Thanks, Jacques.
The purpose of my presentation is to generate some discussion about what makes a flute a flute. And more to the point: did Clovis technology and fluting happen contemporaneously, or did fluting exist prior to Clovis technology. I’ve chosen several specimens recovered from a Pleistocene gravel terrace in central Texas that may be fluted, or they may just exhibit basal thinning. The gravel terrace’s deposition has been dated by Texas Archeological Research Lab (TARL- University of Texas) and Texas State to a minimum of 12,000 14C B.P. Thus, anything contained within the terrace should be dated to a minimum of 12,000 14C B.P. (preClovis). Mike Collins, with the Texas Archeological Research Lab at the University of Texas, has a brief CRIP article concerning artifacts recovered from these Pleistocene gravels:
http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16&mforum=nohandaxesinus Collins reports Clovis artifacts recovered from Bed Icl:
http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=17&mforum=nohandaxesinusBed Icl lies uncomformably upon Bed Igl (gravel). Collins dates this stratum at ca. 11,500 14C B.P. 90 plus 14C assays support this interpretation. According to Mike Waters and Tom Stafford’s current paper these artifacts should be classified as preClovis versus Clovis:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5815/1122Collins also reports a “Bone Bed” component, overlying the “Clovis” component, dated between 11,400- 11,000 14C B.P.:
“…Evidence recovered from an enigmatic “Bone Bed” component suggesting that Folsom and Plainview intervals may be more contemporary than sequential. The component appears similar to Folsom in terms of lithic technology (eg., ultra-thin bifaces) and association with bison, but it dated to approximately 11,400 to 11,000 B.C., earlier than Folsom, contained a single unclassifiable, unfluted projectile point…”
http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1&mforum=nohandaxesinus Here is a report that is still very much in rough that explains in detail why I think the artifacts recovered from the gravel terrace are preClovis in age:
http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovisindiansrockbottom.htmlRespectfully,
Charlie
