Adovasio Et Al 1978

7/29/2019 Adovasio Et Al 1978

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adovasio-et-al-1978 1/21

Society for American Archaeology

0HDGRZFURIW5RFNVKHOWHU$Q2YHUYLHZ$XWKRUV-0$GRYDVLR-'*XQQ-'RQDKXHDQG56WXFNHQUDWK6RXUFH$PHULFDQ$QWLTXLW\9RO1R2FWSS3XEOLVKHGE\Society for American Archaeology

6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/279496 .

$FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.75.19.130 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:13:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/279496?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/stable/279496?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam



RepoRtS

MEADOWCROFT ROCKSHELTER, 1977: AN OVERVIEW

J.M. Adovasio, J.D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath

Meadowcroft Rockshelter is a deeply stratified multicomponent site in Washington County, southwestern

Pennsylvania. The 11 well-defined stratigraphic units identified at the site span at least 16,000 years and

perhaps 19,000 years of intermittent occupation by groups representing all of the major cultural stages/periodsnow recognized in northeastern North America. Throughout the extant sequence, the site served as a locus forhunting, collecting, and food-processing activities, which involved the seasonal exploitation of the immediately

adjacent Cross Creek Valley and contiguous uplands. Presently, Meadowcroft Rockshelter represents one ofthe earliest well-dated evidences of man in the New World as well as the longest occupational sequence in theWestern Hemisphere.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter (36WH297) is a stratified, multicomponent site located 48.27 air km

(78.84 km via road) southwest of Pittsburgh and 4.02 surface km northwest of Avella in

Washington County, Pennsylvania (Fig. 1). The site is situated on the north bank of Cross Creek, a

small tributary of the Ohio, which lies some 12.16 km to the west. The exact location of the site is

40? 17' 12" N, 80? 29' 0" W (USGS Avella, Pennsylvania 7.5' Quadrangle).

Meadowcroft Rockshelter is oriented roughly east-west, with a southern exposure, and stands

some 15.06 m above Cross Creek and 259.90 m above sea level. The area protected by the extant

overhang is ca. 62 m2,while the overhang itself is some 13 m above the modern surface of the site.

In addition to the water potentially available from Cross Creek, springs are abundant in the im-

mediate vicinity of the shelter. The prevailing wind is west to east across the mouth of the shelter,

providing almost continuous ventilation and ready egress for smoke and insects.

Geologically,Meadowcroft is located in the

unglaciated portionof the

Appalachianor

Allegheny Plateau, west of the valley and ridge province of the Appalachian Mountains and

northwest of the Appalachian Basin. The surface rocks of this region are layered sedimentaryrocks of Middle to Upper Pennsylvanian Age (Casselman Formation). The predominant lithologiesare shale, quartz sandstone, limestone, and coal in decreasing order of abundance. Deformation

is very mild, with a regional dip of 3? to 5 to the southwest.

Topographically, the region within which Meadowcroft is located is maturely dissected. More

than 50% of the 14,164.3 ha Cross Creek watershed is in valley slopes, with upland and valleybottom areas in the minority. Maximum elevations in the Cross Creek drainage are generallyabove 396 m. At the divides on the east, elevations are above 426 m. Elevations at stream level are

310 m at Rea on the South Fork, 276 m at Avella, and 193 m normal pool level at the confluence

with the Ohio River.

Within the Cross Creek watershed, the main stem of Cross Creek flows for some 31.3 km. Themaximum north-south width of the watershed is approximately 15 km. The prevailing stream pat-tern is dendritic, with numerous small creeks and runs supplying the main stem of Cross Creek.

The steep gradient headwaters and tributaries of Cross Creek have their sources in the hills of cen-

tral Washington County. Cross Creek and its major tributaries-the North, Middle, and South

J.M. Adovasio, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

J.D. Gunn, Division of Social Sciences, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX 78285.

J. Donahue, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260.

R. Stuckenrath, Radiation Biology Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, 12441 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, MD

20852.

632





REPORTS

Figure 1. Location of Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Map shows southwest quadrant of Washington County,

Pennsylvania. Contour intervals are in feet.

Forks-have an average gradient of .4%. Most of the gradient is in the upper portions of the

watershed, where the streams are small and of low volume. The drainage is northwestward to

westward toward the West Virginia-Ohio border and the Ohio River.

Cross Creek exhibits a markedly asymmetric drainage pattern, with the northern tributaries

significantly shorter than the southern. Consequently, the drainage area to the south of Cross

Creek is much larger than its counterpart to the north. This condition is probably the result of the

drainage pattern being superimposed on the 3?-5 regional dip noted above.

Adjacent to the Cross Creek are 4 other major watersheds. Harmon Creek to the north parallelsCross Creek, as does Buffalo Creek to the south. Both are quite similar to Cross Creek in structure,

and both flow into the Ohio River. To the northeast is Raccoon Creek. This is a north-flowingstream which joins the Ohio just west of its confluence with the Beaver River. To the east and

southeast, the large Chartiers Creek watershed flows north and joins the Ohio near its inceptionat Pittsburgh.

Present topography throughout the area under discussion was generated during the latter por-tion of the Pleistocene, when increased precipitation and runoff caused extensive downcutting.The area was unaffected by glacial ice, since the Pleistocene boundary (Fig. 2) only extends

southward to northern Beaver County (some 83 km north).Two terrace levels are discernible along Cross Creek and can be related to Pleistocene history.

A discontinuous and largely dissected terrace occurs between 304.2 m and 320 m. This

represents an Illinoian terrace, which occurs regionally at 60.96 to 91.4 m above present streamlevels. A second, more continuous terrace is present at 3.04 to 9.14 m above present stream level.

The lower terrace is also recognized regionally and is generally interpreted as a Wisconsinan

633





AMERICAN NTIQUITY

Figure 2. General view of the upper Ohio Valley and contiguous regions, showing maximum southwardextension of Wisconsin glacial advance (modified from Wagner et al. 1974).

feature(Wagner

et al.1974).

