Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T07:01:16.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Metin I. Eren  and
Brian N. Andrews
Metin I. Eren
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, U.K. (metin.i.eren@gmail.com)
Brian N. Andrews
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Sociology, and Criminal Justice, Rogers State University, Claremore, Oklahoma 74017 (bnandrews@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion that Paleoindians used bifaces as “mobile cores” is widespread in Late Pleistocene lithic research, although it can be difficult to test empirically. Here, we use experimental replication to establish two quantitative predictions that would be indicative of biface-core transport. If bifaces are being used as mobile cores, then we should see among a group of sites of varying toolstone procurement distances (a) a negative relationship between toolstone procurement distance and the mean unifacial tool maximum-thickness value from each site; and (b) a negative relationship between toolstone procurement distance and the variability (standard deviation) of maximum flake thickness values from each site. We then test these predictions against data from six Clovis sites of varying toolstone procurement distance in the Lower Great Lakes region. The results show that both sets of data possess a strong, positive relationship with increasing toolstone procurement distance, which is inconsistent with the notion that biface-cores were transported. Since the Clovis presence in the Lower Great Lakes is widely acknowledged to be a colonization pulse, we conclude that the lack of biface-core transport there is an economizing and risk-mitigating behavior consistent with the models of Kuhn (1994) and Meltzer (2002, 2003, 2004).

Resumen

Resumen

La idea de que los Paleoindios usaban bifaces a modo de “núcleos móviles” se ha generalizado en la investigación del registro lítico del Pleistoceno tardío a pesar de que su comprobación empirica pueda resultar difícil. En este trabajo utilizamos réplicas experimentales con el fin de establecer dos expectativas de tipo cuantitativo que puedan utilizarse como indicadores del transporte de los bifaces-núcleo. Si éstos están siendo utilizados como núcleos-móviles debería observarse en un grupo de yacimientos que presente variaciones en las distancias de aprovisionamiento de recursos líticos (a) una relación negativa entre ésta y la media del valor máximo del espesor de las piezas unifaciales de cada uno de ellos; así como (b) una relación negativa entre la distancia de aprovisionamiento y la variabilidad (desviación estándar) del valor máximo del espesor de sus respectivas lascas. A continuación se evalúa el modelo que proponemos a partir de los datos procedentes de seis yacimientos Clovis de la región baja de los Grandes Lagos. Los resultados muestran que ambas expectativas poseen una relación positiva y estadísticamente significativa de las distancias de aprovisionamiento, incompatible con la idea de que los bifaces-núcleos fueron transportados. Dado que la presencia de Clovis en la región baja de los Grandes Lagos es ampliamente concebida como un impulso de la colonización, se concluye que la falta de bifaces-núcleo transportados responde en dicha área a un comportamiento económico dirigido a mitigar riesgos, acorde con los modelos de Kuhn (1994) y Meltzer (2002, 2003, 2004).

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 166 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Andrews, Brian N. 2010 Folsom Adaptive Systems in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado: An Analysis of the Mountaineer Site. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Andrews, Brian N., Seebach, Jason M., and LaBelle, John D. 2008 Spatial Variability in the Folsom Archaeological Record: A Multi-Scalar Approach. American Antiquity 73:464–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, Will, and Braun, David R. 2010 Variability in Bifacial Technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: A Geometric Morphometric Approach. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:201–209.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2003 Rethinking the Role of Bifacial Technology in Paleoindian Adaptations on the Great Plains. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 209–228. University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Bamforth, Douglas B. 2009 Projectile Points, People, and Plains Paleoindian Perambulations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:142–157.Google Scholar
Ofer, Bar-Yosef, Eren, Metin I., Yuan, Jiarong, Cohen, David, and Li, Yiyuan 2012 Were Bamboo Tools Made in Prehistoric Southeast Asia? An Experimental View from South China. Quaternary International 269:9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bement, Leland C. 1999 Bison Hunting at Cooper Site: Where Lightning Bolts Drew Thundering Herds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 1983 Long Term Land Use Patterns: Some Implications for Archaeology. In Lulu Linear Punctuated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Robert Dunnell and Donald Grayson, pp. 27–54. Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Boldurian, Anthony T. 1991 Folsom Mobility and Organization of Lithic Technology: A View from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 36:281–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Bruce A., Collins, Michael B., and Hemmings, Andrew 2010 Clovis Technology. Archaeological Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Bradley, James W., Spiess, Arthur E., Boisvert, Richard A., and Boudreau, Jeff 2008 What’s the Point? Modal Forms and Attributes of Paleoindian Bifaces in the New England-Maritimes Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 36:119–172.Google Scholar
Brose, David S. 1994 Archaeological Investigations at the Paleo Crossing Site, A Paleoindian Occupation in Medina County, Ohio. In The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by William S. Dancey, pp. 61–76. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
Cable, John S. 1996 Haw River Revisited: Implications for Modeling Terminal Late Glacial and Early Holocene Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems in the Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 107–149. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Clarkson, Chris 2010 Regional Diversity within the Core Technology of the Howiesons Poort Techno-Complex. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth Chauhan, pp. 43–59. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Michael B. 1999 Clovis and Folsom Lithic Technology on and near the Southern Plains: Similar Ends, Different Means. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amick, pp. 12–38. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Costa, August G. 2010 A Geometric Morphometric Assessment of Plan Shape in Bone and Stone Acheulean Bifaces from the Middle Pleistocene Site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In New Perspectives on Old Stones: Analytical Approaches to Paleolithic Technologies, edited by Stephen J. Lycett and Parth Chauhan, pp. 23–41. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Davidson, Iain 2002 The Finished Artefact Fallacy: Acheulian Hand Axes and Language Origins. In Transitions to Language, edited by Alison Wray, pp. 180–203. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dincauze, Dena F. 1993 Fluted Points in the Eastern Forests. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptations, edited by Olga Soffer and N.D. Praslov, pp. 279–292. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J. 2008 The Fluted Point Tradition and the Arctic Small Tool Tradition: What’s the Connection? Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:298–314.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J. 2011 Measuring Paleoindian Range Mobility and Land-Use in the Great Lakes/Northeast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:385–401.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J., and Brian Deller, D. 2000 An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parkhill, Ontario. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 159. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Christopher J., Carr, Dillon H., and Loebel, Thomas J. 2011 The Younger Dry as and Late Pleistocene Peoples of the Great Lakes Region. Quaternary International 242:534–545.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I. 2009 Paleoindian Stability during the Younger Dryas in the North American Lower Great Lakes. In Transitions in Prehistory: Papers in Honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef, edited by John J. Shea and Daniel E. Lieberman.pp. 385–417. American School of Prehistoric Research Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I. 2011 Behavioral Adaptations of Human Colonizers in the North American Lower Great Lakes Region. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I. 2012 Were Unifacial Stone Tools Regularly Hafted by Clovis Foragers in the North American Lower Great Lakes Region? An Empirical Test of Edge Class Richness and Attribute Frequency among Distal, Proximal, and Lateral Tool-Sections. Journal of Ohio Archaeology, in press.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Chao, Ann, Hwang, Wenhan, and Colwell, Robert 2012 Estimating the Richness of a Population when the Maximum Number of Classes is Fixed: A Nonparametric Solution to an Archaeological Problem. PLoS ONE 7(5): e34179. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034179.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Desjardine, Adrienne 2012 Flaked Stone tools of Pleistocene Colonizers: Overshot Flaking at the Red Wing Site, Ontario. In Clovis: Current Perspectives on Technology, Chronology and Adaptations, edited by Thomas Jennings and Ashley Smallwood. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, in press.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Lycett, Stephen J. 2012 Why Levallois? A Morphometric Comparison of Experimental “Preferential” Levallois Flakes Versus Debitage Flakes. PLoS ONE 7(1):e29273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Vanderlaan, Stanley, and Holland, Jack 2011 Overshot Flaking at the Arc Site, Genesee County, New York: Examining the Clovis-Gainey Connection. The Open Anthropology Journal 4:40–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Lycett, Stephen J., Roos, Christopher, and Garth Sampson, C. 2011 Toolstone Constraints and Knapping Skill: Levallois Reduction with Two Different Rock Types. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2731–2739.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Redmond, Brian G. 2011 Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Medina County, Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173–194.Google Scholar
Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials Among Paleoindian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series 156, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Hofman, Jack L. 1991 Folsom Land Use: Projectile Point Variability as a Key to Mobility. In Raw Material Economies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by Anta Montet-White and Steven R. Holen, pp. 335–355. Publications in Anthropology 19. University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Hofman, Jack L. 1992 Recognition and Interpretation of Folsom Technological Variability on the Southern Plains. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by Dennis J. Stanford and Jane S. Day, pp. 193–224. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.Google Scholar
