Bonebeds and other myths: Paleoindian to Archaic transition on North American Great Plains and Rocky Mountains

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

Bonebeds and other myths: Paleoindian to Archaic transition on North American Great Plains and Rocky Mountains Marcel Kornfeld, Mary L. Larson1 Anthropology, Department 3431, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA Available online 21 August 2007

Abstract Paleoindian bison bonebeds form a highly visible and heavily researched archaeological record on the North American Great Plains and Central Rocky Mountains. By and large these archaeological manifestations represent kill and processing sites of large scale, possibly communal procurement activities. However, bonebeds account for only a very small portion of all archaeological sites. We argue that disproportional visibility and research effort devoted to these types of sites has resulted in a highly skewed view of prehistoric lifeways, that is, of a life focused on the hunting of single animal species. Our research shows that approximately 98% of sites are not bonebeds, and thus leads to the question of ‘‘What is the faunal evidence from the rest of the sites?’’ This paper presents a preliminary examination of Paleoindian age faunal remains from non-bonebed contexts on the western North American Plains and adjacent Rocky Mountains. We show that no evidence exists for bison-focused subsistence systems. Instead a broad-based strategy similar to that conceptualized for the Archaic likely formed the bulk of Paleoindian subsistence strategies. In this context we reexamine the nature of the Paleoindian to Archaic transition. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Paleoindian to Archaic transition on the North American Great Plains is commonly thought to correspond to a change from big-game (bison) hunting to a broad spectrum foraging economy. This interpretation depends on focused big-game subsistence strategies being clearly indicated in Paleoindian archaeology and broad spectrum foraging strategies being linked to the post-Paleoindian archaeological record of Early Archaic foragers. Instead of arguing for such a change, however, we come to this transition from a rather different perspective. That is, our data leads us to question whether the transition exists at all. Several years ago one of us followed Clarke’s (1976) argument that the interpretation of Pre-Mesolithic subsistence as big-game focused hunting was faulty and suggested that similar arguments may be applicable to other prehistoric big-game hunting scenarios. Specific Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 307 766 6920; fax: +1 307 766 2473.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Kornfeld), [email protected] (M.L. Larson). 1 Tel.: +1 307 766 5566.

points of departure were Cantabrian and thereby European Upper Paleolithic economy and North American Northwest Plains communal bison hunters, especially those from the Paleoindian period (Kornfeld, 1996, 2007). These bastions of big-game hunting in prehistory, it was argued, may be misinterpretations based on myopic readings of the archaeological record. With respect to the Paleoindian period in particular, Kornfeld (2007) suggests that bison kill sites, in fact make up only a small proportion of the total number of Paleoindian sites. A review of a small sample of Paleoindian sites not associated with communal bison kills, and not very well represented in the literature, revealed that many are interpreted as camps of longer or shorter duration, contain a variety of features, including domestic structures, food storage facilities, a wide array of tools, and a variety of fauna (Kornfeld, 2007). Of particular interest was a broad assortment of fauna apparently present at these sites, but not investigated further at that time, a fact that precipitated the present paper. This volume is a particularly important venue for presenting these data, as it is the zooarchaeological research that must play a critical role in both interpretations of massive bonebeds

1040-6182/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2007.08.004

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

representing kill and processing locations, as well as the ephemeral faunal assemblages such as are discussed here. In this paper we review the Paleoindian and Early Archaic zooarchaeological literature from portions of the Northwest Plains and Central Rocky Mountains and discuss the current perspective on prehistory as derived from this literature. We then analyze a much larger sample of virtually unknown Paleoindian non-bonebeds derived from two faunal data sets; the first consists of sites from the State of Wyoming Cultural Records files and the second is made up of selected Paleoindian non-bonebed sites from the broader area of the western Plains and Rocky Mountains. We define sites as non-bonebeds if they contain faunal remains, but there is no indication of the assemblage being a primary kill/mass death or secondary processing area associated with a nearby bone midden. Finally we evaluate the evidence our data hold for understanding prehistory and the Paleoindian/Archaic transition. We show that by relying on a large sample of virtually unknown sites and non-bonebed faunal samples, we begin to provide a new and less biased perspective on prehistory. 2. Regional setting and background 2.1. Paleoindian period—megafaunal procurement Paleoindians in both North and South America are frequently portrayed as specialist megafauna hunters, emphasizing communal hunting strategies. In western North America such an economy is seen as first oriented towards mammoth hunting (Clovis), followed by a series of bison dominated economies (the cultural complexes from 11,000 to 7500 years ago). To succeed with such a big-game strategy, Paleoindian groups have been portrayed as highly mobile. This model is most elegantly presented by Kelly and Todd (1988) for the first migrants, but it has been commonly extended to the rest of the Paleoindian period (e.g., Jodry, 1999a, b; Bamforth, 2002) for the Plains and Rocky Mountains. Also, based on the Plains evidence the big-game specialization has been extended to other regions (Caldwell, 1958; Spencer et al., 1965; Willey, 1966; Jennings, 1989). In the past 20 years a few voices have been raised in opposition to this dominant paradigm (Meltzer and Smith, 1986; Meltzer, 1988), but detailed studies have only recently begun to support a generalist view of Paleoindian subsistence (e.g., Cannon and Meltzer, 2004; Byers and Ugan, 2005; Kornfeld, 2007). The history of Paleoindian studies in our area as well as North America in general reveals the deep roots of the specialist focus. To be defined as Paleoindian, a site or component had to meet a series of preconditions (Kornfeld, 2007). First, sites should be associated with great quantities of extinct Pleistocene fauna, a definition used by Wormington (1957) to identify Paleoindian sites. Second, large mammals should be the major component of the fauna. Third, skulls must be part of the recovered faunal inventory (particularly in bison bonebeds). And fourth

19

projectile points would link the sites to each other and eventually provide the basis for chronological sequencing of Paleoindian complexes. The initial interpretation of such sites as communal kill events by the first North Americans is not surprising. The surprise is that despite the discovery and investigation of a large number of non-big-game Paleoindian sites since the early 1950s, the economic specialization view persists. The Clovis-aged Colby site, a relatively well excavated, analyzed, and reported site containing mammoth bones, a few stone tools and two features (Frison and Todd, 1986), dominates the published information on the earliest time period of Paleoindian occupation of our study area. Of the three mammoth sites considered in this paper (Colby, Dent, Lange-Ferguson) Colby provides the most information about early Paleoindian lifeways. The remains of seven mammoths lay in the bottom of an arroyo with four Clovis projectile points, one tool, one probable channel flake diagnostic of Clovis technology, several pieces of chipped stone that may represent tool fragments, thirty flakes, and several cobble tools. At least some of the projectile points exhibit cutting functions (Kay, 1996). Raw materials at the Colby site are available within the nearby basin and mountains. The most significant aspect of the Colby site is two piles of mammoth bone that Frison and Todd (1986) suggest represent meat caches, although this conclusion has yet to be fully demonstrated despite an exhaustive taphonomic evaluation. Following Clovis times, published information on bison bonebed sites dominate the Paleoindian literature, and a series of cultural complexes and projectile point styles are directly linked to the sites. While research completed over the past 20 years demonstrates that a pile of bison bone geologically associated with artifacts does not unambiguously indicate a kill or procurement site (e.g., Todd and Rapson, 1999), such an interpretation requires a thorough and intensive taphonomic study of the recovered remains (e.g., Frison and Stanford, 1982; Frison and Todd, 1986; Frison, 1996; Hill, 2001). However, enough bison bone middens have now been studied (and in some cases restudied) to demonstrate that Paleoindians procured and used these animals during the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene times. A total of one mammoth (Colby) and six bison bonebeds have been found within the boundaries of the state of Wyoming (Fig. 1). The ‘‘type sites’’ for the Agate Basin, Cody, Eden, and James Allen complexes are associated with bison bonebeds and are within the Central Rocky Mountains and the Northwest Plains. With the exception of the Colby site, bison bone dominates the assemblages at these sites, with the minimum number of individuals in these ranging from five to 250 (Hill, 2002). For sites that have been almost completely excavated, numbers in the upper teens seem to be the lower limit of minimum number of individuals represented (Hill, 2002). Unlike numerous later Archaic and Late Prehistoric bone middens, no evidence exists for extremely extensive animal processing,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 20

M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

Fig. 1. Paleoindian bison bonebeds, kill and secondary butchering sites (crosses) and mammoth bonebed (square) within Wyoming.

such as for bone grease (e.g., Reeves, 1990). Butchery is minimal with virtually no removal of body parts from the kill, or even evidence for dismemberment at some bonebeds (Todd, 1983; Todd et al., 1997; Hill, 2001), although recent research provides evidence of resource extraction such as bone cracking for marrow (Hill, 2001, 2005). Bison mortality at bonebeds is most common from very late fall to early spring or just over one third of the year (e.g., Todd, 1991; Todd et al., 1990, 1996; Kornfeld, 2007). The bison bone middens are associated with a wide variety of site types including kills, processing locations, camps, as well as occupations from different seasons. Most bison middens have some kind of stone tool assemblage associated with them and such assemblages include projectile points, resharpening flakes, scrapers, spokeshaves, gravers, a variety of flake tools, debitage, and other tool types. Variation in the faunal assemblages seems to be explained by different activities carried on at such sites, season of occupation, or geographical location (Hill, 2002). For our study area, locally available raw materials make up by far the largest percentage of chipped stone. Nonlocal materials occur in small numbers, although a few cases exist where the production of a tool from a distant source leaves high proportions of non-local debitage in the assemblage. Projectile point numbers vary from a few specimens to more than 100 in some bone middens (Kornfeld, 2007, p. 41). The points are often broken and in some cases, have been used as knives (e.g., Greiser, 1977;

Kyriakidou, 1993; Stanford personal communication, 2002). 2.2. The concept of the Archaic In a reversal of intellectual thinking, just as the Paleoindian period was exported from the Plains and Rockies to the rest of the continent, the Archaic was imported into the Rockies from the east and west. Even before we knew we had Paleoindian bison hunters, Mulloy’s (1958) Middle Prehistoric Period was based on the Desert Archaic that Jennings (1957), Jennings and Norbeck (1955) and others had proposed for the Great Basin and the southwest. These originally scratched up savages were given respectability after Frison (1978) picked up on Willey and Phillips’s (1958) concept of the archaic and especially after Lee and DeVore (1968) and others demonstrated the integrated nature of hunting and gathering systems. Frison’s (1991) Archaic period covers the time between 7500 and 4500 radiocarbon years ago. The underlying theme was that as climate dried out on the Great Plains, the Plains lost the ability to support large bison herds and human populations had to alter their subsistence. At first the explanation was abandonment of the area (Mulloy, 1958; Husted, 2001), but later, adaptation seemed like a more reasonable explanation as ecological thinking entered archaeological explanations (Frison, 1978), although the debate on abandonment is not completely settled. The adaptation involved changing

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

subsistence strategy, no or at least reduced communal bison hunting, and broad based diets. 2.3. Archaic broad spectrum foragers What many consider to be common in Paleoindian times is notably absent during the Early Archaic, that is, significant evidence for communal bison hunting. Without this large herbivore, the concept of broad spectrum foraging associated with ‘‘settling in’’ (or increased knowledge of a local environment) is the dominant paradigm for the ecological approach to the Archaic (Hofman, 1997; Larson and Francis, 1997a) Details of this archaic adaptation have been emerging for over 30 years. Out of these two time periods, Paleoindian and Archaic, the salvage projects of the past several decades have added significantly to our understanding of the Archaic, but less so to that of the Paleoindian period. From these data, we have a picture of Archaic existence that contrasts with that of the Paleoindians. Starting in the late 1960s, investigations of Early Archaic sites have focused on a wide variety of site types with excavations of stratified rock shelters (closed sites) and open air sites revealing side notched projectile points in dated contexts. A wide variety of fauna and occasional ground stone accompany the diagnostic side notched points. These Early Archaic characteristics were sufficient to suggest a change in subsistence to the early investigators and this perception continues till today. Only one bison bone midden (Hawken, Frison et al., 1976) exists in our area for the time between 7500 and 5000 radiocarbon years ago commonly called the Early Archaic. However, at about 6500 rcybp deer and pronghorn bonebeds appear in the archaeological record in our area further supporting the perception of a broader subsistence strategy (Pastor and Lubinski, 2000; Kornfeld et al., 2001). Perhaps the most startling discovery in the last 25 years has been that of housepits at over 50 Early Archaic localities in the Central Rockies (Larson, 1997; Larson and Francis, 1997b). These sites range widely in numbers of housepits, hearths or storage pits per site and contain small assemblages of chipped stone and bone, all of which further substantiate the portrayal of significant differences in settlement and mobility between Paleoindian and Archaic times. Changes in diet away from bison to lesser game animals and the addition of roots, tubers, and seeds are suggested by the presence of the features mentioned above or their proxy (ground stone, macrobotanical remains, pollen, and starches). While Early Archaic archaeology seems substantially more diverse than the Paleoindian record, much still remains to do with this period as investigators struggle over the question of storage (long-term or short-term) and the nature of mobility (Larson, 1997; Smith, 2003). But, we see the Archaic broad-based subsistence as a much more realistic perception of hunter-gatherer existence than the Paleoindian scenario. We argue that the solution is not to

21

just recognize that Paleoindian subsistence was broad spectrum, but rather to admit that our perception of Paleoindians as exclusively big-game hunters is simply wrong (e.g., Kornfeld, 2007). 3. Methods and materials In contrast to the traditional view of Paleoindians, based on seven bonebed sites from the Central Rocky Mountains and Northwest Plains (Fig. 1), our analysis presents an alternative view based on two sets of data. One set of over 500 non-bonebed sites was acquired from government records (Wyoming State Historic Preservation OfficeWYSHPO, Cultural Records Office), while a second set of over 70 Paleoindian components was derived from published and unpublished sources (Fig. 2). The first data set (from the WYSHPO site files) provides good information for a general evaluation of site variability. These sites range from small surface lithic scatters recognized as Paleoindian on the basis of chronologically diagnostic projectile points to components within large, buried, stratified, multi-component sites with radiocarbon dates, diagnostic artifacts, and features. The sites include camps, specialized procurement, manufacturing, and other types of localities. A significant portion of this site sample contains bone that will be discussed below, however, the sites with bone are not bonebeds and they do not represent communal kill or mass processing events. The available data for each site is of variable quality; hence the comparability of the sample is at times poor. Consequently, we devoted considerable effort to reviewing the original site records and reports to gather and code data for this analysis. Our main concern was to obtain comparable taxonomic classifications of the faunal remains. The reviewed records classify the faunal remains in various ways, including specific Linnaean taxa (for example, Odocoileus virginianus), common names (for example, deer), or size categories (for example, medium mammal or medium animal, where these categories are generally defined in specific reports). The WYSHPO code these taxa into small, medium, large, and other classes as used by some regional archaeologists. These categories are based on regional size class taxonomies, and include large mammals, that is, fauna of pronghorn size and larger or approximately 50 kg or more; medium mammal being species such as beaver, porcupine and coyote; small mammal being rabbit, rodent, and smaller taxa. As with any geographical distribution of sites in the Rocky Mountains and Northwest Plains, the 500 Paleoindian sites in this data set, although distributed throughout the area are clustered in areas of energy development where intensive reconnaissance surveys have occurred (Fig. 3a). Nevertheless, their wide distribution, comparable to that of the bonebed sites, suggests a systemic link between the two, with each type representing different modes of the settlement and subsistence system. The non-bonebeds are residential and temporary camps, various procurement

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

22

AB 19

SK

MB

14 15

ND

MT 11 7 6

2

3 10 4 5 9 18 WY 12

MN

8 SD 13

IA

16

NE 1

UT

MO

KS

CO 17

AZ

NM

OK

AR

TX

N 300km Fig. 2. Paleoindian components from published and unpublished sources examined for this study: (1) Medicine Creek sites (Allen: AllenIZ, AllenOL1, AllenOL2; Lime Creek: LimeCrOt, LimeCrZ1; and Red Smoke; Bamforth, 2002; Hudson, 2007); (2) Barton Gulch (BartAlder, Davis et al., 1988, 1989); (3) Bighorn Canyon Caves (Bottleneck: BottleOC1, BottleOC2, BottleOC3; Mangus: MangusOC1; Sorenson: SorenOC2, SorenOC3; Husted, 1969); (4) Hanson (Frison and Bradley, 1980); (5) Bighorn Mountain and foothill sites (Medicine Lodge Creek: MLCCody, MLCDeepDeer, MLCFirePit, MLCFish, MLCNorthPaleo, MLCPryor, MLCRodL; Schiffer: SchifferC, Southsider: SouthsiderLP; Frison, 1973; Huter, 2003; Walker, 1975, 2007); (6) Pictograph Cave (PictC1; Mulloy, 1958); (7) Myers-Hindman (MyrHind; Lahren, 1976); (8) Mill Iron camp (MillIron; Frison, 1996); (9) Lookingbill (LookEPI, LookLPI: Kornfeld et al., 2001); (10) Mummy Cave: (MumCL15a, MumCL16, MumCL17, MumCL18, MumCL19, MumCL20, MumCL21, MumCL22, MumCL23, MumCL24; Hughes, 2003; Husted and Edgar, 2002); and Sheep Mountain net: SheepMt.Net (Frison et al., 1986; Hughes, 2003); (11) Indian Creek (IndCrDow, IndCrUpS; Davis and Greiser, 1992); (12) Pine Spring (PineSpr1, PineSpr2; Sharrock, 1966); (13) Sister’s Hill (SistHill; Agogino and Galloway, 1965); (14) Vermillion Lakes and DjPO-47 (VermL2-4, VermL6a, VermL6b, VermL7, VermL8, VermL9a, VermL9b; Driver, 1982; Fedje et al., 1995); (15) Sibbald Creek (SibboldC; Gryba, 1983); (16) Hell Gap (HelGI-3-6, HelGI-7-12, HelGIIMid, HelGIISubMid; Irwin-Williams et al., 1973, Rapson and Niven, 2007); (17) Cattle Guard (Jodry, 1999a); (18) Blue Point and Deep Hearth (BluePtLtPal, BluePtTermP, DeepHearthLPI; Rood and Pope, 1993; Johnson and Pastor, 2003); (19) Charlie Lake (CharLakeIIa, CharLakeIIb; Driver, 1996).

locations, caches, and so on, while the bonebeds are the locations of mass communal kills or secondary butchering activities. A significant point of this distribution is that Paleoindian sites occur in all physiographic areas: in the basins, in the foothills, in the mountains, and in the plains. And if we could look at it more closely, we are quite sure that smaller ecological features contain potentially different site types. While we assume that site type will vary in some way according to ecological zone, for the time being, such an assumption remains unexplored. Out of the 500 WYSHPO Paleoindian sites, our analysis identified 95 sites that contain bone (Fig. 3b). These sites again show a wide spatial distribution across the region and include closed and open localities. Of the 95 sites with bone 45 contain large mammals, 20 contain medium mammals, 18 small mammals, and 13 have unknown size fauna. Unfortunately, more detailed data on these faunal assemblages are currently not available, except to say that the assemblages are small in all cases, with number of identified specimens (NISPs) when available generally fewer than 20. Our second data set of 63 better known, mostly published Paleoindian components from a wider region that combines the Central Plains, the Northwestern Plains, and the Central Rocky Mountains, provides more detailed information on faunal assemblages than the data set discussed above (Tables 1–3). We compiled this sample from a recently completed review of Paleoindian non-bison bonebeds in the region (Kornfeld, 2007). That review considered about 50 sites with over 150 components. The components included in the present paper are those that contain fauna and have published information on the faunal assemblage with the following caveats. We eliminated five components from our sample; Lindenmeier and four Hell Gap site components (Irwin-Williams et al., 1973; Wilmsen and Roberts, 1978), leaving us with 63 components. Lindenmeier, although a campsite, has always been an enigma. The Lindenmeier bison bone comes from a restricted portion of the site and has been suggested to be a secondary bison processing area, presumably from a nearby communal mass kill. Likewise several of the Hell Gap occupations can be, for all practical purposes, considered bonebeds and possibly represent secondary bison processing from nearby multiple kills (Byers, 2007, Locality II Agate Basin component; Knell et al., 2007, Locality V Eden component; Rapson and Niven, 2007, Locality I/IE Goshen and Agate Basin components). Thus, the non-bonebed sample can be used to illustrate characteristics of Paleoindian faunal utilization that differ from the bison bonebed sites. The sample of 63 remaining sites from published sources provides an excellent data set of what the Paleoindian non-bison bonebed fauna and the inferred subsistence may look like over a wide area on the Northwestern Plains, the Rocky Mountains, and elsewhere. Although the second data set is an excellent sample, all 63 components yield comparable data only at the lowest

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

23

Fig. 3. Paleoindian sites in the Wyoming portion of the Central Rocky Mountains: (a) all sites; (b) sites with bone (data from WYSHPO Cultural Records Office, Laramie).

level of detail, that obtained by categorizing the presence or absence of taxa. When available we used more robust data from components including 54 with quantified taxa. Of

these, 48 have NISP counts, 18 have minimum number of individuals (MNI) calculations, while 12 have both NISPs and MNIs for the assemblage. Because of the variation in

24

Table 1 Presence and absence of taxa at selected Paleoindian components in the Central Plains and Rocky Mountains Prong-horn

Deer

Mtn. sheep

Beaver

Porcup

Rabbit

Rodent

Small animal

Bird

Reptile

Fish

Other

AllenIZ AllenOL1 AllenOL2 BartAlder BluePtLtPal BluePtTermP BottlOC1 BottlOC2 BottlOC3 CattleGuard CharLakIIa CharLakIIb DeepHearthLPI DjPo-47 Hanson HelGI-3-6 HelGI-7-12 HelGII-Midl HelGII-SubMId IndCrDow IndCrUpS LimeCrOt LimeCrZ1 LookEPI LookLPI ManguOC1 MillIron MLCCody MLCDeepDeer MLCFirePit MLCFish MLCNorthPaleo MLCPryor MLCRodL MumCL15a MumCL16 MumCL17

P P P A P A P A A P P P A P P P P P P P P P A P P A P P P A A P P P A A A

P P P A A A A A A A A A A A A P P A P A A A P A A A A A A A A A A P A A A

P P P P P P P P P A P P A A P P P A A A P A A A P P A P P P A P P P A A P

A A A A A A P P P A A A A P P A A A A P A A A P P A A P A P A P P P P P P

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A P A P P P A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A P A P A

P P P P P P A A P A P P P A P A A A A P P A A A A P A A P P A A P P A P A

P P P P P P A A P A P P P A P A P A A P P A A P A A P A P P A P P P A P A

A A A A A P A P A A P P A A A A A A A P P A A A A A P P P P P P P P A A A

A A A A A A A A A A P P A A A A P A A A A A A A A A A P P P A P P P A P A

A A A A A A A A A A A P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A P P P P P A A P A A A

A A A A A A A A A A P P A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A P P A A P A A A

A A A A A A A A P A P P A A P P P P A A A A A A A A P A A P P P P A A A A

Comments

Deer includes med-large; rodent incl. small animal Rodent incl. small animal; also 5 unidentifiable

Other ¼ fox Other ¼ muscrat Other ¼ weasel, marmot Plus 47 unidentified, plus eggshell Other ¼ bobcat Other ¼ elk Other ¼ Size Class II (canid) Other ¼ camel

Other ¼ 1 mammoth 1 unidentified Other ¼ 21 grizzly, 1 unidentified

Other ¼ 1 lynx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Bison

M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

Component name

A A A A A A A P P A P A P A A P A A A A A A A A A A

A A P P P P A P P P P A P A P P P A P P A A A A P A

P P P A P P P P A P P A P P P A A A P P P P P P P P

See Fig. 2 captions for abbreviations and references.

A A A A A P A A A A P A A A P A A A A A A A P A A A

P A P A P A A A P A A A A A A P A A A A A A A A A A

P A A P P P P A P A A A P A A A A A P A A A A P A A

P P A A P P P A P A A A P A A P A A P A A A A A P A

A A A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A A A A A A A A A

P P A A A A P P A A A A A A A A A A P A A A A A P A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A P A A P A P P P P A A A P A A A P P A A A A A A

Other ¼ bear

Other ¼ coyote Other ¼ canid Other ¼ 6 wolves, 1 lynx Other ¼ 1 camel, 77 unidentified Other ¼ 1 badger, 58 unidentified

Other ¼ 1 lynx

Other ¼ 7 canid, 6 marmots Plus 56 unidentified, 1 moose Plus 126 unidentified Plus 1 unidentified Plus 686 unidentified Plus 1923 unidentified Plus 150 unidentified Plus 159 unidentified

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A A A A A A A P P P P P A A P A P P P P A A A P A A

M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

MumCL18 MumCL19 MumCL20 MumCL21 MumCL22 MumCL23 MumCL24 MyrHind PictC1 PineSpr1 PineSpr2 RedSmoke SchifferC SheepMt.Net SibboldC SistHill SorenOC2 SorenOC3 SouthsiderLP VermL2-4 VermL6a VermL6b VermL7 VermL8 VermL9a VermL9b

25

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

26

Table 2 NISP counts by taxa at selected Paleoindian components in the Central Plains and Rocky Mountains Site name

Bison Prong- Deer Mtn. Beaver Porcupine Rabbit Rodent Small Bird Reptile Fish Other Comments horn sheep Animal

AllenIZ AllenOL1 AllenOL2 Blue PtTermP

73 523 17 0

45 33 14 0

54 70 25 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

151 455 84 53

56 150 37 20

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

BluePtLtPal

12

0

31

0

0

0

64

13

0

0

0

0

0

BottlOC1 BottlOC2 BottlOC3 CharLakIIa CharLakIIb DeepHearthLPI

1 0 0 8 11 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4 22 3 6 0

2 7 10 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 2 22 145 1

0 1 2 122 24 1

0 0 0 10 28 0

0 0 0 20 73 0

0 0 0 0 2 1

0 0 0 4 14 0

0 0 4 1 4 0

HelGI-3-6 HelGI-7-12

283 429

0 0

16 163

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 3

0 0

0 0

1 3

LookEPI LookLPI ManguOC1 MillIron MLCCody MLCDeepDeer MLCFirePit

3 3 0 1 2 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 94 3 0 2 23 1

21 434 0 0 1 0 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 12

0 0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 5 0 0 4 22

1 0 0 13 0 25 7

0 0 0 25 6 10 18

0 0 0 0 16 1 3

0 0 0 3 6 2 22

0 0 0 0 0 0 5

0 0 0 1 0 0 21

MLCFish MLCNorthPaleo MLCPryor MLCRodL MumCL15a MumCL16 MumCL17 MumCL18 MumCL19 1MumCL20 MumCL21 MumCL22 MumCL23 MumCL24 MyrHind PictC1 PineSpr1

0 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 93 67

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0

0 3 7 12 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 6 3 0 12 9 1

0 2 18 16 3 86 73 99 72 43 0 3 2 3 9 0 236

0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 7 90 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 9 4 5 0 2 0

0 2 4 1389 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 7 5 18 0 19 0

5 1 10 2249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 2 124 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 7 1

PineSpr2

55

1

1

1366

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

SorenOC2 SorenOC3 SouthsiderLP VermL2-4

1 1 31 1

0 0 0 0

1 0 32 2

0 0 2 5

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 2 0

0 0 7 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 3 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 13 1

VermL6a VermL6b VermL7 VermL8 VermL9a VermL9b

0 0 0 2 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 3 0

3 3 48 84 11 11

0 0 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 23 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

See Fig. 2 captions for abbreviations and references.

Rodent incl. small animal; also 5 unidentifiable Deer includes med-large; rodent incl. small animal

Other ¼ fox Other ¼ muskrat Other ¼ weasel, marmot Plus 47 unidentified, plus eggshell Other ¼ elk Other ¼ Size Class 2 (Canid)

Other ¼ 1 mammoth 1 unidentified Other ¼ 21 grizzly, 1 unidentified

Other ¼ 1 lynx

Other ¼ bear

Other ¼ coyote Other ¼ canid Other ¼ 6 wolves, 1 lynx Other ¼ 1 camel, 77 unidentified Other ¼ 1 badger, 58 unidentified

Other ¼ 7 canid, 6 marmot Plus 56 unidentified, 1 moose Plus 126 unidentified Plus 1 unidentified Plus 686 unidentified Plus 1923 unidentified Plus 150 unidentified Plus 159 unidentified

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

27

Table 3 MNI counts by taxa at selected Paleoindian components in the Central Plains and Rocky Mountains Site name

Bison Pronghorn Deer Mountain Beaver Porcupine Rabbit Rodent Small sheep animal

Bird Reptile Fish Other Comments

BartAlder CattleGuard DjPo-47 Hanson HelGI-3-6 HelGI-7-12 MillIron MLCCody MLCDeepDeer MLCFirePit MLCNorthPaleo MLCPryor MLCRodL

0 8 1 3 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 1 2 2

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 16

1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 7 3 2 2 243

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 5 8 1 6 361

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 2 1 2 19

0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6

SchifferC SibboldC SouthsiderLPa VermL6a-b,7,8 VermL9a-b

0 7 3 1 0

1 0 0 0 0

1 3 1 1 1

3 1 1 12 4

0 2 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0

4 0 1 2 0

1 0 1 0 1

1 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 1 2 0 0

Other ¼ bobcat Other ¼ elk Other ¼ size class II (canid) Other ¼ 1 mammoth Other ¼ 1 mustelid Other ¼ 1 grizzly Other ¼ 1 lynx Other ¼ 2 pika, 2 weasel, 1 ermine, 1 mustelid Other ¼ 1 lynx Other ¼ 1 canid, 1 marmot

See Fig. 2 captions for abbreviations and references.

reporting protocols for taxa in the published literature we followed certain conventions in gathering of these data.2 The largest size category in the sample, the bison category or size class IV (Brain, 1981), includes elk, but the presence of elk in the archaeological record is extremely rare, thus most specimens counted are bison. For pronghorn, deer, mountain sheep, and size class III animals, we count ‘‘size class III’’ category animals as deer when no other information was available. Although we think that most of these cases are deer, our practice may inflate the deer assemblage at the expense of pronghorn. For the smallest animals, we counted cottontails and jack rabbits as rabbits; gophers and squirrels as rodents, and mice, voles and the smallest mammals as small animals. The following analysis begins with lowest level of resolution, the presence or absence of species and then considers the more robust quantitative data.

Table 4 Presence and absence of taxa at 63 sampled components Species

Absent (n)

Absent %

Present (n)

Present %

Bison Pronghorn Deer Mountain Sheep Beaver Porcupine Rabbit Rodent Small Animal Bird Reptile Fish Other

27 50 24 27 54 55 35 31 48 47 55 58 42

43 79 38 43 86 87 56 49 76 75 87 92 67

36 13 39 36 9 8 28 32 15 16 8 5 21

57 (2) 21 (8) 62 (1) 57 (2) 14 (9) 13 (10) 44 (4) 51 (3) 24 (6) 25 (5) 13 (10) 8 (11) 33

Parentheses in the present % column indicate rank within column.

4. Results Bison, deer, mountain sheep, and rodents occur in over 50% of the components, while rabbits are close behind with a presence in 44% of the components (Table 4). Conversely, pronghorn, beaver, porcupine, small animal, reptiles, birds, and fish are found in fewer than 25% of the components. Notably birds occur at 25% of the sites. Present in 33% of the components are one or more of the following taxa identified in the reports: bear, grizzly, lynx, 2 We recognize that the size class differences between the WYSHPO data set and the data collected from published sources vary in the inclusion of certain species within small, medium, and large size classes. However, because we do not compare size classes between the two data sets and identify species where possible, our analyses are not compromised.

canid, fox, coyote, skunk, pika, weasel, mustelid, camel, mammoth, marmot, moose, and bobcat. If we rank the taxa on the basis of most often to least often present in the assemblage, deer are present in most assemblages, followed by bison, mountain sheep, rodent, rabbit, bird, and small animal. Pronghorn, beaver, porcupine, reptile, and fish are the rarest. These coarse grained data show a wide diversity of fauna at Paleoindian sites, diversity that likely represents resource use. Even without considering screen size used during excavation as a factor in faunal counts (Cannon and Meltzer, 2004), these numbers provide a picture of Paleoindian subsistence unobtainable elsewhere. Interestingly, Byers and Ugan’s (2005) diet breadth model predicts fauna smaller than bison and mammoth will occur as part

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

28

> 98

0%

- 6%

8 -1

>9 10 - 98 17%

0 46%

10 - 98 42%

0 - 6%

of Clovis diet. Our data indicates that such resources apparently played a role in post-Clovis subsistence as well. Of 54 components with quantitative data, large mammal (bison) NISP is higher than 100 at three components and higher than 20 at eight components (Table 2). The sites with NISP greater than 100 include Allen and two Hell Gap site components. Allen (Occupation OL1) may have received body parts from the nearby Lime Creek and Red Smoke procurement localities (Bamforth, 2002). Although the two Hell Gap components represent different formational histories and their assemblages are partly a function of excavation and analytical techniques or biases (Rapson and Niven, 2007), we consider them to be non-bonebed assemblages. Hell Gap Locality I Hell Gap component (HGI Levels 3–6) and Hell Gap Frederick and Late Paleoindian (HGI Levels 7–12) represent multiple occupations where individual occupation NISPs may be fewer than 100. Furthermore Hell Gap seasonality data generally represent year round procurement, thus the large NISPs in the assemblages are the result of accumulations of individual procurement episodes. Certainly the large bison bone assemblages in the two components at Hell Gap and the Allen site component represent significant consumption and thus procurement of this resource. However, within the context of other sites in this paper such procurement and consumption could easily be a part of a broadly based diet reliant on many single hunting episodes rather than communal procurement. Significantly, in a comparison between bison and class size III fauna, bison are either absent or occur in lower numbers than class size III mammals in the majority of components (Table 2, Fig. 4a and b). Bison are absent from nearly half of the components (46%, n ¼ 22) whereas class size III mammals do not occur in just 6% (n ¼ 3) of the components. Just under half of the components (40%, n ¼ 19) contain 1–9 class size III specimens, whereas one quarter of the components (27%, n ¼ 13) contain between 1 and 9 identifiable bison remains. This means that fully 73% of the components contain less than 10 identifiable bison specimens. Less than half of the components have comparable numbers for class size III fauna (46%, n ¼ 22). On the other end of frequency, single species of class size

1-9 46%

1-9 27%

Fig. 4. Comparison of NISP counts for: (a) bison; and (b) class size III mammals for components listed on Table 2.

III and bison are 10% (n ¼ 5) and 6% (n ¼ 3), respectively for NISPs greater than 99. If we follow the same analytical path for rabbit, rodent, and small animal, NISP counts over 99 occur with five of the components—the same number of components as the class size III mammals! The species with the highest NISP counts include rabbit (up to 455), rodent (up to 1389), and small animal (up to 2249). These small mammals have the highest NISP counts in 16 (33%) of the 48 components. The implication is clear that bison does not account for a large portion of the specimens in most assemblages, if it is there at all. In contrast, class size III mammals occur in the majority of components. Deer, mountain sheep, or pronghorn are present at 45 of the 48 components with NISP counts and small mammals may, in some cases, be the most common specimen found. Thus, fauna smaller than bison and other large mammals occur more frequently and are more abundant in Paleoindian components than their counterparts. Another way to evaluate these data is to order the taxa by both the total NISP in the sample (the sum from all components) and the maximum NISP at any single component (Table 5). In the case of total NISP, the order from most common to least common is mountain sheep, small animal, rodent, bison, rabbit, deer, bird, pronghorn, fish, reptile, beaver, and porcupine. The order of maximum NISP from most to least common is small animal, rodent, mountain sheep, bison, rabbit, deer, bird, pronghorn, reptile and fish, beaver, and porcupine. Interestingly, small animal and rodent have the highest maximum NISP, surpassing any of the medium to large mammals. Beaver and porcupine, on the other hand have both the lowest total NISP and lowest maximum NISP. Finally, we see a great deal of variability between components at single sites (Table 2). The maximum NISP of different taxa may correspond to different components. Thus while at some sites all components show heavy reliance on one taxon, (e.g., Vermillion Lake and Mummy Cave), other sites show variability in taxa between components (e.g., Medicine Table 5 Summary data of number of identified specimens (NISP) for 53 cases with data Species

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Sum

Bison Pronghorn Deer Mountain Sheep Beaver Porcupine Rabbit Rodent Small Animal Bird Reptile Fish Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

523 (4) 45 (8) 163 (6) 1366 (3) 12 (10) 3 (11) 455 (5) 1389 (2) 2249 (1) 124 (7) 22 (9) 22 (9) 21

34.3 2.1 12.9 55.8 0.4 0.2 24.0 40.3 49. 5.3 0.9 1.0 1.4

1645 (4) 99 (8) 621 (6) 2678 (1) 20 (11) 11 (12) 1154 (5) 1935 (3) 2349 (2) 252 (7) 44 (10) 47 (9) 69

Numbers in parentheses indicate ranking within column.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

Lodge Creek and Charlie Lake). These comparisons illustrate the diverse, variable, and flexible nature of Paleoindian faunal utilization. To further evaluate the fauna we look at the MNI calculations, which are available for only 18 components (Tables 3 and 6). Bison MNI ranges from zero to eight with two thirds of the components with bison having an MNI of zero or one (67%, n ¼ 12). Only two sites have MNIs greater than four. The site with an MNI of eight is the Cattle Guard site, which Jodry (1999b) interprets as the product of secondary processing at a campsite. Thus, while bison occur in the majority of components, total numbers as estimated by MNI are low. The MNIs of class size III mammals range from zero to 12 with one third (33%, n ¼ 6) of the components containing a maximum MNI of zero or one for any of the three mammals included in this class. Interestingly, only four components contain a sole species of the two largest class sizes (III and IV). All of the remaining components (n ¼ 14) contain some combination of large and medium mammals. The total MNIs of bison for the 18 components is 35 and the total for medium mammals combined is 56. Rabbit, rodent, and small animal, while absent in more assemblages (Table 2), have far higher MNIs, up to 361 in one case. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that this represents a true picture of small mammal assemblages, as field recovery techniques are rarely adequate for systematic recovery of these species and were even less so in the past, and when recovered, small mammals are rarely analyzed with the same intensity as larger animals. To further illustrate the variability within our data set, if we compare summed MNI for each species in all components with the maximum MNI for that species in any one component, we obtain different sequences (Table 6). Going from highest to lowest summed MNI the sequence is small animal, rodent, bison, bird, rabbit and mountain sheep, deer, reptile, beaver, pronghorn and porcupine, and fish. The list of maximum MNI occurring Table 6 Summary data on minimum number of individuals (MNI) for 18 cases with data Species

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Sum

Bison Pronghorn Deer Moun Beaver Porcupine Rabbit Rodent Size Small Animal Bird Reptile Fish Other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 (6) 1 (10) 3 (8) 12 (5) 2 (9) 2 (9) 16 (3) 243 (2) 361 (1) 19 (4) 5 (7) 1 (10) 6

1.9 0.2 1.3 1.7 0.4 0.2 1.7 14.8 21.8 1.9 0.8 0.1 0.8

35 (3) 3 (9) 23 (6) 30 (5) 7 (8) 3 (9) 30 (5) 266 (2) 393 (1) 34 (4) 14 (7) 2 (10) 15

Numbers in parentheses indicate rank within column.

29

in any single component from highest to lowest shows small animal, rodent, rabbit, bird, mountain sheep, bison, reptile, deer, beaver and porcupine, pronghorn and fish. As they were for maximum NISP, small animals and rodents are most common, while beaver, porcupine are again the least common, together with reptile, fish and pronghorn. Several taxa present interesting patterns. For example birds, while never present near the top of the list, occur in many assemblages and rank fourth in MNI. Fiedel (2007) has recently emphasized birds in Paleoindian assemblages, albeit in the context of peopling of the Americas. However, our analysis bears out his suspicions for the importance of birds throughout Paleoindian times. Also of interest are pronghorn, which never place highly in any of the quantitative measures and are in most cases near the bottom of the list. Part of this infrequent occurrence may be attributable to our coding of ‘‘class III’’ sized mammals in reports as deer rather than as pronghorn. With the exception that it is present in most components, deer always appears close to pronghorn in our measures. Hence, reclassifying some deer samples as pronghorn may equalize these two species. However, for the present paper, it is more relevant that regardless of specific taxa the class III mammals as a group outnumber bison in all measures and ranks. Furthermore, the relatively frequent occurrence and high numbers of a variety of smaller fauna (rabbit, rodent, and small animal) clearly establishes these animals as significant resources for Paleoindian subsistence. 5. Discussion While we agree that a single bison contributes much more edible meat than a mouse, our data illustrates that fauna smaller than bison, in particular deer, mountain sheep, rodents, and small animals contributed regularly to Paleoindian diets. Bison (and potentially mammoth in Clovis times) appear to have been one part of a smorgasbord of animals taken by Paleoindian hunters. Evidence for the extraction of marrow from incompletely butchered bison (Todd, 1983; Todd et al., 1997; Hill, 2001) and the argument for use of fermented stomach contents (Todd, 1991) show that in some cases, bison were not just killed and processed for edible meat. Such strategies diminish the contribution of bison meat to Paleoindian diets and mirror the need for fat and other consumables in hunter–gatherer subsistence. Finally, the need for hides, while probably never the only goal, may be one of the reasons that fall and winter bison kills, when hides were at their thickest occur commonly in the Paleoindian record. When we look beyond the fauna, other characteristics of the archaeological record support our argument for Paleoindian subsistence diversity. A number of features, in particular seeds, ground stone, structures, and storage features are found within our sample of Paleoindian nonbonebed components. Stored seeds from a variety of plants come from sites such as Medicine Lodge Creek, Schiffer Cave, and others in the Central Rocky Mountains. Among

ARTICLE IN PRESS 30

M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

these are the seeds of chokecherry, juniper, sunflower, pine, and prickly pear (Frison, 1991). Ground stone, present at about one quarter of the 500 non-bonebed sites, is likely related to the processing of seeds. We believe a seed procurement and processing complex (seeds, ground stone, and storage) began more than 9000 radiocarbon years ago during mid- to late Paleoindian times. Structures may be part of this complex, as storage features and grinding equipment commonly occur together in Early Archaic housepits. Although not common and of several varieties, structures are present at Paleoindian sites since at least Folsom times (e.g., Frison and Bradley, 1980; Surovell et al., 2003; Stiger, 2006) adding further diversity to our understanding of Paleoindian settlement and subsistence systems. 6. Conclusions This paper began by addressing the Paleoindian to Archaic transition and suggested that the transition was rather ephemeral, a nuanced change in settlement–subsistence strategies, rather than a wholesale replacement. In terms of technology, Frison (1978) long ago suggested that the only difference between Late Paleoindian and Early Archaic times is the addition of side notches to projectile points. In this paper we first reviewed the Paleoindian and Archaic literature, followed by collecting two sets of data on little known Paleoindian sites and faunal assemblages. One data set of 500 sites shows that bison bonebeds constitute about 1–2% of the total Paleoindian sites. The remaining non-bonebed sites are diverse, widely distributed across the region, and approximately 20% or 95 of them contain fauna. These data further show that medium and large fauna (pronghorn size and larger) occur at only one half of the sites with bone. Our other data set contains more detailed information about faunal assemblages, although the sites remain little known. The data from 63 non-bison bonebed components in the Plains and the Rocky Mountains commonly provide information such as faunal assemblage composition and quantitative data on skeletal element or even element portions. We did not compile such detailed information at this time, but did collect information on presence or absence of taxa, NISP, or MNI when available. These data show a diversity of fauna utilized during the Paleoindian period, including most commonly deer, mountain sheep, bison, rabbits, rodents, and small animals. Rare occurrences include beaver, porcupine, pronghorn, birds, lizards, and small numbers of various carnivores, omnivores, and other animals. Such data emphasize the diversity of Paleoindian diets, rather than one focused on any single species. Furthermore, we strongly suspect that the known sample of Paleoindian bonebeds is proportionately larger than the sample of non-bonebeds. The higher proportion of bonebeds can be attributed to more likely preservation of bonebeds which form their own microenvironments

increasing preservation potential (Todd, 1983), better visibility hence discovery, and public awareness hence again discovery bias towards bonebeds (Cannon and Meltzer, 2004: 1980; Kornfeld, 2007). Thus, while continued field studies might occasionally find a large mammal bonebed, future discoveries of Paleoindian sites will more often be of non-bonebed components such as the sites discussed in this paper. Of the seven bonebed sites we have discussed only one is the product of recent salvage archaeology, while nearly all of the 500 non-bonebed sites were discovered by such field studies. We can expect this trend to continue and we can expect to learn much more from and about the non-bonebeds in the future. Researchers have begun developing and testing hypothesized diet breadth models for the Early Paleoindian Clovis complex in North America (Waguespack and Surovell, 2003; Cannon and Meltzer, 2004; Byers and Ugan, 2005). Some argue against the presence of subsistence specialization on mammoth and bison and for the pursuit of a broad range of mammals including medium mammals, lagomorphs, and rodents in Clovis diet (cf., Waguespack and Surovell, 2003; Byers and Ugan, 2005, p. 1637). While our data incorporates a much longer time than Clovis, our results provide robust support for the non-specialist, nonlarge game focused diet of all Paleoindians. Our addition of 500 Paleoindian sites from Wyoming, 95 of which contain bone and 63 non-bonebed sites from the Plains and the Rocky Mountains, to the seven well reported bonebeds strongly supports Cannon and Meltzer’s (2004, p. 1980) contention that excavation of more Clovis sites would reveal an archaeological record no longer dominated by large game such as mammoth and bison. We, like others (Cannon and Meltzer, 2004; Byers and Ugan, 2005), do not argue that Paleoindians ignored large game, merely that they had much broader diets. We therefore expect that the culture(s) that accompanies such subsistence should differ from that of big-game specialists commonly portrayed by archaeologists. Today we are beginning to recognize that Paleoindian life and consequently the archaeological record contains more than kill sites. Bison bonebeds tell very little of the story. Domiciles at sites such as Hell Gap, Barton Gulch, Barger Gulch, Cattle Guard and elsewhere, caches, burials, and other settlement features tell ‘‘the rest of the story.’’ These are locations where a diversity of life functions occurred and we can expect the sites to vary along many axes, including population demographics, population structure, season of occupation, and so on. Clearly we cannot view Paleoindians simply as focused, single species specialists, at first streaming into the country, then continuing their carnivorous ravages of the landscape, while growing their population like rabbits! Rather, Paleoindians were engaged in a wide variety of procurement, processing, ritual, social, and other activities that varied in both time and space. At present, the Archaic does not seem to differ much from the broad-based subsistence-settlement system envi-

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

sioned for it, although we have yet to complete a comparable study of this period’s non-bonebed sites. We think that the Paleoindian to Archaic transition needs rethinking. What is it? When did it take place? What was involved in the evolution of the Archaic society? We leave these questions for the future, but we are confident the answers will differ from yesterdays. Given the addition of the here-to-fore unstudied sites to our data, the Paleoindian/Archaic transition begins to look strikingly like no transition at all, or at least not at the time the ‘‘Archaic’’ is supposed to begin, around 7500 radiocarbon years ago. Acknowledgments We thank Mary Hopkins, Ross Hillman, Steve Sutter and the rest of the Wyoming SHPO Cultural Records Office staff for access and assistance in navigation their files and databases. Kirsten Olson and Victoria Rose searched the databases and coded additional zooarchaeological data from reports. John Lyon coded much of the zooarchaeological data from the published literature. We thank Franc- oise Audouze and Meg Conkey for inviting us to a session where we presented an earlier version of this paper and Matt E. Hill for inviting us to the ICAZ session that provided us the opportunity to expand our database and for his work pulling this volume together. Discussions through the years with Bob Kelly, Todd Surovell, and Nicole Waguespack and many other colleagues greatly enriched our thinking and knowledge of Paleoindian fauna, subsistence, and settlement. Two anonymous reviewers greatly strengthened our paper. References Agogino, G.A., Galloway, E., 1965. The Sister’s Hill site: A Hell Gap site in north-central Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 10 (29), 190–195. Bamforth, D.B., 2002. The Paleoindian occupation of the Medicine Creek drainage, southwestern Nebraska. In: Roper, D.C. (Ed.), Medicine Creek, Seventy Years of Archaeological Investigations. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL, pp. 54–83. Brain, C.K., 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Byers, D.A., 2007.The Hell Gap site Locality II: history of excavations and bone modifications to the Agate Basin component faunal remains. In: Larson, M.L., Kornfeld, M., Frison, G.C. (Eds.), Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Site on the Great Plains. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press. Byers, D.A., Ugan, A., 2005. Should we expect large game specialization in the late Pleistocene? An optimal foraging perspective on early Paleoindian prey choice. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1624–1640. Caldwell, J.R., 1958. Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. American Anthropological Association, Memoir No. 88, Menasha, WI. Cannon, M.D., Meltzer, D.J., 2004. Paleoindian foraging: examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and regional variability in prey choice. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 1955–1987. Clarke, D.L., 1976. Mesolithic Europe: the economic basis. In: Sieveking, G.de G., Longworth, H., Wilson, K.E. (Eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archeology. Duckworth, London, pp. 449–481.

31

Davis, L.B., Greiser, S.T., 1992. Indian Creek Paleoindians: early occupation of the Elkhorn Mountains’ southeast flank, west-central Montana. In: Stanford, D.J., Day, J.S. (Eds.), Ice Age Hunters of the Rockies. University of Colorado Press, Niwot, CO, pp. 285–321. Davis, L.B., Aaberg, S.A., Greiser, S.T., 1988. Paleoindians in transmontane southwestern Montana: The Barton Gulch occupations, Ruby River drainage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 5, 9–11. Davis, L.B., Aaberg, S.A., Eckerle, W.P., Fisher, J.W., Greiser, S.T., 1989. Montane Paleoindian occupation of the Barton Gulch site, Ruby Valley, southwestern Montana. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6, 7–9. Driver, J.C., 1982. Early Prehistoric killing of bighorn sheep in the southeastern Canadian Rockies. Plains Anthropologist 27 (98), 265–271. Driver, J.C., 1996. The significance of the fauna from the Charlie Lake Cave site. In: Carlson, R.L., Della Bona, L. (Eds.), Early Human Occupation in British Columbia. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 21–28. Fedje, D.W., White, J.M., Nelson, D.E., Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., 1995. Vermilion Lakes site: adaptations and environments in the Canadian Rockies during the latest Pleistocene and early Holocene. American Antiquity 60 (1), 81–108. Fiedel, S., 2007. Quacks in the ice: waterfowl, Paleoindians and the discovery of America. In: Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N. (Eds.), Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 1–14. Frison, G.C., 1973. Early period marginal cultural groups in northern Wyoming. Plains Anthropologist 18 (62), 300–312. Frison, G.C., 1978. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. Academic Press, NY. Frison, G.C., 1991. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Frison, G.C. (Ed.), 1996. The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Frison, G.C., Bradley, B., 1980. Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Frison, G.C., Stanford, D.J. (Eds.), 1982. The Agate Basin Site. Academic Press, New York, NY. Frison, G.C., Todd, L.C., 1986. The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy and Archeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Frison, G.C., Wilson, M.C., Wilson, D.J., 1976. Fossil bison and artifacts from an Early Altithermal Period arroyo trap in Wyoming. American Antiquity 41 (1), 28–57. Frison, G.C., Andrews, R.L., Adovasio, J.M., Carlisle, R.C., Edgar, R., 1986. A late Paleoindian animal trapping net from northern Wyoming. American Antiquity 51 (2), 252–361. Greiser, S.T., 1977. Micro-analysis of wear-patterns on projectile points and knives from the Jurgens site, Kersey, Colorado. Plains Anthropologist 22 (76), 77–116. Gryba, E.M., 1983. Sibbald Creek: A Record of 11,000 Years of Human Utilization of the Southern Alberta Foothills. Occasional Paper No. 22, Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Hill, M.E., 2002. An animal for all seasons: variations in Paleoindian bison bonebeds on the Great Plains. Paper presented at the 60th Plains Anthropological Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. Hill, M.G., 2001. Paleoindian diet and subsistence behavior on the Northwestern Great Plains of North America. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Hill, M.G., 2005. Late Paleoindian (Allen/Frederick complex) subsistence activities at the Clary Ranch site, Ash Hollow, Garden County, Nebraska Ranch. Plains Anthropologist 50 (195), 249–263. Hofman, J.L., 1997. Changing the Plains Archaic. In: Larson, M.L., Francis, J.E. (Eds.), Changing Perspectives on the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains. The University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion, SD., pp. xi–xxvi.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 32

M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33

Hudson, J., 2007. Faunal evidence for subsistence and settlement patterns at the Allen site. In The Allen Site: A Paleoindian Camp in Southwestern Nebraska, edited by Douglas B. Bamforth. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, in press. Hughes, S.S., 2003. Beyond the altithermal: the role of climate change in the Prehistoric Adaptations of Northwestern Wyoming. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Husted, W.M., 1969. Bighorn Canyon Archaeology. Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Washington, DC. Husted, W.M., 2001. Archaeology in the Middle Rocky Mountains: myopia, misconceptions and other concerns. Plains Anthropologist 47 (183), 379–386. Husted, W.M., Edgar, B., 2002. The Archeology of Mummy Cave Wyoming. United States Department of the Interior National Park Service, Midwest Archaeological Center, Lincoln, NE. Huter, P.M., 2003. An assessment of changing diet-breadth at Southsider Shelter. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Irwin-Williams, C., Irwin, H.T., Agogino, G., Haynes Jr., C.V., 1973. Hell Gap: Paleo-Indian occupation on the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist 18 (59), 40–53. Jennings, J.D., 1957. Danger Cave. University of Utah, Anthropological Papers No. 27, Salt Lake City, UT. Jennings, J.D., 1989. Prehistory of North America. 3rd ed. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA. Jennings, J.D., Norbeck, E., 1955. Great Basin prehistory: a review. American Antiquity 21, 1–11. Jodry, M.A., 1999a. Folsom technological organization and socioeconomic strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, American University, Washington, DC. Jodry, M.A., 1999b. Paleoindian stage. In: Martorano, M.A., Hoeffer, II, T., Jodry, M.A., Spero, V., Taylor, M.L. (Eds.), Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Rio Grande Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, CO, pp. 45–114. Johnson, D., Pastor, J., 2003. The Blue Point Site: Paleoindian/Archaic Transition in Southwest Wyoming. Report prepared for FMC Corporation by Western Archaeological Services, Rock Springs, Wyoming. On file at the WYSHPO Cultural Records Office, Laramie, WY. Kay, M., 1996. Microware analysis of some Clovis and experimental chipped stone tools. In: Odell, G.H. (Ed.), Stone Tools. Plenum Press, NY, pp. 315–344. Kelly, R.L., Todd, L.C., 1988. Coming into the country: Early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. American Antiquity 53 (2), 231–244. Knell, E.J., Hill, M.G., Izeta, A.D., 2007. The Locality V Cody complex component. In: Larson, M.L., Kornfeld, M., Frison, G.C. (Eds.), Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Site on the Great Plains. Monograph draft in possession of the authors. Kornfeld, M., 1996. The big game focus: reinterpreting the archaeological record of Cantabrian Upper Paleolithic economy. Current Anthropology 37, 629–657. Kornfeld, M., 2007. Are Paleoindians of the Great Plains and the Rocky Mountains subsistence specialists? In: Walker, R.B., Driskell, B.N. (Eds.), Foragers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 32–58. Kornfeld, M., Larson, M.L., Rapson, D.J., Frison, G.C., 2001. 10,000 years in the Middle Rocky Mountains: the Lookingbill site. Journal of Field Archaeology 28 (3/4), 1–18. Kyriakidou, M., 1993. Functional analysis of the Hell Gap projectile point complex: a comparative microwear study. Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. Lahren, L.A., 1976. The Myers-Hindman Site: An Exploratory Study of Human Occupation Patterns in the Upper Yellowstone Valley from 7000 BC to AD. 1200. Anthropologos Research International Incorporated, Livingston, MT.

Larson, M.L., 1997. Housepits and mobile hunter-gatherers: a consideration of the Wyoming evidence. Plains Anthropologist 42 (161), 353–369. Larson, M.L., Francis, J., 1997a. Introduction. In: Larson, M.L., Francis, J. (Eds.), Changing Perspectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains. University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion, SD., pp. 1–13. Larson, M.L., Francis, J. (Eds.), 1997b. Changing Perspectives of the Archaic on the Northwest Plains and Rocky Mountains. University of South Dakota Press, Vermillion, SD. Lee, R.B., DeVore, I. (Eds.), 1968. Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago, IL. Meltzer, D., 1988. Late Pleistocene human adaptations in eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2, 1–52. Meltzer, D.J., Smith, B.D., 1986. Paleoindian and Early Archaic subsistence strategies in eastern North America. In: Neusius, S. (Ed.), Foraging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic period subsistence and settlement in the Eastern Woodlands. Occasional Paper 6. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, pp. 3–31. Mulloy, W.T., 1958. A Preliminary Historical Outline for the Northwestern Plains. University of Worming Publications, vol. XXII, No. 1. Laramie, WY. Pastor, J.V., Lubinski, P.M., (Eds.), 2000. Pronghorn past and present: archaeology, ethnography, and biology. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 32. Rapson, D.J., Niven, L.B., 2007. The Hell Gap site Locality I faunal assemblage (1960–1966). In: Larson, M.L., Kornfeld, M., Frison, G.C. (Eds.), Hell Gap: A Stratified Paleoindian Site on the Great Plains. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press. Reeves, B.O.K., 1990. Communal bison hunters of the northern Plains. In: Davis, L.B., Reeves, B.O.K. (Eds.), Hunters of the Recent Past. Unwin Hyman, London, UK, pp. 168–194. Rood, R.J., Pope M.C., 1993. 1992 Archaeological excavations along the Kern River Gas Transmission Line, Southwest Wyoming: Data Recovery at Sites 48UT1447, 48UT786, and 48UT186. Report Prepared for Kern River Pipeline Company by Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Montrose, Colorado. Manuscript on file at the WYSHPO Cultural Records Office, Laramie. Sharrock, F.W., 1966. Prehistoric Occupation Patterns in Southwest Wyoming and Cultural Relationships with the Great Basin and Plains Culture Areas. University of Utah, Anthropological Papers No. 77. Salt Lake City, UT. Smith, C.S., 2003. Hunter–gatherer mobility, storage, and houses in a marginal environment: an example from the mid-Holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22 (2), 311–312. Spencer, R.F., Jennings, J.D., Dibble, C.E., Johnson, E., King, A.R., Stern, T., Stewart, K.M., Stewart, O.C., Wallace, W.J., 1965. The Native Americans. Harper and Row, NY. Stiger, M., 2006. A Folsom structure in the Colorado mountains. American Antiquity 71 (2), 321–351. Surovell, T., Waguespack, N.M., Kornfeld, M., Frison, G.C., 2003. The first five field seasons at Barger Gulch, Locality B, Middle Park, Colorado. Technical Report No. 26, George C. Frison Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Todd, L.C., 1983. The Horner Site: Taphonomy of an Early Holocene Bison Bonebed. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Todd, L.C., 1991. Seasonality studies and Paleoindian subsistence strategies. In: Stiner, M.C. (Ed.), Human Predators and Prey Mortality. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 217–276. Todd, L.C., Rapson, D.J., 1999. Formational analysis of bison bonebeds and interpretation of Paleoindian subsistence. In: Brugal, J.P., David, F., Enloe, J.G., Jaubert, J. (Eds.), Le bison: gibier et moyen de subsistence des hommes du Pale´olithique aux Pale´oindiens des Grandes Plaines. Actes du colloque international, Toulouse 1995. Editions APDCA, Antibes, pp. 479–499.

ARTICLE IN PRESS M. Kornfeld, M.L. Larson / Quaternary International 191 (2008) 18–33 Todd, L.C., Hofman, J.L., Schultz, C.B., 1990. Seasonality of the Scottsbluff and Lipscomb bison bonebeds: implications for modeling Paleoindian subsistence. American Antiquity 55, 813–827. Todd, L.C., Rapson, D.J., Hofman, J.L., 1996. Dentition studies of the Mill Iron and other early Paleoindian bison bonebed sites. In: Frison, G.C. (Ed.), The Mill Iron Site. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM, pp. 145–175. Todd, L.C., Hill, M.G., Rapson, D.R., Frison, G.C., 1997. Cutmarks, impacts, and carnivores at the Casper site bison bonebed. In: Hannus, L.A., Rossum, Winham, R.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1993 Bone Modification Conference, Hot Springs, South Dakota. Occasional Paper No. 1, Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, SD, pp. 136–157. Waguespack, N.M., Surovell, T.A., 2003. Clovis hunting strategies, or how to make out on plentiful resources. American Antiquity 68(2), 333–352.

33

Walker, D.N., 1975. A Cultural and Ecological analysis of the Vertebrate Fauna of the Medicine Lodge Creek Site (48BH499). Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Walker, D.N., 2007. Medicine Lodge Creek Fauna. In: Frison, G.C., Walker, D.N. (Eds.), Medicine Lodge Creek. Clovis Press, Avondale, CO. Willey, G.R., 1966. An Introduction to American Archeology: North and Middle America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Willey, G.R., Phillips, P., 1958. Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Wilmsen, E.N., Roberts Jr., H.H., 1978. Lindenmeier, 1973–1974: Concluding Reports on Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology No. 24. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Wormington, H.M., 1957. Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series No. 4. Denver, CO.