Advertisement

An Assessment of the Impact of Resharpening on Paleoindian Projectile Point Blade Shape Using Geometric Morphometric Techniques

  • Briggs Buchanan
  • Mark Collard
Chapter

Abstract

Paleoindian archaeologists have long recognized that resharpening has the potential to affect the shape of projectile points. So far, however, the impact of resharpening on the distinctiveness of the blades of Paleoindian projectile points has not been investigated quantitatively. With this in mind, we used geometric morphometric techniques to compare the blades of Clovis, Folsom, and Plainview projectile points from the Southern Plains of North America. We evaluated two hypotheses. The first was that blade shape distinguishes the three types. We found that blade shape distinguished Clovis points from both Folsom and Plainview points, but did not distinguish Folsom points from Plainview points. The second hypothesis we tested was that resharpening eliminates blade shape differences among the types. To test this hypothesis, we used size as a proxy for ­resharpening. The results of this analysis were similar to those obtained in the first analysis. Thus, our study suggests that, contrary to what is often assumed, resharpening does not automatically undermine the use of blade shape in Paleoindian projectile point typologies.

Keywords

Discriminant Function Analysis Misclassification Rate Shape Space Geometric Morphometrics Centroid Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the following institutions and people for access to the collections used in this study: Eastern New Mexico University-Portales for access to the Blackwater Draw assemblage; Museum of the Great Plains for access to the Domebo assemblage; Richard Rose for access to the Shifting Sands collection; Leland Bement (Oklahoma Archaeological Survey) ­provided digital photographs of the Cooper points; The Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum for access to Lake Theo; Texas Archeological Research Laboratory for access to the Plainview assemblage, portions of the Milnesand, and Lubbock Lake assemblages; The late Ted Williamson and Ted Williamson Jr. for access to the Milnesand and Ted Williamson assemblages; The Museum of Texas Tech University for access to the Lubbock Lake and Ryan’s site collections. We thank Stephen Lycett, Mike O’Brien, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments. B.B.’s work on this project was made possible by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. M.C. is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, and Simon Fraser University.

