(AfHj -104), SOUTHWESTERN ONTAR %,CANADA

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 t h e Americas. It is a kind of site never before reported, where the majority o f t h e artifucts have been purposefully broken or sacrificed. The site yielded 302, mainly chert, litlzic fragments thatfit together to form at least 71 artifacts. TIze
bifaces, 27 unifaces and nine non-siliceous
material inchides an unfluted concave-basedpoint, three bifucial knives, 31 ~n~finished
items. Distributional analyses indicate that: 1 ) the material wJasinitially spread over an area of as rnliclz as 12 m Z ;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~rslialoportunidad 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 reportada 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 articudispersado en un ci1.e~de hasta
10s en piedra de grano grueso. El ancilisis distributivo indica que: ( 1 ) el material f ~ inicialrnente
~ e
12 nz2; ( 2 ) 10s articulos fueron restringidos en su distribucidri y pudieron Izaber estado dentro de lina estructura; y, ( 3 ) los artefactosfireron quebrados y abandonados en el suelo en el sito donde fueron recobrados.
v
ery few sites in North America provide evidence of sacred ritual (i.e., behaviors associated with religious beliefs) among the earliest
well-documented inhabitants of the continent. We
report here on the Caradoc site (AfHj -104) in southwestern Ontario, Canada, which provides evidence of
ritual behavior associated with unfluted lanceolate
point assemblages of ca. 10,500 to 10,000 B.P. This
site consists solely of purposefully broken lithic artifacts and represents a type of site that has never before
been reported. Besides providing documentation of
ritual, this site provides insight into poorly known
lithic procurement practices, lithic reduction strategies,
and tool kits in the area of this period.
Background
The Caradoc site is located about 30 km west of
London, Ontario (Figure la). During the spring of
1997 a local resident, Mr. James MacLeod, recov-
..
ered 29 pieces of broken lithic tools on a cultivated
knoll surface. Most of the pieces were apparently
within a very small area of about one meter square
extending into a plow furrow. This site had been a
pasture for 50 or more years but had been plowed
for cultivation for the first time that spring. The site
was brought to our attention within hours of its discovery. The collection included fragments of large
bifaces, used biface thinning flakes, and side scrapers that we suspected resulted from purposeful breakage. Most of the tools were on a heavily weathered
Bayport chert imported from the Saginaw Bay area
of Michigan, northwest of the site. We believed the
site was Paleoindian since Bayport chert was used
most intensively on the earliest sites in the area and
the tools and blanks recovered were identical to those
at other early sites (e.g., Deller and Ellis 1992a,
1992b; Storck 1997; Wright and Roosa 1966).Also,
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 discovered 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 remnant of a delta formed where a river entered proglacial 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 relation 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 shovelload 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
Table 1. Artifact Totals, Caradoc Site.
Artifact Type
Number of Items
"Hi-Ho" Point
1
1
Alternately Beveled Biface
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
1
Iron Pyrite Concretion
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 Bayport 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
269
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 deepest 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 Mississippian Bayport formation and crops out in the Saginaw 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 photograph 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 excavation 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, include the projectile point, a side scraper, a small
indicating the nodules were obtained at or very near retouched flake, and what may be four small waste
the outcrops rather than in secondary deposits such flakes. In addition, there are two small, thin,
as till. The emphasis on the use of exotic materials, retouched flakes that exhibit distal fractures but
often from a single source, is characteristic of many which may be a result of flake collapse during
fluted point sites in the Great Lakes area (e.g., Deller removal from a core. The other 57 siliceous artifacts,
and Ellis 1992a; Ellis 1989:142). The data from which are all tools or preforms, have been broken
Caradoc, along with that from other unfluted point and exhibit weathered break surfaces. Breakage was
sites such as Holcombe in Michigan (Fitting et al. caused by a single fracture initiation 61 percent of
1966) and several Upper Great Lakes sites (e.g., the time. In an additional 35 percent of the examples
Meinholz and Kuehn 1996), provide growing evi- two initiations occur, and on 2 percent (one examdence that comparable lithic procurement practices ple) three initiations are present.
Three kinds of fractures occur, more than one of
persisted into subsequent times.
Very few siliceous artifacts are intact. These 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 medianpatera1 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
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 hammers, 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 bulldozers 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
[Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011
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 podzol/spodosol soil-formation processes (e.g., Anderton 1999; Ellis and Deller 1986; Wright and Roosa
1966950). The iron source is most likely the dissolution of carbonates in the site's deltaic sands that
occurs during the earliest stages of soil development,
which would greatly predate historic times. Therefore, 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 originated at the edge of an artifact, which would commonly occur under conditions of equipment
breakage. For instance, there are no weathered edgeinduced 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 impossible 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 preferred even more on large, thick, flat flakes (side
REPORTS
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 equipmentinduced 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 simpleedge 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,
greatly disturbedby landlevelers,road-graderslscrapers, 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 fractureinitiations
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 Paleoindians. 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 (Frison and Bradley 1980:Table 3) represents a site
where the frequency of breaks has been reported in
273
detail. At that site, 7 of 12 or 58 percent of the radially 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
is only common at quarry sites; at sites removed
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 strategy 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 Hanson 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 surfacejust 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 (< 15 im)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 distinct stem, the point closely resembles those forms
recovered from the Holcombe site in Michigan (Fitting 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 collectionsfrom other sites (e.g., Ellis and
Deller 1982). These items may represent a transitional 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. 10,500B.P.; Ellis and
Deller 198654) and close resemblances to southern
types such as Quad, Suwannee, Simpson, and Dalton (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 Holliday 1987:Figure 9.6a; Roberts 1935:24-25), but
REPORTS
306N-
J
. . -., .: *:.
...: .
. . f'..'.
.
. . . . .......
.
... : . . ..
.
.....
:.*
'*
* .
'
*.*
* .
.*.*
*:
,
304N
4961
"'
0
1
--Tdir-
5041
5:.
*
302N-
*.
'
.
.*
2
5021
A
8
A
,
300N
4981
I
5001
Figure 5. Distribution of piece-plotted artifacts in excavated area. (a) exact plots--triangle shows location of point recovered from surface; (b) contour density plot.
Caradoc represents its first report from a Late Paleoindian context in the Great Lakes region. A second
incomplete biface was oval in outline and has a fine
continuous edge retouch.The finalbiface (Figure 4a)
is a very well made leaf-shaped form.
Excluding unidentifiable fragments, all of the
remaining 31 bifaces lack fine-edge retouch and
retain evidence of platform preparation, suggesting
they are unfinished. The dominance of such unfinished bifaces in comparison to finishedforms is characteristic of many early artifact caches (e.g., Deller
and Ellis 1984; Hartwell 1991), but it is not charac-
276
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
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 various different tool types as needed. Moreover, movement of items in unfinished, robust forms minimizes
transport damage (Ellis 199758).
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 severa1large, relatively parallel-sided elongated "bladeflakes" (Callahan 1979) from unidirectionally
worked cores of a roughly conical form (e.g., Figure 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
[Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011
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 assemblagethat
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. Comparable 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 nonsiliceouspieces recovered are associated with
the chert artifacts. These items include six small,
REPORTS
thin, slate flakes. Since slate would tend to disintegrate 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 concretions 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 sandstoneJsiltstone 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
277
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 direction 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 crossmend 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 originally 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 approximating 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
(Table 2: center column). In over 65 percent of the
cases, all individual pieces making up an item were
found within a 1.00-m radius and in almost 50 percent of the cases, all individual pieces of a crossmended artifact were within a .75-m radius.
If anything, the actual separation of fragments
was probably even less because this method assumes
pieces have not been moved from their original depositional location due to post-occupation disturbances
including land clearing, cultivation, and tree throws.
It is possible, however, to control somewhat for these
REPORTS
279
Table 2: Dispersion of Refitted Artifact Fragments.
Circle Radius
Number of Refitted Items Number of Refitted Items Ignoring Outliers <0.50 meter 19 (36.54%) 16 (51.61%) <0.75 meter 24 (46.15%) 28 (90.32%) < 1.0 meter 34 (65.39%) 28 (90.32%) 18 (34.62%) >1.0 meter (residual) 3 (9.68%) 52 Total Number of Items 31 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 distributionof 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 Paleoindians) 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 1994:51).
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 awareness . . . this invariably requires a range of attentionfocusing 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
280
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
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).Considerable 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 infrequently 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 Edenstyle points, as well as a side-notched point. All of
these artifacts had been purposefully burned and
heat-fractured. Offerings of identical kinds of heatfractured 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
[Vol. 66, No. 2, 20011
(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 (Stanford 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 Clovis 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 crosshatched 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 workmanship. 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
including broken artifacts are a widespread component 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 parsimonious 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 continental 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 cemetery (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-
281
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 Wisconsin, 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 overwhelming 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 outstanding 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 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
the site 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 Geoarchaeological 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. American A n t i q u i ~36:17&182.
Buckmaster, M., and J. Paquette
1988 The Gorto Site: Preliminary Report on a Late PaleoIndian Site in Marquette County, Michigan. Wisconsin
Archeologist 69:lOl-124.
Butler, R. B.
1963 An Early Man Site at Big Camas Prairie, South-Central 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 LithicAnalysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 7: 1-180.
Chapman, L. J., and D. F. Putnam
1984 The Physiograplzy of Southern Ontario. Ontario Geological 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 University Museum, Pocatello, Idaho.
1977 The Obtuse Angle as a Functional Edge. In ExperirnentalArchaeology, edited by D. Ingersoll, J. E.Yellen, and
[Vol. 66, No. 2,20011
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. Unpublished 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 PaleoIndian 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. University 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 Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, Historical Planning and Research Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dustin, l?
1935 A Study of Bayport Chert. Papers of the MichiganAcademv ofscience,Arts and Letters 20:465475.
Ellis, c.'J. "
1984 Paleo-Indian Lithic Technological Structure and Organization 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, Boulder, 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 Archaeology 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, University of Michigan, No. 27. University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
REPORTS
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 Material EconomiesAnlong PrelzistoricHunter-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 Archaeology, Buffalo, New York.
1999 Tlze Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampnlent. Persimmon 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 Southem 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 Thesis, 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. American 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. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology,University of Michigan. University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mallouf, R. J.
1982 AnAnalysis of Plow-Damaged Chert Artifacts: the Bro-
283
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. ArchaeologyResearch 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 Synlposiunl 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: Elements 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 WoodlandBurial Cult in tlze Northeast. New York State Museum and Science 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 Investigation at the Lindenmeier Site in Northern Colomdo. Smithsonian 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 Monographs 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, Wisconsin.
Shott, M.
1993 Tlze Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Plzase Paleo-Indian Occupation 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, Corvallis, Oregon.
Stanford, D., and M. Jodry
1988 TheDrake Clovis Cache. CzirrentResear~hin tlze Pleistocene 5:21-22.
284
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Storck, P. L.
1997 Tlze Fislzer Site: Archaeological, Geological and Paleohotanical Studies at an Early Paleo-Indian Site in Sozithern 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. Journal of Californiaand GreatBasin 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~y3 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-
[Vol. 66, No. 2,2001]
c u v Series Paper No. 152. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.
Yarrow, H. C.
1881 A Further Contribution to the Study of Mortuary Customs of the North American Indians. InFirstAnnzial Report
oftlze Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, pp. 87-203. Govemment 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.