Hofman, Jack L. 2003 Tethered to Stone or Freedom to Move: Folsom Biface Technology in Regional Perspective. In Multiple Approaches to the Study of Bifacial Technologies, edited by Marie Soressi and Harold L. Dibble, pp. 229–249. University of Pennsylvania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Hofman, Jack L., Amick, Daniel, and Rose, Richard O. 1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-Midland Assemblage from a Campsite in Western Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35:221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Charles E., Potter, Ben A., Reuther, Joshua D., Mason, Owen K., Thorson, Robert M., and Bowers, Peter M. 2008 Geological and Cultural Context of the Nogahabara I Site. American Antiquity 73:781–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingbar, Eric E. 1992 The Hanson Site and Folsom on the Northwestern Plains. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by Dennis J. Stanford and Jane S. Day, pp. 193–224. Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver.Google Scholar
Jennings, Thomas A. 2012 Clovis, Folsom, and Midland Components at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas: Context, Chronology, and Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science, in press.Google Scholar
Jennings, Thomas A., Pevny, Charlotte D., and Dickens, William A. 2010 A Biface and Blade Core Efficiency Experiment: Implications for Early Paleoindian Technological Organization. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2155–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Michael F. 1996 Paleoindians near the Edge: A Virginia Perspective. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 187–214. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
Julig, Patrick J. 2002 The Sheguiandah Site: Archaeological, Geological, and Paleobotanical Studies at a Paleoindian site on Manitoulin Island, Ontario. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 161. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53:717–734.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 2003 Colonization of New Land by Hunter-Gatherers: Expectations and Implications Based on Ethnographic Data. In Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeology of Adaptation, edited by Marcy Rockman and James Steele, pp. 44–58. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Kelly, Robert L., and Todd, Lawrence C. 1988 Coming into the Country. Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53:231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilby, James David 2008 An Investigation of Clovis Caches: Content, Function, and Technological Organization. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Koldehoff, Brad, and Loebel, Thomas J. 2009 Clovis and Dalton: Unbounded and Bounded Systems in the Midcontinent of North America. In Lithic Materials and Paleolithic Societies, edited by Brian Adams and Brooke S. Blades,pp. 270–287. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Steven L. 1994 A Formal Approach to the Design and Assembly of Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 59:426–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBelle, Jason M. 2005 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability during the Early Holocene of the Central High Plains of North America. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
LeTourneau, Philippe D. 2001 Evidence of the Role of Bifacial Cores in Folsom Lithic Technology. Current Research in the Pleistocene 18:36–39.Google Scholar
Loebel, Thomas J. 2005 The Organization of Early Paleoindian Economies in the Western Great Lakes. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lothrop, Jonathan C. 1988 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghamton.Google Scholar
Lothrop, Jonathan C. 1989 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by Christopher J. Ellis and Jonathan C. Lothrop, pp. 99–138. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Lothrop, Jonathan C., Newby, Paige E., Spiess, Arthur E., and Bradley, James W. 2011 Paleoindians and the Younger Dryas in the New England-Maritimes Region. Quaternary International 242:546–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, George F. 1968 Debert. A Paleo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. National Museums of Canada, Anthropology Paper 16, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2002 What Do You Do When No One’s Been There Before? Thoughts on the Exploration and Colonization of New Lands. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World, edited by Nina Jablonski, pp. 27–58. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences No. 27. University of California Press, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2003 Lessons in Landscape Learning. In Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The Archaeology of Adaptation, edited by Marcy Rockman and James Steele, pp. 222–241. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2004 Modeling the Initial Colonization of the Americas: Issues of Scale, Demography, and Landscape Learning. In The Settlement of the American Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, edited by C. Michael Barton, Geoffrey A. Clark, David R. Yesner, and Georges A. Pearson, pp. 123–137. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Meltzer, David J. 2009 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Moreau, Claudia, Bherer, Claude, Vezina, Helene, Jomphe, Michele, Labuda, Damian, and Excoffier, Laurent 2011 Deep Human Genealogies Reveal a Selective Advantage to be on an Expanding Wave Front. Science 334:1148–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, Toby M. 1996 Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn’s Formal Approach to Mobile Tool Kits. American Antiquity 61:581–590.Google Scholar
Morrow, Juliet E. 1997 End Scraper Morphology and Use-Life: An Approach for Studying Paleoindian Lithic Technology and Mobility. Lithic Technology 22:70–85.Google Scholar
Nami, Hugo G. 1999 The Folsom Biface Reduction Sequence: Evidence from the Lindenmeier Collection. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amick, pp. 82–97. Archaeological Series 12. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Odess, Daniel, and Rasic, Jeffrey T. 2007 Toolkit Composition and Assemblage Variability: The Implications of Nogahabara I, Northern Alaska. American Antiquity 72:691–717.Google Scholar
Parry, William J., and Kelly, Robert L. 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285–304. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Patten, Robert J. 2005 Peoples of the Flute: A Study in Anthropolithic Forensics. Stone Dagger Publications, Denver.Google Scholar
Prasciunas, Mary M. 2007 Bifacial Cores and Flake Production Efficiency: An Experimental Test of Technological Assumptions. American Antiquity 72:334–348.Google Scholar
Redmond, Brian G., and Tankersley, Kenneth B. 2005 Evidence of Early Paleoindian Bone Modification and Use at the Sheriden Cave Site (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio. American Antiquity 70:503–526.Google Scholar
Root, Matthew J. 2000 The Archaeology of the Bobtail Wolf Site: Folsom Occupation of the Knife River Flint Quarry Area. Washington State University Press, Pullman.Google Scholar
Sanders, Thomas N. 1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press, Buffalo.Google Scholar
Seeman, Mark F. 1994 Intercluster Lithic Patterning at Nobles Pond: A Case for “Disembedded” Procurement among Early Paleoindian Societies. American Antiquity 59:273–288.Google Scholar
Seeman, Mark F., and Prufer, Olaf H. 1982 An Updated Distribution of Ohio Fluted Points. Mid-continental Journal of Archaeology 7:155–169.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleo-Indian Occupation in Central Michigan. Memoirs No. 25. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., and Weedman, Kathryn J. 2007 Measuring Reduction in Stone Tools: An Ethnoar-chaeological Study of Gamo Hidescrapers from Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1016–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Donald B. 1997 The Gainey and Butler Sites as Focal Points for Caribou and People. In Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the Northern Hemisphere, edited by Lawrence Jackson and Paul Thacker, pp. 105–131. Avebury, Aldershot, U.K.Google Scholar
Simons, Donald B., Shott, Michael J., and Wright, Henry T. 1984 The Gainey Site: Variability in a Great Lakes Paleo-Indian Assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:266–279.Google Scholar
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2010 Clovis Biface Technology at the Topper Site, South Carolina: Evidence for Variation and Technological Flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2413–2425.Google Scholar
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2012 Clovis Technology and Settlement in the American Southeast: Using Biface Analysis to Evaluate Dispersal Models. American Antiquity 77:689–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Eric A. 1988 Risk and Uncertainty in the ‘Original Affluent Society’: Evolutionary Ecology of Resource-Sharing and Land Tenure. In Hunters and Gatherers 1: History, Evolution, and Social Change, edited by Tim Ingold, David Riches, and James Woodburn, pp. 222–251. Berg, Oxford.Google Scholar
Spiess, Arthur E., Wilson, Deborah, and Bradley, James W. 1998 Paleoindian Occupation in the New England-Marifimes Region: Beyond Cultural Ecology. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:201–264.Google Scholar
Stanford, Dennis J., and Bradley, Bruce A. 2012 Across Atlantic Ice: The Origins of America’s Clovis Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Stanford, Dennis J., and Broilo, Frank 1981 Frank’s Folsom Campsite. The Artifact 19:1–11.Google Scholar
Storck, Peter L., and Spiess, Arthur E. 1994 The Significance of New Faunal Identifications Attributed to an Early Paleoindian (Gainey Complex) Occupation at the Udora Site, Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 59:121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Surovell, Todd A. 2009 Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1994 Was Clovis a Colonization Population in Eastern North America? In The First Discovery of America: Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the Ohio Area, edited by William S. Dancey, pp. 95–116. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.Google Scholar
Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1995 Seasonality of Stone Procurement: An Early Paleoindian Example in Northwestern New York State. North American Archaeologist 16:1–16.Google Scholar
Tankersley, Kenneth B., Vanderlaan, Stanley, Holland, John D., and Bland, Stephen 1997 Geochronology of the Arc Site: A Paleoindian Habitation in the Great Lakes Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 25:31–44.Google Scholar
Teltser, Patrice A. 1991 Generalized Core Technology and Tool Use: a Mississippian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, Michael R., Stafford, Thomas W. Jr., Redmond, Brian G., and Tankersley, Kenneth B. 2009 The Age of the Paleoindian Assemblage at Sheriden Cave, Ohio. American Antiquity 74:107–112.Google Scholar
Wilke, Philip J. 2002 Bifacial Flake-Core Reduction Strategies and Related Aspects of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by John E. Clark and Michael B. Collins, pp. 345–370. Lithic Technology Special Publication No. 4. Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Oklahoma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyckoff, Don G. 1999 Southern Plains Folsom Lithic Technology: A View from the Edge. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by Daniel S. Amick, pp. 39–64. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 12, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar