussed in chapter 5. The Haskett (Butler, 1965)
11 and Mesa (Kunz et al, 2003) complexes lack evidence of the proposed hunted animals. If there are no bones the function of the projectile points becomes less evident.
The lithic technology of different projectile point types is an interesting subject to study, assuming that one can link these different types as one technological tradition. However, a question arises here: the question of independent innovation. Can two completely unrelated people invent something without having any contact? This is possible to a certain degree as is seen in the use of various tool types (for example: projectile points, microblade technologies, the innovation of bow and arrow, and atlatl) all around the world. For example: spear-‐throwers (atlatls) were used by the Solutrean in France but also by the Australian Aborigines as well as Americas Paleoindians (Butler, 1975; McClellan III and Dorn, 2006). Microblade technology was employed from China to Europe, as well as in Siberia and later on also in North America. Some of the spread of these technologies can be explained by dispersal or diffusion. However, the widespread occurrence of these technologies indicates that it was innovated separately in different areas (Owen, 1988). Independent innovation becomes less likely when stylistic and technological traits are strikingly similar.
For example the connection between the Solutrean and Clovis traditions based on lithic technology as was argued by Stanford and Bradley (2012). When stylistic and technological traits are very similar it is interesting to explore possible explanations for contact or migration.
Care should be practiced when talking about a cultural complex. Material culture does not necessarily define a culture, as a culture encompasses behaviour, beliefs, and other practices of a specific group of people in a specific period in time. Similarities in material culture are no substantial evidence for an actual cultural connection. Many different cultures could have made use of the same projectile point technology. For example: many people in the world nowadays use knives and forks, that does not mean that everybody belongs to the same culture. The studied areas are much too big and geographically distant from each other to be compared without keeping in mind the environment and its impact on human adaptations. Swanson (Swanson, 1962) argues for the importance of environmental studies in the archaeological discipline. He describes the occurrence of clear cultural continuums in the centre of an environmentally distinct area. The further one approaches the border of an environment the more cultural overlap and adaptations one observes while in the centre of a specific environmental area the culture is less subject to other influences and does not need to adapt to different kinds of environments (Bryan, 1980).
The environment has great influence on many different things for a people dependent on hunting and gathering as a means of subsistence. First of all, the animal and plant species as well as other resources occurring in a region are the means of subsistence for human groups but certain species only thrive in certain environments and climatic zones. This is seen for example in the Great Basin region. When compared to the Great Plains region, big game was much less abundant in the Great Basin at the end of the Pleistocene. As a result smaller game was a more important means of subsistence here than it was on the Great Plains (Jenkins et al, 2004). If the hunted species differ, so will the hunters toolkit. Meltzer, (1981) states that style is independent of its environment while function is more closely related to environmental aspects. However, Buchanan and Hamilton, (2009) tested the origin of variability in projectile point shape and found no correlation to environment in this context.
Seasonality is of importance here too. In Venezuela the season are much less pronounced while in the north seasonal differences are much more noticeable (mainly in temperature).
As a result northern big-‐game hunting might have been seasonal and larger in scale, in order
to secure enough food for the winter period, while in the south the hunted animals were
present throughout the year. Technological traits are subject to the environment to the degree that certain materials needed to be available for certain technologies to be useful (for example hafting using wood or hollow reed cane). Lithic technology is adapted to specific prey-‐species as well as hunting strategies, both largely dependent on the environment. For example: in order to pierce the thick hide of a mastodon a projectile point needs to be considerably resistant to breakage; in open terrain it is expected to pay if a projectile design has good aerodynamic properties (Buchanan and Hamilton, 2009). Binford, (1980) states that hunter-‐gatherer variation is the result of strategies of organization around environmental resources. The diversity among hunter-‐gatherers has been extensively discussed by Kelly, (1995) He states that hunter-‐gatherers are much more diverse and complicated than was previously believed. This diversity can often be explained by environmental circumstances. In my view environments can be distinguished by looking at climate, fauna, flora and physiographical features. The four discussed environments differ in some of these aspects, this will further be discussed in the subsequent chapters.
The use of the term ‘migration’ as an explanation for variability in the archaeological record has been widely employed by archaeologists but often without providing a clear definition of what is meant by that term and what invokes the process. Clark, (1994) has discussed the matter thoroughly and approaches the concept of migration from the view of various disciplines (biology, genetics, anthropology, archaeology). In recent times ‘migration’ is mainly a density-‐dependent phenomenon. It is questionable if this played a major role in hunter-‐gatherer societies of the late Pleistocene (Clark, 1994). I assign the following meaning to the term ‘migration’: “a movement of people from a familiar region to another
‘unknown’ region, carrying with them genes, beliefs, material culture and other specific cultural traits”. (Clark, 1994) states that “Migration does not ‘just happen’” (p.335), migration is an adaptive strategy and it needs a trigger described as ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors.
