Paleoindian Artifacts of West Virginia

PaleoAmerica A journal of early human migration and dispersal ISSN: 2055-5563 (Print) 2055-5571 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ypal20 Paleoindian Artifacts of West Virginia Richard L. Rosencrance To cite this article: Richard L. Rosencrance (2018): Paleoindian Artifacts of West Virginia, PaleoAmerica, DOI: 10.1080/20555563.2017.1395723 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2017.1395723 Published online: 08 Jan 2018. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ypal20 Download by: [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] Date: 08 January 2018, At: 12:22 PALEOAMERICA, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2017.1395723 Center for the Study of the First Americans Texas A&M University RESEARCH BRIEF Paleoindian Artifacts of West Virginia Richard L. Rosencrance Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] at 12:22 08 January 2018 Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Paleoindian era archaeological materials remain significantly understudied in West Virginia. This brief provides the first summary of West Virginian Paleoindian artifacts in 50 years and reports 13 newly identified specimens. Most artifacts derive from the Ohio and Kanawha river valleys but new finds including fluted, Quad, Beaver Lake, and Dalton point types from some of the most mountainous portions of the state suggest that early groups also utilized interior river valleys and uplands. Paleoindian; West Virginia; Appalachian Highlands; fluted technology Large-scale distributional analyses and regional surveys have demonstrated that the Appalachian Highlands of eastern North America have produced far fewer Paleoindian artifacts than surrounding regions (Anderson et al. 2010; Lane and Anderson 2001; Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008; Wittkofski and Reinhart 1989). It is unclear if this phenomenon is due to an avoidance of high elevation boreal forests by prehistoric foragers, poor site preservation, survey and recovery biases, or lack of intensive study (Cremeens and Lothrop 2001; Lothrop et al. 2016; Maggard and Stackelbeck 2008; Miller and Carmody 2016). In the West Virginia portion of the Appalachian Highlands, a paucity of professional study seems to be a primary factor. The only comprehensive report of Paleoindian artifacts from West Virginia was published five decades ago (Broyles 1967). Moreover, no professional research projects focused primarily on the Paleoindian era have ever been carried out, and no radiocarbon dates for that period exist in West Virginia. This report contributes new data about the Paleoindian record of West Virginia and provides a county-level distributional overview using previously reported projectile points. The Appalachian Highlands refers to the physiographic regions of the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley provinces that encompass a large portion of inland eastern North America (Cremeens, MacDonald, and Lothrop 2003; Thornbury 1965). The entirety of West Virginia resides within these two provinces. This region is a labyrinth of narrow crested dissecting ridges and valleys with steep slopes and dendritic drainages. The dramatic topographic relief not only restricted low-energy travel but it was also a refugium for boreal forests during the terminal Pleistocene. In terms of resources, such an environment sits in stark contrast to the rich, deciduous hardwood forests of the Holocene (Maxwell and Davis 1972; Miller and Carmody 2016; Neumann 1992). West Virginia has been considered part of both southeastern and northeastern North America in recent regional overviews of the Paleoindian era, but a lack of site and artifact data from the period has prevented any meaningful cultural connections (Anderson, Smallwood, and Miller 2015; Lothrop et al. 2016). I invoke projectile point chronologies from both the Northeast and Southeast, considering the present ambiguity of West Virginia Paleoindian technology. Through collaboration with the Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex and local informants, I recorded 13 new projectile points that represent definite and probable Paleoindian forms. Avocational archaeologists discovered all of these new artifacts in surface contexts. Detailed attribute data for each artifact, which I recorded following the protocol recommended by the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA), are available in Supplementary Table 1. Including the 13 new specimens, 106 Paleoindian projectile points have been reported to date in West Virginia (Figure 1). A complete table of county incidences and reference list is available in Supplementary Table 2. Most artifacts have been found on terraces along the Ohio and Kanawha river systems