[NPS Arrowhead] U.S. Dept. of Interior National Park Service Archeology Program
Quick Menu Features
* Sitemap * Home
  Back to The Earliest Americans theme study    
 

 

SOUTHEAST PROPERTY TYPES

NHL Property Types as Categories for the Southeast

Each of the major property type categories presented here is defined in the national context document. In the following paragraphs each property type is discussed in turn. Examples of specific sites or districts that illustrate the category in the Southeast are presented in the resource distribution section that follows. A listing of southeastern sites and localities by property type, and NRHP and NHL status, is provided in Table 12. Because there is considerable overlap between property types, some sites are listed and subsequently discussed under more than one category.

Table 12. Major Southeastern Paleoindian sites by NHL Property Type
Caches:
Hawkins, Arkansas
Sloan, Arkansas*

Bone Beds and Kill Sites
Dust Cave, Alabama*
Guest Mammoth, Florida
Little Salt Spring, Florida*
Page-Ladson, Aucilla River District, Florida*
Silver Springs Run, Florida
Warm Mineral Springs, Florida*
Big Bone Lick, Kentucky*
Coats-Hindes, Tennessee

Human Burials
Sloan, Arkansas*
Little Salt Spring, Florida*
Warm Mineral Springs, Florida*
Windover, Florida*

Rock Art and Other Petroglyphic or Pictographic Representations
No sites are currently known in this category in the region

Quarries and Workshops
Lee County Quarry, Georgia
Theriault, Georgia
Adams, Little River District, Kentucky*
Mackafoonee, Georgia
Hardaway, North Carolina
Allendale Complex, South Carolina*
Carson-Conn-Short, Tennessee*
Wells Creek Crater, Tennessee*
Flint Run, Virginia
Williamson, Virginia*

Occupations
Belle Meade, Alabama
Heavan's Half Acre, Alabama
LaGrange Rockshelter, Alabama
Dust Cave, Alabama*
Quad, Alabama
Pine Tree, Alabama
Stanfield Worley, Alabama*
Brand, Arkansas
Ferguson, Arkansas
Lace, Arkansas
Bolen Bluff, Florida
Harney Flats, Florida*
Nalcrest, Florida
Page-Ladson, Aucilla River District, Florida*
Thomas Creek District, Florida
Upper Tampa Bay District, Florida
Albany Marine Corps Supply Center, Georgia
Barnett Shoals Complex, Georgia
Carmouche, Georgia
Clyde Gulley, Georgia
Feronia Locality, Georgia
Kinchafoonee, Georgia
Lowe, Georgia
Macon Plateau District, Georgia
Ocmulgee Bottom, Georgia
Pig Pen, Georgia
Rucker's Bottom
Standing Boy, Georgia
Taylor Hill, Georgia*
9GE309, Georgia
9GE534, Georgia
9MG28, Georgia
Youngblood, Kentucky
Avery Island, Louisiana
John Pearce, Louisiana
Hester-Standifer, Mississippi
Baucom, North Carolina
Haw River, North Carolina
Manning, South Carolina
Nipper Creek, South Carolina
Taylor, South Carolina*
Cactus Hill, Virginia*
Conover/Goose Neck, Virginia
Flint Run, Virginia
Williamson, Virginia*
* = Possible NHL candidate
NR listed
designated an NHL

Isolated Finds

Isolated finds are individual artifacts that have been demonstrated to be Paleoindian in age through typological or other analyses. In the Southeast isolated finds tend to be projectile points that either occur by themselves or are found on sites with materials whose age is known or assumed to be later in time. Several thousand isolated finds of Paleoindian points and other tools are currently known from the region (Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000). Typically the isolated points appear to reflect individual hunting/butchering episodes, or examples of artifact loss or discard. The distribution of isolated finds, when examined collectively over large areas, has done a great deal to improve our understanding of Paleoindian settlement in the Southeast (Anderson 1990a, 1990b, 1996; Williams and Stoltman 1965). It is crucial to determine, of course, whether isolated finds are parts of larger, unrecognized sites. For example in the Tennessee fluted point survey, on more than one occasion, the "isolated finds" of several individual collectors were found, upon cross checking, to come from the same location, and hence derive from significant sites (Broster et al. 1996:9). Likewise, as Tesar (1996:22) has noted, "the collection and reuse of older artifacts should always be considered when they occur as minority elements in otherwise later assemblages." That is, isolated or small numbers of Paleoindian artifacts on sites with later components may represent scavenging and re-use rather than a primary occupation. Tesar (1994:7) has also argued that the replication of earlier tool forms by later occupants should also be considered when examining early materials.

Caches

Caches are groups of artifacts or other resources intentionally left at a location for either ceremonial or utilitarian purposes. Paleoindian caches tend to fall into two types, elaborate finished tools presumably associated with burials or consumption-rituals of some kind, and hence permanently removed from the cultural system of which they were a part, or mundane tools, raw materials, or foodstuffs left at a particular place with the intent of being used at a later date. Caches may be subsets of other property types if, for example, they occur on occupation sites, or as burial furniture.

No Paleoindian ceremonial caches predating roughly 10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P. are known from the southeastern United States. Given the striking similarities of Clovis assemblages over much of the continent, and the presence of elaborate Clovis caches from a number of locations in the west, such caches probably do exist in the region. Ceremonial caches are well known from the Dalton culture of the central Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Morse 1997b; Walthall and Koldehoff 1998). Well published examples include Sloan and the Hawkins Cache from northeast Arkansas (Morse 1971a, 1975a; Morse 1997b).

Intact bifacial core/preforms or large unifacial flakes have been found at a number of southeastern Paleoindian sites, both at and away from quarry/reduction areas, and some of these artifacts are thought to be utilitarian raw material caches. Examples of these kind of artifacts have been reported in Hardaway/Dalton context at the Haw River sites in North Carolina (Cable 1982b:321), in Suwannee/Early Side Notched context at Harney Flats (8Hi507) in Florida (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:81-83), in Clovis context at the Conover site in southern Virginia (McAvoy 1992:108, 115), and in unknown but presumably Clovis context at the Big Pine Tree (38AL143) and Smith's Lake Creek (38AL135) sites at the Allendale chert quarries in South Carolina (Goodyear 1992, 1999a:458-462; Goodyear and Charles 1984; Goodyear et al. 1985), and at Wakulla Springs Lodge (8Wa329) in Florida (Jones and Tesar 2000; Tesar 2000).

In the Southeast, large blades and blade cores have been found with Clovis and related fluted point assemblages at the Carson-Conn-Short site in Tennessee (Broster and Norton 1996:290-293; Broster et al. 1994, 1996; Nami et al. 1996) and the Adams site in Kentucky (Sanders 1988, 1990). The large size of some of the specimens found at these sites suggest they may have been cached, although profligate use of readily available raw material has also been suggested as an explanation. The terminal Paleoindian levels at Dust Cave, Alabama, dating to after ca. 10,500 rcbp/12,500 B.P., contained a large number of scraping tools made on blades, some of which may have been cached in the rockshelter (Meeks 1994). Although just outside the Southeast as defined for purposes of this study, at Rodgers Shelter in Missouri river cobbles and the bones of a trumpeter swan were found in Dalton levels, and have been interpreted as raw material caches for stone and bone working (Walthall 1998:229). The Busse cache in Kansas, of presumed Clovis age, evinces both ceremonial and utilitarian functions, consisting as it does of a large quantity of lightly to heavily utilized chert bifaces, blades, and other flaked stone tools, some of which are streaked with red ochre (Hofman 1995; see also Roper 1996).

While no unequivocal evidence for pit features has been found on Paleoindian sites in the Southeast, such features, if ultimately shown to be present at some sites, could have been used to store nuts, as they were in later times. Some southeastern Paleoindian sites, particularly those found associated with springs, streams, or ponds, may have been subaqueous meat caches rather than strictly kill sites (cf., Fisher 1995).

Bone Beds and Kill Sites

No unambiguous pre-Clovis Paleoindian kill sites or bone beds are known from the Southeast, although a number of possible candidate sites exist, including Saltville in Virginia, Little Salt Spring, Page Ladson, and Sloth Hole in Florida, and Coats-Hines in Tennessee (Breitburg et al. 1996; Clausen et al. 1979; Dunbar et al. 1988; Hemmings 1998; McDonald 2000). A number of Clovis age sites exist where evidence for the killing or butchering of fauna has been found, and modified bone and ivory of extinct Pleistocene fauna have been found at a number of locations in Florida (some of which may be pre-Clovis in age) (Dunbar and Webb 1996; Dunbar et al. 1989; Webb et al. 1984). Remains of essentially modern Holocene fauna have been found at a number of later Paleoindian sites, typically with Dalton occupations. These are usually from rockshelters, locations that offer better preservation, and that were first intensively utilized during this period (Goldman-Finn and Walker 1994; Styles and Klippel 1996;Walker 1997, 2000; Walthall 1998).

While not true kill sites, or even dense bone beds, Paleoindian sites with well preserved faunal and floral remains are of crucial importance to understanding human adaptation during this period. Well preserved later Paleoindian age faunal remains have been found in a number of rockshelters in the Southeast, including at Dust Cave and the Stanfield-Worley bluff shelter in Alabama (Goldman-Finn and Walker 1994; Parmalee 1962; Walker 1997, 2000). The faunal assemblages from these sites encompass a wide range of species, from a variety of environments. Of particular importance is the fact that appreciable numbers of small mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds are represented in these samples. At Dust Cave, in fact, birds are extremely common in the later Paleoindian Dalton assemblage (Walker 2000). Dincauze and Jacobson (2000) and Fiedel (n.d.) have each suggested that birds were important in Paleoindian diet, and that following migratory birds may have prompted and facilitated group movement and even colonizing behavior. White-tailed deer have traditionally been assumed to have been of great economic importance to Dalton populations, and the Dalton toolkit, in fact, was at one time interpreted largely in terms of its utility for the bulk processing of deer meat and hides (Goodyear 1974:14; Morse 1973). We now believe that these populations had a highly diversified subsistence economy, in which small game played an important if not primary role (Walker 1997, 2000).

It would be important to document how important small game was to earlier Paleoindian populations, for which few sites with paleosubsistence remains other than megafauna have been found. While it has sometimes been suggested that Clovis points were used exclusively on large game animals, it appears this may not have been the case. Artifacts such as stone tools may be examined to provide direct evidence about the range of animal and plant species exploited. Blood residue immunological analyses undertaken to date on materials from the Cactus Hill, Fifty (44WR50), and Thunderbird (44WR11) sites in Virginia suggest a wide range of species may have been exploited (Newman 1994, 1995). Positive results to deer and elk antiserum were identified on one fluted point from Cactus Hill, to cat antiserum on a fluted point from Thunderbird , and to rabbit and bear from separate fluted points from Fifty. Positive reactions for deer, elk, rabbit, and an unidentified bovid, possibly bison or muskox, were reported from several unifacial tools from Cactus Hill (reported in McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:Appendices F and G). While still somewhat controversial, blood residue analysis can provide direct evidence about the kinds of animals exploited by these early populations.

The limitations of blood residue analysis, however, mean these results will need to be considered carefully and, where possible, subject to additional verification through blind testing and independent replication (Eisele et al. 1996; Fiedel 1996). That is, care in the collection of artifacts in the field and in subsequent handling is essential if blood residue analyses are to be undertaken, since contamination is a distinct possibility, and indeed the method itself may be unreliable (cf., Loy and Dixon 1998, with Downs and Lowenstein 1995; Eisele et al. 1995, and Fiedel 1996). Phytolith analysis, a method of resolving patterns of plant use, has yet to be conducted on southeastern Paleoindian stone tools. Phytolith analysis has, however, been used to explore site formation processes at the Cactus Hill site, in a recent innovative analysis by McWeeney (McAvoy et al. 2000). Phytolith incidence was found to covary with cultural remains and soil phosphate content, indicating these remains may be useful in delimiting occupation floors.

Other kinds of special use or extraction sites, such as fish weirs, fishing or aquatic mammal hunting stations, or shellfish gathering sites, may also be present in coastal areas, although these would have likely been eroded and submerged by rising sea-levels (Tesar 1996:30-31). Submerged sites have been found at appreciable distances out from the Gulf and Atlantic coasts in recent years (Blanton 1996; Faught 1996; Faught and Carter 1998; Faught and Donoghue 1997; Faught et al. 1992). While shell midden sites dating prior to the Mid-Holocene in age are currently unknown in the region, their existence is considered possible (Russo 1996:196).

Human Burials

Human burials of Late Pleistocene age are rare in the Southeast, as indeed they are throughout North America. The only well documented, unequivocal burial assemblage of Paleoindian age known from the region comes from the Sloan site in northeast Arkansas, where some 200 tiny, weathered bone fragments were found amid a remarkable assemblage of Dalton points and other tools (Condon and Rose 1997; Morse 1975a, Morse 1997b). The Sloan case indicates that human burials of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene age may occur in unusual or unanticipated settings. Sloan was located well away from contemporaneous Dalton sites, for example, on a sand dune that saw only minor use in later prehistory. Although there are many other Dalton sites known from this part of northeast Arkansas, most are assumed to have been either habitation or special purpose resource extraction stations. Sloan, in contrast, appears to have been used only for mortuary behavior.

Large numbers of Archaic period burials dating from ca. 8300-5200 rcbp/9350-5930 B.P. have been found in submerged settings in Florida at sites like Little Salt Spring and Windover (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran et al. 1986). The earliest submerged human remains from the region at present have been dated from ca. 10,200 to 11,450 B.P./ 9000 to 10,000 rcbp, at the Warm Mineral Springs site in Florida (Clausen et al. 1975a, 1975b; Cockrell and Murphy 1978; Goodyear 1999a:445; Tesar 2000). A total of 33 dates were obtained from the zone where human remains were found, a ledge ca. 12 to 14 m below the surface, which average ca. 9630 rcbp/11,000 B.P. (Tesar 2000:12). Associated artifacts included Greenbrier/Bolen projectile points, suggesting a late Dalton/Early Side Notched cultural assemblage. Tesar (2000:13-14, citing arguments presented by Clausen et al. 1975a:31) has argued that, rather than intentional burials, the human remains are those of drowning victims who accidentally fell or deliberately climbed into the cenote but were subsequently unable to climb out. Recent investigations have focused on the central debris cone at the bottom of the sinkhole, in more than 150 feet of water, where relatively undisturbed deposits may exist (Purdy 1991:187-188; Tesar 2000:14). In the absence of a formal site report, interpretation of findings is difficult. Numerous burials (possibly >1000) have also been found at the nearby Little Salt Spring site, which yielded possible pre-Clovis artifacts, but the burials are Mid-Holocene in age, from ca. 6800 to 5200 rcbp/7650 to 5930 B.P. (Clausen et al. 1979:612; Tesar 2000:17-20).

The Page-Ladson site in Florida has yielded well preserved floral and fauna remains (Peres 1997, Peres and Carter 1999), and human remains may eventually be discovered as well. Early human remains may even be present in offshore contexts. A partially mineralized human bone fragment was found washed up on Edisto Beach, South Carolina, possibly derived from offshore Pleistocene deposits, and dated to Mid-Holocene age 6960±240 rcbp/7775 B.P. (Hemmings et al. 1973). Paleoindian artifacts have been found at appreciable distances out onto the continental shelf, and skeletal materials may also be present (Faught 1996; Goodyear 1999a:468-470). These sites are amenable to examination using underwater archaeological techniques, a type of research that shows great promise.

Other Paleoindian burials no doubt exist within the region, although when discovered, their context will need to be carefully evaluated. The Natchez pelvis, for example, was found in indirect association with Late Pleistocene fauna, but was radiocarbon dated to much later in time (Cotter 1991). Likewise, some human skeletal specimens found and dismissed long ago might bear re-examination, such as the human remains from Vero and Melbourne in Florida (Gidley and Loomis 1926; Sellards 1917).

Rock Art and other Petroglyphic or Pictographic Representations

No examples of Late Pleistocene age rock art or other stationery artwork are currently known from the Southeast, although their existence cannot be ruled out. Most known fixed artwork in the region, in fact, is quite late, dating from the Woodland or Mississippian periods, as exemplified by sites like Mud Glyph Cave in Tennessee (Faulkner 1986; Simak et al. 1997). Designs drawn into mud deposits in caves, in fact, appear at present to be more common than petroglyphs or pictographs in the Southeast. In the western and southwestern parts of the country, in contrast, petroglyphs and pictographs are quite common, and some appear to have great antiquity (Schaafsma 1996:599-600). This may reflect local cultural traditions as well as factors influencing preservation. Outside of isolated and climatically stable cave environments, the long term survival of rock art may be unlikely in the humid southeastern climate. Recent rock art surveys in southern states, however, indicate the record is more extensive than once thought, suggesting people may not have been looking in the right places, or carefully enough (e.g., Charles 1998).

