Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability Dur PDF

HUNTER-GATHERER FORAGING VARIABILITY DURING
THE EARLY HOLOCENE OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS
OF NORTH AMERICA
Approved by:
__________________________
David J. Meltzer, Ph.D.
__________________________
Lewis R. Binford, Ph.D.
__________________________
C. Garth Sampson, Ph.D.
__________________________
Lawrence C. Todd, Ph.D.
.
HUNTER-GATHERER FORAGING VARIABILITY DURING
THE EARLY HOLOCENE OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS
OF NORTH AMERICA
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of
Dedman College
Southern Methodist University
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
with a
Major in Anthropology
by
Jason Mitchel LaBelle
(B.A., Colorado State University, 1995)

(M.A., Southern Methodist University, 2000)
May 14, 2005

Copyright 2005
Jason Mitchel LaBelle
All Rights Reserved
LaBelle, Jason Mitchel B.A., Colorado State University, 1995
M.A., Southern Methodist University, 2000
Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability During

the Early Holocene of the Central Plains
of North America
Advisor: Professor David J. Meltzer

Doctor of Philosophy conferred May 14, 2005
Dissertation completed May 7, 2005
This dissertation explores the diversity of Paleoindian adaptations that took place on the Central
Plains of North America during the Early Holocene. Common reconstructions portray Paleoindian foragers
as widely ranging, bison hunting specialists. This assertion is tested with data from 91 previously
unreported sites and 53 published sites spread across the region. Patterns in site size, function, subsistence,
among other related subjects, were compiled to document variability in the Paleoindian record.
Several patterns are noteworthy. First, the distribution of Paleoindian sites is quite patchy, with
concentrations in some areas and not others. The patterns are most likely related to exposure of Early
Holocene aged landscapes rather than directly tied to prehistoric behavior. Second, the vast majority of
Paleoindian sites are small in assemblage size and spatial area. Larger sites, with sizeable assemblages and
high tool richness, are uncommon and demonstrate major differences in the organization of Paleoindian
systems, in terms of movement across the landscape, reoccupation, and site function. Third, bison kills are
fairly common, but other types of activities took place across the Central Plains, including short and long-
term camps, caches, burials, and smaller, specialized function sites. Fourth, subsistence practices (species
richness, degree of processing) tend to vary with site location across the landscape. Fifth, the presence and
abundance of thermal features also vary across sites, with hearths occurring more frequently on sites
located in river valleys or in protected settings. Sixth, more permanent houses or structures have not been
located within the Central Plains proper, but those documented elsewhere occur in diverse ecotones.
Finally, some regions supported sustained occupation of foragers across the entire Paleoindian period,
whereas other areas were exploited for only short periods and then never again by Paleoindian foragers.
iv
The extant data do not support a model of groups of full time, highly mobile, widely ranging,
bison hunting specialists. Paleoindians used the Plains efficiently, exploiting ecotones according to what
was locally available and whether the resources were predictable and sustainable. As such, Central Plains
Paleoindians of the Early Holocene resemble place-oriented foragers rather than technology-based foragers.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................................................xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................xvii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1
The Impetus and Goals of the Dissertation .........................................................................................2
Organization of the Dissertation .........................................................................................................4
2. PROJECT STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK...........................................7
Principles of Paleoindian Organization...............................................................................................8
Paleoindian Generalizations: Are They Based on All the Available Data? .......................................14
Project Data Sources ...........................................................................................................................20
3. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE STRUCTURE .........................................................23
Physiography.......................................................................................................................................23
Watersheds..........................................................................................................................................29
Playa Lakes .........................................................................................................................................41
Seeps and Springs ...............................................................................................................................48
Lithic Raw Material Sources...............................................................................................................55
Modern Faunal Resources...................................................................................................................63
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................70
4. PROJECTILE POINT SURVEYS AND SHPO SITE FILES ..............................................................71
Paleoindian Projectile Point Surveys ..................................................................................................72
Paleoindian Site Distributions as Viewed from the State Files ...........................................................92
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................108
5. SITE TYPES, SAMPLE SIZE AND CHRONOLOGY........................................................................110
The Site Dataset ..................................................................................................................................110
Site Type .............................................................................................................................................122

vi
Site Setting ..........................................................................................................................................125
Excavation Area..................................................................................................................................126
Radiocarbon Dating ............................................................................................................................129
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................142
6. STONE TOOL ASSEMBLAGE SIZE AND DIVERSITY ..................................................................143
Assemblage Diversity .........................................................................................................................150
Range in Projectile Point Frequency ..................................................................................................161
Assemblage Diversity from Beyond the Central Plains ......................................................................168
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................179
7. INTENSITY AND DURATION OF SITE OCCUPATION.................................................................181
Faunal Procurement During the Early Holocene ................................................................................181
Paleoindian Use of Plants and Plant Processing Equipment ...............................................................203
Cooking and Heating Facilities...........................................................................................................212
Paleoindian Structures Viewed from a Continental Perspective .........................................................236
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................249
8. COMPLEX PRESENCE, DENSITY AND REOCCUPATION...........................................................251
Cultural Complexes in the Central Plains and Beyond .......................................................................251
Density of Sites in the Central Plains and Beyond..............................................................................266
Reoccupation Rates in the Central Plains and Beyond .......................................................................278
Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................286
9. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................287
A Question of High Residential Mobility ...........................................................................................288
A Question of Subsistence Specialization...........................................................................................293
Towards More Localized Models of Paleoindian Organization..........................................................297
APPENDIX
A. HISTORY OF THE BAKER AND ANDERSEN PALEOINDIAN COLLECTIONS........................299
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................308
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1. Approximate beginning and ending radiocarbon dates of Paleoindian complexes from the Great Plains
and adjacent regions............................................................................................................................10
2.2. Common arguments for high residential mobility.....................................................................................13
2.3. Common arguments for subsistence specialization. ..................................................................................14
2.4. Potential factors altering model of high residential mobility. ...................................................................17
2.5. Potential factors altering model of subsistence specialization...................................................................18
3.1. Site types of the Colorado quarry sites......................................................................................................55
3.2. Modern mammalian fauna documented in two eastern Colorado biomes.................................................64
4.1. Recent projectile point surveys in the Central Plains. ...............................................................................79
4.2. Paleoindian sites recorded per decade in Colorado. ..................................................................................100
4.3. Temporal complex assigned to Paleoindian sites in Eastern Colorado. ....................................................101
4.4. Sites with multiple temporal complexes in Eastern Colorado. ..................................................................102
4.5. Site types represented by Paleoindian sites in Eastern Colorado. .............................................................103
4.6. Site types with multiple designations. .......................................................................................................103
4.7. Paleoindian site frequency in Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico.......................................................104
4.8. Paleoindian site frequency in Nebraska as related to sample size. ............................................................105
4.9. Paleoindian site frequency in Colorado as related to sample size. ............................................................106
4.10. Paleoindian site frequency in New Mexico as related to sample size. ....................................................107
5.1. Excavated late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains. .............................................................................113
5.2. Notable surface collected late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains.......................................................116
5.3. Paleoindian sites from the Andersen collection of Northeastern Colorado. ..............................................117
5.4. Paleoindian sites from the Baker collection of the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles and Northeastern
New Mexico........................................................................................................................................120
viii
5.5. Common Paleoindian site types. ...............................................................................................................122
14
5.6. C dates of late Paleoindian sites sampled in the Central Plains. .............................................................132
6.1. Tool type frequencies of excavated sites in the Central Plains..................................................................144
6.2. Tool type frequencies of multi-component or poorly documented Paleoindian sites in the Central
Plains...................................................................................................................................................146
6.3. Paleoindian tool type frequencies from the Nall site in the Oklahoma Panhandle....................................146
6.4. Paleoindian tool type frequencies in the Andersen sites in Yuma/Washington Counties, Colorado.........147
6.5. Paleoindian tool types examined in the Baker sites in the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and
Northeastern New Mexico. .................................................................................................................149
6.6. Summary values of tool frequencies of sites from the Central Plains. ......................................................151
6.7. Number of projectile points recovered per site from locales in the Central Plains....................................161
6.8. Number of projectile points recovered from the Andersen sites, Yuma and Washington Counties,
Colorado..............................................................................................................................................164
6.9. Number of projectile points recovered from the Baker sites, Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles and
Northeastern New Mexico. .................................................................................................................167
6.10. Site type frequencies from the Llano Estacado. ......................................................................................169
6.11. Number of Paleoindian projectile points per site in Gaines County, Texas. ...........................................170
6.12. Paleoindian sites and complexes of the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico..............................171
6.13. Site assemblage characteristics for Folsom sites in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico......171
6.14. Site assemblage characteristics for Belen sites in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. .......172
6.15. Site assemblage characteristics for Cody sites in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. ........172
6.16. Summary statistics on the number of projectile points by complex in the Middle Rio Grande of New
Mexico. ...............................................................................................................................................174
6.17. Summary statistics for Folsom sites, Southern High Plains. ...................................................................176
6.18. Number of projectile points recovered per site from Folsom sites, Southern High Plains. .....................177
6.19. Assemblage size of Folsom sites, Southern High Plains. ........................................................................178
7.1. Summary counts of animal orders recovered from excavated components in the Central Plains. ............184
7.2. Mammalian orders recovered from components in the Central Plains......................................................187
7.3. Non-mammalian fauna recovered from components in the Central Plains. ..............................................188
7.4. Bison MNI for components in the Central Plains......................................................................................195
7.5. Season of occupation for sites in the Central Plains..................................................................................200

ix
7.6. Seasonality of sites in the Central Plains, primarily derived from bison dentition....................................201
7.7. Paleobotanical evidence recovered from the Barton Gulch site, Montana. ...............................................204
7.8. Paleobotanical evidence recovered from Schiffer Cave, Wyoming. .........................................................205
7.9. Paleobotanical evidence recovered from Baker Cave, Texas....................................................................206
7.10. Ground stone from post-Folsom Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and Texas. ..210
7.11. Presence and abundance of thermal features within post-Clovis sites in the Great Plains. .....................215
7.12. Hearth abundance among Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains. .............................................................220
7.13. Uneven distribution of hearths from Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains. ............................................220
7.14. Post-Clovis Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains containing burned bone..............................................222
7.15. Ubiquity of hearths from select Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains. ....................................................227
7.16. Firing intensity of the hearths from the Ray Long and Allen sites. .........................................................233
7.17. Paleoindian and Early Archaic structures in North America...................................................................245
8.1. Paleoindian complex representation in Yuma and Washington Counties, Colorado. ...............................254
8.2. Paleoindian complex representation in the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle and Northeastern New Mexico.255
8.3. Paleoindian complex representation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. .............................256
8.4. Paleoindian complex representation in Middle Park, north-central Colorado...........................................257
8.5. Complex representation in western Texas and eastern New Mexico. ........................................................258
8.6. Complex representation on the Llano Estacado, Texas and New Mexico.................................................260
8.7. Complex representation in the Upper Rio Grande Valley of Southern Colorado......................................261
8.8. Complex representation in the upper Gunnison Basin, western Colorado. ................................................262
8.9. Paleoindian site density in Yuma and Washington Counties, Colorado....................................................267
8.10. Paleoindian site density in the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles. ..........................................................267
8.11. Paleoindian site density in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico............................................................268
8.12. Paleoindian sites per quad sheet, Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico........................................................269
8.13. Paleoindian sites per quad sheet, San Luis Valley, Colorado..................................................................271
8.14. Paleoindian site density in Middle Park, Colorado. ................................................................................272
8.15. Paleoindian site density on the Llano Estacado, eastern New Mexico and western Texas. ....................273
8.16. Paleoindian site density, Gaines County, Texas......................................................................................274
x
8.17. Paleoindian reoccupation rates in Northeastern Colorado.......................................................................279
8.18. Paleoindian reoccupation rates in the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandles. ......................................................280
8.19. Paleoindian reoccupation rates in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. ............................................281
8.20. Paleoindian reoccupation rates within Middle Park, Colorado. ..............................................................282
8.21. Paleoindian site reoccupation on the Llano Estacado..............................................................................283
8.22. Paleoindian site reoccupation on the Llano Estacado, eastern New Mexico and west Texas. ................283
8.23. Paleoindian site reoccupation in western Texas. .....................................................................................284
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1. The study area with modern county boundaries within the states of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas............................................................................................................19
3.1. Major physiographic divisions of the Great Plains....................................................................................25
3.2. Major eolian dune fields located within the Central Plains. ......................................................................26
3.3. Major river valleys of the Central Plains...................................................................................................27
3.4. The sixty-nine HUC cataloging units of the Central Plains.......................................................................30
3.5. Mean elevation (m) of the Central Plains HUC.........................................................................................32
3.6. Standard deviation in elevation (m) of the Central Plains HUC................................................................33
3.7. Density (km/km2) of rivers and streams flowing year-round among Central Plains HUC........................34
3.8. Density (km/km2) of rivers and streams flowing only seasonally among Central Plains HUC.................35
3.9. Density (km/km2) of all rivers and streams located among Central Plains HUC. .....................................36
3.10. Percentage of rivers and stream flowing year-round among Central Plains HUC. .................................37
3.11. Permanent water as related to elevation among Central Plains HUC. ....................................................38
3.12. Permanent water as related to elevation deviation among Central Plains HUC. .....................................39
3.13. Permanent water as related to the total numbers of rivers and streams among Central Plains
HUC. ...................................................................................................................................................39
3.14. Frequency and spatial distribution of playas in the Central and Southern Plains....................................42
3.15. Playa frequencies of counties located within the Central and Southern Plains. ......................................43
3.16. Percent of county lands occupied by playas within the Central and Southern Plains..............................43
3.17. Mean size (ha) of playas in the Texas Panhandle....................................................................................45
3.18. Percent of playas larger than 40 ha in the Texas Panhandle....................................................................46
3.19. Count of playas deeper than 15.2 m (50 ft) in the Texas Panhandle. ......................................................47
3.20. Springs identified in the GNIS database..................................................................................................50
xii
3.21. Count of springs per county in the Texas Panhandle...............................................................................51
3.22. Percent of springs medium-sized or larger in the Texas Panhandle. .......................................................53
3.23. Major lithic material sources commonly utilized in the Central and Southern Plains.............................57
3.24. Percentages of identified quarry/workshop sites in eastern Colorado and New Mexico.........................58
3.25. Composition of mammalian orders within the grassland and riparian ecotones of eastern
Colorado..............................................................................................................................................65
3.26. Colorado elk herds and population size in 1999......................................................................................67
3.27. Colorado deer herds and population size in 1999....................................................................................68
3.28. Colorado pronghorn herds and population size in 1999. .........................................................................69
4.1. Scatterplot of the frequency and ubiquity of three Paleoindian complexes from the Central
and Southern Plains.............................................................................................................................80
4.2. Scatterplot of the frequency and ubiquity of four ecological zones from the Central and
Southern Plains. ..................................................................................................................................82
4.3. Number of Clovis points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the Central
Plains...................................................................................................................................................85
4.4. Number of Folsom points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains..........................................................................................................................................86
4.5. Number of Agate Basin points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains. .....................................................................................................................................87
4.6. Number of Hell Gap points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains. .....................................................................................................................................88
4.7. Number of Cody complex points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains. .....................................................................................................................................89
4.8. Total number of Paleoindian points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of
the Central Plains. ...............................................................................................................................91
4.9. Number of archaeological sites per county recorded in state files of the Central Plains...........................93
4.10. Density (sites/km2) of archaeological sites per county recorded in state files of the Central
Plains...................................................................................................................................................95
4.11. Number of independent age assessments per county in Colorado...........................................................96
4.12. Number of Paleoindian sites per county recorded in state files of the Central Plains. ............................98
4.13. Percentage of Paleoindian sites per county recorded in state files of the Central Plains.........................99
4.14. Decreasing percentage of Paleoindian sites as compared to all sites, when the county sample
size is increased in western Nebraska. ................................................................................................105
xiii
4.15. Decreasing percentage of Paleoindian sites as compared to all sites, when the county sample
size is increased in eastern Colorado...................................................................................................106
5.1. Qualitatively assessed site types of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains. .......................................124
5.2. Site setting of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains..........................................................................125
5.3. Excavation areas of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains. ...............................................................128
5.4. Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates of late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains, arranged by complex......140
5.5. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains, arranged by complex..........141
6.1. Mean, median and mode values of tool classes from sites on the Central Plains. .....................................154
6.2. Scatterplot of tool richness versus assemblage size from sites on the Central Plains................................154
6.3. Number of tools per m2 from sites on the Central Plains. .........................................................................155
6.4. Number of tool classes per m2 from sites on the Central Plains................................................................155
6.5. Scatterplot of assemblage size versus tool richness from sites in Northeastern Colorado ........................157
6.6. Scatterplot of assemblage size versus tool richness from sites in Northeastern Colorado, Claypool site
removed. .............................................................................................................................................157
6.7. Mean, median, and mode values of tool classes of sites in the Andersen collection.................................158
6.8. Mean, median, and mode values of tool classes of sites in the Andersen collection, Claypool and Slim
Arrow sites removed. ..........................................................................................................................158
6.9. Frequencies of tool classes from the Nall North and South sites, Cimarron County, Oklahoma. .............160
6.10. Percentages of tool classes from the Nall North and South sites, Cimarron County, Oklahoma ............160
6.11. Projectile point frequency from Central Plains sites. ..............................................................................163
6.12. Scatterplot of projectile point frequency versus excavation area among Central Plains sites .................163
6.13. Projectile points per m2 from sites in the Central Plains. ........................................................................164
6.14. Number of projectile points per Andersen site from Washington and Yuma Counties, Colorado..........165
6.15. Scatterplot of tool richness versus projectile point percentage among Andersen sites from
Washington and Yuma Counties, Colorado. .......................................................................................166
6.16. Number of projectile points per Baker site, Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles and Northeastern New
Mexico. ...............................................................................................................................................167
6.17. Mean values of tool classes among Folsom, Belen, and Cody complexes of the Judge study in
Central New Mexico. ..........................................................................................................................173
6.18. Mean number of projectile points and total number of sites per Paleoindian complex documented in
Central New Mexico. ..........................................................................................................................175
6.19. Number of projectile points per site in the Hofman Folsom sample, Southern High Plains ...................177
xiv
6.20. Number of tools per site in the Hofman Folsom sample, Southern High Plains .....................................178
7.1. Total species representation at Paleoindian sites on the Central Plains.....................................................185
7.2. Types of fauna documented at Paleoindian sites from the Central Plains. ................................................186
7.3. Scatterplot of species richness versus HUC river density. ........................................................................190
7.4. Scatterplot of species richness versus HUC percentage of permanent water. ...........................................190
7.5. Scatterplot of species richness versus excavation size. .............................................................................193
7.6. Bison MNI of Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains. ..............................................................................196
7.7. Scatterplot of bison MNI versus excavation area. .....................................................................................196
7.8. Scatterplot of bison MNI versus total species richness. ............................................................................197
7.9. Known seasonality of Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains. ..................................................................197
7.10. Bison MNI as related to season of occupation. .......................................................................................199
7.11. Number of hearths recorded per component from Paleoindian sites on the Great Plains........................213
7.12. Counties and frequencies of components examined for Paleoindian hearths in the Great Plains............214
7.13. Scatterplot of the total number of hearths versus the excavation area.....................................................224
7.14. Scatterplot of the total number of hearths versus the total number of tools. ...........................................225
7.15. Plan map of hearths at the Ray Long site, South Dakota. .......................................................................228
7.16. Relative vertical distribution of hearths at the Allen site, Nebraska........................................................229
7.17. Hearth area and depth of Plains Paleoindian hearths...............................................................................231
7.18. Hearth area and depth of Plains Paleoindian, Texas Archaic, and ethnographic features. ......................231
7.19. Plan map of Paleoindian features at the Barton Gulch site, Montana......................................................235
7.20. Locations of known Paleoindian structures in North America................................................................237
7.21. Paleoindian structures identified in North America. ...............................................................................243
7.22. Additional Paleoindian structures identified in North America. .............................................................244
8.1. Locations of the datasets examined in this chapter. ..................................................................................253
8.2. Early Paleoindian representation within the Central Plains and adjacent regions. ....................................265
8.3. Late Paleoindian representation within the Central Plains and adjacent regions.......................................265
8.4. Folsom site density in the Central Plains and surrounding regions. ..........................................................276
8.5. Paleoindian site density in the Central Plains and surrounding regions. ...................................................276
xv
8.6. Negative relationship between Paleoindian site density and size of region. .............................................277
8.7. Mean and standard deviation site densities of Paleoindian complexes in the Central Plains and
surrounding regions.............................................................................................................................277
8.8. Scatterplot of Paleoindian complex representation versus total number of tools in Northeastern
Colorado..............................................................................................................................................280
8.9. Site reoccupation rates in the Central Plains and adjacent regions............................................................285
xvi
ACNOWLEDGEMENTS
but man they were here

they were here I swear
not just these bleaching bones
stretching across the plain
James McMurtry, “No More Buffalo”
This dissertation grew from over ten years of traveling across the Great Plains, looking across the
dusty dash and out the pitted windshield at landscapes drifting by with each passing mile. Having had the
privilege of visiting and working at some amazing Paleoindian sites, I often wondered as to how all these
sites tied together – big and small – and how their past occupants interacted with diverse landscapes, so
readily visible out the side window. Like any good study, the answers to those questions were sought in the
comfort of friends and colleagues, without whom this study would not have been possible. I would like to
express my sincere gratitude to those who have helped shape and inform my inquiry along the way,
beginning with my patient dissertation committee.
I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair David Meltzer for his continued support of
this study, developed over years of working in the lab and field on Quest Paleoindian projects. David
always encouraged (and allowed) me to think “big picture” about the Paleoindian world and for that I am
most grateful. David is one of those rare communicators, at least in the archaeology world, that can make
words leap from the page, weaving facts and ideas together into a compelling story as spun by a master
artisan. Thanks David, for your support and guidance. I also thank the assistance of the Quest
Archaeological Research Fund (QARF), of which David Meltzer is the director, as it made much of my
work possible.
xvii
Lewis Binford’s rabid intellectual curiosity continues to inspire my work. Seemingly never
satisfied, Lew always challenged me to examine problems from different scales and to use my creativity in
the analysis (not in the interpretation) of the problem at hand. I encountered plenty of research “dead-ends”
during this study, but I consider that part of a productive, germane science -- learn and move on. Garth
Sampson always served as a voice of clarity and reason, first in the classroom and then in designing a
simple and straightforward study. Although this dissertation is a bit bloated by Garth’s standards, he
should not lose faith, as his message of short and succinct writing has taken hold in my work, maybe just
not here! Finally, Lawrence Todd gave me my start in field archaeology, always challenging me to
question what is already known and take nothing as a given, as even simple models are quite complex and
in need of modification. Larry continues to encourage, motivate, and train a new generation of field
archaeologists and I thank Larry for setting me down that same path at Hudson-Meng. And to think, I
almost worked in the Southwest that summer.
My dear friends, forever linked to the Department of Anthropology at Southern Methodist
University and who served many countless nights locked in the HOAL (History of Archaeology Lab),
deserve many thanks for their encouragement, support, and camaraderie. Brian Andrews, Michael Bever,
Joseph Miller, and John Seebach influenced many of my ideas on hunter-gatherer landscape use, but better
yet, my taste in music, and gave me plenty of laughs and memories of a rich and rewarding time. I could
not have asked for a better Paleo gang.
I would be remiss without mentioning the support of many friends and colleagues. These fine
folks include Mike Adler, Allen Aksamit, Tony Baker, Jeannette Blackmar, Michael Bletzer, Scott
Brosowske, David Byers, Allison Byrnes, Hilary Chester, Lana Coggeshall, Michael Collins, Jeff Eighmy,
Bob Foxworth, Eric Gantt, Jason Garber, Ryan Garber, Rusty Greaves, Keri Hicks, Matthew E. Hill,
Matthew G. Hill, Jack Hofman, Vance Holliday, David Kilby, Ed Knell, Phil LeTourneau, Tom Loebel,
Mark Muniz, Kit Nelson, Trisha Nelson, John Phinney, Frederic Sellet, Steve Sherman, Scott Slessman,
Mark Stiger, Todd Surovell, Paul Thacker, Ken and Kathy Turner, Grayson, Myra, and Tom Westfall,
Chris Widga, and Pei-Lin Yu. Thank you all for your help and friendship!
xviii
This dissertation was based in great part on archaeological collections and records archived at
several fine institutions spread across the Central and Southern Plains. I would like to thank the staff of the
following museums and repositories for their help in accessing these materials: Tom Myers and Beth
Wilkins of the University of Nebraska State Museum (Lincoln, NE); the late Ken Turner of the No Man’s
Land Historical Museum (Goodwell, OK); Jim Dixon, Steve Holen, and Ryntha Johnson of the Denver
Museum of Nature and Science (Denver, CO); Deborah Confer and Richard Wilshusen of the University of
Colorado Museum of Natural History (Boulder, CO); the late Jack Hughes, Jeff Indeck, and Rolla Shaller
of the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum (Canyon, TX); Phyllis Randolph of the Cimarron Heritage
Center (Boise City, OK); the staff of the University of Denver Anthropology Museum (Denver, CO);
Loretta Martin of the Louden-Henritze Archaeology Museum (Trinidad, CO); and Michael Fox of the
Wyoming State Museum (Cheyenne, WY); as well as the C.V. Haynes collection housed at the Institute for
the Study of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX). Additional State Historic
Preservation data was gathered from working with friendly individuals such as Mary Sullivan, Margaret
Van Ness, and Kevin Black at the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Colorado (Denver,
CO); Jeremy Kulisheck and the staff of the Laboratory of Anthropology in New Mexico (Santa Fe, NM);
Trisha Nelson and John Swigart of the Nebraska State Historical Society (Lincoln, NE); Lee Bement and
the staff of the Oklahoma Archeological Survey (Norman, OK); and Carolyn Spock and the staff of the
Texas Archeological Research Lab (Austin, TX).
Several private artifact collections were also studied in detail, and I would like to thank Al Baker,
Tony Baker, Forrest Fenn, the Mountain family, Bobby Nickey, Al Parrish, Richard Tooley, Terry Thrall,
the Westfall family, as well as others in Cimarron County, Oklahoma and Yuma County, Colorado for
access and insights into their private collections. Beth Jernigan and her family graciously supported our
work on her land at the Nall site, even pitching in with shovel and wheel barrow work. Tony Baker also
worked at his grandfather’s favorite site, and has remained a good friend over the years. Kenneth and
Dorothy Mitchell kindly allowed access to their land and the relocation and testing of the Slim Arrow site.
Tom Westfall helped out in numerous ways during our work at Slim Arrow, providing us a place to stay
and play horseshoes on the High Plains.
xix
Many thanks to Vance Holliday and his drivers/corers (Jemuel Ripley, James Mayer, and Ty
Sabin), who provided a baseline to many of our Quest archaeological investigations over the last decade.
Vance continues to provide a good sounding board for many of my questions about Paleoindians and
geoarchaeology on the Great Plains. The many fine folks making up SMU (1995-1996) and SMU-Quest
crews (1997-2002) are also thanked for their hard work in the field. We had some great times – over
dinners in backyards, in dusty trucks, and out in the hot sun.
This research was supported by several sources, including grants from the Institute for the Study
of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University; the family of Claude C. Albritton, Jr; the Karen
Greiner Endowment for Colorado Archaeology at Colorado State University; and the Clements Center for
Southwest Studies at Southern Methodist University. The writing of this dissertation was supported by the
Gary Weber/U. Narayan Bhat Graduate Fellowship at Southern Methodist University. The Quest Research
Fund, supported much of the fieldwork reported herein, and served as a strong foundation during my
graduate career.
Finally and most importantly, I thank my family for their emotional and financial support during
my long graduate years. Although school was difficult at times, my family always served as an escape
from Dallas and the life of a pauper student. This study is dedicated to the memory of my late Mother,
Marlys Mae LaBelle, and to my Father, Rene Mitchel LaBelle, for their ever-lasting encouragement and
support. My Brother and Sister, Michael and Christine, and their families, are also thanked for their loving
support. A heartfelt thanks to you all.
xx
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Were Paleoindians of the Central Plains highly mobile bison hunting specialists? The short
answer is probably no, at least not all the time. But seemingly straightforward questions such as this often
times require much more complex answers. For nearly 80 years, archaeologists have sought to recover
basic data aimed at building models of Paleoindian adaptations to the Great Plains. Some of these data do
support the basic premise that Paleoindians were prehistoric hunter-gatherers maintaining high residential
mobility, rarely reoccupying the same place, and practicing a subsistence strategy focused on large
ungulates, primarily bison (e.g., Frison and Todd 1986; Fulgham and Stanford 1982; Wheat 1972). The
pursuit of this highly mobile game, as the proposed core of Paleoindian economy, is modeled to necessitate
an elevated residential mobility and a curated bifacial tool kit (Goodyear 1989; Hofman and Todd 2001;
Kelly 1996; Kelly and Todd 1988). This lifestyle is specifically linked to a period (roughly 11,500 to 8,000
radiocarbon years before present) which corresponds to the terminal Pleistocene and initial Holocene, a
period representing early (if not the earliest) settlement of the continent as well as a boom in bison
populations following megafaunal extinctions of game such as mammoths, camels, and horses (Graham
and Mead 1987; Grayson and Meltzer 2003; Mead and Meltzer 1985).
Yet, there is also evidence supporting alternative reconstructions of less mobile Plains Paleoindian
foragers, who often reoccupied sites, utilized local resources, maintained diverse diets, and in some cases,
built features and structures (Amick 1994a; Bamforth 1985, 1988, 2002a,b; Hill 2000; Irwin-Williams et al.
1973; Johnson 1987; Meltzer 1993; Stiger and Bjornstad 2002; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). Although
some argue that part of this diversity in adaptation represents separate ethnic groups (i.e., the Foothill-
Mountain, Great Plains, and Eastern Woodland peoples of Brunswig 1999; Frison and Grey 1980; Johnson
1989; Pitbaldo 1999a), it seems as (or more) reasonable to hypothesize that this variability represents
segments of
1
larger hunter-gatherer adaptive systems. Seemingly diverse adaptive signatures could simply represent
segments of the same system (Binford 1980, 1982, 1983).
One could argue ad infinitum as to which reconstruction is a more accurate representation of
Paleoindian systems. But both generalizations have at least some empirical support. Thus, rather than
debate the merits of either model, I take as a given that hunter-gatherer systems are inherently flexible and
are organized with respect to the resource structure of the landscape. In essence, what works in some areas
might not necessarily work in others. This study is an argument for post-colonization Paleoindians as place
oriented foragers, rather than technologically oriented foragers (cf. Kelly and Todd 1988:239).
A productive research strategy examines where this variability occurs, in what form it takes, and at
what spatial scale it is visible. This is a more practical and rewarding endeavor than simply creating a
straw-man argument as to whether or not Paleoindians were mobile and hunted bison, because there is
overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that Paleoindians probably hunted bison at nearly every
opportunity (Hofman and Todd 2001)! But was every waking moment spent in pursuit of bison? What
else did they do during the year? Where else did they operate, other than in those prime bison habitats?
The first step in examining this variability is a vigorous examination of the data at hand. How
representative are the data that went into creating these models? Are the models based on all the available
data? What will the prehistoric Paleoindian world look like when all the available data are organized and
examined with a productive research strategy?
The Impetus and Goals of the Dissertation
As with most dissertations, the final form rarely matches the initial plans or expectations and this
study is no different. The original work began as an attempt to record, excavate, and interpret a series of
previously unknown Paleoindian sites from two areas within the Central Plains of northeastern Colorado
and the Oklahoma Panhandle. I focused on the Central Plains for two primary reasons. First we knew little
about Paleoindians in the region, save for several dispersed but important sites (Stanford 1984; Wheat
1972, 1979; Wormington 1988). Second, the Central Plains are located between two well-documented
areas, that of the Northwestern Plains (Frison 1991) and the Southern High Plains or Llano Estacado (e.g.,
2
Hester 1972; Holliday 1997; Johnson 1989). Results obtained in this study could easily be compared to the
other regions.
My research primarily focused on two collections, that of the Andersen and Baker families (see
Appendix A for a history of the collections). The project began as a fairly straightforward task, in terms of
measuring the large numbers of tools, recording attributes of sites, plotting spatial locations, among other
tasks. This led to field projects aimed at providing additional context to the collections-based research that
forms the core of this dissertation. Many months went into data collection, months spent on the road in
museums and homes across the Central Plains.
Finally it came time to analyze the dataset. And this is where the problems began. Looking
around the literature, it became quite clear that there was not a framework in place for comparing these two
large samples of sites. Models of Paleoindian subsistence and lithic technology had been proposed for the
Great Plains, some of which were linked to evolutionary processes such as migration and extinction. But I
wanted and needed something different. I needed a regional baseline for understanding the patterns evident
in these collections.
Thus, I began a literature review of the published record, compiling data on all the known
Paleoindian sites located near these two areas of the Central Plains. Right away, I determined that these
collections were different in several important ways from the typical published data. First, they contained
large numbers of sites. This was different from Paleoindian models that emphasized the overall rarity of
Paleoindian sites, spread over large amounts of space. Second, these sites were clustered in small areas and
in generally poor ecotones (presently located in dune fields). What were they doing in these environments
and why were they clustered so tightly in space? Third, the sites contained a mix of both large and small
assemblages. The majority of these sites were not the typical bison kill or processing site, nor were they
located on raw material source areas, where abundant lithic debris and large tool assemblages might be
expected.
So what did these differences mean? Were they significant? And did our current models of
Paleoindian organization anticipate such findings? This study was formed to answer these questions and
provide a baseline of Paleoindian data, to be used for revising current models of Paleoindian organization.
In the pages that follow, I argue that our Paleoindian dataset is inherently biased, and that in many cases,
3
only the largest, most robust, and interesting Paleoindian sites have been used to construct models of
Paleoindian organization. I believe that a different picture of Paleoindian systems is evident when all sites
are examined – big or small – in regards to the regional organization. I maintain that despite models
suggesting otherwise, Paleoindian hunter-gatherers could not, and therefore did not, live their lives in
identical fashion across vast expanses of the Great Plains.
The goal of this dissertation is to document patterns exhibited in the Paleoindian sites and isolates
of the Central Plains. Given the scope of the study, I take a broad-brush approach as an attempt at pattern
recognition. Many of the Chapters that follow serve to examine inter-related topics of Paleoindian
organization (site function and landscape use) within and between the Central Plains and the surrounding
region.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter Two sets the stage for the dissertation. Commonly cited principles of Paleoindian
organization are described and inherent weaknesses are suggested to these models. The latter portion of the
Chapter discusses the sample drawn for this study.
Chapter Three explores the spatial variability of three environmental datasets from the Central
Plains. First, the availability and abundance of water is examined through an analysis of the modern
distributions of watersheds, springs, and playas. Characteristics of their size and density document that
there are drastic differences in the quality of water sources on the Central Plains. Second, I document the
known locations of lithic raw materials. Finally, I examine species richness and evenness among modern
animal communities spread across several ecotones. As well, I present the actual number of elk, pronghorn
antelope, and deer to demonstrate the tremendous carrying capacity of the modern region. This Chapter
documents that the Central Plains are hardly homogenous in environmental structure, and that there are
structural differences evident between the ecotones. Such differences were assuredly present in
Paleoindian times as well. It follows that there should be differences reflected in the hunter-gatherer
adaptations to these ecotones as well.
Chapter Four presents a baseline of Paleoindian data gathered from published and unpublished
sources from the Central Plains. Using the records of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), I
4
examine the number of Paleoindian sites as compared to sites of other ages (and types) from the greater
region. As well, I review the known frequencies and locations of Paleoindian projectile points in the area.
Using these sources, I demonstrate that Paleoindian sites and projectile points are not particularly rare and
are distributed across the entire Great Plains. I argue that this level of data are useful for showing the
presence of Paleoindian sites, but the data illustrate more of the sampling issues rather than Paleoindian
behavior. This fact is demonstrated in the following Chapters, where an abundance of new sites are
described and explored, the sheer density and frequency of which seriously calls into question the validity
of any the patterns derived from the SHPO and isolate data.
Chapter Five examines site-specific issues. I introduce the sample of sites explored in the
subsequent Chapters. I also investigate several topics, including site types, site setting, excavation sample
sizes, and the 14C record of sites in the Central Plains. The data suggest that there are a wide variety of site
types, some more common than others. When combined, the dataset suggest that a large number of
activities took place across the region, not just bison kills. These activities took place at a number of site
settings, suggesting that these ancient hunter-gatherers exploited many different ecotones. Excavation
sample size is examined to explore relationships of sample size effect. Finally, the 14C record demonstrates
that there is a nearly continuous occupation of the Central Plains, from the Late Pleistocene through Early
Holocene.
Chapter Six examines two measures of assemblage diversity. First, I compare patterns of
assemblage size and the diversity of tool classes among the Central Plains data. Second, I compare
projectile point frequencies between sites. Both measures demonstrate that there are both large and small
sites within the Central Plains and adjacent regions, but the vast majority of sites are quite small. Although
projectile points dominate many sites, other sites exhibited greater tool richness, suggesting that not all sites
were used equally.
Chapter Seven addresses the subsistence and housing practices of Early Holocene foragers.
Patterns in faunal data are explored first, in terms of species diversity, seasonality, and bison predation.
Quite different signatures are present, perhaps related in part to the location of the site on the landscape.
For example, sites with diverse faunal assemblages are all located within major alluvial valleys. Second, I
examine characteristics of fire-features, such as hearths, among sites in the Central Plains. The number of
5
hearths varies per site, with large numbers of hearths more common in sites within alluvial valleys or in
other protected settings. Third, I examine the presence of plants and ground stone from sites in the region.
Although most sites do not contain plant remains, many instead contain ground stone. Whether this related
to plant use is not known, but again, many of these sites with ground stone are located in rich ecotones.
Finally, I examine the distribution of houses within the Paleoindian period of the continent. All the
structures are located in diverse ecotones and are not within the Central Plains proper, especially the High
Plains. This again suggests variability in how landscapes were being used by Paleoindian groups.
Chapter Eight examines three measures of regional Paleoindian intensity. This includes the
ubiquity of cultural complexes, the density of sites per km2, and the reoccupation rate of sites. These are
calculated for sites within the Central Plains, as well as adjacent regions, to determine whether some
regions were used more intensively than others. While some of the patterns are probably related to
sampling issues, the data suggest that some regions were able to support sustained occupation over
thousands of years, whereas other regions were used for only certain periods and not others.
Finally, Chapter Nine summarizes the dissertation. I provide concluding thoughts on the success
of the study and suggest ways of furthering this research on the Early Holocene inhabitants of the Central
Plains and beyond.
6
Chapter 2
PROJECT STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
This study has one fundamental purpose, to dismantle the notion that there is a single Paleoindian
adaptation for the Central Plains, which is of a group of highly mobile bison hunters always in constant
pursuit of the next large kill. This is not to say the standing model is not without merit, as there is a large
body of empirical data supporting this generalization, however, I will argue that there is stronger evidence
supporting a diversity of adaptations within the Central Plains as expressed in site types, site sizes, and
subsistence strategies which tend to vary depending upon the landscape position of the sites in question.
Extant models do not adequately account for such diversity in the data.
This study concerns itself with the variability expressed in the Paleoindian record, primarily the
Central Plains of North America. The dissertation is an attempt to examine all the available data, in order
to provide an accurate estimate of the range of archaeological signatures expressed in the record. I will
analyze and synthesize a diverse set of assemblages, from published and unpublished sources, and
representing multiple spatial and temporal scales. The variability takes many forms, including the material
remains discarded at hundreds of sites, as well as patterns archaeologists have derived from this record.
There are biases in both: for example, many of our models are based on only a partial reading of the
available data, and in many cases, issues of preservation and exposure bias the types of available
archaeological data.
This Chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section, I review the basic factors that fuel
the model of highly mobile specialized bison hunters, after which I point out weaknesses that I will address
throughout the remainder of this study. In the latter section, I detail the data sources used throughout this
work.
7
Principles of Paleoindian Organization
I begin with a review of the major principles of Paleoindian organization presented in the current
literature. There have been repeated attempts at describing the Paleoindian system organization ever since
Roberts coined the term over 60 years ago (Roberts 1940), but this has proven a difficult task, as
Paleoindian complexes are hardly uniform in adaptation.
As used here, Paleoindian is a chronological term specifically referring to human groups
occupying North America during the period spanning approximately 11,500 rcybp to 8,000 rcybp. I refer
to “rcybp” dates throughout this study, which denotes RadioCarbon Years Before Present. Although there
are obvious differences in the temporal ranges of calibrated and uncalibrated dates, the overall patterns are
similar (see Chapter 5). I prefer to use the raw source data, given that calibration datasets and techniques
will continue to improve in quality in the coming years, thereby changing any of the calibrated date ranges
presented here.
The early end of the Paleoindian range marks the first widespread appearance of the Clovis
complex (Haynes 2002; Holliday 2000; Sellards 1952), whereas the 8,000 date is often used as a
convenient breaking point between the geological periods of early and Middle Holocene. Many also
attribute the date as roughly the beginning of the Middle Holocene drying event known as the Altithermal
(Antevs 1948; Clark et al. 2002; Meltzer 1991, 1995b, 1999; Sheehan 1994), as well as the beginning of a
different adaptation type, that of the generalized Archaic forager (Bamforth 1997; Frison 1998; Kay 1998;
Larson and Francis 1997). Many culture-complexes are subsumed under this label of Paleoindian, given a
span of 3,500 radiocarbon years. The span in calibrated calendar years is even longer, as dates of this
antiquity are approximately 2,000 years older in calendar years than in radiocarbon years (Eighmy and
LaBelle 1996; Fiedel 1999; Taylor et al. 1996). The date ranges in 14C years for various Paleoindian
complexes from the Great Plains are presented in Table 2.1, as recently presented by Holliday (2000) in his
review of Paleoindian chronology. Radiocarbon dates pertinent to the Central Plains will be reviewed later
in Chapter 5.
But to many researchers, Paleoindian not only refers to a period, it also refers to a specific
subsistence and settlement strategy typically employed at the end of the Pleistocene. This strategy was
ostensibly focused on large mammal procurement (primarily bison), and was associated with high rates of
8
residential mobility, and the use of reliable stone toolkits. A major conflict is evident when the term is used
to reference to a specific adaptive strategy as well as a temporal period. For example, there is abundant
evidence of hunter-gatherer groups inhabiting nearly the entire North American continent by at least 10,000
rcybp (see papers in Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1999; e.g., Storck 1991). Many of the prehistoric
occupations occurring before this date are usually referred to as Paleoindian. But the term is usually not
used after 10,000 rcybp (or at all) in several regions of North America, such as the Eastern Woodlands or
the Great Basin and Far West, primarily because the evidence for large mammal predation and high
mobility is debatable, if not lacking (e.g., Anderson and Sassaman 1996; Anderson and Hanson 1988; Beck
and Jones 1997; Erlandson 1994). Yet on the Great Plains, the stereotypical pattern of big-game hunting
continues well beyond 10,000 rcybp and into the Early Holocene (Frison 1991; Hofman and Graham 1998;
Wedel 1986).
Use of the term Paleoindian as a temporal label avoids making presumptions regarding
adaptations, patterns that should be demonstrated empirically rather than assumed. Instead, I take as an
opening hypothesis that there should be variability in the subsistence and settlement strategies of forager
groups inhabiting the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene of North America, especially after they have
acquired some familiarity with the abundance and quality of their regional resource structure. Using this as
a point of departure, one can examine where and under what conditions this variability operated, and thus
avoid the mistake of making a priori assumptions about group adaptation or organization based solely upon
a label.
9
Table 2.1: Approximate beginning and ending radiocarbon dates of Paleoindian complexes from the Great
Plains and adjacent regions (summarized from Holliday 2000:265-271).
Northern Plains Southern Plains Woodlands/Texas

Complex
(rcybp) (rcybp) (rcybp)
11200-10900
Clovis 11600-11000
(possibly to 10800)
Folsom 10900-10200 10900-10100
Goshen ca. 11000
Agate Basin 10500-10000
Hell Gap 10500-9500
Dalton 10500-9500
Alberta/Cody 10200-9400
10200-9800
Plainview
(possibly to 9000)
Lubbock Lake ca. 9950
St. Mary's Hall 9500-8500
Cody 9400-8800
9400-8200
Firstview
(possibly to 8000)
Allen 9400-7800
Golondrina 9200-8900
Texas Angostura 8800-8000
Where do these generalizations of what it means to be “Paleoindian” come from? Many of these
ideas were born from the archaeological data and initially suggested in earlier descriptive publications (e.g.,
Howard 1935; Roberts 1935, 1936, 1940; Sellards 1952; Wormington 1957). But the generalizations were
formalized in the 1970s and 1980s, when more theoretical studies of hunter-gatherer organization took hold
(Kelly 1983, 1988, 1992; Kelly and Todd 1988; Nelson 1991) and models of Paleoindian organization were
formed (e.g., Bamforth 1988, 1991a; Bement 1999; Frison 1982c, 1991; Greiser 1985; Haynes 1966;
Hofman and Todd 2001; Kelly and Todd 1988; Martin 1967, 1973; Meltzer 1993; Meltzer and Smith 1986;
Steele et al. 1998; Surovell 2000).
In general, the models consist of three components: group mobility, subsistence, and the lithic
toolkit. The three components are obviously interconnected, but they make for useful analytical
subdivisions, each of which having a robust history of research and analysis. In this study, I focus on two
of the three components, high mobility (Table 2.2) and subsistence specialization (Table 2.3).
10
Arguments Proposed for High Residential Mobility and Subsistence Specialization of Bison
High mobility is probably the most argued characteristic of Paleoindian groups (Table 2.2). The
primary reason cited is the specialization in bison hunting, which is thought to require a high residential
mobility organized around monitoring and moving in tandem with the herd. High residential mobility is
exhibited in two forms: frequently moving the camp and moving considerable distances between camps.
Paleoindian populations are thought to never spend long periods at any one place. As a
consequence, most sites are modeled to be approximately the same size and small in terms of the number of
discarded tools. As well, sites should show redundancy in tool assemblages between sites, in terms of the
richness/evenness of tool classes, all dominated by projectile points due to the nature of the site occupation.
In addition to occupying sites for short periods, Paleoindian groups would not occupy the same
sites repeatedly. Since most of the sites are related to bison procurement, which were probably randomly
encountered on the landscape, it should be expected that sites would not be reoccupied by either the same
group or by subsequent Paleoindian groups. Many Paleoindian sites support such an assertion (Mulloy
1959; Wheat 1972; Fulgham and Stanford 1982).
Following the same argument of randomized bison movement over large landscapes, it seems
probable that Paleoindian groups would have also randomly searched for game over those same large areas.
Given the presumably low population and density of human groups, it follows that sites should be widely
dispersed within any given region (Hester and Grady 1977) because there are no favored locations for
reoccupation.
Paleoindians are also modeled to travel considerable distances, which is monitored by the sources
of the raw materials present in the site assemblages. Often times the artifacts are made of raw materials
located considerable distances from where the items were discarded. While the mechanism for movement
of these materials is certainly debated (LeTourneau 2000; MacDonald 1998, 1999), the fact remains that
these materials travel considerable distances, perhaps representing the overall range that these Paleoindian
groups operated within (Amick 1996; Hofman 1990, 1991, 1992; Hofman et al. 1991; Holen 2001).
11
The second interconnected component of Paleoindian systems is bison hunting itself, verging on
bison specialization (Table 2.3). The evidence for bison playing the prominent role in Paleoindian
subsistence is well researched and argued (Frison 1991; Todd 1987a; Todd et al. 1990; Wheat 1978a).
However, for all the importance that bison played in the subsistence system, they were not necessarily
intensively utilized. Paleoindian bison kills often contain anywhere from one to two individuals, to
upwards of several hundred animals in later Paleoindian sites, especially manifest during the Cody complex
(e.g., Fulgham and Stanford 1982; Frison and Todd 1987; Stanford 1984; Wheat 1967, 1972). Yet,
Paleoindian groups did not routinely process the remains thoroughly, either for meat, marrow, or skins,
which is unlike many late prehistoric and Archaic-aged kills dating between 4000-500 rcybp (e.g., Frison
1970; Frison 1973a,b; Reher and Frison 1980). Only a small portion of these assemblages display cut
marks, green bone breaks from marrow processing, and/or evidence for heating or burning (e.g., Bement
1999; Borresen 2002; Hill 2001; Todd 1987b; Todd et al. 1997). Thus, many of the patterns evident in
bison use suggest short-term occupations, given the lack of other food sources or the amount of food
actually utilized.
Since bison hunting was the primary factor in subsistence and mobility organization, it then
follows that there should be little need for plant resources (at least as food sources) because high mobility
would have left little time for searching or processing plant staples and there certainly would not have been
time to devote experimenting with any new plant resources. Most models demonstrate that there is little
empirical evidence of plants across all Paleoindian sites, as well as limited amounts of ground stone.
12
Table 2.2: Common arguments for high residential mobility.
Commonly Argued
Pattern Statement Reason
Archaeological Evidence
• Subsistence strategy focused on
Paleoindians • Sheer dominance of bison
bison hunting, where human
maintained a high in faunal assemblages
mobility must match that of the
rate of residential • Large to very large bison
bison herd
mobility kills
• Small site size
• Small assemblage size
• Had to keep monitoring and • Low richness in tool classes
Paleoindians
occupied sites for
pursuing prey or risk loss of food • Little differentiation in tool
source, therefore sites were only assemblages between sites
only brief periods
occupied for short periods • Lack of storage features,
hearths, habitation
structures, site furniture
Paleoindians moved • Had to move large distances per • Raw materials of stone tools
High considerable residential move to follow source to distant or exotic
Residential distances over time widely migrating game locations
Mobility • Kills were encounter-based
forays because prey species were
randomly distributed across the
landscape
• Lack of sites featuring
Paleoindian sites • Foragers moved their camps
reoccupation by either the
were not reoccupied from kill to kill
same culture complex or
• Therefore, there would be little subsequent complexes
or no need to return to a
previously occupied site unless
prey were encountered again at
the same place
• Foragers did not occupy regional
Paleoindian sites are patches for long periods and did • Low number of sites
uncommon to rare not return to the same patches • Low density of sites
within any region • The overall population and
density of these groups was low
13
Table 2.3: Common arguments for subsistence specialization.
Commonly Argued
Pattern Statement Reason
Archaeological Evidence
• Low richness and skewed
Paleoindians were
evenness of species in faunal
specialized bison • Short occupation
assemblages
hunters duration
• Both clearly show dominance of
bison
• Little evidence for human
Subsistence • Sites were only activity; few cut marks, impacts,
Paleoindians did not occupied for brief burning
Specialization
intensively process periods of time, and by • Lack of intensive processing
faunal remains only a small number of features; most hearths are for low
people temperature meat roasting, not
grease productions
• Little time to gather
Paleoindians did not • Lack of macrofossil remains
plants because foragers
use plants as a • Lack of processing equipment
were constantly on the
dominant food source (ground stone)
move
Paleoindian Generalizations: Are They Based on All the Available Data?
As stated earlier, many of the generalizations outlined in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 have empirical
support. But do they tell the whole story? The danger with any of these generalizations is that they
necessarily mask variability, thereby skewing an understanding of the underlying factors that give rise to
the patterns at hand.
Any one of these characteristics can be shown to be variable, some more so than others. Deviation
from the generalizations can be caused by the site’s location on the landscape, the time of year the site was
occupied, or the length of site occupation. As well, there is always the problem of poor sampling, both on
the local and regional levels. I am not trying to make an argument for the uniqueness of sites, such that
each site is virtually incomparable to other sites. Rather, there are local conditions, played out at both the
temporal and spatial scales, which bound the types of sites that were created, how long they were occupied,
and why they were eventually abandoned. Hunter-gatherers forage across local resource patches (perhaps
mindful of regional patches, but foraging on a local level). Therefore, patterns in the distribution and
abundance of ecological variables must be considered when examining models of Paleoindian landscape
use.
14
Part of the difficulty in thinking “outside the Paleoindian box” is that any other pattern seems
suspect, since we seemingly have reason and evidence to believe that Paleoindians were solely bison
hunters. Consider this recent assessment of the Plains Paleoindian record: “the unifying theme of the Plano
complex, as used here and by most archaeologists, is that it collectively represents late Paleoindian (10,200
to 8,000 rcybp) groups that had an economic focus during most of the year on bison hunting” (Hofman and
Graham 1998:103). Yet in reality we know little about these groups, other than they hunted bison. As
Hofman and Graham (1998:121) go on to state, “for most of the Paleo-Indian cultural complexes on the
Plains, we know very little about site structure, dwellings, group organization, intergroup relationships,
economic-territory size, alternative or backup subsistence strategies, or mortuary practices.” If we know so
little about these things, then why do we believe that bison hunting had to be the predominant, year-round
organizing factor?
Is a departure from the notion of “Paleoindians as specialized bison hunters” such a shock that
anything else is seen as aberrant or perhaps the work on an entirely different culture? Or does this indicate
that we simply do not appreciate the full spectrum of presently available data, all of which was produced by
people living on the Plains during the Early Holocene (whatever we might want to label them:
Paleoindians, Archaic foragers, etc.).
This dissertation fundamentally questions these principles of Paleoindian organization,
specifically targeting concepts of high mobility (Table 2.4) and subsistence specialization focused on bison
(Table 2.5). For example, bison played an important, if not central, role in Paleoindian subsistence, but
there is also widespread evidence of additional species being incorporated into Paleoindian diets (e.g.,
Johnson 1987; Jones 1999; Mallouf and Mandel 1997; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). Where are these sites
located, and what role do they play in Paleoindian adaptation?
High species richness is often found at sites apparently occupied for longer periods (Bamforth
2002b; Davis 1962; Wheat 1979) than the large bison kills. Plant remains and ground stone have also been
found at these campsites (e.g., Armstrong 1993; Bamforth 1985; Davis et al. 1994; Frison 1973a:305,
Frison 1991:341-344; Hester 1983). Many sites clearly show reoccupation (Bamforth 2002b; Davis 1962;
Frison 1984; Frison and Stanford 1982b; Hester 1972; Irwin-Williams et al. 1973; Johnson 1987; Wilmsen
and Roberts 1978), suggesting that Paleoindian groups were not always exclusively following bison across
15
the landscape. Paleoindians regularly returned to specific locations, probably for resources not necessarily
related to bison procurement (although this certainly could have been embedded into any site occupation).
These “exceptions” to the generalizations lead me to question the central role that bison played in
the organization of mobility. Rather than being the focal point of the system, bison were perhaps simply a
factor of great consideration in the design of a settlement system, which maximized not only the
availability of bison, but also other resources that were critical on a daily and weekly scale to forager
groups, such as water, wood, plant materials, lithic materials, etc. Whereas some of these items were
probably embedded into Paleoindian systems, such as the design of a mobile stone toolkit (Bamforth 1986;
Bleed 1986; Goodyear 1989; Nelson 1991), others would have been necessary for everyday survival
(water, wood for fire and equipment).
In this study, I will argue that the body of Paleoindian data reflect two simple and broad
adaptations. First, foragers made short-term use of certain landscapes, such as the elevated grasslands or
the true High Plains, which was prime bison habitat but was not conducive to long-term human occupation.
The second broad adaptation is that of human foragers who camped for longer periods in well-watered and
wooded valleys, which provided both food and other important materials.
This study addresses forager groups inhabiting the Central Great Plains during the Early
Holocene, from 10,000 to 8,000 rcybp (Figure 2.1, shaded portion of map). At times, I reference additional
data from adjacent regions such as the Northern and Southern Great Plains, the Southwest and the Rocky
Mountains, as well as from earlier periods such as the terminal Pleistocene (11,500 to 10,000 rcybp). I do
so to broaden the scope of comparison to the Central Plains, to examine whether there are broad spatial or
temporal trends that go well beyond the boundaries of the study area.
16
Table 2.4: Potential factors altering model of high residential mobility.
Potential Factors Altering Data Examined Examined

Pattern Statement Reason and Cited in in
Evidence This Study Chapter
• Preferential selection of bison
kills for excavation
Paleoindians • Few non-kill sites • Site type
maintained a high available for study • Site setting
4, 5, and 6
rate of residential • Failure to systematically • Diversity of
mobility sample sites in different environments
ecotones, specifically non-
bison rich areas
• Seasonal differences in site
use
Paleoindians • Inadequate sampling by • Assemblage size
occupied sites for examining middens rather • Assemblage 6
only brief periods than habitation areas of sites diversity
• Not a firm grasp on variance
in site size
High
• Regional studies often based
Residential
Paleoindians on projectile points that are
Mobility
moved curated items and often are
• Not examined
considerable kept for long periods of time
distances over time • Other items might not have
moved as far
• Animals were not randomly
distributed within landscape
Paleoindian sites • Animals were predictable
• Reoccupation
were not within certain landscape 8
rates
reoccupied patches
• Some types of Paleoindian
sites were reoccupied
Paleoindian sites • Differential preservation • State site files
are uncommon to and/or exposure of sites • Examine patterns
4 and 8
rare within any • Poor sampling in recording as to why sites
region sites over large regions are rare
17
Table 2.5: Potential factors altering model of subsistence specialization.
Potential Factors Altering Data Examined

Pattern Statement Reason and Cited Examined in in
Evidence This Study Chapter
• Bias in the types of sites
examined
• Site types
Paleoindians were • Failing to recognize
• Site locations
specialized bison differences in terms of 5 and 7
on the
hunters potential versus utilized niche
landscape
breadth
• Season of occupation
• Number of people available
to process the kill and
transport to camp • Site locations
Paleoindians did not
Subsistence • Number and type of prey • Species
intensively process 5 and 7
Specialization killed diversity
faunal remains
• Taphonomic processes that • Bison MNI
destroyed human evidence
• Human activity didn’t leave
evidence on faunal elements
• Feature
frequency and
• Relatively few features
Paleoindians did not size
(hearths, pits) available to
use plants as a food • Presence of 7
sample
source ground stone
• Poor preservation of remains
• Presence of
plant remains
I chose the Central Great Plains for several reasons. Many site-level studies have been completed
in the Central Plains (e.g., Dick and Mountain 1960; Stanford 1984; Wheat 1972, 1979), but there have
been few syntheses of the data other than in the popular literature (Cassells 1983), in outdated forms
(Wormington 1957) or in large overviews of the entire prehistoric record (e.g., Gilmore et al. 1999;
Hofman 1996; Wedel 1986; Wood 1998; Zier and Kalasz 1999). The Central Plains are an ideal place to
examine the regional record, as there are published sites for comparison, large numbers of unreported sites,
and no prior synthesis. Given the sheer bulk of Paleoindian research completed to the north (Frison 1974,
1996; Frison and Bradley 1980; Frison and Stanford 1982b; Frison and Todd 1986, 1987) and to the south
(e.g., Johnson 1987; Hester 1972; Hofman 1995; Holliday 1997; Sellards 1952), there is clearly a large gap
in our knowledge of what was literally a crossroads of the Great Plains.
18
Figure 2.1: The study area (shaded in gray) with modern county boundaries within the states of Colorado,
Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The literature of Plains Paleoindian studies takes one of two forms, site-based approaches or those
of broader regional focus. Both have merit, depending upon the questions asked and the nature of the data
evaluated. Site-level analyses have included economic studies of the procurement, processing, and discard
of prey (e.g., Borresen 2002; Byers 2001; Jones 1999; M.E. Hill 1996; M.G. Hill 1994, 2001; Meltzer et al.
2002), examination of taphonomic factors affecting site preservation (M.E. Hill 1994, 1996; Kreutzer 1996;
Todd 1987b; Todd and Frison 1986), and stone tool technology (e.g., Boldurian 1990; Hicks 2002; Ingbar
1992; Knudson 1983; Sellet 1999). Site-level analyses occasionally consider more than one component per
site, examining change over time by keeping the location constant (e.g., Bamforth 2002b; Hill 2001;
Johnson 1987; Sellet 1999).
In contrast, regional analyses examine patterns over broad space. Many regional studies examine
single periods, often focusing on patterns of lithic technology expressed in projectile points, such as Clovis
or Folsom (e.g., Amick 1994a, 1994b, 2000; Blackmar 1998b, 2001; LeTourneau 2000; Holen 2001;
19
Meltzer and Bever 1995). These studies hold time constant and instead focus on spatial difference manifest
in their samples. A common problem to regional studies is spatial sampling. Given that the available data
are often patchy, many times archaeological patterns defined in one area are stretched across empty space,
across areas where no archaeological data are available. Thus, in projecting patterns into areas with no
available data, these researchers are making the assumption that resources remained constant across space.
Projections might hold true if the resource structure remained constant, but often times it does not.
This present study attempts to differentiate itself from previous efforts in that I employ a multi-
scalar approach, incorporating both site and regional data. Both scales are used to examine the central
theme of this study, focused on local and regional resource structure. I argue that, all things being equal,
hunter-gatherer organization should be most similar in areas where the biotic community (plant/animal
types and their abundance), climate (temperature/precipitation), surface water (lakes/rivers/springs), and
raw materials are similar in structure. Deviation in any one of these variables should also affect aspects of
hunter-gatherer organization. But in general, the organizational system should remain relatively constant
through time, as long as there are not changes in the climate, biotic communities, or problems from over-
harvesting local resources (e.g., Broughton 1994a,b). Fundamentally, a consideration of local resources is
critical to understanding adaptations manifest across large space. Chapter 2 demonstrates that the Central
Plains are hardly homogenous in environmental resource structure. Therefore, we should not necessarily
expect similar adaptations across this large region.
Project Data Sources
Four primary sources were used in building this dissertation, each of which is incorporated into
the final product in varying degrees. The data collected for the study was primarily from individual tools
and assemblages held in private and public collections. Two large collections form the corpus of this set:
the Perry and Harold Andersen collection housed at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln,
Nebraska, and the William Baker collection housed at the No Man’s Land Historical Museum in Goodwell,
Oklahoma. Brief histories of these collections are presented in Appendix A. Several additional
Paleoindian collections were studied at other institutions, including the Denver Museum of Nature and
Science (Denver, CO), the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History (Boulder, CO), the
20
Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum (Canyon, TX), the Cimarron Heritage Center (Boise City, OK), the
University of Denver Anthropology Museum (Denver, CO), as well as the C.V. Haynes collection housed
at the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man at Southern Methodist University (Dallas, TX).
In addition, I examined several privately held collections, including those of Al Baker, Tony
Baker, Jim Mountain, Richard Tooley, and Tom Westfall. I also had the opportunity to view other
privately owned materials while conducting field and collections research in the study area. It should be
well noted that the vast majority of Paleoindian tools are held in private collections and await study. As
this dissertation will point out, our understanding of the Paleoindian record is incomplete at best, therefore
the documentation of these collections is of great importance and value.
The second source of data used in this project was derived from fieldwork at two sites within the
study area. Several field seasons were spent at the Nall site, a stratified Paleoindian campsite discovered by
Baker in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Limited test excavations were also conducted at the Slim Arrow site, a
bison bonebed (kill) discovered and collected in the 1920s and 1930s by the Andersen family in
northeastern Colorado. Given the scope of this regional study, the results of these excavations are not
presented in detail in this thesis. However, summary data from these sites are incorporated into the study.
Preliminary papers of these sites are presented elsewhere (LaBelle 1999b, 2002b; LaBelle, Holliday, and
Meltzer 2003).
The third source of data came from Paleoindian sites documented in state archaeological files.
State offices were queried in five of the six states within the study area. These included the Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Colorado (Denver, CO), the Laboratory of Anthropology in New
Mexico (Santa Fe, NM), the Nebraska State Historical Society (Lincoln, NE), the Oklahoma Archeological
Survey (Norman, OK) and the Texas Archeological Research Lab (Austin, TX). For the Texas materials, I
supplemented the in-house state file search with both published materials (Biesaart et al. 1985; Simons
1988) and the Texas state archeological site atlas (http://pedernales.thc.state.tx.us/). Due to time
constraints, I did not query the Kansas state files, using instead published distributions of Paleoindian sites
in the state (Brown and Logan 1987).
21
Finally, I reviewed the Paleoindian literature within the region and compiled data on individual
tools, as well as site-level characteristics, from both excavated and unexcavated sites. These data have
been combined with my primary data collected in the museum study.
This study includes two basic levels of data, that of the assemblage and of the individual tool.
Assemblage level data includes location, associated ages, geomorphic context, species and minimum
number of individuals of any fauna present, species of any flora, features (such as pits, hearths, or
structures), and amount of area excavated, among other things. Tool frequencies were also tabulated in
order to evaluate the tool richness and evenness of the assemblages. Tool classification was generalized,
based upon morphological characteristics and assumed functional relationship; no other techniques (such as
use-wear, replicative experiments) were used to classify tools. In all, 91 sites from the Andersen and Baker
collections were recorded, and 53 other sites were included based upon the published literature.
22
Chapter 3
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE STRUCTURE
In this Chapter, I present an overview of the ecological structure of the Central Plains, highlighting
natural resources potentially shaping mobility patterns of prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups. These
environmental characteristics, garnered primarily from modern data, form natural bounds within which
cultural systems operated. Three types of data are examined, including the location and abundance of
water, lithic raw materials used for the manufacture of tools, and potential food sources in the form of
animals.
The environmental data paint a picture of the Central Plains as a region that contains marked
diversity expressed along several axes. Rather than being a homogenous life zone, I demonstrate that there
are important structural differences that are probably related to differences expressed in the archaeological
record of the region. These differences are explored further in subsequent Chapters of this dissertation.
Physiography
Three principle physiographic zones (Chronic and Chronic 1972; Fenneman 1931; Hunt 1967;
Trimble 1980) cross cut the study area, including the High Plains, the Colorado Piedmont, and the Raton
Volcanic Section (Figure 3.1). Each zone provides distinct ecological communities, varying from one
another both within and between each region.
High Plains
The High Plains are the remnants of a vast landform, roughly 5 million years old, that at one time
stretched eastward from the Rocky Mountains across the region. Today, the edge of the Ogallala surface
23
forms the eastern boundary of the study area. The High Plains are characterized by a gently undulating
terrain in most locations, to an almost completely flat mesa (the Llano Estacado) of enormous size on the
Southern Plains. As many mountain-fed rivers cut down through the Ogallala formation, and into
underlying sediment, the High Plains slowly eroded into mesas and buttes in the Central Plains. Famous
examples (Trimble 1980) include the Pawnee Buttes in northeastern Colorado and the Scottsbluff mesa in
western Nebraska.
The High Plains are covered in many areas by Quaternary alluvium in drainages, and eolian
deposits of silt and sand in upland areas. Abundant sand sheets and dune fields are located throughout the
High Plains (Forman et al. 2001; Madole 1995; Muhs and Holliday 1995) (Figure 3.2), accounting for the
high visibility of Paleoindian sites in the region (e.g., Cook 1931a; Gebhard 1949; Renaud 1931b;
Wormington 1957). The distribution of the dune fields identified in Figure 3.2 are relevant in assessing
pattern of Paleoindian site presence and abundance, as discussed in Chapters 4-8.
Several major rivers cross the High Plains (Figure 3.3), although none are deeply entrenched in
regards to substantial canyons. These include the South Platte, Republican, Arkansas, Cimarron, Beaver,
and Canadian Rivers. These rivers primarily run from the west/northwest to the east/southeast, forming
what has often been called a “ladder of rivers”. Small streams are more characteristic of the High Plains as
compared to major rivers. Today, most of these streams flow seasonally, but they might have carried water
in the Early Holocene during periods of increased precipitation. Playa lakes are an additional source of
surface water in the High Plains, however most playa lakes are only seasonally active today, receiving the
bulk of precipitation during summer rains (Bomar 1995:Table C-2).
The High Plains is an ecotone with little plant or animal diversity, topographic relief, or water
availability. Economic options for foraging groups are generally poor, other than large animal packages
such as bison and perhaps pronghorn. Thus, depending on the predictability and availability of animals
such as bison, the region has little economic value for hunter-gatherer populations. The High Plains are a
region best passed through or used for specialized functions, rather than occupied for extended periods of
time (e.g., Wheat 1972).
24
Figure 3.1: Major physiographic divisions of the Great Plains, with the study area identified by the black
rectangle. Figure adapted from Trimble (1980:Figure 3).
25
Figure 3.2: Major eolian dune fields located within the Central Plains (adapted from Muhs and Holliday
1995).
26
Figure 3.3: Major river valleys of the Central Plains (adapted from Fenneman 1931).
27
Colorado Piedmont
The Colorado Piedmont is located in east-central Colorado (Figure 3.1), bounded between the
drainages of the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers. The Piedmont is a large basin formed by the down
cutting of the High Plains surface by the two major river valleys. The area is characterized by high biotic
diversity, with moderate elevation gain moving from the Piedmont floor, to the west and into the adjacent
foothills, and finally into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains.
The Palmer Divide is the major drainage divide of the Colorado Piedmont, separating the waters
of the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers. The uplifted area extends eastward from the base of the Front
Range, to outside the town of Limon, a distance of over 100 km. The Palmer Divide is also 600 m higher
than Denver and 450 m higher than Colorado Springs (Trimble 1980:44), providing a foothills ecotone
extending far onto the Plains.
Overall, the Piedmont is a rich ecotone because it contains an abundance of water and wood. As
such, the region has a higher plant and animal diversity as compared to the High Plains. The Piedmont
could support long-term occupations by foraging groups, who could have used the area for generalized
functions. The archaeological record of the Holocene certainly supports this assertion (Gilmore et al. 1999;
Irwin-Williams and Irwin 1966).
Raton Volcanic Section
The Raton Section is the final principle physiographic region within the study area (Figure 3.1),
located primarily in northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. The Raton Section is characterized by
volcanic activity, including vents, cones and lava flows that formed large linear mesas. The Raton region
extends south to the Canadian River, east from the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the Oklahoma
Panhandle, and north to the Arkansas River in Colorado. The province contains deep canyons which
crosscut the area, many of them flowing in a southwest to northeast direction, meeting the Arkansas River
in southern Colorado. Rivers such as the Purgatoire and Apishapa contain canyons that would have
presented abundant natural resources to hunter-gatherer populations, such as lithic raw materials as well as
abundant water in the forms of seeps and springs. These will be discussed shortly. The archaeological
record of the Raton Section is quite different from the High Plains and Colorado Piedmont, given the rough
28
canyon country (Campbell 1969; Zier and Kalasz 1999). It has obvious economic similarities to the
archaeological cultures of the adjacent Southwest, who shared similar environments.
Watersheds
I now turn to a more specific dataset, which is the amount and types of water available in the
Central Plains. Water played a pivotal role in shaping the location and density of foraging populations in
the region. In general, those areas rich in water could support diverse plant and animal communities,
whereas those areas with little water, or unpredictable water on a seasonal basis, would support a less
diverse biotic community. Foraging populations would have exploited these communities in different
ways, which should be archaeological visible. For this analysis, I examined several key attributes of
watersheds within the Central Plains, to assess whether there are any spatial differences in water
characteristics expressed over the region.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has divided the nation into hydrologic units (HUC;
Seaber et al.1987), which are hierarchically nested into a series of small collection streams, medium-sized
local rivers, and large regional-level drainages. This study area is broken into two large regional drainages:
the Missouri River Basin, made up of the Platte, Loup, Republican, and Smoky Hill River systems, and the
Arkansas-White-Red River Basin, made up of the Arkansas, Cimarron, Beaver and Canadian River systems
(Figure 3.3.). Sixty-nine individual HUC units were examined in this study (Figure 3.4). Six subregions or
river basins (comprising 41 HUC) were located within the Arkansas drainage and 3 subregions (28 HUC)
within the Platte Region.
The USGS provides data on each watershed, including the area (km2), the perimeter of the unit
(km), the linear km of seasonal and perennial rivers, as well as counts of the number of lakes and streams.
The calculation of seasonal and perennial river km was calculated using modern flow regimes, but the
actual linear distance of rivers per HUC would have remained nearly constant from the Pleistocene until the
present day, thus serving as a proxy measure of potential drainage availability. These are somewhat coarse
measures but applicable to this regional scale of analysis.
29
Figure 3.4: The sixty-nine HUC cataloging units of the Central Plains (after Seaber et al.1987).
30
The following HUC maps were constructed using data obtained from the Environmental Statistics
Group (http://www.esg.montana.edu/gl/huc/index.html) at Montana State University. Although HUC serve
as coarse spatial units, they nonetheless demonstrate stark differences in water availability across the
Central Plains. But first, I begin with differences in elevation.
The mean elevations of the HUC are presented Figure 3.5. Most of the units along the western
edge of the study area are above 2000 m in mean elevation, forming the foothills of the Front Range.
Elevation decreases while moving east into Nebraska and Kansas, where mean elevations fall below 1000
m as you move off the High Plains.
Several measures of vertical relief were examined, including overall vertical range, standard
deviation in elevation, and the coefficient of variation in elevation. Figure 3.6 presents the standard
deviation in elevation for the region. Not surprisingly, the units with the highest mean elevation also have
high standard deviations, attesting to the increasing slope in these units, moving into the Rocky Mountains.
However, the HUC located along the drainage divide between the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers also
have high standard deviations, ranging between 150 m and 300 m.
The density (km/km2) of rivers flowing year round is presented in Figure 3.7. The few units
containing high densities of perennial river km are all located along the flanks of the Front Range, with
values above 0.30 km of perennial river km/km2. There is not a single HUC located in the High Plains that
contains a density of perennial river miles above 0.10 km/km2, suggesting that at least today, water flowing
year round is uncommon.
The density (km/km2) of rivers flowing seasonally is presented in Figure 3.8. Most of the study
area is made up of this type of water system, which is of water flowing only during portions of the year.
There are areas within the High Plains containing higher densities of seasonal river km than others.
Figure 3.9 details the density (km/km2) of all river km per HUC. This was calculated by summing
the perennial and seasonal river km per HUC. This measure probably provides the best approximation for
determining potentially water-rich and water-poor regions, as it is a measure of the total drainage area and
not related to the seasonal availability of water.
31
Figure 3.5: Mean elevation (m) of the Central Plains HUC.
32
Figure 3.6: Standard deviation in elevation (m) of the Central Plains HUC.
33
Figure 3.7: Density (km/km2) of rivers and streams flowing year-round among Central Plains HUC.
34
Figure 3.8: Density (km/km2) of rivers and streams flowing only seasonally among Central Plains HUC.
35
Figure 3.9: Density (km/km2) of all rivers and streams located among Central Plains HUC.
36
Figure 3.10: Percentage of rivers and stream flowing year-round among Central Plains HUC.
37
Not surprisingly, the western fringe of the Central Plains contains the highest density of river km.
However, there are other HUC on the eastern edge of the study area that also have high densities. There
are contiguous areas of multiple HUC that contain low densities of river km. These would potentially be
water-poor areas, especially prone to drought in the past.
The percent of river km per HUC flowing year round is striking (Figure 3.10). The Front Range is
well watered, especially the South Platte River in the Colorado Piedmont. The Arkansas River, to the
south, also contains HUC that flow year round but in lesser frequencies. “Islands” of poor flow are located
in the drainage divides between major rivers, such as in between the South Platte-Arkansas, the Arkansas-
Beaver, and the Beaver-Canadian. These areas probably contain little year round flow because they do not
contain mountain and/or snow pack fed river systems. Over 90% of the river km in these HUC flow only
seasonally.
Figure 3.11: Permanent water as related to elevation among Central Plains HUC.
38
Figure 3.12: Permanent water as related to elevation deviation among Central Plains HUC.
Figure 3.13: Permanent water as related to the total numbers of rivers and streams among Central Plains
HUC.
39
There is a threshold of 2000 m in mean elevation that is related to year-round flowing water
(Figure 3.11). At least 20% of the rivers in HUC above 2000 m run perennially. The relationship is strong
between the standard deviation in elevation and the percent of permanent water (Figure 3.12, r2=0.57). The
pattern is related to two factors: the immediate proximity to winter snow pack, and a highly variable
surface that captures and channels this melt water into a series of drainages. However, this is not to say
that increasing the numbers of streams per unit varies with the percent perennial flowing streams (Figure
3.13). The relationship is positive, but the association is generally weak (r2=0.25).
Summary of HUC Data
These patterns, although modern proxies, have interesting implications for prehistoric settlement
systems. First, well-watered regions (either seasonal or perennial) are uncommon in Colorado, primarily
restricted to the foothills and mountain ecotones. Mountain-fed drainages, such as the South Platte and
Arkansas River, provide water to the Colorado Piedmont and continue flow to the east, out of state. What is
particularly striking is the scalar difference in water availability between the western Central Plains and
areas to the east (such as eastern Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma), where water is much more abundant on a
yearly basis. This is also reflected in gross patterns of vegetation, moving away from the semi-arid grass
steppe and into the wooded areas of the eastern Great Plains.
Second, rivers that have their headwaters on the High Plains, such as the Smoky Hill and
Republican (Weist 1964), suffer from a lack of mountain snow pack, and therefore provide less water
within their drainages. Most of their water is (or was) supplied from groundwater in the forms of seeps and
springs. Thus, the types of plants (including timber) and animals available in each of these drainages no
doubt vary with the amount of water in each watershed. As such, hunter-gatherer landscape settlement
practices probably varied with these patches as well. Higher elevations and the main stems of these river
systems provide the only yearly water available within the region. Prehistoric and historic travel and
settlement no doubt took these patterns into consideration.
40
Playa Lakes
In addition to flowing surface water in the form of rivers and streams, standing surface water is
also an important resource. Throughout the Central and especially Southern Plains, playa lakes provided
water for flora and fauna, supporting distinct biotic communities (Smith 2003). Playa lakes are generally
considered wet-weather lakes, usually only holding water on a seasonal basis. However, some lakes hold
water year round, based on their geology and associated vegetation (Haukos and Smith 1997).
The Southern High Plains (specifically the Llano Estacado) are well noted for the thousands of
playa lakes dotting the landscape. Regional studies of playas have only recently begun to address patterns
in their abundance and location. Estimates vary, but there are between 21,000 to well over 30,000 playa
lakes located in the five state region of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas (e.g.,
Haukos and Smith 1997:7; Sabin and Holliday 1995:288-290; http://www.pljv.org/index.html).
Frequencies of the number of playas in the southern portion of the study area are presented in
Figure 3.14. The majority of the playas are located in the Texas Panhandle, where several projects have
mapped the distribution, number, and size of playa lakes (Fish et al.1998; Haukos and Smith 1997:2;
Guthery et al.1981). Fewer playas are found to the east, west, and south of the Texas Panhandle, but they
are definitely present in eastern New Mexico, the Oklahoma Panhandle, southeastern Colorado, and
western Kansas. For example, recent work by Johnson in western Kansas has documented several
thousand playas, ranging in diameter from 10 m to 5 km in size (Campbell et al.2002; Johnson et al.2000).
And although there is not a complete tally of playa lake frequency in Colorado, their importance to
prehistoric populations is well noted (Bannan 1980; Brunswig 2003; Graham 1981; Stanford 1979b).
There are 20,557 playas recorded within the High Plains counties (n=65 counties) of the Texas
Panhandle. Frequencies vary between less than 10 per county along the eastern portion of the Panhandle to
over 1721 playas in Floyd County on the Llano Estacado. Along the eastern and southern portions of the
area, the number of playas decreases dramatically, because the terrain shifts from a nearly flat landform to a
more broken and dissected terrain. These areas are drained by numerous creeks and rivers, many of which
form at the escarpment along the edge of the Llano. Most counties contain less than 300 playas, but
counties on the Southern High Plains average between 500-1500 playas, as the area is a poorly drained
landscape (Figure 3.15).
41
Figure 3.14: Frequency and spatial distribution of playas in the Central and Southern Plains.
42
Figure 3.15: Playa frequencies of counties located within the Central and Southern Plains.
Figure 3.16: Percent of county lands occupied by playas within the Central and Southern Plains.
43
Despite the fact that many of these counties have large frequencies of playa lakes, the overall area
covered by playas is generally small, never accounting for more than 6% of an entire county, and often
times less than 1% of the total land (Figure 3.16).
The highest numbers of playas are found on the Llano Estacado, however, the playas within those
counties are not among the largest in the region. The mean size of playas (ha) per county is presented in
Figure 3.17. Some of the largest playas are found in the Northern Panhandle, in and around the Canadian
River and moving north towards the Oklahoma Panhandle. Playas in many of these counties average 10.0
ha and larger. The Rolling Plains, to the southeast of the Panhandle, also has large mean values for playa
area, but this is related to the small sample size of the very few (but large) playas in those counties.
Larger playas can hold more water and have a greater chance of holding water for longer periods
of time, all things being equal. As such, they potentially present a more stable and predictable source of
water (and associated flora and fauna) as compared to smaller lakes. The largest playas (those greater than
40 ha in size) are nearly exclusively located in the northern Texas Panhandle (Figure 3.18). These counties
have between 5 and 59 of these large playas, making up somewhere between 2% to 11% of all playas in the
county. Not only are these playas large in area, some of them are deep as well (Figure 3.19). The deepest
playas are all located in the northern Texas Panhandle, almost exclusively restricted to the counties
bordering New Mexico. The depth of playas refers to the elevation difference between the modern basin
floor and the rim of the playa, which often times blends in with the surrounding topography. In general,
most of the playas from the Southern High Plains are not deep, probably related to the playa formation and
their approximate age.
44
Figure 3.17: Mean size (ha) of playas in the Texas Panhandle. Top number refers to the mean size of the
playas, bottom number is the county sample size.
45
Figure 3.18: Percent of playas larger than 40 ha in the Texas Panhandle. Top number refers to the percent
of playas larger than 40 ha, the middle number is the number of playas larger than 40 ha, and the bottom
number is the county sample size.
46
Figure 3.19: Count of playas deeper than 15.2 m (50 ft) in the Texas Panhandle.
47
Summary of Playa Lakes
Playa lakes represent another avenue for exploring forager responses to microenvironments.
There are differences in the frequency, size, and depth of playa lakes on the Central and Southern Plains.
These would have potentially offered seasonal options to foraging populations, based on whether the lake
contained water year round or only during part of the year. Furthermore, recent research has begun to
explore other properties of the lakes, such as the mineral qualities of the water potentially exploited for
their medicinal properties (Wood et al. 2002).
The archaeology of playa lakes is one of the most underdeveloped areas of Great Plains
archaeology, with exploration beginning primarily within the last fifteen years (Brosowske and Bement
1998; Brunswig 2003; Hartwell 1995; Holliday 1997; LaBelle, Holliday, and Meltzer 2003; Litwinionek et
al. 1996, 2003; but see earlier works by Hester 1975b; Sellards 1938; Wendorf and Hester 1962). Future
work should explore whether there are different foraging responses to areas containing playa lakes. Areas
with deep and large playa lakes (those with the potential for predictable availability of water) would have
been utilized much like watersheds containing large percentages of yearly water flow. On the contrary,
those areas with small playa lakes (or those most likely to hold water for only short periods) would have
been used differently, perhaps used for specialized functions.
Seeps and Springs
Springs and seeps represent the final water type examined in this study. These were tallied using
the USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database, which contains the location of every
named location in the United States, including features such as springs. The GNIS database contains 4495
named springs within Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The springs are
unevenly distributed (Figure 3.20), with clusters commonly located in areas of vertical uplift, such as the
mountain ranges in central and southern New Mexico, as well as in the Big Bend and Edwards Plateau
regions of Texas.
Clusters of springs are also located within the study area, but in lower frequencies. For example,
the mesas of the Raton Volcanic Section of northeastern New Mexico and the canyon country of the
Purgatoire and Apishapa River valleys in southeastern Colorado contain large numbers of springs. Other
48
areas, such as on the High Plains proper (e.g., Llano Estacado), contain few to no springs (as seen in the
GNIS database) given a lack of topographic relief and seep exposure.
The primary drawback to the GNIS database is that springs without proper names have not been
digitized by the USGS. Inspection of 7.5’ maps from areas containing clusters of springs, such as
southeastern Colorado, reveals that the data obtained from GNIS vastly underestimate the actual number of
springs on the landscape, especially in areas already known to have abundant springs. However, cursory
study of 7.5’ maps from areas that do not have any or only a few springs on the GNIS database did not
reveal abundant additional examples from the area. Thus, the relative proportion of springs might be taken
as an approximation of the regional pattern, at least until a more detailed study is put forth such as those
completed in Texas.
Brune (1975, 1981) presented a comprehensive summary of the springs of Texas, providing
detailed description of the discharge rate, and in some cases, the mineral properties of the spring water.
Brune’s study recorded the obvious and prominent springs in Texas, but many more were present at one
time. A study along a 75-mile stretch of escarpment along the eastern edge of the Llano Estacado recorded
abundant springs that cumulatively produced approximately 12,000 gallons a minute, or 17 million gallons
a day (White et al.1946:390). These estimates were based on measurements obtained in 1938-1939, after a
prolonged drought in the 1930s, as well as at least minimal pumping of the aquifer for agricultural
purposes. Most of the springs were located within 1-3 miles of the escarpment (White et al.1946:390),
which would have made them fairly predictable for mobile populations.
Figure 3.21 details the frequency of springs in the Texas Panhandle, as documented by Brune
(1981). Springs are most common along the eastern side of the Panhandle, along the edge of the High
Plains. There is another band of springs running west to east through the northern portion of the
Panhandle, along the Canadian River and feeder drainages. Both areas are located along the eroded edge of
the High Plains surface, where the Ogallala Formation is eroding.
49
Figure 3.20: Springs identified in the GNIS database. Present study area is denoted by the black box.
50
Figure 3.21: Count of springs per county in the Texas Panhandle.
51
The vast majority of all these springs are classified either as small springs (discharging water
between 0.28 and 2.8 cubic feet per second, or cfs) or as seeps (less than 0.028 cfs). These are Brune’s
measures based upon his records as of 1980. These springs probably flowed more readily in the past, given
higher water tables as well as potentially increased rates of aquifer recharge. However, these springs are
still quite small compared to other regions of the eastern United States or along the Edwards Plateau in
central and southeastern Texas, where discharge rates of over 100 cfs are commonly recorded (Brune
1975:Figure 58).
There are a few larger springs in the Panhandle (Figure 3.22), classified as medium or larger, that
have at least medium (2.8 to 28 cfs) to moderately large (28 to 280 cfs) discharge rates. Again, the
majority and highest percentages of these large springs are located along the eastern edge of the Llano
Estacado, with a few isolated occurrences in scattered counties. There are also several medium springs in
the northern Texas Panhandle. For example, the Buffalo Springs in Dallam County provided ample water
for the original headquarters of the XIT Ranch and the area around this spring provided some of the last
refuge for bison in the state of Texas, up until 1895 (Brune 1981:151; Howard 1949). Unfortunately
modern land practices, notably the intense pumping of the Ogallala aquifer, have greatly reduced or
stopped the flow of these springs.
52
Figure 3.22: Percent of springs medium-sized or larger in the Texas Panhandle. Top number refers to the
percent of springs medium or large whereas the bottom number is the county sample size.
53
The importance of springs in periods of climatic aridity is beginning to be investigated. For
example, Wood et al. (2002) have argued that springs located in and around major playa basins in the
Southern Plains would have been critical during times of drought. They demonstrate from sediment core
data that springs in major lake basins, such as Double Lakes, held water during the height of the
Altithermal, when a major regional drought was at its peak. Evidence supporting their conclusions comes
from the Nall site, in the Oklahoma Panhandle, where at least one spring was located along the
northwestern edge of the playa lake, possibly providing a source of fresh water to human occupants in the
Early Holocene (LaBelle, Holliday, and Meltzer 2003).
Summary of Seeps and Springs
Seeps and springs represent a third avenue for continuing research in the spatial patterns of water
presence. Springs often times provided a clean and fairly predictable water supply for foraging
populations, as attested by the large number of archaeological sites documented in the vicinity of springs
(Brune 1981; Meltzer 1987; see debate between Johnson and Holliday 1984 and Shiner 1983, 1984). They
offered loci where groups stayed for long periods, or at least were reoccupied more frequently than other
locations, given the predictability of the water source and the potentially abundant local flora and fauna.
Springs, much like playas, vary spatially in their abundance and distribution across the Central
Plains. Continued mapping of springs from 7.5’ maps will help model particular areas within the Plains
that were potentially occupied during drought times, when little surface water was available in the form of
playa lakes or seasonal flowing drainages.
54
Lithic Raw Material Sources
I now turn to the presence and varieties of lithic raw material sources. Like water resources, stone
tool materials are unevenly distributed across the region. In this section, I describe several of the known
raw material sources that were utilized throughout the prehistoric record (Figure 3.23). In addition, the
distribution of quarries within Colorado and New Mexico are described, which detail some of the smaller
and intensively used sources in the region.
I obtained the records of recorded stone quarries within eastern Colorado and northeastern New
Mexico using the state archaeological file database (Figure 3.24). I queried for all sites listed as “stone
quarries”. Within this list, I removed historically documented limestone quarries, as well as
paleontological quarry pits dating to the late 19th century. This left 384 sites. I did not further check
whether these sites were technically quarries, where the raw material was dug from primary bedrock
sources, or if the sites were instead workshops, where lithic sources were simply worked in abundance. As
well, I did not confirm whether the remaining quarry sites were either primary or secondary sources of raw
material. Large numbers of the quarry sites contained other site classifications, in addition to the quarry
designation (Table 3.1). Open lithic sites were common, which suggests that many of these sites were in
fact large workshops rather than primary deposit bedrock quarries. Open camps, open architectural, and
sheltered camps were also identified, demonstrating that raw material procurement was but one of the
embedded activities conducted on site.
Table 3.1: Site types of the Colorado quarry sites
Site Type Frequency Percent of Total (N=384)*

Open lithic 153 39.8
Open camp 36 9.4
Open architectural 11 2.9
Sheltered camp 6 1.6
Other 12 3.1
* site types are not mutually exclusive, thus sites may be listed in more than one category
55
Part of the difficulty in identifying the sources of raw materials in archaeological assemblages is
that our database of known quarry sites is small and of recent origin. Systematic studies have only begun
to record the locations of primary and secondary raw material sources, with the majority of sites being
identified primarily through contract archaeology studies over the last 30 years. Our understanding of the
distribution of lithic sources is rapidly improving (e.g., Black 2000; Miller 1991), although there are clearly
regions where we have little or no information. Major sources of raw material identified in this study are
described below, with well-known sources shown in Figure 3.23.
Sources in the Platte River Basin
A variety of toolstones have been identified through pedestrian survey in the South Platte Basin
(Kvamme 1977, 1979; Travis 1988). Heavily utilized sources include Flattop chalcedony, which is located
along Flattop Butte (Greiser 1983), in northeastern Colorado along the Wyoming border. The material is
related to other Oligocene formations identified in western Nebraska, eastern Wyoming, and southern
South Dakota. (Carlson and Peacock 1975; Koch and Miller 1996). Attempts to distinguish Flattop from
other Oligocene cherts (using neutron activation analysis) have been useful in source analysis (Hoard et
al.1992, 1993), although additional work will further clarify patterns of source variability (Church 1995;
Hoard et al.1995).
Raymer jasper is available on the Pawnee Buttes Grassland in Weld County in northern Colorado.
The jasper comes in many colors including brown, red, yellow, and black jaspers, sometimes with banding
(Johnson 1982:51; Mitchell 1997:36-37); as well, various agates are available in the same general area.
56
Figure 3.23: Major lithic material sources commonly utilized in the Central and Southern Plains.
57
Figure 3.24: Percentages of identified quarry/workshop sites in eastern Colorado and New Mexico. Top
number refers to the percent of quarry sites, the middle number is the number of quarry sites per county,
and the bottom number is the county sample size of sites of all types.
58
Along the Palmer Divide, there are extensive amounts of petrified wood, referred to by various
names as Parker petrified wood and Elizabeth wood (collectively termed Black Forest wood). Large areas
of the Divide contain petrified woods, agates, and jasper (Johnson 1982:51; Eckel 1961:275-280). Petrified
woods must have been abundant and large in size prior to our era. For instance, Pearl (1942a, 1942b:76,98)
describes several large logs in Douglas and Elbert Counties, including a specimen 50 feet long and 6 feet in
diameter, as well as stumps 4 feet in width, and other logs 25 feet long and 2 feet in diameter.
Kimball chert/chalcedony is a little known source (Carlson and Peacock 1975) available in the
western Panhandle (Kimball, Cheyenne, Deul Counties) and southern areas (Harlan and Furnas) of
Nebraska. The raw material varies between an opaque white chert and translucent pale brown chalcedony,
sometimes lustrous and dendritic. Carlson and Peacock note that the material is indistinguishable from
some varieties of Flattop chalcedony.
Niobrara jasper is known by a wide variety of names such as Alma, Graham, Niobrara, Niobrarite,
Quartelejo, Republican River, and Smoky Hill jasper (Wedel 1986:28; Banks 1990; Wright 1985). The
chert occurs in many colors, including red, yellow, green, brown, black, and according to Banks (1990:96),
even in shades of white. In my experience, the most common colors vary from dark brown to red. Source
areas for the chert include the Republican and Smoky Hill River Basins of south and north-central
Nebraska and Kansas (respectively) as well as a concentration of quarries in Graham, Trego, and Gove
counties in Kansas (Banks 1990:96), in addition to other sources in Norton, Phillips, Sheridan, Rooks, and
Ellis Counties (Wright 1985:89).
Sources in the Arkansas River Basin
Raw materials are also available in the gravels of the Arkansas River. These include various
petrified woods, agates, chalcedonies, and jasper (Eckel 1961:275; Johnson 1982:61). Hollister (in Pearl
1942b:76) reported petrified logs along the Arkansas River varying between 2-4 feet high and 10-40 inches
thick. The amount of material available prehistorically must have much more so than today, as local
residents have heavily collected the fossilized wood. For example, A fossil wood building is located along
59
the Arkansas River in Lamar, Colorado. It was featured in “Ripley’s Believe It or Not”, given the
enormous quantity of fossil wood that went into its construction.
The Calhan Badlands, also known as the Indian Paint Mines, show evidence of extensive use
throughout the past. The Badlands are located in eastern El Paso County in Colorado, along the south side
of Palmer Divide. The jasper tends to be orange and rust-red, scattered throughout the area (Mitchell
1997:74-75). The site also takes its name from the minerals and clays that are exposed in the badlands,
which were used for pottery production.
Day Creek dolomite has been identified in Buffalo County, Oklahoma, as well as southern Kansas.
Day Creek is thought to be a lateral equivalent of Alibates, however there has been insufficient work in
defining the variability at the source, and any differences that might exist between Day Creek and Alibates
(Banks 1990).
There are an abundance of quarries and/or workshops in southeastern Colorado (Figure 3.23). A
variety of quartzite sources are available southeastern Colorado, northeastern New Mexico, and the
Oklahoma Panhandle. Dakota quartzite occurs in abundance in Baca County, Colorado, along Cat Creek
and Fern Canyon (Banks 1990:94) as well as in the vicinity of Two Buttes, a well-known landmark in the
High Plains. Several quartzite quarries have been identified along the Arkansas (Stein 1985) and Cimarron
Rivers (Brown 1979) in southwestern Kansas, and others sources will probably be identified in this area,
where Dakota sandstone is exposed along major waterways.
Several quarries have been described in northern Harding County, New Mexico. Carmichael
(1984) tested three sites along Pedernal Creek, including a quarry of a “massive bed of light gray quarzitic
sandstone or metaquartzite,” identified as either upper Morrison or lower Dakota formation in age
(Carmichael 1984:171). In nearby Colfax County, Higgins (1984) described sources in the Ancho and
York Canyons. Materials include various forms of quartzite, siltstone/claystone, chert, basalt, andesite, and
rhyolite. These canyons are located within the foothills of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, therefore it is
highly probable that similar materials occur along the foothills to the north into Colorado.
High quality quartzites are also commonly available in Cimarron County, in the Oklahoma
Panhandle (Gould 1921; Lopez and Saunders 1973; Saunders 1978). Deposits of Dakota quartzite range
between one to six feet in thickness, and most of the materials are actually orthoquartzite, or silicified
60
sandstones. The material varies in color between shades of purple, brown, and white. The quartzite varies
in quality, between fine and medium grades, although “sugar” varieties are common. Tesesquite quartzite
is found in a limited area of northwestern Cimarron County. The high quality quartzite varies from light
blue to light gray, with additional shades of brown to gold (Saunders 1978:86). Finally, Thoburn mentions
“a projecting ledge of massive white flint or chert, about three miles northeast of Kenton in the same
country, from which hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of material have been removed, probably
throughout a period of several thousand years. This material is almost as white as porcelain” (in Gould
1921:76). I have not encountered this material nor have I seen it mentioned in other texts, but I suspect that
it is one of the fine-grained quartzites available in the area.
Basalt is also available in the Black Mesa region of western Cimarron County, and there are
probably sources spread throughout the Raton Volcanic Section of northeastern New Mexico, especially
adjacent Colfax and Union Counties. Some researchers question the usefulness of basalt in producing
bifacial tools due to its coarse structure (Banks 1984:72), however, a fair amount of basalt was utilized
throughout the prehistoric sequence (e.g., Saunders and Saunders 1982).
The Ogallala Formation, which forms the so-called “caprock” of the High Plains, contains various
raw material sources including chert, petrified wood, and quartzites. Banks (1984:71) states “Ogallala
quartzite is probably the single material type most common to the central and southern Great Plains.”
Ogallala quartzites have acquired different names throughout the Plains; for example, it is called “Potter
chert” in the Texas Panhandle and to the north in South Dakota, it is called “Tongue River silicified
sediment” (Banks 1984:71). Numerous sources of these Ogallala formation materials are exposed in the
streams and rivers of the region (Holliday and Welty 1981; Lintz 1997).
Alibates silicified dolomite is the most well known and one of the most widely spread raw
materials within the study area despite its quite localized source area (Bousman 1974; Bryan 1950; Green
and Kelley 1960; Shaeffer 1958). The material occurs in the Permian red beds, where the dolomite has
been replaced by chalcedony, thus the material is commonly called silicified dolomite (Bryan 1950:14).
Abert first described Alibates in 1845, while he was conducting a military reconnaissance survey through
the Canadian River Valley in New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. Given the abundant riparian resources
available in the vicinity of the Alibates source, it is not surprising that he encountered a camp of Kiowa and
61
Crow at the site (Abert 1999:64-65). The most well known Alibates outcrops are quite small, measuring
approximately 1200 m in length and about 15 m to 90 m in width (Shaeffer 1958:189-190). Quarry pits are
present at the source, indicative of prehistoric digging for suitable raw materials and range from 3.0-3.6 m
in diameter (Bryan 1950:14). But other Alibates outcrops are also known, such as those located nearby on
Plum Creek, documenting a patchy source area spread along the Canadian River and its tributaries (Kraft
1997; Wyckoff 1993).
Finally, the Tecovas Formation is another major source material located to the south of the study
area. The majority of Tecovas sources to the eastern edge of the Llano Estacado, in the vicinity of
Quitaque. However, other sources are known along the same escarpment in Palo Duro Canyon, as well as
to the north along the Canadian River (Mallouf 1989). The Baldy Hill Formation is a lateral equivalent of
the Tecovas Formation (Banks 1990), occurring along the Dry Cimarron River in northeastern New
Mexico.
Summary of Lithic Sources
Lithic sources are patchily distributed across the Central Plains. Some areas, such as those drained
by the Arkansas Basin, contain suitable and abundant raw material sources in the canyon country of the
Raton Section. Numerous workshops and quarries are known from this region (e.g., Campbell 1969;
Saunders 1978; Nowak and Gerhart 2001). As well, areas along the Front Range of the Colorado and New
Mexico Rockies also contain abundant raw material sources (Black 2000). Finally, many of the larger river
valleys contain sources in the form of gravels (Banks 1990). However, the vast majority of the Central
Plains contains little, if any, locally available stone.
Given such conditions, one should expect different signatures of hunter-gatherer populations. In
areas of abundant raw material, we should expect to see much more waste reduction and expedient
technology, as foragers could manufacture new tools at their whim. On the High Plains however, one
should expect a different signature, such as a tool technology designed to last for long periods away from
quarries (i.e., Hofman 1992) and one that is not wasteful in resharpening. In these areas, lithic materials
would have to be carried into the area and most tools were probably manufactured elsewhere. Sites should
62
contain few tools and little debitage from tool manufacture, with most chipping related to tool refurbishing.
Stone material would be too precious to waste that far from a raw material source.
Given that many raw material sources also occur in areas of abundant water (springs and creeks)
and probably wood sources, we should expect major differences in the types of sites and lengths of
occupation between these areas and environments such as the High Plains, which has neither of these
attributes.
Modern Faunal Resources
I end this Chapter with a brief overview of the modern mammalian communities within Colorado,
demonstrating some patterns in the distribution of animals between major landform types. Broadly
speaking, there are two mammalian biotic communities present in the Central Plains of eastern Colorado:
those located in the grasslands that form the upland divides and those mammals living in the riparian
lowlands or river bottoms. Modern communities in eastern Colorado can be used as a proxy for the
potential mammalian niche width available to prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
Eight mammalian orders are present in Colorado in the recent past (Table 3.2) (Fitzgerald et
al.1994). Arranged from the most to least abundant in terms of species richness, these include rodents,
carnivores, bats, insectivores, lagomorphs, artiodactyls, and two orders represented by single species
respectively, opossums and armadillos. Not all these orders are equally represented in the grasslands and
riparian zones, as the ecological zone conditions the types of species present and their abundance (Figure
3.25).
Grassland and riparian communities contain nearly the same number of overall species within
each ecotone, with 46 and 49 species respectively, which comprise 37 to 39 percent of the total species
available statewide (Fitzgerald et al.1994). Although the zones contain similar numbers of species, the
makeup of those species is quite different.
63
Table 3.2: Modern mammalian fauna documented in two eastern Colorado biomes (data from Fitzgerald et
al. 1994).
Grassland Riparian State Percent in Percent in
Order Family Types Species Species Total Grassland Riparian
Marsupicarnivora Didelphidae Oppossums 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
subtotal 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
Insectivora Soricidae Shrews 3 6 10 30.0 60.0
Talpidae Moles 1 0 1 100.0 0.0
subtotal 4 6 11 36.4 54.5
Chiroptera Vespertilionidae Common bats 1 7 15 6.7 46.7
Molossidae Free-tailed bats 0 0 2 0.0 0.0
subtotal 1 7 17 5.9 41.2
Edentata Dasypodidae Armadillos 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
subtotal 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
Lagomorpha Ochotonidae Pikas 0 0 1 0.0 0.0
Leporidae Rabbits and hares 3 4 6 50.0 66.7
subtotal 3 4 7 42.9 57.1
Rodentia Sciuridae Squirrels 6 2 18 33.3 11.1
Geomyidae Pocket gophers 4 0 4 100.0 0.0
Heteromyidae Pocket mice 6 0 6 100.0 0.0
Castoridae Beavers 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
Muridae Rats and mice 8 5 25 32.0 20.0
Zapodidae Jumping mice 0 2 2 0.0 100.0
Erethizontidae Porcupines 0 1 1 0.0 100.0
subtotal 24 11 57 42.1 19.3
Carnivora Canidae Dogs and allies 4 4 6 66.7 66.7
Ursidae Bears 1 2 2 50.0 100.0
Procyonidae Raccoons and allies 0 2 2 0.0 100.0
Mustelidae Weasels and allies 5 6 12 41.7 50.0
Felidae Cats 0 2 3 0.0 66.7
subtotal 10 16 25 40.0 64.0
Artiodactyla Cervidae Deer 2 3 3 66.7 100.0
Antilocapridae Pronghorn 1 0 1 100.0 0.0
Bovidae Bison and allies 1 0 2 50.0 0.0
subtotal 4 3 6 66.7 50.0
Total 46 49 125 36.8 39.2
64
The grasslands contain only five of the eight orders, dominated by high species richness in rodents
(24 species) and carnivores (10), and less so in insectivores (4), artiodactyls (4), and lagomorphs (3). The
grassland biome is dominated by small mammals (mostly rodents and their pursuant carnivores), although
larger body class and reproductively abundant species such as rabbits, pronghorn, and bison are also
present.
In contrast, the riparian ecotone contains all eight order, exhibiting more evenness in species
between orders. Both carnivores and rodents are well represented in species richness (16 and 11
respectively), followed by bats (7), insectivores (6), lagomorphs (4), and artiodactyls (3).
60
Grassland
50
Percent of species available statewide
40
Riparian
30
20
10
0
Rodentia Carnivora Insectivora Artiodactyla Lagomorpha Chiroptera Marsupicarnivora Edentata
Mammalian Order
Figure 3.25: Composition of mammalian orders within the grassland and riparian ecotones of eastern
Colorado.
65
It follows then that the diversity and abundance of mammals is going to be different between the
two ecotones. This would be important to the subsistence regimes of hunter-gatherers within the region, as
the pursuit and processing times are going to be different between the two zones.
Not only are the species compositions going to vary, but also the abundance of animals, depending
upon the habitat. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (Colorado Hunt Data 2000) provides summary
statistics on the elk, deer, and pronghorn populations within the state, including herd size and the ratio of
males and females, among other statistics. These three species are assigned to management herds located
throughout the state.
Herd distributions and population totals from the 1999 season demonstrate the remarkable spatial
variability in herd populations. These totals represent the potential number of animals within these given
areas, but the estimates are not without their problems in terms of estimating prehistoric totals. Today,
these herds are managed through human hunting. Natural predators such as the gray wolf and the mountain
lion have been removed in some areas, thus allowing herds to grow in size to the point that they need to be
culled by modern human hunters. Furthermore, habitat fragmentation has placed additional constraints on
the size and movement of particular herds. Despite these obvious limitations, I think these distribution
maps illustrate the enormous potential that the environment held for large mammals.
66
Elk distributions are presented in Figure 3.26. Herd sizes range from a low of 46 in the Cimarron
River area of southeastern Colorado to a high of approximately 47,575 animals in the White River Plateau
of northwestern Colorado. The populations increase in size from east to the west, owing to several factors
including modern development, terrain, access to forage, water, etc. Most herds east of the continental
divide are less than 5000 head in size, such as along the Front Range and the few animals wandering out
onto the Plains. Elk were probably present in at least limited numbers on the Plains of Eastern Colorado, at
least during the pre-European period (Shaw and Lee 1997). Other than the large herd located within the
mesa and canyon country of the Colorado/New Mexico border, as well as the Cimarron River, most elk are
completely restricted to the foothills, mountains, and inter-montane basins of Colorado.
Figure 3.26. Colorado elk herds and population size in 1999 (Colorado Hunt Data 2000).
67
Deer populations (both white-tail and mule [Kerr 1979]) are seen in Figure 3.27. The deer are
spread across the entire state, although the herds on the Plains are mapped over a larger area (not indicative
of mobility, but instead of management practices). Areas containing abundant deer overlap spatially with
those of the elk, especially in the northwestern portion of the state. Most herds mapped east of the
continental divide are smaller than counterpoints to the west of the divide. Nevertheless, the number of
deer is still higher than that of elk within the same area.
Figure 3.27. Colorado deer herds and population size in 1999 (Colorado Hunt Data 2000).
68
Pronghorn populations (Yoakum 1980) are presented in Figure 3.28. Pronghorn are less common
across the state, most frequent in the eastern Plains and also in northwest Colorado. Populations are
generally small, with mapped herds less than 5000 in any one unit. The large number of pronghorn in
northwestern Colorado is related to the Green River Basin of Wyoming, which contains abundant
pronghorn populations.
Figure 3.28. Colorado pronghorn herds and population size in 1999 (Colorado Hunt Data 2000).
69
Summary of Modern Faunal Distributions
Modern faunal distributions vary across the state of Colorado, with varied habitats and associated
fauna manifest in the mountains, foothills, riparian zones, and elevated Plains (Mutel and Emerick 1984;
Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Foragers would have had to respond to these conditions with shifts in their hunting
tactics, location and seasonal timing of their subsistence activities, and probably the species that were
pursued (Kelly 1995).
The High Plains contains the least diverse faunal community, whereas there is increasing richness
moving from the riparian zones, into the foothills, and mountains. The foothills and mountains probably
represent the best ecotones for hunter-gatherer populations given their marked environmental diversity in
such a small amount of space. High densities of game such as deer and elk would have attracted human
populations to these areas for at least parts of the year, whereas bison (on the Plains, and also in the
foothills and mountains) would have also affected hunter-gatherer mobility decisions.
Chapter Summary
This Chapter summarized several important environmental variables that set the boundary
conditions of human foragers operating within the Central Plains. The Plains are simply not a homogenous
life zone. For example, there are areas of high and low water potential, as mapped by watersheds, playa
distributions, and springs. Given the importance of water to human systems, we should expect different
reactions to these patchy resources, like site occupation length, reoccupation rates, and density of sites
within the regions. Lithic raw materials also vary spatially across the region. Given the importance of
lithic raw materials to the manufacture of tools, we should expect changes in tool assemblages, in terms of
the quantity of waste material or the discard rates of tools. Finally, there are differences in the types and
frequencies of fauna available across the region. Hunter-gatherers would have probably modified their
behavior depending on what game was available across the landscape, as well as the quantity of that game.
In summary, the Plains are hardly static and therefore we should not expect that forager
adaptations would remain the static across the region as a whole. Every life zone was likely used in the
Central Plains, but probably not in the same way or in the same intensity.
70
Chapter 4
PROJECTILE POINT SURVEYS AND SHPO SITE FILES
This Chapter provides an overview of the surface record of Paleoindian sites, focusing on their
distribution and abundance within the study area. Basic characteristics of Paleoindian settlement are
summarized, providing hypotheses for evaluation in subsequent Chapters of this dissertation. Two sources
of data were used; projectile point surveys and state archaeological files.
I argue that the presence and abundance of Paleoindian sites is spatially variable, and that different
patterns emerge depending upon which dataset is examined, and at what scale. These types of data are
increasingly being incorporated into models of Paleoindian mobility (Amick 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Hofman
1994c; Meltzer and Bever 1995; Pitblado 1998, 1999a), however a survey of the Paleoindian literature
points to the fact that most of our ideas are instead derived from the context of excavated sites (cf. Frison
1991; Hofman 1994b; Roberts 1940; Wormington 1957). This is sound logic in many ways, as it can be
argued that excavated sites provide a more secure context for making detailed statements about Paleoindian
systems, as compared to often times biased and spotty coverage in the regional data. Nevertheless, a
melding of the two can be a productive research strategy. The predominance of excavated sites has
certainly shaped and skewed our perception of the Paleoindian record, because as will be seen shortly, the
vast majority of Paleoindian sites (isolated finds, small sites) do not even vaguely resemble the well known,
excavated, and published sites (Hofman and Ingbar 1988; Kornfeld 1988).
Projectile point surveys are often the best source of information for quickly determining whether
there are active artifact collectors in a given region, or if there are appropriately aged exposures within the
area. The distribution and abundance of finds often varies with the type of terrain favored by collectors, as
amateur archaeologists often search eroded landscapes (Westfall 2002; Whiteley 1998; Yeager 2000).
71
Thus certain landforms such as dunes, plowed fields, and creek bottoms often produce higher quantities of
artifacts as compared to other areas. Yet it is not necessarily true that these areas were more densely
occupied in the past (they might well have been), but instead these landforms are easily eroded, afford high
surface visibility, and often yield high artifact density due to palimpsest effects.
State archaeological files (housed in centrally located State Historic Preservation Offices)
document the nature, location, and characteristics of sites recorded by professional archaeologists on
various research and contract projects. Unlike surface hunters, sites recorded in the state files were often
discovered from a variety of artifact-bearing landforms, as project boundaries are more concerned with
mitigating cultural resources rather than simply discovering artifacts in abundance. As such, they present a
potentially useful dataset for assessing the surface properties of large regions. Yet, these data must be
tempered by the role that artifact collectors have played in selectively altering the surface record, removing
scores of diagnostic surface materials (LaBelle 2003).
Paleoindian Projectile Point Surveys
Seventy years of Paleoindian research has revealed that isolated finds of Paleoindian projectile
points are fairly common in certain regions of North America (e.g., Anderson 1990; Anderson and Faught
1998, 2000; Brennan 1982; Faught et al. 1994), whereas sites are comparatively rare occurrences across
most of the continent (sites are simply defined as containing at minimum 2 or more items, including
debitage and tools). Many researchers use a regional approach in examining the Paleoindian record, based
primarily upon the distribution and abundance of specific diagnostic styles of projectile points.
Frequencies are obtained by adding together isolated tools with projectile points recovered from sites.
Most regional studies focus on county-level distributions of projectile points. These units are an
appropriate scale for several reasons. First, much of the data are derived from amateur archaeological
collections. Although many collectors keep records of their find locations, unfortunately others do not.
Yet, county-level assignment is often possible with even the most provenience-poor collection. Second, the
county scale is an appropriate spatial unit for examining differences in projectile point frequency as related
to broad physiographic features, such as comparing tool densities between river valleys (Daniel 1998), the
72
mountains and the plains (Amick 1994a), glaciated and unglaciated terrain (Meltzer 1988, 1989), or areas
of high and low lithic raw material abundance (Meltzer 1987; Meltzer and Bever 1995).
Projectile point surveys have focused primarily on various styles of fluted points such as Clovis
and Folsom, because many archaeologists contend fluted points to be perfect examples of “index fossils”
(Anderson and Faught 1998:163). This argument is based on three premises: fluted points are easily
identifiable, they are widespread in distribution, and they represent a (relatively) synchronous chronometric
horizon marker. Although we can generally accept these propositions for analytical purposes, empirical
evidence shows the situation to be much more complex.
Fluted points are usually identifiable if the base is present. However, there is much less chance of
identification if only the midsection or tip remains. Specimens broken during manufacture are also
problematic. It is relatively easy to identify the tool if the preform was fluted, however, earlier stage
preforms are more difficult to positively identify. Manufacturing debris, such as channel flakes, can be
diagnostic depending upon the point style. For example, Folsom channel flakes are perhaps the easiest to
identify, but few cases are made for Clovis channel flakes primarily because these are not as distinctive. Of
course, this all depends upon the context of the points and preforms in question. Identification of
Paleoindian preforms is much easier when they come from a workshop locale, especially if it is single
component. Yet, this is generally a rare occurrence.
The second premise, that fluted points are widespread, is generally true but not without its
problems. Clovis and Clovis-like points have been found across North America, although there are clearly
regions where they occur in great abundance and other areas where they are almost non-existent (cf.
distribution maps in Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000). Herein lies a quandary. How do we assess patterns
in fluted point distributions if our expectations are that they should occur everywhere and in abundance?
This is the primary problem with many fluted point surveys, as they equate regional abundance with
temporal depth (i.e., lots of tools accumulated over lots of time) (e.g., Mason 1962:234-235; Shiner 1983,
1984; Johnson and Holliday 1984), rather than accounting for factors that might condition varying rates in
the manufacture, use, and discard of tools (such as settlement mobility, raw material abundance, etc.). We
must first assess whether the sample is appropriate and applicable to regional land use modeling (Lepper
1983, 1985; Shott 2002).
73
The third premise is that fluted points are horizon markers in the truest sense of Willey and
Phillips (1958:31-33). Yet radiocarbon dating of fluted point sites has proven problematic in parts of North
America, such that the East Coast and Great Lakes sequences have few independently dated sites (Haynes
1993) as compared to the Great Plains (Holliday 2000). For example, typological sequences for fluted
point evolution have been created in the Great Lakes (Deller and Ellis 1992:125-133), but without
independent dating. In some cases, tracing “cultural” evolution of point styles has been taken to the
extreme, often utilizing low sample populations with undated assemblages (Kerr and Dial 1998; O’Brien et
al. 2001). But even in those situations where types are “well dated”, Paleoindian tools are still proving
problematic as horizon markers (Sellet 1999, 2001).
Herein lies a significant problem, how does one explain cultural change when there is no
independent measure for the flow of time? Once again, the abundance argument is interjected, equating
great temporal depth with diversity and abundance in projectile point forms (Mason 1962). In many of
these models, hunter-gatherers are assumed to annually discard a set number of points equally across the
landscape, regardless of local resource distribution. Yet, this is highly improbable given the abundance of
discarded points (including manufacturing failures) at lithic sources, just for a simple example.
Thus, many of the assumptions behind projectile point surveys are problematic. Equation of point
frequency with greater population size or temporal depth is simply not possible without further
consideration of problems in the basic identification of the tools, and factors conditioning the spatial
distributions of points.
Fluted Point Studies in the Eastern United States
Studies in the distribution of projectile point styles have a long history in North America (e.g.,
Figgins 1934, 1935; Fischel 1939; Howard 1935; Renaud 1932b, 1934), however most of the early work
was qualitative and only exploratory in nature. Like the majority of Paleoindian work from the 1930s
through the 1960s, the emphasis was placed on determining stylistic types, charting their geographic
distributions, and assessing basic properties of chronology.
More quantitative point surveys were begun in the early 1960s in eastern North America (Prufer
and Baby 1963; Mason 1962; Seeman and Prufer 1982). It was quickly noted that there were an extensive
74
number of fluted points occurring within relatively limited geographical areas in the eastern record
(Brennan 1982). Sites such as Bull Brook (Byers 1954), Shoop (Witthoft 1952), and Williamson (McCary
1951) were distinctly different from sites in the western United States, which generally produced only a
few fluted points per site (Blackwater Draw was one of the few exceptions [Hester 1972]). These large
clusters of projectile points demonstrated dramatic differences between the Paleoindian records of the
eastern and western United States. And as mentioned earlier, the inferences drawn from these patterns
have had impact on the interpretation of Paleoindian organization.
Most of these fluted point surveys were conducted with county-level scales of individual states.
However, within the last 20 years, researchers began to compile smaller scale databases of fluted point
distribution (Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000; Brennan 1982; Meltzer 1988). Styles investigated include
Clovis, Cumberland, Folsom, and Suwannee/Simpson points, with Clovis-like styles such as Gainey and
Debert subsumed under the general Clovis label. The Anderson and Faught database contains counts
(www.anthro.fsu.edu/special/paleo/paleoind.html) of the point types for counties in the coterminous United
States. As of 2000, the survey contained 12,791 Paleoindian points (Anderson and Faught 2000:509), the
vast majority of which had at least a county-level provenience (98.6% based on the 1997 totals, Anderson
and Faught 1998).
Anderson and Faught (1998, 2000) argue that patterns in the distribution and density of the
various point types represent many things, including possibly the routes of migration, ancestral homelands,
population centers, and estimates for population size (see also Anderson and Gillam 2000; Steele et al.
1998). Obviously, we can and should question whether these conclusions are warranted. Several
archaeologists have investigated factors potentially affecting these point density patterns, such as
comparing densities to modern populations of the counties, the amount of land under cultivation, and the
number of amateur collectors in the area, among other factors (Lepper 1983, 1985; Meltzer 1987; Meltzer
and Bever 1995:52-53; Shott 2002). However, these factors have generally been discounted as not
necessarily important in affecting the density of fluted points (Anderson and Faught 1998; Seeman and
Prufer 1984).
Anderson and Faught are to be commended for compiling their database for it is the first attempt
of a continent-wide study. But there are several problems with the dataset that cannot be overcome. For
75
example, the database only contains point frequencies. There are no data on point completeness (base
versus complete), final form (preform versus exhausted point), raw material, or metrics. Without any of
these data, critical in evaluating what these patterns might represent regionally, there is little else to
compare other than county-level frequencies.
Patterns in the Fluted Point Distributions: Real and Otherwise
So what do clusters of Paleoindian projectile points potentially indicate? Here we can make
meaningful interpretations of the patterns. Rather than view Paleoindian point clusters strictly as past
behavior, we must first examine taphonomic factors that govern the data in question. First, clusters indicate
regions where Early Holocene and Late Pleistocene archaeological surfaces are exposed on the surface.
This is one of the most important variables to consider. Across the continent, on both a regional and local
scale, there are surfaces that have had little sedimentation since the Pleistocene or have eroded onto that
surface, such as in the desert Southwest and Great Basin (e.g., large open air sites like Mockingbird Gap
which rests on a quite extensive Early Holocene surface, at minimum several km2 in size [Weber 1997;
Weber and Agogino 1997]). On the other hand, Pleistocene-age deposits are buried under dozens of meters
of sediment in the valleys to the east of the High Plains. For example, Paleoindian deposits are buried
under 7 m of fill at the Allen site in Nebraska (Holder and Wilke 1949:260). Locating Paleoindian sites
simply lying on the surface in this area of Nebraska is obviously quite difficult given the tremendous
alluvial fill sequences (Myers 1977).
The intensity of land disturbance through cultivation and construction must also be taken into
consideration. Plowing has disturbed archaeological sites over the last hundred years, slowly exposing and
potentially churning artifacts with every pass of the field (Mallouf 1981). On the other hand, rangelands,
which are quite common throughout the west, are potentially stabilized surfaces where buried materials are
protected from any surface disturbance. Thus, artifacts (of all ages) are differentially exposed on the
surface, depending upon the intensity of land disturbance to the land, and the resistance of that land to such
forces (for example, whether the matrix is clay or sand, alluvial fill or eolian, etc.).
A second point of consideration is the bias in reporting. Systematic fluted point projectile surveys
began in the eastern United States forty years ago, thus accumulating years of recording by many
76
researchers. As well, eastern North America contains a greater population density as well as more
agricultural activity, which coupled with an active and interested collector community potentially leads to
higher numbers of points being described.
Compare this to the western United States and Great Plains, where population density is low.
There are counties in the west that could still be qualified as “frontier” (Duncan 1993), as the population
density remains below 2 persons per square mile (and dropping!) Obviously, with fewer people working
and collecting across these vast territories, it seems obvious that survey coverage by collectors would be
much less extensive. Exposures of appropriate age are also limited to certain areas, as well, given the lack
of extensive cultivation. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule (e.g., the High Plains of western
Texas).
An additional factor is the lack of archaeologists conducting systematic Paleoindian projectile
point surveys in the west, let alone basic archaeological research. As will be discussed shortly, there are
large stretches within the study area where few, if any, archaeological sites have been identified. This is
not necessarily due to a lack of prehistoric occupation, but probably from a lack of research within these
vast regions. Building a comprehensive database of Paleoindian projectile point frequencies across states
such as Colorado will be much more difficult than it was in the eastern United States, given the low
population density, low research intensity, and vastness of the region.
As will be explored in Chapter 8, there are dense clusters of Paleoindian sites in areas where there
is good Pleistocene-age exposures and a strong collector community. Do these patterns have anything to
do with prehistoric population densities? They may or may not (probably not), depending upon how we
choose to examine the data.
Having clarified several of the simple assumptions regarding projectile point frequencies and
regional patterns of settlement, I will now turn to examination of the archaeological factors that potentially
influence the density and distribution of items such as projectile points.
The location of hunter-gatherers on the landscape is a critical factor governing patterns in the
manufacture, use, and discard of artifacts (Andrefsky 1994a, 1994b; Bamforth 1985). This is especially the
case in areas of lithic raw material abundance. Quarries and workshops are often littered with high
numbers of cores, bifaces, and preforms in various stages of reduction (Bryan 1950). Sometimes the
77
specimens are recovered in complete forms with use-life remaining, thus the reason for discard is unknown.
Raw material abundance allows such wasteful behavior, as new items can be manufactured whenever
needed and the costs of procurement are low. With an abundance of lithic material available, there is little
need for conservation or recycling of stone tools.
Projectile point surveys should therefore consider the life-stage of the tools. Are the tools
preforms, late stage bifaces, broken points, or points reworked down to exhausted forms? Are the points
made from exotic raw materials or instead local materials? These tool life-stages and their contexts are
necessary criteria for establishing their place within the hunter-gatherer technological system.
Land use patterns can also be examined with projectile point surveys. Were the points found as
isolated tools, part of small camps, large camps, or within multi-component lithic scatters? An abundance
of isolated finds suggests that Paleoindian populations might be distributed throughout a large area but did
not create many large sites. However, a different land use pattern would be inferred if the points were
found within several large sites and there were similarly sized sites throughout the region. This would then
(obviously I am greatly simplifying matters here) indicate that the particular activity was repeated
throughout the region. Examining patterns in the frequency and density of various sites types will help
detail the range of activities conducted by foraging groups within the region.
Projectile Point Surveys Previously Conducted in the Study Area
Thus far, I have addressed some of the patterns and potential problems derived from regional
Paleoindian point surveys. I now examine surveys previously conducted in the study area, which were
often conducted as part of statewide assessments (Table 4.1). Several of these studies were incorporated
into the Anderson and Faught database (see references in Anderson and Faught 1998).
78
Table 4.1: Recent projectile point surveys in the Central Plains.
State Projectile Point Complex Recent Study

Clovis, Folsom, Agate Basin, Nelson 1969;
Colorado
Hell Gap, Cody Nelson and Breternitz 1970
Portions of Colorado, Kansas,
Hell Gap Beaver 1998
and Oklahoma
Kansas Clovis Hofman and Hesse 1996
Kansas Folsom Hofman 1994a
Blackmar 1998a, 1998b, 2001;
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas Clovis, Folsom, Cody
Blackmar and Hofman 1997
Nebraska Clovis, Folsom Myers 1987
Oklahoma Clovis Hofman and Wyckoff 1991
Oklahoma Folsom Hofman 1993
Texas Clovis Meltzer and Bever 1995
Texas Folsom Largent et al. 1991; Largent 1995
Blackmar recently summarized the distribution of Clovis, Folsom, and Cody projectile points in
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Her data on Cody points supplemented previously published data on Clovis
and Folsom distributions. As Blackmar provides the most recent summary and discussion of regional
Paleoindian distributions, her important and useful study is examined below.
Blackmar was interested in explaining patterns in the frequency and density of the three point
types within the Central and Southern Plains. She did so by dividing the region into four environmental
zones, comprising the High Plains, Prairie Plains, Savannah, and Woodlands. Counties were assigned to
one of the four zones and summary counts for each of the point styles was presented per county.
Several measures were used to describe patterns in the data. First, Blackmar measured the
ubiquity of each point type per ecological zone. Ubiquity refers to the simple presence of a point type
within the county, and could represent only a single specimen or upwards of dozens of points of that type
per county. Ubiquity strengthens arguments concerning the density of point types because it minimizes the
effect of unequal survey between counties, emphasizing only the presence or absence of a particular
complex.
Blackmar (2001:76-80) drew several conclusions from the data. Clovis was widespread across all
four environmental zones. The Folsom complex was more common on the High Plains and rare in the
Woodlands. Finally, the Cody complex was common throughout the four ecological zones, with a
79
surprisingly high density of points located within the Woodland region. I draw slightly different
conclusions from the same data.
I examined the relationship between measures of standardized frequency and ubiquity, arraying
the data by both environmental type and also by cultural complex. There is a positive relationship between
presence (ubiquity) and abundance (standardized frequency) for each of the three Paleoindian complexes
(Figure 4.1). Thus, as the ubiquity increases, so does the standardized frequency. This makes intuitive
sense, because as the overall frequency of occurrences increases, so does the total number of points (more
sites equals at minimum one or more points). The pattern varies slightly among the three complexes, with
the pattern strongest with Cody (r2=0.8867) and Folsom (r2=0.7785). The Clovis complex (r2=0.4887) does
not fit as strongly, but there is still a positive relationship between the two.
100
90
80
70
60
Clovis
Ubiquity
R2 = 0.4887
50
40
Cody Folsom
R2 = 0.8867 R2 = 0.7785
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Standardized Frequency
Figure 4.1: Scatterplot of the frequency and ubiquity of three Paleoindian complexes from the Central and
Southern Plains.
This suggests, for at least the Folsom and Cody complexes, that patterns in the occupation of these
environmental zones is not necessarily linked to the preference (or homeland) of the zones by prehistoric
foragers. One wonders whether the low ubiquity in certain environmental zones is a matter of poor artifact
recording within those ecological regions or is instead reflective of prehistoric land use systems. Blackmar
80
(2001) notes that despite thorough reporting, Folsom points are simply uncommon to rare in the eastern
Woodlands. Others have also noted the lesser frequency of Folsom along the eastern Plains margin
(Morrow and Morrow 1999; Munson 1990).
The pattern exhibited by the Clovis complex suggests something different. Of the three point
complexes, Clovis had the highest ubiquity. Yet despite the widespread presence of Clovis within each of
the four zones, its standardized frequency does not necessarily increase greatly. This suggests that Clovis
occupations might be of a different type than those of the later Folsom and Cody complexes. For instance,
Clovis sites are more common but often smaller. This fits the empirical record quite well, as few Clovis
kill or occupation sites are known, as compared to the other complexes, despite the high number of
recorded Clovis points. As well, Clovis sites tend to be small, generally producing fewer than 5 points per
site (Meltzer and Bever 1995). The increase in site size between the Clovis and the later Folsom and Cody
complexes might be monitoring shifts in landscape use, such as increasing the duration of site occupation,
the diversity of activities conducted on site, the character of the site (whether near raw materials) and the
number of people occupying those sites.
The ubiquity and standardized frequencies of projectile point complexes as arrayed by the four
environmental zones shows less patterning (Figure 4.2). Three of the four zones show weak association
between ubiquity and sample size, with only the Savannah showing a very strong association (r2=0.9996).
The low standardized frequencies within the Savannah zone might have to do with a landscape pattern of
small sites spread throughout the region, rather than a series of large multiple function camps. The High
Plains have different frequency rates compared to the other regions. The highest ubiquity and standardized
frequency of Clovis and Folsom artifacts are located within the High Plains, as well as the second highest
standardized frequency among Cody points.
81
100
90
80
70
60
Ubiquity
50
High Plains
Savannah Woodlands
R2 = 0.1529
R2 = 0.9996 R2 = 0.5297
40
30
Prairie Plains
R2 = 0.3444
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Standardized Frequency
Figure 4.2: Scatterplot of the frequency and ubiquity of four ecological zones from the Central and
Southern Plains.
It is difficult to interpret these results, as it appears that the patterns are related to sample size. It
seems suspicious that the area (High Plains) with the greatest survey coverage (both professional and
amateur) as well as the greatest surface exposure would also contain the highest ubiquity and standardized
frequencies. Whether this is related to patterns in prehistoric foraging systems remains to be proven with
ancillary datasets.
Paleoindian Projectile Point Frequencies in the Study Area
I will now summarize the distribution of several Paleoindian projectile point complexes located
within the study area, including Clovis, Folsom, Agate Basin, Hell Gap, and Cody. The frequencies were
tabulated from the data referenced in Table 4.1. I have not added to these totals either data obtained during
my own study or from sites that were (for some unknown reason) not included in the above-cited sources.
In some ways, these represent incomplete frequency distribution maps, but they are useful in illustrating
several points about the regional record.
82
Clovis points have a clustered distribution (Figure 4.3). The high proportion of Clovis points in
the Oklahoma Panhandle, specifically Cimarron (n=18) and Texas (n=12) Counties, can be attributed to
several factors. This area has an active collector community and was heavily eroded during droughts in the
1930s, 1950s, and 1970s. Those two factors led to extensive collections of sites, including the Baker
collection. The large numbers of points in Pueblo (n=22) and Crowley (n=10) Counties, Colorado, are
probably a result of exposures in the Black Squirrel Creek dune field (see Figure 3.2, this study). This area
was also actively collected during past droughts. Most other counties have low frequencies of Clovis
points, generally only 1-2 and nearly all below 5 points per county. Colorado and eastern New Mexico
have especially low frequencies owing to an absence of systematic surveys (other than Nelson [1969] and
Nelson and Breternitz [1970]). Better survey coverage is characteristic of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
The high ubiquity of Clovis points in these states, coupled with low overall frequency, reflects a series of
relatively large numbers of small sites spread throughout the region (Blackmar 2001).
The distribution of Folsom points follows similar patterns to Clovis, but with a few exceptions
(Figure 4.4). In New Mexico, Colfax (n=36) and San Miguel (n=49) Counties have known Folsom sites
(the Folsom type-site [Meltzer et al. 2002]), and several in the Las Vegas area respectively (New Mexico
State file data). As well, Larimer County in northern Colorado contains the greatest abundance of Folsom
points (n=240), all from the Lindenmeier site (Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). The Lipscomb bison kill
(Hofman 1995) located in the northeastern Texas Panhandle helps account for the 30 points in Lipscomb
County. Dune fields are again well represented, such as the Oklahoma Panhandle, along the Arkansas
River in Kansas, and in southeastern Nebraska. As well, there is a higher ubiquity of Folsom in Kansas,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas, which have all been the subject of systematic fluted point surveys. Much
like the Clovis complex, most Folsom points are identified in areas with exhibiting surface deflation or in
counties containing known Folsom sites.
Agate Basin distributions are confined to the state of Colorado (Figure 4.5) (Nelson 1969, Nelson
and Breternitz 1970). Again, the dune fields of Pueblo (n=27) and Crowley (n=17) Counties are well
represented. Most other counties have no points whatsoever. This is probably related to sample coverage,
however, as Nelson repeatedly complained about the lack of support he received from the collector
community in conducting his study (Nelson and Breternitz 1970).
83
Hell Gap distributions are provided thanks to the recent work of Beaver (1998). Again, this is a
limited survey and low frequencies are seen (Figure 4.6). Higher counts in the Oklahoma Panhandle and
again along the Arkansas River, account for the majority of the points.
Cody complex distributions are presented in Figure 4.7. The highest density of Cody points are
found in the dune fields of Pueblo and Crowley Counties in Colorado, Cimarron and Texas Counties in
Oklahoma, and along the Arkansas River in Kansas. Indeed, one of the largest Cody complex sites known
from the Plains comes from the dune fields of eastern Colorado, the Claypool site in Washington County
(Dick and Mountain 1960). However, Nelson did not include this site in his county summaries (Nelson
1969; Nelson and Breternitz 1970).
A sum of all Paleoindian points recorded within the study area is presented in Figure 4.8 (a few
additional points listed in the Anderson and Faught data were added to these totals. However, the specific
point type was not listed in the database [www.anthro.fsu.edu/special/paleo/paleoind.html]). Several
general trends are clear. Highly eroded areas, as well as counties containing known sites, produced the
bulk of the data. It is probably also the case that archaeologists have been drawn to these same counties
over time, due to the known presence of appropriately aged deposits. Thus, the pattern replicates itself over
84
Figure 4.3: Number of Clovis points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the Central
Plains.
85
Figure 4.4: Number of Folsom points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the Central
Plains.
86
Figure 4.5: Number of Agate Basin points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains.
87
Figure 4.6: Number of Hell Gap points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains.
88
Figure 4.7: Number of Cody complex points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of the
Central Plains.
89
several generations of research. For example, the Wray dune field of northeastern Colorado saw some of
the earliest prospecting for Paleoindian sites in the 1930s (Cook 1931a,b,c; Renaud 1931b), then again in
the 1950s (Dick and Mountain 1960) and 1970s (Stanford 1979b; Stanford and Albanese 1975). The
prospect of working in the region drew my interest as well (LaBelle 2003). Thus, highly dense areas are
sometimes defined more appropriately by the amount of effort archaeologists placed within the area, rather
than the prehistoric record.
Summary of Paleoindian Projectile Point Distributions
I do not think there is much merit in trying to decipher patterns in these distribution maps, other
than noting the areas where we have known Paleoindian sites are also the areas with good Pleistocene
exposure and collector activity. As will be seen in Chapters 5-7, other sources of data strongly counter the
patterns seen in these projectile point surveys. For example, the sheer number of Paleoindian tools held in
private collections is overwhelming, therefore making it nearly impossible to estimate just how well or how
poorly these projectile point surveys represent patterns in Paleoindian site location and density.
In summary, projectile point surveys are helpful in determining where large amounts of projectile
points have been recovered, but are a poor measure (at least on the Great Plains) for examining the origin,
development, and migration of prehistoric populations. In effect, they tell you where Paleoindians were
present, but not necessarily where (or why) they were absent. Perhaps these issues can be examined on a
regional scale, but not on the continental scale with the data at hand (Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000).
There is simply no way to separate the bias from the variability in the present dataset.
In terms of guidelines for conducting future regional studies, Meltzer and Bever (1995) present a
productive research strategy in their overview of the Clovis complex in Texas. They examined patterns in
raw material selection and relation to point manufacture, comparing patterns both intra and inter-regionally.
This circumvents problems of inadequacy of poor coverage, as the patterns come from the physical
attributes of the points themselves (raw materials, metrics, completeness).
90
Figure 4.8: Total number of Paleoindian points per county recorded in the published regional surveys of
the Central Plains.
91
Paleoindian Site Distributions as Viewed from the State Files
State archaeological files present another measure of Paleoindian site presence and density within
the study area. Every state maintains a centralized database of historic and prehistoric archaeological sites
identified through cultural resource mitigation, reports by academic archaeologists, amateur archaeological
societies, and interested individuals. Not surprisingly, the state files vary in quality, although they have
become more detailed as contract archaeology adopted increasingly thorough and standardized recording
protocols, beginning in the 1970s and continuing to the present day.
For this study, state research files were queried in Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
Additionally, a summary monograph for the state of Texas was used to assess counties in the Texas
Panhandle (Biesaart et al. 1985; Simons 1988). Patterns in the Kansas and Oklahoma data were
qualitatively identified from several sources and are addressed elsewhere in Chapter 5. As the quality of
data varies between individual site records and between states, the distributions and patterns described here
are rather general. In order to standardize the data, the results are presented as Paleoindian sites, and not
broken down into individual complexes, such as Agate Basin or Plainview. However, the state records
were queried for general terms such as Paleoindian and Plano, as well additional keywords incorporating
projectile point complexes so that all records were located.
The number of archaeological sites (of all ages) recorded within the state files of Colorado,
Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas is presented in Figure 4.9. Some trends are clearly evident. First, the
majority of sites are located along the foothills or “Front Range” counties of Colorado and New Mexico.
These particular counties parallel the major north-south interstate highway in the region, which mirrors the
distribution of population (and growth) in Colorado. Colfax (northeastern New Mexico) and Las Animas
Counties (Colorado) have also received a moderate amount of contract archaeology due to projects on
military lands and coal mines.
The number of recorded sites decreases quite steadily to the east and onto the Plains proper, away
from the Colorado Piedmont and Foothills. Only a small amount of work has been conducted on the High
Plains, as only a few contract projects (primarily reservoirs and road surveys) have been conducted in the
region. Many counties contain less than fifty recorded sites, with some of these records dating back to
92
Figure 4.9: Number of archaeological sites per county recorded in state files of the Central Plains.
93
Renaud’s reconnaissance surveys of the 1930s and 1940s (Renaud 1931a, 1932a). Their usefulness to
modern research is questionable, although they are helpful to assessing what types of sites are located
within the High Plains.
A point to consider is that our overall sample of sites is woefully small and assuredly inadequate.
For example, the density of archaeological sites per km2 is very small (Figure 4.10). Only a handful of
counties, most of them small and along the Front Range of Colorado, have county-level site densities that
approach one-tenth of a site per km2. Denver County contains the highest density of sites, but it is also the
smallest county under consideration. Therefore, generalizations drawn from these distributions are
painfully limited in regards to patterns in specific periods or particular site types.
Radiocarbon Dates as a Proxy for Research Intensity
Much like the state files, the number of independent radiometric ages is also a good proxy
measure for the intensity of research coverage. Rayne et al. (1997) recently published a database of
absolute ages from archaeological sites in Colorado, covering all known radiocarbon, dendrochronological,
archaeomagnetic, thermoluminescence, and obsidian hydration dates. The sample is large (over 10,000
dates) however the majority are tree-ring dates from the pueblos and cliff dwellings of southwestern
Colorado (8324/10675, 78%). This area has received the bulk of research attention for a variety of obvious
reasons, and the distribution of absolute dates reflects this pattern. Radiocarbon (1895, 18%) and
archaeomagnetic ages (396, 4%) are not as common, but still plentiful.
Fifteen counties have no reported absolute dates and 11 others have only 1 to 2 absolute dates each
(Figure 4.11). Thus, over 41% (26/63) of the counties have little to no absolute age control (this does not
include the newly formed Broomfield County, which was recently carved from portions of several counties
in the northern Denver area). In regards to eastern Colorado, counties containing the largest number of
dates are along the Front Range, again running north to south and parallel with modern population
distribution. Nearly all counties in eastern Colorado have no absolute ages, which parallels the pattern in
adjoining states, particularly in western Kansas. In general, “simple” hunter-gatherer sites have not
received much archaeological attention.
94
Figure 4.10: Density (sites/km2) of archaeological sites per county recorded in state files of the Central
Plains.
95
Figure 4.11: Number of independent age assessments per county in Colorado.
96
Paleoindian Site Density in the Central Plains
The distribution of Paleoindian sites, as detailed in the state files, is presented in Figure 4.12. The
pattern does completely match that of the projectile point surveys (summarized in Figure 4.8). This is not
surprising, however, given that the state files represent a more systematic survey of sites. The majority of
these sites were added through CRM work, but amateur discoveries are also included in the state records.
Most Paleoindian sites are located along the Front Range. It would be tempting to associate this
distribution with the Foothills ecotone, which provides opportunities for foraging in both the High Plains
and the montane setting. However, this is the corridor containing the highest number of recorded sites of
all ages, and therefore the overall percent of Paleoindian sites is actually quite low (Figure 4.13).
97
Figure 4.12: Number of Paleoindian sites per county recorded in state files of the Central Plains.
98
Figure 4.13: Paleoindian sites as a percentage of all sites per county recorded in state files of the Central
Plains. Top number is the percent Paleoindian whereas the bottom number is the county site sample size.
99
Temporal trends in the number of Paleoindian sites discovered in Colorado remain stable (Table
4.2), ranging between 27-30 sites per decade over the last three decades. Most of the early discoveries
were made by amateurs and then reported to professionals and academic archaeologists. However, the
number of professional archaeologists discovering Paleoindian sites began increasing in the 1960s,
primarily related to the amount of time spent on survey projects.
Table 4.2: Paleoindian sites recorded per decade in Colorado.
Decade Number of Sites Percent of Total (N=139)