Push factors might include: population growth, resource depletion but also social stress. A pull factor depends on the attractiveness of the recipient region, for example: desirable prey species, no hostile inhabitants, etc. The process of the spread of people in prehistory is usually gradual unless replacement is forced by these push and pull factors (Clark, 1994).
The different kinds of sites discussed in this thesis are determined by the excavated content.
Kill-‐sites are characterized by the presence of animal remains with marks of butchering in combination with the presence of weapons such as projectile points. These kinds of sites often lack the presence of tools that were used for other purposes such as scrapers, gravers, etc. Sites containing these kinds of artefacts and lacking the chaotic deposition of animal bones are often described as camp-‐sites. In many cases the remains of hunted animals were brought back to the camp and were further processed there. This results in a combination of a camp-‐site and a processing site yielding the butchered remains of hunted animals, in this case these are regarded as separate use-‐areas in one site.
A bias can occur when the time of excavation, and the excavation techniques that were employed at the time, differs. Additionally, the sampling of radiocarbon datable material at sites can have a large impact on the results. Contamination can happen easily and produce radiocarbon dates that are unreliable in their context. Therefore sites that have been extensively dated (such as the Mesa site) with many radiocarbon dates are much more reliable than sites that have been dated with only a few radiocarbon dates. Outliers are much more visible in a big group of dates. Moreover, the difference between the standard radiocarbon dating and Accelerator Mass Spectometry AMS dating can make it difficult to compare results of dates produced by both two methods.
13 Lithic Technology
Some focus should be on the technique of hafting, as this mostly determines the shape of the projectile point. With hafting the placement of the projectile point into the foreshaft of an atlatl dart or spear is meant. While the main focus in this thesis is on lithic technology, morphology is also of importance because of the above mentioned. The morphology of a point type also indicates something about technology in this case. Shape is the product of function but also stylistic tradition. Bryan (1980) argues that if the two are often found together a hypothesis that they are part of one cultural tradition is easier defendable. In Wiessner’s (1983) article about style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points she emphasizes the earlier statement of (Binford, 1965) that when looking for stylistic aspects the analyst is often looking for characteristics that are non-‐functional. She also stresses a statement of (Sackett, 1972) that in fact social information might be contained in attributes that are not recognized by the analyst. These attributes might be shape, flaking methods, etc beside obvious decorations of the shaft (when preserved).
In exploring the stylistic traits of San projectile points Wiessner, (1983) showed that most stylistic features, containing social information or not, were incorporated on the shaft of the arrows that were studied. Of the materials studied in this thesis no shafts have been preserved and thus this information is lost to us. It is interesting how the San people recognize different shapes of projectile points as belonging to either their own people or unknown, and thus unpredictable, people. Discovering an unknown projectile point on their territory is seen as a threat from unknown people. In this sense the shape of a projectile point can hold another purpose: recognition of information about groups and boundaries.
The options for stylistic features other than general shape on the here-‐discussed projectile points are limited. A possible stylistic feature on lithic projectile points can be various types of flaking as is displayed on figure 1. Projectile point morphology is however mainly functional. Shape and function was probably determined by experiment and successful designs were kept in use (Meltzer, 1981; Mesoudi and O'Brien, 2008).
The four projectile point types have a similar morphology, including thickness/width ratio and flaking patterns. This is the main reason that they stood out and were linked together by Kunz and Baker (2011), that and their thickness. They are all made by a bifacial thickening technology which leaves the point narrow and thick in opposition to wide and thin as with thinning strategies applied by Clovis and Folsom toolmakers (Stanford, 2006).
FIGURE 1: FLAKING PATTERNS (WCRM, 2012: MODIFIED FROM BECK AND JONES, 2009)
What stands out most about the lithic technology of these projectile point types is the
collateral flaking technique (fig.1) that is nicely visible on all the projectile points with
exception of most Agate Basin points. Collateral flaking is defined as the removal of flakes
that meet on the midline of the core (in this case the projectile point). As a result a
symmetric pattern dominates the projectile points. The flake scars are regular, relatively wide and feather out to the midline.
FIGURE 2: THE FOUR STUDIED PROJECTILE POINT TYPES AS PROPOSED BY KUNZ AND BAKER (2011)