Parietal art, "the art restricted to the walls, roof and occasionally floors of caves and rock-shelters" (Clark 1967:67), can also only occur in areas where caves and rockshelters themselves are likely. Fortunately, geological formations conducive to cave and rockshelter formation occur over large parts of the Southeast, particularly in the interior highlands and plateaus. Only in the Coastal Plain are such settings rare, although a major exception is the karst topography in Florida. In this region, many of the caves and shelters that would have been exposed in the Late Pleistocene are now submerged, with unknown effects on the survival of possible artwork, as well as making the exploration of the question difficult. Evidence for Late Pleistocene age painting has been observed on the walls and ceiling of the Pedra Pintada rockshelter near Monte Alegre in Brazil, with painted fragments found in strata securely dated to ca. 10,500 rcbp/12,500 B.P. (Roosevelt et al. 1996). Given proper preservational conditions, artwork of a similar age may eventually be found in the Southeast. Surveys of rock art have been initiated in some southeastern states, such as South Carolina (Charles1998), and more information about the nature and age of these kind of remains should be forthcoming.

Chattel art, or arte mobilière, consisting of small, portable items of carved or decorated wood, bone, and stone, may also be discovered some day in Late Pleistocene context in the Southeast. Indeed, the elaborately carved ivory and bone points and foreshafts found in Florida are considered by some to be works of art as well as utilitarian items. Similar aesthetic qualities are attached to unusually large or well made flaked stone tools, such as Sloan points, or some of the more spectacular Clovis and Cumberland points found in the region.

Quarries and Workshops

Quarries and workshops comprise perhaps the best known and certainly among the most easily recognized Paleoindian property type in the Southeast. Major sites and localities include Theriault in Georgia (Brockington 1971), the Little River District in Kentucky (Sanders 1990; Freeman et al. 1996), Hardaway in North Carolina (Coe1964; Daniel 1998), the Allendale quarries in South Carolina (Goodyear and Charles1984), Carson-Conn-Short (Broster et al. 1994) and Wells Creek Crater (Dragoo 1973) in Tennessee, and the Flint Run complex (Gardner, ed., 1974) and the Williamson site (McCary 1951, 1975) in Virginia (Table 12). At these sites, lithic raw materials were extracted and initially processed for use at other locations. Many quarry/workshop sites are also multicomponent, with evidence for Clovis occupations, as well as later Paleoindian through Mississippian period use. Occupation or habitation by Paleoindian groups is explicitly stated to have occurred at almost all of these sites (e.g., Daniel 1998:145; Dragoo 1973:46; Gardner 1977:258-259; McAvoy 1992:142; Sanders1990:62). Accordingly, strict separation of quarry/workshop, and occupation property types is difficult or impossible in some cases, as is the resolution of discrete Paleoindian assemblages from those of much later periods. Researchers examining these property types should make every effort to resolve intrasite spatial patterning, which may vary appreciably over relatively small areas.

Occupations

A great many Paleoindian occupation sites, defined as habitation areas or residential base camps occupied for unknown but presumably fairly lengthy periods of time, are known from the Southeast (Table 12). Many quarry/workshop sites also appear to have occupation areas within them or nearby, such as at Flint Run in Virginia, where a possible structure has been identified (Gardner 1974), or Hardaway in North Carolina, where highly diversified tool assemblages have been found (e.g., Coe 1964; Daniel 1998). There are also a number of presumed Paleoindian habitation sites in the Southeast that are not located in direct proximity to lithic raw material sources, yet that have been extensively examined and that are well published. These include Dust Cave (Driskell 1996; Goldman-Finn and Driskell 1994) and Stanfield-Worley in Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962), Brand in Arkansas (Goodyear 1974), the Haw River sites in North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982), and Taylor in South Carolina (Michie 1996), to cite a few examples that provide appreciable insight into Paleoindian lifeways. The assemblages at Paleoindian occupation sites can also be used to derive expectations of what habitation assemblages may be like within quarry/workshop sites, where lithic raw material quarrying and initial reduction occurred, and where the associated massive debris likely masks their easy recognition.

Resource Distribution in the Southeast

In the preceding section, the kinds of Paleoindian property types that occur in the Southeast were described. In the pages that follow, the feasibility of developing comprehensive, regionwide datasets of Paleoindian property types, and conducting distributional and other analyses with them, is explored. This is followed by a discussion of specific sites and assemblages by property type category.

Broad Trends

Using data collected in statewide recording projects, it is now possible to plot the occurrence of some classes of Paleoindian artifacts across the Southeast (e.g., Anderson 1990a) (Table 13). As of early 2000, in the 48 states comprising the continental United States, information on 12,791 fluted points exists in state-wide surveys (Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000). Of this total, over two thirds are located in states east of the Mississippi River with the remainder located in states to the west, with Minnesota placed in states to the west of the river. The density of fluted points in the East is over five times that in the West, measured in terms of points per 1000 square miles. Within the East, almost 60% of the fluted points that have been reported are located in the Southeast, as defined in this context (but with Louisiana and Arkansas, states west of the Mississippi, excluded).

Table 13. Summary Fluted Point Data by State in the Southeastern United States

[Long description]
State State Area in Square Miles Location Number of Points County Level Data Points Per 1000 Square Miles Primary References
Alabama 51,609 E 1654 1654 32.05 Futato 1982, 1996; Futato et al. 1992
Arkansas 53,104 W 102 89 1.92 Gilliam 1995, 1996; Dan F. Morse: personal communication
District of Columbia 67 E 3 3 44.78 Meltzer 1988:12
Florida 58,560 E 537 535 9.17 Dunbar and Waller 1983:19; Dunbar 1991:193, 198-211, personal communication
Georgia 58,876 E 126 123 2.14 Anderson et al. 1990
Kentucky 40,395 E 290 290 7.18 Rolingson 1964:23
Louisiana 48,523 W 48 48 0.99 Gagliano and Gregory 1965; Philip K. Rivet, personal communication
Mississippi 47,716 E 70 70 1.47 McGahey 1987:2, 1996, personal communication
North Carolina 52,586 E 444 436 8.44 Peck 1988; Daniel 1997
South Carolina 31,055 E 317 317 10.21 Charles 1986:16, personal communication; Goodyear et al. 1990
Tennessee 42,244 E 379 372 8.97 Broster and Norton 1996; John B. Broster: personal communication
Virginia 40,817 E 956 868 23.42 McCary 1984; 1988; Johnson and Pearsall 1991a, 1991b, 1993, 1995, 1996
Grand Totals 525,552 4,926 4,805 9.37

Thus, while fluting is sometimes considered a western or even Great Plains Paleoindian tradition, there are far more of these artifacts in the East than in the West, and in the Southeast in particular.

To date, information is available to permit the generation of maps illustrating the occurrence of all fluted points (Figure 9), as well as two distinctive southeastern Paleoindian projectile point categories, Cumberland and Suwannee/Simpson (Figure 10). While there are admittedly many problems with these data, such as varying levels of recording from state to state, differing levels of geological visibility for these materials, inclusion of nonfluted points in Florida, where Suwannee and Simpson forms are counted, and so on (as discussed in Anderson and Faught 1998), the maps still probably accurately reflect the geographic distribution of these artifact types on the southeastern landscape.

When examining the incidence of all fluted points in the Southeast, major concentrations and voids can be recognized (Figure 9). Large numbers of fluted points have been recorded in the Tennessee River Valley of northern Alabama, in portions of the Ohio and Cumberland drainages, and in parts of Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Some of these clusters reflect single, extremely rich sites or localities, while others, such as those in the major river valleys of the Midsouth, reflect large numbers of points from both sites and isolated finds. Over 1000 fluted points have been reported from four counties in northern Alabama alone, for example, from numerous locations both along and away from the Tennessee River (Futato 1982).

Several major point clusters occur along the eastern seaboard and in northwestern Florida, that may indicate regions where settlement may have continued onto the then-exposed continental shelf. Comparatively few points, in contrast, occur in portions of the Gulf Coastal Plain, lower peninsular Florida, and in the lower Mississippi River Valley (see also Dincauze 1993a). Sampling considerations aside, these areas may have been less attractive to fluted point-using populations. Population levels or intensity of use of these areas, accordingly, is unlikely to have been comparable to that in areas of dense artifact concentration. The Appalachian Mountains stand out as a particularly noticeable void in the otherwise densely covered East, indicating use of this area by fluted point using peoples was comparatively minimal (Lane and Anderson n.d). Preservation conditions, notably the exposure of cultural materials on thin soil horizons, may have led to remains being severely eroded or masked in mountainous areas, meaning site formation processes will have to be carefully evaluated. Butzer (1991), for example, has argued that early occupations may have been present in these areas, but their sites have since been largely lost to erosion.

Examining the distribution of specific Paleoindian projectile point types is difficult, because this kind of information has not been systematically recorded across the region. Two exceptions exist, however, for the highly distinctive Cumberland and Suwannee/Simpson types, which are invariably identified in Paleoindian survey projects. Figure 10 shows the distribution of these point types, based on a sample of 348 Cumberland, 490 Suwannee, and 51 Simpson points, with the latter two categories combined. Both groups have very tight, spatially restricted distributions. Cumberland points are found within and near the Cumberland and Tennessee River drainages of northern Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky, while Suwannee points occur primarily in central and northern Florida, south Georgia, and western South Carolina. Save for isolated outliers, the size of these concentrations are similar, roughly 300 km in maximum extent, a figure that may provide clues about the range of the people making these artifact categories. That is, these distributions may represent the regular use areas of distinctive later Paleoindian cultural traditions.

The distributional evidence suggests a number of things about Clovis and post-Clovis Paleoindian occupations in the Southeast (Anderson and Faught 1998:176-177). First and foremost, large numbers of people using fluted point technology were present in the region, and, given the evidence for a gradual evolution from fluted to unfluted forms in a number of areas, these occupations were highly successful. Given the impressive density, numbers, and diversity of fluted points present, in fact, it is possible that fluting technology could have originated in and spread from this region. Pre-Clovis populations, in contrast, may have been too small and scattered for diffusion to have been a significant factor, which may account for the spotty and disparate nature of the Early Paleoindian record.

Second, since fluted points are common in some areas and absent in others, this suggests that groups making these artifacts were themselves unevenly distributed over the landscape. Third, if Clovis reflects either the movement of an initial colonizing population or the radiation of a technology, movement appears to have proceeded in a leapfrog manner (e.g., Anthony 1990; Fiedel 2000). Fourth, concentrations of fluted points appear to represent staging areas, where initial populations settled and grew, and where subsequent Paleoindian subregional cultural traditions emerged, characterized by distinctive and spatially restricted point types (see also Anderson 1990a; Dincauze 1993b). The occurrence of Cumberland and Suwannee/Simpson points, in areas where concentrations of fluted points also occurred, certainly suggests such a possibility. Finally, the presence of staging areas, furthermore, would provide locations on the landscape where radiating groups could return to in the event of problems, such as catastrophic accident or even a lack of suitable mates, and know that other people would be present (cf., Anderson and Gillam 2001; Moore and Moseley 2001). Finally, given that large areas of the continental shelf along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts were exposed and habitable during the Paleoindian era, artifact concentrations near the modern coastline probably represent settlement systems that continued into areas now submerged.

Early Paleoindian Assemblages and Diagnostics in the Southeast

A number of sites have been found in the Southeast that appear to predate 11,500 rcbp/13,450 B.P., representing the initial human occupation of the region. Perhaps the strongest candidates include Cactus Hill (44SX20) in southern Virginia (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McAvoy et al. 2000), Saltville (44SM37) in western Virginia (McDonald 2000), and Topper (38AL23) in South Carolina (Goodyear 1999b, 2000, n.d.), with the Little Salt Spring and Page Ladson sites in Florida (Clausen et al. 1979; Dunbar et al. 1988, 1989) and Coats-Hines (40Wm31) in Tennessee (Breitburg et al. 1996) plausible but somewhat more equivocal candidates.

FIGURE

FIGURE

At Cactus Hill, a true blade industry that includes small blades, polyhedral blade cores, retouched flakes, and abrading stones was found stratigraphically below a well defined Clovis occupation. The assemblage was documented in two separate parts of the site, in excavations by two different teams of researchers, led by Joseph and Lynn McAvoy and Michael F. Johnson (M. Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997). Two unfluted lanceolate/triangular bifaces were also found that McAvoy and McAvoy (1997:136) have called Early Triangular. Seven quartzite flakes and three quartzite blade cores were found in and near an amorphous hearth-like scatter of white pine charcoal that yielded an AMS radiocarbon determination of 15,070±70 rcbp (Beta 81590), suggesting a very early occupation (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:167). Three additional early dates [16,670±730 rcbp (Beta 97708), 16,940±50 rcbp (Beta 128330), and 19,700±130 rcbp (Beta 128331)] and two anomalously recent dates of 9250±60 rcbp (Beta 93899) and 10,160±60 rcbp (Beta 92923) have also been obtained on charcoal from the pre-Clovis levels (McAvoy et al. 2000). The 16,670±730 and 16,940±50 rcbp dates are from hearth areas, while the 19,700±130 rcbp date is near the base of the dune, below the cultural levels. The overlying Clovis assemblage is well defined, with numerous points and tools, and a hearth-like scatter of Southern pine charcoal from the same level has been radiocarbon dated to 10,920±250 rcbp (Beta 81589) (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:124, 167, 169).

The excavations conducted in both areas of Cactus Hill through 1996 have been superbly documented in a lengthy, well-illustrated monograph (McAvoy and McAvoy1997), and extensive multidisciplinary follow up work is being conducted to verify the pre-Clovis occupation (McAvoy et al. 2000). The site deposits are comparatively shallow and loosely compacted sands, however, and at least five radiocarbon dates obtained from the Clovis levels ranging from ca. 5285 to 9790 rcbp have been rejected as too late due to "downdrift" (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997:169). The age of the earliest assemblage, at several thousand years before the Clovis occupation, accordingly, must be considered somewhat tentative at present. It is clearly below the Clovis level stratigraphically, however, and as such the Early Triangular point form and associated blade industry appear to be the first well defined pre-Clovis assemblage documented in the region. Given the small assemblage sample sizes and the concerns about the absolute dating, additional research will be necessary to document the nature and true age of this occupation, and whether artifacts associated with it have utility as unambiguous pre-Clovis temporal markers. Even given these caveats, Cactus Hill appears to be the oldest well defined Paleoindian occupation in the region.

Possible fire cracked rock, disarticulated mastodont bones (possibly from butchering and burning), and probable stone and bone tools have recently been reported from the Saltville River valley in southwest Virginia in lake deposits dated from ca. 13,000 to 15,000 rcbp/15,630 to 17,950 B.P.; the results of this work have been admirably summarized in a recent publication (McDonald 2000). The Saltville area has long been known as a rich Late Pleistocene fossil and archaeological locality. In the mid-1940s a fluted point base and three tools of modified mastodon bone and tusk were reportedly found in a bone-bearing bed exposed in a drainage ditch, and by the early 1950s four fluted points were reported from the same general area, three apparently from the same bone deposits (McCary 1951:11; Pickle 1946; Reinhart 1989:158). Extensive excavations have been conducted at Saltville over the past two decades by Jerry N. McDonald (2000), who found a number of possible artifacts during paleontological investigations in a 30 x 20 m excavation area beside the main river channel. Three horizons were recognized, dating from roughly 14,500, 13,900, and 13,000 rcbp/17360, 16675, and 15,630 B.P. (McDonald 2000; see also Goodyear n.d.). Collagen from a fractured and apparently use-worn tibia of a probable musk ox (Bootherium bombifrons) was AMS dated to 14,510±80 rcbp (Beta 117541) from the lowest level; a second date on wood from the same level is nearly identical, at 14,480±300 rcbp (Beta-5701) (McDonald 2000:8, 37-46). Among the other possible artifacts recovered, where the disarticulated mastodon was found, include a small flat sandstone slab, a possible sandstone ax, a small chert chunk with possible use wear damage, a worn chert flake, and concretions that are inferred to have possibly formed from fat rendering (McDonald 2000:8, 33-34).

The middle horizon at the Saltville site included a cluster of pebbles and cobbles from a small depression, the uppermost stratum of which yielded 12 pieces of microdebitage and some fish bones. Twigs collected from a sand lens from within the block yielded a radiocarbon date of 13,950±70 rcbp (Beta 65209); two other dates from the same stratum were similar in age, 13,460±420 rcbp (SI-641) on tusk and 13,130±330 rcbp (A-2985) on wood (McDonald 2000:8, 33). Seven concretions and one prismatic column of weathered bedrock were also found in a second, mud filled depression, and appeared to have been deliberately placed in an upright position. The latest horizon was a feature in an eroded rill into the middle horizon that contained a midden-like concentration containing over 200 clam shells, over 500 pieces of small vertebrate teeth and bones, and 125 pieces of chert microdebitage, some of which appear to be intentionally produced flakes. McDonald (2000:34-36) suggests that the debris formed by people harvesting shellfish and small animals from the lake during periods of low water. If created by human actions, the site would be the oldest shell midden in the New World. The chert is reported as extra-local, and not something found in other non-cultural riverine deposits in the area, arguing for a cultural origin for some or all of the site assemblage.

At the Topper site (38AL23), located at the Allendale County, South Carolina chert quarries, in a 2x2 m test unit opened in 1998, Goodyear (1999b, 2000, n.d., Goodyear et al. 1998) found a small concentration of chert cobbles at a depth of ca. 180 cm below the ground surface, that appeared to represent a Paleoindian cultural feature, possibly a raw material cache. Follow up excavations in 1999 and 2000 encompassed 78 square meters of area, as well as over 100 meters of deep backhoe trenches opened to facilitate geoarchaeological research. A microblade industry characterized by numerous small blades, burins and burin spalls, and microblade and blade cores was found, amid a number of rock clusters, and in one area five circular organic stains that may represent cultural features, possibly post holes.

The upper 100 to 140 cm of the deposits at Topper are colluvial slopewash, and encompass Clovis through historic era remains. Below that are alluvial sands roughly a meter in thickness, where the presumed pre-Clovis industry occurs, that in turn rest on a scoured gray Pleistocene terrace. The geological age and setting of the deposits are currently undergoing extensive examination, to determine when and how the deposits formed. Two dates on humic acids obtained from beneath the gray clay were19,280±140 rcbp (CAMS-59593) and 20,860±90 rcbp (CAMS-58432) (Goodyear 1999b:10), while OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) dating yielded dates from ca 13,000 to 14,000 B.P. at the base of the colluvium, and from 15,000 to 16,000 B.P. at the top of the alluvial sand layer. These dates suggest the archaeological remains encountered in the alluvial sands date to at least 13,000 to 14,000 B.P. (immediately pre-Clovis), and possibly between ca. 15,000 B.P. (the age of the upper part of the alluvial sands) and ca. 20,000 rcbp/23,700 B.P. (the age of the deposits below the gray clay). Archaeological fieldwork has been ongoing at the Allendale quarries by Goodyear and his colleagues for over 15 years, and is planned for the foreseeable future; detailed publications on the work, however, have yet to appear, and will likely be deferred until the newly discovered possible pre-Clovis deposits have been thoroughly explored. Topper, if verified as pre-Clovis in age, would be an important example of a quarry/occupation property type

A number of other sites also suggest the existence of pre-Clovis occupations in the Southeast, although for the present they remain to be securely dated, yield remains in more ambiguous context, or are incompletely reported. At Coats-Hines (40Wm31), an apparent kill site in Tennessee, 10 chert tools and 24 flakes were found with the remains of a disarticulated mastodon. Butchering marks and other evidence for human modification were observed on a number of bones, and the tip of a bone projectile point was found between the ribs of the mastodon (Breitburg et al. 1996; John Broster: personal communication 2000). A radiocarbon date of 27,050±200 rcbp (Beta-80169) was obtained from the base of the deposits, below the cultural level, and a second date, on material from within the dental cusps of the mastodon, was 6530±70 rcbp (Beta-75403) (Breitburg et al. 1996:7). An AMS date on materials from the bone bed yielded a date of 12,030±40 rcbp/14,076 B.P. (Beta 125350) (John Broster: personal communication 2000). The tools included a prismatic blade and a bifacial knife-like base, as well as gravers and scrapers. A number of other faunal remains were also found, including horse, deer, turkey, muskrat, frog, turtle, and a single first phalanx that may be from a domestic dog. The age and contemporaneity of the various remains reported as Paleoindian in age will need to be carefully demonstrated, given the location of the site by a small spring, and the great time range suggested by the existing dates for the deposition of the remains. An early kill site, possibly Clovis or even pre-Clovis in age does, however, appears indicated.

Two submerged sites from Florida provide additional evidence for possible pre-Clovis settlement in the Southeast, both possible kill or occupation site areas. Unfortunately, neither yielded remains that could be used to unambiguously date other sites to this time level. At Page-Ladson along the Aucilla River in northwest Florida, a series of radiocarbon dates between ca. 11,770±90 and 13,130±200 rcbp (ca. 13,816 to 15,784 B.P.) were obtained from a stratigraphic level that included a mastodon tusk with possible cut marks at its base, from possible detachment (Dunbar and Webb1996; Dunbar et al. 1988, 1989; Faught 1996:162; Goodyear 1999a:467-468). At the Little Salt Spring site, a wooden spear associated with the remains of a giant tortoise was dated to 12,030±200 rcbp (TX-2636) (Clausen et al. 1979:611). While it was originally suggested that the tortoise had been cooked, reanalysis suggests the charcoal-like staining on several fragments is due to differential oxidation (Dunbar and Webb 1996:351). A bone from the tortoise itself was dated to 13,450±190 rcbp (TX-2635), suggesting the association between the tortoise and the spear may be equivocal (Clausen et al. 1979:611). Worked bone and ivory from extinct animals has been found at a number of locations in Florida (Dunbar 1991; Dunbar and Webb 1996; Webb et al. 1984, n.d.). When worked fresh or green, such finds unambiguously indicate a Pleistocene occupation, although absolute dating is still essential to determine exactly when in the Paleoindian era they were made. Dense concentrations of worked bone or ivory might indicate a special purpose quarry/resource extraction area.

Although just outside of the Southeast as defined here, a final possible pre-Clovis site, Big Eddy in Missouri, is currently undergoing excavation and may provide important information on pre-Clovis occupation in the general region. The 1997 and 1999 excavations at the site have been superbly documented in two monographs (Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000). A remarkably complete stratified Paleoindian sequence was found that spans the entire continuum from Clovis through the Early Archaic. Below this, a number of unequivocal flakes (n=10) and a possible anvil stone were found (Ray and Lopinot 2000; Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000). An extensive series of radiocarbon dates place these materials between ca. 12,000 and 13,000 rcbp (Hajic et al., eds., 2000:31; Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000). The detailed reporting for this project, like that at Cactus Hill, serve as models for the rest of the profession.

Other sites provide less secure information about pre-Clovis Paleoindian occupations in the Southeast, or else remain to be fully published and hence evaluated. The Southeast has had its share of claims for putative pre-projectile point stone tool assemblages, invariably inferred to have great antiquity, well before Clovis occupations. The best documented presumed early lithic assemblage in the Southeast is from Alabama, the Lively (1965a, 1965b) pebble tool complex, named after its discoverer. These artifacts are now recognized as expedient cores and tools formed during initial lithic reduction activities, and most are now known to date to the Archaic or Woodland periods (Futato 1996:301; Steponaitis 1986:368).

Clovis and Related Assemblages and Diagnostics in the Southeast

Large numbers of Clovis sites and isolated finds have been found in the Southeast. There is some evidence that fluted point technology may have originated fairly early in the region, perhaps before 11,500 rcbp/13,450 B.P. Within the Southeast proper, dates for fluted points have been reported from the Johnson and Cactus Hill sites, although only the date from Cactus Hill falls within the range expected from the western half of the country, from between ca. 11,200 and 10,900 rcbp/13,150 to 12,900 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1992, 1993; Stanford [1999:289] expands this range to between 11,500 to 10,900 rcbp/13,450 to 12,900 B.P.). Dates on fluted points resembling classic Clovis forms that fall within the traditionally accepted temporal range for the type, however, have been found at several sites just outside the boundaries of the Southeast as defined in this study, and include those from the Big Eddy (Hajic et al. 2000:31; Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000; Ray et al. 1998:77, 80) and Kimmswick (Graham et a.1982) sites in Missouri. Somewhat earlier dates, in the vicinity of 10,500 to 10,600 rcbp, have been reported from the Aubrey site in Texas (Ferring 1995).

At the Carson-Conn-Short (40BN190) site in Tennessee, a large number of Clovis and later Paleoindian points, together with a wide variety of tool forms, including large prismatic blades and polyhedral blade cores, formal unifaces, and bifaces, have been found on the surface and at depths of up to 70 cm over a wide area (Broster and Norton 1993, 1996; Broster et al. 1994, 1996; Nami et al. 1996). Features that have been recognized include tight scatters of artifacts as well as deflated hearths and pits, some of which appear to derive from the intentional thermal alteration of local cherts. While the vast majority of the projectile point assemblage appears to be Clovis, a few presumably later Cumberland points have also been found. The blades and blade cores are exceptional in size, and represent one of the most dramatic Paleoindian blade assemblages ever recovered.

Another site suggesting a possible early starting date for fluted points is Johnson near Nashville, where deeply buried hearths with associated fluted preforms yielded dates of 11,700±980 (TX-7000), 11,980±110 (TX-7454), and 12,660±970 rcbp (TX-6999) (Broster and Barker 1992; Broster and Norton 1992:266, 1996:292-294; Broster et al.1991; see also Goodyear 1999a:448-449). Two of the three dates from the site have such large standard deviations as to preclude their use for dating the onset of fluted point technology, although with the third, and taken collectively, they suggest a possible starting point some time around or just after 12,000 rcbp/14,000 B.P. Early Archaic features and materials are present in the deposits overlying the Paleoindian remains, however, and the authors indicate that further corroboration of the dating is in order (Broster and Norton 1996:294).

Other sites that suggest an early onset for fluting technology include Big Eddy and Aubrey. At the Big Eddy site in Missouri, although just outside of the Southeast as defined here, a date of 11,900±80 rcbp was obtained from a level containing a Clovis assemblage, although six of the seven other dates from the same deposits ranged from ca. 11,400 and 10,700 rcbp/13,400 to 12,850 B.P., closer to the expected range for Clovis (Hajic et al. 2000:31; Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000 Ray et al. 1998; the "outlying" date was 10,265±85). Additional evidence for an early initiation of Clovis technology comes from the Aubrey site north of Dallas, Texas, where two dates of 11,540±110 and 11,590±90 rcbp have been reported (Ferring 1995; Stanford 1999:291). All of these suggest Clovis could have originated around or just after 12,000 rcbp/14,000 B.P.

Terminal Paleoindian Assemblages and Diagnostics in the Southeast

Large numbers of Paleoindian sites postdating 10,500 rcbp/12,500 B.P. are documented from across the Southeast. Although quantification has not been attempted beyond the locality scale, the numbers of diagnostic artifacts reported are orders of magnitude greater than exist for Clovis and related fluted forms (Anderson1990a:199). Some terminal Paleoindian point forms, such as Dalton or early side-notched, in fact, are so common that they are not systematically recorded in most state artifact recording projects. Appreciable variability is evident in these projectile point forms, and a number of discrete Dalton and side notched types or varieties have been recognized that have restricted temporal or spatial distributions (Anderson et al.1996:15; Morse 1997a, b) (Figure 2). Specific diagnostics used to identify components that date to the interval from ca. 10,500 to 10,000 rcbp/12,500 to 11,450 B.P. are discussed in turn.

The Cumberland point, common in the Mid-South, is a distinctive waisted lanceolate with a narrow, recurved blade, an expanded base with pronounced ears and a slightly to deeply indented base, fine marginal retouch, and long flutes that run the length of the blade (Breitburg and Broster 1995; Lewis 1954:7). An age of from ca. 10,900 to 10,500 rcbp/12,950 to 12,500 B.P. or slightly later is inferred, given the resemblance to western Folsom points, which are assumed to be a related manufacturing tradition. A small fluted form, some of which may actually be extensively resharpened Clovis points, has been reported in Georgia and South Carolina, and has been provisionally called the Clovis Variant (Anderson et al. 1990:6; Michie 1977:62-65). The chronological placement of this type is unknown but, based on its resemblance to Clovis, it is assumed to be either contemporary or slightly later in age.

In north central Florida and immediately adjoining areas, two seemingly closely related point forms are found that are assumed to date to this interval, the Simpson and Suwannee types (Bullen 1975). Both are large waisted lanceolate points with broad recurved blades and narrow, straight to slightly expanding stems, a concave base, and faint-to-pronounced ears. Separating these forms is exceedingly difficult, since the type descriptions and illustrated specimens exhibit appreciable morphological overlap, with some of the separation apparently based on subtle differences in haft morphology and resharpening (Bullen 1958, 1962, 1975:55-56; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:53; Goodyear et al. 1983; Simpson 1948:11-15). While basal thinning has been reported for both forms, Suwannees apparently also exhibit lateral marginal thinning in basal areas on some specimens (Goodyear et al. 1983:46). Because of this ambiguity, some investigators refer to these forms as "Suwannee/Simpson" while in the Georgia fluted point survey, the type Simpson was used to refer to fluted and Suwannee to nonfluted waisted and eared lanceolate points otherwise meeting the type Criteria (Anderson et al. 1990:8). The presence of basal thinning and even occasional true fluting on some Simpson/Suwannee-like forms suggests an appearance some time around or shortly after 10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P., contemporary with late Clovis or appearing soon thereafter. A long temporal occurrence, however, is also indicated by stratigraphic evidence from sites such as Harney Flats, Silver Springs, and Wakulla Springs Lodge, that suggests these types continued until they were replaced by side notched forms, which are thought to appear ca. 10,200 rcbp/11,850 B.P. (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:37-40; Goodyear 1999a:465-467; Jones and Tesar 2000; Neill 1958). The near complete absence of Dalton points in Florida, furthermore, has led researchers to speculate that Suwannee/Simpsons are representative of a contemporaneous subregional variant, or even a somewhat distinct cultural tradition (e.g., Anderson1990a, 1995a; Dunbar 1991). Accordingly, Suwannee/Simpson point manufacture may be a distinctive, thousand or more year tradition of point manufacture in the Florida area. Stanford (1991:9), in fact, thinks they may be contemporary with or older than Clovis. Resolving possible chronologically sensitive variation within this tradition should be a subject for future research.

Another apparent subregional terminal Paleoindian projectile point variant is the Beaver Lake type, a distinctive waisted lanceolate with a recurved blade, an expanded base with weak to pronounced ears and a slight to deeply indented base, slight to extensive basal thinning on some specimens, and fine marginal retouch (Cambron and Hulse 1964:9; DeJarnette et al. 1962:47, 84; Justice 1987:35-36). Many specimens appear to be unfluted Cumberland points, and the type has a similar center of apparent popularity in the Mid South from northern Alabama through Kentucky, although Beaver Lake points appear at least occasionally over a much broader area, in the eastern and central Southeast. The age of the type is currently unknown, although like Cumberland it is thought to have appeared soon after Clovis ended, ca. 10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P. Another form, the Quad point, is a waisted lanceolate essentially identical to the Beaver Lake points in most respects, save for the presence of more pronounced, large lobed ears, and a fairly deep basal concavity (Cambron and Hulse 1964:98; Justice 1987:35-36; Perino 1985:310; Soday 1954:9). Some Quads exhibit pronounced basal thinning, sometimes to the point of appearing fluted. Whether Quad and Beaver Lake points are contemporaneous with Cumberland or later in time is unknown, although the presence of basal thinning rather than fluting suggests some or all of these forms may be later in time. Many Quad and Beaver Lake points, particularly the latter specimens, would probably be classified as Suwannee/Simpson if found in Florida.

The terminal Paleoindian point form that occurs most widely over the Southeast is the Dalton, with subregional morphological variants found everywhere save perhaps parts of Florida. Dalton points are lanceolates with straight to slightly excurvate lateral margins on the blade, sometimes with serrations and beveling; straight to slightly expanding bases with slight to more typically deeply indented bases that may be fluted, basally thinned, or simply retouched; and weak to pronounced shoulders with well ground basal and lateral margins (Bradley 1997; Chapman 1948:138; Goodyear 1974; Justice 1987:35-44; Perino 1985:97). Some exhibit evidence for extensive resharpening, and extreme cases may have pronounced bevels and incurvate blade edges, and may resemble drills. Distinct morphological variants have been recognized in a number of parts of the Southeast, such as Breckenridge, Colbert, Greenbrier, Hardaway, Nucholls, and some of the varieties of San Patrice (i.e., vars. Hope and St. Johns) (Ensor 1987; Goodyear 1974, 1999a:440-41; Morse 1973, 1997a, 1997b).

