PALEOINDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY

An introduction to the basic North American Paleoindian projectile point chronology is given. The chronology, as currently understood, is the result of nearly 100 years of research. Remember that, as you are reviewing this chronology, that its development has been very dynamic – through the readings and discussions you can follow the changes in archaeological thought on the meaning of these projectile point forms. The question of how long humans have been in the Americas, and what the life of the early colonists was like, has been one the fundamental issues of archaeology in the western hemisphere. The general trends (or paradigms) in researching this topic are outlined: 1) The American Paleolithic debate; 2) the Folsom Discovery and the site as "quarry" period; 3) the site as humanly produced artifact period; and 3) the site as formational mosaic period (of which we may or may not now be part).

Readings: List 1 (to be discussed on week 2).

Excavations at the Folsom site in Wild Horse Arroyo, Colfax County New Mexico from 1926-1928 provided evidence that humans had been in North America since at least the end of the Pleistocene. The association between stone tools and an extinct form of bison in clear stratigraphic context was established and verified by a large number of researchers. The circumstances of the Folsom discovery and its impact on the development of New World prehistory are discussed.

Readings: List 2 (to be discussed on week 3).

Paper Topic Assignment

Following Folsom, a number of other sites were recognized during the 1930s and early 1940s. As the diversity of Paleoindian materials began to be recognized, attention began to focus on trying to understand the range of projectile types and their temporal and geographic relationships. Many of the key sites (e.g., Clovis, Lindenmeier, Lipscomb, Lubbock Lake, Agate Basin, Dent) that still form the fundamental body of data from which ideas about Paleoindians were initially investigated during this period. An emphasis on interdisciplinary research, which continues to play a central role in Paleoindian studies, has well defined roots in the early phases of investigation.

Readings: List 3 (to be discussed on week 4)

Although the same general research issues (concern with typology and chronology) continued after the war, a much broader array of field and analytical techniques began to play a role in Paleoindian research. During this period, radiocarbon dating became available and investigation of several stratified sites helped establish the classic Plains projectile point typological sequence. As the sequence began to be refined, a broader set of research topics began to be developed and applied to a number of newly discovered sites.

Readings: List 4 (to be discussed on week 5)

Readings: List 5 (to be discussed on week 6)

In terms of its impact on Paleoindian research, other than the Folsom discovery, there are few events that can compare with the initial publication of Joe Ben Wheat’s reports (1967, 1972) on the Olsen-Chubbuck site. Wheat’s approach to investigating the site as a humanly produced ‘artifact,’ which could be analyzed in order to understand the specific behaviors and daily lives of the people who created them, ushered in a period of interpretative optimism and marked changes in both field and laboratory techniques. Wheat places heavy on emphasis on ethnographic data. At nearly the same time, George Frison’s Casper site report was published and added considerable weight to the suggestion that there was much more to be learned from Paleoindian sites. Unlike Wheat’s ethnographic basis for interpretation, Frison’s work focused on experimental and actualistic investigations as being important for developing interpretations about prehistoric technology and subsistence.

Readings: List 6 (to be discussed on week 7)

Readings: List 7 (to be discussed on week 9)

Readings: List 8 (to be discussed on week 10)

This assignment looks at some recent approaches to analysis and interpretation of one class of archaeological materials – stone tools. In reading these papers, think about the similarities and differences between the ideas, methods, and goals of these studies and the approaches taken to stone tools we’ve looked at throughout the semester.

Readings: List 9 (to be discussed on week 11)

Again, we’ll be taking a more in-depth look at one class of materials—animal bones--from Paleoindian sites. As with last week’s discussion, think about the similarities and differences between the ideas, methods, and goals of these studies and the approaches taken to faunal remains we’ve looked at throughout the semester

Readings: List 10 (to be discussed on week 12)

This assemblage of papers covers a wide range of recent trends. One is again the focus on anthropological issues that we saw in the site as ‘artifact’ period. Another is the continued very interaction of archaeological and geological research. Finally, there are two papers by authors who are not actively involved in Paleoindian research, but who can comment on some issues of relevance in thinking about researching the peopling of the Americas.

Readings: List 11 (to be discussed on week 13)

Readings: List 12 (to be discussed on week 15)

What can we expect in Paleoindian research in the coming years? What lines of investigation seem most promising? Which issues are the ‘dead horses’ and which are the hot topics? Where should Paleoindian archaeologist invest their effort? What has been learned, and how can we best build on the accumulated information?