CRP sale!See inside

rear cover

Center for the Study of the First AmericansDepartment of AnthropologyTexas A&M University4352 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4352www.centerfirstamericans.com

Volume 25, Number 1 ■■■■■ January, 2010

he Center for the Study of the FirstAmericans fosters research and publicinterest in the Peopling of the Americas.T

The Center, an integral part of the Departmentof Anthropology at Texas A&M University,promotes interdisciplinary scholarly dialogueamong physical, geological, biological andsocial scientists. The Mammoth Trumpet,news magazine of the Center, seeks to involveyou in the peopling of the Americas by reportingon developments in all pertinent areas ofknowledge.

Mammoth Cold StorageFortunately for present and future scientists,Russia has stored mammoth remains in this

chamber of the Xatanga ice cave in Siberia. This isone of the locations where Hendrik Poinar,

director of the Ancient DNA Centre at McMasterUniversity in Ontario, collected samples for

nuclear and mitochondrial DNA studies. Dr. Poinarand colleague Dr. Ross MacPhee of the American

Museum of Natural History discovered unexpectedwrinkles in tracing the lineage of mammoths—in

North America and on the other side of the BeringLand Bridge—and their cousins, elephants and

mastodons. Part II of our series on decodingmammoth DNA starts on page 9.

DEB

I PO

INA

R

Paleo WomanPaleo WomanLost to HistoryLost to History

Volume 25, Number 1 Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology

January, 2010 Texas A&M University, 4352 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4352 ISSN 8755-6898

World Wide Web site http://centerfirstamericans.org and http://anthropology.tamu.edu

ILLU

STRA

TIO

N B

Y M

ATT

HEW

FRY

—W

OO

D R

ON

SAV

ILLE

HA

RLIN

, IN

C.

ALEO WOMAN is ancient history . . .except she isn’t. Exactly what part sheplayed in the prehistory of the Ameri-P

cas has largely been ignored, replaced insteadby our preoccupation with mighty mammothhunters and other male-dominated images.Yet Paleo Woman must have carried her ownweight. What exactly was her role in the peo-pling of the New World? That’s the questionJames Adovasio of Mercyhurst College andElizabeth Chilton of the University of Massa-chusetts at Amherst have been asking. Theyhave brain-teasing ideas about what PaleoWoman was up to all those thousands of yearsago, and they have suggestions about how re-

searchers might uncover new discoveriesabout women in the archaeological record.

How have the contributions made bywomen over the millennia managed to es-cape our attention in the first place? Dr.Chilton gives four reasons that she believesaccount for our overlooking the vital contri-bution made by Paleo Woman: our tendencyto visualize Paleoamericans as adventurousexplorers, the undue and possibly inaccurateemphasis we place on hunting, our fixationon stone tools to the exclusion of other cul-tural evidence, and the unbalanced ratio ofmale to female researchers in the field. We’llweigh the merits of her bill of indictment in

this installment. After we investigatein part II Chilton and Dr. Adovasio’ssuggested changes in the wayarchaeologists do their job, perhaps

4 When the caribou used toroam across Lake HuronUniversity of Michigan scientistshave found driving lanes used byhunters when a land bridge wasexposed above the waters of paleoLake Stanley.

9 Busy mammoth traffic acrossthe Bering Land BridgeGenetic studies reveal that NewWorld and Old World mammothpopulations competed for survival.Part II of our series on decodingmammoth DNA also visits theAmerican cousin, the mastodon.

12 In search of Fishtail-pointmakers in UruguayRafael Suárez introduces us toPaleoamericans whose culturerivals Clovis in age and boasts ofa projectile point as distinctive asthe fluted point.

16 To analyze use wear, use amicroscope and plenty ofelbow greaseExperts show us there’s a lot ofwork to making sense of polishand scratches on stone tools.

2 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

Paleo Woman will stand just a bit more upright in history.

Migration, not exploration:Who knew it was a New World?History books glamorize crossing a continent ormoving from one continent to another as the heroicand hazardous human enterprise of explora-tion. When we place Paleoamerican coloniz-ers from Asia alongside Columbus, Lewisand Clark, and Neil Armstrong, Chiltonsays we’re imputing motives that simplyweren’t there. These weren’t Stone AgeVikings. They never set out to discover newlands for king and country. In recorded history,explorations are a race run by greedy nations com-peting to increase riches, territory, prestige, andpower. But Paleo people weren’t racing or ex-ploring. Instead, says Chilton, they “were likelymore concerned with making supper, finding

Smithsonian. Once this was considered an accurate depiction, buttoday thoughts are changing. Adovasio calls it “ludicrous” that agroup of hunters would take on a raging predator when there wasother game, smaller and less lethal, to choose from. And as formass mammoth kill sites, he says it’s looking less and less likely

that such wholesale slaughters were actually orchestratedby humans. In some cases stone tools are found amongthe assemblages, but in other sites across Eurasia,Siberia, and North America no stone points were discov-

ered. “Even in those assemblages where stone pointsand other tools were found,” we find in The Invisible Sex,which Adovasio coauthored with Olga Soffer and JakePage, “butchering marks were few and far between.”

The emerging idea is that these “boneyards” were cre-ated over long periods of time in places where weakened

animals died. An example is the mineral lick atthe Dolni Vestonice I site in the Czech Repub-lic, which drew many different kinds of ani-mals—not only mammoths—suffering fromlack of nourishment and desperate to savethemselves. When the mineral lick failed toprolong life and the animal perished, readyand waiting to dispose of the carcass were

all manner of scavengers, including humans.To Chilton this new image depicts Paleo-

americans as “foragers who hunted and scav-enged a variety of animals on an opportunistic basis.” Amongmany modern hunter-gatherer peoples, foraging provides a largeportion of the diet; hunting is likely to take place on a less life-threatening scale, with smaller, more manageable game as prey.Both Adovasio and Chilton discuss net snaring of small animalssuch as rabbits and birds, a kind of group hunting that amongPaleoamericans probably involved not only women but the eld-erly as well, even children. Adovasio notes this method of hunt-ing is supported ethnographically and by actual archaeologicalspecimens or impressions of Upper Paleolithic/Paleoindian–erahunting nets recovered in both North America and Europe. The

vision of the mighty mam-moth dueling the Clovishunter has held our imagi-nation hostage longenough. Now seems a goodtime to kill outright thatidea. It’s the only man-mademass mammoth inhalationin history.

Stone tools: Not a girl’sbest friendHard on the heels of theoveremphasis on hunting,nevertheless important in itsown right as a distorting fac-tor, is the disproportionate

importance we place on data that come from stone tools. Theproblem with stone tools is that there is no problem. After all,they make up the majority of artifacts from the Ice Age and, asAdovasio admits, “they can exist in the ground for a long time.”

Elizabeth Chilton and James Adovasio.

a good marriage partner, deciding whetheror not the group should split up, or what to doabout the baby’s cough.” Moving was a matter of subsistenceand survival, not an expedition.

The trouble with equating Paleoamericans with explorers isthat our vision is obscured by the stereotypical image of adven-turers. This “advance party,” as Adovasio calls the First Ameri-cans, is historically perceived as a group of men investigatingbeyond their known territory. There’s the rub: men only. Whenthe situation is perceived in this narrow field of vision, it excludeswomen and children and theelderly, everyone but theseyoung male adventurers. TheAmericas weren’t peopled bysuch explorers, but by proto-typical pioneers, bands of in-dividuals and families of bothsexes and all ages, carryingwith them bags and baggage,pets, everything they owned.

But this isn’t the only partof paleo lives that has beensensationalized. Our insis-tence on hunting as the ex-clusive means of subsistencehas also run amuck.

ELIZ

ABE

TH C

HIL

TON

J. M

. A

DO

VA

SIO

Paleo Woman’s everyday life may haveincluded activities we haven’t considered.

JAKE PAGE

Man, the mighty “opportunistic forager”:Thoughts on hunting are often overkillThrilling images of the Early American hunter cornering a nowextinct predator or staring down a woolly mammoth have beenfound not only in what Adovasio terms “penny dreadfuls,” but insuch prestigious publications as National Geographic and even the

January ■ 2010 3

Mammoth Trumpet, Statement of Our PolicyMany years may pass between the time an important discovery is made and the acceptance of researchresults by the scientific community. To facilitate communication among all parties interested in stayingabreast of breaking news in First Americans studies, the Mammoth Trumpet, a science news magazine,provides a forum for reporting and discussing new and potentially controversial information importantto understanding the peopling of the Americas. We encourage submission of articles to the ManagingEditor and letters to the Editor. Views published in the Mammoth Trumpet are the views ofcontributors, and do not reflect the views of the editor or Center personnel.

–Michael R. Waters, Director

The Mammoth Trumpet (ISSN 8755-6898) is published quarterly by the Center forthe Study of the First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University,College Station, TX 77843-4352. Phone (979) 845-4046; fax (979) 845-4070; e-mailcsfa@tamu.edu. Periodical postage paid at College Station, TX 77843-4352 and atadditional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:Mammoth TrumpetDepartment of Anthropology, Texas A&M University4352 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4352

Copyright © 2010 Center for the Study of the First Americans. Permission is herebygiven to any non-profit or educational organization or institution to reproduce withoutcost any materials from the Mammoth Trumpet so long as they are then distributed atno more than actual cost. The Center further requests that notification of reproductionof materials under these conditions be sent to the Center. Address correspondence to theeditor of Mammoth Trumpet, 2122 Scout Road, Lenoir, NC 28645.

