The Fluted Point tradition and the Arctic Small Tool tradition: What’s the connection?

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 298–314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / jaa

The Fluted Point tradition and the Arctic Small Tool tradition: What’sthe connection?

Christopher Ellis *

Department of Anthropology, Social Science Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 5C2

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 10 September 2007Revision received 10 May 2008Available online 24 June 2008

Keywords:Hunter–gatherersColonizationLithic technologySettlement systemsSubsistenceTransportation aidsPaleoindianPaleoeskimo

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.jaa.2008.05.002

* Fax: +1 519 661 2157.E-mail address: [email protected]

This paper presents a comparative study of two colonizing populations in the Americas: the Fluted Pointtradition (FPt) and the early Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) with the aim of understanding the role oflithic technologies in the colonization process. The FPt and ASTt are seen as residentially mobile groupswith comparatively little reliance on food storage and minimal transportation aids. At the same time theyalso produced very similar flaked stone technologies that differed greatly from all later groups, beingcharacterized by standardized core reduction, excellence in manufacture, production of a wide rangeof often hafted tools, use of the highest quality toolstones and a reliance on flaked stone, as opposedto ground stone, tools. The main advantage of these technologies is that they are not only flexible butcan be rapidly produced. It is suggested that the key variable accounting for these choices is the lackof efficient transportation aids. In colonizing situations, the limited transport capabilities force popula-tions to: (a) rely more on less predictable search and encounter methods of resource procurement andin turn, residential mobility to position people with regard to resources and (b) place a high premiumon efficient time allocation to meet the excessive demands needed to maintain social contacts and matingnetworks amongst very low density populations.

� 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

I compare here aspects of the archaeological records, particu-larly the lithic technological records, of two groups in North Amer-ica: the Early Paleoindians of the Fluted Point tradition (FPt) of ca.11,500–10,200 B.P. and the earliest Paleoeskimos of the ArcticSmall Tool tradition (ASTt; Irving, 1957) of ca. 4000–3500 B.P. Imake such comparisons in order to better understand the waysgroups can populate new areas and how lithic technology mayfacilitate, constrain, and generally inform us about, this process. Istress at the outset that my main concern in making these compar-isons is to gain a greater understanding of the poorest known ofthese developments, and one I have long studied (e.g., Ellis, 1984,1993), namely the FPt.

Cultural comparison, or at least the idea that one cannot fullyunderstand humanity through the lens of a single group, is centralto anthropology. Therefore, it is not surprising that several investi-gators have suggested that a consideration of the peopling of var-ious other areas would be useful in understanding the firstpeoplings of the Americas (e.g., Dillehay and Meltzer, 1991). Inthe past, investigators pointed to analogues outside the NewWorld, particularly with Australia (e.g., Beaton, 1991; Kelly andTodd, 1988, p. 240; Shutler, 1983). These comparisons have andwill continue to prove their usefulness. However, increasingly

ll rights reserved.

more recent authors have suggested relatively well-documentedlater examples in the Americas itself of colonizations or, at the veryleast, migrations into areas where there is a minimal resident pop-ulation, would provide a useful comparative base, notably the ASTtand later Thule ‘‘culture” of the Arctic (e.g., Ellis, 1992; Fiedel,1987, p. 146, 2004, 2005; Meltzer, 1995, p. 26; Wright, 1995, p.408). I would suggest that comparisons between the FPt and Arcticgroups such as the ASTt are the most appropriate or ‘‘controlled”ones we can obtain, and certainly better than comparisons withareas such as Australia, in that they both represent: a spread ofhunter–gatherers in more rigorous environments; a situationwhere larger game hunting (amongst other things) was a regularcomponent of subsistence; and the movement of groups who re-lied heavily on stone tools. Admittedly, this comparison is not with-out difficulties. For example, the more severe winters of the Arcticwould have placed more constraints on mobility during that timeof the year than in more temperate areas (Binford, 1990, p. 131).Similarly, Meltzer (2002, pp. 32–33) has argued there was muchless environmental diversity in the Arctic and that Arctic environ-ments are less productive than those peopled by FPt groups. I notethough, as have others (e.g., Kelly and Todd, 1988), that FPt peoplesprobably started out as more Arctic/Sub-Arctic adapted peoples.Also, many areas they did colonize, including much of the GreatLakes/Northeast, were characterized by more Sub-Arctic-likeenvironments.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

C. Ellis / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 298–314 299

On a more theoretical level, and of some significance, both theASTt and FPt featured very similar lithic technologies—technolo-gies that distinguish them from every subsequent lithic industryin the Americas. As both can be argued to represent colonizingmovements, these similarities raise the distinct possibility thatthe character of these technologies is in part related to movementby hunter–gatherer populations into new regions. Colonization perse need not be seen as the only relevant factor. Indeed, well-knownexplanations of Paleoindian colonization stress factors that go be-yond simply colonization itself to include factors such as environ-mental variability or subsistence strategies (e.g., Kelly and Todd,1988). Moreover, there are examples of colonizing populationswith lithic technologies that differ markedly from those of the ASTtand FPt, such as the aforementioned Thule ‘‘culture” (Mathiassen,1927), which spread across the Arctic at ca. AD 1000.

In the following, first I sketch in some background informationon the ASTt and the FPt. Then, I consider in detail the nature oftheir lithic industries and how they are similar. Subsequently, I at-tempt to develop an explanation/model for the characteristics ofthese lithic industries. In contrast to others who have tended toemphasize the portability potential of Paleoindian technology(e.g., Kelly and Todd, 1988, p. 237), I suggest that the main advan-tages of Paleoindian (and Paleoeskimo) flaked stone technologyare: (1) it is flexible and (2) it can be produced quickly. Theseadvantages suggest the earliest Paleoindian and Paleoeskimo socialand economic adaptations frequently involved situations where itwas difficult to predict day to day activities and in turn, use con-texts and specific tool demands. While I suggest that larger gameanimals played a major role in FPt and ASTt peoples’ diet, I arguethat they lacked very efficient transportation aids. Thus, they weremore limited in their ability to focus on such large game. By itselfthis limitation would tend to favour a somewhat more flexible,responsive and opportunistic approach to resource procurement.However, of greater importance, in colonizing situations these lessefficient transportation aids would critically limit the ability of FPtand ASTt peoples to maintain widespread social contacts and mat-ing networks amongst very small populations and to explore andlearn quickly the resources of new areas. In turn these factorswould also favour lithic production and use strategies that fa-voured a more flexible, rapidly produced and responsive technol-ogy, rather than a less flexible, time consuming to produce,anticipatory technology.

Background

Fluted Point tradition (FPt) sites in North America begin as earlyas 11,500 to 11,200 RCYBP (Taylor et al., 1996; but see Hayneset al., 2007; Waters and Stafford, 2007) and extend to somewherebetween ca. 10,500 and 10,000 RCYBP. The traditional view ofthese peoples is that they represent the initial colonization of theAmericas south of the late Pleistocene ice sheets (e.g., Haynes,1964, 1980; Kelly and Todd, 1988; etc.) but there are obviouslyclaims of earlier occupations. I do not deny these claims for earlierpeoples, but given evidence for extremely low population densitiesfor fluted point-producing peoples themselves (see below), theephemeral nature of possible earlier occupations suggesting verymarginal populations (and perhaps dead ends), and the markedsimilarities of a very complex lithic technology across North Amer-ica in fluted point times, I still believe it is a viable alternative totreat these peoples as representing a colonizing movement (as doothers, e.g., Anderson, 1995b; Kornfeld et al., 2001, pp. 152–153;Meltzer, 2002, 2003).

The actual rapidity of the spread of FPt peoples in North Amer-ica can be debated. Some believe it was very rapid given the areacovered and use this assumption as a starting place to build models

(e.g., Kelly, 1996). However, the increasing evidence that one can-not interpret the 14C dates in the Late Pleistocene in a straightfor-ward manner (e.g., Curran, 1996; Meltzer, 1995, pp. 28–29; Taylor,1991) suggests this spread must have taken longer, need not havebeen especially rapid, and that the actual overall age of fluted pointuse was on the order of 2000 or more sidereal years (e.g., Andersonand Faught, 1998, p. 177; Fiedel, 1999).

As for the Arctic Small Tool tradition, my major concern here iswith the earliest representatives of this tradition, which date in theperiod between about 4000 and 3500 B.P., and are variously re-ferred to as Denbigh in Alaska, Independence I in the CanadianHigh Arctic and Greenland, and Pre-Dorset in the Canadian LowArctic (see, for example, Dumond, 1987; Maxwell, 1985; McGhee,1978, 1996). Helmer (1994, p. 23) calls these developments Initialand Early Pre-Dorset. I will simply call this ‘‘early ASTt” here forconvenience. It is clear that these peoples were the first inhabitantsof much of the Canadian Arctic and as such were the first peoplesto inhabit most of that area year-round (McGhee, 1978, p. 23). ASTtpeoples appear rather suddenly in Alaska with no clearly agreedupon antecedents around 4000 B.P. The lack of clear antecedents,and similarities to certain Siberian assemblages, has suggested tosome that these groups migrated into the Americas about that time(Dumond, 1987, p. 92; Maxwell, 1985, 1993, p. 212; McGhee, 1978,p. 24; McGhee, 1996, pp. 34–41).

The spread of ASTt peoples across the north seems to have beenrelatively rapid. Indeed, taken at face-value, the 14C dates from theeastern end of the High Arctic are just as early or earlier than thosefrom parts of Alaska 4500 km away (Maxwell, 1985, pp. 42–43,1993, p. 212; McGhee, 1978, p. 29). Such inconsistencies are usu-ally attributed to the unique problems of dating in the Arctic suchas marine reservoir effects and use of old driftwood in hearths (e.g.,Arundale, 1981; McGhee and Tuck, 1976). Some have suggestedthat the colonization could have taken as much as 500 years ormore (Maxwell, 1985, p. 44). In sum, we really do not know exactlyhow rapid the movement of these peoples was across the area.Eventually, changes over time in the ASTt led, as the terms imply,to a shift from Pre-Dorset to Dorset by around 3000–2500 B.P. (Du-mond, 1987, pp. 93–95; Helmer, 1994; Maxwell, 1985, pp. 110–111). By around 1100–1000 B.P. the Dorset peoples were replacedby the migration of Thule culture peoples who spread from Alaskaacross the Canadian Arctic to Greenland. Whether these Thulegroups actually encountered earlier ASTt peoples has been muchdebated but whatever the case, the earlier Dorset groups disap-peared around the same time (Friesen, 2000; McGhee, 1978, p.72, 1984, pp. 370–371, 1992; Park, 1993).

The lithic industries of Paleoindians and Paleoeskimos

What initially prompted the thinking in this paper was the rec-ognition many years ago that FPt and early ASTt peoples had verysimilar lithic industries. When early ASTt lithic material was firstdiscovered on the Bering Strait at Cape Denbigh, Alaska in the late1940’s, investigators such as Giddings (1951) and Witthoft (1952)pointed to similarities between this material and that produced byfluted point makers and suggested an historical connection. Witth-oft (1952, pp. 489–492) for example, believed that the fluted point-producing Shoop site in Pennsylvania was ‘‘closer in time to Asiaticancestors than any fluted point complex” and concluded that theShoop site peoples ‘‘may not have been many generations awayfrom the Bering Strait.” These investigators tended to be impressedmainly, but not entirely, by similarities in the kinds of artifacts pro-duced. For example, to Giddings (1951, p. 195, 1964, p. 242, 1967,pp. 260–262) the form of the stone points recovered was very sim-ilar as was the presence of micro-piercers or ‘‘gravers” in the par-lance of most Paleoindian investigators. Witthoft (1952, p. 490)

300 C. Ellis / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (2008) 298–314

was impressed with the similar end scrapers and side scraperscommon to both although aspects of lithic production technologywere also seen as comparable, such as his belief both FPt and ASTtgroups produced microblades. Of course, these similarities do notmean that the developments are identical. For example, ASTt peo-ples produced a very wide range of burins whereas FPt groupsrarely used burins and only of limited forms.

With the subsequent recognition that these Paleoindian andPaleoeskimo sites are separated from each other by 6500 or moreradiocarbon years, and the demonstration, for example, that theShoop peoples did not produce microblades (MacDonald, 1968, p.87), the idea of a direct historical connection between the FPtand ASTt is no longer viable. Similarities are often shrugged offas largely fortuitous but there are those who suggest these paral-lels are due to more than just chance. For example, Wilmsen(1970, p. 68) argued that the ‘‘typological similarities” betweenthe FPt and early ASTt ‘‘reflect functional regularities inherent ina hunting way of life.” I also believe these similarities are not for-tuitous. While there are some typological similarities, I am mostimpressed by more general technological properties of their toolproduction systems and, as I will get to later, their whole settle-ment and subsistence systems. Regardless of the details of toolforms, both Early Paleoindian and early ASTt lithic tool assem-blages exhibit a series, albeit small in number and interrelated,of what I like to call ‘‘basic properties” of the tool production sys-tem. Importantly, in all these properties, they both differ from thevast majority of such systems in the Americas including, for themost part, their subsequent descendants or replacements such asArchaic groups south of the ice sheets or Dorset and Thule peoplesin the north. They also differ from all other forager technologies Iknow about excepting some Upper Paleolithic ones (and paren-thetically, those Upper Paleolithic peoples also regularly migratedinto new areas). In fact, these technologies are so distinctive thatone can find in the literature of Paleoindian and Paleoeskimo state-ments to the effect that the sites can be recognized and separatedout from later ones even if one only finds a small amount of flakingdebris (e.g., Deller, 1979, p. 7; Fitting et al., 1966, p. 95, 102; Hel-mer, 1991, p. 303).

The basic properties one can most confidently document arefivefold and include:

(1) It is true both FPt (e.g., Frison and Bradley, 1980, pp. 72–73;MacDonald, 1968, pp. 104–107) and early ASTt (e.g., Pilon, 1994)made expedient use of coarser-grained rocks and used them forlarge massive tools. However, with few exceptions, for more ‘‘for-mal” tools both peoples (e.g., Goodyear, 1989; McGhee, 1980, p.47) selected the highest flakeable grades of lithic raw materialsavailable to them such as cherts, chalcedonies and flints—what Iwill call cryptocrystallines following Goodyear (1989). The rareexceptions seem to be situations where local sources of higherquality materials are restricted in distribution or absent, such ason the west coast of Greenland where ASTt peoples used silicifiedslate materials (e.g., Grønnow, 1996) or the Atlantic Coastal Plainwhere Paleoindians were forced to use secondary pebble chertsof lower quality (Custer and Stewart, 1983). There have even beensuggestions for the FPt and what some regard as the earliest ASTtof the High Arctic, Independence I, that aesthetics played a majorrole in raw material selection (e.g., Hayden, 1982; McGhee, 1976,p. 205). One can, in fact, trace over time within the ASTt as a whole,a broadening of the kinds of lithic materials regularly used to in-clude a wider range of materials. By the time of the late ASTt Dor-set development not only slate but nephrite, quartzite and othermaterials come to be more widely used, often for formal, specific,artifact types for which those raw materials are more functionallysuited (Maxwell 1985, p. 109, 123).

(2) Both FPt and particularly the earliest ASTt peoples, weremasterful and skilled flintknappers (e.g., Anderson, 1984, p. 84;

Bradley, 1993; Giddings, 1964, p. 243; McGhee, 1980, p. 47; Witth-oft, 1952, p. 490). The skill needed to produce items such as thePaleoindian fluted points, various forms of bifacial knives and mac-roblades, or the exquisitely and precisely pressure flaked, tiny end-blades and microblade cores of the ASTt, cannot beunderestimated. Indeed, it is not hard to find statements in boththe Paleoindian and Paleoeskimo literature to the effect that theproducers seem to have regarded lithic tool production as an artis-tic endeavour (e.g., McGhee, 1976, p. 205; McGhee, 1978, p. 37;Schledermann, 1996, p. 41; Wheat, 1971, p. 28).

(3) There is an emphasis in both the FPt and ASTt on the use offlaking as opposed to grinding in the manufacture of stone tools.Ground stone tools are, of course, absent in Paleoindian contextssuch that to some it is a major diagnostic criterion in separatingout Paleoindian from later peoples such as those of the Archaic(Witthoft, 1952, p. 464). Ground stone tools are not absent in theearliest ASTt as ground stone adzes are reported (e.g., Dumond,1983, p. 81; Maxwell, 1985, p. 109; Schledermann, 1978, p. 53).Usually, however, the major surfaces are flaked with only the bitsbeing ground and in fact, in some early components (e.g., the‘‘Independence I” occupations at Port Refuge; McGhee, 1979: Plate7p, q) the adzes are flaked and not ground at all. Moreover, thesetools as a whole are exceptionally rare. In comparison to latergroups such as the Dorset and Thule, where ground slate is com-mon or predominant (e.g., Dumond, 1984, p. 101; McGhee, 1976,p. 206, 208, 1980, p. 43), they appear decidedly different in termsof ground stone use.

(4) Both FPt and ASTt peoples relied to some extent on the pro-duction of standardized forms of flake blanks produced by shaping‘‘on the core” rather than by simply a haphazard rock smashingand selecting out products that fortuitously happened to meetone’s tool blank needs. Amongst Early Paleoindians the use of bi-face cores, the flakes from which could be employed for manykinds of simple flake tools, is well documented (e.g., Frison,1982a, Fig. 2.92; Hoffman, 1992, p. 216; Lothrop, 1989; MacDon-ald, 1968, p. 65; Wright and Roosa, 1966). In addition, the use oftrue blade cores occurs in some areas, apparently amongst the ear-liest components (e.g., Broster and Norton, 1996, p. 292; Collins,1999; Green, 1963; Sanders, 1990), and there is evidence from sitesin the Northeast of the use of large conical cores to produce whatare perhaps best described as large ‘‘blade-flakes” (Payne, 1987).The best example of standardized core use in the ASTt is the useof microblades as cutting edges and in some cases, as tool blanksfor the production of other tool forms (Giddings, 1964, pp. 206–209).

(5) It is my impression FPt (e.g., Ellis, 1984; Ellis and Deller,1988; Frison and Bradley, 1980) and ASTt (e.g., Maxwell, 1985)peoples produced a relatively large number of stone tool typesoverall in comparison to subsequent groups including Thulealthough I freely admit this characteristic is difficult to preciselydocument given regional variation and an absence of detailed wearstudies. I do believe, however, that there is certainly evidence tosuggest Paleoindians and Paleoeskimos produced a large numberof formal hafted stone tools if one compares them to the archaeo-logical records of most known foragers. Indeed, one is hard pressedto find any groups who used as many composite tools with stonetool components. Paleoindians, for example, produced not onlythe ubiquitous spear or dart points but also: several forms of bifaceknives including fluted shouldered forms, large alternately bev-elled knives and crescent-shaped items; ‘‘twist” drills and bifacialperforators; trianguloid, narrow and several other types of endscrapers designed for different use contexts; hafted unifacial perfo-rators and beaks; some forms of gravers and concave side scrapers(Ellis, 1984, pp. 226–227, Ellis, 1993, pp. 612–613; Ellis and Deller,1988; Gramly, 1990; MacDonald, 1968). In the ASTt hafted tools in-clude lance and arrow points, several forms of biface knives, har-


poon endblades, sideblades, end scrapers, concave side scrapers,burins, microblades, drills, apparently hafted ‘‘gravers,” etc. (seeespecially Giddings, 1964, pp. 201–238; Maxwell, 1985, pp. 65–75). I am well aware that all these are tool forms defined on the ba-sis of technology and form rather than ‘‘use context.” However, onecan argue that the marked differences between these itemscertainly represent contrasts in such contexts (Ellis, 1993, pp. 604–605; Ellis and Deller, 1988). If anything, there is use variation withinthese categories (for example, microblades could be used as bothknife and projectile side insets) so the number of hafted tool formsis probably in excess of what one can determine morphologically.

This list of similarities is somewhat limited and of course, allthese characteristics are interrelated at some level (e.g., if youare going to finely pressure flake materials cryptocrystallines arenecessary, etc.). Nonetheless, there may be other similarities be-yond those stressed here. For example, both FPt and ASTt peoplesmay have made frequent use of exotic materials that somehowtravelled long distances. Unfortunately, and although there is somesuggestive evidence for the early ASTt in this regard (LeBlanc,1991, p. 274), and certainly for later ASTt groups (e.g., Odess,1996), little is actually known about ASTt procurement and trans-port practices for chipped stone materials (but see Milne, 2003). Inany case, and as stressed above, lithic assemblages with the basicproperties described here for the FPt and ASTt are virtually uniquein the hunter–gatherer record of the Americas.

Explanations

Overall, in the FPt and early ASTt we have two groups who col-onized new areas and produced an elaborate, diverse, flaked stonetechnology based primarily on cryptocrystalline materials. Thesetechnologies contrast markedly with later groups in the sameareas, such as amongst post-Paleoindian Archaic peoples andpost-early ASTt Dorset and Thule peoples, who more generally tookless care in making stone tools, relied on a wider range of often lessflakeable stones and also placed a greater emphasis on ground asopposed to flaked stone tools. What conditions might favour thesedifferent kinds of technologies? Why, for example, did post-Paleo-indian Archaic peoples and later Arctic Dorset and Thule groupsrely very heavily on ground slate tools while FPt and early ASTtpeoples relied so heavily on flaked tools made on cryptocrystal-lines? To aid discussion, Table 1 lists some of the major advantagesand disadvantages of using ground versus flaked stone tools andfor good measure I also list contrasts with flaked stone tools oncoarser-grained rocks.

Some might be tempted to argue that FPt and early ASTt peo-ples did not extensively use ground stone tools out of ignorance;that is, the idea of making tools by grinding simply did not occurto them. However, given: (a) the sophistication of the technologiesthat FPt and AST groups did produce and (b) that much less prac-tice and skill is needed to produce ground stone tools (e.g., Dickson(1981, p. 40) and Hayden’s (1989, p. 14) anecdote that his threeyear old son independently invented ground stone technologies

Table 1Relative merits of using flaked and ground stone tools

Ground Stone Cryptocrystalline flaked stone

Produce wide range of tool forms and less specializedworking edges

Produce wide range of tool forworking edges

Can shape to low tolerances for composite tool use Can shape to low tolerances foCan resharpen over and over Can resharpen moderatelyExtensive time to manufacture and resharpen Less time to manufacture andLess skill required to take full advantage of use

potentialMore skill required to take fullpotential

Usually can make larger tools More size restrictions on tools

is relevant here), one can reject such a notion. In fact, the presenceof the odd ground stone adze in the early ASTt, indicates these peo-ples were not ignorant of the use of grinding. Nor were Paleoindi-ans ignorant of this potential method given that they ground theedges of cores for platform preparation and of bifaces for hafting.

One might argue that flaked stone tools such as these areundoubtedly more efficient or useful for certain tasks than toolsmade on other materials. For example, because of their irregularsharp edges and tendency to break up in the wound, flaked stonetips on fine-grained materials are probably more lethal than itemsmade on other rocks such as ground stone, and ethnographicallythere are suggestions flaked tools, such as bifaces, are more effi-cient in butchering certain types of terrestrial game animals thanground stone forms (see Ellis, 1997, pp. 51–52, 54). However, othermaterials can be more efficient in carrying out certain tasks. Forexample, Maxwell (1985, pp. 142–143) found ground slate knivesused by the later ASTt Dorset people in the Arctic to be more effi-cient ‘‘for separating blubber from meat” in butchering a small seal.Moreover, ground stone tools on materials such as slate are lessprone to breakage and would be more suitable as lance tips de-signed to be thrust again and again in certain kinds of hunting sit-uations (Ellis, 1997, pp. 60–61). It may be that as a whole, fine-grained flaked stone tools are more efficient or just as efficient(for example, Hayden (1989, 14) suggests flaked stone and groundstone axes are equally efficient in wood-working) in carrying out awider range of tasks than ground stone items or those made byflaking coarse-grained rocks. But nonetheless, the fact formalizedtools made on these other materials and by different means arebetter for certain tasks suggests that efficiency in use-consider-ations are not the major ones governing the use of raw materialsamongst groups such as the FPt and ASTt. These considerationsseem to only become of major concern in subsequent times suchas amongst Dorset peoples in the Arctic. Amongst those latergroups knives are often made on slate and harder stones like neph-rite and quartzite are used for items like adzes or burin-like tools(Maxwell, 1985, pp. 109–110)—despite the fact fine-grained rawmaterials are used in several other tasks.

Still another possible explanation would relate to the ability tohaft or use various materials in composite tools. As argued, earlyPaleoindians and Paleoeskimos seem to have produced a widerange of tools of this nature. For example, fine-grained materialscould be pressure flaked to tighter size and form tolerances as op-posed to those made on coarser stone, and thus, could be more eas-ily matched with organic tool components (Table 1). However,there is no evidence to suggest that finer-grained chert tools couldbe made to finer tolerances than can ground stone tools. Indeed,while post-Paleoeskimo Thule groups produced a narrower rangeof stone items, almost all were hafted (e.g., McGhee, 1972, pp.27–34, 43–47; Schledermann, 1975, pp. 111–112, 117, 128, 130).Therefore, this factor would not explain why the earlier groupsused cryptocrystallines. Hafting considerations would only be rel-evant to understanding variation if one relied on coarser-grainedflaked stone tools (Table 1).

Coarse-grained flaked stone

ms and less specialized Produce limited range of tool forms and more specializedworking edges

r composite tool use Harder to shape to low tolerances for composite tool useDifficult to resharpen

resharpen Less time to manufacture and resharpenadvantage of use Less skill required to take full advantage of use potential

Usually can make larger tools


If it is not simply ignorance, efficiency in use, or ability to haftthat is governing raw material selection practices amongst thesecolonizing peoples, what other factors might be involved? A possi-ble factor, which is one of several first stressed in a seminal articleby Goodyear (1979, 1989), is portability. Goodyear (1989, p. 1) ar-gued that Paleoindians used high grade cryptocrystallines to meetthe ‘‘needs of a geographically mobile settlement system.” Theseraw materials were seen to allow for a more portable technologyas they reduce errors in knapping and can be extensively rejuve-nated and recycled. Goodyear (1989, p. 3) also stressed the ‘‘flexi-bility” potential of such material to meet unpredictable‘‘situational contingencies” of use. Presumably use locations wereoften much removed in time and space from toolstone acquisitionmaking exact needs difficult to predict. The designing of tools thatcan be used on a number of occasions through rejuvenation, or thatcould be recycled, meant cryptocrystallines were ideal for thispurpose.

Most researchers have stressed the ‘‘portability” aspect ofGoodyear’s (1989) model and relate it to the mobility of the groupsinvolved. Kelly and Todd (1988, p. 237; see also Kelly, 1988, p.718), for example, argue such cryptocrystalline raw materials areneeded for bifaces as they have a ‘‘fairly sharp edge that can beresharpened repeatedly” and that ‘‘more useable flake edge canbe produced from a biface than a simple casual core. . .”. The porta-bility argument undoubtedly holds true in comparison to flakedstone tools made on coarse-grained materials (Table 1). Yet, as sev-eral authors have noted (e.g., Dickson, 1981, p. 8; Hayden, 1989, p.14), ground stone tools actually can be resharpened and used forvery long periods relative to any flaked stone tools regardless ofmaterial—so such an argument makes little sense by itself. Also,the brittle nature of cryptocrystalline stone means tools are muchmore difficult to transport to places of use intact. As such they needto be transported as unfinished forms or in more bulky ‘‘contain-ers” to protect them from breakage (e.g., Ellis, 1997, pp. 56–59; El-lis and Spence, 1997). They also require specialized tools topressure flake them, which must be carried around in order to takeadvantage of their portability potential (Hayden, 1989, p. 14). Also,raw materials more suitable for fine-grained flaked stone toolstend to occur in smaller packages/masses than the materials suit-able for ground stone tools (Table 1). Therefore, they are oftennot large enough to be gripped and used as is and must be hafted.Such hafts need to be transported, and could result in a less porta-ble tool kit (Morrow, 1996, pp. 587–588).

Witness also the fact that both FPt peoples and ASTt peoplesused ‘‘blade technologies” although in one case macroblades wereproduced while in the other it was microblades. Some seem to re-gard these as efficient means of producing lots of cutting edge permass of material and thus, one would produce a more portable toolkit (Parry, 1994, p. 93; Sheets and Muto, 1972). However, there arealso those who argue that most blade cores are actually wasteful ofmaterial and effort. They argue that there is a high rate of failure atall stages of blade core production and that to use them effectivelyrequires a very high investment in training and the tools needed toproduce and reduce such cores (Hayden et al., 1996, p. 37).

As alluded to in the quote from Kelly and Todd (1988:237)above, there also have been arguments that other standardizedforms of cores such as bifaces were carried around by groups suchas Paleoindians and that these bifaces served as a source of manyflakes that could be used as tools. As such, they also are seen asa more portable core form. Earlier stage bifaces were undoubtedlytransported around and used as tools (e.g., Deller and Ellis, 1984,2001). Yet, LeTourneau (2001, pp. 205–207) and Bamforth (2002)have recently argued that there is little evidence that biface coresper se, and especially large biface cores as opposed to smaller bi-face preforms for points, played a major role in post-Clovis Paleo-indian technologies in the Plains/Southwest. Earlier Lothrop (1989)

and Ellis (1984), noting the high frequency of tools made on flakesfrom non-biface cores and minimal evidence these large bifacecores were actually transported away from toolstone sources,had questioned the central role of transported biface cores in theGreat Lakes/Northeast. Also, from an experimental perspective,Prasciunas (2007) has recently suggested that flakes producedfrom bifaces do not produce more useable flake cutting edge thaneven amorphous cores as most of the biface derived flakes are toosmall to be easily used and many of the larger but thin flakes alsocollapsed in detachment. From an archaeological perspective, it isalso apparent that most flakes from thinning these bifaces onPaleoindian sites were not used. For example, at the Sheaman Clo-vis site, Wyoming, many flakes detached from large biface reduc-tion were reassembled to reconstruct flaking sequences. Very fewof those flakes were used. Instead, almost all were simply dis-carded as waste and, based on illustrations, most did break duringdetachment (Bradley, 1982, Fig. 3.11; Frison, 1982a, pp. 147–155).Even the flakes that were used were only briefly employed withoutmodification and it seems clear that all that was needed was asharp cutting edge. I would think a bag of sharp-edged flakes, alongwith some much reduced biface preforms, would be just as useful,if not moreso, in terms of portability, than transporting a larger bi-face around, especially if one is simply discarding most thinningflakes as waste not to mention often breaking the bifaces them-selves in manufacture (e.g., Wilke et al., 1991).

Finally, I have never been comfortable with the portability argu-ment especially for FPt groups when, even by the most conserva-tive estimates (e.g., Ellis and Payne, 1995; Sellet, 2004, p. 1558),FPt peoples wasted a lot of material in fluting. It is also of note thatPaleoindians and Paleoeskimos seem to have produced a largenumber of hafted tools versus many other groups. Some have ar-gued that hafted tools actually result in less portable tool kits asone must carry around the handles themselves as well as theequipment needed to make such handles (e.g., Morrow, 1996).Therefore, the attempts to maximize raw material use could beinterpreted as direct responses to waste in other areas of the tech-nology such as fluting or to compensate for the need to carry hafts,rather than relating directly to some portability need imposed bysettlement mobility. Of course, there are also those who argue thatat least later Paleoindians did not really attempt to maximize rawmaterial use in any consistent manner (e.g., Bamforth, 2002).

As noted above, Goodyear (1989, p. 3) not only stressed the por-tability aspect of cryptocrystallines but also stressed that these rawmaterials were more flexible in meeting ‘‘situational contingencies”of use. This flexibility involved both resharpening and recycling tomeet unpredictable use situations. One could see this flexibility asalso contributing to a more portable tool kit in the sense one couldget more use out of a given piece of raw material. Some seem to beunconvinced that the Paleoindian tool kit was flexible (e.g., Cable,1996, pp. 118–119). Along with Bamforth (2002), I am not convincedthat recycling per se is as important as it is often pictured to Paleoin-dian tool use although reworking to maintain a tool in a useable formmost certainly was in some circumstances (e.g., Ellis, 2004; Grimesand Grimes, 1985). I do believe, however, that flexibility to meet di-verse tool demands was important as I will get to below but thinkthat recycling is only one way to achieve that goal. I would even ar-gue that given the short application lives of most flaked stone tools,there is a reduced opportunity for them to be recycled unless theabout to be discarded tool happens to be handy and can be reusedin an expedient manner. I believe that another major route to flexi-bility was by transporting preforms and flake blanks to tool use loca-tions, each of which had the potential to be rapidly made into adiversity of specialized tools for necessary tasks close to the timeof actual use (Ellis, 1984, pp. 437–444). I do not see much evidenceof recycling in the ASTt but this could be due to a lack of requisiteanalyses.


In any case, of relevance to understanding the use of cryptocrys-tallines, at least in the FPt the recycling that does occur usually in-volves the manufacture of an item into something very simple.Examples include the smashing of bifaces into bend break toolson Folsom sites (Frison and Bradley, 1980, pp. 97–98), the use ofsnapped fluted biface fore-sections expediently as knives or of bro-ken end scraper fragments to make simple slotting tools on GreatLakes sites (Roosa, 1977; Roosa and Ellis, 2000, pp. 89–90), or theuse on northeastern sites of exhausted end scrapers as bipolarpieces either as wedges or as cores for producing simple cuttingblades, depending upon which arguments one wants to consider(e.g., Goodyear, 1993; Lothrop and Gramly, 1984). This recyclingseems to be almost expedient tool use. In fact, outside of the con-sistent standardized recycling of debatably Paleoindian Daltonpoints into other complex forms like bevelled knives, perforatorsand end scrapers (e.g., Goodyear, 1974; Shott and Ballenger,2007), I see no evidence amongst these early assemblages for pur-poseful design of a complex tool, which can be consistently recy-cled into other complex forms. Therefore, to my mind one couldrecycle almost any ground stone tool to serve most of the docu-mented simple recycling purposes and still take advantage of thefact the ground stone tools can be resharpened for very long peri-ods of time. For example, I have often seen ground stone adze andcelt fragments recovered from later Archaic sites in the Great Lakesregion battered through use as wedges. For that matter, one couldeven recycle coarser-grained rocks for these simple purposes ascutting tools and wedges.

Moreover, even if one argued that it is easier as a whole to re-cycle materials on fine-grained cherts, why does virtually thewhole tool kit have to be on these items? Why not make a goodpercentage of items on other materials such as ground slate to takeadvantage of their resharpening potential and greater functionalsuitability for certain tasks and use fine-grained materials for anumber of other items that could be easily recycled? This tool kitcomposition is actually what one sees amongst later groups in boththe Arctic such as Dorset with their use of ground slate knives thatmay be more useful in seal processing, and to a lesser extent earlyThule, as well as south of the former ice sheets as amongst Archaicgroups in eastern North America.

While the ability to recycle per se, and specifically its relation-ship to maintaining a portable tool kit, can be questioned, I believeGoodyear’s (1989) idea of the flexibility potential of these kinds ofraw materials to meet situational contingencies of use is impor-tant. I believe this idea has been frequently overlooked by focus-sing on recycling or resharpening as simply a means to extendthe use-life of raw materials and meet a portability requirement.This idea is thrown into full relief when we consider the majordrawback of using ground stone tools: it takes a more time to re-sharpen ground stone tool edges and to correct problems in break-age, never mind the excessive amount of time needed to producethe tools (Hayden, 1989, pp. 14–15; see Table 1). As such, I wouldlike to suggest that under two conditions the use of ground stone isa waste of time.

One such condition is where time to produce tools is limited asit would seriously detract from other activities, whatever thosemay be. While grinding can take considerable time, retouching ofcryptocrystallines does not for the skilled practitioner. Moreover,in terms of tool blank production I would also like to stress theuse of standardized cores by both FPt and ASTt peoples. As I notedearlier, the usual explanation for the employment of such tech-niques is that one can get more cutting edge or useable flakesper transported core. This explanation makes some sense in thecontext of cases where items are actually transported away fromlithic sources. It certainly makes sense in the case of the small bi-face preforms transported around by Paleoindians. It also may bean advantage for the microblade cores used by the ASTt if we pre-

sume raw materials were also transported away from toolstonesources as cores per se rather than as simply derived products.

However, I have already mentioned that one can dispute theadvantages of both blade core reduction and biface cores in con-serving raw material. In addition, the use of standardized cores, atleast by Paleoindians, often occurs at or very near the actual sources(e.g., Collins, 2007, p. 67; Knudson, 1973, p. 92; Payne, 1987; Sand-ers, 1990; Tunnell, 1975, pp. 9–10). No transportation advantageoccurs here. Moreover, even ASTt peoples can use microblade coresat locations where stone is exploited (Milne, 2003). In fact, in thePaleoindian case the analyses of flaking debris (e.g., Deller and Ellis,1992, pp. 90–92; Lothrop, 1989) and caches of Clovis blades but notblade cores (e.g., Collins, 1999), indicate reduction of standardizedcores in many cases took place mainly at or near the lithic sources.Wear on Clovis blade dorsal surfaces and blade cores has been usedto suggest that Clovis blade cores were transported, but most sitesreported yielding actual Clovis blade cores, such as Pavo Real, Texas,and Gault, Texas, are made on site local materials (Collins, 1999, pp.152–153, 162–163, 183)—the possible Clovis age Andarko cache(Hammatt, 1970) may be an exception. Therefore, one can arguethat the cores per se were usually not transported away from thosesources. This practice implies that portability, in the sense that atransported standardized core can yield more useable flakes/cut-ting edge, is not the reason for blade core use. One could arguetransported flake products of these cores themselves may havemore cutting edge per item than any simple flake. For example,blades have a higher amount of cutting edge per derived flake.However, this argument also assumes blades were used simply ascutting tools when in fact Clovis blades were often used for severalother tool forms where the amount of cutting edge is irrelevantsuch as for end scrapers and burins (see Collins, 1999, p. 183,189; Goebel et al., 1991).

Recognizing these difficulties, I have suggested that if one istransporting largely flake blanks rather than cores to locations oftool use then there is another major advantage of using standard-ized cores that goes beyond simply raw material portability con-siderations (Ellis, 1984, pp. 436–437, 444–452, 1993, pp. 602–603). Stated simply, one can rapidly produce in a short period oftime a large number of useable blanks of the same consistent shapeor size that can have several desirable characteristics ‘‘built-in.”These built-in characteristics could allow them to be easily hafted,such as by mounting blades or microblades or their segments withtheir straighter profiles in slots or by having consistent size/shapeblank characteristics at the haft end such that the stone componentcan be more easily mounted or remounted in standardized han-dles. Alternatively, the built-in characteristics could be ones thatare not easy to produce by retouch on the transported flake suchas blank curvature. This curvature might be needed for tools usedin certain tasks. Curved flakes do seem to have been deliberatelyselected by Paleoindians for use for tools such as trianguloid endscrapers. Nor could a long blank be produced by retouching anytransported flake if they are too small to begin with. This large sizecan also be desirable as, for example, in the blades often used byClovis peoples as end scraper blanks that can be more extensivelyresharpened due to their length (Hayden, 1989, p. 13). I am certainthe advantages of having ample supplies of standardized blanksapplies to both FPt and ASTt tool production, especially given thenumber of hafted tools they produced. Of note, these standardizedflakes also have inherent characteristics that allow them to bemade into several different tool forms, including complex ones,hence making them more flexible in application. For example, aClovis blade has the proximal morphology, curvature and lengthneeded for hafted end scrapers, but also has a configuration that al-lows easy conversion into a burin, and at the same time it has longlateral edges and given its size could be gripped easily and used asa hand-held cutting tool or denticulate.


A second condition of relevance, in this case favouring the use ofground stone, is suggested by Hayden (1989, p. 14). He suggestsgrinding is used most often in situations where need for a particu-lar kind of working edge within a short period of time was ‘‘unusu-ally high.” In situations where, for example, one must process largeamounts of food or materials in relatively short periods of time, thedemands for working edges are such that they cannot be easily metwithout consuming large amounts of flaked stone material. Hay-den (1989, p. 15) believes raw material savings accounts for theuse of ground stone knives amongst historic Inuit groups whoneeded to process large amounts of sea mammals, fish and caribouin short periods of time. One could also extend this argument toearlier pre-contact Arctic groups. Take the pre-Thule Birnirk cul-ture of Alaska, for example, where flaked stone was reserved forweapon points whereas ground stone was used for processing toolssuch as knives (Ford, 1959).

While not denying Hayden’s (1989) argument that there wouldbe raw material savings through ground stone use, I would alsoadd that flaked stone tool edges dull very quickly versus groundstone items and the edges of flaked stone tools need to be con-stantly resharpened. Hence, one needs to spend considerable timerejuvenating and even rehafting the flaked stone tool componentsduring use episodes. In these cases, the extra time needed to ini-tially produce and resharpen ground stone tools is compensatedfor by their more extensive edge use-lives between resharpeningepisodes, a more infrequent need to rehaft the tools, and raw mate-rial savings. As I will consider more below, this argument could beused to imply that groups relying on flaked stone were not in-volved, at least in a relatively predictable manner, in the processingof large amounts of food and other materials in short periods oftime.

With such ideas in mind, I believe it is possible to put togetheran argument that can explain why the FPt and early ASTt lithicindustries are so similar and distinctive. Such an explanation re-quires a consideration of other aspects of the archaeological recordof these groups.

Settlement and subsistence

There is, of course, much debate about certain aspects of thearchaeological record of all the groups being considered here.However, it is possible to make some generalizations that I believedo not do a disservice to our knowledge. Of note here are severalaspects of settlement and to a lesser extent, subsistence, of thesegroups. I summarize these aspects, and for illustrative purposescompare them with subsequent Arctic groups, in Table 2.

First, most investigators clearly seem to view the lifeway of theFPt (e.g., Amick, 1996, p. 413; Anderson, 1995b, p. 151; Elston andZeanah, 2002; Kelly, 1996; Kelly and Todd, 1988; MacDonald,1998, p. 22) and early ASTt peoples (e.g., Fitzhugh, 1997, p. 391;Helmer, 1992, p. 302; McGhee, 1976, p. 210, 1978, p. 36, 85,1996, p. 65, 123,; Nagy, 2000, p. 145; Schledermann, 1978, p. 45;for a contrary view see Ramsden and Murray, 1995) as more resi-

Table 2Comparison of settlement and subsistence parameters

Fluted Point tradition Arctic Small Tool tradition

High residential mobility High residential mobilityLess reliance on food storage Less reliance on food storageLess reliance on logistical mobility Less reliance on logistical mobiPedestrian foragers (small watercraft?) Pedestrian foragers (small kaya

Low population densities Low population densitiesNarrow spectrum search and encounter mode

foragers?Narrow spectrum search and eforagers?

dentially mobile than later occupants of the same areas. For theArctic groups, one line of evidence to support such a position isthe relatively simple, more portable, generally circular housingstructures of most early ASTt peoples as compared with the laterelaborate, more deeply dug, often rectangular structures in manyareas characteristic of Dorset or Thule structures (e.g., Cox, 1978,p. 107; Dumond, 1987, pp. 90–91; Fitzhugh, 1997, p. 398; Maxwell,1985, pp. 153–157, 257, 283–289; McCartney, 1980, p. 537). More-over, in some cases Dorset and Thule peoples even built substantialcommunal structures (Damkjar, 2000; Savelle, 1987). In fact,although the severe Arctic climate strongly favours more stableresidences in the winter months amongst most groups (Binford,1990, p. 122), there are even suggestions, in the form of brieflyoccupied winter houses, that early ASTt groups in some areas prac-tised some degree of winter residential mobility (see Schleder-mann, 1990, pp. 50, 317–318, Schledermann, 1996, pp. 54–56).As a result, McGhee (1976, p. 210) classified the settlement pat-terns of the early ASTt as ‘‘temporary” in the scheme of Chang’s(1962) settlement typology as opposed to later Dorset or Thulegroups who were classed as ‘‘seasonally sedentary.” Thule sitesalso have more substantial midden deposits than the earlier ASTtsites (McGhee, 1996, p. 131), which is more consistent with less-ened Thule residential mobility. The presence of actual cemeteriesin Thule (McGhee, 1978, p. 97), not something seen in the earlyASTt, is another line of evidence suggesting a more sedentary lifeand certainly a more territorial one (see, for example, Rowley-Con-wy, 2001, p. 44; Pardoe, 1988).

The evidence to support a high residential mobility for the FPt isvery similar to that for the early ASTt. Most definitive structuresthat are known are small and not very substantial (e.g., Amick,1994, p. 25; Frison, 1982b, pp. 39–44; Hoffman, 1992, p. 198; Ir-win, 1971; Kornfeld, 2007, pp. 45–51; Stiger, 2006) especially com-pared for example to increasing evidence for more substantialhouses in later times such as the subsequent Archaic in easternNorth America (e.g., Anderson, 1995b, p. 157). Also, substantialmidden deposits and cemeteries only become widespread onpost-FPt Archaic sites (e.g., Charles and Buikstra, 1983; Ritchie,1940; Robinson, 1992).