1930s 17 12.2
1940s 7 5.0
1950s 13 9.4
1960s 15 10.8
1970s 30 21.6
1980s 27 19.4
1990s 30 21.6
Thus, most of the Paleoindian sites recorded in the state files are from the “gray literature” or
unpublished cultural resource management reports. Often times these sites are multi-component lithic
scatters, usually only containing a single fragment of a Paleoindian projectile point. It is a rare event when
a large Paleoindian site is recorded.
Seebach (2000) recently addressed the role that collectors and droughts played in the Paleoindian
site discovery. His results suggested that amateur archaeologists discovered the majority of Paleoindian
sites. Data from the Baker collection, and the Nall site, was used to support his argument for increased
Paleoindian site discovery during prolonged drought years, as measured by the Palmer drought severity
index. Most of his data were from the famous (and well published) Paleoindian sites of the Plains, often
cited as representative of Paleoindian subsistence and mobility systems.
The data from the state files present a contrast to his results. At least in Colorado, Paleoindian
sites were actively discovered throughout the last 70 years. It just happens that these sites are small,
deemed unimportant, and have gone underreported in the Paleoindian literature (Hofman and Ingbar 1988;
Kornfeld 1988).
100
Temporal Components of Paleoindian Sites in Eastern Colorado
Age assignments of the components recorded in Colorado are presented in Table 4.3. The
temporal labels are not mutually exclusive, as sites can be assigned to more than one complex designation
(see below).
The majority of sites (n=61, 44%) have been designated with the generic label of “Paleoindian”.
This begs the question of what was actually found on these sites. The “Plano” label follows a close second
(n=41, 29%). Presumably, Plano sites contain Paleoindian points that are not fluted (and therefore not
Clovis or Folsom), but are still typologically Paleoindian (either with stemmed or lanceolate concave
bases). Relatively few sites are identified to a specific complex, although Clovis and Folsom are both
common and probably relates to their presence as sites (e.g., Lindenmeier, Fowler-Parrish, Dent) rather
than isolated finds, and the tools contain characteristics that are relatively easy to identify (i.e., the flute).
Table 4.3: Temporal complex assigned to Paleoindian sites in Eastern Colorado.
Complex Number of Sites Percent of Total (N=140)

Paleoindian 61 43.6
Later complex 54 38.6
Plano 41 29.3
Folsom 26 18.6
Clovis 10 7.1
Cody 8 5.7
Hell Gap 1 0.7
Agate Basin 1 0.7
“Later complex” refers to post-Paleoindian forms, either Archaic or late prehistoric forms. Almost
40% (n= 54, 39%) of the Paleoindian sites in eastern Colorado are thus multi-component, containing both
Paleoindian and later occupations. Co-associated cultural complexes are presented in Table 4.4.
“Paleoindian” and “Plano” sites often co-occur with later complexes. However, there are fewer instances
of more than one Paleoindian complex at any one site. There are 5 cases of Folsom/Plano occupation, 3
Clovis/Plano, and 1 Clovis/Folsom site. Combined, these sites make up only 6% (n=9, 6.4%) of all the
Paleoindian sites, suggesting that many Paleoindian sites were not reoccupied again during the Paleoindian
period. Patterns of repetitive Paleoindian land use patterns will be further examined in Chapter 6, where
Paleoindian reoccupation appear to be much more frequent than this state data suggest.
101
Table 4.4: Sites with multiple temporal complexes in Eastern Colorado.
Complex Number of Sites Percent of Total (N=140)

Paleoindian/later 35 25.0
Plano/later 11 7.9
Folsom/later 8 5.7
Folsom/Plano 5 3.6
Clovis/Plano 3 2.1
Clovis/later 3 2.1
Cody/later 2 1.4
Clovis/Folsom 1 0.7
Site Types of the Paleoindian Sites in Eastern Colorado
The Paleoindian sites recorded in eastern Colorado are not the stereotypical bison kills so
commonly recognized from the literature (Stanford 1979a). Instead, the sites again illustrate that the
majority of Paleoindian sites are small and probably mixed with components of later ages, including later
Paleoindian.
Site types garnered from the state files are presented in Table 4.5. The site designations are not
mutually exclusive and can have multiple classifications. “Open camps” are the most common site type.
This open-air site type is defined by the presence of lithic debris as well as features or ground stone. The
high incidence of Archaic and late prehistoric aged materials in co-association with the Paleoindian sites
probably accounts for the high frequency of open campsites. In many cases, the features and ground stone
are assumed to represent the later occupations of the site, but this is generally untested.
“Open lithic” and “isolated finds” are also common (combined they total 34%). Open lithic sites
are located in the open-air setting (as compared to “closed air” rockshelters), but do not contain evidence of
features or ground stone. They are simply lithic scatters. Isolated finds are obviously single tools,
recovered with no associated debris. As mentioned earlier, surface collectors record large numbers of
Paleoindian projectile points as isolated finds. Whether their finds are actually isolated tools or instead
small sites is unknown, based upon the collection strategy and provenience data employed by many artifact
collectors.
“Open architecture” and “other” make up the two remaining site types. Open architectural sites
contain some evidence of open-air rock alignments, such as drivelines or stone circles. They can also relate
102
to structures, such as house foundations. The “other” category contains sites such as quarries, sheltered
camps, burials, kill sites, etc., which I combined into this category for the purposes of this analysis.
Table 4.5: Site types represented by Paleoindian sites in Eastern Colorado.
Site Type Number of Sites Percent of Total (N=140)

Open camp 60 42.9
Other 31 22.1
Open lithic 27 19.3
Isolated find 20 14.3
Open architecture 15 10.7
Sites with more than one type designation are relatively uncommon, primarily because these site
categories are so broad in definition. Most of the sites with multiple designations are open air lithic scatters
with an associated “other” designation (Table 4.6). Many of the open camp and open lithic sites could
probably be classified as lithic workshops or quarries, as they are located on raw material sources.
Table 4.6: Site types with multiple designations.
Site Type Number of Sites Percent of Total (N=140)

Open camp/other 6 4.3
Open architecture/other 4 2.9
Open lithic/other 2 1.4
Open lithic/isolated find 1 0.7
Open camp/open architecture 1 0.7
103
Paleoindian Sites in the Central Plains: Just How Rare Are They?
I will now address the overall frequency of Paleoindian sites as compared to the rest of the
chronological sequence. Table 4.7 divides the study area into three states for purposes of comparison.
Table 4.7: Paleoindian site frequency in Colorado, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
Number Mean Median

of Total Total Number of Number of
Percent
State Counties Paleoindian Archaeological Paleoindian Paleoindian
Paleoindian
in This Sites Sites Sites Per Sites Per
Study County County
Colorado 28 140 16760 0.84 5.0 2.5
Nebraska 34 70 3077 2.27 2.1 1
New
5 23 3640 0.63 4.6 4
Mexico
A total of 3077 prehistoric sites have been documented from western Nebraska, yielding a mean of
90.5 sites per county. However, the total number of sites per county ranges from zero sites (in two
counties) to 100+ sites in 13 counties. Seventy Paleoindian sites (or site components) have been identified
within these 34 counties, thereby making approximately 2.3% (70/3077) of all sites within the region
(Table 4.7). It is potentially more meaningful to examine the percent of Paleoindian sites per county, in
order to determine whether there are areas with higher percentages of sites than others. Doing so allows for
a more refined approximation as to the number of Paleoindian sites within a region. The rationale for doing
so is straightforward. By weighting each county by its sample size, you can minimize any potential bias
introduced between counties.
Nearly half (44%, 15/34) of the counties contained no Paleoindian sites, whereas the remaining
counties generally yielded between 1 and 6 sites. However, Sioux County was a notable exception, with 20
Paleoindian sites. Standardizing these totals by the total number of sites per county reveals some trends
(Table 4.8). Because some counties contain only a few recorded sites, it is not useful to look at an average
percentage of Paleoindian sites per county. However, varying the sample size reveals increasingly stronger
patterns in Paleoindian site presence.
The percent and standard deviation of Paleoindian site frequency is inversely proportional to the
sample size of total sites per county. Thus, as sample size increases, the percent of Paleoindian sites
104
decreases (Figure 4.14). A sample size of 30-50 sites per county provides a fairly accurate measure of the
percent of Paleoindian sites per county, varying between 2.0-2.4% per western Nebraska county.
Table 4.8: Paleoindian site frequency in Nebraska as related to sample size.
Mean Percent of
Minimum Number of
Paleoindian Sites Per Standard Deviation Number of Counties
Sites Per County
County
>100 2.00 1.33 13
>50 2.01 1.38 16
>30 2.43 3.12 23
All available 2.48 5.39 34
Nebraska
10
8
+1 SD
7
Percent of All Sites
3
Mean
2
- 1 SD
0
All Sites >30 >50 >100
Sample Size of Sites Per County
Figure 4.14: Decreasing percentage of Paleoindian sites as compared to all sites, when the county sample
size is increased in western Nebraska.
In Colorado, where 140 Paleoindian sites have been identified, the total percent of Paleoindian
sites is 0.84%, based upon a recorded total of 16,760 sites. However, the mean percent of Paleoindian sites
is slightly higher when the mean percentages from each county are compared (Table 4.9). Much like the
Nebraska data, the mean Paleoindian percent decreases as the sample size increases (Figure 4.15). A
105
sample size of 30-50 sites per county provides a measure of 1.7-1.9% of Paleoindian sites per eastern
Colorado county.
Table 4.9: Paleoindian site frequency in Colorado as related to sample size.
Mean Percent of
Minimum Number of
Paleoindian Sites Per Standard Deviation Number of Counties
Sites Per County
County
>100 1.05 0.80 19
>50 1.69 2.16 22
>30 1.85 2.23 25
Colorado
10
7
Percent of All Sites
6
+1 SD
3
Mean
2
0 - 1 SD
All Sites >30 >50 >100
Sample Size of Sites Per County
Figure 4.15: Decreasing percentage of Paleoindian sites as compared to all sites, when the county sample
size is increased in eastern Colorado.
106
Finally, New Mexico has the lowest Paleoindian percentage of the three states, with a rate at
0.63% based on a total sample of 3640 sites. Viewed from the individual counties, the mean Paleoindian
percentage increases to a 0.8%, coupled with a low standard deviation (Table 4.10).
Table 4.10: Paleoindian site frequency in New Mexico as related to sample size.
Minimum Number of Mean Percent of Standard Number of

Sites Per County Paleoindian Sites Per County Deviation Counties
>100 0.83 0.42 4
Summary of the State File Data
There are several points to draw from the state file data. First, the available data are biased
towards areas of modern development and natural resource extraction. Nevertheless, the amount of land
actually surveyed is woefully small, save for a few areas. Site densities, as calculated by county, are
generally low across the entire study area.
The frequency of Paleoindian sites per county also varies throughout the region. It is doubtful that
the distribution is meaningful and instead is probably more related to differing intensities in amateur
collecting and discovery on contract archaeology projects. Most Paleoindian sites in the state files are part
of multi-component lithic scatters, often containing either ground stone or features present (which may not
be related to the Paleoindian component). Typological identification of specific Paleoindian complexes is
difficult with the state files, with most sites being classified as generalized Paleoindian or Plano sites.
Single component sites are known but they are generally rare.
The percent of Paleoindian sites per county is quite small. Where samples of over 100 sites per
county are available, Paleoindian sites account for between 0.83 to 2.00 % of all sites. Increasing the
sample to include all counties with at least 30 sites, increases the Paleoindian percentage to between 1.85 to
2.43% of all sites. These measures indicate that Paleoindian sites, of all kinds and all types, are rare even
in well-surveyed and thoroughly documented counties. That the majority of the sites in the state files are
multi-component open lithic or open campsites makes it clear that the well-known Paleoindian bison kills
are among the most rare form of Paleoindian sites. How these rare sites fit into a system dominated by lots
of small Paleoindian sites will be addressed in subsequent Chapters.
107
Chapter Summary
This Chapter provided a baseline of what is known of the frequency and distribution of
Paleoindian sites and isolates on the Central Plains. There are several important points to consider after
reviewing these data. First, there is only a limited value in trying to decipher behavioral patterns from
projectile point distribution maps. The maps document areas where we have known Paleoindian sites and
also areas with good exposure and/or collector activity.
Projectile point surveys are helpful in determining where large amounts of projectile points have
been recovered, but are a poor measure for examining the origin, development, and migration of prehistoric
populations. In effect, they tell you where Paleoindians were present, but not necessarily where they were
absent. These issues can be examined on a local scale, but not easily examined on a large regional scale
and definitely not on a continental scale with the data at hand (Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000).
Second, the state file data suggest that we have much to learn about Paleoindian site frequencies
and density. The available data are spatially biased towards areas of development and natural resource
extraction. Nevertheless, the amount of land actually surveyed (throughout the Plains) is quite small, save
for a few areas. Site densities, as calculated by county, are generally low across the entire study area.
The frequency of Paleoindian sites per county also varies throughout the region. It is doubtful that
the distribution is meaningful and instead is probably more related to differing intensities of amateur
collecting or discovery during contract archaeology projects. Most Paleoindian sites in the state files are
part of multi-component lithic scatters, often containing either ground stone or features (which may not be
related to the Paleoindian component). Typological identification of specific Paleoindian complexes is
difficult at best with the data held in the state files, with most sites being classified as generalized
Paleoindian or Plano sites. Single component sites are known but they are generally rare.
The percent of Paleoindian sites per county is quite small. Where samples of over 100 sites per
county are available, Paleoindian sites account for between 0.83 to 2.00 % of all sites. Increasing the
sample to include all counties with at least 30 sites, increases the Paleoindian percentage to between 1.85 to
2.43% of all sites. These measures indicate that Paleoindian sites, of all kinds and all types, are rare even
in well-surveyed and thoroughly documented counties. That the majority of the sites in the state files are
108
multi-component open lithic or open campsites makes it clear that the well-known Paleoindian bison kills
are scarce among the total sample of Paleoindian sites.
This Chapter serves as a baseline for the rest of the dissertation. Whereas at first glance, it might
appear that there are more Paleoindian isolates or sites than one would generally assume for the Central
Plains, the subsequent Chapters illustrate exactly how biased the published record and the state files
actually are. Many of the patterns exposed in this Chapter are the result of incomplete data and present an
inaccurate portrayal of the actual Paleoindian record as has been sampled over the last 80 years.
109
Chapter 5
SITE TYPES, SAMPLE SIZE AND CHRONOLOGY
In this Chapter, I continue to explore patterns in Paleoindian organization at the regional scale,
using excavated and surface gathered lithic assemblages from the Central Plains. There are several broad
goals for this Chapter. First, I detail the well-known (and not so well-known) sites of the Central Plains as
gathered from the published literature, as well introducing two new datasets collected for this study, the
Baker and Andersen collections. These three datasets are subsequently explored in various ways
throughout the remainder of the dissertation. The second aim of the Chapter is to demonstrate that there are
major differences in the qualitative types of sites and their physical settings on the Central Plains, related to
differences in how foragers moved across landscapes. Not all sites were used in the same way, nor was
every ecotone used in equal proportion. Third, I examine the range in excavation sample size, showing that
spatial samples are generally small for the sites in this region. Excavation area is factored into analyses in
subsequent chapters, but the basic data are presented here first. In the final section, I examine the
radiocarbon record, demonstrating that there was a nearly continuous occupation of the Central Plains
during the Early Holocene and that many cultural complexes overlap in 14C years. In essence, this Chapter
serves as an introduction to the kinds of sites examined in the Chapters to follow. I begin with qualitative
assessment of site types.
The Site Dataset
Fifty-three published sites are considered in this study (Tables 5.1-5.2, Figure 5.1). The sites are
located primarily within the Central Plains, although a few sites from immediately outside the region were
included to increase the overall sample. The sites are located in Colorado (26/53, 49%), Kansas (9/53,
17%), Nebraska (8/53, 15%), Oklahoma (4/53, 7%), Texas (3/53, 6%), New Mexico (1/53, 2%), South
Dakota (1/53, 2%), and Wyoming (1/53, 2%). The dataset includes well-known sites that serve as classic
110
examples of Paleoindian adaptation (e.g., Olsen-Chubbuck, Frasca), as well as smaller lesser-known sites
(e.g., Horace Rivers). This is the complete population of published Paleoindian sites from the region, and
other than the isolated Paleoindian projectile points discussed in Chapter 4, this dataset (biased or not)
represents the total range of site types documented (published) over the last 80 years.
An additional 91 sites from the Baker and Andersen sites are presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. This
study almost doubles the total number of reported sites from the Central Plains. This suggests that our
published dataset is small and might not adequately represent the actual number (and kind) of Paleoindian
sites within the Great Plains. LeTourneau (2000) recently presented a similar situation, where he added
several hundred new Folsom localities to an already robust dataset.
The Andersen sites (Table 5.3) were documented from the late 1910s through the 1930s in the Wray
dune field of northeastern Colorado (see Appendix 1 for a history of the collection). The dunes afforded
excellent visibility, especially during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s when drought conditions characterized
the region. Harold and Perry Andersen recorded basic information on many of their Paleoindian sites,
including the presence of fossil bone (32 cases, including 5 mentions of bison and 2 of mammoth), marl (20
cases), and gastropods (8 cases). In addition, they drafted site maps on 9 of their more important sites,
piece plotting individual artifacts (keyed to lithic illustrations) and sketching cross-sections of the site
geology (LaBelle 2002a). The Andersen family carefully recorded the locations of their Paleoindian sites,
many of them to the ¼ section. The sites are primarily located in Yuma County (56/66, 85%), Washington
County (6/66, 9%), or from either of the two counties (4/66, 6%). In addition, the Andersen family noted at
least 6 isolated finds, including 4 from Washington County and 2 from Yuma County. Many more isolated
finds are present in their collection, but were not included in this analysis as their provenience was to
county level at best. The Andersen collection remains one of the best amateur-collected datasets from the
entire Plains, especially considering the date of the work and the state of Paleoindian research at the time.
Paleoindian sites documented in the Baker collection are detailed in Table 5.4. William Baker, along
with his family, collected the artifacts during the 1930s (see Appendix 1 for a history of the collection).
The sites are primarily located in the Texas Panhandle (Dallam County, 16/25, 64%) as well as adjacent
counties in the Oklahoma Panhandle (Cimarron County, 1/25, 4%), and northeastern New Mexico (8/25,
32%). Baker kept adequate records on his Paleoindian finds and most of the tools are keyed to particular
111
sites. However, site locations are not as well documented. For example, the locations of sites in the Texas
Panhandle are listed by road mileage in Baker’s notes; unfortunately many of these dirt roads no longer
exist. Confounding matters, the Texas Panhandle is not laid out on the Township/Range grid system, so
Baker was not able to provide customary legal locations for any of his Texas sites. However, Oklahoma
sites are often listed to section or better (only one site, Nall, is used in this analysis, but there are additional
sites in the Baker collection). Regardless, the locations of the Baker sites are known to be in a small area,
primarily in the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandles.
The Baker and Andersen data forms a large sample of new sites and include sites of varying size
and assemblage diversity. Recent reviews of the regional literature (Gilmore et al. 1999; Zier and Kalasz
1999) neglect data sources such as Baker and Andersen, primarily because they are not well known.
However, the inclusion of this data fundamentally alter some of the long-standing notions of Paleoindian
organization.
Many of the new sites do not represent large bison kills. On the contrary, the sample is made of a
wide spectrum of both small and large sites, ranging from isolated finds to multi-component campsites.
Undoubtedly, there are other such collections from the Plains still awaiting analysis. For example, large
collections of Paleoindian sites are known from the Black Squirrel dune field of south-central Colorado
(Gregory 1987), as well as sites along the South Platte River and still others (in addition to the Andersen
sites) in the Wray dune field of northeastern Colorado (Gebhard 1946, 1949; Westfall 2002; Whiteley
1998).
112
Table 5.1: Excavated late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains.
Smithsonian Excavation
Qualitative
Site Site County State Complex Area References
Site Type
Number (m2)
Fourth of July CO Benedict 1979, 1981; Benedict and
5BL120 Boulder Allen Camp 41
Valley Olson 1973; Husted 1965
Olsen- Bison bonebed Chubbuck 1959; Holliday et al. 1999;
5CH3 Cheyenne CO Cody 78
Chubbuck (kill) Wheat 1967, 1972, 1976, 1978a, 1982
Elias 1986; Elias and Nelson 1989;
Elias and Toolin 1989; McCartney
Bison bonebed
Lamb Spring 5DA83 Douglas CO Cody 108 1983, 1990; Mandryck 1998; Rancier et
(kill)
al. 1982; Stanford et al. 1981; Wedel
1963
Fondisa 5EL64? Elbert CO Cody, Allen Camp? Irwin 1967
b Benedict 1974, 1985; Pitblado 1999b,
Caribou Lake 5GA22 Grand CO Allen Camp 51 (Area A)
2000
Small camp?
113
LoDaiskaa not known Jefferson CO Allen Irwin and Irwin 1959

(rockshelter)
Magic
not known Jefferson CO Misc. Paleoindian Small camp Irwin-Williams and Irwin 1966
Mountaina
Late Paleoindian Anderson 1966, 1967; Breternitz et al.
Gordon Creek 5LR99 Larimer CO Burial 2
(Hell Gap?) 1971; Muniz 2002, 2004
Andersen 1992; Gantt 2002; Haynes
Lindenmeiera 5LR13 Larimer CO Cody Camp? and Agogino 1960; Haynes et al. 1992;
Wilmsen and Roberts 1978
Spring Gulcha 5LR252 Larimer CO Misc. Paleoindian Small camp? Kainer 1974, 1976
Bison bonebed
Frasca 5LO19 Logan CO Cody 37c Fulgham and Stanford 1982
(kill)
Cody
Bradley and Stanford 1987; Dick and
(other late
c Mountain 1960; Malde 1960; Mason
Claypool 5WN18 Washington CO Paleoindian Camp 395
1953; Mountain 1953b; Reider 1990;
complexes present in
Stanford and Albanese 1975
very limited numbers)
Bison bonebed Malde 1988; Slessman 2000, 2002,
Frazier 5WL268 Weld CO Agate Basin 288
(kill)/processing 2004; Wormington 1988
113
Qualitative
Site Type
Number (m2)
Camp/bison Greiser 1977; Thompson 1974; Wheat
Jurgens 5WL53 Weld CO Cody 254c
processing 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1982
Wilbur Small camp?
5WL45 Weld CO Cody 31 Breternitz 1971
Thomasa (rockshelter)
Kyriakidou 1993; Reider 1990;
Bison bonebed Stanford 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979a,
Jones-Miller 5YM8 Yuma CO Hell Gap 520
(kill)/processing 1984, 1999; Todd 1987a; Todd and
Stanford 1992
Bison bonebed
Slim Arrow none Yuma CO Allen 6 LaBelle, this study
(kill)
Tim Adrianb 14NT604 Norton KS Hell Gap Quarry/workshop O’Brien 1984
Burntwood Bison bonebed
not known Rawlins KS Late Paleoindian Hill et al. 1992
Creek (kill)
Bison bonebed
Norton 14SC6 Scott KS Allen and Cody? 15 Hofman et al. 1995; Hofman 2002b
114
(kill)
Bison bonebed Blackmar 2002; Hofman and Blackmar
Laird 14SN2 Sherman KS Dalton 6
(kill) 1997
Hofman 2002a; Mandel 2002; Mandel
Bison bonebed
Winger 14ST401 Stanton KS Allen and Hofman 2003; Ryan et al. 2002;
(kill)
Widga et al. 2002
Bison bonebed
Cumrob not known Custer NE Allen Bell and Van Royen 1934 (summary)
(kill)
Bamforth 1991b, 2002b; Hicks 2002;
Agate Basin/Late c Holder and Wilke 1949; Hudson 1998;
Allen 25FT50 Frontier NE Camp 118
Paleoindian Schultz and Frankforter 1948; Schultz
et al. 1948
137 (Zone I) Bamforth 1991b, 2002b; Conyers 2000;
Cody, Plainview, 7 (Zone II) Davis 1953, 1962; Hicks 2002; Jones
Lime Creek 25FT41 Frontier NE Workshop
Allen 46 (Zone 1999; Schultz and Frankforter 1948;
III) Schultz et al. 1948
114
Qualitative
Site Type
Number (m2)
2 (Zone 78)
2 (Zone 80)
21 (Zone
83)
Bamforth 2002b; Davis 1953; Knudson
93 (Zone
Red Smoke 25FT42 Frontier NE Plainview, Allen? Camp/workshop 2002; Schultz and Frankforter 1948;
88)
Schultz et al. 1948
9 (Zone 90)
7 (Zone 91)
28 (Zone
92)
Hill 1998, 2001; Hill et al. 1997; Hill et
Bison bonebed
Clary Ranchb 25GD106 Garden NE Allen al. 2002; Myers 1997; Myers et al.
(processing)
1980, 1981; Myers and Lambert 1983
Bison bonebed Meserve and Barbour 1932; Myers and
Meserveb 25HA1 Hall NE Meserve (Allen?)
(kill) Lambert 1983
115
Bison bonebed Barbour and Schultz 1932; Schultz and

Scottsbluffb 25SF2 Scotts Bluff NE Cody and Allen?
(kill) Eiseley 1935, 1936
Small camp
Pigeon Cliff LA31674 Union NM Plainview or Allen 5 Steen 1955, 1976
(rockshelter)
Plainview, Allen, Baker et al. 1957; LaBelle, this study
Nall 34CI134 Cimarron OK Camp 70
Angostura (see below)
Angostura, possible
Ray Longb 39FA65 Fall River SD Hell Gap or Agate Camp Hannus 1986; Wheeler 1995
Basin
Nichols 1991; Peterson 1988, 1991;
41HF84 Hansford TX Plainview or Allen Camp 5
Quigg et al. 1993
Not
Horace Rivers not known Hemphill TX Plainview or Allen Camp Mallouf and Mandel 1997
published
Bison bonebed
James Allenb not known Albany WY Allen 148 Berman 1959; Mulloy 1959
(kill)/processing
a
Small Paleoindian sample.
b
Site located slightly outside study area, but included in various analyses.
c
Excavation areas combined for this total; the excavation areas/levels were combined at the Allen site (Bamforth 2002b).
115
Table 5.2: Notable surface collected late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains.
Smithsonian
Qualitative
Site Site County State Complex References
Site Type
Number
Hahn 5EP1 El Paso CO Plano Camp Greiser 1985 (Colorado State files)
Phillips-
Williams Fork 5GA1955 Grand CO Allen Camp? Wiesend and Frison 1998
Reservoira
Bison bonebed
Wetzel not known Kit Carson CO Cody Cassells 1983:63-64
(kill)
Buffman not known Larimer CO Allen Cache Burns 1996a, 1996b
Forest Canyon
not known Larimer CO Cody Camp? Husted 1965
Pass
5MR338 5MR338 Morgan CO Plano Camp Greiser 1985 (Colorado State files)
Bijou Creek 5MR355 Morgan CO Plano Camp Greiser 1985 (Colorado State files)
Bison bonebed
Nelson 5WN26 Washington CO Cody? Cassells 1983:63-64; Colorado State files
116
(kill)
Keenesburg 5WL46 Weld CO Agate Basin Camp Greiser 1985 (Colorado state files)
Walsha not known Gove/Trego? KS Hell Gap cache Stanford 1984
Baber 14GL467 Greeley KS Cody Camp Hofman 1996 (Kansas state files)
Gettenger 14WC8 Wallace KS Cody Camp Greiser 1985 (Kansas state files)
Harrison 14WC9 Wallace KS Cody Camp Greiser 1985 (Kansas state files)
Nolan 25CH4 Chase NE Cody Camp Greiser 1985 (Nebraska state files)
multiple
Series of small
Goff Creek sites; not Texas OK Late Paleoindian Ballenger 1999a, 1999b
sites
known
Johnson-Cline 34TX40 Texas OK Late Paleoindian Small camp Lintz 1978
Muncy not known Texas OK Late Paleoindian Small camp White 1987
Damon et al. 1964:101; Hester 1975b:252; David
Sunray not known TX Plainview Camp?
Meltzer, personal communication 2000
a
Site located slightly outside study area, but included in various analyses.
116
Table 5.3: Paleoindian sites from the Andersen collection of Northeastern Colorado.
Valley Discovery Fossil Blue Andersen

Site Name County Gastropod
Number Date Bonea Marl Map
1 Gatton Pasture Yuma 1921 yes; bison yes yes yes
2 Hauriff Yuma 1919 yes no no
3 Gatten Yuma no no no
4 Slim Arrow Yuma 1927 yes; bison yes yes yes
5 Ben Clawson Hole Yuma 1927 yes yes yes
6 Adobe Hole Yuma yes yes yes no
7 Tri-Grove Yuma no no no
8 East Willoby Yuma 1921 yes yes no no
9 West Willoby Yuma 1919 yes no no
10 Hy Thompson (two holes) Yuma 1921 yes; bison yes yes
117
11 South Brown Yuma 1919/1920 yes no no

12 Brown Holes Yuma 1919 yes no no
13 Jesse James Pierce Yuma 1919 yes no no
14 Slim Allison Yuma yes no
15/70 Newport Homestead Yuma 1921 yes no no
16 East Higgens Yuma yes yes no
17 North Higgens Yuma no no no
18 Several unnamed holes Yuma yes no no
19 Stalsworth Yuma no no no
20 East of Happyville Yuma no no no
21 Bailiff Hole Yuma 1922 no no no
22/22 West Turnbull Hole (Deep Holes) Yuma 1919 no no no
23 Bickel Hole Yuma no no no
24/24 West Silvius (Bert's F) Yuma 1927 yes; bison yes no
25 Andrews Yuma 1928 yes yes no no
117
26 Otta Yuma no no no
27 Gummer Yuma no no
28 Essig Yuma 1928 yes yes no no
29 Jones Yuma 1919 yes no no
30 "Elephant" Yuma yes; mammoth? no no
31 Bib Hansen Yuma no no no
32 Austin Clark Yuma yes no no
33 Enos Helton Yuma yes yes yes
34 North of East Higgens Yuma no no no
35 Cleve Mason Yuma yes no no
36 Clawson Yuma yes yes no
37 South of Clawson House Yuma no no no
118
38 Wingfield Hole Yuma yes yes no yes

39 Nebergall Homestead Yuma no no no
40 Thompson Yuma no no no
41/41 South Twilliger Yuma 1925 yes yes no
42 West of Andrews Yuma yes yes no
43 Eagle Hole Yuma yes; mammoth yes no no
44 North of Slim Arrow Yuma 1927 yes no yes
45 South Well Yuma no no no
46 Crede Perry Yuma yes no no
47 East Neifert Ranch Yuma 1919 yes no
48 White-Doman Yuma no no
49 Shorty Gain Yuma no no
50 Blue Flat Yuma yes no
51 Smith Yuma no no
52 Old Ben Clawson Yuma yes no
118
53 Wolff-Bennett Yuma 1931 yes no
54 Southwest of Essig Ranch (several holes) Yuma no no
55 18 miles northwest of Akron Washington yes no no
56 Clyde Dounafon (Donafon?) Washington 1931 yes yes no
57 Road Camp Yuma/Washington yes no
58 Donald Green Yuma/Washington no no
59 South of Hughes Yuma? no no
60 Wess Johns Yuma? 1932 yes yes
61 Unnamed Yuma/Washington no no
62 Axsom Washington? 1922 yes no
63 McIntire #1 (possibly part of Claypool?) Washington? 1932 no no
64 McIntire #2 (Claypool) Washington 1932 yes; bison no yes
119
65 Redpath not known 1932 no no

66 Southeast of Pinneo Washington? no no
Isolated find Washington 1921
Isolated find Washington
Isolated find Yuma 1927
Isolated find Yuma 1934
a
yes denotes presence as depicted in Andersen notes, no denotes absence as depicted in notes, and blank cell indicates no reported information
119
Table 5.4: Paleoindian sites from the Baker collection of the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles and Northeastern New Mexico.
Published Published
Site Name County State Fauna Present Discovery Date Comments
Illustrations Reference
isolated find?; in Baker and
Carrizo Creek,
Union New Mexico small deflation area Figure 1K Campbell
Site 1
on side of creek 1960:79
Baker and
Carrizo Creek, on the side of a creek
Union New Mexico Figures 1N, 1U Campbell
Site 2 in a deflated field
1960:79-80
probably a large site;
Figures 1A, 1B,
located in blown
1M, 1O, 1P, 1V, Baker and
Bueyeros, field adjacent to
Harding New Mexico 1933 1AA, 1DD, 1EE, Campbell
Site 1 creek; multiple
1GG, 1HH, 1II, 1960:80-81
artifact collectors
1KK, 1MM
noted
Figures 1L, 1Q, Baker and
Bueyeros, area of
Harding New Mexico 1935 1T, 1BB, 1JJ, Campbell
120
Site 2 blowouts/dunes
1LL 1960:81
series of blowouts at
Baker and
the intersection of Figures 1C, 1D,
Ute-Carrizo Harding New Mexico 1950 Campbell
Ute and Carrizo 1E, 1Y, 1CC
1960:81
Creeks
Baker and
associated with a
Rosebud Harding New Mexico 1950 Figure 1W Campbell
small lake and spring
1960:81,84
Baker and
isolated find?;
Logan Harding New Mexico Figure 1H Campbell
deflated field
1960:84
hearth areas and
FCR present; large
Baker and
site in a deflated Figures 1R, 1S,
Rock Ranch Quay New Mexico burned bone 1950 Campbell
field; multiple 1X, 1Z, 1FF
1960:84
artifact collectors
noted
120
Published Published
Site Name County State Fauna Present Discovery Date Comments
Illustrations Reference
Baker et al.
1957; LaBelle
Pleistocene 1999a, 1999b,
Nall Cimarron Oklahoma 1934 Plates 1-6
horse, bison 2000; LaBelle,
Holliday, and
Meltzer 2003
1T Dallam Texas 1932 none none
Pleistocene
large site composed
3T Dallam Texas camel, horse, 1932 none none
of multiple blowouts
mammoth, bison
121

121
Site Type
Over the last forty years, there has been an effort to describe the known variability in Paleoindian
sites documented from the Plains. Given that samples are often not seen as comparable between sites,
many of the site types have been defined in qualitative terms. Site classifications are usually defined by the
presence and abundance of certain tool types, the general stage of the tool use life (start of manufacturing
sequence, discard of worn out specimen, etc.), the amount and type of debitage, the presence of features,
the presence and abundance of human and animal bone, and the spatial dimensions of the site.
Twelve primary site types have been described in the Paleoindian literature (Table 5.1); obviously
this list could be expanded or collapsed depending upon the level of research interest, as many are but
expanded forms of one another (i.e., the spectrum of “types” of camps, from small to base camps to
aggregations). Furthermore, none of these types are mutually exclusive of one another, as several of the
inferred activities could have occurred simultaneously or instead over serial occupation of the same site.
Table 5.5: Common Paleoindian site types (modified and expanded from Hofman 1994c:Table 1).
Examples from the

Site Type General Characteristics
Paleoindian literature
Low to moderate artifact frequency; low to moderate
Camp diversity of artifact types; artifact retooling; possible Wendorf and Hester 1962:164
hearths/features
High artifact frequency; high diversity of artifact
Base camp Judge 1973:199
types; artifact retooling; hearths/features
Large base camp with multiple activity areas; multiple
Aggregation
projectile point styles; hearths and/or other types of Hofman 1994b, Wilmsen 1974
camp
features
Bonebed of a single species; large number of
Kill Wheat 1972
projectile points; few other types of tools
Disarticulated skeletons; cutting and butchering tools;
Butchering Wheat 1979:146-148
projectile points
Processing Scrapers with soft wear; broken projectile point bases Judge 1973:204
Overlook Point bases; retooling; excellent view of the terrain Hofman and Ingbar 1988
Armament Point production; wood working Judge 1973:203
Single diagnostic tool or flake, usually a projectile
Isolate Hester 1975a:249
point
Tool, biface, and point production; abundant lithic
Workshop Tunnell 1977; William 2000
debris
Root 1993, 2000; Root and
Lithic extraction from on site source; initial
Quarry Emerson 1994; Collins and
production; abundant lithic debris
Hester 1998
Multiple tools found in a small area; no other artifacts Burns 1996a, 1996b; Stanford
Cache
in vicinity 1984
Burial Human remains with or without grave goods Breternitz et al. 1971
122
I collapsed these site types into seven general categories common to late Paleoindian sites in the
Central Plains (Figure 5.1). The sites were collapsed into categories reflecting the primary author’s
interpretation of the site, as well for ease in comparison. The following frequencies are based on the
published dataset of 53 sites. A variety of activities took place at these sites, including bison predation
(24.5%) and processing (9.4%); large camps, some of which might be base camps or aggregation sites
(18.9%); small short term occupation camps (35.8%), which are the most abundant site form; tool
production sites (5.7%); and finally the least common site types, including caches (3.8%) and burials
(1.9%). Note that this site type classification does not contain isolated Paleoindian tools. These
occurrences are quite common throughout the Plains and their importance within Paleoindian systems will
be discussed later in Chapter 6.
Generalized camp activities are the most common site type. This is perhaps not surprising, as they
make up a considerable portion of the yearly cycle of hunter-gatherers and should be well represented.
Small camps are the most abundant type, suggesting that this is the modal form of Paleoindian organization
in the region, that of short term, specific activity occupations. Isolated finds are not tallied, but they are by
far the most frequent site type in the region. As well, there are probably scores of Paleoindian sites that
have not been identified due to the lack of diagnostic tools such as projectile points. Thus, small sites and
isolated finds are the most common form of Paleoindian mobility organization in the region, probably
formed by short-term occupation by a small number of individuals. Given the small number of artifacts,
most of the sites were probably not reoccupied, or not in such a way to leave a signature. Larger camps are
known from the region, but these occur in specific geographic locations and often contain diverse faunas,
features, abundant lithic debris, etc. Factors influencing the placement of sites are explored in Chapter 7.
Bison predation sites are common, as are processing sites. Bison hunting is considered a hallmark
of Paleoindian behavior, so their presence is not surprising. Given that the Plains are being used as a
hunting zone, one should expect an abundance of bison hunting sites. No sites containing exclusively non-
bison remains have been documented in the sample. This might be related to the sample itself or instead to
patterns of Paleoindian subsistence. This topic will be further explored in Chapter 7.
123
Few burials or caches have been recorded, owing in part to the rareness of the events and the small
spatial scale of the site type, making them difficult to locate. Quarries and workshops are also uncommon,
owing more to the lack of suitable raw materials on the Central Plains rather than the necessity of
manufacturing tools. It could be argued that a great deal of Plains Paleoindian tool organization is in at
least partial response to the lack of raw materials in the region. Quarry and workshop sites are well known
in other areas of the Plains and adjacent regions containing abundant raw materials (e.g., Collins 1998;
Collins and Hester 1998; Root 1993, 2000; William 2000)
40
35
30
25
Percent of Total
20
15
10
0
Bison kill (13) Bison processing Burial (1) Cache (2) Camp (10) Small/probable Quarry/workshop
(5) camp (19) (3)
Site Type
Figure 5.1: Qualitatively assessed site types of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains.
124
60
11
50
40
Percent of Total
30
4
20
2 2
10
0
Arroyo/channel Lake/bog Rockshelter Adjacent to stream Other
(terrace)
Site Setting
Figure 5.2: Site setting of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains.
Site Setting
Site setting was also examined for twenty-two sites in the study (Figure 5.3). Site setting is a
qualitative assessment (Albanese 1977), based upon descriptions presented in the published report. Most
sites (50%, n=11) are located on terraces, adjacent to seasonal and perennial streams and rivers. This
includes sites buried in deep loess such as Allen, Lime Creek, and Red Smoke, as well as sites located in
classic terrace settings such as Jones-Miller, Jurgens, and Frazier. Many of the sites located on terraces are
campsites, where diverse types of activities took place.
Bison kills were more common in arroyos/channels, although only 4 sites (18%) in this sample
occurred in this setting, including Olsen-Chubbuck, Lamb Spring, Norton, and Laird. Several other
landforms were used to a lesser degree, including adjacent to lakes/bogs (n=3, 14%), rockshelters (n=2,
9%), and other landforms such as dunes (n=2, 9%).
Terraces adjacent to drainages were preferred for camps and generalized activities, and bison were
commonly driven into arroyos and/or channels. Playa lakes and springs were probably utilized to a greater
125
extent than acknowledged in this sample; they are underrepresented given the general lack of current
research aimed at surveying these lake settings (Brosowske and Bement 1998; Brunswig 2003; Hartwell
1995; Hill et al. 1995; Litwinionek et al. 1996, 2003). Rockshelters are not uncommon in the study area,
especially along the flanks of the Rockies and edges of the High Plains; however, they appear relatively
unoccupied in Paleoindian times. This might be related to the age of the shelter, as earlier shelters have
perhaps already collapsed, or instead suggests limited occupation of the landform type (Collins 1991). The
lack of use of rockshelters has been posited as a response to early Paleoindian mobility patters (Kelly and
Todd 1988), although a number of fluted points (and other Paleoindian forms) are beginning to be
documented in rockshelter settings (Robert Kelly, personal communication 2003; Finley et al. 2002; Finley
et al. 2003). The small size of most Plains rockshelters precludes their use as habitation loci for entire
groups; therefore they were probably used for specialized functions, if any function, during the Paleoindian
period.
The data at hand suggest that a variety of landforms were exploited by Paleoindian groups. The
site types previously described took place in a variety of landforms, suggesting a wide degree of
adaptations to the Plains. The exploitation of these niches was a product of landscape positioning, such that
one landform could be used one way one year and used in a totally different way in coming years (Binford
1982), if only it was occupied at different times of year, by larger/smaller groups of people, etc.
This is not a pattern one would expect of foragers randomly moving across the landscape, preying
solely on bison. In that situation, one would expect repeated actions and specific use of certain landforms,
primarily because the foragers would be looking to act in similar ways no matter where they might be on
the landscape.
Excavation Area
Excavation areas are available for 21 sites representing 29 components in the study area (Table
5.1). The majority of components (n=17/29, 59%) have less than 50 m2 in total excavation area, often less
than 20 m2. Only a few components have been subjected to extensive excavations totaling 50 m2 or more
and these are among the most well known Paleoindian sites, even if they have only been minimally
published (e.g., Red Smoke, Frazier). The median and mean values in excavation area are 37 m2 and 87 m2
126
respectively, with the mean heavily skewed by large excavations at sites such as Jurgens, Frazier, Claypool,
and Jones-Miller.
Are these small excavation areas representative of the types and spatial dimensions of activities
that occurred on these sites? In some cases, the sample is certainly inadequate, with many sites being
minimally tested or explored. This is for good reasons in many cases; for example, large open-air sites
such as those buried along river terraces present a difficult problem. The Allen site in Nebraska was buried
by tens of feet of sediment, much of which had to be removed with heavy equipment. Thus, in cases such
as this, site boundaries are difficult to define without extensive and expensive testing, excavation, or remote
sensing. In other cases, such as Olsen-Chubbuck (Wheat 1967, 1972), the surrounding Paleoindian land
surface may have completely removed during the Holocene, effectively leaving a small window for
examination. Comparison with ethnographic records and deflated surface sites reveals that some
Paleoindian sites contain multiple activity areas, which could represent repeated occupations or large,
segregated camps (LaBelle, Holliday and Meltzer 2003). Most of the largest sites, in terms of excavation
area, are the same sites with diverse lithic assemblages and features, as well as faunal assemblages.
There are also cases, however, where small excavation areas are quite appropriate samples. For
instance, sites located within rockshelters occupy only a finite amount of space and are often extensively
excavated. Burials and caches are often located within confined and manageable spaces.
O’Connell (1987; O’Connell et al. 1992) has argued for the need for extensive excavation areas
for examining Paleoindian site structure and the integration of activity areas across sites (as well as
transported materials from off-site). There are only a few ways to address O’Connell’s concerns. First,
excavation areas need to be expanded, if economically and logistically feasible. But as important, we also
need to begin incorporating more surface site data into our models, as in many cases these sites can
document the range of sites across space, even if there is mixing of cultural complexes in some cases (see
Andrews et al. 2003, LaBelle, Andrews and Seebach 2003 and. Seebach et al. 2003 for a recent attempt at
comparing site structure of buried/unburied Paleoindian sites).
127
Excavation area (m2)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Gordon Creek 2
Red Smoke Zone 78 2
Red Smoke Zone 80 2
41HF84 5
Pigeon Cliff 5
Laird 6
Slim Arrow 6
Lime Creek Zone II 7
Red Smoke Zone 91 7
Red Smoke Zone 90 9
Norton 15
Red Smoke Zone 83 21
Red Smoke 92 28
Site and/or Component
Wilbur Thomas 31
Frasca Total 37
Median 37
4th of July Valley 41
Lime Creek Zone III 46
Caribou Lake Area A 51
Nall North 70
Olsen-Chubbuck 78
Mean 87
Red Smoke Zone 88 93
Lamb Spring 108
Allen (combined) 118
Lime Creek Zone I 137
James Allen 148
Jurgens Total 254
Frazier 288
Claypool Total 395
Jones-Miller 520
Figure 5.3: Excavation areas of the Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains.
128
Radiocarbon Dating
Sixty-six 14C dates are available from 25 late Paleoindian sites within the region (Table 5.6). The
samples relate primarily to the Agate Basin/Hell Gap, Cody and Allen complexes, while several dates
remaining unassigned to any particular complex. A variety of materials were dated, including charcoal
(n=33, 50%), unburned bone (18, 27%), burned bone (3, 5%), and bulk sediment from buried soils (12,
18%). Eleven of the 66 dates are omitted from the analysis, owing to two factors. First, the Medicine
Creek sites (Allen, Lime Creek, Red Smoke) were among the first Paleoindian sites dated (Roper 2002),
processed by the University of Chicago lab during the infancy of radiocarbon studies. Seven samples from
these sites were dated with the solid-carbon method; those particular samples must be removed due to
potential errors with this early technique (Holliday 2000:239; Taylor 1987). Second, samples from the
Pigeon Cliff (W-636) and Jones-Miller sites were omitted, given the recommendation of the original
excavator (Graham 1987:Table 4; Steen 1976). This leaves 55 samples for further examination. The
samples were calibrated using Calib 4.4.2 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993), but multiple dates from single
components were not averaged (i.e., Hietala 1989; Long and Rippeteau 1974). The uncalibrated samples
are arranged by complex and age in Figure 5.4, whereas the calibrated samples are shown in Figure 5.5.
The Agate Basin and Hell Gap complexes are the oldest within the region, as evidenced from six
samples from four sites. The two soil dates from the Frazier site are the youngest of the group, dating the
formation of the site paleosol rather than the cultural component itself (Haynes and Haas 1974). However
they are close to other dates for the complex, which range between 9550-10600 rcybp (a range of 1050 14C
years). This suggests slight radiocarbon overlap with the earlier Folsom complex, which has been
previously noted in the calibrated 14C record (Eighmy and LaBelle 1996), as well as in situ at the Hell Gap
site in eastern Wyoming (Sellet 1999). The limited number of 14C dates coupled with the dearth of Agate
Basin/Hell Gap sites discovered within the last twenty years (as compared to other Early Holocene/Late
Pleistocene complexes such as Folsom and Cody) makes temporal comparison with other complexes
difficult.
Eighteen samples from eight sites date the Cody complex, nearly half from the Olsen-Chubbuck
bison bonebed (n=8, 44.4%). The complex ranges from 7160 to 10150 rcybp, although several of the bone
dates (Wetzel, Lamb Spring, and Nelson) appear anomalously young. Removing these three, the samples
129
vary between 8870 and 10150 rcybp (a range of 1280 14C years). The Olsen-Chubbuck site is the best-
dated site, as Holliday (2000:Table VIIB; Holliday et al. 1999) recently reported seven additional bone
dates from the site averaging 9395 rcybp. This date falls within the younger end of range for the Cody
complex, notably earlier than the original bone sample submitted from the Olsen-Chubbuck site (the
sample had a high standard deviation and was processed before the advent of improved bone dating
techniques [Stafford et al. 1991; Taylor 1992]). The range in age for the Cody complex might represent
long temporal use of the point style or instead a mixing of similar point styles such as Eden, Scottsbluff,
and Alberta. Nevertheless, it was a well-designed form that was used for over a millennium (and spread
eastward to the Great Lakes and beyond).
Twenty-one samples from thirteen sites date the Allen and other related late Paleoindian
complexes. The dates range from 5880 to 9290 rcybp, although the bulk of the samples date between 7470
and 9290 rcybp (a range of 1820 14C years). The two dates from the Fourth of July Valley site are
suspiciously late, even if they are charcoal rather than bone. The 7740 rcybp assay from the Nall site
represents a minimum date for the Allen complex, as it was obtained from a buried soil. Red Smoke Zone
88 (8830-8910 rcybp) has not previously been assigned to the Allen complex, but the dates from the zone
fall comfortably within the Allen range and the lithic technology fits the general tradition exhibited at other
Allen complex sites. The Laird site, containing a Dalton complex point, dates to 8495 rcybp, falling well
within the middle range of the Allen complex. Dalton complex relations to the Allen complex have been
previously noted (e.g., Myers and Lambert 1983). Again, the long temporal duration could relate to the
mixing of styles or instead a long temporal duration. Given that the Allen complex and late Paleoindian
complexes are among the least studied and understood of all Paleoindian complexes, I would believe that
there are several point styles being mixed and lumped under the label of Allen.
The remaining ten samples date to miscellaneous complexes, nearly all from the well-stratified
Medicine Creek sites in western Nebraska as well as site 41HF84 in the northern Texas Panhandle. At the
Red Smoke site, samples located stratigraphically above (Zone 90, 7970-8270 rcybp) and below (Zone 83,
9206-9220 rcybp) the Allen complex level suggests that Zone 88 is securely dated.
Several patterns are apparent in the 14C record from the Central Plains. First, there is a suggestion
of chronological overlap between the end of Agate Basin/Hell Gap complex and the beginning of the Cody
130
complex. Second, there is also an overlap between the end of the Cody complex and the beginning of the
Allen complex. This particular overlap also has archaeological evidence. Cody complex materials were
recovered in secure association with Allen forms at the Scottsbluff and Norton sites. As well, several Cody
complex tools were recovered from the Slim Arrow site, a large Allen complex bison kill (Slim Arrow,
however, was found in a deflated dune deposit.).
The 14C record suggests that at least portions of the Central Plains were continuously occupied
throughout the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene. The pattern holds true for both the uncalibrated and
calibrated data. The region was not a barren landscape, devoid of human occupation at any time, but was
instead a dynamic landscape with groups moving around the region. Temporal overlap between complexes
suggests that a unilinear evolution of point cultures, suggested at sites such as Hell Gap (Irwin-Williams et
al. 1973), is too simplistic an interpretation of the record. Further averaging of the dataset would help
refine the regional chronology, but despite this, the chronology presented above fits well with date ranges
derived with similar methods by Holliday on the Northern and Southern Plains (Holliday 2000) and
summarized earlier (Table 2.1).
131
14
Table 5.6: C dates of late Paleoindian sites sampled in the Central Plains.
14 Calibrated Relative Area

Complex/ C
Date Range Under Lab Material
Site Stratigraphic date StDev Reference
at 1 Sigma Probability Number Dated
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
6977-6973 0.003
6894-6885 0.007
41HF84 Plainview (Allen?) 7470 440 6820-6781 0.028 TX-6038 Charcoal Brown 1991:402
6774-5873 0.952
5856-5843 0.010
Early Holocene
41HF84 9440 120 TX-5800 Charcoal Brown 1991:402
(cultural?)
Early Holocene
41HF84 9470 260 TX-5941 Charcoal Brown 1991:402
(cultural?)
Charcoal in soil
Allen Unassigned 5256c 350 C-65 Arnold and Libby 1951
bands A and B
c
Allen Unassigned 8274 500 C-108a Charcoal in soil B Arnold and Libby 1951
Allen OLII 8680 460 Tx-6595 Charcoal Bamforth 1991b:361
132
10674-10520 0.128
10449-9597 0.752
Allen Agate Basin (OLI) 10260 360 Tx-6596 Charcoal Bamforth 1991b:360
9560-9454 0.082
9441-9392 0.037
Charcoal in soil B;
Allen Unassigned 10493c 1500 C-470 Arnold and Libby 1951
duplicate of C-108a
11198-9602 0.968
9551-9539 0.005
Allen Agate Basin (OLI) 10600 620 Tx-6594 Charcoal Bamforth 1991b:360
9521-9488 0.015
9435-9412 0.011
7031-6964 0.256
6951-6930 0.084
6918-6879 0.156
Caribou
Allen 7940 70 6856-6853 0.014 AA-26255 Charcoal Pitblado 2000:140
Lakea
6834-6745 0.348
6743-6731 0.043
6723-6698 0.098
132
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
7054-6977 0.308
Caribou 6974-6818 0.626
Allen 7985 75 AA-21984 Charcoal Pitblado 2000:140
Lakea 6808-6803 0.017
6787-6772 0.049
7647-7642 0.007
Caribou
Allen 8460 140 7606-7316 0.973 I-5449 Charcoal Benedict 1985
Lakea
7218-7206 0.020
8445-8443 0.006
8430-8420 0.035
Caribou 8413-8391 0.107
Allen 9080 75 AA-18821 Charcoal Pitblado 2000:140
Lakea 8382-8369 0.050
8360-8351 0.040
8337-8225 0.761
8237-8155 0.292 Fulgham and Stanford
Frascaa Cody 8910 90 SI-4848 Unburned bone
8153-7962 0.708 1982
133
4903-4887 0.045
Fourth of 4880-4874 0.015
Allen 5880 120 I-6544 Charcoal Benedict 1981:75
July Valleya 4852-4589 0.917
4562-4554 0.023
5201-5180 0.052
Fourth of
Allen 6045 120 5136-5132 0.009 I-6545 Charcoal Benedict 1981:75
July Valleya
5069-4783 0.939
9142-8967 0.451
Frazier Agate Basin 9550 130 SMU-32 Soil humates Haynes and Haas 1974
8964-8743 0.549
9229-9107 0.364
9100-9094 0.014
Frazier Agate Basin 9650 130 SMU-31 Soil humates Haynes and Haas 1974
9071-9050 0.052
9013-8809 0.570
133
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
9596-9562 0.029
9452-9442 0.007
Gordon Late Paleoindian 9392-8716 0.917
9700 250 Gx-0530 Bone Breternitz et al. 1971:172
Creek (Hell Gap?) 8713-8688 0.023
8663-8646 0.015
8643-8633 0.008
8232-7304 0.973
Mixed charcoal
Hell Gap b Frederick (Allen) 8600 380 7266-7264 0.002 A-501 Haynes et al. 1966:15
and earth
7221-7190 0.025
8286-8198 0.633
8182-8164 0.070
8128-8121 0.023
Horace
Plainview (Allen?) 9000 70 8104-8083 0.084 Beta-55909 Charcoal Mallouf and Mandel 1997
Rivers
8067-8063 0.019
8043-8012 0.141
134
7981-7973 0.030
8409-8400 0.028
8295-8199 0.823
8176-8165 0.026
Horace
Rivers
8099-8086 0.033
8041-8019 0.067
7979-7974 0.012
8447-8437 0.024
8434-8388 0.131
8383-8368 0.045
Horace
Rivers
8339-8200 0.740
8126-8124 0.002
8098-8089 0.023
134
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
8685-8681 0.015
8629-8431 0.855
Horace 8420-8413 0.019
Plainview (Allen?) 9290 80 AA-9367 Charcoal Mallouf and Mandel 1997
Rivers 8391-8382 0.033
8369-8360 0.031
8351-8338 0.047
7445-7444 0.001 Crane and Griffin
James Allen Allen 7900 400 M-304 Burned bone
7324-6407 0.999 1958:1102
Jones-Miller Hell Gap 7785 345 not given Burned bone Graham 1987:Table 4
Jones-Miller Hell Gap 8620 185 not given Bone Graham 1987:Table 4
10361-10265 0.066
Jones-Miller Hell Gap 10020 320 SI-1989 Charcoal Graham 1987:Table 4
10217-9214 0.934
Jones-Miller Hell Gap 16600 2500 not given Charcoal Graham 1987:Table 4
8449-8367 0.245
135
Jurgens 8363-8349 0.044

Cody 9070 90 SI-3726 Charcoal Wheat 1979
Area 3 8340-8202 0.697
8037-8031 0.014
Laird Dalton 8495 40 7581-7538 1.000 CAMS-82397 Bone Blackmar 2002
Lamb 7056-6497 0.982
Cody 7870 240 SI-45 Unburned bone Long 1965
Springa 6492-6479 0.018
8448-8388 0.048
Lamb 8383-8368 0.014
Cody 8870 350 M-1463 Bone collagen Stanford et al. 1981:16
Springa 8362-8349 0.010
8340-7579 0.928
Conyers 2000:806; May
Lime Creeka above Zone I 7980 1000 Tx-6779 Soil humates
2002:Figure 5.8
9114-8993 0.074
a 8896-8879 0.011 Conyers 2000:805; May
Lime Creek Zone I (Cody?) 9120 510 Tx-6778 Soil humates
8839-7647 0.895 2002:Figure 5.8
7642-7607 0.020
C-471
Lime Creeka Cody 9167c 600 Charcoal Arnold and Libby 1951
(split sample)
135
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
C-471
Lime Creeka Cody 9880c 670 Charcoal Arnold and Libby 1951
(split sample)
10324-10298 0.020 Conyers 2000:805; May
Lime Creeka Zone I (Cody?) 10040 270 Tx-6777 Soil humates
10161-9245 0.980 2002:Figure 5.8
Lime Creeka below Zone I 10090 450 Tx-6776 Soil humates May 2002:Figure 5.8
9237-9136 0.685
Lindenmeiera Cody 9690 60 9130-9124 0.027 TO-341 Charcoal Haynes et al. 1992
8988-8922 0.288
9586-9574 0.044
Lindenmeiera Cody 9880 70 9389-9367 0.120 TO-339 Charcoal Haynes et al. 1992
9354-9243 0.836
LaBelle 1999b; LaBelle,
6639-6618 0.126
Nalla Allen 7740 80 Beta-121880 Soil Holliday, and Meltzer
6611-6477 0.874
2003
136
7056-6976 0.311
6974-6817 0.609
Nelson Cody 7990 80 SI-4898 Bone Cassells 1983
6810-6803 0.023
6787-6772 0.054
8411-8397 0.088
8378-8373 0.024
Nortona Cody/Allen 9080 60 CAMS-16032 Bone collagen, AMS Hofman et al. 1995
8358-8353 0.024
8321-8234 0.865
8627-8619 0.033
8613-8448 0.902
Olsen- NSRL-2801,
Cody 9290 60 8387-8384 0.014 Bone gelatin, AMS Holliday et al. 1999
Chubbuck CAMS-31812
8367-8362 0.019
8349-8340 0.032
8720-8709 0.048
Olsen- 8690-8660 0.166 NSRL-2797,
Cody 9340 60 Bone gelatin, AMS Holliday et al. 1999
Chubbuck 8649-8531 0.709 CAMS-31813
8494-8478 0.077
136
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
8736-8730 0.020
8724-8704 0.088
Olsen- NSRL-2797,
Chubbuck CAMS-32682
8653-8531 0.640
8494-8478 0.065
8736-8730 0.027
8724-8704 0.118
Olsen- NSRL-2799,
Chubbuck CAMS-32683
8653-8551 0.607
8486-8484 0.004
Olsen- 8786-8759 0.112 NSRL-2798,
Chubbuck 8752-8608 0.888 CAMS-24968
9090-9074 0.069
Olsen- 9037-9020 0.062 NSRL-2801,
Chubbuck 8801-8687 0.693 CAMS-32684
137
8664-8631 0.177
9110-9068 0.164
9056-9009 0.180
8887-8884 0.011
Olsen- NSRL-2799,
Chubbuck CAMS-31814
8713-8689 0.102
8662-8647 0.063
8640-8633 0.021
10826-10808 0.010
Olsen-
Cody 10150 500 10684-10497 0.114 A-744 Bone collagen Haynes et al. 1971
Chubbuck
10492-9231 0.876
7028-7016 0.025
7006-6988 0.037
Meserve 6984-6967 0.035
Pigeon Cliff a 7840 160 GX0713-A Charcoal Steen 1976:35
(Plainview/Allen?) 6949-6933 0.034
6915-6881 0.076
6830-6502 0.792
Pigeon Cliff a Clayton (Archaic) 8280d 1000 W-636 Charcoal Rubin and Alexander 1960
137
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
Knudson 2002:Table 7.2;
Red Smoke Zone 90 (Zone VI) 7970 210 Tx-333 Charcoal
Valastro et al. 1967:451;
Zone 90 (Zone VI)
Red Smoke (above or at 8050 500 Tx-6729 Charcoal Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
unconformity)
Zone 88 (Zone V)/
Zone 90 (Zone VI)
Red Smoke 8270 80 Tx-6730 Charcoal Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
(Above or at
unconformity)
Zone 92 C-824 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2;
Red Smoke 8570c 300 Charcoal
(Zone VIII) (split sample) Libby 1955:110;
8200-8167 0.079
8165-8099 0.163 Tx-7558 Charcoal mixed with
Red Smoke Zone 88 (Zone V) 8830 130 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
8088-8041 0.116 (split sample) burned bone
8020-7761 0.645
138
8260-7940 0.895
7930-7919 0.025 Tx-7558 Charcoal mixed with
Red Smoke Zone 88 (Zone V) 8910 130 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
7897-7874 0.052 (split sample) burned bone
7858-7844 0.028
Zone 92 C-824 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2;
Red Smoke 9153c 600 Charcoal
(Zone VIII) (split sample) Libby 1955:110;
Below Zone V
(Zone 83?); Tx-7517 Charcoal mixed
Red Smoke 9206 90 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
near Unit 2/3 (split sample) with sediment
contact
Below Zone V
(Zone 83?); Tx-7517 Charcoal mixed
Red Smoke 9220 90 Knudson 2002:Table 7.2
near Unit 2/3 (split sample) with sediment
contact
138
Complex/ C
Unit (rcybp)
(cal BC)e Curvef
5207-5176 0.153
5141-5125 0.065
Sunray Plainview 6120 60 5117-5115 0.007 A-396 Burned bone Damon et al. 1964:101
5079-4941 0.757
4867-4862 0.019
9204-6189 0.040
6179-6172 0.016
Wetzel Cody 7160 135 6162-6134 0.095 SI-4849 Bone Cassells 1983
6109-5886 0.830
5850-5844 0.018
8448-8367 0.273
Mandel and Hofman
Winger Allen 9080 90 8363-8349 0.049 ISGS-4934 Bone collagen
2003:132
8340-8208 0.677
a
Other dates available from the site, but they are not late Paleoindian in identification.
b
Additional late Paleoindian dates available from Hell Gap; only the Allen component is used in the present analysis.
139
c
Solid carbon technique, date discarded.
d
Interpreted as a problematic date by the original researcher, date discarded.
e
Bold date refers to the range with highest relative area under the calibration probability curve.
f
Bold probability refers to the range with the highest relative area under the calibration curve.
139
Figure 5.4: Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates of late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains, arranged by
complex. (Point illustrations adapted from Greiser 1985:Figure 23e and 27f; Frison 1991:Figure 2.28d).
140
Figure 5.5: Calibrated radiocarbon dates (Calib 4.4.2) of late Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains,
arranged by complex. (Point illustrations adapted from Greiser 1985:Figure 23e and 27f; Frison
1991:Figure 2.28d).
141
Chapter Summary
This Chapter served as a brief overview of all the published Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains,
as well as those newly documented sites from the Andersen and Baker collections. The new sites nearly
double the previously known site total, and it is suspected that the actual number of Paleoindian sites
lurking in the museums, basements, and fields of the Central Plains is very high. This is perhaps an
unexpected result to some readers, given the data presented in the previous Chapter suggesting that
Paleoindian sites were rather uncommon throughout the region.
A variety of site types are identified, including small and large camps, subsistence related kills and
processing sites, a few caches, and a burial. The region was used in a variety of ways, but is made up of
abundant small sites and isolated finds. There is no evidence to suggest that there is only a single
adaptation, site type, or landscape use pattern within the Central Plains (Meltzer 1993).
As well, sites are spread across a variety of landforms, suggesting that foragers were familiar with
different settings. The different landforms probably offered different resources, which were utilized by the
hunter-gatherer populations. As will be discussed in the Chapter 7, there are major differences in site
functions between site settings, especially riparian/alluvial settings versus those of the true, High Plains
grasslands.
Finally, the 14C record documents a steady and continuous presence of foraging populations on the
Central Plains from the Late Pleistocene until well into he Early Holocene. Several Paleoindian complexes
overlap in 14C time, suggesting contemporaneous populations rather than an evolutionary relationship
between all the point types. Given the solid dated record of the three main late Paleoindian complexes of
the Central Plains (Allen, Cody, Agate Basin), one could expect that these sties should show up with high
ubiquity as compared to other regions. This particular issue will be explored in Chapter 8.
142
Chapter 6
STONE TOOL ASSEMBLAGE SIZE AND DIVERSITY
In this Chapter, I discuss assemblage diversity among the sites of the Central Plains, as well as
adjacent regions. The data clearly show that there is variability in the types and frequencies of tool classes
and total assemblage size. Several explanations are proposed, including taphonomic factors such as the
size of the area exposed or the size of the excavation area as well as basic functional differences related to
landscape use. Not all sites are used for the same purpose and therefore are not of the same size.
Patterns in projectile point frequencies are also examined from the same sites. Most sites are quite
small, yielding only a handful of projectile points. However, there are large sites containing dozens of
projectile points and these are generally the well-known Paleoindian sites. Explanations for variation in
projectile point assemblage size are also proposed.
Tables 6.1 and 6.2 document the assemblage level tool frequencies for published excavated and
surface sites from the Central Plains. Table 6.3 details the tool frequencies from the Nall site, one of the
Baker sites in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Table 6.4 details the tool frequencies from sites in the Andersen
collection from northeastern Colorado whereas Table 6.5 details the counts of certain temporally diagnostic
tool classes from the Baker data from the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles and Northeastern New Mexico.
143
Table 6.1: Tool type frequencies of excavated sites in the Central Plains.
Site PP PRE KN BF DR ES SS GG CHP GR CR GRD HS RF UF Other Debitage Total Tools

Allen IZ 2 2 38 4 1 7 1 2 18 3 3199 78
Allen OLI 4 9 63 13 2 9 4 7 39 4 4509 154
Allen OLII 5 13 1 1 1 2 3 6 1 3360 33
Allen Total 6 16 114 18 4 17 7 12 0 63 8 11068 265
Buffman 1 14 11 2 26
Burntwood Creek 1 ? 1
Caribou Lake 4 1 1 1 4 143 11
Clary Ranch 13 3 17 13 6 12 12 10724 76
Claypool 189 15 19 9 49 21 14 6 20 6 thousands? 348
Cumro 1 1
Fourth of July Valley 18 4 1 5 1 3 1 1392 33
Frasca 8 1 16 9
Frazier 8 11 23 14 4 40 119 942 219
Gordon Creek 1 2 1 1 3 1 9
Hell Gap Frederick Level 16 1 8 34 16 14 12 17 4 15 10 20 167
144
Horace Rivers yes yes yes yes yes yes 0

James Allen 30 1 6 1 60 38
Jones-Miller 105 1 11 over 11500 117
Jurgens Area 1 11 19 36 2 12 1 3 1 189 2 1421 276
Jurgens Area 2 20 11 9 31 3 5 4 13 1 65 488 162
Jurgens Area 3 30 4 8 11 4 1 4 1 13 98 76
Jurgens Total 63 15 39 87 8 23 6 24 5 271 2 2023 543
Laird 1 1 12+ 2
Lamb Spring 7 1 several 8
Lime Creek Zone I 4 2 41 1 9 18 34 7 4 8 4 22 154
Lime Creek Zone II 1 1 2 4
Lime Creek Zone III 4 10 1 6 8 2 2 1 2 36
Meserve 2 2
Norton 4 1 1 2 several hundred 8
Olsen-Chubbuck (bonebed) 27 3 1 1 1 2 3 35
Palo Duro, 41HF84 1 9 6 795 16
Pigeon Cliff 1 2 1 yes? 2 4
Red Smoke Zone 78 4 2 unknown 6
Red Smoke Zone 80 4 6 3 unknown 13
Red Smoke Zone 83 11 5 5 1 unknown 22
Red Smoke Zone 88 23 278 143 34 4 unknown 482
Red Smoke Zone 90 2 17 10 4 2 unknown 35
Scottsbluff 4 2 0 6
Tim Adrian 1 1 24 15 30 1 15 4 13 5 5 5 119
Walsh 15 15
Wilbur Thomas 1 1 unknown 2
Key: PP projectile points, PRE preforms, KN knives, BF bifaces, DR drills, ES end scrapers, SS side scrapers, GG gouges, CHP choppers, GR
gravers/perforators, CR cores, GRD ground stone, HS hammerstones, RF retouched flakes, and UF utilized flakes.
References: Allen (Bamforth 2002), Buffman (Burns 1996a:10), Burntwood (Dan Busse, personal communication 2001), Caribou Lake (Benedict 1985:127-
130; Pitblado 2000:138-151), Clary Ranch (Matthew G. Hill, personal communication 2001), Claypool (includes several Paleoindian components; Dick and
145
Mountain 1960; Stanford and Albanese 1975; LaBelle, this study), Cumro (Bell and Van Royen 1934:53-56), Fourth of July Valley (Benedict 1981:80-85),
Frasca (Fulgham and Stanford 1982:4-7), Frazier (Scott Slessman, personal communication 2002), Gordon Creek (Breternitz et al. 1971:175-178), Hell Gap
Frederick Level (Irwin 1967:Appendix 3, Table 2), Horace Rivers (Mallouf and Mandel 1997), James Allen (Mulloy 1959:114-115), Jones-Miller (Stanford
1999:448), Jurgens (Wheat 1979:Table 20), Laird (Hofman and Blackmar 1997:49-52; Blackmar 2002), Lamb Spring (McCartney 1983:3), Lime Creek (Davis
1962:Table 1), Meserve (Meserve and Barbour 1932:241), Norton (Hofman et al. 1995; Hofman 2002b:5), Olsen-Chubbuck (bonebed only, Wheat 1972:Table
20), 41HF84 (Anthony 1991:302), Pigeon Cliff (Steen 1955, 1976), Red Smoke (side scrapers referred to as unifaces, choppers identified as core/core-choppers;
Bamforth 2002b:Table 6.5), Scottsbluff (LaBelle, this study), Tim Adrian (O'Brien 1984:52-53), Walsh (Stanford 1984:634), Wilbur Thomas (Luebbers
1971:66).
Table 6.2: Tool type frequencies of multi-component or poorly documented Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains. Count refers to documented Paleoindian
tools only.