Michael R. Waters Director and General Editore-mail: mwaters@tamu.edu

Ted Goebel Associate Director and Editor, Current Research inthe Pleistocenee-mail: goebel@tamu.edu

James M. Chandler Editor, Mammoth Trumpete-mail: wordsmiths@touchnc.net

Laurie Lind Office ManagerC & C Wordsmiths Layout and DesignTops Printing, Inc. Printing and mailing

Web site: www.topsprinting.comWorld Wide Web site http://centerfirstamericans.com

The Center for the Study of the First Americans is a non-profit organization. Sub-scription to the Mammoth Trumpet is by membership in the Center.

Chilton says succinctly, “Stone tools areforever.”

What isn’t forever is perishable arti-facts—baskets, cordage, fur, and other ar-ticles of organic material. The odds of ob-jects like these lasting over an extendedperiod of time are slim to none, and it onlyoccurs, says Adovasio, in “extraordinarycircumstances.” What’s more, he ampli-fies, these are the materials that were used“for the most part, it is assumed, by women.”Further aggravating the situation is the sad

fact that “not until recently were some ar-chaeologists even trained to look for muchelse besides stone or bone tools, so theytended to miss . . . whatever evidence ofthe woman’s role had survived.”

Perishables notwithstanding (no punintended), there’s a bit of bias implicit instone tools themselves. Besides the iconicmammoth, one emblem inevitably arisesin any discussion of Clovis-age people, theClovis calling card if you will. This is, ofcourse, those beautiful fluted points that

an archaeologist can spend a lifetime mar-veling over. The problem with fixating onthese captivating discoveries is their ten-dency to cloud our vision and divert atten-tion from the less glamorous stone toolsand debitage out there. This is, of course,a trap that’s difficult to avoid in any branchof archaeology. Who wants to study therubble of the workmen’s village when thereare pyramids next door? Like the minutiaeof the workmen’s village, though, lesserlithics and debitage can divulge moun-tains of information to the insightful ar-chaeologist prepared to invest the time tostudy them. Compared with all-importantpoints, unfortunately, too often in the pastthe minor products of lithic technologywere largely ignored. This means thathumble tools like endscrapers and uti-lized blade flakes may have been entirelyoverlooked. It’s a comfort to report thattoday’s archaeologists are trained to scru-tinize all objects found on an occupationfloor. Chilton believes the debitage ofevery ancient site should be exploredwith a fine-tooth comb, and we can con-firm that today that precept is nearly uni-versally observed. [If you want to be reas-sured, read “Use Wear, Up Close” in thisissue. –Ed.]

Furthermore, Chilton argues, “there isno compelling reason to argue againstwomen making and using all kinds of stonetools.”

Historically, not prehistorically:A paucity of female archaeologistsgave us an all-male PleistoceneChilton’s bold assertion that Paleo Womanmay have had duties more vital and de-manding than childbearing and cookingrequires a cultural assessment to under-stand how Paleo Woman got swept underthe rug. But it’s our modern culture thatwe need to examine, not the ancient. Likemost fields, archaeology is predominantlymale for the simple reason that women,historically speaking, are relatively newrecruits to the modern work force. Wearen’t trying to trace the tortuous chain ofevents that climaxed with women’s suf-frage and Rosie the Riveter, we’re onlydealing here with the results of centuriesof male dominance. For starters, ClovisMan (natch!) first walked into modernconsciousness in the early 1930s by way ofBlackwater Draw and its famous points.

continued on page 7

4 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

HE AMERICAS WERE COLONIZED during a period ofenvironmental turmoil—fluctuating temperatures, ad-vancing and retreating ice sheets, rising and falling sea

from low-water periods lie submerged beneath the depths andare mostly inaccessible to researchers. Now scientists fromthe University of Michigan, using the same technology thatan international research team used to locate the wreck of theRMS Titanic, are exploring the bottom of Lake Huron fortraces of the late-Paleoindian and early-Archaic peoples thatlived on these submerged landscapes. They have identified aseries of apparently aligned or arranged boulders that areremarkably similar to ethnographically known caribou hunt-ing structures.

The rise and fall of the Great LakesThe Great Lakes rose and fell in response to a number of

complicated factors including theinflux of water from melting icesheets and the outflow of water asretreating ice sheets unblockedoutlets to the sea. In addition, theelevation of the land surface felland rose as millions of tons of gla-cial ice alternately advanced andretreated. (The rising of land un-burdened of the colossal weight ofan ice sheet is known as “isostaticrebound.”) As the northern lake

margins rebounded with theretreat of ice the entire lakewould sometimes shift south-ward, resulting in rising lakelevels on the south shore andlowering lake levels on thenorth shore.

For decades, archaeologistsand geologists have studiedthe evidence for lake levelshigher than today’s by examin-

An inukshuk (stone cairn) commonly found in Arctic Canada.

A similar stone construction beneath Lake Huron; it hassnagged the cable of the mini-Rover (as many others did inexploring the lake bed).

▲

▲

Tlevels. The changing sea levelsare famous for exposing andsubmerging the Bering LandBridge and for alternately ex-posing and flooding parts ofthe continental shelves alongboth the Pacific and Atlanticcoasts. Less well known, butequally consequential forAmerica’s “Third Coast,” is therise and fall of the Great Lakesin time to the ups and downs ofearly-Holocene temperatures.

For years, archaeologists inthe region have explored

AN

DRE

W S

TEW

ART

JOH

N O

’SH

EA

BOTH

: JO

HN

O’S

HEA

Finding Tracesof Early Hunters

beneath theGreat Lakes

beach ridges far inland from modern lake margins for tracesof the Paleoindians that lived here when the Great Lakes wereeven larger than today. Unfortunately, the shorelines of lakes

O’Shea (right) and graduate student Eric Rupleyretrieving a side-scanning sonar unit.

Meadows.

▲

▲

January ■ 2010 5

ing, for example, beach ridges marking the locations of lakemargins sometimes far inland from the current lake margins.Until now, however, little has been known about those periodsmarked by lake levels lower than they are today for the simplereason that they are hidden beneath the cold and relativelydeep waters of the lakes.

Now archaeologist John O’Shea, with theUniversity of Michigan Museum of Anthro-pology, and Guy Meadows from the Univer-sity of Michigan Marine HydrodynamicsLaboratories, are applying advances in underwa-ter exploration to the investigation of the ancientlandscapes beneath the Great Lakes. And theyare making some remarkable discoveries, whichthey reported in the 23 June issue of the Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Remote-operated archaeologistsO’Shea and Meadows are following a “multilayered searchstrategy” that begins with surface-towed side-scanning sonar

the Alpena-Amberley ridge, which extended from northeast-ern Michigan near Presque Isle to central Ontario in thevicinity of Point Clark, would have funneled the movements ofcaribou and their predators—including Paleoindian hunt-ers—between these two otherwise isolated regions.

Based on the results they have achieved so far, O’Shea andMeadows conclude that the “combination of sonar and ROVworked well to highlight ancient landforms, locate major rockoutcrops with the potential of yielding chert exposures, andidentify potential hunting structures.”

The archaeology of the Alpena-Amberley ridgeWhen O’Shea and Meadows began their exploration of theAlpena-Amberley ridge, they found it strewn with boulderfields interspersed with massive exposures of intact lime-stone bedrock, with thin layers of what O’Shea and Meadows

FRO

M N

OA

A

JOH

N O

’SH

EAmapping of the lake bottom to identify targets of interest.Once they discover an interesting feature in the sonar imag-ery, they deploy remote-operated vehicles, or ROVs, to exam-ine it more closely. So far they have surveyed a total area of 72square km of the bottom of Lake Huron at depths of 12–150 mbelow the modern surface of the lake.

They are focusing on the “most extreme of the low-waterstands” in Lake Huron’s history. When geologists identify theoutlines of an ancient lake beyond or beneath the currentshoreline of a modern lake, they usually give it a new name todistinguish it from the existing lake. Hence the shallowest ofLake Huron’s previous incarnations is known as Lake Stanley.

A thoroughfare for caribouDuring Lake Stanley times, much of the water drained out ofthe Lake Huron basin to the northeast through North Bay,

The central Lake Huron basin during the Lake Stanleyphase. The numbers “40” and “140” are elevation inmeters above mean sea level (m a.s.l.); areas in white arecurrently above water. The mean water level in the GreatLakes today is 176 m a.s.l.

Modern Lake Huron. During the Lake Stanley phase theAlpena-Amberley ridge (dashed lines) was exposed andtraversed by game and hunters.

▲

▲

Ontario. At the time, North Bay had a lower elevation becauseof the immense weight of glacial ice still pressing down onmuch of eastern Canada. As the ice continued to melt andrecede, the landscape gradually rebounded until the NorthBay outlet rose higher than the surface of the lake, therebyallowing the broader Lake Huron basin to refill with water.

Lake Stanley occupied the Huron basin between 9900 and7500 CALYBP. During this period the lake levels varied be-

tween 121 and 96 m below the surface of modern LakeHuron, with the lowest levels occurring during

the earliest centuries of its existence. When-ever the depth dropped to below 86 m be-low the current lake level, the waters ofLake Stanley were divided by a narrowridge or causeway. This land bridge, called

6 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

interpret as chert. Such chert outcrops would have beenhighly valued by the late-Paleoindian and early-Archaicpeoples that inhabited this landscape. Unfortunately, imagesof the lake bottom show that most of the bedrock surfaces arecovered with invasive mussel spe-cies and algae, which in most in-stances completely obscure therock surfaces.

