http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20112.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20113.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20114.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Profile View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20116.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal/ Dorsal View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20117.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal/ Dorsal View- Lima-Igl


Material is Brushy Creek Black: A form of Edwards Plateau Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20109.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20110.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20108.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal/ Dorsal View- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20148.jpg

Possible PreClovis Uniface- 1.25"- Dorsal View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20149.jpg

Possible PreClovis Uniface- 1.25"- Proximal/ Dorsal View- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally-altered Brushy Creek Black: A form of Edwards Plateau Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20395.jpg

Possible PreClovis Uniface- Distal/ Dorsal View- 3.75"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20396.jpg

Possible PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 3.75"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20397.jpg

Possible PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 3.75"- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20256.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20257.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20258.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl


Material is Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

PreClovis Uniface- 2.25"- Dorsal View- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201044.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- 2.25"- Ventral View- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20290.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20291.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Profile View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20292.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 2.25"- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- Lima-Igl



PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- Lima-Igl


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20198.jpg

Unifacial Awl- Dorsal View- 1 3/4"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20201.jpg

Unifacial Awl- Proximal/ Dorsal View- 1 3/4"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20199.jpg

Unifacial Awl- Ventral View- 1 3/4"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%20200.jpg

Unifacial Awl- Cross Section View- 1 3/4"- Lima-Igl


Material is Brushy Creek Black: A form of Edwards Plateau Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%201.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View-Romeo-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%202.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View-Romeo-Igl


Material is Edwards Plateau "Rootbeer" Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/clovis%2048.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- Romeo Alluvium




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/clovis%2049.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- Romeo Alluvium


Material is thermally- altered Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201152.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 1.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201153.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 1.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201154.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal View- 1.5"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201155.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal View- 1.5"- Lima-Igl


Material is Brushy Creek Black: A form of Edwards Plateau Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201175.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 2"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201176.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 2"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201177.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal View- 2"- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201178.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal View- 2"- Lima-Igl


Material is Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201197.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 1.5"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201198.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 1.5"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201199.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal View- 1.5"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201200.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal View- 1.5"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201201.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Cross Section- 1.5"- Lima B-Igl


Material is Edwards Plateau "Rootbeer" Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201206.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 2.25"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201207.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 2.25"- Lima B-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201208.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Cross Section- 2.25"- Lima B-Igl


Material is Edwards Plateau Gray Chert.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20165.jpg

Paleo Uniface Fragment- Dorsal View- 2.125"- Tango C-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20166.jpg

Paleo Uniface Fragment- Ventral View- 2.125"- Tango C-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20167.jpg

Paleo Uniface Fragment- Distal View- 2.125"- Tango C-Igl

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20168.jpg

Paleo Uniface- Dorsal View- 1.875"- Foxtrot-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20169.jpg

Paleo Uniface- Ventral View- 1.875"- Foxtrot-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/paleo%20artifact%20170.jpg

Paleo Uniface- Profile- 1.875"- Foxtrot-Igl

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201506.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Dorsal View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201507.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Ventral View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201508.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Left Lateral View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201509.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Right Lateral View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201510.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Distal View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl




http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/preclovis%201511.jpg

PreClovis Uniface- Proximal View- 6cm- In Situ- Lima-Igl

[quote:="DesertRat"]Why make an identical posting in two threads??

Bob

Just to cover both categories.

I was thinking about adding the specimen to the flake tool category, but finally decided the specimen was a uniface versus a purely flake tool.

What do you think? :?

Some of the definitions get blurred to me.

At the risk of inviting an onslaught of photos and web site link postings to this thread, I still don't get why any of this stuff is "pre-clovis".

Scott

[quote:="scottyj432"]At the risk of inviting an onslaught of photos and web site link postings to this thread, I still don't get why any of this stuff is "pre-clovis".

Scott

The basal gravels along Brushy Creek have been determined, through thorough investigations by University of Texas (Collins et al.), to be older than the Clovis era:

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=60&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=16&mforum=nohandaxesinus

Note that Collins' dates are all expressed in RCYBP.

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/wilson-leonard%203.jpg

The specimens that I'm claiming to be preClovis have eroded out of these weakly cemented basal gravels:

http://www.archaeologyfieldwork.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=50&start=0

I am glad I finally took the time to follow those links. Am I getting this right? Collins, citing two references, both of which are himself, seems to be saying that he knows the precise time frame for the beginning of the "Clovis Era"?

Actually, Collins' reports date Clovis as significantly different from the mainstream. 96 AMS analyses place his Clovis deposits at ca. 11,500. Waters et al. report no proof that Clovis extends beyond 11,050. I'm hard pressed to think of a PI that has more experience with Clovis techs than Collins.

Interestingly, the Aubrey Site Clovis artifacts date to 11570 +/- 70 .

Collins reports artifacts, in very distinct strata, underlying Clovis-bearing strata, which bear no resemblance to Clovis techs.

Then again, Collins reports artifacts from strata dated to 11,300-11,400 (bone bed) that bear no resemblance to Clovis.

I get your point: I have recovered artifacts from 12,000 strata that seem similar to Clovis techs:

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&mforum=nohandaxesinus


http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=29&mforum=nohandaxesinus

So maybe I’ve focused too much on time and not enough on tech to come up with my preClovis claim. If correct, then preClovis in the academic literature needs to be redefined: focusing more on tech than time.

Good point.

[quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]So maybe I’ve focused too much on time and not enough on tech to come up with my preClovis claim. If correct, then preClovis in the academic literature needs to be redefined: focusing more on tech than time.

Good point.