Second, both the ASTt and FPt seem to have placed a relativelylow emphasis on the storage of food products. One suspects thisfactor accounts for the relative residential mobility of these groupssince storage is often not compatible with such mobility (e.g., Row-ley-Conwy and Zveilebil, 1989, p. 47). This inference seems quiteclear for the ASTt in comparison to the common, often massive,storage/caching and equipment facilities that can be found on laterArctic sites (e.g., McCartney, 1980, pp. 535–536; McGhee, 1978, p.35; Nagy, 2000, p. 145; Savelle, 2002, p. 81; Schledermann, 1996, p.56). To be sure, early ASTt peoples did store food products (see, forexample, McGhee, 1996, pp. 62–64). They would be stupid not tohave done so in the seasonal Arctic environments. Nonetheless, rel-ative to later groups, especially Thule, they apparently did not storeas much. As for the FPt, in areas such as the Plains where there isgood site preservation, there is little or no evidence of a high reli-

Subsequent Arctic groups

Less residential mobilityMore reliance on food storage

lity More reliance on logistical mobilityks and sleds) Efficient transportation aids (e.g., Thule umiak and

dogsled)Higher population densities

ncounter mode Narrow spectrum, more specialized, pursuit modeforagers?


ance on stored food products (e.g., Frison, 1974, p. 104; Kelly, 1996,p. 36; McCartney, 1990, p. 119; Todd, 1987, p. 251). Indeed, evi-dence from western kill and associated camp sites usually suggestgroups simply made the kill, then moved to it, ‘‘camped around themeat pile until it was depleted” (Frison, 1980, p. 76), and thenmoved on to the next kill—a direct contrast with later groupswho accumulated large amounts of bison meat for long-term stor-age through large kills early in the colder season (McCartney, 1990,p. 119).

Third, and consistent with the idea little reliance was made onstorage in general, there is also no definitive archaeological evi-dence that indicates these FPt and ASTt groups practised much inthe way of logistical mobility to procure food resources that in turncould be used to accumulate stored products at central base campsin the manner of historically known groups such as the Nunamuit(Binford, 1980). In contrast, the relative permanence of Thulehouses and thick midden deposits (e.g., McCartney, 1980, p. 536;Schledermann, 1975, pp. 84–95) strongly suggests use of logisticalmobility to accumulate goods at central winter camps, as does thepresence of ‘‘extensive field processing and caching sites” (Savelle,2002, p. 81). One can find references that claim that FPt groups re-lied on logistical mobility although they often minimize its impor-tance (e.g., Cable, 1996; Kelly and Todd, 1988, p. 239). Although Iam the first to admit that it is difficult to demonstrate the use oflogistical mobility in the archaeological record (e.g., Lieberman,1993, p. 608), these claims seem to be based more on expectationsderived from environmental data (e.g., location in more seasonalenvironments) rather than any clear demonstration of the fact.Or perhaps these claims are based on an assumption that becausePaleoindians practiced logistical mobility to procure stone (e.g.,Amick, 1996, p. 415; Spiess and Wilson, 1989), they must havedone so for food as well. In any case, it seems doubtful to me thatthese groups relied much on logistical mobility to procure food re-sources and this idea is based on another characteristic of these FPt(and ASTt) peoples.

Somewhat incongruently, most researchers regard FPt peoplesas largely ‘‘pedestrian foragers” (Amick, 1996, p. 411) who didnot possess elaborate transportation technologies. Such technolo-gies are essential if one is going to rely on the bulk transport offood resources to central base camps (Ellis, 1984, p. 386). In fact,Binford (1990, p. 138) cautions against a strictly environmentallydeterministic model for the use of logistical mobility amongstgroups in more sub-arctic/arctic areas, arguing that efficient trans-portation aids are just as important in such areas as resource avail-ability in explaining the use of logistical mobility (see also Ames,2002; Bettinger, 1991, p. 72). This does not mean that Paleoindianslacked transportation aids such as boats. In fact, I am convincedthey did (e.g., Ellis and Deller, 1990, p. 53). However, given the ter-restrial nature of their adaptations, in most areas, such as thePlains and Great Basin, it is doubtful if watercraft or simplehand-towed sleds would have been much use to transport largeramounts of game to central residential bases. As for the Arcticareas, it seems to be generally agreed that ASTt peoples had lessefficient and simpler transportation aids than later groups suchas Thule (Dumond, 1987, p. 97; Jensen, 1996, p. 75; Maxwell,1985, pp. 123, 249–250; McGhee, 1978, p. 85; McGhee, 1996, pp.145–147, Odess, 1996, p. 420). In particular, although they seemto have had small kayak-like boats or even small sleds, they donot seem to have had the large skin-covered umiaks of the laterThule people (which could carry 20 or more people and lots ofequipment and which were even used in open sea hunting of largergame such as whales) nor do they seem to have used the dogsled(see Maxwell, 1985, pp. 152–153; McGhee, 1978, p. 89; McGhee,1996, p. 195).

Fourth, another characteristic of both the FPt (e.g., Amick, 1996,p. 423; Hoffman, 1994, p. 344; Kelly and Todd, 1988) and ASTt (e.g.,

Maxwell, 1985, p. 62; McGhee, 1996, p. 123; Schledermann, 1996,p. 68) is that overall population densities are believed to have beenquite low in comparison to later groups. McGhee (1996, p. 123) hassuggested that the ASTt populations may have been at levels onlyone-fifth of the Inuit populations known in the historic period andone presumes the historic estimates may be a good analogue or atthe very least, underestimate earlier Thule populations (seeMcGhee, 1976, p. 208). In the FPt, estimates of low population den-sities are based to some extent on the extreme paucity of diagnos-tic artifacts and sites in comparison to immediately subsequentoccupants of the same areas with comparable, if not shorter, over-all periods of occupation (e.g., Anderson, 1996, p. 43; Ellis et al.,2008; Seeman, 1994, p. 274). It is also based on the fact raw mate-rial exploitation patterns suggest local groups were exploiting verylarge areas compared to the record we have of historic foragers butare expected to have had local groups of a comparable size (Ellis,1993, p. 600).

A final aspect deserving some discussion is subsistence pat-terns. It is clear all Arctic peoples used a mix of terrestrial and mar-ine resources (e.g., Fitzhugh, 1997, p. 393; Taylor, 1966), but theidea is just as clearly present that early ASTt peoples had a differentsubsistence pattern than that of later groups and certainly of Dor-set and early or ‘‘Classic” Thule (McGhee, 1984, p. 369; Murray,1996, pp. 123–124; Nagy, 2000). In the ASTt, although in someareas one can find sea mammals such as seals as the major choice(e.g., Murray, 1996; Ramsden and Murray, 1995, p. 106), in otherareas faunal assemblages are dominated by land mammals suchas caribou or muskoxen (e.g., Anderson, 1984, p. 85; Darwent,2001a; Knuth, 1967), or even, and generally in the interior, by amix of smaller game such as arctic fox, ducks and geese (e.g., Dar-went, 2001a; Milne, 2003; Schledermann, 1978, p. 49). In sum, adiversity of resources seem to have been used depending uponavailability in particular areas and available technology – an‘‘adaptive flexibility” reigned (Bielawski, 1988, p. 53; Darwent,2001b; Pilon, 1994, p. 59). It is often argued that early ASTt peopleswere more ‘‘terrestrially-oriented” in their subsistence than latergroups who were more specialized on marine resources such asseals or whales (e.g., Darwent, 2001b; Fitzhugh, 1976, p. 141; Fitz-hugh, 1997, pp. 391, 396–397; Helmer, 1992, p. 310; Maxwell,1985, p. 110, 122; McGhee, 1982, pp. 72–73, McGhee, 1996, p.117; Murray, 1996; Nagy, 2000, p. 145). For example, unlike laterThule groups, who are often pictured as specialized whalers, thereseems to be little use of these larger marine mammals or otherssuch as walrus and this absence is usually attributed to technolog-ical limitations: the lack of equipment such as large boats, floats,etc. that would allow hunting on the open sea (Fitzhugh, 1997,pp. 396–397; McGhee, 1982, p. 66; McGhee, 1984, p. 371). More-over, the earliest ASTt people in comparison to later groups suchas Dorset and Thule do not seem to have used toggling harpoons,which would be more efficient in hunting seals and other marinemammals (Fitzhugh, 1997, p. 398; Maxwell, 1993, pp. 217–218).Settlement studies also support this idea. For example, on thenorthern Labrador coast Cox (1978, p. 102) found that in contrastto later Dorset and Inuit groups who used the area ASTt peoplesmade little use of outer islands with their rich harp seal popula-tions. Even in the High Arctic Helmer (1992, pp. 308–310) foundthat in contrast to later Thule peoples in the area early ASTt peo-ples did not position their camps in the areas with maximum ac-cess to available marine resources. He suggests one possibleexplanation for this positioning was that they were ‘‘broad spec-trum foragers who took advantage. . . of all available resourcezones” (see also Bielawski, 1982, p. 40). Relying just on environ-mental circumstances, I believe most outsiders view Arctic peoplesas a whole as specialists or certainly marine-oriented or game-ori-ented, and larger game-oriented at that. Therefore, these argu-ments for a broader spectrum approach to resource procurement


in the early ASTt are very surprising to anyone who does not workin that area (see also Murray, 1996, p. 123).

The subsistence practices of Paleoindians are much more de-bated with a whole spectrum of arguments. These range fromthe traditional view that these groups were more specialized‘‘focal” hunters of large game, including extinct forms of Pleisto-cene megafauna (e.g., Bonnichsen et al., 1987; Cleland, 1966; Ma-son, 1962; Waguespack and Surovell, 2003, etc.), to those whotend to view Paleoindians as ‘‘generalists” who followed a moreopportunistic mode of resource capture in which any acceptablefood item encountered is taken (e.g., Dincauze, 1993; Meltzer,1993; Walker and Driskell, 2007). As will be discussed more below,I am inclined to believe the truth is somewhere between these twoextremes. The lack of evidence for a large reliance on food storageand for an extensive transport capability, and the evidence of highresidential mobility, all of which I think are generally incompatiblewith a very ‘‘focal” economy, suggests in this sense that they werenot specialists. Moreover, it is clear based on environmental dataalone in some areas, such as the Great Basin, that ‘‘specializedbig-game hunting” was ‘‘ecologically untenable” (Elston and Zea-nah, 2002, p. 117). I also react negatively to the very extreme viewsof Paleoindians as groups who ate large game and literally nothingelse (e.g., Hemmings, 1970). On the other hand, groups at low pop-ulation densities, as Paleoindians surely were, tend to rely more onlarger game (e.g., Keeley, 1988) suggesting they could have beenmore than simple generalists.

Table 2 summarizes the major points of most of the previousdiscussion with FPt and early ASTt peoples suggested to be verysimilar to one another and to contrast with subsequent groupsin aspects of settlement and subsistence. Many investigatorshave dichotomized hunter–gatherers into two polar opposites.It is clear that the differences listed on Table 2 between thegroups of interest here and their descendants/successors matchin a general sense the ‘‘generalists” as opposed to ‘‘specialists”of Johnson (1991, Table 1), or the ‘‘travellers” as opposed to‘‘processors” of Bettinger and Baumhoff (1982). They evenresemble the much maligned dichotomy of ‘‘foragers” versus‘‘collectors” of Binford (1980). Writers such as McCartney andHelmer (1989), Murray (1999), Nagy (2000) and Darwent(2001a, p. 150) have also related early ASTt, specifically Pre-Dor-set, to a ‘‘forager” pattern or the comparable ‘‘travellers” of Bett-inger and Baumhoff (1982). These can be contrasted with laterArctic Dorset and Thule groups who exhibited low residential

Fig. 1. Relationship between prey spectrum and predation

mobility, relied more heavily on food storage, focussed on cer-tain larger game like whales, etc. and are often characterizedas ‘‘collectors” (e.g., Nagy, 2000; Savelle, 1987, 2002). Note thatit is people’s use of Binford’s (1980) forager-collector ideas thathave been maligned (e.g., Bettinger, 1991, p. 73), not the basicideas themselves. One reason people’s uses of the model havebeen questioned is, of course, that they have tended to forcehunter–gatherers as a whole into two classes when in fact theremay be other kinds of hunter–gatherers who do not easily fitinto one category or the other and may fit somewhere in be-tween. This possibility has been recognized for some time (seeBinford, 1980; Weissner, 1982, pp. 174–175) and notably thepossibility has been raised that Paleoindians differed from theseextremes (e.g., Chatters, 1987; Kelly and Todd, 1988).

Chatters (1987, pp. 350–351), for example, theoretically ar-ranges on a continuum how a group searches out prey (predationmode). At one end of this continuum is a ‘‘pursuit mode” wherespecific prey items are sought out and others largely ignored andat the other end is a ‘‘search or encounter mode” where one goesout and takes whatever shows up. He argues that the latter ex-treme would produce a faunal assemblage with relative taxonomicevenness (Fig. 1). Cross-cutting predation mode is what Chatters(1987) calls ‘‘prey spectrum” or just how many different speciesare taken (Fig. 1). In the Arctic of course this prey spectrum is verylimited by low species richness or availability. Given this fact wecould group all Arctic hunter–gatherers as ‘‘narrow spectrum” interms of prey spectrum but might expect them to range from pur-suit mode (less even) to search (more even) mode groups in termsof predation mode (Fig. 1). In fact, we can see Thule groups and theearly ASTt as representatives of these extremes but still, both arerelatively specialized and actually do not seem to be the widerspectrum generalists as ‘‘foragers” in Binford’s (1980) terms are of-ten portrayed.

The question is, under what conditions would one employeither of these two ‘‘narrow spectrum” alternatives discussed byChatters (1987)? The notion of a narrow spectrum pursuit mode,which implies a very selective, focussed approach to prey choice,or of narrow spectrum search mode, which implies a selectivebut somewhat more opportunistic approach to prey choice, is mir-rored in Fisher’s (2002) attempt to extend and apply the foragingmodel of Schmidt (1998) to understanding the Upper Paleolithicto Mesolithic transition in southwest Germany. In Fisher’s words(2002, p. 163), this model helps to understand:

mode amongst hunter-gatherers (after Chatters, 1987).


the conditions under which foragers might increase foragingefficiency by targeting search effort toward lower ranked butstable, reliable and abundant resources and taking higherranked game opportunistically.

Schmidt’s (1998) work represents an attempt to overcome alimitation of the classic diet breadth model, a limitation especiallyapplicable to human foragers. While the diet breadth model as-sumes a forager uses a single search pattern to find prey, humansactually use a range of search tactics to increase chances ofencounters with various kinds of prey by targeting specific areasor locations—they use a ‘‘directed search.” Hence a distinction ismade between a ‘‘preferred or high-ranked prey” and the ‘‘focalor target prey of a foraging trip” (Fisher, 2002, p. 166). Subject tohaving the requisite integrative social mechanisms and requisitetechnology including transportation aids, where there is a highdensity/abundance of a high-ranked prey, such as large game ani-mals, that preferred prey will become the focus of a foraging trip orthe focal prey. However, there can be other potential prey that arenot as highly ranked, such as small game or birds, and yet, they canbe the focal or target prey of a forager in a given trip.

This latter strategy could be used under several different condi-tions. Most obviously, as the density/abundance of a high-rankedprey like large game declines, and the density of the lower-rankedprey like birds and small animals increases (or where one can se-lect certain areas to search with the knowledge that there will behigh densities of the lower-ranked prey, thus increasing thechances of encountering it), it is theoretically possible to actuallyincrease one’s returns or get a greater overall return by switchingone’s prey emphasis. One does so by making the lower rankedbut denser/more abundant prey in an area, such as the small gameand birds, the focus of one’s foraging trips and yet, at the sametime, one continues to opportunistically taking the higher-rankedprey such as large game as they happen to be encountered. Ofcourse, one can dispute the specifics of Fisher’s (2002) interpreta-tion but it is argued that during the Pleistocene to Holocene tran-sition in southwest Germany larger game animals are alwaysdominant or common in faunal assemblages, suggesting they re-mained a major target of hunters throughout the transition andimplying overall a more uneven predation mode in Chatter’s(1987) terms. However, over time smaller game and fish came tobe more important in those faunal assemblages, implying these re-sources were increasingly the targeted prey and that overall a rel-atively more even predation mode in Chatter’s (1987) termsbecame the norm.

Changing prey density is certainly a factor one would expect togovern subsistence choice, and is interpreted as a relevant factor inthe German example. In fact, as stressed by Waguespack andSurovell (2003, p. 337), even in the short term fluctuations in high-er or lower-ranked prey density can shift and favour subsistencechanges. However, in my view an alternative condition favouringa focus in a given situation on the more abundant and smaller preyand the taking of larger game more opportunistically, would be in acase where the requisite transportation aids and technologies arelacking such that a group could not make the larger game the focalprey on a very regular basis. I would suggest this condition is espe-cially relevant in explaining the differences between the early ASTtstrategies and later Arctic groups, especially Thule peoples. Thulepeoples had much more sophisticated transportation aids andhunting equipment and their sites seem to indicate a targeted fo-cus on larger animals, particularly whales. However, early ASTthad much less efficient transportation aids, less sophisticatedhunting weapons, and sites indicate a somewhat more balanced re-source use.

Some ASTt sites seem to fit very well with the expectations orpredictions of targeting lower-ranked resources while opportunis-

tically taking larger game. A classic example is the Mosquito Ridgesite in the interior of Baffin Island occupied by ASTt peoples in thelate spring to summer (Milne and Donnelly, 2004). Caribou cer-tainly occur in these interior areas, and in some numbers as theseare calving grounds. Faunal analyses indicate caribou were cer-tainly taken at Mosquito Ridge, but in that area they are often dis-persed or harder to find at certain times of the year as they try toavoid insect pests. The fauna at the site is actually dominated bysnow geese, which are very abundant and reliable resource andare easily taken, especially when they begin to moult. In short, inthis case the inhabitants were targeting snow geese and moreopportunistically cropping higher-ranked larger game, a strategythat one presumes is more efficient than taking/pursuing the largergame alone at that time. However, this would not prevent the samegroups from pursuing larger game like caribou or making that spe-cies the preferred or focal prey at other times. It is just that, in theabsence of efficient transportation aids, they could not do so as of-ten. Nor could they take and use the game in as large amounts perprocurement episode and accumulate such as stored food productsat central bases. The result is that even if they were targeting largegame in a given trip or a given season they would have to movefrom kill to kill in the short term.

Turning to FPt peoples, it is notable Chatters (1987, p. 351) sug-gests they may have employed a narrow spectrum search, ratherthan pursuit, mode:

Given. . . a strategy of frequent residential mobility, they (Paleo-indians) may have been search-oriented specialists who simplycropped high-ranked prey as encountered until the encounterfrequencies became too low. Then they moved elsewhere beforeaccepting many lower-ranked prey.

Subsequently, similar ideas were promulgated by Kelly andTodd (1988). They saw Paleoindians as living in unpredictableenvironments, due partially to the unstable nature of Late Pleisto-cene environments and partially due to the fact FPt peoples werecolonizing relatively rapidly areas that were not well known. Asa result of this unpredictability, especially with regard to largegame, if Paleoindians attempted to rely heavily on food storagethey:

may have found (themselves) in an essentially barren resourcearea with little time to locate alternate food resources whenstored supplies ran out. . . Paleoindians probably could havepredicted that game would be available. . . somewhere in theregion (but) they may have not been sure where it was orhow long it would take to locate it. . . Rather than putting uplong-term stores after a kill, the most secure tactic would havebeen to begin an almost immediate search for new resources(Kelly and Todd, 1988, p. 238).

This suggested Paleoindian strategy is much the same as arguedabove for early ASTt peoples. Kelly and Todd’s (1988) ideas differmainly in that the need for this strategy is related to the unpredict-ability of environments. I have suggested that an equally importantor more important variable is a lack of efficient transportation aidsthat would limit how easily they could locate, and how much theycould focus on, large game and how much they could rely on logis-tical mobility to accumulate food stores at central bases. Elsewherethough, and while stressing seasonal environmental constraints ontravel, Todd (1987, p. 259) does note that locating a more mobileresource like larger game ‘‘may be more difficult” when ‘‘humanmobility may be restricted.” A lack of efficient transportation aidswould certainly also restrict mobility. Chatters (1987, p. 351) andKelly and Todd (1988, p. 182) both suggest that when an areawas hunted out or ‘‘encounter frequencies became too low” thatPaleoindians abandoned areas and moved on to new ones, thus

Fig. 2. Subsistence and technological strategies of colonizing populations expectedin cases with efficient transportation aids.


accounting for a rapid spread of colonizing populations. However,such as view does not seem realistic because, as Meltzer (2004, p.135) argues, the evidence seems to indicate that rather than rap-idly shifting areas, most places already occupied by Paleoindianscontinued to remain filled with people and their numbers in-creased over time. Also, and in agreement with MacDonald(2004, p. 175), I believe demographic factors mean ‘‘transientexploring” in moving into new areas is ‘‘not an optimal settlementpattern” (see below).

While one might disagree with some specific aspects of themodels of Chatters (1987) and Kelly and Todd (1988) as they ap-ply to Paleoindians, the idea they were narrow spectrum hunter–gatherers is consistent with, as noted above, ethnographic datathat strongly support the idea that groups at low populationdensities, and Paleoindians certainly fit that mold, do focus moreon larger game (e.g., Keeley, 1988; Waguespack and Surovell,2003, p. 344). In turn, this would allow one to limit more overallresource choice. Of course, groups at low population densitiesalso can be a bit more selective or use more limited overallrange of resources or be more ‘‘narrow spectrum” hunter–gath-erers than groups at higher densities as they need not take verylow-ranked prey. Also, I work with FPt assemblages in the GreatLakes/Northeast where the sub-arctic like conditions of the latePleistocene alone would tend to limit overall resource choices.So even though we have increasing evidence from some Paleoin-dian sites for the intensive use of smaller game and birds (e.g.,Kornfeld, 2007; Walker, 2007), just as we do for the ASTt atMosquito Ridge, it could very well be that large game was stilla major contributor to the diet compared to many other groupsand that it was often not just the high-ranked prey but the tar-geted prey as well. At the same time however, the idea FPt andearly ASTt peoples were also often search-oriented and opportu-nistic is consistent with the evidence for a high residentialmobility and a lack of heavy reliance on food storage (Kellyand Todd, 1988) and, as discussed above for the ASTt, more com-patible with a lack of efficient transportation aids or the pre-dominant view of Paleoindians as pedestrian foragers. The ideaseems reasonable that Paleoindians in Chatters’ (1987) termswere often search-oriented and flexible yet relatively specializedand not true generalists in that larger game continued to playan important role. Or, phrased in Fisher’s (2002) terms, it is rea-sonable that Paleoindians did rely heavily on larger game butstill more often focussed on other abundant resources and atthose times only opportunistically took highly ranked large game(see also Hill, 2007, pp. 430–431). Of primary importance, thisinterpretation provides a good way to link FPt and ASTt lithicassemblages.

Fig. 3. Subsistence and technological strategies of colonizing populations expectedin cases with minimal transportation aids.

Discussion

As hinted above, I suggest that the critical and most basic factorunderlying the similarities between the FPt and early ASTt is trans-portation aids (compare Figs. 2 and 3). These aids are of immenseimportance in understanding settlement and subsistence variationamongst any hunter–gatherer group (e.g., Binford, 1990) but theygain added significance in understanding colonizing situations(Anthony, 1990, p. 896, 901). While groups at low population den-sities may tend to rely more on large game and are all ‘‘specialists”in that sense, the degree to which they can rely on such game isultimately dependent on the efficiency of those aids. With efficienttransportation aids one can more easily search out more unpre-dictable and mobile resources and there can be a heavy relianceon logistical mobility to transport resources to central encamp-ments. These factors will increase the opportunities to take suchlarger game regularly and in quantity (Fig. 2). In turn, their pres-

ence allows one to rely heavily on stored food products or to antic-ipate being able to do so on a regular basis.

None of these factors held for the more terrestrially-orientedASTt peoples and given what we know about their mobility pat-terns, FPt peoples. Hence, there was a great need for more subsis-tence flexibility amongst these groups and a very specialized focus


on large game was probably not as realistic or regular a subsistencepursuit. However, as discussed, ethnographic data certainly sug-gest large game is more important amongst low density popula-tions. As a result, Paleoindians and Paleoeskimos probably didrely more on such a resource than many other groups so they mostcertainly could not be generalists in this sense. Indeed, as the wes-tern Plains Paleoindian record amply demonstrates, one cannotdeny that these FPt groups certainly did target larger game (e.g.,it was the focal and preferred prey), generally in the colder seasons(see Frison, 1991, pp. 155–186; Todd, 1987). Ultimately, however,the degree to which they could rely on such game was limited bythe available transportation aids and I have suggested they oftenrelied more on search and encounter strategies focussing on anyabundant resource they encountered, which, of course, could haveincluded on occasion, perhaps on more occasions than not, largergame (Fig. 3). In colonizing situations, where local resources maynot be as well known and where one cannot rapidly search out re-sources due to minimal transportation aids, flexibility is even morecritical.

These contrasts can be used to account for the characteristics ofthe lithic technologies of the FPt/earlyASTt (Figs. 2 and 3). Tool pro-duction activities, and the need for rapidity in carrying them out ona day to day basis, can vary depending upon the subsistence prac-tices of the particular groups of concern. Amongst ethnographicgroups there are various kinds of resource specialists who activelypursue certain kinds of game that are often taken in quantity inshort periods of time—groups such as the Nunamuit, the classic‘‘collectors,” who took most of their caribou in short well-definedperiods and lived off these stored products for extended periodsbeyond the time of the resource’s direct availability (Binford,1979, p. 256). In these cases, restrictions on time to produce toolsoccur in clear, well-defined periods when the critical resources arebeing actively pursued. It follows therefore, that the carrying out ofstone tool production itself and their use in maintenance tasks(which most stone tools are used for) can easily be scheduled intotimes when food resource procurement and processing was unim-portant (Fig. 2). Of course, this is exactly what occurs amongstmany historically known groups where they are often referred toas ‘‘gearing-up” activities (see Kuhn, 1989, pp. 35–36). Moreover,because they have time to prepare well in advance as they are tar-geting certain resources, flexibility in tool production is notneeded. These are what I like to call ‘‘anticipatory” technologies,which are allowable where one can easily predict future tooldemands.

In contrast, groups who rely more on ‘‘search and encounterstrategies” rarely rely heavily on stored food products and mustmaximize encounter potential on a more day to day basis. In thesesituations, it is much more difficult to schedule maintenance tasksand they must be fit in when needed and equipment must bemaintained constantly. They must be more of a ‘‘maintainable”technology in Bleed’s (1986, p. 739) terms in the sense they can‘‘easily be brought to a functional state.” In this case, the rapiditywith which tools can be made and produced becomes more criticalon a day to day basis. Moreover, in the search and encounter mode,it is more difficult to predict exact tool needs and therefore, flexi-bility to produce items in a short period of time to meet relativelyunpredictable tool needs would be favoured (Fig. 3). Overall, theywould need ‘‘responsive” rather than ‘‘anticipatory” technologies.

These kinds of demands can begin to explain the contrasts be-tween the lithic technologies of FPt/earlyASTt peoples and thoseof subsequent groups. As discussed earlier, the fine-grained mate-rials used by the FPt and ASTt can provide a better basis for produc-ing tools quickly. At the same time it allows for a more flexibletechnology, whether that flexibility is achieved by recycling or bytransporting to locations of tool use blanks and preforms, each ofwhich can be made into different tool forms with a wide range

of refined working edge shapes that allow a more rapid completionof tasks. Moreover, these same materials also allow production tofine tolerances meaning they can be easily hafted. In this contextit is worth noting that it is only through stone tools that one cansignificantly decrease the time investment needed to produceand maintain the overall tool kit. Stone tools are basic to manufac-turing virtually every other item of material culture. In a very realsense, it is difficult to speed up the production of items on bone,ivory or antler where time constraints are a problem but compar-atively easy to do so in terms of the kinds of stone tools producedsuch as hafted forms and how they are produced such as flakedversus ground stone. In turn, being able to make hafted toolsquickly and because of the nature of the raw material, to rapidlymake the items to finer tolerances so they can fit hafts, also speedsup tool use activities. The hafted tools themselves allow not onlyfor more precise application and less physical strain but also fora more rapid completion of tasks (Morrow, 1996, p. 587; Semenov,1964; Tomka, 2001). In fact, the suggestions that FPt and early ASTtpeoples both made very diverse tool kits in general, although cer-tainly not demonstrated as well as one would like, also suggeststhey were more special purpose. A major advantage of special pur-pose tools is that they allow tasks to be carried out more rapidly(Torrence, 1983, p. 13; Torrence, 1989, p. 61). The flexibility to pro-duce tools of diverse forms quickly and on the spot also is some-thing that cannot be done quickly in ground stone or even byusing organic materials like bone or antler. Therefore, it is throughthe use of the fine-grained materials that the most rapid and flex-ible response to tool needs can be obtained. In short, the flakedstone tool kits of the FPt/ASTt are more responsive than the antic-ipatory ground stone tool kits produced by later Arctic and Archaicpeoples. Indeed, given that tools on flaked stone were apparentlyused in tasks for which some ground stone tools would be moreefficient in terms of work effort, I believe one has to conclude thatrapidity of production and a flexible response were maximized atthe expense of those other concerns.

Recall also, as argued earlier, that ground stone tools really onlybecome advantageous when there is a need to intensively processresources within a short period of time and given the time it takesto produce such items, they certainly do not represent a flexibletechnology. Subsequent groups with a more specialized resourcefocus would fit this characterization. For example, colonizing Thulegroups are often pictured as specialized whale hunters and theintensive processing required in this subsistence pursuit is consis-tent with their dominant ground stone technology. Therefore, onemight also make the argument that the lack or rarity of groundstone tools in FPt and early ASTt assemblages is a product of thefact that relative to later groups these peoples were simply notprocessing huge quantities of food or other resources in a limitedtime frame or at least, not in any easily predictable manner. Ofcourse, Tomka (2001, p. 221) has argued that hafted tools are usedmainly in situations involving ‘‘greater intensity of processingrequirements associated with hunted resources,” especially itemssuch as bifaces used in butchering and end scrapers used in pro-cessing large game products like hides. On this basis, one could ar-gue that the emphasis on hafted stone tools in these groups meansthat there was more of a reliance on large game that needed to berapidly and intensively processed. However, I would suggest thatintensive game processing does not represent the whole explana-tory story with regards to the FPt and early ASTt. Many of the haf-ted stone tools employed by these groups were simply not useddirectly in the intensive processing of the products of large game.Hafted tools such as burins, perforators, drills, concave side scrap-ers and so on were used to produce various kinds of other equip-ment and not in butchering or hide processing. Accepting thathafted tools do allow one to do work more rapidly and more effi-ciently, this reinforces the idea noted above that the proximate

Table 3Relationships between transportation aids and lithic technology amongst Narrow Spectrum colonizing hunter–gatherers

Narrow spectrum search and encounter mode strategy Narrow spectrum pursuit mode strategy (specialist)

Simple transportation aids High technology, flaked stone strategy (early ASTt and FPt) ImpossibleComplex transportation aids Low technology, flaked stone strategy High technology, ground stone strategy (Thule?)


cause is a need for doing every task very efficiently in terms of timeand effort amongst FPt/earlyASTt peoples.