Fondis 3 2 2 7
Forest Canyon Pass 4 2 6
Johnson-Cline 6 6
Lindenmeier (non-Folsom) 10 10
LoDaiska 2 2
Magic Mountain 7 1 8
Muncy 46 2 1 49
Spring Gulch 2 2
Nelson 2 1 1 3
Sunray 2 1 3
Phillips-Williams Fork Reservoir 31 31
References: Fondis (Colorado state site files), Forest Canyon Pass (Husted 1965), Johnson-Cline (Lintz 1978), Lindenmeier (Wilmsen and Roberts 1978:60-65;
146
Roberts 1937:74), LoDaiska (Irwin and Irwin 1959), Magic Mountain (Irwin-Williams and Irwin 1966), Muncy (White 1987), Spring Gulch (Kainer 1974,
1976), Nelson (Colorado state site files), Sunray (David Meltzer, personal communication 2000), Phillips-Williams Fork (Wiesend and Frison 1998).
Table 6.3: Paleoindian tool type frequencies from the Nall site in the Oklahoma Panhandle (Baker et al. 1957).
Site PP PRE KN BF DR ES SS GG CHP GR CR GRD HS RF UF Other Debitage Total Tools Total Assemblage
Nall North 231 11 1 41 32 70 10 0 0 13 3 3 0 47 0 3 39 415 504
Nall South 102 5 1 23 7 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 1 3 161 177
Nall Unknown 46 0 0 14 7 30 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 20 0 4 16 106 146
Nall Total 379 16 2 78 46 119 18 0 0 14 7 3 0 79 0 8 58 682 827
Table 6.4: Paleoindian tool type frequencies in the Andersen sites in Yuma/Washington Counties, Colorado.
Site PP PRE KN BF DR ES SS GR CR RF UF Other Debitage Total Tools

1 15 15
2 7 7
3 1 1
4 65 1 3 2 10 2 97 83
5 14 1 1 16
6 2 2
7 1 1
8 5 1 1 7
9 9 2 1 12
10 18 1 4 2 25
11 5 1 1 1 8
12 17 17
13 3 1 4
14 3 3
15 2 1 3
147
16 7 1 8
18 1 1
19 1 1
20 1 1
21 2 1 3
22 10 1 11
23 1 1 2
24 24 2 1 16 3 1 2 1 6 50
25 3 3
26 1 1
28 10 1 11
29 2 1 3
31 1 1
32 3 3
33 3 1 1 5
34 4 4
35 1 1
36 2 2
Site PP PRE KN BF DR ES SS GR CR RF UF Other Debitage Total Tools
37 2 2
38 3 3
39 1 1
40 3 1 4
41 11 1 1 13
42 1 1
43 5 1 6
44 10 1 1 12
45 1 1
46 1 1
47 1 1
48 2 1 3
49 1 1
50 2 1 3
51 1 1
52 3 3
53 2 2
148
54 3 3
55 1 1
56 10 1 1 12
57 1 1
58 1 1 2
59 2 2
60 4 2 1 2 7
61 10 4 14
62 1 1
63 4 4
64 189 15 19 9 49 21 14 20 12 numerous 348
65 1 1
66 1 1
Key: PP projectile points, PRE preforms, KN knives, BF bifaces, DR drills, ES end scrapers, SS side scrapers, GR gravers/perforators, CR cores, RF retouched
flakes, and UF utilized flakes.
Table 6.5: Paleoindian tool types examined in the Baker sites in the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and Northeastern New Mexico.
Number of Number of Modified

Number of Number of Bifaces Total Number of
Baker Reported Projectile Points Projectile Points
Site Name Preforms Examined Examined in This Tools Examined in
Assemblage Size Examined in This Examined in This
in This Study Study This Study
Study Study
Carrizo
1 1 1
Creek, Site 1
Carrizo
2 2 2
Creek, Site 2
Bueyeros,
22 6 6
Site 1
Bueyeros,
9 3 3
Site 2
Ute-Carrizo 5 5 5
Rosebud 2 2 2
Logan 1 1 1
Rock Ranch 5 1 1
Nall 750 see Table 6.3 see Table 6.3 see Table 6.3 see Table 6.3 827
149
1T 150 26 2 28
2T 67 19 8 1 28
3T 259 67 5 3 75
4T 168 12 4 16
5T 43 14 1 1 16
6T 67 15 3 1 19
7T 31 5 1 6
8T 10 3 3
10T 12 5 5
11T 6 1 1
12T 4 2 1 3
13T 5 4 4
14T 2 1 1
15T 10 1 1
16T 10 4 4
17T 4 1 1
Key: Modified projectile points refer to points reworked into drills, end scrapers, etc.
Assemblage Diversity
In this study, diversity refers to several measures of assemblage characteristics. First, I am interested
in documenting the variance in the total number of tools recovered per site. The second measure of interest
is the assemblage richness, or a count of the number of different tool classes present per site. The third
measure of diversity is the evenness of the tool classes, that is the frequency of tools per tool class.
Measures of assemblage diversity are difficult to compare across many sites for several reasons. First,
when using published data, it is difficult to standardize tool types such that different researchers can
sometimes call identical items by different tool classes. I used the basic descriptions provided by the
original author. These tool classes are morphologically defined, based primarily on shape and flaking
characteristics (Irwin and Wormington 1970). They have not been defined by use-wear categories, which
would probably show that many of these tools were used for multiple functions that crosscut various
functional categories. One of the more important problems with diversity analysis, especially with a
sample such as this, is that the values might not be representative of what tools were present on the site. As
many of the sites from this sample are from surface assemblages, the relative frequencies of tool classes
may or many not be representative of the true diversity of site activities.
Central Plains
Summary values for the mean, median, and modes of common tool classes of Paleoindian sites on
the Central Plains are presented in Table 6.6 and Figure 6.1. The sample of sites represents a variety of site
types including bison kills, processing sites and camps. It is not surprising that there is variability in the
mean frequencies of certain tool classes as well as evenness in representation between the tool classes.
Such variability was expected given that the diversity in site types as discussed in Chapter 5. Given that
this is a composite sample of many types of sites, these summary values are not meant to “define” sub-
types of Paleoindian sites, but instead the values document the general dominance of certain kinds of tool
classes within the Central Plains.
150
Table 6.6: Summary values of tool frequencies of sites from the Central Plains.
Tool Mean StDev Median Mode Case Count

Projectile Point 12.9 30.4 4 0, 1,2 (tie) 51
Preform 0.7 2.1 0 0 51
Knife 2.3 6.7 0 0 52
Biface 11.1 39.5 0 0 52
Drill 0.2 1.3 0 0 52
End Scraper 4.5 10.3 0 0 50
Side Scraper 6.1 20.4 0 0 52
Gouge 0.4 1.9 0 0 52
Chopper 2.1 6.9 0 0 52
Graver/Perforator 1.3 3.2 0 0 52
Core 1.3 3.4 0 0 52
Ground stone 0.9 2.2 0 0 51
Hammerstone 0.7 1.7 0 0 52
Retouched Flake 2.3 6.7 0 0 52
Utilized Flake 9.2 32.2 0 0 51
Other 1.6 4.5 0 0 51
Total Tools 58.1 96.6 15 2 51
151
Sites contained approximately 58 tools on average, but with a high standard deviation (97 tools).
The median measure of 15 tools per site is perhaps a more realistic measure of diversity in assemblage size.
The average number of tools varies across classes, from a high of 12.9 for projectile points to a low of 0.2
for drills. Standard deviations are quite large, owing to the vast differences between sites in the sample in
terms of total assemblage size. Not surprisingly, no tool classes other than projectile points have a median
value above zero. This is due to the fact that almost all these sites are recognized as Paleoindian in age by
the simple presence of projectile points given that few other temporally diagnostic tools exist. The mode
value is also zero for all tool classes besides projectile points. Values of 0, 1, and 2 were the most
common, each with 8 cases.
Sites such as Hell Gap, Allen, and Red Smoke, where manufacturing of stone tools was a common
activity, biased the summary values for classes such as bifaces. These sites also contain diverse fauna and
hearths (see Chapter 7), suggesting that the sites were potentially occupied for longer periods of time than
other sites. Their location in well-watered areas, with abundant plant and animal diversity, would have also
attracted prehistoric populations. In addition, the three sites are located near to abundant raw material
sources, available for the manufacture of stone tools.
The sample suggests that assemblage size is positively correlated with tool richness (Figure 6.2),
where an exponential curve fits well (r2=0.6167). This could be interpreted as sample size bias (Meltzer et
al. 1992), or instead strengthen the assertion that some sites tend to produce larger numbers of tools and
tool classes. Most research in the Central Plains is based on one of exhausting the site data, such that
excavations or artifact collecting from surface sites is rarely one of “sampling” only a portion of the site.
Many of these sites have been salvaged where (relatively) large areas have been excavated. But there is no
statistical relationship between assemblage size and the excavation area. One might expect that as the
excavation area increased, the total number of tools would also increase, because more activities are being
exposed, representing either contemporaneous occupations or even reoccupations of the site. The pattern
here suggests instead that some sites contain more tools than expected given the area size. Thus, I think
that there are “big” sites and plenty of “small” sites out there. What do the big sites represent? They could
have been occupied for longer periods of time, been reoccupied repeatedly (by the same group over a
152
period of years), or represent a mix of multiple complexes over thousands of years. Clearly, these big sites
do exist in uncommon numbers.
The density of tools per m2 is presented in Figure 6.3. Sites to the left contain excavation areas
greater than 10 m2, are considered better representative samples than those to the right (<10 m2). There is
variability in tool density, ranging from a high of 5.2 tools per m2 at Red Smoke (Zone 88) to a low of 0.07
tools per m2 at Wilbur Thomas. These patterns are potentially related to site activities, as the sites with the
highest densities such as Red Smoke 88, Jurgens 1 (2.4 per m2) and Jurgens 2 (3.1 per m2) are all major
habitation sites, probably occupied for longer periods than other types of sites. Bison kills such as Lamb
Spring, James Allen, Frasca, and even Jones-Miller, have much lower tool densities.
Tool richness density is low for all sites with large excavation areas, all less than 0.3 tool classes
per m2, with most below 0.1 classes per m2 (Figure 6.4). Again, campsites contain the highest densities
compared to other site types. The density data suggest that site activities are spread across the site and
diverse activities are not aggregated into small spatial areas. If this was the case, and many different tools
were being used in any one area, tool richness densities would be higher. We might expect high richness
densities in enclosed/defined spaces, such as within the interiors of winter houses or rockshelters (cf.
Pigeon Cliff, a small rockshelter) or also among burials (cf. Gordon Creek).
The richness and evenness data suggest that there are real differences between site types, which
are not necessarily related to the size of the excavation area. Some sites simply contain higher numbers and
different types of tools as compared to other sites. What do these larger sites represent, are they base
camps or repeatedly occupied central places? How do they interact with the common small sites? Many of
these sites are the ones with diversified faunal assemblages, features, and ground stone, suggesting a much
different use of place than simple bison kills (Chapter 7). Many are reoccupied, probably seasonally, but
often times over deep time as well, signaling a stable location on the landscape (e.g., Allen, Red Smoke,
Lime Creek, Hell Gap). Small sites probably represent specialized locations surrounding these larger sites,
acting as satellites to the main site hub (Binford 1982).
153
15
Mean
Median
Mode
10
Value
0
l
t
ife
ce
ge
ne
er
er
ES
SS
flk
r
flk
m
e
ril
in
to
or
on
or
th
pp
D
Po
Kn
fa
ou
to
ra
til
h
C
st
O
ef
tc
Bi
ds
ho
U
fo
G
oj
er
Pr
R
er
un
Pr
m
r/P
ro
am
G
ve
H
ra
G
Tool Class
Figure 6.1: Mean, median and mode values of tool classes from sites on the Central Plains.
600
500
400
Total Number of Tools
300
2
R = 0.6167
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Tool Richness
Figure 6.2: Scatterplot of tool richness versus assemblage size from sites on the Central Plains.
154
Tool Richness per m 2 Tools per m 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
Jo
n es
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
M
Jones Miller ille
Cl r
ay
Claypool po
ol
Fr
az
Frazier Ja ie
Li m r
m es
e
James Allen C Al
le
re n
e k
Ju Zo
Lime Creek Zone I rg ne
e ns I
Ar
R La ea
Jurgens Area 1 ed m 1
b
O Sm Sp
ls ok rin
Lamb Spring en e g
-C Zo
hu Ju ne
bb rg
Red Smoke Zone 88 uc en 88
k s
(b Ar
o ea
Jurgens Area 3 ne 3
be
Ju d
rg on
Olsen-Chubbuck (bonebed only) e ns l y)
Ar
C ea
Jurgens Area 2 ar
Li
m ib 2
e u o
Cr La
ee
Caribou Lake Fo
u k
ke
rth Zo
of ne
Lime Creek Zone III Ju
ly
III
Va
lle
Fourth of July Valley y
155
W Fr
as
Re ilbu ca
Frasca d r
Sm Tho
Re ok m
Wilbur Thomas e as
Site/Component
Site/Component d
Sm Zon
e
ok
e 9 2
Red Smoke Zone 92 Zo
Figure 6.3: Number of tools per m2 from sites on the Central Plains. ne
Re 83
Red Smoke Zone 83 d
Sm No
Re ok rto
e n
More than 10 m2 excavation area

Norton d
More than 10 m2 excavation area
Sm Zon
e
Figure 6.4: Number of tool classes per m2 from sites on the Central Plains.
ok
Red Smoke Zone 90
Li
m e 90
e Zo
C ne
re 91
ek
Red Smoke Zone 91 Zo
ne
Pa II
Lime Creek Zone II lo
D La
ur
o, ir d
Laird 41
H
R Pi F8
ed ge 4
Palo Duro, 41HF84 Sm on
ok Cl
e i ff
Less than 10 m2 excavation area
Pigeon Cliff Zo
Less than 10 m2 excavation area
G ne
R or
do 80
ed
Red Smoke Zone 80 n
Sm C
ok re
e e
Gordon Creek Zo k
ne
78
Red Smoke Zone 78
Northeastern Colorado
The data from the Andersen collection further support the patterns evident in the Central Plains
sites. For example, tool assemblage size and artifact richness are related (Figure 6.5), where an exponential
curve fits well (r2=0.6701). The Claypool site clearly stands out, having the largest tool assemblage and the
highest richness in tool classes. Claypool is different from other sites in the Andersen sample. The site
was occupied repeatedly through time, but appears to have also been intensively occupied during the Cody
Complex. Despite the potential problem of mixing of complexes (only a minor problem at Claypool), no
other site in northeastern Colorado even approaches the site in terms of the total assemblage size. It does
not appear that surface exposure is a factor in assemblage size, as other sites in the areas were equally (or
more so) deflated but do not have a fraction of the Claypool size and diversity. Removing Claypool from
the rest of the Andersen sites does not improve the relationship between sample size and diversity (linear
fit, r2=0.639) (Figure 6.6).
Mean, median, and mode values of tool classes are presented in Figure 6.7. The region is
dominated by projectile points, perhaps not surprising given that amateurs discovered the sites in the early
20th century and were probably identified by the simple presence of a diagnostic point. Projectile points are
the only tool class with median and mode values exceeding 1 tool per site. Other tool classes are found on
the Andersen sites, namely end and side scrapers and bifaces, but these occur in low frequencies.
Tool classes drop in value when Slim Arrow and Claypool are removed from the sample (Figure
6.8). These two represent what most researchers would label a “typical” Paleoindian site, that of a bison
kill and large campsite. The remaining sites are mostly the small ubiquitous blowouts, containing projectile
points but rarely any other associated tools. Most of these sites are small and contain little artifact
diversity. This is probably related to similar site function more than simply exposure, as many of these
sites were repeatedly searched during periods of active erosion and tools would have collected if present.
156
400
2
R = 0.6701
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tool Class Richness
Figure 6.5: Scatterplot of assemblage size versus tool richness from sites in Northeastern Colorado.
90
80
70
60
2
R = 0.639
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tool Class Richness
Figure 6.6: Scatterplot of assemblage size versus tool richness from sites in Northeastern Colorado,
Claypool site removed.
157
15
All sites mean

All sites median
All sites mode
10
Value
0
l
e
t
ife
ce
er
r
e
r
m
ril
in
pe
pe
to
ak
or
ak
or
th
D
Kn
po
fa
ra
C
ra
ra
Fl
Fl
O
ef
Bi
fo
Sc
Sc
e
Pr
ed
d
er
til
e
ec
de
r/P
iz
ch
En
til
oj
Si
ou
ve
U
Pr
et
ra
R
G
Tool Type
Figure 6.7: Mean, median, and mode values of tool classes of sites in the Andersen collection.
15
Sites mean w/o Claypool or Slim Arrow

Sites median w/o Claypool or Slim Arrow
Sites mode w/o Claypool or Slim Arrow
10
Value
0
t
ife
e
ce
e
r
er
m
ril
in
pe
pe
to
ak
or
ak
or
th
D
po
Kn
fa
ra
C
ra
ra
Fl
Fl
O
ef
Bi
rfo
Sc
Sc
e
Pr
ed
ed
til
e
ec
de
r/P
iz
ch
En
til
oj
Si
ou
ve
U
Pr
et
ra
R
G
Tool Type
Figure 6.8: Mean, median, and mode values of tool classes of sites in the Andersen collection, Claypool
and Slim Arrow sites removed.
158
Cimarron County, Oklahoma and Dallam County, Texas
Assemblage diversity was only calculated for the Nall site from the Baker sample. Many of the
Baker sites contain abundant tool assemblages, but the non-projectile point data are difficult to associate
with particular Paleoindian occupations. Many of these sites were repeatedly occupied during the Early
Holocene, but also during the middle and Late Holocene too. This suggests that the area must have
remained a viable landscape for hunter-gathers over a long period.
The Nall site contains multiple Paleoindian occupations, including Clovis, Folsom, Agate Basin,
and Coty, but the vast majority of Paleoindian projectile points are either Plainview or Allen complex tools.
Given that these periods predominate the projectile points, it is generally assumed that they also dominate
the other tool classes. Fieldwork conducted at the site from 1998-2001 was aimed in part at either
confirming or refuting this basic temporal sequence at the site (LaBelle, Holliday, and Meltzer 2003).
Despite the potential problems of mixing, Nall is unlike any other site in the Central Plains. It
simply contains more tools from a greater variety of classes than any other site, including the Claypool site.
Frequencies of various tool classes for the Nall North and South localities are presented in Figure 6.9. The
two localities are separated by only a quarter mile and are situated along the side of a presently dry playa
lake (Baker et al. 1957). As is seen, projectile points dominate the assemblages, but other tool forms are
common, including bifaces, end scrapers, drills, and gravers.
Nall North contains more tools than Nall South, but the two share similarities in the overall
evenness of tools. For example, the two locales have similar percentages between tool classes (Figure
6.10). The two locales were probably used in much the same way, as general camps situated alongside a
lake, where tool were being repaired, small ambush kill were probably made on animals, and plants were
probably gathered.
What drew foragers to this location over time, or to the Panhandle in general? Recall that in
Chapter 3, I identified this area as containing some of the largest and deepest playas of the
Southern/Central Plains. This combined with the fact that there was a spring on the northwestern side of
the Nall playa, probably acted as a magnet to Paleoindian foragers throughout the Early Holocene.
159
250
Nall North
Nall South
200
150
Frequency
100
50
0
t
ife
ne
ES
SS
er
ce
ge
er
r
flk
flk
m
e
ril
in
to
or
on
or
pp
th
D
Po
Kn
fa
ou
to
ra
til
h
C
st
O
ef
tc
Bi
ds
ho
U
fo
G
oj
er
Pr
R
er
un
Pr
m
r/P
ro
am
G
ve
H
ra
G
Tool Class
Figure 6.9: Frequencies of tool classes from the Nall North and South sites, Cimarron County, Oklahoma.
70
Nall North
Nall South
60
50
Percent of Total
40
30
20
10
0
t
ife
l
ce
ES
SS
r
ge
e
r
m
e
ril
in
to
e
on
or
on
or
pp
D
Po
Kn
fa
ou
ra
st
ef
Bi
ds
ho
fo
G
oj
er
Pr
er
un
Pr
m
r/P
ro
am
G
ve
H
ra
G
Tool Type
Figure 6.10: Percentages of tool classes from the Nall North and South sites, Cimarron County, Oklahoma.
160
Range in Projectile Point Frequency
Given the inherent problems in comparing assemblage data from excavated sites with those of
surface sites, it might be more reasonable to use a measure that can be compared across all sites, that is of
projectile point frequency. The tools are readily identifiable, often temporally diagnostic, and can occur in
great quantities at sites.
Central Plains
There is a large degree of variance in the number of projectile points recovered per site from the
Central Plains, with most containing a few points at most (Figure 6.11, Table 6.7). Nearly a third of the
sites (31%) contain zero or one projectile point, and almost 75% of the sites contain 10 or fewer projectile
points. Large sites are not as common, with a little over 23% of the sites containing 11 points per site.
Some of these large sites probably represent repeated occupations (Muncy), but others are large bison
kills/processing sites (Jones-Miller, James Allen) or campsites (Jurgens, Claypool, Fourth of July Valley).
The average number of points per sites is 12.9, although this has a high standard deviation of 30.4 points
per site. Median and mode points per site are 4 and 0 respectively. Large sites, once again, are the sites
used as the archetypal Paleoindian site and adaptation, despite the fact that they are not at all that common.
Table 6.7: Number of projectile points recovered per site from locales in the Central Plains.
Number Number Percent Cumulative Percent of

of Points of Sites of Total Total
0-1 16 31.4 31.4
2-5 16 31.4 62.7
6-10 6 11.8 74.5
11-15 2 3.9 78.4
16-20 3 5.9 84.3
21-25 1 2.0 86.3
26-30 3 5.9 92.2
31+ 4 7.8 100.0
51 100.0
161
Some of this variability might be explained by excavation sample size. There is a positive
relationship (r2=0.6316) between the number of points recovered and the excavation area (Figure 6.12).
But it does not hold that simply opening up larger areas of sites (or waiting for them to deflate) will yield
more projectile pints. Many of these sites represent nearly exhausted localities, excavated or collected until
they did not yield any more tools. There is a chance that tools remaining intact at many of these sites, but
in general most of these sites were abandoned after a large portion of the site had been excavated.
The variability in the number of points per m2 might relate to systemic differences in the use and
reoccupation of the site, in regards to kill site versus campsite and single occupation versus multiple
reoccupations. Sites with excavation areas larger than 10 m2 are displayed on the left side of Figure 6.13,
whereas those to the right have excavation areas smaller than 10 m2. For sites with large excavation areas,
the sites range from almost 0.5 points per m2 down to a low of 0 points per m2. This represents a
tremendous variability, where Claypool contains nearly 17 times the density of points per m2 as compared
to the Frazier site. There is no apparent pattern explicitly related to site type, as some kills and camps have
high densities, whereas other kills have low densities. Many factors might affect variability in point
density, including the time of year of occupation, scavenging of broken tools to take elsewhere, carcass
density, etc. (Hofman 1999a).
162
Number of Projectile Points Number of Projectile Points
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
Allen OLII
Gordon Creek
Lime Creek Zone II

Red Smoke Zone 78
Red Smoke Zone 80
Red Smoke Zone 83
Red Smoke Zone 92

Walsh
Buffman
100
Burntwood Creek
Cumro
Laird
Palo Duro, 41HF84
Pigeon Cliff
Tim Adrian
Wilbur Thomas
Allen IZ
200
LoDaiska
Meserve
Nelson
Red Smoke Zone 90
Red Smoke Zone 91
Spring Gulch
Sunray
163
Fondis
Allen OLI
300
Caribou Lake
Forest Canyon Pass
Site/Component
Lime Creek Zone I
Excavation Area (m2)

Figure 6.11: Projectile point frequency from Central Plains sites.
Lime Creek Zone III
Norton
Scottsbluff
Johnson-Cline
Lamb Spring
400
Magic Mountain
Frasca
Frazier
Lindenmeier (non-Folsom)
2
Jurgens Area 1
Clary Ranch
Hell Gap Frederick Level
R = 0.6316
Fourth of July Valley
500
Jurgens Area 2
Red Smoke Zone 88

Olsen-Chubbuck (bonebed only)
James Allen
Jurgens Area 3
Phillips-Williams Fork Reservoir
Muncy
Jones Miller
Figure 6.12: Scatterplot of projectile point frequency versus excavation area among Central Plains sites.
Claypool
600
1.00
More than 10 m2 excavation area Less than 10 m2 excavation area
0.75
Projectile Points per m2
0.50
0.25
0.00
Palo Duro, 41HF84

Fourth of July Valley
Claypool
Jones Miller
Olsen-Chubbuck (bonebed only)
Pigeon Cliff
Frazier
Gordon Creek
Lamb Spring
Red Smoke Zone 88
Caribou Lake
Red Smoke Zone 92
Red Smoke Zone 83
Norton
Red Smoke Zone 90
Red Smoke Zone 91
Laird
Red Smoke Zone 80
Red Smoke Zone 78

Jurgens Area 1
Jurgens Area 3
Jurgens Area 2
Lime Creek Zone I
Lime Creek Zone III
Lime Creek Zone II

Frasca
James Allen
Wilbur Thomas
Site/Component
2
Figure 6.13: Projectile points per m from sites in the Central Plains.
Yuma and Washington Counties, Colorado
Projectile points are also common on sites within the Andersen collection from northeastern
Colorado. This is not unexpected given this is how most of the sites were defined in the first place.
Almost 90% of the sites contain less than 10 points per site, with 35% containing only a single projectile
point or none at all (Table 6.8, Figure 6.14).
Table 6.8: Number of projectile points recovered from Andersen sites, Yuma and Washington Counties,
Colorado.
Number Number Percent Cumulative Percent of

of Points of Sites of Total Total
0-1 22 34.9 34.9
2-5 25 39.7 74.6
6-10 8 12.7 87.3
11-15 3 4.8 92.1
16-20 2 3.2 95.2
21-25 1 1.6 96.8
26-30 0 0.0 96.8
31+ 2 3.2 100.0
63 100.0
164
Only three sites contain more than 20 points, including the Silvius campsite (Site #24), the Slim
Arrow bison kill (Site #4), the Claypool campsite (Site #64). Recall that the Claypool site was included
within the published sample from the Central Plains and it dominated that sample in regards to projectile
point assemblage size and points per m2. The Slim Arrow site is like other Paleoindian kills, with large
number of points as compared to other site types. The Andersen sample is quite similar to the other Central
Plains data, in that most sites are small and probably reflect short-term, possibly specialized function uses.
There is a negative relationship between tool class richness and the percent of projectile points
making up the assemblage (Figure 6.15). This makes intuitive sense, as the number of potential activities
increased on sites, the dominance of single function sites decrease (as represented by projectile points).
200
180
160
140
Number of Projectile Points
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
7
46
23
3
18
19
20
26
31
35
39
42
45
47
49
51
55
57
62
65
66
58
6
36
37
53
59
15
21
29
48
50
14
25
32
38
52
54
13
40
33
34
63
60
43
8
11
2
16
9
22
28
44
56
61
41
5
1
12
10
24
4
64
Andersen Site
Figure 6.14: Number of projectile points per Andersen site from Washington and Yuma Counties,
Colorado.
165
120
100
Projectile Point Percentage of Assemblage
80
60
40
2
R = 0.5347
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Tool Classes Present (Richness)
Figure 6.15: Scatterplot of tool richness versus projectile point percentage among Andersen sites from
Washington and Yuma Counties, Colorado.
Cimarron County, Oklahoma and Dallam County, Texas
The Baker data from the Panhandles and Northeastern New Mexico contain a large number of
projectile points, of course dominated by the Nall site. A few other sites contain more than 10 points (1T
and 3T for example), but most sites (72%) containing 10 or fewer points per site (Table 6.9, Figure 6.16).
The Nall site dominates the sample, with 379 points/point fragments from the site, as well as reworked
points turned into drills and other tools.
166
Table 6.9: Number of projectile points recovered from Baker sites, Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles and
Northeastern New Mexico.
Number Number Percent Cumulative Percent

of Points of Sites of Total of Total
0-1 7 28.0 28.0
2-5 10 40.0 68.0
6-10 1 4.0 72.0
11-15 3 12.0 84.0
16-20 1 4.0 88.0
21-25 0 0.0 88.0
26-30 1 4.0 92.0
31+ 2 8.0 100.0
25 100.0
400
350
300
Number of Projectile Points
250
200
150
100
50
0
2
h
n
N orth
al
1
R k2
ud
8T
7T
4T
5T
6T
2T
1T
al 3T
ch
T
o 17T
ey T
T
te 16T
ey T
oc oga
N out
ri z
11
14
15
13
ot
os
os
ek
an
eb
Bu 1
Bu 1
e
ar
lT
lN
er
er
re
re
lS
R
L
os
-C
al
C
al
k
zo
N
riz
U
R
ri
ar
ar
C
Baker Site
Figure 6.16: Number of projectile points per Baker site, Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles and Northeastern
New Mexico.
167
Assemblage Diversity from Beyond the Central Plains
I now move beyond the Central Plains for assemblage comparison with other regions. The Central
Plains data suggested that most sites contained only a few tools or projectile points, with an occasional
large Paleoindian site. It follows that other regions should show similar patterns if they are being used in
similar ways.
Texas High Plains Clovis
Meltzer summarized (1987; Meltzer and Bever 1995) the Clovis record of Texas based primarily
on surface finds reported by professionals and amateurs. Meltzer and Bever report 109 Clovis points from
the Panhandle Plains region of Texas (1995:61). Of these, 50 points have sufficient provenience to assess
site context. Isolated finds make up 35% of the sample, small surface scatters account for 58%, and Clovis
sites are the rarest type constituting only 7% of the sample. The high incidence of isolated finds and small
sites in the Panhandle is statistically distinct from other areas such as Central Texas (Meltzer and Bever
1995:62-63), suggesting that landscape use probably differed between environmentally distinct zones. For
instance, most High Plains occupations were ephemeral and task specific, thereby leaving only small traces
of activity. Sites within particularly bountiful and diverse ecotones yield different assemblages, including
substantial campsites and workshops, such as the Gault site (Collins 1999; Collins and Hester 1998).
Southern High Plains Paleoecology Project
Hester summarized the Paleoindian record of the Southern High Plains as part of the High Plains
Paleoecological Program (Hester 1972, 1975a,b; Hester and Grady 1977; Wendorf and Hester 1962, 1975).
Hester reported high rates of isolated finds on the Llano Estacado (Hester 1975a:Table 13-1). Clovis
contains the highest frequency of isolated points (44%), followed by late Paleoindian complexes (42%),
and Folsom with a 39% rate of isolated finds (Table 6.10). In general, the three periods contained similar
percentages of site types (acknowledging that all site types are simplified into only three types). This
suggests that the landscape was probably used in similar ways throughout the Late Pleistocene and Early
Holocene, dominated by small sites and abundant isolated finds.
168
Table 6.10: Site type frequencies from the Llano Estacado (calculated from Hester 1975a:Table 13-1).
Percent of
Site Late Percent of Percent of Late
Clovis Folsom
Type Paleoindian Clovis Sites Folsom Sites Paleoindian
Sites
Camp 8 15 18 34.8 41.7 34.6
Kill 5 7 12 21.7 19.4 23.1
Isolated Find 10 14 22 43.5 38.9 42.3
Total
23 36 52 100.0 100.0 100.0
Occurrences
Gaines County, Texas
Polyak and Williams (1986) published illustrations and metric descriptions of 360 Paleoindian
tools held in private collections mostly in Gaines County, Texas. The county is located near the southern
boundary of the Llano Estacado, along the Texas-New Mexico border. A portion of the county is located
within a dune field, probably accounting for the unusually high frequency of Paleoindian tools. Polyak and
Williams recorded only a portion of the known surface collections from the county, further demonstrating
that Paleoindian sites are quite abundant in some regions of the Plains. The tools are mostly projectile
points, although there are some preforms, projectile point/knives, as well as some heavily reworked drill-
like forms. The tools represent the spectrum of Paleoindian complexes, from Clovis to Allen in age. The
authors did not specify the types, although many can be identified from the illustrations. I have not chosen
to do so here, as I was not able to physically examine the collections.
Nearly 38% (136/360) of the tools are identified to 72 specific sites in Gaines County (354 tools),
the adjacent Terry County (5 tools), or an unidentified county (1 tool). The majority of these sites are small
(Table 6.11), with 83% yielding less than two projectile points per site and most sites (65%) containing
only a single projectile point. It is not known whether non-projectile tools and/or later complexes were also
recovered from these sites, but regardless, the Paleoindian components are definitely small.
There are several sites larger sites, containing more than three points and ranging to a high of 13
points from a single site. Eighty-two percent of the sites contain 10 or fewer projectile points. Sites with
eleven or more points make up less than 10% of the sites with good provenience, yet they account for 46%
of the entire point sample. This is a common phenomenon in Paleoindian regional studies, where there is a
169
high ubiquity of sites but most sites contain small assemblages (cf. arguments presented in Andrews,
Seebach and LaBelle 2003). The majority of the tools come from only a few sites in any given region.
Table 6.11: Number of Paleoindian projectile points per site in Gaines County, Texas
(calculated from Polyak and Williams 1986).
Cumulative Cumulative
Number Number Percent Sum Number
Percent of Percent of
of Points of Sites of Total of Points
Sites Points
1 47 65.3 65.3 47 34.6
2 13 18.1 83.3 26 53.7
3 5 6.9 90.3 15 64.7
4 4 5.6 95.8 16 76.5
8 1 1.4 97.2 8 82.4
11 1 1.4 98.6 11 90.4
13 1 1.4 100 13 100
Total 72 100
Judge Data from the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico
Judge (1973) summarized the Paleoindian occupation of the Middle Rio Grande Valley of central
New Mexico, based on his own survey and excavation as well as examination of amateur collections.
Judge divided his data into two analytical types, sites and localities, defining each based on the recovered
assemblage size. A locality is defined as a find spot that yielded less than 2% of the total artifacts recorded
for that particular complex (Judge 1973:62). Sites would be the loci yielding more than 25 of the total
artifacts. This dichotomy split the sample into small and large sites.
Localities make up the minority of all occurrences (Table 6.12), ranging from 31% of Belen find
spots to a high of 50% for Clovis (although Clovis has a small sample size). Cody and Folsom also have a
high number of localities, ranging between 44 to 48% of all occurrences.
170
Judge published assemblage totals for each of the sites, but the data were not provided for the
localities, it is assumed that many are probably isolated finds. The Judge data are similar to the other
regional samples, documenting an abundance of small sites and isolated finds.
The summary statistics for the Judge sites are presented in Table 6.13-6.15, documenting the
Folsom, Belen, and Cody complexes respectively. The values are summarized regardless of site function,
which would have varied between locales. As well, the mean and median sizes of these assemblages would
decrease if the smaller localities were included in these totals. Nevertheless, the data provide a range of
assemblage sizes between the three cultural complexes.
Table 6.12: Paleoindian sites and complexes of the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico
(calculated from Judge 1973:Figure 4a).
Percent Percent
Complex Localities Sites Total
Localities Sites
Clovis 1 1 2 50 50
Folsom 14 15 29 48.3 51.7
Belen 4 9 13 30.8 69.2
Cody 4 5 9 44.4 55.6
Other 3 3 6 50 50
Total 26 33 59
Table 6.13: Site assemblage characteristics for Folsom sites (n=15) in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of
New Mexico (modified from Judge 1973:Table 3).
Projectile End Side Channel Chisel Spoke- Utility Site

Preforms Knives Gravers Drills
Points Scrapers Scrapers Flakes Gravers shaves Flakes Total
Total 116 129 308 83 48 217 80 6 0 11 24 1022
Median 4 6 13 2 1 18 2 0 0 0 0 461
Mean 8 9 21 6 3 14 5 0 0 1 2 681
1
The median and mean number of tools per site drop to 28 and 54 respectively, if channel flakes are
removed from the assemblage total (and thus standardizing against the Belen and Cody totals).
171
Table 6.14: Site assemblage characteristics for Belen sites (n=9) in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New
Mexico (modified from Judge 1973:Table 3).
Projectile End Side Chisel Spoke- Utility Site

points scrapers scrapers Gravers shaves Flakes Total
Total 29 9 139 31 8 16 3 0 7 4 246
Median 2 0 14 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 20
Mean 3 1 15 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 27
Table 6.15: Site assemblage characteristics for Cody sites (n=5) in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New
Mexico (modified from Judge 1973:Table 3).
Projectile End Side Chisel Spoke- Utility Site

points scrapers scrapers Gravers shaves Flakes Total
Total 25 5 93 15 11 8 1 3 4 2 166
Median 5 0 17 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 27
Mean 5 1 19 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 33
Folsom sites are the largest of the three, even when channel flakes are removed from the sample.
Folsom also has the largest mean number of tools across most artifact classes, including preforms, gravers,
and channel flakes. The lower frequencies of Belen and Cody preforms can partly be explained by the
readily identifiable Folsom preforms, as more Folsom preforms were probably identified than for other
complexes.
The number of points averages between 3 to 8 per site, with median values ranging from 2 to 5.
Sites in the Middle Rio Grande Valley average much larger than others outside the region. A large part of
this is due to the lack of small sites (localities) included in the sample. And given the general mixing of
cultural components in nearly every other region, one wonders whether all the documented tools are
associated with the respective Paleoindian complexes. Judge (see Chapter 8) documented that most of
these sites are single component sites, so perhaps these sites truly are large and unmixed.
172
25
Folsom
Belen
Cody
20
15
Mean Value
10
e
t
r
ife
l
r
ve
m
ri l
in
pe
pe
ve
ve
ak
ak
or
D
Po
Kn
ha
ra
ra
ra
ra
Fl
Fl
ef
es
G
lG
Sc
Sc
Pr
ity
el
ok
nn
se
til
d
de
Sp
En
U
hi
ha
Si
C
C
Tool Type
Figure 6.17: Mean values of tool classes among Folsom, Belen, and Cody complexes of the Judge study in
Central New Mexico.
173
Baker Data from the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico
I obtained a large database of Paleoindian sites from the Tony Baker collection (Tony Baker,
personal communication 2001) as a comparison to the Judge sample. The Tony Baker data, also from the
Middle Rio Grande Valley, include surface sites collected since the 1960s until the present day. Judge
utilized a portion of the Baker data in his original analysis (Judge 1973:iv), however the Tony Baker
database is more inclusive, incorporating both large and small sites that were surface collected over a larger
period.
The vast majority of sites contain but a few projectile points, with the median and mode values for
Paleoindian complexes being only a single point. The average varies between 2 to 4 points per site,
depending upon the complex (Table 6.16, Figure 6.18). These summary values are smaller than those
presented by Judge, and believed to be a more accurate representation of the size of sites in the region.
Like other regions, most sites in the Middle Rio Grande Valley are small, short-term occupations.
Table 6.16: Summary statistics on the number of projectile points by complex in the Middle Rio Grande of
New Mexico (calculated from the Tony Baker collection).
Total
Number of Number of
Complex Mean Median Mode
Sites Projectile
Points
Clovis 8 31 3.9 1 1
Folsom/Midland 41 110 2.7 1 1
Agate Basin 5 7 1.4 1 1
Plainview/Belen 19 61 3.2 1 1
Cody 27 71 2.6 1 1
Jay
47 87 1.9 1 1
(Early Archaic)
174
4.5 50
4 45
40
3.5
Mean number of projectile points per site
35
3
30
Number of Sites
2.5
25
2
20
1.5
Mean PP 15
# Sites
1
10
0.5 5
0 0
Clovis Folsom/Midland Agate Basin Plainview/Belen Cody Jay
Complex
Figure 6.18: Mean number of projectile points and total number of sites per Paleoindian complex
documented in Central New Mexico (calculated from the Tony Baker collection).
Southern High Plains Folsom
Hofman has also discussed variability in Folsom assemblages in a series of influential papers
(1991, 1992, 1994c, 1999a,b). In a recent work, Hofman (1999:Table 2) provided counts of tools for 40
sites from the Southern Plains. In some cases, artifact types were noted as present on-site, but not
tabulated, due to the inherent difficulty in assigning temporal affiliation to non-temporally diagnostic tools
recovered from multi-component sites.
The summary statistics for the Folsom assemblages are presented in Table 6.17. These sites tend
to be larger than other samples previously discussed, in part due to the drawn sample, which does not
contain isolated finds. As well, the dataset uses several sites containing multiple Folsom occupations, such
as Chispa Creek, Scharbauer, and Blackwater Draw. In these cases, the occupations are summed for the
entire site. Despite these large samples, there are several important trends.
175
The average number of projectile points, scrapers, and channel flakes are higher than most other
regions. However, the median and mode values are much lower, demonstrating the highly variable nature
of the sample. As well, the large standard deviations for each tool class also suggest the sites were drawn
from a wide population.
Table 6.17: Summary statistics for Folsom sites, Southern High Plains (calculated from Hofman 1999b).
Tool Sample
Mean Median Mode StDev n
Class Total
Point 576 14.4 5 2 18.4 40
Preform 214 5.6 1 0 11.0 38
Scraper 738 49.2 11 0 81.3 15
Channel Flake 556 25.3 1 0 87.4 22
Graver 72 4.2 0 0 8.0 17
Flake 9285 1031.7 104 17 1911.8 9
Total Artifacts 2129 60.8 7 2 128.2 35
Furthermore, most sites are small in size in regards to the number of projectile points per site
(Table 6.18). Nearly 63% of the sites contain 10 or less projectile points, with most (55%) containing less
than 5 total (Figure 6.19). Only a few sites, the big camps and kills, contain more than 16 projectile points
per site. These sites are well known in the literature (Folsom, Cooper, Lipscomb, Shifting Sands,
Blackwater Draw). Overall assemblage sizes are also small (Table 6.19). The majority (80%) of sites
contain fewer than 50 tools, with many sites containing less than 10 tools (Figure 6.20). There are also
large sites in the sample, ranging from 100 to over 500 tools per site. These sites, however, are not the
norm but rather the exception. Several of these large sites are known to contain multiple Folsom
occupations (Blackwater Draw, Chispa Creek), thus the tool counts are inflated above the normal expected
assemblage size.
176
Table 6.18: Number of projectile points recovered per site from Folsom sites, Southern High Plains
(tabulated from data presented in Hofman 1999b:Table 2).

of Points of Sites of Total of Total
1 3 7.5 7.5
2-5 19 47.5 55.0
6-10 3 7.5 62.5
11-15 1 2.5 65.0
16-20 4 10.0 75.0
21-25 1 2.5 77.5
26-30 3 7.5 85.0
31+ 6 15.0 100.0
40
20
18
16
14
12
Number of Sites
10
0
1 2-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31+
Number of Projectile Points Per Site
Figure 6.19: Number of projectile points per site in the Hofman Folsom sample, Southern High Plains.
177
Table 6.19: Assemblage size of Folsom sites, Southern High Plains (tabulated from data presented in
Hofman 1999b:Table 2).

of Artifacts of Sites of Total of Total
1-5 15 42.9 42.9
6-10 4 11.4 54.3
11-20 3 8.6 62.9
21-30 2 5.7 68.6
31-40 2 5.7 74.3
41-50 2 5.7 80.0
51-60 0 0.0 80.0
61-70 0 0.0 80.0
71-80 0 0.0 80.0
81-90 1 2.9 82.9
91-100 2 5.7 88.6
101-200 1 2.9 91.4
201-300 0 0.0 91.4
301-400 0 0.0 91.4
401-500 2 5.7 97.1
501+ 1 2.9 100.0
35
16
14
12
10
Number of Sites
0
00
1+
5
10
0
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
20
30
40
50
1-
-1
6-
50
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
1-
1-
1-
1-
91
10
20
30
40
Total Number of Tools Per Site
Figure 6.20: Number of tools per site in the Hofman Folsom sample, Southern High Plains.
178
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this Chapter was to define some of the basic properties of assemblage variability
among Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains. This was accomplished in several ways, including an
examination of the range in assemblage size and richness/evenness of tool classes among a group of
prominent sites on the Central Plains, as well as sites in the Baker and Andersen collections. As some data
are biased from collection practices, frequencies of projectile points were also examined for comparison.
Several important trends were noted.
First, formal tools (such as projectile points and end scrapers) dominate sites from excavated
contexts; in some cases bifaces are common from sites located near raw material sources. We should
expect that differences in tool frequency, richness, and evenness would be manifest according to site types,
the duration of occupation, and the site location on the landscape. I presented evidence that some sites
appear to be more intensively occupied than others, for example those camp sites containing high tool
densities and large assemblage sizes, such as Red Smoke 88, Jurgens 1 and 2, and Lime Creek Zone I. As
well, there is a positive correlation between assemblage size and tool richness, which is probably
independent of excavation size. While it is true that sites with larger excavation areas tend to have more
tools, it appears that these sites really are larger and actually do contain more tool classes (and tools) than
those smaller sites.
Most sites are quite small in regards to projectile point frequencies. Regardless of the dataset in
question, the vast majority of sites contain less than 10 points and most have many less, often around one
per site. This combined with the isolate data presented in Chapter 4, suggests an uneven representation of
sites across the landscape. The Paleoindian countryside is littered with tons of small sites, with only the
occasional site containing a larger number of points and/or a robust assemblage. So what do these large
sites, such as Nall, represent? I suggested that at least some of these sites are the remains of long-term
occupations of weeks (rather than days), as well as repeated visits by the same group, and reoccupation
through time. Many of these large sites are located within particularly rich ecotones, where plant, animal,
and lithic raw material sources are abundant. Several of these characteristics of site use will be explored in
the next Chapter.
179
Comparison of the Central Plains data to sites outside the region suggest that many of these
patterns are similar across large space, at least when viewing the Southern Plains and the Southwest. This
suggests that the areas were used in much the same way, with many short-term locations scattered around a
few larger occupations. Whether this relates to a logistical type of organization is beyond the scope of this
study, but suffice to say, the evidence from the Plains and Southwest does not suggest one of leap-frogging
from bison kill to bison kill, with all sites being the same function, size, and placement across the
landscape. These data have profound implications for reshaping our models of Paleoindian mobility and
settlement strategies.
180
Chapter 7
INTENSITY AND DURATION OF SITE OCCUPATION
In this Chapter, I present evidence demonstrating variability in the subsistence and domestic
realms of Paleoindian hunter-gatherers in the Central Plains and adjacent regions. Three lines of evidence
illustrate varying degrees in the intensity and duration of site use, including the presence and abundance of
plant and animal remains, the presence and abundance of thermal features such as hearths, and the overall
lack of Paleoindian structures or housing.
These datasets are examined at different scales, beginning in the Central Plains with an
examination of subsistence data, followed by a pan-regional perspective on hearth use, and then finally to a
continental scale documenting early examples of housing. Moving between scales is necessary because the
amount and quality of data vary within each of these realms. Therefore, I have shifted the geographic scale
in order to collect a large enough sample to examine meaningful patterns. In the end, this proved to be a
good strategy because the overall rarity of certain types of data within the Great Plains proper suggest that
multiple organizational strategies occurred not only within regions, but also between regions. Thus,
examination of only one type of data – or at one scale – would affectively preclude observing these
differences in system organization.
Faunal Procurement During the Early Holocene
I begin with patterns in faunal procurement by Paleoindians in the Central Plains. Several lines of
evidence are used to show varying types of land use strategies within the study area, including species
richness, abundance of bison, and the season of occupation for each component. Together, these datasets
suggest differential use of ecological zones within the study area. Rather than indicating a pan-regional
subsistence practice, the data suggest that hunter-gatherers instead changed their food procurement
181
strategies depending upon where they were on the landscape at the given moment and possibly where they
planned to move next.
I selected a sample of 29 components from 22 sites in the Central Plains (Table 7.1), many of
which were discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. The sites represent those localities for which faunal data were
available in quantified form, as well as in good context.
Each of the sites has undergone different taphonomic and research histories, which has affected
the comparability of the data in some ways. The quality of the faunal data are quite variable, owing to
several factors. First, many sites were initially surface discoveries and the accompanying bone was often in
poor condition, having been exposed on the surface for periods of time during the Holocene. For example,
the faunal record is poor (at best) from the Baker and Andersen sites, as most of these sites are from eolian-
deflated contexts. Recent work at the Slim Arrow site, at one time a large bison bonebed, revealed highly
fragmented bison bone, with most pieces smaller than 2 cm in maximum dimension (LaBelle 2002).
An additional problem is that many of these sites were excavated in the mid 20th century (1940s-
1960s), for example the Medicine Creek sites (Allen, Lime Creek, and Red Smoke) of western Nebraska
(Davis 1962; Bamforth 2002b; Knudson 2002, Roper 2002) and Hell Gap in eastern Wyoming (Irwin-
Williams et al. 1973). Current methodologies in field collection and laboratory analysis of faunal remains
are quite different from those at the time of excavation. Thus, there are many cases where non-identifiable
(or non-complete) bone was not collected in the field or was not saved after initial analysis. Additionally,
inadequate collections curation has led to provenience information being lost due to inadvertent mixing of
specimens, loss of records and field notes, storage bags disintegrating from various types of damage (water,
rodents, and insects), etc.
Within the last fifteen years, there has been a surge of zooarchaeological work aimed at analyzing
these older site collections (e.g., Borresen 2002; Byers 2001; Jones 1999; M.E. Hill 1994; M.G. Hill 1994,
2001; Meltzer et al. 2002). It is encouraging that faunal analysts have begun to draw provocative patterns
from the data, despite some of the inherent problems with these assemblages, such as the poor provenience
or only limited samples of curated bone.
182
Species Richness
In terms of this discussion, the primary variable of interest is species richness, which records the
presence of a species in a component (rather than its relative abundance). Various cultural and non-cultural
processes affect species richness, including the site location, the procurement strategies of the prehistoric
foragers, various site formation processes affecting the tempo of burial, and the recovery techniques of the
archaeologists, among others.
Species present in the study sample are presented in Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1. I have summarized
the faunal data into animal orders for ease in comparison. The sites are arrayed in terms of increasing
richness, from only a single species recovered (9 components) to upwards of 54 species recovered from the
Jones-Miller site. Bison are present in every component of the sample and are nearly always the dominant
species in abundance. Clearly bison clearly played a pivotal role in Plains Paleoindian subsistence (Hill
2001; Hofman and Todd 2001; Jodry 1999; Kelly and Todd 1987), a point that I will address later in the
Chapter.
Yet, despite the dominance of bison in these sites, other large-bodied mammalian species
commonly occur (Table 7.2, Figure 7.2), including pronghorn (44.8%), deer (41.4%), and other artiodactyls
such as elk and moose (13.8%). Smaller body classes are also present at many sites, including rodents
(48.3%), lagomorphs (31.0%), insectivores (6.9%) and carnivores (41.4%). Additionally, non-mammalian
fauna were recovered (Table 7.3, Figure 7.2), including birds (34.5%), reptiles (27.6%), fish (20.7%), and
amphibians (17.2%).
There is a wide range in the number of mammalian species present at each site (Table 7.1, Figure
7.2). The mean number is 6.2, yet this can be slightly misleading with a standard deviation of 8.2 species
per site. The median and mode of mammalian species is 3 and 1, respectively. Deer and pronghorn are
common at these sites, as are carnivores. Whether they all represent food remains is debatable, but
Paleoindian foragers probably pursued these species given their large package size, at least based on
behavior noted among modern hunter-gatherer populations (Kelly 1995).
183
Table 7.1: Summary counts of animal orders recovered from excavated components in the Central Plains.
Site Mammal Bird Fish Amphibian Reptile Total Reference

Burntwood Creek 1 0 0 0 0 1 Hill et al. 1992
Cumro 1 0 0 0 0 1 Schultz 1932
James Allen 1 0 0 0 0 1 Mulloy 1959:114
Laird 1 0 0 0 0 1 Hofman and Blackmar 1997:49
Lamb Spring,
1 0 0 0 0 1 McCartney 1983:4
Cody component.
Lime Creek Zone II 1 0 0 0 0 1 Jones 1999:Table 6
Meserve and Barbour 1932:240;
Meserve 1 0 0 0 0 1
Schultz 1932
Pigeon Cliff 1 0 0 0 0 1 Steen 1976:34
Scottsbluff 1 0 0 0 0 1 Barbour and Schultz 1932
Widga et al. 2002;
Winger 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ryan et al. 2002
Frasca (Areas 1 and 2
2 0 0 0 0 2 Fulgham and Stanford 1982:5
combined)
Norton 2 0 0 0 0 2 Hofman et al. 1995:20
Davis 1953:383;
Red Smoke 2 0 0 0 0 2
Knudson 2002:96
Dick and Mountain 1960:234;
Claypool 3 0 0 0 0 3
Mountain 1953b
Hell Gap, Locality II,
3 0 0 0 0 3 Byers 2001
Agate Basin component
Olsen-Chubbuck 3 0 0 0 0 3 Wheat 1972:84
Lime Creek Zone III 4 0 0 0 0 4 Jones 1999:Table 6
Borresen 2002:40;
Frazier 6 0 0 0 0 6
Wormington 1988:82
Hell Gap, Locality I, Laura Niven, personal
Cody-Frederick 5 1 0 0 0 6 communication 1998;
component Rapson and Niven 2002
Jurgens Area 2 5 1 0 0 0 6 Wheat 1979:38, Table 8
Jurgens Area 3 8 0 0 0 0 8 Wheat 1979:59-60, Table 19
Clary Ranch 7 5 1 0 1 14 Hill 2001:173
Lime Creek Zone I 12 2 0 0 1 15 Jones 1999:Table 6
Horace Riversa 10 1 1 1 3 16 Mallouf and Mandel 1997:51-52
Jurgens Area 1b 14 3 1 0 1 19 Wheat 1979:30-32, Table 7
Bamforth 1991:364;
Allen Intermediate 13 6 1 2 2 24
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Bamforth 1991:364;
Allen OL1 15 6 0 3 3 27
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Bamforth 1991:364;
Allen OL2 15 5 1 2 5 28
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Jones-Miller 41 1 1 3 9 55 Stanford 1984:622-623
Sum 180 31 6 11 25 253
Mean 6.2 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 8.7
StDev 8.2 1.9 0.4 0.9 2.0 12.2
Median 3 0 0 0 0 3
Mode 1 0 0 0 0 1
a
Over 50 species listed in total (Mallouf and Mandel 1997:51), but details were not provided in the
original report.
b
Could contain up to 3 carnivores according to Wheat (1979:Table 7).
184
185
Total Species Recovered

B
.C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
re
ek
C
um
r
J. o
A
lle
n
La
L. ird
Sp
L. ring
C
re
ek
M 2
es
er
ve
P.
C
Sc l
ot iff
ts
bl
uf
W f
in
ge
r
Fr
as
ca
N
or
R to
.S n
m
ok
H C e
. G lay
ap po
A o
.B l
O
Figure 7.1. Total species representation at Paleoindian sites on the Central Plains.
-C as
hu in
bb
L. uc
C k
re
H e k
.G 3
ap Fra
C z
od ier
y/
F
Ju red
rg
en
Ju s
rg 2
en
C s
.R 3
an
L. ch
C
re
ek
H
.R 1
iv
Ju ers
rg
en
A s
lle 1
n
In
te
r
Bird
Fish
A
lle
Reptile
n
Mammal
1
A
Amphibian
lle
n
J- 2
M
ill
er
60
50
Percent of all site components
40
30
20
10
ns
es
es
s
se
sh
s
rn
r
ee
ve
ph
re
t
en
or
til
ia
oo
Fi
vo
D
gh
A
or
ib
ep
od
iv
M
ni
ph
on
ct
R
k/
R
ar
go
se
El
m
Pr
La
In
A
Figure 7.2. Types of fauna documented at Paleoindian sites from the Central Plains.
The high frequency of carnivores (nearly all canids) is intriguing and might represent the remains
of scavengers killed by the hunter-gatherers, viewed as pests, competitors, or potential food sources. In
some cases, they might represent the remains of domesticated dogs or wolf-hybrids which is an issue of
considerable debate (cf. Buenger 1999; Morey 1990; Walker and Frison 1982).
Non-mammalian species are less common, with birds at slightly over one species on average per
site. Reptiles, amphibians, and fish and amphibians are even scarcer, averaging below one species per site.
It is difficult to determine how many of these are related to food procurement versus inclusion into the site
deposits by other cultural and non-cultural means. The Lime Creek site provides good evidence that
avifauna were occasional utilized for food, as Jones (1999:Table 8) documented bird bones with green bone
breaks (NISP=56, 45%) and low amounts of cutmarks (NISP=2, 1.6%) and burning (NISP=1, 0.8%).
186
Table 7.2: Mammalian orders recovered from components in the Central Plains.
Fauna Number of Species Number of Components Percent of Components

Bison
0 0 0.0
1 29 100.0
Rodent
0 15 51.7
1 2 6.9
2 3 10.3
3 3 10.3
5 1 3.4
6 3 10.3
7 1 3.4
22 1 3.4
Pronghorn
0 16 55.2
1 12 41.4
Possible 1 3.4
Deer
0 17 58.6
1 11 37.9
Possible 1 3.4
Carnivore
0 17 58.6
1 4 13.8
2 2 6.9
3 5 17.2
9 1 3.4
Lagomorph
0 20 69.0
1 4 13.8
2 5 17.2
Other
(Moose, elk) 0 25 86.2
1 3 10.3
2 1 3.4
Insectivore
0 27 93.1
1 1 3.4
6 1 3.4
187
Table 7.3: Non-mammalian fauna recovered from components in the Central Plains.
Fauna Number of Species Number of Components Percent of Components

Aves
0 19 65.5
1 4 13.8
2 1 3.4
3 1 3.4
5 2 6.9
Reptilia
6 2 6.9
0 21 72.4
1 3 10.3
2 1 3.4
3 2 6.9
5 1 3.4
9 1 3.4
Fish
0 23 79.3
1 6 20.7
Amphibia
0 24 82.8
1 1 3.4
2 2 6.9
3 2 6.9
Richness is only a measure of species presence and does not take into consideration the specific
skeletal elements present. It is well noted that in terms of the evenness (or abundance) of species
representation, most of the species listed are generally present in low numbers per component, often times
identified from a few skeletal elements and representing but a handful of individuals. Some of the
specimens possibly represent discarded food remains, where the processing took place elsewhere on or off-
site such that only select elements were carried back to camp. However, other bones were probably used
for tools, such as bone awls (Davis 1962; Irwin-William et al. 1973), as well as an atlatl hook and a deer
antler knapping baton at sites such as Jurgens (Wheat 1979:134-136) (although several accounts of bone
tools at Jurgens seem exaggerated [Wheat 1982], probably reflecting patterns of carnivore attrition or other
taphonomic factors [c.f. Lyman 1994]).
Other species, especially the rodents, amphibians, and reptiles (mostly snakes), are possibly
intrusive or represent the remains of raptor pellets or other carnivore-related activities. For example, Hill
(2001:173) mentions gastric etching on a weasel and a duck specimen from the Clary Ranch site, probably
188
from carnivore digestive tract fluids, strongly suggesting non-cultural origins for the small fauna at this
large bison bonebed.
Finally, excavation and screening techniques also factor in the presence of much of the small
fauna. For example, fine mesh water screening at the Jones-Miller site recovered the most diverse fauna of
any site in the study area (Stanford 1984). Many of the other sites were dry screened (probably with coarse
fractions) or the screening techniques were simply not identified.
Thus, the comparative utility of this faunal dataset is limited given the variance in preservation and
site sampling methods. The patterns identified here will have to be further strengthened with additional
fieldwork aimed at resolving these particular issues.
Discussion of Faunal Richness
Several factors suggest what is conditioning the variability in faunal richness. First, the sites with
the most diverse assemblages are all located on terraces of the primary drainages crossing the Central
Plains, such as the South Platte (Jurgens, Frazier), Arikaree (Jones-Miller), and major tributaries of the
Canadian (Horace Rivers) and Republican Rivers (Allen, Lime Creek). Faunal richness quickly decreases
when moving away from the trunks of these drainages, and up onto the High Plains surface at sites such as
Olsen-Chubbuck (3 species total), Claypool (3), Frasca (2), Laird (1), Norton (1), and Scottsbluff (1).
189
60
Total Species Richness 50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Density of River KM Per HUC
Figure 7.3. Scatterplot of species richness versus HUC river density.
60
50
40
Total Species Richness
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Perennial River KM
Figure 7.4. Scatterplot of species richness versus HUC percentage of permanent water.
190
However, the HUC watershed data described in Chapter 3 do not support this particular
conclusion. Figure 7.3 illustrates the relationship between total species richness and the density of river km
per HUC unit. There is not a clear relationship between the two variables, although many of the sites in the
higher river densities also have higher species richness.
Furthermore, Figure 7.4 documents a pattern that also contradicts the assumption that high species
richness is positively correlated with a high likelihood of water presence. In this figure, total species
richness is arrayed against the percent of all river km (per HUC) that flow year round. There is a negative
relationship between the two variables, with the most diverse faunas located in areas where rivers flow only
seasonally. For example, Jones-Miller is located in a region where -- at least under modern conditions --
water flows nearly exclusively on a seasonal basis.
The location of this particular site might be important in accounting for the discrepancy between
the HUC pattern and that of the species richness. Jones-Miller is located on a terrace immediately adjacent
to the Arikaree River, in an ecotonal area at the time of occupation (Stanford 1999). Thus, while most of
the Arikaree HUC unit is practically devoid of flowing water over most of the year, the Jones-Miller site
benefits from being adjacent to the best water source within the entire HUC. Thus, HUC units might in fact
be too coarse of spatial units in addressing patterns in site level archaeological data versus that summarized
from regional perspectives.
Proximity to riverine resources does not necessarily predict species richness however. For
example, the Frazier site is an Agate Basin bison bonebed (processing and/or kill) that yielded six species,
clearly dominated by bison but also including deer, canid, and three rodent species (Borresen 2002;
Wormington 1988). The site is located along the Kersey Terrace, immediately adjacent (within one km) to
the South Platte River. Yet Frazier presents a much different faunal assemblage than the nearby Jurgens
site (itself located only 1500 m to the east). Jurgens yielded three separate Cody complex locales
containing remarkably diverse faunas, all dominated by bison, but with 19 total at Locality 1, six at
Locality 2, and eight at Locality 3 (Wheat 1979; Hill 2002b).
Given the close temporal and spatial proximity of the Frazier and Jurgens sites (see Chapter 5 for
discussion of their dates), the differences in the faunal assemblages are obviously not a product of
ecological niche breadth alone. More likely, it is a matter of the duration of site occupation (short term at
191
Frazier, longer at Jurgens) and/or the activities conducted on site (bison processing at Frazier and more
varied domestic camp activities at Jurgens). Locating the Frazier campsite would go a long way towards
answering the question at hand, but unfortunately the camp has never been found.
I think what is of primary importance is recognizing the potential for a wider niche breadth in
subsistence resources which are available to hunter-gatherers within riparian zones. Riparian zones contain
abundant food resources that are easily encountered along the river bottoms and lowlands. These resources
might be lower-ranked in a prey-choice model (i.e., Kaplan and Hill 1992), yet they were probably not
ignored during daily short-term forays by children or elderly members of these groups -- common
activities such as gathering wood, plants, and lithic raw materials. Thus, over a long site occupation, many
of these smaller fauna were probably procured and incorporated into the site deposits, which at some of the
larger sites (Allen, Jones-Miller, Jurgens) are probably akin to trash deposits or middens.
Contrast this basic scenario to sites located in the open short grass uplands. In this environment,
the task-specificity (and presumably short occupation span) of bison procurement precludes the acquisition
and/or need for searching for lower-ranked food resources. Smaller fauna are simply not present in these
sites because they were not sought out, encountered, and/or killed during these short trips to the upland
ecotones.
Another point to remember is that these 29 components are the only sites yielding faunal
assemblages in the study area. Yet, as discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, these sites make up but only a small
proportion of the total number of Paleoindian sites within the region. This once again begs the question of
what sort of subsistence related activities were taking place at all the other sites that make up the vast
majority of the system. This is what Hofman and Todd (2001) label the “tyranny” of the Paleoindian
record, because the sites that would be the most meaningful in confirming or refuting our ideas are the very
ones we have not yet discovered or examined.
Finally, I think we must acknowledge the need for excavating larger areas, perhaps exceeding 100
m2 at these sites. Larger blocks will aid in evaluating whether the site sample is representative of the
activities conducted on site. Often times it is simply not possible to evaluate site with small windows on
sites activities (e.g., O’Connell 1987). That said, there is not necessarily a strong relationship between total
species richness and the area excavated per site (Figure 7.5).
192
350
300
250
200
Bison MNI
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total Faunal Species Richness
Figure 7.5. Scatterplot of species richness versus excavation size.
In summary, the faunal richness data indicate that some sites contain more ecologically diverse
faunas than others. Many of these sites are in immediate proximity to riverine resources, even if the HUC
units that the sites occupy generally contain poor water resources. As well, many of these same sites are
among the largest in terms of tool assemblages (Chapter 5) and probably represent longer occupation spans
that contained multiple activities. Sites with less diverse fauna exist as well, and this is explained by not
only poor preservation but also on the location on the landscape and presumably lessened occupation spans.
Bison Abundance
A second point of consideration is bison abundance. Bison are present at every site in the sample,
varying from an MNI of one to several hundred at sites such as Jones-Miller (Table 7.4, Figure 7.6). Many
of the smaller sites (in terms of bison MNI) contain bone that is too fragmented to quantify, and therefore
probably contained more bison than reported (i.e., Claypool, Norton). Other sites, such as Meserve and
Cumro, look to be small isolated bison kills of only a few individuals, which suggest similarities to the
Lubbock Lake and Blackwater Draw, where small kills were also the norm (Bamforth 1985; Hester 1972;
193
Johnson 1987). Still others, such as Laird and Winger, were only recently excavated and represent only a
preliminary estimate of the total MNI.
Most kills contain approximately 60 animals or less. Olsen-Chubbuck is an unusually large bison
kill, as is Jones-Miller. Stanford (1999) argues that the latter site represents 2-3 separate kills, which would
decrease the numbers of animals killed per episode to perhaps a third, or roughly 100 animals. Either way,
the kill(s) at Jones-Miller made for a sizable feast.
There is no apparent association between bison MNI and the size of excavation area (Figure 7.7).
While it is true that the largest bison kill was also the largest excavated site, there are other sites exhibiting
high bison MNI with less than 100 m2 in excavation area. Once again, poorly preserved sites probably
skew the pattern by underestimating bison MNI.
In terms of species diversity, there appears to be a negative relationship between bison MNI and
the total species richness per site, excluding Jones-Miller (Figure 7.8). This supports the idea that bison
hunting was probably a task specific activity, with little ancillary food procurement. Thus, most kill sites
do not also contain the remains of substantial campsites, or at least those occupied for considerable periods,
where the inclusion of other species was common. This pattern is also mirrored in the hearth data, which
are discussed later in the Chapter.
194
Table 7.4: Bison MNI for components in the Central Plains.
Bison MNI
Site (Minimum Number of Bison MNI Reference
Individuals)
Allen Intermediate 1 Hudson 1998
Allen OL1 9 Hudson 1998:15
Allen OL2 2 Hudson 1998:17
Burntwood Creek 31a Hill et al. 1992:100
Clary Ranch 41 Hill 2001:184
Claypool 1 Dick and Mountain 1960:234
Cumro 1 Schultz 1932:272
Frasca
60 Fulgham and Stanford 1982:5-6
(Areas 1 and 2 combined)
Frazier 44 Borresen 2002:40
Hell Gap, Locality I, Rapson and Niven 2002:
2
Cody-Frederick component Table 1
Hell Gap, Locality II, Byers 2001:25,
14
Agate Basin component (citing Rapson and Niven 2000)
Horace Rivers 1 Mallouf and Mandel 1997:52
James Allen 15 Mulloy 1959:114
Jones-Miller 300 Stanford 1999:439
Jurgens Area 1 31 Wheat 1979:17
Laird 2 Hofman and Blackmar 1997:49
Lamb Spring,
28 McCartney 1983:31
Cody component
Lime Creek Zone I 3 Jones 1999:60
Lime Creek Zone II 1 Jones 1999:60
Lime Creek Zone III 2 Jones 1999:60
Meserve 2 Meserve and Barbour 1932:240
Norton 8 Hofman et al. 1995:20
Olsen-Chubbuck 190 Wheat 1972:28
Pigeon Cliff 1 Steen 1976:34
Red Smoke 1 Knudson 2002:96
Scottsbluff 30 Barbour and Schultz 1936:434
Winger 9 Widga et al. 2002
a
Possibly upwards of 150 bison based on the original report.
195
Bison MNI Bison MNI
A
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
lle
n
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
In
C te
la r
1
yp
oo
C l
1
um
H r
.R o
1
i
L. ver
C s
1
re
ek
2
1
P.
100
R Clif
.S f
1
m
H ok
.G e
1
ap Al
C len
od 2
2
y/
F
Ju re
rg d
2
e
L. ns
C 2 2
200
re
ek
3
2
La
M ird
2
es
L. erv
C e
2
re
ek
N 1
3
or
196
to
A n
300
8
lle
H n
Figure 7.7. Scatterplot of bison MNI versus excavation area.

.G W 1
9
ap ing
A e

9
.B r
Figure 7.6. Bison MNI of Paleoindian sites of the Central Plains.
as
J. in
A
14
L. llen
Sp
15
Sc rin
g
400
ot
ts
28
bl
B u
. C ff
30
Ju ree
rg k
e
31
Ju ns
rg 1
31
en
C s
.R 3
35
an
c
500
Fr h
41
az
ie
r
44
O Fra
-C s
hu ca
bb
60
uc
J- k
M
190
ill
er
300
600
350
300
250
200
Bison MNI
150
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total Faunal Species Richness
Figure 7.8. Scatterplot of bison MNI versus total species richness.
Spring
0%
Spring/Summer
Winter/Spring 17%
22%
Winter
0%
Summer
17%
Fall/Winter
27%
Summer/Fall
17%
Fall
0%
Figure 7.9. Known seasonality of Paleoindian sites in the Central Plains.
197
Season of Site Occupation
Given such diversity in the number of animal species present in many of these sites as well as
bison MNI, I would expect seasonal differences in the use of landforms by Paleoindian groups, such that
large scale bison procurement occurred during certain times of the year, and smaller bison kills and other
animals were incorporated during other seasons. Ethnographic and late prehistoric archaeological data
certainly suggest seasonal use of the High Plains in the fall, where large bison kills occurred on the
Northern and Northwestern Plains (e.g., Frison 1970, Frison 1973b; Reeves 1990; Reher and Frison 1980).
The majority of season of occupation estimates are based upon comparisons with documented
patterns in tooth eruption and wear within modern bison populations (Frison and Reher 1970; Todd et al.
1996). Most of the sites listed below (Table 7.5) were examined (or reexamined) within the last fifteen
years, so I take the results to be comparable and standardized. For ease of comparison, I have not reported
the seasons in dental ages, but instead I have broken them into broad seasonal periods.
The seasonality data do not support a strong pattern in the seasonal use of the Central Plains
(Table 7.6). Nearly half of the components did not yield seasonality data and the remaining eighteen are
spread throughout the year (Figure 7.9). There is a slight increase in sites during the late fall/early winter
and late winter/early spring (combined, they total 49% of all cases). And if the summer occupations from
the Allen site are removed, then there was a trend toward bison predation during colder seasons.
There is no definite pattern when the season of occupation is compared between the two main
ecotones, however, such that bison were hunted in the uplands during the fall and then groups returned to
riparian lowlands over the winter and spring. Both ecotones contain cold weather occupations.
As well, there is no apparent relationship between the season of occupation and the bison MNI
(Figure 7.10). Kills occur throughout the year, and the two largest (Jones-Miller and Olsen-Chubbuck)
occur during the late summer/early fall and the late fall/early winter. Modern bison aggregate into larger
herds for the rut during the late summer (Meagher 1973:76), and this is probably related to the pattern in
the data (Hill 2002a).
198
350
Jones-Miller
300
250
200
Bison MNI
150
100
50
0
Spring Late Spring/ Summer Late Summer/ Fall Late 6
Fall/ Winter Late Winter/
1 2 3 4 5 7 8
Early Summer Early Fall Early Winter Early Spring
Season of Occupation
Figure 7.10. Bison MNI as related to season of occupation.
199
Table 7.5: Season of occupation for sites in the study sample.
Site Season of Occupation Seasonality Reference

Bamforth 1991b:364;
Allen Intermediate Summer, perhaps other seasons
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Bamforth 1991b:364;
Allen OL1 Summer, perhaps other seasons
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Bamforth 1991b:364;
Allen OL2 Summer, perhaps other seasons
Hudson 1998:Table 1
Burntwood Creek Late spring to early summer Hill et al. 1992:101
Clary Ranch Late summer to early fall Hill 2001:183
Claypool Not known n/a
Cumro Not known n/a
Frasca Early winter
Fulgham and Stanford 1982:7
(Areas 1 and 2 combined) (Possibly early fall)
Borresen 2002:48,
Frazier Late winter/early spring citing Todd, Hofman and
Wormington 1990
Hell Gap, Locality I, Late fall Rapson and Niven 2002:
Cody-Frederick component (lower Frederick component) Table 6
Throughout the year; most
Hell Gap, Locality II, Byers 2001:26-27,
intensive in the fall, winter, and
Agate Basin component (citing Rapson and Niven 2000)
spring
Horace Rivers Not known n/a
James Allen Not known n/a
Stanford 1999:444, citing Reher
Jones-Miller Late fall; late winter to early spring
n.d.
Jurgens Area 1 Fall/winter Hill 2002:Table 1
Jurgens Area 2 Not known n/a
Jurgens Area 3 Fall/winter Hill 2002:Table 1
Laird Late winter to early spring Hofman and Blackmar 1997:49
Lamb Spring,
Early winter to mid/late spring McCartney 1983:57-58
Cody component
Lime Creek Zone I Late summer to early fall Jones 1999:70, 106
Lime Creek Zone II Not known n/a
Lime Creek Zone III Not known n/a
Meserve Not known n/a
Norton Not known n/a
Spring/fall, late summer or early
Olsen-Chubbuck Hill 2002a:Table 1
fall
Pigeon Cliff Not known n/a
Red Smoke Not known n/a
Scottsbluff Late spring to summer Todd et al. 1990:Table 2
Winger Late spring or early summer Widga et al. 2002
200
Table 7.6: Seasonality of sites in the study sample, primarily derived from bison dentition.
Season of Occupation
Season Frequency
for Known Cases
Not Known 12 n/a
Spring 0 0.0
Spring/Summer 3 16.7
Summer 3 16.7
Summer/Fall 3 16.7
Fall 0 0.0
Fall/Winter 5 27.8
Winter 0 0.0
Winter/Spring 4 22.2
Total Cases 30
Total Known Cases 18
Implications from the faunal data
The faunal data from the Central Plains present a slightly more robust pattern than that of simple
bison hunters, chasing the herd across the Plains and using the landscape in a redundant fashion. On the
contrary, the High Plains and the riparian valley each appear to have different subsistence signatures.
The Central Plains have only a few highly ranked prey species, so it is not surprising that bison are
universal within every faunal assemblage. Their presence, however, does not necessarily indicate exclusive
or extensive use. During the Plains Paleoindian period, a faunal processing pattern termed “gourmet
butchering” is commonly observed among bison assemblages (e.g., Bement 1999; Todd 1987a; Wheat
1972). Gourmet butchering refers to assemblages exhibiting little or no processing of bones for marrow or
grease and the selection of only the highest economic utility elements, such as the humerus and femur on
the appendicular skeleton. Thus, many Paleoindian sites show a redundant pattern of processing including
minimal cutmarks, few impact marks on bones, and little evidence for disarticulation by human agency
(e.g., Fulgham and Stanford 1982; Hill et al. 1992; Wheat 1972).
This lack of thorough processing has been interpreted as one of the definitive signatures of highly
mobile Paleoindian hunter-gatherers. These foragers are hypothesized to kill bison in large numbers, eat
what they can on the short term, and then quickly move on to the next kill. Yet, this idea is clearly not
tenable based upon the data from the Central Plains. The faunal data support the interpretation where the
201
upland surfaces (represented by small sites and bison kills) were occupied for short periods, and the major
campsites of longer duration were located in the river valleys.
Thus, bison are heavily processed and culturally disarticulated at well-watered sites such as Clary
Ranch (Hill 2001), Frazier (Borresen 2002), Jones-Miller (Stanford 1984; Todd and Stanford 1992), and
Jurgens (Wheat 1979; Hill 2002). Long bones at these sites were broken for marrow and the assemblages
show evidence for wide spread disarticulation of carcasses, although some researchers interpret this
behavior as anomalous among Paleoindian sites (Hill 2001). Carnivores are at least partially responsible
for this skeletal disarticulation, but cultural modification was a major factor at these sites as well.
We should expect intensive processing of faunal remains in areas with wide niche breadths (as
well as other resources), simply because the temporal occupations are probably going to be of longer
duration. It is also within these ecotones that species richness is highest because foragers incorporated a
wider diversity of fauna into their diets as the result of longer residential occupation.
This pattern is fundamentally different from sites such as Frasca (Fulgham and Stanford 1982) and
Olsen-Chubbuck (Wheat 1972). Short-term occupations, such as bison kills in the uplands, contain lower
species diversity and lower processing intensity. Many carcasses at Olsen-Chubbuck were articulated and
relatively untouched (Wheat 1972), suggesting the following scenario. After the kill was made, the
foraging group processed only the top of the pile, leaving complete carcasses untouched below, due to their
inaccessibility. After the carcasses were processed, the foraging group then left for a (distant?) campsite.
There was simply not a large enough labor pool to completely process the kill (although 190 bison is an
overwhelming amount of meat) and the group did not stay at the kill for a long period. I also think it is fair
to question that if there really were a large number of people involved in the Olsen-Chubbuck kill (upwards
of 100-150 people as estimated by Wheat 1967:88) then where is their associated campsite? Survey of the
vicinity of the site did reveal additional (later) archaeological sites, but no associated campsite was
discovered (Wheat 1972:137-140); this might of course be a preservation and/or discovery issue.
202
Paleoindian Use of Plants and Plant Processing Equipment
As evidenced above, Paleoindian subsistence focused, in at least a large part, on faunal
procurement. Yet, with improved techniques emphasizing sediment flotation, we have begun to discover
evidence for the use of plants by early groups. The majority of evidence for plant use occurs outside the
Plains proper, either along the margins in the foothills and Rocky Mountains of Montana and Wyoming or
instead in the lower Pecos region of Texas. Most of these sites represent dry rockshelters or caves.
However, ground stone equipment has been found at a number of Paleoindian sites in the Plains, suggesting
at least a small degree of plant use among early foraging populations, despite direct evidence of
macrofossil, pollen, and phytolith remains.
Macrofossil Plant Remains from Paleoindian Sites
A brief review of sites containing evidence of plant remains suggests widespread knowledge and
use of floral resources in multiple regions of western North America during the Early Holocene. I begin
with examples from the northern and northwestern Plains.
The Barton Gulch site, located in southwestern Montana, has yielded extensive evidence of plant
use during the Alder complex, dated to approximately 9400 rcybp (Armstrong 1993; Davis et al. 1994).
Macrobotanical samples yielded over a dozen plant genera and/or species, while pollen samples revealed
several more (Table 7.7).
203
Table 7.7: Paleobotanical evidence recovered from the Barton Gulch site, Montana (Davis et al. 1994:124,
Table 2).
Paleobotanical
Taxon Common name Probable Use
evidence
Chenopodium
Slimleaf goosefoot Food source Macrofossil
leptophyllum
Opuntia polycantha Pricklypear Food source Macrofossil, pollen
Helianthus sp. Sunflower Secondary food source Macrofossil, pollen
Mentzelia sp. Cf. Blazing Star Secondary food source Macrofossil
Pinus flexis Limber pine Secondary food source Macrofossil, pollen
Secondary food source;
Prunus virginiana Chokecherry Macrofossil
Medicinal
Rosa sp. Wild rose Medicinal Macrofossil
Sphaeralcea coccinea Scarlet globemallow Medicinal Macrofossil
Food preparation or as
Scirpus americanus Common bullrush part of a component tool Macrofossil
Carex sp. Sedge Macrofossil, pollen
part of a component tool
Hypericum sp. Cf. St. John’s-wort Macrofossil
part of a component tool
Not mentioned
Vaccinium sp. Huckleberry/blueberry Pollen
(probably food source)
Not mentioned
Musineon divaricatum Wild parsley Pollen
Not mentioned
Allium canadense Wild onion (probably food source Pollen
and medicinal)
Not mentioned
Amaranthus graecizans Possibly pigweed Pollen
Not mentioned
Ambrosia sp. Ragweed (probably food source Pollen
and medicinal)
Not mentioned
Cheno-am Pollen
Slimleaf goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.) dominates the plant taxa with 61% of the recovered
macrofossil remains (Armstrong 1993:Table 3). Pricklypear (Opuntia sp.) was also common, accounting
for 29% of the recovered specimens. Sedge (Carex sp.) and scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.) made
up minor taxa, accounting for 4.3% and 1.3% of the taxa respectively. All other taxa constituted less than
1% each of the fossil specimens recovered from the excavations (2050 seeds total; Armstrong 1993:Table
3).
204
The caves and rockshelters in the Bighorn Mountains of northwestern Wyoming have also yielded
evidence of early plant use. Schiffer Cave (8360-8500 rcybp) produced evidence of six genera of dried or
partially charred seeds (Table 7.8) in association with several storage pits (Frison 1973a:305, 1991:Table
2.3).
Table 7.8: Paleobotanical evidence recovered from Schiffer Cave, Wyoming (Frison 1973a:305).
Taxon Common name Paleobotanical evidence

Amaranthus retroflexis Amaranth Dried or charred seeds
Prunus virginiana Chokecherry/wild plum Dried or charred seeds
Juniperus communis Juniper Dried or charred seeds
Pinus flexis Limber pine Dried or charred seeds
Opuntia polycantha Pricklypear Dried or charred seeds
Helianthus annus Sunflower Dried or charred seeds
Elymus canadensis Wild rye Dried or charred seeds
As well, the nearby Medicine Lodge Creek rockshelter contained 14-20 possible storage pits in the
late Paleoindian levels (~8300 rcybp) (Frison 1991:341-343). Juniperus and Prunus were identified in the
deposits despite the generally poor macrobotanical preservation at Medicine Lodge (due to damp site
deposits). Southsider Cave, also in the Bighorn Mountains, contained 2 possible storage pits dating to the
early Archaic period (Frison 1991:343-344).
Yet plant use was not restricted to Paleoindian sites in the northwestern Rocky Mountains. Baker
Cave, located far to the south near the confluence of the Pecos and Rio Grande Rivers in Texas, contained a
diverse set of floral and faunal remains in a Golondrina complex hearth dated between 9020-9180 rcybp
(Hester 1983:Table 1). The hearth also contained a rich fauna, including 12 species of mammals, 23
species of reptiles, and 6 species of fish (Hester 1983:109-110). Macrobotanical remains included 16
species of seed or fruit as well as wood identified from the charcoal remains (Table 7.9).
205
Table 7.9: Paleobotanical evidence (listed in order of decreasing abundance) recovered from Baker Cave,
Texas (Hester 1983:Table 2).
Taxon Common name Seed/Fruit or Wood

Juglans microcarpa Texas black walnut Seed/fruit
Opuntia sp. Prickly pear Seed/fruit
Diospyros texana Persimmon Seed/fruit
Celtis reticulata Net-leaf sugar hackberry Seed/fruit
Celtis pallida Spiny hackberry Seed/fruit
Prosopis glandulosa Honey mesquite Seed/fruit/wood
Quercus sp. Oak Seed/fruit
Sophora secundiflora Texas mountain laurel Seed/fruit
Ungnadia speciosa Mexican buckeye Seed/fruit
Setaria lutescins Plains brittlegrass Seed/fruit
Vigueria stenolaba Skeleton-leaf goldeneye Seed/fruit
Mahoni or Berberis trifoliata Agarita Seed/fruit
Vitis arizonica Canyon grape Seed/fruit
Acacia berlandieri Guajillo (acacia) Seed/fruit
Karwinskia humboldtiana Coyotillo Seed/fruit
Rhus microphylla Little-leaf sumac Seed/fruit
Quercus sp. Oak Wood
Juniperus sp. Juniper Wood
Ungnadia speciosa Mexican buckeye Wood
Celtis sp. Hackberry Wood
Acacia sp. Guajillo Wood
Platanus occiddntalis Sycamore Wood
Larrea tridentata Creosote bush Wood
Such diversity in plant and animal remains is in sharp contrast to the nearby Bonfire Shelter bison
jump (Bement 1986; Dibble and Lorrain 1968), which dates approximately a thousand years earlier (10090
rcybp; Holliday 2000:Table VIB). At least 2-3 bison kills occur in the Paleoindian levels at Bonfire,
similar in size to kills occurring to the north at the same time. The Golondrina hearth at Baker Cave is
interpreted as a profound shift in the environment and subsistence practices of Early Holocene foragers in
the Lower Pecos region (and south Texas in general), moving well away from specialized bison predation
(Dibble 1968) to a diversified subsistence regime (Hester 1983).
Moving further away from the Great Plains proper, there is abundant evidence for plant use
(especially nuts) in the Eastern Woodlands during the Dalton complex (approximately 10500-10000 rcybp),
at sites such as Dust Cave, Alabama. Eleven species of plants were recovered from the Paleoindian levels
in this cave, including acorns, hickory nuts, walnuts, and hazlenuts, among others (Walker et al. 2001:173-
178, Table 2). Other Southeastern sites (of similar age) yielding nuts include Smith’s Ferry, Pickens
County, Hester, and Rodgers Shelter (Walker et al. 2001:Table 6).
206
Discussion of Plant Remains
The above-cited evidence certainly suggests that plants were being used during the Early
Holocene, for both subsistence and possibly medicinal purposes. The data also suggest that plants were
incorporated in some regions and/or environments and possibly not in others (or at least not leaving a
strong archaeological presence). Many of the areas yielding evidence for early plant use are regions where
hunter-gatherer populations are hypothesized to have subsisted on a broad base of animals with associated
levels of low residential mobility (Gilmore 1977). This is considered by many archaeologists to represent a
typical Archaic lifeway, based on definitions formalized by Willey and Phillips (1958:104-111). Thus it is
not surprising that the Dalton complex is considered to be an early Archaic complex (rather than
Paleoindian) in many sequences in the Eastern Woodlands (Daniel 1998; Goodyear 1974, 1982), given a
broad plant/animal subsistence regime and limited mobility based on raw material sources, despite the fact
that (at least chronologically) it extends into the Late Pleistocene.
The presence of possible food (?) storage pits in rockshelter settings also suggests that time was
being invested in certain places and that food stores were being collected and protected during at least
certain times of the year. Seeds and fruit of plants such as prickly pear and goosefoot were often collected,
possibly as food sources (although non-cultural agents, such as rodents, might account for the accumulation
of some of these plant parts).
That said, we must also account for issues of preservation when evaluating the data for plant
macrofossils. Nearly all of these plants were recovered from contexts of dry rockshelters and not from the
more abundant open-air sites. As such, this sample of sites is certainly biased in terms of evaluating
patterns of landscape use. Thus, the data might have limited bearing on determining the level of plant use
in the Central Plains proper, simply because there are few rockshelters in the region except in dissected
river valleys (e.g., the Cimarron River canyon in northwestern Oklahoma [Lintz and Zabawa 1984; Schoff
and Stovall 1943] or in southeastern Colorado [Gebhard 1943; Nowak and Gerhart 2001; Wedel 1939]).
In addition to site location bias, there is the added problem that many Paleoindian sites were not
examined for macrofossil or pollen remains, primarily due to the early date of their excavations (for notable
exceptions, see Leopold and Wheat 1972; Scott 1979) or perhaps the negative results were never published.
As well, many Paleoindian sites do not contain features and since most archaeologists float only feature fill,
207
then there are necessarily fewer cases for possible plant identification. Clearly future work is needed in this
aspect of Paleoindian fieldwork, aimed at systematic sampling and processing of sediment samples (non-
feature based) for plant remains.
Evidence of Ground Stone
Despite issues of plant preservation and collection, a potential proxy for plant processing is the
presence of ground stone. Ground stone has also been proposed as a hallmark of the Archaic, as it
potentially signals the increasing use of plants in the diet. But it is important to note that the absence of
ground stone from an assemblage might not necessarily indicate that plants were not being used, as not all
plants must be processed with ground stone technology.
Ground stone can also relate to activities other than plant processing, such as bone tool
sharpening, wood shaft abrading, lithic edge grinding, and hide smoothing (Adams 2002; Garcia 1998).
Roper (1987, 1989, 1996) has also noted the uncommon but repeated association of ground stone with red
ochre in Paleoindian sites, with the ground stone used as pigment grinding equipment.
A number of Paleoindian sites from diverse ecological settings within the Great Plains contain
ground stone (Table 7.10). This inventory is by no means exhaustive, but it does point out some major
trends evident in the data. First, a systematic study of Plains Paleoindian ground stone seems necessary at
this time, aimed at examining patterns of use-wear on ground stone from a variety of site contexts (e.g.,
Adams 1993; Garcia 1998). For example, the majority of ground stone in Cody complex sites takes the
form of u-shaped grooved abraders (Adams 2002; Flenniken and Ozbun 1988), present at least seven Cody
sites (items identified as grooved abraders are italicized in Table 7.10). No other cultural complex exhibits
such strong association with a particular tool form. Many of the interpretations surrounding this particular
tool are related to wood (shaft) shaping and smoothing, but this form might also be related to other
activities, such as resharpening bone and antler awls and needles (Morse 1997a:45-51; Morse 1997b).
Second, the Cody materials notwithstanding, at least a portion of the ground stone is related to
plant processing such as at the Barton Gulch site where Davis and his colleagues (1994) documented
burned macrobotanical remains in association with grinding slabs. Many of the sites exhibiting ground
stone probably related to plant processing are also located in the foothills and Rocky Mountains, at sites
208
such as Barton Gulch, Bottleneck Cave, Mangus, Medicine Lodge Creek, and Schiffer Cave. Many of
these also contained direct evidence of plant remains as well as probable storage pits. Ground stone is also
found along the southeastern margins of the Plains in wooded and ecologically diverse area of Central
Texas (Levi and Wilson-Leonard).
There are also a number of sites containing ground stone located within the Plains proper.
However, many of these are located along regionally significant ecological boundaries, such as between
river valleys and the elevated uplands (Allen, Betty Greene, Hell Gap, Jurgens, Lime Creek, Ray Long, and
Red Smoke). It is no coincidence that most of these sites also contained diverse fauna.
Storage pits are rarely documented in the Central Plains proper, except at the Horace Rivers and
possibly Pigeon Cliff sites. At both locations, the immediate ecotone would support at least some plant
gathering and possible storage. But, it could very well be that although plants were at least beginning to be
incorporated into Paleoindian diets, food storage had perhaps not been adopted as a widespread practice at
this point in time.
209
Table 7.10: Ground stone from post-Folsom Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and
Texas. Associated cultural complex identified in parenthesis.
Ecological
Site State Type of Ground stone Reference
Setting/Location
Claypool Six fragments of grooved Dick and Mountain
CO Central Plains
(Cody) abraders 1960:228,230
Gordon Creek
1 smooth stone, possibly Breternitz et al.
burial CO Foothills/Mountains
for grinding 1971:176-178
(Hell Gap?)
12 fragments of grinding
Jurgens slabs, 6 handstones, 4 Central Plains,
CO Wheat 1979:129-132
(Cody) abrading stones, 2 Wooded Valley
grooved abraders
Grinding slabs,
Barton Gulch
MT handstones, anvils and Foothills/Mountains Davis et al. 1994:123
(Alder)
hammerstones
MacHaffie,
MT 1 sandstone abrader Foothills/Mountains Knudson 1983:Figure 43
(Cody)
Mangus
2 handstones, 2 grinding
rockshelter, MT Foothills/Canyon Husted 1969:33-34
stones
Occupation I
Single piece of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
Allen, IZ NE
stone Wooded Valley 6.2
Allen, OL1 Five pieces of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
NE
(Agate Basin) stone Wooded Valley 6.2
Two pieces of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
Allen, OL2 NE
stone Wooded Valley 6.2
Hudson-Meng 3 partial and 3 complete
NE Northern Plains Agenbroad 1978:95-97
(Cody) sandstone abraders
Four pieces of ground
Lime Creek, Zone Davis 1962:65-66;
stone Central Plains,
I NE Bamforth 2002b:Table
(2 manos, 2 grooved Wooded Valley
(Cody) 6.4
abraders)
Red Smoke, Zone Single piece of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
NE
83 stone Wooded Valley 6.5
Red Smoke, Zone Two pieces of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
NE
Red Smoke, Zone Single piece of ground Central Plains, Bamforth 2002b:Table
NE
Blackwater Draw,
“Portales” 1 fragment of a grinding Southern High
NM Hester 1972:142
component stone Plains
(Mixed)
Sandstone abrader with Stanford and Patten
R-6 (Cody) NM Foothills
multiple grooves 1984:196
Ray Long, Area B 3 milling slabs, 5
SD Foothills Wheeler 1995:424-426
(Angostura) handstones
Horn Shelter No. Two thin abraders (for Central Texas,
TX Redder 1985:43
2 working shell?) River Valley
5 hand grinding stones, 1 Central Texas, Hill Alexander 1963:521,
Levi, Zone IV TX
seed grinding slab Country Table 2
Lubbock Lake, Small ground stone Southern High
TX Johnson 1987:Table 9.2
(Plainview) fragment Plains
210
Ecological
Site State Type of Ground stone Reference
Setting/Location
Wilson-Leonard,
2 manos, 1 piece of
(late Paleoindian TX Central Texas Bousman 1998:183-184
ground stone
levels)
Agate Basin site,
Small sandstone tool
Area 3 WY Northern Plains Frison 1982b:138
abrader
(Hell Gap level)
1 metate, 2 manos,
Betty Greene
WY 2 manos or metate Northern Plains Greene 1967:57-59
(Lusk)
fragments
Bottleneck Cave, 1 handstone, 1grinding
WY Foothills/Canyon Husted 1969:47
Occupation I stone
Bottleneck Cave, 3 handstones, 1 grinding
WY Foothills/Canyon Husted 1969:50
Occupation II stone
Bottleneck Cave, 7 handstones, 3 grinding
WY Foothills/Canyon Husted 1969:53-54
Occupation III stones
Hell Gap, Irwin 1967:Appendix 3;
(Agate Basin II WY 2 handstones Foothills Irwin and Wormington
componenta) 1970:30
Hell Gap, 1 handstone, 1
(Cody WY handstone/hammerstone, 1 Foothills Irwin 1967:Appendix 3
componenta) grooved abrader
Hell Gap, 2 grooved nether stones, 1
(Frederick WY mano, 1 small polished Foothills Irwin 1967:Appendix 3
componenta) stone
Horner I Northern
WY 2 sandstone abraders Frison 1987:262-263
(Cody) Plains/Basin
Medicine Lodge >=2 grinding Frison 1976, Frison and
WY Foothills/Mountains
Creek stones/manos Grey 1980:35
At least 3 manos, 2 broken
Schiffer Cave WY Foothills/Mountains Frison 1973a:305
grinding slabs
a
The specific locality at Hell Gap is not listed in Irwin (1967).
211
Cooking and Heating Facilities
The presence and abundance of thermal features is another useful medium for exploring diversity
in site activities and the duration of occupation. It is well known that cooking and heating features are an
uncommon occurrence on Paleoindian sites within the Great Plains. The few known examples take the
form of shallow ephemeral basins with little to no evidence of thermal oxidation. The general paucity of
features is somewhat surprising, given the rapid increase in hearth use during the subsequent archaeological
sequences of the middle to Late Holocene (Frison 1991). These later forms take a multitude of shape and
functions including pit hearths, stone boiling pits, and fire-cracked rock piles, among others (Black et al.
1997; Hester 1991; Stiger 2001). One wonders why was there such a profound shift in the use of fire
facilities over time? And what, if any, is this shift related to patterns of regional land use?
Thermal Feature Study Sample
In addressing these questions, I examined variability in the type and abundance of thermal features
from sites in the Northern, Central, and Southern Plains. I expanded beyond the immediate bounds of the
Central Plains for several reasons, including increasing the sample size (as features are generally
uncommon), as well as trying to sample across multiple ecological zones, primarily varying with latitude
(rather than altitude). The sites are all located in either the short grass High Plains, adjacent elevated
foothills, or in riverine settings. I did not systematically examine sites from outside the Great Plains
proper, such as the high Rockies or the eastern Woodlands of Texas, for example. In total, I examined 109
components from 65 sites, spread across 46 counties (Table 7.11, Figure 7.12). The components are post-
Clovis in age, spanning approximately 10,750 to 8000 rcybp, and represent forager groups utilizing a
similar subsistence strategy oriented around, to at least some degree, bison hunting in open grassland
settings. In terms of cultural complexes, all are well represented including Folsom/Midland (n=30, 27.5%),
Agate Basin/Hell Gap (19, 17.4%), Plainview/Goshen (11, 10.1%), Cody (20, 18.3%), Allen (13, 11.9%),
as well as miscellaneous temporal components (16, 14.7%).
Within this sample, a total of 118 hearths were identified. However, the majority of components
(55%, 60/109) contain no hearths whatsoever. Thirty-one components (28%, 31/109) contain 2 or fewer
hearths, whereas a handful of sites (11%, 12/109) contain upwards of 3 to 12 hearths per site occupation
212
(Figure 7.11, summarized in Tables 7.12 and 7.13). Several factors appear to condition the presence and
abundance of thermal features, relating to two separate issues. First, there are issues of how foragers used
the features, in terms of hearth design, use and reuse. Secondly, there are factors regarding how
archaeologists excavated and interpreted the sites. I begin by examining the former factor.
70
60
50
Number of Components
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 yes
Number of Hearths
Figure 7.11. Number of hearths recorded per component from Paleoindian sites on the Great Plains
213
Figure 7.12. Counties and frequencies of components examined for Paleoindian hearths in the Great Plains
214
Table 7.11: Presence and abundance of thermal features within post-Clovis sites in the Great Plains.
Number
Site County State Complex Area/level Association of Reference
hearths
Cattle Jodry and Stanford
Alamosa CO Folsom Good >=5
Guard 1992
Highly Dawson n.d. in
Linger Alamosa CO Folsom Good
Probable Jodry 1999:64-73
Zapata Alamosa CO Folsom 0 Jodry 1999:73-75
Fourth of Benedict 1981:75;
Boulder CO Allen Good 1
July Valley Figure 56c
100 m
Olsen-
Cheyenne CO Cody southwest of Questionable Several Wheat 1972:137
Chubbuck
arroyo
Lamb
Douglas CO Cody 0 McCartney 1983
Spring
Pitblado 2000:138-
Caribou
Grand CO Allen Area A Good 2 139; Benedict
Lake
1985:125
Lithic
Black
Hinsdale CO Folsom Concentration Good 1 Jodry 1999:52
Mountain
II
Lithic
Black Highly
Hinsdale CO Folsom Concentration Good Jodry 1999:51
Mountain Probable
I
Irwin and Irwin
LoDaiska Jefferson CO Allen 0
1959:19
Galloway and
Johnson Larimer CO Folsom 0
Agogino 1961
Wilmsen and
Lindenmeier Larimer CO Folsom Area II Good 1
Roberts 1978:40, 60
Wilmsen and
West Bison Roberts
Lindenmeier Larimer CO Folsom, Cody? Good 3
pit 1978:Figures
159,166; 37, 60-61
Fulgham and
Frasca Logan CO Cody 0
Stanford 1982
Reddin Saguache CO Folsom 0 Jodry 1999:76-78
Dick and Mountain
Claypool Washington CO Cody 0
1960
Fowler- Agogino and Parrish
Weld CO Folsom 0
Parrish 1971
Slessman 2001,
Frazier Weld CO Agate Basin Good 1
2004
Jurgens Weld CO Cody Area 2 0 Wheat 1979
Wilbur Rockshelter Breternitz 1971:64-
Weld CO Cody Questionable 5
Thomas interior 65
Fossil draw Stanford
Jones-Miller Yuma CO Hell Gap 30.5 m west Good 3 1984:618,621-
of the 622,631
215
Number
hearths
bonebed
Within the
Jones-Miller Yuma CO Hell Gap Good 12 Stanford 1999:448
bonebed
Slim Arrow Yuma CO Allen 0 LaBelle, this study
12 Mile
Logan KS Folsom 0 Hill 1996
Creek
Burntwood
Rawlins KS Allen 0 Hill et al. 1992
Creek
Norton Scott KS Allen/Cody 0 Hofman et al. 1995
Hofman and
Laird Sherman KS Dalton 0
Blackmar 1997
Frison 1996:Figure
Mill Iron Carter MT Goshen Camp Good 1
1.19
William 2000:145-
Big Black Dunn ND Folsom Block 2 Good 1
149
Bobtail
Dunn ND Folsom Block 2 Good 1 Root 2000:109-112
Wolf
Holder and Wilke
1949:261-262;
Allen Frontier NE Agate Basin OL1 Good 9
Bamforth
2002b:Table 6.2
Holder and Wilke
1949:261-262;
Allen Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian IZ Good 4
Bamforth
2002b:Table 6.2
Holder and Wilke
1949:261-262;
Allen Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian OL2 Good 7
Bamforth
2002b:Table 6.2
Davis 1953:382,
1962:69;
Lime Creek Frontier NE Allen? Zone III Good 2 measured from
Davis 1962:Figure
38
Lime Creek Frontier NE Cody Zone I 0 Davis 1962:61
Davis 1953:383;
Bamforth
Red Smoke Frontier NE Allen? Zone 88 Good 4
2002b:Table 6.5;
Knudson 2002:99
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 78 0 Knudson 2002:99
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 89 Good 1 Knudson 2002:99
Davis 1953:383;
Bamforth
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 90 Good 1
2002b:Table 6.5;
Knudson 2002:99
Davis 1953:383;
Bamforth
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 91 Good 1
2002b:Table 6.5;
Knudson 2002:99
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 92 Good 1 Davis 1953:383;
216
Number
hearths
Bamforth
2002b:Table 6.5;
Knudson 2002:99
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 80 Good 2 Knudson 2002:99
Davis 1953:384;
Bamforth
Red Smoke Frontier NE Misc. Paleoindian Zone 83 Good 1-4
2002b:Table 6.5;
Knudson 2002:99
Clary Ranch Garden NE Allen Good Several Hill 2001:169
Schultz and Eiseley
Scottsbluff Scotts Bluff NE Cody/Allen 0
1935
Hudson- Agenbroad 1978:25-
Sioux NE Cody Questionable 6
Meng 26; Figure 9
David Meltzer,
personal
Folsom Colfax NM Folsom 0
communication
2002
San Jon Quay NM Cody Area II 0 Hill et al. 1995
Blackwater Possibly
Roosevelt NM Folsom Several Hester 1972:178
Draw Folsom
Warnica and
Williamson
1968:16;
Milnesand Roosevelt NM Milnesand Good 1
Litwinionek et al.
2002:3; Sellards
1955:337
Mitchell Roosevelt NM Folsom 0 Boldurian 1990:102
Ted Litwinionek et al.
Roosevelt NM Plainview Good 2
Williamson 2002:8
Pigeon Cliff Union NM Allen? 0 Steen 1976:32
LaBelle, Holliday,
Nall Cimarron OK Early Holocene Nall soil Good 1
and Meltzer 2003
Cooper Harper OK Folsom 0 Bement 1999
Waugh Harper OK Folsom Area 3 Good 1 Hofman 1995:427
Saunders and
Perry Ranch Jackson OK Plainview 0
Penman 1979
Wheeler 1995:431-
Ray Long Fall River SD Angostura Area A Good 10
434
Angostura/ Wheeler 1995:409-
Ray Long Fall River SD Area B Good 12
Hell Gap? 411
Area B, Hannus 1986:Figure
Ray Long Fall River SD Early Holocene Hannus Good 5 2 and Figure 3;
Trench Table 1
Harrison and Smith
Lake Theo Briscoe TX Folsom/Plainview 0
1975
Rex Plainview/ Willey, Harrison and
Briscoe TX 0
Rodgers San Patrice Hughes 1978
Plainview Hale TX Plainview 0 Sellards et al. 1947
41HF84 Hansford TX Allen Upper Good 1 Nichols
217
Number
hearths
component 1991:200,211
Horace Mallouf and Mandel
Hemphill TX Allen Good 1
Rivers 1997:52
Lipscomb Lipscomb TX Folsom 0 Hofman 1995
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Firstview FA5-8/10 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Firstview FA6-3 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Folsom FA6-8 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Lubbock Lake FA6-15 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Plainview FA9-1 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Lubbock
Lubbock TX Plainview FA6-11 0 Johnson 1987
Lake
Ryan Lubbock TX Plainview 0 Hartwell 1995
Wendorf et al.
Scharbauer Midland TX Folsom Locality 1 Questionable 2
1955:43,45;Figure 6
Shifting Hofman et al.
Winkler TX Folsom 0
Sands 1990:237-238
James Allen Albany WY Allen 0 Mulloy 1959
Carter/
Campbell WY Cody/Alberta 0 Frison 1984
Kerr-McGee
Carter/
Campbell WY Folsom Good 1 Frison 1984:300
Kerr-McGee
Carter/ Hell Gap/Agate
Campbell WY 0 Frison 1984
Kerr-McGee Basin
Rattlesnake McNees and Smith
Carbon WY Folsom Good 2
Pass 1989:35-38
Casper Converse WY Hell Gap 0 Frison 1974
Irwin-Williams et al.
Hell Gap Goshen WY Agate Basin Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Agate Basin Locality II 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Agate Basin Locality III 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Alberta Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Alberta Locality II 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Cody Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Cody Locality V 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Folsom Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Frederick (Allen) Locality II 0
1973
218
Number
hearths
Hell Gap Goshen WY Frederick (Allen) Locality I Good 2
1973:44
Hell Gap Goshen WY Goshen Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Hell Gap Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Hell Gap Locality II 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Hell Gap Locality III 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Midland Locality I 0
1973
Hell Gap Goshen WY Midland Locality II 0
1973
Agogino and
Sister's Hill Johnson WY Hell Gap 0
Galloway 1965
Frison and Stanford
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Agate Basin Area 1 0
1982a
Frison and Stanford
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Agate Basin Area 2 0
1982a
Area 3,
Folsom
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Folsom Good 1 Frison 1982a:74-75
component,
lower level
Area 3,
Folsom
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Folsom Good 1 Frison 1982a:71-72
component,
upper level
Area 2,
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Folsom Folsom Good 2 Frison 1982a:38-44
component
Area 3, Hell
Gap
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Hell Gap 0 Frison 1982b
component,
third level
Area 3, Hell
Gap Frison 1982b:136-
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Hell Gap Good 1
component, 140
main level
Area 3, Hell
Gap Frison 1982b:140-
Agate Basin Niobrara WY Hell Gap Good 1
component, 141
second level
Betty Not
Niobrara WY Lusk Good 1 Greene 1967:4
Greene mentioned
Frison and Stanford
Schultz Niobrara WY Agate Basin 0
1982a
Frison and Stanford
Sheaman Niobrara WY Goshen 0
1982b
219
Table 7.12: Hearth abundance among Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains.
Number Number Percent Cumulative

of Hearths of Components of total Percent
0 63 57.8 57.8
1 24 22.0 79.8
2 7 6.4 86.2
3 2 1.8 88.1
4 2 1.8 89.9
5 2 1.8 91.7
6 1 0.9 92.7
7 1 0.9 93.6
8 0 0.0 93.6
9 1 0.9 94.5
10 1 0.9 95.4
11 0 0.0 95.4
12 2 1.8 97.2
Yes 3 2.8 100.0
Components with hearth
106
counts
Total components 109
Table 7.13: Uneven distribution of hearths from Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains.
Number Number Pooled number Percent Cumulative

of Hearths of Components of Hearths of Total Percent
0 60 0 0.0 0.0
1 24 24 20.3 20.3
2 7 14 11.9 32.2
3 2 6 5.1 37.3
4 2 8 6.8 44.1
5 2 10 8.5 52.5
6 1 6 5.1 57.6
7 1 7 5.9 63.6
8 0 0 0.0 63.6
9 1 9 7.6 71.2
10 1 10 8.5 79.7
11 0 0 0.0 79.7
12 2 24 20.3 100.0
Total Hearths 118
220
Hearth Frequency as Related to Taphonomic and Archaeological Phenomena
As mentioned previously, poor preservation plagues our understanding of the Early Holocene
archaeological record. For example, low temperature hearths, such as those fueled by buffalo chips
(Holland 1984; Wright 1986, 1992), might be difficult to detect archaeologically. Many sites probably
contained hearths at one time but have been obliterated by years of bioturbation and erosion, among other
agents. For instance, sites such as Claypool (Dick and Mountain 1960; Stanford and Albanese 1975)
contain both burned bone and lithics that are probably related to former fires, but any evidence of those was
destroyed through heavy eolian deflation during the Holocene (Reider 1990). As well, many bison
bonebeds such as Burntwood Creek and Jimmy Allen have evidence of at least localized burning (Hill et al.
1992; Mulloy 1959), although no formal features were reported. Finally, Jodry’s (Jodry and Stanford 1992;
Jodry 1999) recent work at Cattle Guard provided a superb illustration of documenting at least five hearth
areas based upon a case built from circumstantial evidence in the form of clusters of burned bone and
lithics. Thus, although some sites do not contain hearths as recognized in excavation, this does not
necessarily mean they did not exist at one time. Improved field and laboratory techniques will hopefully
aid in the identification of burned features and sediment (Gose 2000, Morinaga et al. 1999). Regardless of
the poor preservation and identification of features, many sites in the Central Plains contain burned bone
(Table 7.14), some of which was surely associated with features.
221
Table 7.14: Post-Clovis Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains containing burned bone.
Identified Burned
Site Area/Level State Reference
hearth bone
Dick and Mountain
Claypool CO No Yes 1960:224; Stanford and
Albanese 1975:25
Burntwood North edge About 4% of
KS No Hill et al. 1992:100
Creek of bonebed bone
Yes; “a
Hofman and Blackmar
Laird KS No single long
1997:49
bone shaft”
Folsom or Yes; burned
Harrison and Smith
Lake Theo Plainview TX No flakes and
1975:79-81
level bone
Yes; a “very
few partly
James Allen WY No Mulloy 1959:114
charred bison
bones”
No (not from
Nall Baker soil OK Yes LaBelle, this study
this level)
Yes; burned
Carter/ No (not from
Cody/Alberta WY and calcined Frison 1984:295
Kerr-McGee this level)
fragments
Yes; 2.6% of
Clary Ranch NE Possible Hill 2001:Table 4.13
total NISP
Scott Slessman, personal
Frazier CO Yes Yes
communication 2001
Jones-Miller CO Yes Yes Todd and Stanford 1992
Trench A
Lindenmeier and B, CO Yes Yes Roberts 1936:10-12
Folsom
Yes; both
Multiple Jones 1999:Tables
Lime Creek NE Yes small and
levels 8,10,14,21,23,29,32,34,36
large fauna
Yes; burned
Ray Long Area C SD Yes bone in Wheeler 1995:439
hearth fill
41HF84 TX Yes Yes Nichols 1991:211
Horace Mallouf and Mandel
TX Yes Yes
Rivers 1997:51
222
A second problem is that archaeologists often excavate Paleoindian sites differently than they do
sites dating to the late prehistoric (1500-500 rcybp). Many of the latter contain robust evidence of housing
structures and features such as hearths and pits. Excavations tend to focus primarily on these features, as
they make intuitive sense, in that archaeologists think they understand what the features represent in terms
of domestic activities and ethnographic analogy.
Yet, Paleoindian archaeologists are forced to use the data available, which often times take the
form of only lithic and bone scatters. Without a domestic frame of reference, archaeologists try to interpret
what the clusters might represent, when instead they do not necessarily know if these artifacts are part of
middens, processing piles, dump zones, or habitation areas. Without reference to features, it is quite
difficult to understand what the patterning represents (Binford 1983; Gamble 1986).
This is particularly relevant at sites such as Jurgens, where Wheat (1979) excavated three separate
areas spread over a linear distance of approximately 225 m. Wheat recovered a diverse assemblage of
fauna, tools, and debitage, and interpreted the three areas as a long-term camp, a short-term camp, and a
bison kill. Yet, despite the large-scale excavations, he did not record a single thermal feature. The paucity
of charcoal at the site is painfully obvious when you realize that the single 14C date reported from Jurgens
Area 3 was an aggregate sample of charcoal specks collected across an area of approximately 36 m2 (Wheat
1979:151-152).
Differing slightly from Wheat’s interpretation, the three clusters at Jurgens could instead be
processing and/or midden accumulations, spatially separated from undiscovered (or perhaps destroyed)
habitation and cooking facilities. Given multiple lines of evidence, it seems that Jurgens was occupied for
a longer period as compared to sites from the adjacent High Plains, such as Olsen-Chubbuck (Wheat 1972).
As discussed earlier, the Olsen-Chubbuck assemblage is a bison kill with no associated camp or processing
areas. Despite the obvious differences between the two sites, neither contained thermal features (Table
7.11).
223
Finally, the third problem concerns poor archaeological sampling. Most excavations are small in
scale, most less than 100 m2 per site (excavation m2 data presented in Table 5.3). Figure 7.13 presents a set
of sites from the Central Plains, where the number of features recorded per site are arrayed in terms of the
area excavated. Taking out sites with no hearths (which could be real or taphonomic), there is positive
relationship between excavation size and hearth frequency. However, many sites with smaller excavations
have yielded features, which does raise the question of how these particular sites were discovered, perhaps
by exposure of features (or the more typical bone and flake clusters) in arroyo or cutbank sidewalls?
24
Allen
(levels combined)
18
Jones-Miller
Total Number of Hearths
12
Red Smoke
Zone 88
Frazier
Claypool
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 7.13. Scatterplot of the total number of hearths versus the excavation area.
224
Foraging Issues Relating to Hearth Frequency
I will now examine several parameters that condition where foraging groups would choose to
create features on the landscape. There are several interrelated factors that influence the nature of site
activities, including the season and the duration of site occupation and the overall organization of the
settlement system.
Figure 7.14 plots the total number of discarded tools as related to hearth frequency. Without
doubt, there are many factors that condition how many tools were discarded on site, such as site function,
raw material abundance, or issues of palimpsest, but I think that the number of tools can be used at least as
a proxy measure for the intensity of site occupation.
16
Jones-Miller
14
12
Total Number of Hearths
10
Allen
6
Red Smoke
Zone 88
4
Hell Gap
Frederick level
2
Frazier
Claypool
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Total number of tools
Figure 7.14. Scatterplot of the total number of hearths versus the total number of tools. Sites with burned
bone, but no reported hearths, are noted with the gray filled circles.
Surprisingly, the pattern is not very strong, with several small sites containing one or two hearths, but
it can be said that sites with 4 or more hearths usually have 50 or more tools. The fact that many small sites
contain features certainly suggests that many sites probably go unnoticed or are not assigned Paleoindian
ages simply because they are not the stereotypical Paleoindian site exhibiting abundant numbers of
projectile points and bone.
225
One of the better variables co-varying with hearth frequency is the richness of mammalian species.
Mammalian diversity among sites in the Central Plains reveals that many of the sites containing high
species richness also contain multiple features. These sites are also located along ecotones boundaries such
as river valleys.
Persistent Use of Place
Many of the sites mentioned above also contain more than one component, strongly suggesting the
persistence of that particular place in the local area, where foragers were drawn time and time again over
several thousand years. Sometimes the site function remained the same and other times it might have
changed, but nevertheless they returned to the same place and not others (Binford 1982).
Table 7.15 documents ten sites containing multiple components and/or localities, ranging from 2
to 16. Ubiquity refers to the presence of at least one hearth in the component. There is remarkable
variability in feature ubiquity. Only a single Paleoindian hearth has been described for Blackwater Draw
Locality 1 (Hester 1972:178), found in the Brown Sand Wedge layer and possibly Folsom or Clovis in age.
At Lubbock Lake, small bison kills and processing areas dominate the Paleoindian record, but no hearths
were recorded (Johnson 1987). At Hell Gap, multiple locales yielded stratified components, yet there is
only a single mention of hearths (Irwin-Williams et al. 1973).
Obviously, some of these might be sampling and/or reporting issues, as discussed above. But there
is high ubiquity of thermal features in areas along the edge of the Black Hills at Agate Basin (Frison and
Stanford 1982b) and Ray Long (Wheeler 1995), as well as in river valleys, such as the Medicine Creek
sites of Allen, Lime Creek, and Red Smoke (Bamforth 2002b; Davis 1962; Knudson 2002). These
settlement nodes in regional landscape organization also show some of the most intensive use of hearths as
well.
For instance, Ray Long has yielded 27 hearths, in two spatially separate areas termed “A” and
“B”. Figure 7.15 details one of the two excavation trenches in Area B, which yielded Angostura, Clovis,
and Hell Gap/Agate Basin looking materials (Hannus 1985; Wheeler 1995). Seven hearths as well as areas
of burned sediment were excavated within this particular area, with the burned sediment possibly relating
226
to hearth cleaning activities. Not all the features are contemporaneous however, as excavation profiles and
14
C records document the site’s frequent reoccupation over several thousand years.
This pattern of the use of place over the long term is also well documented at the Allen site in
southwestern Nebraska (Bamforth 1991b, 2002b; Preston and Wilke 1949). Two occupation levels (OL1
and OL2) were originally defined at the site, but these appear to be interpretive conventions more than
anything else (Bamforth 1991b), for Allen instead records the continuous use of the site between 10,600
and 8680 rcybp, a span of almost two thousand 14C years. Figure 7.16 details the relative vertical positions
of hearths at Allen. There are clearly discernable levels where hearths were fired at the same instance, at
least geologically speaking. However, most hearths are spread throughout the column, with a total of 20
features recovered along with a diverse faunal assemblage.
Table 7.15: Ubiquity of hearths from select Paleoindian sites in the Great Plains.
Number of components Total number of Percent

Site
with hearth present components of total
Blackwater Draw 1 Many Very low
Lubbock Lake 0 6 0.0
Hell Gap 1 16 6.3
Carter-Kerr/McGee 1 3 33.3
Lime Creek 1 3 33.3
Agate Basin 5 8 62.5
Red Smoke 7 8 87.5
Allen 3 3 100.0
Lindenmeier 2 2 100.0
Ray Long 3 3 100.0
227
Figure 7.15. Plan map of the Area B hearths at the Ray Long site, South Dakota (adapted from Wheeler
1995:Figure 44). Thick black lines are balks left in the original excavations.
228
Figure 7.16. Relative vertical distribution of hearths at the Allen site, Nebraska (adapted from Bamforth
2002b:Figure 6.1)
229
The Agate Basin shows a similar occupation history (Frison and Stanford 1982b). The site area
contains multiple Folsom and Hell Gap levels spread over several locales, many yielding evidence for
hearths (see Table 7.11). In addition, the Folsom level from Area 2 contained the remains of at least one
cold-weather house with an internal hearth. Agate Basin, like Ray Long and Allen, appear to contain
multiple campsites (and other activities too) reoccupied throughout the Late Pleistocene and Early
Holocene.
Size and Function of Features
There are several possible functions of these Paleoindian hearths, many of which are related to the
size and shape of the feature. Unfortunately, maximum dimensions (in terms of area and depth) were
available for only 36% (43/118) of the hearths, with nearly half of those made up of data from Ray Long
alone. In general, all the features are about the same size (Figure 7.17): small, less than 75 cm in diameter,
and shallow, less than 15 cm deep. Most are basin-shaped, with a width-to-depth ratio of 3 or more.
There are two broad functional categories, including heating and cooking, that are possibly related
to hearth use. Recent research into burned rock middens and pit hearths is particularly informative in
delineating what Paleoindian features do not represent. Figure 7.18 details archaeological and ethnographic
cases presented in two recent thermal feature studies, on pit hearth cooking (Wandsnider 1997) and burned
rock middens (Black et al. 1997). As is quite evident, the ethnographic and archaeological burned rock
features are much larger than those of Paleoindian origin. Whereas the Paleoindian hearths are small and
basin-shaped, the other forms are often times pit-shaped and often
230
0.60
1:1
3:1
0.40
Depth (m)
0.20
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
2
Area (m )
Figure 7.17. Hearth area and depth of Plains Paleoindian hearths. Filled triangles denote features from the
Ray Long site, filled squares represent all other Paleoindian examples.
2.0
1:1
1.5
3:1
Depth (m)
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
2
Area (m )
Figure 7.18. Hearth area and depth of Plains Paleoindian, Texas Archaic, and ethnographic features. Filled
triangles and squares denote plant processing thermal features from ethnographic and Texas burned rock
examples; filled circles denote documented Paleoindian cases from the Great Plains.
231
larger than a meter in diameter. Several ethnographic cases are well above 16 m2 in area, larger than some
Paleoindian sites (or at least larger than their excavation areas)!
The type and quantity of food, as well as the food preparation technique all factor into the design
and size of features. Many plants, such as sotol, agave, camas, and yucca, require sustained temperatures
over considerable periods of time in order to break down the plants into edible products, insuring fructan
and inulin hydrolysis (Dering 1999; Wandsnider 1997). As such, rocks are commonly utilized elements in
pit hearths because they capture and retain heat, helping control and sustain high temperatures within
cooking facilities. The vast majority of the ethnographic examples presented in Figure 7.18 document
plant-cooking facilities. Surely, none of the Paleoindian facilities in this sample (Barton Gulch excluded)
were used for this particular type of plant processing of bulbs, roots, and tubers. The limited macrofossil
analysis supports this assertion as well.
Wandsnider (1997) also notes that rocks were not commonly used in baking or roasting meats
because of the lessened need for controlling cooking times and temperatures, which for animal processing
are considerably shorter and cooler. Thus, with little need to regulate temperatures, there is little need for
heat insulation via rocks.
However, ethnographic accounts do suggest that lean meats such as bison, pronghorn, deer, elk,
and rabbit were often boiled (Wandsnider 1997:12). The boiling keeps the meat from drying, with the
moisture aiding the digestive process. But evidence for stone boiling is noticeably absent in the
Paleoindian record, in terms of hearth rocks, boiling pits, etc., despite the abundance of bison in the
Paleoindian diet. The Horace Rivers site, located just north of the Canadian River in the Texas Panhandle,
is the only site out of the 65 that contained a hearth with rocks, in this particular case, caliche cobbles
(Mallouf and Mandel 1997). The hearth was recovered in association with a diverse faunal assemblage, as
well as 4 possible storage pits, suggesting different subsistence organization. The possible function(s) of
the Horace Rivers hearth is unknown at this time.
If the hearths were not used to bake plants or boil stones, then what other sorts of food processing
were possibly taking place? Several possible cooking functions for small, unlined, rock free, basin-shaped
hearths include drying and smoking plant and animal products as well as grilling (Black et al. 1997). Both
procedures utilize radiant heating by suspending foods slightly above the heat source.
232
Paleoindian hearths are fairly similar in their contents, usually containing small quantities of
charcoal and ash (see references in Table 7.11). Charred and calcined bone fragments are occasionally
associated with hearths, although the exact percentage of cases is hard to assess due to uneven reporting.
Burned flakes are also commonly reported, suggesting either heat-treating or discard of flaking debris and
tools into the hearth itself.
Oxidation of underlying sediment is uncommon, suggesting either short duration fires or those of
low temperatures (although oxidation can also be affected by sediment type and soil moisture). At Ray
Long and Allen the degree of hearth oxidation ranged from light to heavy firing (Table 7.16). Most
components contained lightly fired hearths, making up 50-75% of all the hearths at the two sites. Yet, over
77% of the Allen OL1 hearths were heavily fired, perhaps signaling instead another, unknown, function.
Table 7.16: Firing intensity of the hearths from the Ray Long and Allen sites.
Light to Medium Total Percent

Site Area/Level
Fired Hearths Hearths of total
Allen OL1 2 9 22.2
Ray Long Area A 5 10 50.0
Allen OL2 4 7 57.1
Ray Long Area B 7 11 63.6
Allen IZ 3 4 75.0
The use of hearths therefore remains somewhat enigmatic. Most were probably used as warming
hearths during cold weather occupations, which might explain the low ubiquity of hearths in the Southern
High Plains and in most Paleoindian short-term occupation sites. If they were being used to process meat,
it was only for low level grilling and snacking, and not for intensive processing.
Most bison kills and processing sites from the upland settings show varying degrees of gourmet
butchering strategies, with no associated hearths. Paleoindian hunters were probably processing these kills
rather quickly, the main goal being stripping and drying the meat for transport, without the aid of smoking,
bone grease production, roasting, etc. As soon as the meat was ready for transport, the groups returned to
larger base camps located in protected settings such as the river valleys and foothills.
Contrast this with sites such as Jones-Miller, where water and wood resources were locally
available. At Jones-Miller, there is extensive evidence for disarticulation of bison carcasses, with bone
233
breaking and abundant snacking of meat occurring around the remains of 12 surface hearths (Stanford
1984).
Thermal Features, a Summary
Most of the large sites with high ubiquity in hearth use and reoccupation are located in diverse
ecotones, often on ecotone boundaries. For example, Lindenmeier is located along the Front Range, Hell
Gap in the Hartville Uplift, the Medicine Creek sites at the intersecting of the Plains and Prairies, and
Agate Basin/Ray Long located along the edges of the Black Hills. On the Southern Plains, sites such as
Nall are found near the Beaver River in Oklahoma, Horace Rivers is in the Canadian Valley, and Lubbock
Lake and Blackwater Locality 1 are on the major draws of the Llano Estacado.
Compare these patterns to sites immediately adjacent to the Great Plains. The sheer abundance of
features in sites along the margins of the Plains is different from those sites on the Plains proper, again
suggesting differences in regional landscape use. For example in northwestern Wyoming and southern
Montana, there are abundant hearths (and other features) in Paleoindian levels at rockshelters such as
Mummy Cave (28 features in the pre-8000 rcybp deposits; Husted and Edgar 2002), Mangus (12-14
features; Husted 1969:30-31), Sorenson (8 features; Husted 1969:12,14), and Bottleneck Caves (24
features; Husted 1969:45-46). In the Southern Bighorns, Schiffer Cave (Frison 1973a, 1991:342-343) and
Medicine Lodge Creek (Frison 1976, 1991:341-343) yielded storage pits, probably related to plant storage,
probably seeds. Nearby open air bison kills also contained numerous features, such as Horner I which
yielded 34 features of charcoal and burnt bone (remains of surface hearth) as well as pits (Todd et al.
1987:54-57, Table 3.2).
In a class by itself, the Barton Gulch site demonstrates the repeated use of place and extensive use
of local resources, where 16 systematically spaced groupings of features, made up of 175 individual
features appear as “paleokitchen” facilities (Armstrong 1993; Davis et al. 1994) (Figure 7.19). As
discussed earlier, pollen and macrofossil data document the extensive use of plants at this site. Grinding
slabs and hand-stones, as well as anvils and hammer-stones, also suggest seed grinding, bone breaking, and
marrow extraction. However, the pit hearth plant processing seen at Barton Gulch is still not on the same
scale as the ethnographic or the Texas Archaic examples.
234
These Paleoindian sites located adjacent to the High Plains show the highest hearth ubiquity and
also diversity in probable functions. I would argue that these reflect patterns of landscape use rather than
any sort of cultural differences in cooking technology. This illustrates the idea that Paleoindians did not
utilize all areas with the Great Plains equally, such as the short grass uplands, the river valleys, and the
foothills. These zones range from highly productive bison habitats, to areas rich in fixed resources such as
wood, water, and raw materials. Paleoindian foragers probably occupied base camps for longer periods in
highly productive zones, moving out onto adjacent uplands for short periods, such as when bison were
readily available.
Figure 7.19. Plan map of Paleoindian features at the Barton Gulch site, Montana (adapted from Armstrong
1993:Figure 4)
235
Paleoindian Structures Viewed from a Continental Perspective
In this final section, I will consider one of the rarest feature forms encountered on sites, possible
structures dating to the Paleoindian period. Given their paucity, I compiled a (nearly complete) sample of
known open-air structures from across North America dating prior to 7500 rcybp. There is consistency in
form and construction technique, suggesting the possible use(s) of such features as well as within which
areas we should expect to discover more of them.
The paucity of structures might be explained by several possibilities, none of which are mutually
exclusive. First, we must look at the size of the excavation area, as previously discussed. Excavations
often center on small blocks, focusing on dense clusters of lithic and faunal debris. While material culture
is often abundant at habitation sites, we might expect that the debris would be found in middens, or at least
discarded away from structures, depending upon the size of the debris. During cold-weather occupations,
we might expect that artifacts would be discarded within or at least nearby the houses. This certainly
appears to be the case at sites such as Agate Basin (Frison and Stanford 1982b) and Mountaineer (Stiger
and Bjornstad 2002).
A second possibility for low feature frequency is that these populations were very mobile, and not
repeatedly occupying the same sites in terms of reusing formerly built houses. As such, the structures they
carried were lightweight and ephemeral, probably skin or brush covered structures. Remnants of
construction techniques, such as post holes would then be uncommon. This suggests that either the poles
were removed and carried along with the foragers, or at least the poles were not deeply set into holes and
left to rot in place. Substantial pit house structures, requiring both time and labor to build, were clearly not
used during the Paleoindian period.
Description of Paleoindian Structures
The majority of sites I sampled are from the western Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, primarily
Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming (Figure 7.20). Several of these sites are located outside the
region, stretching between Virginia and Oregon.
236
Figure 7.20. Locations of known Paleoindian structures in North America.
237
Colorado
Colorado also contains a number of early structures that might possibly be houses. All are located
near the Gunnison Basin in the mountains of southwest Colorado. Stiger (2001) recorded a basin-shaped
structure with a rock lined hearth and bell-shaped storage pit at the Tenderfoot, in Gunnison County (Figure
7.21a). The feature was a large circular soil stain, a little over 4.0 m in diameter. A pile of fire-cracked
rock occurred in the southern portion of the structure. Three radiocarbon dates from the feature spanned
7450 to 7820 rcybp. An external rock-lined firepit, slightly to the south of the structure, dated to 7550
rcybp.
A possible burned structure was reported from the Zephyr site, in Montrose County, Colorado
(Indeck and Kihm 1982). An oval shaped concentration of burned earth, clay, and large amounts of
charcoal was recovered adjacent to two fire cracked rock features. The concentration of burned clay was
slightly lower that the other site features, suggesting a prehistorically excavated floor. The Soap Creek site
is yet another possible structure in the Gunnison Basin. The site appears to be the floor of a former house,
and contains features and broken bison bone among other artifacts (Mark Stiger, personal communication
2002).
The Mountaineer site yielded a possible Folsom structure on the top of W Mountain, in Gunnison
County, Colorado (Stiger and Bjornstad 2002). Excavations and lab analysis are still underway, but the site
has yielded abundant Folsom occupations spread across 14 spatially segregated clusters. A large horizontal
block excavation (>73m2) of one of the clusters revealed the outline of a shelter, with postholes and hearth
features. The dimensions of the structure are similar to other structures in the Gunnison Basin area (Mark
Stiger, personal communication 2002).
Montana
A possible structure dating to the Cody Complex was described from the Mammoth Meadow site,
in Beaverhead County, southwestern Montana (Bonnichsen et al. 1992:312, 316, Figure 8.10 in original).
Rocks in several units are somewhat linear in orientation, suggesting a possible structure of some sort. Red
ocher was associated with the rock alignment, in a lens up to 10 cm thick in some places. The meager
evidence presented for the possible structure remains inconclusive, however.
238
New Mexico
The R-6 site is a Cody site located in the foothills of San Miguel County, in north central New
Mexico (Figure 7.22e). Stanford and Patten (1984) documented a semi-circular concentration of 29 stones
of varying sizes. No additional features, such as hearths or postholes, were associated with the ring.
Debitage and artifacts were present within the interior, but were less concentrated than the area
immediately in front of the structure opening. No tools and only a small amount of debitage were
recovered from the proposed feature. The stone semi-circle had a diameter of around 2.0 m, and an
opening approximately 2.5 m wide oriented to the south-southwest (Stanford and Patten 1984:190-191).
The interior floor of the feature was about 10 cm deeper on average than the surrounding surface.
Texas
A large structure was reported from the Turkey Bend Ranch site in Concho County, Texas (Figure
7.21d) (Lintz et al. 1995; Treece et al. 1993). The structure was buried 2.7 to 2.9 m below ground surface,
attesting to the difficulty in locating such features. The structure was approximately 5.8 m by 5.4 m in size,
with a quite large central hearth, measuring 3.1 m by 2.7 m. Fourteen rock clusters formed the perimeter of
the structure, thought to be post supports. The structure has two radiocarbon dates, ranging from 7480 to
7510 rcybp.
A rectangular rock platform has also been documented from the Clovis level at the Gault site in
Bell County, Texas (Michael Collins, personal communication 2001). It appears as a pile of stone cobbles
along the edge of a channel that once flowed past the site. No hearths or other features have been
documented in association with the rock platform. Its use remains enigmatic: it could have been a
platform for a tent or other structure, although the use of rocks for a tent base would seem illogical given
the soft terrain and softer vegetation which would d have been available in the lush terrain surrounding the
Gault site at the time of occupation.
Wyoming
Six structures have been reported from multiple localities and occupation levels at the Hell Gap
site in Goshen County, eastern Wyoming (Figure 7.22a-d). Beginning with the earliest dated forms, two
239
structures were recorded in the Midland level at Locality II (Irwin-Williams et al 1973:Figures 8 and 9).
Both are circular arrangements of postholes, of different diameters. The first is a small circle
approximately 2 m in diameter (Figure 7.22b), whereas the other is a large circle approximately 4 m in
diameter (Figure 7.22d). The larger circle has fewer postholes on the eastern and northeastern edges and
nearly half of the feature eroded away prior to excavation. Neither of these circles had associated features,
such as hearths.
The Agate Basin level at Hell Gap Locality II yielded three circular alignments of postholes
superimposed over one another (Figure 7.22a). Only 2 of the 3 are illustrated in the site maps (Irwin-
Williams et al. 1973:Figure 10). The three circles from the Agate Basin level are also small, averaging
only a little over 2 m in diameter. The three sets of postholes possibly suggest remodeling over a span of
time, perhaps multiple seasons. The fact that they are superposed suggests that remnants of the structure
were standing when they were remodeled, or else there would be little chance that they would be built in
the same exact spot. As with the Midland level, no features were found in association with the posthole
alignments. Recent reexamination of the Agate Basin faunal collection from Locality II (Byers 2001,
2002) has once again brought this component under analysis. The validity of the overlapping sets of post
holes are questioned by the current research team (David Byers, personal communication 2002).
The final structure recovered at the Hell Gap site was from the Frederick level at Locality I (Irwin-
Williams et al 1973:Figure 7). This feature is slightly different in that it is a stone circle with no associated
postholes (Figure 7.22c). At least nine rocks made the edges of the circle with fewer rocks along the
southern edge. The circle is about 2.3 m in diameter. Several archaeologists have questioned the validity
of the stone circle as a domestic structure (Frison 1983:354; Wilson 1983:354). It is nearly impossible to
evaluate the feature given the sparse published evidence. Mulloy (personal communication expressed in
Irwin-Williams et al. 1973:45) reported a stone circle associated with Cody complex materials, although
the location of that site (presumably not at Hell Gap), and its possibly similarities to R-6, are unknown.
Two hearths were recorded from the Frederick level but outside the possible structure (Irwin-
Williams et al. 1973:45). Burned lithic debris in another area of the component suggests the possibility of a
third thermal feature (Allison Byrnes, personal communication 2002), but also located extramural to the
stone circle.
240
The Hell Gap valley contains abundant stone circles on the surface, probably dating to the late
prehistoric period. Many of these stone circles are quite similar to the buried feature from the Frederick
level. Irwin (1967) felt that the Frederick complex represented a non-Paleoindian form based in part on the
recovery of the stone circle, bone tools, and bone beads at Locality I, traits he felt distinguished the
Frederick complex from other Paleoindian complexes.
It remains to be seen whether the features documented at the Hell Gap site will be duplicated
elsewhere at the site or at other sites in the area, as many researchers question whether they represent actual
prehistoric structures or are instead a product of “wishful interpretation” by the original researchers.
The Agate Basin site, located in Niobrara County in eastern Wyoming, contained a Folsom
complex structure in Area 2 (Figure 7.21c). The house appears to be about 3.5 m in diameter. Two hearths
were associated with the structure: one internal to the structure and a small extramural hearth located some
distance to the east (Frison 1982:Figure 2.16). Considerable lithic debris was associated with the level and
artifact refits further support the possibility of cold weather occupation structure (Hill and Sellet 2000).
Regions Beyond the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains
Several additional sites have been recorded outside the central study area and are briefly described
below. There are possibly additional open-air structures dating to the Early Holocene throughout North
America, but I was not able to locate them in the literature.
The Koster site is located in Greene County, Illinois (Brown and Vierra 1983; Phillips and Brown
1983). Koster has a long and detailed occupational history, spanning the entire Holocene. Structures first
appear in Horizon 8C, which dates to the Middle Archaic, at around 6850-7300 rcybp (these would
correspond to the Early Archaic period in the Plains and Mountains). Multiple house platforms were
rectangular in shape, and measured approximately 4.5 by 5.0 m in size (Brown and Vierra 1983:184-185).
The structures contained internal hearths as well as postholes. Other features include mussel steaming pits,
a clamshell dump, and multiple circular pits (possible storage pits). Given the nature of overlapping
occupations at Koster, many of these structures were altered during subsequent site activities.
Nevertheless, the building of multiple structures, with internal and external features, suggests enormous
investment in place as compared to earlier Paleoindian habitations throughout North America.
241
The Paulina Lake site in Deschutes County, Oregon (Figure 7.21b) yielded a buried structure
(Connolly and Jenkins 1999). The feature contained a central hearth, as well as a series of post molds that
formed a roughly circular outline, approximately 3.5-5.0 m in size. Rocks were also concentrated in the
circular pattern, occurring less frequently within the interior of the feature, as compared to the overall
surface of the site. Nine radiocarbon dates were obtained from the component, six of which were from the
central hearth and from a series of post molds. The dates are internally consistent and date the features
between 8460-9060 rcybp (Connolly and Jenkins 1999:121).
A large series of post molds were recorded at the Thunderbird site in Warren County, Virginia
(Gardner 1974:20-21). Fifty-eight posts formed a rectangular shaped outline, approximately 11-12 m by 5-
6 m in size. Gardner mentions three small shallow pits, six stains, as well as burned areas in the vicinity of
the large feature. Whether these are associated with the structure is unknown. Large chipping clusters
were recorded to the south of the postholes, external to the feature. The structure might date to the
Paleoindian period, but given the multiple periods of occupation at the site, the feature might instead date to
a later time (David Meltzer, personal communication 2002).
242
Figure 7.21. Paleoindian structures identified in North America.
243
Figure 7.22. Additional Paleoindian structures identified in North America.
244
Table 7.17: Paleoindian and Early Archaic structures in North America.
Building
Site/Location State Complex Comment Shape Diameter Hearth Illustration Reference
Type
Not Stiger and
Mountaineer CO Folsom Circular Yes, internal Post holes
illustrated Bjornstad 2002
Yes; internal
features
Late include rock
Paleoindian/ lined hearth, Stiger
Tenderfoot CO Circular 4.0-5.0 m Post holes Figure 7.21
Early bell-shaped 2001:Figure 6.5
Archaic storage pit, pile
of fire cracked
rock
Yes; 2 fire
Early Amorphous Approximately cracked rock not Indeck and Kihm
Zephyr CO Unknown
Archaic shape 2.0 by 4.0 m piles external illustrated 1982
to feature
Yes; internal
Brown and
Early hearths, not
245
Koster IL Rectangular 4.5 by 5.0 m Post holes Vierra 1983:184-

Archaic possible illustrated
185
storage pits
Hard to
Mammoth determine Rock not Bonnichsen et al.
MT Cody No Stone
Meadow possible alignment illustrated 1992:Figure 8.10
function
Stanford and
R-6 NM Cody Semi-circle 2.5-3.0 m No Stone Figure 7.22 Patten 1984:190-
191
Connolly and
Early Circular- 3.5-5.0 m Stone, post Jenkins
Paulina Lake OR Yes; internal Figure 7.21
Holocene oval outline (oval shape) holes 1999:121, Figure
9.17
Still undergoing Michael Collins,
Rectangular
analysis; Stone Not personal
Gault TX Clovis rock No
culturally cobbles illustrated communication
platform
formed? 2001
Building
Site/Location State Complex Comment Shape Diameter Hearth Illustration Reference
Type
Circular Lintz et al. 1995;
Turkey Bend Early Yes; large 14 stone
TX rock clusters 5.0-6.0 m Figure 7.21 Treece et al.
Ranch Archaic central hearth clusters
shape 1993
Located in the
plow zone; No; but at least
Eastern questionable Rectangular 5-6 m wide; 6 stains, as well 58 post Not Gardner
Thunderbird VA
fluted point association with or oval 11-12 m length as several holes illustrated 1974:20-21
Eastern fluted burned areas
point component
Inferred
Yes; internal
from shape
hearth as well Frison
Cold weather of debris;
Agate Basin WY Folsom Circular 3.5 m an extramural Figure 7.21 1982a:Figure
occupation bison bone
from the same 2.16
used as a
level
stake
Possible house,
Packed
although no post Not Frison and
Hanson WY Folsom Circular Not given Unknown earthen
holes or stone illustrated Bradley 1980:9
246
floor
recovered
2 (possibly 3) Irwin-Williams
Hell Gap,
WY Frederick Circular 2.3 m extramural Stone Figure 7.22 et al.
Locality I
heaths 1973:Figure 7
Hell Gap, Irwin-Williams
Locality II WY Agate Basin Circular 2m No Post holes Figure 7.22 et al.
Structure C 1973:Figure 10
Hell Gap, Irwin-Williams
Locality II WY Agate Basin Circular 2m No Post holes Figure 7.22 et al.
Structure D 1973:Figure 10
Irwin-Williams
Hell Gap,
WY Midland Small Circular 1m No Post holes Figure 7.22 et al.
Locality II
1973:Figure 9
Circular to Irwin-Williams
Hell Gap, 1/2 destroyed by Approximately
WY Midland semi- No Post holes Figure 7.22 et al.
Locality II erosion 5m
circular 1973:Figure 8
Summary of Structures
There seem to be three general types of early structures, which tend to be associated with the size
of the feature. The largest form is seen at the Thunderbird site. The structure dwarves others known from
the period, and might represent a series of smaller, overlapping structures, or the possible form of a large
longhouse. The lack of heating features in the interior suggests that the structure was not used during the
colder months as a habitation structure. That fact, coupled with the fact that large groups of people would
probably not occupy a long house during the warmer months of the year, might suggest that the feature is
not a domestic housing structure, but of some other function. Small burned areas were located adjacent to
the house, and might be the remains of multiple task areas. Significant amount of chipped stone debris
throughout the area suggest repeated and long-term occupational duration.
The second type of structure probably represents a housing form. These sites include those from
the mountains of Colorado (Mountaineer, Tenderfoot, and Zephyr), as well as in Oregon (Paulina Lake)
and Texas (Turkey Ranch). The structures are all roughly circular in form, approximately 3.5-5.5 m in
diameter. Most contain a central hearth, as well as various external features. Many of them are built with a
combination of post and rock piles, providing strength to the structure. Instead, they might represent large
smoking racks, with a central drying feature in the form of a hearth providing a slow smoking source.
The final types of early structures are characterized by stone circles and post hole patterns. These
forms are generally circular in shape but small in size, generally less than 2.0-2.5 m in diameter. They have
neither central fire features nor adjacent features. Most likely, they represent either non-habitation
structures, or those of short term, warm weather occupation. Several of the posthole patterns from Hell
Gap might represent the remains of drying racks, set apart from the habitation structures. The main valley
of Hell Gap is filled with late prehistoric stone circles. The circles are located well away from the
Paleoindian deposits of the site, which were excavated along the valley edge, at the base of a slope. With
little doubt, buried Paleoindian deposits are located in the main valley, well below the stone circles. The
fact that the features from Hell Gap were located along the valley edge suggests that they were probably
not in the habitation are of the site, but instead in the area of the site midden.
Despite the rather meager record of early habitation sites, I think we can learn about the general
structure of early housing by examining patterns from a well-defined sequence detailing pithouses in
247
western North America. Larson (1997) recently summarized all early structures in Wyoming, primarily
pithouses located in the western river basins of the state. Most of the sites date to between 4500-6000
rcybp, with only a single site that might date to before 7000 rcybp (Larson 1997:Table 3).
The pithouses ranged in diameter from 1.96-6.00 m, with a mean of 3.34 m (n=40). Most were
excavated into the subsurface, ranging from 0.15-1.25 m in depth, with a mean of 0.46 m in depth (n=41)
(Larson 1997:Table 2). Generally houses were not isolated features on site, but instead integrated into a
complex site structure. The pithouses tended to occur in clusters on sites, ranger room 1-5, with a mean of
1.6 houses per site. Features were also common, ranging from 0-17, with a mean of 5.0 features per site
(Larson 1997:Table 2). Interior features can include hearths, ash stains and storage pits (Larson 1997:355).
Pithouse sites are becomingly increasingly recognized in the intermountain West, with multiple features per
site, and often times multiple houses per site (Larson 1997; Stiger 2001:130-139). However, the sites can
be difficult to recognize, especially if deeply buried, and extensive horizontal block excavations are
necessary to locate associated features.
248
Chapter Summary
This Chapter explored the subsistence and domestic realms of Paleoindians of the Central Plains
and beyond. I examined the variability evident in the faunal, plant, ground stone, hearth, and housing data
from a variety of sites. Each dataset contributed evidence suggesting that Paleoindian groups did not use
all ecotones or regions equally.
The faunal data presented a more robust pattern than that of bison hunters, chasing the herd, and
using the landscape in a redundant fashion. The High Plains and the riparian valleys appear to have
different subsistence signatures. While it is not surprising that bison are universal within every faunal
assemblage, their simple presence does not necessarily indicate extensive use. This lack of thorough
processing has been interpreted as one of the signatures of highly mobile Paleoindians, hypothesized to kill
bison in large numbers, eat what they can, and then move on to the next kill. But this idea is clearly not
tenable based upon the data from the Central Plains.
The faunal data support the interpretation where the upland surfaces were occupied for short
periods, whereas the major campsites of longer duration were located in the river valleys. Perhaps
intensive processing of faunal remains occurs in areas with wide niche breadths because the temporal
occupations are probably going to be longer. It is also within these areas that species richness is highest
because foragers incorporated a wider diversity of fauna into their diets as the result of longer residential
occupation. This pattern is fundamentally different from short-term occupations sites in the uplands, which
contain lower species diversity and lower bison processing intensity. After the carcasses were processed,
the foraging group then left for a campsite. There was simply not a large enough labor pool to completely
process the kill and the group did not stay at the kill for a long period.
Plants were being used during the Early Holocene (for both subsistence and possibly medicinal
purposes) in some regions and/or environments and possibly not in others. Many of the areas yielding
evidence for early plant use are regions where hunter-gatherer populations are hypothesized to have
subsisted on a broad base of animals and associated with low residential mobility. The presence of storage
pits in rockshelter settings also suggests that time was being invested in certain places and that food stores
were being collected and protected during at least certain times of the year. Seeds and fruit of plants such
as prickly pear and goosefoot were often collected, possibly as food sources. Whether the absence of plant
249
remains from most Plains Paleoindian sites signals a taphonomic problem or an actual subsistence choice is
not known, but future fieldwork should aim to collect data to answer this question.
Most of the sites with large numbers of hearths are located in diverse ecotones, often located along
ecotone boundaries. Paleoindian sites located adjacent to the High Plains show the highest hearth ubiquity
and also diversity in probable functions. I would argue that these reflect patterns of landscape use rather
than any sort of cultural differences in cooking technology. This illustrates the idea that Paleoindians did
not utilize all areas with the Great Plains equally, such as the short grass uplands, the river valleys, and the
foothills. These zones range from highly productive bison habitats, to areas rich in fixed resources such as
wood, water, and raw materials. Paleoindian foragers probably occupied base camps for longer periods in
highly productive zones, moving out onto adjacent uplands for short periods, such as when bison were
readily available.
Finally, I presented evidence of Paleoindian structures in North America. Structures are generally
rare, but all of them (whether they be houses or perhaps drying racks) are from sites located in diverse
ecotones, such as elevated foothills and mountains, or the woodlands. Paleoindians that invested in place
were not practicing such principles on the Plains themselves, but in the surrounding regions.
250
Chapter 8
COMPLEX PRESENCE, DENSITY AND REOCCUPATION
In this Chapter, I document variability expressed in three measures of land use spread over large
parts of the Central Plains and adjacent regions (Figure 8.1). These measures include the types and
frequencies of cultural complexes in each region, the density of sites in well-documented areas, and the
reoccupation rates among Paleoindian groups in those same areas. These three datasets are used to measure
occupation stability by region, for instance whether a region was used over a long period of time or was
instead occupied for only a short interval (regardless of the function of those site occupations). Once again,
the data show that different signatures exist across the Plains. Some of this is a result of taphonomic
processes, related to rates of good versus poor exposure and/or preservation of cultural materials. Other
signatures are probably the result of more accurate and thorough reporting of archaeological data in some
areas more than others. But some of these patterns are probably related to shifts in local environmental
resource structure, which occurred during the Late Pleistocene and continued during the Early Holocene.
In this instance, some areas remained viable (or in fact improved) whereas other areas deteriorated over
time. It certainly appears that not all places were used equally -- in either intensity or function -- over the
span of the Paleoindian period. I begin with patterns of Paleoindian complex presence.
Cultural Complexes in the Central Plains and Beyond
Analysis of cultural complexes at the regional scale has a long history. Beginning in the early
1930s, the distribution of point types was used to define the cultural territories of Paleoindian groups.
Renaud (1931b, 1932b, 1934) and Figgins (1934, 1935) mapped and discussed the continually expanding
distribution of Folsom and Yuma forms across the Great Plains. Wormington continued the study in her
editions of Ancient Man in North America (1939, 1944, 1949, 1957), documenting the wide geographic
spread of the earlier fluted forms (primarily Clovis) and the more regionally restricted later complexes such
251
as Scottsbluff and Eden. Irwin (1971:Figure 5 and 6) also plotted the regional distributions of various
Paleoindian styles documented at the Hell Gap site (Irwin 1967; Irwin-Williams et al. 1973). Like his
predecessors, Irwin’s maps were based on his qualitative assessment of the distribution of surface finds.
Earlier in Chapter 4, I discussed projectile point distributions documented in various surveys
completed over the last fifteen years. These exercises certainly have value, yet it is not in assessing
prehistoric population density or “home territories”. Instead the maps document the high ubiquity of
certain Paleoindian point styles spread across the vast Plains (however thin the actual frequencies might
be). Clovis and Folsom had the highest ubiquity across the Central Plains. This is at least partially related
to the increased energy researchers have spent documenting these diagnostic forms. Yet other late
Paleoindian forms are also common throughout the Plains, such as the various point types of the Cody
Complex.
In this analysis, I examined the ubiquity of cultural complexes among sites in the Plains, such as in
the Andersen and Baker collections and in other samples. I selected relatively small areas, rather than large
blocks of the Central Plains, in order to decrease some of the sampling and recording bias common in the
projectile point surveys. These small units are generally well defined and thoroughly studied, helping
negate areas where little is known of the local archaeology. Hopefully a more accurate estimate of the
regional pattern can be determined by comparing these smaller areas.
252
Figure 8.1. Locations of the datasets examined in this chapter.
253
The Andersen data from Yuma and Washington Counties contain a large array of Paleoindian
complexes (Table 8.1). Most Paleoindian complexes are well represented, especially later forms such as
Allen, Cody, and Hell Gap, as well as earlier forms such as Folsom. Angostura and other terminal
Paleoindian forms are not as well represented in the Andersen sample.
One of the clear patterns evident in the Northeastern Colorado data is that all the major
Paleoindian complexes are represented, suggesting a nearly continuous occupation of the region from the
Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene. Foraging groups never abandoned the area regardless of whether
or not the region was used in the same way through time. This is in marked contrast to other regions, as
will be demonstrated shortly.
Table 8.1: Paleoindian complex representation in Yuma and Washington Counties, Colorado.
Number of Percent of
Complex
Components Total
Clovis 12 17.1
Folsom/Midland 26 37.1
Agate Basin 13 18.6
Hell Gap 15 21.4
Plainview/Goshen 10 14.3
Cody 27 38.6
Allen/Frederick 30 42.9
Angostura 4 5.7
Miscellaneous Paleoindian 6 8.6
Side Hollow 9 12.9
Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles and Northeastern New Mexico
In the Baker data (Table 8.2), most Paleoindian complexes are well-represented, especially later
forms such as Plainview, Cody, and Allen, in addition to earlier forms such as Folsom and Clovis. The
Baker data were also collected from a dune field, which afforded excellent visibility. Furthermore,
although minimally discussed in this study, the Baker collection represents only one of a number of other
Paleoindian collections noted in the region (e.g., Ballenger 1999c; Dale 1967; Glover 1978; Gregory 1987;
Jackson et al. 1982; Rhoton 1955; White 1981; Yaple 1968).
254
Combined, these data suggest a nearly continuous occupation of the region during the Late
Pleistocene and Early Holocene. Again, this does not necessarily imply that the region was used in the
same way throughout this period, for the site assemblage data (outlined in Chapter 6) certainly show
differences between site sizes. Regardless, foraging groups continually utilized the region throughout the
Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene.
Table 8.2: Paleoindian complex representation in the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle and Northeastern New
Mexico.
Complex
Components Total
Clovis 7 29.2
Folsom/Midland 7 29.2
Agate Basin 10 41.7
Hell Gap 6 25.0
Plainview/Goshen 11 45.8
Cody 11 45.8
Allen/Frederick 11 45.8
Angostura 1 4.2
Miscellaneous Paleoindian 4 16.7
Central Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico
Further to the west, Judge (1973:78-80) documented a large number of Paleoindian sites in the Rio
Grande Valley of Central New Mexico (Table 8.3). Folsom sites dominate the region, accounting for
nearly half of the reported components. Surprisingly, Clovis is nearly absent. Later forms such as Belen
and Cody are present, but not as common as Folsom. The Belen complex is known only from Central New
Mexico and is hypothesized to be contemporaneous with Plainview (http://www.ele.net/belen/belnintr.htm;
Baker 1968; Judge 1973:69-72), however there are no 14C dates available for the complex.
Clearly absent from the Middle Rio Grande are the Agate Basin and Allen complexes, which are
quite common elsewhere. Hell Gap is also absent, although the Jay complex is perhaps related (Honea
1969) or might instead be an early Archaic form. The “other” category includes early Archaic point styles
which were cross-dated from other regions.
Thus, in the Middle Rio Grande, it appears that there was only a light occupation during the
earliest period (Clovis), followed by a peak in Folsom and followed by ever decreasing site frequencies
through the Early Holocene. Irwin-Williams (1979:33-35; Irwin-Williams and Haynes 1970) hypothesized
255
that this shift in complexes was related to migration of peoples due to environmental stress, a replacement
of Paleoindian populations by later Archaic foragers. Others propose similar arguments, such as
Paleoindian populations abandoning the region following a shift in bison populations during the Early
Holocene (Baker 2002).
Table 8.3: Paleoindian complex representation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, Central New Mexico
(calculated from Judge 1973:Table 1).
Complex
Components Total
Clovis 2 3.4
Folsom 29 49.2
Belen 13 22.0
Cody 9 15.3
Other 6 10.2
Middle Park of North-Central Colorado
Naze (1986, 1994) and Kornfeld and Frison (2000) summarized the Paleoindian record of Middle
Park (Table 8.4), an elevated parkland situated in the mountains of North-central Colorado. Amateur
archaeologists reported a large number of Paleoindian components in this small area. Researchers from the
University of Wyoming have examined many of these sites over the last ten years (e.g., Surovell et al.
2000, 2003; Wiesend and Frison 1998).
Most sites are either Folsom or Goshen in age, including notable site such as the Upper Twin
Mountain bison kill (Goshen complex; Kornfeld et al. 1999) and the large Barger Gulch
workshop/campsite (Folsom complex; Surovell et al. 2003; White 1999). Goshen is thought to be
contemporaneous with Plainview, and at least in Middle Park, Goshen is the same approximate age as the
“late” Folsom period. Later Paleoindian sites are also present, including the Jerry Craig bison kill (Cody
complex; Kornfeld et al. 2000; Surovell et al. 2000) and the Phillips-Williams Fork Reservoir campsite
(Allen complex; Wiesend and Frison 1998). Terminal Paleoindian complexes are also present, although
not as much is known of these sites.
Notably absent are complexes such as Clovis and also Agate Basin. The relative scarcity of Hell
Gap is probably tied to the lack of Agate Basin, since the two are often found together (e.g., Agate Basin,
Hell Gap, and Carter-Kerr McGee sites) and are approximately the same age.
256
Thus, Middle Park appears to nearly continuously occupied by Paleoindian groups following the
end of the Late Pleistocene. This is a relatively surprising discovery, because for many years researchers
thought the mountains were only sparingly used by Paleoindian populations or by mountain-specific
Paleoindian groups (Benedict 1985, 1992; Frison 1991; Frison and Grey 1980; Pitblado 1994, 1998,
1999a). The fact that many of the Middle Park sites contain “High Plains” Paleoindian complexes is proof
that the mountains were indeed utilized by groups ranging over a variety of environments, perhaps
seasonally or over a number of years. Or instead, these traditionally defined “High Plains” groups were in
fact, local inhabitants of the foothills and mountains of the West.
Table 8.4: Paleoindian complex representation in Middle Park, north-central Colorado

(calculated from Kornfeld and Frison 2000:Table 2).
Complex
Components Total
Folsom 9 50.0
Goshen 7 38.9
Hell Gap 1 5.6
Cody 3 16.7
Allen 3 16.7
Late Paleoindian 3 16.7
Unidentified type 2 11.1
Western Texas and Eastern New Mexico
Thurmond (1990:13-27) summarized Early Holocene projectile point types from 89 sites, spread
across a large area of the Southern Plains including Western Oklahoma, Texas and Eastern New Mexico.
Thurmond primarily used published data for his analysis and did not reevaluate the typological
classifications described in the original reports. I follow his protocol in this analysis, even though there are
possibly problems in misidentification of certain types, for instance distinguishing Golondrina from
Plainview specimens (Hester 1979, 1983; Turner and Hester 1993). Clovis and Folsom components were
not tallied in the Thurmond study, thus the sample is only relevant to late Paleoindian forms. I have also
removed several sites discussed elsewhere by Holliday (see below) and myself (Nall site from the
Oklahoma Panhandle), giving a smaller sample of 83 sites.
257
Plainview dominates the sample, present on over 83% of the sites (Table 8.5). Agate Basin and
Hell Gap are uncommon in the large region, much like the New Mexico and Middle Park data. Cody is
present (Eden and Scottsbluff types) but in lesser frequencies compared to Plainview. Classic Eastern
North America (and Texas) forms such as Dalton and San Patrice are present. Angostura and Golondrina
are well represented and relate to the strong presence of regionally specific late Paleoindian complexes in
Texas. Meserve is also common in the Thurmond sample but it is probably misidentified, as many
Meserve tools are probably resharpened lanceolate forms such as Plainview and Golondrina. Notably
absent from the sample is the Allen complex. This type was probably subsumed under the Plainview or
Meserve categories, since forms similar to the Allen complex are present in Texas (e.g., Horace Rivers
[Mallouf and Mandel 1997] and St. Mary’s Hall [Hester 1978, 1979, 1990; Hester and Knepper 1991]).
The Thurmond sample documents a solid presence of Paleoindian complexes over time, with
noted peaks of certain types. Many of these complexes are not present elsewhere on the Plains and
represent the development of regionally stylistic forms, interpreted by some as regional populations
(Johnson 1989; Myers and Lambert 1983). It is interesting to note that Paleoindian complex diversity is
high in this sample, which parallels the high diversity of environmental zones in Texas. Of course, the
Thurmond sample is the largest geographic area included in this study, and study area size with little doubt
is correlated with the richness of point styles. Despite this, it seems probable that the diversity of point
types and site types is related to the great diversity of subsistence and settlement adaptations taking place in
Texas as compared to the Plains themselves during this period.
258
Table 8.5: Complex representation in western Texas and eastern New Mexico
(summarized from Thurmond 1990:Table 4).
Complex
Components Total
Plainview 69 83.1
Milnesand 6 7.2
Meserve 20 24.1
Agate Basin 2 2.4
Hell Gap 9 10.8
Eden 3 3.6
Scottsbluff 13 15.7
Golondrina 27 32.5
Angostura 21 25.3
Dalton 1 1.2
San Patrice 5 6.0
The Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico
Holliday (1997) summarized his Paleoindian research on the Llano Estacado, both in terms of his
own work at Lubbock Lake, as well as other notable sites from the Southern High Plains. Holliday follows
the groundbreaking work of Hester (1975a,b; Hester and Grady 1977; Wendorf and Hester 1962, 1975) in
drawing broad generalizations of Paleoindian occupation of the Llano Estacado during the terminal
Pleistocene/Early Holocene. Holliday documented large numbers of Clovis, Folsom, and Plainview
components from eastern New Mexico and western Texas (Table 8.6). Plainview is quite common and the
Milnesand complex is probably related to Plainview, at least chronologically. Agate Basin is again poorly
represented and the Hell Gap complex is non-existent. Various Cody forms are evident, but later
Paleoindian complexes such as Allen and Angostura have not been identified. Like New Mexico, Folsom
dominates the regional record. The lack of late and terminal Paleoindian forms is surprising, but might
correlate with the onset of the severe Altithermal during the early-mid Holocene, evidenced from the water
wells at local sites such as Mustang Springs (Meltzer 1991, 1999) and Blackwater Draw Locality No.1
(Evans 1951).
259
Table 8.6: Complex representation on the Llano Estacado, Texas and New Mexico
(summarized from Holliday 1997:Table 5.3)
Complex
Components Total
Clovis 6 20.7
Clovis-age 1 3.4
Folsom 15 51.7
Folsom-age 2 6.9
Midland or unfluted Folsom 8 27.6
Agate Basin or constricted stem 4 13.8
Milnesand or constricted stem 2 6.9
Plainview 10 34.5
Plainview-age 2 6.9
Firstview, San Jon, Eden
8 27.6
Scottsbluff
San Luis Valley of South-Central Colorado
Jodry (1999:85-106) summarized the San Luis Valley of Southern Colorado, tabulating 106
Paleoindian components from 98 sites (Table 8.7). The data were collected from the Colorado state
archaeological files, the Rio Grande National Forest, and private collections studied by researchers from
the Smithsonian Institution.
This region has seen extensive fieldwork by the Smithsonian since the late 1970s, primarily at
Folsom localities such as Stewart’s Cattle Guard, Black Mountain, Linger, Reddin and Zapata. Thus, it
might not be surprising that Folsom dominates the sample, clearly outnumbering Clovis and Cody sites.
Other complexes such as Agate Basin, Hell Gap, Plainview/Goshen, and miscellaneous Paleoindian forms
are present, but underrepresented, generally present at less than 10% of all sites.
The majority of sites are located in two adjacent counties (Alamosa and Saguache), in the vicinity
of the Great Sand Dunes and the playas and wetlands of the central San Luis Valley. The large cluster of
sites in and around the wetlands demonstrates the importance of this resource base to Paleoindian foragers,
in terms of aquatic plant resources and attracting game such as bison to the wetland lakes.
Despite the dominance of Folsom in the sample, the research potential for late Paleoindian sites in
the San Luis Valley is considered excellent given the preliminary results reported by Jodry. Further
research will clarify the matter of whether Folsom really dominates the region, or is simply an artifact of
the Smithsonian research.

260
Table 8.7: Complex representation in the Upper Rio Grande Valley of Southern Colorado
(Jodry 1999:Table 6-10).
Total Percent of
Rio
Complex Alamosa Conejos Hinsdale Mineral Saguache Components Total
Grande
(Complex) (Complex)
Clovis 6 1 0 0 1 4 12 11.3
Folsom 20 2 2 0 5 11 40 37.7
Crescent 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9
Goshen/
1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1.9
Plainview
Agate Basin 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1.9
Hell Gap 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.9
Cody 9 0 0 0 2 5 16 15.1
Dalton 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1.9
Foothills/
2 0 0 0 0 2 4 3.8
Mountain
Lanceolate
2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.9
concave base
Square stem
1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1.9
concave base
Unidentified
2 2 0 0 0 6 10 9.4
Plano
Unidentified
3 2 0 0 0 6 11 10.4
Paleoindian
Total Components
51 7 2 1 8 37 106
(County)
Percent of Total
48.1 6.6 1.9 0.9 7.5 34.9
(County)
261
Upper Gunnison Valley of Western Colorado
Finally, recent work in the Upper Gunnison Basin of Western Colorado merits mention. A large
number of Paleoindian sites of all ages have been documented (Table 8.8), based on counts from the
Colorado state archaeological files, as well as site records at Western State College (Mark Stiger, personal
communication 2002). Notable sites include Mountaineer, which has multiple clusters of Folsom debris
spread across a large mesa overlooking the Gunnison River and Basin. Research is ongoing, but the
Gunnison Valley promises to be a productive region for continued Paleoindian research.
Like all the regions mentioned thus far, Folsom dominates the region. Notably sparse in the
Gunnison Basin are Plainview/Goshen and other forms such as Agate Basin. Many of the Paleoindian
forms are late Paleoindian Mountain/Foothill complexes discussed by Pitblado (1999a). Recent work at the
Chance Gulch site (Pitblado 2002) documents the presence of late Paleoindian groups in the area.
Table 8.8: Complex representation in the upper Gunnison Basin, western Colorado
(Mark Stiger, personal communication 2002).
Complex Number of Percent of

Components Total
Clovis 3 5.8
Folsom 12 23.1
Goshen 1 1.9
Hell Gap 2 3.8
Cody 2 3.8
Eden 3 5.8
Dalton 1 1.9
Allen 5 9.6
Plano 9 17.3
Unidentified Paleoindian 13 25
“Lanceolate” 1 1.9
262
Discussion and Summary of Paleoindian Complex Frequencies
There are clearly differences between the regions in terms of complex representation (Figures 8.2
and 8.3). Certain complexes (i.e., Folsom) dominate certain regions, but these regions may in turn contain
few examples of subsequent complexes occurring in the Early Holocene, such as Cody or Allen. Other
regions have a more even spread of cultural complexes, with more equal representations of Clovis to late
Paleoindian forms. Several hypotheses provide possible explanations of these patterns.
The differences might be related to typological (mis)identification. Much of these data are based
upon stylistic variability in projectile point form, primarily because there are only a few other diagnostic
Paleoindian tool types (i.e., Cody knives, Folsom channel flakes, Folsom ultra-thin bifaces) or 14C dated
sites. As such, the complex labels are based upon differences in projectile point morphology. Often times,
typologies are best used at a local-regional scale, hopefully defined from sites within the same region.
However, many Paleoindian forms span the entire Plains, and labels that were identified in one region are
commonly employed in other regions. The temporal implications of this are unproven.
Typological identification can be difficult at best in places like Texas, where there are a large
number of point types and an even larger number of stone tools to sort into groups. What is considered
type “A” in one area is sometimes identified as type “B” in another area. The Plainview type is a good
example of this problem. Plainview points are often identified as lanceolate forms with concave bases,
parallel controlled flaking, lenticular cross-section, and well executed reduction. Several 14C dated and
excavated Plainview sites include Bonfire Shelter (Dibble 1968) and the Plainview type-site (c.f., Holliday
et al. 1999; Knudson 1983). However, the Plainview form is often compared to similar morphological
forms such as St. Mary’s Hall, Barber, Allen, and Golondrina (see Turner and Hester 1993 for commonly
cited illustrations) which are certainly a different breed, being more recent in age and in many cases, more
related to generalized foraging adaptations than the oft-argued bison-hunting Plainview complex.
A second possible explanation for differences in Paleoindian complex presence is the biased
recording and reporting of these samples. Some of these regions have been extensively researched, but
primarily for single cultural complexes. For example, Folsom points are among the most identifiable of
Paleoindian point types and have garnered frequent regional studies (e.g., Amick 1994b, 1996; Hofman
1987, 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994c, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2000; Judge 1973; Largent et al. 1991, Largent 1995;
263
LeTourneau 2000). Other Paleoindian complexes are often times noted in these studies, but not discussed
in detail. This sort of systematic bias cannot be addressed without reexamining the regions in question.
Yet, the entire Paleoindian sequence was studied in regions such as the Middle Rio Grande, Middle Park,
and in the Andersen/Baker collections. In these studies, Folsom was simply one of several complexes,
albeit the most common, suggesting that Folsom represents a broad ranging complex that left abundant
material debris.
The third possible explanation for shifts in complex frequency relates to changes in Paleoindian
settlement systems through time. As the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene presented a highly variable
environment, with megafaunal extinction throughout the continent and xerification of the Southwest,
perhaps we should expect matched shifts in territory range and population size following such dramatic
environmental change. Some groups probably moved into formerly inhabited areas such as the mountains
following melting of extensive snow fields (general lack of Clovis in the high mountains, followed by a
large spike in Folsom). In other areas, groups abandoned the Southwest for the Plains, to pursue more
predictable and stable economic resources. This seems the case in Arizona, where Clovis is concentrated in
the southeastern portion of the state, and little if any, Paleoindian populations are noted post-Clovis
(Huckell 1982; Mabry 1998). Areas such as the Central Plains remained a viable choice for Paleoindian
foragers throughout the Paleoindian period. Although the High Plains of Northeastern Colorado and the
Oklahoma/Texas Panhandles were only grasslands, they must have attracted enough game (primarily bison)
to anchor foraging populations to the area throughout the Early Holocene. The High Plains, coupled with
the adjacent riparian zones, provided an ideal habitat for Paleoindian populations as suggested in previous
Chapters.
264
100
Clovis
90 Folsom
Agate Basin
80
Percent of Regional Sites Containing the Complex
Hell Gap
Plainview
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Rio Grande Llano Estacado West Texas OK Panhandle NE Colorado Middle Park
Region
Figure 8.2: Early Paleoindian representation within the Central Plains and adjacent regions.
100
Cody
90 Allen
Angostura
80
Percent of Regional Sites Containing the Complex
Golondrina
Other
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Rio Grande Llano Estacado West Texas OK Panhandle NE Colorado Middle Park
Region
Figure 8.3: Late Paleoindian representation within the Central Plains and adjacent regions.
265
Density of Sites in the Central Plains and Beyond
The second measure of Paleoindian regional stability is the density of sites per unit space. As
discussed in Chapter 4, previous scholars have attempted to assess the size of Paleoindian populations
using various measures, based on either counts of sites of similar ages or counts of projectile points per unit
of space (often summarized by county). Blackmar (2001) applied the ubiquity measure (the simple
presence or absence of a complex), to help remove some of the bias in tool frequency. I argued that many
of these measures were inadequate, primarily because the datasets were not representative of the small-
scale space for which they were presented, often at the state level or beyond.
A better approach is to examine smaller regions such as the ones described in this Chapter,
because the local geology must be taken into consideration (e.g., Bettis 1992; Holliday 1995, 1997;
Johnson and Logan 1990; Mandel 1992; see historical overviews in Mandel 2000), such as the depositional
and erosional environment (i.e., Muhs and Holliday 1995). Small areas usually allow for a more
representative sample because it is more pragmatic to work at the scale of a single county or only a few
counties.
The Wray dune field contains a large number of sites in a relatively small amount of space. In
addition to the Andersen sites, the area has yielded sites such as Selby and Dutton (Graham 1981; Stanford
1979b) as well as Paleoindian sites documented by Gebhard (1946, 1949). Local collectors have also
located additional sites not documented in the state files or summarized in this dissertation.
Table 8.9 summarizes the Paleoindian site density for northeastern Colorado, using an arbitrary
regional area of 1492 km2. Site density is obviously going to increase or decrease based on the size of the
study area, but this estimate was used because it forms the outer boundary of the concentration (the area
surface hunted by the Andersen family). Site densities are high compared to other regions of the Plains, as
seen below.
266
Table 8.9: Paleoindian site density in Yuma and Washington Counties, Colorado.
Number of Sites per Sites per

Complex
Sites km2 10,000 km2
Clovis 11 7.37E-03 74
Folsom 23 1.54E-02 154
Plainview 9 6.03E-03 60
Agate Basin 10 6.70E-03 67
Hell Gap 13 8.71E-03 87
Cody 22 1.47E-02 147
Allen 25 1.68E-02 168
Angostura 3 2.01E-03 20
Misc. Paleoindian 14 9.38E-03 94
Total Paleoindian 60 4.02E-02 402
Area (km2) 1492
Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles
Site density in the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles is also high, but somewhat lower than that of
northeastern Colorado (Table 8.10). The Baker data contain fewer sites and they are spread over a larger
area. As before, the area was arbitrarily defined by the boundary of the known concentration. But, the
Baker data do contain a large number of Paleoindian specimens with poor provenience that were not
included in this sample. It is highly probably that they are from the same general area; therefore the site
density in this region is probably as high as that of Yuma County, which is not surprising given their
similar environments.
Table 8.10: Paleoindian site density in the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles.

Complex
Clovis 5 2.03E-03 20
Folsom 5 2.03E-03 20
Plainview 11 4.46E-03 45
Agate Basin 9 3.65E-03 37
Hell Gap 6 2.44E-03 24
Cody 8 3.25E-03 33
Allen 9 3.65E-03 37
Angostura 1 4.06E-04 4
Misc. Paleoindian 4 1.62E-03 16
Area (km2) 2464
267
Rio Grande Valley of Central New Mexico
As discussed above, the Rio Grande Valley of Central New Mexico is well known for its high
density of Paleoindian sites, described by Judge (1973; Judge and Dawson 1972), Amick (1994a, 1994b,
1996, 2000) and LeTourneau (2000). Judge (1973:53) felt that his study was a representative sample of the
regional picture based upon his survey methodology.
Densities of Paleoindian sites in Central New Mexico are presented in Table 8.11. Paleoindian
sites are less common in this region, as compared to others, occurring on average of 9.75E-03 sites per km2
(or extrapolated to 98 sites per 10,000 km2).
Table 8.11: Paleoindian site density in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico
(calculated from Judge 1973)

Complex
Clovis 2 3.31E-04 3
Folsom 29 4.79E-03 48
Belen 13 2.15E-03 21
Cody 9 1.49E-03 15
Other 6 9.92E-04 10
Area (km2) 6050
The Judge data were based in part on the collections of Ele Baker and remains a snapshot of the
collection during the late 1960s. In order to evaluate whether the Judge data remained true after another
thirty years of surface collecting, I examined the records of Tony Baker. Tony Baker, along with his father
Ele, collected a large sample of Folsom data from the Rio Grande Valley. The Baker data present a slightly
different pattern than that of Judge.
Baker provided the locations of all of his Paleoindian sites located on the two 1:250,000 maps of
Central New Mexico (the Albuquerque and Socorro sheets), detailing an area of 2 degrees latitude by 2
degrees of longitude (this equates to 256 7.5’ quadrangle maps). The Bakers recorded Paleoindian sites on
33 of the 256 quadrangle maps, or roughly 13% of all the maps.
The number of sites varies between 1 and 34 per quad sheet (Table 8.12). Twenty-one percent of
the sheets contain only a single site and 70% of the maps contain five or fewer sites. High densities of
268
sites, or more than 10 sites per quad sheet, occur on only 12% of the maps. Thus, the Baker data show that
the majority of sites are spread across the region and clusters only occur in select areas. Other areas have
low site densities.
Table 8.12: Paleoindian sites per quad sheet, Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico
(calculated from data provided by Tony Baker, personal communication 2002).
Number of
Number of Cumulative Total Cumulative
Sites per Percent Percent
Quad Sheets Percent Sites Percent
Quad
1 7 21.2 21.2 7 3.7 3.7
2 3 9.1 30.3 6 3.2 6.9
3 4 12.1 42.4 12 6.3 13.2
4 7 21.2 63.6 28 14.8 28.0
5 2 6.1 69.7 10 5.3 33.3
6 1 3.0 72.7 6 3.2 36.5
7 2 6.1 78.8 14 7.4 43.9
8 2 6.1 84.8 16 8.5 52.4
10 1 3.0 87.9 10 5.3 57.7
13 1 3.0 90.9 13 6.9 64.6
14 1 3.0 93.9 14 7.4 72.0
19 1 3.0 97.0 19 10.1 82.0
34 1 3.0 100.0 34 18.0 100.0
33 100.0 189 100.0
When one considers how much information is being contributed per sheet, it is clear that several
sheets make up the majority of the dataset (Table 8.12). Quad sheets with 10 or more sites make up 43% of
the dataset, while a single quad map contains 34 sites or 18% of the entire sample. Given that a 7.5’ map
contains between 127 to 181 km2 (http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs01502.html), this yields a
density ranging between 1.88E-01 to 2.68E-01 sites per km2 (1,880 to 2,680 per 10,000 km2) for the quad
map containing 34 sites. This is high and quite comparable to the data from Middle Park, as presented
below.
There are several explanations for this pattern. First, there is some survey bias involved, as the
Bakers did not systematically survey each and every quad sheet. In fact, many of the sheets containing but
a single Paleoindian site were visited only once (Tony Baker, personal communication 2002).
269
But another important factor is that certain portions of the Middle Rio Grande Valley were used
more intensively than others. Baker (2002) hypotheses that Paleoindian groups heavily favored the area
known as the West Mesa, located between the Rio Grande and Rio Puerco. Large herds of bison are
thought to have traversed this area, crossing between the two major drainages. Many of Baker’s
Paleoindian sites are located in this area, potentially positioned to intercept migrating bison herds. As well,
there are small playa lakes in this area, which would have attracted game to the area. Judge (Judge and
Dawson 1972; Dawson and Judge 1969) and Huckell (Huckell and Kilby 2000) have documented Folsom
occupations at playa lakes on the West Mesa.
The Baker data provide some context to the Judge data. Site density, in and of itself, is not the
best indicator of regional stability in all situations, as there are potentially some areas within regions that
will be more densely occupied than others. The Baker data suggest that the West Mesa is one such area,
whereas other portions of the Middle Rio Grande Valley were possibly not as heavily utilized. Taking
density measures across an entire region can negate such differences manifest at local scales. Regardless,
the New Mexico data suggest that Paleoindian sites are fairly common, as compared to the Southern High
Plains (see below).
San Luis Valley of South-Central Colorado
A high site density is also reported to the north in the San Luis Valley. The region has yielded 50
sites to the Colorado state archaeological files (Martorano et al. 1999:Appendix A), as well as 48 additional
sites documented by Jodry and Stanford from private collections (Jodry 1999). Of the 50 sites recorded in
the state archaeological files, 45 have sufficient location data for analysis.
The sites occur over 23 quadrangle sheets located in 5 contiguous counties, but mostly confined to
Alamosa and Saguache Counties. Most quad maps (73.9%) contain only a single site (Table 8.13), with
one quad map containing nine sites. Again, given that a 7.5’ map contains between 127 to 181 km2
(http://mac.usgs.gov/mac/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs01502.html), this yields a density ranging between 4.97E-02
to 7.09E-02 sites per km2 (497 to 709 sites per 10,000 km2) for the quad map containing 9 sites. This is
quite comparable to the data from Northeastern Colorado, as presented above.
270
Table 8.13: Paleoindian sites per quad sheet, San Luis Valley, Colorado
(Martorano et al. 1999:Appendix A).
Number of
Number of Cumulative Total Percent Cumulative
Sites per Percent
Quad Sheets Percent Sites Percent
Quad
1 17 73.9 73.9 17 37.8 37.8
2 2 8.7 82.6 4 8.9 46.7
3 1 4.3 87.0 3 6.7 53.3
6 2 8.7 95.7 12 26.7 80.0
9 1 4.3 100.0 9 20.0 100.0
23 100.0 45 100.0
Like the Baker data from Central New Mexico, three quad sheets account for nearly half (46.7%)
of the entire sample (Table 8.14). The importance of the quadrangle map with nine sites cannot be
understated, as it contributed 20% of the sites in the entire dataset.
These particular sites are all located relatively close to one another and the Great Sand Dunes
National Monument. This region has seen abundant work by Jodry and Stanford over the last twenty-five
years, with both amateur and professional archaeologists locating many sites with the aid of the increased
exposure in the sandy country. The San Luis data document a moderate density of Paleoindian sites,
slightly less than that seen in the Oklahoma Panhandle and northeastern Colorado, but definitely higher
than expected given current Paleoindian models.
Kornfeld and Frison (2000) documented high Paleoindian site densities (Table 8.14) from the
Middle Park of Northern Colorado, where on average 0.5 Paleoindian sites occur for every km2. Middle
Park, like other regions, provides great surface exposure, which helps account in part for such high site
density.
271
Table 8.14: Paleoindian site density in Middle Park, Colorado
(calculated from Kornfeld and Frison 2000:134 and Table 2).

Complex
Folsom 9 2.57E-01 2571
Goshen 7 2.00E-01 2000
Hell Gap 1 2.86E-02 286
Cody 3 8.57E-02 857
Allen 3 8.57E-02 857
Late Paleoindian 3 8.57E-02 857
Unidentified type 2 5.71E-02 571
Area (km2) 35
Naze Total Folsom 26 4.23E-03 42

Naze Area (km2) 6151
The small area (35 km2) studied by Kornfeld and Frison must be factored into interpreting this
density measure. Kornfeld and Frison cover only a small portion of a larger area studied by Naze (1986,
1994). Naze documented 26 Folsom sites within an area of 6151 km2 (Naze 1986:12). The sites were of
varying size and integrity, but Naze’s overall Folsom density (4.23E-03 sites per km2, or 42 sites per
10,000 km2) is much lower than that of Kornfeld and Frison and quite similar to the Folsom density
reported by Judge above. But like the Judge sample, Naze’s project did not represent a systematic regional
sample, but rather a summary of amateur discoveries in the region. It’s importance was in documenting the
great number of Paleoindian sites in the mountains of Colorado, many of which were previously unknown.
Thus, the actual Paleoindian site density in Middle Park is somewhere between the Naze and Kornfeld
estimates.
Regardless of how the area is defined, Middle Park remains one of the most densely occupied
areas of the Plains and West. The research potential there is high given such density, holding interesting
implications for modeling Paleoindian settlement patterns and land use strategies.
272
Hester and Grady (1977:81-86) presented a spatial analysis of Paleoindian sites recorded during
the High Plains Paleoecology Project (HPPP; Hester 1975a,b; Hester and Grady 1977, Wendorf and Hester
1962). The High Plains project was groundbreaking research for its time and its influence on regional
Paleoindian archaeology is still felt today, given the interdisciplinary geoarchaeological focus and the
publication of several key sites (such as Elida and Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1). The study was the
first of its kind for the Great Plains, computing nearest neighbor statistics, mean distances between sites
types, and Thiessen polygons for the High Plains Paleoindian sites. Many of these sites are located near
playas, blowouts, or along Blackwater Draw, one of a handful of drainages crossing the Southern High
Plains.
The main problem with the study is that the survey area was enormous, covering 42,732 km2. The
HPPP did not systematically survey this large area, but instead relied on local avocational collections, spot
checks of highly probably landforms, and revisits to previously known sites. Large areas were ignored, but
still included within the project area. Therefore, the Paleoindian complex densities proved low for the
HPPP project (Table 8.15).
Table 8.15: Paleoindian site density on the Llano Estacado, eastern New Mexico and western Texas
(calculated from Hester and Grady 1977:89).

Complex
Clovis 23 5.38E-04 5
Folsom 36 8.42E-04 8
Late Paleo 52 1.22E-03 12
Area (km2) 42732
The actual Paleoindian site density is probably much higher than that published in Hester and
Grady. Several clusters of sites are visible in the Hester maps (1975b:Figures 2-1 and 2-2), such as around
the Clovis type-site, the Milnesand-Ted Williamson site area, and off the caprock to the southeast of
Lubbock. These particular areas were heavily collected by amateur archaeologists, leading to the discovery
of sites such as Elida, Milnesand, Ted Williamson, and Warnica-Wilson (Brolio 1971; Hester 1962; Reutter
273
1996; Sellards 1955; Warnica 1961; Warnica and Williamson 1968). The seeming void of sites between
these hotspots should not be taken (at this time) as an overall lack of sites, but instead as a lack of research
at the time of the HPPP.
The area to the south of the HPPP study has also yielded an abundance of Paleoindian sites. Gaines County
is located in the Andrews dunes (an extension of the Monahans dune field) and has been heavily collected
by amateur archaeologists. Polyak and Williams (1986) published illustrations and metric descriptions of
360 Paleoindian tools held in various collections from the county. The tools are mostly projectile points,
although there are some preforms, projectile point/knives, as well as some heavily reworked drill forms.
The tools represent the spectrum of Paleoindian complexes, from Clovis to Allen in age. The authors did
not specify individual types, although many can clearly be identified from the illustrations.
The calculated Paleoindian site density in Gaines County is quite high (Table 8.16). The study
area is defined as the entire county, which leads to a large sample area. The actual site density in Gaines
County is even higher, given that this is only a sample of the collections from the county. As well, many of
the documented sites are concentrated in areas with high visibility, such as the dune fields. Discovery of
additional sites in the draws and playas of Gaines County would lead to an even more dense Paleoindian
occupation. A few sites are known from outside the dune field, including sites situated along playas and
kill sites in draws (e.g., the Cody-complex Seminole-Rose bison kill (Collins et al. 1997) and additional
geoarchaeological work will aid in the discovery of additional sites (Kibler 1992).
Table 8.16: Paleoindian site density in Gaines County, Texas

(calculated from Polyak and Williams 1986).

Complex
Area (km2) 3895
Discussion and Summary of Paleoindian Site Density
Paleoindian site density is quite variable across the Central Plains and beyond. Take for example,
variation in the density of Folsom sites (Figure 8.4). Much of this variability is related to the size of the
274
area of inquiry, rather than the total number or density of sites. For example, Middle Park is 305 times as
dense as compared to the Llano Estacado. But this is akin to comparing apples to oranges, as there are
clearly areas within the Llano Estacado having higher densities than the aggregate as a whole. Perhaps it is
better to view the three regions located between these two extremes, as most areas show a similar density,
with Northeastern Colorado being only 7.6 times denser than the Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle.
The same general pattern prevails when combining all Paleoindian complexes (Figure 8.5). Middle
Park is 274 times as dense than the Llano Estacado sample. Again however, the three regions in between
are more similar in density, with Northeastern Colorado being only 5.8 times denser than the
Oklahoma/Texas Panhandle.
This general argument is supported by the negative curvilinear relationship shown in Figure 8.6. The
two extremes of Middle Park and the Llano Estacado are clearly outliers, but there is relative clustering of
the other four regions, with variable (but similar) densities in about the same amount of space. Are these
values more realistic measures of Paleoindian density, better measures than the two extremes? It is difficult
to say, but they serve as the bare minimum of Paleoindian site density in grassland settings, settings that
afford high visibility for site discovery but were probably rather poor habitats for occupation during the
Paleoindian period. Surely other dense areas such as Middle Park will be located. This area is an ideal
environment for prehistoric hunter-gatherers and at the moment represents the outer tail for Paleoindian
density in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West.
What can the density data inform us about changes through time? Figure 8.7 presents the mean (and 1
standard deviation) densities of various Paleoindian complexes, as averaged across all regions containing
those same complexes. There are some slight peaks and troughs in the data, with Folsom, Plainview, and
Allen all showing high average site densities. It is not known whether these represent population pulses,
general packing of sites within space, or is simply a sample size phenomenon. But these trends do suggest
that there are measurable differences in site frequencies exhibited through time in the Central Plains and
adjacent regions.
275
3000
2570
2500
2000
Sites per 10,000 km2
1500
1000
500
154
20 48
8
0
HPPP Llano Estacado Oklahoma/Texas Rio Grande Northeastern Colorado Middle Park
Panhandle
Region
Figure 8.4: Folsom site density in the Central Plains and surrounding regions.
6000
5140
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
402
185
69 98
19
0
HPPP Llano Estacado Oklahoma/Texas Rio Grande Gaines County Northeastern Middle Park
Panhandle Colorado
Region
Figure 8.5: Paleoindian site density in the Central Plains and surrounding regions.
276
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
Area (km2)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Figure 8.6: Negative relationship between Paleoindian site density and size of region.
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
All Sites (306) Clovis (41) Folsom (102) Plainview (40) Agate Basin Hell Gap (20) Cody (42) Allen (37) Angostura (4) Misc. Paleo
(19) (29)
Cultural Complex
Figure 8.7: Mean (solid black line) and standard deviation (+1 and –1; dotted lines) site densities of
Paleoindian complexes in the Central Plains and surrounding regions.
277
Reoccupation Rates in the Central Plains and Beyond
In this final section of the Chapter, I examine the reoccupation rates of Paleoindian sites from the
Plains and beyond. Site reoccupation is a useful measure of stability in that sites which were occupied
more than once suggests that the place was an important feature on the landscape. This does not mean,
however, that the site was necessarily used the same way during each occupation (i.e., Binford 1982; see
papers in Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992). Instead, site reoccupation suggests the location offered some
positive characteristic that was exploited by returning groups, sometimes during the same period (such as
multiple Cody occupations) or sometimes over a period of several thousand years. Sites showing evidence
of reoccupation often include camps, rockshelters, and workshops/quarries. The lure to these particular
locations often includes water or lithic raw materials, for example. High reoccupation rates are expected
from Paleoindian groups moving from base camp to base camp, where the same sites (or sites with similar
resources) were reused time and time again.
Sites that were only used once -- and then never reoccupied -- represent “one hit wonders”, where
the particular resource that might have drawn groups to the site in the first place were perhaps no longer
there in subsequent periods. Sites in this category could include opportunistic kills, where animals were
randomly located on the landscape. Little to no reoccupation is expected from Paleoindian complexes
continually moving across the landscape, for example moving from kill to kill.
The Andersen data document that the majority of Paleoindian localities in this area of
Northeastern Colorado were reoccupied two or more times (Table 8.17). Only 22 sites, representing 37%
of the sample, were single component occupations. A large number of sites in the region show intense
reoccupation, as 16 sites (17% of the sample) yielded five or more Paleoindian complexes.
This suggests that many sites in the region remained viable throughout the Paleoindian period, at
least for generalized foraging. Remember that many of the sites in this sample are small, represented by
only a few projectile points. Large sites are less common, but they often contain more Paleoindian
complexes (Figure 8.8, r2=0.7269).
278
Is this a sample size phenomenon, or instead the case of Paleoindians mapping onto very good
places on the landscape? Given that many of these patterns seem independent of the size of excavation
area (Chapter 6), it suggests that Paleoindian groups continually returned to particularly rich habitats within
the region. This is not the pattern one would expect for high residential mobility foragers, moving from kill
to kill. Small sites were exploited from these larger bases in a logistical fashion, leaving a record of small
sites scattered across the landscape, centered on a few large sites.
Table 8.17: Paleoindian reoccupation rates in Northeastern Colorado.
Number of Number of Percent of Cumulative

Site Components Sites Total Percent
1 22 37.0 37.0
2 14 23.0 60.0
3 5 8.0 68.0
4 3 5.0 73.0
5 6 10.0 83.0
6 6 10.0 93.0
7 2 3.0 96.0
8 1 2.0 98.0
9 1 2.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0
279
1000
100
2
R = 0.7269
10
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
Paleoindian Complexes Represented
Figure 8.8: Scatterplot of Paleoindian complex representation versus total number of tools in Northeastern
Colorado.
Table 8.18: Paleoindian reoccupation rates in the Texas/Oklahoma Panhandles.

1 9 38.0 38.0
2 5 21.0 59.0
3 2 8.0 67.0
4 1 4.0 71.0
5 2 8.0 79.0
6 1 4.0 83.0
7 1 4.0 87.0
8 2 8.0 95.0
9 1 4.0 100.0
Total 24 100.0
280
Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles
The Baker data from the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles are similar to that of Northeastern
Colorado, in that the majority of Paleoindian localities were reoccupied (Table 8.18). Only 9 sites,
representing 38% of the sample, were single component occupations. A large number of sites in the region
show intense reoccupation, as 7 sites (21% of the sample) yielded five or more Paleoindian complexes.
Central Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico
Judge (1973:62-120) recorded 59 sites total, 56 were classifiable to cultural complex and used in
this current tabulation. Judge (1973:Figure 4a) documented that Paleoindian groups rarely reoccupied sites
in Central New Mexico (Table 8.19), as only 1 of the 31 sites (3.3%) was multi-component. Among the
smaller localities, only 2 of the 25 (8.7%) were multi-component (Table 8.19). Subsequent Paleoindian
groups reoccupied neither the small-specialized activity loci nor the large camps. This is at odds with the
other Paleoindian datasets in this analysis, where reoccupation is common. Perhaps environmental
conditions were in such a flux in the Rio Grande Valley that sites were not being reoccupied because the
predictability of resources such as bison was poor (Baker 2002).
Table 8.19: Paleoindian reoccupation rates in the Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico
(data summarized from Judge 1973:Figure 4a).

1 53 94.6 94.6
2 3 5.4 100.0
Total 56 100.0
281
In northern Colorado, most sites (77.8%) contain only a single component (Table 8.20), similar to
the Rio Grande Valley. Barger Gulch Locality A is the only one site containing more than 5 Paleoindian
components (the Allen component is questionable; Kornfeld and Frison 2000). Despite the high site
density in Middle Park, it was not common for groups to reoccupy the same resource patch or site. It is not
surprising that so few sites contain multiple components given that this area contains abundant lithic
material, because many different areas were suitable for habitation and resource extraction thereby
lessening the need for return to “fixed places”.
Table 8.20: Paleoindian reoccupation rates within Middle Park, Colorado

(calculated from Kornfeld and Frison 2000:Table 2).

1 14 77.8 77.8
2 1 5.6 83.4
3 2 11.1 94.4
4 0 0 94.4
5 0 0 94.4
6 1 5.6 100.0
Total 18 100.0
Many Paleoindian sites on the Llano Estacado are single component, varying across cultural
complexes. Late Paleoindian sites are more often single component (58% of the time), compared to the
Clovis (44%) and Folsom (48%) periods (Table 8.21). Interestingly, the most common reoccupation occurs
at sites containing Clovis, Folsom, and late Paleoindian components, occurring on nearly 35% of the Clovis
sites in the sample. This suggests that resources possibly remained stable in several locations on the Llano
Estacado during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene, which could be related to the geographic
properties of the site including proximity to water, fuel, or raw materials, for example.
282
Table 8.21: Paleoindian site reoccupation on the Llano Estacado (Hester 1975a:250).
Complex Total
Sites Total
Clovis only 10 23 43.5
Folsom only 17 36 47.2
Late Paleoindian only 30 52 57.7
Clovis and Folsom 1 23 4.3
Clovis, Folsom and late
8 23 34.8
Paleoindian
Clovis and late
4 23 17.4
Paleoindian
Folsom and late
10 52 19.2
Paleoindian
Sample size might have something to do with these patterns, as there is a positive relationship
between the number of single component sites per complex and the total number of sites per complex (r2 =
0.9565), although this association can partially be attributed to the fact that there are only three data points.
As well, the “late Paleoindian” label masks internal variation, lumping many different cultural complexes
under one label.
Holliday describes another sample of sites from the same area, but with a more refined typology
(Table 8.22). Again, single component sites are the most common (nearly 59%), with only 2 sites (6.9%)
containing 5 or more components. The Holliday data support the relative lack of reoccupation of the Llano
Estacado, as detailed by Hester.
Table 8.22: Paleoindian site reoccupation on the Llano Estacado, eastern New Mexico and west Texas
(calculated from Holliday 1997:Table 5.3).

1 17 58.6 58.6
2 5 17.2 75.9
3 1 3.4 79.3
4 4 13.8 93.1
5 0 0.0 93.1
6 2 6.9 100.0
Total 29 100.0
283
Western Texas and Eastern New Mexico
Finally, Thurmond documented that 41% of his sample of post-Folsom sites were single
component (Table 8.23). The majority of sites (83%) contained three or less components and only 5 sites
(7% of total) contained 5 or more components. Given that there are probably some typological
misidentifications in the Thurmond data, the actual reoccupation rate might be slightly lower than presented
in this table.
Table 8.23: Paleoindian site reoccupation in western Texas

(calculated from Thurmond 1990:Table 4).

1 34 41.0 41.0
2 25 30.1 71.1
3 10 12.0 83.1
4 9 10.8 94.0
5 4 4.8 98.8
6 1 1.2 100.0
Total 83 100.0
Discussion and Summary of Paleoindian Site Reoccupation
Many Paleoindian localities are in fact multi-component sites reoccupied by later Paleoindian
complexes. Yet this reoccupation rate does vary across region, as detailed in Figure 8.9. The number of
Paleoindian site components is presented on the x-axis, and the cumulative percent of the Paleoindian sites
within each region containing said number of components is presented on the y-axis.
Well over 75% of the Central New Mexico and Middle Park sites are single component. The
Holliday and Thurmond samples from the Llano Estacado and West Texas document that 75% of those
sites contain only one or two components. But nearly the opposite pattern is evident in the dune fields of
the High Plains, where less than 40% of the sites are single component, and more than 25% of the sites
contain 4 or more Paleoindian components.
Certain areas of the Great Plains, such as the High Plains of Colorado and Oklahoma, represent
areas where local resources (whether rich or not) might have remained relatively stable throughout the
Early Holocene. In other areas, groups utilized resources during certain periods and not others. Perhaps
284
local conditions were not conducive to support repeated occupations time and time again; it certainly
appears that this is the case in the Southwest, where Clovis and Folsom are abundant, but then were not
followed by sizable late Paleoindian occupations during the Early Holocene.
These data have profound implications for understanding variation in Paleoindian site frequency
(and related density) across these regions. When tied into an environmental model, these data could help
examine evolutionary pulses evident in hunter-gatherer land use, where foragers occupied some areas more
intensely than others, simply due to shifts in the quality and abundance of local resources.
105
95
85
Cumulative percent
75
65
55
NE Colorado (this study)
OK Panhandle (this study)
West Texas (Thurmond)
45 Llano Estacado (Holliday)
Middle Park (Kornfeld)
Rio Grande (Judge)
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Number of Paleoindian complexes represented per site
Figure 8.9: Site reoccupation rates in the Central Plains and adjacent regions.
285
Chapter Summary
In this Chapter, I documented variability in the types and frequencies of cultural complexes, the
density of sites, and the reoccupation rates among Paleoindian groups across the Central Plains and
adjacent regions. These datasets measure regional stability, for example if a region was used over a long
period of time or was instead occupied for only a shorter interval (regardless of the function of those site
occupations).
Complex presence and site reoccupation measured the relative stability of the region through time.
Some regions were continually reoccupied, and in some cases the sites themselves were continually
reoccupied. This says nothing about how the sites or regions were used, but more simply, that they were
used repeatedly through time. And given that fact, the assumption is that the local resources must have
remained relatively stable to attract such repeated use.
Site density proved another useful measure of landscape use. Clearly some regions contain more
sites than others. In part, this is a sample size effect, due to the area of investigation. But then again, why
aren’t all regions as dense as Middle Park? The answer might be that some areas were more densely
occupied than others, suggesting that there were regional “magnets”. Were these dense areas related to the
repeated predation of bison? Probably not, given that dense areas such as Middle Park are most well
known for abundant lithic material and proximity to wood and water. For instance, large workshops,
quarries, camps, and bison kills are all present in Middle Park. Bison hunting was probably based out of
such areas, but was probably not the main draw to these regions. The same arguments can be made for the
San Luis Valley, located in Southern Colorado, where a high density of Paleoindian locales are found ins a
small area (Jodry 1999).
The cumulative data once again show different land use patterns evident across the Great Plains.
Some of this is taphonomic process, related to rates of good versus poor exposure and/or preservation of
cultural materials. However, other patterns are probably related to shifts in local environmental resource
structure, which occurred during the Late Pleistocene and continued during the Early Holocene. Simply
put, not all places were used equally -- in either intensity or function -- over time.
286
Chapter 9
CONCLUSION
The question is not whether bison were hunted and important to the
Folsom economy, but how significant were bison in relation to other
plant and animal resources on a seasonal, yearly, and long term basis?
How are the economic decisions reflected in technology and in the
archaeological record? (Hofman and Todd 2001:201)
This dissertation was a baseline pattern recognition study, aimed at fleshing out the breadth of
Paleoindian adaptations occurring across the Central Plains of North America during the Early Holocene.
The approach was unquestionably broad-brushed, using datasets of varying scales in quality, time, and
space. Each dataset warranted a study in and of itself, but combined here, they made an even stronger case
for Paleoindian foraging variability.
In this final Chapter I revisit my main arguments about Paleoindian organization outlined in
Chapter 2 and suggest that the bulk of the empirical data demonstrates a different interpretation from that of
groups of full time, highly mobile, wide ranging, bison hunting specialists roaming the Plains. No one can
deny the importance of bison to Paleoindian foragers, but this dissertation explored whether foragers
operated in a homogenous way across a heterogeneous landscape. In the final analysis, it appears that
Paleoindians used the Great Plains in variable ways, exploiting ecotones according to what was locally
available, and whether those resources were predictable and sustainable. As such, Central Plains
Paleoindians of the Early Holocene appear more as “place-oriented foragers” rather than as groups
randomly moving across an empty landscape in narrow pursuit of a single species of game.
287
A Question of High Residential Mobility
One of the cornerstones of current models of Paleoindian organization is high residential mobility
by terrestrial foragers. This includes moving camp often, accompanied by short residential occupation
length, a lack of reoccupation of sites or areas, and an overall rarity of Paleoindian sites within any one
region. As stated earlier in the dissertation, many of these generalizations have some empirical support, but
it is a question of the breadth and depth of that support.
Paleoindians maintained a high rate of residential mobility
This argument is based on the premise that specialized bison hunters would have to move their
camps often, essentially moving from kill to kill, so that they could keep pace with the mobility of the bison
herd, or else lose contact with their primary food source. Evidence used to support this assertion included
the dominance of bison in faunal assemblages and the apparent frequency of large bison kills. Several
types of information were examined to test the argument in Chapter 5, including diversity in site types,
ecotones, and landscape positioning. It emerged that the empirical record presents a much more dynamic
pattern than that of this presumed single-minded adaptation.
There are in Early Holocene times a wide array of site types, beyond the prototypical bison kill,
including caches, burials, camps of various sizes, quarries and lithic workshops, and abundant isolated (or
small site) finds. While my use of site types relies on assumptions about the ways these assemblages or
sites formed (issues of sampling, preservation issues, morphological versus actual function of tools, etc.),
the frequencies of tool forms, as well as subsistence and feature data, nevertheless document a wide degree
of variability in assemblage size, the makeup of those assemblages, and most likely the function(s) of the
sites in question. Paleoindian groups were clearly not moving across the Plains, but were instead living
and operating within the region itself. Groups were mapped on to the landscape; they utilized a diverse
number of lithic sources, repeatedly used certain camps time and time again, and left site furniture (caches)
for return visits.
Paleoindian foragers also occupied a variety of ecotones and landforms within the Central Plains.
Much of the settlement was based along water courses or lakes, since stream terraces, lakes/bogs, and
arroyos make up the majority of site settings. This could be partly explained by preservation and/or
288
archaeological visibility, but they were probably using these landforms quite heavily given the predictably
of resources within them. Rockshelter use also occurred, and the overall occupation rate was probably high
given that there are only a limited number of shelters in the study area. Indeed, many of those containing
Early Holocene aged geologic deposits also contain cultural material.
Patterns such as occupation length, species diversity, and processing intensity (Chapter 7)
correlate with landscape and environmental setting. Longer occupations were in the wooded alluvial
lowlands and foothills, while shorter-term occupations were in upland grasslands. It does not appear that
either ecotone was used exclusively, as each yielded different sets of resources attractive to foraging
groups. In either zone, the intensity of use varied according to the sustainability and predictability of the
food, water, and wood resources. Thus, high residential mobility varied across the region, depending on
the group’s location on the landscape.
Paleoindians occupied sites for only brief periods
A second element of the ‘high residential mobility’ argument is that sites were only occupied for
brief periods, as foragers would have to keep monitoring and pursuing prey or lose track of their primary
food source. Commonly argued evidence in support of this claim includes generally small site sizes, small
assemblage sizes, low richness of tool classes, and little differentiation of tool assemblages between sites.
While it appears that most Paleoindian sites were indeed occupied for only brief periods and are
consequently small in area, it has also been shown that a few sites were occupied for longer periods and
were spread across larger areas (see Hofman 1999a; LaBelle, Andrews, and Seebach 2003). This suggests
that there was no single type of occupation across the region. In that scenario, all sites would be of equal
size and would contain similar assemblages. As shown many times over, the opposite is true. There is
great diversity in the size and makeup of Paleoindian assemblages across the Central Plains (Chapter 6).
Admittedly, some of this arises from sampling problems as in those cases where only a small
portion of the site has been documented and/or collected and we do not have an accurate representation of
the entire site. However, records of excavation area (m2) from sites in the Central Plains suggests that this
is only a small problem in the regional dataset. On the other hand, some of this is also a palimpsest
problem, in which many repeated occupations of the same area have “smeared” the separate occupations
289
into one larger assemblage, though of course this also demonstrates that Paleoindians often returned to the
same spot. Nall probably represents such a location, one heavily reoccupied perhaps by large groups, but
pulling these occupations apart is a difficult task when they overlap spatially. At Nall, the fieldwork and
analysis is still ongoing to address such issues. One final possibility could be seasonal differences in site
use, but the seasonality data did not demonstrate any seasonal preference for one kind of site or landform
versus another (Chapter 7). It must be mentioned that many sites yielding bone usable for seasonality
estimates are also the large and diverse sites, probably occupied for longer periods.
With these factors in mind, most sites are small. Indeed, ~75% of all sites in all regions contain
less than 5 projectile points each. Among the Central Plains sample, the median number of tools was 15
per site, including projectile points. I would argue that these estimates represent the large(r) sites on the
landscape and most sites are even smaller, as evidenced by the abundant isolated finds (Chapters 4 and 7).
Thus, the overwhelming majority of Paleoindian sites were occupied for only short periods. But
what do these short occupations represent – are they perhaps specialized activities and/or small foraging
group sizes? Even though these small sites are abundant, they do not add up to much investment in
residence time. The lesser number of large sites might represent the hubs of Paleoindian organization,
serving as bases that were occupied for longer periods. And if these large sites do not represent
aggregation sites (cf. Hofman 1994) or palimpsests (some sites do, of course), it suggests a graded
continuum of a very low number of large sites, to a moderate number of medium sites, and finally to a
plethora of small sites. One explanation of such a pattern is that the larger and medium sites (located in
diverse, predictable, and sustainable ecotones) were occupied for long periods and that the smaller sites
represent locations where people were moving out from these larger sites, such as on logistical hunting trips
or instead moving between the larger sites, leap-frogging from place to place.
This pattern is essentially a place-oriented strategy, rather than a strictly technologically oriented
strategy, as people mapped onto the landscape and planned their group movements to maximize resource
gain. Part of this involves moving to areas where bison are known (or anticipated) to be present, but also to
areas that contain sustainable and predictable resources, which would afford groups the luxury of looking
for bison or other fauna. It is not surprising that this pattern should emerge in the Late Pleistocene/Early
Holocene, after the region had been colonized and mentally mapped by earlier foraging groups. Also,
290
given the basic environmental structure of the Plains (patchy in nature), groups would not have been able to
continuously forage across the landscape. As resources dwindled and return rate thresholds were crossed,
decisions were made to move groups to a new location, to a new nexus containing everything that was
needed.
Paleoindian sites were not reoccupied
The third element of the ‘high residential mobility’ argument is that sites were not reoccupied
because bison kills were often encounter-based forays and thus rarely located in the same place over time.
Given such a scenario, the likelihood of occupying the same space repeatedly was thought to be low.
However, the empirical evidence shows that Paleoindian sites were frequently reoccupied, sometimes
within the same cultural complex (i.e., multiple or serial Folsom occupations) and more often across
portions of the longer Paleoindian record (Chapter 8). For example, the Agate Basin site in eastern
Wyoming (Frison and Stanford 1982b) clearly documents multiple Folsom groups returning to the same
place on the landscape. Lindenmeier is another example of a population magnet (Wilmsen and Roberts
1978), drawing Folsom groups to the same place repeatedly, due to an abundance of locally available
resources such as lithic raw materials, water, wood, and no doubt, small and large game. Other sites, such
as Allen or Lime Creek in southwestern Nebraska (Bamforth 2002b), demonstrate nearly continuous
occupations throughout the Early Holocene by groups often times exhibiting similar behavioral use of the
site, with the only appreciable changes being shifts in projectile point style. This pattern generally holds
true throughout the prehistoric record, as foragers often return to the same places on the landscape and for
obvious reasons – the reliability and predictability of the place. The function of the site occupation may
shift over time, but the predictability of the place remains the key and constant draw.
Regions also exhibit differential patterns of reoccupation. Recall those areas of the Foothills and
Front Range of Colorado containing abundant water sources. Those areas, especially the Colorado
Piedmont, contain the largest and most diverse lithic and faunal assemblages of any sites in the entire
Central Plains. Elsewhere, on the High Plains proper, areas such as the Oklahoma and northern Texas
Panhandles containing springs and deep playa lakes, also show high reoccupation rates. These areas
remained stable throughout the Early Holocene, but not all places fared as well. For example, Central New
291
Mexico demonstrates that environmental changes can dramatically affect some regions and not others,
suggesting that evolutionary trends need not be synchronous across space (Chapter 8).
Paleoindian sites are uncommon to rare within any region
The final generalization of the ‘high residential mobility’ argument is that Paleoindian sites should
be uncommon or rare within any region. This argument is based on the assumption that foragers did not
occupy regional patches for long periods and did not return to those patches often, given that the overall
population and group density was quite low across the landscape. I would argue that instead, the observed
pattern results from differential preservation and exposure of sites, and as such, this is a product of
sampling rather than of population density.
Comparisons of randomly collected site data from the SHPO offices of the Central Plains
demonstrated that Paleoindian sites (a composite of all complexes) rarely constitute more than 2-3% of all
known sites, when the sample size is large (>100 documented sites of all ages). Many of those sites in the
state files represent the smallest sites, usually 1 or 2 projectile points at most. Some would interpret this as
evidence Paleoindian populations were indeed quite low, and that prehistoric populations simply did not
create many sites, large or small.
However, the seemingly low numbers signify a couple of more important patterns. For instance,
Paleoindian sites are in fact ubiquitous across the entire Central Plains; regardless of location, nearly all
counties with 100 or more documented sites generally contain 2-3 Paleoindian sites. Therefore, the
regional distribution of Paleoindian sites is actually one of nearly continuous presence, albeit in low
frequency, but it is not at all a patchy distribution. The ubiquity of Paleoindian sites contrasts markedly
with the projectile point distribution data, which is seemingly clustered. I argued in Chapter 4 that those
data were not representative of the prehistoric past, but instead also a product of regional sampling.
There are also counties on the Plains containing abundant Paleoindian sites. Most such counties
are located in dune fields that were heavily eroded during severe droughts of the 20th century. These areas
present excellent windows of exposure to Early Holocene surfaces, which are otherwise deeply buried or
missing elsewhere. Paleoindian site frequency is surprisingly high in areas such as Cimarron County,
Oklahoma; Gaines County, Texas; and Yuma County, Colorado (Chapter 8). This is somewhat unexpected
292
given that these areas were probably used more often than not for short term bison hunting occupations
rather than for sustained occupations like those ecologically “richer” areas of the Central Plains. I would
expect the highest Paleoindian site density in areas such as the flanks of the mountains, where water, wood,
and lithic sources would be abundant, but these are often the areas where appropriately aged surfaces are
deeply buried.
Thus, the distribution and abundance of Paleoindian sites cannot be taken at face value. Areas
containing more sites cannot necessarily be argued to be Paleoindian “heartlands”. Many factors condition
the presence and abundance of Early Holocene sites, including the human factors that deposited the sites in
the first instance, as well as taphonomic factors occurring at the landscape level, including preservation and
exposure, and of course, archaeological activity.
A Question of Subsistence Specialization
The second cornerstone of the Paleoindian model is bison subsistence specialization, accompanied
by minimal processing of bison remains and an overall lack of plant use. The arguments presented
throughout this dissertation question that assertion and marshal the empirical evidence, demonstrating
many exceptions to these generalizations and calling into the question their validity and utility in terms of a
pan-Plains model of Paleoindian subsistence.
Paleoindians were specialized bison hunters
Bison hunting specialization is one of the primary defining characteristics of Paleoindian
organization. The argument is based on the low richness and skewed evenness of species representation in
faunal assemblages, which are dominated by bison. There is no doubt that Paleoindian hunters valued and
hunted bison. Following optimal foraging models, bison were probably sought whenever available given
their high economic ranking (in terms of pursuit time, processing time, caloric return). Recall that every
site from the Central Plains faunal sample contained bison, varying from a single individual to upwards of
several hundred (the Jones-Miller site).
Yet the question is not whether Paleoindian foragers included bison in the diet, but instead
whether they were specialized hunters, who ignored available plants and small game in the exclusive
293
pursuit of bison. The empirical evidence indicates that Paleoindians varied their diet according to
landscape position. Game species other than bison are often present at sites, albeit in lower frequencies
(Chapter 7). The median number of animal orders present within the study sample was 3 per site, and the
mean was higher. Not all these taxa represent food remains, but many do. Species richness increases with
landscape diversity, namely the presence of water, vegetation thickness, and landform topography, among
other variables. This is not unexpected given that studies of modern faunal communities (Fitzgerald et al,
1994; Mutel and Emerick 1984) note differences in the type and abundance of animals among the ecotones
of the Central Plains. Why should we expect Early Holocene faunal assemblages along the South Platte
River to look like those of the dry uplands surrounding Big Sandy Creek and the environs of Olsen-
Chubbuck? Reconstructing prehistoric faunal niche width will continue to be among our greatest
challenges, although there are a number of recent attempts at doing so (Cannon 2004; Cannon and Meltzer
2004).
Species richness also appears to correlate with duration of occupation. Thus, smaller game was
incorporated into the diet as they were encountered across the landscape, supplementing the bison and
affording a longer stay at a locality (Wheat 1979). Hill (2001) identifies such a pattern during the Folsom
occupation of the Agate Basin site, where pronghorn were brought into camp over the winter occupation,
while bison were eaten earlier in the year.
Thus, the evidence for specialized bison hunting is not entirely compelling. Bison did play a
paramount role in the diet of Early Holocene foragers, but it certainly remains debatable if their entire
subsistence/mobility organization was built around their pursuit.
Paleoindians did not intensively process faunal remains
A second argument for subsistence specialization is that Paleoindians did not intensively process
faunal remains, as sites were occupied for brief periods of time and only by a small number of people. It is
true, in general, that Paleoindians minimally processed faunal remains, as compared to Late Prehistoric
peoples of the Great Plains of the last 2000 years, where in large scale stone boiling and marrow processing
were common practice (Frison 1973b; Reher and Frison 1980; Vehik 1977). Indeed, although they
occupied the same region, there are actually few similarities between on-site activities of the two periods.
294
Actually, comparing the two periods may not be appropriate, as they are hardly analogous. Other factors,
including foraging group size, the density of foraging groups across the landscape, the number of bison
available, the size of bison, among other variables, probably affected the degree and intensity of faunal
processing.
Paleoindians probably had little need to intensively process carcasses in many cases, given the
abundance of meat available per person. There would have been little need to extract marrow or carry out
grease production. Many Paleoindian sites show the pattern of minimal processing, such as the Olsen-
Chubbuck, Plainview, and Frasca sites, where bison carcasses often remain articulated. But, increasingly
fine-grained analysis of extant Paleoindian collections is revealing variability within this record. Sites such
as Lime Creek, Clary Ranch, Jurgens, and Horace Rivers show a greater degree of disarticulation and, in
some instances, processing for marrow, as illustrated by M.G. Hill et al. (2003) at Clary Ranch. Whether
this is restricted to certain sites, or is instead a more widespread pattern, is not known but will be pivotal to
explaining variability in Paleoindian subsistence.
Some argue that this degree of increased processing reflects a diachronic evolutionary pattern,
related to increasing food stress occurring at the beginning of the transition between the early and Middle
Holocene (M.G. Hill 2001). The increased energy expenditure in food processing would appear part of the
long demonstrated evolutionary trend leading towards a wider spectrum foraging pattern evident across
most of North American, beginning as early as 10,000 rcybp in some areas, but in most regions by at least
8,000 rcybp.
Such an explanation of increased processing is certainly plausible, however, this study shows that
much of the same evidence can be explained by factors such as the length of occupation and the location of
the site on the landscape (see also M.E. Hill 2000, 2002), factors which would have affected local groups
much more than long term evolutionary trends. For example, minimal processing should be expected at
sites located away from Paleoindian camps, as transport costs would have prohibited exhaustively
processing and carrying large bulky remains back to distant camps (Metcalfe and Barlow 1992). This
perhaps explains patterns at sites such as Olsen-Chubbuck (Wheat 1972), which are located in landscapes
unsuitable for sustained occupations, but perfect for short term hunting forays. But then again, the feature
and hearth data do not support intensive faunal processing either, or plant processing for that matter, in sites
295
with longer duration occupations (Chapter 7). Although some sites such as Jones-Miller, Horner, and Allen
contain multiple hearths, their connection to meat preparation remains unknown. It could very well be that
these are instead warming features, used during cold(er) weather occupations.
Therefore, the case for a full time gourmet butchering strategy remains ambiguous, as some sites
support such an assertion, while others do not. Further documentation of faunal assemblages in a variety of
ecotones will be necessary to advance the debate. But the difficulty still lies in the paucity of sites with
sufficient organic preservation, which are quite difficult to find, unlike the more common lithic scatters.
Paleoindians did not use plants as a food source
The final argument proposed as part of the bison specialist model is that Paleoindians did not use
plants as a food source, as there was little time or need to gather plants while foragers were constantly on
the move. Direct evidence of subsistence related plant use is generally weak from the North American
Plains, more often occurring along its edges, such as along the Bighorn Mountains of the northwestern
Plains or along the Lower Pecos River of arid southwestern Texas. However, these particular examples are
also areas of excellent preservation, as the sites yielding plant remains are also rockshelters, quite rare on
the Plains proper. Therefore, the preservation bias must be considered in assessing these Plains data
Ancillary evidence of plant use can be evaluated though ground stone presence, which is found at
many sites throughout the Central Plains. Ground stone often occurs on large sites as well as those in
diverse ecotones, such as river bottoms (Chapter 7). The use of ground stone for food processing is
certainly debatable, as the stone can be used for multiple functions, including hide work, pigment
preparation, and composite tool production (e.g., grooved abraders, possibly for shaft preparation). Yet, the
stone could be used for grinding small seeds and roots as well. Large scale use of grinding stones in the
form of standardized metates, such as that seen in plant dependent societies, is not documented in the
Paleoindian period, so along with the hearth data, bulk and intensive plant processing was not part of the
Paleoindian subsistence regime.
However, plenty of edible plants have no need to be processed with ground stone equipment and
could instead be eaten raw (Gilmore 1977; Kindscher 1987, 1992). Therefore, the absence of direct
evidence of plant remains and the absence of ground stone equipment may not necessarily signal the
296
absence of plant use in the diets of Paleoindian inhabitants of the Plains. This issue will be difficult to
resolve until large scale flotation and phytolith analysis becomes common practice on Paleoindian sites,
and more features are discovered and excavated for the purpose of testing for plant remains.
Towards More Localized Models of Paleoindian Organization
The model of full time, highly mobile, wide ranging, bison hunting specialists roaming the Plains
is severely compromised given the results of this study. As stated earlier in the Introduction, this study was
born out of frustration about what constituted a basic “Paleoindian site” on the Central Plains. In the end, it
clearly is not a large bison kill.
This study established a baseline for comparison, among sites within the region and to those areas
beyond its borders. We now have a basic idea about the range and tendencies of Paleoindian sites, in terms
of tool assemblages, measures of tool diversity, numbers of projectile points, species diversity, and
frequency of hearths, among other characteristics. I have proposed ideas as to why these data are variable,
in terms of basic landscape positioning and mobility organization. But the archaeological record is also
very spotty, as sites in some areas are abundantly exposed on the surface though often poorly preserved and
disturbed (e.g., dune fields). In other areas, sites contain excellent preservation, but are extremely difficult
to discover and or excavate due to their burial depth. Reconciling the two types of data remains one of the
necessary challenges to the discipline.
We must continue to develop independent environmental datasets, using both modern and
paleoclimatic data, in order to understand the landscapes within which these Paleoindians operated.
Precipitation and temperature data can be used to model a variety of environmental conditions, to project
aspects of the climate to any given location within the region (cf. Binford 2001) and even if these
projections amount to qualitative or relative differences, it still allows us to differentiate space better than
were are doing at the present.
Landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1986) and siteless approaches (Ebert 1992; Rossignol
and Wandsnider 1992) will help us move away from site type concepts and better appreciate the wider
variability in assemblages and the large number of activities that probably occurred on most sites. We must
further explore the nature of small sites and isolates, given that they make up the vast majority of the
297
Central Plains Paleoindian record. Many small sites continue to be ignored, simply because they contain
such sparse assemblages. In many cases, this is because there is nothing left of the site, save for a few tools
or a scrap of bone, or else the site is deflated and lacks sufficient context or integrity. More often than not,
however, this is assumed and not proven.
New sites are bound to be discovered and worthy of study. For example, in the last months of
preparing this dissertation, the author and his crew discovered the Dilts site (48CA4718), a small buried
Paleoindian bison kill in the uplands of eastern Wyoming (LaBelle 2004). The site contained only a single
projectile point, and a scatter of broken bone eroding from buried deposits. Mapping and analysis of the
bone confirmed that the kill probably contained but a single individual. This find, discovered by sheer
chance on a cultural resource management survey, adds to the growing picture of Paleoindians on the
Northwestern Plains (Frison [1984] describes the discovery and excavation of another Paleoindian site
through CRM archaeology). The kill is not the “typical” large kill and probably represents one of the most
common opportunistic subsistence practices maintained by Paleoindian hunters. The record is replete with
such examples, buried in the gray literature or in local collections, waiting study and tabulation.
Finally, we must continue to look to regions as our spatial analytic unit of choice. Sites make for
succinct units of data collection, but they cannot be studied and interpreted in isolation. Patterns observed
at the site level cannot be evaluated unless they are provided with some context, which is best derived from
the larger region. Unfortunately, not all data are created equal, and some data are more useful than others.
But we must use every available piece at all levels to construct the most encompassing models of hunter-
gatherer organization.
It probably goes without saying that the Paleoindian period is a difficult and frustrating topic to
study. “Good” sites are hard to find, but there are plenty of data out there, even if variable in quality. In
this dissertation, I attempted to flesh out the complex story of Paleoindians foragers of the Central Plains,
but in the end, I return to where I started. There are simply more questions than answers.
298
Appendix A
HISTORY OF THE BAKER AND ANDERSEN PALEOINDIAN COLLECTIONS
William “Uncle Bill” Baker
In the Southern Plains, William Ellmore Baker (1877-1957), known to many as “Uncle Bill”, was
one of the premier avocational archaeologists of his day (LaBelle 1997), assembling a large collection of
Paleoindian artifacts from the region surrounding his home in the panhandle of Oklahoma.
Baker was 45 years old when he moved his family to Cimarron County, Oklahoma in 1922 and
began work as the County Extension Agricultural Agent. It was during the first few years of this job that
his interest in archaeology blossomed. Baker’s duties took him to hundreds of farms around the county,
and it was fairly common for him to pick up arrow and spear points from the plowed fields, but he knew
nothing as to the age or meaning of the artifacts other than as “arrowheads”. However, during a family
picnic, Baker was examining a campsite discovered by his son Ele and came to the revelation that the
artifacts he was admiring were more than just arrow points -- they were, in fact, part of someone’s
livelihood. As Baker reflected years later, “standing there that day there was born in me an admiration for
this man who did not have to lean on thousands of other people for his existance [sic] in this world God had
given him but could stand alone. I was filled with a burning desire to know more about this man. To me
he was a hero. And more so as time goes on” (Baker ca. 1927-1957).
Ever after, Baker’s investigation into archaeology took a more intensive and directed path,
resulting in a 30 yearlong amateur career. For example, Baker was a member (affiliate member 1936-1941,
active member 1944-1956) of the Society for American Archaeology from its beginning and he held his
membership for the rest of his life (Anonymous 1937, 1939, 1941, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1955).
As well, Baker was also active in the Oklahoma Anthropological Society since its founding and served as
its 1st Vice President during the year preceding his death (Anonymous 1957).
299
Being in the fields went hand in hand with Baker’s paying job, so he was able to see a lot of land
in his years on duty. But what would end up being the greatest boost to Baker’s archaeological collecting
would be, at the same time, one of the most difficult things he had to deal with as the County Agricultural
agent: the Dust Bowl.
Cimarron County was at the heart of the Dust Bowl and was badly hit; it lost nearly a third of its
residents, and a third of its farms and ranches during the period from 1930 to 1940 (Worster 1979:103-
105). Many of the classic Dust Bowl images -- tragic landscapes captured by Arthur Rothstein and
Dorothea Lange (of the Farm Security Administration) -- were photographed in Baker’s Cimarron County
and in Dallam County, Texas, where he also collected (Worster 1979:101).
By virtue of extensive exposures and erosion in the region, Baker was able to locate hundreds of
sites and collected, or was given, thousands of tools from a radius of about fifty miles of his home in Boise
City. My estimates, which are only approximations, show 124 sites with recorded locations in the Baker
collection, as well as at least 14,000-15,000 artifacts from all periods. Unfortunately, not all are from
documented locations. And quite realistically, the actual number of sites is probably several hundred more,
as Baker tended to lump several blowouts from larger areas into single sites. This is an incredibly large
collection of artifacts considering the majority of his collection are tools, and the fact that he estimated over
1500 of the artifacts were “ancient pieces” (Baker 1953:256).
Over the years, Baker was active in communicating with professional archaeologists and inviting
them to his home to examine his collection and visit his sites in the surrounding area. Many notable
archaeologists, geologists, and paleontologists visited Baker, including Ernst Antevs, Loren Eiseley, A.V.
Kidder, H.P. Mera, Warren Moorehead, and C. Bertrand Schultz, among many others. But perhaps the
most influential archaeologist that visited and worked with Baker was Edgar B. Howard, of the Academy
of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia (and the University Museum). During the 1930’s, Howard visited with
Baker from several days to a week each summer, going to Baker’s sites and discussing with him Howard’s
own latest findings in New Mexico (Baker ca. 1927-1957).
Howard would be the first to reference Baker’s Paleoindian work. Howard discussed recent
excavations at the Clovis type site, Anderson Basin, and Burnet Cave in his dissertation (Evidence of Early
Man in North America [published as Howard 1935]), drawing analogies to other similar situations in North
300
America, such as Perry Andersen’s work in northeast Colorado (see below) and Baker’s work in Oklahoma
and Texas (Howard 1935:98-99,119,123, Plate XXXVII). In both regions, deflated surfaces yielded
palimpsests of artifacts, mixing materials of many different ages together. However, in Dallam County,
Baker was able to identify the chronological order of the artifacts by carefully documenting the emergence
of certain diagnostic projectile points following each stage of deflation. Baker’s work would again be cited
the following year in Howard’s more widely distributed article in American Anthropologist (Howard 1936).
Baker also kept busy presenting his research to other scholars. He traveled to Philadelphia in 1937
to attend the International Symposium on Early Man (MacCurdy 1937, Howard 1938) and displayed a
portion of his collection at the meetings. But not to let the importance of his other job slip by, Baker went
on to Washington, D.C. the day following the Early Man conference and spent the next week with
Congress and meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture in order to acquire relief aid for farmers in the
Panhandle (Baker ca. 1927-1957).
The following year, Baker presented two papers with his son, Ele, on “ancient flint artifacts” at the
American Society for the Advancement of Science meeting in Albuquerque (Baker 1939). There is little
doubt that “Uncle Bill” Baker’s collaboration with his son would influence many of Ele’s ideas on his work
in the central Rio Grande Valley thirty years later (Baker 1968; Judge 1973). In 1939, W.E. Baker
published his chronological sequence of diagnostic projectile points from the Cimarron County area,
beginning with Folsom, Folsomoid and Yuma, through the Archaic or what he called “Bridle-tops”
(Mallory dart points), and finally late prehistoric arrow points (Baker 1939). Bear in mind at this point,
several years before the Paleo typology conferences, that Clovis was not identified as a separate type.
In addition to presenting and publishing his work, Baker was also active in contributing to early
regional studies. For example, data from his collection were published in early surveys of beveled and
corner-tang knives (Patterson 1937:32-34; Poteet 1938:246-247). Baker’s work was also beginning to find
its way into a few synthetic articles such as Hans E. Fischel’s Folsom and Yuma survey (Fischel 1939:250,
252, 255) and Frank H.H. Roberts’ classic essay “Developments in the Problem of the North American
Paleo-Indian” (Roberts 1940:58). Yet, other than a few mentions in these Early Man studies, Baker and his
collection would become invisible in the archaeological literature, especially following E.B. Howard’s
death in 1943. With his death, Baker lost a good friend, as well as the one archaeologist who knew more
301
about his collection and sites than anyone else. Thus, subsequent classic syntheses of Paleoindian
archaeology unfortunately ignored Baker’s sites, such as in H.M. Wormington’s four editions of Ancient
Man in North America (1939, 1944, 1949, 1957) and E.H. Sellard’s Paleoindian bibliography (1940) and
his seminal work Early Man in America (1952). It was not until the late 1950’s that Baker’s work would
once again be acknowledged, with a series of articles he published with Tom Campbell of the University of
Texas on the Nall site, Paleoindian sites in Northeastern New Mexico, and metal arrow points (Baker et al.
1957; Baker and Campbell 1959, 1960).
Baker died in 1957 and was buried in Kenton, Oklahoma along with his wife of many years
(Delcy Baker). The vast majority of his collection was donated to the No Man’s Land Historical Museum
in Goodwell, Oklahoma, where it remains today. Small portions of his collection remained in the family,
including those held by his grandsons Tony Baker and the late Al Baker.
Perry and Harold Andersen
The Andersen family also played an important role in the formation of Paleoindian studies,
specifically with their discovery of the infamous “Yuma” point. Little did they know that their stone points
would be of critical scientific importance and that their artifact collection was destined to become the
template for our modern Paleoindian typology.
The Andersen family lived in eastern Colorado, several hundred miles north of William Baker, in
the sandy Yuma County. Perry Andersen, along with his wife Pauline and son Harold (who also went by
the nickname Andy), first began hunting artifacts on their ranch south of the town of Yuma in 1919
(Andersen 1988, 1990). As Yuma County is at the heart of the Wray dune field, it didn’t take much wheat
farming to begin the cycle of eolian erosion that would characterize the Central Plains shortly thereafter in
the dirty thirties. As the 1920’s rolled by, the small sand blowouts the Andersens collected began to erode
deeper and wider, yielding different types of artifacts. Finally, some of the blowouts bottomed out at the
erosion-resistant blue marls and lake clays of the Early Holocene and Late Pleistocene deposits – and the
clays began to yield mammoths, fossil bison, and spear points.
In 1925, Harold Andersen had enrolled at the University of Denver, and brought with him at least
part of his family’s artifact collection to show to interested parties, in particular Frank Howland (then
302
curator of Minerals and Geology at the Colorado Museum of Natural History) and E.B. Renaud of the
anthropology department at the University of Denver. At this time, shortly before the Folsom discovery,
the Pleistocene antiquity of Folsom points was not yet known, however Harold brought several of them to
that initial meeting with Howland and Renaud. Quite ironically, E.B. Renaud showed little interest in
Harold’s materials that day, as Renaud was generally not interested in what he thought to be recent Plains
archaeological material (remember, at that time, Renaud was primarily known for his endeavors in the
Southwest and had not begun his monumental Plains surveys).
Two short years passed, and in 1927, Frank Howland recalled seeing those Folsom pieces in the
Andersen collection, and contacted Harold to see the collection once more. Here was the link they were
looking for – other Folsom points, separated by hundreds of miles, and discovered quite independently.
Not surprisingly, professional interest in the Andersen collection grew quickly. Over the next several
years, the Andersen family would correspond and be visited by the blossoming royalty of Early Man
studies including Barnum Brown, Loren Eisley, E.B. Howard, A.E. Jenks, Paul MacClintock, and C.B.
Schultz, among others.
During this time, the Andersens worked most closely with researchers in Colorado, including
Harold Cook, Jesse Figgins, Betty Holmes, Paul Gebhard, E.B. Renaud, and Marie Wormington. Fresh
from his association with the Folsom type-site, Harold Cook would be the first to tackle the Paleoindian
prehistory of Yuma County. In 1929, Cook and Nelson Vaughn traveled to the county to visit some of the
Andersen blowouts. During one visit, Cook and Perry discovered a complete point believed to be in situ
within the blue marls of Early Holocene to Late Pleistocene antiquity. The point was not of Folsom form --
however -- but instead a shouldered Scottsbluff. In the same stratigraphic unit, but some distance away,
mammoth bone was recovered, as was fossil bison. Elsewhere, this same level had yielded Folsom points.
As the marker bed had yielded fossil bone, Folsom points, and other Early Man forms, Cook declared that
they were all associated and of the same general age.
Harold Cook (1931a,b) presented his early interpretations of the Yuma County scene to the annual
Paleontological society meetings held in Toronto in late December 1930, as well as at the geology and
geography section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings which were held
soon after in Cleveland. Ultimately, his conclusions were published in a wide reaching article in Scientific
303
American in 1931 (Cook 1931c). Many of Cook’s statements would be refuted (not surprisingly), as he had
a reputation for less than thorough analysis, in particular the stratigraphic association of the artifacts and the
fossil bone. Very few researchers were willing to put too much faith in blowout contexts and supposed
associations!
During their period of active work, the Andersen family collected from tens of dozens of sites,
ranging in age from late prehistoric to Paleoindian in age. By the time Perry passed away in 1953, the
family’s collection approached 9,000 pieces (Mountain 1953a). The Wray dune field was the main hunting
ground for the family, in the dune country bounded between the North Fork of the Republican and the
Arikaree Rivers. Along with Harold’s cousin, Bert Mountain, the family located at minimum 66
Paleoindian sites, many of which contained fossil bone, blue marl, and gastropods, as well as artifacts
representing all presently known Paleoindian complexes. Harold viewed all this work as a contribution to
science -- not merely a hobby or weekend artifact collecting. The records that Harold and Perry kept
support Harold’s belief. They are among the finest records kept for the early 1930’s Paleoindian work –
either professional or otherwise.
The family began to realize the importance of their work in contributing to the study of Early Man
with the Folsom discovery. Shortly thereafter, they began to make detailed notes, such as recording the
location of each of their finds. Harold began drawing sketches of each complete point recovered from the
valleys, again, many of these illustrations equal those of today. For nine select sites, Harold drew maps
detailing the association of point plotted artifacts with stratigraphic units, trying to help battle some of the
criticism of dune field archaeology.
From 1930 to 1935, there was a tremendous burst of research aimed at organizing, classifying, and
describing the large numbers of Early Man projectile points beginning to be discovered throughout the
short grass prairies of the Central Plains. E.B. Renaud was among the first to construct a formal typology.
Utilizing collections from Yuma County, primarily those of the Andersen family, as well as a few other
locations throughout central and northeastern Colorado, Renaud quickly and skillfully built a typology that
we recognize today (Renaud 1931b, 1932b, 1934). He differentiated between the Folsom points, as
recovered from the type-site, with those points found in abundance in northeastern Colorado. The latter he
labeled Yuma points, after the county (or perhaps town) from which they were discovered.
304
Clearly Renaud saw the great variability within the Yuma form, just as he saw the variability in
Folsom that would shortly be known to encompass both Folsom and Clovis. For each of the Yuma types,
he recognized certain kinds of edge treatment, flaking style, and base form (Renaud 1931b:Plate 1;
1932b:Plates 2-4). What made these all variants of the Yuma “family” was their association in blowout
contexts. Today, we recognize these forms as the Plano or later Paleoindian forms such as Scottsbluff,
Plainview, Jimmy Allen, Eden, among others. Unfortunately for Renaud, the overall “Yuma” family label
stuck, rather than his specific subdivisions consisting of base shapes and flaking style. The importance of
Renaud to the development of Early Man studies must be acknowledged, as he is linked to many of the
major and (then) upcoming players in the field. He worked with young scholars (some of which were his
students) such as Jack Cotter, Paul Gebhard, Betty Holmes, Charlie Steen, and Marie Wormington, as well
as maintaining professional relationships with Frank Roberts and Jesse Figgins.
Shortly thereafter, during the late thirties and forties, there was much confusion as to what exactly
constituted the various types of Yuma and Folsom points as depicted in the Renaud typology and other
similar classificatory schemes. Various conferences waged typological debate, such as at the 1937
International Symposium on Early Man (Howard 1938, MacCurdy 1937) and the 1941 Early Man
conference in Santa Fe (Howard 1943). There were audible protests for the removal of the Yuma name and
label, as it had too many types subsumed under one label, and there was some concern about possibly
confusing cultural affinity with the Yuma Indians of Arizona and the Yuman language group! Eventually,
it was the incredibly far-reaching and persuasive writings of Marie Wormington that brought the end to the
Yuma point, as her suggestions and clarifications eventually and effectively removed the “Yuma type”
from the books, replaced by individual point types that were defined at single component type-sites
(Wormington 1939, 1944, 1948).
The Andersen family was trying to survive the Depression during this period of academic interest
and research as well as public display (at the Denver Art Museum [Anonymous 1935], the Colorado
Museum of Natural History in 1936, and at the International Symposium on Early Man in Philadelphia in
1937 [Howard 1938; MacCurdy 1937]. Harold had spent time at several different universities, as well as
holding down several jobs, still working towards his baccalaureate degree. In hopes of earning some
money, Harold and Perry tried to sell their collection to a research institution, but had little luck doing so,
305
as the museums and universities were also financially strapped during this period. There were suggestions
to split the collection into pieces, but the Andersens were adamant about not fragmenting the collection, as
they believed it had much greater scientific value as a whole. Without a buyer, the collection remained
relatively intact until it was donated to the University of Nebraska State Museum (and C.B. Schultz) in the
early 1970’s (Andersen papers, University of Nebraska State Museum). Little research has been conducted
on the Andersen materials since their arrival at the UNSM, other than Myers (1989) and recently Hofman
(2000) and this study.
The Andersen family, and their collection, slowly fell away from public limelight in the late
1930’s. At the time, no one really knew how to deal with these dune field sites. Most researchers believed
that they were a mixed bag of artifacts, with no provenience control whatsoever. Thus, the Andersen
collection was essentially doomed when the Coffin family began their collaboration with the Smithsonian
and Frank Roberts at the Lindenmeier site (Roberts 1935, 1936; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). Here, unlike
Yuma County, the Folsom deposits were relatively unmixed with other Paleoindian materials, and in
clearly stratified cultural deposits.
Perry Andersen moved to Littleton, Colorado in 1942 and by that time Harold was also out of
state. Their sites continued to be hunted by the Mustain and Clawson families (both collections still
survive today) as well as by Bert Mountain. Sadly, we have lost many of these early amateur scientists, as
recent years have seen Bert Mountain pass away, as well as Harold “Andy” Andersen in the summer of
2000 (Picou 2000a, 2000b).
Appendix Summary
The Baker and Andersen families contributed much to the burgeoning field of Early Man studies.
Unfortunately, their work has been ignored for many years, replaced in the spotlight by new and more
exciting sites. But the story of these lost amateur archaeologists is not unique, as avocational scientists
have a deep and important history of collaboration and contribution to the archaeological community
(LaBelle 2003). Yet over the last thirty years, a serious rift has emerged, coinciding with the
professionalization of the discipline. Former participants in the field of Paleoindian studies have been
marginalized and viewed as detrimental to the mainstream research community. Many fine collections still
306
exist in the basements and tiny museums of towns across the Plains. But sadly, much of these data are
quickly being lost, as the old-timers are all passing away. There is much more to learn about the
Paleoindian foragers of the Central Plains and reanalysis of these old collections plays an important role in
advancing the field in general.
307
REFERENCES
Abert, J.W.
1999 Expedition to the Southwest: An 1845 Reconnaissance of Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and
Oklahoma. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Adams, J.L.
1993 Toward Understanding the Technological Development of Manos and Metates. Kiva 58(3):331-
344.
2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Agenbroad, L.
1978 The Hudson-Meng Site: An Alberta Bison Kill in the Nebraska High Plains. University Press of
America, Washington, D.C.
Agogino, G.A. and E. Galloway

1965 The Sister’s Hill Site: A Hell Gap Site in North-Central Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist
10(30):190-195.
Agogino, G.A. and A. Parrish

1971 The Fowler-Parrish Site: A Folsom Campsite in Eastern Colorado. Plains Anthropologist
16(52):111-114.
Albanese, J.P.
1977 Paleotopography and Paleoindian Sites in Wyoming and Colorado. In Paleoindian Lifeways,
edited by E. Johnson, pp. 28-47. The Museum Journal No. 17, Lubbock, Texas.
Alexander, H.L., Jr.

1963 The Levi Site: A Paleo-Indian Campsite in Central Texas. American Antiquity 28(4):510-528.
Amick, D.S.
1994a Folsom Diet Breadth and Land Use in the American Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
1994b Technological Organization and the Structure of Inference in Lithic Analysis: An Examination of
Folsom Hunting Behavior in the American Southwest. In The Organization of North American
Prehistoric Chipped Stone Tool Technologies, edited by P.J. Carr, pp. 9-34. Archaeological Series
No. 7, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
1996 Regional Patterns of Folsom Mobility and Land Use in the American Southwest. World
Archaeology 27(3):411-426.
308
2000 Regional Approaches with Unbounded Systems: The Record of Folsom Land Use in New Mexico
and West Texas. In The Archaeology of Regional Interaction: Religion, Warfare, and Exchange
Across the American Southwest and Beyond, edited by M. Hegmon, pp. 119-147. University Press
of Colorado, Boulder.
Andersen, H.V.
1988 History of the Yuma Type Artifacts and the Andersen Collection. Indian Artifact Magazine
7(4):13,45.
1990 The Andersen Artifact Collection. Indian Artifact Magazine 9(3):12-15.
Anderson, A.
1992 Post-Folsom Occupation at the Lindenmeier Site. Paper presented at the 50th Plains
Anthropological Conference, Lincoln.
Anderson, D.G.
1990 A North American Paleoindian Projectile Point Database. Current Research in the Pleistocene
7:67-69.
Anderson, D.G. and M.K. Faught

1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 26:163-187.
2000 Palaeoindian Artefact Distributions: Evidence and Implications. Antiquity 74:507-513.
Anderson, D.G. and J.C. Gillam

2000 Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography,
Demography, and Artifact Distribution. American Antiquity 65(1):43-66.
Anderson, D.G. and G.T. Hanson

1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study From the Savannah
River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2):262-286.
Anderson, D.G. and K.E. Sassaman (editors)

1996 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Anderson, D.
1966 The Gordon Creek Burial. Southwestern Lore 32:1-9.
1967 The Gordon Creek Burial. Wyoming Archaeologist 10:27-36.
Andrefsky, W., Jr.

1994a The Geological Occurrence of Lithic Material and Stone Tool Production Strategies.
Geoarchaeology 9(5):375-391.
1994b Raw-material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.
Andrews, B.N., J.D. Seebach, and J.M. LaBelle

2003 Implications for Folsom Site Settlement Studies from the Archaeological and Ethnographic
Records. Poster presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Milwaukee.
Anonymous
1935 Early Man. American Antiquity 1(2):167.
1937 Society for American Archaeology Membership 1936-1937. American Antiquity 3(1):104.
1939 List of Fellows and Affiliates in the Society for American Archaeology 1938-1939. American
Antiquity 4(4):377.
309
1957 Oklahoma Anthropological Society Officers. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society
5:iii.
Antevs, E.
1948 Climatic Changes and Pre-White Man. In The Great Basin, with Emphasis on Glacial and
Postglacial Times. Bulletin of the University of Utah 38(20):168-191.
Anthony, D.
1991 Lithic Analysis. In Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Duro Creek, Phase II: Testing,
edited by J.A. Peterson, pp. 255-326. Archaeological Research, Inc., Austin.
Armstrong, S.W.
1993 Alder Complex Kitchens: Experimental Replication of Paleoindian Cooking Facilities.
Archaeology in Montana 34(2):1-66.
Arnold, J.R. and W.F. Libby

1951 Radiocarbon Dates. Science 110:678-680.
Baker, E.M.
1968 Belen: A Paleo-Projectile Point Type from the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Paper presented at the
33rd Annual Meeting of Society of American Archaeology, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Baker, T.
2002 Variation in Paleoindian Lithic Assemblages Through Time. Paper presented at the 67th Annual
Meeting of Society of American Archaeology, Denver.
Baker, W.E.
ca. 1927-1957 Notebooks and Miscellaneous Notes of William E. Baker. Collected papers on file at the
No Man’s Land Historical Museum, No Man’s Land Historical Society, Goodwell, Oklahoma.
1939 Flint Artifacts Relating to Cultures on the Great Plains. The Oklahoma Prehistorian 2(2):2-7.
1953 A History of Cimarron County. Chronicles of Oklahoma 31:255-267.
Baker, W.E. and T.N. Campbell

1959 Metal Projectile Points from the Oklahoma Panhandle and Vicinity. Bulletin of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society 7:51-53.
1960 Artifacts from Preceramic Sites in Northeastern and Southern New Mexico. El Palacio 67(3):78-
86.
Baker, W.E., T.N. Campbell, and G.L. Evans

1957 The Nall Site: Evidence of Early Man in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Bulletin of the Oklahoma
Anthropological Society 5:1-20.
Ballenger, J.A.M.
1999a Goff Creek: Artifact Collection Strategy and Occupation Prehistory on the Southern High Plains,
Texas County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir No. 8, Norman.
1999b Late Paleoindian Land Use in the Oklahoma Panhandle: Goff Creek and Nall Playa. Plains
Anthropologist 44(168):189-207.
1999c Early Paleoindian Evidence From the Oklahoma Panhandle. Current Research in the Pleistocene
16:6-8.
Bamforth, D.B.
310
1985 The Technological Organization of Paleo-Indian Small-group Bison Hunting on the Llano
Estacado. Plains Anthropologist 30(109):243-258.
1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51(1):38-50.
1988 Ecology and Human Organization on the Great Plains. Plenum Press, New York.
1990 Settlement, Raw Material, and Lithic Procurement in the Central Mojave Desert. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 9:70-104.
1991a Flintknapping Skill, Communal Hunting, and Paleoindian Projectile Point Typology. Plains
1991b Population Dispersion and Paleoindian Technology at the Allen Site. In Raw Material Economies
Among Prehistoric Hunter-gatherers, edited by A. Monet-White and S. Holen, pp. 357-374.
Publications in Anthropology Volume 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
1991c Technological Organization and Hunter-gatherer Land Use: A California Example. American
Antiquity 56(2):216-234.
1997 Adaptive Change on the Great Plains at the Paleoindian/Archaic Transition. In Changing
Perspectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains, edited by M.L. Larson
and J.E. Francis, pp. 14-54. The University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion.
2002a High-tech Foragers? Folsom and Later Paleoindian Technology on the Great Plains. Journal of
World Prehistory 16(1):55-98.
2002b The Paleoindian Occupation of the Medicine Creek Drainage, Southwestern Nebraska. In
Medicine Creek: Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations, edited by D.C. Roper, pp. 54-
83. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Banks, L.D.
1984 Lithic Resources and Quarries. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by R.E. Bell, pp. 65-95.
Academic Press, Orlando.
1990 From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: A Review of Lithic Sources in the Trans-Mississippi
South, the Southern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Memoir
No. 4., Norman.
Bannan, D.
1980 Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of Late Quaternary Sediments in the High Plains Depressions of
Yuma and Kit Carson Counties, Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of California,
Davis.
Barbour, E.H. and C.B. Schultz

1932 The Scottsbluff Bison Quarry and Its Artifacts. Bulletin of the Nebraska State Museum 1(34):283-
286.
Beaver, J.E.
1998 Geographical Distribution of Hell Gap Projectile Points in Kansas and Oklahoma. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 15:4-6.
Beck, C. and G.T. Jones

1997 The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of the Great Basin. Journal of World
Prehistory 11(2):161-236.
Bell, E.H. and W. Van Royen

1934 An Evaluation of Recent Nebraska Findings Sometimes Attributed to the Pleistocene. Wisconsin
Archeologist, N.S., 13(3):49-70.
Bement, L.C.
1986 Excavation of the Late Pleistocene Deposits of Bonfire Shelter, 41VV218, Val Verde County,
Texas. Texas Archeological Survey, Archeology Series 1, University of Texas, Austin.
1999 Bison Hunting at Cooper Site: Where Lightning Bolts Drew Thundering Herds. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
311
Benedict, J.B.
1974 Early Occupation of the Caribou Lake Site, Colorado Front Range. Plains Anthropologist
19(63):1-4.
1979 Getting Away From It All: A Study of Man, Mountains, and the Two-drought Altithermal.
Southwestern Lore 45(3):1-11.
1981 The Fourth of July Valley. Research Report No. 2, Center for Mountain Archaeology, Ward,
Colorado.
1985 Arapaho Pass: Glacial Geology and Archeology at the Crest of the Colorado Front Range.
Research Report No. 3, Center for Mountain Archaeology, Ward, Colorado.
1992 Footprints in the Snow: High-altitude Cultural Ecology of the Colorado Front Range, U.S.A.
Arctic and Alpine Research 24(1):1-16.
Benedict, J.B. and B.L. Olson

1973 Origin of the McKean Complex: Evidence From Timberline. Plains Anthropologist 18(62):323-
327.
Berman, J.E.
1959 Bison Bones From the Allen site, Wyoming. American Antiquity 25(1):116.
Bettis, E.A., III

1992 Soil Morphologic Properties and Weathering Zone Characteristics as Age Indicators in Holocene
Alluvium in the Upper Midwest. In Soils in Archaeology, edited by V.T. Holliday, pp. 119-144.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Biesaart, L.A., W.R. Roberson, and L.C. Spotts

1985 Prehistoric Archeological Sites in Texas: A Statistical Overview. Special Report 28, Office of the
State Archaeologist, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
Binford, L.R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site
Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(1):5-31.
1983 Long-term Land-use Patterning: Some Implications for Archaeology. In Working at Archaeology,
by L.R. Binford, pp. 379-386. Academic Press, New York.
2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building
Using Ethnographic and Environmental Datasets. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Black, K.
2000 Lithic Sources in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by
D.B. Madsen and M.D. Metcalf, pp. 132-147. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.
122, Salt Lake City.
Black, S., L.W. Ellis, D.G. Creel, and G.T. Goode

1997 Hot Rock Cooking on the Greater Edwards Plateau: Four Burned Rock Midden Sites in West
Central Texas. Studies in Archeology No. 22, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin.
Blackmar, J.M.
1998a The Distribution of Cody Knives: A Distinctive Trait of the Cody Complex. Current Research in
the Pleistocene 15:6-9.
1998b Regional Patterning in the Paleoindian Record From Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
2001 Regional Variability in Clovis, Folsom, and Cody Land Use. Plains Anthropologist 46(175):65-94.
2002 Recent Research at the Laird Site, a Paleoindian Bison Bonebed in Sherman County, Kansas.
Electronic document, PAKWEB (Professional Archaeologists of Kansas website),
http://www.ksarchaeo.info/EDUCATION/KAW/2002exhibit1.html, accessed 7/2/2002.
312
Blackmar, J.M. and J.L. Hofman
1997 Cody-complex Artifacts in Oklahoma. Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:9-11.
Bleed, P.
1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity
51(4):737-747.
Boldurian, A.T.
1990 Lithic Technology at the Mitchell Locality of Blackwater Draw: A Stratified Folsom Site in
Eastern New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 35(130), Memoir 24.
Bomar, G.W.
1995 Texas Weather (2nd edition). University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bonnichsen, R., M. Beaty, M.D. Turner, J.C. Turner, and D. Douglas

1992 Paleoindian Lithic Procurement at the South Fork of Everson Creek, Southwestern Montana: A
Preliminary Report. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by D.J. Stanford and J.S. Day, pp.
285-321. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Bonnichsen, R. and K.L. Turnmire (editors)

1999 Ice Age People of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations. Center for the Study
of the First Americans, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.
Borresen, J.A.
2002 A Faunal Analysis of the Frazier Site, an Agate Basin-age Bison Kill-butchery Site in Northeastern
Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Bousman, C.B.
1974 An Archaeological Assessment of Alibates National Monument. Archaeology Research Program,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
1998 Late Paleoindian Archeology. In Wilson-Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of
Hunter-gatherers in Central Texas. Volume I: Introduction, Background, and Syntheses. Studies
in Archeology 31, Texas Archeology Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin.
Bradley, B.A. and D.J. Stanford

1987 The Claypool Study. In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by
G.C. Frison and L.C. Todd, pp. 405-434. Academic Press, Orlando.
Brennan, L.
1982 A Compilation of Fluted Points of Eastern North America By Count and Distribution: An AENA
Project. Archaeology of Eastern North America 10:27-46.
Breternitz, D.A. (editor)

1971 Archaeological Investigations at the Wilbur Thomas Shelter, Carr, Colorado. Southwestern Lore
36(4):53-99.
Breternitz, D.A., A.C. Swedlund, and D. Anderson

1971 An Early Burial from Gordon Creek, Colorado. American Antiquity 36:170-182.
Brolio, F.J.
1971 An Investigation of Surface Collected Clovis, Folsom, and Midland Projectile Points from
Blackwater Draw and Adjacent Localities. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.
Brosowske, S.D. and L.C. Bement

313
1998 Pedestrian Survey of Playa Lake Environments in Beaver and Texas Counties, Oklahoma.
Archeological Resource Survey Report No. 39, Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman.
Broughton, J.M.
1994a Declines in Mammalian Foraging Efficiency During the Late Holocene, San Francisco Bay,
California. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:371-401.
1994b Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacramento Valley, California: The Vertebrate
Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:501-514.
Brown, J.A. and R.K. Vierra

1983 What Happened in the Middle Archaic? Introduction to an Ecological Approach to Koster
Archaeology. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest, edited by J.L Phillips
and J.A. Brown, pp. 165-195. Academic Press, New York.
Brown, K.L.
1979 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Southwestern Kansas. Plains Anthropologist 24(85):191-
206.
Brown, K.L. and B. Logan

1987 The Distribution of Paleoindian Sites in Kansas. In Quaternary Environments of Kansas, edited by
W.C. Johnson, pp. 189-195. Guidebook Series 5, Kansas Geological Survey, Lawrence.
Brown, D.O.
1991 Radiocarbon Dating Analysis. In Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Duro Creek,
Phase II: Testing, edited by J.A. Peterson, pp. 399-422. Archaeological Research, Inc., Austin.
Brune, G.
1975 Major and Historical Springs of Texas. Report 189, Texas Water Development Board, Austin.
1981 Springs of Texas. Branch-Smith, Inc. Fort Worth, Texas.
Brunswig, R.H., Jr.

1999 Evidence of Mountain Paleoindian Use of the Colorado Piedmont and Plains Territories. Current
2003 Prehistoric Utilization of Patch Environments and Culture Change in Colorado’s Central High
Plains. In Islands on the Plains: Ecological, Social, and Ritual Use of Landscapes, edited by M.
Kornfeld and A.J. Osborn, pp. 44-64. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Bryan, K.
1950 Flint Quarries: The Sources of Tools and, at the Same Time, the Factories of the American Indian.
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 17(3), Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Buenger, B.A.
1999 Taxonomic Classification of Canid Remains from the Talking Crow Site: A Multivariate
Approach. Paper presented at the 57th Annual Plains Anthropological Conference, Sioux Falls,
South Dakota.
Burns, J.
1996a Cache or Carry?: An Analytical Approach to the Material Record of Caching Employing Three
Colorado Lithic Caches. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins.
1996b Notwithstanding Cultural Affiliation: an Analytical Approach to the Material Record of Caching
Employing Three Lithic Caches from Colorado. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of
the Plains Anthropological Society, Iowa City, Iowa.
Byers, D.A.
314
2001 The Hell Gap Site Locality II Agate Basin Faunal Assemblage: A Study of Paleoindian Faunal
Resource Exploitation. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Wyoming, Laramie.
2002 Paleoindian Fat-seeking Behavior: Evidence from the Hell Gap Site, Locality II Agate Basin
Faunal Assemblage. Plains Anthropologist 47(183):359-377.
Byers, D.S.
1954 Bull Brook: A Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. American Antiquity 19(4):343-351.
Campbell, J., W. Johnson, and B. Logan

2002 Modeling Archaeological Site Distribution on the High Plains of Kansas: A GIS Approach. Paper
presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.
Campbell, R.G.
1969 Prehistoric Panhandle Culture on the Chaquaqua Plateau, Southeast Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
Cannon, M.D.
2004 Geographic Variability in North American Mammal Community Richness During the Terminal
Pleistocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 23:1099-1123.
Cannon, M.D. and D.J. Meltzer

2004 Early Paleoindian Foraging: Examining the Faunal Evidence for Large Mammal Specialization
and Regional Variability in Prey Choice. Quaternary Science Reviews 23:1955-1987.
Carlson. G.F. and C.A. Peacock

1975 Lithic Distribution in Nebraska. Unpublished manuscript, on file at the Nebraska State Historical
Society, Lincoln.
Carmichael, D.L.
1984 Lithic Procurement Activities Near Clayton, New Mexico. Papers of the Philmont Conference on
the Archeology of Northeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Archeological Society Proceedings,
Volume 6(1):171-183.
Cassells, E.S.
1983 The Archaeology of Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder, Colorado.
Chronic, J. and H. Chronic

1972 Prairie, Peak, and Plateau: A Guide to the Geology of Colorado. Bulletin 32, Colorado
Geological Survey, Denver.
Chubbuck, J.
1959 The Discovery and Exploration of the Olsen-Chubbuck site (CH-3). Southwestern Lore 25(1):4-
10.
Church, T.
1995 Comment on “Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone from the Chadron Formation and a Clovis Site
on the Great Plains” by Hoard et al. (1992). Journal of Archaeological Science 22:1-5.
Clark, J.S., E.C. Grimm, J.J. Donovan, S.C. Fritz, D.R. Engstrom, and J.E. Almendinger
2002 Drought Cycles and Landscape Responses to Past Aridity on Prairies of the Northern Great Plains,
USA. Ecology 83(3):595-601.
Collins, M.B.
315
1991 Rockshelters and the Early Archaeological Record in the Americas. In The First Americans:
Search and Research, edited by T.D. Dillehay and D.J. Meltzer, p. 157-182. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, Florida.
1998 Interpreting the Clovis Artifacts from the Gault Site. TARL Research Notes 6(1):5-12, Texas
Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.
1999 Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Collins, M.B. and T.R. Hester

1998 Introduction to the Gault Site. TARL Research Notes 6(1):4, Texas Archeological Research
Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin.
Collins, M.B., D.J. Stanford, J.L. Hofman, M.A. Jodry, R.O. Rose, L.C. Todd, K. Kibler, and J.M.
Blackmar
1997 Cody Down South: The Seminole-Rose Site in West Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene
14:15-17.
Colorado Hunt Data

2000 Colorado Hunt Data, Colorado Big Game Hunting Information, Version 4.2 (software database
created using Colorado Division of Wildlife Data). HuntData LLC.
Connolly, T.J.
1999 Newberry Crater: A Ten-thousand-year Record of Human Occupation and Environmental Change
in the Basin-Plateau Borderlands. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 121.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Conyers, L.B.
2000 Subsurface Mapping of a Buried Paleoindian Living Surface, Lime Creek Site, Nebraska, USA.
Cook, H.J.
1931a Ancient Artifacts and Associated Bones from Colorado (abstract). Pan-American Geologist
55(3):240.
1931b Apparently Ancient Artifacts and Associated Fossils from Eastern Colorado (abstract). Pan-
American Geologist 55(2):159.
1931c More Evidence of the “Folsom Culture” Race. Scientific American 144(2):102-103.
Crane, H.R. and J.B. Griffin

1958 University of Michigan Radiocarbon Dates II. Science 127(3306):1098-1105.
Dale, V.
1967 The Garcia Plainview. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 15(3):4.
Damon, P.E., C.V. Haynes, and A. Long

1964 Arizona Radiocarbon Dates V. Radiocarbon 6:91-107.
Daniel, I.R., Jr.

1998 Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast. University of Alabama Press,
Tuscaloosa.
Davis, E.M.
1953 Recent Data from Two Paleo-indian Sites on Medicine Creek, Nebraska. American Antiquity
18(4):380-386.
1962 Archeology of the Lime Creek Site in Southwestern Nebraska. Special Publication No. 3,
University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln.
Davis, L.B., S.A. Aaberg, and L.S. Cummings

316
1994 Northern Rocky Mountain Paleoecology in Archeological, Paleobotanical, and Paleoethnobotanical
Perspective. In Plants and Their Environments: Proceedings of the First Biennial Scientific
Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, edited by D.G. Despain, pp. 113-130.
Technical Report NPS/NRYELL/NRTR-93/XX, National Park Service, Department of the
Interior, Denver.
Davis, L.B. and B.O.K. Reeves (editors)

1992 Hunters of the Recent Past. Unwin Hyman, London.
Dawson, J. and W.J. Judge

1969 Paleo-Indian Sites and Topography in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico. Plains
Deller, D.B. and C.J. Ellis

1992 Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario.
Memoirs No. 24, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Dering, P.
1999 Earth-oven Plant Processing in Archaic Period Economies: An Example from a Semi-Arid
Savannah in South-Central North America. American Antiquity 64(4):659-674.
Dibble, D.S.
1968 Part I: The Archeology. In Bonfire Shelter: A Stratified Bison Kill Site, Val Verde County, Texas,
by D.S. Dibble and D. Lorrain, pp. 9-76. Miscellaneous Paper No. 1, Texas Memorial Museum,
The University of Texas, Austin.
Dibble, D.S. and D. Lorrain

1968 Bonfire Shelter: A Stratified Bison Kill Site, Val Verde County, Texas. Miscellaneous Paper No. 1,
Texas Memorial Museum, The University of Texas, Austin.
Dick, H.W. and B. Mountain

1960 The Claypool Site: A Cody Complex Site in Northeastern Colorado. American Antiquity
26(2):223-235.
Duncan, D.
1993 Miles From Nowhere: In Search of the American Frontier. Penguin Books, New York.
Ebert, J.I.
1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Eckel, E.B.
1961 Minerals of Colorado: A 100-year Record. Bulletin 1114, United States Geological Survey.
Eighmy, J.L. and J.M. LaBelle

1996 Radiocarbon Dating of Twenty-seven Plains Complexes and Phases. Plains Anthropologist
41(155):53-69.
Elias, S.A.
1986 Fossil Insect Evidence for Late Pleistocene Paleoenvironments of the Lamb Spring Site, Colorado.
Geoarchaeology 1:381-386.
Elias, S.A. and A.R. Nelson

1989 Fossil Invertebrate Evidence for Late Wisconsin Environments at the Lamb Spring Site, Colorado.
Plains Anthropologist 34:309-326.
Elias, S.A. and L.J. Toolin

317
1989 Accelerator Dating of a Mixed Assemblage of Late Pleistocene Insect Fossils from the Lamb
Spring Site, Colorado. Quaternary Research 33:122-126.
Erlandson, J.M.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.
Faught, M.K., D.G. Anderson, and A. Gisiger

1994 North American Paleoindian Database: An Update. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:32-35.
Fenneman, N.M.
1931 Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Fiedel, S.J.
1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity
64(1):95-115.
Figgins, J.D.
1934 Folsom and Yuma Artifacts. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural History 13(2).
1935 Folsom and Yuma Artifacts, Part II. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural History
14(2).
Finley, J.B., B.N. Andrews, M. Kornfeld, and G.C. Frison

2002 Two Moon: A Folsom Rockshelter Occupation in the Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming. Current
Research in the Pleistocene 19: 22-25.
Finley, J.B., C.C. Finley, M. Kornfeld, G.C. Frison

2003 Below Folsom at Two Moon Shelter: Paleoamericans and Rockshelters in Wyoming’s Big Horn
Mountains. Current Research in the Pleistocene 20: 18-20.
Fish, E.B., E.L. Atkinson, T.R. Mollhagen, C.H. Shanks, and C.M. Brenton
1998 Playa lakes digital database for the Texas portion of the Playa Lakes Joint Venture Region.
http://www.pssc.ttu.edu/pss5334/West_Texas/playas.pdf, accessed April 3, 2004.
Fischel, H.E.
1939 Folsom and Yuma Culture Finds. American Antiquity 4(3):232-264.
Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, D.M. Armstrong

1994 Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History/University Press of Colorado, Niwot,
Colorado.
Flenniken, J.J. and T.L. Ozbun

1988 Experimental Analysis of Plains Grooved Abraders. Plains Anthropologist 33(119):37-52.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron

1986 Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Forman, S.L., R. Oglesby, and R.S. Webb

2001 Temporal and spatial patterns of Holocene dune activity on the Great Plains of North America:
Megadroughts and climate links. Global and Planetary Change 29:1-29.
Frison, G.C.
1970 The Glenrock Buffalo Jump, 48CO304. Plains Anthropologist 15(50), Part 2, Memoir 7.
1973a Early Period Marginal Cultural Groups in Northern Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 18(62):300-
312.
318
1973b The Wardell Buffalo Trap 48SU301: Communal Procurement in the Upper Green River Basin,
Wyoming. Anthropological Papers No. 48, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
1974 The Casper Site: A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.
1976 The Chronology of Paleo-Indian and Altithermal Cultures in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming. In
Cultural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by C.E.
Cleland, pp. 147-173. Academic Press, New York.
1982a Folsom Components. In The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the
Northwestern High Plains, edited by G.C. Frison and D.J. Stanford, pp. 37-76. Academic Press,
New York.
1982b Hell Gap Components. In The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the
Northwestern High Plains, edited by G.C. Frison and D.J. Stanford, pp. 135-142. Academic
Press, New York.
1982c Paleo-Indian Winter Subsistence Strategies on the High Plains. In Plains Indian Studies: A
Collection of Essays in Honor of John C. Ewers and Waldo R. Wedel, edited by D.H. Ubelaker
and H.J. Viola, pp. 193-201. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 30, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1983 (Individual comments in) Panel Discussion and Audience Participation. In From Microcosm to
Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring Investigation and Interpretation, edited by LB. Davis,
pp.343-358. Plains Anthropologist Memoir No. 19.
1984 The Carter/Kerr-McGee Paleoindian Site: Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological
Research. American Antiquity 49(2):288-314.
1987 The Tool Assemblage, Unfinished Bifaces, and Stone Flaking Material Sources for the Horner Site.
In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex, edited by G.C. Frison and L.C.
Todd, pp. 233-278. Academic Press, Orlando.
1991 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains (2nd edition). Academic Press, San Diego.
1996 The Mill Iron Site (editor). University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1998 The Northwestern and Northern Plains Archaic. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by
W.R. Wood, pp. 140-172. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Frison, G.C. and B.A. Bradley

1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Frison, G.C. and D.C. Grey

1980 Pryor Stemmed: A Specialized Late Paleo-indian Ecological Adaptation. Plains Anthropologist
25(87):27-46.
Frison, G.C. and C.A. Reher

1970 Age Determination of Buffalo by Teeth Eruption and Wear. Plains Anthropologist 15(50), Part
2:46-50, Memoir 7.
Frison, G.C. and D.J. Stanford

1982a Agate Basin Components. In The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of
the Northwestern High Plains, edited by G.C. Frison and D.J. Stanford, pp. 76-135. Academic
Press, New York.
1982b The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleoindian Occupation of the Northwestern High Plains
(editors). Academic Press, New York.
Frison, G.C. and L.C. Todd (editors)

1986 The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1987 The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural Complex. Academic Press, Orlando.
Fulgham, T. and D. Stanford

1982 The Frasca Site: A Preliminary Report. Southwestern Lore 48(1):1-9.
319
Galloway, E. and G.A. Agogino
1961 The Johnson Site: A Folsom Campsite. Plains Anthropologist 6(13):205-208.
Gamble, C.
1986 The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gantt, E.M.
2002 The Claude C. and A. Lynn Coffin Lindenmeier Collection: An Innovative Method for Analysis of
Privately Held Artifact Collections and New Information on a Folsom Campsite in Northern
Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins.
Garcia, A.
1998 Ground Stone Artifacts Associated with Paleoindian Sites: The Lindenmeier Folsom Site, a Case
Study. Poster presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Seattle.
Gardner, W.M. (editor)

1974 The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971-73 Seasons. Archeology
Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.
Gebhard, P.H.
1943 The Excavation of an Archaeological Site on the Purgatoire River Southeastern Colorado. Papers
of the Excavators’ Club 2(2):1-29.
1946 Stone Objects from Prehistoric North America with Respect to Distribution, Type, and
Significance. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.
1949 An Archaeological Survey of the Blowouts of Yuma County, Colorado. American Antiquity
15(2):132-143.
Gilmore, K.P., M. Tate, M.L. Chenault, B. Clark, T. McBride, and M. Wood

1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Platte River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional
Archaeologists, Denver
Gilmore, M.R.
1977 Uses of Plants by the Indians of the Missouri River Region. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Glover, G.F.
1978 An Analysis of Early Paleo-indian Projectile Points with New Data from Southwestern Kansas.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Wichita State University, Wichita,
Kansas.
Goodyear, A.C.
1974 The Brand Site: A Techno-functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research
Series No. 7, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American
Antiquity 47(2):382-395.
1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Material Use Among Paleoindian Groups of
North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Groups of North America, edited by C.M. Ellis and J.C.
Lothrop, pp. 1-10. Westview Press, Boulder.
Gose, W.A.
2000 Palaeomagnetic Studies of Burned Rocks. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:409-421.
Gould, C.N.
320
1921 Where Did the Indians of the Great Plains Get Their Flint? Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy
of Science Vol. I:71-76.
Graham, R.W.
1981 Preliminary Report on Late Pleistocene Vertebrates from the Selby and Dutton
Archeological/paleontological Sites, Yuma County, Colorado. Contributions to Geology
20(1):33-56, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
1987 Late Quaternary Mammalian Faunas and Paleoenvironments of the Southwestern Plains of the
United States. In Late Quaternary Mammalian Biogeography and Environments of the Great
Plains and Prairies, edited by R.W. Graham, H.A. Semken, Jr., and M.A. Graham, pp. 24-86.
Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, Vol. XXII, Illinois State Museum, Springfield.
Graham, R.W. and J.I. Mead

