2015 Review in Lithic Technology: "Pre-Clovis in the Americas"

BOOK REVIEW PRE-CLOVIS IN THE AMERICAS: INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS Dennis Joe Stanford and Alison T. Stenger. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Smithsonian Institution edition, .  pp. (soft cover), $. ISBN-: ; ISBN-:  Pre-Clovis in the Americas stems from a symposium held on – November , at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. Published in March, , this compilation consists of a foreword and  of the  conference presentations. Chapter authors from both North and South America present archaeological, paleoenvironmental, and/or geological data as evidence of, or context for, pre-Clovis (before circa , calendar years BP) human occupations in the Americas. This book follows Stanford and Bradley’s () Across Atlantic Ice, in which they advocate a late Pleistocene, pre-Clovis colonization from western Europe to eastern North America. Although much of the current pre-Clovis debate is focused on this “Solutrean hypothesis” (e. g., O’Brien et al. ), all but one of the chapters in this volume targets other pre-Clovis study areas. Along with several synthetic chapters in Graf et al. (), these papers provide a “snapshot” of the current state of pre-Clovis research in the Americas (p. ). In their foreword, James Adovasio and David Pedler set the stage by contrasting “Clovis-First” and pre-Clovis models of New World colonization, characterizing the former as a “venerable, but fatally flawed paradigm” (p. ) that dominated discourse  years ago. They believe the situation began to change in the mid-late s with the excavation, analysis, and preliminary reporting of the Meadowcroft rockshelter (Pennsylvania) and Monte Verde (Chile) sites. Together, “these sites…would shift the pendulum slowly but inexorably away from Clovis First” (p. ). They close by suggesting that that no one single hypothesis currently exists to replace Clovis-First, and argue “it is probable that no one hypothesis will ever satisfactorily and definitively explain the late Pleistocene colonization of the New World” (p. ). The first chapter by Alison Stenger (“Pre-Clovis in the Americas: Characterizing Early Sites, Material Culture, and Origins”) introduces the © W. S. Maney & Son Ltd  DOI: ./Z. volume’s other contributed papers. She states that the “purpose of the conference and this publication is to expand our familiarity with pre-Clovis…[and] to determine what defines preClovis, other than age.” She then sets out a series of research issues as context for the remaining papers, including: the relationships of terrestrial versus submerged early sites, stylistic and technological attributes of pre-Clovis material culture, and the biological affinity(s) of first Americans. However, she too often presents her opinions as self-evident facts (e.g., “We now know that the Americas were occupied , years before Clovis aged cultures emerged.”). Further, the citations to support several of her assertions consist of unpublished research, conference presentations, or personal communications – sources that are not accessible to the broader research community and that should not constitute primary references. In their contribution, “Inundated Landscapes and Colonization of the Northeastern Gulf Of Mexico,” Andrew Hemmings and Adovasio summarize their survey for submerged former terrestrial sites off the west coast of Florida, between  and . Their research rationale relies in part on the low bathymetric gradient in the eastern Gulf of Mexico: because of the rapid rate of sea level rise in the late Pleistocene, they argue that this study area possesses greater potential for preserved archaeological sites. Using a combination of remote sensing methods, they have focused on identifying () LGM shorelines, () now-drowned channels of master streams in the region (Suwannee and Aucilla-St. Marks), () locations of potential toolstone outcrops, and () sinkholes and other geomorphic features that may have better buried potential for cultural materials. They combined these remote sensing studies with a “ground truthing” dive component at survey locations of intermediate water depth (– m), including preliminary test probing using dredge equipment. Although rough seas Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –  BOOK REVIEW and mechanical issues have hampered field investigations, they have identified and sampled a chert outcrop (“the Brownstone site”) fronting the inundated Suwanee River channel. In closing, they note that while Florida’s xeric late Pleistocene environment may have encouraged interior Paleoindian settlement around isolated surficial aquifers (Thulman ), fluted point affiliated groups also could not have ignored the rapid transgression of western Florida’s late Pleistocene shorelines. In the chapter titled, “Loess, Landscape Evolution, and Pre-Clovis on the Delmarva Peninsula,” John Wah, Darrin Lowery, and Daniel Wagner summarize of their ongoing research in the Delmarva on late Pleistocene landscapes and archaeology. This interdisciplinary research has focused on delineating the relationship between late Pleistocene artifact/site distributions, laterally extensive sedimentary deposits and soil