From the perspective of overall resource procurement strate-gies involving more emphasis on search and encounter methods,therefore, the time available to carry out tasks, and at the sametime, a need for flexibility, could be seen as predisposing FPt andearly ASTt towards the lithic industrial practices documented forthose groups. Such constraints would be even more pronouncedamongst residentially mobile groups in temperate and colderareas where these groups occurred, as opposed to mid-latitudegroups (e.g., Kuhn, 1989, p. 35). In colonizing new areas, how-ever, there are even other factors that especially would favourvery efficient, in terms of time and/or flexibility potential, lithicproduction. While certain groups may be predisposed towardsflexible technologies because of subsistence demands and theinterrelated limited transportation aids, it is really this coloniz-ing factor that I believe tips the balance towards, or demands,that stone technology. Indeed, I would suggest in the ASTt casethat the increasing use of less flexible and rapidly producedtechnologies including ground stone in the later ASTt Dorset,perhaps despite continuing limited transportation aids, is evi-dence for the importance of a colonizing situation in under-standing the earlier ASTt lithic production.

Colonizing populations may not have known environments orbeen able to predict longer term trends in resource abundanceand this factor would emphasize the need for a flexible and respon-sive technology, especially in situations lacking transportationaids. If one has those aids one can easily cover up for mistakesabout where to look for preferred and focal prey by more rapidlyand easily searching out that prey in other areas. Moreover, thesecan even allow for, as in the post-ASTt Thule, the bulk transportand redistribution of stored foodstuffs to populations in otherareas experiencing subsistence stress, something that is not easyfor most hunter–gatherers (Hayden, 1982, p. 113). If one doesnot have such efficient transportation aids as in the FPt and ASTt,one needs to fall back on other resources and needs a flexible rap-idly produced technology to meet these more unpredictable de-mands. However, of even more importance is the increasingtheoretical and ethnographic evidence that a major problem facedby colonizing populations is not just finding resources but dealingwith the demographic problem—that is, how do individuals findmates of the right age and sex to maintain a viable population(see especially, MacDonald, 1998, 2004; Mandryk, 1993; Wobst,1976).

If this demographic problem is exacerbated in normal low pop-ulation density situations, it must be extremely critical in coloniz-ing situations where one does not have neighbours on all sides.This assumption is, I believe, about the only sure assumption onecan make in colonizing situations. Hence, I am in essential agree-ment with researchers such as Anderson (1995a, p. 13, 1996, p.44), MacDonald (1998, pp. 227–230) and Meltzer (2004, pp. 126–134) that a problem equal to the problem of ‘‘what to eat,” and per-haps even more central, is ‘‘who to meet.” It is becoming increas-ingly clear that as populations get smaller and more dispersedindividuals must spend more time in travelling to find mates ofthe right age and sex and these costs can become very prohibitive(Mandryk, 1993; MacDonald, 1998). In these situations, therefore,time-management can become even more critical (Fig. 3). The

presence of complex transportation aids can buffer the effects ofthe demographic problem. With efficient large watercraft, dogsledsand so on, visiting to find mates and to maintain social networkswould have been comparatively easy (Fig. 2). In the absence ofsuch aids, as amongst the ASTt and FPt, time would be in short sup-ply and again this would favour the kind of rapidly produced andflexible lithic technologies used by Paleoindians and Paleoeskimos(Fig. 3).

To summarize, given the view of the groups considered hereas ‘‘Narrow Spectrum” hunter–gatherers, it is suggested that amajor factor explaining their lithic technological choices, partic-ularly in colonizing situations, is the nature of their transporta-tion aids. In turn this affects whether or not a group practicesprimarily a search and encounter or pursuit predation modestrategy and certain kinds of lithic technologies seem more idealgiven a particular combination of certain predation modes andtransportation aids. Based on such considerations, Table 3 pro-vides a more general summary model. The complex flaked stonetechnology of the FPt/ASTt is a high technology solution fa-voured in situations where transportation aids are limited. Ifcomplex and efficient transportation aids are available the needfor such a portable and flexible tool kit may be obviated and itmay be possible for even colonizing populations to be resourcespecialists and to employ somewhat different lithic technologiesincluding ground stone ones. I would suggest the post-ASTtThule migration with a focus on resources such as whales is apotential example (Table 3). One can also imaginatively envisagea situation where groups had complex transportation aids buthad more search and encounter predation modes and as such,might be able to move relatively rapidly into new areas withsimpler procurement and processing technologies (Table 3)—per-haps even simple flaked stone ones on coarser-grained rocks—although I suspect this situation is not as viable a colonizationmode. There is another possibility where one is a narrow spec-trum pursuit specialist and has only simple transportation aids(Table 3). However, this is clearly a case where I believe the sur-vival potential of such groups would be very low.

Summary and conclusions

I have carried out detailed comparisons of two colonizing pop-ulations, the fluted point-producing groups south of the Late Pleis-tocene ice sheets and the early Arctic Small Tool tradition with theparticular aim of understanding how their lithic technologies mayhave facilitated, or have been related to, movement into new areasand more generally, their settlement and subsistence practices. TheFPt/early ASTt record suggests that these groups relied heavily onresidential mobility to obtain resources, relied less on logisticalmobility and food storage and probably had much less efficienttransportation aids even if only by virtue of the fact that they weremore reliant on terrestrial resources and the greater difficulties intravelling overland. While their low population densities suggestthey probably relied more on larger game, and overall, a narrowerrange of resources than many ethnographically known groups athigher population densities, the lack of efficient transportation aidswould ultimately limit their ability to focus on larger game, placinggreater relative emphasis on subsistence flexibility. Also, and thisfactor cannot be overstressed, in colonizing situations simple


transportation aids would exacerbate the time needed to maintainmating networks, to search out other resources in times of subsis-tence shortfalls, and to explore new areas.

The lithic technologies employed by the groups considered hereare exactly the kinds of technologies we would expect to be moreuseful under a certain inferred combination of colonization re-straints and subsistence strategies. While it may ultimately be pos-sible to produce a wide range of working edges in mediums such asground stone, that kind of technology is an anticipatory one andnot one that is produced quickly and so in this sense is not flexibleor cannot be as easily produced to meet unexpected demands inthe short term. The main advantage of ground stone tools is thatthey can hold an edge longer and be resharpened much moreintensively. These characteristics are advantageous, or do not de-tract from procurement and processing activities, where one canpredict in advance that there will be a need for intensive use inwell-defined periods with considerable amounts of time to preparefor those periods in advance. Such intensive processing episodesare characteristic of resource specialists.

In contrast, the diverse, often hafted, fine-grained, chippedstone tool kits produced by the early ASTt and FPt are ones thatcan be produced quickly on demand to meet a wide range of needsand are most advantageous in situations where more time must bedevoted to subsistence activities on a day to day basis (e.g., searchand encounter) and where tool kit demands are less predictableand must be more responsive. These sorts of demands are lesslikely to have been characteristic of true full-fledged resource spe-cialists and such a view is consistent with the settlement and sub-sistence data we have for the early ASTt and, despite the fact it ismuch more poorly known, what little we know of the FPt. I havealso argued that the ability to produce equipment quickly wouldbe especially critical in colonizing situations where transportationaids are limited, given the extra time needed to maintain matingnetworks, deal with a lack of long-term knowledge of resource dis-tributions and to explore and exploit uncharted areas. In fact, thatthe colonizing situation itself is an important variable in favouringa need for a flexible, rapidly produced technology is suggested bythe fact ASTt technologies change over time such that, despitethe apparent use of comparable limited transportation aids by laterDorset times, there is an increasing reliance on ground stone andon selecting other kinds of toolstones more functionally suitedfor certain tasks. In sum, as the area becomes better known, aspopulations increase filling up the landscape and reducing matingtravel costs, technologies begin to shift away from the all-pervad-ing emphasis on flexibility.

These conclusions have important implications as to preciselyhow FPt and early ASTt peoples were able to colonize new areas.I would expect that their means of moving into most new areaswas more one of efficient exploration of immediately adjacent re-gions (made more difficult because of less efficient transport aidsand hence another major constraint on time) and subsequently amore gradual splitting off of daughter populations into adjacentareas—the ‘‘estate settler” model of Beaton (1991, pp. 222–224)as opposed to the ‘‘transient explorer model.” There may be someexceptions amongst FPt peoples. With even simple watercraft, itmay have been possible to populate relatively rapidly certain areasof the mid-continent such as the Mississippi River valley and itsmajor tributaries and perhaps in more of a ‘‘leap-frog” manneralthough I hesitate to call this a ‘‘transient explorer” model. Inany case, the density and various concentrations of fluted pointsin those areas would be consistent with more of a ‘‘leap-frog” pat-tern (e.g., Anderson, 1990, 1995b). Nonetheless, in most areas,where substantial overland travel was required, I expect the ‘‘es-tate settler” model is a much more realistic model of FPt settle-ment. In fact, this pattern is the one we seem to see in thesouthern Great Lakes area amongst FPt peoples. In that case, and

based on changes in raw material preferences over time, the avail-able information indicate a gradual expansion of ranges into thearea prior to major resident shifts into those areas on a more per-manent basis (Ellis and Deller, 1997; Simons, 1997). These move-ments also occur in directions that are not consistent withpossible water transportation route directions. I expect much ofthe Plains/Southwest might have been peopled in a similarmanner.

I am not convinced that the factors discussed above are the onlyones involved or that the resulting scenario is anywhere near cor-rect. Moreover, my thought processes have largely been inductive.I have started with the lithic ‘‘tail” and let it wag the Paleoindianand early Paleoeskimo ‘‘dog” in an attempt to rationalize out a po-tential explanation. As discussed, I do think that the model fitsmuch better with the lithic data than some alternatives and ofcourse, it has the advantage that it explains why certain kinds oflithic assemblages such as those of the ASTt and FPt are similarand why they differ from later assemblages, including some colo-nizing populations like Thule. However, as Meltzer (2004, pp.134–137) has astutely observed in considering other models ofhow Paleoindians colonized new areas, just because a model canaccount for certain observations, this outcome is no adequatearchaeological test. Ultimately therefore, all the existing explana-tory models, including the ones proposed here, are unsatisfying.However, to state the very obvious, I am convinced that we needto continue making such comparisons and to constantly challengeour ideas about lithic assemblages and theories as to how these re-late to settlement and other aspects of hunter–gatherer life.

Acknowledgements

I extend profound thanks to: David Anderson and Stuart Fiedelfor providing copies of some articles and to Brian Hayden, RobertMcGhee, David Meltzer, Brooke Milne, Robert Park and especiallyLisa Hodgetts, as well as anonymous reviewers, who offered mecomments on earlier drafts. Robert Park and Lisa Hodgetts alsosuggested, and in some cases provided, several essential referenceson Arctic materials. However, these individuals are in no wayresponsible for what I am saying here. In fact, when I passed cer-tain ideas about the Arctic archaeological record by Bob Park hisimmediate response was always: ‘‘well, I don’t know if you cansay that!”

References

Ames, K.M., 2002. Going by boat the forager-collector continuum at sea. In:Fitzhugh, B., Habu, J. (Eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting. EvolutionaryChange in Hunter–gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer Academic, New York,pp. 19–52.

Amick, D., 1994. Technological organization and the structure of inference in lithicanalysis: an examination of Folsom hunting behaviour in the AmericanSouthwest. In: Carr, P.J. (Ed.), The Organization of North American PrehistoricChipped Stone Tool Technologies, International Monographs in Prehistory,Archaeological Series 7, Springer, Michigan, pp. 9–34.

Amick, D., 1996. Regional patterns of Folsom land use in the American Southwest.World Archaeology 27, 411–426.

Anderson, D.D., 1984. Prehistory of north Alaska. In: Damas, D. (Ed.), Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 80–93.

Anderson, D.G., 1990. The Paleoindian colonization of Eastern North America: aview from the southeastern United States. In: Tankersley, K.B., Isaac, B.L. (Eds.),Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America. Research In: EconomicAnthropology Supplement 5, pp. 163–216.

Anderson, D.G., 1995a. Paleoindian interaction networks in the Eastern Woodlands.In: Nassaney, M.S., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), Native American Interactions.University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 3–26.

Anderson, D.G., 1995b. Recent advances in: Paleoindian and Archaic period researchin the southeastern United States. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23,145–176.

Anderson, D.G., 1996. Models of Paleoindian and early Archaic settlement in: thelower Southeast. In: Anderson, D.G., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), The Paleoindian andEarly Archaic Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 29–57.


Anderson, D.G., Faught, M., 1998. The distribution of Paleoindian projectile points:update 1998. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26, 163–187.

Anthony, D.W., 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater.American Anthropologist 92, 895–914.

Arundale, W., 1981. Radiocarbon dating in eastern Arctic archaeology: a flexibleapproach. American Antiquity 46, 244–271.

Bamforth, D.B., 2002. High-tech foragers? Folsom and later Paleoindian technologyon the Great Plains. Journal of World Prehistory 16, 55–98.

Beaton, J.M., 1991. Colonizing continents: some problems from Australia. In:Dillehay, D., Meltzer, D.J. (Eds.), The First Americans: Search and Research. CRCPress, Boca Raton, pp. 209–230.

Bettinger, R.L., 1991. Hunter–Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory.Plenum Press, New York.

Bettinger, R.L., Baumhoff, M., 1982. The Numic spread: Great Basin cultures incompetition. American Antiquity 47, 485–503.

Bielawski, E., 1982. Spatial behaviour of prehistoric Arctic hunters: analysis of thesite distribution on Aston bay, Somerset island, N.W.T.. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 6, 33–45.

Bielawski, E., 1988. Paleoeskimo variability: the early Arctic small tool tradition inthe central Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity 53, 52–74.

Binford, L.R., 1979. Organization and formation processes: looking at curatedtechnologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35, 255–273.

Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails: hunter–gatherer settlementsystems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45, 4–20.

Binford, L.R., 1990. Mobility, housing and environment: a comparative study.Journal of Anthropological Research 46, 119–152.

Bleed, P., 1986. The optimal design of hunting weapons: maintainability orreliability. American Antiquity 51, 737–747.

Bonnichsen, R., Stanford, D., Fastook, D.L., 1987. Environmental change and thedevelopmental history of human adaptive patterns; the Paleo-Indian case. In:Ruddiman, W., Wright, H. (Eds.), North America and Adjacent Oceans during theLast Deglaciation. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp. 403–424.

Bradley, Bruce A., 1982. Flaked stone technology and typology. In: Frison, G.C.,Stanford, D. (Eds.), The Agate Basin Site, A Record of the Paleoindian Occupationof the Northwestern High Plains. Academic Press, New York, pp. 181–208.

Bradley, B., 1993. Paleo-Indian flaked stone technology in the North American highplains. In: Soffer, O., Praslov, N.D. (Eds.), From Kostenki to Clovis. Plenum Press,New York, pp. 251–262.

Broster, J.B., Norton, M.R., 1996. Recent Paleoindian research in Tennessee. In:Anderson, D.G., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast, Tuscaloosa. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 288–297.

Cable, J.S., 1996. Haw River revisted: implications for modelling late glacial andearly Holocene hunter–gatherer settlement systems in the Southeast. In:Anderson, D.G., Sassaman, K.E. (Eds.), The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 107–148.

Chang, K.-C., 1962. A typology of settlement and community patterns in somecircumpolar societies. Arctic Anthropology 1, 28–41.

Charles, D.K., Buikstra, J.E., 1983. Archaic mortuary sites in the central Mississippidrainage: distribution, structure and behavioral implications. In: Phillips, J.L.,Brown, J.A. (Eds.), Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest.Academic Press, New York, pp. 117–145.

Chatters, J.C., 1987. Hunter–gatherer adaptations and assemblage structure. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 6, 336–375.

Cleland, C., 1966. The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the UpperGreat Lakes Region, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology,University of Michigan, No. 29.

Collins, M.B., 1999. Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.Collins, M.B., 2007. Discerning Clovis subsistence from stone artifacts and site

distributions. In: The Southern Plains Periphery. In: Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N.(Eds.), . Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America. University ofNebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 59–87.

Cox, S.L., 1978. Paleoeskimo occupations of the north Labrador coast. ArcticAnthropology 15, 96–118.

Curran, M.L., 1996. Paleoindians in the northeast: the problems of dating flutedpoint sites. Review of Archaeology 17 (1), 2–11.

Custer, J.F., Stewart, R.M., 1983. Lithic procurement and Paleo-Indian SettlementPatterns on the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. North American Archaeologist 4,263–275.

Damkjar, E., 2000. A survey of late Dorset longhouses. In: Appelt, M., Berglund, J.,Guilv, H.C. (Eds.), Identities and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic. Danish PolarCentre Publication No. 8, pp. 170–180.

Darwent, C., 2001a. High Arctic Paleoeskimo Fauna: Temporal Changes andRegional Differences. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Darwent, C., 2001b. Interpreting the subsistence of the first high Arctic occupations.In: Gillepsie, J., Tupakka, S., de Mille, C. (Eds.), On Being First: CulturalInnovation and Environmental Consequences of First Peopling. ArchaeologicalAssociation of the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, pp. 391–407.

Deller, D.B., 1979. Paleo-Indian reconnaissance in the counties of Lambton andMiddlesex. Ontario Archaeology 32, 3–20.

Deller, D.B., Ellis, C.J., 1984. Crowfield: a preliminary report on a probable Paleo-Indian cremation in southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 12, 41–71.

Deller, D.B., Ellis, C.J., 1992. Thedford II: A Paleoindian Site in the Ausable RiverDrainage of Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology,University of Michigan, No. 24.

Deller, D.B., Ellis, C.J., 2001. Evidence for Late Paleo-Indian ritual from the Caradocsite (AfHj-104), Southwestern Ontario, Canada. American Antiquity 66, 267–284.

Dickson, F.P., 1981. Australian Stone Hatchets, a Study in Design and Dynamics.Academic Press, Sydney.

Dillehay, T.D., Meltzer, D. (Eds.), 1991. The First Americans: Search and Research.CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Dincauze, D., 1993. Fluted points in the eastern forests. In: Soffer, O., Praslov, N.D.(Eds.), From Kostenki to Clovis. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 279–292.

Dumond, D., 1983. Alaska and the northwest coast. In: Jennings, J.D. (Ed.), AncientNorth Americans. Freeman, San Francisco, pp. 69–113.

Dumond, D., 1984. Prehistory of the Bering sea region. In: Damas, D. (Ed.),Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC, pp. 94–105.

Dumond, D., 1987. The Eskimos and Aleuts, rev. ed. Thames and Hudson, London.Ellis, C.J., 1984. Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization in

the Lower Great Lakes Region: A First Approximation. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby,BC.

Ellis, C.J., 1992. The Clovis question. Review of Dillehay and Meltzer editors, the FirstAmericans: search and research, and Bonnichsen and Turnmire editors, Clovisorigins and adaptations. Science 256, 1697–1698.

Ellis, C.J., 1993. Premières industries lithiques Paléo-Indiennes de la région N-E deL’Amérique du Nord dans leurs principaux contextes (temps, espace, paléo-environnement, sites, culture). L’Anthropologie 97, 586–622.

Ellis, C.J., 1997. Factors influencing the use of stone projectile tips: an ethnographicperspective. In: Knecht, H. (Ed.), Projectile Technology. Plenum Press, New York,pp. 37–74.

Ellis, C.J., 2004. Understanding ‘‘Clovis” fluted point variability in the Northeast: aperspective from the Debert site, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology28, 205–253.

Ellis, C.J., Deller, D.B., 1988. Some distinctive paleoindian tool types from the lowerGreat Lakes region. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 13, 111–158.

Ellis, C.J., Deller, D.B., 1990. Paleo-Indians. In: Ellis, C.J., Ferris, N. (Eds.), TheArchaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650. Occasional Papers of the LondonChapter, OAS No. 5, pp. 37–63.

Ellis, C.J., Deller, D.B., 1997. Variability in the archaeological record of northeasternPaleo-Indians: a view from southern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 25, 1–30.

Ellis, C.J., Payne, J., 1995. Estimating failure rates in fluting based on archaeologicaldata: examples from NE North America. Journal of Field Archaeology 22, 459–474.

Ellis, C.J., Spence, M., 1997. Raw material variation and the organization ofsmallpoint Archaic lithic technologies in southwestern Ontario. In: Woodley,P.J., Ramsden, P.G. (Eds.), Preceramic Southern Ontario. Occasional Papers. In:Northeastern Archaeology No. 9. Copetown Press, Hamilton, Ontario, pp. 119–140.

Ellis, C.J., Timmins, P.A., Martelle, H., 2008. At the crossroads and periphery: theArchaic archaeological record of southern Ontario. In: Emerson, T.E., Fortier, A.,McElrath, D. (Eds.), Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity Across theMidcontinent. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. 787–839.

Elston, R.G., Zeanah, D.W., 2002. Thinking outside the box: a new perspective ondiet breadth and sexual division of labour in the Prearchaic Great Basin. WorldArchaeology 34, 103–130.

Fiedel, S.J., 1987. Prehistory of the Americas. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Fiedel, S.J., 1999. Older than we thought: implications of corrected dates forPaleoindians. American Antiquity 64, 95–115.

Fiedel, S.J., 2004. Rapid migrations by Arctic hunting peoples: Clovis and Thule. In:Barton, C.M., Clark, G.A., Yesner, D.R., Pearson, G.A. (Eds.), The Settlement of theAmerican Continents. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 79–84.

Fiedel, S.J., 2005. Rapid Clovis colonization of the Americas: chronologicalevidence and archaeological analogues. In: Bonnichsen, R., Lepper, B.T.,Stanford, D., Waters, M. (Eds.), Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Centrefor the Study of the First Americans. Texas A&M University, College Station,pp. 97–102.

Fisher, L.E., 2002. Mobility, search modes and food-getting technology. FromMagdalenian to Mesolithic in the Upper Danube basin. In: Fitzhugh, B., Habu, J.(Eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change, Hunter–GathererSettlement Systems. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 157–179.

Fitting, J.E., DeVischer, J., Wahla, E., 1966. The Paleo-Indian Occupation of theHolcombe Beach. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, Universityof Michigan, No.27.

Fitzhugh, W., 1976. Environmental factors in the evolution of Dorset culture: amarginal proposal for Hudson Bay. In: Maxwell, M. (Ed.), Eastern ArcticPrehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems. Memoirs of the Society for AmericanArchaeology No. 31, pp. 138–149.

Fitzhugh, W., 1997. Biogeographical archaeology in the eastern North AmericanArctic. Human Ecology 25, 385–418.

Ford, J.A., 1959. Eskimo Prehistory in: the Vicinity of Point Barrow, Alaska.Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 47,no. 1.

Friesen, T.M., 2000. The role of social factors in Dorset-Thule interaction. In: Appelt,M., Beglund, J., Gulov, R.G.H.C. (Eds.), Identities and Culture Contacts in theArctic. The Danish National Museum and Danish Polar Centre, Copenhagen, pp.206–220.


Frison, G.C., 1974. Archaeology of the Casper Site. In: Frison, G.C. (Ed.), The CasperSite, a Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–111.

Frison, G.C., 1980. Man and bison relationships in North America. Canadian Journalof Anthropology 1, 75–76.

Frison, G.C., 1982a. The Sheaman site: a Clovis component. In: Frison, G.C., Stanford,D. (Eds.), The Agate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleo-indian Occupation of theHigh Plains. Academic Press, New York, pp. 143–157.

Frison, G.C., 1982b. Folsom components. In: Frison, G.C., Stanford, D. (Eds.), TheAgate Basin Site: A Record of the Paleo-indian Occupation of the High Plains.Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–76.

Frison, G.C., 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains, second ed. Academic Press,San Diego.

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

Giddings, J.L., 1951. The Denbigh flint complex. American Antiquity 16, 193–203.Giddings, J.L., 1964. The Archaeology of Cape Denbigh. Brown University Press,

Providence.Giddings, J.L., 1967. Ancient Men of the Arctic. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Goebel, T., Powers, R., Bigelow, N., 1991. The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis

origins. In: Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K. (Eds.), Clovis Origins and Adaptations.Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon, pp. 49–79.

Goodyear, A.C., 1974. The Brand Site: A Techno-Functional Study of a Dalton Site inNortheast Arkansas. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Series No. 7.

Goodyear, A.C., 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materialsamong Paleo-Indian Groups of North America, University of South Carolina,Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series #156.

Goodyear, A.C., 1989. A hypothesis for the use of cryptocrystalline raw materialsamong Paleo-Indian groups of North America. In: Ellis, C.J., Lothrop, J.C. (Eds.),Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 1–9.

Goodyear, A.C., 1993. Tool kit entropy and bipolar reduction: a study of inter-assemblage lithic variability among Paleo-Indian sites in the northeasternUnited States. North American Archaeologist 14, 1–23.

Gramly, R.M., 1990. Guide to the Palaeo-Indian Artifacts of North America.Persimmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo, New York.

Green, F., 1963. The Clovis blades: an important addition to the Llano complex.American Antiquity 29, 145–165.

Grimes, J.R., Grimes, B.G., 1985. Flakeshavers: morphometric, functional and life-cycle analyses of a Paleoindian unifacial tool class. Archaeology of Eastern NorthAmerica 13, 35–57.

Grønnow, B., 1996. The Saqqaq tool kit—technological and chronological evidencefrom Qeqertasussuk, Disko Bugt. In: Grønnow, B, Pind, J. (Eds.), The Paleo-Eskimo Cultures of Greenland. New Perspectives in Greenlandic Archaeology.Danish Polar Center Publication No. 1, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 17–34.

Hammatt, H.H., 1970. A Paleo-Indian butchering kit. American Antiquity 35, 141–152.

Hayden, B., 1982. Interaction parameters and the demise of Paleoindiancraftmanship. Plains Anthropologist 27, 109–123.

Hayden, B., 1989. From chopper to celt: the evolution of resharpening techniques.In: Torrrence, R. (Ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, pp. 7–16.

Hayden, B., Franco, N., Spafford, J., 1996. Evaluating lithic strategies and designcriteria. In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools, Theoretical Insights into HumanPrehistory. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 9–45.

Haynes, C.V., 1964. Fluted projectile points: their age and dispersion. Science 145,1408–1413.

Haynes, C.V., 1980. The Clovis culture. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 1, 115–121.

Haynes, G., Anderson, D.G., Ferring, C.R., Fiedel, S.J., Grayson, D.K., Haynes, C.V.,Holliday, V.T., Huckell, B.B., Kornfeld, M., Meltzer, D.J., Morrow, J., Surovell, T.,Waguespack, N.M., Wigand, P., Yohe, R.M., 2007. Comment on ‘‘Redefining theage of Clovis: implications for the peopling of the Americas”. Science 317, 320b.

Helmer, J., 1991. The Palaeo-Eskimo prehistory of the North Devon lowlands. Arctic44, 301–317.

Helmer, J., 1992. Prehistoric site location strategies in the North Devon lowlands,high Arctic, Canada. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 291–313.

Helmer, J., 1994. Resurrecting the spirit(s) of Taylor’s Carlsberg culture: culturaltraditions and cultural horizons in eastern Arctic prehistory. In: Morrison, D.,Pilon, J.-L. (Eds.), Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E.Taylor Jr. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series Paper 149, pp. 15–34.

Hemmings, E.T., 1970. Early Man in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Ph.D.Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor.

Hill, Matthew E., 2007. A moveable feast: variation in faunal resource use amongcentral and western North America Paleoindian sites. American Antiquity 72,417–438.

Hoffman, J.L., 1992. Recognition and interpretation of Folsom technologicalvariability on the southern plains. In: Stanford, D.J., Day, J.S. (Eds.), Ice AgeHunters of the Rockies. University Press of Colorado, Denver, pp. 193–224.

Hoffman, J.L., 1994. Paleoindian aggregations on the Great Plains. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 13, 341–370.

Irving, W., 1957. An archaeological survey of the Susitna Valley. AnthropologicalPapers of the University of Alaska 6, 37–52.

Irwin, H.T., 1971. Developments in early man studies in western North America,1960–1970. Arctic Anthropology 8, 42–67.

Jensen, J.F., 1996. West Greenland Palaeo-Eskimo raw material procurementelucidated by geological analysis. In: Grønnow, B, Pind, J. (Eds.), The Paleo-Eskimo Cultures of Greenland. New Perspectives in Greenlandic Archaeology.Danish Polar Center Publication No. 1, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 71–76.

Johnson, E., 1991. Late Pleistocene cultural occupation of the southern high plains.In: Bonnichsen, R., Turnmire, K. (Eds.), Clovis Origins and Adaptations. Centerfor the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, OR, pp. 215–236.

Keeley, L., 1988. Hunter–gatherer economic complexity and population pressure: across-cultural analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7, 373–411.

Kelly, R.L., 1988. The three sides of a biface. American Antiquity 53, 717–734.Kelly, R.L., 1996. Ethnographic analogy and migration to the western hemisphere.

In: Akazawa, T., Szathmáry, E.J.E. (Eds.), Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals.Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 228–240.

Kelly, R.L., Todd, L., 1988. Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting andmobility. American Antiquity 53, 231–244.

Knudson, R., 1973. Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages.Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State, University,Pullman, Washington. University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor.

Knuth, E., 1967. Archaeology of the Musk-Ox Way. Contributions du Centre d’EtudesArctiques et Finno-Scandinaves No. 5, Paris.

Kornfeld, M., 2007. Are Paleoindians of the Plains and Rockies subsistencespecialists? In: Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N. (Eds.), Foragers of the TerminalPleistocene in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 32–58.

Kornfeld, M., Harkin, M., Durr, J., 2001. Landscapes and peopling of the Americas. In:Gillepsie, J., Tupakka, S., de Mille, C. (Eds.), On Being First: Cultural Innovationand Environmental Consequences of First Peopling. Archaeological Associationof the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, pp. 149–162.

