Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene Eastern North America

Abstract

The nature of Early Paleoindian economies in late Pleistocene eastern North America has been extensively debated by archaeologists. To better understand paleoeconomies we need to examine intraregional and interregional diversity in the production, consumption, distribution, and exchange of materials that sustained or reproduced early Paleoindian livelihoods. Coarse-grained comparisons drawn on the composition of flaked-stone tool assemblages from early Paleoindian sites in the Northeast (western New York State) and the western Midwest (the confluence area of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers) show varying degrees of homogeneity and heterogeneity in the use of tool stone. Statistically significant patterns from stone procurement and tool manufacturing sites, base camps, and food procurement and processing sites are presented in support of a pancontinental model of flexible economies during a period of rapid and dramatic environmental change.

Paleoindian subsistence strategies and late Pleistocene paleoenvironments in the northeastern and southwestern United States: a tooth wear analysis

“…Whether the mastodons were hunted or simply scavenged, food procurement activities at the site seem to be a cold weather activity. The Hiscock site corresponds to a food procurement and processing site (Tankersley, 1998). The material is curated at the Buffalo Museum of Science.…”

Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulations

“…Following arguments that have developed over much of the twentieth century in reference to fluted point occupations in eastern North America (Goodyear, 1989;MacDonald, 1968;Meltzer, 1984Meltzer, , 1988Meltzer, , 1989Witthoft, 1952), Paleoindian archaeologists on the Plains generally infer that such material was obtained during visits by entire residence groups to the geologic source(s) of these materials, and thus that the locations of these sources relative to the location where the artifacts being studied were recovered offer a measure of the size of the areas within which these groups moved (i.e., Amick, 1996;Bement, 1999;Hofman, 1991Hofman, , 1992Hofman, , 2002Hofman, , 2003Meltzer, 2006). In the east, where this argument first developed, it is now clear that the proportion of non-local material in Paleoindian assemblages varies enormously from site to site and region to region (Lothrop, 1989;Meltzer, 1984Meltzer, , 1988Tankersley, 1998), if raw material use monitors range sizes, eastern Paleoindian ranges were not uniformly, or even predominantly, unusually large.…”

Archaeological Investigations at the Ice House Site, 41HY161: Early Archaic Technology, Subsistence, and Settlement Along the Balcones Escarpment, Hays County, Texas

“…In Eastern North America the transition from Paleoindian to Archaic was not a sharp boundary and is viewed by Meltzer and Smith (1986) as a continuum of foraging behavior with increasing diversification through time. The notion of Paleoindians as big game hunter specialists has been challenged from numerous sources from different regions of North America (Bousman, et al 2002;Cannon and Meltzer 2004;Grayson and Meltzer 2002;Johnson 1987;Kuehn 1998;Tankersley 1998). Others (Ellis, et al 1998) have argued that the archaeological record is insufficient to discount the big-game hunter hypothesis.…”