Meadowcroft Rockshelter is located in colluvial sediments emplaced

by rockfall and grain-by-grain attrition from the overhanging sandstone cliff and by sheet wash

from the upland surface. Herein, it should be noted that colluvium as used here does not implymass movement or wasting of the sediments at Meadowcroft. The only clear indication of

postdepositional movement is deformation caused by large rockfalls pushing through sediments at

the point of impact. Colluvium here is thus used only to indicate sediments accumulating by

rockfall, attrition, and sheet wash.

At the time of initial occupation of the shelter, Cross Creek was probably 5 to 10 m higher than

at present and thus somewhat closer and slightly more accessible to the habitation locus. The

radiocarbon chronology indicates that the colluvial sediments under excavation at Meadowcroft

were being emplaced by at least Late Wisconsinan times.

EXCAVATIONPROCEDURESMeadowcroft Rockshelter was mapped with an alidade and plane table and a grid system was

established, originally consisting of 2 meter square units. All horizontal coordinates were reck-

634 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

oned relative to this grid. In addition, a permanent elevational datum was affixed to the north wall

of the shelter from which all vertical measurements on all observable phenomena were taken.

This combination of a fixed elevational datum and a grid provided absolute Cartesian coordinates

on all features encounteredduring

the excavation. Thegrid

was amended wherenecessary

into 1

m or smaller units and was used solely as a recording device.

Excavations were initiated by a south to north trench, which proceeded from outside to inside

the dripline. This trench was subsequently expanded, as the situation dictated, to its present con-

figuration (Fig. 3).All excavation was done by natural levels and, where possible, by microstrata within natural

strata of considerable thickness. All fill from all strata except Stratum IIa was processed through1/4 in mesh screen; fill from Stratum IIa was processed with water through 1/8 in mesh screen. In

addition, a constant volume sample of fill (2900 cc) was taken from each natural stratum, or

micro-stratum within each natural stratum, from every excavated square of the site. This samplewas then processed by water or hydrogen peroxide flotation to insure a representative recoveryof materials which would ordinarily pass through 1/4 or 1/8 in mesh.

All features were 3-dimensionally mapped, and all pertinent phenomena were photographed 4times each in a 4 by 5 in black and white format and a 35 mm color format.

All artifacts, etc. were initially processed and labeled on the site, and all recovered data were

subsequently computerized for retrieval and analysis. During the 1976 season, a computer ter-

MEADOWCROFTROCKSHELTER(36WH297)

PLAN VIEW

-----DRIP LINE

- EXTENT OF EXCAVATION 1977

IMETER J. GUNN-SEP75 .

A FERENCI-OCT76,77

S2 -I

Figure 3. Plan view of Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Dark lines indicate limits of excavation to date.

635





AMERICAN NTIQUITY

minal with direct connections to the University of Pittsburgh's main computer facility was located

in the rockshelter to facilitate the coding and proveniencing of field data. The terminal was

reinstalled for the 1977 field season.

Duringthe 417

working daysof the 1973-1977

projects,some 60.5 m2of surface area inside the

dripline and 46.6 m2outside the dripline were excavated, resulting in the removal of over 230 m3

of fill. Because of the inordinate amount of rockfall in the fill of the site, 99% of the excavation

was done with trowels or smaller instruments.

GEOLOGYOF SITE

Meadowcroft Rockshelter is formed beneath a cliff of Morgantown-Connellsville sandstone; the

Morgantown-Connellsville is a thick fluvial or channel sandstone within the Casselman Formation

(Flint 1955) of the Pennsylvanian Period (Fig. 4). The cliff above the rockshelter is 22 m high (Fig.

5); the sandstone was deposited as 2 superimposed point bar orandstoneas posed bar sequences. The rock

within each sequence changes from cross-bedded, coarse-grained sandstone to laminated, fine-

grained sandstone. The sandstone decreases in thickness along the Cross Creek Valley both to the

east and west, reaching its maximum thickness at the rockshelter site.

The Morgantown-Connellsville is an immature sandstone composed predominantly of quartz

grains with minor amounts of mica, feldspar, and rock fragments. Some zones within the cliff se-

quence are cemented by calcium carbonate. The rock ranges from subgraywacke to protoquart-zite in composition (Pettijohn 1975).

The rock unit immediately underlying the Morgantown-Connellsville sandstone was exposed

during the 1975 field season. It consists of shale, a less resistant lithology which caused the

development of ae-entf a re-entrant or rockshelter beneath the sandstone cliff.heliff. The ceiling of this re-

entrant or rockshelter is gradually migrating upward and cliffward as erosion occurs both on the

rockshelter ceiling and the cliff face. Within the shelter excavation, the recession of the dripline,representing the cliff edge position, can be plainly seen.

Eleven natural strata have been distinguished in Meadowcroft Rockshelter to date. These have

been assigned numerical designators beginning with the earliest stratum (I)and proceeding to the

latest (XI). A composite profile of the stratigraphy is presented in Figure 6.

Very extensive field and laboratory analyses indicate that sediment emplacement at Meadow-

croft Rockshelter is the result of weathering and downslope movement of boulder- to clay-sized

sediment grains, both from the uplanrdsurface and the sandstone cliff. The result is a colluvial

pile of sediments with thickness in excess of 3 m.

Three distinct sources are supplying sediments to the colluvial pile. Rockfall provides larger

grained rock fragments; sizes can range from granules (less than 2 mm) to large boulders. The

second sediment source is grain-by-grain attrition from the sandstone cliff. The sediments de-

rived from this source consist of individual sand grains (predominantly quartz with size ranges of0.250 to 0.088 mm) and small rock fragments (generally less than 4 mm in size). This source pro-

vides a small but constant "rain" of sediment onto the colluvial pile. The third sediment source

consists of sheet wash from the upland surface during rainstorms. This is apparently the only

source for clay-sized material, a relatively common grain size within the colluvial pile.

Stratification as observed in the excavation profiles consists essentially of thick, poorly sorted

units. Sandstone blocks which have fallen from the Morgantown-Connellsville cliff are scattered

throughout the sediment, occasionally in large concentrations indicative of major rooffall

episodes.The existence of a distinct dripline shows that sediment was not transported after falling from

the cliff and upland region. Rather, accumulation was a slow process, and there is no evidence of

stream or lake deposits. If the sediments had been reworked by stream or lake currents, a finer

stratification would be expected, and any indication of a dripline would have been erased.

636 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

MONON-

GAHELA

~I2~

-- -"

~ '_

czL~ zr5c3

LUWE- rPlT T unRG ;3, LS, AND UNUtRCLAY

LITTLE PITTSBURGH COAL

PITTSBURGH LS, SS, AND SH

CONNELLSVILLE SS

LITTLE CLARKSBURG COALCLARKSBURG CLAY AND SH

MORGANTOWN SS AND SH

WELLERSBURG COALWELLERSBURG CLAYSTONEBIRMINGHAM SCHENLEY REDBEDS

BIRMINGHAM SS AND SH

DUQUESNE COALDUQUESNE LS AND SH

GRAFTON SS

GRAFTON SH AND REDBEDS

AMES LSHARLEM COAL

PITTSBURGH REDBEDS

UPPER SALTSBURG SS AND SH

BAKERSTOWN COALBAKERSTOWN LS

LOWER AND MIDDLE SALTSBURG SS AND SH

WOODS RUN LS

NADINE LS

LOWER BAKERSTOWN SH

PINE CREEK LS AND SH

BUFFALO SS

BRUSH CREEK LS AND SH

BRUSH CREEK UNDERCLAY AND COAL

UPPER MAHONING SS

MAHONING UNDERCLAY AND COAL

MAHONING LS

MAHONING REDBEDS

LOWER MAHONING SS

UPPER FREEPORT UNDERCLAY AND RIDER COAL

Figure4. Generalized

stratigraphicsection for the

Conemaugh (Pennsylvanian)rocks in southwestern

Pennsylvania. The Glenshaw Formation includes all units from the Crafton Shale and redbeds to the lower

Pittsburgh sandstone, limestone, and underclay. In the area of Meadowcroft Rockshelter, the Connellsvilleand Morgantown sandstone are combined as 1 unit.

z

z

-J

C')zzILJ

a.

CONE -

MAUGH

12'

63'

30'

84'

81'

39'

33'

54'

45'

39'

27'

48'

45'

ALLE-

GHENYRA 76

14 tI I I DUVM"M I UAL

- _- --- _- C I Ain l Or A--meI

~-- - -- -II IIDDrC COrCDnO-r tnArl

D I g,,,

L

'I

I

-4'7

l

637

PITTSBURGH COAL

urrPPE r REEPORT OAL





638 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]

MEADOWCROFT ROCKSHELTER

(36WH297)

-22METERSo o SOIL

-:'

0:''_ -20

-/'- --T -- --~.--~-^- FINE-GRAINLAMINAR -18

- = --- SANDSTONE

POINT BAR .- L ---= 16SEQUENCE 2 =

_ ~~~- ,- - 14

'/"

-' COARSE-"- 's-~---" GRAIN,CROSS

-12-- - BEDDED - 12SANDSTONE

FINE-GRAIN,

0

LAMINARSANDSTONE .8

POINT BAR -SEQUENCE I COARSE -6

( X , GRAIN,CROSS<- - EDDED

'-'" SANDSTONE-4

-2

?. ' COLLUVIUM

JOEL GUNN 4JAN76

Figure 5. Diagrammatic sketch of Morgantown-Connellsville sandstone at Meadowcroft Rockshelter,

showing change in sedimentary structure and grain size through the 2-point bar sequences.

SUMMARY OF CULTURALFEATURES

The most common cultural features encountered during the 1973-1977 field seasons at

Meadowcroft Rockshelter are firepits of a variety of configurations (162), ash and charcoal lenses

(25), large burned areas herein designated as firefloors (25), and refuse/storage pits (29). Also en-

countered were concentrations of lithics and/or bone, suggestive of manufacturing and/or activityareas (5), and possible human (1) and animal (1) interments. The frequency of these features is

shown in Table 1.As indicated, cultural features are associated with all strata except Stratum I. Though in-

completely quantified at present, the kinds and frequencies of features encountered during the

1977 excavations appear to closely parallel those of the 1973-1976 distributions.

RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY

A total of 70 samples were submitted for radiocarbon assay to the Radiation Biology Labora-

tory of the Smithsonian Institution. In all but 2 cases, the charcoal was derived from firepits,

firefloors, or charcoal lenses within deposits. The exceptions represent portions of completelycarbonized simple plaited basketry fragments. To date, 36 of the samples have been processed,and the results are presented in absolute stratigraphic order in Table 2.

As indicated, the initial occupation of the shelter is positively ascribable to the fifteenth millen-nium B.C., while the latest radiocarbon assay on purely aboriginal occupation materials is A.D.

1265 =fi80 (SI-2363). Recently, the deepest microstrata with Stratum IIa have produced 2 radiocar-





REPORTS

Figure 6a. Composite north-south profile from Meadowcroft Rockshelter (36WH297). Section shown isfrom 13N to 8N. Continued in Figures 6b and 6c.

bon dates in excess of 17,000 B.C., suggesting an even earlier initial occupation. Cross-dated lithicsand ceramic remains from Strata VIII-XI indicate continuing occupation or utilization of the

shelter through the early historic period as attested by the radiocarbon date of A.D. 1775 ? 50

(SI-3013).The radiocarbon sequence is consistent with the observed stratigraphy and currently

represents not only the longest occupational sequence in Eastern North America but also one ofthe longest in this hemisphere.

Since some questions have been raised regarding the pre-10,000 B.C. C-14 dates from Meadow-croft Rockshelter, the possible sources of contamination should be discussed. Coal deposits existin nearby outcrops, and thin layers of vitrinite can be found in the rockshelter itself immediately

underlying the interface of Stratum I and lowest Stratum IIa. The vitrinite is separated from theStratum IIa occupations by some 30 cm of sterile deposits. Vitrinite layers currently visible were

exposed only recently by frequent sweeping and cleaning during the course of excavation.

639





AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Figure 6b. Composite north-south profile from Meadowcroft Rockshelter (36WH297). Section shown isfrom 8N to 3N. Continued in Figure 6c.

Neither vitrinite nor coal is soluble in anything less potent than some rather exotic reagentsknown primarily to the coal-chemistry industry, and it may be taken as fact that the dispersion of

either of these materials throughout the rockshelter deposits could have taken place only as parti-culate matter physically carried by water percolations.

It would be virtually impossible to intrude such materials into Stratum IIa deposits in recent

time because of the remarkable depth of hard clay deposits intervening between the vitrinite and

the earliest occupations at the site. In the past, when Stratum IIa levels were surficial, any admix-

ture from the deeper vitrinite layer into those levels would have required deliberate excavation

or heavy mechanical mixing. In the unlikely case that one of these processes had taken place, the

C-14 age of any charcoals so affected would be too old. Mathematical calculations of C-14 ages

and concentrations indicate that in order for a sample truly 10,000 years old to appear to be16,000 years old, it would have to be contaminated by either coal or vitrinite in an amount equal-ing 35% by weight.

640[Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

Figure6c. Compositenorth-south profile fromMeadowcroft Rockshelter 36WH297).Section shown isfrom 3N to -2N.

This reasoning, while implausible, leads to a most awkward conclusion. It is only reasonable to

assume that if this mechanism was operating during Stratum IIa times and the same vitrinite

layers and coal existed throughout the remainder of Meadowcroft occupation as well, the same

mechanism would have affected each depositional sequence in turn in like manner. Note, then,that the addition of 35% by weight of coal or vitrinite to produce a date of A.D. 1265 ?4 80

(SI-2363) for Late Woodland occupation would mean that the sample, if "uncontaminated," was

deposited perhaps as late as 4000 or 5000 years in the future. A Late Woodland occupation of

A.D. 6000 would be a difficult matter to explain as we stand here.

It is remotely possible that radiocarbon laboratory personnel would not, upon the rigorousexamination given to every sample, notice the admixture of perhaps 5% by weight of vitrinite or

coal; this would engender an error of perhaps 500 to 600 years. The suggestion that laboratorypersonnel could fail to note that a full third or more of the sample was coal or vitrinite implieswitless incompetence of astronomical dimensions. Further, each Stratum IIa sample was submit-

641





AMERICAN NTIQUITY

Table 1. Frequency of Cultural Features at Meadowcroft Rockshelter by Stratum.

Ash/charcoal Lithic/bone Refuse/storageStratum Firepits lenses Firefloors concentrations pits Burials Total

XI 4 2 1(dog) 7X 2 1 3

IX 4 1 5

VIII 2 2

VII 8 1 1 2 1 (human) 13

VI 5 2 7

V 21 3 1 1 10 36

IV 51 5 5 10 71

III 37 8 10 3 58

lib 14 2 7 3 26

IIa 14 1 2 1 18

I 2 2

Totals 162 25 25 5 29 2 248

ted to binocular microscopic examination by third parties before dating, and no coal grains were

observed. Only the professional skeptic could envision Meadowcroft dates being significantly con-

taminated by radiocarbon-infinite particulate materials.

A second suggested source of contamination is that stemming from some older and more readily

soluble organic material from sources neither known nor suggested. All of the samples from

Stratum IIa were given a "nitration" pretreatment for the removal of all uncharred cellulose, in-

cluding plant root fragments. In addition, only that size fraction remaining after wet-screening on

63/t sieves was used, in order to avoid the problem of clay-bound organics. One of the steps of this

chemical pretreatment is the boilingof

the samplein sodium

hydroxide,which removes humic-

and basic-soluble contaminants. Another step is that of boiling the sample in hydrochloric acid to

remove carbonates and fulvic acids; the customary addition of sodium hypochlorite during the

latter step effectively bleaches the charcoal cellulose. Further, the sample is boiled in concen-

trated sulfuric and nitric acids and drenched with acetone. Every step of this multiphase process

Table 2. RadiocarbonChronologyromMeadowcroftRockshelteras per March, 1978

(Note: All Dates Are Uncorrected in Absolute Stratigraphic Order).

Stratum

(field designation) Provenience/description Lab designation Date Cultural period

XI IF-31 Charcoal from firepit/ SI-3013 A.D. 1775 + 50 Late Woodland/Historic

middle 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepits

Charcoal from firepit/

upper 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepits

Charcoal from firepits/middle 1/3 of unit

Charcoal from firepitsand lensesCharcoal from firepits/

upper 1/3 of unit

Samples not yetprocessedSI-2363

Samples not yetprocessedSI-2047SI-3026

Samples not yetprocessedSI-3024

SI-3027SI-3022SI-2362

Late Woodland

A.D. 1265 ? 80 Late Woodland

Late Woodland

A.D. 1025 ? 65A.D. 660 ? 60

A.D. 285 ? 65

A.D. 160 ? 60A.D. 70 + 65

125 ? 125 B.C.

Late Woodland

Middle/EarlyWoodland

Middle/EarlyWoodland

X (F-25)

IX (F-9)

VIII (F-12)

VII (F-13)

VI (F-63)

V (F-14)

642 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

Table 2 (continued).

Stratum

(field designation) Provenience/description Lab designation Date Cultural period

IV (F-16) Charcoal from firepits/upper 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firefloor/middle 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepit/middle 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepits/firefloors lower 1/3 of

unitIII (F-18) Charcoal from firepits/

upper 1/3 of unit

lib (F-46 Upper)

IIa (F46 Lower)

Charcoal from firepit/

middle 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepits/firefloors lower 1/3 ofunitCharcoal from firepit/upper 1/3 of unit

Carbonized basketryfragment/ upper 1/3 ofunitCharcoal from firepits/middle 1/3 of unit

Charcoal from firefloor/

lower 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepit/lower 1/3 of unitCharcoal from firepits/firefloors lower 1/3 ofunit

Charcoal from firepits/upper 1/3 of unitaCharcoal from firepits/firefloors middle 1/3 ofunitCharcoal from firepits/lower 1/3 of unit

SI-2051SI-1674SI-1665

SI-1668

Samples not yetprocessed

SI-2066SI-1664SI-2053SI-1679


SI-1681

SI-1680

SI-2063SI-2058SI-2054SI-1685SI-2055

SI-2056

340 +

375 +

865 ?

870 +

980 ?1115 ?

1140 ?

1305 ?

90 B.C.75 B.C.80 B.C.

75 B.C.

75 B.C.80 B.C.

115 B.C.115 B.C.

Early Woodland/Transitional

Transitional BroadspearTradition)/Archaic

1260 ? 95 B.C.

1820 ? 90 B.C.

2000 ? 240 B.C.

2020 ? 85 B.C.2055 ? 85 B.C.2870 ? 85 B.C. Archaic

4720 ? 140 B.C.

3350 + 130 B.C.


SI-2064SI-2061

Samples not y(processed

SI-2489SI-2065bSI-2488

SI-1872bSI-1686SI-2354

et

Charcoal concentration/ SI-2062

deepest level withinunitCarbonized fragment of SI-2060cut bark-like material/

possible basketry frag-ment deepest levelwithin unit

I (F-85) Charcoal from lenses at SI-2121

(Omega Unit) interface of Strata I/IIa SI-1687

6060 ? 110 B.C.7165 ? 115 B.C.

10,850 ? 870 B.C. Paleoindian

11,290 ? 1010 B.C.

11,320 ? 340 B.C.

12,975 ? 620 B.C.13,170 ? 165 B.C.

14,255 ? 975 B.C.

17,150 ? 810 B.C. Paleoindian

17,650 + 2400 B.C.

19,430 + 800 B.C. No cultural associations

28,760 ? 1140 B.C.

a Provenience originally listed incorrectly in Adovasio et al. 1975.b Date originally listed incorrectly in Adovasio et al. 1975.

643

7





AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

is followed by a judicious rinsing with distilled water. It is difficult to conjure up an organicmaterial at once soluble in the quietly percolating groundwaters of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and

at the same time resistant to such intense chemical abuse in the laboratory.One of the Stratum IIa samples provided enough basic-soluble material to yield a date of 17,850

4- 280 B.C., some 7000 years older than its completely pretreated counterpart (SI-2488: 11,320 ?-

340 B.C.). It is not uncommon to find such situations in radiocarbon dating, for the basic-soluble

fraction can be carried about through the deposits in any and many directions and from manysources at the whim of local groundwater movements. It is obvious here that older organicmaterials are washing, in solution, into the rockshelter; it is also patently obvious that they are

removable and have been removed from the samples.Some further confidence is elicited by the fact that 2 radiocarbon dates in the 19,000-year

range were obtained on samples of totally different materials, 1 of cut bark and the other of char-

coal, from 2 adjacent squares of the same level. Both physically and chemically, the 2 materials

are susceptible to contamination by various materials to quite different extents, yet the ages are

statistically indistinguishable. Within the radiocarbon fraternity, this last instance is considered

to negate any possibility of major contamination problems. Inter- and intralaboratory techniquesand nalynd the very nature of the deposits indicate thatheeposits indicate that the possibility of significant error in

the early Meadowcroft dates is likely not more than 500 years beyond the normal statistical

counting errors quoted with each date.

ARTIFACTUALREMAINS

Seven classes of artifactual remains have been recovered from Meadowcroft Rockshelter.

These include lithic, bone,one, wood, shell, b asketry, cordage, and ceramic materials. All artifactual

materials are confined to Statum IIa and above. Though space prohibits a detailed discussion of

the materials, certain summary comments are warranted, notably on the Stratum IIa assemblage.

(More complete details on the artifactual remains as well as the site generally are available in

Adovasio et al. 1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1977c, 1979.)The earliest flaked stone assemblage from Meadowcroft Rockshelter is associated with the

deepest occupational floors within basal Stratum II, herein designated as Stratum IIa. This

assemblage presently includes some 13 tools and 104 pieces of flaking debitage recovered during

the 1973-1976 excavations and an additional 300 + specimens recovered in 1976-1977. These

400 odd items were directly associated with the radiocarbon-dated fire features from Stratum lIa

and presently epresent not only the earliest securely dated collection of lithic tools in eastern

North America, but also one of the earliest reliably dated assemblages recovered anywhere in the

Western Hemisphere.Included in this collection are bilaterally retouched rhomboidal flake "knives" (herein

designated as Mungai knives), blades, unifaces, bifaces, gravers and microengravers, denticulate

pieces, and a quantity of lithic debitage (Figs. 7, 8, 9). Notable in this assemblage is an unfluted

lanceolate projectile point recovered from the uppermost living floor in lower Stratum IIa (Fig.10).

It should be stressed that all of the aforementioned artifacts were recovered from units sealed

beneath a rooffall/rock-spalling episode securely dated at ca. 10,000 B.C.

Preliminary analysis of the Stratum IIa lithic assemblage suggests that the original occupants

of Meadowcroft Rockshelter were in no sense "novices" in the manufacture of flaked stone im-

plements. The removal of thin, curved flakes using a ridge as a spine for the next removal, the

presence of sophisticated hinge fracture management techniques, and the use of imported, very

high quality raw materials are all attested to in the Stratum IIa lithic assemblage. All of these are

technological attributes of highly skilled modern and prehistoric flint-knappers. Stated converse-

ly, the Meadowcroft IIa knappers were thoroughly acquainted with "standardized" bifacial thin-

ning techniques and scarcely can be characterized as a band of "rock bashers."

The Stratum IIa blade industry is diminutive, and the resultant products may more accurately

be called microblades. Blade production at the site apparently involved the removal of blanks,

644 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

MUNGAI KNIFE

36WH297-FS 2107

Weight=3.57 grams

Surface\

Dark Grey Chert-

Mottled I cm

a

Faceted, LippedPlatform

H Hinge

tpossible

ImpactFracture

BIFACE OR BIFACE FRAGMENT

36WH297-FS 286-3

Possible PointWeight=5.31 grams Po le

Cor ex

Bulb and-- Break or

Most of PlatformPlatform Remnant

Brown Chert ToTrimmed Lipped Platform

by this Remnant

Flake

Drawn without Potlids

b

Remnant of Platform

I Platform &Bulbar

Fsrimming

FissurFt

FeatheredTermination

BLADE

36WH297-FS 2269

Weight=2.20 grams

Buff chert with 1 cm

blue specks

d

Lipped, facetted and

ground Platform

Feathered

termination

BLADE

36WH297-FS 2591-1

Weight=1.30 grams

Point RetouchGrey chert with

reddish rust patina 1 cm

e

BLADE

36WH297-FS 2094-1

Weight=.98 grams

Dark Grey Chert-Nottled

Lipped Platform

HingedTermination

BLADE

36WH297-FS 2304-1

Weight=1.30 grams

Grey chert with

reddish rust patina 1 cm

f

BLADE

36WH297-FS 1282-1

Slight Lip,Ground Platform

Patina QHinge

HingedI cm Termination

g

BLADE

36WH297-FS 1423-3

Weight= 1.64 grams

Buff and Yellow Chert,Mottled

1 c

Weight=.77 grams

Brown Chert

h

BIFACIAL THINNING FLAKE

36WH297-FS 286-6

Lipped Platform,Soft Spot in

Material4

Nibble

HingedTermination

Weight=3.75 grams

Red Chert

atina

1 cm

i

Lipped, Flat

Platform

Feathered

Termination

Ground, LippedPlatform


Flat, LippedPlatform

Nibbling


Figure 7. Artifacts from deepest occupational floors in lower Stratum Ia at Meadowcroft Rockshelter.

645

Weight=8.88 grams

RBTOUCHED FLAKE

36WH297-FS 1201-4

Black Chert-White Flecks

C





AMERICAN NTIQUITY

BLADE

-Platform end

FS 3019-21 cm

nibbling

MEADOWCROFTROCKSHELTER--STRATUM IIa--J.G. 3OCT76

A

BIFACIAL THINNING FLAKE

36WH297-FS 286-4

Weight=.53 grams

Red Chert

Platform with

Patinated surface

Patina

Collapsed Platform

1 cm

MEADOWCROFTROCKSHELTER-STRATUM IIa-J.G. 120CT75

B

Figure 8. Artifacts from lower Stratum IIa at Meadowcroft Rockshelter: (A) blade located in floor

directly beneath ca. 10,000 B.C. rock-spalling event associated with Old Rooffall; (B) thinning flake fromdeep occupational floor.

more than twice as long as they are wide, from river cobbles or similarly shaped cores. This was

accomplished with a rotary motion of the core, so that each successive blade was removed to the

right of the previous one. Platforms were prepared by grinding and/or faceting.

The lithic assemblages from the remaining strata include diagnostic and well-dated projectile

points of the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic as well as the Transitional, Early, Middle, and Late

Woodland periods. Associated with these points are a variety of unifaces, bifaces, drills, gravers,

denticulates, cobble choppers, and varying quantities of flaking debitage.

With the exception of limestone choppers, which definitely were manufactured at the shelter,there is little evidence of extensive lithic toolmaking at the site. Virtually all of the flaking

debitage consists of minute resharpening flakes, though some decortication and thinning flakes do

occur.

The bulk of the nonlithic artifactual assemblage is confined to Stratum IIb and above. Of par-

ticular note are the occurrences of carbonized simple plaited basketry fragments in Stratum IIa

and IIbas well as crude grit-tempered ceramics with associated dates of 870 i 75 B.C. (SI-1668)and 865 ? 80 B.C. (SI-1665) in Stratum IV. As with lithic artifacts, there is little evidence of ex-

tensive in situ manufacture of any nonlithic tools.

HUMAN, FLORAL, AND FAUNAL REMAINS

Human remains from Meadowcraft Rockshelter are rare and include only one possible inter-ment and 30 + isolated occurrences of individual bones or teeth. All of the aforementioned

materials are confined to Stratum IIb or above.

646 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

MUNGAI KNIFE

36WH297-FS 4616-1

Weight=11.41g

I ?

Black,Fine Grained 1 cm

Chert with Translu-cent Bands

MEADOWCROFT OCKSHELTER--STRATUMIIa--J. G. 30CT76

AMICROENGRAVER

36WH297-FS 2336

Retoucp- Graver

GroundA Lip

Platform 1 cm

MEADOWCROFT OCKSHELTER--STRATUM IIa--J.G. 30CT76

BMICROENGRAVER

Nibbled Retouch 1 Graver

1st Break r- 2 Unifacial Retouch

FS 4615-1 1 cm

2nd Break

MEADOWCROFT OCKSHELTER--STRATUMIIa--J.G. 30CT76

C

Figure 9. Artifacts from lower Stratum Ila at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Note: All specimens werelocated on the same occupational floor directly beneath ca. 10,000 B.C. rock-spalling event associated withOld Rooffall.

Despite the paucity of human bones, faunal remains collectively constitute the most numerous

class of artifacts recovered at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. These include not only vast quantities of

burned and unburned animal bone, but also such diverse items as terrestrial and aquatic mollusk

shells, feathers, claws, insect carapaces, egg shells, and fish scales. Though the bulk of this

material is incompletely analyzed, a few observations can be made.Mammal bones constitute over 64.5% of the bone sample and are found throughout the

Meadowcroft deposits with the exception of Stratum I. The principal species exploited throughout

647





AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

MEADOWCROFTOCKSHELTER36WH297)

Biface from Stratum IIa46cm Occupation Floor, FS 4471

Top Bottom

1 cm

Terminology for bifaces found in situ and cross section ofBiface 4471.

Top Left Top RightBottom Left Bottom Right

Occupation Floor

Sequence of Manufacture

1. Bifacial trimming and shaping2. Basal thinning3. Grinding of basal portion of lateral edges4. Tip broken by impact fracture, scar remnant

on Bottomface,

see illustration5. Reshaping and resharpening

a. Top resharpenedb. Bottom resharpenedc. direction of movement during resharpening

is undetermined because of alternating flake

pattern

J. Gunn 3AUG76

Figure 10. Lanceolate projectile point, lower Stratum Ia at Meadowcroft Rockshelter. This specimenwas located on the same occupational floor as items illustrated in Figure 8(A) and Figure 9 (A-C).

most of the sequence are white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and wapiti (Cervus canaden-

sis), augmented by a variety of smaller game, including birds.Floral remains constitute the second most abundant class of material recovered from

Meadowcroft Rockshelter. These include everything from moderately large sections of tree

trunks and limbs, with and without bark, to minute seeds and seed coats and, hopefully, pollen. In-

tensive scrutiny of the 1973-1977 floral material from both the 1/4 screens and the ca. 3600 pintsof flotation samples, indicates some vegetal remains have been recovered from all occupational

levels, including Stratum IIa.

By far the most common plant remains recovered at Meadowcroft (both on the screens and in

flotation samples) are charred and uncharred seeds of the hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) or

dwarf hackberry (Celtis tenuifolia). Charred and uncharred nutshells, notably walnut (Juglans

spp.) and hickory (Carya spp.), are also common throughout the deposits, as are seeds of

Chenopodium (spp.), Vaccinium (spp.), and Rubus (spp.). Interestingly, some nutshells and charred

chenopod seeds have been recovered from Stratum IIa, though not on the lowest occupationalfloors.

648 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

The data currently at hand suggest that the principal wild plant materials exploited for con-

sumption at Meadowcroft were hackberry, chenopods, and to a somewhat lesser extent, nuts andother berries.

Domesticatesrepresented

at the site include Cucurbitapepo

and Zeamays. Corn initiallyappears in the Meadowcroft sequence in Stratum IV, with 2 directly associated dates of 340 ? 90

(SI-2051) and 375 + 75 B.C. (SI-1674); squash first occurs in basal Stratum IV deposits withassociated dates of 870 - 75 B.C. (SI-1668) and 865 ? 80 B.C. (SI-1665). Presently, these remainsconstitute the earliest occurrence of either cultigen in the upper Ohio Valley. The appearance ofdomesticates appears to coincide with a sharp diminution in the exploitation of hackberries andcertain other wild plants, though this may be a factor of sampling.

OVERVIEW

All of the data recovered from Meadowcroft to date suggest that throughout its history, the siteserved primarily as a locus or station for hunting, collecting, and food processing activities. The

predominance of projectile points, knives, and scrapers in the lithicassemblage,

the abundance offood bone and the remains of edible plants, and the general absence of evidence of extensive insitu manufacture of lithic, ceramic, or shell artifacts strongly support this conclusion.

The archaeological assemblage from Meadowcroft Rockshelter exhibits a number of basic

America, generally. These affinities vary in time, and they are predicated on stylistic and mor-

phological resemblances of one or another of the Meadowcroft artifact classes or their consti-tuents to similar materials from elsewhere. Though detailed comparisons of the Meadowcroft ar-tifacts with other assemblages are both warranted and recognizably profitable, such com-parisons will not be attempted until the Meadowcroft analyses are complete. The principal pur-pose of this report is to provide some basic data on the course of the Meadowcroft Project to date;external correlations will, therefore, be limited to the following observations.

The lower Stratum IIa assemblage, which presently represents the earliest well-dated evidenceof human occupation of the southwest margin of the Northeast, also constitutes the best evidenceto date of the pre-Clovis occupation anywhere in the hemisphere. While MacNeish (1976), Bryan(1969), and Krieger (1964) enumerate a host of localities in North, Middle, and South Americawhere putatively and potentially early materials occur, the simple fact remains that few, if any, ofthese localities fulfill the minimal standards of evidence necessary for "proof positive."

It is our contention, following Wendorf (1966) and Haynes (1969), that poorly substantiateddata will not suffice to document pre-Clovis occupation in this hemisphere. Further, properdocumentation must include excellent stratigraphy coupled with multiple radiocarbon determina-tions of artifacts of indisputable human manufacture in direct association. When these criteriaare applied to the vast majority of allegedly pre-Clovis sites, one or another deficiency is inevit-ably apparent. Specifically, most of these sites possess either questionable or nonexistent

stratigraphy, few (1-3) or no radiocarbon dates, "artifacts" of doubtful origin, poor associations,or any combination of the foregoing. We are not making these observations to disprove or deridethe putative antiquity of other pre-Clovis localities but rather to stress the inherent difficulty ineffectively comparing the early Meadowcroft materials to early assemblages from elsewhere.Given this condition, we still maintain that the following comments are pertinent.

The lower Stratum IIa assemblage does share a number of technological and morphologicalfeatures with other and possibly related assemblages in both eastern and western NorthAmerica. Though fluted points are absent, the bifacial lanceolate point from upper Stratum IIa ismorphologically similar to points recovered in the basal strata of Fort Rock Cave, Oregon(Bedwell 1973); Ventana Cave, Arizona (Haury 1950); Levi, Texas (Alexander 1963); and BonfireShelter, Texas (Dibble and Lorrain 1968). In general, the point is also superficially similar to thePlainview and Milnesand types of the Great Plains region. The Plenge site in New Jersey

(Kraft1973), the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1971), and numerous surface finds attest to thepresence of unfluted lanceolate points in the eastern United States. However, the lanceolate point

649





AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

from Meadowcroft appears to antedate all of these specimens and may, in fact, represent the

ancestral form for both fluted and unfluted Planolike points. Tools similar to the Mungai "knives"

from Meadowcroft appear at the Shoop site in eastern Pennsylvania (Witthoft 1971:29, Plate 4.3);

KelloggFarm, western

Pennsylvania (McConaughyet al.

1977);and

Lindenmeier,Colorado

(Wilmsen 1974:64, Fig. 5.1g). The blades, bifaces, graver, and retouched flakes are more or less

duplicated at Shoop (Witthoft 1952, 1971); Debert, Nova Scotia (MacDonald 1968); Williamson,

Virginia (McCary 1951); Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (Hester 1972); Lindenmeier (Wilmsen

1974); and many other fluted point localities. Moreover, some general resemblances may be seen

both to the unfortunately scant basal assemblages from Fort Rock Cave, Oregon (Bedwell 1973),and Wilson Butte Cave, Idaho (Gruhn 1961), and to the extensive, though undated, lithic materials

from Wells Creek, Tennessee (Dragoo 1973).Given the fact that the Stratum IIa assemblage clearly combines bifacial thinning techniques

with blade tool manufacture, it may well prove that industries like this provided the genesis for, or

represent the substratum of, the widely dispersed fluted point industries of North America. While

a number of general resemblances to Upper Paleolithic complexes in Siberia, Japan, and the

North Pacific littoral can be seen, it is too early to specify the nature or intensity of any connec-tions to these complexes.

The basic affinities of the Early/Middle Archaic materials at Meadowcroft would appear to be

to the south, in the direction of the Carolina Piedmont (assuming the Neville-Stanly-Kanawha form

arises there), while the later Archaic materials are clearly part and parcel of the widespread

Laurentian tradition.

Lastly, the Transitional and Woodland components at the site are essentially local manifesta-

tions of complexes with broad eastern affinities. Notable in this context are obvious ceramic and

lithic ties to the upper Ohio Valley and points generally west and southwest of the shelter.

It is assumed that further work on Meadowcroft will yield much more data, not only on the

"relationships" posited above, but also on the broader implications of the site for North American

prehistory. At the very least, we feel that the data from Meadowcroft do conclusively

demonstrate the presence of pre-fluted-point populations in the New World and, as such,underscore the basic importance of locating and properly excavating and dating other such

localities.

Acknowledgments. Theexcavationsat MeadowcroftRockshelterare conductedunderthe auspices of theArchaeologicalResearch Programof the Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof Pittsburgh.Generousfinancial and logistic support for the 1973-1977 excavations and attendant analyses was provided by the

University of Pittsburgh, the Meadowcroft Foundation, the Alcoa Foundation, the Buhl Foundation, the Leon

Falk Family Trust, the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic Society, and Mr. John Boyle of

Oil City, Pennsylvania. Radiocarbon assays were supplied by Dr. R. Stuckenrath, Radiation BiologyLaboratory, Smithsonian Institution. Line drawings for this report were drafted by R. Andrews, A. Ferenci,and Dr. J. Gunn. This manuscript was edited by R. Carlisle and typed by G. LoAlbo.

The authors wish to stress that this report is by no means final or in any sense complete. Rather, it is an

overview of a very small segment of the work done at Meadowcroft to date. It is assumed, or rather expected,that a portion of the data presented in this paper will be modified, perhaps extensively, by further analyses of

the Meadowcroft data base. The final report on the Meadowcroft Project will be published by the Universityof Pittsburgh Press in 1979-1980.

REFERENCESCITED

Adovasio, J.M., et al.1975 Excavations at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1973-1974: a progress report. Pennsylvania Archaeolo-

gist 45(3):1-30.1977a Meadowcroft Rockshelter: a 16,000 year chronicle. In Amerinds and their paleonvironments in

North America, edited by Walter S. Newman and Bert Salwen, Transactions of the New York Academyof Sciences 228:137-160.

1977b Meadowcroft Rockshelter: retrospect 1976. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47:(2-3).

1977c Meadowcroft Rockshelter. In Early man in the New World from a circum-Pacific perspective,edited by A.L. Bryan, Occasional Papers of the Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, No. 1.

1979 Meadowcroft Rockshelter: retrospect 1977. North American Archaeologist 1(1), in press.

650 [Vol. 43, No. 4,1978]





REPORTS

Alexander, H.L., Jr.1963 The Levi site: a Paleo-Indian campsite in central Texas. American Antiquity 28:510-528.

Bedwell, S.F.1973 Fort Rock Basin: prehistory and environment. University of Oregon Books, Eugene.

Broyles, B.1971 The St. Albans site, Kanawha County, West Virginia: second preliminary report. West Virginia

Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown.Bryan, A.L.

1969 Early Man in America and the Late Pleistocene chronology of western Canada and Alaska. Current

Anthropology 10:339-365.

Dibble, D.S., and D. Lorrain1968 Bonfire Shelter: a stratified bison kill site, Val Verde County, Texas. Texas Memorial Museum, Mis-

cellaneous Papers, No. 1.

Dragoo, D.W.1973 Wells Creek: an Early Man site in Stewart County, Tennessee. Archaeology of Eastern North Amer-

ica 1(1):1-55.Flint, N.K.

1955 Geology and mineral resources of Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological SurveyCounty Report C56A.

Gruhn, R.1961 The archaeology of Wilson Butte Cave, south-central Idaho. Occasional Papers of the Idaho

State College Museum, No. 6.

Haury, E.W.1950 The stratigraphy and archaeology of Ventana Cave, Arizona. University of New Mexico and Univer-

sity of Arizona Presses, Albuquerque and Tucson.

Haynes, C.V.1969 Comment on "Early Man in America and the Late Pleistocene Chronology of Western Canada and

Alaska," by A.L. Bryan. Current Anthropology 10:353-354.

Hester, J.J.1972 Blackwater, Locality No. 1. Publications of the Fort Burgwin Research Center 8. Southern Methodist

University, Dallas.

Kraft, H.C.1973 The Plenge site: a Paleo-Indian occupation site in New Jersey. Archaeology of Eastern North

America 1(1):56-117.Krieger, A.D.

1964 Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by J.D. Jennings and E.

Norbeck, pp. 28-81. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.MacDonald, G.F.

1968 Debert: a Paleo-Indian site in central Nova Scotia. National Museum of Canada AnthropologicalPapers, No. 16. Ottawa.

MacNeish, R.S.1976 Early Man in the New World. American Scientist 63:316-327.

McCary, B. C.1951 A workshop of Early Man in Dinwiddie County, Virginia. American Antiquity 17:9-17.

McConaughy, M. A., J. D. Applegarth, and D. J. Faingnaert1977 Fluted points from Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47 (4):30-36.

Pettijohn, F. J.

1975 Sedimentary rocks. Harper and Row, New York.Wagner, W. R. et al.

1974 Geology of the Pittsburgh area. Pennsylvania Geological Survey General Geology Report, No. 59.Wendorf, F.

1966 Early Man in the New World: problems of migration. American Naturalist 100 (912):253-270.Wilmsen, E. N.

1974 Lindenmeier: a Pleistocene hunting society. Harper and Row, New York.

Witthoft, J.1952 A Paleo-Indian site in eastern Pennsylvania: an early hunting culture. Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society 96:464-495.1971 A Paleo-Indian site in eastern Pennsylvania. In Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory, edited by B.

C. Kent, I.F. Smith III, and B.C. McCann, pp. 13-64. The Pennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommission, Harrisburg.

651

Adovasio Et Al 1978

Documents

Transcript of Adovasio Et Al 1978