jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 13, 2019 6:24:32 GMT -5
Found approximately 8"/20cm beneath an undisturbed layer of volcanic ash securely tied to an eruption of Mt. St. Helens dated to 15,800 years ago, was a stone tool. This would make the tool at least 15,800 years old, and likely centuries older than that.
This is one of the problems with dating tools and artifacts. Your references are not always fixed. It does not seem impossible that the artifact was deposited on top of the ash layer and worked it's way down. I am no geologist so my knowledge of ash deposits and their density is limited, however with rain and cold who knows if it could have moved. The other issue with finding artifacts is the actual origin is not a sure thing. I would suspect that ancient people did pick up tools left by previous groups they found and carried them elsewhere. If one finds numerous burials with the same tools then things become more fixed. One tool by itself is pretty thin evidence. Does make for interesting discussions. I busted my but looking for stone artifacts along the Rio Henry. I found only 3 stone tool scrapers all within 200 feet of each other. One was of fine palm. I couldn't even find chips/debitage where early man flaked his tools and points. The ground was well prepared and free of plants and grass for the most part. Excellent visibility. I was frustrated with the low density of stone artifacts. Especially considering the amount of super nice knapping material and available water. Really tried hard to find artifacts. Had that been a large dammed lake in Georgia that was 30 feet low water level I would have found about 2 dozen encampments after covering that much river frontage. Spent a total of about 30 days over a period of 2 years out there doing 8 to 10 hour days. Lots of hours... Perhaps the Rio was not a good drinkable water source. There was almost no springs or small creeks out there like we have over here in the east. This is a serious problem for early man; he had to have good water. Especially in that heat ! There were old cisterns scattered about that had wind mills with drilled wells. Obvious source of water for the cattle. But drilled wells did not exist 1000's of years ago.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 13, 2019 6:36:33 GMT -5
I had a camp on the St John's River, Lake George section. There were shell mounds on my property that had been bulldozed flat in the early 1900's to grow orange trees. The shells were snails and were an easy indicator of early occupation when found along the shores of the lake or river. Walk the shore, find snail shells, hunt for stone artifacts - simple. The quantity of these snail shells along the St. John's were mind blowing. There was 2 springs flowing a short distance into the St John's river. Salt Springs and Silver Glenn springs. Similar to ’The Fountain of Youth’ i.e. De Leon Springs in size. Say 20 to 40 million gallons of water per day.Basically a large river of drinkable water, an absolute paradise. At these springs were snail shell midden in massive quantities. Enough to cover a small town 3 feet deep. There is a 16 mile stretch of Highway 19 in front of my camp. I kept finding snail shell midden along the shoulders of Hwy 19. Asked around and finally found out the highway department had excavated a giant shell midden mound to use for 16 miles of road underlayment back in the 1940’s. It was the largest mound in the world, just 4 miles from my camp. The act was forgotten and never really publicized. Come to find out many roads in Florida were under layer with shell midden back in the mid 1900’s. The springs of Florida, The Tennessee River, Ohio Valley, Savannah River were locations where fluted points were found in high density. These were desirable locations rich in natural resources to sustain large populations of man. There are many variants of the fluted points found at for example each of these and other similar eastern territories. There are 30 springs mostly in central Florida that spill over 30 million drinkable gallons of water per day. Pick any one of these springs in central Florida and measure the amount of shell midden. The amounts of midden are staggering. Florida had it's own variants of the fluted point. Archeological reports of Lake George and St. John’s River sites: www.arcoop.org/lake-george-paleoindian-project/www.arcoop.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Thulman-2012-Paleoindian-Occupation-along-the-St.-Johns-River-Florida.pdfMy camp site at L George, a prime native site. Keep in mind Lake George is like a small ocean about 6 miles across and 11 miles long. Nearest chert source was 70 miles away, the Florida ridge where I-75 was built. Most of the native encampments were out in the lake 100 to 1000 yards off shore due to receding sandy shoreline. Most artifact collecting was done in 2 to 5 feet of water using home made multiple tip probing forks on handles(like a straight tined pitch fork). The metal probing fork would make a metallic sound when glass or chert was struck. Then the collector would have to submerge himself and dig to the end of the probing forks to find the artifact.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 13, 2019 7:04:01 GMT -5