formations, and late Pleistocene shorelines. Their research has emphasized the western Delmarva Peninsula, where they see a greater potential for recognition and recovery of pre-Clovis material in stratified settings. Building on research reported in earlier publications (e.g., Lowery et al. ), their geoarchaeological studies at six localities have documented an older late Pleistocene deposit in the Western Delmarva, the Miles Point Loess, superimposed by the younger, more widespread Paw Paw Loess. Based on radiocarbon and OSL dating, they conclude that lithic artifacts found in the top of the Miles Point Loess (at the Miles Point and Oyster Cove sites), are pre-Clovis in age. Clovis-affiliated Paleoindian material, found at an unconformity separating these two deposits (at the Paw Paw Cove and Jefferson Island sites), dates “the onset of younger overlying Paw Paw Loess deposition to approximately , years BP, coinciding with the onset of [dry conditions associated with] the Younger Dryas” (p. ). The authors emphasize that, because of shoreline transgression associated with late Pleistocene sea level rise, these localities would have been interior upland settings, situated several kilometers from the ancestral Susquehanna River channel, with landforms closer to this channel during the late Pleistocene now submerged. Jorie Clark, Jerry Mitrovica and Jay Alder report on “Regional Variability in Latest Pleistocene and Holocene Sea-Level Rise Across the California-Oregon-Washington and Bering Sea Continental Shelves.” They stress that regional modeling of late Pleistocene sea level rise and attendant marine shoreline positions cannot rely solely on global eustatic mean sea level data, but must take into account other factors, including “isostatic, gravitational, and rotational effects associated with the exchange of mass between ice sheets and oceans that…led to significant regional departures from eustasy” (p. ). This is particularly true in more northern regions where deglacial isostatic dynamics were especially pronounced. For their study area, their model indicates that during parts of the terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene, interplay of these factors resulted in regional sea levels and shoreline positions inconsistent with global eustatic data. For the Northwest coast of North America, of course, this has important implications for the viability of a possible coastal route (versus an “Ice Free Corridor” pathway) for scenarios of late Pleistocene human colonization south from Beringia. “Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect ,” by Adovasio and Pedler, summarizes the site and discusses its role in understanding the peopling of the Americas. Situated on the unglaciated Appalachian Plateau in western Pennsylvania, Adovasio and colleagues conducted meticulous excavations at Meadowcroft in the s and early s, revealing deeply stratified deposits containing Holocene and late Pleistocene occupations. The site is of course best known for its evidence of late Pleistocene human occupation in middle/ lower Stratum IIa and associated pre-Clovis radiocarbon dates. This overview reiterates previously published site information, but readers will be interested to review the first calibrated determinations of the Meadowcroft’s radiocarbon chronology (table , figure ). The original dates from middle and lower Stratum IIa (generated by standard radiometric counting in the s and s), range from , to , RCYBP, and yield calibrations from ,– Cal. BC to ,–, Cal. BC. The single standard deviation spreads for these middle and lower Stratum IIa date calibrations are very broad (as much as – years each). Throughout this chapter, the authors comment on the seemingly never-ending controversy that surrounds Meadowcroft, stemming from persistent questions about the site by other researchers. However, AMS re-dating of Meadowcroft (thereby significantly increasing the precision of its radiocarbon chronology), along with publication of a comprehensive site report, would likely address many if not all of the questions that remain about this very important site. Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , – BOOK REVIEW Michael Johnson’s contribution, “Modeling Cactus Hill (Sx),” summarizes his recent doctoral dissertation research. In the late s and early s, Joseph McAvoy, excavated at Cactus Hill, a dune field site in the Nottaway Valley of southeastern Virginia’s Coastal Plain, encountering a stratified archaeological sequence with reported Clovis (fluted point) and pre-Clovis (unfluted lanceolate point) components (partially reported in McAvoy and McAvoy ). Johnson also excavated at Cactus Hill, and his goal in the study reported here was determine if the late Pleistocene cultural sequence at Cactus Hill could be replicated in other parts of the Nottaway drainage. Johnson used the setting and stratigraphy of Cactus Hill, combined with a review of regional landscapes and soils, to predict comparable landforms in the Nottaway Valley that could contain Clovis/pre-Clovis occupations. After identifying a series of candidate locales, Johnson conducted staged test excavations, identifying four multicomponent sites. Of these, the Rubis-Pearsall site contained a fluted point/ Clovis component, while the Blueberry Hill site produced a possible pre-Clovis component indicated by a basally thinned quartzite biface. Six OSL determinations at Blueberry Hill support a projected pre-Younger Dryas age for the host landform, but do not unequivocally confirm the pre-Clovis age of the deepest component. Looking more broadly, Johnson sees potential links between reported pre-Clovis lanceolate points at Cactus Hill, possibly at Blueberry Hill, and at Smith Mountain Gap (Py), the latter located in the Roanoke River drainage,  km to the west. Rafael Suarez’s chapter, “Pre-Fishtail Settlement in the Southern Cone circa ,–, Yr Cal BP: Synthesis, Evaluation, and Discussion of the Evidence,” covers more ground than his title implies. He begins by evaluating pre-Clovis site candidates in the Southern Cone region of South America, concluding that three sites reliably document human occupations there between  and , Cal BP: Monte Verde II (Chile), and Arroyo Seco  and Piedra Museo (Argentina). Based on Waters and Stafford () chronological definition for Clovis, Suarez argues that Clovis is “…at most, only  years older than the Fishtail complex,” suggesting they both derived from “an older common ancestor; and both evolved in different ways in North and South America.” (p. ). Suarez also summarizes post-Fishtail occupations in northern Uruguay, represented by  sites with stemmed Tigre points (,–, Cal BP) and concave-based, stemmed Pay Paso points (,– Cal BP). In “Plant Fiber Technologies and the Initial Colonization of the New World,” Adovasio brings his expertise to bear on the timing and formats of early perishable technologies in the New World. As counterpoint, he surveys findings for the Old World, reporting discoveries of fiberbased artifacts at sites in Europe dating to the Upper Paleolithic. His review of late Pleistocene perishable fiber artifacts in the New World includes North American localities such as Meadowcroft and Hiscock and finds at South American sites such as Monte Verde and Guitarrero Cave. He notes that, in the New World, “… twining is the earliest basketry or textile production technique known from virtually all of the areas…with the possible exception of eastern North America” (based on evidence for early plaiting basketry at Meadowcroft) (p. ). Although typically rare, Adovasio reminds us that perishable artifacts are not uncommon in dry rockshelter, anaerobic wet, and permafrost archaeological contexts. As well, modern melting ice patches and glaciers in northern regions have also yielded reported perishable fiber artifacts, along with other prehistoric organic and stone technologies (e.g., Dixon et al. ). In closing, Adovasio suggests that “the development of plant-fiberbased industries may represent a technological signature of many late Pleistocene populations in much the same way as blade tool manufacture does” (p. ), but with the added potential implication from this technology of broad-spectrum hunting and collecting for some groups. David Rice’s contribution, “Origin and Antiquity of a Western North American Stem Point Tradition: A Pre-Clovis Perspective,” is a largely speculative essay on pre-Clovis archaeology in North America and the Western Stemmed Tradition (WST). He begins by reviewing a “random short list of recently dated pre-Clovis finds from the Intermontane West.” However, based on his listed dates, several of these discoveries are Clovis contemporaries rather than pre-Clovis. This essay is diminished by non-reference to key publications on the WST (e.g., Beck and Jones ), citations of websites as primary sources of information, and reference to a conspiracy theorist on allegedly suppressed pre-Clovis discoveries. Rice proposes that the Late Paleoindian Cody complex may have developed out of the WST, but does not construct a supporting argument. Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –  BOOK REVIEW While I agree with Rice’s basic premise that there may be “multiple pre-Clovis archaeological traditions in New World prehistory,” his position that we should “…be open to situations of apparent lack of physical evidence and…search, instead, for subtle circumstantial evidence…” (p. ) makes me uncomfortable. In “Paleoenvironments and Paleoindians in Eastern South America,” Adolpho Gomes de Mello Araujo takes a geoarchaeological approach in looking at the region’s late Pleistocene and early Holocene archaeological records. He links current evidence for regional variation in paleoclimates and paleoenvironments in eastern South America with Knox’s () model of biogeomorphic response to abrupt climate change as a key to understanding the differential preservation of late Pleistocene landscapes and archaeological sites across eastern South America. Hence, paleoenvironmental data are more than just evidence of environments that early populations had to adapt to – they are also critical to inferring the regional-scale impacts of Ice Age and early Holocene climate change on ancient landscapes and resulting effects on early site preservation. Noting that most late Pleistocene sites are encountered by chance, Araujo argues for a way forward involving more explicit regional geomorphic perspectives, looking at lithic