Amidst the obviously naturalfeatures visible in the sonar data,O’Shea and Meadows also dis-cerned a few features highly remi-niscent of structures used by cari-bou hunters of the North Americanarctic and subarctic regions. Forexample, they identified a serpen-tine array of boulders 350 m longthat they offer as “a strong candi-date” for a caribou-channelingstructure. Like ethnographically

JAC

K B

RIN

K

tion is its location, set back more than 200 m from the banks ofthe channel in a spot where neither its sight nor scent wouldalert a migrating herd.

The results of O’Shea and Meadows’s preliminary survey

of the Alpena-Amberley ridge “confirm the existence of condi-tions necessary for the discovery of archaeological sites” inthis strategic geographical setting and demonstrate featuresconsistent in form, construction, and placement with knowncaribou hunting structures. They acknowledge that these re-

sults must be regarded astentative until they are ableto provide ground-truth ofthese provocative targetsby scuba-diving archaeolo-gists searching for directevidence of human modifi-cation. The divers’ missionwill be enormously compli-cated by great masses ofmussels and algae thatcover much of the bedrockand “prevent remote ob-servation of the rock sur-face or of smaller debrisalong the outcrops.”

O’Shea and Meadowscaution, however, thateven if archaeologists areable to survey these sites

firsthand it may not be possible to identify the features withabsolute confidence as man-made structures. Archaeologistsworking at analogous structures in the Canadian arctic typi-cally find very few artifacts associated with them. Moreover,Inuit hunters utilize natural features of the landscape and alter

An autonomous underwatervehicle (AUV), this one operated

by Dr. Ryan Eustice of theDepartment of Naval Architec-

ture and Marine Engineering atUniversity of Michigan.

JOH

N O

’SH

EA

known drive lines, it appears to have been constructed bytaking advantage of the natural topography and using smallboulders “both to fill gaps and to exaggerate the visual appear-ance of the feature.” Moreover, at either end of the line ofboulders is a series of large stones or cairns that would haveguided animals into thelane. Finally, at the easternend of the line is a semi-circular area that may bethe remains of a con-structed hunting pit orblind.

Alongside what ap-pears to be an ancient wa-ter course, O’Shea andMeadows found twostrong sonar reflectors, ei-

Aerial view of a classic V-shaped funnel of drive

lanes with semi-circularshooting pits at the

narrow end. VictoriaIsland, Nunavut, Canada.

ther two large boulders or two clusters of rocks that are “outof place geologically, and in the correct position for huntingfeatures.” Another unusual acoustic target located near thischannel is a feature that bears a strong resemblance to “low-walled dwellings or tent rings.” Supporting such an interpreta-

January ■ 2010 7

them in ways that archaeologists find difficult torecognize even a few decades later. For example, inhis account of Nunamiut Eskimo caribou drive lines,ethno-archaeologist Lewis Binford describes simplestone piles that hunters festoon with moss and oldclothes to mimic a man “to scare the caribou, keepthem moving, and restrict their movement to thepath chosen by the hunters.” Binford cautions thatsuch features, which he calls “soldier rocks,” wouldbe “very difficult to detect without ethnographic in-formation.”

O’Shea and Meadows are nevertheless confidentthat such evidence will be recoverable when theyundertake direct dive operations in the next stage ofinvestigation. Quarry and workshop sites associatedwith the chert outcrops will be recognizable by largequantities of lithic debris, ranging from broken andunfinished stone tools torough blocks of partiallyworked chert and wasteflakes. Habitation sitesmay be identified by re-mains of structures suchas tent rings, as well asvarious stone artifacts.And finding an underwa-ter habitation site prom-ises extra rewards forarchaeologists: Bones andartifacts made from or-ganic materials that don’tsurvive at most terrestrialsites are wonderfully pre-served when submersedin freshwater.

New developmentsSince the publication ofthe preliminary results inthe Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciencesin June, O’Shea and Mead-ows have continued their research. O’Shea informs us thatalthough their opportunities to conduct diving operations on

the Alpena-Amberley ridge so far have beenlimited, already this autumn they have “con-firmed the presence of extensive chert layers”in the limestone bedrock. These chert outcropsand the search for potential quarry sites will bea major focus of their work next spring.

They have also begun experimenting with asmall autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) toobtain close-up acoustic and photographic im-ages of interesting bottom areas. After runningthe AUV over an area where previous surveysdetected possible evidence of a campsite, theAUV discovered a promising feature, a series ofsimilarly sized rings of stone. O’Shea confirmsthat the team is now processing several thou-

sand individual photographic images taken concurrently with

A single cairn on Victoria Island, Nunavut,Canada. Left unmolested, individual cairns canremain standing for hundreds, possiblythousands of years.

Individual cairns can be single rocks tippedon end, or small clusters of stacked rocks likethese on Victoria Island, Nunavut, Canada.

▲

▲

At the time the coterie of scientists that would eventually bur-geon and monopolize Clovis archaeology included few if anyfemale archaeologists. For Adovasio, it’s only natural that “mostlymale archaeologists found almost entirely stone tools and weap-ons and assumed that it was a man’s world back in the Pleis-

tocene and earlier.” Researchers, after all, quite naturally gravi-tate to what fascinates them. Chilton, after analyzing data col-lected by the Society of American Archaeology, finds that “ahigher percentage of men are interested in lithics as an analyticaltool, while a higher percentage of women are interested inceramics.” She also notes that men are more likely to studyPaleolithic or Neolithic periods; women prefer “state societies,and historic and proto-historic time periods.” There’s nothingsinister in her conclusions. We should, however, be aware that

Paleo Woman

continued from page 3

continued on page 20BO

TH:

JAC

K B

RIN

K

8 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

such biases can blur our perceptions of thepast.

It’s a truism but worth stating anywaythat today’s archaeologists are a productof the 21st-century environment but theancient people they study weren’t. This isa caveat most archaeologists are consciousof today and, Adovasio concedes, that “theytry to take into account.” Nonetheless,being aware of the danger that our owncultural predisposition tends to introduceprejudgments and personal prejudiceswhen interpreting the past is a lesson ittook archaeologists a long time to learn.

research and colored conclusions drawnfrom the data. Adovasio, forgiving of hismale colleagues, allows that “it was morean unconscious bias than a deliberate andnasty plot against women.”

Adovasio allows that although the ratioof male-to-female Ice Age scholars haschanged sharply in the past 15 years, “thetyranny of preservation has continued toresult in an emphasis (or overemphasis)on the almost always preserved lithicsuite.” Few archaeologists, even in thepast when females were under-repre-sented, have appreciated the story that

around the role of mature males to thenear total exclusion of females, children ofeither sex, or the old. Consequently, wehave essentially excluded almost all of theequally productive members of Paleo-In-dian society to concentrate instead on themale component.”

We’ve seen how visualizing Paleo-americans as explorers, overemphasizinghunting and stone tools, and a dearth offemale archaeologists have conspired todemean the role of Paleo Woman andnearly banish her from prehistory. Thenext question is, How can we use thisinformation to seek Paleo Woman as shetruly was? We’ll offer some answers inpart II of this story next issue.

–K. Hill

How to contact the principals of thisarticle:

J. M. AdovasioDirector, Mercyhurst Archaeological

InstituteMercyhurst College501 East 38th StreetErie, PA 16546e-mail: jadovasio@mercyhurst.edu

Elizabeth ChiltonAssociate Professor and Chair,

AnthropologyDirector, Center for Heritage and

SocietyUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstAmherst, MA 01003e-mail: echilton@anthro.umass.edu

Suggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsAdovasio, J. M., O. Soffer and J. Page 2007

The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Rolesof Women in Prehistory. Left Coast Press,Inc. Walnut Creek, Calif.

Barton, C. M., G. A. Clark, D. Yesner, and G.Pearson (eds.) 2004 The Settlement ofthe American Continents: A Multi-disciplinary Approach to Human Biogeog-raphy, pp. 162–72. University of ArizonaPress.

Chilton, E. S. 2008 “Queer Archaeology,Mathematical Modeling, and the Peoplingof the Americas.” Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Northeastern An-thropological Association, Amherst, MA.Available at: http://works.bepress.com/chilton_elizabeth/3/

——— 1994 In Search of Paleo-Women:Gender Implications of ArchaeologicalRemains from Paleoindian Sites in theNortheast. Massachusetts ArchaeologicalSociety Bulletin 55(1): 8–14.

At the time of earlier periods of study theyhad achieved only partial success. Thisgoes a long way toward explaining whyearly Americans were viewed through thelens of 1950s America. Male and femaleroles were obvious and undisputed: ClovisMan headed out every morning to bringhome the bacon, Clovis Woman stayedhome to cook and mind the children. Thecultural norms prevailing when earlyAmericans were first discovered and inthe decades that followed thus resulted ingender bias that skewed the direction of

perishable artifacts tell about Paleo-indians and European Ice Age popula-tions. Despite dozens of publications inthe recent past stressing the role of per-ishables and their presumed principal arti-sans, women, “this is not a point that hasresonated through the ranks of Paleo-indian or late-Pleistocene scholars.”

