Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T10:20:31.584Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prismatic Blade Production at the Sinclair Site, Tennessee: Implications for Understanding Clovis Technological Organization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2022

Jesse W. Tune*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO, USA
Thomas A. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Aaron Deter-Wolf
Affiliation:
Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville, TN, USA
*
(jwtune@fortlewis.edu, corresponding author)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Tennessee Division of Archaeology documented an extensive Paleoindian lithic quarry and workshop at the Sinclair site in Tennessee in 2008. We present the first detailed description of the lithic assemblage here, which focuses on aspects of its prismatic blade technology. Quantitative and qualitative attributes of 117 blades are assessed to characterize the assemblage and investigate human behaviors related to its formation. We then compare the blades from Sinclair to other blade assemblages. Blades at Clovis workshop sites are large and generally unstandardized. Mobile Clovis bands selected long, highly standardized blades from workshop sites, cached them as resource insurance, and crafted and used them as tools at campsites. The prismatic blade assemblage at Sinclair and other sites throughout the Midsouth suggests that this region played an important role in the development of prismatic blade technology at the end of the Pleistocene.

La División de Arqueología de Tennessee documentó una extensa cantera y taller lítico Paleoindio en el sitio de Sinclair en Tennessee en 2008. Aquí se presenta la primera descripción detallada del conjunto lítico y se enfoca en aspectos de la tecnología de briznas prismáticas presentes en el sitio. Se evalúan los atributos cuantitativos y cualitativos de 117 briznas para caracterizar el ensamblaje e investigar los comportamientos humanos relacionados con su formación. Luego, las briznas de Sinclair se comparan con otros conjuntos de briznas. Las cuchillas en los sitios de los talleres de Clovis son grandes y generalmente no están estandarizadas. Las grupos móviles de Clovis seleccionaron briznas largas y altamente estandarizadas de los sitios de los talleres, las almacenaron en caché como seguro de recursos y las diseñaron y usaron como herramientas en los campamentos. El conjunto de cuchillas prismáticas en Sinclair y otros sitios en Midsouth sugiere que esta región jugó un papel importante en el desarrollo de la tecnología de cuchillas prismáticas al final del Pleistoceno.

Type
Report
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for American Archaeology

Research into early lithic assemblages in North America shows that prismatic blades (hereafter referred to as blades) were an essential part of Clovis lithic technology during the Late Pleistocene. The discovery of a cache of 17 blades at Blackwater Draw in 1962 and subsequent discoveries of blades in association with butchered mammoths led Green (Reference Green1963:157) to conclude that there was “unequivocal proof of a blade industry as an integral part of the [Clovis] complex.” Later research at sites like Anadarko, Keven Davis, and Gault further solidified Green's hypothesis that blades struck from prepared cores were a significant component of Clovis lithic technology (Bradley et al. Reference Bradley, Collins and Hemmings2010; Collins Reference Collins1999; Hammatt Reference Hammatt1970; Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011).

Kilby (Reference Kilby, Smallwood and Jennings2015) has demonstrated that blades and blade cores were a frequent component of utilitarian Clovis caches across much of the Southern Plains. Blades from Clovis contexts are documented from Texas and Oklahoma at the Gault, Keven Davis, Pavo Real, Aubrey, and Anadarko sites (Bradley et al. Reference Bradley, Collins and Hemmings2010; Collins Reference Collins1999; Ferring Reference Ferring2001; Hammatt Reference Hammatt1970; Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011). Extensive evidence of blade production has been documented in the Allendale Brier Creek Complex and other locations throughout South Carolina and Georgia (Sain and Goodyear Reference Sain and Goodyear2016; Smallwood Reference Smallwood2015). Clovis blade technology is also documented in the Tennessee and Ohio River drainages (Ellerbusch Reference Ellerbusch2004; Norton et al. Reference Norton, Broster, Burgess and Mabrey2011; Sanders Reference Sanders1990; Stanford et al. Reference Stanford, Canales, Broster and Norton2006). Though not as thoroughly reported as other sites, the Carson-Conn-Short site in Tennessee and the Adams site in Kentucky demonstrate extensive Clovis prismatic blade production in the Midsouth (Haag et al. Reference Haag, Bergman and Carr2014; Norton et al. Reference Norton, Broster and Jones2020; Sanders Reference Sanders1990; Stanford et al. Reference Stanford, Canales, Broster and Norton2006).

The blade assemblage from the Sinclair site in Tennessee provides a unique opportunity to comprehensively study blade technology and how it may have fit within a broader Clovis technological organization. The Sinclair assemblage is characterized here based on quantitative and qualitative attributes and is compared to other known Clovis and post-Clovis blade assemblages. We hypothesize the objective of Clovis blade making, examine whether variation in blade morphology can be explained by site type, and place the blades from the Sinclair site within a broader Clovis technological context. Finally, we assess whether Clovis blades can be statistically differentiated from non-Clovis blade technologies.

The Sinclair Assemblage

The Sinclair site (40WY111) overlooks the Buffalo River in Wayne County, Tennessee. Large, tabular, rectangular-to-angular chert nodules are readily accessible on-site. Broster and Norton's (Reference Broster and Norton2009) investigation documented at least 10 discrete activity areas and hundreds of Clovis and other Paleoindian artifacts. The site area was severely disturbed in 2007 and 2008 by bulldozing and plowing to convert the wooded landscape into pastureland. Because of the limited spatial information available, we cannot evaluate how discrete activity areas may have been affected by recent postdepositional activities.

Broster and Norton's (Reference Broster and Norton2009) surface survey was conducted opportunistically, resulting in a collection of complete and broken blades and cores, which are curated at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology (TDOA). Photographs were taken of blade cores, and representative examples were collected as part of the TDOA's investigations; however, the limited number of cores collected does not allow a meaningful assessment of core-reduction techniques used at Sinclair at this time. Additionally, broken Clovis preforms and fluted points, bifaces, and debitage were recovered in 2008. Broster and Norton (Reference Broster and Norton2009) note that Late Paleoindian bifaces and debitage occurred in a single discrete area. The site assemblage also includes previously unreported Early and Middle Archaic artifacts.

Clovis Blade Technology

The term “blade” refers here to a flake with parallel to slightly convergent edges and with parallel or subparallel flake scars on the dorsal face running parallel to the long axis, having a length-to-width ratio of at least 2:1, and removed from a prepared core (Collins Reference Collins1999:191). Clovis blades are typically prismatic-like in cross section and possess small striking platforms, diffuse bulbs of percussion, a smooth interior surface, and subparallel scars on the exterior surface (Collins Reference Collins1999). Crabtree (Reference Crabtree1968) adds that blades are associated with a specialized lithic reduction technique requiring the use of carefully prepared cores; that is, they are not fortuitously produced long, narrow flakes.

The production of blades is one of two formal core-reduction strategies known to have been used by Clovis flintknappers, the other being bifacial core reduction. Conical and wedge-shaped cores were used by Clovis flintknappers to produce blades (Bradley et al. Reference Bradley, Collins and Hemmings2010; Collins Reference Collins1999; Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011). Given the typical roundness of river cobbles, these raw material packages naturally lent themselves to the production of conical blade cores. Rectangular to subrectangular tabular raw material packages were more conducive to producing wedge-shaped blade cores. This pattern in raw material package shape and blade core morphology is supported by data from the Gault site (Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011). Although Collins (Reference Collins1999) recognized that conical and wedge-shaped cores were used by Clovis flintknappers for blade production, his proposed six-stage reduction sequence is most applicable for assessing conical blade cores.

Waters and coauthors (Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011; also see Bradley et al. Reference Bradley, Collins and Hemmings2010) conducted a detailed study of Clovis blade technology at the Gault lithic workshop where wedge-shaped, rather than conical, cores were mainly used. The rectangular shape of tabular Edwards Plateau chert nodules at Gault may have favored wedge-shaped reduction and may explain why wedge-shaped cores outnumber conical cores by 9 to 1 (Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011). Most notably, Waters and coauthors (Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011) documented that late-stage blades produced from wedge-shaped cores retain a straighter profile, whereas on conical cores, late-stage blades typically exhibit a high degree of curvature, as noted by Collins (Reference Collins1999).

Methods

Summary statistics were calculated for a sample of 117 blades and blade fragments from the Sinclair assemblage. Following Collins (Reference Collins1999) and others (Eren and Redmond Reference Eren and Redmond2011; Waters et al. Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011), we documented the overall size of blades by the sum of length, width, and thickness. The results are summarized and presented here, with raw measurements provided in Supplemental Table 1 to aid future additional comparative analyses.

Qualitative attributes of complete blades were documented to assess relative stages of blade removal. We combined the six stages of reduction defined by Collins (Reference Collins1999) into early (1–2), middle (3–4), and late (5–6) stages to better reflect the continual variation observed between blades from successive removal episodes. Early-stage blades are characterized by a high percentage of dorsal surface cortex and few flake scars, large bulbs of percussion, large striking platforms, and a relatively straight longitudinal profile. Middle-stage blades are characterized by numerous dorsal flake scars and less cortex, moderate bulbs of percussion, and slight-to-moderate longitudinal curvature. Late-stage blades are characterized by dorsal surfaces with numerous flake scars and minimal to no cortex, diffuse bulbs of percussion, small platforms, and strong longitudinal curvature. The rate of reduction for blade width and length is assessed by calculating the percent loss after each stage of the reduction process.

Eren and coauthors (Reference Eren, Meltzer and Andrews2018) use the presumably Archaic period Gibson assemblage (Tunnell Reference Tunnell1978) to highlight the potential utility of using a known non-Clovis assemblage to help identify Clovis blades in assemblages without clearly associated Clovis points. We chose not to use the Gibson assemblage here because, as Collins (Reference Collins1999:171) notes, “So many of the Gibson specimens are retouched that the cache might more accurately be referred to as a cache of scrapers.” Nor do we include the Goodson Rockshelter assemblage as an outgroup because that site is so newly reported and the affinity of the artifacts is currently being debated (Eren et al. Reference Eren, Meltzer and Andrews2021; Huckell et al. Reference Huckell, Vance Haynes and Holliday2019). Instead, we use two blade assemblages—Barton (Ricklis Reference Ricklis, Ricklis and Collins1994) and Kirchmeyer (Hester and Shafer Reference Hester and Shafer1975) associated with Perdiz points—that are diagnostic of the Late Prehistoric Toyah phase in Texas (Collins Reference Collins1999). Toyah blades have been shown elsewhere to be morphologically distinct from Clovis blades (Collins Reference Collins1999; Jennings and Smallwood Reference Jennings, Smallwood, O'Brien, Buchanan and Eren2018). Following Eren and coauthors (Reference Eren, Meltzer and Andrews2018), we use discriminant function analysis (DFA) to compare blades. We use the Gault Clovis assemblage to define Clovis blades and group Barton and Kirchmeyer in a Toyah group as the non-Clovis outgroup.

We then compared all Clovis blade assemblages discussed here based on site type. Assemblages from lithic workshops (Sinclair, Gault, and Pavo Real) were compared to blade caches (Blackwater Draw, Keven Davis, and Anadarko) and multi-use campsites (Murray Springs, Paleo Crossing, and Nuckolls; Figure 1). However, the Blackwater Draw (Green cache), Keven Davis, and Anadarko assemblages do not have radiometric dates or Clovis points directly associated with them. We tested for broader technological patterns related to Clovis band movement across the landscape. Coefficients of variation (CVs) were calculated to compare relative standardization among assemblages (Eerkens and Bettinger Reference Eerkens and Bettinger2001). Comparative statistical tests included parametric ANOVA and nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis depending on the outcomes of normality and variance tests (VanPool and Leonard Reference VanPool and Leonard2011).