where there is more modern development and lower elevations. There is a stark change in elevation from west to east on the West Virginia landscape. The average elevation along the Ohio and Kanawha rivers is ∼180 meters above sea level (masl), whereas valley floors of the interior Tygart and Greenbrier rivers are ∼640 masl. The mountain CONTACT Richard L. Rosencrance [email protected] Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/20555563.2017.1395723 © 2018 Center for the Study of the First Americans Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] at 12:22 08 January 2018 2 R. L. ROSENCRANCE Figure 1 Distribution map of Paleoindian artifacts throughout West Virginia (original from The National Map (USGS 2009)). peaks of the interior, associated with the Tygart and Greenbrier valleys, top out as high as 1490 masl. The current Paleoindian artifact record for the eastern, more mountainous portion of the state is sparse, but seven new artifacts in this report indicate promise for future survey. Higher artifact densities along the Kanawha River, which is fed by various waterways flowing out of the eastern highlands, may indicate the use of this river system as a travel route into these interior highlands (Anderson and Gillam 2000). There is a great deal of morphological variability in West Virginia Paleoindian projectile points, as exemplified in Figure 2. Strictly grouping artifacts into typologies is problematic but a necessary heuristic device here considering the surficial recovery of the artifacts. The earliest identifiable Paleoindian points in West Virginia are represented by the Clovis type, described as bifacially flaked points with parallel (or nearly parallel) lateral margins, a slightly concave base, and a single flute scar on both faces extending to or below the midpoint (Anderson, Smallwood, and Miller 2015; Lothrop et al. 2016). Specimens B and C (although incomplete) in Figure 2 exhibit these characteristics and represent Clovis points. Post-Clovis fluted points are far less understood spatially and temporally; however, Gainey and Redstone types (Mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions, respectively) are identified as distinct fluted point variations potentially coeval with or directly following Clovis technology (Anderson, Smallwood, and Miller 2015; Goodyear 2006; Lothrop et al. 2016). These types are very similar to Clovis points, except they exhibit deeper basal concavities, multiple flutes (occasionally), and overall longer flutes. Specimens A, D, E, F, H, and I in Figure 2 vary enough from the typical Clovis definition that they could potentially be identified as Redstone or Gainey. It is also possible that these points represent a local variation of fluting technology not yet fully understood. Specimen A in Figure 2 exhibits one long flute (past the midline) on each side while specimens D, E, and F have multiple long flutes and deep basal concavities. Specimen E is intriguing because it exhibits multiple flutes, a shallow basal concavity (2.7 mm), a small basal width (20.0 mm), and a wide midsection (26.8 mm) – a suite of traits unlike most fluted points. The informant identified the detailed origin of Specimen E in the Tygart Valley, adding a degree of provenience not available for 3 Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] at 12:22 08 January 2018 PALEOAMERICA Figure 2 Newly identified West Virginia Paleoindian artifacts (A: Redstone or Gainey point, Kanawha County; B: Clovis point, Tyler County; C: Clovis point, Randolph County; D: fluted point, Pocahontas County; E: fluted point, Randolph County; F: fluted point, Pleasants County; G: lanceolate point, Kanawha County; H: basally thinned concave base point, Randolph County; I: possible fluted point, Kanawha County; J: Dalton point, Randolph County; K: Quad point, Randolph County; L: Quad point, Kanawha County; M: Beaver Lake point, Nicholas County) (image credits: B and D, courtesy of the Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex Research Facility of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History). 