and then there is the Solutrean Hypotheses We can hope for more info, but whether we'll live to see a solution to that one, the gap between Solutrean and Clovis or any definitive chronology of the settlement of the Western Hemisphere seems a vexed question. One of the problems with most of these finds is that we have the cultural artifacts, but not associated, testable human remains (bones, coprolites) corresponding to those eras. I wants answers, and I wants em NOW. When a site with archaeological significance is discovered, artifacts are often used to date the site. What if some of these artifacts were passed down for generations? What if there is a mix of old and relatively new artifacts? How do archaeologists determine the actual dates of the site? By the most recent artifacts found? What an interesting story to be able to pass on about your land! Archaeologists excavate sites following the deposition layers, mm by mm, carefully documenting each layer and any finds in them as they go down. As James mentioned, the layers are marked by differences in soil color, texture and content (periods of vegetation cover, fire, human activity, flood and volcanic deposits, regular accumulation of windborne dust, etc.). They are always on the lookout for intrusive deposits (items that cut through the layers: pits, post holes and similar) and typically excavate several "squares" at the location at the same time to establish that the same sequence of layering is typical across the site and to help identify anomalies in the layering. You can think of the layers (strata) as being like rings in a tree. Aside from generally getting older the deeper one goes, the contents of the layers can be dated. In historic times, the artifacts themselves can be context-dated. As one approaches prehistoric eras, several other dating methods can be used. These include dating organic material (vegetation, charcoal, bones, etc.) by measuring the carbon and other isotopes they absorbed while still living, and several other methods (radiometric, mineral hydration, luminescence, etc.) that track the rates which things break down over time. Often multiple tests will be used to corroborate the dating when establishing baselines, and also when something unusual or potentially controversial finds are uncovered. For very ancient sites, geological dating methods (lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, tephrochronology, etc.) to augment other dating methods being used. These methods have been considerably refined over the last 75 years, and excavators are now extremely careful to avoid things like cross-contamination when collecting (something that wasn't always taken into account when these first were used - leading to many older finds having to be re-tested for verification). Perhaps one day they will learn how to analyze the deposition layer with more accuracy @rocks2dust. There are so many factors like ph and bacteria variations that effect this layer. Time has brutal effects on most materials except chert and the likes of it. Contamination is always an issue when dating. The deposition layer is surprisingly consistent in the east with the seemingly stable top layer. Repeatable depth over many square miles, basically east of the Mississippi River. It is odd that evidence of early man simply 'arrived' in what appears to be such a recent time frame be it 5000 or 50,000 years ago. Almost as if he arrived in mass, without much evidence of evolution. Recent compared to fossil evidence that was in much older ages.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 13, 2019 7:41:20 GMT -5
Just observations fernwood over the past 4 decades. Most of these thoughts about early man's arrival comes to mind when collecting coral on the Florida rivers. The amount of chipped coral at coral shoals is staggering. About the only source of 'chert' for miles around. And finding mineralized ice age mammals in mass with early man's stone remnants peaks interest. Mineralization with apatite happens fairly quickly in some Florida rivers unlike the much slower silicification process. So you are finding debris from early man and a plethora of weird ice age mammal remains together in one spot. Giraffe, horses, sloth, lions, giant hogs/turtles/bear/ etc. It is proven that man's stone artifacts are found in 'butchered' mammoth remains so it is a known correlation. I found the remains of a giant ~500 pound tortoise on one of these coral shoals that was not even mineralized but rotten and fragile. These rivers are full of clean water springs under the river level. Some are 200 gallons per hour, some are 10,000 gallons per hour. Regardless of size they all have high density of artifacts around them - on the river bottom. The rivers were dried up during the ice age and were only small creeks that were flowing from these springs. Archeologists continue to find encampments on these river bottoms. Keep in mind I have a shallow water capable boat and travel the rivers during droughts when the rivers are 20 to 50 feet lower in level and less the thigh deep. Basically close to ice age river levels. These rivers have suffered low water levels in recent years due to water usage and shortages. The guys that dive in these rivers really score well in finding artifacts because they can spend more time viewing the river bottom. So spending time in these rivers during drought at low water levels is sort of like wandering on ice age territory which is the bottom of the river.