In conclusion: More questions“All of our reconstructions,” Adovasio says,“of Paleo-Indian socioeconomic behaviorup to the very recent past have pivoted

Volume 262009

If it’s a recent discovery about peopleand their paleoenvironment in Eurasiaand the Americas during the terminalPleistocene and early Holocene,chances are you’ll find it here. This isthe journal where leaders in their fieldspost concise, meaty peer-reviewedreports that expand our knowledge ofmastodons mastodons mastodons mastodons mastodons in New York and RanchoLa Brea; ground slothsground slothsground slothsground slothsground sloths in Brazil andIowa; Paleolithic wedge-shapedwedge-shapedwedge-shapedwedge-shapedwedge-shapedcorescorescorescorescores in Beringia, bladesbladesbladesbladesblades in Japan;Clovis Clovis Clovis Clovis Clovis obsidian sources in NewMexico, a quarry in Tennessee, flutedpoints in Nevada, Alabama, andWisconsin; Pleistocene rodentsrodentsrodentsrodentsrodents inPatagonia, gomphotheres gomphotheres gomphotheres gomphotheres gomphotheres inMexico; lemmings lemmings lemmings lemmings lemmings in postglacialNorth America. . . .

The 2009 yearbook weighs in at240 pages. Use the form inside therear cover to order your copy or to

pre-order next year’s edition.

What’s new?

January ■ 2010 9

at what this fascinating creature has to tell us at the geneticlevel: how the species spread and thrived during the last IceAge, and how it was related to other, similar species—somenow extinct, some not.

The studies“There’s no question: Among extinct mammals, mammothsare definitely Number One in terms of what we know abouttheir genetics,” declares Ross MacPhee of the American Mu-seum of Natural History. In large part, this is due to the sheerubiquity of their remains. Scientists are forced to reconstructmost extinct creatures from a few bone fragments, with theoccasional hair or scale thrown in for flavor. Not so, fortu-nately for us, with the woolly mammoth. Because it preferredto live in subarctic environments, not only do we have thou-sands of tusks and bones to study, in some cases soft tissueshave been preserved intact for over 10,000 years. This hasprovided the exciting opportunity to examine the woollymammoth right down to the subcellular level; in recent years,we’ve even gotten a good handle on their DNA.

The earliest mammoth DNA studies focused on mitochon-drial DNA (mtDNA). As the name implies, mtDNA exists only inthe cell’s mitochondria—tiny structures that power individual

thethe

part IIpart II

decoding

woollymammoth

decoding

woollymammoth

DEB

I PO

INA

RClose-up view of mammoth tusks storedat Xatanga, Siberia.

HEN HUMANS FIRST SET FOOT in PleistoceneNorth America, they encountered vast numbers ofcaribou, bison, horse, elk, musk ox, and the other

A Closer Look at the Genetic Evidence

Wlarge mammal species now collectively known as megafauna.The hands-down winners in this category were the nativeelephantids, the large shaggy mastodons and their cousinsthe mammoths, exemplified by the woolly mammoth(Mammuthus primigenius). Today mammoths are consideredthe iconic Pleistocene animal, not just among scientists andinterested laymen but in popular literature and film as well.“There’s a fascination there among all age groups,” notesHendrik Poinar, who directs the Ancient DNA Centre atMcMaster University in Ontario. “Woolly mammoths were apan-Arctic species living on both sides of the pond, and I thinkit’s the combination of their size, extinction, and extent thatmakes them so fascinating.”

In the first part of this series we introduced the woollymammoth itself and outlined what recent genetic testing hasrevealed about the species (MT 24-4, “Decoding the WoollyMammoth, Part I”). In this installment, we’ll take a closer look

10 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

cells. For complicated reasons, mtDNA is passed only frommother to child. Not only does it not recombine like nuclearDNA, it’s more likely to mutate over time. Consequently it’soften used to track back and determine relationships amongparticular lineages and even species. In 2006, three researchgroups published their findings in the prestigious journalsScience, Nature, and PLoS Biology. The group reporting inScience examined a 12,000-year-old mammoth specimen; theNature group probed both the mitochondrial and nuclear DNAof a 28,000-year-old specimen; and the PLoS Biology groupsequenced the entire mtDNA genome of a specimen approxi-mately 33,000 years old.

Based on these studies, it was estimated that the lineage ofAfrican elephants (Loxodon) diverged from the line that led tomammoths (Mammuthus) and Asian elephants (Elephas)somewhere in Africa 6 mya (6 million years ago); Asian el-ephants and mammoth went their separate ways 440,000 yearslater. Those numbers were later adjusted to 7.6 and 6.7 myarespectively in an extensive nuclear-DNA study published in the20 November 2008 of Nature. In ei-ther case, this divergence was amaz-ingly swift on a biological timescale.It turns out that mastodons, theother elephantids of PleistoceneNorth America, diverged from theline leading to mammoths at least 24mya (see sidebar).

Interestingly enough, the evolu-tionary flurry that led to both el-ephants and mammoths occurred atabout the same time our own homi-nid line was diverging from that ofits near relatives, the great apes. It’spossible that the same environmen-tal factors played a part in bothevents, though that’s hard to say;what’s obvious is that the ele-phantids evolved about half as fastas the hominids did during this pe-riod. This doesn’t surprise Dr.Poinar. “Evolution is faster in warmenvironments than in cold ones,” heexplains. “And evolution in el-

with the genus, and which genes might have been part of the“cold package” that allowed mammoths to adapt so well tochilly climes. But all this lies in the future, awaiting thedevelopment of better technology for interpreting the dataderived from ancient DNA samples.

Here’s the deal: We’ve reached a technological impasse.Most fossil DNA samples provide almost too much data becausethey’re contaminated with everything from soil fungus to mod-ern human DNA. Therefore it’s critical to screen out contami-nating taxa and isolate what you’re after. The less detail youhave, the more you’re likely to produce erroneous results.Sifting and selecting to an increasingly fine level, however,requires increasingly powerful computers. “There’s no way ahuman mind can deal with data masses of that magnitude, so ithas to be packed down and interpreted by machine,” Dr.MacPhee points out. “The more data you get, the more carefulyou have to be.”

Back across the Land BridgeNow, that’s not to say that we can’ttease some very interesting infor-mation out of the data with thetechnology we already have.Here’s an excellent example.Though an early study suggestedthat the woolly mammoth genomehad very little genetic diversity bythe end, a more recent study hasproved quite the opposite. In the 9September 2008 issue of CurrentBiology, a large research groupthat included both MacPhee andPoinar published the findings ofan analysis of 160 woolly mam-moth DNA samples from the OldWorld and the New. Among otherconclusions, the results demon-strate quite clearly that not onlywere terminal-Pleistocene mam-moth populations not geneticallyimpoverished, they were domi-nated by American strains. “Whatwe see,” says Poinar, “is that theAmerican haplotypes that origi-nated in Yukon did quite well, mi-grated to Siberia and pushed outthe guys already there.” Why andhow this happened remains un-

clear. As MacPhee puts it, “We’re not at the point where wecan talk sensibly about populations of mammoths, any morethan any other extinct species. That’s the grail we’re after, butwe’re not there yet.”

Lacking a handy time machine, we’re obliged to extrapolatefrom existing animals, which can be a tad dangerous. But it’seasy to understand how American mammoths may have ex-panded at the expense of their Asian brethren. It’s well estab-lished that high-latitude mammals experience significantpopulation fluctuations based on various factors, particularly

DEB

I PO

INA

R

Poinar collecting a sample from amammoth bone at the ZoologicalInstitute in St. Petersburg, Russia.

ephants is really slow. Evolution seems to be linked with thesize of animals; in bigger animals the metabolism is slower, somutation rates are slower. It also appears that there were lots ofhominid species/progenitors walking around in Africa, whichleads to lots of crossbreeding and recombination, which leadsto much faster evolution.”

In addition to refining our understanding of the geneticrelationships among the elephantids, DNA studies like thesemay eventually yield additional details concerning the formand appearance of mammoths, common diseases associated

January ■ 2010 11

Large and impressive as they were, mammoths weren’t the onlyproboscideans endemic to Pleistocene North America. Theyshared most of the continent with a distant relative, a shaggytusker called the mastodon. This unusual name, which means“nipple-tooth” in Greek, refers to thedistinctive protrusions on the crowns ofthe mastodon’s molars, which tip thescales at about five pounds each.

Mastodons were by far the elder lin-eage, having originated in central Africaapproximately 40 mya. By 24 mya, theirline had split from the evolutionarybranch that eventually resulted in themammoths and elephants. The final spe-cies in the lineage, the American mast-odon (Mammut americanum), could traceits roots back to about 3.7 mya.

In general, mastodons were shorterand more powerfully built than mammoths, with pillar-like legsand long red-brown hair. They’ve been referred to by someobservers as “Neanderthal” versions of elephants, given theirmore primitive dentition and stocky build. Though they werehairy like our friends the woolly mammoths, mastodon hairwas similar to that of their distant oceangoing cousins, thedugongs and manatees; mammoth hair, on the other hand, was

very like that of living elephants. Like the mam-moth, the mastodon had a pronounced humpand small ears compared with those of modernelephants. The skull was lower and flatter too,but the tusks put both Loxodon and Elephas toshame: Stretching 8–10 ft long at adulthood,they curved slightly upward, though not as ex-travagantly as a mammoth’s.

The teeth tell the main story, however. Theirodd features make it clear that mastodons werebrowsers—that is, that they fed primarily onleaves, fruit, and other products of trees, vines,and large shrubs. Deeply rooted, large, and low-crowned, mastodon teeth display up to eightcusps separated by deep troughs. Although someobservers consider them less complex than teethof mammoths or modern elephants, they appearto be ideally suited for their primary task ofstripping branches of leaves, needles, and fruit.Mammoths, on the other hand, were grazers,subsisting almost exclusively on grasses, sedges,rushes, and small shrubs. And although it’s hardto determine animal behavior from fossils, mast-

odons apparently didn’t browse in herds as mammoths did,preferring instead to range alone over large areas. This strictdifferentiation in eating habits is what allowed the twoelephantid varieties to coexist in the same regions. Like all

mammoth species except the woolly, themastodon was distributed through mostof North America, from the Arctic in thenorth to Honduras in the south, and fromNew England to California on an east-westaxis.

The last mastodons died out at the endof the Pleistocene for reasons that still

Mastodon tooth found on the Gulfshore in southeast Texas. See MT 24-2,MT 24-2,MT 24-2,MT 24-2,MT 24-2,“Page-Ladson Gets INTIMATE,” for moredetails about this interesting find.

MU

SEU

M O

F PA

LEO

NTO

LOG

Y, U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F M

ICH

IGA

N

elude us. As with most megafauna, causes ranging from over-kill to disease have been postulated, but the complete truthmay never be known. Unlike woolly mammoths, which weknow survived in isolated refugia until as recently as 4000CALYBP, the evidence suggests that the end came comparativelyabruptly for the mastodons.

–Floyd Largent

MIL

DRE

D M

CFA

RLA

ND

the weather. Combine wide birth spacing with a bad winter inwhich few calves survive, and a mammoth population couldeasily suffer a severe and sudden decline. More fortunatepopulations could then expand into their territory and eitheroutcompete or subsume them. In the late Pleistocene, thewinners of the mammoth genetic lottery were American—butthis was pure happenstance. Western Beringia just happenedto be a harsher environment to live in during the last Ice Age,

so once conditions improved after one particularly bad period,eastern mammoths were able to migrate west and displaceSiberian populations.

Back from the dead?Considering the abundance of preserved woolly mammothcells to work with, the idea has been floated about that we

continued on page 20

What aboutMastodons?What aboutMastodons?

12 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

URUGUAY

BRAZIL

ARG

ENTI

NA

Río Cuareim

Arroyo Cuaro

Arroyo delTigre

Urua

guy

MonteCaseros

Pay Pasosite

✪

K87 site✪

BellaUnion

km

0 30

Río

URUGUAY

BRAZIL

ARG

ENTI

NA

km0 250

km0 1000

HE ARCHAEOLOGY of the late Pleistocene in southeastSouth America hasn’t attracted as many investigators asother regions of the continent, for example, Pampa and

A final and not insignificant secondary goal of our research isto search for human occupations that predate 13,500 CALYBP—inshort, that reveal pre-Fishtail occupations in Uruguay. Recentlywe began investigating a complex of caves and rocksheltersTrindade found in Cuchilla de Haedo with evidence of earlyhuman occupation. So early, in fact, they hold the exciting poten-tial of revealing pre-Fishtail occupations in Uruguay.

by Rafael Suárez

Uruguay had much to at-tract hunter-gatherers by

13,000 CALYBP. Its expanse (itextends 550 km north-south, 480

km east-west) encompasses ex-tensive plains, rolling hills, and si-erras. It’s gentle, low-lying terrain:The highest elevation is CatedralHill, 513 m a.s.l. Río Negro divides

the country neatly into east and west regions, and there areextensive additional rivers and arroyos. Distributed across thelandscape are primary outcrops of silicified sandstone andlimestone, translucent agate, chalcedony, opal, jasper, silicifiedwood, quartzite, rhyolite, and varieties of chert, which becamequarries of plentiful raw material for toolmakers throughoutprehistory. Abundant fresh water and lush grasslands attractedmasses of herbivores and, in turn, the early human hunters thatpreyed on them.

TPatagonia, and consequently isn’t as well known. Our relativelymeager knowledge of this region, especially of Uruguay, can’tbe blamed on a paucity of early occupations. Instead, the faultlies with flawed investigation strategies that aren’t designed tolook for early stratified archaeological sites.

In 2000 our research team undertook a long-term investi-gation of early human occupations in the Uruguay plainsduring the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. The teamincludes geologist Gustavo Piñeiro and paleontologistAndrés Rinderchneckt (both University of Sciences, Uru-guay), Mario Trindade (Museo de Arqueología of Salto), andvarious avocational and amateur archaeologists from thecities of Bella Unión and Paso de los Toros. Recently twoNorth American scientists contributed their talents, Dr.Chris Gillam (University of South Carolina) to develop a GISdatabase of early human occupations in Uruguay, Dr. DavidLeigh (University of Georgia) to initiate geoarchaeologicalstudies on early sites in dunes in central Uruguay. Ourproject is indebted to Dr. Laura Miotti (University of LaPlata, Argentina) and Dr. Bruce Bradley (Exeter University,UK), whose expert advice often smooths rough patches ofroad we encounter in our investigation.

Discoveries waiting to be foundThe archaeology of the first Americans in Uruguay is excitingbecause its depths haven’t yet been plumbed. The investigativepotential is so vast that our first order of business was todetermine where and how to search for early occupations. Theprincipal goal we’ve adopted, an ambitious one to be sure, is togenerate a cultural, chronological, stratigraphic, and paleo-ambiental database for the archaeology in the terminal Pleis-tocene. Subtext to our stated purpose of mission concernsFishtail points, those exquisite projectile points that are asemblematic of the earliest South Americanculture as fluted points are of theNorth American; we plan todescribe every aspect of theirlithic technology and mor-phological and functionalvariability.

EarlyHuman

Occupation

NW Plainsof Uruguay

EarlyHuman

Occupation

NW Plainsof Uruguay

in the

January ■ 2010 13

The Pay Paso site, a diamond in the roughThis site (30°16′ S, 57°27′ W) lies in the plains of Río Cuareim,a tributary of Río Uruguay, which forms the Uruguay-Brazil-Argentina border. It was investigated in 1979–89 by A. Austral,who obtained an age of 9890 RCYBP. Subsequent reinvestiga-tions of the site begun in 1999 have made Pay Paso the mostintensively excavated Paleoamerican site in Uruguay. This siteis the keystone of regional archaeological research, for it isyielding valuable insights intothe earliest human occupa-tions in the north of Uruguayduring the Pleistocene/Ho-locene transition.

The Pay Paso site has ninelocalities of paleontological,paleoenvironmental, paleo-vegetational, and archaeologi-cal interest, with similarstratigraphical and sedimento-logical features resulting fromcomplex geomorphologic pro-cesses.

Locality 1 is a Paleoamer-ican multicomponent camp-site, with three early humanoccupations. Over four fieldseasons we dug 8 m2 of surveypits and excavated blocks of 90m2 and 15m2. (The old lowerarchaeological level is at adepth of 5.70–5.90 m.) Wefound cultural remains in a white-grey-yellow deposit formedby fluvial (sand and clay) and aeolian (loess and volcanic ash)sedimentation. Three cultural levels are separated by sterilelayers of clays. Four AMS radiocarbon dates from the earliest,Level 1, range from 10,930 to 10,880 RCYBP. This means that theearliest occupation found to date at Pay Paso rivals the earliestClovis occupation found in North America (the Lange-Fergusonsite in South Dakota, 11,080± 40 RCYBP). Cultural Level 2dates to 10,205–10,100 RCYBP;the most recent level, Level 3(where we found the Pay Pasopoints discussed below), datesto 9585–9100 RCYBP. Radio-carbon dates obtained on 32samples from the three levelstranslate to calibrated ages of13,000–9550 CALYBP.

Diagnostic tools recoveredfrom excavations include anew projectile-point type, thePay Paso point, preforms,bifaces and blade tools, stan-dardized sidescrapers, choppers, and cores. Besides a diagnos-tic fluted Fishtail point, we recovered from Pay Paso 1 site anunusual ultrathin oval biface. Stone used to make tools at thePay Paso site was principally silicified sandstone (84.5%), trans-

lucent agate and chalcedony (13%), and jasper-opal (1%); othermaterials rarely used (1.5%) include silicified limestone, quartz,basalt, and unknown stone. Toolmakers at Pay Paso prizedhigh-quality stone: The source for the agate they used lies 140–170 km distant.

The Pay Paso 1 site is the only archaeological excavation inUruguay that has yielded late-Pleistocene animal remains, thebones of 186 individual specimens. Bones of prehistoric horse

(Equus), giant armadillo (Glyptodon), otter, andboga fish (Leporinus), and fragments of eggs ofthe giant bird ñandú (Rhea americana) were foundassociated with human artifacts. Although wemust be very cautious in interpreting fragmentarydata, it appears that early hunter-gatherers in thenorth of Uruguay may have supplemented theirdiet of large game (horse and armadillo) by tak-ing small mammals (otter) and fish (boga) andgathering eggs. The data, though partial, aregood enough to form a provisional hypothesis,that human occupants at the Pay Paso 1 sitepracticed generalized exploiting of resourcesand did not depend exclusively on Pleistocenemammals for sustenance, as appears to be thecase in early archaeological contexts in Pampaand Patagonia. Further investigations are neededto confirm or refute this theory.

An ultrathin biface and other artifacts insitu in the Pay Paso 1 site excavation.

The Pay Paso 1 site excavationduring fieldwork in 2006.

ALL

PH

OTO

S: R

AFA

EL S

UÁ

REZ

A new type of early-Holocene projectile pointIn Level 3 of Pay Paso 1 we found a new type of projectile pointthat we call the Pay Paso point. Specimens were found incontexts dated (by eight calibrated AMS dates) at 10,930–10,250 CALYBP. The Pay Paso point is a shouldered triangularblade; the well-defined stem with concave edges expands inears toward the base, which is markedly concave. After Pay

Paso points were also found at theK87 site about 45 km from PayPaso site, where they date toaround 10,000 RCYBP, I scouredprivate archaeological collectionsfor other instances of this newpoint type. To date I have recorded21 Pay Paso points recovered fromregions of Uruguay as remote asthe Negro and Tacuermbó rivers,approximately 300 km from PayPaso. These findings give us a

good idea of the impressive mobility of Pay Paso hunter-gather-ers and the enormous territory they traversed.

Like Fishtail points, Pay Paso points display evidence ofextensive resharpening, which tells us these artifacts enjoyed

14 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

a long use life. Pay Paso points are an example of technologi-cal adaptation in post-Fishtail times resulting from the humanreorganization that occurred in the early Holocene in south-east South America. The evi-dence from our excavations atPay Paso, however, tells us theFishtail culture and the Pay Pasoculture aren’t contiguous in time.There appears to be a hiatus inthe chronological record, a gapmarking the absence of an un-known number of successive hu-man groups that invented uniquedesigns of projectile points.Those missing generations oftoolmakers and their products arewaiting to be found.

they’re made by different peoples, or whether they differ accord-ing to specific hafting techniques, expressions of culturalsignificance, individual knapper preferences, or any of a num-

ber of other possibilities.My belief that archaeologists dedi-

cated to the study of South Americanlithic technology should be morecritical in the study of Fishtail pointsmotivated my studies on variability inthe design and techno-morphologicaldetails within the Fishtail-point as-semblage. From my initial observa-tions in 2003 of variations in bladesize, I proposed an idealized modelfor rejuvenation of Fishtail points ofthe Southern Cone (see “Paleoindian

Components of Northern Uru-guay” in “Suggested Readings”).Specialists in lithic technologyhadn’t considered the angle ofthe shoulder-stem junction a sig-nificant morphological detail; itseemed to me an extremely sig-nificant trait and worthy of defin-ing two morphological variants.One is the pronounced or promi-nent shoulder, with a shoulder-stem angle of about 90°–110°;the other is the “classic” Fishtaildesign, with insinuated orrounded shoulders and a shoul-

der-stem angle of about 120°–160°.Fluting is another distinguishing characteristic. Not all Fish-

tail points are fluted. In a sample of 90 Fishtail points fromUruguay, 62.5% exhibit stem base thinning by regular or lami-nar retouch, 37.5% are fluted on one side of the base stem, andonly 12.5% are fluted on both sides of the base stem.

Fishtail and Clovis: Is there a link?Some North and South American Paleoamerican researchers

in past decades, and evensome today, have suggestedthe existence of either a di-rect link or an ancestor-de-scendant relationshipbetween the Clovis and Fish-tail cultures. No one to myknowledge has offered com-pelling proof of this theory.

Perhaps the well-knownlate-Pleistocene technologiesof Clovis and Fishtail peoples(about 13,100–12,500CALYBP) are expressions of anew technology that entered

the Americas around 15,000–14,000 CALYBP, which was seized onand modified by preexisting cultures in both continents. (See “TheLate Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas”

Bifaces from the Pay Paso site. A, biface ofsilicified limestone from the Queguay Formation,

basally thinned on both sides; B, oval biface of veryfine grain silicified sandstone; C, asymmetrical

biface, possibly a bifacial knife, of translucent agatefrom the Catalan arroyos quarries, Arapey Forma-

tion (from R. Moreira collection, Bella Unión).

Pay Paso points from cultural Level 3 of thePay Paso type-site (ca. 9585–9100 RCYBP). Note the

highly resharpened blade on the point on the right.Both are made of very fine silicified sandstone of

the Arapey Formation.

▲

▲

Fishtail technology in UruguayFishtail points in South America generally, and in Uruguay par-ticularly, show an important albeit puzzling variability in design,stage sequences in manufacture, morphology, and function. Forexample, in Uruguayan Fishtail points the base of the stem canbe straight, slightly concave, or exaggeratedly concave. In NorthAmerican paleotechnology, the differences in the base profileamong Clovis and Gainey-Vail-Debert points have been attrib-uted to post-Clovis adaptations,owing to the younger ages ob-tained for Debert-Vail points(about 10,500 RCYBP, comparedwith Clovis at 11,050–10,800RCYBP). The picture isn’t so clearfor Uruguayan Fishtail points. We

Roberto Moreira and GustavoPiñeiro conducting an archaeo-

logical survey in the ArroyoCatalán Chico quarries andworkshop site. In the back-

ground is Taddei Hill.

don’t know whether the differences in the bases of Fishtail pointsare the result of chronological sequence (one specimen beingolder than the others), or whether Fishtail points differ because

January ■ 2010 15

A B C D

0 3cm

and “AMS 14C Dating Early Human Occupation of Southern SouthAmerica” in “Suggested Readings.”)

By their toolstone shall you know themQuarries are valuable for archaeologists because they figure socentrally in the technological organization and mobility ofhunter-gatherers. Our research team is making a detailed studyof quarries and workshops associated with agates and highlysilicified sandstonesfound in the Arapey For-mation in north Uru-guay. The ArroyoCatalanes district isknown today for thecommercially significantvolume of agates and am-ethysts exported fromUruguay to China. In thecourse of performingCultural Resource Man-agement studies I found10 prehistoric quarriesand workshops of agatein the Arroyos Cata-lanes. Moreover, there is evidence of the use of translucentagate by toolmakers to produce projectile points, bifaces,blades, and other artifacts in sites K87 (about 12,300 CALYBP)and Pay Paso 1 (about 12,800–9550 CALYBP). Early hunter-gatherers traveled distances of more than 150 km from their

Variants of the stem-base observed in Fishtailpoints of Uruguay. A, straight; B, slightly concave;C, concave variant with inverted “V”; D, concavepronounced.

Fishtail points from the middle Río Negro basin.A, from the Arroyo Tres Árboles site; B, from theArroyo Cacique site (note the highly resharpenedblade). Both are made of silicified limestone, aparticular chert of the Queguay formation muchutilized by Fishtail-point knappers. (S. Bálsamocollection, Paso de los Toros, Tacuarembó).

▲

▲

home sites on the Uruguay and Cuareim river plainsto the agate quarries and outcrops found in the area of theArroyos Catalanes. Individuals and groups of humans traveledgreat distances during the late Pleistocene and early Holocenesolely to quarry agate for making artifacts.

We have barely begun to understand these ancientpeople.

How to contact the author of this article:Rafael SuárezResearcher, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural y

AntropologíaCoronel Raíz 1107 CP 12900Montevideo, Uruguaye-mail: suarezrafael23@gmail.com

Suggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsGoebel, T., M. R. Waters, and D. H. O´Rourke 2008 The Late

Pleistocene Dispersal of Modern Humans in the Americas. Science319:1497–1502.

Suárez, R. 2003 Paleoindian Components of Northern Uruguay:New data for Early Human Occupations of the Late Pleistoceneand Early Holocene. In Where the South Winds Blow: AncientEvidences From Paleo South Americans, editors L Miotti, M.Salemme, and N. Flegenheimer, pp. 29–36. Center for the Study ofthe First Americans.

Suárez, R., and C. Gillam 2008 The Paleoindian Database of Uru-guay: Collection Survey and GIS Data Development. Current Re-search in the Pleistocene 25:200–02.

Steele, J., and G. Politis 2009 AMS 14C Dating Early Human Occu-pation of Southern South America. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 36:419–29.

Waters, M. R., and T. W. Stafford, Jr. 2007 Redefining the Age ofClovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science315:1122–26.

About the author Rafael Suárez is a researcher of theMuseo Nacional de Historia Natural y Antropología (NationalNatural History andAnthropology Mu-seum) under thejoint auspices of theNational System ofInvestigators (SNI-ANII) and the Agencyof Investigation andInnovation of Uru-guay. His principalinterest is the peo-pling of southeastSouth America, espe-cially regarding lithictechnology, Fishtail-point variability, and early hunter-gatherer adaptations. LastJuly he presented his Ph.D. dissertation in the Facultad deCiencias Naturales y Museo (University of La Plata–Argen-tina). Dr. Suárez is director of two archaeological researchprojects in northern and central Uruguay, with special focuson human adaptations and paleoenvironmental reconstruc-tion in the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. He was princi-pal investigator of research grants from the NationalGeographic Society (U.S.), the Wenner Gren Foundation(U.S.), and the National Science Foundation (Uruguay).

16 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

Use Wear,Use Wear,Use Wear,

Up CloseUp CloseUp Closescopic and microscopic approaches, “I first evaluate if there ismacroscopic wear or flaking along the edge,” says AshleySmallwood, a doctoral candidate in Anthropology at TexasA&M University (MT 21-4, “Clovis at Topper”). “If I canidentify a working edge, I pull my sample based on that. Then Ilike to use high-power use-wear analysis mostly, as high as 500power. You can see the surface, linear indicators, striations,and polish formations clearly at that magnification.”

CSFA hasn’t scrimped on equipment. A Leica DMLA Com-pound Microscope with magnifications of 100x, 200x, and

500x works with an impres-sive software program calledCoolsnap Pro. The programtakes the lowest and highestpoints of microtopographythat the analyst focuses on,then stacks and combines im-ages to display the topogra-phy of the tool with an ex-tended depth of field. Anyonewho has ever looked at a 3-dimensional object under amicroscope appreciates theimmense advantage of an ex-tended depth of field in ana-lyzing the microtopographyof stone artifacts.

When searching for micro-scopic signs of use wear,analysts look to asperities

HOW SHERLOCK HOLMES the murder weapon, and he’llshow you the killer. Maybe Holmes could instantly deducevolumes from a single glance at an object, but in the realS

world, the one scientists inhabit, truth is almost always muchmore complex and doesn’t come so easily. Because time isunkind to organic remains, archaeologists rely heavily on inter-preting minute clues found on the stone tools Paleoamericansused. That’s the function of use-wear analysis, an investigativediscipline that was born in the last century and flowered in the1970s. Expert use-wear analysts—you’ll meet several in thisarticle—can frequently deduce how a stone tool washeld or hafted, the kind of material worked, the scrap-ing or sawing or drilling motion used by the worker,all from microscopic clues on the tool. Holmes withhis magnifying glass would be impressed.

The nitty gritty of making sense of tool wearIn the late 1960s Russian archaeologist SergeiSemenov published Prehistoric Technology. It provedto be an eye opener for archaeologists worldwide,who since the later half of the 19th century hadstruggled to deduce how tools no longer in existencewere used. For archaeologist Marvin Kay of theUniversity of Arkansas, the photographs inSemenov’s book clearly demonstrate “signals of mo-tion that would be created as you used the tool.”

Modern use-wear techniques involve both macro-

Kay talking about use-wear studies to a researchgroup at Pietrele, Romania, August 2008. SV

END

HA

NSE

N

Charlotte Pevny and Ashley Smallwoodbutchering with stone tools.

CH

ARL

OTT

E PE

VN

Y &

ASH

LEY

SMA

LLW

OO

D

January ■ 2010 17

(roughness or texture) on the surface of the tool as well asstriations. Even a surface that appears perfectly smooth to thenaked eye has microscopic projections and bumps. When an-other surface comes into contact with the tool surface, thoseasperities become worn down and truncated, like mountainsflattened to mesas, a process known as polish. Polish is fre-quently a good indicator of use and can also give clues about thekind of material that was worked.

Striations, another category of microscopic features, aretroughs or scratches on the surface. They show Marilyn Sho-berg, lab research associateat the Texas ArcheologicalResearch Laboratory in Aus-tin, the kinematics or mo-tions involved in using thetool. “If a tool was used in alongitudinal cutting motion,as if you were reapinggrass,” she explains, “it willhave striations parallel tothe edge that tell you it wasused along the edge as op-posed to a tool that was usedscraping perpendicular tothe edge.” (Striations andpolish aren’t to be confusedwith residue, microorganicdeposits left on the surfaceof a well-preserved stonetool.)

Behind the scenesBefore an artifact ever goes under the microscope, theinvestigator must gather information on its original ar-chaeological context—soil type, presence of nearby watersystems, whether the artifact was buried or a surface find,whether it was isolated or associated with other artifacts.What’s more, the analyst must experiment using a replicaof the tool to appreciate how the tool was probably used,where to expect to find wear, and the kind of wear to lookfor. Jim Wiederhold, CSFA microscopist extraordinaire(MT 19-2, “Use Wear: A Hands-on Study”), has butch-ered bison and worked hides using authentic replicas ofpaleo tools. “Common sense dictates that you’ve got tolook at the end product and put yourself in the place ofsomeone trying to create something with a piece of rock,”he tells us. “You can’t just arbitrarily scrape a piece ofhide 500 strokes. You have to make an end product, andwhatever use wear comes up in the process—that should bethe analog.”

Smallwood concurs. Before sitting down to analyze 67bifaces from the Gault site, a Paleoamerican campsite in east-central Texas (MT 20-1 and -2, “Assault on Gault”), she usedreplicated stone tools the same way a hunter likely did 13,000years ago, and even butchered carcasses. Experimental pro-grams are important, she says, “because you have to under-stand what happens to the rock when you use it, and you haveto be able to differentiate use wear from all the back-

ground noise that happens to the rock once it is deposited.”By background noise she means polish or other use indicators

created on an artifact by post-depositional processes and notrelated to use wear. (In the archaeologist’s lexicon, post-deposi-tional refers to anything that happens to an artifact once it entersthe archaeological record.) At Excavation Area 8 at the Gaultsite, for example, a variety of post-depositional processes af-fected use-wear analysis. Water can be the microwear analyst’sworst enemy, and the Gault site suffers from a superabundancebecause of its location at the headwaters of Buttermilk Creek.

Seep springs frequently saturated portions of the site; thisresulted in high levels of iron and manganese in the soil,causing yellowish discoloration to most of the Paleo arti-facts. Calcium carbonate, another waterborne chemical,encrusted approximately 98 percent of the flake assem-blage from the site and hindered microscopic examinationof those flake surfaces.

Wet/dry cycles, especially at sites with clay soil, cancreate what scientists call soil sheen, a ubiquitous polishthat can be caused by repeated shrinking and swelling ofsurrounding soil. Charlotte Pevny says soil sheen is easyto differentiate from use wear because it covers the en-tire artifact and not just the edge, the place where weexpect to find use wear. Nevertheless Dr. Kay recom-mends analog experiments for taphonomic processes,

BOTH

: C

HA

RLO

TTE

PEV

NY

Wiederhold scraping a bison hide with a hafted stoneendscraper (left) and at his microscope.

too, just as for use wear.That’s why Dr. Pevny is con-ducting her own backyardsoil-sheen experiment withthe help of Jim Wiederhold.About five years ago Pevnyand Wiederhold microphoto-graphed replicated bifaces,blades, and flakes beforeburying them in bucketsfilled with Texas clay. Thestone artifacts have been ex-periencing Texas wet/drycycles for five seasons now.Someday soon they’ll dig upthe replicas and examinethem again. “I don’t know ifwe’ll see anything in only five

years,” Pevny admits. “I don’t know how long it takes for thattype of damage to occur. But if we don’t see anything we’lltake more pictures, rebury them, and let them sit another fiveyears.”

Gauging the incidence of false use wearTrampling, another post-depositional process, was Pevny’s firstexperiment related to use wear. At the Gault site, Pevny analyzedabout 70,000 pieces of Clovis-age debitage (flakes and brokenflakes) from a workshop area (Excavation Area 8) in hopes ofidentifying use wear on expediently made stone tools, what she

18 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

calls “the plastic knives and forks of thearchaeological world.” Because lithic arti-facts were found highly concentrated,flakes piled on top of flakes and many withbroken edges, trampling was suspectedas a probable cause of edge damage thatcould be confused with use wear. Follow-ing the method described in a 1998 articlein American Antiquity by McBrearty et al.,Pevny, with the help of fellow student andexpert flintknapper Bill Dickens, laid outunmodified, unused flakes on a clay sur-face similar to the Gault site. In one areaflakes were laid out singly, without touch-ing one another; in the other test areaflakes were layered two and three deep.Then the areas were subjected to substan-tial foot traffic. The results? Only onepiece out of 319 resembled a tool after thetrampling experiment; other flakes suf-fered damage, but not in a pattern thatcould be mistaken for use wear. Beingnew to use-wear analysis at the time,Pevny says the experiment gave her theopportunity to study the kind ofunpatterned damage that can result fromtrampling.

Besides trampling, other analogs inPevny’s experimental program includedcutting, scraping, and chopping a multi-tude of materials—bone, antler, wood,sinew, fresh hide and rawhide—as well asbutchering carcasses. If it sounds over-whelming for one person, you’re right.Luckily the crowd at CSFA operate like awell-oiled machine. Wiederhold, Small-wood, Dr. Dickens, Pevny, and ScottMinchak all collaborated on the experi-ments, and all benefited from them.

Surprises await the use-wearanalystThanks to microwear analysis, scientistsare discovering that the shape of a toolisn’t always as telling as once thought.Endscrapers used to be categorized ex-clusively as hide-working tools. At theGault site, though, Wiederhold found end-scrapers smaller than those used toscrape bison hides. Although they mayhave started as hide-working tools, micro-analysis shows that before they were dis-carded they were used to work hardermaterials like antler, wood, and bone.

The adz, a thick biface used to chopwood, was thought to be absent from thePaleoamerican toolkit until use-wear stud-ies on suspected tools found at the Gault

C

E

D

Here’s a splendid example of the prolificinformation that can be extracted from astone tool by a skilled use-wear analyst, inthis case Akira Iwase of the GraduateSchool of Humanities, Tokyo Metropoli-tan Museum. The artifact under investiga-tion is a Sugikubo-type point from theUenohara Paleolithic site in central Japan.The Sugikubo blade industry dates to20,000–18,000 RCYBP.

Dr. Iwase chose this specimen, an ob-sidian point, because it showed signs ofuse, “remarkable striations accompaniedby well-developed abrasion on both lat-eral edges.” A digital microscope(KEYENCE VHX) gave him these remark-able photos and made it possible to drawthese conclusions:

The striations running parallel to eachworking edge are formed both on the ven-tral and dorsal faces (C, EC, EC, EC, EC, E). At the halfwaypoint along the left margin (with the pieceoriented tip up and base down, and dorsalface visible), the striations extend ob-liquely to the working edge on the ventralface (DDDDD). The directions of striation sug-gest that this artifact was used for cuttingor sawing and whittling. Although polishwas not recognized, the marked abrasionsuggests that these traces were formed bycontact with a soft material such as meator hide. The striations on the base suggestthat this artifact was used without beinghafted (EEEEE). . . . The use-wear traces de-scribed above suggest that Sugikubo-typepoints had at least two functions, as spearhead and knife. . . . The impact fracture[seen on other specimens of Sugikubo-type points] and striation also indicatethat some were used successively in hunt-ing and butchering activities. . . . Thehunter-gatherers probably developedthese versatile tools to be adapted to thetemperate forests of central Japan.

For Iwase’s complete description ofthese multifunctional artifacts, see “Use-Wear Analysis of Sugikubo-type Pointsfrom the Uenohara Site in Central Japan”in the 2009 edition of Current Research inthe Pleistocene, vol. 26.

–JMC

direction of striation

range of striation

C

E

D

G5-250

0 5cm

AK

IRA

IW

ASE

The MicroscopeAn Indispensable ToolThe MicroscopeThe MicroscopeAn Indispensable ToolAn Indispensable Tool

January ■ 2010 19

site detected silica polish made by wood and telltale choppingstriations that positively identify them as adzes.

Kay is constantly surprised by what he finds on the edges andsurfaces of tools. While working at early metallurgy sites ineastern Europe, he found traces of fish scales on the surfaces andedges of stone objects thatbore no resemblance to fish-scaling tools. In fact, beforeexamining them micro-scopically he wouldn’t evenhave guessed they hadbeen used as tools at all. Buteven when a tool appearsto fall into line perfectlywith morphological andethnographic analo-gies, Kay believesuse-wear studies arestill needed. “It isjust the tip of theiceberg in terms ofinformation that isavailable to us in atechnological studyof a stone tool,” hecautions. “We ought tobe able to figure out thetool edge, likely contactmaterial, how long the toolwas used in relative terms,whether it was maintained,and decisions about contin-ued maintenance.” Of par-ticular interest to Kay aretool efficiency and the costin time and labor to maintain a tool, to reshape and resharpen itsedge. You’ve reached the point of diminishing returns when, likean old ’77 Ford, the cost to repair it exceeds its value. Then it’stime to trade up.

Going forwardWiederhold, a plain-talking advocate of common sense in thearchaeological community, is realistic about weighing the im-pressive accomplishments of microwear analysis against its

limitations. “This whole use-wear thing isn’t completely infal-lible,” he says. “It’s not a be-all and end-all, it’s just another lineof evidence.” He wants people to understand that, unlike thefictitious Holmes, a use-wear analyst can’t simply examine afreshly excavated artifact under the ’scope and instantly con-

clude how it was used. Background infor-mation and experimen-tal analogs are neededto deduce prehistoric be-haviors from stone tools.Wiederhold finds a des-perate need today forstandardized procedures

for use-wear studies. Itisn’t just the subjec-

tive terminologyused—“Matte pol-ish?” he grumbles,“what the heckdoes that mean?”More importantfor him is theneed for a univer-sal protocol ofanalog experi-ments that will

make use-wear analysis“good science and make it fit the

real world.” He feels the time isright for another use-wear confer-ence (the last one was held morethan 30 years ago), where analystsfrom around the world can sit downtogether and agree on a set of quanti-fied and standardized methods.

Without microscopic analysis, unfamiliar Paleoamericantools might escape our attention entirely. Equally unacceptableis the possibility of prejudging a tool’s use simply on the basis ofits apparent morphology—if it looks like a sidescraper, then itmust have been used as one. For Kay, use-wear analysis is away of getting “basic information of tool function that is simplyunavailable through any other means.”

Elementary, my dear Watson.–Dale Graham

How to contact the principals of this article:Marvin KayMAIN 347University of ArkansasFayetteville, AR 72701e-mail: mkay@uark.edu

Marilyn ShobergTexas Archeological Research LaboratoryUniversity of Texas1 University Station R7500Austin, TX 78712e-mail: mbshoberg@mail.utexas.edu

Charlotte Pevny, Ashley Smallwood, James WiederholdCenter for the Study of the First AmericansDepartment of AnthropologyTexas A&M University4352 TAMUCollege Station, TX 77843-4352e-mail: Smallwood smallwood.ashley@gmail.come-mail: Pevny ced1282@tamu.edue-mail: Wiederhold csfa@tamu.edu

William A. Dickens200 S. Haswell DrBryan, TX 77803-4754

The trampling experiment, carried out on afootpath used by TAMU students: A,A,A,A,A, flakes laid

out singly; B,B,B,B,B, piled one atop the other;C,C,C,C,C, all being walked on; D,D,D,D,D, the result; E,E,E,E,E, a flakefrom the lot where flakes were piled one atop

the other. The uneven edge, discontinuousflaking, and small “notches” were caused by

impact with other flakes, not by use.

ALL

: C

HA

RLO

TTE

PEV

NY

B

C

DE

A

20 Volume 25 ■ Number 1

might someday bring the entire species back from the dead.After all, we can now clone mammals if we put our minds to it,and Asian elephants are a sister species to woolly mammoths.If we could somehow build a fertilized mammoth egg, it couldbe brought to term by a surrogate elephant mother.

Hendrik Poinar makes no secret of his belief that this will, infact, happen someday—probably within the next 50 years, if weget the right technology in line. And really, all that would take isa liberal application of money. But that begs a huge question:Would it be advisable to bring back mammoths 10,000 yearsalong? “Now you’re talking two different things,” Poinar muses.“Should it be done? What are you bringing it back for? Cer-tainly, there’s no scientific reason to do it. You’re not doing it torepopulate an area of the globe; you’re doing it for financialgain, and that’s the wrong reason.”

Allowing that it would certainly be interesting to bring backthe mammoth, the bittersweet reality is that we probablyshouldn’t—and ironically, we may not have to. Our technology

has progressed so far, and our scientists are so clever, that wecan tell an amazing amount about mammoths without resur-recting them at all. We’ll take a look at one particularly fascinat-ing case in point in the third and concluding article of thisseries.

–Floyd Largent

How to contact the principals of this article:Ross D. E. MacPheeCurator (Mammals)American Museum of Natural HistoryCentral Park West and 79th StreetNew York, New York 10025e-mail: macphee@amnh.org

Hendrik N. PoinarDirector, Ancient DNA CentreMcMaster UniversityDepartment of AnthropologyChester New Hall, Rm. 5241280 Main Street WestHamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L9e-mail: poinarh@mcmaster.ca

Decoding the Woolly Mammoth

continued from page 11

Suggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsSuggested ReadingsBinford, L. R. 1983 Hunters in a Landscape. In In Pursuit of the

Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record, pp. 109–43. Thames andHudson, New York.

Jackson, L. J., and A. Hinshelwood 2004 The Late Palaeo-IndianGreat Lakes: Geological and Archaeological Investigations of Late

Pleistocene and Early Holocene Environments. Canadian Museumof Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeology Paper 165.

O’Shea, J. M., and G. A. Meadows 2009 Evidence for Early Hunt-ers beneath the Great Lakes. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences 106:10120–23.

Storck, P. L. 2004 Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering an AncientWorld. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

the sonar runs. This area, he promises, “will be high on thetarget list for ROV and scuba examination in the spring.”

A preserved, undisturbed worldIt’s clear that lost worlds await discovery beneath the watersof the Great Lakes. Portions of the bottom of Lake Huron weredry land between about 10,000 and 7,500 years ago. O’Sheaand Meadows offer persuasive evidence of amazingly wellpreserved cultural landscapes, including possible cariboudrive lanes, soldier rocks, hunting blinds, habitation sites, andchert quarries and workshops. The ghostly images of thesefeatures lying on the bottom of Lake Huron are strikinglysimilar to structures constructed by caribou hunters onVictoria Island in northern Canada and elsewhere in the arcticand subarctic regions of North America.

What makes these discoveries especially exciting is that theyare absolutely pristine sites. Many riches of the Paleoindian andearly-Archaic cultures have been destroyed by human activity—

decades of plowing, surface mining, development, and mischiefwrought by curious explorers. At the bottom of the Great Lakeslie entire landscapes preserved from disturbance for more thanseven millennia, potentially a remarkably complete record ofhuman use of that ancient geography. Although O’Shea andMeadows have only begun their investigation of that record,they have already laid the foundation for a revolution in ourknowledge of these early people.

–Bradley Lepper

How to contact the principals of this article:John M. O’SheaMuseum of AnthropologyUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109e-mail: joshea@umich.eduGuy A. MeadowsMarine Hydrodynamics LaboratoriesDepartment of Naval Architecture and Marine EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn Arbor, MI 48109

Early Hunters beneath the Great Lakes

continued from page 7