1987 Environmental Fluctuation and Evolution of Mammalian Faunas During the Last Deglaciation in
North America. In North America and Adjacent Oceans During the Last Deglaciation, edited by
W.F. Ruddiman and H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 371-402. The Geology of North America, Volume K-3,
Geological Society of America, Boulder.
Grayson, D.K. and D.J. Meltzer

2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585-593.
Green, F.E. and J.H. Kelley

1960 Comment on Alibates Flint. American Antiquity 25(3):413-414.
Greene, A.M.
1967 The Betty Greene Site: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Wyoming. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Gregory, E.
1987 Colorado Goodies. Indian Artifact Magazine 6(2):28, 32-33
Greiser, S.T.
1977 Micro-analysis of Wear Patterns on Projectile Points and Knives from the Jurgens Site, Kersey,
Colorado. Plains Anthropologist 22(76):107-116.
1983 A Preliminary Statement About Quarrying Activity at Flattop Mesa. Southwestern Lore 49(4):6-
14.
1985 Predictive Models of Hunter-gatherer Subsistence and Settlement Strategies on the Central High
Plains. Plains Anthropologist, Memoir 20:1-134.
Guthery, F.S., F.C. Bryant, B. Kramer, A. Stoecker, and M. Dvorack

1981 Playa Assessment Study. United States Water and Power Resources Service, Southwest Region,
Amarillo, Texas.
Hannus, L.A.
1986 Report on 1985 Test Excavations at the Ray Long Site (39FA65), Angostura Reservoir, Fall River
County, South Dakota. South Dakota Archaeology 10:48-104.
Harrison, B.R. and H.C. Smith

1975 A Test Excavation of the Lake Theo Site, Briscoe County, Texas. Panhandle-Plains Historical
Review 48:70-106.
Hartwell, W.T.
1995 The Ryan’s Site Cache: Comparisons to Plainview. Plains Anthropologist 40(152):165-184.
Haukos, D.A. and L.M. Smith

1997 Common Flora of the Playa Lakes. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas.
321
Haynes, C.V., Jr.
1966 Elephant-hunting in North America. Scientific American 214:104-112.
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, pp. 219-236. Plenum
Press, New York.
Haynes, C.V., Jr., and G. Agogino

1960 Geological Significance of a New Radiocarbon Date from the Lindenmeier Site. Proceedings of
the Denver Museum of Natural History No. 9, Denver, Colorado.
Haynes, C.V., Jr., R.P. Beukens, A.J.T. Jull, and O.K. Davis
1992 New Radiocarbon Dates for Some Old Folsom Sites: Accelerator Technology. In Ice Age Hunters
of the Rockies, edited by D.J. Stanford and J.S. Day, pp. 83-100. University Press of Colorado,
Niwot, Colorado.
Haynes, C.V. and H. Haas

1974 Southern Methodist University Radiocarbon Date List I. Radiocarbon 16:368-380.
Haynes, C.V., P.E. Damon, and D.C. Grey

1966 Arizona Radiocarbon Dates VI. Radiocarbon 8:1-21.
Haynes, G.
2002 The Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom.
Hester, J.J.
1962 A Folsom Lithic Complex from the Elida Site, Roosevelt County, N.M. El Palacio 69(2):92-113.
1972 Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified, Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin
Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.
1975a Paleoarchaeology of the Llano Estacado. In Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High
Plains, edited by F. Wendorf and J.J. Hester, pp. 247-256. Number 9, Fort Burgwin Research
Center, Southern Methodist University, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.
1975b The Sites. In Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plains, edited by F. Wendorf
and J.J. Hester, pp. 13-32. Number 9, Fort Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist
University, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.
Hester, J.J. and J. Grady

1977 Paleoindian Social Patterns on the Llano Estacado. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by E. Johnson,
pp. 78-96. The Museum Journal No. 17, Lubbock, Texas.
Hester, T.R.
1978 Excavations at St. Mary’s Hall (41BX229): A Buried Plainview Campsite in South Central Texas.
In Early Human Occupations in South Central and Southwestern Texas: Preliminary Papers on
the Baker Cave and St. Mary’s Hall Sites. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio.
1979 Early Populations in Prehistoric Texas. Archaeology 32(6).
1983 Late Paleo-Indian Occupations at Baker Cave, Southwestern Texas. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 53:101-119.
1990 Plainview Artifacts at the St. Mary’s Hall Site, South Central Texas. Current Research in the
Pleistocene 7:14-17.
1991 The Burned Rock Middens of Texas: An Archeological Symposium (T.R Hester, editor). Studies in
Archeology No. 13, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin.
Hester, T.R. and D. Knepper

322
1991 Further Notes on the Lithics from the Plainview Occupation at the St. Mary’s Hall Site, South
Central Texas. La Tierra 18(3):1-6.
Hicks, K.
2002 Local Variability in Paleoindian Lifeways: A comparison of the Lime Creek and Allen Site
Worked Stone Assemblages, Southwest, Nebraska. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Hietala, H.J.
1989 Contemporaneity and Occupational Duration of the Kubbaniyan Sites: An Analysis and
Interpretation of the Radiocarbon Dates. In The Prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya. Volume 2,
Stratigraphy, Paleoeconomy, and Environment, edited by A.E. Close, pp. 284-291. Southern
Methodist University Press, Dallas.
Higgins, H.C.
1984 Lithic Material Sources of the Ancho Canyon Area, York Canyon Region. Papers of the Philmont
Conference on the Archeology of Northeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Archeological Society
Proceedings, Volume 6(1):139-150.
Hill, M.E.
1994 Paleoindian Archaeology and Taphonomy of the 12 Mile Creek Site in Western Kansas.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
1996 Paleoindian Bison Remains from the 12 Mile Creek Site in Western Kansas. Plains Anthropologist
41(158):359-372.
2000 Changing Perspectives on Bison Bonebeds: Modeling the Use of Bison During the Paleoindian
Period. Poster presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Philadelphia.
2002a Pattern Recognition Study of Regional and Temporal Variability in Paleoindian Bison Bonebeds.
Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.
2002b Seasonality and Site Formation at the Jurgens Paleoindian Bison Bonebed. Paper presented at the
60th Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Hill, M.E., J.L. Hofman, and L.D. Martin

1992 A Reinvestigation of the Burntwood Creek Bison Bone Bed. Current Research in the Pleistocene
9:99-102.
Hill, M.G.
1994 Subsistence Strategies by Folsom Hunters at Agate Basin, Wyoming: A Taphonomic Analysis of
the Bison and Pronghorn Assemblages. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
1998 Paleoindian Transport Decisions and Secondary Processing of Bison at Clary Ranch, Nebraska
Panhandle. Poster presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological
Conference, Bismarck, North Dakota.
2001 Paleoindian Diet and Subsistence Behavior on the Northwestern Great Plains of North America.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hill, M.G., M.E. Hill, Jr., D.W. May, T.P. Myers, D.J. Rapson, F. Sellet, J.L. Theler, and L.C. Todd
2002 Palaeoindian Subsistence Behaviour at the Clary Ranch Site, Nebraska, USA. Antiquity 76:311-
312.
Hill, M.G., M.E. Hill, T.P. Myers, D.C. Jones, and N.M. Waguespack
1997 Preliminary Observations on Late-Paleoindian Bison Butchery at the Clary Ranch Site (25GD106),
Western Nebraska. Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:34-37.
Hill, M.G., V.T. Holliday, and D.J. Stanford

323
1995 A Further Evaluation of the San Jon Site, New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 40(154):369-390.
Hill, M.G., and F. Sellet

2000 Refinements of Folsom Subsistence and Technological Organization at Agate Basin, Wyoming.
Poster presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Conference, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Hoard, R.J., J.R. Bozell, S.R. Holen, M.D. Glascock, H. Neff, and J.M. Elam
1993 Source Determination of White River Group Silicates from Two Archaeological Sites in the Great
Plains. American Antiquity 58(4):698-710.
Hoard, R.J., S.R. Holen, M.D. Glascock, and H. Neff

1995 Additional Comments on Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone from the Great Plains: Reply to
Church. Journal of Archaeological Science 22:7-10.
Hoard, R.J., S.R. Holen, M.D. Glascock, H. Neff, and J.M. Elam
1992 Neutron Activation Analysis of Stone from the Chadron Formation and a Clovis Site on the Great
Plains. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:655-665.
Hofman, J.L.
1987 The Occurrence of Folsom Points in Oklahoma. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:57-59.
1990 Paleoindian Mobility and Utilization of Niobrara or Smoky Hill Jasper on the Southern Plains.
Kansas Anthropologist 11(2):1-13.
1991 Folsom Land Use: Projectile Point Variability as a Key To Mobility. In Raw Material Economies
Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Monet-White and S. Holen, pp. 335-355.
Publications In Anthropology No. 19, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
1992 Recognition and Interpretation of Folsom Technological Variability on the Southern Plains. In Ice
Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by D.J. Stanford and J.S. Day, pp. 193-224. University Press
of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.
1993 An Initial Survey of the Folsom Complex in Oklahoma. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological
Society 41:71-105.
1994a The Occurrence of Folsom Points in Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 11:37-39.
1994b Paleoindian Aggregations on the Great Plains. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:341-
370.
1994c Sites, Localities, and Isolates: A Regional Perspective on Southern Plains Folsom Evidence.
Revised draft of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, New Orleans, 1991.
1995 Dating Folsom Occupations on the Southern Plains: The Lipscomb and Waugh sites. Journal of
Field Archaeology 22:421-437.
1996 Early Hunter-gatherers of the Central Great Plains: Paleoindian and Mesoindian (Archaic)
Cultures. In Archeology and Paleoecology of the Central Great Plains, edited by J.L. Hofman,
pp. 41-100. Research Series No. 48, Arkansas Archeological Survey.
1999a Folsom Fragments, Site Types, and Prehistoric Behavior. In Folsom Lithic Technology:
Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by D.S. Amick, pp. 122-143. Archaeological
Series No. 12, International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.
1999b Unbounded Hunters: Folsom Bison Hunting on the Southern Plains circa 10,500 BP, the Lithic
Evidence. In Le Bison: Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paleolithoque aux
Paleoindiens des Grandes Plaines, edited by J.-Ph Brugal, F. David, J.G. Enloe, and J. Jaubert,
pp. 383-415. Actes du Colloque International, Toulouse 1995. Editions APDCA, Antibes.
2000 Tethered to Stone or Freedom to Move: Folsom Biface Technology in Regional Perspective.
Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Philadelphia.
2002a The Allen Technological Complex in Western Kansas: New Evidence from the Winger Site.
Poster presented at the 60th Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
2002b Norton Bone Bed Reveals Wealth of Insights and Bison Remains. Kansas Preservation 24(1):4-
5,13.
324
Hofman, J.L., D.S. Amick, and R.O. Rose
1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-Midland Assemblage from a Campsite in Western Texas. Plains
Hofman, J.L. and J.M. Blackmar

1997 The Paleoindian Laird Bison Bone Bed in Northwestern Kansas. The Kansas Anthropologist
18(2):45-58.
Hofman, J.L. and R.W. Graham

1998 The Paleo-Indian Cultures of the Great Plains. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W.R.
Wood, pp. 87-139. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Hofman, J.L. and I.S. Hesse

1996 The Occurrence of Clovis Points in Kansas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 13:23-25.
Hofman, J.L., M.E. Hill Jr., W.C. Johnson, and D. T. Sather

1995 Norton: An Early Holocene Bison Bone Bed in Western Kansas. Current Research in the
Hofman, J.L. and E. Ingbar

1988 A Folsom Hunting Overlook in Eastern Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 33(121):337-350.
Hofman, J.L. and L.C. Todd

2001 Tyranny in the Archaeological Record of Specialized Hunters. In People and Wildlife in Northern
North America: Essays in Honor of R. Dale Guthrie, edited by S.C. Gerlach and M.S. Murray, pp.
200-215. BAR International Series 944.
Hofman, J.L., L.C. Todd, and M.B. Collins

1991 Identification of Central Texas Edwards Chert at the Folsom and Lindenmeier Sites. Plains
Hofman, J.L. and D.G. Wyckoff

1991 Clovis Occupation in Oklahoma. Current Research in the Pleistocene 8:29-31.
Holder, P. and J. Wilke

1949 The Frontier Culture Complex: A Preliminary Report on a Prehistoric Hunters’ Camp in
Southwestern Nebraska. American Antiquity 14(4):260-266.
Holen, S.
2001 Clovis Mobility and Lithic Procurement on the Central Great Plains of North America.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Holland, T.D.
1984 A Pilot Study in the Thermal Properties of Buffalo Chips. Plains Anthropologist 29(104):161-165.
Holliday, V.T.
1995 Late Quaternary Stratigraphy of the Southern High Plains. In Ancient Peoples and Landscapes,
edited by E. Johnson, pp. 289-313. Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
1997 Paleoindian Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin.
2000 The Evolution of Paleoindian Geochronology and Typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology
15(3):227-290.
Holliday, V.T., E. Johnson, and T.W. Stafford, Jr.

1999 AMS Radiocarbon Dating of the Type Plainview and Firstview (Paleoindian) Assemblages: The
Agony and the Ecstasy. American Antiquity 64(3):444-454.
325
Holliday, V.T. and C.M. Welty
1981 Lithic Tool Resources of the Eastern Llano Estacado. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society
52:201-214.
Honea, K.
1969 The Rio Grande Complex and the Northern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 14(43):57-70.
Howard, E.B.
1935 Evidence of Early Man in North America. The Museum Journal 24(2,3):53-171.
1936 An Outline of the Problem of Man’s Antiquity in North America. American Anthropologist, N.S.
38:394-413.
1938 Minutes of the International Symposium on Early Man Held at the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. Proceeding of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 89:439-447.
1943 Discovery of Yuma points, In Situ, near Eden, Wyoming. American Antiquity 8(3):224-234.
Howard, L.
1949 An Attempt to Capture Buffalo Alive in Present Oklahoma in the Late 1880’s. Kansas Historical
Quarterly 17(3):233-242.
Huckell, B.
1982 The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona: A Review and an Update. Archaeological Series No.
145, Cultural Resource Management Division, Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Huckell, B. and J.D. Kilby

2000 Boca Negra Wash, a New Folsom Site in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Current
Hudson, J.
1998 Faunal Evidence for Subsistence and Settlement Patterns at the Allen site. Unpublished report,
Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Hunt, C.B.
1967 Physiography of the United States. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Husted, W.M.
1965 Early Occupation of the Colorado Front Range. American Antiquity 30(4):494-498.
1969 Bighorn Canyon Archeology. Publications in Salvage Archeology No. 12, River Basin Surveys,
Smithsonian Institution, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Husted, W.M. and R. Edgar

2002 The Archeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: An Introduction to Shoshonean Prehistory. Special
Report No. 4, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Indeck, J. and A.J. Kihm

1982 Zephyr: A Site for Sore Eyes, Excavations at 5MN1068. Highway Salvage Report No. 38,
Colorado Department of Highways, Denver.
Ingbar, E.E.
1992 The Hanson Site and Folsom on the Northwestern Plains. In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited
by D.J. Stanford and J.S. Day, pp. 169-192. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado.
Irwin, H.
1967 The Itama: Late Pleistocene Inhabitants of the Plains of the United States and Canada and the
American Southwest. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.
326
1971 Developments in Early Man Studies in Western North America, 1960-1970. Arctic Anthropology
8(2):83-91.
Irwin, H. and C.C. Irwin

1959 Excavations at the LoDaiska Site in Denver, Colorado, Area. Proceedings No. 8, Denver Museum
of Natural History, Denver.
Irwin, H. and H.M. Wormington

1970 Paleo-Indian Tool Types in the Great Plains. American Antiquity 35(1):24-34.
Irwin-Williams, C.
1979 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 7000-2000 B.C. In Handbook of North American Indians: Volume
9, Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 31-42. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Irwin-Williams, C. and C.V. Haynes

1970 Climatic Change and Early Population Dynamics in the Southwestern United States. Quaternary
Research 1(1):59-71.
Irwin-Williams, C. and H. Irwin

1966 Excavations at Magic Mountain. Proceedings No. 12, Denver Museum of Natural History, Denver.
Irwin-Williams, C., H. Irwin, G. Agogino, and C.V. Haynes

1973 Hell Gap: Paleo-Indian Occupation on the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 18(59):40-53.
Jackson, B., J. Carlisle, and I. Colwell

1982 Man and the Oklahoma Panhandle. Mennonite Press, North Newton, Kansas.
Jodry, M.A.
1999 Paleoindian Stage. In Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Rio Grande Basin, by M.A.
Martorano, T. Hoefer III, M.A. Jodry, V. Spero, and M.L. Taylor, pp. 45-114. Colorado Council
of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colorado.
Jodry, M.A. and D.J. Stanford

1992 Stewart’s Cattle Guard Site: An Analysis of Bison Remains in a Folsom Kill-Butchery Campsite.
In Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies, edited by D.J. Stanford and J.S. Day, pp. 101-168. University
Press of Colorado, Niwot.
Johnson, E. (editor)
1987 Lubbock Lake: Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High Plains. Texas A&M University
Press, College Station.
Johnson, E. and V.T. Holliday

1984 Comments on “Large Springs and Early American Indians.” Plains Anthropologist 29(103):65-70.
Johnson, H.C.
1982 Western Gem Hunters Atlas (18th edition). Cy Johnson and Son, Susanville, California.
Johnson, L., Jr.

1989 Great Plains Interlopers in the Eastern Woodlands During Late Paleoindian Times. Office of the
State Archeologist Report 36, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
Johnson, W.C. and B. Logan

1990 Geoarchaeology of the Kansas River Basin, Central Great Plains. In Archaeological Geology of
North America, edited by N.P. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 267-299. Centennial Special Volume 4,
327
Johnson, W.C., R.D. Mandel, J.S. Campbell, K.L. Willey, and S.R. Bozarth
2000 Playa Systems As Environmental Barometers of the Central Great Plains: Investigations in Kansas.
Poster presented at the 16th Biennial Meeting, American Quaternary Association, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Jones, D.C.
1999 Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic Archaeology and Subsistence: A Taphonomic Analysis of the
Lime Creek Site (25FT41), Southwest Nebraska. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of
Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Judge, W.J.
1973 Paleoindian Occupation of the Central Rio Grade Valley in New Mexico. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Judge, W.J. and J. Dawson

1972 Paleoindian Settlement Technology in New Mexico. Science 176(4040):1210-1216.
Kainer, R.E.
1974 A Brief Descriptive Summary of the Spring Gulch Site, Larimer County, Colorado. Southwestern
Lore 40(3&4):37-41.
1976 Archaeological Investigations of the Spring Gulch Site (5LR252). Unpublished Master’s thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Kaplan, H. and K. Hill

1992 The Evolutionary Ecology of Food Acquisition. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior,
edited by E.A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 167-202. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Kay, M.
1998 The Central and Southern Plains Archaic. In Archaeology on the Great Plains, edited by W.R.
Wood, pp. 173-200. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Kelly, R.L.
1983 Hunter-gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39(3):277-306.
1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. American Antiquity 53(4):717-734.
1992 Mobility/sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of
Anthropology 21:43-66.
1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1996 Ethnographic Analogy and Migration to the Western Hemisphere. In Prehistoric Mongoloid
Dispersals, edited by T. Akazawa and E.J.E. Szathmary, pp.228-240. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Kelly, R.J. and L.C. Todd

1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity
53(2):231-244.
Kibler, K.W.
1992 Surface Distributions of Aboriginal Sites on the Southern Llano Estacado. Transactions of the
Regional Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas 28:26-48.
Kerr, R.M.
1979 Mule Deer Habitat Guidelines. Technical Note No. 336, Bureau of Land Management, Denver.
Kerr, A.C. and S.W. Dial

1998 Statistical Analysis of Unfluted Lanceolate and Early Bifurcate Stem Projectile Points. In Wilson-
Leonard: An 11,000-year Archeological Record of Hunter-Gatherers in Central Texas, Volume
328
II: Chipped Stone Artifacts, edited by M.B. Collins, pp. 447-505. Studies in Archeology No. 31,
Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.
Kindscher, K.
1987 Edible Wild Plants of the Prairie: An Ethnobotanical Guide. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence.
1992 Medicinal Wild Plants of the Prairie: An Ethnobotanical Guide. University Press of Kansas,
Lawrence.
Knudson, R.
1983 Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages. Reports of Investigations No. 60,
Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.
2002 Red Smoke (25FT42) Assemblage Points and Point Fragments. In Medicine Creek: Seventy Years
of Archaeological Investigations, edited by D.C. Roper, pp. 84-141. The University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa.
Koch, A. and J. Miller

1996 Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Lyman Site (25SF53) and Other Cultural Resources
Related to Table Mountain Quarry Near the Nebraska/Wyoming Border. Report prepared for
Nebraska Department of Roads and the Federal Highway Administration Project HES-92-1(113).
Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln.
Kornfeld, M.
1988 The Rocky Foolsm Site: A Small Folsom Assemblage from the Northwestern Plains. North
American Archaeologist 9(3):197-222.
Kornfeld, M. and G.C. Frison

2000 Paleoindian Occupation of the High Country: The Case of Middle Park, Colorado. Plains
Kornfeld, M., G.C. Frison, M.L. Larson, J.C. Miller, and J. Saysette
1999 Paleoindian Bison Procurement and Paleoenvironments in Middle Park of Colorado.
Kornfeld, M. and A.J. Osborn (editors)

2003 Islands on the Plains: Ecological, Social, and Ritual Use of Landscapes. The University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Kraft, K.C.
1997 The Distribution of Alibates Silicified Dolomite Clasts Along the Canadian River. Current
Kreutzer, L.A.
1996 Taphonomy of the Mill Iron Site Bison Bonebed. In The Mill Iron Site, edited by G.C. Frison, pp.
101-143. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Kvamme, K.L.
1977 Aboriginal Sandstone Quarries in the Foothills of Northeastern Colorado. Southwestern Lore
43(3):22-26.
1979 Settlement Variability on the High Plains of Northeastern Colorado: The South Platte River.
Southwestern Lore 45(4):18-28.
Kyriakidou, M.
1993 Functional Analysis of the Hell Gap Cultural Complex: A Comparative Microwear Study.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
329
LaBelle, J.M.
1997 “Uncle Bill” and Panhandle Paleoindians. Paper presented at the 55th Plains Anthropological
Conference, Boulder, Colorado. Electronic document, www.ele.net, accessed February 10, 2003.
1999a Preliminary Report on Fieldwork at the Nall Site. In Summary of the Scope of Field and
Laboratory Work, and Preliminary Results, 1998-1999, edited by D.J. Meltzer, pp. 1-42. Quest
Archaeological Research Fund annual report, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
1999b Recent Fieldwork at the Nall Site (34CI134): A Large Late-Paleoindian Campsite in the
Oklahoma Panhandle. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16:48-50.
2000 Summer 1999 Fieldwork at the Nall Site. In Summary of the Scope of Field and Laboratory Work,
and Preliminary Results, 1999-2000, edited by D.J. Meltzer, pp. 1-38. Quest Archaeological
Research Fund annual report, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
2002a Rediscovery of the Slim Arrow Paleoindian Bonebed: The Yuma Type Site That Wasn’t Meant
To Be. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the author, Sheridan, Wyoming.
2002b The Slim Arrow Site, the Long Forgotten Yuma Type-site of Eastern Colorado. Current
2003 Coffee Cans and Folsom Points: Why We Cannot Continue to Ignore the Artifact Collectors. In
Ethical Issues in Archaeology, edited by L.J. Zimmerman, K.D. Vitelli, and J. Hollowell-Zimmer,
pp. 115-127. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
2004 Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Antelope II. Lance Oil & Gas Company Coalbed Methane
Plan of Development, Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. WLS Archaeological Report
03-05, Western Land Services, Sheridan, Wyoming.
LaBelle, J.M., B.N. Andrews, and J.D. Seebach

2003 An Atlas of Folsom Site Structure. Poster presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Milwaukee.
LaBelle, J.M., V.T. Holliday, and D.J. Meltzer

2003 Early Holocene Paleoindian Deposits at Nall Playa, Oklahoma Panhandle, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology
18(1):5-34.
Largent, F.B., Jr.

1995 Some New Additions to the Texas Folsom Point Database. Plains Anthropologist 40:69-71.
Largent, F.B., Jr., M.R. Waters, and D.L. Carlson

1991 The Spatiotemporal Distribution and Characteristics of Folsom Projectile Points in Texas. Plains
Larson, M.L.
1997 Housepits and Mobile Hunter-Gatherers: A Consideration of the Wyoming Evidence. Plains
Larson, M.L. and J.E. Francis (editors)

1997 Changing Perspectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains. The
University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion.
Leopold, E.B. and J.B. Wheat

1972 Palynology of the Olsen-Chubbuck site. In The Olsen-Chubbuck site: A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill,
by J.B. Wheat, pp 178-180. American Antiquity 37(1) Part 2, Memoir 26.
Lepper, B.T.
1983 Fluted Point Distributional Patterns in the Eastern United States: A Contemporary Phenomena.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8:269-285.
1985 The Effects of Cultivation and Collecting on Ohio Fluted Points: A Reply to Seeman and Prufer.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10:241-250.
LeTourneau, P.D.
330
2000 Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest and Southern Plains. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Libby, W.F.
1955 Radiocarbon Dating (2nd edition). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lintz, C.
1978 The Johnson-Cline Site (34-Tx-40): An Upland Dune Site in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Bulletin of
the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 27:111-140.
1997 The Occurrence and Prehistoric Aboriginal Utilization of Opalite in the Palo Duro Creek Vicinity
of the Texas Panhandle. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 46:107-126.
Lintz, C., A. Treece, and F. Oglesby

1995 The Early Archaic Structure at the Turkey Bend Ranch Site (41CC112), Concho County. In
Advances in Texas Archeology, Contributions from Cultural Resource Management, edited by J.E.
Bruseth and T.K. Perttula, pp. 155-185. Cultural Resource Management Report No. 5,
Department of Antiquities Protection, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
Lintz, C. and L.G. Zabawa

1984 The Kenton Caves of Western Oklahoma. In Prehistory of Oklahoma, edited by R.E. Bell, pp.
161-174. Academic Press, Orlando.
Litwinionek, L., E. Johnson, and V.T. Holliday

1996 The Playas of the Southern High Plains: An Archipelago of Human Occupation for the Past 12,000
Years. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Society, Iowa
City, Iowa.
2002 Reassessing the Paleoindian Locales on the Southern High Plains. A New look at the Milnesand
and Ted Williamson Sites. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Denver, Colorado.
2003 The Playas of the Southern High Plains: An Archipelago of Human Occupation for the Past 12,000
Years on the North American Grasslands. In Islands on the Plains: Ecological, Social, and Ritual
Use of Landscapes, edited by M. Kornfeld and A.J. Osborn, pp. 21-43. The University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Long, A.
1965 Smithsonian Institution Radiocarbon Measurements II. Radiocarbon 7:245-256.
Long, A. and B. Rippeteau

1974 Testing Contemporaneity and Averaging Radiocarbon Dates. American Antiquity 39(2):205-215.
Lopez, D.R. and R. Saunders

1973 Current Lithic Studies in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter 21(9):1-4.
Luebbers, R.
1971 Tool Analysis. In Archaeological Investigations at the Wilbur Thomas Shelter, Carr, Colorado,
edited by D.A. Breternitz, pp. 66-79. Southwestern Lore 36(4):53-99.
Lyman, R.L.
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mabry, J.B.
1998 Paleoindian and Archaic Sites in Arizona. Technical Report No. 97-7, Center for Desert
Archaeology, Tucson, Arizona.
McCartney, P.H.
331
1983 An Archaeological Analysis of Bison Remains from the Cody Paleo-Indian Site of Lamb Spring,
Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona,
Tucson.
1990 Alternative Hunting Strategies in Plains Paleoindian Adaptations. In Hunters of the Recent Past,
edited by L.B. Davis and B.O.K. Reeves, pp. 111-121. Unwin Hyman, London.
McCary, B.C.
1951 A Workshop Site of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity 17(1):9-17.
MacCurdy, G.G. (editor)

1937 Early Man: as Depicted by Leading Authorities at the International Symposium, the Academy of
Natural Science, Philadelphia, March 1937. J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia.
MacDonald, D.H.
1998 Subsistence, Sex, and Cultural Transmission in Folsom Culture. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 17:217-239.
1999 Modeling Folsom Mobility, Mating Strategies, and Technological Organization in the Northern
Plains. Plains Anthropologist 44(168):141-161.
McNees, L.M. and C.S. Smith

1989 Archaeological Investigations Along the AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Right-of-Way, Wyoming:
Excavations at the Rattlesnake Pass Site, A Folsom Occupation, Carbon County, Wyoming.
Mariah Associates, Inc., Laramie, Wyoming.
Madole, R.F.
1995 Spatial and temporal patterns of late Quaternary eolian deposition, eastern Colorado, U.S.A.
Quaternary Science Reviews 14:155-177.
Malde, H.E.
1960 Geological Age of the Claypool Site, Northeastern Colorado. American Antiquity 26(2):235-243.
1988 Geology of the Frazier Site, Kersey, Colorado. In Guidebook to the Archaeological Geology of the
Colorado Piedmont and High Plains of Southeastern Wyoming, edited by V.T. Holliday, pp. 85-
90. Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Mallouf, R.J.
1981 A Case Study of Plow Damage to Chert Artifacts: The Brookeen Creek Cache, Hill County, Texas.
Report 33, Office of the State Archaeologist, Texas Historical Commission, Austin.
1989 In the Light of Past Experience: Papers in Honor of Jack T. Hughes, compiled and edited by Beryl
Cain Roper. Panhandle Archaeological Society, Aquamarine Publications, Clarendon, Texas.
Mallouf, R.J. and R.D. Mandel

1997 Horace Rivers: A Late-Plainview Component in the Northeastern Texas Panhandle. Current
Mandel, R.D.
1992 Soils and Holocene Landscape Evolution in Central and Southwestern Kansas: Implications for
Archaeological Research. In Soils in Archaeology, edited by V.T. Holliday, pp. 41-100.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
2000 Geoarchaeology in the Great Plains (editor). University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
2002 Geoarchaeology of the Winger Site, Southwestern Kansas. Poster presented at the 60th Annual
Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Mandel, R.D. and J.L Hofman

2003 Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Winger Site: A Late Paleoindian Bison Bonebed in
Southwestern Kansas, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 18(1):129-144.
332
Mandryk, C.A.S.
1998 A Geoarchaeological Interpretation of the Lamb Spring Site, Colorado. Geoarchaeology
13(8):819-846.
Martin, P.
1967 Prehistoric Overkill. In Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for a Cause, edited by P.S. Martin
and H.E. Wright, pp. 75-120. Yale University Press.
1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974.
Martorano, M.A., T. Hoefer, M.A. Jodry, V. Spero, and M.L. Taylor

1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Rio Grande Basin. Colorado Council of Professional
Archaeologists, Denver.
Mason, T.
1953 Stone-age Nomads. Southwestern Lore 19(3):12-14.
Mason, R.J.
1962 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 3(3):227-246.
May, D.W.
2002 Stratigraphic Studies at Paleoindian Sites Around Medicine Creek Reservoir. In Medicine Creek:
Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations, edited by D.C. Roper, pp. 37-53. The University
of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Mead, J.I. and D.J. Meltzer (editors)

1985 Environments and Extinctions: Man in Late Glacial North America. Center for the Study of Early
Man, University of Maine, Orono.
Meagher, M.M.
1973 The Bison of Yellowstone National Park. Scientific Monograph Series, Number 1, National Park
Service, Washington, D.C.
Meltzer, D.J.
1987 The Clovis Paleoindian Occupation of Texas: Results of the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 57:27-68.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory
2(1):1-52.
1989 Was Stone Exchanged Among Eastern North American Paleoindians? In Eastern Paleoindian
Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp. 11-39. Westview Press, Boulder.
1991 Altithermal Archaeology and Paleoecology at Mustang Springs, on the Southern High Plains of
Texas. American Antiquity 56:236-267.
1993 Is There A Clovis Adaptation? In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-Indian
Adaptations, edited by O. Soffer and N.D. Praslov, pp. 293-310. Plenum Press, New York.
1995a Clocking the First Americans. Annual Reviews in Anthropology 24:21-45.
1995b Modeling the Prehistoric Response to Altithermal Climates on the Southern High Plains. In
Ancient Peoples and Landscapes, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 349-368. Texas Tech University
Press, Lubbock.
1999 Human Responses to Middle Holocene (Altithermal) Climates on the North American Great Plains.
Quaternary Research 52:404-416.
Meltzer, D.J. and M.R. Bever

1995 Paleoindians of Texas: An Update on the Texas Clovis Fluted Point Survey. Bulletin of the Texas
Archeological Society 66:47-81.
Meltzer, D.J. and B.D. Smith
333
1986 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging,
Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern
Woodlands, edited by S.W. Neusius, pp. 3-31. Occasional Paper No. 6, Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Meltzer, D.J., L.C. Todd, and V.T. Holliday

2002 The Folsom (Paleoindian) Type Site: Past Investigations, Current Studies. American Antiquity
67(1):5-36.
Meserve, F.G. and E.H. Barbour

1932 Association of an Arrow Point with Bison Occidentalis in Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of
Nebraska State Museum 1(27):239-242.
Metcalfe, D. and K.R. Barlow

1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-off Between Field Processing and Transport. American
Anthropologist 94:340-356.
Miller, J.C.
1991 Lithic Resources. In Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains (2nd edition), edited by G.C. Frison,
pp. 449-476. Academic Press, San Diego.
Mitchell, J.R.
1997 Gem Trails of Colorado. Gem Books Guide Co., Baldwin Park, California.
Morey, D.F.
1990 Cranial Allometry and the Evolution of the Domestic Dog. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. UMI Dissertation Services, Ann Arbor.
Morinaga, H., H. Inokuchi, H. Yamashita, A. Ono, and T. Inada

1999 Magnetic Detection of Heated Soils at Paleolithic Sites in Japan. Geoarchaeology 14(5):377-399.
Morrow, T.A. and J.E. Morrow

1999 On the Fringe: Folsom Points and Preforms in Iowa. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations
in Structure and Variability, edited by D.S. Amick, pp. 65-81. Archaeological Series 12,
International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Morse, D.F.
1997a Description of the Artifacts. In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas, edited by
D.F. Morse, pp. 14-52. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
1997b Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas (editor). Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C.
Mountain, B.
1953a (Obituary of) Perry Andersen, 1884-1953. Southwestern Lore 19(3):14-15.
1953b Reminisencence (sic) for Other People of Site #64. Manuscript in possession of the author.
Muhs, D.R. and V.T. Holliday

1995 Evidence of Dune Sand on the Great Plains in the 19th Century from Accounts of Early Explorers.
Quaternary Research 43:198-208.
Mulloy, W.
1959 The James Allen Site, Near Laramie, Wyoming. American Antiquity 25(1):112-116.
Muniz, M.P.
2002 Results of Recent Research on the Paleoindian Gordon Creek Burial Site (5LR99). Paper
presented at the 60th Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City.
334
2004 Exploring Technological Organization and Burial Practices at the Paleoindian Gordon Creek Site
(5LR99), Colorado. Plains Anthropologist 49(191):253-279.
Munson, P.J.
1990 Folsom Fluted Projectile Points East of the Great Plains and Their Biogeographic Correlates.
North American Archaeologist 11(3):255-272.
Mutel, C.F. and J.C. Emerick

1984 From Grassland to Glacier: The Natural History of Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder.
Myers, T.P.
1977 Man-made Artifacts from the Red Willow Gravel Pits. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of
Science 4:9-12.
1987 Preliminary Study of the Distribution of Fluted Points in Nebraska. Current Research in the
1989 Nehawka Flint in the Paleoindian Occupation of the High Plains. Central Plains Archaeology
1:37-48.
1997 Reduction Sequence at the Clary Ranch Site. Current Research in the Pleistocene 14:109-110.
Myers, T.P., R.G. Corner, L.G. Tanner

1980 A New Paleoindian Site in Western Nebraska. Museum Notes No. 69, UNL News 60(19),
University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, Nebraska.
1981 Preliminary Report on the 1979 Excavations at the Clary Ranch Site. Transactions of the Nebraska
Academy of Sciences IX:1-7.
Myers, T.P. and R. Lambert

1983 Meserve Points: Evidence of a Plains-ward Extension of the Dalton Horizon. Plains
Naze, B.S.
1986 The Folsom Occupation of Middle Park, Colorado. Southwestern Lore 52(4):1-32.
1994 The Crying Woman Site: A Record of Prehistoric Human Habitation in the Colorado Rockies.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins.
Nelson, C.C.
1969 The Denver Chapter Paleo-point Project for 1968. Southwestern Lore 34(4):117-119.
Nelson, C.C. and D. Breternitz

1970 The Denver Chapter Paleo-point Project for 1969. Southwestern Lore 36(2):32-33.
Nelson, M.C.
1991 The Study of Technological Organization. In Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 3,
edited by M.B. Schiffer, pp. 57-100. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Nichols, P.W.
1991 41HF84. In Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Duro Creek, Phase II: Testing, edited
by J.A. Peterson, pp. 193-213. Archaeological Research, Inc., Austin.
Nowak, M. and H.J. Gerhart

2001 Archaeological Investigations in Southeastern Colorado. Publications in Archaeology No. 21,
Department of Anthropology, Colorado College, Colorado Springs.
O’Brien, P.
1984 The Tim Adrian Site (14NT604): A Hell Gap Quarry Site in Norton County, Kansas. Plains
335
O’Brien, M.J., J. Darwent, and R.L. Lyman
2001 Cladistics is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies: Palaeoindian Points from the
Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1115-1136.
O’Connell, J.F.
1987 Alywara Site Structure and Its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52(1):74-108.
O’Connell, J.F., K. Hawkes, and N.G. Blurton-Jones

1992 Patterns in the Distribution, Size Structure and Assemblage Composition of Hadza Kill-Butchering
Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:319-345.
Patterson, J.T.
1937 Supplementary Notes on the Corner-tang Artifact. The University of Texas Bulletin 3734.
Anthropological Papers 1(5):27-39.
Pearl, R.M.
1942a Chalcedony in Colorado. The Mineralogist 10(1):7-8, 25, 30.
1942b Chalcedony in Colorado (Part II). The Mineralogist 10(3):75-76, 98-99.
Peterson, J.A.
1988 Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Duro Creek, Phase I: Survey. Archaeological
Research, Inc., Austin.
1991 Prairie Hinterland: The Archaeology of Palo Duro Creek, Phase II: Testing. Archaeological
Research, Inc., Austin.
Phillips, J.L. and J.A. Brown (editors)

1983 Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest. Academic Press, New York.
Picou, E., Jr.

2000a Dr. H.V. “Andy” Andersen Dies. Geology Department Newsletter, pp. 7-8, Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
2000b Harold Veral Andersen 1907-2000 (Obituary). Electronic document,
http://www.gcssepm.org/andy.html, accessed August 1, 2002.
Pitblado, B.L.
1994 Paleoindian Presence in Southwest Colorado. Southwestern Lore 60(4):1-20.
1998 Peak to peak in Paleoindian Time: Occupation of Southwest Colorado. Plains Anthropologist
43(166):333-348.
1999a Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Southern Rocky Mountains: Projectile Points and Land Use
in the High Country. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
1999b New 14C Dates and Obliquely Flaked Projectile Points from a High-altitude Paleoindian Site,
Colorado Rocky Mountains. Current Research in the Pleistocene 16:65-66.
2000 Living the High Life in Colorado: Late Paleoindian Occupation of the Caribou Lake Site. In This
Land of Shining Mountains: Archaeological Studies in Colorado’s Indian Peaks Wilderness Area,
edited by E.S. Cassells, pp. 124-158. Research Report No. 8, Center for Mountain Archeology,
Ward, Colorado.
2002 The Late Paleoindian Chance Gulch Site, Gunnison County, Colorado. Paper presented at the 67th
annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver.
Polyak, V. and M. Williams

1986 Gaines County Paleo-Indian Projectile Point Inventory and Analysis. Transactions of the Regional
Archeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas, 21:25-96.
Southwestern Federation of Archaeological Societies.
Poteet, S.
336
1938 The Occurrence and Distribution of Beveled Knives. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological and
Paleontological Society 10:245-262.
Prufer, O.H. and R.S. Baby

1963 Palaeo-Indians of Ohio. Ohio Historical Society, Columbus.
Quigg, J.M., C. Lintz, F.M. Oglesby, A.C. Earls, C.D. Frederick, W.N. Trierweiler, D. Owsley, and K.W.
Kibler
1993 Historic and Prehistoric Data Recovery at Palo Duro Reservoir, Hansford County, Texas.
Technical Report No. 485, Mariah Associates, Austin.
Rancier, J. G. Haynes, and D. Stanford

1982 1981 Investigations of Lamb Spring. Southwestern Lore 48(2):1-17.
Rapson, D. and L.B. Niven

2000 The Hell Gap Site Locality I Faunal Assemblage (1960-1966). Paper presented at the 65th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.
2002 Evaluating Food Management Strategies at the Hell Gap Site, Locality I: Inferences From an
Incomplete Faunal Record. Paper presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Denver.
Rayne, A.M., M. Little, and B. Uhl

1997 Colorado Absolute Date Synthesis. Technical Series No. 9, Archaeometric Lab, Department of
Anthropology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Redder, A.J.
1985 Horn Shelter Number 2: The South End, a Preliminary Report. Central Texas Archeologist 10:37-
65.
Reeves, B.O.K.
1990 Communal Bison Hunters of the Northern Plains. In Hunters of the Recent Past, edited by L.B.
Davis and B.O.K. Reeves, pp. 168-194. Unwin Hyman, London.
Reher, C.A. and G.C. Frison

1980 The Vore Site, 48CK302, A Stratified Buffalo Jump in the Wyoming Black Hills. Plains
Anthropologist 25(88), Part 2, Memoir 16.
Reider, R.G.
1990 Late Pleistocene and Holocene Pedogenic and Environmental Trends at Archaeological Sites in
Plains and Mountain Areas of Colorado and Wyoming. In Archaeological Geology of North
America, edited by N.P. Lasca and J. Donahue, pp. 335-360. Centennial Special Volume 4,
Renaud, E.B.
1931a Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado. Archaeological Survey, Department of
Anthropology, University of Denver.
1931b Prehistoric Flaked Points from Colorado and Neighboring Districts. Proceedings of the Colorado
Museum of Natural History 10(2).
1932a Archaeological Survey of Eastern Colorado, Second Report. Archaeological Survey, Department
of Anthropology, University of Denver.
1932b Yuma and Folsom Artifacts, New Material. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of Natural
History 11(2).
1934 The First Thousand Folsom-Yuma Artifacts. Archaeological Series, Department of Anthropology,
University of Denver.
Reutter, S.
337
1996 A Technological and Typological Study of a Plainview Site on the High Plains of Eastern New
Mexico. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Eastern New Mexico
University, Portales.
Rhoton, C.
1955 Projectile Points from the Oklahoma Panhandle. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter
3(7):4-5.
Roberts, F.H.H., Jr.

1935 A Folsom Complex: Preliminary Report on Investigations at the Lindenmeier Site in Northern
Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 94(4).
1936 Additional Information on the Folsom Complex: Report on the Second Season’s Investigations at
the Lindenmeier Site in Northern Colorado. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 95(10).
1937 New developments in the problem of the Folsom complex. Explorations and Field-Work of the
Smithsonian Institution in 1936, pp. 69-74.
1940 Developments in the Problem of the North American Paleo-Indian. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections 100:51-116.
Root, M.J.
1993 Site DU955A: Folsom Occupation of the Knife River Flint Primary Source Area (editor). Project
Report Number 22, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman.
2000 The Archaeology of the Bobtail Wolf Site: Folsom Occupation of the Knife River Flint Quarry
Area, North Dakota. Washington State University Press, Pullman.
Root, M.J. and A.M. Emerson

1994 Archaeology of The Bobtail Wolf Site (32DU955A): 1993-1994 Progress Report. Project Report
Number 26, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Washington State
University, Pullman.
Roper, D.C.
1987 Plains Paleoindian Red Ochre Use and Its Possible Significance. Current Research in the
Pleistocene 4:82-84
1989 Grinding Stones in Plains Paleoindian Sites: The Case for Pigment Processing. Current Research
in the Pleistocene 6:36-37.
1996 Variability in the Use of Ochre During the Paleoindian Period. Current Research in the
2002 Medicine Creek: Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations (editor). The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Rossignol, J. and L. Wandsnider (editors)

1992 Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York.
Rubin, M. and C. Alexander

1960 U.S. Geological Survey Radiocarbon Dates V. American Journal of Science Radiocarbon
Supplement 2:129-185.
Ryan, S., C. Widga, and J. Hofman

2002 The Winger Bison Part II: Paleoecology. Poster presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the
Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Sabin, T.J. and V.T. Holliday

1995 Playa and Lunette on the Southern High Plains: Morphometric and Spatial Relationships. Annals
of the Association of American Geographers 85(2):286-305.
Saunders, R.S.
338
1978 Archeological Resources of Black Mesa State Park, Cimarron County, Oklahoma. Archeological
Resource Survey Report No. 7, Oklahoma Archeological Survey, Norman.
Saunders, R.S. and J.T. Penman

1979 Perry Ranch: a Plainview bison kill on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist 24:51-65.
Saunders, R.S. and K.E. Saunders

1982 Distribution and Density Patterns of Lithic Materials: Clues to Prehistoric Land Use in Cimarron
County, Oklahoma. In Pathways to Plains Prehistory: Anthropological Perspectives of Plains
Natives and Their Pasts, edited by D.G. Wyckoff and J.L. Hofman, pp. 99-110. Oklahoma
Anthropological Society Memoir No. 3, Norman.
Schoff, S.L. and J.W. Stovall

1943 Geology and Ground Water Resources of Cimarron County, Oklahoma, with a Section on
Mesozoic Stratigraphy. Bulletin No. 64, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman.
Schultz, C.B.
1932 Association of Artifacts and Extinct Mammals in Nebraska. Bulletin of the Nebraska State
Museum 1(33):271-282.
Schultz, C.B. and L.C. Eiseley

1935 Paleontological Evidence for the Antiquity of the Scottsbluff Bison Quarry and Its Associated
Artifacts. American Anthropologist 37(2):306-319
1936 An Added Note on the Scottsbluff Quarry. American Anthropologist 38(3):521-524.
Schultz, C.B. and W.D. Frankforter

1948 Preliminary Report on the Lime Creek Sites: New Evidence of Early Man in Southwestern
Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 3(4, part 2):43-62.
Schultz, C.B., G.C. Lueninghoener, and W.D. Frankforter

1948 Preliminary Geomorphological Studies of the Lime Creek Area. Bulletin of the University of
Nebraska State Museum 3(4, part 1):31-42.
Scott, L.
1979 Jurgens Site Palynological Analysis. Plains Anthropologist 24(84), Pt. 2:149-151, Memoir 15.
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp

1987 Hydrologic Unit Maps. Water-Supply Paper 2294, United States Geological Survey.
Seebach, J.D.
2000 Drought or development? Patterns of Paleoindian Site Discovery and Distribution in Western
North America. Poster presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Philadelphia.
Seebach, J.D., J.M. LaBelle, and B.N. Andrews

2003 Parameters of Folsom Settlement. Poster presented at the 68th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Milwaukee.
Seeman, M. and O. Prufer

1982 An Updated Distribution of Ohio Fluted Points. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7(2):155-
169.
1984 The Effects of Cultivation and Collecting on Ohio Fluted Point Finds: A Cautionary Note.
Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9(2):227-233.
Sellards, E.H.
339
1938 Artifacts Associated with Fossil Elephant. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 49:999-
1010.
1940 Early Man in America: Index to Localities, and Selected Bibliography. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of America 51:373-432.
1952 Early Man in America. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1955 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from Milnesand, New Mexico. American Antiquity
20(4):336-344.
Sellards, E.B., G.L. Evans, and G.E. Meade

1947 Fossil Bison and Associated Artifacts from Plainview, Texas, with Descriptions of Artifacts by
Alex D. Krieger. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 58:927-954.
Sellet, F.
1999 A Dynamic View of Paleoindian Assemblages at the Hell Gap Site, Wyoming: Reconstructing
Lithic Technological Systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
2001 A Changing Perspective on Paleoindian Chronology and Typology: A View from the
Northwestern Plains. Arctic Anthropology 38(2):48-63.
Shaeffer, J.B.
1958 The Alibates Flint Quarry, Texas. American Antiquity 24(2):189-191.
Shaw, J.H. and M. Lee

1997 Relative Abundance of Bison, Elk, and Pronghorn on the Southern Plains, 1806-1857. Plains
Anthropologist 24(159):163-172, Memoir 29.
Sheehan, M.
1994 Cultural Responses to the Altithermal: The Role of Aquifer-related Water Resources.
Geoarchaeology 9:113-137.
Shiner, J.L.
1983 Large Springs and Early American Indians. Plains Anthropologist 28(101):1-7.
1984 A Reply to Johnson and Holliday. Plains Anthropologist 29(103):71-72.
Shott, M.J.
2002 Sample Bias in the Distribution and Abundance of Midwestern Fluted Bifaces. Midcontinental
Journal of Archaeology 27(1):89-123.
Simons, H. (compiler)
1988 Archeological Bibliography for the North Panhandle Region of Texas. Texas Historical
Commission, Austin.
Slessman, S.
2000 Lithic Analysis of Agate Basin Materials from Northeastern Colorado: The Frazier Site Revisited.
Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the Midwest Archaeological Conference and the 58th
Annual Meeting of the Plains Anthropological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota.
2002 Late Paleoindian Resource Exploitation at the Frazier Site. Paper presented at the 67th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colorado.
2004 The Frazier Site: An Agate Basin Occupation and Lithic Assemblage on the Kersey Terrace,
Northeastern Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins.
Smith, L.M.
2003 Playas of the Great Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
Stafford, T.W., P.E. Hare, L. Currie, A.J.T. Lull, and D. Donahue

340
1991 Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating at the Molecular Level. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:35-
72.
Stanford, D.
1974 Preliminary Report of the Excavation of the Jones-Miller Hell Gap Site, Yuma County, Colorado.
Southwestern Lore 40(3&4):29-36.
1975 The 1975 Excavations at the Jones-Miller Site, Yuma County, Colorado. Southwestern Lore
41(4):34-38.
1978 The Jones-Miller Site: An Example of Hell Gap Bison Procurement Strategy. In Bison
Procurement and Utilization: A Symposium, edited by L.B. Davis and M. Wilson, pp. 90-97.
Plains Anthropologist, Memoir No. 14.
1979a Bison Kill by Ice Age Hunters. National Geographic 155(1):114-121.
1979b The Selby and Dutton Sites: Evidence for a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation of the High Plains. In
Pre-Llano cultures of the Americas: paradoxes and possibilities, edited by R.L. Humphrey and D.
Stanford, pp. 101-123. The Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.
1984 The Jones-Miller Site: A Study of Hell Gap Bison Procurement and Processing. National
Geographic Society Research Reports (for 1975):615-635.
1999 Analysis and Interpretation of Hell Gap Hunting Strategies at the Jones-Miller Site. In Le Bison:
Gibier et Moyen de Subsistance des Hommes du Paleolithoque aux Paleoindiens des Grandes
Plaines, edited by J.-Ph Brugal, F. David, J.G. Enloe, and J. Jaubert, pp. 437-454. Actes du
Colloque International, Toulouse 1995. Editions APDCA, Antibes.
Stanford, D. and J. Albanese

1975 Preliminary Results of the Smithsonian Institution Excavations at the Claypool Site, Washington
County, Colorado. Southwestern Lore 41(4):22-28.
Stanford, D. and R. Patten

1984 R-6, A Preliminary Report of a Cody Site in North-Central New Mexico. Papers of the Philmont
Conference on the Archeology of Northeastern New Mexico, New Mexico Archeological Society
Proceedings, Volume 6(1):189-199.
Stanford, D., W.R. Wedel, and G.R. Scott

1981 Archaeological Investigations of the Lamb Spring Site. Southwestern Lore 47(1):14-27.
Steele, J., J. Adams, and T. Sluckin

1998 Modeling Paleoindian Dispersals. World Archaeology 30:286-305.
Steen, C.R.
1955 The Pigeon Cliffs Site: A Preliminary Report. El Palacio 62(5-6):174-180.
1976 Excavations at Pigeon Cliff. In Collected Papers in Honor of Marjorie Ferguson Lambert, edited
by A.H. Schroeder, pp. 19-36. Papers of the Archaeological Society of New Mexico No. 3,
Albuquerque.
Stein, M.
1985 The Schmidt Quartzite Quarry (14KY303): A Source of Stone in the Arkansas River Valley.
Journal of the Kansas Anthropological Association 5(3):101-116.
Stiger, M.
2001 Hunter-gatherer Archaeology of the Colorado High Country. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder.
Stiger, M. and E. Bjornstad

2002 The Mountaineer Site: A Large Folsom Camp Near Gunnison, Colorado. Unpublished report,
Western State College, Gunnison, Colorado.
Storck, P.L.
341
1991 Imperialists Without a State: The Cultural Dynamics of Early Paleoindian Colonization As Seen
from the Great Lakes Region. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen and
K.L. Turnmire, pp. 153-162. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Stuiver, M. and P.J. Reimer

1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon
35(1):215-230.
Surovell, T.A.
2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fertility. American Antiquity 65(3):493-508.
Surovell, T.A., N. Waguespack, S. Richings-Germain, M. Kornfeld, and G.C. Frison

2000 1999 Investigations at the Barger Gulch and Jerry Craig Sites, Middle Park, Colorado. Technical
Report No. 18a, George C. Frison Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
Wyoming, Laramie.
Surovell, T.A., N. Waguespack, M. Kornfeld, and G.C. Frison

2003 The First Five Seasons at Barger Gulch, Locality B, Middle Park, Colorado. Technical Report No.
26, George C. Frison Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Wyoming,
Laramie.
Taylor, R.E.
1987 Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando.
1992 Radiocarbon Dating of Bone: To Collagen and Beyond. In Radiocarbon After Four Decades: An
Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by R.E. Taylor, A. Long, and R.S. Kra, pp. 375-403.
Springer-Verlag, New York.
Taylor, R.E., C.V. Haynes Jr., and M. Stuiver

1996 Clovis and Folsom Age Estimates: Stratigraphic Context and Radiocarbon Calibration. Antiquity
70(269):515-525.
Thompson, S.N.
1974 Projectile Point Form and Function at the Jurgens Site, Kersey, Colorado. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado. Boulder.
Thurmond, J.P.
1990 Late Paleoindian Utilization of the Dempsey Divide on the Southern Plains. Plains Anthropologist
35(131), Memoir 25.
Todd, L.C.
1987a Analysis of Kill-butchery Bonebeds and Interpretation of Paleoindian Hunting. In The Evolution
of Human Hunting, edited by M.H. Nitecki and D.V. Nitecki, pp. 225-266. Plenum Press, New
York.
1987b Taphonomy of the Horner II Bone Bed. In The Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Cultural
Complex, edited by G.C. Frison and L.C. Todd, pp. 107-198. Academic Press, Orlando.
Todd, L.C. and G.C. Frison

1986 Taphonomic Study of the Colby Site Mammoth Bones. In The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy
and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming, edited by G.C. Frison and L.C. Todd, pp.
27-90. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Todd, L.C., M.G. Hill, D.J. Rapson, and G.C. Frison

1997 Cutmarks, Impacts and Carnivores at the Casper Site Bison Bonebed. In Proceedings of the 1993
Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota, edited by L.A. Hannus, L. Rossum,
342
and R.P. Winham, pp. 136-157. Occasional Publication No. 1, Archeology Laboratory ,
Augustana College, Sioux Falls.
Todd, L.C., J.L. Hofman, and C.B. Schultz

1990 Seasonality of the Scottsbluff and Lipscomb Bison Bonebeds: Implications for Modeling
Paleoindian Subsistence. American Antiquity 55(4):813-827.
Todd, L.C., D.J. Rapson, and J.L. Hofman

1996 Dentition Studies of the Mill Iron and Other Early Paleoindian Bison Bonebed Sites. In The Mill
Iron Site, edited by G.C. Frison, pp. 145-175. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Todd, L.C. and D.J. Stanford

1992 Application of Conjoined Bone Data to Site Structural Studies. In Piecing Together the Past:
Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by J.L. Hofman and J.G. Enloe, pp. 21-35.
BAR International Series 578.
Todd, L.C., R.V. Witter, and G.C. Frison

1987 Excavation and Documentation of the Princeton and Smithsonian Horner Site Assemblages. In The
Horner Site: The Type Site of the Cody Complex, edited by G.C. Frison and L.C. Todd, pp. 39-91.
Academic Press, Orlando.
Travis, L.
1988 An Archaeological Survey in the Plains-Foothills Ecotone, Northern Colorado. Plains
Treece, A.C., J.M. Quigg, K. Miller, and C. Lintz

1993 Turkey Bend Ranch Site (41CC112). In Cultural Resource Investigations in the O.H. Ivie
Reservoir, Concho, Coleman, and Runnels Counties, Texas. Volume III: Data Recovery Results
from Non-Ceramic Sites, edited by A.C. Treece, C. Lintz, W.N. Trierweiler, J.M. Quigg, and K.A.
Miller, pp. 67-242. Technical Report No. 346-III, Mariah Associates, Inc., Austin.
Trimble, D.E.
1980 The Geologic Story of the Great Plains. Bulletin 1493, United States Geological Survey.
Tunnell, C.
1977 Fluted Point Production as Revealed by Lithic Specimens from the Adair-Steadman Site in
Northwest Texas. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 140-168. The Museum
Journal No. 17, Lubbock, Texas.
Turner, E.S. and T.R. Hester

1993 A Field Guide to Stone Artifacts of Texas Indians (2nd edition). Gulf Publishing Company,
Houston.
Valastro, S., F.J. Pearson, and E.M. Davis

1967 University of Texas Radiocarbon Dates V. Radiocarbon 9:439-453.
Vehik, S.C.
1977 Bone Fragments and Bone Grease Manufacturing: A Review of Their Archaeological Use and
Potential. Plains Anthropologist 22(77):169-182.
Walker, D.N. and G.C. Frison

1982 Studies of Amerindian Dogs, 3: Prehistoric Wolf/Dog Hybrids from the Northwestern Plains.
Journal of Archaeological Science 9:125-172.
Walker, R.B., K.R. Detwiler, S.C. Meeks, and B.N. Driskell
343
2001 Berries, Bones, and Blades: Reconstructing Late Paleoindian Subsistence Economy at Dust Cave,
Alabama. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26(2):169-197.
Wandsnider, L.
1997 The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-
Hearth Cooking. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1-48.
Warnica, J.M.
1961 The Elida Site, Evidence of a Folsom Occupation in Roosevelt County, Eastern New Mexico.
Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 30:209-215.
Warnica, J.M. and T. Williamson

1968 The Milnesand site, Revisited. American Antiquity 33:16-24.
Weber, R.H.
1997 Geology of Mockingbird Gap Site in Central New Mexico. In Layers of Time: Papers in Honor of
Robert H. Weber, edited by M.S. Duran and D.T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 115-122. Archaeological
Society of New Mexico No. 23, Albuquerque.
Weber, R.H. and G.A. Agogino

1997 Mockingbird Gap Paleoindian Site: Excavations in 1967. In Layers of Time: Papers in Honor of
Robert H. Weber, edited by M.S. Duran and D.T. Kirkpatrick, pp. 123-127. Archaeological
Society of New Mexico No. 23, Albuquerque.
Wedel, W.R.
1939 Archeological Reconnaissance in Southeastern Colorado. In Explorations and Field-work of the
Smithsonian Institution in 1938, pp. 91-94. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1963 The High Plains and Their Utilization by the Indian. American Antiquity 29:1-16.
1986 Central Plains Prehistory: Holocene Environments and Culture Change in the Republican River
Basin. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Weist, W.G., Jr.

1964 Geology and Ground-water Resources of Yuma County, Colorado. Water Supply Paper 1539-J,
United States Geological Survey.
Wendorf, F. and J.J. Hester

1962 Early Man’s Utilization of the Great Plains Environment. American Antiquity 28(2):159-171.
1975 Late Pleistocene Environments of the Southern High Plain (editors). Number 9, Fort Burgwin
Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Ranchos de Taos, New Mexico.
Wendorf, F., A.D. Krieger, and C.C. Albritton

1955 The Midland Discovery: A Report on the Pleistocene Human Remains from Midland, Texas.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Westfall, T.
2002 Mostly Sand and Gravel: Artifact Adventures on the High Plains. Writer’s Showcase, San Jose,
California.
Wheat, J.B.
1967 A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. Scientific American 216:44-52.
1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck Site: A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. American Antiquity 37(1), Part 2, Memoir
No. 26.
1976 Artifact Life Histories: Cultural Templates, Typology, Evidence, and Inference. In Primitive
Technology and Art, edited by J.S. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C. Arnold, and G. Reardon, pp. 7-15.
The University of Calgary Archaeological Association (1975), Calgary, Alberta.
344
1978a Olsen-Chubbuck and Jurgens Sites: Four Aspects of Paleo-Indian Bison Economy. In Bison
Procurement and Utilization: A Symposium, edited by L.B. Davis and M. Wilson, pp. 84-89.
Plains Anthropologist Memoir No. 14.
1978b Technology, Typology, and Use Patterns at the Jurgens Site. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by
E. Johnson, pp. 126-139. The Museum Journal No. 17, Lubbock, Texas.
1979 The Jurgens Site. Plains Anthropologist 24(84, Pt. 2), Memoir No. 15.
1982 Bone Technology at Jurgens, Olsen-Chubbuck and Little Box Elder. Canadian Journal of
Anthropology 2(2):169-177.
Wheeler, R.P.
1995 Archeological Investigations in Three Reservoir Areas in South Dakota and Wyoming: Part I,
Angostura Reservoir. Reprints in Anthropology Volume 46, J&L Reprint Company, Lincoln,
Nebraska.
White, P.
1999 Getting High Altitude Stone: Lithic Technology at the Barger Gulch Site (5GA195), Middle Park,
Colorado. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming,
Laramie.
White, R.W.
1981 A Cody Knife Found in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Oklahoma Anthropological Society Newsletter
29(2):8-9.
1987 The Muncy Site in the Oklahoma Panhandle: Indian Cultural Evidence Over a Long Time Span.
Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 36:39-103.
White, W.N., W.L. Broadhurst, and J.W. Lang

1946 Ground Water in the High Plains of Texas. Water Supply Paper 889-F, United States Geological
Survey.
Whiteley, R.D.
1998 Hayfire and the Gunfighter’s Granddaughter: Explosive Excitement on the High Plains, 1950’s
and Onward. Denis Schiel, Art Gallery, Idalia, Colorado.
Widga, C., S. Ryan, and J. Hofman

2002 The Winger Bison Part I: Overview and Taphonomy. Poster presented at the 60th Plains
Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Wiesend, C.M. and G.C. Frison

1998 Parallel-obliquely Flaked Projectile Points from the Phillips-Williams Fork Reservoir Site
(5GA1955) in Middle Park, Colorado. Southwestern Lore 64(1):8-21.
Willey, G.R. and P. Phillips

1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Willey, P.S., B.R. Harrison, and J.T. Hughes

1978 The Rex Rodgers Site. In Archeology at MacKenzie Reservoir, edited by J.T. Hughes and P.S.
Willey, pp. 51-114. Archeological Survey Report 24, Office of the State Archeologist, Texas
Historical Commission, Austin.
William, J.D.
2000 The Big Black Site (32DU955C): A Folsom Complex Workshop in the Knife River Flint Quarry
Area, North Dakota. Washington State University Press, Pullman.
Wilmsen, E.N.
1974 Lindenmeier: A Pleistocene Hunting Society. Harper and Row, New York.
345
Wilmsen, E.N. and F.H.H. Roberts, Jr.
1978 Lindenmeier, 1934-1974, Concluding Report on Investigations (1984 printing). Smithsonian
Contributions to Anthropology No. 24, Washington, D.C.
Wilson, M.C.
1983 [Individual comments in] Panel Discussion and Audience Participation. In From Microcosm to
Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring Investigation and Interpretation, edited by LB. Davis,
pp.343-358. Plains Anthropologist, Memoir No. 19.
Witthoft, J.
1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society 96(4):464-495.
Wood, W.R. (editor)

1998 Archaeology on the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Wood, W.W., S. Stokes, and J. Rich

2002 Implications of Water Supply for Indigenous Americans during Holocene Aridity Phases on the
Southern High Plains. Quaternary Research 58:139-148.
Wormington, H.M.
1939 Ancient Man in North America (1st edition). Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 4,
Denver.
1944 Ancient Man in North America (2nd edition). Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 4,
Denver.
1948 A Proposed Revision of Yuma Point Terminology. Proceedings of the Colorado Museum of
Natural History 18(2).
1949 Ancient Man in North America (3rd edition). Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 4,
Denver.
1957 Ancient Man in North America (4th edition). Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series 4,
Denver.
1988 The Frazier Site, Colorado. In Guidebook to the Archaeological Geology of the Colorado
Piedmont and High Plains of Southeastern Wyoming, edited by V.T. Holliday, pp. 82-84.
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Worster, D.
1979 Dust Bowl: the Southern Plains in the 1930’s. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wright, C.M.
1985 The Complex Aspects of the “Smoky Hill Jasper”, Now Known as Niobrarite. Journal of the
Kansas Anthropological Association 5(3):87-90.
Wright, M.
1986 Le Bois de Vache: This Chip’s For You. Saskatchewan Archaeology 7:25-28.
1992 The Bois de Vache II: This Chip’s For You Too. Alberta: Studies in the Arts and Sciences
3(2):225-244.
Wyckoff, D.G.
1993 Gravel Sources of Knappable Alibates Silicified Dolomite. Geoarchaeology 8(1):35-58.
Yaple, D.D.
1968 Preliminary Research on the Paleo-Indian Occupation of Kansas. Kansas Anthropological
Association 13(7):1-9.
Yeager, C.G.
346
2000 Arrowheads and Stone Artifacts: A Practical Guide for the Amateur Archaeologist (2nd Edition).
Pruett Publishing, Boulder, Colorado.
Yoakum, J.
1980 Habitat Management Guides for the American Pronghorn Antelope. Technical Note 347, Bureau
of Land Management, Denver.
Zier, C.J. and S.M. Kalasz

1999 Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Arkansas River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional
Archaeologists, Denver.
347

Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability Dur PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability Dur PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability Dur PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HUNTER-GATHERER FORAGING VARIABILITY DURING

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS

THE EARLY HOLOCENE OF THE CENTRAL PLAINS

A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of

Southern Methodist University

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the degree of

Jason Mitchel LaBelle

(B.A., Colorado State University, 1995)

May 14, 2005

Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Variability During

Advisor: Professor David J. Meltzer

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................viii

The Impetus and Goals of the Dissertation .........................................................................................2

Organization of the Dissertation .........................................................................................................4

2. PROJECT STATEMENT AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK...........................................7

Principles of Paleoindian Organization...............................................................................................8

Project Data Sources ...........................................................................................................................20

3. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE STRUCTURE .........................................................23

Playa Lakes .........................................................................................................................................41

Seeps and Springs ...............................................................................................................................48

Lithic Raw Material Sources...............................................................................................................55

Modern Faunal Resources...................................................................................................................63

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................70

4. PROJECTILE POINT SURVEYS AND SHPO SITE FILES ..............................................................71

Paleoindian Projectile Point Surveys ..................................................................................................72

Paleoindian Site Distributions as Viewed from the State Files ...........................................................92

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................108

5. SITE TYPES, SAMPLE SIZE AND CHRONOLOGY........................................................................110

The Site Dataset ..................................................................................................................................110

Site Type .............................................................................................................................................122

Radiocarbon Dating ............................................................................................................................129

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................142

6. STONE TOOL ASSEMBLAGE SIZE AND DIVERSITY ..................................................................143

Assemblage Diversity .........................................................................................................................150

Range in Projectile Point Frequency ..................................................................................................161

Assemblage Diversity from Beyond the Central Plains ......................................................................168

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................179

7. INTENSITY AND DURATION OF SITE OCCUPATION.................................................................181

Faunal Procurement During the Early Holocene ................................................................................181

Paleoindian Use of Plants and Plant Processing Equipment ...............................................................203

Cooking and Heating Facilities...........................................................................................................212

Paleoindian Structures Viewed from a Continental Perspective .........................................................236

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................249

8. COMPLEX PRESENCE, DENSITY AND REOCCUPATION...........................................................251

Cultural Complexes in the Central Plains and Beyond .......................................................................251

Density of Sites in the Central Plains and Beyond..............................................................................266

Reoccupation Rates in the Central Plains and Beyond .......................................................................278

Chapter Summary ...............................................................................................................................286

A Question of High Residential Mobility ...........................................................................................288

A Question of Subsistence Specialization...........................................................................................293

Towards More Localized Models of Paleoindian Organization..........................................................297

A. HISTORY OF THE BAKER AND ANDERSEN PALEOINDIAN COLLECTIONS........................299

2.2. Common arguments for high residential mobility.....................................................................................13

2.3. Common arguments for subsistence specialization. ..................................................................................14

2.4. Potential factors altering model of high residential mobility. ...................................................................17

2.5. Potential factors altering model of subsistence specialization...................................................................18

3.1. Site types of the Colorado quarry sites......................................................................................................55