|
|
agatemaggot
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2006
Posts: 2,195
|
Post by agatemaggot on Sept 13, 2019 8:09:26 GMT -5
I have a book titled ( Across Atlantic Ice ) . The reason older Artifacts (older than Clovis ) are rare on our east coast is because of the rising water levels over the last few thousand years it seems. The authors of the book make an Iron clad case for the first people here came across the ice from Europe, not across into Alaska as believed. The first people were called Solutrians, (may have that spelling wrong ) they were from before the Clovis time. Their tools were found several miles off shore at a depth that would have been consistent with the shore line at that point in time. They are now doing research in the Ocean finding their camps by core drilling and looking for Micro flakes in the material brought up. There are close to a million Micro Flakes produced during the manufacture of each artifact produced, the little flakes appear as dust when a Knapper strikes a flake from the piece they are working. Clovis points are fairly common on the eastern side of the country and then thin out and scatter as you go North and west. Clovis people followed the waterways and would take Lithic material along with them until they found a better source of material and would Cache the old when they did. Current testing methods prove where the stone originated from and the testing proves (to me ) the Clovis people moved thru the country from South & East to the North west, NOT , the other way as currently taught in Schools. This post may appear as B.S. to some but if you do the reading it makes a lot of sense !
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 13, 2019 9:24:45 GMT -5
I have a book titled ( Across Atlantic Ice ) . The reason older Artifacts (older than Clovis ) are rare on our east coast is because of the rising water levels over the last few thousand years it seems. The authors of the book make an Iron clad case for the first people here came across the ice from Europe, not across into Alaska as believed. The first people were called Solutrians, (may have that spelling wrong ) they were from before the Clovis time. Their tools were found several miles off shore at a depth that would have been consistent with the shore line at that point in time. They are now doing research in the Ocean finding their camps by core drilling and looking for Micro flakes in the material brought up. There are close to a million Micro Flakes produced during the manufacture of each artifact produced, the little flakes appear as dust when a Knapper strikes a flake from the piece they are working. Clovis points are fairly common on the eastern side of the country and then thin out and scatter as you go North and west. Clovis people followed the waterways and would take Lithic material along with them until they found a better source of material and would Cache the old when they did. Current testing methods prove where the stone originated from and the testing proves (to me ) the Clovis people moved thru the country from South & East to the North west, NOT , the other way as currently taught in Schools. This post may appear as B.S. to some but if you do the reading it makes a lot of sense ! Great point about the chips created at manufacture agatemaggot. There are few impacts in recent years that cause 'high speed' flakes. Animals and other natural forces rarely hit cherts in a way that would create chips. Thin flakes are my #1 method of locating encampments. Mowing machines can cause havoc if the blade hit rocks. But a mower creates differently shaped flakes than a man knapping. It is so easy, I already know the local materials commonly used in an area, if I find thin flakes of this local material then a site is almost guaranteed. They can easily be spotted from a jeep at 10+ mph and are in large quantity. Enough quantity to get out of the jeep and walk in circles till the basic site area is mapped out. It is not unusual to find 100's of chips at even the smallest site. Said site may yield only 1 or 2 whole or partial stone artifacts. Transportation routes are even trickier to define. The crossing of the Atlantic is totally feasible. The concentration of early man is complicated too. I will say that water sources are a primary reason for settlement. Water was so important to survival and needed sanitary processes. Good flat water access can be seen or understood on even the smallest tracts of land. It is easy to stand over a 1000 acre timbered clearing from a vantage and eliminate 90% of the surface area due to lack of water proximity and undesirably steep slopes here in the east. In Georgia and the surrounding 4 states I have done this on 100's of occasions. The same goes for dammed lakes that have like 50% of their bottom surface exposed during droughts. These lakes are especially large areas of land. Same game, look for flat fields above creeks, spring heads, ridge lines connecting vantage points, etc. Topography as related to quality water access and level land is the key to artifact hunting out this way. It would be interesting to know what type of boats early man used had he crossed the Atlantic. They were humans with plenty of brains and capability. Genius in their methods of survival. They should not be underestimated. Just try to survive on your own for a week out in nature without modern equipment.
|
|
agatemaggot
Cave Dweller
Member since August 2006
Posts: 2,195
|
Post by agatemaggot on Sept 13, 2019 11:12:02 GMT -5
We are up to speed here on methods of finding old camps ( been at it for over 50 years ) due to terrain features and over along the Mississippi river it gets REAL easy, the people that used the river valley and creeks over there were into Mussels. After the first good Spring rain the camps turn white with all the clam shells ! I have found shells still connected that had a Dime size hole in one side, apparently to let the steam out when cooking so the clam would stay closed until ready to eat. It looks like there were some serious trade routes back then as I have found obsidian flakes on some of my camps and there were Obsidian artifacts recovered from some of the burial mounds near Prarie Du Chien Wisconsin where I have my fishing shack. One time I found an old cooking site on a large rock outcropping in the river valley where a huge tree fell over exposing the fire ring, charcoal, Clam shells connected and two very small hammer heads laying next to the fire rocks. The Hammer heads were about 2 inches long and appeared to be the special tool used to punch the single hole in the shell. The set up looked in the same condition that it would if they had finished supper and went to bed the night before, except for the lashings and handles on the tiny hammer heads.
|
|
|
Post by HankRocks on Sept 13, 2019 12:25:13 GMT -5
Found approximately 8"/20cm beneath an undisturbed layer of volcanic ash securely tied to an eruption of Mt. St. Helens dated to 15,800 years ago, was a stone tool. This would make the tool at least 15,800 years old, and likely centuries older than that.
This is one of the problems with dating tools and artifacts. Your references are not always fixed. It does not seem impossible that the artifact was deposited on top of the ash layer and worked it's way down. I am no geologist so my knowledge of ash deposits and their density is limited, however with rain and cold who knows if it could have moved. The other issue with finding artifacts is the actual origin is not a sure thing. I would suspect that ancient people did pick up tools left by previous groups they found and carried them elsewhere. If one finds numerous burials with the same tools then things become more fixed. One tool by itself is pretty thin evidence. Does make for interesting discussions. I busted my but looking for stone artifacts along the Rio Henry. I found only 3 stone tool scrapers all within 200 feet of each other. One was of fine palm. I couldn't even find chips/debitage where early man flaked his tools and points. The ground was well prepared and free of plants and grass for the most part. Excellent visibility. I was frustrated with the low density of stone artifacts. Especially considering the amount of super nice knapping material and available water. Really tried hard to find artifacts. Had that been a large dammed lake in Georgia that was 30 feet low water level I would have found about 2 dozen encampments after covering that much river frontage. Spent a total of about 30 days over a period of 2 years out there doing 8 to 10 hour days. Lots of hours... Perhaps the Rio was not a good drinkable water source. There was almost no springs or small creeks out there like we have over here in the east. This is a serious problem for early man; he had to have good water. Especially in that heat ! There were old cisterns scattered about that had wind mills with drilled wells. Obvious source of water for the cattle. But drilled wells did not exist 1000's of years ago. You were in the wrong area of the Rio. Over the years we have found numerous scrapers and points west of Big Bend Park. Mostly on the mesas overlooking the river between Lajitas and a place they call the Big Hill, about 13 miles west of Lajitas. Interesting enough most of the items found were made out of local Agate and Jaspers, all readily available in the area. A lot of times they were on the points of the mesa where one could look out for miles. We even found a chipping spot. It had thousands of chips layng around along with a few broken points which I assume were failures. All of this was over a period of 22 years, 1 to 2 weeks a year covering a lot of acreage. Unfortunately most of the area was sold to the State and designated as the Big Bend Ranch State Park. Too bad as I know where one hill is with agate veins up to 4 inches wide are exposed. Did manage to get a few pieces home before the property converted. (On my list to post a few pics) We also found chips there and two or three scrapers on the ground around the outcrops made out of the vien material. I also suspect that the Rio ran a lot heavier before all of the irrigation and usage by population centers along the way. My guess is that around Zapata where most of the Rio's are found was subjected to a lot higher water and more floods, they probably camped further from the river. The river is also fed by the Rio Concho that empties in around Presido. It drains a good part of the northern Sierra Madre. I have seen the high water marks around Lajitas, very impressive. Another fact about Lajitas, it was one of the main river crossing for the Commache Raids into northern Mexico. It's a good spot as it has hard rock bottom and is accessible and not blocked by canyon walls. It makes sense that the Commache camped around the crossing before venturing across the River. If I can get a few chores out of the way I will get some scraper pictures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Member since January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 12:34:21 GMT -5
