Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future...

REVIEW ARTICLE

Pleistocene Human Settlement in theSoutheastern United States: Current Evidenceand Future DirectionsDavid G. Anderson

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

Ashley M. Smallwood

University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA

D. Shane Miller

Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS

Research into the earliest occupations in the southeastern United States has been underway since the 1930s,when a pattern of large-scale excavations combined with the reporting of surface finds was initiated thatcontinues to this day. Work at Macon Plateau and Parrish Village, excavated during the New Deal, wasfollowed by a series of stratigraphic excavations in floodplains, rockshelters, and other locales from the 1940sonward. These early studies produced a basic cultural sequence, portions of which were defined by cross-dating findings from the Southeast with discoveries made in other parts of the country. The Southeast isunique in that surveys of fluted projectile points have been conducted in every state, some since the 1940s.These surveys now encompass a wider range of projectile points and other tool forms, and the largenumbers of Paleoindian artifacts found in the region suggest intensive occupation. Whether these quantitiesreflect the presence of large numbers of early people, or of modern collectors and extensive agriculture,remains the subject of appreciable debate. The regional radiocarbon record is fairly robust for the latter endof the period, but far more sample collection, analysis, and interpretation is needed. The regional literature isburgeoning, with research being conducted in every state, much of it funded by CRM activity.

Keywords Southeastern United States, Pre-Clovis, Clovis, Paleoindian, Younger Dryas, Dalton

1. IntroductionPaleoindian archaeology in the Americas has under-gone a renaissance in recent years, with an everincreasing number of projects and reports encompass-ing fieldwork at new sites and survey areas; the use of“big data” combined with sophisticated analyticalmethods to pull new information from old sites andcollections; a renewed interest in nuanced, theoreti-cally grounded colonization and subsistence models;and above all a flood of articles, detailed site reports,synthetic overviews, and topically oriented editedvolumes. Researchers in the southeastern UnitedStates are making major contributions in all of theseareas. In this paper, we outline the history andcurrent state of research on Paleoindian archaeology

and the nature of the landscape at the end of thePleistocene in the region, together with a state bystate breakdown of key sites, dates, and datasets avail-able for researchers. We conclude with a brief discus-sion of our thoughts on where future research couldbe conducted to increase our understanding of theregional record. Absolute calendar dates herein arebased on the IntCal13 calibration (Reimer et al.2013), save where actual radiocarbon dates are pre-sented, and the end of the Pleistocene, by geologicalconvention, is equated with the end of the YoungerDryas chronozone, currently placed at 11,700 cal yrBP based on evidence from the Greenland ice corerecords (Walker et al. 2009).Pleistocene human occupations in the Southeast

are characterized in this paper using Early, Middle,and Late Paleoindian period designations, comprisingCorrespondence to: David G. Anderson. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 W. S. Maney & Son Ltdand the Center for the Study of the First AmericansDOI 10.1179/2055556314Z.00000000012 PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 1 7

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

the Pre-Clovis (>13,250 cal yr BP), Clovis (ca.13,250–12,850 cal yr BP), and post-Clovis fluted andunfluted (ca. 12,850–11,700 cal yr BP) assemblagesfound in the region (Figure 1). While use of these in-tervals has been advocated for some time (e.g.,Anderson 2001: 152–56, 2004: 119–22, 2005: 32–33;Anderson and Sassaman 2012: 5), there is no consist-ency in the use of these terms across the region. The

most widely used framework comes from a synthesisof southeastern Paleoindian archaeology (Anderson1990a: 164–165; Anderson and Sassaman 1996a;Anderson et al. 1996: 9–13) written in 1990, beforethe existence of Pre-Clovis sites was widely accepted,an effective radiocarbon calibration reaching backinto the late Pleistocene had been developed, andfairly precise dating of late Pleistocene chronozones

Figure 1 A timeline and key diagnostic Paleoindian projectile points from the southeastern United States (Individual pointimages courtesy of James M. Adovasio, Pete Bostrom/Lithics Casting Laboratory, John B. Broster, James S. Dunbar, Albert C.Goodyear, R. Jerald Ledbetter, Joseph McAvoy, and David K. Thulman; graphic prepared by Stephen J. Yerka).

Anderson et al. Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States

PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 18

http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1179/2055556314Z.00000000012&iName=master.img-000.jpg&w=391&h=555

existed. In that framework, Early Paleoindian wasequated with the occurrence of Clovis projectilepoints, Middle Paleoindian with post-Clovis flutedand unfluted lanceolate and waisted forms, andLate Paleoindian with Dalton and related types.The problem with that framework is that it is basedon projectile point classifications and inferred tem-poral ranges that are often ill-defined, overlapping,and in some cases—such as the occurrence offluting or various lanceolate forms—varied appreci-ably in spatial extent and duration over the region.Fluting, for example, continues to occur much laterin northern parts of eastern North America than inthe south (Bradley et al. 2008; Ellis 2004; Millerand Gingerich 2013a, 2013b; O’Brien et al. 2014:103).Using precisely delimited temporal ranges that are

also closely tied to major changes in climate andculture, we argue, is a more appropriate way toorganize Paleoindian assemblages than the earlierapproach. Accordingly, herein, the Late Paleoindianperiod is equated with the Younger Dryas climateepisode, currently fairly tightly dated to12,850–11,700 cal yr BP (Bousman and Vierra 2012:5; Fiedel 2015; Walker et al. 2009). The MiddlePaleoindian period is equated with the intervalduring which Clovis assemblages are widespreadover North America, from 13,250 to 12,850 cal yrBP (using Waters and Stafford’s (2007: 1123)maximum temporal range for Clovis for the beginningand the onset of the Younger Dryas for the end). TheEarly Paleoindian period corresponds to everythingprior to 13,250 cal yr BP. Waters and Stafford (2013)have recently suggested this interval be called the“Exploration Period.” While we accept their logic forsuch a period, we prefer Early Paleoindian because itis more neutral and because we do not really knowhow much exploration as opposed to settlement orsettling into particular areas had occurred prior to13,250 cal yr BP. We recognize that these intervalsmay shift somewhat as both the dating of theYounger Dryas onset and the beginning of Clovisare more precisely determined, and as the radiocarboncalibration is refined, but they are based on our bestcurrent evidence (cf. Dasovich and Doran 2011;Dunbar 2007; Faught and Waggoner 2012; Fiedel2015; Prasciunas and Surovell 2015; Walker et al.2009; Waters and Stafford 2007; Webb and Dunbar2006). The Younger Dryas onset, in particular,serves as a well-defined boundary separating Middleand Late Paleoindian periods in this framework; ifClovis peoples and their associated assemblages con-tinued into the Younger Dryas for a time in someplaces, they still occur within what is here called theLate Paleoindian period. The end of the YoungerDryas, about 11,700 cal yr BP, corresponding to the

end of the Pleistocene epoch and the LatePaleoindian subperiod in the Southeast, is moreappropriate than the 11,450 cal yr BP used in previouscultural sequences that were based, in part, on anearlier geological convention for the onset of theHolocene, 10,000 14C yr BP, or roughly 11,450 cal yrBP when calibrated (Hageman 1969; Harland et al.1989; Walker et al. 2009).Archaeologists in the Southeast face the same chal-

lenges confronting researchers throughout theAmericas, and it is clear we are living in excitingtimes. The origins of the first inhabitants are beingexplored with great care at a number of sites throughlarge-scale, multiyear excavation projects, and theregion’s Middle and Late Paleoindian (i.e., Clovisand post-Clovis) record is arguably the densest in theAmericas in terms of the numbers of recorded sitesand artifact varieties. While genetic evidence indicatesAmerica’s first peoples came from eastern Asia some-time after the Last Glacial Maximum (e.g., Chatterset al. 2014; Rasmussen et al. 2014), some researchersargue for a much greater antiquity and differentorigins (e.g., Goodyear 2005; Lowery et al. 2010;Stanford and Bradley 2002, 2012; Straus et al. 2005).This debate has a long history in the Southeast, withearly technologies intermittently reported, includingcobble tools, Levallois-like cores and flakes, and asof yet untyped bifaces or bipoints (Ensor 2013;Hranicky 2012; Lively 1965a, 1965b; Stanford andBradley 2012; Stanford and Stenger 2014). The over-view that follows indicates that while much has beenlearned about the lifeways and dating of these firstpeoples, there are still many questions that requirefurther investigation. The locations of all sites fromthe region mentioned in the text are given in Figure 2.

2. Late Pleistocene environments in theSoutheastWhile culture areas change over time and were cer-tainly different in the late Pleistocene, for the purposesof this paper we define the Southeast followingmodern understanding of the region, as encompassingthe area loosely bounded on the north by the Ohio andPotomac Rivers, on the west by the Mississippi Riverand areas just to the west, and on the south and eastby the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Thisincludes portions or all of the modern states ofAlabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, although givenchanges in sea-level, drainage, subsidence andrebound, and vegetation and animal populations, theregion was appreciably different in the latePleistocene (Figure 3). Physiography and biota,which were changing dramatically in the latePleistocene in response to the onset of the current


PaleoAmerica 2015 VOL. 1 NO. 1 9

interglacial, would have profoundly shaped settlementin the region. The margins of the region, including theextensive embayment of the Mississippi, were low-lying, minimally dissected coastal plains. Theirextent and outer margins fluctuated in response toglobal sea level, with transgression in the primarytrend, albeit with some reversals, after ca.19,000 cal yr BP through the early Holocene.Relative sea-level stabilization did not occur until ca.5,000 cal yr BP, when intensive human use of thecoastal margin is first documented in the region(Anderson et al. 2013a; Balsillie and Donoghue2004; Harris et al. 2013; Russo 1996; Sassaman2010). Further into the interior of the Southeast, theterrain has greater relief and is dominated by thehills, plateaus, and mountains of the Piedmont,Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, and the Appalachianand Interior Low Plateaus. Save where bisected bydrainages and gaps, movement would have beenmore difficult than in lower lying areas.

Drainages in the Southeast trend for the most partto the east and southeast in the Atlantic CoastalPlain and Piedmont; to the east and west in peninsularFlorida; and to the south, southwest, and west in theGulf Coastal Plain and Piedmont. The dividebetween the Atlantic and Gulf drainages occurs incentral Georgia between the Ocmulgee and FlintRivers, and while archaeological exploration of thearea remains relatively poor, it appears to have beena locus of appreciable settlement in the Paleoindianperiod (Anderson et al. 1990, 1994; Smallwood et al.in press; Snow 1977a, 1977b). In the Interior Lowand Appalachian Plateaus, major drainages such asthe Cumberland and Tennessee flow to the west, andnorth into the Ohio, while drainages further westflow into the Mississippi or the Gulf of Mexico.Patterns of interaction, including the location of andmovement along trails, were undoubtedly profoundlyshaped by regional physiography (Anderson 1990a:185, 2010: 284–87, 2013; Broster et al. 2013;

Figure 2 Archaeological sites mentioned in the text in relation to major modern physiographic features.




Halligan 2013; Holliday and Miller 2013; Jodry 2005;Meyer 1928; Miller 2014; Tanner 1989). Interaction ispresumed to have been greater between groups within,rather than between, these major topographic subdivi-sions (i.e., Atlantic, Gulf, the Interior, and peninsularFlorida).The presence of other water sources—Carolina Bays

in the Atlantic and baygalls in the Gulf Coastal Plain,and karstic terrain/sinkholes in peninsular Floridaand in the Midsouth—would have facilitated move-ment along as well as across stream courses in lowerlying areas and along the larger drainages in moredesiccated, hilly or mountainous parts of the region;by following tributaries, divides could be reached,although these were more easily crossed in gentlerterrain (e.g., Anderson 1990a; Anderson and Gillam2000; Brooks et al. 2010; Jodry 2005; Morrow 2014;Steele et al. 1998). Whether early peoples movedalong or between drainages in the region has beenthe subject of appreciable debate, in relation to

Dalton settlement in Arkansas (cf. Gillam 1996a,1996b, 1999; Morse 1971, 1973, 1975a, 1977;Schiffer 1975a, 1975b), Paleoindian settlement inpeninsular Florida (e.g., Dunbar 1991; Dunbar andWaller 1983; Thulman 2009), and Early Archaic andpresumably earlier settlement on the south Atlanticslope (cf. Anderson 1996; Anderson and Hanson1988; Daniel 1998, 2001). We now believe movementalong, across, and between drainages occurred inthese areas and probably throughout the region, atleast in the Middle and Late Paleoindian periods(Brooks et al. 2010; Faught and Carter 1998; Gillam1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Moore and Brooks 2012;Moore and Irwin 2013; Moore et al. 2010; Morrow2014: 121).While Paleoindian peoples likely moved on foot

much of the time, in some areas watercraft werealmost certainly employed. This is best indicated bythe widespread occurrence of adzes in the centralMississippi Valley in Late Paleoindian Dalton

Figure 3 The landscape of North America ca. 15,000 cal yr BP, in relation to modern shorelines. The southeastern United Statesappears to have been minimally occupied at this time (graphic prepared by Stephen J. Yerka).




contexts and the occurrence of related adze-like formsin other parts of the region (Anderson 1990a: 185, 187,1995: 15; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987: 79–81;Engelbrecht and Seyfort 1994; Gerrell et al. 1991;Jodry 2005: 143–45; Miller and Goodyear 2008;Morrow 2014; Morse 1997a, 1997b; Morse andGoodyear 1973). Microwear analyses support theinference that Dalton adzes from the Sloan site inArkansas were used to work charred wood, probablyfor the construction of dugout canoes (Gaertner1994; Yerkes and Gaertner 1997: 65–66); early historicaccounts and illustrations of southeastern Indiansdocument how they did so (Hariot 1590; Hartman1996). Unfortunately, no preserved canoes or water-craft of any kind dating older than the middleHolocene have been found in the region (Hartman1996; Morrow 2014; Newsom and Purdy 1990;Wheeler et al. 2003). Use of watercraft may not havebeen as prevalent prior to Dalton times, at least insome areas. Morrow (2014: 121), based on the occur-rence of identifiable lithic raw material onPaleoindian diagnostics, for example, demonstratedthat in Clovis times unfrozen portions of theMississippi River do not appear to have been crossedregularly, given the drainage marks the extent ofoccurrence of many knappable materials, notably inthe central and southern part of the valley. In thenorthern part of the valley, in contrast, cross-drainagemovement of lithic material was much more common,whichMorrow (2014: 121) attributed to the river freez-ing over and hence being traversable on foot. Lithicraw material and site distributions also suggest theAppalachian Mountains were a major barrier to east–west movement, separating peoples living on theAtlantic seaboard from those in areas further west(Lane and Anderson 2001; see also Williams andStoltman 1965: 674, 676). Farther to the south, move-ment through the Coastal Plain and Piedmont appearsto have been easier, with appreciable use of the FallLine macroecotone between these physiographic pro-vinces evident in the archaeological record(Anderson and Hanson 1988; Anderson et al. 1990,2010a; Daniel 1998, 2001; Lane and Anderson 2001;Miller 2011, 2014; Smallwood et al. in press).Sea levels and shorelines were changing rapidly in

the late Pleistocene Southeast, but how this influencedsettlement remains unknown, although the subject hasbeen the focus of much recent research (e.g., Andersonet al. 2010b, 2013a; Faught 1996, 2002, 2004a, 2004b,2006; Faught and Donoghue 1997; Faught andGuisick 2011; Gillam et al. 2006; Guisick andFaught 2011; Halligan 2013: 61–62; Harris et al.2013; Hemmings and Adovasio 2014; Holliday andMiller 2013: 226–228; Lowery et al. 2012). Fordecades, Paleoindian and Archaic artifacts have beenfound in offshore deposits indicating that portions of

the now submerged continental shelf were once occu-pied, but how close people were living to the actualseashore and the nature of their adaptation—that is,whether and the extent to which marine mammals,fish, shellfish, or other plant and animal species wereemployed—is unknown (Blanton 1996; Faught2004a, 2004b; Hemmings and Adovasio 2014).Climatic warming and the concomitant sea-level riseassociated with the current interglacial began duringthe Bølling chronozone, after ca. 14,850 cal yr BPand continued, albeit with sometimes significant fluc-tuations in temperature and sea-level, through the endof the Younger Dryas chronozone about11,700 cal yr BP, when the Pleistocene epoch endedand the Holocene epoch began (Walker et al. 2009).

There is no evidence for glaciation anywhere in theSoutheast, nor for large pluvial lakes, althoughsmaller bodies of water in the form of Carolina baysand baygalls were widespread, and the MississippiRiver system carried vast amounts of glacial meltwaterduring warming intervals, resulting in deeply incised,braided stream channels (Dyke 2004; Dyke et al.2003; Russell et al. 2009; Saucier 1994). As thevolume of water decreased, meander regimes appearedin the lower Mississippi Valley and throughout theAtlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains (Leigh 2006; Leighet al. 2004; Saucier 1994: 45, 93–98). The complex geo-morphological changes that southern river and karsticsystems underwent in the late Pleistocene and aftermake finding early sites in their vicinity challenging,at least compared to the detection of early sites inupland settings, where deposits tend to be shallowerand landforms are more stable (Goodyear 1999; Knox1983; Leigh 2006; Leigh et al. 2004; Thulman 2009).

Knappable stone occurs unevenly over the region,with major outcrops of high quality chert and novacu-lite found in parts of the interior highlands in theOuachita and Ozark mountains and the Interior LowPlateau, and the Coastal Plains of Georgia, SouthCarolina, and northern Florida; in contrast, high-quality metavolcanics are found in the Piedmonts ofGeorgia and the Carolinas, particularly the latter area(Anderson et al. 1982: 120–31; Austin and Estabrook2000; Banks 1990; Daniel and Butler 1991; Dunbar2006b; Endonino 2007; Goodyear and Charles 1984;Goodyear et al. 1990; Moore and Irwin 2013; Novick1978; Ray 2007; Smith 1986: 6–18; Steponaitis et al.2006; Upchurch 1984; Upchurch and Strom 1982;Upchurch et al. 2008). Lower quality cherts, quartz,metavolcanics, and other materials are more wide-spread across the region, frequently occurring asgravel deposits (e.g., Anderson and Smith 2003;Banks 1990; McCutcheon and Dunnell 1998;McGahey 1987). Raw material selection and use hasreceived appreciable attention from Paleoindianresearchers in recent decades, and while the use of



high-quality raw material is commonly attributed toClovis populations (e.g., Goodyear 1979, 1989), theuse of locally available lithic raw materials regardlessof quality is evident in some areas (Anderson 2013:380–81) and is particularly characteristic of LatePaleoindian assemblages over much of the Southeast,perhaps related to changes in subsistence, a reductionin range mobility, and decreased use of highly curatedtools (Anderson 1990a: 202, 1995: 9; Anderson et al.2010a: 77; Goodyear et al. 1990; Smallwood et al. inpress; Speth et al. 2013).Southeastern biotic communities were profoundly

influenced by changes in global climate, althoughmuch more primary research is needed to documenthow this played out in local settings. With deglaciationand warming temperatures, floral and faunal commu-nities were changing rapidly, with those that couldadjust moving both inland from the rapidly shrinkingcontinental shelf, and to the north into previouslycolder or glaciated terrain (Davis 1983: 172–73;Delcourt and Delcourt 1985: 19, 1989; Delcourt andDelcourt 1981, 1983, 1987, 2004; Delcourt et al.1983, 1997; Halligan 2013; Jackson et al. 1997;Jacobson et al. 1987; McWeeney 2013; Overpecket al. 1992; Russell et al. 2009; Watts et al. 1996;Webb 1987, 1988; Webb et al. 1993; Williams et al.2001, 2004). As a general trend, hardwood andmixed hardwood/pine forests expanded from refugiain the lower Southeast, replacing colder communitiesas the latter moved northward, although it must beemphasized that significant variability in biota isevident across much of the region, making focusedpaleoenvironmental work essential to interpretinglocal archaeological records (e.g., Delcourt andDelcourt 2004; Meeks and Anderson 2012: 112–13).To date only a few large-scale paleoenvironmental pro-grams directed to reconstructing paleovegetation andits role in subsistence, or the Paleoindian impact onbiota through predation or changing fire regimes(e.g., Gill et al. 2009), have been conducted as partof Pleistocene age archaeological projects in theregion, although the studies at Dust Cave inAlabama, Sloan in Arkansas, and Page-Ladson inFlorida stand as models of the multidisciplinaryeffort needed (e.g., Delcourt and Delcourt 1989;Delcourt et al. 1997; Dunbar 2006a, 2006b; Hanson2006; Hollenbach 2004, 2007, 2009; Hope andKoch 2006; Morrow 2011; Morse 1975b, 1997a;Newsom 2006; Newsom and Milbachler 2006;Sherwood 2001; Sherwood and Chapman 2005;Sherwood et al. 2004; Webb 2006).Late Pleistocene fauna in the Southeast encom-

passed a wide range of extinct and modern animalspecies such as mammoth, mastodon, bison, camel,horse, giant ground sloth, and saber-toothed tiger, aswell modern animals exploited throughout the

Holocene by local populations such as bear, white-tailed deer, opossum, rabbit, raccoon, and squirrel(FAUNMAP 1996; Kurtén and Anderson 1980;Lapham 2006; Russell et al. 2009; Webb 1974, 2006).Late Pleistocene extinctions were essentially completeover much of North America soon after the onset ofthe Younger Dryas, about 12,850 cal yr BP(Agenbroad 2005; Faith 2011; Faith and Surovell2009; Fiedel 2009; Fiedel and Haynes 2004; Grayson1987, 2006; Grayson and Meltzer 2002, 2003, 2004;Guthrie 2003; Haynes 2002a, 2002b, 2009; Haynesand Hutson 2013; Martin 1973, 2006; Mead andMeltzer 1984; Meltzer and Mead 1983, 1985;Waguespak 2013). Exactly when these extinctionswere complete in the Southeast is uncertain; at sitessuch as Dust Cave in Alabama only modernfauna have been found in Late Paleoindian deposits(e.g., Walker 2007). At Ryan-Harley and Norden,presumed Suwannee sites in Florida, however,there is the possibility that some species may havesurvived into the Younger Dryas or, alternatively,that Suwannee is older than we currently think,coeval with Clovis or even earlier; the dating of theseassemblages is ambiguous at present, however(Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007: 197, 201; Dunbaret al. 2005: 92).Which plant and animal species were exploited by

Early and Middle Paleoindian peoples in the regionremains largely unknown at present, given a paucityof sites with preserved paleosubsistence remains,although given numerous associations in Florida andmuch sparser evidence elsewhere, there is no questionsome species of extinct fauna, including megafauna,were at least occasionally targeted (e.g., Bullen et al.1970; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007: 196–97; Dunbarand Webb 1996; Dunbar et al. 1989, 2005; Gingerichand Kitchell 2015; Haynes and Hutson 2013;Hemmings 2004; Hemmings et al. 2004; Hoffman1983; Rayl 1974; Webb and Simons 2006; Webb et al.1984; see also Broster et al. 2013; Deter-Wolf et al.2011, and Haynes and Hutson 2013: 295–96 for discus-sion of Paleoindian subsistence in the Midsouth, basedon a probable Early Paleoindian agemastodon butcher-ing area at the Coats-Hines site in Tennessee). We havemuch better data on Late Paleoindian subsistence, inparticular from Dust Cave and other rockshelter sitesin northern Alabama, where extensive analysis andrecent reporting indicate a reliance on modern biota(Fagan 2013; Hollenbach 2004, 2007, 2009; Sherwoodet al. 2004; Walker and Driskell 2007; Walker et al.2001). Late Paleoindian human populations had amuch narrower array of animal resources to choosefrom, and yet at the same time plant communitiesexpanded and diversified given the warmer climate,factors that likely shaped the changes in settlementand technology observed during this period.



3. Early research and the Paleoindianarchaeological record of the SoutheastThe discovery of the European Paleolithic sparked adebate over a question that still resonates inAmerican archaeology—when did the colonizationof North America occur, and when did people reachthe southeastern United States? In the late nineteenthcentury, Charles Abbott discovered stone tools inTrenton, New Jersey, that he reported were as primi-tive-looking as European Paleolithic tools and likelydated as old (Abbott 1876; Meltzer 1983, 2009).Soon after, many other sites in eastern NorthAmerica with European-like paleoliths seemed tosupport a deep glacial antiquity for human presencein the New World. While Abbott and most of hispeers were convinced of an American Paleolithic,William Henry Holmes questioned the evidence.Based on excavations at prehistoric stone quarries,Holmes argued that the alleged paleoliths were infact only manufacture failures discarded during morerecent Native American quarrying activity (Holmes1892, 1893; Meltzer 2009). Physical anthropologistAles Hrdlicka argued that the human skeletal evidencerecovered, with no evidence for earlier hominid formsthen known, such as H. neandertalensis or H. erectus,likewise did not support a Paleolithic-age occupationof the Americas. Possible associations of stone toolswith extinct fauna had been noted at Big Bone Lick,Kentucky, and at Kimmswick, Missouri, in the nine-teenth century, and a pelvis of presumed great anti-quity (now known to be only a few thousand yearsold) was found near Natchez, Mississippi, in the1840s, although these were not widely accepted(Cotter 1991; Freeman et al. 1996: 391–94; Meltzer1983; Tankersley 1990a: 74–76). One of the many pro-posed “Early Man” sites Hrdlicka discredited was the1915 discovery known as Vero Man in Florida (Gidleyand Loomis 1926; Hrdlicka 1918; Sellards 1917a,1917b; Sellards et al. 1917; Stewart 1946). The Verolocality is now being re-excavated under the directionof James Adovasio and Andrew Hemmings, to deter-mine if Hrdlicka’s assessment was correct, since wenow know anatomically modern humans have greatantiquity in Africa (>100,000 years), and werepresent in the Americas in the late Pleistocene, withexamples found in a few locations in North America(e.g., Chatters et al. 2014; Morrow and Fiedel 2006;Rasmussen et al. 2014).The discovery of stone tools in association with

Pleistocene-age bison remains at the Folsom site in1926 marked the first secure evidence that Americanprehistory could be confidently pushed back to thelate Pleistocene (Figgins 1927; Meltzer 2006a,2006b). The importance of the Folsom and subsequentfluted point megafauna discoveries in the west forsoutheastern archaeology, besides unequivocally

showing people were present in North America inthe Pleistocene, lay in the fact that the associated pro-jectile points had distinctive thinning or fluting, amanufacturing procedure that we now know wasnever again used commonly in prehistory in theAmericas. By the 1930s, fluted points had come tobe regarded as a fairly unambiguous marker of a latePleistocene/early Holocene age site and were ident-ified in many parts of North America, including inthe Southeast. Brown (1926: 132–34) reported afluted form he called the Coldwater in surface collec-tions in Mississippi, but at the time, coincidentallyright before the announcement of the Folsom discov-ery (Figgins 1927; Meltzer 2006a), its age and impor-tance was unknown. The Coldwater name has beenretained by local archaeologists and is used to describenon-fluted to weakly basally thinned, presumably LatePaleoindian waisted and lanceolate points (e.g.,McGahey 1981, 1996: 354, 2004: 18–21).

While this scientific debate, known as the GreatPaleolithic War (Meltzer 2009: 71), raged on, south-eastern archaeologists stayed on the periphery of theargument; instead, most nineteenth and early twenti-eth century activity focused on the large mounds,earthworks, shell middens, and cemetery sites foundthroughout the region, a pattern still followed bymost researchers to this day (Anderson andSassaman 2012: 153–55). New Deal era survey andexcavation programs, however, brought the southeast-ern Paleoindian record to the attention of the pro-fessional community. In 1935, just three years afterthe famous discovery at Clovis, New Mexico(Howard 1933), A. R. Kelly’s crew of relief workersrecovered a Clovis point and other stone toolsduring excavations at Macon Plateau in Georgia(Anderson et al. 1994; Kelly 1938: 2–7; Ledbetteret al. 1996; Waring 1968: 237). The Macon Clovispoint, the first one in the region from a systematicallyexcavated site with good stratigraphic context, estab-lished a relative age for Clovis in the Southeast (i.e.,below ceramic-bearing deposits). Also in 1935,Bushnell (1935) reported surface finds of flutedpoints in Virginia, and they were reported in othersouthern states soon thereafter (e.g., Wauchope1939, 1966). Later in the New Deal era a second,more extensive Clovis assemblage was excavated atthe Parrish Village site in western Kentucky, withseven fluted points and some 280 unifacial tools recov-ered, although the association of the former with thelatter was uncertain (Freeman et al. 1996: 395–96;Jefferies 2008: 75; Rolingson and Schwartz 1966:143; Tankersley 1990a; Webb 1951).

The Macon find and Parish Village excavations,along with the recognition that fluted points occurredthroughout the region in some incidence, led toincreased interest in the southeastern Paleoindian



record. Because southeastern fluted points resembledthose found in the western part of the country thathad been dated to the late Pleistocene based on associ-ated fauna, their similarity, or typological dating, wasused to infer a similar age. That is, southeasternarchaeologists relied on visual similarities in morpho-logical characteristics and technological traits to rela-tively sequence bifacial point types and toolsrecovered in surface contexts and from buried sites.Based on excavations in the West, fluted point formsfrom the Southeast were considered to be older thanunfluted forms, and by the 1950s, appreciable effortwas expended to finding and defining local variantsof fluted and presumably related but presumed laternon-fluted point forms. Most of these were found insurface contexts, many in private artifact or “arrow-head” collections. Professional and avocationalarchaeologists alike began recording fluted points, insome cases reports of one or a few artifacts in localjournals, and in other cases through more systematicrecording efforts (Anderson 1990a, 1990b, 1991;Anderson and Faught 1998; Brennan 1982). In 1947,Ben McCary established one of the first and to thisday the oldest continuous fluted point survey in thecountry, in Virginia, and recorded many“Folsomoid” points later determined to be Clovisand other Paleoindian point types (Hranicky 1989,2008, 2009; McCary 1947, 1991). By the 1950s,many southeastern fluted points were locally beingreferred to as Clovis or Clovis-like, since most lackedthe parallel sides, fine marginal retouch, and full-length/instrument-assisted fluting characteristic ofwestern Folsom points. A number of distinctivewaisted and eared fluted and unfluted forms, pre-sumed to be Paleoindian in age, were also recognizedand defined in the 1950s and 1960s, such as theCumberland, Redstone, and Wheeler fluted typesand the Beaver Lake and Quad unfluted types in theMidsouth, the Suwanee and Simpson waisted typesin Florida, and various San Patrice forms in thetrans-Mississippi south and areas just to the east(e.g., Bullen 1962, 1968; Cambron 1955; Cambronand Hulse 1964: 30, 99; DeJarnette et al. 1962;Ensor 1987; Gramly 2009; Kneberg 1956; Lewis1954: 7; Purdy 2008: 49–53; Simpson 1948; Soday1954; Webb 1946). While a full-fluted/instrument-assisted horizon has since been recognized in theregion, local examples are appreciably different inshape from Folsom points found in the Plains andSouthwest (Anderson et al. 2010a; Goodyear 2006,2010). By the 1980s, projects recording attribute andimage data were established in most southeasternstates, many of which continue to this day, albeitwith some gaps due to the changes in personnel(Anderson et al. 1986, 1990; Broster 1989; Brosterand Norton 1996; Charles 1981; Dunbar 1991, 2007;

Daniel and Moore 2011; Dunbar and Hemmings2004; Dunbar and Waller 1983; Gagliano andGregory 1965; Goodyear et al. 1990; McGahey1987; Michie 1977; Rolingson 1964; Tankersley1990a, 1996).In the early 1990s, these primary data on local pro-

jectile points were compiled and made available, firston disks and by the late 1990s online, through thePaleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA)project (Anderson 1990b, 1991; Anderson andFaught 1998, 2000; Anderson et al. 2005, 2010a;Faught et al. 1994; see http://pidba.utk.edu/)(Table 1). As inferred by earlier generations ofPaleoindian researchers (e.g., Brennan 1982; Cotter1937; Mason 1962), and as more and more researchersand collectors made their data available, it becameevident that large numbers of fluted Paleoindian pro-jectile points have been found in the Southeast, farmore than have been systematically reported fromother parts of the continent (Figure 4). Most of thedocumented artifacts, however, come from surfacecontexts and have been reported by private citizens;to this day, few southeastern Clovis points have beenrecovered from secure excavation contexts. Dense,stratigraphically discrete, and largely undisturbedClovis assemblages such as those found at Carson-Conn-Short, Thunderbird, Topper, and Williamson,in fact, are, at least so far, extremely rare occurrencesin the region (Anderson et al. 1996; Broster et al.2013; Carr et al. 2013; Gardner 1974; Goodyear1999; Smallwood 2012).The Southeast PIDBA data need to be greatly

expanded. As can be seen from Table 1, in somestates only fluted points are recorded, while in othersa wide range of presumed Paleoindian forms are docu-mented. Efforts to document all later Paleoindiantypes, such as Dalton, have only occurred systemati-cally in three states—Georgia, Mississippi, andTennessee—although this appears to be changing.Fortunately, recording projects are underway innearly every southern state at present, and the peoplemaintaining them make their data available toPIDBA, reflecting the region’s long history of collegi-ality in research (e.g., Anderson and Sassaman 2012;Brown 1994). PIDBA thus serves as an importantsource of readily available primary data, allowingresearchers to explore topics such as landscape use,diachronic changes in mobility, population concen-trations and settlement, and sources of bias in thedata (Anderson and Sassaman 2012: 48–49;Anderson et al. 2010a; Buchanan 2003; Miller 2011;O’Donoughue 2007; Prasciunas 2008, 2011; Seemanand Prufer 1984; Shott 2002, 2005; Smallwood 2010,2011, 2012; Thulman 2006, 2009, 2012; Wah et al.2014). Resolving what the dense point concentrationsin the East and Southeast actually mean has polarized



http://pidba.utk.edu/





Table 1Paleoindian points by type and state in the southeastern United States as recorded in PIDBA (Paleoindian database of the Americas), as of September 2014

Point type Arkansas Louisiana* Mississippi Alabama Tennessee Kentucky Florida Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Virginia** Sample total

Page-Ladson 3 3Miller-like 1 1Clovis 123 112 502 1849 19 455 314 136 3510Fluted 1 20 3 15 267 35 6 968 1315Unfluted Clovis 17 27 11 55Clovis Variant 22 58 80Ross County 17 2 7 9 35Gainey 18 7 16 41Folsom/Sedwick 19 3 22Pelican 14 14Redstone 6 3 49 94 30 46 32 35 295Cumberland 1 12 379 484 59 9 6 950Unfluted Cumberland 55 55Barnes 86 86Wheeler 2 29 16 29 76Simpson 1 13 122 17 153Suwannee 88 87 64 239Quad*** 2 141 193 379 2 57 2 2 778Beaver Lake 1 12 217 485 9 1 44 3 772Coldwater 3 117 120Tallahassee 2 9 11Dalton† 663 1320 13 7 967 1 2971Dalton. Fluted 2 4 76 94 176Hardaway 13 6 19 1 39Lanceolate forms 1 37 2 25 7 119 1 192Unknown 6 21 21 555 3 18 124 10 758Totals 196 20 1129 1410 5497 363 143 2138 579 253 1019 12,747

*No Paleoindian point survey project has been conducted in Louisiana in recent years.**Only ‘fluted’ forms recorded. Redstone and Gainey types designated by A. C. Goodyear in 2005.***Includes Arkabutla and Hinds types.†Includes Greenbrier, Harpeth River, Haw River, Nucholls, San Patrice, Sante Fe, Tallahassee, and lanceolate, and side notched forms.

Anderso

net

al.

Pleisto

ceneHuman

Settlem

entin

theSoutheastern

United

States

Paleo

America

2015VOL.1

NO.1

16

researchers for decades, however, with the extremepositions being they are due either to lots of ancientpeople or lots of modern collectors and ground-expos-ing agricultural practices (Cotter 1937; Dincauze 1993;Lepper 1983, 1985; Mason 1962; Prasciunas 2011).The researchers managing PIDBA mostly reside inthe Southeast and have worked the longest withpeople running point recording projects in thatregion, which may help to explain why the southeast-ern data are thought to be the most accurate and com-plete in the overall database.While recording Paleoindian artifacts has a long

history in the Southeast, so too do excavation pro-jects directed at finding early occupations, followingon the WPA work at Macon Plateau and ParrishVillage. Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing

to the present day, excavations into stratified depositsin the region’s rockshelters and floodplains havehelped to establish a relative chronology for earlyassemblages. The basic outline of the LatePaleoindian and early Holocene cultural sequenceused to this day in the region was established atsites such as Hardaway in North Carolina (Coe1964; Daniel 1998, 2001), Silver Springs in Florida(Dunbar 2006c: 405; Neill 1958) Stanfield-WorleyBluff shelter in Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962),Russell Cave in Alabama (Griffin 1974; Miller1956), and at a number of sites just outside theSoutheast, such as St. Albans in West Virginia(Broyles 1966, 1971), Rodgers Shelter in Missouri(Ahler 1971; Kay 1982; McMillan 1971; Wood andMcMillan 1976), and Modoc Rock Shelter in

Figure 4 North America at ca. 13,000–12,000 cal yr BP, showing locations yielding fluted projectile points, in relation to modernshorlines. Evidence for human settlement is widespread, with dense populations indicated in the southeastern United Statesbased on the numbers of recorded sites and diagnostic artifacts. This map encompasses all typed Clovis and Clovis variants inthe database, plus all untyped fluted points in the database that have not been assigned to a later type like Folsom, Cumberland,etc. in the database. Some clearly later fluted point forms are included, particularly in the upper Midwest and the Northeast(graphic prepared by Stephen J. Yerka).




Illinois (Ahler 1993; Fowler 1959). With the emer-gence of CRM archaeology, large-scale excavationsin open air, typically floodplain settings occurred inthe 1970s and 1980s: in the Little Tennessee Riverat Ice House Bottom and Rose Island (Chapman1985); at Hester along the Tombigbee River inMississippi (Brookes 1979); at sites along the HawRiver in North Carolina (Cable 1996; Claggett andCable 1982); at the G. S. Lewis East, GreggShoals, and Rucker’s Bottom sites along theSavannah River of Georgia and South Carolina(Anderson and Joseph 1988; Sassaman et al. 2002;Tippett and Marquardt 1984); at the Harney Flatssite in Florida (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987;Daniel et al. 1986); and at Big Eddy just outsidethe region in Missouri (Lopinot et al. 1998, 2000).Major well-reported excavations conducted in othercontexts, by academic programs or research groups,also occurred in the 1970s and after, such as thoseat Dust Cave in Alabama (Driskell 1996; Sherwoodet al. 2004). A listing of many of the more recentlarge-scale excavation projects, including a numberof sites yielding exceptional quantities of surfacematerial, is provided in Table 2.By the later 1950s, radiocarbon dating began to play

a role in the dating of local late Pleistocene/earlyHolocene assemblages, at sites such as St. Albans onthe periphery of the region in West Virginia and some-what later, in the 1970s, at sites in the Little TennesseeRiver Valley in eastern Tennessee (Broyles 1971;Chapman 1985). Radiocarbon dates have been runon late Pleistocene/early Holocene archaeologicalassemblages in increasing frequency in the region, pro-viding more refined chronological control, serving asproxy measures of regional population levels, andhelping to fill in gaps in the existing temporalsequence. Anderson and others (Anderson et al.2011; see also Martin-Siebert 2004 and Meeks andAnderson 2012: 114–23) summarized dates associatedwith Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites in theSoutheast, in part, to reconstruct regional populationhistory before, during, and after the Younger Dryas.Miller and Gingerich (2013a, 2013b) provided a com-prehensive recent update of radiocarbon dates associ-ated with Paleoindian and Early Archaic materials inthe region, and their analyses document the age ofspecific point forms fairly tightly, as discussed in thenext section.As knowledge of early occupations grew, southeast-

ern archaeologists began to produce syntheses of theregional record and formulate models of early settle-ment, mobility, and technological organization.Early syntheses were in article format, arguing thatthe large numbers of fluted points and their associ-ation with fossil megafaunal remains implied directpredation (Williams and Stoltman 1965), suggested a

local origin for fluting technology (Mason 1962), orfocused on Late Paleoindian Dalton sites, assem-blages, and settlement patterning (Goodyear 1974;Morse 1971, 1973, 1975a, 1975b). More recent synth-eses of southeastern or eastern Paleoindians havetaken the form of lengthy articles (Anderson 1990a;Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Meltzer 1984a, 1988) orbook length efforts, typically with multiple contribu-tors (Anderson and Sassaman 1996a, 2012;Gingerich 2013a; Martin-Siebert 2004; Morse 1997a,1997b). Advancing and evaluating settlement modelshas occurred less frequently, with discussion publishedprimarily in article format (Anderson 1990a, 1995,1996; Anderson and Sassaman 1996b; Andersonet al. 2013a; Cable 1996; Daniel 1998, 2001;Gardner 1977, 1981, 1983, 1989; Gillam 1996a,1999; Gillam et al. 2007; Gingerich and Kitchell2015; Goodyear et al. 1990; Kimball 1996;Smallwood 2012). Perhaps the best known of thesemodels was proposed by William Gardner, based onhis work at Thunderbird, Fifty, and related sites inthe Middle Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, at the so-called Flint Run Paleoindian complex, named forthe major jasper sources present (Carr et al. 2013;Gardner 1974, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1989). Accordingto Gardner, raw material played a key role in earlysettlement; populations were “tethered” to stone quar-ries. They lived near the quarry at base camps for partof the year, and after scheduled forays or temporaryoccupation elsewhere, returned again to the quarry.Quarries served as predictable resource locations forreplenishing tool kits and centers for social aggrega-tion. Later, Gardner (1983, 1989) expanded hismodel to explain settlement patterns along most ofthe eastern seaboard. At the time, Gardner’s modeltook a fairly unique perspective on Paleoindian life-ways. Instead of assuming Paleoindians were highlymobile big-game hunters whose highly curated stonetool technology allowed them to range over the land-scape rather than settle in to specific places (e.g.,Kelly and Todd 1988; Martin 1973; Meltzer 1988),Gardner (1977: 261) argued populations in the Eastwere “selectively mobile within a prescribed territory”and that lithic raw material sources played a major rolein shaping settlement ranges. Thirty years after formu-lation, Gardner’s “place-oriented” as opposed to“technology-oriented’” model remains highly influen-tial; subsequent work has repeatedly demonstratedhow important quarry areas were to early southeasternpopulations, particularly studies in the Carolinasrelated to the use of the Allendale and Hardaway/Uwharrie lithic raw material sources (e.g., Daniel1998, 2001; Daniel and Goodyear in press;Goodyear and Charles 1984; Goodyear et al. 1990).Similarly, in Florida the distribution of Paleoindiansites corresponds to karstic terrain, particularly



Table 2Major recent Paleoindian excavation assemblages from the southeastern United States (with selected surface context

assemblages included, typically where excavations have also occurred)

State Site name Geographic location Excavation information

Diagnostic artifactsrecovered in excavation

and surface context (notedseparately as excavation

and surface) References

AL Belle Mina On a ridgeoverlooking sinks;Limestone County

1 acre site; Paleoindianartifacts recovered inplow zone/surfacecontext

11 Clovis, 1 Clovis/Cumberland, 2 BeaverLake/Quad points(surface)

Ensor (2014: 15–18)and Futato (1996)

Dust Cave Cave in a limestonebluff of HighlandRim along atributary of theTennessee River;LauderdaleCounty

7 test units, trench of 62 × 2 m units (laterdivided into 1 mquads); Paleoindianartifacts found in basalzones T and U andexterior zone S2

1 reworked Cumberlandpoint or drill, 1 Quad, 1Hardaway, 2 Dalton, and3 Beaver Lake points(excavation)

Driskell (1994: 30);Sherwood (2001);Sherwood et al.(2004); Walker(1998: 57–60)

Heavens Half-Acre

On a ridgeoverlooking alarge sink; ColbertCounty

Complex of 65 sites/artifact clusters withmaterials recoveredfrom the surface over>50 years of collecting

72 Clovis, 8 Clovisunfluted, 38Cumberland, 20 Quad,24 Beaver Lake, and7 Redstone (surface)

King (2007)

Joe Powell On a sandy ridge onthe TombigbeeRiver floodplain

3 2 × 2 m test units,surface collection, sitewas examined to see ifintact Dalton depositswere present, given thedense surfaceassemblage

Dalton surface assemblageshown to be deflated,eroded, or redepositedby the testing. 20 Dalton,1 Big Sandy, 1 EarlySide-Notched, 2 KirkCorner-Notched, 1 KirkCluster (surface)

Ensor (1985)

Quad Tennessee Riverfloodplain;Limestone County

Complex of sites along 3miles of TennesseeRiver floodplain; Quad,Beaver Lake, andDalton recovered fromthe surface

68 Clovis, 22 ClovisUnfluted, 86Cumberland, 7 redstone,60 Quad, 50 Wheelertypes, 72 Beaver Lake,67 Colbert Dalton,200 Greenbrier Dalton,73 HardawaySide-Notched,28 Undetermined/Unfinished fluted(surface)

Cambron and Hulse(1960); Cole (2006),Hubbert (1989)(point totals fromHubbert 1989: 139)

LaGrange Bluff shelter; ColbertCounty

9 5 × 5 and 2 1 × 5 ft units 1 side-notched(excavation)

DeJarnette and Knight(1976); Hollenbach(2009)

Stanfield–Worley Bluff shelter south ofthe TennesseeRiver; ColbertCounty

2 45 × 5 ft test trenchesand 3 10 × 40 ft blocks;Paleoindian artifactsrecovered fromstratigraphicallyseparate zone D, adark middenassociated with side-notched points

59 Colbert Dalton,7 Greenbrier,52 Greenbrier Dalton, 36Nucholls Dalton, and 19Hardaway Side-Notched(excavation)

DeJarnette et al.(1962: 91–109)(reported byexcavation level)

AR Brand In the WesternLowlands nearL’Anguille River;Poinsett County

2 × 2 m units totaling∼24.5 m2; Zone I/IIcontact

305 Dalton points(excavation)

Goodyear (1974)

Sloan Sand dune in theWestern Lowlands;Greene County

144 m2 block excavation;in shallow deposits of∼20 discrete clusters


Morrow (2011); Morse(1975b, 1997a)

Lace Place Ancient river channellevee west ofCrowley’s Ridge

3 5 × 10 ft blocks 2 Dalton points(Excavation), >100Dalton points (surface)

Redfield (1971);Redfield andMoselage (1970)

Continued



Table 2 Continued





FL Harney Flats Low swampy plain inHillsborough RiverValley;HillsboroughCounty

Large block excavationsin Areas 1, 2, and 3;Middle PaleoindianSuwannee and EarlyArchaic Bolen found innearly samestratigraphic positionranging from 114 to151 cm below surfaceof Area 1

8 Suwannee and Simpsonpoints (latter suggestedto fall within range ofSuwannee point type byDunbar and Hemmings,2004) (excavation)

Daniel and Wisenbaker(1987: 38)

Page Ladson Sinkhole within achannel of theAucilla River;Jefferson County

21 artifacts suggested torepresent LatePaleoindian recoveredin Unit 5 in a 12 m2

area of Test C

No points recovered inPaleoindian components

Dunbar (2006c:412–18); Dunbaret al. (1988); Faughtet al. (2003); Webb(2006)

Sloth Hole Large sink in thewest run of thelower Aucilla;Jefferson County

Underwater siteexcavated as morethan 80 1 × 1 m-units

4 Clovis points (recoveredout of contexts) and2 complete and57 fragmentary piecesof ivory

Halligan (2012: 71);Hemmings (1999:25–39)

Little SaltSprings

Large, floodedsinkhole nearCharlotte Harbor

Wooden stake foundbetween turtlecarapace and plastronbut context andassociation ambiguous

Wooden stake associated(?) with giant landtortoise. The stake wasdated to ca.14,000 cal BP, whilebone from the tortoisereturned a date of ca.16,300 cal BP (Clausenet al. 1979: 609–11).Dunbar and Webb(1996: 352) state that thetortoise shell was notcarbonized from cookingas previously believed

Clausen et al. (1979);Dunbar and Webb(1996)

Wakulla SpringsLodge

At Wakulla spring inthe Gulf CoastalLowlands; WakullaCounty

Middle PaleoindianSuwannee and EarlyArchaic Bolen found innearly samestratigraphic position

1 Clovis-like point(excavation)

Jones and Tesar(2000); Tesar andJones (2004)

Warm MineralSprings

Limestone sinkhole;Sarasota County

Human remains andsamples of charredwood recovered inLevel 4 but context andassociation ambiguous

No artifacts recovered intesting

Clausen et al. (1975a,1975b); Cockrell(1987); Cockrell andMurphy (1978);Royal and Clark(1960)

8LE2105 Southern edge ofCody Scarp whereit meets GulfCoastal Plain

Multiyear, large blockexcavations; twostratigraphicallyseparate Bolenoccupations; possibleSuwannee flutedpreforms below Bolen

No temporally diagnosticpoints recovered fromPaleoindian, only flutedpreforms (possiblySuwannee)

Goodwin et al. (2013);Hornum et al. (1996)

GA Macon Plateau Near Macon; BibbCounty

Stratigraphically belowceramic-bearingArchaic component

1 Clovis point (excavation) Kelly (1938); Waring(1968)

MuckafooneeCreek

SouthwesternGeorgia nearmajor chertoutcrops of theFlint Riverformation:Dougherty County

2 1 × 1 and 1 2 × 2 m2;stratified Archaic andPaleoindian deposits

1 Middle or LatePaleoindian point(excavation)

Anderson et al. (1994:60); Elliott (1982)

Continued



Table 2 Continued





Rae’s Creek At Fall Line alongSavannah River;Richmond County

3 sites areas totaling441.75 m2; LatePaleoindian and EarlyArchaic in lowest levelsof >4 m stratified andwell-dated deposits

1 Dalton/Hardawaypreform (excavation)

Crook (1990)

Rucker’s Bottom Upper SavannahRiver; ElbertCounty

160 m2 block excavation;Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic deposits

1 Clovis point (excavation) Anderson andSchuldenrein (1985)

Taylor Hill Savannah Riverfloodplain nearAugusta;Richmond County

11.2 × 2 and 1.1 × 1 mtest units; stratifiedMiddle and LatePaleoindian and EarlyArchaic deposits

1 Clovis point, 1 possiblefluted preform, and 2Dalton points(excavation)

Elliot and Doyon(1981)

Theriault ChertQuarry

Along Brier Creek;Burke County

142 m2 block excavation;Paleoindian evidencefound 30–34 inchesbelow surface directlyabove sterile clay

1 Clovis point (later typedas a Redstone point)and 2 Dalton points(excavation)

Brockington (1971);Goodyear personalcommunication

9Ri381 At Fall Line alongSavannah River;Richmond County

9.1 × 1 m2 units; belowstratified depositsbearing Early andMiddle Archaic points

1 probable beveled Daltonpoint medial-distal(excavation)

Smallwood et al.(2014)

KY Adams Along the Little Rivernear Herndon andHopkinsville;Christian County

Clovis artifacts inrecovered from thesurface around thecircumference of alarge sink hole

4 Clovis points (surface),No artifacts found inburied context

Freeman et al. (1996);Gramly and Yahnig(1991); Sanders(1990)

Henderson Confluence of Eddycreek andCumberland River;Lyon County

Several trenchesexcavated to depth of29.4 cm; Paleoindianand Archaic mixed atfound at 15.2 cm

2 possible Cumberlandpoints (excavation)

Maggard andStackelbeck (2008:137)

Parrish Village Confluence of Rose,Weirs, and Clearcreeks; HopkinsCounty

Multiple transects cutacross 38 m of site;points recovered atdepth of 0.3 and 0.5 m

7 Clovis points(excavation)

Rolingson andSchwartz (1966);Webb (1951)

LA Eagle Hill II Pearson Ridge areaof Fort Polk on aneroded ridgeslope near EagleHill; SabineCounty

Initial testing found anundisturbedPaleoindian componentand a Clovis at depthof 40–50 cm in a testunit; Subsequenttesting (6 x 5-m block)found Paleoindianstratum 90–100 cmbelow surface

1 Clovis point and 1Folsom-like lanceolatepoint (excavation)

Anderson and Smith(2003: 41–43); Gunnand Brown (1982);Rees (2010: 47–48);Servello and Bianchi(1983)

John Pearce Terrace overlookingCypress Bayou;Caddo Parish

48 5-ft squaresexcavated in Area Aand >189 5-ft squaresin Area B3; In Area A,2 Clovis pointsrecovered in a pitfeature 36 cm belowsurface and 1 on ornear surface; Also in A,19 San Patrice andPelican and Meservepoints, and in Area B,20 San Patrice points.San Patrice pointsfound at depths of5–30 cm below surface

3 Clovis, 6 Pelican points,2 Meserve points (Daltonor San Patrice, var.Hope), and 39 SanPatrice points(excavation)

Rees (2010: 47); Webbet al. (1971: 10)

Continued



Table 2 Continued





16VN1505 Terrace overlookingBig Brushy Creek,Fort Polk VernonCounty

Initially tested in large-scale shovel-testsurvey; Subsequenttesting, 7.50 x 50-cmand 5.1 x 1-cm,recovered Plainviewand San Patrice in TestUnit 4 at 70–100 cm

1 Clovis point, 1 Plainviewpoint, and 2 San Patricepoints (excavation)

Anderson and Smith(2003: 351); Abramset al. (1995); Meyeret al. (1996)

MS Hester Alluvial floodplain ofthe TombigbeeRiver in theTombigbee Hills;Monroe County

6 10 × 10 ft squares;Clovis and Cumberlandin zone of yellow sand(Dalton zone) andQuads found belowDalton zone

1 Clovis, 1 Cumberlandpoint, 6 Quad points (1found in mixed contextwith Early Archaicpoints), numerous Daltonlanceolate and Daltonside-notched points(excavation)

Brookes (1979);Brookes (personalcommunication);McGahey (1996:371)

NC BaucomHardaway

In the floodplain ofthe Rocky Rivernear the Fall LineZone; UnionCounty

20 × 4-ft area gridded into5-ft squares; belowlevels with corner andside-notched pointsand in 8’ 9” level ofhard, sandy, yellowclay

9 Hardaway-Dalton points(excavation)

Peck (2003)

Hardaway Along Yadkin Rivernear UwharrieMountains; RowanCounty

1955–1959 excavationsremoved 53 m2 and1975–1980 excavationsremoved large block(>50 m2) immediatelysouth of 1950s work;Late Paleo found inZones II, III, and IV andassociated withArchaic points

25 Hardaway-Dalton points(excavation)

Daniel (1998)

Haw River Alluvial terrace ofHaw River;Chatham County

31CH129: 12 × 12 mblock

2 Hardaway-Dalton points Cable (1996: 110–11);Claggett and Cable(1982)

Pasquotoank In Great DismalSwamp on southside ofPasquotank River;PasquotankCounty

Multi-componentPaleoindian, Archaic,and Woodland surfacesite shallowly buried;over 100 stone toolsand several hundredflakes recovered from7 ha area

3 Clovis-like fluted pointsand 1 Hardaway Side-Notched (surface)

Daniel et al. (2007);Daniel and Moore(2011)

SC Big Pine Tree Central SavannahRiver valley onSmiths LakeCreek; AllendaleCounty

Found in 100–115 cmbszone with Taylor side-notched points


Goodyear (1999);Waters et al. (2009)

Flamingo Bay Eastern sand rim ofFlamingo Bay, aCarolina bay;Aiken County

23 2 × 2 m units in 2block excavations;single occupation, andClovis diagnosticsfound in larger 19 unit-block


Moore and Brooks(2012); Moore(personalcommunication2014)

Taylor Near the CongareeRiver and FallLine; LexingtonCounty

4 10-ft squares; belowzone with Early ArchaicPalmer assemblage


Michie (1996)

Topper Central SavannahRiver valley in theCoastal Plain onoutcrop of CoastalPlain chert;Allendale County

3 major site areas totaling840 m2 have beenexcavated to date;below Archaic andWoodland components

4 Clovis points, 1Redstone, and 1 Dalton(excavation)

Anderson et al.(2013b); Goodyear(2005); Miller (2010);Sain (2011);Smallwood (2010);Smallwood et al.(2013)

Continued



Table 2 Continued





Tree House Located in thePiedmont on asandy levee of thesouth side of theSaluda River;Lexington County

3 block units, 2,125 sq.ft/200 m2

1 Clovis, 1 Dalton(excavation)

Nagle and Green(2010)

TN Carson-Conn-Short

In a series of terraceridges of theWestern Valleyalong the shore ofKentucky Lakeand south of anancient channel ofthe TennesseeRiver; BentonCounty

6 1 × 1 m2 test unitsexcavated in Area Aand 3 test units in AreaF; 2 units in Area Ahave distinctPaleoindiancomponents: in TU 1,fluted preform found30–55 cm belowsurface and in TU 8,Clovis points foundburied in associationwith Late Archaic fire-cracked-rock feature


Broster and Norton(1993); Broster et al.(1996); Nami et al.(1996); Smallwood(2011, 2012);Stanford et al.(2006)

Coats-Hines Near Spencer Creek,a tributary ofHarpeth River;Williamson County

Two large excavationblocks

Extinct fauna, flakes, andflake tools (excavation)

Breitburg et al. (1996),Deter-Wolf et al.(2011)

Johnson Confluence of theCumberland Riverand a tributary;Davidson County

Artifacts and datedmaterial collected fromfeatures eroding outriver bank; Paleoindianartifacts found inStratum IV, which is1 m thick andstratigraphically belowEarly Archaiccomponents in StratumIII and II

3 Clovis points, 6Cumberland, and 1Dalton point (excavation)

Barker and Broster(1996); Broster andBarker (1992);Broster et al. (1991,1996)

Nuckolls On the TennesseeRiver in theKentucky Lakearea; HumphreysCounty

Testing demonstrated siteis a deflated surfacefrom which Clovis,Cumberland, andDalton points, andprismatic blades, havebeen surface collected

No artifacts found in buriedcontext

Broster et al. (2013);Lewis and Kneberg(1958); Ellerbusch(2004)

Wells CreekCrater

Confluence ofCumberland Riverand Wells Creek;Stewart County

3 test trenches and anumber of excavationblocks (Tune 2013:149)

6 Clovis, 1 Beaver Lake(surface? Provenience ofpoints uncertain) (Tune2013: 150)

Dragoo (1973); Tune(2013)

Widemeier Overlooking an oldoxbow of theCumberland River;Davidson County

Clovis, Cumberland,Beaver Lake, andDalton points found insurface collection, butstratified deposits in 8concentrations (A-Hand J) with datableEarly Archaic materialsuggest thatPaleoindian depositscould be intact

No artifacts found in buriedcontext

Broster et al. (2006,2013)

VA Cactus Hill Area A-3 (testexcavations totaling180 ft2), Area B, AreaC, and Area D

2 Early Triangular, Clovispoints and 4 MiddlePaleoindian points foundin Excavation Area B; 2Daltons (Area A?)(excavation)

McAvoy and McAvoy(1997); Johnson(1997, 2014)

Continued



sinkhole catchment systems, where fresh water, chert,and wild plant and animal resources would havebeen concentrated or easily acquired. This “OasisModel” was originally proposed by Neill (1964) andhas since been explored in detail by a number of scho-lars, particularly Dunbar andWaller (Donoghue 2006;Dunbar and Waller 1983; Dunbar et al. 1989; Wallerand Dunbar 1977; Webb 2006). Thulman (2009) hasrecently argued that during the Younger Dryassurface water scarcity was a significant constraint onPaleoindian settlement patterning, which mayexplain an increase in the concentration of sites nearlocations with higher frequencies of sinkholes.Based on the presence of dense concentrations of

artifacts in river valleys in portions of the Southeast,Anderson (1990a, 1996) proposed a regional-scaleplace-oriented model of Paleoindian colonizationand settlement. In this “staging area” model,Anderson argued that early Paleoindian peoples enter-ing the Eastern Woodlands encountered major rivervalleys, slowed their movement, and settled into the

ecologically richest locations; perhaps not coinciden-tally, these areas also had major knappable stoneresources, making the model an extension ofGardner’s tethering argument. These locationsbecame staging areas or settlement nuclei for groupaggregation and residence. As populations grew,groups fissioned and dispersed into secondarystaging areas, knowing that in the event of problemsthere were places on the landscape they could returnto and find people or resources. Early Paleoindiangroups habitually used staging areas and formed dis-crete populations, leaving behind dense concentrationsof artifacts. These concentrations reflect incipientmacroband-level organization and the foundationsfor early cultural regionalization. Again, unlikewestern-based models, Anderson (1990a, 1996; seealso Dincauze 1993 for a similar perspective in theNortheast) predicted the nature of Paleoindian coloni-zation and settlement in the Southeast was a slower-paced process that occurred in a step-wise manner.Cable (1996: 144), however, alternately suggested

Table 2 Continued





Fifty On and adjacent toalluvial fanupstream from aburied bog;Warren County

Found in excavations ofinterfan area with16.10 × 10 ft units inarea 70 ft by 10–30 ft;recovered in Level 4stratigraphically belowlevel with Early ArchaicCharleston/Palmeroccupation


Carr (1985, 1992); Carret al. (2013)

Smith Mountain Natural leveesparalleling theRoanoke River;Pittsylvania County

Deep auger testing; someremains found onexposed levee surfaceand in small excavationunits

1 Clovis point, 1 ‘plano-like’point (excavation)

Childress (1993);Childress and Vogt(1994); Childressand Blanton (1997);Johnson (2014)

Thunderbird South Fork of theShenandoah Riversituated acrossoutcrops ofJasper; WarrenCounty

Excavations in 2 areas ofsite—upslope shallowhabitation site anddownslope buriedstratified productionarea with Area 1B and4 in downslope mostreported; in Area 4Paleo found in Levels6–8, and in area 1B,Clovis on claystratigraphically belowMiddle to Late Paleocomponent and EarlyArchaic component

2 Clovis points (Area 1B), 1Middle/Late?Paleoindian point and 1broken Clovis point(Area 4), and 1 Dalton(Hardaway-Dalton-likepoint/preform) (indisturbed context ofArea 1B) (excavation)

Carr et al. (2013:182–83); Gardner(1974); Gardner andVerrey (1979);Verrey (1986: 162)

Williamson At the interface ofthe Coastal Plainand Piedmont,about halfwaybetween theNottoway andAppomattox Riverbasins; DinwiddieCounty

Trenching and 11 10 × 10and 2 10 × 5-ft testunits; Clovis pointpreform recovered fromunit 290R10, 1.3 ft-levelof Zone 3 in Feature1. Second recovered280R10, 0.2 ft of Zone3

2 Clovis point preforms(without basal grinding)(excavation)

Haynes (1972, 1985);Hill (1997); McCary(1951, 1975);McCary and Bittner(1978)



that the dense concentrations of Paleoindian artifactsin the Midsouth and higher latitudes were due to thedifferences in use intensity and a greater occurrenceof logistical organizational strategies, which eithernever occurred or had been replaced by foraging strat-egies much earlier in warmer lower latitudes, followingarguments advanced by Binford (1980). In this view,staging areas were simply places where there was agreater need for bulk processing to overcome moresevere overwintering challenges, resulting in denserassemblages and greater numbers of discardedcurated tools such as end scrapers (see also Walthall1998a).The staging area model received little direct testing,

however, until Smallwood (2012) demonstrated differ-ences between assemblages in differing parts of theregion that might be tied to such a population disper-sal, although the areas settled first and then sub-sequently, if this is what happened, remain to bedetermined, and depend in part on entry routes andsubsequent population histories (Anderson et al.2010a, 2013a; Miller 2014; Smallwood 2012). In atime when much of what we knew aboutPaleoindians was based on sites in the Plains andSouthwest, the works of Dunbar, Gardner,Goodyear, Mason, McCary, Meltzer, Morse,Stoltman, Williams, and many others (e.g., Anderson1990a, Cable 1996; Goodyear 1974; Meltzer 1984a,1988; Meltzer and Smith 1986; Morse 1971, 1975a,1977; Schiffer 1975a, 1975b; Williams and Stoltman1965) highlighted the growing southeastern record,

took a regional perspective on settlement, andcreated testable hypotheses for archaeologistsworking in the region and beyond to explore.

4. The radiocarbon record and projectile pointchronologyWhile it is clear that Paleoindian period hunter-gath-erers experienced remarkable environmental changes,actually correlating and directly dating changes inculture with changes in climate is difficult in the south-eastern United States. Here widely accepted radiocar-bon dates associated with diagnostics and used to helpdevelop the cultural sequence in the Southeast areexamined, to indicate our current state of understand-ing of chronology (Figure 5, Table 3). Historically, oneof the major hurdles in studying the Pleistocenearchaeological record in this region has been locatingsites with datable components (Anderson 2005;Dunnell 1990; Goodyear 1999; Miller and Gingerich2013a, 2013b; Williams and Stoltman 1965: 673).This is largely a product of (1) the warm and humidclimate in the region relative to other areas of NorthAmerica, and (2) the surface geology is composed pri-marily of residuum that has not seen much, if any,accumulation of sediments since the appearance ofpeople in North America (Dunnell 1990: 13;Goodyear 1999). As a result, Pleistocene archaeologi-cal sites in the southeastern United States are oftencharacterized by surface (or shallowly buried) sitesalmost entirely composed of stone tools with little tono organic preservation (Meltzer 1984a, 1988). This

Figure 5 Radiocarbon dates for key Middle and Late Paleoindian diagnostics, and how their ranges compare to the recordelsewhere (graphic prepared by D. Shane Miller).




contrasts significantly with the Holocene record in theregion, where many of the classic sites that form thecultural sequence for eastern North America (e.g.,Koster in Illinois, Icehouse Bottom and Rose Islandin Tennessee, and St. Albans in West Virginia) didnot produce datable Pleistocene-aged components(Miller and Gingerich 2013a, 2013b).Consequently, the bulk of what we know about

Paleoindian sites in the Southeast comes fromsurface sites and private collections, which form thebasis of projectile point surveys that have been activein every state in the region at one time or anothersince McCary’s (1947, 1984, 1991; Hranicky 1989;2008, 2009) “Folsomoid” survey of Virginia in the1940s (for a discussion of fluted point surveys in theregion see Anderson 1990b; Anderson and Faught1998; Anderson et al. 2010b; Brennan 1982). Thesesites, collections, and surveys provided a way todefine the range of variation in projectile points thathave been recovered in the region. However, to beginplacing these projectile point types into chronologicalorder, researchers have historically relied on compar-ing the morphology of projectile points to well-datedsites in other regions of North America (Andersonet al. 1996; Goodyear 1999; Miller and Gingerich2013a). Only relatively recently have sites such asCactus Hill and Dust Cave provided widely acceptedradiocarbon dates that help to solidify thePaleoindian period culture historical sequence in theSoutheast (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; Sherwoodet al. 2004).The earliest reported projectile point types in

eastern North America are the Miller Lanceolate—alanceolate, unfluted projectile point known from thePre-Clovis levels at Meadowcroft Rockshelter inPennsylvania—and the Early Triangular type fromCactus Hill, Virginia (Adovasio 1998, Adovasioet al. 1978, 1999; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). AtMeadowcroft Rockshelter, a Miller Lanceolate wasfound in Stratum IIa bracketed by levels associatedwith radiocarbon dates that fall between 11,300±700 14C yr BP (13,375± 988 cal yr BP) and 12,800±87014C yr BP (15,389± 1,219 cal yrBP). At CactusHill, two Early Triangular points were found inlevels that produced artifacts below the Clovis depos-its. Two charcoal samples from features interpretedas hearths in these levels produced two radiocarbondates, 15,070± 70 14C yr BP (Beta-81590; 18,308±112 cal yr BP) and 16,940± 50 14C yr BP (Beta-128330; 20,428± 95 cal yr BP) (Feathers et al. 2006:170; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). However, the accep-tance of these dates, and the Miller Lanceolate andEarly Triangular as Early Paleoindian projectilepoint types, while increasingly widespread, is not uni-versal (cf. Adovasio and Pedler 2005, 2014; Adovasioet al. 1999; Anderson and Sassaman 2012: 45; Fiedel

2013; Goodyear 2005), and more work directed todetecting early diagnostics is clearly needed.

The chronological placement of fluted point tech-nology in the southeastern United States has reliedheavily on well-dated sites from other regions, in par-ticular the southwestern United States and the GreatPlains. Haynes (1964, 1969, see also Haynes 1992,2005) initially put the date range for Clovis technologyas between 11,500 and 10,900 14C yr BP(13,341–12,747 cal yr BP). However, Waters andStafford (2007) argue that the minimum date rangefor Clovis is much narrower in time(11,050–10,800 14C yr BP; 12,914–12,713 cal yr BP)based on both new dates and the reanalysis of the exist-ing body of dates. G. Haynes et al. (2007), however,countered that Waters and Stafford excluded somedates, the most prominent of which are from theAubrey site in Texas (Ferring 1995, 2001), which pre-dates their narrower date range for Clovis by severalcenturies. The recently published radiocarbon datesfrom Fin del Mundo in Sonora (Sanchez et al. 2014)and OSL dates from the Debra L. Friedken site inTexas (Waters et al. 2011) provide further evidencefor Clovis (or Clovis-like) technology prior to Watersand Stafford’s (2007) date range. Consequently, whathas emerged is a “long” and a “short” chronologyfor Clovis in North America with the earliest datedexpressions of Clovis technology in the lower latitudes,but with the great majority of the radiocarbon datesfor Clovis defining the narrower time range advancedby Waters and Stafford.

In the southeastern United States, the earliest datedcomponent containing fluted preforms occurs at theJohnson site in Nashville, Tennessee. Barker andBroster (1996) collected charcoal from features inter-preted as hearths eroding into the Cumberland Riverthat were associated with both fluted and unfluted pre-forms. These produced three dates that substantiallypredate the Waters and Stafford (2007) short chronol-ogy for Clovis, and also predate both Aubrey and Findel Mundo (Ferring 1995, 2001; Sanchez et al. 2014).However, two of the three early dates from theJohnson site have exceptionally large standard devi-ations, and Vance Haynes’s attempts to replicatethem produced dates that were early Holocene in age(Barker and Broster 1996: 100–03). While additionaldates would likely lead to chronological refinement,the site has likely been lost to erosion (Broster et al.2013). Other sites in eastern North America, such asShawnee-Minisink in Pennsylvania, and SheridenCave and Paleo Crossing in Ohio (Eren 2005, 2006,Eren et al. 2004; Gingerich 2007, 2013b; Johnson1997, 2014; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McNett1985; Redmond and Tankersley 2005; Tankersley1999; Waters et al. 2009), have demonstrated that atthe very least Clovis technology is contemporaneous



Table 3Radiocarbon dates associated with temporally diagnostic Paleoindian bifaces for the southeastern United States and

surrounding areas

Site Component Lab number 14C yr BP Cal yr BP References

Meadowcroft, PA* Miller Lanceolate SI-2354 16,175± 975 19,816± 1207 Adovasio et al. (1978: 643)Meadowcroft, PA* Miller Lanceolate SI-1686 12,800± 870 15,389± 1219 Adovasio et al. (1978: 643)Cactus Hill, VA Miller Lanceolate? Beta-166238 16,940± 50 20,428± 95 McAvoy and McAvoy (1997)Cactus Hill, VA Miller Lanceolate? Beta-81590 15,070± 70 18,308± 112 Feathers et al. (2006)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms TX-6999 12,660± 970 15,281± 1335 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms TX-7454 11,980± 110 13,839± 141 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms TX-7000 11,700± 980 14,101± 1393 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms AA-9165 9,555± 90 10,904± 150 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms AA-9168 9,090± 85 10,271± 119 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms AA-9164 9,050± 85 10,194± 134 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Johnson, TN Fluted Preforms AA-8860 8,925± 75 10,024± 124 Barker and Broster (1996: 98)Sloth Hole, FL Clovis? (Ivory Rod) SL-2850 11,050± 50 12,913± 74 Hemmings (2004)Topper, SC Clovis? AA100294 10,958± 65 12,837± 79 Goodyear (2013); Wittke et al.

(2013)Cactus Hill, VA** Clovis Beta-81589 10,920± 250 12,820± 258 McAvoy and McAvoy (1997)Paleo-Crossing,

OH**Clovis AA-8250-C 11,060± 120 12,924± 110 Brose (1994)

Paleo-Crossing,OH**

Clovis AA-8250-E 10,980± 110 12,875± 100 Brose (1994)

Paleo-Crossing,OH**

Clovis AA-8250-D 10,800± 185 12,707± 205 Brose (1994)

Shawnee-Minisink,PA**

Clovis UCIAMS-24866

11,020± 30 12,882± 62 Gingerich (2007: 92)


Clovis Beta-101935 10,940± 90 12,842± 90 Gingerich (2007: 94)


Clovis UCIAMS-24865

10,915± 25 12,763± 27 Gingerich (2007: 95)





Sheriden Cave,OH***

Clovis UCIAMS-38249

10,915± 30 12,765± 30 Waters et al. (2009: 109)

Dust Cave, AL† Quad/Beaver Lake/Dalton

Beta-81599 10,500± 60 12,432± 120 Sherwood et al. (2004: 538–39)

















Dust Cave, AL‡ Quad/Beaver Lake/Dalton
















Smith Mountain, VA Lanceolate (Plano?) Beta 93017 10,150± 70 11,790± 165 Childress and Blanton (1997: 12)

Continued



with that in the western United States, spans the latterpart of the Bølling–Allerød interstadial period, andterminates with the beginning of the Younger Dryasstadial period at approximately 12,850 cal yr BP. Inthe southeastern United States, the only widelyaccepted radiocarbon date associated with Clovislithic technology is from the Cactus Hill site inVirginia (10,920± 50 14C yr BP; 12,786±55 cal yr BP; Beta-81589; McAvoy and McAvoy1997; Wagner and McAvoy 2004). An ivory rodfrom Sloth Hole in Florida also produced a date thatis contemporaneous with Clovis sites elsewhere inNorth America (11,050± 50 14C yr BP; 12,913±

74 cal yr BP; SL-285; Hemmings 2004, 2005).Finally, Wittke et al. (2013) and Goodyear (2013)have reported a date associated with the Clovis depos-its at the Topper site in South Carolina (10,958±65 14C yr BP; 12,837± 79 cal yr BP; AA-100294).However, the context of this date and its associationwith the archaeological deposits at the site are onlyminimally published, and await further investigation.

In the western United States, Clovis is replaced byFolsom at the onset of the Younger Dryas, which issupported by their stratigraphic relationship at sitessuch as Blackwater Draw and a large body of radiocar-bon dates (Holliday 2000). However, in the

Table 3 Continued

Site Component Lab number 14C yr BP Cal yr BP References

Rodgers Shelter,MO

Dalton ISGS-48 10,530± 650 12,227± 849 Coleman (1972: 154)

Rodgers Shelter,MO

Dalton M-2333 10,200± 330 11,872± 472 Crane and Griffin (1972: 159)

Puckett, TN Dalton Beta-48045 9,790± 160 11,220± 286 Norton and Broster (1992: 34,1993)

Olive Branch, IL Dalton not given 9,115± 100 10,305± 133 Gramly and Funk (1991)Graham Cave, MO◊ Dalton/Early Side-

NotchedM-130 9,700± 500 11,218± 716 Crane and Griffin (1956: 667)

Graham Cave, MO◊ Dalton/Early Side-Notched

M-1928 9,470± 400 10,862± 596 Crane and Griffin (1968: 84–85)

Graham Cave, MO◊ Dalton/Early Side-Notched

M-1889 9,290± 300 10,559± 430 Crane and Griffin (1968: 84–85)

Stanfield-Worley,AL◊

Dalton/Early Side-Notched

M-1152 9,640± 450 11,126± 664 DeJarnette et al. (1962: 85–87),Josselyn (1964)



M-1346 9,440± 400 10,818± 593 DeJarnette et al. (1962), Josselyn(1964)






M-1348 9,040± 400 10,259± 547 DeJarnette et al. (1962: 85–87),Josselyn (1964)




Dust Cave, AL†† Early Side-Notched Beta-81602 10,070± 60 11,617± 156 Sherwood et al. (2004: 538–39)

Dust Cave, AL†† Early Side-Notched Beta-81606 9,720± 70 11,084± 132 Sherwood et al. (2004: 538–39)

St. Albans Early Side- Notched M-1827 9,900± 500 11,476± 696 Broyles (1966: 18, 40–41)8LE2105, FL‡‡ Bolen (Side- and Corner-

Notched)Beta-81469 10,090± 70 11,661± 173 Faught et al. (2003: 17)

8LE2105, FL‡‡ Bolen (Side- and Corner-Notched)

Beta-81468 9,900± 60 11,344± 104 Faught et al. (2003: 17)

8LE2105, FL‡‡ Bolen (Side- and Corner-Notched)

Beta-81467 9,850± 50 11,264± 52 Faught et al. (2003: 17)

Page-Ladson, FL‡‡ Bolen (Side- and Corner-Notched)

Beta-21752 10,280± 110 12,056± 231 Faught et al. (2003: 17)


Beta-58857 10,000± 80 11,515± 161 Faught et al. (2003: 17)


Beta-21750 10,000± 120 11,557± 210 Faught et al. (2003: 17)


Beta-103888 9,950± 70 11,434± 136 Faught et al. (2003: 17)


Beta-58858 9,930± 60 11,388± 118 Faught et al. (2003: 17)

*These radiocarbon dates bracket the deposits that produced the Miller Lanceolate.**These dates were accepted by Waters and Stafford (2007).***This date was derived from collagen from a bone projectile point. Waters et al. (2009) argue that this sample represents the mostaccurate age for the Clovis assemblage at this site.†

These dates are from Zone U at Dust Cave.‡These dates are from Zone T at Dust Cave.◊The Dalton components were not distinguishable from later side-notched components (Goodyear 1982: 384).††These dates are from Zone R at Dust Cave.‡‡Side- and Corner-Notched Bolen bifaces co-occurred within the deposits that produced these dates.



southeastern United States, projectile point forms thatpresumably follow Clovis at the onset of the YoungerDryas (e.g., Redstone, Gainey, Cumberland, Barnes,Suwanee, and Simpson) remain to be securely dated oreven, in some cases, securely differentiated (Anderson2005, 2013; Meeks and Anderson 2012; Miller andGingerich 2013a, 2013b; Morrow 2015). Gramly(2008, 2009, 2012), in fact, suggests Cumberland isEarly Paleoindian or Pre-Clovis in age, an inference con-sidered unlikely here on technological grounds, but theform’s dating and stratigraphic occurrence unquestion-ably needs to be accurately determined. The low inci-dence of dates for the initial centuries of the YoungerDryas has been tied to a shift in demography(Anderson and Faught 2000), mobility and landscapeuse (Anderson et al. 2010a, 2011; Faught 2008;Thulman 2009), and the “cliff” in the available cali-bration curves that make radiocarbon dates within thistimeframe difficult to interpret (Fiedel 1999, 2015;Meltzer and Holliday 2010).While there are almost no radiocarbon dates avail-

able from the Southeast in the initial centuries of theYounger Dryas, a handful of sites have produceddates for the remainder of the Younger Dryas and thetransition to the early Holocene. This uptick in the fre-quency of radiocarbon dates in the latter stages of theYounger Dryas is likely due to the increase in the useof caves and rockshelters, which provide a bettercontext for preservation than the surface scatters thattypify the early Paleoindian record in the southeasternUnited States (Miller and Gingerich 2013a, 2013b;Walthall 1998a). Dust Cave, in particular, is the keysite used in the southeastern United States for establish-ing the chronological relationship between Quad/Beaver Lake, Dalton, and Early Side-Notched projec-tile points (Sherwood et al. 2004). The dates for theQuad/Beaver/Dalton components (Zones T and U)are consistent with the radiocarbon dates fromRodgers Shelter, which Goodyear (1982) used toargue that Dalton is a Late Paleoindian manifestationdating to between ∼10,500 and 9,900 14C BP(∼12,475–11,275 cal yr BP). Moreover, at the SmithMountain site in Virginia, Childress and Blanton(1997: 12) recovered a “Plano-like” biface (which maybe comparable to Quad or Dalton types elsewherein the region), and a charcoal sample that produceda date (10,150± 70 14C BP; 11,790± 165 cal yr BP;Beta-93017) that falls within the temporal span thatproposed by Goodyear (1982). However, two siteshave produced Dalton components with dates that areyounger than Goodyear’s temporal range, OliveBranch in Illinois (9,115± 100 14C BP; 10,305±133 cal yr BP; Gramly 2002; Gramly and Funk 1991)and Puckett in Tennessee (9,790± 160 14C BP;11,220± 286 cal yr BP; Beta-48045; Norton andBroster 1993: 47).

Finally, Dust Cave (as well as Stanfield-Worley inAlabama, Graham Cave in Missouri, and St. Albansin West Virginia) demonstrated that the chronologicaloccurrence of side-notched projectile points spans theLate Paleoindian/Early Archaic (Younger Dryas/Holocene) boundary. In the Midsouth, side-notchedprojectile points were observed in early contexts atStanfield-Worley (DeJarnette et al. 1962), GrahamCave (Crane and Griffin 1956: 667), and more recentlyat Dust Cave (Driskell 1994; Randall 2002; Sherwoodet al. 2004), and at sites like Page-Ladson and8LE2015 in Florida (Carter and Dunbar 2006;Faught and Waggoner 2012; Goodwin et al. 2013).However, adding to the confusion is that side-notchingreappears in the Middle/Late Archaic in parts of theSoutheast, including at the regionally famous BigSandy site in western Tennessee (Bissett 2014;Osborne 1942), unfortunately resulting in theoccasional use of the term “Big Sandy” to describeboth earlier and later side-notched forms, promptingcalls for clarification (Carter and Dunbar 2006: 494;Morse 1994: 233). Additionally, side-notching mayoccur with corner-notched variants of Bolen projectilepoints in Florida (Faught and Waggoner 2012; Faughtet al. 2003). While Stanfield-Worley, Dust Cave, Page-Ladson, and 8LE2015 clearly demonstrate a latePleistocene/early Holocene horizon of side-notchedprojectile points in the southeastern United States,the mere presence of a side-notched projectile pointdoes not automatically equate to an archaeologicalcomponent dating to the Pleistocene–Holocenetransition.

5. Paleoindian adaptations in the SoutheastEvidence for Pleistocene occupation in the Southeastis here placed into three temporal groupings, desig-nated the Early, Middle, and Late Paleoindianperiods, closely corresponding to before, during, andafter Clovis times. Paleoindian adaptations in theSoutheast for the Early, Middle, and initial part ofthe Late Paleoindian periods are not well understoodat present, although our knowledge base is rapidlyimproving. Early research focused on defining andexamining the manufacture and occurrence of mor-phologically discrete point types, providing a frame-work for exploring cultural change through analysesof their environmental and material cultural associ-ations. While there were early exceptions (e.g.,Gardner 1974; Goodyear 1974; Morse 1973, 1975b),only fairly recently have researchers moved awayfrom a focus on sequence definition and begun toapply site- to regional-scale analyses and large datasetsto explore questions of adaptation and settlement.Much of this work has been loosely linked under therubric of technological organization as it applies tosite structure and land use (after Binford 1978, 1980,



1982, 1983, 2001); while quite successful, theapproaches brought to the study of regionalPaleoindian assemblages have been expanding toencompass other areas in recent years, such as ceremo-nialism, foraging and gender relations, and culturaltransmission, although this work is in its infancy(e.g., Anderson 1995: 34–36, 2013; Gero 1993, 1995;Meltzer 2009; O’Brien et al. 2014; Smallwood 2012;Speth et al. 2013; Thulman 2006). Stratified siteswith multiple separable components or groups ofsingle component sites in close proximity to oneanother provide the best hope for examining changein specific localities, but such findings are uncommon,in spite of appreciable effort expended in their detec-tion (e.g., Anderson and Joseph 1988; Chapman,1985; Gardner 1974, 1989; Hollenbach 2009; Milleret al. 2012; Sherwood et al. 2004; Webb 2006).Large-scale multiyear excavation programs with sig-nificant resources directed to multidisciplinaryresearch, including geoarchaeology, paleosubsistenceanalyses, and absolute dating, have occurred in onlya few settings, such as Dust Cave, Page-Ladson, theThunderbird locality, and Topper. Significant workhas also occurred through briefer but much moreintensive CRM projects, at sites such as 8LE2105 inFlorida and Tree House in South Carolina(Goodwin et al. 2013; Hornum et al. 1996; Nagleand Green 2010).

5.1 Early Paleoindian adaptations(>13,250 cal yr BP)No diagnostic artifacts are currently known thatunambiguously identify Early Paleoindian assem-blages in the region, making the recognition of com-ponents and inferences about settlement andmobility difficult unless and until more sites arefound in secure stratigraphic context or with unam-biguous absolute dates. Bifacial forms attributed tothis period, however, have been found at a numberof sites in and near the region that may prove to bereliable indicators, such as the Early Triangulars atCactus Hill in Virginia, the Miller Lanceolate fromMeadowcroft Rockshelter in Pennsylvania, the Page-Ladson type from the site of the same name inFlorida, a waisted unfluted Simpson-like point fromWakulla Springs site in Florida, and bipoints fromthe Delmarva area (e.g., Adovasio 1998; Adovasioand Pedler 2014; Adovasio et al. 1978, 1999: 427–28;Anderson 2005: 32; Dunbar 2006c: 411–12, 421–23;Dunbar and Hemmings 2004: 66–67; Goodyear2005; Haynes 2002a: 40; Hranicky 2012; Johnson1997, 2014; Lowery et al. 2010; McAvoy andMcAvoy 1997: 111, 177, 179–80; Bradley andStanford 2004; Stanford and Bradley 2012; Wahet al. 2014). We now believe that diagnostic EarlyPaleoindian point types may be present in existing

collections, but have remained unrecognized because(1) they are similar to later forms, (2) they occur invery low incidence, or (3) they have not been found insecurely dated, stratified contexts, making their ageequivocal. Early Paleoindian assemblages found in theregion have either yielded few artifacts or, wheredenser assemblages are present, contain material diffi-cult to identify as resulting from human agency, suchas the bend-break industry reported at Topper, whichmay be confused with naturally fractured stone(Goodyear 2005; King 2012; McDonald 2000; Webb2006). No detailed settlement/subsistence models havebeen proposed for Early Paleoindian southeastern occu-pations, although models proposed for the subsequentMiddle Paleoindian period may well apply, such aswhether these people targeted megafauna or had amore generalist adaptation (e.g., Gingerich andKitchell 2015; Meltzer and Smith 1986), were tetheredto quarries or karst topography (e.g., Dunbar andWaller 1983; Gardner 1977, 1983, 1989), or quicklysettled into some areas or were more free wandering(cf. Anderson 1990a, Kelly and Todd 1988).

5.2 Middle Paleoindian adaptations (ca.13,250–12,850 cal yr BP)Widespread evidence for human settlement in theSoutheast occurs soon after ca. 13,250 cal yr BP,during the Middle Paleoindian period, identified bythe presence of assemblages with Clovis-fluted pointswhich locally, like elsewhere in North America, referto bifacially flaked points with a slightly concavebase from which a flute extends about half-way upthe blade (Holliday 2000; Sellards 1952; Stanford1991; Tankersley 2004; Willig 1991; Wormington1957). Clovis assemblages, although not well datedin the Southeast, are assumed to run from sometimearound or perhaps significantly before 13,250 cal yr BPuntil roughly the onset of the Younger Dryas, ca.12,850 cal yr BP. The nature of what is meant byClovis culture is arguably not well defined, althoughan association with fluting, overshot flaking, and arange of formal tool forms including blades and scra-pers, is widely accepted across the region (e.g.,Anderson and Sassaman 1996a; Goebel 2015; Milleret al. 2013; Morrow 1996; Tankersley 2004). The con-tinuation of fluting well past Clovis times in manyparts of the continent is an important reason forusing a period rather than a cultural definition forMiddle Paleoindian. Dates for Clovis assemblagesremain sparse in the Southeast (and beyond), anduntil more sites are securely dated the proposed tem-poral range for the type and the period proposedherein must be considered tentative (Miller andGingerich 2013a, 2013b).

While large numbers of Clovis points have beenrecorded in the Southeast, most come from surface



context, making it difficult to determine which otherartifacts found in the same settings are associated,and from that more general settlement/subsistence be-havior. Only rarely have large assemblages been foundin excavation context, typically from quarry-relatedsites (although some exceptions exist, such asPasquotank in North Carolina (Daniel et al. 2007)).Unlike the western part of the continent, theSoutheast has little evidence for either megafaunalkill sites or Middle Paleoindian period lithic caches(Huckell and Kilby 2014; Kilby 2015; Kilby andHuckell 2013; Tankersley 2004; the Sloan assemblage,however, demonstrates that caching behavior occurs inLate Paleoindian Dalton times). Save for the northernpart of the region, formal hafted end scrapers are infre-quent in southeastern Middle Paleoindian assem-blages, perhaps due to the reduced need for extensivehide working in a warmer climate (Cable 1996: 144;Miller and Goodyear 2008; Sanders 1990). Likewiseevidence for structures is rare, with only one post-in-ground building reported to date, from theThunderbird locality (Carr et al. 2013), and even thisstructure, a possible multifamily complex, may dateto the Late Paleoindian era. The largest MiddlePaleoindian period assemblages in the Southeastcome from quarry areas, several of which have seenextensive excavation; much of the material recovered,however, tends to be debitage from early reductionactivity, and while domestic localities may bepresent, the recognition of camp structure has provedelusive, although spatial differences in activities hasbeen noted at some sites (e.g., Carr et al. 2013;Gardner 1989; Smallwood et al. 2013). Attempts todetermine possible structures from the occurrence ofvoids or areas of lesser artifact concentration indebris scatters have been attempted, with possibleexamples detected from subsequent Early Archaicperiod sites (e.g., Anderson and Hanson 1988: 274;Sassaman et al. 2002), but the areas examined atmost sites with Clovis assemblages to date have beentoo small or too dispersed to permit such analyses.Nonetheless, thanks to decades of work at quarriesand recording the distribution of Paleoindian artifacts,we have a reasonably good understanding of howClovis peoples made use of stone, and hence likelymoved and interacted, over the larger region.Geographically extensive but not unlimited orunbounded ranges for bands or perhaps macrobands,on the order of from 100 to 300 km in extent, aresuggested in Florida, the Midsouth, and on theSouth Atlantic Slope in the vicinity of the Carolinasand Georgia, with activity decreasing with increasingdistance from quarry areas or raw material occurrencezones (e.g., Anderson et al. 2010a; Daniel andGoodyear in press; Goodyear et al. 1990; Thulman2006).

Analyses of assemblages from Adams in Kentucky(Sanders 1983, 1988, 1990), the Thunderbird localityin Virginia (Carr et al. 2013; Gardner 1974, 1989),Williamson in Virginia (Smallwood 2012), Carson-Conn-Short in Tennessee (Broster et al. 1994;Smallwood 2012), and Topper in South Carolina(Goodyear 2005; Miller 2011; Sain 2011; Smallwood2010, 2012; Smallwood et al. 2013) have been impor-tant contributions to reconstructing Clovis lithic tech-nology in the Southeast. These studies demonstratethat in the production of bifaces, Clovis flintknappersused overshot/overface flaking and end thinning(Morrow 1995, 1996, 2015; Sanders 1990;Smallwood 2010, 2012). At quarry-related sites, theycrafted biface cores (Carr et al. 2013; Sanders 1990;Verrey 1986) and manufactured point preforms witha broad range of acceptable sizes, some falling intosize ranges of used finished points (Smallwood2010). While many bifaces were reduced to produceClovis points with characteristic flutes, some werecrafted into other bifacial tools, such as adzes, chop-pers, and scrapers (Sanders 1990: 50–51; Smallwoodet al. 2013). Some southeastern Clovis quarry-relatedsites also have evidence of blade production(Broster et al. 1996: 7; Sain 2011; Sanders 1990;Smallwood et al. 2013). Blades were struck fromconical (Broster et al. 1996) and, to a greater extent,wedge-shaped cores (Sain 2011). At some sites(McAvoy 1992; Sain 2011), blades are slightlysmaller and less curved but still fall within theknown range of “classic” Clovis blade production(Collins 1999; Waters et al. 2011). Clovis flintknappersin the region retouched blades as side and end scrapersand with gravers and spokeshaves (Broster and Norton1993; Broster et al. 1996; Sanders 1990). Blades, bothunmodified and modified, were used at the quarry-related sites, and just as bifaces, many were likelycarried away (Sain 2011; Sanders 1990). In additionto blades, a wide variety of other types of unifacialtools were also produced and used at southeasternquarry-related sites, including side scrapers, scraperplanes, and denticulates; end scrapers, while presentat Adams and Williamson, are uncommon furthersouth (Broster and Norton 1996; Sanders 1990;McAvoy 1992; Peck 2003; Smallwood et al. 2013).These studies have confirmed the importance oflarge quarry-related sites in Southeastern Clovislifeways.

5.3 Late Paleoindian adaptations(12,850–11,700 cal yr BP)The Late Paleoindian is a time of tremendous culturaland climatic change in the Southeast, roughly corre-sponding to the Younger Dryas climate episode,which had significant impacts on local physiographyand biota, with major extinctions and relocations of



flora and fauna, marine transgressions and reversals,and changes in river regimes occurring (Andersonet al. 2010b, 2013a; Dunbar 2006a; Halligan 2013;Leigh 2006; Leigh et al. 2004; Nash 2009; Russellet al. 2009; Williams et al. 2001, 2004). In theSoutheast, cultural regionalization began as early asthe Middle Paleoindian Clovis period (Smallwood2012; Smith et al. 2015; Thulman 2006), andevidence of populations becoming increasingly moreregionally focused is fully apparent by the LatePaleoindian period, represented technologically byan increase in the number and diversity of fluted andunfluted point types. The cause of this variation—whether by technological shifts associated with adap-tive changes or the effects of cumulative variation instyle through cultural drift/cultural transmission—remains unknown, although both undoubtedly werevaryingly important (Anderson and Sassaman 2012;O’Brien et al. 2014; Thulman 2006, 2012).During the Younger Dryas this diversification con-

tinues, and indeed explodes, within the Southeast.Projectile point forms include morphologically distinc-tive fully fluted, basally thinned, and unfluted forms,with subregional variants evident, rather than asingle more or less uniform style such as the Clovisform widespread previously. The following types orsubtypes are assumed to occur at this time: Barnes,Beaver Lake, Clovis Variants, Cumberland, Dalton,Gainey, Quad, Redstone, San Patrice, Suwannee, andSimpson, together with lanceolates resembling PlainsPaleoindian forms. The latter, we are coming torealize, occur widely during the Paleoindian periodin eastern North America, either untyped or describedusing types such as the Ste. Anne/Varney (Bradleyet al. 2008; Childress and Blanton 1997; Childressand Vogt 1994; Fishel 1988; Gingerich 2013c). In thewestern part of the region, in the trans-Mississippisouth of Louisiana and Arkansas, Folsom/Sedgewick, Plainview, Midland, and Angostura typeshave been found (Anderson and Smith 2003: 242–89;Anderson et al. 1996: 11–13; Jennings 2008; Johnson1989; Morse et al. 1996; Rees 2010; Wykoff andBartlett 1995), but whether these are related to thesimilar forms occasionally found further east isunknown. Somewhat later in the Younger Dryas, arange of notched and serrated forms, subsumedunder the overarching Dalton supertype or cluster,become common across the region, followed by side-and then corner-notched forms that continue into theearly Holocene (Anderson and Sassaman 2012;Justice 1987; Morse 1997b). The temporal rangesand associations of these forms with one anotherremain poorly determined, particularly at the earlyend of the period. Fortunately, this situation improvesdramatically later in the Younger Dryas, where anumber of well-dated Dalton sites are known, as

discussed below (Meeks and Anderson 2012; Millerand Gingerich 2013a, 2013b).

5.3.1 INSTRUMENT-ASSISTED FORMS

The onset and first few centuries of the Younger Dryasare associated with the occurrence of what are called“full-fluted” or more properly ‘instrument-assisted’point forms (Goodyear 2006, 2010), since someexamples have flutes running only partially up theblade. In the Southeast, these point types includeCumberland and Redstone, with midwestern andPlains types occasionally reported such as Barnes,Folsom, and Gainey (Anderson et al. 1996, 2010a;Goodyear 2010); the extent, associations, and datingof these forms in the region need considerable refine-ment. Cumberland points have long flutes thatextend from the base up the narrow point blade; thehafting element is waisted, and the base is slightlyconcave; blade margins are characterized by fine mar-ginal pressure flaking also similar to Folsom technol-ogy (Lewis 1954). Redstones are described asmedium to large trianguloid points with deep basalconcavities and long multiple flutes on both faces;the blade is straight and ends with an acute distal tip(Daniel and Goodyear 2006, in press; Goodyear2006; Mahan 1964); short flutes are sometimespresent and a deeply indented base may be the morereliable marker separating these forms from classicClovis points, which typically have flat to weaklyindented bases and fluting only part way up theblade. These “full-fluted/instrument-assisted” formsare assumed to be chronologically associated withthe well-dated Folsom point in the West and toderive from and immediately follow the MiddlePaleoindian Clovis type; to date, though, no buriedsite has securely confirmed this sequence in theSoutheast. The only area, in fact, where such formsare dated is in the Northeast, where they occur wellinto the Younger Dryas, significantly after the rangecurrently assigned to Clovis (cf. Miller and Gingerich2013a: 15, Waters and Stafford 2007). Cumberlandand Redstone points occur in greatest incidence indifferent parts of the Southeast, and thus, appear torepresent subregional post-Clovis-fluted point tra-ditions (Figure 6), although it should be noted noteveryone agrees with the dating proposed here.Gramly (2008, 2009, 2012), for example, argues thatthe Cumberland type is Pre-Clovis in age.Instrument-assisted forms, as well as presumably sub-sequent Dalton types, are rare in Florida (Dunbar2006c: 408; Dunbar and Hemmings 2004; Thulman2006, 2007), with Suwannee and related forms appar-ently in use instead. Some true Folsom points—mor-phologically identical to Plains forms—occur ineastern North America as far east as Illinois andIndiana (Munson 1990). In Arkansas another



Folsom look-alike is described using the Sedgwick-type name (Morse and Morse 1983: 62–63). Otherroughly similar forms thought to be post-Clovis inage include Barnes in the upper Midwest,Northumberland in the Pennsylvania area,Michaud–Neponset in the New England/Maritimesarea, and, as discussed, Cumberland in theMidsouth, and Redstone in the eastern part of theSoutheast (Anderson et al. 2010a; Bradley et al.2008; Fogelman and Lantz 2006).To some researchers, these presumably later south-

eastern fluted point types represent the evolution offluting technology in the region. Goodyear (2006)reasons that while Clovis fluting was a process ofdirect-percussion on a beveled face that does not orig-inate at the present margin of the basal concavity, thefluting of Redstones and other fully fluted forms wasinstrument-assisted. He proposes that the use of indir-ect-percussion allowed for more fluting controldirectly at the base, and this technique marks animportant technological and cultural transitionamong fluted point makers. Further, the point

morphology also suggests to some a shift in howfully fluted points were used. Goodyear (2006) pro-poses that the narrow, triangular morphology of aRedstone was designed for a different functional taskthan a Clovis point. While Clovis points are designedfor piercing and cutting, Redstones are designed forpiercing and penetrating, a functional transition heassociates with changes in faunal communities(Goodyear 2006).Adaptations during the early part of the Younger

Dryas are poorly understood, although a reductionin group ranges compared to Clovis has been inferredbased on the occurrence of raw materials on diagnosticprojectile points (Anderson et al. 2010a: 74–75, 77). Adecline in the numbers of sites and diagnostic artifactsis observed in some areas, notably in northernAlabama and southern Virginia, and cumulativelywhen numbers are examined across the region as awhole, that may be tied to settlement reorganization,population decline, or both (Anderson et al. 2010a,2011, Driskell et al. 2012; McAvoy 1992; Sherwoodet al. 2004). Megafaunal extinctions would have led

Figure 6 The occurrence of early Late Paleoindian period Suwanee/Simpson, Redstone/Cumberland/Barnes, and Folsom/Sedgwick points in the southeastern United States. The development of subregional projectile point forms, and possibly discretecultural entities, appears to have occurred early in the Late Paleoindian period in the region.




to changes in diet breadth if these animals had beenregularly targeted, that may have in turn resulted inchanges in technology, such as the increased occur-rence of notched and resharpened forms, perhapsrelated to the need to process more small game.Subsistence pursuits may have been similar to thoseobserved later in the Younger Dryas, when far betterpreservation occurs, primarily because rockshelteruse becomes much more common, but this is only aninference at present. Finding and documenting assem-blages with well-preserved paleosubsistence remainsdating to the early part of the Younger Dryas is argu-ably the greatest challenge facing Late Paleoindianresearchers in the Southeast.

5.3.2 UNFLUTED FORMS

Sometime during the early part of the LatePaleoindian period, fluting disappears across theSoutheast and morphological variation in pointtypes increases; it is assumed, like in the West, full-fluted forms are replaced by a variety of unfluted lan-ceolate and waisted forms. In the Southeast, thesepoint types include the Beaver Lake and Quad typesreported across the Southeast; the Arkabutla,Coldwater, and Hinds types from Mississippi; SanPatrice forms primarily in the trans-Mississippi southof Louisiana and adjoining areas; and Suwanneepoints in Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgiaand South Carolina (Anderson et al. 2010b). Daltonforms are assumed to in turn replace these, and arecommon in many parts of the Southeast save inFlorida. This replacement of fluted by unflutedforms has only been hinted at stratigraphically at afew sites, notably Dust Cave in Alabama (Driskell1994; Sherwood et al. 2004), Hester in Mississippi(Brookes 1979), and Silver Springs in Florida(Dunbar 2006c: 405; Neill 1958: 42–44). Dust Cave,in northwestern Alabama, the most thoroughlyreported and dated of these sites, provides the best evi-dence for the Late Paleoindian sequence for some ofthe unfluted points found in the region; componentscontaining Quad and Beaver Lake points were foundstratigraphically below a Dalton component(Driskell 1994; Sherwood et al. 2004).The dating of Dalton is uncertain, but appears to

span the later Younger Dryas and possibly into theearly Holocene (Driskell et al. 2012: 255–56; Elliset al. 1998; Goodyear 1982; Lopinot et al. 1998,2000; Miller and Gingerich 2013a, 2013b; Morse1997b; Morse et al. 1996). Bradley (1997: 57), basedon technological similarities such as the occasionaloccurrence of true fluting and the fairly common prac-tice of minor basal thinning, has argued that Daltonpoints may have appeared earlier, evolving directlyout of Clovis in the central Mississippi Valley, wherefluting has been observed on some of the Dalton

points from the Sloan site in northeast Arkansas(Bradley 1997; for similar inferences about a likelyancestor–descendant relationship between Clovis andDalton, see also Morrow 2011; Morse 1975b, 1997a;O’Brien 2005; O’Brien et al. 2014: 106). Daltonpoints occur in great numbers across the Southeastsave in Florida where Suwannee and related formsmay be local substitutes (Dunbar 2006c: 408;Dunbar and Hemmings 2004: 69). They are typicallythe oldest points found in many excavations; whenfound in stratigraphic context, Dalton points invari-ably occur prior to or occasionally contemporaneouswith side- and corner-notched forms, indicating anoccurrence toward the end of the Late Paleoindianera (e.g., Anderson et al. 1996; Coe 1964; Daniel1998; Goodyear 1982; Morse 1997b; Walthall1998b). Possible Suwannee-fluted point preforms—although found with side-notched forms at HarneyFlats with no stratigraphic separation and possiblyon an old surface (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987)—were recently found stratigraphically below side-notched Bolen components at several sites along theCody Scarp in northern Florida (Goodwin et al.2013; Hornum et al. 1996).

Models of Dalton settlement and subsistence havebeen proposed for the Central Mississippi Valley byMorse and others, based on movement between anumber of site types, from central bases to specialactivity loci (including quarrying areas), with specialcemetery areas located away from residential sites(Morse 1971, 1973, 1975a, Morse and Morse 1983:70–97; see also Gillam 1996a, 1999). Exploitation ofa wide range of flora and fauna has been inferred,with an emphasis on white-tailed deer hunting andbutchering (Goodyear 1974; Morse 1971, 1973,1997a, 1997b). Because of the large numbers of sites,and the unusual characteristics observed at some ofthem during Dalton times in the Central MississippiValley, a cultural efflorescence is inferred to haveoccurred. Sites such as Lace and Brand, for example,appear to have been locations of extended settlementand specialized bulk processing, while Sloan indicatesmarked cemeteries were present, denoting possible ter-ritoriality, the occupation of or control over certainareas or resources through overt defense or signaling(Kelly 2013: 154). The latter is considered morelikely, given the visual prominence and likely appealof Sloan points, and since no evidence for conflicthas been found. Elaborate ceremonialism and nodoubt signaling of some kind, in fact, is reflected inthe manufacture and caching of hypertrophic bifaces,designated Sloan points after the site where anumber of these artifacts were found in grave lots.Sloan points are found singly and in caches overseveral hundred kilometers of the Central MississippiValley, prompting Walthall and Koldehoff (1998) to



infer a ceremonial/interaction network among thepeoples living in the area, what they call the “Cult ofthe Long Blade” (see also Anderson (2002: 250–51)and Sassaman (2010), who argue an organizationallycomplex hunter-gatherer society was present). Whilesubsequent Early Archaic period sites characterizedby side- and corner-notched points are commonacross the Southeast, not until the Middle Archaic,when monumentality and cemetery behavior appearsin several parts of the region, was a comparable levelof social complexity likely present (Anderson andSassaman 2012: 61–64; Sassaman 2010).Subsistence pursuits are much better documented in

later Late Paleoindian Dalton times than earlier in theYounger Dryas, given the presence of a number ofwell-preserved floral and faunal assemblages fromthe region, primarily from rock shelter sites (e.g.,Driskell and Walker 2007; Hollenbach 2007; Walker2007; Walker and Driskell 2007), and to a lesserextent from submerged sites in Florida (e.g., Carterand Dunbar 2006; Dunbar and Vojnovski 2007).Plant foods were clearly important in later LatePaleoindian subsistence, as documented at sites suchas Dust Cave (Hollenbach 2007, 2009), but their rolein earlier times remains only minimally explored;greater emphasis on their recovery is warranted,given their importance in temperate latitude hunting-gathering societies in general (Kelly 2013).Paleosubsistence information could help resolve basicquestions such as the times of the year sites were inuse, about which uncertainty exists in areas wherepaleosubsistence evidence is sparse (cf. Andersonand Hanson 1998; Hollenbach 2009; Walthall 1998a).

6. Future directionsGiven the extensive regional literature, this paper hasbeen of necessity a comparatively brief overview andintroduction to southeastern Paleoindian archaeology.The future holds great promise, and we conclude witha number of thoughts and observations on where wethink research energies could be focused. First, weshould continue to look for stratified, undisturbedsites and datable material, done in conjunction withcareful geoarchaeological research to help us findand assess the context of assemblages. This willallow us to place the regional cultural sequence on afirmer foundation, and so that we have more assem-blages that can help us better understand how thesefirst peoples lived, and the world they lived in.Questions in need of resolution with regard tosequence definition include whether point types suchas Cumberland or Suwannee are Pre-Clovis, Cloviscontemporaries, or post-Clovis in age; the range ofoccurrence for major types such as Clovis or Dalton;and whether there are time-transgressive trends in theoccurrence and distribution of major point and tool

forms. Geoarchaeological research, of course, shouldnot only seek to find intact cultural deposits andsequences, but should occur as part of multidisciplin-ary efforts including palynology, paleobotany, and ahost of complementary disciplines to, among othergoals, reconstruct local environmental conditions.Changes in sedimentation and unconformities, forexample, may relate to shifts in climate and erosionof habitable landscapes/landforms (e.g., Daniel et al.2013; Goodyear 1999; Moore and Daniel 2011;Waters and Stafford 2013: 556; Waters et al. 2009).Finally, when dating early and arguably any archaeo-logical assemblage, high precision AMS dating shouldbe employed rather than conventional radiocarbondating (e.g., Anderson 2005: 30–32; Haynes et al.1984; Miller and Gingerich 2013a, 2013b; Staffordet al. 1987, 1991).Second, and equally important, we need to continue

the tradition of working with avocationals in findingand integrating data, in terms of both identifyingsites and individual artifacts and documentingprivate collections (Anderson and Faught 1998;Anderson et al. 2010a; Daniel et al. 2007; Goodyearet al. 1990; Pike et al. 2006; Pitblado 2014; Thulman2006, 2012). Above all, fluted point surveys need tobe expanded to include a wider range of artifact cat-egories, and the information so acquired needs to con-tinue to be shared openly through regular publicationof primary data in monographs and state and regionaljournals, and in online outlets such as PIDBA. Datacompiled as a result of such efforts should be incorpor-ated into state site file records, which require constantupdating; a recent study showed many locations yield-ing fluted points in the region have never had siteforms filled out or, if site forms existed, they had notbeen updated to reflect the presence of Paleoindianmaterials (O’Donoughue 2007). Given the largenumbers of Paleoindian points recorded from acrossthe Southeast, regional-scale analyses using morpho-metric and other attribute data should be encouraged,as another way besides excavation in which the varia-bility in local assemblages can be teased out. Excellentregional-scale efforts (e.g., Gingerich et al. 2014;Meltzer 1984a, 1984b; Morrow and Morrow 1999;O’Brien et al. 2001, 2014; Smith et al. 2015;Tankersley 1990b, 1991, 2004; Thulman 2006, 2012;White 2014) have, in fact, been conducted, highlight-ing variation in the Paleoindian biface/projectilepoint and tool record, and a great deal of workalong these lines has also been done with site, locality,and state-level datasets in the Southeast (e.g.,Anderson et al. 1990; Breitburg and Broster 1995;Daniel 1998, 2000; Daniel and Goodyear in press;Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Futato 1982, 1996;Futato et al. 1992; Goodyear 1974; Goodyear andSteffy 2003; Goodyear et al. 1990; McGahey 1993,



1996, 2004; Morse 1997b; O’Donoughue 2007; O’Steen1996; O’Steen et al. 1986; Smallwood 2012; Smallwoodet al. in press, Wittkofski and Reinhart 1989).Third, we need to re-examine older excavated

assemblages to more completely assess our under-standing of early sites, as Hollenbach (2004, 2009)did with materials from classic rockshelter sites innorthern Alabama, and Smallwood (2012) did withlarge Clovis quarry site assemblages from three differ-ent parts of the region, to give to two significant recentexamples. Many important Paleoindian sites havebeen collected and excavated in the Southeast, andwhile excellent documentation exists for some ofthem, far too many are only minimally reported.Still, a remarkable amount of Paleoindian archaeolo-gical research has occurred in the Southeast, primarilybecause we have been fortunate to have had someonein almost every state—but only very rarely morethan one person—who has focused on this period formuch of their career. The continued efforts ofresearchers dedicated to a particular state, locality,or site, particularly in those parts of the region thathave yet to produce buried Paleoindian-age sites, arecritical for understanding early occupations.Fourth, ancient DNA studies should be conducted

to determine the nature of the first inhabitants of theregion, and also residue analyses, to better understandthe functions of stone and other tools. Genetic testingof early human remains in the Southeast needs to bereinvigorated, with samples examined from submergedsites such as Warm Mineral Springs, Little SaltSprings, and Windover (Clausen et al. 1975a, 1975b,1979; Doran 2002; Doran et al. 1986; Faught andWaggoner 2012) as well as terrestrial sites such as theSloan Dalton cemetery in Arkansas (Condon andRose 1997; Morse 1975b, 1997a). Greater effortshould be directed to the discovery of well-preservedhuman remains, which have been found widelydating to the Archaic period in the region, in shellmiddens, peat bogs, submerged contexts, and rockshel-ters. It is only a matter of time before comparablehuman remains are found in southeasternPaleoindian deposits. When found, as with allhuman remains and sacred sites and objects, theymust be treated with respect, and examined incooperation and consultation with descendant popu-lations. Submerged sites are also likely to yield well-preserved perishable materials such as bone, ivory, tex-tiles, or wood (Doran 2002; Hemmings 2004; Purdy1991). Coupled with this is the tremendous potentialof the submerged offshore archaeological record, onthe once exposed continental shelf, whose contentswe are just beginning to explore (e.g., Andersonet al. 2013a; Faught 1996, 2004a, 2004b, Faught andDonoghue 1997, Faught and Guisick 2011; Guisickand Faught 2011; Harris et al. 2013; Hemmings and

Adovasio 2014). Likewise, stone bone and ivorytools should be carefully examined for organic resi-dues, in addition to use-wear patterning, to determinewhat they were used to process (e.g., Ballo 1986;Fagan 2013; Gaertner 1994; Hemmings 2004; Mooreet al. 2014; Newman 1997; Wiederhold and Pevny2014; Yerkes and Gaertner 1997). Care must betaken to ensure that the context of whatever weexamine is as secure as possible and associatedmaterials ideally well-dated, particularly given thecontroversy that has attended discoveries in the past,for instance human remains such as at Natchez andVero (Cotter 1991; Hrdlicka 1918; Sellards 1917a,1917b; Sellards et al. 1917).

Fifth, we must continue to integrate the Paleoindianrecord in the Southeast with broader questions inarchaeology, anthropology, and the social sciences,and above all we must enlist descendant populationsin our efforts. Evidence for ceremony and artworkundoubtedly exists, although parallels with the elabor-ate caching and burial behavior found in the west(Huckell and Kilby 2014; Kilby 2015; Kilby andHuckell 2013) or the possible cremation/votive offer-ing in Ontario (Deller and Ellis 1984, 2001) remainelusive. This does not mean local examples are notpresent. More formal marked cemeteries such asSloan in Arkansas (Morrow 2011; Morse 1975a,1997a) or Windover in Florida (Doran 2002) undoubt-edly exist, and must be preserved if at all possible.Likewise, we must improve at recognizing artworklike the engraved cobbles of apparent Paleoindianage found at Gault and other sites (e.g., Collins et al.1992; Gingerich 2009), or the controversial engravedmammoth found in Florida (Purdy et al. 2010). It ispossible that there is ancient artwork in caves or else-where on the landscape; such activity is now datedback to the mid-Holocene in the region and is becom-ing a superbly documented source of insight into pastworldviews (Faulkner 1986, 1997; Simek et al. 2013).Coupled with this, we should place greater emphasison finding gendered activities in the archaeologicalrecord (e.g., Gero 1993, 1995). Paleoindian peopleate plants, and women undoubtedly played an impor-tant role in their collection, as well as in the collectionand processing of animals. Far greater attention is nowbeing paid to the recovery of paleosubsistence and par-ticularly paleobotanical remains than occurred priorto the widespread adoption of flotation processing inthe 1970s and after (Driskell and Walker 2007;Gingerich 2013b; Gingerich and Kitchell 2015;Hollenbach 2004, 2009; Walker and Driskell 2007);such data provide important insights intoPaleoindian lifeways and need continued emphasis incollection and analysis.

Sixth, how the substantial changes in climate, phy-siography, and biota that were occurring in the late



Pleistocene Southeast affected human populations aretopics of great importance and relevance as we moveinto a world where comparable changes are likely tobe increasingly commonplace. The Younger Dryas, aperiod of highly variable but decidedly colder temp-eratures worldwide, for example, occurred from ca.12,850 to 11,700 cal yr BP, with onset occurring vir-tually instantaneously in geological terms, almost cer-tainly within a human lifetime and perhaps within afew months to years (Bjorck et al. 1996:1159; Lowellet al. 2005; Walker et al. 2009). How the YoungerDryas affected human populations within theSoutheast is the subject of much current research anddebate; population reorganization, relocation, andpossible decline is inferred (e.g., Anderson et al.2011, 2013a; Firestone et al. 2007; Meeks andAnderson 2012; Miller and Gingerich 2013a, 2013b),but what actually occurred is by no means well under-stood locally and across the continent (e.g., Meltzerand Holiday 2010). Fortunately, for SoutheastPaleoindian studies, new generations of scholars con-tinue to appear, and our understanding of the mostancient human occupations in the region is growingbetter all the time.