scatters and sites across landscapes. Stenger presents the last chapter, “Submerged Lithic Tools Indicate Alternative Procurement Strategies.” She considers discoveries of lithic artifacts in subaqueous marine and freshwater settings across North America. She argues for three trends in her data, including: a range of geographic areas and time periods represented, different cultural styles and technologies, and variable activities represented by the tool types. These ideas are intriguing, but I found the paper frustrating because there is no specific presentation of data that would permit the reader to evaluate her conclusions. By way of example, her photographs of artifact discoveries (bifaces, crescents, etc.) are accompanied by generic captions that provide no information on provenience or association. Looking at the volume as a whole, from a production/editorial standpoint, there are significant shortcomings. There is no consistency between individual contributions in typographic and illustration formats. Some papers include abstracts, and some do not. These are not purely cosmetic issues: for example, figures in some papers are reproduced at scales so small, or at levels of resolution so low, as to be indecipherable, thus detracting from rather than enhancing individual chapters. It is also not readily apparent that these papers went through external peer review and revision, a standard pre-publication protocol for an edited volume that helps to elevate the caliber of individual papers as research contributions. From a research perspective, the strongest aspect of Pre-Clovis in the Americas is how several papers examine their study areas as regional mosaics of terrestrial and marine landscapes with often complex geomorphic histories that condition late Pleistocene site preservation and visibility. As Araujo notes (p. ), such an approach will help move us beyond an often self-limiting focus in earlier decades on accidentally discovered sites with possible early components. Turning to the current archaeological debates on pre-Clovis occupations in the New World, while some contributors in this volume still clearly have a chip on their shoulders, I think we can move beyond this. In , if one polled New World archaeologists familiar with the literature, I suspect most would agree there is a growing body of evidence for human occupations in the Americas that predate circa , Cal BP. However, we remain hampered by limited and regionally variable data sets, and we are still far from understanding who were the earliest peoples in the Americas, and what they represent in terms of distinct populations, episodes and routes of colonization, life ways, and regional occupation histories. In the near-term, I think we would all be best-served by placing less emphasis on developing (and arguing about) origin stories from very limited evidence, and instead, focusing on evaluating individual archaeological findings on their own merits, as they come to light. As preClovis research moves forward on a number of fronts, advancing our collective knowledge base and understanding will still rely on detailed reporting of recent and not-so-recent site investigations and surveys. Jonathan C. Lothrop Anthropology Division, New York State Museum, Cultural Education Center,  Madison Avenue, Albany, NY  Email: jonathan.lothrop@nysed.gov REFERENCES Beck, Charlotte and George T. Jones  Clovis and Western Stemmed: Population Migration and the Meeting of Two Technologies in the Intermountain West. American Antiquity (): –. Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , – BOOK REVIEW Dixon, E. James, William F. Manley, and Craig M. Lee  The Emerging Archaeology of Glaciers and Ice Patches: Examples from Alaska’s Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve. American Antiquity (): –. Graf, Kelly E., Carol V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters  Paleoamerican Odyssey. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University, College Station. Knox, J. C.  Valley Alluviation in Southwestern Wisconsin. Annals of the Association of American Geographers : –. Lowery, Dennis L., Michael A. O’Neal, John S. Wah, Daniel P. Wagner, and Dennis J. Stanford.  Late Pleistocene upland stratigraphy of the western Delmarva Peninsula, USA. Quaternary Science Reviews : –. McAvoy, Joseph M., and Lynn D. McAvoy  Archaeological Investigations of Site Sx. Research  Report Series No. . Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Cactus Hill, Virginia, Sussex County. O’Brien, Michael J., Matthew T. Boulanger, Mark Collard, Briggs Buchanan, Lia Tarle, Lawrence G. Strauss, and Metin Eren.  On Thin Ice: Problems with Stanford and Bradley’s Proposed Solutrean Colonization of North America. Antiquity : –. Stanford, Dennis J., and Bruce A. Bradley  Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America‘s Clovis Culture. University Of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. Thulman, David K.  Freshwater Availability as the Constraining Factor in the Middle Paleoindian Occupation of North-Central Florida. Geoarchaeology  (): –. Waters, Michael R., and Thomas W. Stafford, Jr  Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science : –. Lithic Technology , Vol.  No. , –