Figure 1. Distribution of Clovis prismatic blade assemblages compared in this study. Triangles denote workshops, circles denote campsites, and squares denote caches.

Results

Sinclair Blades

All blades analyzed from Sinclair are macroscopically consistent with Fort Payne chert. The assemblage consists of 47 complete blades, 33 proximal fragments, 11 medial fragments, and 26 distal fragments. Although all stages of blade production are represented at Sinclair, the assemblage is dominated (57.45%; n = 27) by early-stage blades (Figure 2; Supplemental Table 2).

Figure 2. Representative selection of prismatic blades from the Sinclair site. Early-stage blades (a) 08-49-40 and (b) 09-5-94. Middle-stage blades (c) 08-49-690 and (d) 08-49-104. Late-stage blades (e) 08-49-41 and (f) 09-5-98. Catalog numbers correspond to the inventory provided in Supplemental Table 1. (Color online)

All variables are normally distributed with equal variances, with the exception of thickness. A series of ANOVA tests (and Kruskal-Wallis for the thickness comparison) were conducted with Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons to quantitatively identify differences between blade stages (Table 1). The only significant difference identified between reduction stages was blade width (p = 0.033). Post-hoc comparison shows that this significance is driven by the difference between early- and middle-stage blades (p = 0.042) This is not surprising: it likely reflects the fact that the production of blades occurred along a continuum in a lithic-reduction process, rather than in discrete steps.

Table 1. Results of ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis Tests of Complete Prismatic Blades by Reduction Stages from the Sinclair Assemblage.

Notes: ANOVA measured length, width, length:width, and length + width + thickness; Kruskal-Wallis tests measured thickness.

Although the length-to-width ratios between stages are nearly significant (p = 0.055), there appears to be an inverse relationship between blade size and length-to-width ratios within the Sinclair assemblage. Earlier-stage blades have smaller length-to-width ratios and larger dimensions, and later-stage blades have higher length-to-width ratios and smaller dimensions. This suggests that, although all dimensions decrease throughout blade reduction, width decreases faster and to a greater extent than length. This pattern is reinforced when percent loss in dimensions is calculated throughout the blade-reduction process (Table 2). The average blade width is reduced by 20.08% from the early to middle stage, and by 2.01% from the middle to late stage; average blade length is reduced by 3.39% from the early to middle stage, and by 0.80% from the middle to late stage. However, the presumed removal of late-stage blades from the Sinclair site may influence these relationships by skewing the sample toward the earlier end of the reduction process.

Table 2. Comparison of Percent Change in Complete Blade Dimensions by Reduction Stage in the Sinclair Assemblage.

When assessing the blade dimensions and relationships between those dimensions by stages of reduction, notable patterns emerge. The CVs of individual blade dimensions increase throughout the reduction process (Supplemental Table 2), and the correlations between length-to-width and width-to-thickness become stronger (Table 3). Essentially, as blade cores are reduced, individual blade dimensions become more variable, and the correlations between those dimensions become stronger. The lack of statistical significance of correlations in late-stage blades is likely related to the very small sample size (n = 3).

Table 3. Results of Pearson's Correlations between Length, Width, and Thickness for Complete Prismatic Blades in the Sinclair Assemblage.

Comparison to other Blade Assemblages

DFA successfully distinguishes Clovis from non-Clovis (Toyah) blades (Supplemental Table 3). Of the 74 blades from sites previously described as Clovis, only 3 (4%) are incorrectly classified as non-Clovis. Of the 18 non-Clovis blades, 3 (16%) are incorrectly classified as Clovis. For both Clovis and non-Clovis, the blades that are classified incorrectly all come from workshop sites. This suggests that, even though Clovis blades can be distinguished from non-Clovis blades at the assemblage level, individual blades do occasionally overlap morphologically. For Sinclair, 43 of 47 (91.5%) are classified as Clovis. This analysis supports the Clovis affinity of Sinclair blades.

Individual blades from Sinclair are larger than those from most other Clovis assemblages (Supplemental Table 4). The Sinclair assemblage falls within the known range of variation for Clovis blades and groups with other workshop sites (Figure 3). Although maximum dimensions and overall size may be affected by factors such as raw material package size, comparisons of morphological ratios and relative measures of assemblage variability more directly reflect technological aspects that are independent of such factors. Thus, they may provide more meaningful insight into blade technologies in general. Length-to-width ratios are highest in caches and lowest in campsites. Based on the calculated CVs, cached blade lengths are the most standardized (Figure 4). Campsite blade widths are most standardized, and cached blade thicknesses are most standardized. Campsite blade length-to-width ratios are most standardized. For all four measures, workshop blades are the most variable and the least standardized.

Figure 3. Scatterplots of blade means grouped by site type. Lines represent means within each site type.

Figure 4. Scatterplots of blade CVs grouped by site type. Lines represent means within each site type.

Discussion

Given sufficient raw material size and availability, it appears that the objective of Clovis blade technology was to produce standardized, long, narrow blades while maximizing overall size. Those standardized blades were then selected to be modified into tools and used at other sites. Late-stage blades, those that fit into what Waters and coauthors (Reference Waters, Pevny, Carlson, Collins, Jennings, Dickens, Minchak, Smallwood, Wiersema and Bartelink2011) refer to as cache-quality blades, were likely removed from Sinclair to be used as tools at other locations. Sain and Goodyear (Reference Sain and Goodyear2016) noted a similar pattern in the Allendale Brier Creek Clovis Complex.

The Sinclair, Gault, and Pavo Real workshop sites are dominated by large, earlier-stage blades with variable length-to-width ratios. Blackwater Draw, Keven Davis, and Anadarko caches are dominated by large, later-stage blades with more standardized length-to-width ratios, blade lengths, and blade thicknesses. The Paleo Crossing, Murray Springs, and Nuckolls campsite assemblages are dominated by blade tools of variable lengths that demonstrate extensive use and reduction, resulting in small length-to-width ratios. Campsite blades, however, still retain high width and length-to-width standardization.

These assemblage-level differences reveal how blade technology was organized across the landscape (Figure 5). The Sinclair, Gault, and Pavo Real sites are chert quarries where primary reduction of raw materials occurred; the assemblages there reflect early-stage reduction. Workshop assemblages are highly variable in terms of blade dimensions and ratios and contain very few blade tools. Keven Davis, Blackwater Draw, and Anadarko are cache sites where middle- to late-stage blades were intentionally deposited in anticipation of future use (Kilby Reference Kilby, Huckell and Kilby2014). All three assemblages are made up of relatively large, very standardized blades and few blade tools. The Murray Springs, Nuckolls, and Paleo Crossing sites are locations where a variety of activities occurred. These assemblages are dominated by late-stage blades and have substantially higher quantities of blade tools.

Figure 5. Generalized organization of Clovis prismatic blade technology (images of Paleo Crossing artifacts used with the permission of Metin I. Eren, Kent State University: images of Blackwater Draw artifacts used with the permission of David Kilby, Texas State University). (Color online)

Conclusion

The Sinclair site in Tennessee is a chert quarry and workshop that were extensively used during the Late Pleistocene. Although Early Paleoindian through Early Archaic biface fragments are documented at Sinclair, it appears that one of the main activities at the site was the production of prismatic blades. We show that these blades are technologically and morphologically Clovis. Early-stage blades dominate the Sinclair assemblage, suggesting that late-stage blades were removed from the site for use elsewhere. As more sites are being reported in the region, it is clearer that the Midsouth was a substantial center of Clovis technological innovation and potentially of its diffusion. We propose that the Midsouth, specifically the Lower Tennessee River drainage, was a core region of Clovis blade technology.

Acknowledgments

We thank Rex Moore, who donated the artifacts analyzed here to the Tennessee Division of Archaeology. This has allowed for a detailed study of the assemblage and facilitates access to future researchers. John Broster and Mark Norton recognized the significance of the Sinclair site and worked to make this dataset available to researchers. David Kilby and Metin I. Eren graciously provided some images used in Figure 5. We acknowledge the Indigenous peoples who have called North America home for at least ~13,500 years. We are grateful for the opportunity to study the material culture left behind by people who lived here so long ago. Thanks to Metin Eren and anonymous reviewers for providing comments to improve this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in this study are available in in-text tables and supplemental online material. A complete inventory with accession numbers is provided in the supplemental online material. The Sinclair dataset discussed here is permanently curated at the Tennessee Division of Archaeology.

Competing Interests

The authors declare none.

Supplemental Material

For supplemental material accompanying this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2022.16.

Supplemental Table 1. Inventory and Description of the Sinclair Blade Assemblage.

Supplemental Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Complete Prismatic Blades from the Sinclair Assemblage.

Supplemental Table 3. Results of DFA Using Gault as a Clovis Proxy and Barton and Kirchmeyer as Non-Clovis Proxies.

Supplemental Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Clovis Prismatic Blade Assemblages.

References

References Cited

Bradley, Bruce A., Collins, Michael B., and Hemmings, Andrew 2010 Clovis Technology. Archaeological Series 17. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Broster, John B., and Norton, Mark R. 2009 The Sinclair Site (40WY111): A Clovis Quarry along the Buffalo River in Wayne County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 26:3536.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Crabtree, Don E. 1968 Mesoamerican Polyhedral Cores and Prismatic Blades. American Antiquity 33:446478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Bettinger, Robert L. 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66:493504.Google Scholar
Ellerbusch, Elijah C. 2004 Paleoindian Prismatic Blade Function and Technology from the Nuckolls Site (40Hs60), Tennessee: Pilot Study of a Frequently Ignored Paleoindian Technological System. Undergraduate honors thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Meltzer, David. J., and Andrews, Brian N. 2018 Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis? PaleoAmerica 4:202218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., Meltzer, David. J., and Andrews, Brian N. 2021 Clovis Technology Is Not Unique to Clovis. PaleoAmerica 7:226241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eren, Metin I., and Redmond, Brian G. 2011 Clovis Blades at Paleo Crossing (33ME274), Ohio. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 36:173194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferring, C. Reid 2001 The Archaeology and Paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis Site (41DN479) Denton County, Texas. University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
Green, F. E. 1963 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29:145165.Google Scholar
Haag, Christa M., Bergman, Christopher A., and Carr, Kurt W. 2014 Blade Technology in Clovis Assemblages in Kentucky: A Brief Comparison with Old World Technologies. North American Archaeologist 35:136.Google Scholar
Hammatt, Hallett H. 1970 A Paleo-Indian Butchering Kit. American Antiquity 35:141152.Google Scholar
Hester, Thomas R., and Shafer, Harry J. 1975 An Initial Study of Blade Technology on the Central and Southern Texas Coast. Plains Anthropologist 20:175185.Google Scholar
Huckell, Bruce, Vance Haynes, C., and Holliday, Vance T. 2019 Comments on the Lithic Technology and Geochronology of the Goodson Rock Shelter. PaleoAmerica 6:131134.Google Scholar
Jennings, Thomas A., and Smallwood, Ashley M. 2018 Clovis and Toyah: Convergent Blade Technologies in the Southern Plains Periphery of North America. In Convergent Evolution and Stone Tool Technology, edited by O'Brien, Michael J., Buchanan, Briggs, and Eren, Metin I., pp. 229252. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kilby, J. David 2014 Direction and Distance in Clovis Caching: The Movement of People and Lithic Raw Materials on the Clovis-Age Landscape. In Clovis Caches: Recent Discoveries and New Research, edited by Huckell, Bruce B. and Kilby, J. David, pp. 201216. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Kilby, J. David 2015 A Regional Perspective on Clovis Blades and Caching Behavior. In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited by Smallwood, Ashley M. and Jennings, Thomas A., pp. 145159. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Norton, Mark R., Broster, John B., Burgess, Dennis, and Mabrey, Larry 2011 The Burgess-Mabrey Site: 40JK267, Jackson County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 28:6768.Google Scholar
Norton, Mark R., Broster, John B., and Jones, J. Scott 2020 Carson-Conn-Short, 40BN190: A Paleoindian Site in Benton County, Tennessee. Report of Investigations No. 20. Tennessee Division of Archaeology, Nashville.Google Scholar
Ricklis, Robert A. 1994 Toyah Components: Evidence for Occupation in the Project Area during the Later Part of the Late Prehistoric Period. In Archaic and Late Prehistoric Human Ecology in the Middle Onion Creek Valley, Hays County, Texas, edited by Ricklis, Robert A. and Collins, Michael B., pp. 207316. Studies in Archeology 19. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin.Google Scholar
Sain, Douglas, and Goodyear, Albert C. 2016 Clovis Blade Technology and Tool Use along the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and Piedmont of the Lower Southeast. Tennessee Archaeology 8(1–2):114131.Google Scholar
Sanders, Thomas Nolan 1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Smallwood, Ashley M. 2015 Context and Spatial Organization of the Clovis Assemblage from the Topper Site, South Carolina. Journal of Field Archaeology 40:6987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Dennis J., Canales, Elmo L., Broster, John B., and Norton, Mark R. 2006 Clovis Blade Manufacture: Preliminary Data from the Carson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190), Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:145147.Google Scholar
Tunnell, Curtis D. 1978 The Gibson Lithic Cache from West Texas. Office of the State Archaeologist Report 30. Texas Historical Commission, Austin.Google Scholar
VanPool, Todd L., and Leonard, Robert D. 2011 Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Waters, Michael R., Pevny, Charlotte D., Carlson, David L., Collins, Michael B., Jennings, Thomas A., Dickens, William A., Minchak, Scott A., Smallwood, Ashley M., Wiersema, Jason M., and Bartelink, Eric J. 2011 Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Distribution of Clovis prismatic blade assemblages compared in this study. Triangles denote workshops, circles denote campsites, and squares denote caches.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Representative selection of prismatic blades from the Sinclair site. Early-stage blades (a) 08-49-40 and (b) 09-5-94. Middle-stage blades (c) 08-49-690 and (d) 08-49-104. Late-stage blades (e) 08-49-41 and (f) 09-5-98. Catalog numbers correspond to the inventory provided in Supplemental Table 1. (Color online)

Figure 2

Table 1. Results of ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis Tests of Complete Prismatic Blades by Reduction Stages from the Sinclair Assemblage.

Figure 3

Table 2. Comparison of Percent Change in Complete Blade Dimensions by Reduction Stage in the Sinclair Assemblage.

Figure 4

Table 3. Results of Pearson's Correlations between Length, Width, and Thickness for Complete Prismatic Blades in the Sinclair Assemblage.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Scatterplots of blade means grouped by site type. Lines represent means within each site type.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Scatterplots of blade CVs grouped by site type. Lines represent means within each site type.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Generalized organization of Clovis prismatic blade technology (images of Paleo Crossing artifacts used with the permission of Metin I. Eren, Kent State University: images of Blackwater Draw artifacts used with the permission of David Kilby, Texas State University). (Color online)

Supplementary material: File

Tune et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Tune et al. supplementary material(File)
File 59.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tune et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Tune et al. supplementary material(File)
File 10.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tune et al. supplementary material

Table S3

Download Tune et al. supplementary material(File)
File 11.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Tune et al. supplementary material

Table S4

Download Tune et al. supplementary material(File)
File 11.6 KB