References

  1. Amick, D.S., Hofman, J.L., and Rose, R.O., 1989. The Shifting Sands Folsom-Midland site in Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6: 1–3.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D.G. and Faught, M.K., 2000. Palaeoindian artefact distributions: evidence and ­implications. Antiquity 74: 507–513.Google Scholar
  3. Bamforth, D.B., 1991. Flintknapping skill, communal hunting, and Paleoindian projectile point typology. Plains Anthropologist 36: 309–322.Google Scholar
  4. Bement, L.C., 1999a. Bison Hunting at Cooper Site. Where Lightning Bolts Drew Thundering Herds. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.Google Scholar
  5. Bement, L.C., 1999b. View from a kill: the Cooper Site Folsom lithic assemblage. In Folsom Lithic Technology. Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by D.S. Amick, pp. 111–121. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 12, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  6. Bement, L.C., 2002. Pickin’ up the pieces: Folsom projectile point re-sharpening technology. In Folsom Technology and Lifeways, edited by J.E. Clark, M.B. Collins, pp. 135–140. Special Publications No. 4, Lithic Technology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK.Google Scholar
  7. Bettinger, R.L., O’Connell, J.F., and Thomas, D.H., 1991. Projectile points as time markers in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist 93: 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boldurian, A.T., 1990. Lithic technology at the Mitchell Locality of Blackwater Draw: a stratified Folsom Site in eastern New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 24, 1–103.Google Scholar
  9. Boldurian, A.T., and Cotter, J.L., 1999. Clovis Revisited. New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  10. Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Bradley, B.A., and Stanford, D.J., 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, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Buchanan, B., 2002. Folsom lithic procurement, tool use, and replacement at the Lake Theo Site, Texas. Plains Anthropologist 47: 121–146.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, B., 2005. Cultural transmission and stone tools: a study of early Paleoindian technology in North America. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Buchanan, B., 2006. An analysis of Folsom projectile point resharpening using quantitative comparisons of form and allometry. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchanan, B. and Collard, M.C. 2007, Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of early Paleoindian projectile points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 366–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buchanan, B., Johnson, E., Strauss, R.E., and Lewis, P.J., 2007. A morphometric approach to assessing Late Paleoindian projectile point variability on the Southern High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 52: 279–299.Google Scholar
  17. Buchanan, B., Litwinionek, L., Johnson, E., Holliday, V.T., and Hicks, J.K., 1996. Renewed investigations at Milnesand and Ted Williamson Paleoindian sites, Southern High Plains. Current Research in the Pleistocene 13: 8–10.Google Scholar
  18. Cannon, M.D., 2004. Geographic variability in North American mammal community richness during the Terminal Pleistocene. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 1099–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collins, M.B., 1999. Clovis and Folsom lithic technology on and near the Southern Plains: similar ends, different means. In Folsom Lithic Technology: Explorations in Structure and Variation, edited by D.S. Amick, pp. 12–38. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 12. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  20. Cotter, J.L., 1937. The occurrence of flints and extinct animals in Pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico. Part IV.-Report on Excavation at the Gravel Pit, 1936. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 89: 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. Cotter, J.L., 1938. The occurrence of flints and extinct animals in Pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico. Part VI.-Report on Field Season of 1937. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 90: 113–117.Google Scholar
  22. Cox, S.L., 1986. A re-analysis of the Shoop site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14: 101–170.Google Scholar
  23. Crabtree, D., 1966. A stoneworker’s approach to analyzing and replicating the Lindenmeier Folsom. Tebiwa 9: 3–39.Google Scholar
  24. Ellis, C., 2004. Understanding “Clovis” fluted point variability in the northeast: a perspective from the Debert Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28: 205–253.Google Scholar
  25. Flenniken, J.J. and Raymond, A.W., 1986. Morphological projectile point typology: replication experimentation and technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51: 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flenniken, J.J. and Wilke, P.J., 1989. Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points. American Anthropologist 91: 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gardner, W.M., 1983. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: the Flint Run Paleoindian complex revisited. Archaeology of Eastern North America 11: 49–64.Google Scholar
  28. Gardner, W.M. and Verrey, R.A., 1979. Typology and chronology of fluted points from the Flint Run area. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 49: 13–46.Google Scholar
  29. Harrison, B.R. and Killen, K.L., 1978. Lake Theo: A Stratified, Early Man Bison Butchering and Camp Site, Briscoe County, Texas. Special Archeological Report, 1, Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum, Canyon, TX.Google Scholar
  30. Harrison, B.R. and Smith, H.C., 1975. A test excavation of the Lake Theo site Briscoe County, Texas. Panhandle-Plains Historical Review 48: 70–106.Google Scholar
  31. Hartwell, W.T., 1995. The Ryan’s site cache: comparisons to Plainview. Plains Anthropologist 40(152): 165–184.Google Scholar
  32. Haynes, C.V., Jr., 1980. The Clovis culture. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1: 115–121.Google Scholar
  33. Haynes, G., 2002. The Early Settlement of North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  34. Hester, J.J., 1972. Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1: a stratified early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Publication No. 8, Ranchos de Taos, NMGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofman, J.L, 1991. Folsom land use: projectile point variability as a key to mobility. In Raw Material Economies Among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 335–355. University of Kansas, Publications in Anthropology 19. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  36. Hofman, J.L, 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.Google Scholar
  37. Hofman, J.L., Amick, D.S., and Rose, R.O., 1990. Shifting Sands: a Folsom-Midland assemblage from a campsite in western Texas. Plains Anthropologist 35: 221–253.Google Scholar
