Clovis technology geograhic change?

[Robert Henvell]

   C Beck and G Jones [2007]] contend that Clovis blades,blade cores and other associated tools are most numerous in the southern plains and possibly in some SE regions and diminish in number to the north,west and NW.Bifaces ,which are rare on the southern plains,become progressively more common in Clovis assemblages to the NW.The NW "Clovis "[my quotation marks] inventories  at East Wenatchee.Simon And Fenn have large,exquistitely  formed fluted points and bifaces,that have almost no counterparts in the rest of the Clovis sub-region.It appears that as Clovis technology moved NW bifaces were replaced by blades as the primary component of the tool kit.
         Source:Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?,University of Utah Press,2007.

         Did the inhabitants of the NW only accept part of the Clovis technology or was the Clovis tool kit progressively incorporated with another lithic industry in a north westerly direction.The scribe is badly confused.

[Robert Henvell]

   C Beck and G Jones [2007]] contend that Clovis blades,blade cores and other associated tools are most numerous in the southern plains and possibly in some SE regions and diminish in number to the north,west and NW.Bifaces ,which are rare on the southern plains,become progressively more common in Clovis assemblages to the NW.The NW "Clovis "[my quotation marks] inventories  at East Wenatchee.Simon And Fenn have large,exquistitely  formed fluted points and bifaces,that have almost no counterparts in the rest of the Clovis sub-region.It appears that as Clovis technology moved NW bifaces were replaced by blades as the primary component of the tool kit.
         Source:Paleoindian or Paleoarchaic?,University of Utah Press,2007.

         Did the inhabitants of the NW only accept part of the Clovis technology or was the Clovis tool kit progressively incorporated with another lithic industry in a north westerly direction.The scribe is badly confused.
[/quote

    Apologies-omitted one vital fact.Biface fragments at Paisley Cave 5 predate the onset of the Clovis era [ca11500BCE,cal: DJenkins, 2007.same source].Is it possible that small bands,with biface technology,treked from Washington and Oregan SE and eventually settled on the southern plains,where Clovis blades were developed?Small bands moving SE could have had low archaeological visibility,because they might not have discarded sufficient,distinct cultural material to trace their passage.As the population in Texas increased,there might have been a back migration to the NW,where the Clovis tool kit was only partially accepted.Could the lithic industries of the three sites on the Columbia Plateau [ie;Simon] have evolved from the NW biface technology,rather than from Clovis??
  Unfortunately Dar is no longer here to contribute his unbiased wealth of knowledge.Hopefully someone can explain why there are no or minimal blades in the NW inventories and minimal bifaces in the blade dominated Clovis assemblages on the southern plains.
 

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi Robert -

It appears that the inventory of Clovis finds from the South East is ending the old model of one or two Beringia crossings, and the 11,500 BCE date appears to be dead as well:

http://www.nps.gov/history/seac/outline/02-paleoindian/se_paleo/09-resource.htm

My guess is that this "solutrean" technology came from the Sahara River region via South America, as such a model provides the only explanation for the gross physical characteristics of the Yuchee and Ocanachee peoples (5 foot maximum male adult height, "unusual" eye color, hair different from other Native American peoples, etc. )

Technology spread was most likely along the Gulf coast at first, and then along mammoth and eastern bison migrations via salt licks from summer pasture to winter pasture and back.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas