Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table 1
Sites reviewed in this paper, showing radiocarbon and calibrated
ages
Direct dating of organic artifacts or
Site Approximate age of materials bones?
Monte Verde II, Chile 12,780–12,230 14C yr BP Yes, on possible organic artifacts and
seaweed
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 11,300–12,800 14C yr BP in middle of Stratum II (Miller Yes, on bark-like organic fragment
PA point minimum age 14,000 cal yr BP); 12,800–16,175 14C
yr BP in lower Stratum II; and 19,600 14C yr BP date on
bark-
like-fragment
Cactus Hill, VA 10,920 14C yr BP on Clovis level charcoal; 15,070 14C yr No, on charcoal flecks
BP
on charcoal below Clovis; OSL ages 17–20 ka No, only OSL sediment estimates, with
Topper, SC OSL estimate of Clovis 13,500 ± 1,000 cal yr BP; OSL some radiocarbon dates on
ages below Clovis >15,200 ± 1,500 cal yr BP; and questionable hearth
deeply buried “hearth” >50,000 14C yr BP
Buttermilk Creek Complex OSL estimates of lower part of Clovis level 14,350 ± 910 No, only OSL dates on sand grains
(Debra L. Friedkin cal yr BP and 14,070 ± 910 cal yr BP; OSL estimates of within fluvial sediments
site), TX BCC 14,080 ± 920 to 16,515 ± 1,075 cal yr BP
Gault, TX Preliminary OSL age estimates similar to BCC No
Swan Point, AK 12,360–11,770 14C yr BP on residues, 12,060 14C yr BP on Yes, on various organics
ivory 12,040 14C yr BP on charcoal
Broken Mammoth, AK 11,770 14C yr BP on charcoal No, on charcoal
Mead, AK 11,600 and 11,560 14C yr BP on charcoal No, on
charcoal
Big Eddy, MO “Early/Middle Paleoindian” (including Clovis) level: No, on charcoal
10,260–11,384 14C yr BP; pre-Clovis: 4400–12,950 14C yr
BP
Paisley Caves, OR 12,265 and 12,165 14C yr BP on oldest coprolites having Yes, on coprolites
human mtDNA
Hebior and Schaefer, WI 12,290–12,590 14C yr BP on mammoth bone collagen Yes, on marked bones
Burning Tree, OH 11,660 and 11,450 14C yr BP on presumed mastodont gut Yes, on presumed gut contents and
contents; 10,860 14C yr BP on mastodont bone collagen bone
Coats-Hines, TN 12,050–12,030 14C yr BP on charred material just above No, on charcoal
artifacts and just below mastodont bones
Lindsay, MT 9,490–11,925 14C yr BP on unpurified mammoth bone Yes, on bone collagen
collagen; 12,105–12,330 14C yr BP on purified collagen;
and 12,270–12,300 14C yr BP on purified collagen
Page-Ladson, FL Average of six dates 12,450 14C yr BP (14,475 cal yr BP) No, organics in sediment were dated
Manis, WA 11,990 14C yr BP on mastodont rib Yes, on mastodont bone
Ayer Pond, WA 11,700–11,990 14C yr BP Yes, on possibly impacted,
chopped bison bone
Firelands, OH 11,740 14C yr BP (13,550 cal yr BP) Yes, on bone
archeology, and thus not validly dating the Clovis photheres are associated with Clovis points in
component; and a terminus post quem date from the Sonora, Mexico (Sanchez et al. 2013, 2014),
East Wenatchee site, 11,600 ± 50 14C yr BP (also and another date
roughly 13,400 cal yr BP) (Kuehn et al. 2009),
which
Waters and Stafford (2013, 543) observe is only a
maximum limiting date, not necessarily the age of
the Clovis materials. Miller et al. (2013) accept
Ferring’s (2012) argument that the 11,565 14C yr BP
age at Aubrey is securely associated with the fluted-
point occupation, which Ferring terms “proto-
Clovis,” because it lacks some of the distinctive
(“Classic”) Clovis features of overshot flaking and
large-blade manufacturing, as defined for Clovis by
Bradley et al. (2010).
Two recently acquired radiometric dates now offer
additional possible support for a much earlier start
of the Clovis era. One date (11,560 ± 140 14C yr BP;
roughly 13,450 cal yr BP) on wood charcoal comes
from a repeatedly occupied kill- and camp-site, El
Fin del Mundo, where the bones of at least two gom-
PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 2 13
Haynes The Millennium before Clovis
(11,626 ± 68 14C yr BP, roughly 13,400 cal yr BP) comes short of the opposite edge. Furthermore, Huckell
from a piece of wood charcoal excavated near an (2014, 151) has pointed out that it is not certain if
overshot flake at the Beach biface cache site in intentional overshot flaking was “uniquely diagnostic
North Dakota, which Huckell (2014, 151) has argued is of Clovis.” This means that although the presence of
Clovis, although it lacks fluted points. overshot flaking may still be potentially diagnostic of
Regarding the overshot flaking on Clovis bifaces, Eren Clovis (Eren et al. 2014, 60), by itself and without
et al. (2013, 2014) strongly argued that overshot flaking other features such as fluted bifaces or macroblades,
of bifaces – the removal of flakes from one it cannot be considered decisively diagnostic.
edge that cross the entire face and take off part of the In this paper, the start date for Clovis (meaning
opposite edge – was not an intentional Clovis strategy; both the Classic sensu Ferring (2012) and Miller
instead it was a mistake, and overface or “ultrashot” et al.
flaking was the intention, with flakes terminating just
(2013) and pre-Classic, which is Ferring’s “proto- available about the dated materials and how they
Clovis”) is set at 11,600 14C yr BP (∼13,400–13,495 spatially relate to the artifacts. However, the
cal yr BP), while the cryptic existence of what I had soundness of age assignments may be open to re-
earlier termed proto-Clovis (Haynes 2002, 253), evaluation, along with presump- tions about human
meaning the stage before even fluting had been behavior associated with different objects.
invented, might be detectable within the millennium
before Clovis. My review focuses on a sample of 1.3 Background: Anatomically modern
sites with ages back to 12,600 ± 200 14C yr BP Homo sapiens arrives in the Americas
(roughly 14,100–15,500 cal yr BP at 2-sigma) Goebel et al. (2008) summarized knowledge about
(Table 1). I mention older claims when they may be the nature and tempo of modern human entry into
relevant to understanding archeological developments the Americas. Ancient mitochondrial DNA
in the Americas. (mtDNA) evidence shows that a European-derived
The possibility that people co-existed with Clovis population
but used very different lithic technological methods
and subsistence practices bears on the question of
Clovis origins. For some time, there has been debate
about whether the Clovis horizon marks the appear-
ance of North America’s earliest typable projectile
point. One possible contemporary is Goshen (Frison
1996; Sellet et al. 2009), and another is Western
Stemmed (Beck and Jones 1997, 2010; Bryan 1988;
Bryan and Tuohy 1999; Fiedel and Morrow 2012;
Goebel and Keene 2014; Willig and Aikens 1988).
However, the evidence for contemporaneity of
stemmed points and Clovis is inconclusive, or
negative in the case of Goshen (Waters and Stafford
2014). If human groups with different production
technologies co-existed at the time of Clovis, often
using the same geographic ranges, their potential
cultural, social, and genetic relationships with each
other will be difficult to model.
Meadowcroft Miller type but otherwise not especially human-made fire feature, dated >50,000 14C yr
similar technologically to Clovis bifaces. The same BP, which is very near the early limit for
goes for the blades. Superficially, the pre-Clovis radiocarbon
lithics are not what is typical in a Clovis assemblage dating and cannot be calibrated with IntCal13.
(Collins and Lohse 2004, 182), and they are also very “Unusual chert artifacts” (Goodyear 2005, 109)
distantly separated in time from Clovis, by such as broken cobbles without negative bulbs
4000–6000 calendar years, making their possible and frequent
ancestral relationship very uncertain. The pre-Clovis- hinge terminations, and small-flake clusters, are
dated assemblage, like the Meadowcroft pre-Clovis said to be cultural. The lithics, which do not
assemblage, may or may not be a contender for change in character between levels dated
ances- tor to Clovis or proto-Clovis (sensu Haynes >50,000 and 15,000
14
2002, not Ferring 2012). C yr BP, are characterized as a smashed core
and microlithic industry (Goodyear 2005),
2.1.4 TOPPER, SOUTH CAROLINA matching nothing else in Paleoindian prehistory
Topper is a stratified, multicomponent site containing or in any hypothetical Old World ancestral
a quarry-related Clovis occupation (Miller 2010; region. Noteworthy is the fact that the broken
Smallwood et al. 2013) in colluvial-fluvial sediments. chert objects derive from bedrock outcrops of
The pre-Clovis claims have not been well published the chert, now buried at the site. Questions or
in refereed journals or a monograph. Goodyear issues? Besides the abundant artifacts, Topper
(2005) proposed that the site also has lithics in a has yielded thousands of local chert fragments,
paleo- sol that are 3000–7000 calendar years older most of which are not thought to be humanly
than Clovis, as estimated by OSL dating and pro- duced. Waters et al. (2009, 1309) suggested
reckoning of that chert
the time needed for the paleosol to have developed breakage may have been caused by thousands of
in alluvial sand. A precise age is not known. years of natural fires, freeze–thaw cycles, or
Goodyear also interpreted carbonized plant remains stream transport. The very old specimens with
found well below the Clovis levels as remnants of a characteristics
12,000–12,400 cal yr BP), shown by multiple dates 2.2.2 BIG EDDY, MISSOURI
from the Serpentine Hot Springs site (Goebel et al. The open-air Big Eddy site has cultural components
2013; Young and Gilbert-Young 2007) and Raven that include, from the top down, Mississippian,
Bluff site (Hedman 2010). This is more than 1000 Woodland, Archaic, late Paleoindian, early/middle
14
C years after Classic Clovis had first appeared in Paleoindian (including fluted bifaces), and pre-Clovis
the lower 48 states, perhaps indicating a northward (Lopinot et al. 1998, 2000; Lopinot and Ray 2000;
“return” migration of descendant cultures 2000 14C Ray et al. 1998). The site has nine accelerator (AMS)
years after the initial entry of ancestral people into dates on its “early/middle Paleoindian” component
Beringia. Most Alaskan fluted points are multiply (containing fluted bifaces and debitage) that are
fluted, and are morphologically similar to points that within the span of the Clovis era. Below the early/
seem to post-date Classic Clovis in New England middle Paleoindian materials, three flakes and three
and the Great Basin. large cobbles were found, and farther below was a
Other lanceolate biface industries such as Mesa gravel layer containing numerous chert flakes, a large
and Sluiceway also appeared in the interior of and heavy stone that may have been used as an
Alaska, termed the northern Paleoindian (Hoffecker anvil, and a large cobble that may have been used as
and Elias 2007), at around 13,250 cal yr BP, which is a hammerstone. Charcoal fragments were “scattered
nearly the same age as Clovis in the lower 48 states. throughout the early deposits” (Lopinot and Ray
These industries are quite different from those of the 2000, 3). Sixteen AMS dates were run on wood
microblade-dominated complexes. It is not clear if char-
the northern Paleoindian industries developed in coal from the component thought to be pre-Clovis;
Alaska or moved there from lower latitudes (Smith three samples returned Holocene ages, and three
et al. 2013), as fluted points may have done. others fell within the Clovis era as defined in this
paper, although they came from below the fluted-
point level. The other 10 dates from the layer below but it may also be over 1000 14C years younger.
Clovis range from 11,910 ± 440 to 12,950 ± 120 Another (“possibly oldest”; Jenkins et a l.
14
C yr BP (approximate midpoint of calibrated 2012b, 16)
range is stemmed projectile point recovered in situ was
14,400 cal yr BP). dated
Questions or issues? The discordant charcoal dates to 11,500 ± 30 14C yr BP (about 13,300 cal yr
could be a warning sign of inconspicuous stratigraphic BP)
mixing of materials in sediments. As for the older-
than-Clovis stone items, two experts in artifact use-
wear analysis did not consider them to be unambigu-
ously artifactual (Ahler 2000; Kay 2000), but a third
examiner thought the materials possibly could be
human-modified (Dillehay 2000). The site investi-
gators (Lopinot and Ray 2007) experimented with
trampling by elephant and bison to determine if the
pre-Clovis gravel layer’s lithic flakes and modified
pebbles and cobbles could have been naturally
created, which they conceded was likely for most
flakes, but they also continued to maintain that the
possible anvilstone and cobble hammer were
humanly modified.
Relation to Clovis? The possible anvilstone, the
pos- sible hammerstone, and the flakes in the gravel
layer may be Clovis age or more than 1000 14C
years older. If older than Clovis (Ray et al. 2000),
which most AMS dates suggest, there is no direct
technologi-
cal connection between the site’s simple lithic assem-
blage and the typical materials in a Clovis site.
It is relevant when considering this give and take Hockett and Jenkins used a checklist of features (V-
about the Paisley Caves coprolites to remember an shape, non-sinuous length, shoulders present, mul-
anecdote in Matisoo-Smith and Horsburgh (2012, tiple straight and parallel marking, etc.) to classify
61), who recount how Viking samples for a DNA cutmarks, but these may or may not be present in a
analysis were collected under both the strictest possible significant proportion of marks made by various
conditions to prevent contamination and under much agents other than stone tools, according to exper-
looser, less than ideal conditions. All workers who imental work by Dominguez-Rodrigo et al. (2010,
could have come into contact with the samples were 2012) and Krasinski (2010). For example, 30 per
tested for their own DNA. The sample collected cent of trample marks may be straight rather than
under the looser conditions returned DNA from mul- sinuous, and 10 per cent of stone-tool cuts may be
tiple individuals, but it matched none of the research- sinuous rather than straight (Krasinski 2010). Stone-
ers who could have inadvertently contaminated the tool cuts may have either a V-shaped or a U-shaped
sample. Sediment from the sample’s find spot also (flat) profile in section. The experimental tool-
did not contain any of those DNA sequences. One cutting of fresh bone for comparative purposes
could conclude that even though the Paisley Caves described by Hockett and Jenkins (2013) was
excavators’ own DNA did not match the done on defleshed pig bones, apparently not in order
Copenhagen lab’s identification of a Native to dismember or fillet meat, but specifically to make
American DNA variety, some other avenue of con- marks. Such marks are not identical to marks
tamination could have existed during the brief first inflicted while butchering a fresh carcass. As it
exposure of the coprolites. stands now, the similarities of the experimental and
A third issue is the assertion by Hockett and fossil marks are evidence that can support the
Jenkins (2013, 766) that there are stone-tool cutmarks cutting of the bones after they were defleshed, but
on pre-Clovis bones, although the identifications are need not support human actions involved in proces-
only “likely” (Hockett and Jenkins 2013, 766), sing a fresh carcass. Defleshed bones could have
based on specimens having “several of the character- been cut when trampled against sharp-edged stone
istics” of experimentally created cutmarks and not fragments in the rockshelter (see Dominguez-
having the features typical of trampled bones. Rodrigo et al. 2012).
In the Wheat (2012) survey of professional
50 per cent of respondents were unconvinced about
opinions about pre-Clovis possibilities in North
the Paisley Caves claims.
America, over
Relation to Clovis? If the Paisley coprolites are
human, and the lithics are indeed as old as or older
than Clovis, the implications are complex. The pro-
duction technology of stemmed bifaces and Clovis
differs, which Bradley (1993) thought indicated differ-
ent ancestry, although there are some similarities (see
Amick 2004 for an analysis of a Great Basin
stemmed biface cache). It seems inefficient and unli-
kely that a single cultural group would have manufac-
tured important lithic tools using two distinct
knapping strategies; therefore, two different lithic tra-
ditions seem to have existed in close proximity in the
American West for several centuries. Judging from
where the diagnostic lithic implements of both tech-
nologies have been found, such as around pluvial
lakes (Willig and Aikens 1988), some of the same
ranges were used by the two cultures, some of the
same resources may have been sought, and the
people surely must have come face to face for several
centuries, which would raise the issue of how as
niche-sharing cultures they dealt with competitive
exclusion (Fiedel 2014).
A sample of complete or nearly complete ivory back from the tip, some of the so-called
points from Florida (see Hemmings 2004) are >7 to Bushman
>9 mm in diameter when measured 3.5 cm back
from the tips, much larger than the Manis piece’s
diameter and comparable to the Yana and
Lugovskoe points. An ivory sewing needle fragment
from Florida has a maximum cross-sectional diameter
of 4.8 mm at only 1.5 cm from the tapered tip, also
well above the diameter of the Manis piece
(Hemmings 2004, figure 3.16).
Similarities can be found between the Manis item
and the slender bone spear and arrow points from
southern Africa’s Later Stone Age and Iron Age
(Backwell et al. 2008, figures 3, 8). At about 3.5 cm
arrow points are 3–4 mm in diameter, although their
conical tips appear much sharper than the Manis
specimen, and they show signs of rounding and
shaping by human actions, unlike the Manis specimen.
These African specimens appear to be no longer than
about 13 cm, and were always bound into link shafts that
were inserted into reed shafts.
The Manis specimen’s small size and the evident
lack of human shaping to a more efficient circular cross
section should inspire a rigorous visual examin- ation of
the specimen and lead to experiments to test the
effectiveness of such a tiny projectile point.
Relation to Clovis? If the bone or ivory splinter is
indeed a projectile made by human hands, and the marked
and broken mastodont bones were part of a
Figure 9 The upper part of the figure shows Manis mastodont ribs that had been fragmented by mechanized excavation
equipment. Note the pebbles in colluvium above the bones and the stones in glacial till directly under the bones (photographed
by C. Vance Haynes in 1977, used with his permission). The lower part of the figure isthe bone-bed map (from Waters et al.
2011c, figure S3 in the “supporting online material,” edited to enlarge the text; note that the original figure had a misspelling of
one bone name,
“inominate;” reprinted with permission from AAAS.) with an added outline drawn around the approximate area in the photo
above.
butchered carcass, the site may be evidence that mega- indeed specifically targeted by human foragers in
fauna stressed by rapidly oscillating climates and com- some habitats (Haynes 2009).
peting for limited resources in the late glacial were
2.2.10 AYER POND, WASHINGTON a pond were directly dated 11,760 ± 70 and
At Ayer Pond, Washington, Bison antiquus bones 11,990 ± 25 14C yr BP (the latter date calibrated
found in clay and silt at the base of woody peat in at
2-sigma midpoint to about 13,850 cal yr BP) (Kenady understood – as a culture that made and used
et al. 2011). This is 100–390 14C years older than highly efficient tools
Clovis, or 450 cal years older than the earliest and whose foragers were not averse to leaving
Clovis date accepted here. No lithics were found, behind still-useful implements such as fluted
and no organic projectiles. Possible impact points on bifaces or dis- carding worn items such as
bones, unweathered-bone fracturing patterns, and unmodified flakes after using them.
chopmarks were also identified, but “no fine cut-
marks […] from slicing with a sharp edge” were
seen (Kenady et al. 2011, 135). No carnivore-gnaw
damage was found, and no evidence of animal-tram-
pling. Hence the materials are interpreted as a bison
dismembered and butchered by people, who dis-
carded low-utility body parts on the surface of a
frozen pond, and transported away the higher-utility
parts.
Questions or issues? The storage of large-mammal
body parts within frozen ponds is a recurring theme
in proboscidean-site interpretations by Fisher (e.g.,
see Fisher 1984a, 1984b, 1987, 1996, 2009), and is
equivocally suggested for the site by Kenady et al.
(2011), but a preferred twist is that the bison body
parts may have been cached on top of ice after butch-
ering, rather than under the ice in water. The bones in
illustrations appear to have been broken by impact
when in a fresh state, and were not carnivore
gnawed. Unfortunately, the discovery and collection
of the bones were not done by professionals, and the
discovery was made after a “tracked mechanical
exca- vator” (Kenady et al. 2011, 133) began digging
at the site; its weight could have deformed the
clay and
mucky silts enclosing the bones below peat
sediments, causing breakage and putting marks on
well-preserved elements. Workmen gathered up and
uncovered bones by hand after one bone was seen in
a cutwall of a mechanically opened excavation. The
bones were then stored for two years before a
professional was contacted and visited the find spot.
Kenady et al. (2011, 133) state that no shovels or
trowels were used by workmen to recover the
bones after mechanical
equipment exposed the first ones, based on workers’
memories two years later and apparently not on
formal notes or records.
Relation to Clovis? Interpretations of the site
support the idea that people in the centuries before
Clovis were competent foragers, who quickly and
effi- ciently killed and butchered large mammals, and
moved on without leaving much behind, somewhat
similar to Clovis behavior at some sites in the
American West. But the absence of associated lithic
and osseous implements makes it impossible to link
the find to Clovis as it has been classically
2.2.11 THE FIRELANDS GROUND SLOTH, OHIO excavators’ damage. However, Redmond et al. (2012)
At the Firelands Ground Sloth site, Ohio, a femur from an do report a variety of bone marks, which they
adult Jefferson’s ground sloth (Redmond et al. 2012) propose were probably made during handling and
was directly dated at 11,740 ± 35 14C yr BP (roughly storage, and also a type of mark called “claw
13,550 cal yr BP), 700 14C years older marks,” which are curved, broad, shallow, and U-
than the Waters and Stafford (2007) maximum age for shaped – and in my view very unlikely to have
Clovis, but only 140 14C years (150 cal years) older than been made on fresh mammalian cortical bone
the first-appearance date espoused in this paper. One surfaces by animal claws, which have not been shown
femur had dozens of fine incisions that were interpreted to perma- nently mark large-mammal cortical bone.
as made by unmodified and retouched stone flakes and The cut- marks themselves are said to have been
bifacial tools, used to chop or slice fresh bone surfaces. made by tools made of stone and not metal, based on
The sloth’s 10 skeletal elements had been given to features such as the deep and asymmetrical V-shaped
the Firelands Historical Museum in Norwalk, Ohio, but cross sec- tions with internal striations and steps, but
no detailed information is available except that they had these are also present in a proportion of metal-
been buried 4 ft deep in wet ground, probably a swamp or produced cuts (Krasinski 2010). Redmond et al.
peat bog. No lithics had been curated with the bones. (2012, 92) admit that the lack of information about
Upon learning about the bones, Redmond et al. (2012) the circumstances
initiated a taxonomic and taphonomic study of them. of recovery so long ago “preclude [sic] an absolute
Surface marks were inspected under optical instruments [italics in original] determination as to whether the
and a sample of silicon molds of the marks was examined incisions […] are the result of human butchering.”
in a scanning electron micro- scope by H. J. Greenfield. Relation to Clovis? Little can be said, other than
Small pieces of wood from inside bones were identified making the obvious (and hardly consequential)
as cf. conifer, consistent with expectable late Pleistocene acknowledgment that megafaunal butchering, pre-
flora. sumably following killing, is almost a commonplace
Questions or issues? The sloth bones had been dis- subsistence activity in the Clovis era and may have
covered decades before, so the methods of recovery, developed a few centuries before the appearance of
cleaning, and storage cannot be reviewed to eliminate the Classic Clovis lithic technology – if the sites discussed
possibility that the bone marks are preparators’ or immediately above have been correctly interpreted.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ted Goebel for inviting this review.
Thanks also to the late Paul Martin for showing how
to deal with interpretive disagreements, even the most
aggres- sive kind, and who thoughtfully tried to teach
so many students about late-glacial North America. I
wish his patience and civility had been learned by
more people in this profession. I also want to thank
William Gardner who infected me with the Clovis
virus, and C. Vance Haynes (no biological relation
that can be traced) for sharing time and knowledge
over so many years. Special thanks go to Vance
Holliday, Stuart Fiedel, David Kilby, Vance Haynes,
and a “somewhat anonymous reviewer,” in the
journal editor’s words, for reading a draft of this
paper and making major and minor suggestions to
improve it, and to Janis Klimowicz for essential help
in its preparation.
References
Aceituno, F. J., N. Loaiza, M. E. Delgado-Burbano, and
G. Barrientos. 2013. “The initial human settlement of north-
west South America during the Pleistocene/Holocene tran-
sition: Synthesis and perspectives.” Quaternary International
301: 23–33.
Adovasio, J. M. 1993. “The ones that will not go away: A biased
view of the pre-Clovis populations in the New World.” In
From Kostenki to Clovis, edited by O. Soffer, and
N. D. Praslov, 199–218. New York: Plenum Press.
Adovasio, J. M., J. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath.
1978. “Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: An overview.”
American Antiquity 43: 632–651.
Adovasio, J. M., J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, R. Stuckenrath, with sec-
tions by Applegarth, J. D., R. C. Carlisle, D. T. Clark,
J. Donahue, D. Faingnaert, J. Guilday, W. C. Johnson,
D. Krinsley, K. Lord, E. Skirboli, P. G. Wiegman. 1977.
“Meadowcroft Rockshelter: Retrospect 1976.” Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 47(2–3): 1–93.
Adovasio, J. M., and J. Page. 2002. The First Americans: In Pursuit
of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. New York: Random House.
Adovasio, J. M., and D. Pedler. 2005. “A long view of deep time at
Meadowcroft Rockshelter.” In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond
Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford,
and M. Waters, 23–28. College Station: Center for the Study
of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.
Adovasio, J. M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath. 1999.
“No vestige of a beginning nor prospect of an end: Two
decades of debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter.” In Ice Age
People of North America: Environments, Origins, and
Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire,
416–431. Corvallis: Center for the Study of the First
Americans,
Oregon State University Press.
Adovasio, J. M., and D. R. Pedler. 2013. “The ones that still won’t
go away: More biased thoughts on the pre-Clovis peopling of
the New World.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by
K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 511–520.
College Station: Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Texas A&M University.
Ahler, S. A. 2000. “Use-wear evaluation of five rock specimens.”
In The 1999 Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426),
edited by N. H. Lopinot, J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner, 230–
236. Southwest Missouri State University Center for
Archaeological Research. Special Publication No. 3.
Amick, D. S. 2004. “A possible ritual cache of Great Basin R. S. MacNeish and J. G. Libby, 417–430. Albuquerque:
stemmed bifaces from the terminal Pleistocene–early University of New Mexico Press.
Holocene occu- pation of NW Nevada, USA.” Lithic
Technology 29(2): 119–145.
Anderson, A. D. 1962. “The Cooperton mammoth: A preliminary
report.” Plains Anthropologist 7: 110–112.
A. D. Anderson (ed.). 1975. “The Cooperton mammoth: An early
man bone quarry.” Great Plains Journal 14: 130–173.
Anderson, D. G. 1996. “Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic
settlement in the lower Southeast.” In The Paleoindian and
Early Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K.
E. Sassaman, 29–57. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press. Anderson, D. G., T. G. Bissett, and S. J. Yerka. 2013.
“The late-
Pleistocene human settlement of interior North America: The
role of physiography and sea-level change.” In
Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C.
V. Ketron, and
M. R. Waters, 183–203. College Station: Center for the Study
of the First Americans, Texas A&M Press.
Anderson, D. G., and J. C. Gillam. 2000. “Paleoindian colonization
of the Americas: Implications from an examination of physio-
graphy, demography, and artifact distribution.” American
Antiquity 65: 43–66.
Anovitz, L. M., J. M. Elam, L. R. Riciputi, and D. R. Cole. 1999.
“The failure of obsidian hydration dating: Sources, impli-
cations, and new directions.” Journal of Archaeological
Science 26: 735–752.
Backwell, L., F. d’Errico, and L. Wadley. 2008. “Middle Stone
Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu
Cave, South Africa.” Journal of Archaeological Science
35: 1566–1580.
Beck, C., and G. T. Jones. 1997. “The terminal Pleistocene/early
Holocene archaeology of the Great Basin.” Journal of World
Prehistory 11: 161–236.
Beck, C., and G. T. Jones. 2010. “Clovis and Western Stemmed:
Population migration and the meeting of two technologies in
the Intermountain West.” American Antiquity 75: 81–116.
Boëda, E., A. Lourdeau, C. Lahaye, G. Daltrini Felice, S. Viana,
I. Clemente-Conte, M. Pino, M. Fontugne, S. Hoeltz,
N. Guidon, A.-M. Pessis, A. Costa Da, and M. Pagli. 2013.
“The late-Pleistocene industries of Piauí, Brazil: New data.”
In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf,
C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 445–465. College Station:
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M
Press.
Bradley, B. A. 1993. “Paleo-Indian flaked stone technology in the
North American High Plains.” In From Kostenki to Clovis:
Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian Adaptation, edited by
O. Soffer and N. D. Praslov, 251–262. New York: Plenum
Press. Bradley, B. A., M. B. Collins, and C. A. Hemmings. 2010.
Clovis Technology. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in
Prehistory.
Breitburg, E., J. B. Broster, A. L. Reesman, and R. G. Stearns.
1996. “The Coats-Hines site: Tennessee’s first Paleoindian-
mastodon association.” Current Research in the Pleistocene
13: 6–8.
Bryan, A. L. 1988. “The relationship of the stemmed point and
fluted point traditions in the Great Basin.” In Early Human
Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis–
Archaic Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, and J.
L. Fagan, 53–74. Nevada State Museum. Anthropological
Papers Number 21.
Bryan, A. L., and D. Tuohy. 1999. “Prehistory of the Great Basin/
Snake River Plain to about 8,500 years ago.” In Ice Age
Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and
Adaptations of
the First Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen and
K. L. Turnmire, 249–263. Corvallis: Oregon State University
Press and Center for the Study of the First Americans.
Cannon, M. D., and D. J. Meltzer. 2004. “Paleoindian foraging:
Examining the faunal evidence for large mammal
specialization and regional variability in prey choice.”
Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 1955–1987.
Cannon, M. D., and D. J. Meltzer. 2008. “Explaining variability in
early Paleoindian foraging.” Quaternary International 191: 5–
17.
Chrisman, D., R. S. MacNeish, J. Mavalwala, and H. Savage.
1996. “Late Pleistocene human friction skin prints from
Pendejo Cave, New Mexico.” American Antiquity 61(2): 357–
376.
Chrisman, D., J. Mavalwala, H. Savage, and A. Tessarolo. 2003.
“Friction skin imprints and hair.” In Pendejo Cave, edited by
Clague, J. J., T. A. Ager, and R. W. Mathewes. 2004. “Environments of 2: The Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Washington,
northwestern North America before the Last Glacial Maximum.” In DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Dillehay, T. 1999. “The late Pleistocene cultures of South America.”
Last Glacial Maximum, edited by Evolutionary Anthropology 7: 206–216.
D. B. Madsen, 63–94. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Dillehay, T. D. 2000. “Preliminary micro-use-wear of four pre-
Collins, M., and J. Lohse. 2004. “The nature of Clovis blades and Clovis-age objects.” In The 1999 Excavations at the Big Eddy
blade cores.” In Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia Site (23CE426), edited by N. H. Lopinot, J. H. Ray, and
before the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by M. D. Conner, 221–229. Southwest Missouri State University
D. B. Madsen, 159–183. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Center for Archaeological Research. Special Publication No. 3.
Collins, M. B. 2007. “Discerning Clovis subsistence from stone arti- Dillehay, T. D. 2013. “Entangled knowledge: Old trends and new
facts and site distributions on the southern Plains periphery.” In thoughts in first South American studies.” In Paleoamerican
Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America, edited by Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and
R. B. Walker and B. N. Driskell, 59–87. Lincoln: University of M. R. Waters, 377–395. College Station: Center for the Study
Nebraska Press. of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.
Collins, M. B., D. J. Stanford, D. L. Lowery, and B. A. Bradley. 2013. Dillehay, T. D., M. Pino, J. Rossen, C. Ocamp, P. Rivas, D.
“North America before Clovis: Variance in temporal/ spatial Pollack, and G. Henderson. 1999. “Reply to Fiedel, Part I.”
cultural patterns, 27,000–13,000 cal yr BP.” In Paleoamerican Scientific American Discovering Archaeology Special Report:
Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, Monte Verde Revisited: 12–14.
521–539. College Station: Center for the Study of the First Dillehay, T. D., C. Ramirez, M. Pino, M. B. Collins, J. Rossen, and
Americans, Texas A&M University. J. D. Pino-Navarro. 2008. “Monte Verde: Seaweed, food,
Davis, L. B., C. L. Hill, and K. Krasinski. 2013. “Evidence for pre- medi- cine, and the peopling of South America.” Science 320:
Clovis human activity associated with a mammoth in late 784–786.
Pleistocene eastern Montana.” Poster presented at Paleoamerican Dixon, E. J. 2013. Arrows and Atl Atls: A Guide to the Archeology of
Odyssey: A Conference Focused on First Americans Archaeology, Beringia. Anchorage: US Department of the Interior, National
Santa Fe, New Mexico, 16–19 October. Park Service.
Davis, L. D., and M. C. Wilson. 1985. “The late Pleistocene Lindsay Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., T. R. Pickering, and H. T. Bunn. 2010.
Mammoth (24DW501), eastern Montana: Possible man–mam- moth “Configurational approach to identifying the earliest hominin
association.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 2: 97–98. Deter-Wolf, butchers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
A., J. W. Tune, and J. B. Broster. 2011. “Excavations and dating of late (USA) 107: 20929–20934.
Pleistocene and Paleoindian deposits at the Coats-Hines site, Dominguez-Rodrigo, M., T. R. Pickering, and H. T. Bunn. 2012.