Dalton points are common across the Southeast, and in some areas are found in numbers an order of magnitude or more greater than the point types that presumably preceded them (Anderson 1990a:199). Distributions have never been examined at a large scale, however, to see where distinctive variants and point concentrations occur on the regional landscape, although excellent distributional analyses, employing hundreds of sites, have been conducted in the central Mississippi Valley and particularly in northeast Arkansas (e.g., Gillam 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Morse 1971b,1973, 1975a, 1975b, 1977; Redfield 1971; Schiffer 1975a, 1975b). Detailed attribute based analyses using large samples of points from across the region should be able to resolve the existence, similarities and differences, and spatial occurrences of morphologically distinct forms, which perhaps should be classified as subregional variants or varieties.

Dalton forms appear to have a long temporal occurrence in the Southeast. Goodyear (1982; 1999a:440-441) argued for a range of from ca. 10,500-9900 rcbp (ca.12,500-11,250 B.P.) for Dalton, based on an inspection of radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic occurrence, and associations. The radiocarbon plateau that occurs in this interval means that as many as 2250 calendar years are actually represented. This is quite a long time, which might explain the appreciable diversification in morphology that is observed, probably as populations became increasingly localized (see also Ellis et al. 1998:159). Some Dalton points are characterized by true fluting, others have pronounced basal thinning scars, and still others exhibit little more than fine retouch of the basal margins. It is tempting to suggest that the fluted Daltons are earlier than basally thinned forms, which in turn are older than unfluted forms. Both fluted and unfluted Dalton points were found at the Sloan (3GE94) site in northeastern Arkansas (Bradley 1997; Morse 1975a; Morse, ed., 1997), however, suggesting an overlap of thinning strategies occurred, and that any such trends may be more apparent at the assemblage or regional level, than at the level of individual artifacts.

Given the presence of true fluting on some northeast Arkansas Dalton points, and a paucity of intermediate types, it is possible that Dalton evolved directly out of Clovis in the central Mississippi River valley. If so, the starting date for this form may have to be pushed back, perhaps to 10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P. or so, at least in this area. Located along the continent's greatest river system, in an area that was almost certainly fabulously rich in exploitable natural resources, the central Mississippi River valley likely would have been settled quite early in the colonization process, and would have been an area of impressive population growth and technological innovation. Over 1000 Dalton sites have been found in this area, together with evidence for an elaborate interaction network stretching for several hundred kilometers along the river, demarcated archaeologically by ceremonial Sloan "long blades" (Gillam 1996b; Morse 1997; Walthall and Koldehoff 1998). Like the Florida Suwannee/Simpson types, Dalton points, at least in some areas, may have existed for a long time.

Toward the end of the Paleoindian era, side-notched points occur widely over the Southeast. These have been variously described, with named types including Bolen in the Florida area (Neill 1963:99), Early Side Notched in the Tennessee River Valley of northern Alabama (Driskell 1994, 1996), Hardaway Side-Notched in North Carolina (Coe 1964:67), Kessel Side-Notched in the West Virginia area (Broyles 1966), San Patrice vars. St. Johns and Dixon in the Louisiana and southern Arkansas area (Duffield 1963; Thomas et al. 1993a:35-36), and Taylor in South Carolina (Michie1966:123). A range of from ca. 10,000 to 9000 rcbp/11,450 to 10,200 B.P. is traditionally assigned these forms, although there are indications that they may appear somewhat earlier, around ca. 10,200 rcbp/11,850 B.P., based on dates in this time range obtained at Page Ladson, Florida and Dust Cave (1LU496), Alabama (Chapman 1985:146-147; Driskell 1994:25-26, 1996; Dunbar et al. 1988; Driskell, however, believes the side-notched forms postdate 10,0000 rcbp/11,450 B.P. at Dust Cave, with the points in earlier strata intrusive). An early appearance is also suggested by the association of Bolen and Suwannee points at Harney Flats in Florida, although the cooccurrence is thought due to the presence of a stabilized land surface and, hence, compressed or conflated stratigraphy (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987:37-40). Individual side-notched points found in surface or mixed excavation contexts in the Southeast cannot be unequivocally placed in a Paleoindian or Early Archaic time level, however, since side-notched points also occur later in time in a number of parts of the region, in particular during the Middle Archaic period in the case of the Big Sandy type in the Mid South (Kneberg 1956:25; Perino 1985:36), the Cache River Side-Notched type in eastern Arkansas (Cloud 1969:119; Morse and Morse 1983:110), and the Godar type in Illinois (Perino 1963:95). Hafted unifacial tool forms that appear to be contemporaneous with these early side-notched forms include Edgefield scrapers (Michie 1968a, 1972) and Albany scrapers (Webb 1946).

San Patrice varieties found in the Louisiana-southern Arkansas-east Texas area reflect the evolutionary continuum observed elsewhere in the Southeast, from lanceolate Dalton-like forms to side- and then corner-notched forms of the Big Sandy/Bolen and Palmer/Kirk clusters. Thus, San Patrice var. Hope is clearly a local Dalton equivalent, while var. St. Johns, var. Dixon, and var. Keithville represent later side- and corner-notched forms within the same cultural tradition. Points designated San Patrice are common in east Texas (Prewitt 1995:128), Louisiana, and contiguous portions of Arkansas and Mississippi. San Patrice var. Hope points are lanceolates with deeply indented bases and weak shoulders and (in some cases) side-notching and/or extensive resharpening of the blade area (Duffield 1963). In all but the most early-stage specimens, the shoulders are the widest part of the artifact. Basal and lateral margins are ground, and the base may exhibit thinning resembling fluting on some specimens. The variety appears closely related to classic Dalton points from the central Mississippi Valley (Ensor 1987; Morse 1973; Morse and Morse 1983). At the Big Eddy site in Missouri, a San Patrice var. Hope point is associated with a date of 10,185±75 rcbp (AA-26653) (Ray et al. 1988:77; see also Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000). San Patrice var. St. Johns and classic Dalton points were also found in this stratum, which yielded dates from general level fill of 9450±61, 10,400±75, 10,340±100, 10,430±70, and 10,336±110 rcbp (Hajic et al. 2000:31; Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000).

San Patrice var. St. Johns points have more varied, flat to indented basal morphology, and pronounced side- to corner-hafting notches; with extensive resharpening and basal attrition these notches increasingly resemble corner-notched forms (Duffield 1963). An additional side notched San Patrice variety, var. Dixon, has recently been proposed, characterized by pronounced side-notches, and replacing the type Edgewood var. Dixon (Thomas and et al. 1993a:35-36). A fourth San Patrice variety, var. Keithville, is characterized by a straight base and corner-notching rather than side-notching (Duffield 1963; Thomas et al. 1993b:46; Webb et al. 1971). Neither the side-notched var. Dixon nor the corner-notched var. Keithville forms exhibit evidence for pronounced basal thinning resembling fluting, something more commonly observed on the presumably earlier Hope and St. Johns varieties. San Patrice are assumed to be contemporaneous with Dalton and initial Holocene side and corner-notched horizons, with an estimated span of from ca. 10,800 to 9000 rcbp/12,900 to 10,200 B.P. San Patrice var. Hope is assumed to be earlier (probably pre-10,000 rcbp) and vars. St. Johns, Dixon, and Keithville later (post 10,200 rcbp/11,850 B.P.), reflecting an evolution from lanceolate to first side- and then corner-notched forms.

Finally, in the western part of both the Southeast and the lower Midwest, lanceolate projectile points occur in low incidence that resemble classic Great Plains Paleoindian fluted and Plano-like forms, such as Folsom, Scottsbluff, Midland, Agate Basin, and Angostura. These artifacts indicate movement or interaction occurred between these two regions, although the nature of this behavior is not well understood at present (Anderson 1995a; L. Johnson 1989; Munson 1990; Wykoff and Bartlett 1995). Folsom points occur in small numbers east of the Mississippi River (Munson 1990), and are usually described using that type name, although some are reported using local names, such as the Sedgwick type in northeast Arkansas (Morse and Morse 1983:63; Gillam 1996a:406). Folsom points are, however, extremely rare to the east of the Mississippi River, with no more than a few dozen specimens known. In some places where they are present, such as in western Illinois, their distribution appears to parallel the occurrence of Late Pleistocene grasslands, suggesting they represent an eastern extension of their inferred Plains adaptation (Munson 1990). When Plains tradition forms are found in the East they are assumed to have the same age as those in the West. Care must be taken when identifying these types, however, since some "Plano" forms found in the East are actually early stage manufacturing rejects of common fluted or unfluted forms, or else later forms like the Guilford Lanceolate or Brier Creek Lanceolate types (Coe 1964:43; Michie 1968b).

Occasionally, however, finished-looking Plano-like forms are found much further to the east, such as at the Smith Mountain site (44PY154) in Virginia, where a quartz unfluted lanceolate point described as "Plano-like" was found at a depth of three meters below the surface, in the Roanoke River floodplain (Childress and Blanton 1997; Goodyear1999a:451). An AMS date of 10,150±70 rcbp (Beta 93017) was obtained from charcoal found in the same 2.5 cm vertical level and 50 cm horizontally from the base of the point (Childress and Blanton 1997:12).

Resource Distribution: Caches

Paleoindian ceremonial artifact caches are extremely rare in the Southeast. The largest and most unusual example, without question, is the Sloan site in northeast Arkansas, a Dalton cemetery (Morse, ed., 1997). At Sloan, artifacts were found in shallow deposits in an area about 14 by 14 meters in extent on a sand dune. Were it not for the presence of the human bone fragments, Sloan might have been interpreted as an example of spectacular caching behavior. The tools included a wide range of utilitarian items such as points, preforms, adzes, scrapers, and abraders, as well as a few unusually elaborate oversized bifaces that have come to be known as Sloan points (Perino 1985:356). Most of the points and other tools found at Sloan were well made and buried in mint condition, with working edges that were either freshly resharpened or unused (Gaertner 1994; Yerkes and Gaertner 1997:69-71). The artifacts and bone fragments at Sloan cluster in such a way as to suggest the presence of two to three dozen burials. This in turn implies that a formal marked cemetery was present and was in use for a fairly long time.

The Hawkins Cache, also from northeast Arkansas, was a single cluster of 40 Dalton tools, including 18 points, 11 preforms, 2 grooved abraders, 3 adzes, 3 utilized flakes, 1 chisel, 1 end scraper, and 1 backed blade. These artifacts were found by an avocational archaeologist, who said they came from an area under a square meter in extent amid a much larger Dalton site scatter that was interpreted as a base camp (3LW89) (Morse 1971a:19). No human remains were found in association, although their preservation was considered unlikely due to high local soil acidity. The assemblage, which was described in detail by Morse (1971a), was considered to be a man's toolkit used for a variety of tasks, including hunting, butchering, and the working of wood and bone. Whether Hawkins was a ceremonial burial cache or utilitarian cache will probably never be known. Morse (1997a:2) later noted that the context of the find was probably inaccurately reported to him at the time, and speculated that the cache may have actually come from a burial site like Sloan. A possible candidate site, 3LW505, had, in fact, been looted about this time nearby. The Hawkins cache materials resemble some of the artifact clusters found at Sloan and may well have come from one or more burials. Given the ambiguous nature of its recovery, had tiny bone fragments like those found at Sloan been present, they may not have been noted or recovered.

A number of other Dalton caches have been found in the Central Mississippi Valley, in an area extending some 700 km from northeast Arkansas to south central Illinois. The scattered occurrence of Sloan points over this area, in caches and as well as isolated finds, many of them made on Burlington chert from the Crescent Quarries near the Missouri-Mississippi confluence, has been used to infer the existence and extent of a possible Late Paleoindian prehistoric ceremonial and alliance network (Walthall and Koldehoff 1998). The existence of adzes in Dalton toolkits has long been thought to reflect appreciable woodworking skills, including for the manufacture of dugout canoes (Morse and Goodyear 1973), and watercraft are inferred to have been the way these groups were linked together (Walthall and Koldehoff 1998:261; see also Engelbrecht and Seyfort 1994 and Jodry 1999 for discussions of the evidence for the probable use of watercraft by Paleoindian populations). An analysis of edge wear on Dalton adzes from Sloan indicates that these tools were likely used to work charred wood (Yerkes and Gaertner 1997:63-66).

Utilitarian caches of raw material and tools have been described previously, and appear to have been fairly common on Clovis and later, post-Clovis Paleoindian sites. The Adams mastodon site (15Hr18) in Kentucky is one possible candidate for a submerged meat cache (Walters 1988). At this site, the disarticulated remains of an adult animal were found in pond deposits, together with a number of limestone rocks. A number of the bones exhibited cut marks, and it is possible that the rocks were used to help keep the remains submerged.

Resource Distribution: Kill Sites and Bone Beds

Paleoindian sites yielding paleosubsistence remains are comparatively rare in the Southeast, although increasing effort is being directed to their detection and careful analysis (Goodyear 1999a:444-445). Evidence for the exploitation of megafauna has been found at a number of locations across the region, indicating some level of predation did occur. Mastodon butchery has been reported from the Coats-Hines site in Tennessee (Breitburg et al. 1996) and butchering or other tooling marks on mammoth bones, as well as finished points, foreshafts, and other objects carved from green bone or ivory, have been found at several locations in Florida (Bullen et al. 1970; Dunbar and Webb 1996). A possible mammoth kill site has been reported from the Silver Springs Run, although whether a projectile point found with the partially disarticulated bones was actually associated with them has been considered problematic given the location of the find, in a submerged stream channel (Hoffman 1983; Rayl 1974). At Sloth Hole along the Aucilla River, a possible association between Clovis and mastodon has recently been documented; work at this site and with materials from it is ongoing (Hemmings 1998). Immediately beyond the boundaries of the Southeast, a mastodon kill site has been reported at Kimmswick in Missouri (Graham et al. 1981), and mastodon butchery has been inferred at Martin's Creek in Ohio (Brush and Smith 1994). An elephant rib with possible cut marks has been reported from Edisto Beach, South Carolina, where it probably washed up from offshore deposits (Goodyear et al.1990:8-9). A Bison antiquus skull with an apparent stone point fragment broken off in its forehead was found in the Wacissa River, providing just about the clearest association between humans and extinct fauna possible (Webb et al. 1984). Finally, at Little Salt Spring in Florida, a giant land tortoise (Geochelone crassiscutata) was found that appeared to have been speared with a wooden stake (Clausen et al. 1979:609-610), although the dark staining on the shell that the authors attributed to cooking has since been shown to be due to differential oxidation (Dunbar and Webb 1996:352). Late Pleistocene faunal remains have been found in a number of areas, such as at Big Bone Lick, Kentucky (Tankersley 1985, 1990a), and care must always be taken when exploring paleontological deposits of this age to be on the lookout for possible human activity (Breitburg and Broster 1994; Michie 1977; Williams and Stoltman 1965).

The least ambiguous southeastern "kill" site comes from the Wacissa River, where a Bison antiquus skull was found with an apparent projectile point fragment embedded in the frontal bone (Webb et al. 1984). Whether the animal actually died of this wound and was consumed by Paleoindians is unknown, but the association is unequivocal, and certainly indicates the species was targeted. The disarticulated remains of a young male mastodon were found at the Coats-Hines site in western Tennessee, together with a number of stone tools. The materials are in former pond/stream deposits, yet the presence of stone tools suggests it was not a submerged meat cache but a butchering area. Bones or teeth from a number of other species are reported from the same deposits, including:

horse (Equus spp.) teeth, deer (Odocoileus sp.) antler, muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) humerus and metapodial, dog-sized (Canis sp.) first phalanx, turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) phalanx, frog (Rana sp.) humeri, painted turtle (Chrysemys cf. picta) plastron, and carapace and plastron fragments of indeterminate semiaquatic turtles (Breitburg et al. 1996:6).

If these species can be shown to have been exploited by the Paleoindian people who dismembered the mastodon, this site may provide some of the first evidence for a diversified Clovis age (or earlier) Paleoindian subsistence strategy in the Southeast. Equally important, the remains suggest the presence of domestic dog and the hunting of white-tailed deer, aspects of life well documented in subsequent periods. Dunbar and Webb (1996:351-352), in contrast, note that evidence for the use of white-tailed deer in Florida does not proliferate until after the megafaunal extinctions, although they also take care to point out that the presence of a possible mammoth bone digging stick suggests these people were likely generalized foragers.

Florida's rivers and springs have produced numerous examples of tools made on green bone and ivory from now-extinct Late Pleistocene animals, points and foreshafts, anvils, abraders, awls, and digging tools, providing additional evidence for hunting or scavenging (Dunbar and Webb 1996). Ostensible butchering/cut marks on bones from extinct species are fairly common in Florida, although many specimens remain to be professionally described (Bullen et al. 1970; Dunbar and Webb 1996:351). Similar remains may be present in submerged contexts in other parts of the region.

