Size, shape, scars, and spatial patterning: A quantitative assessment of late Pleistocene (Clovis) point resharpening

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

Volumn 3, Issue , 2015, Pages 11-21

  Buchanan, Briggs ^a   Eren, Metin I ^b,c   Boulanger, Matthew T ^b   O'Brien, Michael J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^c CLEVELAND MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clovis; Flake scar pattern; Geometric morphometrics; Great Lakes; Least cost pathway; Resharpening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84929612436     PISSN: 2352409X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.05.011     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Adams D.C., Rohlf F.J., Slice D.E. Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the "revolution". Ital. J. Zool. 2004, 71:5-16.
2. Anderson D.G. The Paleoindian colonization of eastern North America: a view from the southeastern United States. Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America 1990, 163-216. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut. K.B. Tankersely, B.L. Isaac (Eds.).
3. Anderson D.G., Gillam J.C. Paleoindian colonization of the Americas: implications from an examination of physiography, demography, and artifact distribution. Am. Antiq. 2000, 65:43-66.
4. Andrefsky W. Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. Am. Antiq. 1994, 59:21-34.
5. Andrefsky W. Experimental and archaeological verification of an index of retouch for hafted bifaces. Am. Antiq. 2006, 71:743-757.
6. Andrefsky W. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production, and maintenance. J. Archaeol. Res. 2009, 17:65-103.
7. Andrews B.N., Knell E.J., Eren M.I. The three lives of a uniface. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2015, 54:228-236.
8. Bamforth D.B. Technological efficiency and tool curation. Am. Antiq. 1986, 51:38-50.
9. Bamforth D.B. Technological organization and hunter-gatherer land use: a California example. Am. Antiq. 1991, 56:216-234.
10. Barrish B.L. The Paleo Crossing Site: Fluted Point Typology and Chronology 1995, M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
11. The Settlement of the American Continents 2004, University of Arizona Press, Tucson. C.M. Barton, G.A. Clark, D.R. Yesner, G.A. Pearson (Eds.).
12. Bement L. Pickin' up the pieces: Folsom projectile point re-sharpening technology. Folsom Technology and Lifeways 2002, 135-140. Lithic Technology, Tulsa, Oklahoma, (Special Publications No. 4). J. Clark, M. Collins (Eds.).
13. Benjamini Y., Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29:1165-1188.
14. Bleed P. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability or reliability. Am. Antiq. 1986, 51:737-747.
15. Bookstein F.L. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
16. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology 1985, Academy of Natural Sciences Press, Philadelphia, (Special Publications, 15). F.L. Bookstein, B. Chernoff, R.L. Elder, J.M. Humphries, G.R. Smith, R.E. Strauss (Eds.).
17. Bradley B.A. Paleo-Indian Flaked Stone Technology in the North American High Plains. From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations 1993, 251-262. Plenum, New York. O. Sofer, N. Praslov (Eds.).
18. Bradley B., Collins M., Hemmings A. Clovis Technology 2010, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
19. Brose D.S. Archaeological investigations at the Paleo Crossing site, a Paleoindian occupation in Medina County, Ohio. The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area 1994, 61-76. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus. W. Dancey (Ed.).
20. Buchanan B. An analysis of Folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2006, 33:185-199.
21. Buchanan B., Collard M. A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of blade shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western North America. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37:350-359.
22. Buchanan B., Collard M. An assessment of the impact of resharpening on Paleoindian projectile point blade shape using geometric morphometric techniques. New Perspectives on Old Stones 2010, 255-273. Springer, New York. S.J. Lycett, P. Chauhan (Eds.).
23. Buchanan B., Collard M., Hamilton M.J., O'Brien M.J. Points and prey: a quantitative test of the hypothesis that prey size influences early Paleoindian projectile point form. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2011, 38:852-864.
24. Buchanan B., O'Brien M.J., Collard M. Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric-morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 2014, 6:145-162.
25. Charlin J., González-José R. Size and shape variation in late Holocene projectile points of southern Patagonia: a geometric morphometric study. Am. Antiq. 2012, 77:221-242.
26. Clarkson C. An index of invasiveness for the measurement of unifacial and bifacial retouch: a theoretical, experimental and archaeological verification. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2002, 29:65-75.
27. Cox S.L. A re-analysis of the Shoop site. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1986, 14:101-170.
28. Dryden I.L., Mardia K.V. Statistical Shape Analysis 1998, Wiley, London.
29. Ellis C. Understanding "Clovis" fluted point variability in the Northeast: a perspective from the Debert site, Nova Scotia. Can. J. Archaeol. 2004, 28:205-253.
30. Ellis C. Measuring Paleoindian range mobility and land-use in the Great Lakes/Northeast. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 2011, 30:385-401.
31. Eren M.I. The Paleo Crossing (33-ME-274) non-projectile point biface assemblage. Curr. Res. Pleistocene 2006, 23:95-97.
32. Eren M.I. The technology of stone age colonization: an empirical, regional-scale examination of Clovis unifacial stone tool reduction, allometry, and edge angle from the North American Lower Great Lakes region. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40:2101-2112.
33. Eren M.I., Andrews B.N. Were bifaces used as mobile cores by Clovis foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes region? An archaeological test of experimentally derived quantitative predictions. Am. Antiq. 2013, 78:166-180.
34. Eren M.I., Prendergast M.E. Comparing and synthesizing unifacial stone tool reduction indices. Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation 2008, 49-85. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. W. Andrefsky (Ed.).
35. Eren M.I., Buchanan B., O'Brien M.J. Social learning and technological evolution during the Clovis colonization of the New World. J. Hum. Evol. 2015, 80:159-170.
36. Gardner W.M. Flint Run Paleoindian complex and its implications for eastern North American prehistory. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1977, 288:257-263.
37. Gardner W.M. Stop me if you've heard this one before: the Flint Run Paleoindian complex revisited. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1983, 11:49-64.
38. Gingerich J. Down to seeds and stones: a new look at the subsistence remains from Shawnee-Minisink. Am. Antiq. 2011, 76:127-144.
39. Goodyear A.C. A hypothesis for the use of cryptocrystalline raw materials among Paleoindian groups of North America. Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use 1989, 1-10. Westview, Boulder, Colorado. C. Ellis, J. Lothrop (Eds.).
40. Gramly R.M. Kill sites, killing ground and fluted points at the Vail site. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1984, 12:110-121.
41. Gramly R.M., Funk R.E. What is known and not known about the human occupation of the northeastern United States until 10,000BP. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1990, 18:5-31.
42. Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T., Ryan P.D. PAST-Palaeontological Statistics, ver. 1.35. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4(9).
43. Hartigan J.A., Hartigan P.M. The dip test of unimodality. Ann. Stat. 1985, 13:70-84.
44. Hayden B., Franco N., Spafford J. Evaluating lithic strategies and design criteria. Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights Into Human Prehistory 1996, 9-45. Plenum, New York. G.H. Odell (Ed.).
45. Haynes C.V. The Clovis culture. West. Can. J. Anthropol. 1980, 1:115-121.
46. Haynes G. The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
47. Haynes C.V., Donahue D.J., Jull A.J.T., Zabel T.H. Application of accelerator dating to fluted point Paleoindian sites. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1984, 12:184-191.
48. Hoffman C.M. Projectile point maintenance and typology: assessment with factor analysis and canonical correlation. For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging Data Structure, Quantitative Technique, and Theory 1985, 566-612. Westport, Kansas City. C. Carr (Ed.).
49. Hofman J.L. Folsom land use: projectile point variability as a key to mobility. Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers 1991, 19:335-355. University of Kansas, Publications in Anthropology. A. Montet-White, S. Holen (Eds.).
50. Hofman J.L. Recognition and interpretation of Folsom technological variability on the Southern Plains. Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies 1992, 193-224. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. D.J. Stanford, J.S. Day (Eds.).
