CLOVIS HUNTING STRATEGIES, OR HOW TO MAKE OUT ON PLENTIFUL RESOURCES

Recently it has become vogue to view the Clovis culture as a general foraging culture as opposed to the specialized hunting culture that has been the cornerstone of thinking about the Clovis culture for the past 65 years. Todd Surovell and Nicole Waguespack look at the archaeological evidence and ethnographic evidence to see whether the Clovis as general foragers is correct or not. They looked at 33 Clovis sites from western Canada and all across the US. In 88% of the sites mammoth/mastodon and bison were the prevalent prey. Looking at the ethnographic evidence from extant hunter-gatherers further provided proof of Clovis as specialized big-game hunters instead of general foragers. The ethnographic evidence showed that low population densities went after bigger game animals, including elephants. The Clovis definitely had low population densities and this long with the evidence from the 33 sites seems to prove the long held assumption that the Clovis were very specialized big game hunters. Smaller fauna were also found at the sites. Of course the Clovis would also utilize smaller game if it suited them but they were moslty big game hunters. It's interesting the archaeologists that try and promote the Clovis as general foragers (notably Meltzer) are opposed to the Overkill Hypothesis put forth by Todd Surovell.

Surovell T and Waguespack N. Clovis Hunting Strategies, Or How To Make Out On Plentiful Resources. American Antiquity. 2003. Vol. 68 No. 2 (332-352).

Simulating Coastal Migration in New World Colonization

Todd Surovell modeled coastal migrations along the Pacific Coast to try and solve a perplexing problem. Paleo-Indians were in inland South America at Monte Verde 1000-2000 years before the Clovis culture was established in continental North America. There are possible pre-Clovis sites in eastern North America, however these sites aren't fully established and wasn't the topic of Todd's paper. The Monte Verde II problem is that there isn't any pre-Clovis sites on the Pacific Coast of North America. Obvioulsy paleo-Indians would have had to sail down the coast of North America in order to reach South America. But scant archaeological evidence has been found in North America to support this. Todd used a mathematical model to simulate coastal migration to see if it would be feasible for paleo-Indians to make it down to inland South America before venturing inland in North America. The model consisted of five parameters: cell width (there are 77 of them arranged linearly 200km long each), maximum population growth rate, leapfrog distance, and two functions relating population density to return rates for coastal and inland ecosystems. No migration could occur until optimal return rates were reached and a subpopulation would then move down the coast. The migrants would stay on the coast only if the return rates on the coast were higher than if they moved inland. Todd's conclusion from the model was that a coastal migration theory could not explain the spatio-temporal discrepancy between Monte Verde and early North American sites. In order for the model to predict what is seen in the archaeological record 7 criteria must be met: Initial migration must be coastal as opposed to the ice-free corridor, inland return rates were unrealistically low in inland North America, only in South America were inland return rates higher than on the coast, the optimal population densities were excessively low, people were highly mobile and leapfrog rates were massive, population growth was very slow, and the occupation of coastal lands extended considerably inland without leaving an archaeological trace (in North America). The model predicts paleo-Indians moving inland in North America long before South America is reached. And yet there isn't any archaeological traces of this before Monte Verde. A lot of this subject is beyond the scope of what I want to talk about. I have some problems with the model he used 9it isn't his model by the way). It is a linear model and I think a nonlinear model would be more accurate. I can't say off hand what the nonlinear terms would be but it would have something to do with when humans would move. I disagree that humans would only have moved because return rates reached an optimal point. Humans are unpredictable and tying them down to what resources they have access to is an inadequate assumption for this model. I offer criticism yet no solution beyond some weak assertions. But this problem jumped out at me when I first read the atricle. It's a good article all the same and it tries to make sense of a thorny issue between the coastal migration theorists and the Clovis ice-free corridor theorists.

Surovell T. Simulating Coastal Migration in New World Colonization. Current Anthropology. 2003. Vol 44, no 4, (580-591).