Across Atlantic Ice

by Dennis J. Stanford

  The wedge-shaped cores in Clovis sites were produced with the same techniques as the Solutrean cores and are unlike those made by any of the cultures in Beringia or any other European Upper Paleolithic culture. The technology of the conical blade core forms in Clovis has been reconstructed in detail, and these forms resemble Solutrean examples and some blade cores in sites less than 13,000 years old in the Russian Far East and Alaska.4

  Our knapping experience with unidirectional blade technologies indicates that many of the blades they produce are slightly to moderately curved, well suited to the production of the scrapers and other unifacial blade tools found in Solutrean, pre-Clovis, and Clovis assemblages.

  BLADES, BLADELETS, AND BACKED BLADES

  A comparison of Solutrean, pre-Clovis, Clovis, and non-Clovis blade dimensions indicates that most of the Solutrean blades in our sample fall into the same metric range as Clovis, as do the specimens from the pre-Clovis sites in the Chesapeake Bay area. The large quartzite blades from Cactus Hill and from northern Spain group together but are still within the range of the Solutrean-Clovis continuum. Post-Clovis blades from Texas and New Mexico fall outside the range of the earlier blades.5 All of these are significantly larger than the early blades (microblades) in Beringia. Some blades in the Russian Far East, the earliest of which are of Clovis age (figure 3.3g), are a possible exception.

  Although North American researchers have not generally reported tools made from blades with pressure-flaked retouched edges (called backed blades), these do appear in Clovis assemblages. Backed blades and used bladelets have been found at the Gault Site in Texas, the Bostrum Site in Missouri, and the Paleo-Crossing Site in Ohio.6 A backed blade with flat pressure flake scars on the ventral face and a blade with an abruptly beveled truncated distal edge were found at Jefferson Island (figure 4.10f–g).

  HEAT TREATMENT

  Heat treatment of stone to enhance its flakability is a sophisticated process that demands careful control and, if improperly applied, can result in significant wastage of stone. This procedure is especially useful where raw materials are intractable and flaking techniques include substantial biface percussion thinning or pressure flaking (including using pressure to produce microblades). Heat treating first appeared during Solutrean times in Europe, and although it is not often recognized, it occurs in pre-Clovis and Clovis assemblages. Two heat-treated side scrapers and an end scraper were found at the Lower Meekins Neck Site (18DO70), a Clovis site in Dorchester Country, Maryland.7 Heat treating is also reported at the Anzick Site in Montana.8 This may be another trait that links Solutrean and Clovis and excludes other early technologies, such as those found in Beringia, but its presence has not been sufficiently evaluated in many of the other assemblages (including pre-Clovis) to be certain.

  EXOTIC STONE

  Another cultural trait that seems to be distinctive of the Solutrean and Clovis cultures is their inordinate use of exotic types of stone for the manufacture of some of the more specialized flaked artifacts. Many archaeological assemblages of different periods include artifacts made of stone from non-local and at times far distant sources, and this can be a reflection of group mobility (figure 2.4). In Clovis and Solutrean assemblages the intentional selection of certain rare and exotic stone types seems to have gone well beyond expediency and mobility. Although it is likely that Clovis people, especially in western North America, were highly mobile and would have encountered rare and exotic stones during their travels and explorations, their focus on certain types, especially quartz crystal and red fine-grained stones, is noteworthy. It is also clear from the Clovis caches that high-quality exotic materials were preferred for many of the oversize, possibly ritual, pieces. Exploitation of these rare sources also demonstrates Clovis knappers’ intimate knowledge of the geography of vast territories. The special selection of exotic materials by Solutrean knappers is even more remarkable: whereas Clovis knappers had untapped or at most lightly used resources to choose from, Solutrean people lived in areas where knappers had been exploiting stone sources for tens of thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years. Yet there is a clear selection during the Solutrean for rare and exotic materials, especially quartz crystal, chalcedony, and jasper.

  Did these intentional selections of exotic stones, especially quartz crystal, represent an expression of aesthetics? Were the artifacts made from special raw materials perceived to hold symbolic value or power? Although this type of cultural behavior might arise independently, its presence in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages and absence from the other early assemblages in our study is striking.

  To date, a purposeful selection of exotic raw materials has not been identified in the pre-Clovis assemblages in eastern North America. This could be used to argue against the Solutrean–pre-Clovis–Clovis continuum, but the samples are as yet very small. The one possible example of exotic material selection could be at Meadowcroft, where Flint Ridge stone was present, although this could be the result of mobility rather than special selection. The pre-Clovis flintknappers at Miles Point used locally available stones, perhaps indicating that they had not yet explored enough of the interior to find exotic sources. By contrast, at the Jefferson Island occupation, just a few miles from and thought to be several thousand years later than Miles Point, all of the artifacts are made of raw materials from more distant sources. This indicates that the Jefferson Island people explored the interior and found better stone sources than what was available in their immediate area.

  BONE, ANTLER, AND IVORY TECHNOLOGIES

  Bone, ivory, and antler artifacts are scarce in late Pleistocene sites, especially those exposed to weathering or in acidic environments. This includes most of Beringia and eastern America except Florida, and only to a lesser extent western America and southwestern Europe. Nevertheless, some of these artifacts have been recovered.

  The most abundant bone tool assemblages are from the caves and rock shelters in southwestern France and northern Spain. Although some artifact types occur in diverse archaeological cultures, others seem to be restricted to specific periods. Bone, antler, and ivory points are the most common, and the most abundant type are known as sagaies. These are rods that taper to a sharp point at one end and have a single bevel at the other. Sagaies vary in cross section, size, and proportion throughout the Gravettian, the Solutrean, and into the Magdalenian in southwestern Europe but are most abundant during the Solutrean. A split-base style distinctive of the Aurignacian drops out during the Gravettian (figure 5.1e–f). The simple sagaie form is retained in the Magdalenian but is supplemented with a wide range of styles, many of which have multiple carved barbs.

  Virtually identical sagaies have been recovered from nearly a dozen fluted point sites, most in western North America, where soils are neutral to slightly basic, and from areas in northern Florida where waterlogging has favored their preservation. Although the association between the Florida pieces and fluted point assemblages is tenuous, the fact that most of these sagaies were made from fresh mammoth ivory places them in the fluted point era (or earlier). Not only are a large sagaie from a Solutrean level in Laugerie Haute in southwestern France and another from northern Florida virtually identical in form and size but both have zigzag decoration just above the bevel (figure 7.4c–d). If they had been found near each other we would be debating not whether they were from the same culture but whether the same person made them!

  Other kinds of bone, antler, and ivory tools found in both Solutrean and fluted point sites include sagaie-like implements with rounded tips that probably preclude them from being projectile points. They could, however, have been foreshafts that were part of composite, harpoon-like weapons. The rounded, tapered tip could have been inserted into a flanged, hollowed-out harpoon-like socket, into whose other end a stone point would have been set, similar to examples from the Arctic (figure 7.5). There are no hollowed-out sleeves that clearly date to Clovis times, but an example dated to circa 11,000 years old was found associated with extinct faunal remains i
n a peat bog in Indiana.9 We cannot be sure this specimen is a Clovis artifact, but we think it is just a matter of time before one is found in a clear pre-Clovis or Clovis context. Although not a true toggle harpoon, this weapon would have been effective in hunting sea mammals, especially during glacial times, when seawater was more buoyant, due to its relatively high salt content, keeping animals from sinking rapidly. The true toggling harpoon does not show up in Europe until Magdalenian times, when the inflow of massive amounts of freshwater from melting sea ice and glaciers diluted the seawater’s salinity.

  FIGURE 7.4.

  Projectile points made of bone or ivory (sagaie): (a) Solutrean; (b) Clovis; (c) Clovis with zigzag design; (d) Solutrean with zigzag design.

  Several robust bipointed ivory rods were found in Culture Zone IV at the Broken Mammoth Site in Alaska (figure 3.7g–h). This zone dates to between 13,000 and 13,500 years old, and the ivory is dated to nearly 19,000 years old, suggesting that it was scavenged from an older, frozen mammoth. Similar artifacts have been found in Solutrean deposits, but these rods are simple forms, and their superficial resemblances do not necessarily indicate a common origin.

  The famous mammoth bone shaft wrench from the Murray Springs Site in Arizona (figure 2.13m) and the perforated antlers found in Upper Paleolithic sites in France may have served a similar function. The wrench was used to straighten wooden shafts, such as spears, darts, and arrows. Frequently shafts were slightly bent, causing the weapon to wobble in flight. To straighten a shaft, a hunter would have placed it into the perforation of the wrench, twisted, and levered against the wrench. Even today, people who hunt with primitive wooden weapons frequently use a shaft wrench on a daily basis. When we showed a cast of the Murray Springs shaft wrench to French colleagues, they remarked that it was virtually identical to one found at a Solutrean site. This relatively simple form is not specifically Solutrean and has been found associated with other Eurasian assemblages. It is not, however, a type of tool identified in Paleolithic Beringia.

  FIGURE 7.5.

  Speculative reconstruction of a Clovis harpoonlike bone weapon system: (top) bone foreshaft from Anzick Site, Montana, and foreshaft socket from an Indiana peat bog; (middle) assembled foreshaft, socket, and Clovis point from Anzick; (bottom) side view of foreshaft inserted into foreshaft socket.

  Finally, delicate eyed bone needles exist in both the French Upper Solutrean (figure 7.6b) and the Folsom collections (figure 7.6a and c). Clovis sites with intensive long-term occupations, where large-scale clothing and sewing activities would have been conducted, are situated in the east, where preservation is poor. Small bone items such as needles might be expected there but are absent, possibly because of acidic soils. One exception is Sloth Hole, a submerged wet site in northern Florida, where at least two purported unperforated ivory needle fragments have been recovered.10

  FIGURE 7.6.

  Comparison of bone artifacts: (a) bone needle from Idaho; (b) Solutrean eyed needle; (c) Folsom bone needle from Colorado; (d) Solutrean notched pendant; (e) Folsom notched disk; (f) front and side view of bone Solutrean atlatl hook; (g) front and side view of bone atlatl hook from Florida.

  Western Clovis sites in areas with neutral to basic soils that provide relatively good conditions for preservation are kill sites and caches where only specialized activities were conducted, most not requiring the use of delicate tools like the eyed needle. One might expect to encounter needles at the campsites associated with kills, but so far that has not happened, presumably because those sites contain few artifacts and were used for very short durations. It is not until Folsom times, when we get large, longer-term habitation sites with good organic preservation, that eyed needles and other delicate bone artifacts become relatively common.

  With the possible exception of some of the submerged assemblages in Florida, bone tools have not been found in pre-Clovis contexts.11 Once again, this may be partly due to sample size and poor preservation, and the inundated early sites might produce this evidence, if it exists. However, several ivory atlatl hooks, thought to be associated with Clovis or pre-Clovis artifacts, have been found at a site in the Santa Fe River (figure 7.6g). Among these are several made in the same style as Solutrean atlatl hooks (figure 7.6f). There is no evidence of the use of atlatls by Siberian Paleolithic people.

  CULTURAL BEHAVIORS

  While our discussion to this point has centered on comparison of technological futures of stone and bone artifacts, other cultural behaviors found among Solutrean and Early Paleo-American cultures appear to link them into a historical relationship.

  ARTISTIC EXPRESSION

  The Solutrean in France and northern Spain is well known as having an extremely rich artistic tradition, especially in cave paintings, such as those at Altamira. With the exception of a couple of possible Clovis pictographs of mammoths in the west, there are no equivalents in any of the archaeological cultures in this study. Art engravings on artifacts small enough to be transported as well as objects used for personal adornment exist in Solutrean and other western European Upper Paleolithic contexts.

  A common feature in late Solutrean deposits is multi-notched bones, usually bone points notched on both sides. We also find small bone disks incised or notched around their perimeters (figure 7.6d). These disks could have had any number of uses, for instance as gaming pieces, counting or numeric devices, or simply art or objects of adornment. Although notched-bone objects have not been found in Clovis sites, similar bone disks are part of post-Clovis Folsom artifact assemblages (figure 7.6e), perhaps indicating the continuation of this Paleolithic tradition.

  Engraved bones and stones also occur in Solutrean and Clovis assemblages, some with geometric designs, while others depict naturalistic images of animals (figure 7.7g). A mastodon figure etched on a probosidian bone fragment has recently been reported from Viro Beach, Florida (figure 7.7h).12 During the past several years incised flat limestone pebbles similar in size, shape, and to a lesser extent design to those in Solutrean collections have been found in Clovis contexts at the Gault Site in central Texas (figure 2.14). These Gault specimens are decorated with geometric designs, one of which depicts an over-and-under weaving pattern and another that has been interpreted as a running fox. The Gault Site also included a double-sided incised clast with a series of dart shafts with fletching (figure 7.7a), similar to stones from Polesini, Italy (figure 7.7b–e), and Parpallo Cave, Spain (figure 7.7f), where, as at Gault, a large number of incised stones have been found.13 A single incised slate fragment was encountered in the post-Clovis level of the Ushki Site in western Beringia, but this type of artifact has not been seen in eastern Beringia.

  FIGURE 7.7.

  Incised stones thought to show fletched spears: (a) obverse, side, and reverse views of Clovis incised stone from Gault, Texas; (b–e) Solutrean-age incised stones from Polesini, Italy; (f) incised stone from Solutrean level, Parpallo Cave, Spain; (g) Solutrean zoomorphic deer design; (h) engraved mastodon on bone from Viro Beach area, Florida.

  The absence of cave paintings associated with fluted points or Beringian sites may be attributed to the scarcity of caves and shelters where they could have survived the ages or even been executed. This is especially true on the eastern seaboard and vast plain of the continental shelf, where caves would have been rare to nonexistent. In such an area, pebble engraving may have been a durable outlet for artistic ambitions, and the impetus for cave painting lost.

  It may not have been just a matter of availability, however. The tradition of cave painting in Europe did not last past the end of the Pleistocene, even in areas where cave art had flourished in earlier times. Nobody can deny the existence of a thriving cave painting tradition during the Upper Paleolithic, culminating in the Magdalenian. But the operative word here is culminating. Why was this rich heritage abandoned by people who we believe were direct descendants in the same place? It had gone, even in the core areas of southwestern Europe, by the time the fluted point tradition developed in North Americ
a. If it died out in areas where it had flourished for thousands of years, why should we expect it to have been transmitted over long, caveless distances?

  Personal adornment is associated with modern human beings and makes its appearance in western Europe during the early Upper Paleolithic, around 35,000 years ago.14 Various forms of beads and pendants are well represented in Solutrean sites. Most recognizable ornaments are drilled and perforated, but many other less obvious items may have served the same purpose. Similar objects have been recovered from sites in Beringia, but none more than 9,000 years old have been found in eastern Beringia.15 Neither beads nor pendants were found in the earliest levels at any of the pre-Clovis sites, but once again this may have more to do with preservation and sample size. It is clear that Clovis people made beads for personal adornment, although they are rare in the record. A bone bead preform was recovered at Blackwater Draw, New Mexico, and a stone bead was found near the Clovis point at Shawnee Minisink, Pennsylvania. At the larger western Folsom campsites, beads are part of the cultural inventory, but a drilled bone bead from the Shifting Sands Site in west Texas was so small it was recovered only because it was stuck to a Folsom artifact by a calcium carbonate crust and came loose after the stone tool was placed in a specimen bag.16