Williamson County, Tennessee.” Tennessee “Experimental study of cut marks made with rocks unmodified
Archaeology 5(2): 142–156. by human flaking and its bearing on claims of ∼3.4-million-
Dickinson, W. R. 2011. “Geological perspectives on the Monte year-old butchery evidence from Dikika, Ethiopia.” Journal
Verde archaeological site in Chile and pre-Clovis coastal migration in of Archaeological Science 39: 205–214.
the Americas.” Quaternary Research 76: 201–210. Dillehay, T. 1989. Driese, S. G., L. C. Nordt, M. R. Waters, and J. L. Keene. 2013.
Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Site in Chile. “Analysis of site formation history and potential disturbance
Volume 1. Paleoenvironment and Site Context. Washington, DC: of stratigraphic context in vertisols at the Debra L. Friedkin
Smithsonian Institution Press. archaeological site in central Texas, USA.” Geoarchaeology
Dillehay, T. 1997. Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Site in Chile. Volume 28: 221–248.
Gustafson, C. E., D. W. Gilbow, and R. D. Daugherty. 1979. “The Haynes, G., and K. E. Krasinski. 2010. “Taphonomic
Manis mastodon site: Early man on the Olympic Peninsula.” fieldwork in southern Africa and its application in
Canadian Journal of Archaeology/Jounal Canadien studies of the earliest
d’Archéologie 3: 157–164.
Halligan, J., J. S. Dunbar, B. Fenerty, and E. Green. 2013.
“Submerged Paleoindian Sites in the Aucilla River of
Northwestern Florida: New Geoarchaeological and
Archaeological Research.” Poster presented at the
Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico,
October 16–19.
Hand, D. J. 2014. The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences,
Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day. New York:
Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1964. “Fluted projectile points: Their age and
dis- persion.” Science 145: 1408–1413.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1966. “Elephant hunting in North America.”
Scientific American 214: 104–112.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1967. “Carbon-14 dates and Early Man in the
New World.” In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a
Cause, edited by P. S. Martin and H. E. Wright, 267–286.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1969. “The earliest Americans.” Science 166:
709–715.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1970. “Geochronology of man-mammoth sites
and their bearing upon the origin of the Llano complex.” In
Pleistocene and Recent Environments of the Central Plains,
edited by W. E. Dort and E. S. Johnson, 77–92. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1973. “The Calico site: Artifacts or geofacts.”
Science 181(4097): 305–310.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1974. “Archaeological geology of some selected
Paleoindian sites.” In History and Prehistory of the Lubbock
Lake Site, edited by C. C. Black, 133–139. The Museum
Journal XV. Lubbock: West Texas Museum Association.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1980. “The Clovis culture.” Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 1(1): 115–121.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1982. “Were Clovis progenitors in Beringia?.” In
Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by D. M. Hopkins, J.
V. Matthews, C. E. Schweger, and S. B. Young, 383–398.
New York: Academic Press.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1987. “Clovis origins update.” The Kiva 52: 83–
93. Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1991a. “Geoarchaeological and
paleohydrological evidence for a Clovis-age drought in North
America and its
bearing on extinction.” Quaternary Research 35: 435–450.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1991b. “More on Meadowcroft radiocarbon
chronology.” The Review of Archaeology 12 (1): 8–14.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1993. “Clovis–Folsom geochronology and
climatic change.” In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic
– Paleo- Indian Adaptations, edited by O. Soffer and N. D.
Praslov,
219–236. New York: Plenum Press.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. 1999. “Monte Verde and the pre-Clovis situation
in America.” Scientific American Discovering Archaeology
Special Report: Monte Verde Revisited, 17–19.
Haynes, C. V., Jr., and G. A. Agogino. 1986. Geochronology
of
Sandia Cave. Contributions to Anthropology 32. Washington
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Haynes, G. 1991. Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants:
Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, G. 2002. The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis
Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haynes, G. 2009. “Estimates of Clovis-era megafaunal populations
and their extinction risks.” In American Megafaunal
Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene, edited by
G. Haynes, 39–54. Dordrecht: Springer.
Haynes, G., D. G. Anderson, C. R. Ferring, S. J. Fiedel, D.
J. Grayson, C. V. Haynes, Jr, V. T. Holliday, B. B. Huckell,
M. Kornfeld, D. J. Meltzer, J. Morrow, T. Surovell,
N. M. Waguespack, P. Wigand, and R. M. Yohe. 2007.
“Comment on ‘Redefining the age of Clovis: Implications for
the peopling of the Americas’ by M. Waters & T. Stafford.”
Science 317: 320b.
Haynes, G., and J. M. Hutson 2013. “Clovis-era subsistence:
Regional variability, continental patterning.” In
Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron,
and M. R. Waters, 293–309. College Station: Center for the
Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.
peopling of North America.” Journal of Taphonomy 8(2–3): 181– Station: Texas A&M University Press.
202. Huckell, B. B. 2014. “But how do we know if it’s Clovis? An exam-
Hedman, W. H. 2010. The Raven Bluff Site: Preliminary Findings ination of Clovis overshot flaking of bifaces and a North
from a Late Pleistocene Site in the Alaskan Arctic. Bureau of Land Dakota cache.” In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and
Management Report, on file at the Alaska State Office of History New Research, edited by B. B. Huckell and J. D. Kilby, 133–
and Archaeology, Anchorage. 152. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Hemmings, C. A. 2004. The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent- Wide Ives, J. W., D. Froese, K. Supernant, and G. Yanicki. 2013.
Cultural Adaptation. PhD dissertation, Department of “Vectors, Vestiges, and Valhallas – Rethinking the corridor.”
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville. In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V.
Hibben, F. C. 1941. Evidence of Early Occupation of Sandia Cave, New Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 149–169. College Station: Center
Mexico, and Other Early Sites in the Sandia-Manzana Region. for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.
Smithsonian Institution Miscellaneous Collections 99 (23). Jackson, D., C. Méndez, R. Seguel, A. Maldonado, and G. Vargas.
2007. “Initial occupation of the Pacific coast of Chile during
Hill, C. L., and L. B. Davis. 1998. “Stratigraphy, AMS radiocarbon age,
and stable isotope biogeochemistry of the Lindsay Mammoth, late Pleistocene times.” Current Anthropology 48: 725–731.
eastern Montana.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 15: 109– Jackson, L. J. 2006. “Fluted and Fishtail points from southern
112. coastal Chile: New evidence suggesting Clovis- and Folsom-
Hockett, B., and D. L. Jenkins. 2013. “Identifying stone tool cut marks related occupations in southernmost South America.” In
and the pre-Clovis occupation of the Paisley Caves.” American Paleoindian Archaeology: A Hemispheric Perspective, edited
Antiquity 78(4): 762–778. by J. E. Morrow and C. Gnecco, 105–120. Gainesville:
Hoffecker, J. F. 2005. A Prehistory of the North: Human Settlement University Press of Florida.
of the Higher Latitudes. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Jenkins, D. L. 2007. “Distribution and dating of cultural and
Hoffecker, J. F., and S. A. Elias. 2007. Human Ecology of Beringia. paleontological remains at the Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves
New York: Columbia University Press. (35LK3400) in the northern Great Basin: An early
Hoffecker, J. F., W. R. Powers, and T. Goebel. 1993. “The coloniza- tion assessment.” In Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic? Great Basin
of Beringia and the peopling of the New World.” Science 259: 46– Human Ecology at the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition,
53. edited by K. Graf and
Holen, S. R., and K. Holen. 2013. “The Mammoth Steppe hypoth- D. Schmitt, 57–81. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
esis: The Middle Wisconsin (Oxygen Isotope Stage 3) peopling of Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, Jr, P. F. Campos,
North America.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by T. J. Connolly, L. S. Cummings, M. Hofreiter, B. Hockett,
K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 429–444. K. McDonough, L. Luthe, P. W. O’Grady, K. J. Reinhard,
College Station: Center for the Study of the First Americans, M. E. Swisher, F. White, B. Yates, R. W. Yohe, Jr, C. Yost,
Texas A&M University. and E. Willerslev. 2013. “Geochronology, archaeological
Holmes, C. E. 2001. “Tanana Valley archaeology circa 14,000 to 9000 context, and DNA at the Paisley Caves.” In Paleoamerican
B.P.” Arctic Anthropology 38(2): 154–170. Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and
Holmes, C. E. 2011. “The Beringian and transitional periods in M. R. Waters, 485–510. College Station: Center for the Study
Alaska: Technology of the East Beringian Tradition as viewed from of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.
Swan Point.” In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, Jr, P. F. Campos,
Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/ Early Holocene B. Hockett, G. T. Jones, L. S. Cummings, C. Yost,
Beringia, edited by T. Goebel and I. Buvit, 179–191. College T. J. Connolly, R. M. Yohe, II, S. C. Gibbons, M. Raghavan,
M. Rasmussen, J. L. A. Paijmans, M. Hofreiter, B. M. Kemp, Karr, L. 2015, “Human use and reuse of megafaunal bones in
J. L. Barta, C. Monroe, M. T. P. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev. North America: Bone fracture, taphonomy, and
2012a. “Clovis age Western Stemmed projectile points archaeological interpretation.” Quaternary International
and human coprolites at the Paisley Caves.” Science 337: 301: 332–341.
361 223–228. Kay, M. 2000. “Use-wear analysis.” In The 1999 Excavations at
Jenkins, D. L., L. G. Davis, T. W. Stafford, Jr, P. F. Campos, the
B. Hockett, G. T. Jones, L. S. Cummings, C. Yost, Big Eddy Site (23CE426), edited by N. H. Lopinot, J. H.
T. J. Connolly, R. M. Yohe, II, S. C. Gibbons, M. Ray, and M. D. Conner, 177–220. Southwest Missouri State
Raghavan, University Center for Archaeological Research. Special
M. Rasmussen, J. L. A. Paijmans, M. Hofreiter, B. Publication No. 3, Springfield.
M. Kemp, J. L. Barta, C. Monroe, M. T. P. Gilbert, and Kelly, R. L. 1987. “A comment on the pre-Clovis deposits at
E. Willerslev. 2012b. “Supplementary materials for ‘Clovis Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Letter to the Editor).”
age Western Stemmed projectile points and human coprolites Quaternary Research 27: 332–334.
at the Paisley Caves’.” Science 337 (http://www.sciencemag Kelly, R. L. 2003. “Maybe we do know when people first came
.org/content/337/6091/223/suppl/DC1). to North America; and what does it mean if we do?”
Jennings, T. A., and M. R. Waters. 2014. “Pre-Clovis lithic Quaternary International 109–110: 133–145.
technol- ogy at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas: Kelly, R. L., and L. Todd. 1988. “Coming into the country: Early
Comparisons to Clovis Paleoindian hunting and mobility.” American Antiquity
through site-level behavior, technological trait-list, and 53(2): 231–244.
cladistic analyses.” American Antiquity 79(1): 25–44. Kenady, S. M., M. C. Wilson, R. F. Schalk, and R. R.
Johnson, E. 2006. “The taphonomy of mammoth localities in Mierendorf. 2011. “Late Pleistocene butchered Bison
southeastern Wisconsin (USA).” Quaternary International antiquus from Ayer Pond, Orcas Island, Pacific Northwest:
142–143: 58–78. Age confirmation and taphonomy.” Quaternary
Johnson, E. 2007. “Along the ice margin – The cultural taphonomy International 233: 130–141.
of late Pleistocene mammoths in southeastern Wisconsin Kimball, L. R. 1996. “Early Archaic settlement and
(USA).” Quaternary International 169–170: 64–83. technology:
Johnson, M. E. 1997. “Additional research at Cactus Hill: Lessons from Tellico.” In The Paleoindian and Early
Preliminary description of northern Virginia Chapter ASV’s Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson and K. F.
1993 and 1995 excavations. Appendix G.” In Sassaman, 149–186. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Archaeological Press.
Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Krasinski, K. E. 2010. Broken Bones and Cutmarks:
Virginia, edited by J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, unnum- Taphonomic
bered pages. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Analyses and Implications for the Peopling of North
Research Report Series No. 8, Richmond. America. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Joyce, D. J. 2006. “Chronology and new research on the University of Nevada, Reno.
Schaefer Mammoth (?Mammuthus primigenius), Kenosha Kuehn, S. C., D. G. Froese, P. E. Carrara, F. F. Foit, Jr, N. J.
County, Wisconsin, USA.” Quaternary International 142– Pearce, and P. Rotheisler. 2009. “Major- and trace-element
143: 44–57. characteriz- ation, expanded distribution, and a new
Joyce, D. J. 2013. “Pre-Clovis megafauna butchery sites in the chronology for the latest Pleistocene Glacier Peak tephras in
western Great Lakes region, USA.” In Paleoamerican North America.” Quaternary Research 71: 201–216.
Odyssey, edited by K. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, Kunz, M. L. 2010. “Clovis Progenitors: Immigrants or Home
467–483. College Station: Center for the Study of the First Grown?” Abstracts of the SAA 75th Anniversary Meeting,
Americans, Texas A&M University. 15–18 April, St Louis, MO, 144.
Lahaye, C., M. Hernandez, E. Boëda, G. D. Felice, N. Guidon,
S. Hoeltz, A. Lourdeau, M. Pagli, A.-M. Pessis, M. Rasse, by 20,000 BC: The Toca da Peia site, Piauí, Brazil.” Journal
and S. Viana. 2013. “Human occupation in South America of Archaeological Science 40: 2840–2847.
Lavallée, D. 2000. The First South Americans: The Peopling of a
Continent from the Earliest Evidence to High Culture. P. G.
Bahn, trans. (orig. 1993). Salt Lake City: University of Utah
Press.
Lepper, B. T., T. A. Frolking, D. C. Fisher, G. Goldstein, J.
E. Sanger, D. A. Wymer, J. G. Ogden, III, and P. E. Hooge.
1991. “Intestinal contents of a late Pleistocene mastodont
from midcontinental North America.” Quaternary Research
36: 120–125.
Lopinot, N. H., and J. H. Ray. 2000. “Introduction.” In The 1999
Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426), edited by
N. H. Lopinot, J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner, 1–16.
Southwest Missouri State University Center for
Archaeological Research. Special Publication No. 3,
Springfield.
Lopinot, N. H., and J. H. Ray. 2007. “Trampling experiments in the
search for the earliest Americans.” American Antiquity 72(4):
771–782.
Lopinot, N. H., J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner, eds. 1998. The 1997
Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426) in Southwest
Missouri. Southwest Missouri State University Center for
Archaeological Research. Special Publication No. 2.
Lopinot, N. H., J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner, eds. 2000. The 1999
Excavations at the Big Eddy Site (23CE426). Southwest
Missouri State University Center for Archaeological
Research. Special Publication No. 3.
Lowery, D. L., M. A. O’Neal, J. S. Wah, D. P. Wagner, and
D. J. Stanford. 2010. “Late Pleistocene upland stratigraphy in
the western Delmarva peninsula, USA.” Quaternary Science
Reviews 29: 1472–1480.
Lynch, T. F. 2001. “On the road again. Reflections on Monte
Verde.” Review of Archaeology 22(1): 39–43.
Mackie, Q., L. Davis, D. Fedje, D. McLaren, and A. Gusick. 2013.
“Locating Pleistocene-age submerged archaeological sites on
the Northwest Coast: Current status of research and future
directions.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. Graf,
C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 133–147. College Station:
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M
University.
MacNeish, R. S. 1971. “Early man in the Andes.” Scientific
American 224: 36–46.
MacNeish, R. S. 2004. “Early inhabitants of the Americas: Pendejo
Cave and beyond.” In Pendejo Cave, edited by R. S. MacNeish
and J. G. Libby, 469–505. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Mashenko, E. V., A. F. Pavlov, V. N. Zenin, S. V. Leshchinskiy, and
L. A. Orlova. 2003. “The Lugovskoe site: Relations between
the mammoth assemblage and Late Palaeolithic man.” In 3rd
International Mammoth Conference, 2003: Program and
Abstracts, edited by J. E. Storer, 77–80. Government of
Yukon Palaeontology Program. Occasional Papers in Earth
Sciences No. 5.
Matisoo-Smith, E., and K. A. Horsburgh. 2012. DNA for
Archaeologists. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy. 1997. Archaeological
Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research
Report Series No. 8.
Mead, J. I. 1980. “Is it really that old? A comment about the
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977, an overview.” American
Antiquity 45: 579–582.
Mehl, M. G. 1975. “‘Vertebrate paleomortology at the Cooperton
site.’ In The Cooperton Mammoth: An Early Man Bone
Quarry, edited by A. D. Anderson, 165–168.” Great Plains
Journal 14(2).
Meltzer, D. J. 2009. First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice
Age America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meltzer, D. J., J. M. Adovasio, and T. D. Dillehay. 1994. “On a
Pleistocene human occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil.”
Antiquity 68: 695–714.
Miller, D. S. 2010. Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005–2007:
Examining Site Formation Processes at an Upland Paleoindian
Site along the Middle Savannah River. Occasional Papers 1,
Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey, South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
Miller, D. S., V. T. Holliday, and J. Bright. 2013. “Clovis across
the continent.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. Graf,
C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 207–245. College Station: E. Khusnutdinova, S. Litvinov, L. P.
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M Osipova, S.
University.
Morrow, J. E., S. J. Fiedel, D. L. Johnson, M. Kornfeld,
M. Rutledge, and W. R. Wood. 2012. “Pre-Clovis in Texas? A
critical assessment of the ‘Buttermilk Creek Complex’.”
Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 3677–3682.
Mulligan, C. J., and A. Kitchen. 2013. “Three-stage colonization
model for the peopling of the Americas.” In Paleoamerican
Odyssey, edited by K. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters,
171–181. College Station: Center for the Study of the First
Americans, Texas A&M University.
Munyikwa, K., J. K. Feathers, T. M. Rittenour, and
H. K. Shrimpton. 2011. “Constraining the Late Wisconsinan
retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet from western Canada
using luminescence ages from postglacial aeolian dunes.”
Quaternary Geochronology 6(4): 407–422.
Nikolskiy, P., and V. Pitulko. 2013. “Evidence from the Yana
Palaeolithic site, arctic Siberia, yields clues to the riddle of
mammoth hunting.” Journal of Archaeological Science 40:
4189–4197.
Overstreet, D. F. 1993. Chesrow, A Paleoindian Complex in
the
Southern Lake Michigan Basin. Case Studies in Great Lakes
Archaeology, Number 2. Milwaukee: Great Lakes
Archaeological Press.
Overstreet, D. F. 1996. “Still more on cultural contexts of
mammoth and mastodon in the southwestern Lake Michigan
basin.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 13: 36–38.
Overstreet, D. F., D. J. Joyce, K. Hallin, and D. Wasion. 1993.
“Cultural contexts of mammoth and mastodon in the
southwest Lake Michigan Basin.” Current Research in the
Pleistocene 10: 75–77.
Overstreet, D. F., D. J. Joyce, K. Hallin, and D. Wasion. 1995.
“More on cultural context of mammoth and mastodon in the
southwestern Lake Michigan basin.” Current Research in the
Pleistocene 12: 40–42.
Overstreet, D. F., and M. F. Kolb. 2003. Guide to Field Trip
to
Southeast Wisconsin Mammoth and Paleoindian Sites. Center
for Archaeological Research, Marquette University Reports
of Investigations No. 03.003, Milwaukee.
Overstreet, D. F., and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 1997. “Additions to a
revised chronology for cultural and non-cultural mammoth
and mastodon fossils in the southwestern Lake Michigan
Basin.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 14: 70–71.
Perego, U. A., A. Achilli, N. Angerhofer, M. Accetturo, M. Pala,
A. Olivieri, B. Hooshiar Kashani, K. H. Ritchie, R. Scozzari,
Q. P. Kong, N. M. Myres, A. Salas, O. Semino, H.
J. Bandelt, S. R. Woodward, and A. Torroni. 2009.
“Distinctive Paleo-Indian migration routes from Beringia
marked by two rare mtDNA haplogroups.” Current Biology
19(1): 1–8.
Pinson, A. O. 2010. “Paisley Caves, part I: What’s the scoop on the
poop?” Mammoth Trumpet 25(4): 16–20.
Pitulko, V., P. Nikolskiy, A. Basilyan, and E. Pavlova. 2013.
“Human habitation in arctic western Beringia prior to the
LGM.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. Graf,
C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 13–44. College Station:
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M
University Press.
Poinar, H., S. Fiedel, C. E. King, A. M. Devault, K. Bos, M. Kuch,
and R. Debruyne. 2009. “Comment on ‘DNA from pre-Clovis
human coprolites in Oregon, North America’.” Science
325(5937): 148.
Potter, B. A. 2011. “Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene assem-
blage variability in central Alaska.” In From the Yenisei
to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in
Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, edited by
T. Goebel and I. Buvit, 215–233. College Station: Texas
A&M University.
Potter, B. A., C. E. Holmes, and D. R. Yesner. 2013. “Technology
and economy among the earliest prehistoric foragers in
interior eastern Beringia.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey,
edited by
K. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 81–103. College
Station: Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas
A&M University.
Raghavan, M., P. Skoglund, K. E. Graf, M. Metspalu,
A. Albrechtsen, I. Moltke, S. Rasmussen, T. W. Stafford, Jr.,
L. Orlando, E. Metspalu, M. Karmin, K. Tambets, S.
Rootsi,
R. Mägi, P. Campos, E. Balanovska, O. Balanovsky,
A. Fedorova, M. I. Voevoda, M. DeGiorgio, T. Sicheritz- Ponten, from northern Ohio.” World Archaeology 44(1): 75–101.
S. Brunak, S. Demeshchenko, T. Kivisild, R. Villems, Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C.
R. Nielsen, M. Jakobsson, and E. Willerslev. 2013. “Upper B. Ramsey, C. E. Buck, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards,
Palaeolithic Siberian genome reveals dual ancestry of Native M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson,
Americans.” Nature 505: 87–91. H. Haflidason, I. Hajdas, C. Hatté, T. J. Heaton, D.
Ranere, A., and R. Cooke. 1991. “Paleoindian occupation in Central L. Hoffman, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser,
American tropics.” In Clovis Origins and Human Adaptations, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, M. Niu, R. W. Reimer, D.
edited by R. Bonnichsen and K. Fladmark, 237–254. Orono: A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, R. A. Staff,
Center for the Study of the First Americans, University of C. S. M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht. 2013. “IntCal13 and
Maine. Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years
Rasic, J. T. 2011. “Functional variability in the late Pleistocene cal BP.” Radiocarbon 55(4): 1869–1887.
archaeological record of eastern Beringia: A model of late Sanchez, G., V. T. Holliday, J. Arroyo, N. Martínez, and E.
Pleistocene land use and technology from northwest Alaska.” In Gaines. 2013. “El Fin del Mundo, Sonora, Mexico: Where
From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Clovis People Hunted Gomphotheres.” Poster presented at
Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, edited by the Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference, Santa Fe, New
T. Goebel and I. Buvit, 128–164. College Station: Texas A&M Mexico, October 17–19.
University Press. Sanchez, G., V. T. Holliday, E. P. Gaines, J. Arroyo-Cabrales,
Rasmussen, M., S. L. Anzick, M. R. Waters, P. Skoglund, N. Martínez-Tagüeña, A. Kowler, T. Lange, G. Hodgins,
M. DiGiorgio, T. W. Stafford, Jr, S. Rasmussen, I. Moltke, S. M. Mentzer, and I. Sanchez-Morales. 2014. “A human
A. Albrechtsen, S. M. Doyle, G. D. Poznik, (Clovis)-gomphothere (Cuvieronius sp.) association ∼13,390
V. Gudmundsdottir, R. Yadav, A.-S. Malaspinas, calibrated yBP in Sonora, Mexico.” Proceedings of the
S. S. V. White, M. E. Allentoft, O. E. Cornejo, K. Tambets, National Academy of Sciences (USA) 111(30): 10972–10977.
A. Eriksson, P. D. Heintzman, M. Karmin, Schaffer, B. S., and B. W. Baker. 1997. “How many epidermal ridges
T. S. Korneliussen, D. J. Meltzer, T. L. Pierre, J. Stenderup, per linear centimeter? Comments on possible pre-Clovis
L. Saag, V. M. Warmuth, M. C. Lopes, R. S. Malhi, human friction skin prints from Pendejo Cave.” American
S. Brunak, T. Sicheritz-Ponten, I. Barnes, M. Collins, Antiquity 62(3): 559–560.
L. Orlando, F. Balloux, A. Manica, R. Gupta, M. Metspalu, Sciulli, P. W. 1982. “Human remains from Meadowcroft
C. D. Bustamante, M. Jakobsson, R. Nielssen, and Rockshelter, Washington County, southwestern
E. Willerslev. 2014. “The genome of a late Pleistocene human from Pennsylvania.” In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the
a Clovis burial site in western Montana.” Nature 506: 225–229. Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross
Ray, J. H., N. H. Lopinot, E. R. Hajic, and R. D. Mandel. 2000. Creek Drainage, edited by R. C. Carlisle and J. M.
“Possible pre-Clovis-age artifacts from the Big Eddy Site.” Current Adovasio,
Research in the Pleistocene 17: 68–71. 175–185. Prepared for the symposium “The Meadowcroft
Ray, J. H., N. H. Lopinot, E. R. Hajic, and R. D. Mandel. 1998. “The Rockshelter Rolling Thunder Review: Last Act,” 47th Annual
Big Eddy Site: A multicomponent Paleoindian site on the Ozark Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
border, Southwest Missouri.” Plains Anthropologist 43(163): 73– Minneapolis, April 14–17.
81. Sellet, F., J. Donohue, and M. G. Hill. 2009. “The Jim Pitts Site: A
Redmond, B. G., H. G. McDonald, H. J. Greenfield, and M. stratified Paleoindian site in the Black Hills of South Dakota.”
L. Burr. 2012. “New evidence for late Pleistocene human American Antiquity 74(4): 735–758.
exploitation of Jefferson’s Ground Sloth (Megalonyx jeffersonii)
Sherwood, S. C., B. N. Driskell, A. R. Randall, and S. C. Rockshelter Rolling Thunder Review: Last Act,” 47th
Meeks. 2004. “Chronology and stratigraphy at Dust Cave, Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Alabama.” American Antiquity 69(3): 533–554. Minneapolis, April 14–17.
Shott, M. J. 2013. “Human colonization and late Pleistocene lithic Surovell, T. A., and N. M. Waguespack. 2008. “How many
industries of the Americas.” Quaternary International 285: 150–160. elephant kills are 14? Clovis mammoth and mastodon kills
Sistiaga, A., F. Berna, R. Laursen, and P. Goldberg. 2014. “Steroidal in context.” Quaternary International 191: 82–97.
biomarker analysis of a 14,000 years old putative human copro- Surovell, T. A., and N. M. Waguespack. 2009. “Human prey
lite from Paisley Cave, Oregon.” Journal of Archaeological choice
Science 41: 813–817. in the late Pleistocene and its relation to megafaunal
Smallwood, A. M. 2012. “Clovis technology and settlement in the extinc- tions.” In American Megafaunal Extinctions at the End of
American southeast: Using biface analysis to evaluate the Pleistocene, edited by G. Haynes, 77–105. Dordrecht:
dispersal models.” American Antiquity 77(4): 689–713. Springer. ThisIsBozeman.com [website] [1967]. “Digging the
Smallwood, A. M., D. S. Miller, and D. Sain. 2013. “Topper site, Lindsay Mammoth.”
South Carolina: An overview of the Clovis lithic assemblage http://www.thisisbozeman.com/detail/digging-
from the Topper Hillside.” In In the Eastern Fluted Point the-lindsey-mammoth-1967/, accessed 23 June
Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, 280–298. Salt Lake 2014.
City: University of Utah Press. Vasil’ev, S. A. 2011. “The earliest Alaskan archaeological
Smith, H. L., J. T. Rasic, and T. Goebel. 2013. “Biface traditions of record: A view from Siberia.” In From the Yenisei to the
northern Alaska and their role in the peopling of the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late
Americas.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. Graf, C. Pleistocene/ Early Holocene Beringia, edited by T. Goebel
V. Ketron, and and I. Buvit, 119–127. College Station: Texas A&M
M. R. Waters, 105–123. College Station: Center for the Study University Press.
of the First Americans, Texas A&M University. Waguespack, N. M. 2007. “Why we’re still arguing about the
Stanford, D. 1982. “A critical review of archaeological evidence Pleistocene occupation of the Americas.” Evolutionary
relating to the antiquity of human occupation of the New Anthropology 16: 63–74.
World.” In Plains Indian Studies, edited by D. H. Ubelaker Waguespack, N. M., and T. A. Surovell. 2003. “Clovis hunting
and H. J. Viola, 202–218. Smithsonian Contributions to strat- egies, or how to make out on plentiful resources.”
Anthropology No. 30, Washington D.C. American Antiquity 68(2): 333–352.
Stanford, D. J., and B. A. Bradley. 2012. Across Atlantic Ice: The Waters, M. R., S. L. Forman, T. A. Jennings, L. C.
Origin of America‘s Clovis Culture. Berkeley: University of Nordt,
California Press. S. G. Driese, J. M. Feinberg, J. L. Keene, J.
Stevens, D. E., and D. A. Agogino. 1975. Sandia Cave: A Study in Halligan,
Controversy. Eastern New Mexico University. Contribution to
Anthropology 7 (1), Portales, New Mexico.
Stuckenrath, R., J. M. Adovasio, J. Dohanue, and R. C. Carlisle.
1982. “The stratigraphy, cultural features and chronology at
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Washington County, southwestern
Pennsylvania.” In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the
Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross
Creek
Drainage, edited by R. C. Carlisle and J. M. Adovasio, 69–
90. Prepared for the symposium “The Meadowcroft
A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C. T. Hallmark, M. B. Collins, and of Chicago Press.
J. E. Wiederhold. 2011a. “The Buttermilk Creek Complex and West, F. H. 1996. American Beginnings: The Prehistory and
the origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas.” Palaeoecology of Beringia. Chicago: University of Chicago
Science 331: 1599–1603, and Supporting Online Material DOI: Press.
10.1126/science.1201855. West, F. H. 1999. “The inscrutable Monte Verde.” Scientific
Waters, M. R., S. L. Forman, T. W. Stafford, Jr, and J. Foss. 2009. American Discovering Archaeology Special Report: Monte
“Geoarchaeological investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Verde Revisited 15–16.
Tree sites, Allendale County, South Carolina.” Journal of Wheat, A. D. 2012. “Survey of professional opinions regarding the
Archaeological Science 36: 1300–1311. peopling of the Americas.” The SAA Archaeological Record
M. R. Waters, C. D. Pevny, and D. Carlson, eds. 2011b. Clovis Lithic 12 (2): 10–14.
Technology: Investigations at a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Willig, J. A., and C. M. Aikens. 1988. “The Clovis-Archaic
Site. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. interface in Far Western North America.” In Early Human
Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 2007. “Redefining the age of Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-
Clovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas.” Science Archaic
315: 1122–1126. Interface, edited by J. A. Willig, C. M. Aikens, and
J. L. Fagan, 1–40. Nevada State Museum. Anthropological
Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 2013. “The first Americans: A Papers No. 21, Carson City.
review of the evidence for the late-Pleistocene peopling of the
Yesner, D. R., C. M. Barton, G. A. Clark, and G. A. Pearson. 2004.
Americas.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. Graf, “Peopling of the Americas and continental colonization: A
C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 541–560. College Station: mil- lennial perspective.” In The Settlement of the American
Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M
Continents: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human
University.
Biogeography, edited by C. M. Barton, G. A. Clark,
Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 2014. “Redating the Mill Iron
site, Montana: A reexamination of Goshen Complex chronol- D. R. Yesner, and G. A. Pearson, 196–213. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
ogy.” American Antiquity 79(3): 541–548.
Waters, M. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr, H. G. McDonald, C. Gustafson, Young, C., and S. Gilbert-Young. 2007. “A fluted projectile point
base from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.” Current
M. Rasmussen, E. Cappellini, J. V. Olsen, D. Szklarczyk, Research in the Pleistocene 24: 154–156.
L. Juhl Jensen, M. T. Gilbert, and E. Willerslev. 2011c. “Pre- Zenin, V. N., E. N. Maschenko, S. V. Leshchinskiy, A. F. Pavlov,
Clovis mastodon hunting 13,800 years ago at the Manis Site,
Washington.” Science 334: 351–353. P. M. Grootes, and M.-J. Nadeau. 2003. “The first direct evi-
dence of mammoth hunting in Asia (Lugovskoye site, western
Webb, S. D. 2006. “Mastodon tusk recovery.” In First Floridians and Siberia).” In 3rd International Mammoth Conference, 2003:
Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladsen Site in the Aucilla River,
Program and Abstracts, edited by J. E. Storer, 152–155.
edited by S. D. Webb, 333–342. Dordrecht: Springer.
Government of Yukon Palaeontology Program. Occasional
West, F. H. 1981. The Archaeology of Beringia. Chicago: University
Papers in Earth Sciences No. 5, Whitehorse.
Author's Biography
Gary Haynes earned his PhD from Catholic University of America in 1981. He is Foundation Professor of
Anthropology at the University of Nevada, Reno, where he has worked for 30 years. His research interests are
North America’s first people, taphonomic and actualistic studies of large mammals, and southern African
prehistory.