The Influence of Lithic Raw Material Selection on Regional Morphological Variability of Clovis Fluted Points

Table of Contents:
List of figures List of tables Foreword 1. Introduction 1.1 Clovis: an investigation into an early Paleoindian culture 1.2 Aims and objectives 1.3 Outline of research 2. Clovis: type description, dating, regional distribution, and site types 2.1 The archaeological record 2.2 Dating: what is the age of Clovis? 2.3 Regional distribution of Clovis fluted points 2.3.1 Region 1: Northeast 2.3.2 Region 2: Middle-Atlantic and Southeast 2.3.3 Region 3: Midcontinent and Great Lakes 2.3.4 Region 4: Northern Plains 2.3.5 Region 5: Southern Plains and Desert Southwest 2.3.6 Region. 6: Southwest, Great Basin and Colorado Plateau 2.3.7 Region 7: Northwest 2.4 Clovis site types 2.4.1 Clovis kill sites 2.4.2 Campsites 2.4.3 Source-area / Workshop sites 2.4.4 Clovis caches 2.4.5 Isolates and surface-collected Clovis points 2.5 Summary and discussion 3. Methods: samples, site selection criterion, and methodologies 3.1 Aims and objectives 3.2 The samples 3.2.1 Selection criteria: sample 1), M 3.2.2 Selection criteria: sample 2), C 3.2.3 Selection criteria: sample 3), S 3.3 Methods: quantative variables and geometric morphometrics 3.4 Clovis point and site selection 3.5 Data collection: artefact assemblages, replica casts and collections 3.6 Testing the methodology 3.7 Discussion: early conclusions and implications 4. Clovis lithic raw materials: regional variability, sourcing and procurement 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Regional analysis of the raw material 4.2.1 Region 1: Northeast 4.2.2 Region 2: Middle-Atlantic and Southeast 4.2.3 Region 3: Midcontinent and Great Lakes 4.2.4 Region 4: Northern Plains 4.2.5 Region 5: Southern Plains and Desert Southwest 4.2.6 Region 6: Southwest and Great Basin 4.2.7 Region 7: Northwest 4.3 Interpretation of regional and intraregional patterns 4.4 Recognition and identification of raw material sources 4.5 Summary: questions and early conclusions 5. Analysis: procedures and results 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Analysis of the samples and initial results 5.2.1 Region 1: Northeast 5.2.2 Region 2: Middle-Atlantic and Southeast 5.2.3 Region 3: Midcontinent and Great Lakes 5.2.4 Region 4: Northern Plains 5.2.5 Southern Plains and Desert Southwest 5.2.6 Southwest and Great Basin 5.2.7 Northwest 5.3 Synopsis: brief overview of the results 5.4 Summary: observations and implications 6. Conclusions: interpretations, discussion, and future research 6.1 Restating the research questions 6.2 Interpretation of regional results 6.2.1 Region 1: Northeast 6.2.2 Region 2: Middle-Atlantic and Southeast 6.2.3 Region 3: Midcontinent and Great Lakes 6.2.4 Region 4: Northern Plains 6.2.5 Region 5: Southern Plains and Desert Southwest 6.2.6 Region 6: Southwest and Great Basin 6.2.7 Region 7: Northwest 6.3 Discussion: Clovis points, people, and places 6.3.1 Discussion Pt. 1: Clovis in the North American landscape 6.3.2 Discussion Pt. 2: Clovis a human behavioural perspective 6.4 Directions for future research 6.5 Concluding comments 6.6 Endnote Bibliography Appendix A. Supporting information: regional association of Clovis-aged and related sites in North America A.1 Introduction A.2 Regional association of Clovis-aged sites and assemblages A.3 Comment: further north and farthest south Appendix B. Data collection: list of institutions and collections of Clovis points accessed for this research B.1 Institutions B.2 Private collections B.3 Miscellaneous collections Appendix C. Clovis point data collection methodologies C.1 Clovis point record sheet C.2 Photographic record: digital photographic database C.3 Clovis point sample: caliper-based metrics and visual observations C.4 Recording methodology Appendix D. U.S state abbreviations and Smithsonian Institution trinomial index D.1 State abbreviation and associated region D.2 Smithsonian Institution trinomial Clovis site index Appendix E. Dating: calibrated and radiocarbon age ranges E.1 Conversion tables: radiocarbon ages (14C yr BP) roughly calibrated to calendar-year ages (Cal yr BP)

About the Author :
Alan M. Slade is a postdoctoral researcher with the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory (TARL) and is also a team member of the Prehistory Research Project (PRP). Alan spent fifteen years as a Prehistoric and Palaeolithic field archaeologist in Britain and Europe, and a further decade helping to curate the lithic collections in the British Museum. He is a research fellow of the Centre for the Archaeology of Human Origins (CAHO) at the University of Southampton; on the committee for the Lithic Studies Society (LSS); and he is also an active member of the Society for Museum Archaeologists (SMA).

Review :
'This work contributes significant new knowledge to the field of research as a specific demonstration of how raw material characteristics can influence technological and stylistic aspects of stone tool production.' Dr Michael B. Collins, Gault School of Archaeological Research and the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin