evidence for late paleoindian ritual fr m the

EVIDENCE FOR LATE PALEOINDIAN RITUAL FR M THE CARADOC SITE (AfHj -104), SOUTHWESTERN ONTAR %,CANADA

D. Brian Deller and Christopher J. Ellis

TIze Caradoc site, dating ca. 10,500 to 10,000B.P.,provides a rare glimpse of sacred ritual arnong the earliest well-documented inhabitants o f the Americas. It is a kind of site never before reported, where the majority o f the artifucts have been purposefully broken or sacrificed. The site yielded 302, mainly chert, litlzic fragments thatfit together to form at least 71 artifacts. TIze material inchides an unfluted concave-basedpoint, three bifucial knives, 31 ~n~finished bifaces, 27 unifaces and nine non-siliceous items. Distributional analyses indicate that: 1 ) the material wJas initially spread over an area of as rnliclz as 12 mZ; 2 ) the items were constrained in their distribution and could have been in a structure; and 3 ) the artifacts were broken at the location where they were found.

El sitio Caradoc, que data de hace apro.ximadamente 10.500 a 10.000, provee lina in~rslial oportunidad de e.xatniizai- un ritual sagrado entre 10s tncis antiguos, de 10s bien document ado^^, habitantes de Ame'rica. Es una clase de sitio que jarncis ha sido repor- tada previamente, donde la mayoria de artefactos Izan sido quebrados o sacrijcados a propbsito. En este sitio se han encontrado solamente 302 fragtnentos liticos, principaknente de pedernal, que calzan entre s f para formar a1 rnenos 71 artifactos. El material iizcluye un punto de base cdncava no acanalada, tres cuclzillos bifaciales, 31 bifuces no terminados, 27 unifaces y nueve articu- 10s en piedra de grano grueso. El ancilisis distributivo indica que: (1 ) el material f ~ ~ e inicialrnente dispersado en un ci1.e~ de hasta 12 nz2; (2 ) 10s articulos fueron restringidos en su distribucidri y pudieron Izaber estado dentro de lina estructura; y, ( 3 ) los arte- factosfireron quebrados y abandonados en el suelo en el sito donde fueron recobrados.

very few sites in North America provide evi- ered 29 pieces of broken lithic tools on a cultivated dence of sacred ritual (i.e., behaviors associ- knoll surface. Most of the pieces were apparently ated with religious beliefs) among the earliest within a very small area of about one meter square

well-documented inhabitants of the continent. We extending into a plow furrow. This site had been a report here on the Caradoc site (AfHj -104) in south- pasture for 50 or more years but had been plowed western Ontario, Canada, which provides evidence of for cultivation for the first time that spring. The site ritual behavior associated with unfluted lanceolate was brought to our attention within hours of its dis- point assemblages of ca. 10,500 to 10,000 B.P. This covery. The collection included fragments of large site consists solely of purposefully broken lithic arti- bifaces, used biface thinning flakes, and side scrap- facts and represents a type of site that has never before ers that we suspected resulted from purposeful break- been reported. Besides providing documentation of age. Most of the tools were on a heavily weathered ritual, this site provides insight into poorly known Bayport chert imported from the Saginaw Bay area lithic procurement practices, lithic reduction strategies, of Michigan, northwest of the site. We believed the and tool kits in the area of this period. site was Paleoindian since Bayport chert was used

most intensively on the earliest sites in the area and Background the tools and blanks recovered were identical to those

The Caradoc site is located about 30 km west of at other early sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a, London, Ontario (Figure la). During the spring of 1992b; Storck 1997; Wright and Roosa 1966). Also, 1997 a local resident, Mr. James MacLeod, recov- the amount of material recovered, its restricted spa-

D. Brian Deller .RR#4 Glencoe, Ontario, Canada NOL 1MO Christopher J. Ellis .Department of Anthropology, University of Westeln Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6G 4V2

American Antiquity, 66(2), 2001, pp. 267-284 Copyright0 2001 by the Society for American Archaeology

268 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011

Figure 1. (a) General location of Caradoc site (star); (b) topographic map showing area excavated. Contours are in meters above an arbitrary 0 datum height.

tial occurrence, a lack of definitive flaking debris, and indications of purposeful artifact breakage suggested it was a special kind of site, perhaps similar to the Crowfield site, a deposit of ca. 200 complete, purposefully burned Early Paleoindian artifacts discov- ered four km southwest of Caradoc in 1981 (Deller 1988; Deller andEllis 1984; Ellis 1984). Subsequent surface collections resulted in the recovery of a concave-based, unfluted projectile point confirming an early temporal placement. Excavations were carried out over a week in August 1997.

The site is situated on the Caradoc Sand Plain (Chapman and Putnam 1984:146), which is a rem- nant of a delta formed where a river entered pro- glacial Lake Whittlesey at ca. 13,000 B.P. The site is on the southeast edge of a low knollisidge just northeast of a small tributary creek of the Sydenham River (Figure lb). Caradoc was excavated in rela- tion to a main grid of 2-m units. Within each 2-m unit the plow zone of each 1-m sub-square was removed and passed through a screen to recover the artifactual materials. Units were referred to by the grid-line intersection coordinates at their southwest corners. Although 114" mesh was used in most squares, we began by selectively using 118" mesh. It

soon became clear that there was nothing to be gained by using the finer mesh as the only materials recovered from it would have been largely recovered in the coarser mesh. All soil was screened one shovel- load at a time and almost all artifact recoveries from the area of the shovel-load were piece-plotted including plow-zone finds. Once the plow zone was removed from a square, the top of the subsoil surface was troweled off in order to locate evidence of subsoil featuresiartifacts. The maximum subsoil depth at which artifacts were recovered was 12 cm.

Only one major concentration of material was present. Excavations were continued until recoveries dropped to < 3 artifact recoveries per one meter unit in all directions for a total area excavated of 35 m2. Including the surface-collected material, 286 separate chert items and 16 fragments on nonsiliceous materials were found. The chert pieces fit together to form at least 62 tools and preforms. This estimate is a minimum one because some fragments (we estimate 10-15 pieces) are missing. Possibly they were not collected and deposited with the other materials by the users of the site, but they could lie outside the excavated area, or have been very deeply intruded into the subsoil by rodent and root action.

REPORTS 269

Table 1.Artifact Totals, Caradoc Site.

Artifact Type Number of Items

"Hi-Ho" Point 1 Alternately Beveled Biface 1 Leaf-Shaped Finished Biface 1 Thin Finished Oval Biface Base 1 Small Oval Preform? 1 Ovate Bifaces 13 Linear Bifaces 17 Side Scrapers 5 Small Retouched Flakes 16 Large Retouched Flakes 6 Chert Waste Flakes? 4 Slate Artifact 1 Granitic Tool Fragment (in two pieces) 1 Fractured and Worn Sandstone Pebbles 5 Iron Pyrite Concretion 1 Large HammerstoneiAnvil? 1 Total 75

Where pieces were missing we estimated the number of items by the most common unrefitted segment. In the case of biface fragments, for example, if tips were the most common segment we assumed other loose pieces such as bases probably belonged to those tips. We estimated the number of items much in the manner analysts calculate the minimum number of individuals in archaeofaunas.

The Caradoc Sand Plain is stone free so all the nonsiliceous items had to be brought to the site by human action. Actual refits plus an assumption that six small, nonconjoinable slate pieces recovered are parts of the same item, reduces the total to 10 nonsiliceous items (see below). However, we exclude from the totals a small pebble fragment, as it has a "fresh" appearance. We believe it is apiece of gravel used to surface roads in the area that has been transported to the site by modem farm machinery. A grand total of 75 items is represented (Table 1). The only other cultural material noted at the site was two bifaces and a waste flake onunweathered cherts from Ontario sources. This material was morphologically characteristic of post-Paleoindian occupations and was recovered 20 to 25 m west of the area of the Bay- port chert finds.

No stratigraphy was visible at the site. Artifacts were recovered mainly from the surface or from within a 10-25-cm-thick plow zone produced by the single cultivation of the site (258 of 302 or 85 percent), with the remainder coming from the subsoil. The top of the subsoil was extensively disturbed by root, rodent, worm, and insect activity that suggests

the artifacts had been vertically displaced downward through an active soil profile. Most of the subsoil artifacts were in such disturbances and the fact that the smallest (< .05 g) lithic specimens were found deep- est in the subsoil is also consistent with intrusion from higher levels. No evidence of cultural features was found in the underlying subsoil.

Below, we describe the artifactual material recovered from the site. Then we examine the spatial distributions of that material. Finally, we discuss the possible nature and importance of the site.

Siliceous Artifacts

Raw Material aizd Breakage Patterns

Almost all of the siliceous artifacts recovered from the site are on a heavily weathered nodular Bayport chert. This material originates in the Upper Missis- sippian Bayport formation and crops out in the Sag- inaw Bay area of eastern Michigan 175 to 200 krn northwest of the Caradoc site (Figure la; Dustin 1935; Luedtke 1976:200-201). The only possible exception to the use of Bayport at Caradoc involves the single projectile point recovered. This point exhibits the same surface weathering/discoloration as definitive nodular Bayport items. Possibly it is on Bayport chert from bedded sources that differ somewhat from the nodular sources (see, for example, Shott 1993: 15), but we cannot be certain.

As can be seen even in a black-and-white photo- graph comparing a modern replica (Figure 2b) and Caradoc site recoveries (Figure 2a, c-h), the weathering has resulted in extensive discoloration from the original whiteflight grey color variants to a deep brown. The original color can only be seen in some instances (22.5 percent of the assemblage) where recent, usually minor (e.g., Figure 2g), plow or exca- vation damage exposed the artifact's interior. These cases reveal that the discoloration has penetrated the surface of the artifacts for 1 mm or more. The weathering has also had other effects. Microscopic examination reveals a very uniform and complete dulling or rounding of the apex of surficial flake scar ridges and toolbreak edges.

Bayport chert occurs in consistent but small amounts (< 15 percent) on many Paleoindian sites in southem Ontario. Caradoc is the first Ontario site we have seen where Bayport is dominant, which may suggest the site was used only once or for avery limited period of time. The dolomitic to sandy lime-

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2,20011

Figure 2. Representative artifacts. (a) large ovate biface; (b) modern ovate biface replica on unweathered Bayport chert; (c)-(d) linear bifaces; (e)-(f) retouched "blade-flakes" ; (g) double convex side scraper; (h) retouched biface thinning flake. Note the marked contrast in color between the replica and artifacts. Lower half of c is heat-fractured. Arrows show recent, minor, plow or shovel-induced "edge nicks."

stone cortex of the chert lacks pitting and battering, indicating the nodules were obtained at or very near the outcrops rather than in secondary deposits such as till. The emphasis on the use of exotic materials, often from a single source, is characteristic of many fluted point sites in the Great Lakes area (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a; Ellis 1989:142). The data from Caradoc, along with that from other unfluted point sites such as Holcombe in Michigan (Fitting et al. 1966) and several Upper Great Lakes sites (e.g., Meinholz and Kuehn 1996), provide growing evidence that comparable lithic procurement practices persisted into subsequent times.

Very few siliceous artifacts are intact. These

include the projectile point, a side scraper, a small retouched flake, and what may be four small waste flakes. In addition, there are two small, thin, retouched flakes that exhibit distal fractures but which may be a result of flake collapse during removal from a core. The other 57 siliceous artifacts, which are all tools or preforms, have been broken and exhibit weathered break surfaces. Breakage was caused by a single fracture initiation 61 percent of the time. In an additional 35 percent of the examples two initiations occur, and on 2 percent (one example) three initiations are present.

Three kinds of fractures occur, more than one of which may occur on a single item with multiple

REPORTS

Figure 3. Fracture patterns on ovate bifaces. (a) snap break (arrow shows cone initiation from breakage blow); (b) radial break (top piece not recovered); (c) complete cone fracture (arrow shows location of negative cone as cone itself has been removed for illustrative purposes).

breaks: snaps, radial-like breaks, and complete cone fractures. These breaks were initiated on the surfaces of artifacts well away from artifact edges, and with only the odd exception (e.g., Figure 3c), from blows very well-centered on an artifact's face (e.g., Figures 2a, d, 3a-b, 4a). Hence, they can not be from errors in happing that in many cases (e.g., perverse fractures; Crabtree 197292) are initiated at the margins. Also, it is unlikely they are from manufacture given the rarity or absence of definitive flaking debris and hence, evidence for site-happing activities. As we will discuss below, there is definitive evidence these fractures occurred in antiquity; our main goal here is to describe the breaks and provide information showing these did not occur in manufacture.

The initiation of a fracture on a surface often resulted in splitting an artifact or fragment into two major pieces (e.g., Figure 3a), which we will refer to here as "snap" breaks. Of the 57 broken siliceous artifacts, snaps occur on 30 or 52.6 percent. On 21 of the 57 broken items (36.8 percent), snaps are the only fracture type. Snaps neednot be from purposeful breakage but can be produced during happing. Yet, if they were simple errors they would not occur in such a high frequency. Moreover, of the 21 items broken by snaps alone, eight or 38 percent have more

than one break-the snapping of already broken pieces is a sure sign of nonmanufacture breakage.

Some of the items in the Caradoc assemblage solely with snaps, particularly thin items, display what could be seen as manufacture "bend breaks" (e.g., Frison and Bradley 1980:4344). However, many snap fractures exhibit aspects of a classic cone initiation and are not bend breaks. They have a slight swelling resembling a bulb of force on one half of the snapped surface, showing where the item was struck and a cone began to form before a medianpat- era1 fracture split the objective piece (see Lawn and Marshall 1979:76-79). Well-centered cone initiations, definitive of nonmanufacture breaks, are visible (e.g., Figure 3a) on 9 of the 33 observable snaps (27.3 percent) in the assemblage. These cone initiations can be accompanied by crushing and the removal of some small flakes adjacent to the point of impact on the matching break segment (Figure 3a).

Those snaps lacking cone initiations could have been produced through happing error but they could also have been purposefully broken by hand or by other forms of pressure rather than by breakage blows. However, even on struck items cone initiations often are absent based on our experiments and those of others (e.g., Root et al. 1999:146). At

272 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No.2, 20011

Caradoc, a slight to pronounced lip can be present at the juncture of the snap with one face (91.4 percent ).Experimentally, with either soft or hard ham- mers, we have been able to consistently produce identical lipped breaks. These lips can be especially pronounced on tlzick replicas (>I0 mm) comparable to those in the assemblage (most other reported experiments have used thin, flat bifaces or flakes; Crabtree 1977; Root et al. 1999).

There are other more unusual and distinctive fracture types that are also indicative of nonmanufacture breakage. On 32 of 57 or 56.1 percent, the item split into a series of three or more wedge-shaped pieces (e.g., Figure 2e, 3c), and in this sense they resemble the radial breaks of Bonnichsen (1977) and others. As with snaps, they can exhibit lips (90.7 percent) and cone initiations (29.6 percent). Again, we have been able to produce identical fractures experimentally.

A final fracture type indicative of nonmanufacture breakage is the complete cone fracture (Figure 3c). In these cases, an actual cone was removed from the artifact's underside in the manner of a projectile penetrating a pane of glass to produce a Hertzian cone (Lawn and Marshall 1979:67). It is represented on only two definite examples (4 percent), and perhaps on one incomplete item. In definite cases, this fracture type occurs in combination with a snap break to the body of the item while the removed cone itself split into two or more pieces. We have never before seen such breaks in an archaeological assemblage but they have been produced in our experiments and those of others (e.g., Bonnichsen 1977:125 -126).

We interpret all these breaks as intentional. The site had been cleared of trees at least fifty years ago and cultivated in 1997. We are well aware that land clearing or plowing can create significant artifact damage to caches and that these are exacerbated in sites with hard clay matrices (e.g., Collins 1999; Mallouf 1982:96). However, the Caradoc assemblage is from a soft sandy matrix and there are no reports of heavy equipment such as levelers or bull- dozers ever being used on the site. Moreover, land clearing in the area consisted of simply cutting down the trees and letting their stumps rot in situ and especially if the goal was simply to creatC cleared pasture land. Regardless, it is clear the breaks of concern here are not due to recent events. Of major importance, the artifact surfaces, including breaks, are highly discolored and exhibit the same dulling seen on flaked surfaces. Such discoloration has been

reported on Bayport and other cherts at several sites, and is generally related to iron precipitation and its oxidation, and more specifically, to exposure to pod- zol/spodosol soil-formation processes (e.g., Ander- ton 1999; Ellis and Deller 1986; Wright and Roosa 1966950). The iron source is most likely the disso- lution of carbonates in the site's deltaic sands that occurs during the earliest stages of soil development, which would greatly predate historic times. There- fore, it is not surprising that we are unaware of any Bayport chert materials from sites dating from less than the Late Archaic (ca. 3,000 years ago) that exhibit this kind and degree of discoloration. In fact, it is most often reported on naturally occurring pieces of chert and Paleoindian fluted point sites (e.g., Ellis and Deller 2000:Figure 6.15a, 6.15d; Wright and Roosa 1966). The weathering indicates the breaks must be of substantially greater antiquity than any modem disturbance processes. Also of major importance, while separate pieces of the same artifact may be differentially weathered, there is no difference in the degree of weathering on any individual artifact fragment between the original flaked surfaces produced by Paleoindians and the break surfaces of interest here. Both have been subject to the same alteration, indicating the flaking and breakage was roughly contemporary.

The artifact weathering is definitive evidence that the breaks reported here are not due to recent activities, but even if we did not have such evidence it would be clear based on many characteristics that they were not due to equipment damage. For example, not one of the weathered major breaks classified here as snaps or radial-like can be said to have orig- inated at the edge of an artifact, which would commonly occur under conditions of equipment breakage. For instance, there are no weathered edge- induced nick snaps, edge spalls, or complex lateral wedge snaps whereas these occur in frequencies of 17 percent or more at equipment-disturbed caches (e.g., Hartwell 1991; Mallouf 1982). It is impossi- ble for land clearing and cultivation equipment to create the highly fragmented items at Caradoc by exclusively facial (and uniformly well-centered at that) initiations.

Similarly, and using fracture lips as indications of where pressure was applied to break the unifaces in the assemblage, force was most often applied to the dorsal face (20/27 or 74.19 percent) and was pre- ferred even more on large, thick, flat flakes (side

REPORTS 273

scrapers and large retouched flakes; 10113 or 76.9 percent). No such preference should be visible in an equipment-damaged assemblage. At the Keven Davis Clovis blade cache, for example (Collins 1999), where force application can be determined from illustrations, as expected the equipment- induced fractures are almost evenly split between dorsal (n = 3) and ventral (n = 4) applications.

As a final example, the Caradoc assemblage has a very high percentage of radial-like breaks (56.1 percent). Data on major breaks (e.g., ignoring simple- edge damage like nicks) was collected for several Paleoindian caches disturbed by equipment, including exclusively sites that have been plowed several times and some which had been also, or instead,

detail. At that site, 7 of 12 or 58 percent of the radi- ally broken bifaces were finished implements as opposed to only 2 of 21 or 10 percent at Caradoc. Moreover, based on the illustrations and descriptions of the preforms broken by radial breaks at Hanson (e.g., Frison and Bradley 1980:44-45, Figure 27), these items appear to be rejected preforms that could not be completed into biface tools. At Caradoc all preforms are pristine and could be easily made into biface tools-they are not manufacture rejects. Given the use of exotic toolstones at Paleoindian sites including Caradoc, it would be extremely wasteful of material to focus on breaking unused, complete biface preforms and cores. In fact, Folsom radial breakage of preforms/unfinished items for tool use

greatly disturbedby landlevelers,road-graderslscrap- is only common at quarry sites; at sites removed ers, etc. These data indicate that such fractures do not occur in anything approaching the frequency at Caradoc. These include Simon (319 or 33 percent; Butler 1963), KevenDavis (2110 or20percent; Collins 1999), the Green Clovis cache (2110 or 20 percent; Green 1963), Ryan's (25185 or 29.7 percent; Hartwell 1991), Thedford 11(1113 or 7.7 percent; Deller and Ellis 1992b), and Lamb (219 or 22.2 percent; Grarnly 1999). The obvious reason radials are much rarer is that equipment does not favor facial fracture initiations where such breaks are most likely to result. In fact, in our experimental sample of 36 Bayport chert replicas broken by purposeful facial blows, 52.8 percent had radial-like breaks. In other words, they occurred in about the same and high frequency as at Caradoc.

The breakage reported here was done by Paleo- indians. We are well aware that the thick edges and pointed comers of the pieces resulting from breaks are ideal as scraping, slotting, and engraving tools (e.g., Crabtree 1977; Ellis 1984:221-225; Frison and Bradley 1980; Root et. al. 1999). Careful microscopic examination revealed no definitive evidence of use of the edges of Caradoc breaks although we note that minor use damage, such as polishes or slight edge rounding, would be obscured by the chert weathering and dulling.

More importantly, when breaks are produced for use on bifaces, they most frequently involve recycling implements previously used for other purposes rather than by breaking cores or preforms (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992b:49-50; Grarnly 1999:55). For example, the Hanson Folsom site biface assemblage (Fri- son and Bradley 1980:Table 3) represents a site where the frequency of breaks has been reported in

from sources it involves recycling finished tools (Hofman et al. 1990:248; Root et al. 1999:164-165). Also, in both the east and west, it is a recycling strat- egy performed on thin, flat items (Gramly 199955; Root et al. 1999:146), not Caradoc's predominantly thick (up to 17 mm) bifaces and flakes.

The high frequency of breakage itself is also consistent with deliberate destruction rather than with production for use as tools. Radial-like breaks occur on 19 of 34 or 56 percent of the broken Caradoc biface assemblage whereas in situations where the items are produced for use as tools, such as the Han- son site, only 26 percent of the items (12 of 47) exhibit these breaks (Frison and Bradley 1980:Table 3). Indeed, these thick obtuse edges have an almost infinite use-life relative to most flaked stone tools. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where virtually all items need be broken by radial-like or snap breaks to produce such use edges and certainly no situation in which one need break the items up as a cache for future use. It is much more efficient in terms of flexibility of tool use to cache them whole and break them up as, and if, needed.

Finally, the high percentage of items broken by multiple fracture initiations is also consistent with deliberate destruction. For instance, 56 percent of the bifaces at Caradoc were broken by multiple fractures as opposed to apparently only one of 47 or 2 percent of the bifaces at the Hanson site (Frison and Bradley 1980:Figure 23d).

Artifacts

Thirty-five or 53 percent of the siliceous items are bifacial forms, but only four of these are finished tools

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011

Figure 4. Bifacial tools. (a) leaf-shaped biface; (b) concave-based point; (c) tip of alternately beveled biface.

(Deller and Ellis 1998). Most notable is a single unfluted projectile point with a shallow (2.3 rnm), lightly ground, concave base (Figure 4b) which was recovered from the surface just beyond the southern margin of the densest area of surface concentration (Figure 5a). It measures 64.2 by 33.7 by 9.0 rnrn and is laterally ground at the base. The point has also had several small, short (< 15im)flakes removed around the basal concavity that, on one face, might be considered basal thinning.

The projectile point does not fit easily into any named type. In some respects, notably a shallow basal concavity, tiny pointed ears and a lack of a dis- tinct stem, the point closely resembles those forms recovered from the Holcombe site in Michigan (Fit- ting et al. 1966). However, the point from Caradoc contrasts with Holcombe points in that it is very thick, has a coarse susface flaking, and exhibits alternate fore-section beveling. In these regards it resembles points of the Hi-Lo type (Fitting 1963). Comparable points that blend characteristics of Hol-

combe and Hi-Lo points, and which colloquially have been referred to as Hi-Ho points, have been reported in collections from other sites (e.g., Ellis and Deller 1982). These items may represent a transi- tional form between those two types. Holcombe and Hi-Lo are estimated to date to ca. 10,500 to 10,000 B.P. based on Great Lakes area geochsonological information (e.g., the presence of items on lake beds that did not drain until after ca. 10,500 B.P.; Ellis and Deller 198654) and close resemblances to southern types such as Quad, Suwannee, Simpson, and Dal- ton (see Ellis and Deller 1982; Ellis et al. 1998).

The remaining thee finished biface tools appear to be knife forms. One (Figure 4c) is a tip fragment of a large biface knife with the lateral edges resharpened by alternate-edge beveling. This highly distinctive form has been reported from a number of Early and Late Paleoindian sites throughout North America (Deller and Ellis 1984:46, 1992b:49-50; Iswin and Wormington 1970:30; Johnson and Holl- iday 1987:Figure 9.6a; Roberts 1935:24-25), but

REPORTS

Figure 5. Distribution of piece-plotted artifacts in excavated area. (a) exact plots--triangle shows location of point recov-ered from surface; (b) contour density plot.

306N-

Caradoc represents its first report from a Late Pale- remaining 31 bifaces lack fine-edge retouch and oindian context in the Great Lakes region. A second retain evidence of platform preparation, suggesting incomplete biface was oval in outline and has a fine they are unfinished. The dominance of such unfin-continuous edge retouch.The finalbiface (Figure 4a) ishedbifaces in comparison to finishedforms is char-is a very well made leaf-shaped form. acteristic of many early artifact caches (e.g., Deller

Excluding unidentifiable fragments, all of the and Ellis 1984; Hartwell 1991), but it is not charac-

J

. . -, .: :*.. . '* *.: . * . *.*..: ' . * .f'.. . . .. .*.* . *.. :* . .'. 304N ,

4 9 6 1

302N-

. . . . . . . .' ... . . .. .

" ' 5:. :

. ..... * . . *

5 0 4 1

0 1 2

--Tdir-

A A 5 0 2 1 8

300N , 4 9 8 1

I 5 0 0 1


teristic of normally deposited non-quarry assemblages since such bifaces are normally reduced to other forms prior to discard. These bifaces are certainly not characteristic of sites without any flaking debris so there is absolutely no doubt Caradoc is a cache of some kind. It is probable that bifaces were more often transported away from lithic sources in unfinished states to maintain tool-kit flexibility; that is, the transported bifaces could be made into vari- ous different tool types as needed. Moreover, move- ment of items in unfinished, robust forms minimizes transport damage (Ellis 19975 8).

With the exception of a small item with rounded ends, the unfinished bifaces are of two general forms. The first form, represented by at least 13 examples (Table 1; Figures 2a, 3), includes relatively large, quite thick (12-17 mm), ovate bifaces made either directly on nodules or on large flakes. These items probably served as portable cores to produce large biface thinning flakes that also occur as tools in the assemblage. The use of these cores and flakes is widespread in Paleoindian industries (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a; Wright and Roosa 1966). Some investigators, including one of these authors (e.g., Ellis 1984; Lothrop 1989: 109-1 19), have argued that biface cores were not transported away from lithic source areas, but these examples provide evidence to the contrary. Comparable ovate items have been reported from Late Paleoindian, notably ritual, contexts at other Great Lakes sites (Meinholz and Kuehn 199659451).

The remaining 17 bifaces in the assemblage are smaller, thinner, more nearly parallel-sided or "linear" bifaces (Figure 2c-d). They could be a more reduced stage of the ovate bifaces and may be point preforms.

At least 27 unifacial tools are present, made on several distinctive forms of flakes. Notable are sev- era1 large, relatively parallel-sided elongated "blade- flakes" (Callahan 1979) from unidirectionally worked cores of a roughly conical form (e.g., Fig- ure 2e, f), as well as thinning flakes from reducing relatively large bifaces (e.g., Figure 2h). Both flake forms have been reported from a number of northeastern fluted-point sites (Deller and Ellis 1992b: 18; Payne 1987). The biface flakes are commonly reported from Early and Late Paleoindian sites throughout North America. However, the occurrence of the "blade-flakes" at Caradoc represents the first time they have been reported from sites withunfluted

lanceolate points in the lower Great Lakes area. Unlike the large ovate biface cores, the absence of conical cores from the assemblage is consistent with data from other sites that suggests the conical cores were reduced at or near lithic sources. Only the derived flakes were transported to locations of tool use away from sources.

The unifaces can be placed into two general classes. Five items are convex side scrapers with long (>2.5 mm) continuous retouch on one or both lateral flake margins (Figure 2g), while the remainder have short (< 2.5 nun),usually discontinuous unifacial or bifacial edge retouch and are classified as retouched flakes. The retouched flakes include one item with a spur or graver and occur in two size classes: a larger class made on flakes from initial nodule kimming and on the large "blade-flakes" (Figure 2e-f) and a smaller class made on biface thinning flakes (Figure 2h) and flakes that probably result from the initial trimming of the biface cores (Deller and Ellis 1998). It is possible that the retouch in certain cases may be "spontaneous" (Newcomer 1976) or due to damage in transport or breakage. The larger retouched flakes are likely unresharpened side scrapers.

Finally, there are four flakes in the assemblage that exhibit no suggestions of use or modification and might be considered waste flakes. All of these items weigh under 3.91 g and the average weight of all four is 1.74 g. If classified as waste flakes these items might be considered ventral or dorsal uniface retouch flakes (Frison 1968: Figures lb, lc), although they seem too large to be from such a process. Compara- ble flakes were found in the assemblage and unlike the items considered here, those flakes could be refit onto break surfaces and tool edges-they were clearly a by-product of purposeful artifact breakage rather than true waste flakes. Moreover, we have produced identical flakes during our breakage experiments by rebound off the stone anvils or pitted stones used as supports (see also Bonnichsen 1977: Plate 17). Therefore, combined with the fact there are only four potential items, it seems unlikely they are simple waste flakes.

Nonsiliceous Artifacts

As there is no evidence among the artifacts made on siliceous materials of any occupation(s) other than those of the time of lanceolate point users, we believe the nonsiliceous pieces recovered are associated with the chert artifacts. These items include six small,

REPORTS 277

thin, slate flakes. Since slate would tend to disinte- grate when struck, and since all pieces were recovered from a single one meter unit, they are treated as parts of the same item. There are no signs of overall form and function.

A second item is an iron pyrite nodule. These occur at the center of "cannonball-like" calcite con- cretions at Kettle Point on the modem Lake Huron shore some 50 km northwest of the site (Chapman and Putnam 1984: 161). Iron pyrites were used in later times as parts of "fire-making kits" (Ritchie 1955).

A third specimen is a granitic rock that appears to have been deliberately broken in two and weighs 128.2g. At the top and bottom are what appear to be natural surfaces of the original item. However, all the margins have had pieces broken off and the juncture of these fractures with the original surface appears smoothed or rounded. Its exact function is unknown.

Another item recovered from the surface of the site is a very large (1.67 kg) granitic cobble. At both ends are small depressions or dimples that may have resulted from use of the tool as a hammerstone. In addition to the possible damage at the ends, in the center of one surface is a small shallow circular depression that may have resulted from use of the cobble as an anvil.

The remaining pieces include five small sand- stoneJsiltstone pieces (6.25-19.87 g; mean of 13.82 g) recovered from three adjacent one-meter units. They have some smoother worn surfaces but most surfaces are angular fractured ones. If it were not for their context at the site, these items would probably not be regarded or even considered as artifacts. These pieces may have been parts of the same object but they can not be cross-mended.

Spatial Distributions

A density map of piece-plotted items (Figure 5b) was produced by counting the number of items within a 1-meter radius of evenly spaced points on the grid system (in this case .5-m intervals) and constructing contours that link up points of equal density. This plotting suggests one concentration of material of about 4-m north-south by 3-m east-west, although one area in the northeast part of concentration, centered on square 304N/499E, had an anomalously low yield. Comparable patterns are seen if one plots the data by weight or frequency per one meter unit (Deller and Ellis 1998).

The location with a low yield is where the initial

surface concentration of material was said to have been found and every tool fragment from that area can be cross-mended to other surface recoveries lacking exact provenance. Therefore, it was on this square where most of these surface finds were recovered. The density of material drops off rapidly in all directions although there is more of a spread of materials to the northwest and southeast following the direc- tion of site cultivation. The abrupt drop in frequency in most directions strongly suggests the activities carried out here may have been constrained spatially and, in turn, might suggest a surface structure once existed on the site. Direct evidence of such a structure was not found, however, and it is possible that vegetation cover or topographic circumstances at the time of the site's use may have constrained the spatial location of activities.

The large number of refitted artifacts from the site in such a small area means that it is not possible to reproduce one easily interpreted map, so we provide here only some selected plots to show certain cross- mend patterns (Figure 6). Almost all of the pieces of the objects were separated by purposeful breakage in antiquity but, as will be discussed more fully below, pieces making up an object were generally found in quite close association. Plotting of several selected objects (Figure 6a) illustrates this fact. This plot also shows the separate objects themselves were found over a substantial area up to three or four meters apart at opposite edges of the concentration. Plowing would not spread the already broken pieces of the same object to the same general location over such an area. Therefore, the material was not origi- nally in a single small feature and then spread to cover 12 m2 by plowing and land-clearing. The objects were spread over a large area initially. Nor does it seem likely they were in a single shallow subsurface feature of 12 m2. They could have been in several very shallow pits, simply left on the ground surface, or placed on a platform raised only slightly above the ground before coming to rest in their ultimate location. Parsimony suggests they were simply left on the ground.

Visual inspection suggested that most or all of the pieces of an item were found relatively close together. In order to investigate this impression further, circular templates were constructed with radii approx- imating SO, .75 and 1.00 m. These templates were then superimposed upon the piece-plotted refit maps. Based upon this procedure it was found that most

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011

0

meters

A

Figure 6. Select artifact cross-mend plots. (a) plotting of different artifact cross-mend sets showing wide distribution of individual artifact sets; (b) plotting of different artifact sets to illustrate presence of single "outliers." Dashed lines represent recent breaks.

pieces making up an artifact are fairly close together If anything, the actual separation of fragments (Table 2: center column). In over 65 percent of the was probably even less because this method assumes cases, all individual pieces making up an item were pieces have not been moved from their original depo- found within a 1.00-m radius and in almost 50 per- sitional location due to post-occupation disturbances cent of the cases, all individual pieces of a cross- including land clearing, cultivation, and tree throws. mended artifact were within a .75-m radius. It is possible, however, to control somewhat for these

REPORTS 279

Table 2: Dispersion of Refitted Artifact Fragments.

Circle Radius

<0.50 meter <0.75 meter <1.0 meter

>1.0 meter (residual) Total Number of Items

Number of Refitted Items

19 (36.54%) 24 (46.15%) 34 (65.39%) 18 (34.62%)

52

Number of Refitted Items Ignoring Outliers

16 (51.61%) 28 (90.32%) 28 (90.32%)

3 (9.68%) 3 1

Note: Column where outliers are ignored includes only items made up of 3 or more piece-plotted pieces.

disturbances. Based on our examination at other plowed sites of cross-mend patterns, artifact density patterns, and the distribution of different artifact types and raw materials (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992b, 1996), we have argued that processes such as plowing may move the occasional piece some longer distance, but many items still retain at least their general locational provenance. One would especially expect this kind of selective distortion to be the case at a site only cultivated once. Again, based on a simple visual examination of the refitted fragments at Caradoc, this perspective seemed to be borne out by the site data. In particular, in examining items made up of three or more piece-plotted items, all pieces seem to be close together with usually only one exception as illustrated selectively on Figure 6b.

We interpret the two or more items situated close together to be at/near their original location (unless due to breaks other than those initiated by the Paleo- indians) and the single item moved some distance to be a product of post-occupational disturbance. Indeed, for items with ancient breaks made up of three or more pieces, and excluding these single outliers, in 90 percent of the cases the cross-mended pieces are all from the area of a circle of less than a .75-m radius (Table 2: right column). The simplest interpretation is that most artifacts were broken at or very close to where they were deposited.

Discussion

Certain aspects of the site assemblage strongly suggest that the site relates to religious beliefs and practices that connect members of a society to a realm beyond that of the everyday world. More specifically, one can argue that the Caradoc site provides archaeological evidence of associated behaviors or sacred ritual (following Renfrew 1994:5 1).

Renfrew and Bahn (1 99 1 :359-360) have attempted to develop alist of characteristics that provide positive evidence of sacred ritual in the archaeological record, focusing on evidence from socially

complex, sedentary societies. Given the nature of Caradoc, and our notions of Paleoindians as mobile band societies, relatively few of the criteria they discuss are of relevance. Perhaps the most relevant is that sacred ritual often involves offering material objects as a connection to another realm of existence (Renfrew and Bahn 1991:360). As demonstrated, almost all the artifacts from the site were purposefully broken or more properly phrased, sacrificed. Potential practical reasons for breakage seem limited to producing tool-working edges, and this notion clearly does not apply here.

When combined with the evidence of purposeful breakage, other aspects of the Caradoc site lend strength to a sacred ritual interpretation. The site is clearly unusual in that there is little or no consistent lithic evidence for everyday activities in the form of flaking debris and worn-out and exhausted tools. At face value, the only activities carried out at the site are the breakage and deposition of the recovered artifacts. In this regard, Caradoc differs from almost every other Late Paleoindian site reported for the Great Lakes area. One can suggest that the lack of evidence for domestic activities is consistent with Renfrew and Bahn's (1991:359) view that the sacred "demands and induces a state of heightened aware- ness . . . this invariably requires a range of attention- focusing devices. . . ." Such devices can include the use of a location that is devoted solely to sacred ritual. In fact, the only other sites in the area lacking evidence for domestic activities include definite or probable burials (e.g., Renier; Mason and Irwin 1960) that we would expect to be a focus of sacred ritual. Sacred sites are also often in locations with few or no distractions. Caradoc itself is in a fairly isolated setting just off a small stream-a location so isolated and apparently lacking in distinctive features that it is one of the very few Paleoindian sites we have ever investigated with absolutely no evidence of use in any subsequent time.

Renfrew and Bahn (1991:360) also suggest that


sacred ritual can include offerings showing "great investment in wealth." Wealth is, of course, relative. Yet, the site does represent the deposition of 2.6 kg of still useful-Bayport chert items that not only had to be produced, but also had to be carried to the site from 175+ km away. For example, there are more complete, little reduced, large, biface cores from this single small location than have ever been reported in total from all Paleoindian non-quany sites in the region-notably excepting other examples from apparent ritual contexts (e.g., Mason andIrwin 1960: Figure 4b-c, g-i; Meinholz and Kuhn 1996:60). Con- siderable effort has been wasted by not using the items to their full utilitarian potential-something rarely reported.

Although it can be argued that the Caradoc site represents sacred ritual, the exact nature of that ritual and its meaning to the site's users is much more difficult to fathom. Evidence of sacred activities among early lanceolate point users is very infre- quently reported. Of the reported sites, some such as Anzick, Montana (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974), Gordon Creek, Colorado (Breternitz et al. 1971), Horn, Texas (Young 1985), Buhl, Idaho (Green et al. 1998), Sloan, Arkansas (Morse 1997), Cumrnins, Ontario (Dawson 1983: 8), and Renier, Wisconsin (Mason and Irwin 1960), are interment sites with buried human remains. The Renier site included remains of a cremated subadult accompanied by a number of Late Paleoindian Scottsbluff and Eden- style points, as well as a side-notched point. All of these artifacts had been purposefully burned and heat-fractured. Offerings of identical kinds of heat- fractured points also have been reported from the Pope site in Wisconsin (Ritzenthaler 1972) and the Gorto site in Michigan (Buckmaster and Paquette 1988). These sites did not yield preserved human remains, but given their close similarities to Renier, probably also represent interments. Another possibly related site, or rather feature, yielding similar points was reported from the Elmwood Island site in Wisconsin (Salkin 1989:336-337). Here, however, the artifacts were not heat-fractured; they were covered in red ochre. The Crowfield site, a fluted-point site in Ontario, yielded debris from normal everyday activities, but it also contained a pit feature with around 200 purposefully burned and heat-fractured objects. Given the apparent similarities with Renier, we have argued Crowfield probably is also a cremation from which the human remains have decayed

(Deller and Ellis 1984)-an interpretation disputed by Wright (199556).

The Anzick site is a Clovis site from which a number of large, exquisitely made stone artifacts, including several large fluted points and some beveled bone and ivory objects, were recovered in apparent association with the uncremated remains of at least one red ochre-covered subadult (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974; Stafford 199450-51; Wilke et al. 1991). Comparable stone material, often with red ochre traces, has been recovered from Simon, ldaho (Butler 1963), Fenn, Idaho (Frison 1991), Busse, Kansas (Hofman 1995), and Drake, Colorado (Stan- ford and Jodry 1988). One might also suspect these latter sites are burials even though no human remains were preserved. On the other band, the Richey site, Washington, also contained several very large Clo- vis points (some with traces of sed ochre on their haft elements) as well as other exquisitely made stone tools and several bone rods with beveled and cross- hatched ends. This location is interpreted as a simple cache, presumably because there were no human remains despite the fact that several bone artifacts were preserved (Gramly 1993). However, red ochre is present on some points and these items do not resemble examples from well-known camp or kill sites, being of a large size and of exquisite work- manship. This evidence, along with the absence of human remains, might suggest it is not a simple utilitarian cache but a sacred offering of another kind (Wright 1995:48-49). In fact, six or more of these Clovis artifact "caches" now are reported including those which are definite burials. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see these Clovis sites as utilitarian caches since we would expect most to be retrieved.

Regardless, Richey, because of the absence of human remains in combination with apparent good bone preservation, suggests to us that not all these sites with artifact offerings need be burials. Other sites support such a viewpoint. At the Deadman Slough site in Wisconsin, besides evidence of everyday domestic activities including preserved faunal remains, a number of "large heat-fractured ceremonial bifaces" have been reported from one area of the site (Kuehn 1998:464; Meinholz and Kuehn 1996:60-61). No humanremains were reported with those artifacts and the investigators specifically suggest a sacred nonburial ritual context (Meinholz and Kuehn 1996:184). Indeed, since votive offerings

REPORTS 281

including broken artifacts are a widespread compo- nent of sacred ritual behavior that includes much more than simply interment ritual, it would be very surprising if all ritual artifact deposits on these sites were related to burial activities.

In the absence of organic preservation it is possible that the Caradoc activities were associated with interment ritual. It is increasingly evident, however, that artifact offerings and ritual artifact breakage can occur in early nonburial contexts. The most parsi- monious interpretation of Caradoc items as being simply left on the ground surface suggests the items were not buried or placed in any subsoil pits as found at most other sites with evidence of definite human remains. Ethnographically, there are few North American groups who left burials on the ground surface, even in a structure (e.g.,Yarrow 1881:152). In addition, in the rare cases where on-ground burials in structures do occur, they occur in former living structures. The absence of normal domestic debris at Caradoc suggests the material was not in this kind of structure. The close spacing of pieces of individual artifacts at Caradoc also suggests the site does not represent a scaffold or other kind of above-ground interment. In such a situation, one would not expect pieces of the same artifact to fall to the ground in close proximity and yet have individual artifacts spread over a 12 m2 area. Given the isolated location of the Caradoc site, an offering in the context of shamanistic ritual is as plausible as interment ritual.

Despite the presence of stone artifacts at many of these early sacred ritual sites, one is more impressed by their variability. This result is perhaps expected, given that we are dealing with sites which cover as much as 3000 years in time, are distributed at a con- tinental scale, and include both burial and nonburial ritual. At least some of the artifacts are very large and elaborate, suggesting specially made social or ceremonial goods like the Richey Clovis points (Grarnly 1993) and the large Sloan Points from a Dalton ceme- tery (Morse 1997:17). At Caradoc, by contrast, the items do not appear to have been especially made to serve as social/ceremonial goods; they seem to represent everyday tools, preforms, or cores which in some cases had even been resharpened (e.g., the point, alternately beveled biface knife and side scrapers).

There is also variability at these ritual sites as to whether and how artifacts were broken. At Richey, for example, all the artifacts seem to be complete (Gramly 1993). At other Clovis sites such as Anz-

ick, some artifacts, notably the bonelivory rods, are stated to have been purposefully broken, whereas the elaborate stone artifacts were apparently not broken (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974). At still other sites, such as Renier, Pope and Deadman Slough in Wis- consin, the artifacts were not purposefully smashed but instead were fractured by burning. Moreover, sites such as Renier include breakage in interment contexts whereas that was not the case at Deadman Slough. At the Gordon Creek burial, some artifacts were burned whereas others, as well as the human remains, were not (Breternitz et al. 1971:176). Finally, at the Crowfield site in Ontario, the ca. 200 artifacts were also burned but in at least one instance an artifact was purposefully broken by a radial-like break before part of it was then burned (Deller and Ellis 1984: Figure 15G). Caradoc, where the vast majority of the artifacts were purposefully smashed, but not deliberately burned, is a unique treatment that has not been previously reported.

Conclusions

Some time prior to 10,000 B.P., one or more individuals used the Caradoc site. They brought with them, among other things, over 60 tools and preforms weighing 2.6 kg that were made on a chert procured 175+km away. These people may have used the site on more than one occasion. However, the over- whelming use of Bayport chert, a characteristic not seen on any other Ontario sites, suggests that if multiple uses occurred, they were probably within a short span of time. The individuals chose a location for their activities which is notable for its lack of out- standing geographic features-a small knoll just off a third-order stream in a somewhat isolated interior location much removed from any major waterway or lakeshore. The only activity that we can document at the site was the purposeful breakage of the chert, and at least one or two nonsiliceous artifacts. The objects were carefully broken by from one to three blows and seem to have been broken on or near (i.e., on a support) the ground surface and left where they had been destroyed. The restricted distribution of the material can be used to suggest this activity may have occurred in a small structure.

The purposeful destruction of the artifacts, the scale of effort wasted in transporting a number of still very useful chert artifacts a long distance to the site only to destroy them, and the lack of evidence for other site activities provide compelling and consis-

282 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2,20011

tent arguments that the site represents sacred ritual. The specific nature of that ritual is unknown. It is clear that it may not have been related to mortuary activities and that the specific behavior manifest at thesite is One that has never been previously in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene contexts.

Acknowledgments. Caradoc was excavated with volunteer labor and summer work students provided by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation courtesy of Neal Ferris. Donald B. Simons, Barbara E. Luedtke, William Lovis, Kim Holland and especially, Roger King, helped in the identification and/or characterization of stone materials and their weathering at the site. We are extremely grateful to these individuals as well as to the landowner, Douglas Sutherland, and the site lessee, Bruce Gripton; Eileen Johnson for information on the Ryan's site; Stephen Harding who took and developed some of the photographs; Dan Long who made artifact replicas; and Fernando Larrea and Mike Spence who provided the Spanish abstract. Extensive comments from Jon Driver, Ronald Mason, Steven Kuehn, David Meltzer and an anonymous reviewer vastly improved the form, wording, and content, but we are responsible for any remaining errors. We owe a special debt of gratitude to James MacLeod for all his assistance.

References Cited Anderton, J. B.

1999 The Soil-Artifact Context Model: A Geoarchaeologi- cal Approach to

Paleoshoreline Site Dating in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. Geoarchaeology 14:265-288.

Bonnichsen, R. 1977 Models for Deriving Cultural Information fiom Stone

Tools. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 60. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Bretemitz, D. A,, A. C. Swendlund, and D. C. Anderson 1971 An Early Burial From Gordon Creek, Colorado. Amer-

ican Ant iqu i~ 36:17&182. Buckmaster, M., and J. Paquette

1988 The Gorto Site: Preliminary Report on a Late Paleo- Indian Site in Marquette County, Michigan. Wisconsin Archeologist 69:lOl-124.

Butler, R. B. 1963 An Early Man Site at Big Camas Prairie, South-Cen-

tral Idaho. Tebiwa 6(1):22-33. Callahan, E.

1979 The Basics of Biface Kuapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flintknappers and LithicAna- lysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7: 1-180.

Chapman, L. J., and D. F. Putnam 1984 The Physiograplzy of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geo-

logical Survey, Special Volume 2. . ~ollins, M. B.

1999 Clovis Blade Teclznology. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Crabtree, D. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of

the Idaho State University Museum 28(2). Idaho State Uni- versity Museum, Pocatello, Idaho.

1977 The Obtuse Angle as a Functional Edge. In Experi-rnentalArchaeology,edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E.Yellen, and

W. MacDonald, pp. 38-5 1. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dawson, K, 1983 Cummins Site: A Late ~aleo-Indian (Plano) Site at

Thunder Bay, Ontario. Ontario Arclzaeology 39:3-31. Deller, D. B.

1988 ThePaleo.Indim Occupation of Southwestem Ontario: Distribution, Technology and Social Organization. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropology, McGill - -. University, Montreal, Quebec.

Deller, D. B., and C. J. Ellis 1984 Crowfield: A Preliminary Report on a Probable Paleo-

Indian Cremation in Southwestern Ontario. Archaeology of Eastern Nortlz America 12:41-7 1.

1992a The Early Paleo-Indian Parkhill Phase in Southwestern Ontario. Man in the Nortlzeast 44:15-54.

1992b Thedford II: A Paleo-Indian Site in tlze Ausable River Waterslzed of Southwestern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 24. Uni- versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

1996 The Bolton (AMj-89) Site: An Early Paleo-Indian Crowfield Phase Site in Southwestern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 60:544.

1998 Excavations at the Caradoc Site (AfHj -104): A Late Paleoindian Ritual Stone Artifact Deposit. Report on Ontario Archaeological Licence #97-091. Ms. on file, Ontario Min- istry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Historical Plan- ning and Research Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Dustin, l? 1935 A Study of Bayport Chert. Papers of the MichiganAcad-

emv ofscience, Arts and Letters 20:465475. Ellis, c.'J. "

1984 Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Orga- nization in the

Lower Great Lakes Area: A First Approximation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada.

1989 The Explanation of Northeastern Paleoindian Lithic Procurement

Patterns. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, pp. 139-164. Westview Press, Boul- der, Colorado.

1997 Factors Influencing the Use of Stone ProjectileTips: An Ethnographic Perspective. In Projectile Teclznology, edited by H. Kuecht, pp. 37-74. Plenum Press, New York.

Ellis, C. J., and D. B. Deller 1982 Hi-Lo Materials from Southwestern Ontario. Ontario

Archaeology 38:3-22. 1986 Post-Glacial Lake Nipissing "Watenvorn"Assemb1ages

from the Southeastern Huron Basin Area. Ontario Archae- ology 45:3940.

2000 An Early Paleo-Indian Site Near Parklzill, Ontario. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 159. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

Ellis, C. J., A. C. Goodyear, D. F, Morse, and K. Tankersley 1998 Archaeology of the Pleistocene-Holocene Transition in

Eastern North America. Quaternary International 49/50:151-166.

Fitting, J. E. 1963 The Hi-Lo Site: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in Michigan.

Wisconsin Arclzeologist 44:87-96. Fitting, J. E., J. DeVisscher, and E. Wahla

1966 The Paleo-Indian Occupalion of the Holcombe Beaclz. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, Uni- versity of Michigan, No. 27. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

REPORTS 283

Frison, G. C. 1968 A Functional Analysis of Certain Chipped StoneTools.

American Antiquity 33: 149-155. 1991 The Clovis Cultural Complex: New Data from Caches

of Flaked Stone and Worked Bone Artifacts. In Raw Mate- rial EconomiesAnlong Prelzistoric Hunter-Gatlzerers, edited by A. Montet-White and S. Holen, pp. 321-333. University of Kansas, Publications in Anthropology, 19.

Frison, G. C., and B. Bradley 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at tlze Hanson Site,

Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Gramly, R. M.

1993 Tlze Richey Clovis Caclze: EarliestAmericans Along the Colunlbia River. Persimmon Press Monographs in Archae- ology, Buffalo, New York.

1999 Tlze Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampnlent. Per-simmon Press Monographs in Archaeology, Buffalo, New York.

Green, F. E. 1963 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano

Complex. American Antiquity 29: 145-165. Green, T. J., B. Cochran, T. Fenton, J. C. Woods, G. L. Titmus,

L. Tieszen, M. Davis, and S. J. Miller 1998 The Buhl Woman: A Paleoindian Burial From South-

em Idaho. American Antiquity 63:437456. Hartwell, W. T.

1991 Ryan's Site: A Plow-Disturbed Plainview Cache on the Southern High Plains of Texas. Unpublished Master's The- sis, Department of Anthropology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

Hofman, J. L. 1995 The Busse Cache: A Clovis-Age Find in Northwestern

Kansas. Current Research in tlze Pleistocene 12:17-19. Hofman, J. L., D. S. Amick, and R. 0 . Rose

1990 Shifting Sands: A Folsom-Midland Assemblage from a Campsite in WestemTexas. Plains Anthropologist 35: 17-19.

Irwin, H. T., and M. Wormington 1970 Paleo-Indian Tool Types in the Great Plains. American

Antiquity 35:2434. Johnson, E., and V. Holliday

1987 Lubbock Lake Artifact Assemblages. In Lubbock Lake, Late Quaternary Studies on the Soutlzern Higlz Plains, edited by E. Johnson, pp. 10@119. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.

Kuehn, S. R. 1998 New Evidence for Late Paleoindian-Early Archaic

Subsistence Behavior in the Western Great Lakes. Ameri-can Antiquity 63:457476.

Lahren, L., and R. Bonnichsen 1974 Bone Foreshafts from a Clovis Burial in Southwestern

Montana. Science 186:147-150. Lawn, B. R., and D. B. Marshall

1979 Mechanisms of Microcontact Fracture in Brittle Solids. In Lithic Use-WearAnalysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 63-82. Academic Press, New York.

Lothrop, J. C. 1989 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at

the Potts Site. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C. Ellis and J. Lothrop, pp. 99-137. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Luedtke, B. 1976 Litlzic Material Distribzitions and Interaction Patterns

During tlze Late Woodland Period in Miclzigan. Ph.D. Dis- sertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michi- gan. University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Mallouf, R. J. 1982 AnAnalysis of Plow-Damaged Chert Artifacts: the Bro-

keen Creek Cache (41H186), Hill County, Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:79-98.

Mason, R. J., and C. Irwin 1960 An Eden-Scottsbluff Burial inNortheastern Wisconsin.

American Antiquity 26:43-57. Meinholz, N. M., and S. R. Kuehn

1996 Tlze Deadnzan Slouglz Site. Archaeology Research Series Number 4. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison.

Morse, D. F. 1997 Description of the Artifacts. In Sloan: A Paleoindian

Dalton Cenletely in Arkansas, edited by D. F. Morse, pp. 14-52. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Newcomer, M. 1976 Spontaneous Retouch. In SecondInternational Synlpo-

siunl on Flint, edited by F. Engelen, pp. 62-64. Staringia 3. Nederlandse Geologischevereniging, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Payne, J. H. 1987 Windy City (154-16): A Paleoindian Lithic Workshop

in Northern Maine. Masters Thesis, Institute for Quaternary Studies, University of Maine, Orono.

Renfrew, C. 1994 The Archaeology of Religion. InTheAncientMind: Ele-

ments of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 47-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Renfrew, C., and P. Bahn 1991 Arclzaeology: Theories, Method and Practice. Thames

and Hudson, London. Ritchie, W. A.

1955 RecentDiscoveries Sziggesting an Early WoodlandBur- ial Cult in tlze Northeast. New York State Museum and Sci- ence Service, Circular 40. University of the State of New York, Albany.

Ritzenthaler, R. 1972 The Pope Site: A Scottsbluff Cremation? Wisconsin

Archeologist 53: 15-19. Roberts, F. H. H. Jr.

1935 A Folsom Complex: Preliminary Report on Investiga- tion at the Lindenmeier Site in Northern Colomdo. Smith-sonian Miscellaneous Collections 94(4). Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Root, M. J., J. D. William, M. Kay, and L. K. Shifrin 1999 Folsom Ultrathin Biface and Radial Break Tools in the

Knife River Flint Quany Area. In Folsom Litlzic Technology, edited by D. S. Amick, pp. 144-168. International Mono- graphs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 12. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Salkin, P. H. 1989 Arclzaeological Mitigation Excavations at Fox Lake,

Dodge County Wisconsin. Report of Investigations No. 500.Archaeological Consulting and Services, Verona, Wis- consin.

Shott, M. 1993 Tlze Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Plzase Paleo-Indian Occu-

pation in Central Miclzigan. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 25. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Stafford, T. W. 1994 Accelerator C-14 Dating of Human Fossil Skeletons:

Assessing Accuracy and Results on New World Specimens. In Metlzod and Theory for Investigating the Peopling of tlze Americas, edited by R. Bonnichsen and D. G. Steele, pp. 45-55. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corval- lis, Oregon.

Stanford, D., and M. Jodry 1988 TheDrake Clovis Cache. CzirrentResear~h in tlze Pleis-

tocene 5:21-22.

284 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 66, No. 2,2001]

Storck, P. L. 1997 Tlze Fislzer Site: Archaeological, Geological and Pale-

ohotanical Studies at an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Sozith- ern Ontario. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of MichiganNo. 30. University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.

Wilke, P. J., J. J. Flenniken, and T. L. Ozbun 1991 Clovis Technology at the Anzick Site, Montana. Jour-

nal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13:242-272. Wright, H. T., and W. B. Roosa

1966 The Barnes Site: A Fluted Point Assemblage from the Great Lakes Region. American Antiqzii~y 3 1:85&860.

Wright, J. V. 1995 A History of the Native People of Canada, Volume I:

10,000-1,000 B.C. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mer-

c u v Series Paper No. 152. Canadian Museum of Civiliza- tion, Hull.

Yarrow, H. C. 1881 A Further Contribution to the Study of Mortuary Cus-

toms of the North American Indians. InFirstAnnzial Report oftlze Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, pp. 87-203. Govem- ment Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Young, D. 1985 The Paleoindian Skeletal Material from Horn Rock

Shelter in CentralTexas. Current Research in tlze Pleistocene 2:3940.

Received June 28,1999; Revised May 25,2000; Accepted August 17,2000.

evidence for late paleoindian ritual fr m the

Documents