Early Paleo-Indian Foragers of Midcontinental North America

Lepper, Bradley T.

doi:10.2190/uk8e-gyax-fmkm-89cn

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence fails to support the concept of a single, unified Paleoindian settlement-subsistence pattern in southern Ohio but instead suggests variability in Paleoindian land-use behavior between individual physiographic provinces. Since current reconstructions of past climate, vegetation, and precipitation patterns (see Section 2.0) illustrate a dynamic, quickly evolving environment during the late Pleistocene for southern Ohio, this finding generally supports previous assertions of regional economic diversity for Paleoindian lifeways, especially between glaciated and unglaciated landscapes (Anderson & Gillam, 2000;Lepper, 1988;Loebel, 2012;Meltzer & Smith, 1986;Roper & Lepper, 1991;Smallwood, 2012;Witthoft, 1954). An example of the type of late Pleistocene Ohio environmental and resource diversity potentially encountered by Paleoindians was summarized nicely by palynologist Linda Shane:…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Given the scale of mobility posited for Paleoindians it seems reasonable to conclude that individual bands would have traveled through and exploited the entire upper Ohio Valley landscape and not just specific provinces or environmental settings. If accurate, this suggests that efficient land use would have required multiple extraction strategies, perhaps ones employed on a seasonal basis as suggested by Lepper (1988) for the Appalachian Plateaus. (Broster et al, 2013, p. 309;Freeman et al, 1996;Kenneth B. Tankersley, 1996) and may represent a unified Midsouth settlement pattern of exploitation of a mixed woodland and open prairie environments as suggested for the general Southeast region (T. M. N. Lewis, 1953) and perhaps into northern Mexico (Johnson et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, although direct comparisons between Paleoindian and Early Archaic land-use behavior was not a primary goal of this study, results document several trends in southern Ohio worthy of mention. Despite the fact that long-distance seasonal rounds and a reliance on high-quality bedded toolstones helps easily distinguish Paleoindian and Early Archaic economies on one level (Anderson, 1995;Boulanger et al, 2015;Daniel Jr., Moore, & Caynor, 2013;Ellis, 2011;Kelly & Todd, 1988;Seeman, 1994;Kenneth B. Tankersley, 1990), the degree to which other aspects of land-use behavior correspond through time remains debated with many archaeologists suggesting subsistence-settlement continuity in the southern boreal-deciduous biomes of the unglaciated eastern U.S. (Bryan, 1977;Gardner, 1977;Lepper, 1988;Meltzer, 1988;Meltzer & Smith, 1986, pp. 16-19;Pevny et al, 2018; see also Purtill, 2009, p. 591).…”

Section: Utilization Of the Ohio Brushmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…J. Mason, 1962;Sholts, Stanford, Flores, & Wärmländer, 2012), most now acknowledge that the Mississippi River with its frequent late Pleistocene glacial meltwater pulses and high sediment loads (Rittenour, Blum, & Goble, 2007;Rittenour, Goble, & Blum, 2005) represented a natural border separating eastern from western Paleoindian settlement-subsistence patterns (Anderson & Faught, 1998;Briggs Buchanan, Hamilton, Kilby, & Gingerich, 2016, p. 118;Morrow, 2014). In the eastern U.S., recent research has focused are defining models of Paleoindian regional variability especially highlighting aspects of land-use behavior, subsistence strategy, social learning, or technological organization (Anderson, 1990(Anderson, , 1995(Anderson, , 1996Anderson & Gillam, 2000;Broster, Norton, Miller, Tune, & Baker, 2013;Briggs Buchanan et al, 2016;Briggs Buchanan, O'Brien, & Collard, 2014;Cannon & Meltzer, 2004Eren et al, 2016;Eren & Desjardine, 2015;Lepper, 1988;Lepper & Meltzer, 1991;Loebel, 2012;Lothrop, Lowery, Spiess, & Ellis, 2016;Meltzer, 1985Meltzer, , 1988Meltzer, , 2009Meltzer & Smith, 1986;G. L. Miller et al, 2018;Seeman, 1994;Smallwood, 2012;Speth, Newlander, White, Lemke, & Anderson, 2013, p. 112).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…133-138;O'Shea, Lemke, & Reynolds, 2013;Seeman & Prufer, 1982, pp. 159-160; Shane Miller, 2016;Smith, 1990, p. 244;Spiess, Cowie, & Bartone, 2012 Avoidance of rugged terrain or variable use of physiographic regions avoidance of areas not conducive to big-game hunting, travel, or availability of variable ecotones and associated resources under-representation of sites in areas characterized by rugged terrain Anderson & Faught, 1998, p. 175;Lane & Anderson, 2001;Lepper, 1988;Meltzer, 1985;Prufer & Baby, 1963, pp. 62-63;Ritchie, 1965, pp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Towards a Better Understanding of Paleoindian Native American Settlement in Southern Ohio: A Multi-Scalar Approach

Purtill¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite Ohio's prominent role in the historical trajectory of archaeological research into the Native American Paleoindian period (13.5 to 11.4 ka years ago), it has been over 30 years since the last attempt to model Paleoindian land-use behavior at a resolution that includes the southern half of the state. This dissertation revisited Paleoindian adaptation and land-use behavior in southern Ohio and by association the eastern United States. Research was accomplished through a study of Paleoindian occupation at two distinct resolutions in southern Ohio: (i) regional; and, (ii) local, or site-level. The regional level was explored through a GIS and statistical modeling approach of known Paleoindian site locations against randomly selected environmental information to evaluate current theories of Paleoindian land-use behavior. Significant patterns were further explored through comparison of similarly generated trends for later archaeological sites dated to the Early Archaic (~11-8.5 ka) and Late Archaic (~6-2.7 ka) periods. A binary logistical regression test was calculated with significant variables to assess the relative strength of individual variables in explaining Paleoindian site location. The second, site-level component of this dissertation involved archaeological, geomorphological, and geochronological investigation of the Sandy Springs archaeological site and surrounding landscape. Research focused on landform reconstruction with special emphasis on aeolian sand dune formation histories. Furthermore, proxy paleoenvironmental indicators are documented through investigation of sediments at Sandy Springs. Research focused on potential explanations for site function during the Paleoindian period and directly tested the statement that saline springs were a primary reason for Paleoindian occupation. Study results indicate that Paleoindians did not practice a uniform land-use strategy in the upper Ohio Valley but instead adapted strategies to fit local conditions. A potentially distinct Paleoindian land-use strategy is identified for the Interior Low Plateaus province of Ohio. This strategy may reflect strengthening post-11 ka interaction for groups occupying the Cumberland, Tennessee, and upper Ohio drainages. This strategy also may indicate a preference for prairie environments. The combined modeling of Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Late Archaic site distributions provides a method to assess the impact of collector bias on archaeological interpretations. Study results suggest that collector bias is not restricted to Paleoindian assemblages alone. Cross-temporal approaches provide a means to mitigate the influence of such bias in future studies. Sandy Springs represents one of the largest Paleoindian sites in the upper Ohio River Valley and study results increased our understanding of its geomorphological and archaeological history. The previous claim of saline springs at Sandy Springs was tested through electrical conductivity and pH analysis. Results failed to support the idea that Sandy Springs possessed wa...

show abstract