7. AcknowledgementsThis paper represents an update and reconsideration ofearlier syntheses of southeastern Paleoindian archaeol-ogy, and as noted in the introduction, we propose asomewhat different periodization than the frameworkfirst presented 25 years ago. We believe that thecurrent version, relying on well-defined temporalboundaries, is more appropriate and can be moreeasily applied in the Southeast and indeed acrossmuch of the continent, and is one Anderson has actu-ally advocated for some 15 years in the region, all thewhile regretting the continuing popularity of the initialformulation. We sent the draft manuscript to a numberof colleagues, and we thank them, and the threereviewers, for their (sometimes very) detailed com-ments: Derek T. Anderson, I. Randolph Daniel, JimDunbar, Michael K. Faught, Stuart J. Fiedel, JosephA. M. Gingerich, Albert C. Goodyear, ChristopherR. Moore, Juliet E. Morrow, Charlotte D. Pevny,David Thulman, and Mike Waters. SonnyK. Jorgensen helped with the proofing and StephenJ. Yerka assembled the figures. The text presentedhere is original to this document. Any errors or omis-sions, of course, remain the responsibility of theauthors. Indeed, we apologize to our colleagueswhose work we may have missed or touched onlightly. The Paleoindian archaeology of theSoutheast, we learned from preparing this paper, is avast subject, one that requires continued cooperation,evaluation, and synthesis, and we have a lot of greatcolleagues working with us to do just that.

ReferencesAbbott, C. C. 1876. “The Stone Age of New Jersey.” Annual Report

of the Smithsonian Institution for 1875: 246–380. Washington,D.C.

Abrams, C. L., S. D. Smith, M. D. Groover, R. M. Grunden,J. S. Quattlebaum, and C. O. Clement. 1995. Exploring FortPolk: Results of an 8,027–Acre Survey in the Main Fort andPeason Ridge Portions of the Fort Polk Military Reservation,Vernon and Natchitoches Parishes, Louisiana. Columbia, SC:University of South Carolina, South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology, Cultural Resources Division.

Adovasio, J. M. 1998. “Miller Complex.” In Archaeology ofPrehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia, edited byGuy Gibbon, 524–527. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Adovasio, J. M., and D. Pedler. 2005. “A Long View of Deep Timeat Meadowcroft Rockshelter.” In Paleoamerican Origins:Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper,D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters, 23–28. College Station, TX:Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Adovasio, J. M., and D. Pedler. 2014. “Meadowcroft Rockshelter:Retrospect.” In Pre-Clovis in the Americas: International ScienceConference Proceedings Led at the Smithsonian Institution,Washington, DC, edited by D. J. Stanford, and A. T. Stenger,16–31. Washington, DC: CreateSpace Independent PublishingPlatform; Smithsonian Institution edition (4 March 2014).

Adovasio, J. M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath. 1978.“Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977: An overview.” AmericanAntiquity 43: 632–651.

Adovasio, J. M., D. Pedler, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath. 1999.“No Vestiges of a Beginning Nor Prospect for an End: TwoDecades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter.” In Ice AgePeoples of North America, edited by R. Bonnichsen, andK. Turnmire, 416–431. Corvallis, Oregon: Center for theStudy of the First Americans.

Agenbroad, L. D. 2005. “North American proboscideans:Mammoths: The state of knowledge, 2003.” QuaternaryInternational 126–28: 73–79.

Ahler, S. A. 1971. Projectile Point Form and Function at RodgersShelter, Missouri. Missouri Archaeological Society ResearchSeries 8. Columbia: College of Arts and Science, Universityof Missouri.

Ahler, S. R. 1993. “Stratigraphy and radiocarbon chronology ofModoc Rock Shelter, Illinois.” American Antiquity 58:462–488.

Anderson, D. G. 1990a. “The Paleoindian Colonization of EasternNorth America: A View from the Southeastern UnitedStates.” In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern NorthAmerica, edited by K. Tankersley, and B. Isaac, 163–216.Research in Economic Anthropology Supplement 5.Greenwich: JAI Press.

Anderson, D. G. 1990b. “A North American Paleoindian projectilepoint database.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 7: 67–69.

Anderson, D. G. 1991. “Examining prehistoric settlement distri-bution in Eastern North America.” Archaeology of EasternNorth America 19: 1–21.

Anderson, D. G. 1995. “Paleoindian Interaction Networks in theEastern Woodlands.” In Native American Interaction:Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the EasternWoodlands, edited by M. S. Nassaney, and K. E. Sassaman,1–26. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Anderson, D. G. 1996. “Models of Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSettlement in the Southeastern United States.” In ThePaleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited byD. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 29–57. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Anderson, D. G. 2001. “Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoricand Early Historic Eastern North America.” Archaeology ofEastern North America 29: 143–186.

Anderson, D. G. 2002. “Evolution of Tribal Social Organization inthe Southeast.” In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, editedby W. A. Parkinson, 246–277. Ann Arbor: InternationalMonographs in Prehistory.

Anderson, D. G. 2004. “Paleoindian Occupations in theSoutheastern United States.” In New Perspectives on the FirstAmericans, edited by B. T. Lepper, and R. Bonnichsen,119–128. College Station, TX: Center for the Study of theFirst Americans, Texas A&M University Press.

Anderson, D. G. 2005. “Pleistocene Human Occupation of theSoutheastern United States: Research Directions for the Early



21st Century.” In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, editedby R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M.R. Waters, 29–42. College Station, TX: Center for the Studyof the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press.

Anderson, D. G. 2010. “The end of the Southeastern Archaic:Regional interaction and archaeological interpretation.” InTrend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to theSoutheastern Archaic?, edited by D. H. Thomas, and M.C. Sanger, 273–302. Proceedings of the Third CaldwellConference, St. Catherines Island, Georgia, 9–11 May 2008.New York, NY: Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History.

Anderson, D. G. 2013. “Paleoindian archaeology in eastern NorthAmerica: Current approaches and future directions.” In In theEastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich,371–403. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Anderson, D. G., and M. K. Faught. 1998. “The distribution offluted Paleoindian projectile points: Update 1998.”Archaeology of Eastern North America 26: 163–188.

Anderson, D. G., and M. K. Faught. 2000. “Paleoindian artefactdistributions: Evidence and implications.” Antiquity 74:507–513.

Anderson, D. G., and J. C. Gillam. 2000. “Paleoindian colonizationof the Americas: Implications from an examination of physio-graphy, demography, and artifact distribution.” AmericanAntiquity 65(1): 43–66.

Anderson, D. G., and G. T. Hanson. 1988. “Early Archaic settle-ment in the southeastern United States: A case study from theSavannah River Valley.” American Antiquity 53: 262–286.

Anderson, D. G., and J. W. Joseph, Jr 1988. Prehistory and Historyalong the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of CulturalResource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple ResourceArea. Interagency Archeological Services. Atlanta, GA:National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Anderson, D. G., and K. E. Sassaman, eds. 1996a. The Paleoindianand Early Archaic Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press.

Anderson, D. G., and K. E. Sassaman. 1996b. “ModelingPaleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeast: AHistorical Perspective.” In The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman,eds., 16–28. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Anderson, D. G., and K. E. Sassaman. 2012. “Recent Developmentsin Southeastern Archaeology from Colonization toComplexity. Washington, DC: Society for AmericanArchaeology Press.

Anderson, D. G., and J. Schuldenrein, eds. 1985. Prehistoric HumanEcology along the Upper Savannah River: Excavations at theRucker’s Bottom, Abbeville and Bullard Site Groups.Interagency Archaeological Services–Atlanta. Atlanta, GA:National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Anderson, D. G., and S. D. Smith. 2003. Archaeology, History, andPredictive Modeling: Research on Fort Polk 1972–2002.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Anderson, D. G., T. G. Bissett, and S. J. Yerka. 2013a. “The latePleistocene human settlement of interior North America: Therole of physiography and sea level change.” In PaleoamericanOdyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, andM. R. Waters, 235–255. Texas A&M University, CollegeStation: Center for the Study of the First Americans.

Anderson, D. G., C. E. Cantley, and A. L. Novick, eds. 1982. TheMattassee Lake Sites: Archaeological Investigations along theLower Santee River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina.National Park Service, Interagency ArchaeologicalServices–Atlanta, Special Publication 1. Atlanta:Commonwealth Association, Inc.

Anderson, D. G., A. C. Goodyear, J. Kennett, and A. West. 2011.“Multiple lines of evidence for possible human populationdecline/settlement reorganization during the early YoungerDryas.” Quaternary International 242: 570–583.

Anderson, D. G., L. O’Steen, and R. J. Ledbetter. 1986. “GeorgiaPaleoindian recordation project: towards a descriptive inven-tory of Georgia Paleoindian fluted and lanceolate projectilepoints.” Society for Georgia Archaeology Profile 52: 6–11.

Anderson, D. G., R. J. Ledbetter, and L. D. O’Steen. 1990.Paleoindian Period Archaeology of Georgia. GeorgiaArchaeological Research Design Paper 6. Laboratory ofArchaeology Series Report 28. Athens: University of Georgia.

Anderson, D. G., R. J. Ledbetter, L. D. O’Steen, D. T. Elliott,D. B. Blanton, G. T. Hanson, and F. Snow. 1994.

“Paleoindian and Early Archaic in the Lower Southeast: Aview from Georgia.” In Ocmulgee Archaeology 1936–1986,edited by D. J. Hally, 55–70. Athens: University of Georgia.

Anderson, D. G., D. S. Miller, S. J. Yerka, and M. K. Faught. 2005.“Paleoindian database of the Americas: Update 2005.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 22: 91–92.

Anderson, D. G., D. S. Miller, S. J. Yerka, J. C. Gillam,E. N. Johanson, D. T. Anderson, A. C. Goodyear, and A.M. Smallwood. 2010a. “PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of theAmericas) 2010: current status and findings.” Archaeology ofEastern North America 38: 63–90.

Anderson, D. G., L. D. O’Steen, and K. E. Sassaman. 1996.“Environmental and chronological considerations.” In ThePaleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited byD. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 3–15. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Anderson, D. G., S. J. Yerka, and J. C. Gillam. 2010b. “Employinghigh resolution bathymetric data to infer possible migrationroutes of Pleistocene populations.” Current Research in thePleistocene 27: 60–64.

Anderson, D. T., A. M. Smallwood, A. C. Goodyear, andS. Walters. 2013b. “Dating Clovis in the Southeast: The hillsideClovis occupation at the Topper site.” Paper presented at theSoutheastern Archaeological Conference, Tampa, November6–9, 2013.

Austin, R. J., and R. W. Estabrook. 2000. “Chert distribution andexploitation in peninsular Florida.” The FloridaAnthropologist 53(4): 200–216.

Ballo, G. 1986. Experiments in Use-wear Formation on Stone ToolsMade From Florida Chert: A Study Supporting A MicrowearAnalysis of Paleo-Indian Lithic Artifacts from the HarneyFlats Site (8-HI-507), Tampa, Florida. M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,Gainesville.

Balsillie, J. H., and J. F. Donoghue. 2004. High Resolution Sea-levelHistory for the Gulf of Mexico since the Last Glacial Maximum.Report of Investigations 103. Tallahassee: Florida GeologicalSurvey.

Banks, L. D. 1990. From Mountain Peaks to Alligator Stomachs: AReview of Lithic Sources in the Trans-Mississippi South, theSouthern Plains, and Adjacent Southwest. OklahomaAnthropological Society Memoir 4. Tulsa: University ofOklahoma Printing Services.

Barker, G., and J. B. Broster. 1996. “The Johnson Site (40Dv400): adated Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupation in Tennessee’sCentral Basin.” Journal of Alabama Archaeology 42(2): 97–153.

Binford, L. R. 1978. “Dimensional analysis of behavior and sitestructure: Learning from an Eskimo hunting stand.”American Antiquity 43: 330–361.

Binford, L. R. 1980. “Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherersettlement systems and archaeological site formation.”American Antiquity 45: 1–17.

Binford, L. R. 1982. “The archaeology of place.” Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 1: 5–31.

Binford, L. R. 1983. “Long term land use patterns: Some impli-cations for archaeology.” In Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays inHonor of George Irving Quimby, edited by R. C. Dunnell, andD. K. Grayson, 27–53. Anthropological Paper 72. AnnArbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

Binford, L. R. 2001. Constructing Frames of Reference: AnAnalytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building UsingHunter-Gatherer and Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Bissett, T. 2014. The Shell Mound Archaic in Western Tennessee:Prehistoric Occupation of the Lower Tennessee River Valleybetween 9000 and 2500 cal yr BP. Ph.D. dissertation,Knoxville: Department of Anthropology, University ofTennessee.

Björck, S., B. Kromer, S. Johnson, O. Bennike, D. Hammarlund,G. Lemdahl, G. Possnert, T. L. Rasmuson, B. Wohlfarth, C.U. Hammer, and M. Spurk. 1996. “Synchronized terrestrial-atmospheric deglacial records around the North Atlantic.”Science 274: 1155–1160.

Blanton, D. B. 1996. “Accounting for submerged mid-Holocenearchaeological sites in the Southeast: A case study fromChesapeake Bay Estuary, Virginia.” In Archaeology of theMid-Holocene Southeast, edited by K. E. Sassaman, and D.G. Anderson, 200–221. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Bousman, C. B., and B. J. Vierra. 2012. “Chronology, environ-mental setting and views of the terminal Pleistocene and early



Holocene cultural transitions in North America.” In From thePleistocene to the Holocene: Human Organization andCultural Transformations in Prehistoric North America, editedby C. B. Bousman, and B. J. Vierra, 1–15. College Station:Texas A&M University Press.

Bradley, B. A. 1997. “Sloan Site biface and projectile point technol-ogy.” In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas,edited by D. F. Morse, 53–57. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

Bradley, B. A., and D. Stanford. 2004. “The North Atlantic ice-edgecorridor: A possible Palaeolithic route to the New World.”World Archaeology 36: 459–478.

Bradley, J. A., A. Spiess, R. A. Boisvert, and J. Boudreau. 2008.“What’s the point? Model forms and attributes of Paleoindianbifaces in the New England-Maritimes region.” Archaeologyof Eastern North America 36: 119–172.

Breitburg, E., and J. B. Broster. 1995. “Clovis and Cumberland pro-jectile points of Tennessee: Qualitative and quantitative attri-butes and morphometric affinities.” Current Research in thePleistocene 12: 4–6.

Breitburg, E., J. B. Broster, A. L. Reesman, and R. G. Stearns. 1996.“The Coats-Hines site: Tennessee’s first Paleoindian-mastodonassociation.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 13: 6–8.

Brennan, L. A. 1982. “A compilation of fluted points of EasternNorth America by count and distribution: An AENAproject.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 10: 27–46.

Brockington, P. B. 1971. “A preliminary investigation of an earlyknapping site in southeastern Georgia.” The Notebook 3:34–46. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology. Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Brooks, M. J., B. E. Taylor, and A. H. Ivester. 2010. “Carolina Bays:Time capsules of culture and climate change.” SoutheasternArchaeology 29: 146–163.

Brookes, S. O. 1979. The Hester Site, An Early Archaic Site inMonroe County, Mississippi: A Preliminary Report.Archaeological Report No. 5. Jackson: MississippiDepartment of Archives and History.

Brose, D. S. 1994. “Archaeological investigations at thePaleoCrossing site, a Paleoindian occupation in MedinaCounty, Ohio.” In The First Discovery of America:Archaeological Evidence of the Early Inhabitants of the OhioArea, edited by W. Dancey, 61–76. Columbus: OhioArchaeological Council.

Broster, J. B. 1989. “A preliminary survey of Paleo-Indian sites inTennessee.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 6: 29–31.

Broster, J. B., D. P. Johnson, andM. R. Norton. 1991. “The JohnsonSite: A dated Clovis-Cumberland occupation in Tennessee.”Current Research in the Pleistocene 8: 8–10.

Broster, J. B., and G. L. Barker. 1992. “Second report of investi-gations at the Johnson Site (40Dv400): the 1991 field season.”Tennessee Anthropologist 17(2): 120–130.

Broster, J. B., and M. R. Norton. 1993. “The Carson-Conn-ShortSite (40BN190): an extensive Clovis habitation in BentonCounty, Tennessee.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 10:3–5.

Broster, J. B., and M. R. Norton. 1996. “Recent Paleoindianresearch in Tennessee.” In The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman,288–297. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Broster, J. B., M. R. Norton, B. Hulan, and E. Durham. 2006. “Apreliminary analysis of Clovis through Early Archaic com-ponents at the Widemeier site (40DV9), Davidson County,Tennessee.” Tennessee Archaeology 2(2): 120–127.

Broster, J. B., M. R. Norton, D. S. Miller, J. W. Tune, andJ. D. Baker. 2013. “Tennessee’s Paleoindian Record theCumberland and Lower Tennessee River Watersheds.” In In theEastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich,299–314. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Broster, J. B., M. R. Norton, D. J. Stanford, C. V. Haynes, Jr, andM. A. Jodry. 1994. “Eastern Clovis adaptations in theTennessee River Valley.” Current Research in the Pleistocene11: 12–14.

Broster, J. B., M. R. Norton, D. J. Stanford, C. V. Haynes, Jr, andM. A. Jodry. 1996. “Stratified fluted point deposits in theWestern Valley of Tennessee.” In Proceedings of the 14thAnnual Mid-South Archaeological Conference, edited byR. Walling, C. Wharey, and C. Stanley, 1–11. SpecialPublications 1. Tuscaloosa: Panamerican Consultants.

Brown, C. S. 1926. Archaeology of Mississippi. Oxford: MississippiGeological Survey.

Brown, I. W. 1994. “Recent trends in the archaeology of the south-eastern United States.” Journal of Archaeological Research 2:45–111.

Broyles, B. J. 1966. “Preliminary report: The St. Albans Site(46KA27), Kanawha County, West Virginia.” West VirginiaArchaeologist 19: 1–43.

Broyles, B. J. 1971. Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site,Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. Report of ArchaeologicalInvestigations 3. Charleston: West Virginia Geological andEconomic Survey.

Buchanan, B. 2003. “The effects of sample bias on Paleoindianfluted point recovery in the United States.” North AmericanArchaeologist 24: 311–338.

Bullen, R. P. 1962. “Suwannee points in the Simpson collections.”The Florida Anthropologist 15: 83–88.

Bullen, R. P. 1968. A Guide to the Identification of Florida ProjectilePoints. Gainesville: Florida State Museum, University ofFlorida.

Bullen, R. P., S. D. Webb, and B. I. Waller. 1970. “A workedmammoth bone from Florida.” American Antiquity 35: 203–05.

Bushnell, D. I., Jr 1935. “The Manahoac Tribes in Virginia, 1608.”Smithsonian Miscellaneous Contributions 94(8). Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Cable, J. S. 1996. “Haw River revisited: Implications for modelinglate glacial and early Holocene hunter-gatherer settlementsystems in the Southeast.” In The Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, 107–48. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Cambron, J. W. 1955. “The Wheeler Point.” Newsletter of theOklahoma Anthropological Society 4(4): 5.

Cambron, J. W., and D. C. Hulse. 1960. “An excavation on the QuadSite.” Tennessee Archaeologist 16: 14–26.

Cambron, J. W., and D. C. Hulse. 1964. Handbook of AlabamaArchaeology, Part 1, Point Types. Tuscaloosa: ArchaeologicalResearch Association of Alabama.

Carr, K. W. 1985. “Core reconstructions and community patterningat the Fifty Site.” Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 2:79–92.

Carr, K. W. 1992. A Distributional Analysis of Artifacts from theFifty Site: A Flint Run Paleoindian Processing Station. Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, CatholicUniversity of America, Washington, D.C.

Carr, K. W., R. M. Stewart, D. Stanford, and M. Frank. 2013. “TheFlint Run Complex: A Quarry-related Paleoindian Complex inthe Great Valley of Virginia.” In The Eastern Fluted PointTradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, 156–217. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Carter, B. C., and J. S. Dunbar. 2006. “Early Archaic archaeology.”In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page Ladson Site inthe Aucilla River, edited by S. D. Webb, 493–515. Dordrecht,The Netherlands: Springer.

Chapman, J. 1985. “Archaeology and the Archaic Period in theSouthern Ridge-and-Valley Province.” In Structure andProcess in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by RoyS. Dickens, and H. Trawick Ward, 137–153. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Charles, T. 1981. “Dwindling resources: an overture to the future ofSouth Carolina’s archaeological resources.” The Notebook 13:1–85. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology. Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Chatters, J. C., D. J. Kennett, Y. Asmerom, B. M. Kemp, V. Polyak,A. N. Blank, P. A. Beddows, E. Reinhardt, J. Arroyo-Cabrales,D. A. Bolnick, R. S. Malhi, B. J. Culleton, P. L. Erreguerena,D. Rissolo, S. Morell-Hart, and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 2014.“Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA linkPaleoamericans and modern Native Americans.” Science344(6185): 750–754.

Childress, W. 1993. “The SmithMountain site: A buried Paleoindianoccupation in the southwestern Piedmont of Virginia.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 10: 7–9.

Childress, W., and D. B. Blanton. 1997. “A radiocarbon date on adeeply buried stratum yielding a Plano-like projectile pointfrom the Smith Mountain site in Virginia.” Current Researchin the Pleistocene 14: 12–14.

Childress, W., and D. Vogt. 1994. “Some recent observations andcomment on the archaeological record of early human occu-pation of the upper Roanoke drainage.” Quarterly Bulletin ofthe Archaeological Society of Virginia 49: 121–147.

Claggett, S. R., J. S. Cable, assemblers. 1982. The Haw River Sites:Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in



http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1179%2Fsea.2010.29.1.010

the North Carolina Piedmont. Report submitted byCommonwealth Associates to the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Wilmington District (Contract No. R-2386).

Clausen, C. J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky. 1975a.“Florida spring confirmed as 10,000-year-old early man site.”The Florida Anthropologist 28: 1–38.

Clausen, C. J., H. K. Brooks, and A. B. Wesolowsky. 1975b. “Theearly man site at Warm Mineral Springs.” Journal of FieldArchaeology 2: 191–213.

Clausen, C. J., A. D. Cohen, C. Emeliani, J. A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp. 1979. “Little Salt Spring, Florida: A unique under-water site.” Science 203: 609–614.

Cockrell, W. A. 1987. The Warm Mineral Springs ArchaeologicalResearch Project: Current research and technological appli-cations. In Diving for Science 1986: Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Underwater Sciences 6th AnnualScientific Diving Symposium, 31 October–3 November 1986,Tallahassee, FL, USA, edited by C. T. Mitchell, 63–68.Tallahassee: American Academy of Underwater Sciences.

Cockrell, W. A., and L. Murphy. 1978. “Pleistocene man inFlorida.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 6: 1–13.

Coe, J. L. 1964. The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont.Philadelphia: Transactions of the American PhilosophicalSociety 54(5).

Cole, M. J. 2006. “Paleoindian settlement in Limestone County,Alabama.” Journal of Alabama Archaeology 51(1–2): 1–61.

Coleman, D. D. 1972. “Illinois state Geological survey radiocarbondates III.” Radiocarbon 14: 149–154.

Collins, M. B. 1999. Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Studyof the Keven Davis Cache, Texas. Austin: University of Texas.

Collins, M. B., T. R. Hester, and P. J. Headrick. 1992. “Engravedcobbles from the Gault site.” Current Research in thePleistocene 9: 3–4.

Condon, K. W., and J. C. Rose. 1997. “Bioarchaeology of the Sloansite.” In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas,edited by D. F. Morse, 8–13. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

Cotter, J. L. 1937. “The significance of Folsom and Yuma artifactoccurences in the light of typology and distributions.” InPublications of the Philadelphia Anthropological Society Volume1, Twenty-fifth Anniversary Studies, edited by Davidson, 27–35.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cotter, J. L. 1991. “Update on Natchez Man.” American Antiquity56: 36–39.

Crane, H. R., and J. B. Griffin. 1956. “University ofMichigan radio-carbon dates I.” Science 124: 664–672.

Crane, H. R., and J. B. Griffin. 1968. “University ofMichigan radio-carbon dates XII.” Radiocarbon 10: 61–114.

Crane, H. R., and J. B. Griffin. 1972. “University ofMichigan radio-carbon dates XIV.” Radiocarbon 14: 155–94.

Crook, M. R. 1990. Raes Creek: A Multicomponent ArchaeologicalSite in the Central Savannah River Valley. Atlanta: GeorgiaDepartment of Transportation.

Daniel, I. R., Jr 1998.Hardaway Revisited: Early Archaic Settlementin the Southeast. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Daniel, I. R., Jr 2000. “Paleoindian points in North Carolina.”Current Research in the Pleistocene 17: 14–16.

Daniel, I. R., Jr 2001. “Stone raw material availability and EarlyArchaic settlement in the Southeastern United States.”American Antiquity 66: 237–265.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, and J. R. Butler. 1991. “Rhyolite sources in theCarolina Slate Belt, central North Carolina.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 8: 64–66.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, and A. C. Goodyear, III. 2006. “An update on theNorth Carolina fluted-point survey.” Current Research in thePleistocene 23: 88–90.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, and A. C. Goodyear, III. In press. “North CarolinaClovis.” In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, editedby A. M. Smallwood, and T. A. Jennings, College Station:Texas A&M University Press.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, and C. R. Moore. 2011. “Current research intothe Paleoindian and Archaic periods in the North CarolinaCoastal Plain.” In The Archaeology of North Carolina: ThreeArchaeological Symposia, edited by C. R. Ewen, T. R. Whyte,and R. P. S. Davis, pp 3–1 to 3–24. Raleigh: North CarolinaArchaeological Council Publication 30.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, W. H. Moore, and J. Pritchard. 2007. “Analysis of aPaleoindian stone tool assemblage from the Pasquotank Site(31PK1) in northeastern North Carolina.” SoutheasternArchaeology 26: 73–90.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, C. R. Moore, and E. C. Canyor. 2013. “Sifting thesands of time: Geoarchaeology, culture chronology, and climatechange at Squires Ridge, northeastern North Carolina.”Southeastern Archaeology 32: 253–270.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, and M. Wisenbaker. 1987. Harney Flats: A FloridaPaleoindian Site. New York: Baywood.

Daniel, I. R., Jr, M. Wisenbaker, and G. Ballo. 1986. “The organiz-ation of a Suwannee technology: the view from Harney Flats.”The Florida Anthropologist 39: 24–54.

Dasovich, S. J., and G. H. Doran. 2011. “The Florida radiocarbondatabase.” Florida Anthropologist 64(1): 53–61.

Davis, M. B. 1983. “Holocene vegetational history of the easternUnited States.” In Late Quaternary Environments of theUnited States, Part 2: The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright,Jr, 166–81. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

DeJarnette, D. L., E. B. Kurjack, and J. W. Cambron. 1962.“Excavations at the Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter.” Journalof Alabama Archaeology 8(1–2): 1–124.

DeJarnette, D. L., and V. J. Knight. 1976. “LaGrange.” Journal ofAlabama Archaeology 22: 3–60.

Delcourt, H. R., and P. A. Delcourt. 1985. “Quaternary palynologyand vegetational history of the Southeastern United States.” InPollen Records of Late-Quaternary North American Sediments,edited by V. M. Bryant, and R. G. Holloway, 1–37. Dallas:American Association of Stratigraphic PalynologistsFoundation.

Delcourt, H. R., and P. A. Delcourt. 1989. “Palynological andplant-macrofossil analysis: Hood Lake, Poinsett County,Arkansas.” In Cultural Resource Investigations in theL’Anguille River Basin, Lee, St. Francis, Cross, and PoinsettCounties, Arkansas, edited by D. G. Anderson, H.R. Delcourt, P. A. Delcourt, J. E. Foss, and P. A. Morse,16–31. Final report submitted by Garrow & Associates, Inc.,to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District (con-tract no. DACW66-87-C-0046).

Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1981. “Vegetation maps foreastern North Americas: 40,000 yr b.p. to present.” InGeobotany: An Integrating Experience, edited by R. Romans,123–166. New York: Plenum.

Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1983. “Late-Quaternary vege-tational dynamics and community stability reconsidered.”Quaternary Research 19: 265–271.

Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 1987. Long Term ForestDynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late-Quaternary Forests in Eastern North America. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Delcourt, P. A., and H. R. Delcourt. 2004. Prehistoric NativeAmericans and Ecological Change Human Ecosystems inEastern North America since the Pleistocene. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Delcourt, H. R., P. A. Delcourt, and P. D. Royall. 1997. “LateQuaternary vegetational history of the western lowlands.”In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery in Arkansas, editedby D. F. Morse, 103–122. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

Delcourt, H. R., P. A. Delcourt, and T. Webb, III. 1983. “Dynamicplant ecology: The spectrum of vegetational change in spaceand time.” Quaternary Science Reviews 1: 153–175.

Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis. 1984. “Crowfield: A preliminary reporton a probable Paleo-Indian cremation in southwesternOntario.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 41–71.

Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis. 2001. “Evidence for late Paleoindianritual from the Caradoc site (AfHj-104), southwesternOntario, Canada.” American Antiquity 66: 267–284.

Deter-Wolf, A., J. W. Tune, and J. B. Broster. 2011. “Excavationsand dating of late Pleistocene and Paleoindian deposits at theCoats-Hines Site, Williamson County, Tennessee.” TennesseeArchaeology 5(2): 142–156.

Dincauze, D. F. 1993. “Pioneering in the Pleistocene largePaleoindian sites in the Northwest.” In Archaeology ofEastern North America Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams,edited by J. B. Stoltman, 43–60. Archaeological Report No.25. Jackson: Mississippi Department of Archives and History.

Donoghue, J. F. 2006. “Geography and geomorphology of theAucilla River region.” In First Floridians and LastMastodons: The Page Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, editedby S. D. Webb, 31–48. Dordrecht: Springer.

Doran, G. H., ed. 2002.Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations ofan Early Archaic Florida Cemetery. Gainesville: UniversityPress of Florida.



http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system-d=10.1179%2F009346975791491006


Doran, G. H., D. N. Dickel, W. E. Ballenger, Jr, O. F. Agee,P. J. Laipis, and W. W. Hauswirth. 1986. “Anatomical, cellularand molecular analysis of 8,000-yr-old human brain tissue fromthe Windover archaeological site.” Nature 323: 803–806.

Dragoo, D. W. 1973. “Wells Creek: An early man site in StewartCounty, Tennessee.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 1:1–56.

Driskell, B. N. 1994. “Stratigraphy and chronology at Dust Cave.”Journal of Alabama Archaeology 40: 18–33.

Driskell, B. N. 1996. “Stratified late Pleistocene and early Holocenedeposits at Dust Cave, northwestern Alabama.” In ThePaleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited byD. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 222–237. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Driskell, B. N., S. C. Meeks, and S. C. Sherwood. 2012. “Thetransition from Paleoindian to Archaic in the MiddleTennessee Valley.” In From the Pleistocene to the Holocene:Human Organization and Cultural Transformations inPrehistoric North America, edited by C. B. Bousman, andB. Vierra, 252–271. College Station: Texas A&M UniversityPress.

Driskell, B. N., and R. B. Walker. 2007. “Making sense ofPaleoindian subsistence strategies.” In Foragers of theTerminal Pleistocene in North America, edited byR. B. Walker, and B. N. Driskell, x–xv, Lincoln: Universityof Nebraska Press.

Dunbar, J. S. 2006a. “Pleistocene-early Holocene climate change:Chronostratigraphy and geoclimate of the SoutheasternUnited States.” In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: ThePage-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, edited by S. D. Webb,103–155. Dordrecht: Springer.

Dunbar, J. S. 2006b. “Paleoindian land use.” In First Floridians andLast Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River,edited by S. D. Webb, 525–544. Dordrecht: Springer.

Dunbar, J. S. 2006c. “Paleoindian archaeology.” In First Floridiansand Last Mastodons: The Page-Ladson Site in the Aucilla River,edited by S. D. Webb, 403–35. Dordrecht: Springer.

Dunbar, J. S. 1991. “Resource orientation of Clovis and Suwanneeage Paleoindian sites in Florida.” In Clovis: Origins andAdaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen, and K. Turnmire,185–213. Corvallis: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans and Oregon State University.

Dunbar, J. S. 2007. “Temporal problems and alternatives toward theestablishment of Paleoindian site chronologies in Florida andthe adjacent Coastal Southeast.” The Florida Anthropologist60(1): 5–20.

Dunbar, J. S., and C. A. Hemmings. 2004. “Florida Paleoindianpoints and knives.” In New Perspectives on the FirstAmericans, edited by B. T. Lepper, and R. Bonnichsen,65–72. College Station, TX: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University Press.

Dunbar, J. S., C. A. Hemmings, P. K. Vojnovski, S. D. Webb, andW. M. Stanton. 2005. “The Ryan-Harley site 8Je1004: aSuwannee point site in the Wacissa River, North Florida.” InPaleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited byR. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters,81–96. College Station, TX: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University Press.

Dunbar, J. S., and P. K. Vojnovski. 2007. “Early Floridians and latemegamammals: Some technological and dietary evidence fromfour North Florida Paleoindian sites.” In Foragers of theTerminal Pleistocene in North America, edited byR. B. Walker, and B. N. Driskell, 167–202. Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.

Dunbar, J. S., and B. I. Waller. 1983. “A distribution of the Clovis/Suwannee Paleoindian sites of Florida: A geographicapproach.” Florida Anthropologist 36: 18–30.

Dunbar, J. S., and S. D. Webb. 1996. “Bone and ivory tools fromPaleoindian sites in Florida.” In The Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, eds., 331–353. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press.

Dunbar, J. S., S. D. Webb, and D. Cring. 1989. “Culturally andnaturally modified bones from a Paleoindian site in theAucilla River, north Florida.” In Bone Modification, editedby R. Bonnichsen, and M. Sorg, 473–497. Orono, ME:Center for the Study of the First Americans.

Dunbar, J. S., S. D. Webb, and M. K. Faught. 1988. “Page-Ladson(8JE591): an underwater Paleo-Indian site in northwesternFlorida.” Florida Anthropologist 41: 442–452.

Dunnell, R. C. 1990. “The role of the Southeast in AmericanArchaeology.” Southeastern Archaeology 9: 11–22.

Dyke, A. S. 2004. “An outline of North American deglaciation withemphasis on central and northern Canada.” In QuaternaryGlaciations: Extent and Chronology, Part II: North America,edited by J. Ehlers, and P. L. Gibbard, 373–434. Amsterdam,The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Dyke, A. S., A. Moore, and L. Robertson. 2003. Deglaciationof North America. Open File 1574. Calgary: GeologicalSurvey of Canada.

Ellerbusch, E. C. 2004. “Paleoamerican prismatic blade economyfrom the Nuckolls site (40Hs60), Lower Tennessee RiverValley, Tennessee.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:35–38.

Elliott, D. T. 1982. Flint River Archaeological Survey and Testing,Albany Georgia. Marietta, Georgia: Soil Systems..

Elliott, D. T., and R. Doyon. 1981. Archaeological and HistoricalGeography of the Savannah River Floodplain Near Augusta,Georgia. Laboratory of Anthropology Series, Report 22.Athens: University of Georgia.

Ellis, C. 2004. “Understanding “Clovis” fluted point variability inthe Northeast: A perspective from the Debert site, NovaScotia.” Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28: 205–253.

Ellis, C., A. C. Goodyear, D. F. Morse, and K. B. Tankersley.1998. “Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene transition ineastern North America.” Quaternary International 49/50:151–166.

Endonino, J. C. 2007. “A reevaluation of the Gainesville, Ocala, andLake Panasoffkee quarry clusters.” The Florida Anthropologist60: 77–96.

Engelbrecht, W. E., and C. K. Seyfort. 1994. “Paleoindian water-craft: Evidence and implications.” North AmericanArchaeologist 15: 221–234.

Ensor, H. B. 1985. “The Joe Powell site (1Pi38): a Dalton manifes-tation on the AlabamaGulf Coastal Plain.” Journal of AlabamaArchaeology 31: 1–47.

Ensor, H. B. 1987. “San Patrice and Dalton affinities on the Centraland Western Gulf Coastal Plain.” Bulletin of the TexasArchaeological Society 57: 69–81.

Ensor, H. B. 2013. “Capps: A Levallois-like technology in NorthAmerica.” Poster presented at the Paleoamerican OdysseyConference, Sante Fe, New Mexico, 17–19 October, 2013.

Ensor, H. B. 2014. “The Belle Mina Clovis site.” Journal of AlabamaArchaeology 57: 3–59.

Eren, M. I. 2005. “Unifacial stone tool analyses from the Paleo-Crossing (33-ME-274), Ohio.” Current Research in thePleistocene 22: 43–45.

Eren, M. I. 2006. “The Paleo-Crossing (33-ME-274) non-projectilepoint biface assemblage.” Current Research in the Pleistocene23: 95–97.

Eren, M. I., B. G. Redmond, and M. A. Kollecker. 2004. “ThePaleo-Crossing (33-ME-274) fluted point assemblage.”Current Research in the Pleistocene 21: 38–39.

Fagan, J. 2013. “Report on Blood Residue Analysis.” In Adapting toClimate Change at the Pleistocene – Holocene Transition: DataRecovery of Five Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic Sites alongFlorida’s Cody Scarp (8LE2105, 8LE2102, 8JE880/8LE2909,8JE872, and 8JE878), Appendix V, edited by R. C. Goodwin,W. P. Barse, and C. Pevny, 405–409. New Orleans, LA:R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

Faith, J. T. 2011. “Late Pleistocene climate change, nutrient cycling,and the megafaunal extinctions in North America.”QuaternaryScience Reviews 30: 1675–1680.

Faith, J. T., and T. A. Surovell. 2009. “Synchronous extinctionof North America’s Pleistocene mammals.” Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106: 20,641–45.

Faught, M. K. 1996. Clovis Origins and Underwater PrehistoricArchaeology in Northwestern Florida. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Faught, M. K. 2002. “Submerged Paleoindian and Archaic sites ofthe Big Bend, Florida.” Journal of Field Archaeology 29(3/4):273–290.

Faught, M. K. 2004a. “The underwater archaeology of paleolands-capes, Apalachee Bay, Florida.”American Antiquity 69: 275–289.

Faught, M. K. 2004b. “Submerged Paleoindian and Archaic sitesof the Big Bend, Florida.” Journal of Field Archaeology 29:273–289.

Faught, M. K. 2006. “Paleoindian archaeology in Florida andPanama: Two circumgulf regions exhibiting waisted lanceolate



http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1179%2Fjfa.2004.29.3-4.273

projectile points.” In Paleoindian Archaeology: A HemisphericPerspective, edited by J. E. Morrow, and C. Gnecco, 164–183.Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Faught, M. K. 2008. “Archaeological roots of human diversity inthe New World: A compilation of accurate and precise radio-carbon ages from the earliest sites.” American Antiquity 73(4):670–698.

Faught, M. K., D. G. Anderson, and A. Gisiger. 1994. “NorthAmerican Paleoindian database—an update.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 11: 32–35.

Faught, M. K., and B. Carter. 1998. “Early human occupation andenvironmental change in northwestern Florida.” QuaternaryInternational 50: 167–176.

Faught, M. K., and J. F. Donoghue. 1997. “Marine inundatedarchaeological sites and paleofluvial systems: Examples froma karst controlled continental shelf setting in the ApalacheeBay, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.” Geoarchaeology 12(5):417–458.

Faught, M. K., and A. E. Guisick. 2011. “Submerged prehistory inthe Americas.” In Submerged Prehistory, edited by J. Benjamin,C. Bonsall, C. Pickard, and A. Fischer, 145–157. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

Faught, M. K., M. B. Hornum, R. C. Goodwin, B. Carter, and S.D. Webb. 2003. “Earliest-Holocene tool assemblages fromnorthern Florida with stratigraphically controlled radiocarbonestimates (sites 8LE2105 and 8JE591).” Current Research inthe Pleistocene 20: 16–18.

Faught, M. K., and J. C. Waggoner, Jr 2012. “The Early Archaic toMiddle Archaic transition in Florida: An argument for discon-tinuity.” Florida Anthropologist 65(3): 153–175.

Faulkner, C. H. 1986. The Prehistoric Native American Art of MudGlyph Cave. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

Faulkner, C. H. 1997. “Four thousand years of Native Americancave art in the Southern Appalachians.” Journal of Cave andKarst Studies 59(3): 148–153.

FAUNMAP Working Group. 1996. “Spatial response of mammalsto Late Quaternary environmental fluctuations.” Science 272:1601–1606.

Feathers, J. K., E. J. Rhodes, S. Huot, and J. M. McAvoy. 2006.“Luminescence dating of sand deposits related to latePleistocene human occupation at the Cactus Hill Site,Virginia, USA.” Quaternary Geochronology 1: 167–187.

Fenneman, N. H. 1938. Physiography of Eastern United States. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Ferring, C. R. 1995. “The late Quaternary geology and archaeologyof the Aubrey Clovis site, Texas.” In Ancient Peoples andLandscapes, edited by E. Johnson, 273–282. Lubbock:Museum of Texas Tech University.

Ferring, C. R. 2001. The Archaeology and Paleoecology of theAubrey Clovis Site (41DN479) Denton County, Texas.Denton: University of North Texas.

Fiedel, S. 1999. “Older than we thought: Implications ofcorrected dates for Paleoindians.” American Antiquity 64:95–116.

Fiedel, S. 2009. “Sudden deaths: The chronology of terminalPleistocene megafaunal extinction.” In American MegafaunalExtinctions at the End of the Pleistocene, edited byG. Haynes, 21–38. New York, NY: Springer.

Fiedel, S. 2013. “Is that all there is? The weak case for Pre-Clovisoccupation of Eastern North America.” In In the EasternFluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich,333–354. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Fiedel, S. 2015. “The Clovis Era radiocarbon plateau.” InClovis: Onthe Edge of a New Understanding, edited by A. M. Smallwood,and T. A. Jennings, 11–19. College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Fiedel, S., and G. Haynes. 2004. “A premature burial; comments onGrayson and Meltzer’s “requiem for overkill.” Journal ofArchaeological Science 31: 121–131.

Figgins, J. D. 1927. “The antiquity of man in America.” NaturalHistory 27(3): 229–239.

Firestone, R. B., A. West, J. P. Kennett, L. Becker, T. E. Bunch,Z. Revay, P. H. Schultz, T. Belgya, O. J. Dickenson, J.M. Erlandson, A. C. Goodyear, R. S. Harris, G. A. Howard,D. J. Kennett, J. B. Kloosterman, P. Lechler, J. Montgomery,R. Poreda, T. Darrah, S. S. Que Hee, A. R. Smith, A. Stich,W. Topping, J. H. Wittke, and W. S. Wolbach. 2007.“Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact event 12,900 yearsago that contributed to megafaunal extinctions and theYounger Dryas cooling.” Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:16016–16021.

Fishel, R. W. 1988. “Preliminary observations on the distribution ofAgate Basin projectile points east of the Mississippi River.”Wisconsin Archaeologist 69: 125–138.

Fogelman, G. L., and S. W. Lantz. 2006. Pennsylvania Fluted PointSurvey: Paleo Fluted Points from Pennsylvania and SurroundingArea. Turbotville, PA: Fogelman Publishing Company.

Fowler, M. R. 1959. “Modoc Rock Shelter: An Early Archaic site insouthern Illinois.” American Antiquity 24: 257–270.

Freeman, A. K. L., E. E. Smith, Jr, and K. B. Tankersley. 1996. “Astone’s throw from Kimmswick: Clovis period research inKentucky.” In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast,edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 385–403.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Futato, E. M. 1982. “Some notes on the distribution of flutedpoints in Alabama.” Archaeology of Eastern North America10: 30–33.

Futato, E. M. 1996. “A synopsis of Paleoindian and early Archaicresearch in Alabama.” In The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman,298–314. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Futato, E. M., C. M. Hubert, and V. D. King, Jr 1992. “TheAlabama Paleoindian Point Survey.” In Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic Period Research in the Lower Southeast: A SouthCarolina Perspective, edited by D. G. Anderson, K.E. Sassaman, and C. Judge, 269–272. Columbia: Council ofSouth Carolina Professional Archaeologists.

Gaertner, L. M. 1994. “Determining the function of Daltonadzes from northeast Arkansas.” Lithic Technology 19(2):97–109.

Gagliano, S. M., and H. F. Gregory. 1965. A Preliminary Survey ofPaleo-Indian Points from Louisiana. Louisiana Studies 4(1),Natchitoches: Louisiana Studies Institute, Northwestern StateCollege.

Gardner, W. M. 1974. The Flint Run Paleoindian Complex: APreliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons. OccasionalPaper No. 1. Washington, DC: Archaeology Laboratory,Catholic University of America.

Gardner, W. M. 1977. “Flint Run Paleoindian Complex and itsimplications for Eastern North America prehistory.” Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 251–263.

Gardner, W. M. 1981. “Paleoindian settlement pattern and site dis-tribution in the Middle Atlantic.” In Anthropological Careers:Essays Presented to the Anthropological Society of Washingtonduring Its Centennial Year 1979, edited by R. Landman,51–73. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society ofWashington.

Gardner, W. M. 1983. “Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: TheFlint Run Paleoindian Complex revisited.” Archaeology ofEastern North America 11: 49–59.

Gardner, W.M. 1989. “An examination of cultural change in the latePleistocene and early Holocene (circa 9200 to 6800 B.C.).” InPaleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited byJ. M. Wittkofski, and T. R. Reinhart, 5–51. SpecialPublication 19. Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia.

Gardner, W. M., and R. Verrey. 1979. “Typology and chronology offluted points from the Flint Run area.” PennsylvaniaArchaeologist 49: 13–45.

Gero, J. M. 1993. “The social world of prehistoric facts: Gender andpower in Paleoindian research.” In Women in Archaeology: AFeminist Critique, edited by H. duCros, and L. Smith, 31–40.Canberra: Australian National University, Occasional Papersin Anthropology.

Gero, J. M. 1995. “Railroading epistemology: Paleoindians andwomen.” In Interpreting Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder,M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Gero, J. Last, andG. Lucas, 175–78. New York: Routledge.

Gerrell, P. R., J. F. Scarry, and J. S. Dunbar. 1991. “Analysis ofEarly Archaic unifacial adzes from north Florida.” FloridaAnthropologist 44(1): 3–16.

Gidley, J. W., and F. B. Loomis. 1926. “Fossil man in Florida.”American Journal of Science, 5th series, 12: 254–265.

Gill, J. L., J. W. Williams, S. T. Jackson, K. B. Lininger, andG. S. Robinson. 2009. “Pleistocene megafaunal collapse,novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in NorthAmerica.” Science 326: 1100–1103.

Gillam, J. C. 1995. Paleoindian Settlement in the Mississippi Valleyof Arkansas. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.



Gillam, J. C. 1996a. “Early and Middle Paleoindian sites in theNortheastern Arkansas region.” In The Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, 404–412. Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress.

Gillam, J. C. 1996b. “A view of Paleoindian settlement fromCrowley’s Ridge.” Plains Anthropologist 157: 273–286.

Gillam, J. C. 1999. “Paleoindian Settlement in NortheasternArkansas.” In Papers in Honor of Dan and Phyllis Morse,edited by Robert C. Mainfort, Jr, 99–118. Fayetteville:University of Arkansas.

Gillam, J. C., D. G. Anderson, and A. T. Peterson. 2007. “A big-picture perspective on the peopling of the Americas:Continental-scale modeling of Pleistocene population distri-butions and ecological niches.” Current Research in thePleistocene 24: 86–90.

Gillam, J. C., D. G. Anderson, S. J. Yerka, and D. S. Miller. 2006.“Estimating Pleistocene shorelines and land elevations forNorth America.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:185–187.

Gingerich, J. A., S. B. Sholts, S. K. Wärmländer, and D. Stanford.2014. “Fluted point manufacture in eastern North America: Anassessment of form and technology using traditionalmetrics and 3D digital morphometrics.” World Archaeology46: 101–122.

Gingerich, J. A. M. 2007. Shawnee-Minisink Revisited: NewExcavations of the Paleoindian Level. M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming,Laramie.

Gingerich, J. A. M. 2009. “An engraved Paleoindian artifact fromnortheast Pennsylvania.” North American Archaeologist 30:377–391.

Gingerich, J. A. M. ed. 2013a. In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Gingerich, J. A.M. 2013b. “Revisiting the Shawnee-Minisink Site.” InIn The Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A.M. Gingerich, 218–257. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Gingerich, J. A. M. 2013c. “Fifty years of discovery at Plenge:rethinking the importance of New Jersey's largest Paleoindiansite.” In In The Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A.M. Gingerich, 75–103. Salt Lake City: University of UtahPress.

Gingerich, J. A. M., and N. R. Kitchell. 2015. “Early Paleoindiansubsistence strategies in eastern North America: A continuationof the Clovis tradition? Or evidence of regional adaptations.” InClovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited byA. M. Smallwood, and T. A. Jennings, 297–318, CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press.

Goebel, T. 2015. “Clovis Culture update.” In Clovis: On the Edge ofa New Understanding, edited by A. M. Smallwood, and T.A. Jennings, 325–352, College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Goodwin, R. C., W. P. Barse, and C. D. Pevny, eds. 2013. Adaptingto Climate Change at the Pleistocene – Holocene Transition:Data Recovery of Five Late Paleoindian to Early Archaic Sitesalong Florida’s Cody Scarp (8LE2105, 8LE2102, 8JE880/8LE2909, 8JE872, and 8JE878). New Orleans:R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 1974. The Brand Site: A Techno-functionalStudy of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Research Series7. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 1979. A Hypothesis for the Use ofCryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups ofNorth America. Research Manuscript Series 156, SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 1982. “The chronological position of theDalton horizon in the southeastern United States.” AmericanAntiquity 47: 382–395.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 1989. “A hypothesis for the use of cryptocrys-talline raw materials among Paleoindian groups of NorthAmerica.” In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, editedby C. J. Ellis, and J. C. Lothrop, 1–9. Boulder: Westview Press.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 1999. “The early Holocene occupation of theSoutheastern United States: A geoarchaeological summary.” InIce Age Peoples of North America, edited by R. Bonnichsen,and K. Turnmire, 432–481. Corvallis, OR: Center for theStudy of the First Americans.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 2005. “Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in theEastern United States.” In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond

Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford,and M. R. Waters, 103–112. College Station: Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press.

Goodyear, A. C. 2006. “Recognition of the Redstone fluted point inthe South Carolina Paleoindian point data base.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 23: 100–103.

Goodyear, A. C. 2010. “Instrument-assisted fluting as a techno-chronological marker among North American Paleoindianpoints.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 27: 86–88.

Goodyear, A. C., III. 2013. “Update on the 2012–2013 activities ofthe Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey.” Legacy 17(1): 10–12.Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology andAnthropology. Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Goodyear, A. C., III, and T. Charles. 1984. An ArchaeologicalSurvey of Chert Quarries in Western Allendale County, SouthCarolina. Research Manuscript Series 195, South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology and Anthropology. Columbia:University of South Carolina.

Goodyear, A. C., III, J. L. Michie, and T. Charles. 1990. The EarliestSouth Carolinians: The Paleoindian Occupation of SouthCarolina. Occasional Papers 2. Columbia: ArchaeologicalSociety of South Carolina.

Goodyear, A. C., III, and K. Steffy. 2003. “Evidence of a Clovis occu-pation at the Topper site, 38AL23, Allendale County, SouthCarolina.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 20: 23–25.

Gramly, R. M. 2002. Olive Branch: AVery Early Archaic Site on theMississippi River. American Society for Amateur ArchaeologySpecial Publication. The Amateur Archaeologist 8(1 and 2).Kenmore, New York: Partners Press.

Gramly, R. M. 2008. “The Cumberland/Barnes phase: Its characterand chronological position within the fluted point tradition.”Ohio Archaeologist 58(2): 4–11.

Gramly, R. M. 2009. Origin and Evolution of the CumberlandPalaeo-American Tradition. American Society for AmateurArchaeology. North Andover: Persimmon Press.

Gramly, R. M. 2012. Bifaces of the Cumberland Tradition. AmericanSociety for Amateur Archaeology. North Andover: PersimmonPress.

Gramly, R. M., and R. E. Funk. 1991. “Olive Branch: A largeDalton and pre-Dalton encampment at Thebes Gap,Alexander County, Illinois.” In The Archaic Period in theMid-South, Proceedings of the 1989 Mid-South ArhcaeologicalConference, Memphis, Tennessee. Archaeological Reports 24,edited by C. H. McNutt, 23–34. Jackson: MississippiDepartment of Archives and History.

Gramly, R. M., and C. Yahnig. 1991. “The Adams Site (15Ch90)and the Little River, Christian County, Kentucky, Clovis work-shop complex.” Southeastern Archaeology 10: 134–145.

Grayson, D. K. 1987. “An analysis of the chronology of latePleistocene mammalian extinctions in North America.”Quaternary Research 28: 281–289.

Grayson, D. K. 2006. “Late Pleistocene faunal extinctions.” InHandbook of North American Indians, Volume 3,Environment, Origins, and Population, edited by DouglasH. Ubelaker, 208–218. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer. 2002. “Clovis hunting and largemammal extinction: A critical review of the evidence.” Journalof World Prehistory 16: 313–359.

Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer. 2003. “A requiem for NorthAmerican overkill.” Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585–593.

Grayson, D. K., and D. J. Meltzer. 2004. “North Americanoverkill continued?.” Journal of Archaeological Science 31:133–136.

Griffin, J. W. 1974. Investigations in Russell Cave. National ParkService Publications in Archaeology 13. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Guisick, A. E., and M. K. Faught. 2011. “Prehistoric archaeologyunderwater: A nascent subdiscipline critical to understandingearly coastal occupations and migration routes.” In Trekkingthe Shore: Changing Coastlines and the Antiquity of CoastalSettlement, edited by N. F. Bicho, J. Haws, and L. G. Davis,27–50. New York: Springer.

Gunn, J. D., and D. O. Brown, eds., 1982. Eagle Hill: A LateQuaternary Upland Site in Western Louisiana. Special Report12. San Antonio: The University of Texas at San Antonio,Center for Archaeological Research.

Guthrie, R. D. 2003. “Rapid body size decline in AlaskanPleistocene horses before extinction.” Nature 426: 169–171.



Hageman, B. P. 1969. Report of the commission on the Holocene(1957). Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde 2, VIIICongres INQUA, Paris.

Halligan, J. J. 2012. Geoarchaeological Investigations intoPaleoindian Adaptations on the Aucilla River, NorthwestFlorida. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Texas A&M University, College Station.

Halligan, J. J. 2013. “Reconstructing the Pleistocene environment ofthe Greater Southeast.” In In The Eastern Fluted PointTradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, 58–72. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Hanson, B. 2006. “Setting the stage: Fossil pollen, stomata, andcharcoal.” In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: ThePage–Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, edited by D. S. Webb,83–101. Dordrecht: Springer.

Hariot, T. 1590. A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land ofVirginia. Frankfurt: Theodore de Bry.

Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig,A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith. 1989. A Geologic Time Scale.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, M. S., L. R. Sautter, K. L. Johnson, K. E. Luciano,G. R. Sedberry, E. E. Wright, and A. N. S. Siuda. 2013.“Continental shelf landscapes of the southeastern UnitedStates since the last interglacial.” Geomorphology 203: 6–24.

Hartman, M. J. 1996. The Development of Watercraft in thePrehistoric Southeastern United States. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University,College Station.

Haynes, C. V. 1964. “Fluted projectile points: Their age and dis-persion.” Science 145: 1408–1413.

Haynes, C. V. 1969. “The earliest Americans.” Science 166: 709–715.Haynes, C. V. 1972. “Stratigraphic investigations at the Williamson,

site, Virginia.” The Chesopiean: A Journal of North AmericanArchaeology 10(4): 107–114.

Haynes, C. V. 1985. “Stratigraphic investigations at the Williamsonsite, Dinwiddie County, Virginia.” In The Williamson Site,Dinwiddie County, Virginia, edited by R. M. Peck, 33–40.Harrisburg, North Carolina: Rodney M. Peck Publishing.

Haynes, C. V. 1992. “Contributions of radiocarbon dating to thegeochronology of the peopling of the New World.” InRadiocarbon After Four Decades: An InterdisciplinaryPerspective, edited by R. E. Taylor, A. Long, and R. S. Kra,35–36. New York: Springer.

Haynes, C. V. 2005. “Clovis, Pre-Clovis, climate change, and extinc-tion.” In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited byR. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. R. Waters,113–132. College Station: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University Press.

Haynes, C. V., D. J. Donahue, A. J. T. Jull, and T. H. Zabel. 1984.“Application of accelerator dating to fluted point Paleoindiansites.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 184–191.

Haynes, G. 2002a. The Early Settlement of North America TheClovis Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haynes, G. 2002b. “The catastrophic extinction of NorthAmerican mammoths and mastodonts.” World Archaeology33: 391–416.

Haynes, G. 2009. “Introduction to the volume.” In AmericanMegafaunal Extinctions at the End of the Pleistocene, editedby G. Haynes, 1–20. New York: Springer.

Haynes, G., D. G. Anderson, C. R. Ferring, S. J. Fiedel, D.K. Grayson, C. V. Haynes, Jr, V. T. Holliday, B. B. Huckell,M. Kornfeld, D. J. Meltzer, J. E. Morrow, T. A. Surovell,N. M. Waguespack, P. Wigand, and R. M. Yohe. 2007.“Comment on “redefining the age of Clovis: Implications forthe peopling of the Americas.” Science 317: 320b.

Haynes, G., and J. M. Hutson. 2013. “Clovis-era subsistence:Regional variability, continental patterning.” InPaleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron,and M. R. Waters, 311–319. College Station: Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Hemmings, C. A. 1999. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Tools ofSloth Hole (8JE121): An Inundated Site in the Lower AucillaRiver, Jefferson County, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hemmings, C. A. 2004. The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent-Wide Cultural Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Hemmings, C. A. 2005. “An update on recent work at Sloth Hole(8JE121), Aucilla River, Jefferson County, Florida.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 22: 47–49.

Hemmings, C. A., and J. M. Adovasio. 2014. “Inundated landscapesand the colonization of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico.” InPre-Clovis in the Americas: International Science ConferenceProceedings Led at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,DC, edited by D. J. Stanford, and A. T. Stenger, 16–31.Washington, DC: CreateSpace Independent PublishingPlatform; Smithsonian Institution edition (4 March 2014).

Hemmings, C. A., J. S. Dunbar, and S. D. Webb. 2004. “Florida’sEarly-Paleoindian bone and ivory tools.” In New Perspectiveson the First Americans, edited by B. T. Lepper, andR. Bonnichsen, 87–92. College Station: Center for the Studyof the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press.

Hill, P. J. 1997. “A re-examination of the Williamson site inDinwiddie County, Virginia: An interpretation of intersite vari-ations.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 25: 159–174.

Hoffman, C. A. 1983. “A mammoth kill site in the Silver SpringsRun.” The Florida Anthropologist 36: 83–87.

Hollenbach, K. D. 2004.Gathering in the Late Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic in Northwest Alabama. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Hollenbach, K. D. 2007. “Gathering in the late Paleoindian period:Archaeobotanical remains from Dust Cave, Alabama.” InForagers of the Terminal Pleistocene in North America, editedby R. B. Walker, and B. N. Driskell, 132–147. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Hollenbach, K. D. 2009. Foraging in the Tennessee River Valley12,500 to 8,000 Years Ago. Tuscaloosa: University ofAlabama Press.

Holliday, V. T. 2000. “The evolution of Paleoindian geochronologyand typology on the Great Plains.” Geoarchaeology 15:227–290.

Holliday, V. T., and D. S. Miller. 2013. “The Clovis landscape.” InPaleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron,and M. R. Waters, 221–245. College Station: Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Holmes, W. H. 1892. “Modern quarry refuse and the Paleolithictheory.” Science 20: 295–297.

Holmes, W. H. 1893. “Are there traces of glacial man in the Trentongravels?.” The Journal of Geology 1: 15–37.

Hope, K. A., and P. L. Koch. 2006. “The biogeography of theAucilla River Fauna.” In First Floridians and LastMastodons: The Page Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, editedby S. D. Webb, 379–401. Dordrecht: Springer.

Hornum, M. B., D. J. Maher, C. Brown, J. Granberry, F. Vento,A. Fradkin, and M. Williams. 1996. Phase III Data Recoveryat Site 8LE2105 for the Proposed Florida Gas TransmissionPhase III Expansion Project, Leon County, Florida. Preparedby R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc., for FloridaGas Transmission Company, New Orleans.

Howard, 1933. “Association of artifacts with mammoth and bison ineastern New Mexico.” Science 78: 524.

Hranicky, W. J. 1989. “The McCary survey of Virginia fluted points:An example of collector involvement in Virginia archaeology.”Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 44:20–34.

Hranicky, W. J. 2008. McCary Fluted Point Survey of Virginia PointNumbers 1 to 1055. Bloomington: Authorhouse.

Hranicky, W. J. 2009. Recording Clovis Points Techniques, Examples,and Methods. Bloomington: Authorhouse.

Hranicky, W. J. 2012. Bipoints before Clovis. Boca Raton: UniversalPublishers.

Hrdlicka, A. 1918. Recent Discoveries Attributed to Early Man inAmerica. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 66.Washington: Government Printing Office.

Hubbert, C. M. 1989. “Paleo-Indian settlement in the MiddleTennessee Valley: Ruminations from the Quad Paleo-Indianlocale.” Tennessee Anthropologist 14(2): 148–164.

Huckell, B. B., and J. D. Kilby. 2014.Clovis Caches: New Discoveriesand New Research. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

Jackson, S. T., J. T. Overpeck, T. Webb, S. E. Keattch, and K.H. Anderson. 1997. “Mapped plant-macrofossil and pollenrecords of late Quaternary vegetation change in eastern NorthAmerica.” Quaternary Science Reviews 16: 1–70.

Jacobson, G. L., T. Webb, and E. C. Grimm. 1987. “Patternsand rates of vegetation change during the deglaciation ofeastern North America.” In North America and AdjacentOceans during the Last Deglaciation, edited by W. Ruddiman,and H. E. Wright, 277–88. Boulder: Geological Society ofAmerica.



Jefferies, R. W. 2008. Holocene Hunter-Gatherers of the Lower OhioRiver Valley. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Jennings, T. A. 2008. “San Patrice: An example of late Paleoindianadaptive versatility in south-central North America.” AmericanAntiquity 73: 539–559.

Jodry, M. A. 2005. “Envisioning water transport technology in late-Pleistocene America.” In Paleoamerican Origins: BeyondClovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. T. Lepper, D. Stanford,and M. R. Waters, 133–160. College Station: Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press.

Johnson, L., Jr 1989. Great Plains Interlopers in the EasternWoodlands during Late Paleoindian Times. Report 36. Officeof the State Archaeologist. Austin: Texas HistoricalCommission.

Johnson, M. F. 1997. “Additional research at Cactus Hill prelimi-nary description of Northern Virginia Chapter-ASV’s 1993and 1995 excavations.” In Archaeological Investigations of Site44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, Appendix G,edited by J. M. McAvoy, and L. D. McAvoy, ResearchReport Series No. 8. Richmond: Virginia Department ofHistoric Resources.

Johnson, M. F. 2014. “Modeling Cactus Hill (40SX202).” In Pre-Clovis in the Americas: International Science ConferenceProceedings Led at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,DC, edited by D. J. Stanford, and A. T. Stenger, 77–152.Washington, DC: CreateSpace Independent PublishingPlatform; Smithsonian Institution edition (4 March 2014).

Jones, B. C., and L. D. Tesar. 2000. “The Wakulla Springs Lodgesite (8Wa329): A preliminary report on a stratifiedPaleoindian through Archaic site, Wakulla County, Florida.”The Florida Anthropologist 53(2–3): 98–116.

Josselyn, D. W. 1964. “Four new C-14 dates from Stanfield-WorleyShelter.” Stones and Bones Newsletter, Alabama ArchaeologicalSociety, August, 1–2.

Justice, N. D. 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of theMidcontinental and Eastern United States. Bloomington:Indiana University.

Kay, M. 1982. “Stylistic study of chipped stone points from RodgersShelter.” In Holocene Adaptations within the Lower Pomme deTerre River Valley, Missouri, Vol. III, edited by M. Kay,379–559. Springfield: Illinois State Museum.

Kelly, A. R. 1938. “A preliminary report on archaeological explora-tions at Macon, Georgia.” Bureau of American EthnologyBulletin 119: 1–69.

Kelly, R. L. 2013. The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The ForagingSpectrum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kelly, R. L., and L. C. Todd. 1988. “Coming into the country: EarlyPaleoindian hunting and mobility.” American Antiquity 53(2):231–244.

Kilby, J. D. 2015. “A regional perspective on Clovis blades andcaching behavior.” In Clovis: On the Edge of a NewUnderstanding, edited by A. M. Smallwood, and T.A. Jennings, 145–159, College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Kilby, J. D., and B. B. Huckell. 2013. “Clovis caches: Current per-spectives and future directions.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey,edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters,257–272. College Station: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Texas A&M University.

Kimball, L. 1996. “Early Archaic settlement and technology:Lessons from Tellico.” In In The Paleoindian and EarlyArchaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, 149–186. Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress.

King, H. 2007. “Heaven’s Half Acre: A Northwest AlabamaPaleoindian complex.” Stones and Bones Newsletter, AlabamaArchaeological Society 49(4): 1–9.

King, M. H. 2012. The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from thePleistocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of aPossible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38Al23). M.A. thesis,Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,Knoxville.

Kneberg, M. 1956. “Some important projectile points found in theTennessee area.” Tennessee Archaeologist 12(1): 17–28.

Knox, J. C. 1983. “Responses to river systems to Holocene cli-mates.” In Late Quaternary Environments of the UnitedStates. Vol. 2: The Holocene, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr,26–41. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Kurtén, B., and E. Anderson. 1980. Pleistocene Mammals of NorthAmerica. New York: Columbia University.

Lane, L., and D. G. Anderson. 2001. “Paleoindian occupations ofthe Southern Appalachians: A view from the CumberlandPlateau of Kentucky and Tennessee.” In Archaeology ofthe Appalachian Highlands, edited by L. P. Sullivan, andS. C. Prezzano, 88–102. Knoxville: University of TennesseePress.

Lapham, H. A. 2006. “Southeast animals.” In Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins, andPopulation, edited by D. H. Ubelaker, 396–404. Washington,DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Ledbetter, R. J., D. G. Anderson, L. D. O’Steen, and D. T. Elliott.1996. “Paleoindian and early Archaic research in Georgia.” InThe Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited byD. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 270–287. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Leigh, D. S. 2006. “Terminal Pleistocene braided to meanderingtransition in rivers of the Southeastern USA.” Catena 66:155–160.

Leigh, D. S., P. Srivastava, and G. S. Brook. 2004. “Late Pleistocenebraided rivers of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, USA.” QuaternaryScience Reviews 23: 65–84.

Lepper, B. T. 1983. “Fluted point distributional patterns in theeastern United States: A contemporary phenomenon.”Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8: 269–285.

Lepper, B. T. 1985. “The effects of cultivation and collecting onOhio fluted point finds: A reply to Seeman and Prufer.”Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 10: 241–250.

Lepper, B. T., and D. J. Meltzer. 1991. “Late Pleistocene humanoccupation of the eastern United States.” In Clovis: Originsand Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen, and K. Turnmire,175–184. Corvallis: Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans, Oregon State University.

Lewis, T. M. N. 1954. “The Cumberland point.” Bulletin of theOklahoma Anthropological Society 11: 7–8.

Lewis, T. M. N., and M. K. Kneberg. 1958. “The Nuckolls site: Apossible Dalton-Meserve chipped stone complex in theKentucky Lake area.” Tennessee Archaeologist 14(2): 60–79.

Lively, M. 1965a. “The Lively complex: Announcing a pebble toolindustry in Alabama.” Journal of Alabama Archaeology 11(2):103–122.

Lively, M. 1965b. The Lively Complex: Preliminary Report on aPebble Tool Complex in Alabama. Birmingham:Archaeological Research Association of Alabama.

Lopinot, N. H., J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner. 1998. The1997 Excavations at the Big Eddy site (23CE426) insouthwest Missouri. Center for Archaeological ResearchSpecial Publication No. 2. Springfield: Southwest MissouriState University.

Lopinot, N. H., J. H. Ray, and M. D. Conner. 2000. The 1999 exca-vations at the Big Eddy site (23CE426). Center forArchaeological Research, Special Publication No. 3.Springfield: Southwest Missouri State University.

Lowell, T. V., T. G. Fisher, G. C. Comer, I Haidas, N. Waterson,K. Glover, H. M. Loope, J. M. Schaefer, V. Rinterknecht,W. Broecker, G. Denton, and J. T. Teller. 2005. “Testing theLake Agassiz meltwater trigger for the Younger Dryas.” EOSTransactions American Geophysical Union 86(40): 365–373.

Lowery, D. L., M. A. Jodry, and D. J. Stanford. 2012. “Cloviscoastal zone width variation: A possible solution for earlyPaleoindian population disparity along the Mid-AtlanticCoast.” The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7:53–63.

Lowery, D. L., M. A. O’Neal, J. S. Wah, D. P. Wagner, andD. J. Stanford. 2010. “Late Pleistocene upland stratigraphy ofthe western Delmarva Peninsula, USA.” Quaternary ScienceReviews 29: 1472–1480.

Maggard, H., and K. Stackelbeck. 2008. “Paleoindian period.” InThe Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update, edited byD. Pollack, 109–192. State Historic PreservationComprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Lexington: KentuckyHeritage Council.

Mahan, E. C. 1964. “Redstone.” In Handbook of AlabamaArchaeology, Point Types Part I, edited by J. W. Cambron,and D. C. Hulse, A75. Tuscaloosa: Archaeological ResearchAssociation of Alabama.

Martin, P. S. 1973. “The discovery of America.” Science 179:969–974.

Martin, P. S. 2006. Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctionsand the Rewilding of America. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.



Martin-Siebert, E. K., ed. 2004. The Earliest Americans(Paleoindian) Theme Study for the Eastern United States.National Historic Landmarks Survey. Washington, DC:National Park Service.

Mason, R. J. 1962. “The Paleo-Indian tradition in Eastern NorthAmerica.” Current Anthropology 3: 227–278.

McAvoy, J. M. 1992. Nottoway River Survey Part I: ClovisSettlement Patterns; The 30 Year Study of a Late Ice AgeHunting Culture on the Southern Interior Coastal Plain ofVirginia. Special Publication Number 28. Richmond:Archeological Society of Virginia.

McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy. 1997. ArchaeologicalInvestigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Richmond: Virginia.Department of Historic Resources.

McCary, B. C. 1947. “A survey and study of Folsom-like pointsfound in Virginia.” Quarterly Bulletin of the ArchaeologicalSociety of Virginia 2(1): 4–34.

McCary, B. C. 1951. “A workshop site of early man in DinwiddieCounty, Virginia.” American Antiquity 17: 9–17.

McCary, B. C. 1975. “The Williamson Paleo-Indian site, DinwiddieCounty, Virginia.” The Chesopiean 13: 48–131.

McCary, B. C. 1984. Survey of Virginian Fluted Points.Archaeological Society of Virginia Special Publication 12.

McCary, B. C. 1991. Survey of Virginia Fluted Points. ArcheologicalSociety of Virginia Special Publication 12, revised 2nd edition.

McCary, B. C., and G. R. Bittner 1978. “Excavation at theWilliamson site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia.” QuarterlyBulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 33: 45–50.

McCutcheon, P. T., and R. C. Dunnell. 1998. “Variability inCrowley’s Ridge gravel.” In Changing Perspectives on theArchaeology of the Central Mississippi Valley, edited byM. O’Brien, and R. Dunnell, 258–280. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

McDonald, J. N. 2000. “An outline of the Pre-Clovis archeology ofSV-2, Saltville, Virginia, with special attention to a bone tooldated 14,510 yr BP.” Jeffersonia: Contributions from theVirginia Museum of Natural History 9: 1–59.

McGahey, S. O. 1981. “The Coldwater and related Late Paleo-Indian projectile points.” Mississippi Archaeology 16: 39–52.

McGahey, S. O. 1987. “Paleo-Indian lithic material: Implications ofdistributions in Mississippi.” Mississippi Archaeology 22: 1–13.

McGahey, S. O. 1993. “Mississippi Paleoindian, Early Archaicsurvey.” Mississippi Archaeology 28: 1–44.

McGahey, S. O. 1996. “Paleoindian and Early Archaic data fromMississippi.” In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast,edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman, 354–84.Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

McGahey, S. O. 2004. Mississippi Projectile Point Guide.Archaeological Report 31. Jackson: Mississippi Departmentof Archives and History.

McMillan, R. B. 1971. Biophysical Change and Cultural Adaptationat Rodger’s Shelter, Missouri. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder.

McNett, C. W., Jr ed. 1985. Shawnee-Minisink: A StratifiedPaleoindian Site in the Upper Delaware Valley ofPennsylvania. New York: Academic.

McWeeney, L. M. 2013. “Paleoindian environment and subsistenceparadigm case from New England to Virginia and Ohio.” In Inthe Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A.M. Gingerich, 38–57. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Mead, J. I., and D. J. Meltzer. 1984. “North American lateQuaternary extinctions and the radiocarbon record.” InQuaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited byP. S. Martin, and R. G. Klein, 440–450. Tucson: Universityof Arizona.

Meeks, S. C., and D. G. Anderson. 2012. “Evaluating the effect ofthe Younger Dryas on human population histories in the south-eastern United States.” In Hunter-Gatherer Behavior HumanResponse during The Younger Dryas, edited by M. I. Eren,111–38. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Meltzer, D. J. 1983. “The antiquity of man and the development ofAmerican archaeology.” Advances in Archaeological Methodand Theory 6: 1–51.

Meltzer, D. J. 1984b. “On stone procurement and settlement mobi-lity in eastern fluted point groups.” North AmericanArchaeologist 6: 1–24.

Meltzer, D. J. 1984a. Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in EasternNorth America. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Meltzer, D. J. 1988. “Late Pleistocene human adaptations in easternNorth America.” Journal of World Prehistory 2: 1–53.

Meltzer, D. J. 2006a. Folsom: New Archaeological Investigations of aClassic Paleoindian Bison Kill. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Meltzer, D. J. 2006b. “History of research on the PaleoIndian.” InHandbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment,Origins, and Population, edited by Douglas H. Ubelaker,110–128. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Meltzer, D. J. 2009. First Peoples in a NewWorld: Colonizing Ice AgeAmerica. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Meltzer, D. J., and V. T. Holliday. 2010. “Would North AmericanPaleoindians have noticed Younger Dryas age climatechanges?.” Journal of World Prehistory 23: 1–41.

Meltzer, D. J., and J. I. Mead. 1983. “The timing of Late Pleistocenemammalian extinctions in North America.” QuaternaryResearch 19: 130–135.

Meltzer, D. J., and J. I. Mead. 1985. “Dating late PleistoceneExtinctions: Theoretical Issues, Analytical Biases andSubstantive Results.” In Environments and Extinctions, editedby J. I. Mead, and D. J. Meltzer, 145–173. Orono: Center forthe Study of Early Man, University of Maine.

Meltzer, D. J., and B. D. Smith. 1986. “Paleo-Indian and EarlyArchaic subsistence strategies in Eastern North America.” InForaging, Collecting, and Harvesting: Archaic PeriodSubsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, editedby S. Neusius, 1–30. Carbondale: Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, Southern Illinois University.

Meyer, J., J. R. Morehead, J. H. Mathews, P. M. Thomas, Jr, andL. J. Campbell. 1996. Fort Polk 18: The Results of anEighteenth Program of Site Testing at Ten Sites, Fort PolkMilitary Reservation, Vernon Parish, Louisiana. PrenticeThomas and Associates, Inc., Report of InvestigationsNumber 272. Atlanta: National Park Service, SoutheastRegional Office.

Meyer, W. E. 1928. Indian trails of the Southeast. 42nd AnnualReport of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1924–1925,727–857. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Michie, J. L. 1977. Early Man in South Carolina. Manuscript on file,South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Michie, J. L. 1996. “The Taylor site: An early occupation in centralSouth Carolina.” In The Paleoindian and Early ArchaicSoutheast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K. E. Sassaman,238–69. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Miller, C. F. 1956. “Life 8,000 years ago uncovered in an AlabamaCave.” National Geographic 110(4): 542–558.

Miller, D. S. 2010. Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005–2007:Examining Site Formation Processes at an Upland PaleoindianSite along the Middle Savannah River. Occasional Papers 1.Columbia, Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey, SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of South Carolina.

Miller, D. S. 2011. Rivers, rocks and eco-tones: modeling Clovislandscape-use in the southeastern United States. Paper pre-sented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Miller, D. S. 2014. From Colonization to Domestication: AHistorical Ecological Analysis of Paleoindian and ArchaicSubsistence and Landscape Use in Central Tennessee. Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofArizona, Tucson.

Miller, D. S., D. G. Anderson, T. G. Bissett, and S. B. Carmody.2012. “Radiocarbon dates from three sites along the MiddleCumberland River near Nashville.” Tennessee Archaeology 6:52–71.

Miller, D. S., and J. A. M. Gingerich. 2013a. “Paleoindian chronol-ogy and the eastern fluted point tradition.” In In the EasternFluted Point Tradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, 9–37.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Miller, D. S., and J. A. M. Gingerich. 2013b. “Regional variation inthe terminal Pleistocene and early Holocene radiocarbonrecord of eastern North America.” Quaternary Research 79:175–188.

Miller, D. S., and A. C. Goodyear. 2008. “A probable hafted unifacefrom the Clovis occupation at the Topper site, 38AL23,Allendale County, South Carolina.” Current Research in thePleistocene 25: 118–120.

Miller, D. S., V. T. Holliday, and J. Bright. 2013c. “Clovis acrossthe continent.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by



K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 207–220. TexasA&M University, College Station: Center for the Study of theFirst Americans.

Moore, C. R., andM. J. Brooks. 2012. “An in-situClovis assemblagefrom a Carolina Bay sand rim, Aiken County, South Carolina.”South Carolina Antiquities 44: 110–112.

Moore, C. R., M. J. Brooks, A. H. Ivester, and T. A. Ferguson2010. “Carolina Bay volunteer research program.” Legacy14(1): 4–9. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute ofArchaeology and Anthropology. Columbia: University ofSouth Carolina.

Moore, C. R., M. J. Brooks, L. R. Kimball, M. E. Newman, andB. P. Kooyman. 2014. Early hunter-gatherer tool use andanimal exploitation in the Southeast: Protein and microwear evi-dence from a Carolina Bay. Columbia: Savannah RiverArchaeological Research Program, South Carolina Instituteof Archaeology and Anthropology.

Moore, C. R., and I. R. Daniel, Jr 2011. “Geoarchaeological inves-tigations of stratified sand ridges along the Tar River, NorthCarolina.” In The Archaeology of North Carolina: ThreeArchaeological Symposia, edited by C. R. Ewen, T. A. Whyte,and R. P. S. Davis, 1–1 to 1–42. Report Number 30. Raleigh:North Carolina Archaeological Council.

Moore, C. R., and J. D. Irwin. 2013. “Pine barrens and possum’srations: Early Archaic settlement in the North CarolinaSandhills.” Southeastern Archaeology 32: 169–192.

Morrow, J. E. 1995. “Clovis projectile point manufacture: A per-spective from the Ready/Lincoln Hills Site, 11JY46, JerseyCounty, Illinois.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 20:167–91.

Morrow, J. E. 1996. The Organization of Early Paleoindian LithicTechnology in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi,Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis.

Morrow, J. E. 2011. “The Sloan Dalton Site (3GE94)assemblage revisited: Chipped-stone raw material procurementand use in the Cache Basin.” The Missouri Archaeologist 71:1–40.

Morrow, J. E. 2014. “Early Paleoindian mobility and watercraft: Anassessment from the Mississippi River Valley.” MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology 39: 103–129.

Morrow, J. E. 2015. “Clovis Era point production in theMidcontinent.” In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding,edited by A. M. Smallwood, and T. A. Jennings, 83–107,College Station: Texas A&MUniversity Press.

Morrow, J. E., and S. J. Fiedel. 2006. “New radiocarbon dates forthe Anzick Clovis burial.” In Paleoindian Archaeology:A Hemispheric Perspective, edited by J. E. Morrow, and C.G. Gnecco, 123–138. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Morrow, J. E., and T. A. Morrow. 1999. “Geographic variation influted projectile points: A hemispheric perspective.” AmericanAntiquity 64(2): 215–230.

Morse, D. F. 1971. “Paleoindian in the Land of Opportunity:Preliminary report on the excavations at the Sloan site(3GE94).” Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin13: 5–10.

Morse, D. F. 1973. “Dalton culture in northeast Arkansas.” FloridaAnthropologist 26(1): 23–38.

Morse, D. F. 1975a. “Reply to Schiffer.” In The Cache RiverArchaeological Project: An Experiment in ContractArchaeology”, edited by M. B. Schiffer, and J. M. House,113–119. Research Series 8. Fayetteville: ArkansasArchaeological Survey.

Morse, D. F. 1975b. “Paleoindian in the Land of Opportunity:Preliminary Report on the Excavations at the Sloan Site(3GE94).” In The Cache River Archaeological Project: AnExperiment in Contract Archaeology, edited by M. B. Schiffer,and J. H. House, 93–113. Research Series 8. Fayetteville:Arkansas Archaeological Survey.

Morse, D. F. 1977. “Dalton settlement systems: Reply to Schiffer(2).” Plains Anthropologist 22: 149–158.

Morse, D. F. 1994. “Comments on the Dust Cave investigation.”Journal of Alabama Archaeology 40: 232–236.

Morse, D. F., ed. 1997a. Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery inArkansas. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Morse, D. F. 1997b. “An overview of the Dalton Period inNortheastern Arkansas and in the Southeastern UnitedStates.” In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery inArkansas, edited by D. F. Morse, 123–139. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution.

Morse, D. F., D. G. Anderson, and A. C. Goodyear, III 1996. “ThePleistocene-Holocene Transition in the Eastern United States.”In Humans at the End of the Ice-Age: The Archaeology of thePleistocene-Holocene Transition, edited by L. G. Strauss, B.V. Eriksen, J. M. Erlandson, and D. R. Yesner, 319–338.New York: Plenum.

Morse, D. F., and A. C. Goodyear, III. 1973. “The significance ofthe Dalton adze in northeast Arkansas.” PlainsAnthropologist 18: 316–322.

Morse, D. F., and P. A. Morse. 1983. Archaeology of the CentralMississippi Valley. New York: Academic.

Munson, P. J. 1990. “Folsom fluted projectile points east of theGreat Plains and their biogeographical correlates.” NorthAmerican Archaeologist 11: 255–272.

Nagle, K., and W. Green. 2010. Archaeological Data RecoveryExcavations at the Tree House Archaeological Site(38LX531), Lexington County, South Carolina. Report pre-pared for SCE&G, Columbia, by S&ME, Inc.: Columbia.

Nami, H. G., M. R. Norton, D. J. Stanford, and J. B. Broster. 1996.“Comments on eastern Clovis lithic technology at the Carson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190), Tennessee River Valley.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 13: 62–64.

Nash, C. L. 2009. Modeling Uplands: Landscape and PrehistoricNative American Settlement Archaeology in the Virginia BlueRidge Foothills. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, The Catholic University of America,Washington, DC.

Neill, W. T. 1958. “A stratified early site at Silver Springs, Florida.”The Florida Anthropologist 11: 32–52.

Neill, W. T. 1964. “The association of Suwannee points and extinctanimals in northwest Florida.” The Florida Anthropologist 17:17–32.

Newman, M. E. 1997. “Immunological analysis of Clovisartifacts from the Cactus Hill site (44SX202), Sussex County,Virginia.” In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202,Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia, Appendix F, edited byJ. M. McAvoy, and L. D. McAvoy, Research ReportSeries No. 8. Richmond: Virginia Department of HistoricResources.

Newsom, L. A. 2006. “Paleoenvironmental aspects of themacrophytic plant assemblage from Page-Ladson.” In FirstFloridians and Last Mastodons: The Page Ladson Site in theAucilla River, edited by S. D. Webb, 181–211. Dordrecht:Springer.

Newsom, L. A., and M. C. Milbachler. 2006. “Mastodon (Mammutamericanum) Diet Foraging Patterns based on Analysis ofDung Deposits.” In First Floridians and Last Mastodons: ThePage Ladson Site in the Aucilla River, edited by S. D. Webb,263–331. Dordrecht: Springer.

Newsom, L. A., and B. A. Purdy. 1990. “Florida canoes: Amaritime heritage from the past.” Florida Anthropologist43(3): 164–179.

Norton, M. R., and J. B. Broster. 1992. “40HS200: The Nuckollsextension site.” Tennessee Anthropologist 17: 13–32.

Norton, M. R., and J. B. Broster. 1993. “Archaeological investi-gations at the Puckett Site (40SW228): A Paleoindian/EarlyArchaic occupation on the Cumberland River, StewartCounty, Tennessee.” Tennessee Anthropologist 18: 45–58.

Novick, A. L. 1978. “Prehistoric lithic material sources and types inSouth Carolina: A preliminary statement.” South CarolinaAntiquities 10(1): 422–437.

O’Brien, M. J. 2005. “Evolutionism and North America’s archaeo-logical record.” World Archaeology 37: 26–45.

O’Brien, M. J., M. T. Boulenger, B. Buchanon, M. Collard,R. L. Lyman, and J. Darwent. 2014. “Innovation and culturaltransmission in the American Paleolithic: Phylogenetic analysisof eastern Paleoindian project-point classes.” Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 34: 100–119.

O’Brien, M. J., J. Darwent, and R. L. Lyman. 2001. “Cladistics isuseful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies:Paleoindian points from the Southeastern United States.”Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1115–1136.

O’Donoughue, J. 2007. “Paleoindian settlement in the SoutheasternUnited States: Insights from regional databases.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 24: 126–129.

Osborne, D. 1942. The Big Sandy Site, Henry County, Tennessee.M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of NewMexico, Albuquerque.

O’Steen, L. D. 1996. “Paleoindian and early Archaic settlementalong the Oconee drainage.” In The Paleoindian and Early




http://www.maneyonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1179%2F2327427113Y.0000000001

Archaic Southeast, edited by D. G. Anderson, and K.E. Sassaman, 92–106. Tuscaloosa: University of AlabamaPress.

O’Steen, L. D., R. J. Ledbetter, D. T. Elliott, and W. W. Barker.1986. “Paleoindian sites of the Inner Piedmont of Georgia:Observations of settlement in the Oconee watershed.” EarlyGeorgia 13: 1–63.

Overpeck, J., R. S. Webb, and T. Webb, III. 1992. “Mapping easternNorth American vegetation change of the past 18 ka: No-analogs and the future.” Geology 20: 1071–1074.

Peck, R. M. 2003. Hardaway Origins and Adaptations. Kannapolis,NC: Peck’s Place.

Pike, M. G., S. C. Meeks, D. G. Anderson, and E. C. Ellerbusch.2006. “The James W. Cambron and David C. Hulsecollections: An avenue for understanding Paleoindian occu-pation in the Mid-south.” Current Research in the Pleistocene23: 132–35.

Pitblado, B. L. 2014. “An argument for ethical, proactive, archaeol-ogist-artifact collector collaboration.” American Antiquity 79:385–400.

Prasciunas, M. M. 2008. Clovis First? An Analysis of Space, Time,and Technology. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Prasciunas, M. M. 2011. “Mapping Clovis: Projectile points, behav-ior, and bias.” American Antiquity 76: 107–126.

Prasciunas, M. M., and T. A. Surovell. 2015. “Reevaluating the dur-ation of Clovis: The problem of non-representative radiocarbondates.” In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, editedby A. M. Smallwood, and T. A. Jennings, 21–35. CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press.

Purdy, B. A. 1991. Art and Archaeology of Florida’s Wetlands. BocaRaton: CRC.

Purdy, B. A. 2008. Florida’s People during the Last Ice Age.Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Purdy, B. A., K. S. Jones, J. J. Mecholsky, G. Bourne, R. C. Hulbert,Jr, B. J. MacFadden, K. L. Church, M. W. Warren, T.F. Jorstad, D. J. Stanford, M. J. Wachowiak, andR. J. Speakman. 2010. “Earliest art in the Americas: incisedimage of a proboscidean on a mineralized extinct animalbone from Vero Beach, Florida.” Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 38: 2908–2913.

Randall, A. 2002. Technofunctional Variation in Early Side-NotchedHafted Bifaces: AView from the Middle Tennessee River Valleyin Northwest Alabama. M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Rasmussen, M., S. L. Anzick, M. R. Waters, P. Skoglund,M. DeGiorgio, T. W. Stafford, Jr, S. Rasmussen, I. Moltke,A. Albrechtsen, S. M. Doyle, G. D. Poznik,V. Gudmundsdottir, R. Yadav, A.-S. Malaspinas, S. S. White,V. M. E. Allentoft, O. E. Cornejo, K. Tambets, A. Eriksson,P. D. Heintzman, M. Karmin, T. S. Korneliussen, D.J. Meltzer, T. L. Pierre, J. Stenderup, L. Saag, V.M. Warmuth, M. C. Lopes, R. S. Malhi, S. Brunak,T. Sicheritz-Ponten, I. Barnes, M. Collins, L. Orlando,F. Balloux, A. Manica, R. Gupta, M. Metspalu,C. D. Bustamante, M. Jakobsson, R. Nielsen, andE. Willerslev. 2014. “The genome of a late Pleistocene humanfrom a Clovis burial site in western Montana.” Nature 506:225–229.

Ray, J. H. 2007. Ozarks Chipped Stone Resources: A Guide to theIdentification, Distribution, and Prehistoric Use of Cherts andOther Siliceous Raw Materials. Springfield: MissouriArcheological Society.

Rayl, S. L. 1974. A Paleoindian Mammoth Kill Site near SilverSprings, Florida. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.

Redfield, A. 1971. Dalton Project Notes, Vol. 1. Museum ofAnthropology. Columbia: University of Missouri.

Redfield, A., and J. H. Moselage. 1970. “The Lace place: A Daltonproject site in the Western Lowland in eastern Arkansas.”Arkansas Archaeologist 11: 21–44.

Redmond, B. G., and K. B. Tankersley. 2005. “Evidence of earlyPaleoindian bone modification and use at the Sheriden Cavesite (33WY252), Wyandot County, Ohio.” AmericanAntiquity 70(3): 503–526.

Rees, M. A. 2010. “Paleoindian and Early Archaic.” In Archaeologyof Louisiana, edited by M. A. Rees, 34–62. Baton Rouge:Louisiana State University Press.

Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell,C. Bronk Ramsey, C. E. Buck, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards,

M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas,C. Hatté, T. J. Heaton, D. L. Hoffman, A. G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, S. W. Mannin, M. Niu,R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon,R. A. Staff, C. S. M. Turney, and J. van der Plicht. 2013.“IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves,0–50,000 years cal BP.” Radiocarbon 55: 1869–1887.

Rolingson, M. A. 1964. Paleoindian Culture in Kentucky: A StudyBased on Projectile Points. Studies in Archaeology 2.Lexington: University of Kentucky.

Rolingson, M. A., and D. W. Schwartz. 1966. Late Paleo-Indian andEarly Archaic Manifestations in Western Kentucky. Studies inArchaeology 3. Lexington: University of Kentucky.

Royal, W., and E. Clark. 1960. “Natural preservation of humanbrain, Warm Mineral Springs, Florida.” American Antiquity26: 285–287.

Russell, D. A., J. R. Fredrick, V. Schneider, and J. Lynch-Stieglitz.2009. “A warm thermal enclave in the late Pleistocene of thesouth-eastern United States.” Biological Reviews 84: 173–202.

Russo,M. 1996. “SoutheasternMid-Holocene Coastal Settlements.”In Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited byK. E. Sassaman, and D. G. Anderson, 177–199. Gainesville:University Press of Florida.

Sain, D. A. 2011. Clovis Blade Technology at the Topper Site(38AL23): Assessing Lithic Attribute Variation and RegionalPatterns of Technological Organization. Occasional Papers 1.Columbia: Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey, SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology,University of South Carolina.

Sanchez, G., V. T. Holliday, E. P. Gaines, J. Arroyo-Cabrales,N. Martinez-Taguena, A. Kowler, T. Lange,G. W. L. Hodgins, S. M. Mentzer, and I. Sanchez-Morales.2014. “Human (Clovis)-Gompothere (Cuvieronius sp.) associ-ation ∼13,390 calibrated ybp in Sonora, Mexico.” Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences 111(30): 10972–10977.

Sanders, T. N. 1983. The Manufacturing of Chipped Stone Tools at aPaleo-Indian Site in Western Kentucky. M.A. thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Sanders, T. N. 1988. “The Adams site: A Paleoindian manufacturingand habitation site in Christian County, Kentucky.” InPaleoindian and Archaic Research in Kentucky, edited byC. Hockensmith, D. Pollack, and T. Sanders, 1–24.Frankfort: Kentucky Heritage Council.

Sanders, T. N. 1990. Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked StoneTools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Buffalo:Persimmon.

Sassaman, K. E., I. R. Daniel, and C. R. Moore. 2002. G. S. Lewis-East: Early and Late Archaic Occupations along the SavannahRiver, Aiken County, South Carolina. Research Papers 12,Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, SouthCarolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.Columbia: University of South Carolina.

Sassaman, K. E. 2010. The Eastern Archaic, Historicized. Lanham:AltaMira Press.

Saucier, R. 1994.Geomorphology and Quaternary Geological Historyof the Lower Mississippi Valley. Vicksburg: U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station.

Schiffer, M. B. 1975a. “Some further comments on the Dalton settle-ment pattern hypothesis.” In The Cache River ArchaeologicalProject: An Experiment in Contract Archaeology, edited byM. B. Schiffer, and J. H. House, 103–112. Research Series 8.Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey.

Schiffer, M. B. 1975b. “An alternative to Morse’s Dalton settlementpattern hypothesis.” Plains Anthropologist 20: 253–266.

Seeman, M. F., and O. H. Prufer. 1984. “The effects of cultivationand collecting on Ohio fluted point finds: A cautionarynote.” Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9: 227–233.

Sellards, E. H. 1917a. “On the association of human remains andextinct vertebrates at Vero, Florida.” Journal of Geology25(1): 4–24.

Sellards, E. H. 1917b. “Review of the evidence on which the humanremains found at Vero, Florida are referred to the Pleistocene.”Ninth Annual Report of the Florida State Geological Survey69–81.

Sellards, E. H. 1952. Early Man in America. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Sellards, E. H., R. T. Chamberlain, T. W. Vaughan, A. Hrdlicka, O.P. Hay, and C. C. MacCrudy. 1917. “Symposium on the ageand relations of the fossil human remains found at Vero,Florida.” Journal of Geology 25(1): 1–62.



Servello, A. Frank, and T. H. Bianchi. 1983. “Geomorphology andcultural stratigraphy of the Eagle Hill Area of Pearson Ridge.”In U.S.L. Fort Polk Archaeological Survey and CulturalResources Management Program, edited by A. F. Servello,337–551. Lafayette: University of Southwestern Louisiana.

Sherwood, S. C. 2001. The Geoarchaeology of Dust Cave: A LatePaleoindian through Middle Archaic Site in the WesternMiddle Tennessee River Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Sherwood, S. C., and J. Chapman. 2005. “The identification andpotential significance of early Holocene prepared clay surfaces:Examples from Dust Cave and Icehouse Bottom.” SoutheasternArchaeology 24: 70–82.

Sherwood, S. C., B. N. Driskell, A. R. Randall, and S. C. Meeks.2004. “Chronology and stratigraphy at Dust Cave, Alabama.”American Antiquity 69: 533–554.

Shott, M. J. 2002. “Sample bias in the distribution and abundance ofMidwestern fluted bifaces.” Midcontinental Journal ofArchaeology 27: 89–123.

Shott, M. J. 2005. “Representativity of the Midwestern Paleoindiansite sample.” North American Archaeologist 25: 189–212.

Simek, J. F., A. Cressler, N. P. Herrman, and S. C. Sherwood. 2013.“Sacred landscapes of the south-eastern USA: Prehistoric rockand cave art in Tennessee.” Antiquity 87: 430–46.

Simpson, J. C. 1948. “Folsom-like points from Florida.” The FloridaAnthropologist 1: 11–15.

Smallwood, A. M. 2010. “Clovis biface technology at theTopper site, South Carolina: Evidence for variation and techno-logical flexibility.” Journal of Archaeological Science 37:2413–25.

Smallwood, A. M. 2011. Clovis Technology and Settlement in theAmerican Southeast. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Smallwood, A. M. 2012. “Clovis technology and settlement in theAmerican southeast: Using biface analysis to evaluate dispersalmodels.” American Antiquity 77: 689–713.

Smallwood, A. M., T. A. Jennings, D. G. Anderson, andJ. Ledbetter. In press. Testing for evidence of Paleoindianresponses to the Younger Dryas in Georgia, USA.Southeastern Archaeology.

Smallwood, A. M., T. A. Jennings, K. B. Francen, and N. Hagen-Touart. 2014. “Preliminary results from excavations of aMiddle and Late Archaic site in Phinizy Swamp, Georgia.”Poster presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Societyfor American Archaeology, 1 April 2014, Austin, TX.

Smallwood, A. M., D. S. Miller, and D. Sain. 2013. “Topper site,South Carolina: An overview of the Clovis lithic assemblagefrom the Topper Hillside.” In In the Eastern Fluted PointTradition, edited by J. A. M. Gingerich, 280–298. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Smith, B. D. 1986. “The archaeology of the southeastern UnitedStates: From Dalton to DeSoto.” Advances in WorldArchaeology 5: 1–88.

Smith, H., A. M. Smallwood, and T. DeWitt. 2015. “A geometricmorphometric exploration of Clovis fluted point shape variabil-ity.” In Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding, edited byA. M. Smallwood, and T. A. Jennings, 161–180. CollegeStation: Texas A&M University Press.

Snow, F. 1977a. An Archaeological Survey of the Ocmulgee Big BendRegion. Occasional Papers from South Georgia 3. Douglas:South Georgia College.

Snow, F. 1977b. “A survey of the Ocmulgee Big Bend region.” EarlyGeorgia 5: 36–60.

Soday, F. J. 1954. “The Quad site: A Paleo-Indian village in NorthAlabama.” Tennessee Archaeologist 10: 1–20.

Speth, J. D., K. Newlander, A. A. White, A. K. Lemke, and L.E. Anderson. 2013. “Early Paleoindian big-game hunting inNorth America: Provisioning or politics?” QuaternaryInternational 285: 111–139.

Stafford, T. W., Jr, P. E. Hare, L. Currie, A. J. T. Jull, andD. J. Donahue. 1991. “Accelerator radiocarbon dating at themolecular level.” Journal of Archaeological Science 18(1):35–72.

Stafford, T. W., Jr, A. J. T. Jull, K. Brendel, R. C. Duhamel, andD. Donahue. 1987. “Study of bone radiocarbon dating accu-racy at the University of Arizona NSF accelerator facility forradioisotope analysis.” Radiocarbon 29(1): 24–44.

Stanford, D. J. 1991. “Clovis origins and adaptations: An introduc-tory perspective.” In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by

R. Bonnichsen and K. L. Turnmire, 1–13. Coravallis: Centerfor the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University.

Stanford, D. J., and B. Bradley. 2002. “Ocean trails and prairiepaths? Thoughts about Clovis origins.” In The FirstAmericans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World,edited by N. G. Jablonski, 255–271. Memoir of the CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences 27. San Francisco: University ofCalifornia Press.

Stanford, D. J., and B. Bradley. 2012.Across Atlantic Ice: The Originof America’s Clovis Culture. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Stanford, D. J., E. L. Canales, J. B. Broster, and M. R. Norton.2006. “Clovis blade manufacture: Preliminary data from theCarson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190), Tennessee.” CurrentResearch in the Pleistocene 23: 145–147.

Stanford, D. J., and A. T. Stenger, eds. 2014. Pre-Clovis in theAmericas: International Science Conference Proceedings Heldat the Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC: CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform; Smithsonian Institutionedition (4 March 2014).

Steele, J. F., J. Adams, and T. Sluckin. 1998. “Modeling Paleoindiandispersals.” World Archaeology 30: 286–305.

Steponaitis, V. P., J. D. Irwin, T. E. McReynolds, and C. R. Moore.2006. Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt.Report prepared by Research Laboratories of Archaeology,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, submitted to U.S.Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,Champaign and Fort Bragg (contract no. DACA42-02-D0010).

Stewart, T. D. 1946. “A reexamination of the fossil human skeletalremains from Melbourne, Florida, with further data the Veroskull.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 106(10): 1–28.

Straus, L. G., D. J. Meltzer, and T. Goebel. 2005. “Ice age Atlantis:Exploring the Solutrean-Clovis ‘connection’.” WorldArchaeology 37: 507–32.

Tankersley, K. B. 1990a. “Paleoindian Period.” In The Archaeologyof Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions,edited by D. Pollack, 73–142. Frankfort: Kentucky HeritageCouncil.

Tankersley, K. B. 1990b. “Late Pleistocene lithic exploitation in theMidwest and Midsouth: Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky.” InEarly Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America,edited by K. B. Tankersley, and B. L. Isaac, 259–299.Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 5.Greenwich: JAI.

Tankersley, K. B. 1991. “A geoarchaeological investigation of distri-bution and exchange in the raw material economies of Clovisgroups in eastern North America.” In Raw MaterialEconomies among Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, edited byA. Montet-White, and S. Holen, 285–303. Publications inAnthropology 19. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Tankersley, K. B. 1996. “Ice Age hunters and gatherers.” InKentucky Archaeology, edited by R. B. Lewis, 21–38.Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Tankersley, K. B. 1999. “Sheriden: A stratified Pleistocene-Holocenecave site in the Great Lakes region of North America.” InZooarchaeology of the Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary, editedby J. Driver, 67–75. BAR International Series 800. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Tankersley, K. B. 2004. “The concept of Clovis and the peopling ofNorth America.” In The Settlement of the American Continents:A Multidisciplinary Approach to Human Biogeography, editedby C. M. Barton, G. A. Clark, D. R. Yesner, and G.A. Pearson, 49–63. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Tanner, H. H. 1989. “The land and water communication systems ofthe Southeastern Indians.” In Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in theColonial Southeast, edited by P. H. Wood, G. A. Waselkov, andM. T. Hatley, 6–20. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Tesar, L. D., and C. Jones. 2004. Wakulla Springs Lodge Site(8WA329) in Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park,Wakulla County, Florida: A Summary of Eleven Projects andManagement Recommendations. Submitted to the FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection, Division ofRecreation and Parks by the Bureau of ArchaeologicalResearch, Division of Historical Resources. Tallahassee.

Thulman, D. 2009. “Freshwater availability as the constrainingfactor in the middle Paleoindian occupation of north-centralFlorida.” Geoarchaeology 24: 243–276.

Thulman, D. K. 2006. A Reconsideration of Paleoindian SocialOrganization in North-Central Florida. Ph.D. dissertation,Florida State University, Tallahassee.



Thulman, D. K. 2007. “A typology of fluted points from Florida.”The Florida Anthropologist 60(4): 63–75.

Thulman, D. K. 2012. “Discriminating Paleoindian point typesfrom Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics.”Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1599–607.

Tippett, V. A., and W. H. Marquardt. 1984. ArchaeologicalInvestigations at Gregg Shoals, A Deeply Stratified Site on theSavannah River. Interagency Archaeological ServicesDivision. Atlanta: National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Tune, J. W. 2013. “The Wells Creek site: A reinterpretation of siteoccupation.” In In the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition, editedby J. A. M. Gingerich, 148–155. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

Upchurch, S. B. 1984. “Petrology of selected lithic materials fromthe South Carolina Coastal Plain.” In An ArchaeologicalSurvey of Chert Quarries in Western Allendale County, SouthCarolina, edited by A. C. Goodyear, and T. Charles, 125–160.Research Manuscript Series 195, Columbia: South CarolinaInstitute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University ofSouth Carolina.

Upchurch, B., and R.d N. Strom. 1982. Trace MetalCharacterization of Florida Chert. Contract Summary Report,Star Grant 80–072, on file at the Florida State Division ofArchives, History, Records and Management.

Upchurch, S. B., R. N. Strom, andM. G. Nuckels. 2008.Methods ofProvenance Determination of Florida Cherts. Tampa:Department of Geology, University of South Florida.

Verrey, R. A. 1986. Paleoindian Stone Tool Manufacture at theThunderbird Site (44WR11). Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Catholic University ofAmerica, Washington.

Wagner, D. P., and J. M. McAvoy. 2004. “Pedoarchaeology ofCactus Hill, a sandy Paleoindian site in southeasternVirginia.” Geoarchaeology 19: 297–322.

Waguespak, N. M. 2013. “Pleistocene extinctions: The state of evi-dence and the structure of debate.” In PaleoamericanOdyssey, edited by K. E. Graf, C. V. Ketron, andM. R. Waters, 311–319. College Station: Center for the Studyof the First Americans, Texas A&M University.

Wah, J. S., D. L. Lowery, and D. P. Wagner. 2014. “Loess, landscapeevolution, and Pre-Clovis on the Delmarva Peninsula.” In Pre-Clovis in the Americas: International Science ConferenceProceedings Led at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,DC, edited by D. J. Stanford, and A. T. Stenger, 32–48.Washington, DC.: CreateSpace Independent PublishingPlatform; Smithsonian Institution edition (4 March 2014).

Walker, M., S. Johnsen, S. O. Rasmussen, T. Popp, J.-P. Steffensen,P. Gibbard, W. Hoek, J. Lowe, J. Andrews, S. Bjorck, L.C. Cwynar, K. Hughen, P. Kershaw, B. Kromer, T. Litt,D. J. Lowe, T. Nakagawa, R. Newnham, and J. Schwander.2009. “Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (GlobalStratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holoceneusing the Greenland NGRIP ice core, and selected auxiliaryrecords.” Journal of Quaternary Science 24: 3–17.

Walker, R. B. 1998. Late Paleoindian through Middle Archaic FaunalEvidence from Dust Cave, Alabama. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee,Knoxville.

Walker, R. B. 2007. “Hunting in the Late Paleoindian Period:Faunal Remains from Dust Cave.” In Foragers of theTerminal Pleistocene in North America, edited byR. B. Walker, and B. N. Driskell, 132–147. Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Walker, R. B., K. R. Detwiler, S. C. Meeks, and B. N. Driskell.2001. “Berries, bones, and blades: Reconstructing LatePaleoindian subsistence economies at Dust Cave, Alabama.”Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 26: 169–197.

Walker, R. B., and B. N. Driskell, eds. 2007. Foragers of the TerminalPleistocene in North America. Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.

Waller, B. I., and J. S. Dunbar. 1977. “Distribution ofPaleo–Indian projectiles in Florida.” Florida Anthropologist30: 79–80.

Walthall, J. A. 1998a. “Overwinter strategy and early Holocenehunter-gatherer mobility in temperate forests.” MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology 23: 1–22.

Walthall, J. A. 1998b. “Rockshelters and hunter-gatherer adaptationto the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.” American Antiquity63(2): 223–38.

Walthall, J. A., and B. Koldehoff. 1998. “Hunter-gatherer inter-action and alliance formation: Dalton and the cult of thelong blade.” Plains Anthropologist 43: 257–273.

Waring, A. J., Jr 1968. “The Paleo-Indian hunters.” In The WaringPapers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr, edited byStephen Williams, 236–242. Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Watts, W. A., E. C. Grimm, and T. C. Hussey. 1996. “Mid-Holoceneforest history of Florida and the Coastal Plain of Georgia andSouth Carolina.” In Archaeology of the Mid–HoloceneSoutheast, edited by K. E. Sassaman, and D. G. Anderson,28–38. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Waters, M. R., S. L. Forman, T. A. Jennings, L. C. Nordt,S. G. Driese, J. M. Feinberg, J. L. Keene, J. Halligan,A. Lindquist, J. Pierson, C. T. Hallmark, M. B. Collins, andJ. E. Wiederhold. 2011. “The Buttermilk Creek complex andthe origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas.”Science 331: 1599–1603.

Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford, Jr 2007. “Redefining the age ofClovis: Implications for the peopling of the Americas.”Science 315: 1122–1126.

Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford. 2013. “The first Americans: Areview of the evidence for the late-Pleistocene peopling of theAmericas.” In Paleoamerican Odyssey, edited by K. E. Graf,C. V. Ketron, and M. R. Waters, 541–560. College Station:Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&MUniversity.

Waters, M. R., T. W. Stafford, B. G. Redmond, and K.B. Tankersley. 2009. “The age of the Paleoindianassemblage at Sheriden Cave, Ohio.” American Antiquity74(1): 107–111.

Wauchope, R. 1939. “Fluted points from South Carolina.”American Antiquity 4: 344–346.

Wauchopej, R. 1966. “Archaeological Survey of Northern Georgia.”Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 21.

Webb, C. H. 1946. “Two unusual types of chipped stone artifactsfrom northwest Louisiana.” Bulletin of the TexasArchaeological and Paleontological Society 17: 9–17.

Webb, C. H., J. L. Shiner, and E. W. Roberts. 1971. “TheJohn Pearce site (16CD56): A San Patrice site in CaddoParish, Louisiana.” Texas Archaeological Society Bulletin 42:1–49.

Webb, S. D. 1974. Pleistocene Mammals of Florida. Gainesville:University Presses of Florida.

Webb, S. D., ed. 2006. First Floridians and Last Mastodons: ThePage Ladson Site in the Aucilla River. Dordrecht: Springer.

Webb, S. D., and J. S. Dunbar. 2006. “Carbon Dates”. In FirstFloridians and Last Mastodons: The Page–Ladson Site in theAucilla River, edited by D. S. Webb, 83–101. Dordrecht:Springer.

Webb, S. D., J. T. Milanich, R. Alexon, and J. S. Dunbar. 1984 “ABison antiquus kill site, Wacissa River, Jefferson County,Florida.” American Antiquity 49: 384–392.

Webb, S. D., and E. Simons. 2006. “Vertebrate paleontology.” InFirst Floridians and Last Mastodons: The Page–Ladson Site inthe Aucilla River, edited by D. S. Webb, 215–246. Dordrecht:Springer.

Webb, T., III. 1987. “The appearance and disappearance of majorvegetational assemblages: Long-term vegetational dynamicsin Eastern North America.” Vegetatio 69: 177–187.

Webb, T., III. 1988. “Eastern North America.” In VegetationHistory, edited by B. Huntley, and T. Webb, 383–414.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Webb, T., III, P. J. Bartlein, S. P. Harrison, and K. H. Anderson.1993. “Vegetation, lake level, and climate change in easternNorth America.” In Global Climates since the Last GlacialMaximum, edited by H. E. Wright, Jr, J. E. Kutzbach,T. Webb, III, W. F. Ruddiman, F. A. Street-Perrott, andP. J. Bartlein, 415–467. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.

Webb, W. S. 1951. The Parrish Village Site. Lexington: Reports inAnthropology 7(6). University of Kentucky.

Wheeler, R. J., J. J. Miller, R. M. McGee, D. Ruhl, B. Swan, andM. Memory. 2003. “Archaic period canoes from Newnan’sLake, Florida.” American Antiquity 68: 533–551.

White, A. A. 2014. “Changing scales of lithic raw material transportamong early hunter-gatherers in MidcontinentalNorth America.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 42:51–75.



Wiederhold, J. E., and C. D. Pevny. 2014. “Fundamentals in prac-tice: A holistic approach to microwear analysis at the Gaultand Debra L. Friedkin sites, Texas.” Journal ofArchaeological Science 48: 104–119.

Williams, J. W., B. N. Shuman, and T. Webb, III. 2001.“Dissimilarity analyses of late-Quaternary vegetation andclimate in eastern North America.” Ecology 82(12): 3346–3362.

Williams, J. W., B. N. Shuman, T. Webb, III, P. J. Bartlein, and P.L. Leduc. 2004. “Late-Quaternary vegetation dynamics inNorth America: Scaling from taxa to biomes.” EcologicalMonographs 74: 309–334.

Williams, S., and J. B. Stoltman. 1965. “An outline of SoutheasternUnited States prehistory with particular emphasis on thePaleoindian era.” In The Quaternary of the United States,edited by H. E. Wright, and D. G. Frey, 669–683. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University.

Willig, J. A. 1991. “Clovis technology and adaptation in far westernNorth America: Regional pattern and environmental context.”In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnichsen,and K. L. Turnmire, 91–118. Coravallis, OR: Center for theStudy of the First Americans, Oregon State University.

Wittke, J. H., J. C. Weaver, T. E. Bunch, J. P. Kennett, D. J. Kennett,A. M. T. Moore, G. C. Hillman, K. B. Tankersley,A. C. Goodyear, C. R. Moore, I. R. Daniel, Jr, J. H. Ray,N. H. Lopinot, D. Ferraro, I. Israde-Alcántara,

J. L. Bischoff, Paul S. DeCarli, R. E. Hermes, J.B. Kloosterman, Z. Revay, G. A. Howard, D. R. Kimbel,G. Kletetschka, L. Nabelek, C. P. Lipo, S. Sakai, A. West,and R. B. Firestone. 2013. “Evidence for deposition of 10million tonnes of impact spherules across four continents12,800 y ago.” Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 110(23): E2088–2097.

Wittkofski, J. M., and T. R. Reinhart, eds. 1989. PaleoindianResearch in Virginia: A Synthesis. Special Publication 19.Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia.

Wood, W. R., and B. McMillan. 1976. Prehistoric Man and HisEnvironments: A Case Study from the Ozark Highland.New York: Academic Press.

Wormington, H.M. 1957.AncientMan inNorth America, 4th edition,Popular series 4, Denver: Denver Museum of Natural History.

Wykoff, D. G., and R. Bartlett. 1995. “Living on the edge: LatePleistocene-early Holocene cultural interaction alongthe Southeastern Woodlands-Plains border.” In NativeAmerican Interaction: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretationsin the Eastern Woodlands, edited by M. S. Nassaney and K.E. Sassaman, 27–72. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

Yerkes, R., and L. M. Gaertner 1997. “Microwear analysis ofDalton artifacts.” In Sloan: A Paleoindian Dalton Cemetery inArkansas, edited by D. F. Morse, 58–71. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution.

Author’s biographies

David G. Anderson earned his PhD in 1990 at the University of Michigan, and he is now a Professor at theUniversity of Tennessee. His research interests include documenting settlement in eastern North America frominitial colonization onward, climate change and its impact on human societies, teaching, and developing technicaland popular syntheses of archaeological research.Ashley M. Smallwood earned her PhD in 2011 at Texas A&MUniversity, and she is now Assistant Professor of

Anthropology and Director of the Antonio J. Waring, Jr Archaeological Laboratory at the University of WestGeorgia. Her research interests include the prehistory of the American Southeast, Paleoindian and Archaichunter-gatherer adaptations, flaked-stone artifact analysis, technological change through time, technologicalorganization, and human–environment interactions.D. Shane Miller earned his PhD in 2014 at the University of Arizona, and he now serves as Assistant Professor

at Mississippi State University. His research interests include the archaeology of eastern North America, hunter-gatherers, lithic technology, geoarchaeology, and ecological anthropology.



Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future...

Documents

Transcript of Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future...