Perhaps one day they will learn how to analyze the deposition layer with more accuracy @rocks2dust. There are so many factors like ph and bacteria variations that effect this layer. Time has brutal effects on most materials except chert and the likes of it. Contamination is always an issue when dating. The deposition layer is surprisingly consistent in the east with the seemingly stable top layer. Repeatable depth over many square miles, basically east of the Mississippi River. It is odd that evidence of early man simply 'arrived' in what appears to be such a recent time frame be it 5000 or 50,000 years ago. Almost as if he arrived in mass, without much evidence of evolution. Recent compared to fossil evidence that was in much older ages. Yes, contamination and other factors do have to be taken into account when sampling material for dating. Bio contamination can produce dates that appear to be too young on some tests. They're much more careful these days than even 30 years ago (full bio suits and respirators when collecting organics, extracting datable material from stable layers below the surface of an artifact, etc.). They also now account for local conditions in the quest for accuracy. Dating methodology for your area is going to be different than the desert conditions here in my part of the west, and there are differences in carbon absorption between Northern and Southern hemispheres that are adjusted for, as well. They use different dendrochronology for fine tuning results in different locations, too. Speaking of hemispheres and trade routes, it may be that we are looking at things wrong-side-up. Human-carved bone artifacts found at the Santa Elina rock shelter site in Brazil's Mato Grosso have been dated to older than 23,000 YB2K. Being some 1000 miles from the coast, early peoples in Mato Grosso likely arrived quite some time prior to the 23,000+ date of the artifacts. It is as possible that an earlier wave (or waves) of settlers came by a southern route, rather than the icy north. I don't know that much study has been done on paleo-oceanic currents, which might turn up some surprising alternate possibilities for ocean travel As for trade routes, the Santa Elina peoples didn't use them. It is well known that they got everything from Amazon® (not sure if they had Prime® back then, though)
|
|
gemfeller
Cave Dweller
Member since June 2011
Posts: 3,732
|
Post by gemfeller on Sept 13, 2019 13:24:18 GMT -5
@rocks2dust , You've hit upon one of the mysteries that truly intrigues me. Why does it appear that pre-Columbian populations moved from south to north in many cases? It seems archaeology has barely scratched the surface in studying the peopling of South America. Take the Monte Verde site in southern Chile for instance: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_VerdeIt's currently dated to about 18,500 years ago, and there are several sites in Brazil and elsewhere that indicate much earlier human habitation as you point out. I've spent a lot of time studying the Olmec and Mayan cultures in Mesoamerica. Most studies show that the Olmecs, the first known organized culture in the region, just sprang out of nowhere with no obvious antecedents. That's nonsense, of course. There were widespread cultures, from the tip of Chile to southern Mexico, and it's clear there must have been innumerable connections leading to the Olmecs. At this point the study of how people arrived on both continents is like the ancient Buddhist parable of blind men describing an elephant. One touched its trunk and said it was a snake. Another felt a leg and said it was a column, and so on. We simply don't have sufficient information. And as you say, maybe we're looking in the wrong places. I think many secrets that could tie theories together as a working hypothesis lie in Peru, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and other southern countries. Peru is especially fascinating to me. I won't live long enough to see the puzzle solved but it's always interesting and fun to speculate.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 16, 2019 6:31:05 GMT -5
The Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA) has collected an impressive amount of evidence. They are taking a brilliant approach. A large collaboration of academic and professional archeologists across the America's has teamed up comparing notes for the past 20 years is becoming a formidable source of evidence of early man's behavior. Amateur collectors are also sending information from their findings.
Forensics methods have received much focus in recent years and are somewhat applicable to early man's remains. Statistical information on large data bases of evidence is becoming a serious tool in solving the mystery of early man.
Information based on a few sites and unprovable dating techniques presents problems with certainty.
PIDBA's logic and beginnings:
THE VALUE OF PALEOINDIAN DATA RECORDING PROJECTS Compiling primary data on Paleoindian materials is not a new idea in American archaeology, although until recently the samples gathered and employed in analyses have typically been quite small or focused on count instead of attribute data. Early syntheses attempting to delimit where sites and artifacts occurred were for the most part unsystematic and impressionistic but still made a number of important observations. Fluted points were observed to be present across much of unglaciated North America, for example, with dense concentrations in some areas, typically along major river systems, and comparatively few artifacts in others, and it was observed that appreciable morphological variability was present among these artifacts (e.g., Cotter 1937[2007]; Mason 1962; Prufer 1960; Sellards 1952; Williams and Stoltman 1965; Wormington 1957). In the early 1980s, the first large scale systematic data collection effort involving Paleoindian data took place when Louis Brennan and members of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation gathered count data on 5,820 Paleoindian projectile points (mostly fluted points) from 17 states and two Canadian provinces located primarily along the Atlantic seaboard. This information was published in the 1982 issue of Archaeology of Eastern North America. In the mid-1980s, David Meltzer (1984, 1988) examined morphological variability in fluted point forms across North America using a sample of 1,039 points.7 His work resolved a number of stylistic classes, some of which conform to known types, and in some cases with fairly restricted spatial distributions. The point sample Meltzer used remains the largest employed to date in such analyses in the Americas. PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings 69 In the late 1980s and early 1990s one of us (Anderson 1990a, 1990b, 1991) began compiling fluted point locational and attribute data from across eastern North America. The ‘North American Paleoindian Database’ project, as it was initially designated, expanded markedly in the ensuing two decades, and PIDBA now encompasses all of the Americas and involves many scholars (e.g., Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000; Anderson et al. 2005, 2009; Faught et al. 1994). Maps displaying the location of projectile points by specific type were originally produced by hand shading county areas, then using contouring programs like Surfer, and now using a GIS interface. The occurrence of specific artifact categories can be shown in relation to ice sheet, periglacial and pluvial lakes, and shorelines at different points in time during the late Pleistocene, and these distributions can be evaluated in terms of a number of environmental variables such as elevation, hydrology, and reconstructed paleovegetation (Banks et al. 2006; Dyke 2004; Gilliam 2009, Gillam et al. 2006, 2007). The GIS-linked locational dataset also allows researchers to examine the distribution of artifacts at varying scales of resolution. Currently, the locational data available for mapping purposes is based on county, parish, or other political unit centroids in the United States, Mexico, and portions of Canada (Figure 1). In some areas of western Canada, the centroids of Borden recording grid cells are employed. Unfortunately, archaeological sites may be subject to looting and collections to theft or vandalism. While more specific locational data are available for much of the material that has been compiled, and a site database is currently under development, this information is not posted on the web, primarily to ensure that site locations remain secure. For the same reason, curation (i.e., artifact ownership) information posted online is restricted to materials in public repositories. A substantial amount of the Paleoindian archaeological record in many parts of the Americas resides in private collections, and while the names and addresses of the individuals who own these materials are recorded, they are not made publically available. While PIDBA originated