Bingo. And the same goes for everyone else Charlie. But what I want to see is a formalized tool assemblage, not just a bunch of suspicious-looking rocks (not just referring to yours, and no offense intended), and we need to see intact features with proper provenience, and datable material that has been properly dated, etc.

This idea that preclovis tools look like A. afarensis could have made them does not work for me. Anyone capable of surviving a trip half way around the world as game hunters (a total supposition mind you) prior to 11.5 kya is surely going to have skills in napping some hot-spit tools to do the job. Additionally, and a particular point that chaps my hide, is that people running around in other parts of the northern latitudes prior to 11.5 kya HAD hot-spit tools in their assemblage, so what makes people think that all of a sudden, upon entering NA they suddenly revert back to a pre-Homo habilis toolkit?. (Of course, they could have had crud as well, and we all chose to ignore it as specious).

[quote:="FireArch"][quote:="Charlie Hatchett"]So maybe I’ve focused too much on time and not enough on tech to come up with my preClovis claim. If correct, then preClovis in the academic literature needs to be redefined: focusing more on tech than time.

Good point.

Bingo. And the same goes for everyone else Charlie. But what I want to see is a formalized tool assemblage, not just a bunch of suspicious-looking rocks (not just referring to yours, and no offense intended), and we need to see intact features with proper provenience, and datable material that has been properly dated, etc.

This idea that preclovis tools look like A. afarensis could have made them does not work for me. Anyone capable of surviving a trip half way around the world as game hunters (a total supposition mind you) prior to 11.5 kya is surely going to have skills in napping some hot-spit tools to do the job. Additionally, and a particular point that chaps my hide, is that people running around in other parts of the northern latitudes prior to 11.5 kya HAD hot-spit tools in their assemblage, so what makes people think that all of a sudden, upon entering NA they suddenly revert back to a pre-Homo habilis toolkit?. (Of course, they could have had crud as well, and we all chose to ignore it as specious).


…Bingo. And the same goes for everyone else Charlie. But what I want to see is a formalized tool assemblage, not just a bunch of suspicious-looking rocks (not just referring to yours, and no offense intended), and we need to see intact features with proper provenience, and datable material that has been properly dated, etc…”

Agreed. In this spirit, I see the following possibilities:

A pattern of unfluted lanceolate bifaces may be forming in the 14-18kya (switching back to calendar years here) range:

1. Meadowcroft-

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=83&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=3&mforum=nohandaxesinus


2. Cactus Hill-

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=74&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=3&mforum=nohandaxesinus

3. Buttermilk Creek- formal report due out shortly. Waters has informally reported an unfluted lanceolate biface recovered in secure, 15kya strata, just downstream from Gault. Collins also informally reports artifacts in secure 15kya-16kya strata at Gault, but all he’s reported is debitage, as far as I know.

A pattern of bipointed bifaces may also be forming in the 14-16kya range:

1. Monte Verde-

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/clovis/jpegs/clovis2.jpeg

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=81&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=6&mforum=nohandaxesinus

http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/fig2a.jpg

http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/fig4.jpg

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=81&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8&mforum=nohandaxesinus

http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/

2. Taima-Taima-

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/images/015-taima-taima.gif

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/taima-taima-text3.html

3. Hueyatlaco- controversial, yes, but even opponents of a claimed very old age seem to be convinced that the strata is much older than any deposits known to contain Clovis techs. I’ll be very conservative and date the deposits 14kya-

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/laurel%20leaf%20hueyatlaco.jpg

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/00043.png

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?t=66&start=0&mforum=nohandaxesinus


4. Local observations from minimum 14,000kya strata-


http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?t=15&start=0&mforum=nohandaxesinus

http://www.phpbb88.com/nohandaxesinus/viewtopic.php?mforum=nohandaxesinus&t=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=1&mforum=nohandaxesinus


And the Western Stemmed Tradition (Windust in particular) bumps up closely to the currently accepted Clovis age range.

So we’ve got three different techs possibly being utilized around the Americas before or around the “sanctioned” range of Clovis.

Interestingly, at least IMO, is that mtDNA Mhg N (Hgs A, B and X) is the oldest documented Mhg documented in the Americas (Paisley Caves).

Onward through the fog.

…Of course, they could have had crud as well, and we all chose to ignore it as specious…

Which we shouldn’t, IMO, if it is found within secure strata that has been objectively dated. The only problem is this stuff isn’t diagnostic of any particular tech or culture. But it does indicate human presence in the Americas…again, IMO.

[quote:="DesertRat"]I am glad I finally took the time to follow those links. Am I getting this right? Collins, citing two references, both of which are himself, seems to be saying that he knows the precise time frame for the beginning of the "Clovis Era"? So anything older than, oh say, 12k-ish BP is Pre-Clovis? Not just evidence for an earlier start to Clovis? And, further, this assertion (and other "Pre-Clovis") claims are strengthened by the fact that we know everything there is to know about the diversity of implements in the Clovis toolkit?

So...if I were to find a Clovis point in a context objectively datable to 13,500 BP, I would have a Pre-Clovis Clovis point? Would that be evidence for Pre-Clovis time travel?

Bob

Now it's your turn, Bob. Can you demonstrate, conclusively, Clovis techs recovered from strata older than 14kya? To every point there is a counterpoint.

Have you found a Clovis point dated to 13,500 BC? Has anyone else?

Gotcha.

Regardless, I do like your point about the beginning of Clovis and the implications for those (like myself) who automatically assign a 14kya artifact to preClovis. As I said, there are a couple of Clovis sites in Texas (Aubrey and Wilson-Leonard) that are probably older than current "research" allows.