The giant land tortoise (Geochelone crassiscutata) found in Little Salt Spring, if actually speared, would clearly be a Paleoindian kill site; another example of this species that is thought to have been intentionally killed was found in the Hillsborough River (Clayton 1981; Dunbar and Webb 1996:352). The Little Salt Spring specimen was found on a ledge in direct association with the remains of numerous other extinct and modern fauna, including ground sloth, bison, rabbit, rattlesnake, wood ibis, freshwater turtles, land tortoise, and an immature elephant (Clausen et al. 1979:610). Later Paleoindian and Early Archaic occupations at the site, dated to ca. 9000 to 10,000 rcbp/10,200 to 11,450 B.P., reportedly yielded the remains of white-tailed deer and other game. How many of these remains may represent animals that fell into the sinkhole and were trapped there, rather than hunted and processed by local populations, is unknown. The Late Paleoindian assemblage at Little Salt Spring also included a "nonreturning oak boomerang" as well as "a socketed antler projectile point with the tip of the dart shaft still in its base and the basal portion of a carved oak mortar" (Clausen et al. 1979:611; the mortar was dated to 9080±250 rcbp [TX-2594]). A variety of implements were apparently used to kill game, and fairly extensive plant processing would also appear indicated given the presence of the carved wooden mortar. Numerous crudely sharpened stakes or pins were found driven into the ground near the edge of the drop off to the lower part of the sinkhole; two were dated, yielding determinations of 9645±160 rcbp (I-6460) and 9500±120 rcbp (TX-2460) (Clausen et al. 1979:611). The function of these stakes is unknown, although use as a barrier or a tie-off point for raising water from the cenote has been suggested (Clausen et al1975a:31). The investigations at Little Salt Spring, like those at Warm Mineral Springs, have not been reported in detail, rendering interpretation difficult.

At Big Bone Lick in Kentucky, three Clovis points were found together with a number of mastodon teeth and bones in the early years of the nineteenth century, but whether they were directly associated is unknown (Tankersley 1985:28, 1990a:74). Other Late Pleistocene fossil localities in the Southeast have also yielded evidence of possible associations between humans and Late Pleistocene fauna, such as at Yarbrough Cave, Georgia, where a stone tool was found amid animal bones (Elliott and Martin 1991). All such sites should be carefully examined by both archaeologists and paleontologists.

One of the most remarkable assemblages of Late Pleistocene flora and fauna, some of which are directly associated with human remains, occurs in the Aucilla River basin of northern Florida. For the past two decades a multidisciplinary team of researchers under the overall direction of James Dunbar and David Webb (1996; Dunbar 1991; Dunbar et al. 1988, 1989; Goodyear 1999a:467-468; Hemmings 1998) have been examining a number of submerged locations along this drainage. The Page-Ladson site is currently the best known and reported, although excavations have occurred at a number of other localities as well, research popularly reported for over a decade in an extensive annual newsletter put out by the research team, The Aucilla River Times. The Page-Ladson excavations as well as the Dust Cave excavations in northwest Alabama have made use of extensive fine screen and flotation work, directed to the recovery of paleosubsistence remains (Dunbar et al. 1988; Goldman-Finn and Driskell 1994; Peres 1997; Peres and Carter 1999; Walker 1997, 2000). Detailed technical monographs describing the work at both localities are currently in preparation, and should provide new insight into the collection and interpretation of Paleoindian paleosubsistence remains in the Southeast. Care must, of course, always be taken to recognize and collect paleosubsistence information whenever sites of this time period are examined in the region.

Resource Distribution: Human Burials

Few human burials of unequivocal Paleoindian age have been found in the Southeast. The Sloan site in northeast Arkansas, however, appears to be the earliest formal cemetery currently known in the New World. Sloan consisted of several hundred finished stone tools and almost 200 tiny weathered fragments of human bone in a series of discrete clusters that appear to be grave lots, although given the nature of the surviving bone it is impossible to determine whether single or multiple inhumations were present in any one grave or, given the absence of burial pit outlines, whether there were burials without associated grave goods. The identification of the clusters themselves, although based on statistical analyses and supporting the excavator's impressions, will doubtless be subject to appreciable testing, speculation, and possibly refinement in the years to come, as the authors themselves admit (Morse et al. 1997:91). A large presumed Dalton habitation site some 1.5 km away is suggested as having been the likely location "where the people buried at Sloan lived" (Morse 1997:127). It is not known why the Sloan cemetery was located well away from the likely habitation area, nor can we say whether Dalton burials are likely to be found in habitation sites. Given the problems with its discovery, unfortunately, the Hawkins cache cannot help us in this regard. The contexts of other Dalton caches need to be carefully explored for the presence of burials (Walthall and Koldehoff 1998). Submerged human burials of terminal Paleoindian/initial Early Archaic age were reported at Warm Mineral Springs in Florida, but few details were provided and the site remains only minimally reported (Clausen et al. 1979); as noted previously, whether these remains even reflect intentional interment is debatable.

Resource Distribution: Rock Art and other Petroglyphic or Pictographic Representations

No examples are known from the Southeast.

Resource Distribution: Quarries and Workshops

Large numbers of quarry/workshop sites or districts are known from the Southeast, and many are also occupation loci, as discussed below. Among the best known quarry/workshop sites in the region are the Allendale quarries in South Carolina (Goodyear 1992, 1999a:458-462; Goodyear and Charles 1984; Goodyear et al. 1985); Carson-Conn-Short in Tennessee (Broster and Norton 1993, 1996; Broster et al. 1994,1996; Nami et al. 1996); the Flint Run Complex in Virginia, including the Fifty, Rudacil, and Thunderbird sites (Carr 1985; Gardner 1974, 1977; Walker 1974); Hardaway in North Carolina (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998); the Little River Site Complex in Kentucky, including the Adams, Boyd, Ezell, and Roeder sites (Freeman et al. 1996; Gramly and Yahnig 1991; Sanders 1988, 1990); Wells Creek Crater in Tennessee (Dragoo 1973); Theriault in Georgia (Brockington 1971); and the Nottoway River/ Williamson site area in Virginia (McAvoy 1992; McCary 1951, 1991; Peck 1985). Some of these properties are quite extensive, with evidence for the occurrence of distinct or overlapping activities at a number of locations.

The first detailed exploration of assemblage variation in a quarry area in the Southeast was Gardner's (1974; 1977:258-259, 1983, 1989) examination of the Flint Run Paleoindian Complex in northern Virginia. A series of sites were found along both sides of the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, at or in close proximity to major jasper outcrops, and to one another. Three major site types were identified: quarries, where initial mining and reduction occurred, right at the source of the material; quarry workshop/reduction sites, located at or a short distance away from the source, where further reduction occurred to prepare material for transport; and quarry-related base camps, where the groups exploiting the quarries stayed, and where a wide range of activities occurred. Within the complex, Rudacil (44WR5) and Thunderbird both appear to have been base camps where appreciable reduction activity, characteristic of a workshop, also occurred (Gardner 1974; Walker 1974). The research prompted the idea that Paleoindian occupations in the Southeast were in large measure tethered to lithic raw material sources, with range mobility greatly shaped by the need to return to these sources periodically (Gardner 1977, 1983, 1989). This position has been widely adopted although, as we shall see in the discussion of occupations below, some of the inferences derived from it, namely that occupation sites away from quarry areas tend to be small, have not proven correct. The Flint Run Complex research, however, also convincingly demonstrated that assemblages could vary greatly at quarry areas, something that subsequent investigators have explored in detail in other parts of the Southeast.

An extended, multiyear research program at the Allendale chert quarries in South Carolina, for example, has shown that assemblage composition can vary markedly depending on fairly subtle variation in topography and local raw material quality (Goodyear 1992, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, n.d.; Goodyear and Charles 1984; Goodyear et al. 1985). Paleoindian populations apparently focused on chert boulders freshly exposed in stream beds rather than on more weathered materials on nearby hillsides. Differences of no more than a few meters vertical elevation and a few tens of meters horizontal distance appear to separate Paleoindian period quarrying, workshop, and possible habitation areas within the locality. The research has also shown that some extensively exploited channel raw material sources are now submerged, due to sea level rise and a reduction in stream gradients. Other cultural deposits and chert cobbles and boulders were buried at appreciable depths under colluvial sediments washed down from nearby hillsides. Thus, while quarry/workshop localities are traditionally perceived as being highly visible, care must be taken to ensure that a representative sample of what is actually present is recognized and collected.

Studies of Paleoindian assemblages taken collectively, employing data from multiple sites at and up to appreciable distances from quarries, have begun to occur in various regions in recent years, and have proven to be extremely important to our understanding of raw material use and, hence, technological organization, settlement, and mobility strategies (e.g., Morrow 1996a; Tankersley 1989, 1990b, 1991, 1994, 1998; Tankersley and Morrow 1993). Perhaps the finest example of this kind of research conducted to date in the Southeast is that by McAvoy (1992) in southern Virginia, in the vicinity of the Nottoway River and its tributaries. Using extensive and well controlled surface and excavation data from over 100 sites, including the well known Williamson site, the author advanced a series of detailed observations about culture change over time, differing site types, differing activities that occurred on these sites, patterns of settlement movement within the study locality, and possible group territories/ranges in the larger region of southern Virginia and northern North Carolina. The importance of this study lies in its extensive presentation of primary data, its use of well documented avocational collections for serious research, and in highlighting the variability in local Paleoindian site assemblages. Ten different Clovis site types were identified (McAvoy 1992:142-144), and are listed in Table 14.

Table 14. Middle Paleoindian Clovis Culture Site Types in Southern Virginia (from McAvoy1992:142–144)
  1. The large chart quarry with associated very large base camp and small satellite camps (i.e., Williamson site).

    Comment: This site type is the same as Gardner's (1989) quarry site, quarry reduction site, quarry related base camp, and base camp maintenance areas all combined.
  2. The small chart quarry with associated small hunting camp or base camp (i.e., Mitchell Site).

    Comment: This site type was not defined by Gardner (1989) as part of the Flint Run Complex or associated sites, but he does acknowledge that this site type exists elsewhere.
  3. The small chart quarry with minimal related camp function (i.e., Bolster's Store).

    Comment: This site type is almost the same as Gardner's (1989) quarry site, which is isolated from other types of related sites; although, it is somewhat different as some bifaces were made here and completed to fluted points.
  4. The hunting related base camp and strategic lithic cache (i.e., Conover Site, perhaps Hollowell).

    Comment: This site type is something similar to Gardner's (1989) outlying non-quarry associated base camp, but it functioned quite differently from a "…habitation loci by groups on their way from or to the …quarry" (Gardner 1989:24). This site type actually may have aided in preventing unnecessary trips to the quarry, thus serving a strategic function.
  5. Large hunting related base camp not associated with a quarry (i.e., Greensville County Site)

    Comment: Large sites of this type are considered by Gardner not to exist in Virginia. It his opinion that "It is these larger non-quarry dependent sites with their multiple, apparently contemporary and interacting use areas which are absent from the southern area" (Gardner 1989:30). Clearly such sites, in a somewhat scaled down version, do exist in southeastern Virginia, and appear to be somewhat similar to their northern counterparts.
  6. Periodically revisited small (hunting) camp-one or two artifact clusters at the same site (i.e., Slade, Tomko).

    Comment: This site type is now defined by Gardner (1989) as the outlying, non-quarry associated base camp used by groups on their way to and from a quarry. Gardner's definition with perhaps some less emphasis on the quarry relationship seems to be applicable to these sites in southeastern Virginia.
  7. Infrequently visited small (hunting) camp-one small cluster or scatter of artifacts (i.e., Baskerville, Carpenter, Harris Creek, Sunflower). Comment: These sites were previously defined by Gardner (1989) as periodically revisited hunting sites or subsequently as outlying hunting/processing locations and outlying hunting stations. This site type fits into his 1989 model as the periodically revisited small camp or outlying non-quarry associated base camp. On the Nottoway River the author has defined this site type as a small hunting/food procurement locality.
  8. Hunting camp with associated non-chart (quartzite) quarry function (i.e., Fannin, Hill).

    Comment: This site type was not defined by Gardner, as existing in the northern Shenandoah Valley, but appears to exist as a matter of convenience on the southern interior Coastal Plain.
  9. Possible kill site (i.e., Baskerville low grounds)

    Comment: Isolated kill sites were not reported by Gardner, nor have they been proven to exist in this work, but circumstantial evidence pointing to their existence is strong.
  10. Isolated point finds (mostly along or near first order and second order streams).

    Comment: These discoveries are also recognized by Gardner in the Shenandoah Valley.

Settlement analyses, encompassing the analysis of site locational data and/or assemblage composition from a great many sites, has shown how the occurrence of lithic raw materials can, to some extent, shape Paleoindian settlement, as Gardner (1983, 1989) and others have suggested (e.g., Daniel 1998; Goodyear 1979, 1989). The distribution of fluted point and Dalton sites in northeast Arkansas, for example, has been shown to be influenced by the location of knappable chert gravels (Gillam 1996a,1996b). This research, employing GIS technology and computerized site file and assemblage data, permits the examination of large numbers of sites simultaneously. As such, it offers the potential to resolve site types based on their environmental associations, which can then be verified and explored further with direct field work. These kinds of analytical procedures can pinpoint areas on the landscape where various site types might be expected to occur, and can be used to suggest the kinds of activities and assemblages that might be expected at such sites, where only minimal information may currently exist.

While the examination of localities or districts is emerging as a particularly useful approach to understanding Paleoindian occupations in an area, a number of discrete Paleoindian quarry/workshop sites have also witnessed appreciable data collection, analysis, and reporting. These include Adams (Sanders 1988, 1990), Carson-Conn-Short (Broster and Norton 1993, 1996; Broster et al. 1994, 1996; Nami et al. 1996), Hardaway (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998), Theriault in eastern Georgia (Brockington 1971), Wells Creek Crater (Dragoo 1973), and Williamson (McCary1951, 1975, 1991; Peck 1985). Some of these, such as Adams and Williamson, have been incorporated into larger districts, and have been used in comparative analyses employing sites from the surrounding area. The detailed reports and papers describing these particular sites are crucial sources of information about southeastern Paleoindian life. The production of such reports, in fact, is an essential part of research, and until Paleoindian sites are well published, they can contribute little to our understanding.

In closing, while this discussion has focused on lithic quarry/workshop property types, bone, shell, or ivory "quarry" and workshop locales might well be discovered at some point in the Southeast. The collection of old or green bone or ivory for use in tools could be considered a special type of quarrying behavior, for example, and site types or activity areas may exist where these resources were processed. At present, the most likely area where such sites may be found is in submerged contexts, either underwater or in marsh or peat deposits. The presence of such sites is certainly plausible, given the discovery in Florida of anvils, digging sticks, and a possible beamer made on mastodon bones, an awl made from extinct horse tibia, as well as numerous bone and ivory point and foreshafts (e.g., Dunbar and Webb 1996; see also Clausen et al. 1979).

Resource Distribution: Occupations

No pre-Clovis habitation sites are currently known from the Southeast, although the Cactus Hill site in Virginia may well prove to be one such location, once sufficient area can be examined (M. Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; McAvoy et al. 2000). Topper may ultimately provide evidence for an occupation, given the presence of possible features, and a diverse and unusual toolkit. Our understanding of settlement and site types will remain minimal for this subperiod, however, until we are able to more readily identify these early assemblages.

Major Clovis era occupation sites were once thought to be rare in the Southeast away from quarry areas, something thought due to the early adoption of a generalized foraging adaptation to effectively exploit the widespread hardwood forests present in the lower Southeast at this time (Lepper and Meltzer 1991:177; Meltzer 1984a, 1988, 1993; Meltzer and Smith 1986). The large number of isolated finds of fluted points that occur in the region are thought to reflect extensive residential mobility, with habitation areas away from lithic source areas occupied only briefly and hence leaving behind a minimal archaeological record. This perspective was shaped, in part, because many of the best known inferences about Clovis lifeways and particularly residential camps in the Southeast, at least until quite recently, came from research conducted at quarry/workshop assemblages (e.g., Anderson and Sassaman 1996a:23-28; Gardner 1977, 1989; Goodyear et al. 1990). The inferred low visibility of Clovis residential sites in the region, however, is more apparent than real once the total record is examined (Anderson 1990a, 1995b, 1996). Habitation sites characterized by appreciable numbers of Clovis points, bifacial and unifacial tools, and other artifacts, have been documented in a number of areas. McAvoy (1992:142-144), for example, delimited several kinds of non-quarry Clovis residential sites in southern Virginia, and gave examples of sites that fell into each category (Table 14).

Major non-quarry presumed Clovis residential sites in the Southeast include Belle Mina, Heaven's Half Acre, Joe Powell, and Quad in Alabama (Cambron and Hulse 1960; Ensor 1985, 1992; Futato 1996; Hubbert 1989); the Barnett Shoals and Feronia localities in Georgia (Anderson et al. 1990; Ledbetter et al. 1996); Parrish Village in Kentucky (Webb 1951); Avery Island and John Pearce in Louisiana (Gagliano 1967; Webb et al. 1971); the Taylor and Manning sites in South Carolina (Anderson 1979; Anderson and Sassaman 1996b; Goodyear et al. 1990; Michie 1996); the Pierce (40Cs24) and Twelkemeier (40Hs173) sites in Tennessee (Broster 1982; Broster and Norton 1990); and the Conover and Greensville County sites in Virginia (McAvoy 1992). While residential sites do occur away from quarry areas in the Southeast, their recognition and precise delimitation is often difficult or impossible due to the extensive reoccupation that sometimes occurred (Anderson 1990a). Thus, while sites like Manning, Taylor, and Quad, for example, have yielded appreciable numbers of fluted points and formal stone tools, they have also produced thousands or even tens of thousands of later points and tools, rendering identification of specific occupational assemblages difficult or impossible, particularly if most of the materials derive from surface context. Carefully recording where surface materials came from within a site, however, is a way to delimit specific occupation areas, as Michie (1996:242, 267-269) demonstrated at the Taylor site, and O'Steen and her colleagues (1986:40) did at Barnett Shoals in Georgia.

Comparative analyses of eastern and southeastern Clovis site assemblages has been conducted by a number of authors, and provide some insight into the characteristics of residential assemblages of this period, and the kinds of research questions they can address (e.g., Faught 1996; Meltzer 1984b, 1988; Shott 1986a). Sanders (1990:65-69), in an analysis of a dozen major eastern Paleoindian sites that included several southeastern sites, looked at the presence or absence of specific site physical attributes such as size class, evidence for single versus multiple occupations, and the kinds of functional activities that were apparently represented (i.e., quarrying, workshop, hunting camp, habitation), as well as a series of technological attributes related to reduction/manufacturing practices. Interestingly, the presence of true blades and blade cores was noted to be more common on southeastern sites than those in the Midwest and Northeast (Sanders 1990:67), a finding used to suggest a fairly early date for these assemblages (Ellis et al. 1998:159). The four southeastern sites examined, Adams, Thunderbird, Wells Creek Crater, and Williamson, were considered to be combination habitation and manufacturing sites, while most of the remaining northern sites were interpreted as hunting camps.

In this same analysis, Adams was found to be so similar to the Wells Creek Crater that the two sites could possibly "be attributed to the same cultural group" (Sanders 1990:69). The difference was that Wells Creek Crater almost certainly represented a number of separate episodes of site use while Adams appeared to be the result of a single occupation. Interestingly, even though outcrops were close at hand, at both sites extensive lithic raw material conservation strategies were employed, to seemingly maximize the utility of every piece of knappable stone. Sanders (1990:68-69) pointed out how this was contrary to the expectation that raw material use should be relatively prolific on Paleoindian sites in source areas, and that conservation strategies should increase with increasing distance from source areas (e.g., Gardner 1974:5-6 and MacDonald 1968:128-129, cited in Sanders 1990:68). He suggested instead that the assemblages might be due to the recent movement of peoples accustomed to having limited lithic raw materials into a stone-rich environment. As such, Adams and Wells Creek Crater might be the signatures of initial colonizing groups. Alternatively, raw material conservation may have been routinely practiced in all locations, since it was an essential aspect of life to highly mobile peoples critically dependent on their stone tools; this was why they were made on predictable, high quality materials, and were designed to maximize use-life (e.g., Goodyear 1979, 1989; Kelly and Todd 1988).

Paleoindian sites postdating Clovis which are separated from quarry areas are fairly common in the Southeast, although well reported examples are less common. Among the best known occupation sites are Dust Cave and Stanfield Worley Bluff Shelter in Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962; Driskell 1996; Goldman Finn and Driskell 1994); Brand and Lace Place in Arkansas (Goodyear 1974; Redfield and Moselage 1970); Harney Flats in Florida (Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987); Taylor Hill in Georgia (Elliott and Doyon 1981; Ledbetter et al. 1996:273); Hester in Mississippi (Brookes 1979; McGahey 1996:371-372); the Haw River sites in North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982); Taylor in South Carolina (Michie 1996); and Nuckolls, Nuckolls Extension, Puckett, and Twelkemeier in Tennessee (Broster and Norton 1990, 1991; Lewis and Kneberg 1958; Norton and Broster 1992, 1993). With the exception of the Suwannee/Bolen assemblage from Harney Flats, most of these sites produced Dalton assemblages, sometimes with earlier or later Paleoindian/Early Archaic components present as well (Walthall 1998). Where later materials were present, these were almost invariably side notched projectile points.

Research Needs and Questions for the Southeast

The research themes described below offer guidance by which southeastern Paleoindian sites may be found, examined, and evaluated for NRHP and NHL status. They discuss the major research questions facing Paleoindian researchers in the region, and describe the kinds of information needed to answer these questions. What follows is intended to complement, and supplement, the discussion of research themes presented in the national context. Many of the questions and approaches raised in what follows, it should be noted, are derived from existing southeastern Paleoindian historic context studies. Some overlap between specific themes occurs, since many of the processes involved are interrelated.

Historical Background

Formal recognition of human late Pleistocene occupation in the Southeast, like everywhere else in North America, post-dates the 1926 Folsom, New Mexico discovery. Prior to this time, evidence for early human occupation had been noted in a number of parts of the region, but had been considered somewhat equivocal. Possible associations of humans with extinct fauna, for example, had been noted at Big Bone Lick, Kentucky, and at Kimmswick, Missouri in the early and middle part of the nineteenth century, respectively (Freeman et al. 1996:391-394; Tankersley 1985, 1990a:74-76). Human skeletal remains of putative great antiquity were found near Natchez, Mississippi in the 1840s (Cotter 1991) and at Vero and Melbourne in Florida in the early years of this century (Dunbar 1991:186; Gidley and Loomis 1926; Sellards1917). Finds such as these were viewed with appreciable skepticism, however, by the professional archaeological community of the time (e.g., Hrdlicka 1918; Meltzer 1983).

The importance of the Folsom discovery for southeastern archaeology, accordingly, lay in the fact that the projectile points found with the extinct bison had a distinctive basal flaking pattern, or fluting, that made this kind of artifact an unambiguous marker of a Late Pleistocene age site. Prior to this time, of course, fluted points had been found in various parts of the Southeast, but their great antiquity was not recognized. Fluted or more accurately, basally thinned lanceolate points were, in fact, advanced as a distinctive artifact type in Mississippi, where they were described as Coldwater points in Calvin Brown's (1926:132-134) volume The Archaeology of Mississippi. The Coldwater type is used to describe a distinctive, presumably Late Paleoindian lanceolate point found in northeast Mississippi and adjacent parts of Arkansas. It should not, however, be used to describe local fluted points (e.g., McGahey 1981,1996:354; McGahey: personal communication 2000).

By the mid-1930s fluted projectile points were being recognized in a number of parts of the Southeast, and interpreted as artifacts left behind by early occupants. Most of these points were surface finds, and the papers describing them (e.g., Bushnell 1935:35, 1940; Wauchope 1939) were the first of what has proven to be an increasingly extensive and important descriptive literature on the regional Paleoindian projectile point record (as summarized in Anderson 1990a, 1991; Anderson and Faught 1998, 2000; Anderson and Sassaman, eds., 1996c; Brennan 1982; Mason 1962; and Williams and Stoltman 1965). The vast majority of fluted points found to this day in the Southeast, in fact, are from surface context, and having good locational and descriptive information about them is essential to understanding variability within these early occupations.

For the first two to three decades after 1926, fluted points in the Southeast tended to be described as Folsomoid or Folsom-like by local archaeologists. By the 1950s, southeastern fluted points tended to be referred to as Clovis or Clovis-like, since most eastern variants lacked the full length fluting and fine retouch characteristic of true Plains Folsom points. It was about this time as well that a number of distinctive subregional variants began to be named, such as the Cumberland, Redstone, and Wheeler types (e.g., Cambron 1955; Cambron and Hulse 1964:30, 99; Kneberg 1956; Lewis 1954:7). In recent years, as data on thousands of points has accumulated from across the region, appreciation for the range of variation evident has increased, although efforts to untangle it are still in their infancy. Given the thousands of points from the region that have been measured, in fact, it is surprising how little analysis has actually been done with this primary attribute data from a regional scale (Meltzer 1984b, and Morrow and Morrow 1999 are important exceptions), although appreciable excellent work has done as part of site, locality, or state level analyses (e.g., Anderson et al. 1990; Breitburg and Broster 1995; Daniel 1998; Daniel and Wisenbaker 1987; Goodyear 1974; Morse, ed., 1997; to cite a few examples).

Following the Folsom discovery, some Paleoindian materials were found comparatively early on in secure excavation context in the Southeast. An early stone tool industry characterized by heavily weathered chert was found during the New Deal era excavations at Macon Plateau. While numerous points, tools and debitage dating to the later Paleoindian and Early Archaic Dalton, Taylor/Bolen, and Palmer/Kirk complexes were found, only a single fluted point was recovered, in 1935 (Kelly 1938; Waring 1968:237). A more extensive Paleoindian assemblage, characterized by eight fluted points and some 280 unifacial tools, was found in surface and excavation context at the Parrish Village site (15HK45) in western Kentucky, excavated by WPA crews from 1938 to 1940 (Freeman et al. 1996:395-396; Rolingson and Schwartz 1966; Tankersley 1990a; Webb 1951). These excavations remain among the most extensive ever undertaken in the Southeast that had as a goal the recovery of Paleoindian materials.

By the late 1940s, excavations began to occur in the region's rockshelters and floodplains, with the goal of locating deeply stratified deposits, and hence the recovery of assemblages dating to specific and progressively more ancient periods. Important work was done at sites such as Hardaway in North Carolina (Coe 1964; Daniel 1998), Russell Cave in Alabama (Griffin 1974; Miller 1956); and the Stanfield-Worley Bluff shelter in Alabama (DeJarnette et al. 1962), and at similar sites in adjacent areas, such as at the Modoc Rock Shelter in Illinois (S. R. Ahler 1993; Fowler 1959). This work accelerated in the ensuing decades, particularly with the rise of CRM archaeology in the 1970s. Important research directed to or documenting Paleoindian components has occurred in floodplain settings in the Little Tennessee River of eastern Tennessee (Chapman 1985), the Haw River of North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982), and in rockshelter deposits at Dust Cave in Alabama (Driskell 1996). Once again, projects in nearby areas, such as at Koster in Illinois (Struever and Holton 1979), St. Albans in West Virginia (Broyles 1966, 1971), and Rodgers Shelter in Missouri (S. A. Ahler 1971; McMillan 1971; Wood and McMillan 1976) have contributed markedly to our understanding of late Pleistocene or immediate post-Pleistocene, Holocene occupations in the Southeast.

Also beginning in the late 1940s, with McCary's (1984, 1991; Hranicky 1989) pioneering work in Virginia, the systematic recording of all known fluted projectile points began to occur in various parts of the region. This work, typically conducted within individual states by avocational and professional archaeologists working in tandem, has accelerated markedly within the past two decades. Fluted point recording projects are currently ongoing in almost every state in the Southeast. At present, almost 6000 Paleoindian points have been documented in the region by these surveys (Table 13), and detailed measurement data has been recorded for over two thirds of this sample, and is typically readily available from the researchers generating it in each state.

Since the early 1970s, extensive survey and excavation work has been conducted across the Southeast under the mandate of federal environmental legislation. Millions of acres of land have been examined, and almost 200,000 archaeological sites have been recorded (Anderson and Horak, eds., 1995). A great many Paleoindian sites have been found and excavated and, perhaps most importantly, detailed technical reports on the work have been prepared. Crucial to effective cultural resource management archaeology is making determinations of site significance, that is, knowing how a site can provide information that can help us better understand the past. The NHL research themes discussed below offer a framework by which significance may be evaluated, by suggesting specific areas where research is needed.

Peopling Places

This theme focuses on the initial settlement, diversification, and growth of human populations within the Southeast. Assuming that the entry of initial human populations into the Southeast appreciably predates 11,500 rcbp/13,450 B.P., determining whether unequivocal archaeological signatures (i.e., diagnostic artifact types) exist that can be used to easily recognize these early occupations is critically important. This may not be possible where early occupations only made use of comparatively simple flake stone tools, particularly since these kinds of tools were used extensively in later prehistory. The Early Triangular projectile points found at Cactus Hill or the Miller Lanceolates found at and near Meadowcroft Rockshelter, however, may prove to be readily identifiable, unambiguous pre-Clovis diagnostics. The existence of an early blade industry is also documented at both Meadowcroft (Adovasio et al. 1999:427-28) and Cactus Hill (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997), and apparently at Topper in South Carolina as well (Goodyear 1999b, 2000, n.d.). While blades occur in later Paleoindian assemblages, some aspects of these assemblages may prove to be temporally diagnostic. The southeastern archaeological record also adds uncertainty to the origins of Clovis technology. While Clovis assemblages are well dated in the western United States, perhaps to as narrow an interval as ca. 11,200 and 10,900 rcbp/13,150 to 12,900 B.P. (e.g., Haynes 1992, 1993; Fiedel 1999; but see Stanford 1999:289, who argues for a broader range, from 11,500 to 10,900 rcbp), there is some evidence from sites like Johnson and Carson-Conn-Short in Tennessee that this technology may occur appreciably earlier in the Southeast.

Any artifact-rich site securely dated to more than ca. 11,500 rcbp/13,450 B.P., and ideally yielding unequivocal diagnostics, will be crucial to addressing this theme. As such, properties like Cactus Hill, Page-Ladson, Saltville, and Topper, if convincingly shown to be pre-Clovis in age and culture, will be of profound importance, and unquestionably eligible for NRHP and NHL status. Of critical importance to exploring the theme of Peopling Places, therefore, is determining "What constitutes early Paleoindian sites in the Southeast?" A related question would be "What constitutes later Paleoindian sites in the Southeast?"

To better understand initial occupations, we also need to know what specific landforms, sediment types, and microenvironmental settings were used by Paleoindian populations in the Southeast. Are such settings sufficiently distinct or unusual that they can be used to predict the probability of finding early materials? What field methods are appropriate for these settings, to maximize the possibility of discovering and evaluating early components? Geoarchaeological research in the Southeast in recent years has shown that Paleoindian sites may be found in specific floodplain terrace settings, around Carolina Bays, and in areas of extensive colluviation (e.g., Brooks and Sassaman 1990; Brooks et al. 1996; Goodyear 1999a). Site survey data has been used to resolve areas favored by early populations as well, such as in the vicinity of prominent shoals (O'Steen et al. 1986). Fall Line locations across the Southeast have long been known to possess major Paleoindian assemblages, as have areas around chert or other high quality stone outcrops. As Paleoindian components are identified in the Southeast, GIS technology has proven a highly effective means of evaluating and refining Paleoindian settlement models, as demonstrated in northeast Arkansas (Gillam1996a, 1996b, 1999).

Tesar (1996:27-34) has provided an excellent overview of where sites throughout the Paleoindian era are likely to be located in the Florida area (see also Dunbar 1991). Of particular interest, Tesar (2000:28) also suggests that "in marine and estuarine settings shell offered an alternative cutting tool with which to fashion bone and wooden artifacts. The biodegrading of organic based artifacts has favored an interpretive bias focused on stone artifacts." Early coastal sites may thus be particularly difficult to discern, if lithics were not as commonly utilized.

How the settlement of the continent may have proceeded, given the changes in vegetation that were occurring at the regional scale, has also been the subject of some fairly extensive modeling in recent years (Steele et al. 1998). In brief, the early emergence of hardwood forests across much of the Southeast would have made the area attractive to early populations, something clearly indicated by the fluted point distributions. Such analyses can also be conducted at the regional and locality scale, as Gillam's (1996a, 1996b) research in northeast Arkansas has shown, where population distributions over much of the Paleoindian period was shown to be, at least in part, constrained by lithic raw material locations.

Creation of Social Institutions

This theme examines the emergence of distinct cultural traditions within the Late Pleistocene Southeast. The clearest evidence for the emergence of subregional cultural traditions in the region occurs after ca. 10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P., when distinctive projectile point types or variants appear in a number of areas. This diversification occurs about the same time as the megafaunal extinctions and the onset of the Younger Dryas, events that appear related. The localized distribution of particular point types or styles is commonly used to infer the existence and extent of prehistoric cultural traditions, during the Paleoindian era and after (e.g., Anderson 1990a, 1995a, 1996). The distribution of Suwannee projectile points, for example, is restricted almost exclusively to Florida (Dunbar 1991), while Cumberland points occur primarily in the Mid South (Anderson and Faught 2001). These distributions are interpreted as encompassing the area over which makers of these projectile points appear to have regularly or at least occasionally moved, and as such, are used as markers of group territories or ranges and, hence, cultural traditions. Is it possible that some of the diversity currently attributed to the post-10,800 rcbp/12,900 B.P. era, specifically the emergence of distinctive subregional cultural traditions, may have actually begun earlier? That is, whether Clovis or pre-Clovis cultures were actually uniform over an area as large as the Southeast is something that also warrants consideration. Given the amount of time and space involved, and the changes in climate and biota that were occurring, such an assumption seems highly unlikely.

Where distinctive Paleoindian artifact categories exist, such as the Cumberland type, typological classification and distributional analyses are relatively easy to accomplish. A bewildering array of Paleoindian projectile point types and variants, not all mutually exclusive, have been defined in the Southeast. Almost all of these, furthermore, are intuitively rather than quantitatively based, and extremely difficult for differing researchers to consistently sort (Morse 1997:134). Collections analysis should help standardize our systematics, and help resolve identifiable tool forms, whose age can then be determined through excavation.

While we have a good handle on the geographic distribution of Paleoindian fluted point types, since most state surveys record these artifact categories, our information on the occurrence of later Paleoindian point forms, particularly Daltons and side notched forms, is much more spotty. Locational and measurement data are not systematically recorded for these point types in many southeastern states. This is because, quite simply, so many Dalton and side notched points are known to exist in some areas that the task of recording them appears quite overwhelming, with the result that effort is typically directed to earlier or less common artifact types, like fluted points, or fluted and unfluted lanceolates. This selective approach to data recording must change if we are to understand what the stylistic variation observed within Dalton or the early side notched horizon actually means. If we include some of the San Patrice varieties, there are currently over a dozen named Dalton types and variants (Ensor 1987; Goodyear 1974, 1982; Justice 1987; Morse 1997). Likewise, while Dalton points are described as common in many areas, at least compared with presumably earlier Paleoindian forms, because primary data have not been systematically collected, exactly how common they are, or where they occur, is not well known. Other than in northeast Arkansas, where the distribution of Dalton assemblages have been explored for decades (e.g., Gillam 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Morse 1971b, 1973, 1997a; Redfield 1971), we currently know less about the geographic occurrence of Dalton points in the Southeast than we do about fluted points. The same is also true about our knowledge of the occurrence of side notched points.

Expressing Cultural Values

This theme addresses religious and ceremonial aspects of Paleoindian life, specifically belief systems and means of representation. Prominent locations on the landscape are known to have held a particular attraction for Paleoindian populations in the Southeast. Large assemblages have been found in close proximity to dramatic physiographic features, such as near major shoals, sinkholes, or confluences, at extensive outcrops of high quality stone, at Fall Line locations across the region, and at or near high peaks or other unusual geological features. Were these sacred areas as well as convenient locations for group rendezvous and aggregation? Do the dramatic features on the landscape visited by Clovis and later populations, such as Wells Creek Crater in Tennessee, Eagle Hill in Louisiana, and Stone Mountain in Georgia appear in the oral tradition of contemporary peoples?

Likewise, what role did specific artifact categories play in defining cultural identity? There is no question that Paleoindian populations in the Southeast placed great value on their tools of stone, bone, and ivory. The workmanship on many specimens is superb, reflecting a level of expertise rarely achieved by the flintknappers of subsequent periods. The aesthetic appeal of these artifacts to modern archaeologists and collectors alike no doubt helps to explain the widespread interest in these early peoples. Concern for exemplary craftsmanship was a major and widely shared Paleoindian cultural value, even in the production of everyday stone tools. Was the Paleoindian fascination with high quality lithic raw materials, accordingly, solely due to the needs of a highly curated toolkit, as Goodyear (1979, 1989) has argued? Or was it also shaped by the ceremonial potential of artifacts made from these materials, as exemplified by the presence of elaborate specimens in caches and burials, or their role in facilitating ceremony and interaction, as Walthall and Koldehoff (1998) have suggested for Sloan points in the central Mississippi Valley, markers of what they call a possible "Cult of the Long Blade?" Visiting quarry areas, accordingly, may have been as much about promoting interaction as about procuring high quality stone, if groups knew they could find other groups at these locations at certain times of the year (Daniel 1998:194-195; 2001). Likewise, by procuring high quality stone, and using it to make elegant tools, these peoples may have been reinforcing a basic aspect of their culture.

How Paleoindian use of the landscape shaped their culture is a research topic to explore under the theme "Expressing Cultural Values." The distribution of Paleoindian sites and assemblages can be examined from such a landscape perspective, much in the way predictive models of site location are developed. Gillam (1996a, 1996b, 1999), for example, has shown that settlement changed in northeast Arkansas over the course of the Paleoindian era, with later sites found in a much wider array of settings. Some aspects of land use continued more or less unchanged, however, since both fluted point and Dalton assemblages indicate extensive use of the same lithic raw material sources.

Evidence for Paleoindian mortuary behavior, another aspect of how people express their cultural values, is rare in the Southeast. The Sloan site is a spectacular exception, albeit one with minimal skeletal preservation. The earliest well preserved human remains from the region are from Warm Mineral Springs site in Florida, dated to between ca. 9000 and 10,000 rcbp (Cockrell and Murphy 1978), although whether these are intentional burials is unknown. Excavations at a number of wet sites in Florida, such as Windover (Doran and Dickel 1988; Doran et al. 1988), have found numerous well-preserved human remains, indicating that cemetery behavior dates at least as far back as the end of the Early Archaic period. The Sloan data indicate collective burial practices extend even further back in time, albeit in this case in a dry rather than wet or submerged settings. What the use of cemeteries implies in terms of group residential permanence in an area, territoriality, kin groupings, and so on are all subjects that must be considered. In a related manner, are there Clovis age ceremonial or burial artifact caches like Richey-Roberts/East Wenatchee (Gramly 1993) or Anzik (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974) present in the Southeast? The answer is almost certainly yes, given their presence in later Dalton times at Sloan and other locations in the central Mississippi Valley (Walthall and Koldehoff 1998). Do additional Dalton cemeteries like Sloan exist awaiting discovery? Again almost certainly.

Shaping the Political Landscape

This theme examines the emergence of group territories and ranges and the evolution of interaction strategies during the Paleoindian era. In recent years considerable effort has been expended toward delimiting the extent of southeastern Paleoindian settlement systems through analyses of artifact stylistic variability and the distribution of raw materials away from source areas (Anderson 1990a, 1995a, Anderson and Faught1998, 2000; Daniel 1998, 2001; Goodyear et al. 1990; Sassaman 1996; Tankersley1989, 1990b, 1991, 1994, 1998). Raw material fall-off curves have been developed using temporally diagnostic projectile points from North and South Carolina, for example, to show how far, and with what patterning, materials moved from quarry areas during various periods in prehistory, including during the Paleoindian era (Anderson and Hanson 1988; Daniel 1998:170-186, 2001; Sassaman 1996:64-71; Sassaman et al. 1988; Tippett 1992). This research is feasible because two major sources appear to have supplied an appreciable proportion of the stone used by local Paleoindian populations, the Allendale chert quarries in southwestern South Carolina, and the Uwharrie rhyolite quarries at and near the Hardaway site in south central North Carolina (Daniel 1998; Goodyear et al. 1990). The later Paleoindian and Early Archaic fall-off curves exhibit gradual rather than step-like patterns, suggesting fairly even group movement, down-the-line exchange or movement of stone at best, and fluid interaction, rather than rapid long distance moves, massive raw material exchange between groups over appreciable distances, and fixed, impermeable social or territorial boundaries. Comparable research should be conducted in other parts of the Southeast.

Another topic that can be explored under the theme "Shaping the Political Landscape" is whether and why some portions of the Southeast were more heavily occupied during some Paleoindian periods than during others. There is no question that fluted point concentrations are almost invariably located along major transportation arteries, notably along or near major river channels, and in areas rich in floral, faunal, and lithic resources (Figure 1). Why were these areas more favored than others during this time? Likewise, why were some areas, such as the Appalachian highlands and portions of the Gulf Coastal Plain, minimally visited by peoples using fluted point technology? Preferences for certain landform types are also indicated during later Paleoindian times as well, at least within specific intensively examined localities (e.g., Gillam 1996a, 1996b; O'Steen et al. 1986). Unfortunately, the distribution of most Paleoindian point types at a larger, regional scale is largely unknown at present. Our understanding of where Dalton occupations or sites with side notched points occur across the region, for example, remains intuitively based (e.g., Justice 1987; Morse 1997), even though these are the most common Paleoindian point types known. When these artifact types can be mapped the way we can now plot fluted points, no doubt concentrations and voids will be found within the regional landscape that will profoundly influence our understanding of these occupations.

It is also important to ask how regional physiography, specifically the orientation of river drainages and the location of mountain ranges and shorelines, may have shaped group movement, interaction, and the rise of subregional cultural traditions during the Paleoindian (Anderson and Gillam 2000, 2001). Greater movement and interaction would have clearly been more likely in some directions than in others, and perhaps at some times rather than others (Anderson 995a; Meltzer n.d.). Little interaction or movement, for example, might be expected across the Appalachian mountains, or between groups occupying the Atlantic and the Gulf Coasts, save in intermediate areas. The Feronia locality in south Georgia, at the interface between the Atlantic and Gulf coastal watersheds, is in an area ideally suited for interaction between Paleoindian groups occupying these two major regions. The presence of extensive Paleoindian remains in this area, some made on raw materials that come from appreciable distances, suggests such interaction actually occurred (Blanton and Snow 1986). Likewise, the restricted distributions of Cumberland points primarily to within the Tennessee and Cumberland river drainages, and Suwannee/Simpson points primarily to within the karst rich areas of the Florida peninsula (with an extension up the Atlantic Coastal Plain as far as southwestern South Carolina), suggests the peoples making these artifacts ranged within these areas and no farther. Within these habitual use areas, where do sites with these diagnostics themselves occur, and how does this compare to the occurrence of sites in other areas? Are distinctive subregional adaptations forming or present? Why do some point types occur primarily within areas no more than a few hundred kilometers in maximum extent, while other point types appear to occur much more widely across the region?

Finally, diachronic analyses will prove an increasingly important means of resolving how and why the social landscape evolved during the Paleoindian period. As noted previously, changes over time in artifact distributions and raw material fall off curves have been used to explore changes in group range and settlement organization over the course of the Archaic period (e.g., Sassaman et al. 1988). Similar approaches can be attempted during the Paleoindian era, once our temporal resolution improves. Related to this, we need to ask why fluted point assemblages continue fairly late in the Northeast, to perhaps as late as ca. 10,200 rcbp/11,850 B.P. (e.g., Bonnichsen and Will 1999; Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Levine 1990; Spiess et al.1998), when fluted points are clearly gone from across the Southeast by this time?

Developing the American Economy

Research topics that can be explored under this theme include resolving changes in patterns of resource extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and exchange, both of subsistence items, and raw materials used for tools, shelter, and other material goods. Questions of Paleoindian subsistence in the Southeast are difficult to address directly at present, first because sites with well preserved paleosubsistence remains are rare, and second because the systematic collection of these kind of data is a comparatively new development. The recent paleosubsistence data collection efforts at Dust Cave, entailing extensive fine screening and flotation work, are a model in this regard (Driskell 1996; Goldman-Finn and Driskell 1994; Walker 1997). Any Paleoindian site yielding paleosubsistence information in good context will be extremely important. Beside data collection directed to bone, shell, and plant macrofossil remains-traditional paleosubsistence data categories-pollen and phytolith samples should also be routinely collected and examined.

Raw material source analyses comprise another important area for research. Where did the materials found on Paleoindian sites originate? Appreciable research has been directed to delimiting lithic raw material sources in the Southeast using trace element, petrographic, or fossil microfauna data (e.g., Anderson et al. 1982; Banks 1990; Daniel and Butler 1991; Goodyear and Charles 1984; Upchurch 1984). Such analyses are critical, since many materials are difficult or impossible to distinguish macroscopically. In Georgia, for example, there are cherts in the Piedmont that are identical in appearance to cherts from the Coastal Plain over 100 km away (Ledbetter et al.1981). The Piedmont cherts lack the microfossil inclusions ubiquitous in cherts from the Coastal Plain, however, and a microscope is needed to differentiate the materials.

Expanding Science and Technology

This theme examines the material culture, technology, and technological organization of the Earliest Americans. What are the nature of the technological changes that occur during the Paleoindian period in the Southeast, and why do these changes occur? How and why did the transition from fluted to non-fluted points come about in the Southeast? What do toolkits look like at different times and places over the region, and what are the reasons for the similarities and differences? Why are adzes, for example, fairly common on Dalton sites in the central Mississippi Valley, yet quite rare everywhere else in the region (e.g., Goodyear 1974; Michie 1996:260-261; Morse and Goodyear 1973)? Are tools like the Aucilla adze in Florida equivalent forms? If these tools were used to build watercraft, or build fairly substantial dwellings, as has been suggested (e.g., Goodyear 1974:113), what does their uneven distribution over the landscape mean? Were other tool forms used, or were different types of structures and methods of transportation employed?

Over the course of the later Paleoindian, point manufacture in the Southeast appears to have proceeded from predominantly fluted to basally thinned to unfluted types, and from straight sided lanceolates to broad, recurvate forms, and then to more straight sided or triangular beveled and increasingly more pronounced notched forms (Gardner 1974:18,1989; Gardner and Verrey 1979; Goodyear et al. 1979:90-96; Morse and Morse1983:60-65). Such patterning, if it can be refined through stratigraphic and absolute dating, can be used to infer the relative ages of specific points and assemblages. Throughout the Southeast it appears that a waisted lanceolate tradition-characterized by Cumberland, Quad, Beaver Lake, and Suwannee/Simpson types, was replaced by the lanceolate, lightly shouldered and notched Dalton tradition sometime around or after ca. 12,500 B.P./10,5000 rcbp. This trend is indicated everywhere save in Florida, where waisted Suwannee/Simpson forms are thought to have continued in use until they were replaced by side notched types. Throughout the region, these side-notched forms replaced the (for the most part unnotched) lanceolates prevalent for the preceding two millennia.

The dramatic increase in sites and assemblages over the course of the Paleoindian and into the Early Archaic periods in the region has been used to infer rapid population growth and landscape filling (Anderson 1990a, 1996; McAvoy 1992:157-163). This would have lead to increasing pressure on resources, and the need for new methods by which groups could exploit them. Later Paleoindian projectile points retain many characteristics of earlier assemblages, but they also evince evidence for extensive resharpening, suggesting a major difference in the use of these bifaces when compared with earlier points. This has been attributed to a need to kill and process large numbers of comparatively smaller animals (at least when compared with megafauna), such as white tailed deer (Goodyear 1974:14, 103, 1982; Michie 1973; Morse 1971b, 1973, 1975b, 1997b). This assumption, of course, leaves unanswered how earlier populations performed similar cutting and butchering tasks, whether megafauna were indeed their prey of choice, and whether the extinction of megafauna actually contributed to changes in these peoples toolkits. The gradual abandonment of the highly curated Paleoindian toolkit is believed to be directly related to emergence and increasing importance of foraging, generalist strategies over the region during the later Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods (Cable 1982a, 1996; Meltzer 1984a, b, 1988; Meltzer and Smith 1986; Morse 1973, 1975b, 1997b). Is this view actually correct and, if so, how did the process proceed?

Transforming the Environment

This theme examines the reactions of human groups to Late Pleistocene environmental change, as well as the impacts these human populations themselves produced on biotic communities. What role did human populations play in the megafaunal extinctions that occurred? Did Paleoindian populations help shape southeastern biota through the controlled use of fire, as their descendants are known to have done? What makes the Southeast a cultural area, and is the concept even relevant during the Late Pleistocene, a period of dramatic environmental and physiographic change? As Kroeber (1939:1) noted, the recognition of culture areas is a means by which we can come to a better understanding of the cultures themselves, and the causes of cultural change. Thus, environmental factors should be examined for their effect on cultural systems, with our goal the recognition of important relationships between the two (e.g., Anderson 2001; Smith 1986).

How did changes in shoreline, particularly the fluctuations that occurred between ca 13,000 and 10,000 rcbp/15,630 to 10,450 B.P., and particularly changes that may have occurred during the Younger Dryas between 10,800 to 10,100 rcbp/12,900 to 11,650B.P., affect Paleoindian adaptations? What effect did changes in vegetational communities have on human and animal populations, such as the emergence of a hardwood canopy over much of the region after ca. 11,000 rcbp/13,000 B.P.? Was there a change in technological organization, from logistically organized collectors to residentially mobile foragers, as has been suggested by some investigators (Anderson et al. 1996:6-7; Cable 1982a, 1996; see also Binford 1980)? Were residentially mobile foraging populations present at an earlier period in the lower Southeast, south of latitude 33°N, which appears to have been covered by a fairly homogeneous hardwood forest over much of the late Pleistocene (excluding Florida, which appears to have had fairly xeric plant communities away from streams) (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981, 1987; Jacobson et al. 1987; Watts et al. 1996; Webb et al. 1993)? Is the scarcity of Clovis sites in the Gulf Coastal Plain due to the fact that the hardwood canopy assumed to have been present in this area in the Late Pleistocene (Webb et al. 1993:448-450) was not particularly attractive to these peoples? Or are sites present, but just masked in some fashion? Were Paleoindian peoples exploiting the Coastal Plain living primarily out on the continental shelf, closer to the coastline (Faught 1996; Faught et al. 1992; Tesar 1996:27-34)? Is it realistic to expect that Paleoindian adaptations were the same in the dissicated karst terrain of Florida, on the Atlantic Coastal Plain, or along the major drainages of the Mid-South?

Changing Role of the United States in the World Community

This theme examines how what was happening to Paleoindian populations in NorthAmerica, and specifically within the Southeast, relates to cultural and environmental changes observed worldwide at the end of the Pleistocene. That is, how do assemblages from this time period in the Southeast compare with those in other parts of the world? How does this relate to the dramatic changes in global climate that were occurring?

Another important question that can be considered under this theme is the effectiveness of our existing chronologies and culture sequences for the Paleoindian period. The relative temporal placement of Paleoindian and Early Archaic projectile points and associated toolkits has been determined through excavations at stratified alluvial and rockshelter sites. Radiocarbon dates have sometimes provided absolute chronological controls to these sequences, but many of the dates that have been obtained are considered unacceptably early or late, blurring our resolution. Thus, while there is agreement that parallel sided Clovis lanceolates precede the more waisted or eared fluted or nonfluted lanceolates, which were in turn replaced by notched points, even approximate temporal ranges remain to be determined for many of these forms (e.g., see commentary on this problem by Griffin 1977:5; Meltzer 1988:15). While this relative sequence has been documented in stratigraphic columns from a number of locations in and near the Southeast, the only point forms that may be considered fairly well dated in the region are the terminal Paleoindian early side notched types. Even Dalton points, whose temporal range was once thought to be fairly well known, to between ca. 10,500 and 9900 rcbp/12,500 to 11,250 B.P. (Goodyear 1982), appear to date earlier and possibly later than this in parts of the region.

Models of the kind of fieldwork and data needed to answer these kinds of questions exist in the record of past research. Major excavations in the Southeast that have provided stratigraphic columns spanning appreciable portions of the Paleoindian and ensuing Early Archaic periods, and that have had a major role in shaping the culture sequence, include Hester in Mississippi (Brookes 1979); the Haw River and Hardaway sites in North Carolina (Claggett and Cable 1982; Coe 1964; Daniel 1998); Page-Ladson and Silver Springs in Florida (Dunbar et al. 1988, Neill 1958); Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter and Dust Cave in Alabama (Driskell (1994;Goldman-Finn and Driskell 1994), to name a few of the more prominent examples.

Research at deeply stratified sites in areas just beyond the Southeast, at sites like Rodgers Shelter in Missouri (Wood and McMillan 1976) and St. Albans in West Virginia (Broyles 1966, 1971) have also provided important cultural historical information. When new examples of deeply stratified Paleoindian sites are found in and near the Southeast, like the recently discovered Big Eddy site in southwest Missouri (Lopinot et al., eds., 1998, 2000; Ray et al. 1988), or Wakulla Springs Lodge in Florida (Jones and Tesar 2000), they should receive extensive examination.

At the present, the identification of Paleoindian components across the Southeast suffers from considerable ambiguity, particularly in cases where supposedly well described and dated diagnostics like Clovis or Dalton points are lacking. As we have seen, however, appreciable morphological variation is subsumed under these types, much of which is poorly documented or understood at present. How much of this variation reflects temporal or cultural phenomena, and how much of it is due to constraints imposed by raw material, or the position of the artifact in a use-life cycle? Similar typological ambiguity pervades the use of many other Paleoindian forms, such as the Clovis Variant, Suwannee, Simpson, Quad, Beaver Lake, and Cumberland types. In an outstanding example of the type of research essential to untangling this variability, Breitburg and Broster (1995) examined a sample of 234 Cumberland and 654 Clovis points from Tennessee, explicitly documenting how these types differed from one another, as well as how point size within each category varied in differing parts of the state, something attributed to the distance they were from raw material source areas. Classificatory systems for Paleoindian artifacts in the Southeast should be based on quantitative analyses directed toward resolving and understanding the reasons behind observed morphological variation. While type and variety systems will continue to remain useful tools, such classification must be perceived as only a first, and to some extent limiting (since they constrain the study of variation) step in our analyses of Paleoindian assemblages.

National Historic Landmark Criterion 6 and National Register Criterion D / Registration Requirements

For specific properties, NRHP and NHL evaluation should proceed by first completing a property designation matrix, which provides a basic overview of condition and research potential under National Historic Landmark Criterion 6 and National Register Criterion D, and can serve as a guide to the preparation of detailed nomination statements. Procedures by which the matrix is to be used are provided in the Evaluation Criteria Matrix/Registration Requirements section above. How specific research questions and themes outlined in the matrix apply to southeastern Paleoindian properties, however, were discussed previously in this regional context.

NHL Property Type and Integrity Levels for the Southeast

Linked with the evaluation of specific NHL property classes and categories is an assessment of their integrity. Property integrity refers to the physical condition of the remains under investigation, that is, their preservation, context, and ability to contribute important information under Criterion 6 for NHL designation and Criterion D for the National Register. Assessing property integrity is thus a crucial aspect of the evaluation of NRHP and NHL status. To be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or designation as an NHL, Paleoindian properties must possess deposits with sufficient integrity to yield information capable of identifying discrete periods of occupation or utilization, property function or type, and have clearly defined boundaries.

High Integrity. Three levels of integrity are employed in the present NHL theme study, High, Moderate, and Low. Properties whose integrity is High are potential NHLs or have national-level NRHP significance. Sites with High integrity have clearly identified Paleoindian component(s) in secure context, and with precise calendric dating. That is, the geologic and sedimentary context of the assemblage(s) are well documented, with sources of intrusion or disturbance recognized and controlled, and the age of the deposits ascertained using one or more absolute dating procedures, such as radiocarbon or OSL dating. Sufficient age determinations must, however, have been obtained from samples in secure context to ensure confidence in the results. Individual dates, accordingly, or even large numbers of dates from controversial associations, will probably not be considered sufficient, unless supported by other kinds of evidence, such as unambiguous geological or biotic associations. Where materials for absolute dating are not available, the assemblage(s) must be of highly unusual significance. In the Southeast, properties with high integrity and national level significance include Cactus Hill, Sloan, Dust Cave, and various sites in the Allendale, South Carolina, Aucilla River, Florida, Christian County, Kentucky, and Nottoway River, Virginia localities.

Moderate Integrity. Properties whose integrity is Moderate are potential NHLs or have national- or state-level NRHP significance. Sites with Moderate integrity have Paleoindian component(s) that are to some extent mixed with later materials, in moderately secure context, and with relative rather than absolute dating. That is, the geologic and sedimentary context may be somewhat uncertain, with some mixing or reworking of the deposits. Control for disturbance is less secure. The age of the deposits is also somewhat less secure, and may depend upon stratigraphic relationships, seriation, or cross-dating with materials securely dated elsewhere. That is, sites with Dalton points are assumed to date between ca. 10,500 and 9,900 rcbp/12,500 to 11,250 B.P., regardless of where they are found, because that is the age range currently accepted based on an evaluation of known dates and contexts (Goodyear 1982). As we have seen, however, the actual temporal occurrence for Dalton points appears to vary appreciably, and may extend well beyond these inferred starting and ending dates, making use of cross-dating less secure than absolute dating. Southeastern sites with moderate integrity are widespread, and include most assemblages found on conflated surfaces, where distinguishing Paleoindian remains from materials dating later is sometimes difficult or impossible. The Quad locality in northern Alabama, which yielded numerous Paleoindian points, but also tens of thousands of later diagnostics as well, is one such example.

Low Integrity. Properties whose integrity is Low are not considered NHL candidates. If they were to be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, it would probably be at the state or local level of significance. Sites with Low integrity have presumed Paleoindian components that are in highly disturbed context, and whose age may be uncertain or questionable. Lithic scatters lacking diagnostics, absolute dates, or sound stratigraphic contexts are examples of such sites, as are sites with diagnostics whose deposits are severely disturbed or are thoroughly mixed with materials of later periods. Sites yielding low numbers of Paleoindian points as well as later materials in surface context would tend to have Low integrity.

Isolated diagnostic projectile point finds, of which thousands are known from the Southeast, are a special Paleoindian property class of great importance for research purposes, but whose integrity is considered Low, and hence have minimal potential for inclusion on the NRHP, or designation as an NHL. Isolated finds are thus typically not considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, unless the artifact itself is of exceptional significance. There is one exception to this. Groups of culturally related but otherwise isolated Paleoindian remains found in connection with diagnostic land-forms or other paleogeological, geomorphological, or paleoenvironmental contexts may be nominated as contributing properties within a district. That is, isolated finds, taken collectively, may under certain conditions (i.e., high density, significant paleoenvironmental associations) be considered important enough to warrant inclusion on the NRHP or as part of an NHL.

Evaluation Standards: NRHP Criteria

Although NHL designation is not the same thing as NRHP status, any successful NHL nomination will also have to meet NRHP Criteria. Explicit Criteria by which Paleoindian properties may be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP have been presented in a number of southeastern state historic contexts (e.g., Anderson and Sassaman 1992; Broster 1987; Davis 1982; Dunbar n.d.; McGahey n.d.; Smith et al. 1983; Tankersley 1990a; Wittkovski and Reinhart 1989), and are summarized here. The presence of any of the following characteristics on southeastern sites yielding Paleoindian artifacts would tend to automatically make them eligible for inclusion on the NRHP:

  1. Intact buried deposits, particularly assemblages yielding features or preserved floral and faunal remains, and materials suitable for radiocarbon or multiple dating procedures. These types of sites are extremely rare at this time level in the Southeast, as well as anywhere in Eastern North America.
  2. Stratified deposits, with components that can be isolated horizontally or vertically. This would facilitate detailed examination of single periods of occupation.
  3. Major quarry sites with extensive reduction or manufacturing debris, and evidence for utilization during the Paleoindian period.
  4. Areally extensive surface scatters from plowzone or eroded upland context, particularly if evidence for artifact relocation beyond more than a few meters is minimal. Controlled surface collection procedures can recover discrete occupational episodes or activity areas on sites of this kind. Barnett Shoals, Wells Creek Crater, and Williamson are two examples of major southeastern Paleoindian sites where extensive information has been found in plowzone context (Dragoo 1973; McCary 1951, 1975, 1991; O'Steen et al. 1986).

To these attributes can be added consideration of Glassow's (1977) Criteria by which site significance can be assessed, as discussed in the national context chapter (see also Butler 1987).

The presence of any of the following characteristics tends to automatically make a southeastern site yielding Paleoindian materials ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP:

  1. Sites consisting only of a single isolated artifact. Little information beyond that obtained at the time of collection can be derived from such assemblages. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that the presence of other deposits has been ruled out. Isolates may be the only detected evidence of a complex site.
  2. Heavily disturbed surface scatters. This does not include plowzone scatters, from which significant assemblage and intra-site distributional information can be recovered, given careful data collection. Care must be taken when examining presumably disturbed deposits to ensure that the presence of undisturbed deposits has been completely ruled out.
  3. Sites damaged by cultural or natural factors to the extent that deposit integrity is destroyed.

Detailed reasons why sites meet NRHP or NHL eligibility status should accompany all such determinations, and should be expressed in terms of how they can yield information important to history or prehistory. Given how rare Paleoindian sites are in the region, full justification should also be provided when Paleoindian properties are determined to be ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP, or for designation as an NHL.

Possible or Proposed Southeastern NHLs

At present, three Paleoindian sites within the Southeast have been designated NHLs by the Secretary of the Interior. These are the Thunderbird District, in Virginia, designated on May 5, 1977, the Hardaway site, in North Carolina, proclaimed on June 21, 1990, and the Hester site, in Mississippi, designated on January 3, 2001. Warm Mineral Springs, in Florida, while not formally designated an NHL due to owner objections, was determined to be nationally significant in 1988. In the preparation of this regional context, the author had the opportunity to examine the literature and site records for Paleoindian sites from across the region. A number of properties have yielded outstanding information, and in the author's opinion warrant nomination for NHL status. These properties, by specific type, are listed in Table 12. Individual sites that are believed to be strong NHL candidates include Salt Mine Valley on Avery Island, Cactus Hill, Carson-Conn-Short, Dust Cave, John Pearce, Little Salt Spring, Manning, Nipper Creek, Quad, Sloan, Stanfield-Worley, Taylor, Taylor Hill, Wakulla Springs Lodge, Wells Creek Crater, and Williamson. Candidates for NHL district status include the Allendale Quarries in Allendale County, South Carolina, the Aucilla River area of northern Florida, the Little River/Adams Paleoindian site complex in Christian County, Kentucky, and some or all of the sites in the Nottoway River area of southern Virginia, including Williamson.

An effort to assess the condition and present integrity of the above sites, prior to the development of NHL nominations should be accomplished. It goes without saying that these sites and localities need to be protected from looting. Some of these sites, such as Stanfield Worley, have been extensively looted, and the condition of their archaeological deposits is unknown. Some sites or localities are currently under reservoirs and hence inaccessible, such as the Parrish Village site in Kentucky, the Haw River sites in North Carolina, or Rucker's Bottom in Georgia. These properties may be worthy of NHL status for their contributions to the history of archaeology in the region. If these sites ever become accessible, the condition of their archaeological deposits should be carefully evaluated. Additional data collection at such sites, even if they remain submerged, is also possible (Anderson et al. 1994; Faught 1996).

Conclusions

Reliable data on the nature and occurrence of Paleoindian assemblages is crucial to effective management and research. Compiling information about Paleoindian assemblages in the Southeast is a major task, and typically requires that at least one person in each state conscientiously reviews and compiles information about these occupations. Typically, such projects start out as artifact recording projects, of which "fluted point surveys" are the best known. Every state in the Southeast except Louisiana currently has an active fluted point recording project. In some states these encompass other types of Paleoindian points, although this is less common. Only in Georgia (Anderson et al. 1990, 1994), Florida (Carter et al. 1998), Mississippi (McGahey 1996), and Tennessee (Broster 1989; Broster and Norton 1991, 1996) at present do the ongoing surveys attempt to record information about all known Paleoindian projectile point types. In no southeastern state at present, however, is information about other Paleoindian artifact categories systematically recorded. Such work is crucial, however, and must be incorporated into the state site files.

Information about Paleoindian site locations is routinely compiled by state site file managers. When coupled with detailed information about the kinds of artifacts found at each site, and particularly the periods of occupation represented by these artifacts, site file data can be used to generate distributional maps. When site locational data are incorporated into a GIS with a range of data layers, encompassing natural resources, hydrology, geology, and so on, this information can be further used to develop and test various models of site location and prehistoric settlement. The finest example of this type of data compilation and analysis effort to date in the region has been conducted in northeast Arkansas. There, in a test of existing Paleoindian settlement models, Gillam (1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1999) plotted the distribution of fluted point and Dalton sites on the landscape. This research has generated a wealth of new insight into the kinds of resources that appear to have been targeted by these early peoples, and how settlement changed over time.

At present, in addition to Arkansas, comparable GIS-based analyses of Paleoindian site data can be conducted in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and should be possible in every state in the Southeast within another few years. Critical to such analyses, however, will be having accurate data on the nature of the Paleoindian assemblages present on sites. While site file records are computerized in most southeastern states, the quality of these data varies appreciably (Anderson and Horak, eds., 1995). To produce useful overviews of Paleoindian resources in the region, greater effort directed to data collection and standardization will be needed. Thus, while at present it is simply not possible to easily generate regionwide distribution maps for Paleoindian sites or artifact categories, beyond the examples noted here, it is possible to generate such maps in a number of states. As site file records improve, however, producing regionwide maps should prove increasingly feasible, and should serve as a major focus for research.

  back  next  

 

 

NHL property types as categories for the southeast

table 12

resource distribution in the southeast

table 13

figure 9

figure 10

table 14

research needs and questions for the southeast

national historic landmark criterion 6 and national register criterion D / registration requirements

evaluation standards: NRHP criteria

possible or proposed southeastern NHLs

conclusions

EJL/MDC

Quick Menu