in an effort to map the occurrence of fluted points over large areas and examine morphological and temporal variation within these forms, the utility of these data for addressing a range of research topics was soon apparent (Anderson 1990a, 1990b). The initial distribution map of Clovis and presumably related fluted points from eastern North American assemblages, with concentrations in some parts of the region, for example, was used to suggest a model of Clovis settlement in and expansion from resource rich ‘staging’ areas, a ‘place-oriented’ perspective that remains in sharp contrast to ‘technology-oriented’ models that see Clovis peoples as moving widely over the landscape, rarely settling anywhere for very long (cf., Anderson 1990b with Gardner 1977, 1989, and Kelly and Todd 1988). The irregular distribution of fluted points (Figure 2, color plate), if not due to sampling bias (something that increasingly seems unlikely as the dataset grows larger), further suggests that these people were “keying-in” some areas and avoiding others. In particular, major river systems, boundaries between major environmental zones or macroecotones, and the occurrence of high quality knappable stone appeared to have been particularly important in shaping early settlement (e.g., Anderson 1990b; Dincauze 1993a; Gardner 1977; Goodyear 1979; Miller and Smallwood 2009). While some of these inferences had been noted by earlier generations of researchers, the patterns were usually impressionistic in nature and based on the characteristics of one or a few key sites, rather than over a regional scale and extensive data sample. Distributional maps of specific artifact categories developed from PIDBA, furthermore, are far more accurate and useful than earlier efforts, which typically consisted of lines drawn around or shading placed over areas impressionistically perceived to represent the distribution of the category (e.g., Anderson 1990b:170; Cotter 1937[2007:34]; Dincauze 1993b:282; Justice 1987; Williams and Stoltman 1965:677)(Figure 3, color plate). Compilations of measurement data from and digital images of individual artifacts, like locational data, also have great value in Paleoindian research. We have a long way to go before we recognize, much less understand, the range of variability within major Paleoindian artifact categories, so the compilation and analysis of primary data is essential if we are to effectively explore this variation. Evaluating typological designations with attribute data and over large samples is particularly critical. Paleoindian projectile points are typically classified using a plethora of stylistic and technological variants or type names, many of which are restricted to small areas or regions, or else are classified so generally (i.e., as ‘Clovis’ or ‘fluted’) or differently from region to region that potentially meaningful variability within these categories likely goes unrecognized (e.g., Bell 1958, 1960; Cambron and Hulse 1964; Hranicky 2007; Justice 1987; Perino 1985, 1991, 2002; Turner and Hester 1993).8 Ideally, specific artifact categories found and dated in secure contexts should form the basis for classificatory analyses (e.g., Buchannan and Collard 2007; Buchannan and Hamilton 2009). Appreciable variability is commonly observed even within tightly dated Paleoindian assemblages or presumably well known types (e.g., Clovis, Folsom), however, and vast quantities of presumably Paleoindian archaeological material has been found in temporally more ambiguous surface or mixed excavation contexts that may only approximately resemble known types. Several important studies have attempted to explore morphological variation in Paleoindian projectile points employing data from over a large area (e.g., Buchannan and Hamilton 2009; Meltzer 1984; Morrow and Morrow 1999), but such analyses are decidedly uncommon. Having detailed attribute and image data from as large and as well documented a sample as possible is absolutely critical to the success of such efforts. Recording projects need to be maintained where present and initiated where none currently exist, and the data that is collected needs to be shared. Fortunately, new Paleoindian recording projects are being initiated all the time or older projects re-invigorated, most recently in Montana, Missouri, New York, and Uruguay (e.g., Anderson and Knudson 2009; Lothrop 2009; Martens and Lopinot 2009; Suárez and Gillam 2008).