Kuhn, S.L., 1989. Hunter–gatherer foraging organization and strategies of artifactreplacement and discard. In: Amick, S., Mauldin, R. (Eds.), Experiments in LithicTechnology. BAR International Series 528. British Archaeological Reports,Oxford, pp. 33–47.

LeBlanc, R., 1991. Prehistoric clinker use on the Cape Bathurst peninsula, NorthwestTerritories, the dynamics of formation and procurement. American Antiquity56, 268–277.

LeTourneau, P.D., 2001. Folsom Toolstone Procurement in the Southwest andSouthern Plains. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofNew Mexico, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Lieberman, D., 1993. The rise and fall of seasonal mobility among hunter–gatherers,the case of the southern Levant. Current Anthropology 34, 599–631.

Lothrop, J.C., 1989. The organization of Paleoindian lithic technology at the Pottssite. In: Ellis, C.J., Lothrop, J.C. (Eds.), Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use.Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 99–137.

Lothrop, J.C., Gramly, R.M., 1984. Pièces esquillées from the Vail site. Archaeology ofEastern North America 10, 1–22.

MacDonald, D.H., 1998. Subsistence, sex and cultural transmission in Folsomculture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 217–239.

MacDonald, D.H., 2004. Early Paleoindians as estate settlers: archaeological,ethnographic, and evolutionary insights into the peopling of the New World.In: Barton, C.M., Clark, G.A., Yesner, D.R., Pearson, G.A. (Eds.), The Settlement ofthe American Continents. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 173–176.

MacDonald, G.F., 1968. Debert: a Palaeo-Indian Site in Central Nova Scotia. NationalMuseum of Man, Anthropology Paper No. 16.

Mandryk, C.A.S., 1993. Hunter–gatherer social costs and the nonviability ofsubmarginal environments. Journal of Anthropological Research 49, 39–71.

Mason, R.L., 1962. The Paleo-Indian tradition in eastern North America. CurrentAnthropology 3, 227–246.

Mathiassen, T., 1927. Archaeology of the Central Eskimos, the Thule Culture and itsPosition within the Eskimo Culture. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921–1924 Volume 4.

Maxwell, M., 1985. Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic Press, Orlando.Maxwell, M., 1993. Pioneers of the Arctic. In: Burenhult, G. (Ed.), The First

Humans: Human Origins and History to 10,000 B.C. Harper, San Francisco,pp. 208–227.

McCartney, A., 1980. The nature of Thule Eskimo whale use. Arctic 33, 517–541.McCartney, P.H., 1990. Alternative hunting strategies in plains Paleoindian

adaptations. In: Davis, L.B., Reeves, B.O.K. (Eds.), Hunters of the Recent Past.Unwin Hyman, London, pp. 111–121.

McCartney, P.H., Helmer, J.W., 1989. Marine and terrestrial mammals in High ArcticPalaeoeskimo economy. Archaeozoologica 111 (1–2), 143–160.

McGhee, R., 1972. Copper Eskimo Prehistory. National Museums of Canada,Publications in Archaeology No. 2.

McGhee, R., 1976. Differential artistic productivity in the Eskimo cultural tradition.Current Anthropology 17, 203–220.

McGhee, R., 1978. Canadian Arctic Prehistory. Van Nostand Reinhold, Toronto.McGhee, R., 1979. The Paleoeskimo Occupations at Port Refuge, High Arctic, Canada.

National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury SeriesPaper No. 92.

McGhee, R., 1980. Technological change in the prehistoric Eskimo tradition.Canadian Journal of Archaeology 4, 39–52.

McGhee, R., 1982. The past ten years in Canadian Arctic prehistory. CanadianJournal of Archaeology 6, 65–77.

McGhee, R., 1984. Thule prehistory of Canada. In: Damas, D. (Ed.), Handbook ofNorth American Indians, Volume 5, Arctic. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 369-376.

McGhee, R., 1992. Meetings between Dorset culture Palaeo-Eskimos and Thuleculture Inuit. In: Gulov, R.G.H.C (Ed.), Fifty Years of Arctic Research:


Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia. Department of Ethnography,The University of Denmark, No. 18, Copenhagen, pp. 209–213.

McGhee, R., 1996. Ancient People of the Arctic. University of British Columbia Press,Vancouver.

McGhee, R., Tuck, J., 1976. Undating the Canadian Arctic. In: Maxwell, M. (Ed.),Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, Memoirs of the Society forAmerican Archaeology No. 31, pp. 6–14.

Meltzer, D.J., 1993. Is there a Clovis adaptation? In: Soffer, O., Praslov, N.D. (Eds.),From Kostenki to Clovis. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 293–310.

Meltzer, D.J., 1995. Clocking the first Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 21–45.Meltzer, D.J., 2002. What do you do when no one’s been there before? Thoughts on

the exploration and colonization of new lands. In: Jablonski, N.G. (Ed.), The FirstAmericans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World. Memoirs of theCalifornia Academy of Sciences, Number 27, pp. 93–122.

Meltzer, D.J., 2003. Lessons in landscape learning. In: Rockman, M., Steele, R. (Eds.),Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes. Routledge, London, pp. 222–241.

Meltzer, D.J., 2004. Modeling the initial colonization of the Americas. In: Barton,C.M., Clark, G.A., Yesner, D.R., Pearson, G.A. (Eds.), The Settlement of theAmerican Continents. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 123–137.

Milne, S.B., 2003. Peopling the Pre-Dorset Past: A Multi-Scalar Study of Early ArcticLithic Technology and Land-Use Patterns on Southern Baffin Island,Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, McMasterUniversity, Hamilton, Ontario.

Milne, S.B., Donnelly, S.M., 2004. Going to the birds: examining the importance ofavian resources to Pre-Dorset subsistence strategies on southern Baffin island.Arctic Anthropology 41, 90–112.

Morrow, T.A., 1996. Bigger is better: comments on Kuhn’s formal approach tomobile tool kits. American Antiquity 61, 581–590.

Murray, M.S., 1996. Economic Change in Paleoskimo Prehistory of the Foxe Basin,N.W.T., Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.

Murray, M.S., 1999. Local heroes: the long-term effects of short-term prosperity—anexample from the Canadian Arctic. World Archaeology 30, 466–483.

Nagy, M., 2000. From Pre-Dorset foragers to Dorset collectors: Palaeo-Eskimocultural change in Ivujivik, eastern Canadian Arctic. In: Appelt, M., Berglund, J.,Guilov, H.C. (Eds.), Identities and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic. Danish PolarCentre Publication No. 8, pp. 143–148.

Odess, D., 1996. The archaeology of interaction: views from artifact style andmaterial exchange in Dorset society. American Antiquity 63, 417–435.

Pardoe, C., 1988. The cemetery as symbol. The distribution of prehistoric Aboriginalburial grounds in southeastern Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 23, 1–16.

Park, R.W., 1993. The Dorset-Thule succession in Arctic North America: assessingclaims for culture contact. American Antiquity 58, 203–234.

Parry, W.R., 1994. Prismatic blade technologies in North America. In: Carr, P.J. (Ed.),The Organization of North American Prehistoric Chipped Stone ToolTechnologies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological SeriesNo. 7, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 87–98.

Payne, J.H., 1987. Windy City, 154-16: A Paleoindian Lithic Workshop in NorthernMaine, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University ofMaine, Orono, Maine.

Pilon, J.-L., 1994. The Inuvik phase of the Arctic small tool tradition. In: Morrison, D.,Pilon, J.-L. (Eds.), Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in: Honour of William E.Taylor Jr. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series Paper 149, pp. 57–86.

Prasciunas, M.M., 2007. Bifacial cores and flake production: an experimental test oftechnological assumptions. American Antiquity 72, 334–348.

Ramsden, P.G., Murray, M., 1995. Identifying seasonality in Pre-Dorset structures inBack Bay, Prince of Wales Island, NWT. Arctic Anthropology 32, 106–117.

Ritchie, W.A., 1940. Two Prehistoric Village Sites at Brewerton, New York. RochesterMuseum of Arts and Science, Research Record 5.

Robinson, B.S., 1992. Early and middle Archaic period occupation in the gulf ofMaine region: mortuary and technological patterning. In: Robinson, B.S.,Petersen, J.B., Robinson, A.K. (Eds.), Early Holocene Occupation in NorthernNew England. Occasional Publications In: Maine Archaeology 9. Maine HistoricPreservation Commission, Augusta, pp. 63–117.

Roosa, W.B., 1977. Fluted points from the Parkhill site. In: Cleland, C. (Ed.), For theDirector: Research Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin. AnthropologicalPapers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 61, pp. 87–122.

Roosa, W.B., Ellis, C.J., 2000. Fluted points and other bifacial tools. In: Ellis, C.J.,Deller, D.B. (Eds.), An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parkhill, Ontario. CanadianMuseum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series Paper,Number 159, pp. 67–96.

Rowley-Conwy, P., 2001. Time, change and the archaeology of hunter–gatherers:how original is the original affluent society? In: Painter-Brick, C., Layton, R.H.,Rowley-Conwy, P. (Eds.), Hunter–Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 39–72.

Rowley-Conwy, P., Zveilebil, M., 1989. Saving it for later: storage by prehistorichunter–gatherers in Europe. In: Halstead, P.J., O’Shea, J. (Eds.), Bad YearEconomics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 40–56.

Sanders, T.N., 1990. Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at aPaleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.

Savelle, J.M., 1987. Collectors and Foragers: Subsistence-settlement System Changein the Central Canadian Arctic, AD 1000–1960. British Archaeological Reports(International Series) 358. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Savelle, J.M., 2002. Logistical organization, social complexity, and the collapse ofprehistoric Thule whaling societies in the central Canadian Arctic archipelago.

In: Fitzhugh, B., Habu, J. (Eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting. EvolutionaryChange, Hunter–Gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp.73–90.

Schmidt, K.A., 1998. The consequences of partially directed search effort.Evolutionary Ecology 12, 262–277.

Schledermann, P., 1975. Thule Eskimo Prehistory of Cumberland Sound, BaffinIsland, Canada. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series Paper No. 38.

Schledermann, P., 1978. Prehistoric demographic trends in the Canadian high Arctic.Canadian Journal of Archaeology 2, 43–58.

Schledermann, P., 1990. Crossroads to Greenland: 3000 Years of Prehistory in theEastern High Arctic. The Arctic Institute of North America of the University ofCalgary, Komatik Series No. 2.

Schledermann, P., 1996. Voices in Stone: A Personal Journey into the Arctic Past. TheArctic Institute of North America of the University of Calgary, Komatik Series No. 5.

Seeman, M., 1994. Intercluster lithic patterning at Nobles Pond: a case fordisembedded procurement among Early Paleoindian societies. AmericanAntiquity 59, 273–288.

Sellet, F., 2004. Beyond the point: projectile manufacture and behavioural inference.Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 1553–1566.

Semenov, S., 1964. Prehistoric Technology. Moonraker Press, Bradford-on-Avon.Sheets, P.D., Muto, G.R., 1972. Pressure blades and total cutting edge: an experiment

in Lithic Technology. Science 175, 632–634.Shott, M., Ballenger, J., 2007. Biface reduction and the measurement of Dalton curation: a

southeastern United States case study. American Antiquity 72, 153–175.Shutler, R., 1983. The Australian parallel to the peopling of the New World. In:

Shutler, R. (Ed.), Early Man in the New World. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,pp. 43–45.

Simons, D., 1997. The Gainey and Butler sites as focal points for caribou and people.In: Jackson, L.J., Thacker, P. (Eds.), Caribou and Reindeer Hunters of the NorthernHemisphere. Avebury Press, Glasgow, pp. 105–131.

Spiess, A.E., Wilson, D., 1989. Paleoindian lithic distribution in the New England-Maritimes region. In: Ellis, C.J., Lothrop, J.C. (Eds.), Eastern Paleoindian LithicResource Use. Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 99–137.

Stiger, M., 2006. A Folsom structure in the Colorado mountains. American Antiquity71, 321–351.

Taylor, R.E., 1991. Frameworks for dating the late Pleistocene peopling of theAmericas. In: Dillehay, T., Meltzer, D.J. (Eds.), The First Americans: Search andResearch. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 77–111.

Taylor, R.E., Haynes, C.V., Stuiver, M., 1996. Clovis and Folsom age estimates:stratigraphic context and radiocarbon calibration. Antiquity 70, 515–525.

Taylor, W.E., 1966. An archaeological perspective on Eskimo economy. Antiquity 40,114–120.

Todd, L., 1987. Analysis of kill-butchery bonebeds and interpretation of Paleoindianhunting. In: Nitecki, M.H., Nitecki, D.V. (Eds.), The Evolution of Human Hunting.Plenum Press, New York, pp. 225–266.

Tomka, S.A., 2001. The effect of processing requirements on reduction strategies andtool form: a new perspective. In: Andrefsky, W. (Ed.), Lithic Debitage: Context,Form, Meaning. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake, pp. 207–223.

Torrence, R., 1983. Time budgeting and hunter–gatherer technology. In: Bailey, G.(Ed.), Hunter–Gatherer Economy in Prehistory. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 11–22.

Torrence, R., 1989. Re-tooling: towards a behavioural theory of stone tools. In:Torrence, R. (Ed.), Time, Energy and Stone Tools. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 57–66.

Tunnell, C., 1975. Fluted Projectile Point Production as Revealed by Lithic Specimensfrom the Adair-steadman Site in Northwest Texas. Texas Historical Commission,Office of the State Archaeologist, Special Report #18. Austin, TX.

Waguespack, N.M., Surovell, T.A., 2003. Clovis hunting strategies, or how to makeout on plentiful resources. American Antiquity 68, 333–352.

Walker, R.B., 2007. Hunting in the Late Paleoindian period: faunal remains fromDust cave, Alabama. In: Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N. (Eds.), Foragers of theTerminal Pleistocene in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,pp. 99–115.

Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N. (Eds.), 2007. Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene inNorth America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.

Waters, M.R., Stafford Jr., T.W., 2007. Redefining the age of Clovis: implications forthe peopling of the Americas. Science 315, 1122–1126.

Weissner, P., 1982. Beyond willow smoke and dog’s tails: a commentary onBinford’s analysis of hunter–gatherer settlement systems. American Antiquity47, 171–178.

Wheat, J.B., 1971. Lifeways of early man in North America. Arctic Anthropology 8(2), 22–31.

Wilke, P.J., Flenniken, J.J., Ozbun, T.L., 1991. Clovis technology at the Anzick site,Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13, 242–272.

Wilmsen, E., 1970. Lithic Analysis and Cultural Inference: A Paleo-indian Case.Anthropological Papers, University of Arizona #16, Tucson, AZ.

Witthoft, J.H., 1952. A Paleo-Indian culture in eastern Pennsylvania: an early huntingculture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96 (4), 464–495.

Wobst, H.M., 1976. Locational relationships in Paleolithic society. Journal of HumanEvolution 5, 49–58.

Wright, H.T., Roosa, W.B., 1966. The Barnes site: a fluted point assemblage from theGreat Lakes region. American Antiquity 31, 850–860.

Wright, J.V., 1995. A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume 1, 10,000–1000B.C., Canadian Museum of Civilization, Archaeological Survey of Canada,Mercury Series Paper No. 152.

The Fluted Point tradition and the Arctic Small Tool tradition: What’s the connection?

Documents

Transcript of The Fluted Point tradition and the Arctic Small Tool tradition: What’s the connection?