No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Prismatic Blade Production at the Sinclair Site, Tennessee: Implications for Understanding Clovis Technological Organization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2022
Abstract
The Tennessee Division of Archaeology documented an extensive Paleoindian lithic quarry and workshop at the Sinclair site in Tennessee in 2008. We present the first detailed description of the lithic assemblage here, which focuses on aspects of its prismatic blade technology. Quantitative and qualitative attributes of 117 blades are assessed to characterize the assemblage and investigate human behaviors related to its formation. We then compare the blades from Sinclair to other blade assemblages. Blades at Clovis workshop sites are large and generally unstandardized. Mobile Clovis bands selected long, highly standardized blades from workshop sites, cached them as resource insurance, and crafted and used them as tools at campsites. The prismatic blade assemblage at Sinclair and other sites throughout the Midsouth suggests that this region played an important role in the development of prismatic blade technology at the end of the Pleistocene.
La División de Arqueología de Tennessee documentó una extensa cantera y taller lítico Paleoindio en el sitio de Sinclair en Tennessee en 2008. Aquí se presenta la primera descripción detallada del conjunto lítico y se enfoca en aspectos de la tecnología de briznas prismáticas presentes en el sitio. Se evalúan los atributos cuantitativos y cualitativos de 117 briznas para caracterizar el ensamblaje e investigar los comportamientos humanos relacionados con su formación. Luego, las briznas de Sinclair se comparan con otros conjuntos de briznas. Las cuchillas en los sitios de los talleres de Clovis son grandes y generalmente no están estandarizadas. Las grupos móviles de Clovis seleccionaron briznas largas y altamente estandarizadas de los sitios de los talleres, las almacenaron en caché como seguro de recursos y las diseñaron y usaron como herramientas en los campamentos. El conjunto de cuchillas prismáticas en Sinclair y otros sitios en Midsouth sugiere que esta región jugó un papel importante en el desarrollo de la tecnología de cuchillas prismáticas al final del Pleistoceno.
Keywords
- Type
- Report
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology
References
References Cited
Bradley, Bruce A., Collins, Michael B., and Hemmings, Andrew 2010 Clovis Technology. Archaeological Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Broster, John B., and Norton, Mark R. 2009 The Sinclair Site (40WY111): A Clovis Quarry along the Buffalo River in Wayne County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:35–36.Google Scholar
Crabtree, Don E. 1968 Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity 33:446–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493–504.Google Scholar
Ellerbusch, Elijah C. 2004 Paleoindian Prismatic Blade Function and Technology from the Nuckolls Site (40Hs60), Tennessee: Pilot Study of a Frequently Ignored Paleoindian Technological System. Undergraduate honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Meltzer, David. J., and Andrews, Brian N. 2018 Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis? PaleoAmerica 4:202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Meltzer, David. J., and Andrews, Brian N. 2021 Clovis Technology Is Not Unique to Clovis. PaleoAmerica 7:226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Redmond, Brian G. 2011 Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferring, C. Reid 2001 The Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis Site (41DN479) Denton County, Texas. University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
Green, F. E. 1963 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29:145–165.Google Scholar
Haag, Christa M., Bergman, Christopher A., and Carr, Kurt W. 2014 Blade Technology in Clovis Assemblages in Kentucky: A Brief Comparison with Old World Technologies. North American Archaeologist 35:1–36.Google Scholar
Hammatt, Hallett H. 1970 A Paleo-Indian Butchering Kit. American Antiquity 35:141–152.Google Scholar
Hester, Thomas R., and Shafer, Harry J. 1975 An Initial Study of Blade Technology on the Central and Southern Texas Coast. Plains Anthropologist 20:175–185.Google Scholar
Huckell, Bruce, Vance Haynes, C., and Holliday, Vance T. 2019 Comments on the Lithic Technology and Geochronology of the Goodson Rock Shelter. PaleoAmerica 6:131–134.Google Scholar
Jennings, Thomas A., and Smallwood, Ashley M. 2018 Clovis and Toyah: Convergent Blade Technologies in the Southern Plains Periphery of North America. In Convergent Evolution and Stone Tool Technology, edited by O'Brien, Michael J., Buchanan, Briggs, and Eren, Metin I., pp. 229–252. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kilby, J. David 2014 Direction and Distance in Clovis Caching: The Movement of People and Lithic Raw Materials on the Clovis-Age Landscape. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research, edited by Huckell, Bruce B. and Kilby, J. David, pp. 201–216. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kilby, J. David 2015 A Regional Perspective on Clovis Blades and Caching Behavior. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by Smallwood, Ashley M. and Jennings, Thomas A., pp. 145–159. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Norton, Mark R., Broster, John B., Burgess, Dennis, and Mabrey, Larry 2011 The Burgess-Mabrey Site: 40JK267, Jackson County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 28:67–68.Google Scholar
Norton, Mark R., Broster, John B., and Jones, J. Scott 2020 Carson-Conn-Short, 40BN190: A Paleoindian Site in Benton County, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 20. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.Google Scholar
Ricklis, Robert A. 1994 Toyah Components: Evidence for Occupation in the Project Area during the Later Part of the Late Prehistoric Period. In Archaic and Late Prehistoric Human Ecology in the Middle Onion Creek Valley, Hays County, Texas, edited by Ricklis, Robert A. and Collins, Michael B., pp. 207–316. Studies in Archeology 19. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.Google Scholar
Sain, Douglas, and Goodyear, Albert C. 2016 Clovis Blade Technology and Tool Use along the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and Piedmont of the Lower Southeast. Tennessee Archaeology 8(1–2):114– 131.Google Scholar
Sanders, Thomas Nolan 1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2015 Context and Spatial Organization of the Clovis Assemblage from the Topper Site, South Carolina. Journal of Field Archaeology 40:69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Dennis J., Canales, Elmo L., Broster, John B., and Norton, Mark R. 2006 Clovis Blade Manufacture: Preliminary Data from the Carson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190), Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:145–147.Google Scholar
Tunnell, Curtis D. 1978 The Gibson Lithic Cache from West Texas. Office of the State Archaeologist Report 30. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.Google Scholar
VanPool, Todd L., and Leonard, Robert D. 2011 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Waters, Michael R., Pevny, Charlotte D., Carlson, David L., Collins, Michael B., Jennings, Thomas A., Dickens, William A., Minchak, Scott A., Smallwood, Ashley M., Wiersema, Jason M., and Bartelink, Eric J. 2011 Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Tune et al. supplementary material
Table S1
File
59.9 KB
Tune et al. supplementary material
Table S2
File
10.4 KB
Tune et al. supplementary material
Table S3
File
11.8 KB
Tune et al. supplementary material
Table S4
File
11.6 KB