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 16, 2019 6:37:35 GMT -5
From above article, note importance to early man of river systems and knappable materials:
The initial distribution map of Clovis and presumably related fluted points from eastern North American assemblages, with concentrations in some parts of the region, for example, was used to suggest a model of Clovis settlement in and expansion from resource rich ‘staging’ areas, a ‘place-oriented’ perspective that remains in sharp contrast to ‘technology-oriented’ models that see Clovis peoples as moving widely over the landscape, rarely settling anywhere for very long (cf., Anderson 1990b with Gardner 1977, 1989, and Kelly and Todd 1988). The irregular distribution of fluted points (Figure 2, color plate), if not due to sampling bias (something that increasingly seems unlikely as the dataset grows larger), further suggests that these people were “keying-in” some areas and avoiding others. In particular, major river systems, boundaries between major environmental zones or macroecotones, and the occurrence of high quality knappable stone appeared to have been particularly important in shaping early settlement (e.g., Anderson 1990b; Dincauze 1993a; Gardner 1977; Goodyear 1979; Miller and Smallwood 2009).
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 16, 2019 7:00:00 GMT -5
Variations of paleo points are another study. PIDBA also cross references the material knapped with paleo points/variants with the location of the material. Here is three variants, more such maps available for Clovis and variants. The Simpson/Suwannee paleo variants found in proximity of the largest cleanest springs in the world in Florida and a mass occurrence of coastal chert and silicified coral. The Cumberland found along the massive Tennessee River and it's many tributaries along with mass supplies of Cumberland cherts. Or the more western Folsom spread out over a an area with more sporadic water supplies.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 16, 2019 7:26:59 GMT -5
This sampling map can be scrutinized in several ways. The higher density of samples on the east coast - why ? Well it could be that more land was exposed/analyzed due to denser population of modern man. Or was it simply more desirable to early man ? I personally will say that if you were air dropped into north central Florida or the Tennessee River Valley your chances of survival are much greater due to abundant natural resources. If air dropped in the western half your chances of survival would be greatly reduced due to water availability. The springs of Florida easily rate #1. Clean drinkable water flowing at high rates insures better chances of hydration and sanitary conditions. Mass sources of one of the glassiest, hardest, easiest-to knap knapping material in coastal chert and silicified coral is readily available at these springs. Even modern day knappers across the US pursue silicified coral due to it's superb qualities. Note concentrations of paleo era points are directly occurring in proximity of these Florida springs. These springs are a native man's paradise unlike anywhere in this country. Why does the Tennessee River Valley in north Alabama have one of the highest density of paleo points ? Noted for it's plateaus, limestone bluffs, aquatic resources, rich forest habitat, superb water navigation routes, lithic supplies. The Chattahoochee River flowing between Alabama and Georgia is another densely populated zone.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Sept 16, 2019 7:32:07 GMT -5
The peoples of South America raises another whole set of theories lol.
|
|
lookatthat
Cave Dweller
Whatever there is to be found.
Member since May 2017
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by lookatthat on Sept 17, 2019 11:30:10 GMT -5
i don't have time right now to read all the great stuff i'm seeing on this thread, but i want to make two notes:
At an archaeological dig, always ask how deep they are digging! Some go as deep as they need to to excavate the feature. But ones that are mandated for a road re-alignment, for example, will only go as deep as the scope of the project. I remember stopping by one dig (a depositional site)near a river. At five feet down, they were still finding really cool stuff. I said, "Imagine what's at six feet!" The man said, "Oh, we aren't going any deeper. Five feet is all the study called for."
With a study like the one near Mt. St. Helens, an area affected by earthquakes, I wonder if there can be some change in artifact location due to liquefaction.
|
|