11 of the 13 new artifacts. Specimen H has been intensively retouched but it has a shallow basal concavity, very thin in cross-section, and has multiple basal thinning scars or attempted flutes. It is important to note that while Specimen I is similar in morphology (other than the apparent flute on one side) to Middle Woodland Copena Triangular points known to have both basal grinding and thinning, no Copena Triangular points have been Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] at 12:22 08 January 2018 4 R. L. ROSENCRANCE recovered in West Virginia. Instead, they are mainly restricted to Tennessee and Alabama (Justice 1987; Bob Maslowski, personal communication, 2017). Therefore, I classified Specimen I as a post-Clovis Paleoindian point. Specimens C, D, and E in Figure 2 are made of Hillsdale chert, a moderate- to high-quality toolstone found ∼100 km (C, E) and ∼25 km (D) south from where the specimens were recovered, suggesting a northward movement of toolstone and/or groups (Brashler and Lesser 1990; Trimmer 2011). Specimens A and B are made of Kanawha chert, a low to moderate quality chert found in central West Virginia (Brashler and Lesser 1990). Specimen A originated in the Kanawha source basin, but B was found ∼125 km north of source locations. Specimens F, H, and I are made of raw materials that do not resemble known West Virginia cherts. Regional projectile point variation expanded during the Late Paleoindian period (12,850–11,700 cal yr BP) in both the Northeast and Southeast (Anderson, Smallwood, and Miller 2015; Lothrop et al. 2016). Two Quad points (K and L in Figure 2) and one Beaver Lake point (M) were recorded, marking the first reported artifacts of these types in West Virginia. Quad points are typically unfluted, short, lanceolate, and possess basal ears and a concave base. Beaver Lake points are unfluted, have excurvate margins, narrow concave bases, and basal ears. Both Quad points are made of unknown chert types not known for West Virginia and exhibit resharpening. Specimen M appears to be manufactured on Kanawha chert, found ∼40 km east of source locations. Dalton points show a good deal of variation across the South but are generally described as lanceolate or “trianguloid-bladed” with serrated edges, parallel lateral margins on the hafting element with heavy grinding, a deep basal concavity, and occasional basal thinning removals (Justice 1987, 40). One new Dalton point (Specimen J in Figure 2) was recorded, bringing the state total to six (Applegarth and Davis 1982; Lewis 1958; Wilkins 1978). It is made of an unknown non-local chert. The informant shared the precise recovery location in the Tygart Valley. Specimen G’s basal thinning, excurvate shape, and wide midsection suggest that it dates to the Late Paleoindian period. It is likely made of Kanawha chert and was found in the Kanawha source basin. One other unfluted lanceolate point with only state-level provenience information was included in the overall count (n = 106) but not included in Figure 2. This brief overview brings together raw numbers and source information to provide a much-needed baseline for future research into West Virginia Paleoindian lifeways and should be expanded to include a more extensive review of cultural resource management reports. Future surveys should investigate floodplains of major river drainages that may have deeply buried deposits which escape agricultural plowing and cultural resource management surveys. Toolstone source areas, which are limited in the state and will likely produce higher densities of artifacts, should also be a focus of future work (Miller 2016). With cooperation from local informants, two Paleoindian site locations with potential for buried deposits were identified in this study, highlighting the critical role that avocational archaeologists can play in professional research (Pitblado 2014). Of important note is the fact that all Late Paleoindian artifacts identified in this study are found in the higher elevations of eastern West Virginia. This fact, juxtaposed against the overall density of early, fluted examples along the Ohio River, suggests a pattern like that demonstrated by Miller and Carmody (2016) in Tennessee. Their study suggests that foragers avoided higher elevations until the warming climate of the early Holocene allowed more biotically rewarding hardwood forests to replace the boreal forest of the terminal Pleistocene. While preliminary, this pattern can serve to guide future research questions concerning Paleoindian landscape use in West Virginia. Acknowledgements I am indebted to The Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex, especially Heather Cline, for granting me access to the collections, the use of the facilities, and her unrivaled cooperation. I would also like to thank David Rice, Kenny Holbrook, and Mark Lanham for allowing me to examine and record artifacts in their collections. The Stirrup Gallery of Davis and Elkins College allowed me to use photographic equipment. Thanks to Michael Stewart for sharing data with me. Bob Maslowski’s advice and correspondence throughout this project was instrumental to its completion. Michael Faught helped create Figure 1. Finally, thanks to Gabriel Sanchez, Katelyn McDonough, and Geoff Smith for comments on earlier versions of this paper. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. ORCID Richard L. Rosencrance 0874 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9961- References Anderson, David G., and J Christopher Gillam. 2000. “Paleoindian Colonization of the Americas: Implications from an Examination of Physiography, Demography, and Artifact Distribution.” American Antiquity 65 (1): 43–66. Anderson, David G., D. Shane Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, J. Christopher Gillam, Erik N. Johanson, Derek T. Downloaded by [University of Oregon], [Richard Rosencrance] at 12:22 08 January 2018 PALEOAMERICA Anderson, Albert C. Goodyear, and Ashley M. Smallwood. 2010. “PIDBA (Paleoindian Database of the Americas) 2010: Current Status and Findings.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 38: 63–90. Anderson, David G., Ashley M. Smallwood, and D. Shane Miller. 2015. “Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future Directions.” PaleoAmerica 1 (1): 7–51. Applegarth, Jan D., and Carl M. Davis. 1982. “A Dalton-Early Archic Assemblage From Summers County.” West Virginia Archaeologist 33: 3–36. Brashler, Janet G., and W. Hunter Lesser. 1990. “Lithic Materials and Thier Distribution in the West Virginia Highlands.” In Upland Archaeology in the East: Symposium IV, 193–207. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. doi:10.1177/0192513X12437708. Broyles, Betty J. 1967. “Editor’s Notes, Fluted Points from West Virginia.” West Virginia Archaeologist 20: 46–56. Cremeens, David L., and Jonathan C. Lothrop. 2001. “Geomorphology of Upland Regolith in the Unglaciated Appalachain Plateau.” In Archaeology of the Appalachain Highlands, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. Prezzano, 31–48. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Cremeens, David L., Douglas H. MacDonald, and Jonathan C. Lothrop. 2003. “Holocene Colluvial Soils and Geoarchaeology in the Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau: Two Examples From West Virginia, USA.” Geoarchaeology 18 (7): 799–826. Goodyear, Albert C. 2006. “Recognizing the Redstone Fluted Point in the South Carolina Paleoindian Point Database.” Current Research in the Pleistocene 23: 100–103. Justice, Noel D. 1987. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lane, Leon, and David G. Anderson. 2001. “Paleoindian Occupations of the Southern Appalachians: A View From the Cumberland Plateau of Kentucky and Tennessee.” In Archaeology of the Appalachain Highlands, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. Prezzano, 88–102. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Lewis, Clifford M. 1958. “Fluted and Other Early Hunter Points.” West Virginia Archaeologist 10: 10–12. Lothrop, Jonathan C., Darrin L. Lowery, Arthur E. Spiess, and Christopher J. Ellis. 2016. “Early Human Settlement 5 of Northeastern North America.” PaleoAmerica 2 (3): 192–251. Maggard, Greg J., and Kary L. Stackelbeck. 2008. “Paleoindian Period.” In Archaeology of Kentucky: An Update, edited by David Pollack, 109–192. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 3. Lexington: Kentucky Heritage. Maxwell, Jean A., and Margaret Bryan Davis. 1972. “Pollen Evidence of Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation on the Allegheny Plateau, Maryland.” Quaternary Research 2 (4): 506–530. Miller, D. Shane. 2016. “Modeling Clovis Landscape Use and Recovery Bias in the Southeastern United States Using the Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA).” American Antiquity 81 (4): 697–716. Miller, D. Shane, and Stephen B. Carmody. 2016. “Colonization after Clovis: Using the Ideal Free Distribution to Interpret the Distribution of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Archaeological Sites in the Duck River Valley, Tennessee.” Tennessee Archaeology 8 (1–2): 78–101. Neumann, Thomas W. 1992. “The Physiographic Variables Associated with Prehistoric Site Location in the Upper Potomac River Basin, West Virginia.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 20: 81–124. Pitblado, Bonnie L. 2014. “How Archaeologists and Artifact Collectors Can – and Should – Collaborate to Comply with Legal and Ethical Antiquities Codes.” Advances in Archaeological Practice 2 (4): 338–52. Thornbury, William David. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Trimmer, Alyssa. 2011. “Lithic Raw Material Sourcing Study.” Manuscript on file, Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex, Moundsville, West Virginia. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2009. “The National Map, National Elevation Data Set Shaded Relief of West Virginia.” Accessed April 26, 2017. https://eros.usgs.gov/ west-virginia-0. Wilkins, Gary R. 1978. “Prehistoric Mountaintop Occupations of Southern West Virginia.” Archaeology of Eastern North America 6: 13–40. Wittkofski, J. Mark, and Theodore R. Reinhart, eds. 1989. Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis. Special Publication 19. Richmond: Archeological Society of Virginia.