51. Holliday V.T. The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology 2000, 15:227-290.
52. Ioviţă R. Comparing stone tool resharpening trajectories with the aid of elliptical Fourier analysis. New Perspectives on Old Stones 2010, 235-253. Springer, New York. S.J. Lycett, P. Chauhan (Eds.).
53. Ioviţă R. Shape variation in Aterian tanged tools and the origins of projectile technology: a morphometric perspective on stone tool function. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e29029.
54. Ioviţă R., McPherron S.P. The handaxe reloaded: a morphometric reassessment of Acheulian and Middle Paleolithic handaxes. J. Hum. Evol. 2011, 61:61-74.
55. Kelly R.L. The three sides of a biface. Am. Antiq. 1988, 53:717-734.
56. Kelly R.L., Todd L.C. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. Am. Antiq. 1988, 53:231-244.
57. Kilby J.D. An Investigation of Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological Organization 2008, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
58. Kuhn S.L. A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits. Am. Antiq. 1994, 59:426-442.
59. Levine M. Accommodating age: radiocarbon results and fluted point sites in northeastern North America. Archaeol. East. N. Am. 1990, 18:33-63.
60. Loebel T. Endscrapers, use-wear, and early Paleoindians in eastern North America. In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition 2013, 315-330. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. J. Gingerich (Ed.).
61. Lycett S.J., von Cramon-Taubadel N. Toward a "quantitative genetic" approach to lithic variation. Archaeol. Method Theory 2015, 22:646-675.
62. Meltzer D.J. Modeling the initial colonization of the Americas: issues of scale, demography, and landscape learning. The Settlement of the American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography 2004, 123-137. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. C. Barton, G. Clark, D. Yesner, G. Pearson (Eds.).
63. Meltzer D.J. First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America 2009, University of California Press, Berkeley.
64. Miller D., Gingerich J. Paleoindian chronology and the eastern fluted point tradition. In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition 2013, 9-37. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. J. Gingerich (Ed.).
65. Mullet A. Paleoindian Mobility Ranges Predicted by the Distribution of Projectile Points Made of Upper Mercer and Flint Ridge Flint 2009, M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio.
66. Nelson M.C. The study of technological organization. Archaeol. Method Theory 1991, 3:57-100.
67. Nelson M.C. Projectile points. Projectile Technology 1997, 371-384. Springer, New York. H. Knetch (Ed.).
68. O'Higgins P. Ontogeny and phylogeny: morphometric approaches to the study of skeletal growth and evolution. On Growth and Form: Spatio-Temporal Pattern Formation in Biology 1999, 373-393. Wiley, New York. M.A.J. Chaplain, G.D. Singh, J. McLachlan (Eds.).
69. O'Higgins P. Quantitative approaches to the study of craniofacial growth and evolution: advances in morphometric techniques. Vertebrate Ontogeny and Phylogeny: Implications for the Study of Hominid Skeletal Evolution 2000, 163-185. Academic Press, London. P. O'Higgins, M. Cohn (Eds.).
70. Ricklis R.A., Cox K.A. Examining lithic technological organization as a dynamic cultural subsystem: the advantages of an explicitly spatial approach. Am. Antiq. 1993, 58:444-461.
71. Rohlf F.J. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J. Hum. Evol. 2003, 44:665-683.
72. Rohlf F.J. tpsSuper Version 1.14 Shareware Program 2004, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph).
73. Rohlf F.J. Relative Warps Version 1.46 Shareware Program 2008, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph).
74. Rohlf F.J. tpsDig Version 2.15 Shareware Program 2010, Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, (http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph).
75. Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop 1990, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (Special Publication, No. 2). F.J. Rohlf, F.L. Bookstein (Eds.).
76. Rohlf F.J., Marcus L.F. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8:129-132.
77. Rohlf F.J., Slice D.E. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 1990, 39:40-59.
78. Sahle Y., Negash A., Braun D.R. Variability in ethnographic hidescraper use among the Hadiya of Ethiopia: implications for reduction analysis. Afr. Archaeol. Rev. 2012, 29:383-397.
79. Sanchez M.G., Holliday V., Gaines E., Arroyo-Cabrales J., Martínez-Tagüeña N., Kowler A., Lange T., Hodgins G., Mentzer S., Sanchez-Morales I. Human (Clovis)-gomphothere (Cuvieronius sp.) association ~13,390 calibrated yBP in Sonora, Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014, 111:10972-10977.
80. Sellet F. Beyond the point: projectile manufacture and behavioral inference. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2004, 31:1553-1566.
81. Sholts S.B., Stanford D.J., Flores L.M., Wärmländer S.K.T.S. Flake scar patterns of Clovis points analyzed with a new digital morphometrics approach: evidence for direct transmission of technological knowledge across early North America. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39:3018-3026.
82. Shott M. On tool-class use lives and the formation of archaeological assemblages. Am. Antiq. 1989, 54:9-30.
83. Shott M. The Leavitt site: a Parkhill phase Paleo-indian occupation in central Michigan. Memoirs of the University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology 1993, 25. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
84. Shott M. How much is a scraper? Curation, use rates, and the formation of scraper assemblages. Lithic Technol. 1995, 20:53-72.
85. Shott M. The reduction thesis and its discontents: overview of the volume. Lithics 'Down Under': Australian Perspectives on Lithic Reduction, Use, and Classification 2005, 1408:109-125. BAR International Series. C. Clarkson, L. Lamb (Eds.).
86. Shott M.J. Stone-tool demography: reduction distributions in North American Paleoindian tools. New Perspectives on Old Stones 2010, 275-293. Springer, New York. S. Lycett, P. Chauhan (Eds.).
87. Shott M.J. Human colonization and late Pleistocene lithic industries of the Americas. Quat. Int. 2013, 285:150-160.
88. Shott M.J., Ballenger J.A.M. Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: a southeastern United States case study. Am. Antiq. 2007, 72:153-175.
89. Shott M.J., Hunzicker D.A., Patten B. Pattern and allometric measurement of reduction in experimental Folsom bifaces. Lithic Technol. 2007, 32:203-217.
90. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology 2005, Kluwer, New York. D.E. Slice (Ed.).
91. Slice D.E. Geometric morphometrics. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007, 36:261-281.
92. Smallwood A.M. Clovis biface technology at the Topper site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological flexibility. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010, 37:2413-2425.
93. Smallwood A.M. Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. Am. Antiq. 2012, 77:689-713.
94. Smallwood A.M., Jennings T.A. Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding 2014, Texas A&M University Press, College Station.
95. Stanford D.J. Clovis origins and adaptations: an introductory perspective. Clovis: Origins and Adaptations 1991, 1-13. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon. R. Bonnichsen, K.L. Turnmire (Eds.).
96. Stanford D.J., Bradley B.A. Across Atlantic ice: The Origin of America's Clovis Culture 2012, University of California Press, Berkeley.
97. Surovell T.A. Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology 2009, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
98. Tankersley K.B. Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement in the Midwestern United States 1989, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington.
99. Thulman D.K. Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39:1599-1607.
100. Waters M.R., Stafford T.W. Redefining the age of Clovis: implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 2007, 315:1122-1126.
101. Waters M.R., Stafford T.W., Redmond B.G., Tankersley K.B. The age of the Paleoindian assemblage at Sheriden Cave, Ohio. Am. Antiq. 2009, 74:107-111.
102. Webster M., Sheets H.D. A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. Paleontological Society Papers 2010, vol. 16:163-188. J. Alroy, G. Hunt (Eds.).
103. White A.A. Functional and stylistic variability in Paleoindian and Early Archaic projectile points from midcontinental North America. N. Am. Archaeol. 2013, 34:71-108.
104. Wormington H.M. Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 1957, 4.
105. Zelditch M.L., Swiderski D.L., Sheets H.D., Fink W.L. Geometric Morphometrics for Biologists: A Primer 2004, Elsevier, Amsterdam.