  38. Holliday, V.T., 1995. Stratigraphy and Paleoenvironments of Late Quaternary Valley Fills on the Southern High Plains. Geological Society of America Memoir 186: 1–136.Google Scholar
  39. Holliday, V.T., 1997. Paleoindian Geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  40. Holliday, V.T., 2000. The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology 15: 227–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Holliday, V.T., Johnson, E., and Stafford, T.W., Jr., 1999. AMS radiocarbon dating of the type Plainview and Firstview (Paleoindian) type assemblages. American Antiquity 64: 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holliday, V.T., Haynes, C.V., Jr., Hofman, J.L., and Meltzer, D.J., 1994. Geoarchaeology and geochronology of the Miami (Clovis) site, Southern High Plains of Texas. Quaternary Research 41: 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howard, C.D., 1990, The Clovis point: characteristics and type description. Plains Anthropologist 35: 255–262.Google Scholar
  44. Howard, E.B., 1935, Occurrence of flints and extinct animals in Pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico, Part I,-Introduction. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 87: 299–303.Google Scholar
  45. Hunt, C.B., 1967. Physiography of the United States. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  46. Johnson, E. (editor), 1987. Lubbock Lake. Late Quaternary Studies on the Southern High Plains. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
  47. Johnson, E., Holliday, V.T., Warnica, J., and Williamson, T., 1986. The Milnesand and Ted Williamson Paleoindian sites, east-central New Mexico. Current Research in the Pleistocene 3: 9–11.Google Scholar
  48. Knudson, R., 1983, Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages. Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology, Reports on Investigations 60, Pullman.Google Scholar
  49. Leonhardy, F.C. (editor), 1966. Domebo: A Paleo-Indian Mammoth Kill in the Prairie-Plains. Contributions of the Museum of the Great Plains No. 1, Lawton, OK.Google Scholar
  50. Lycett, S.J., 2007. Why is there a lack of Mode 3 Levallois technologies in East Asia? A phylogenetic test of the Movius-Schick hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 541–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lycett, S.J., 2009. Are Victoria West cores ‘Proto-Levallois’? A phylogenetic assessment. Journal of Human Evolution 56: 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Meltzer, D.J., 2006. Folsom: New Archaeological Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian Bison Kill. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  53. Morrow, J.E., and Morrow, T.A., 1999. Geographic variation in fluted projectile points: a hemispheric perspective. American Antiquity 64: 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. O’Brien, M.J., Darwent, J., and Lyman, R.L., 2001. Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1115–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. O’Brien, M.J., Holland, T.D., Hoard, R.J., and Fox, G.L., 1994. Evolutionary implications of design and performance characteristics of prehistoric pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 259–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rohlf, F.J., 1998. On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and ­phylogeny. Systematic Biology 47: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rohlf, F.J., 2002. TPS shareware series. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph.
  58. Rohlf, F.J., 2003. Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. Journal of Human Evolution 44: 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rohlf, F.J., and Marcus, L.F., 1993. A revolution in morphometrics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 129–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rohlf, F.J., and Slice, D.E., 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Zoology 39: 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rohlf, F.J., Loy, A., and Corti, M., 1996. Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Systematic Biology 45: 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sellards, E.H., 1938. Artifacts associated with fossil elephant. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 49: 999–1010.Google Scholar
  63. Sellards, E.H., 1952. Early Man in North America. The University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
  64. Sellards, E.H., 1955. Fossil bison and associated artifacts from Milnesand, New Mexico. American Antiquity 20: 336–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sellards, E.H., Evans, G.L., and Meade, G.E., 1947. Fossil bison and associated artifacts from Plainview, Texas. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 58: 927–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shott, M.J. and Ballenger, J., 2007. Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: a southeastern case study. American Antiquity 72: 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Slice, D.E., 2001. Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall’s shape space. Systematic Biology 50: 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Slice, D.E. (editor), 2005. Modern Morphometrics in Physical Anthropology. Kluwer Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  69. Speer, R.D., 1983. History of the Plainview site. In Guidebook to the Central Llano Estacado, edited by V.T. Holliday, pp. 127–131. Friends of the Pleistocene South-Central Cell 1983 Field Trip, International Center for Arid and Semi-Arid Land Studies, Texas Tech University and Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock.Google Scholar
  70. Strauss, R.E., 2008. Matlab Statistical Functions [computer software]. Retrieved March, 2008, from http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/Strauss/Matlab/matlab.htm.
  71. Taylor, R.E., Haynes, C.V., Jr., and Stuiver, M., 1996. Clovis and Folsom age estimates: stratigraphic context and radiocarbon calibration. Antiquity 70: 515–525.Google Scholar
  72. Velhagen, W.A., and Roth, V.L., 1997. Scaling the mandible in squirrels. Journal of Morphology 232: 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Warnica, J.M., 1966. New discoveries at the Clovis Site. American Antiquity 31: 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Warnica, J.M., and Williamson, T., 1968. The Milnesand site – revisited. American Antiquity 33: 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wheat, J.B., 1976. Artifact life histories: cultural templates, typology, evidence and inference. In Primitive Art and Technology, edited by J. Raymond, B. Loveseth, C. Arnold, and G. Reardon, pp. 7–15. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary.Google Scholar
  76. Wheat, J.B., 1977. Technology, typology, and use patterns at the Jurgens site. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by E. Johnson, pp.48–64. The Museum Journal, West Texas Museum Association, Lubbock.Google Scholar
  77. Zelditch, M.L, Swiderski, D.L., Sheets, H.D., and Fink, W.L., 2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of ArchaeologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations