PREFACE

For Sebastian and Larralde, the question of how to identify Paleoindian sites lacking conventionaldiagnostic artifacts was a critical operational issue because those sites were expected to provide theevidence for gathering that general ethnographic analogy predicted as the dominant component ofPaleoindian subsistence system. Radiocarbon dates or a clear association with late Pleistocene-earlyHolocene deposits would provide direct evidence that such sites are of Paleoindian age, but there are alsoseveral lines of indirect evidence that can be used to identify potential Paleoindian sites. First, the lithicreduction strategy may be distinctive as Paleoindian lithic technology incorporates intensive reduction oflarge biface blanks and the production of blades from prepared cores. Second, expedient tools at knownPaleoinidan sites tend to exhibit more extensive retouch and shaping than comparable tools from Archaicand Ceramic period sites. Third, a relatively high proportion of high-quality, non-local lithic rawmaterials may be indicative of a Paleoindian occupation.It is also possible that the assumption that such sites will lack diagnostic projectile points is erroneous.Among modern hunter-gatherers, gathering typically occurs within the foraging radius of residentialcamps (Kelly 1995:111-141), and plant resources are generally brought back to the camp for processing.Consequently, if the Paleoindians were primarily dependent on gathering, then the evidence for plantresources is more likely to be found at residential camps than at specialized plant processing localities.As maintenance and refurbishment of the curated hunting tool kit also tends to occur at residential camps,projectile points and other diagnostics may be present. When combined with indications that aPaleoindian subsistence strategy based primarily on hunting is not at odds with the ethnographic data,there seems reason to doubt that there is a class of Paleoindian sites that remains unrecognized. Thisargument does not diminish the importance of developing additional criteria to identify Paleoindian sites,but it does suggest that any evidence for the use of plant resources and small game by Paleoindian groupswill probably be found at the residential camps.That little such evidence has so far emerged from excavations of Paleoindian camps can be attributed totwo factors. First, organic preservation at sites of this age tends to be poor, and the remains of plant andsmall game animals are much less likely to be preserved than the bones of large mammals. Second, andthis is the key point of the arguments made by Sebastian and Larralde, intensive efforts to recover suchevidence are rare because archaeologists have focused their investigations primarily on kill sites and thebig-game hunting component of the subsistence system.Poor organic preservation poses a severe limitation on research, and a full understanding of thePaleoindian subsistence strategy may not be achievable barring the discovery of unusually well-preservedsites. Nevertheless, progress can be made toward that objective by giving a higher priority to the searchfor evidence of the use of plants and small game. More emphasis should be given to the investigation ofresidential camps and to Paleoindian components in upland settings and other locations outside of theplains-savannah habitat. The methods commonly used to recover small plant and animal remains fromArchaic and later sites such as flotation should be routinely employed during these investigations, andother methods for recovering more resistant plant remains such as phytoliths should be explored.Analysis of the lithic assemblages should also give greater emphasis to wear pattern and residue analysesof the expedient tools to identify implements that were not part of the hunting tool kit. Finally, analysesof Paleoindian faunal assemblages should give more consideration to assemblage diversity and therelative importance of any minor elements in the overall subsistence system.None of these research tactics are likely to yield positive results quickly, nor given the previousdiscussion, do I expect them to provide evidence that the Paleoindians were not primarily dependent onhunting large game. They do represent an attempt to test that hypothesis, however, and they could give usa more complete understanding of Paleoindian diet and of the backup strategies employed by Paleoindiangroups.4-26