INTRODUCTION

NHL Property Types as Categories

The Earliest Americans theme study utilizes a property classification system that makes use of property classes and types. According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, "a property type is a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics [that] link the ideas incorporated in the theoretical historic context with actual historic properties that illustrate these ideas." For purposes of recording, documentation, and management, property types are grouped into two major classes, sites and districts.

Property Classes:

• Sites: Deposit containing artifacts, features, or biocultural evidence associated with one or more Paleoindian components.
• Districts: Multiple contiguous or discontinuous deposits associated with one or more Paleoindian components.

That is, sites are deposits containing artifacts, features, or biocultural evidence associated with one or more Paleoindian components. As such, the term retains its traditional archaeological usage, albeit here with the inclusion of isolated finds as a particular subset. Districts are defined as multiple contiguous or discontiguous deposits associated with one or more Paleoindian components. As such, they may be considered groupings of sites or components. Groups of culturally related individually Paleoindian archeological resources found in connection with diagnostic land-forms or other paleogeological, geomorphological, or paleoenvironmental contexts may be nominated as contributing properties within a single site or discontiguous district. Associated buried or surface deposits must be identified in order to nominate individual findspots of projectile points and other Paleoindian materials.

Property Type Categories include:

• Isolated Finds
• Caches
• Bone beds and kill sites
• Human burials
• Rock Art and other petroglyphic or pictographic representations
• Quarries and workshops
• Occupations

Each of these major property type categories is discussed in turn, with examples of specific sites or districts that illustrate the category. Because there is considerable overlap between property types, some sites are discussed under more than one category.

Isolated Finds

Isolated finds are individual artifacts that have been demonstrated to be Paleoindian in age through typological or other analyses. The distribution of isolated finds, when examined collectively over large areas, has done a great deal to improve our understanding of Paleoindian settlement, as documented in the section on resource distribution that follows. Once an isolated find has been collected, and its location as well as any relevant archaeological and environmental associations documented, typically there is little more that can be learned, assuming it can be convincingly demonstrated that the artifact is not part of a larger, undetected site. Because documenting isolated finds is so critical for research purposes, they are here viewed as a specific Paleoindian property type. It is also strongly recommended that all isolated finds of Late Pleistocene age should be formally recorded in state site files, as either sites or in a special isolated find category, and that they should receive the same level of written documentation as true sites. Several thousand isolated finds of Paleoindian artifacts have been recorded in the Eastern United States (Anderson and Faught 1998)

Caches

Caches are groups of artifacts or other resources intentionally left at a location for either ceremonial or utilitarian purposes. Paleoindian caches tend to fall into two types, elaborate finished tools presumably associated with burials or consumption-rituals of some kind, and hence permanently removed from the cultural system of which they were a part, or mundane tools, raw materials, or foodstuffs left at a particular place with the intent of being used at a later date.

Caches of Clovis culture artifacts consisting of spectacularly large or well made fluted points have been found in several parts of North America, sometimes in association with preforms and ivory or bone tools, and sometimes covered with red ochre. These caches are assumed to be ceremonial in nature, either votive offerings or grave goods. The best known Clovis caches are Anzick, Busse, Drake, Simon, and Richey-Roberts/East Wenatchee (45DO482), all from the western United States. Human skeletal remains were found only at Anzik (Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974), although whether they were once present at the other cache sites, and were not preserved, is unknown.

Caches of utilitarian tools or other materials are a common feature of later Paleoindian assemblages. The caching of materials in anticipation of later use is, in fact, a basic aspect of the technological organization of most human foraging populations (Binford 1979, 1980; Kelly 1994; Shott 1986b). Some tools, what Binford (1979) called "site furniture," may be too heavy to transport easily, or may be suited to specific locations, such as anvil stones used in quarrying or plant processing. Lithic raw materials are also cached, sometimes as little more than piles of raw unworked stone, and sometimes as clusters of tested to heavily worked pieces. Among Paleoindian populations, crude to well made bifacial cores were often widely transported and served as a primary source of material for the production of flaked stone tools (Cable 1982a; Morrow 1996). Intact bifacial core/preforms or large unifacial flakes have been found at a number of later Paleoindian sites, both at and away from quarry/reduction areas, and some of these artifacts are thought to be raw material caches. Prismatic blades and blade cores are also sometimes found on Paleoindian sites, and in some cases appear to have been cached in anticipation of future use (Green 1963).

Paleoindian populations may have also cached food for extended periods. While no unequivocal evidence for pit features has been found on Paleoindian sites, such features, if ultimately shown to be present at some sites, could have been used to store nuts, as they were in later times. Meat could have been frozen during winter, and buried under rock cairns, a strategy employed by some modern high latitude foragers, including Paleoindian populations, as indicated at the Colby site (Binford 1978; Frison and Todd 1986). Storing meat underwater is an even more effective method, with the caches less vulnerable to thaws and predation, and capable of lasting many months (Fisher 1995). At the Heisler site in Michigan, a partly disarticulated young mastodon was found that had been killed in late autumn, based on growth lines on the tusks (Fisher 1995:78). The animal had been partially butchered and the remains placed in a pond, weighed down by the placement of sand and gravel in the intestinal cavity, and marked with wooden posts. Faunal remains found in pond/spring settings could represent cool/cold weather meat caches.

Bone Beds and Kill Sites

The antiquity of Folsom and Clovis projectile points was first recognized by their association with extinct animals that had quite obviously been killed by spears tipped with these implements. From these early and occasionally repeated associations arose the belief that Clovis subsistence was primarily focused on big game. This perspective appears shaped in part by sampling considerations, notably that the bones of large game animals, and particularly megafauna like mammoth or mastodon, tend to be better preserved and attract greater research interest than the remains of smaller animals. Clovis-era "kill" sites in many areas, accordingly, almost invariably consist of points or other artifacts associated with the remains of large extinct fauna.

While not true kill sites, or even dense bone beds, Paleoindian sites with well preserved faunal and floral remains are of crucial importance to understanding human adaptation during this period. We now know that these populations had a highly diversified subsistence economy, in which small game played an important if not primary role. It would be important to document, therefore, how important small game was to earlier Paleoindian populations, for which few sites with paleosubsistence remains other than megafauna have been found. Were Clovis points used to bring down or butcher white tailed deer, or even smaller mammals such as raccoons or rabbits? Blood residue immunological analyses undertaken to date, in fact, point to just such a possibility (Newman 1994, 1995). Care in the collection of artifacts in the field and in subsequent handling is essential if blood residue analyses are to be undertaken, since contamination is a distinct possibility, and indeed the method itself may be fraught with some peril (cf., Loy and Dixon 1998, with Downs and Lowenstein 1995; Eisele et al. 1995, and Fiedel 1996). Thus, while it has sometimes been suggested that Clovis points were used exclusively on large game animals, it appears this may not have been the case.

Human Burials

Human burials of Late Pleistocene age are rare in North America. Human burials of Late Pleistocene age may occur in unusual or unanticipated settings. Well preserved Late Pleistocene age human remains may also some day be found in submerged context or in peat deposits, as they have in other parts of the world. Large numbers of Archaic period burials dating from ca. 8300–5200 rcbp have been found in submerged settings in Florida in recent years, at sites like Little Salt Spring and Windover (Clausen et al. 1979; Doran et al. 1986). Paleoindian artifacts have been found at appreciable distances out onto the continental shelf, and skeletal materials may also be present (Faught 1996). These sites are amenable to examination using underwater archaeological techniques, and is a type of research that shows appreciable promise in the years to come. Some human skeletal specimens found and dismissed long ago might bear re-examination.

Rock Art and other Petroglyphic or Pictographic Representations

No examples of Late Pleistocene age rock art or other stationery artwork are currently known, although their existence cannot be ruled out. Parietal art, "the art restricted to the walls, roof and occasionally floors of caves and rock-shelters" (Clark 1967:67), can also only occur in areas where caves and rockshelters themselves are likely. Great antiquity, upwards of 15,000 rcbp, has been claimed for some petroglyphs from the western United States, based on the radiocarbon dating of constituent rock-varnish, although the procedure has fallen into disrepute (cf., Whitley and Dorn 1993, Dorn 1996). Evidence for Late Pleistocene age painting has been observed on the walls and ceiling of the Pedra de la Pintada rockshelter near Monte Alegre in Brazil, with painted fragments found in securely dated terminal Paleoindian age strata (Roosevelt et al. 1996).

Chattel art, or arte mobilière, consisting of small, portable items of carved or decorated wood, bone, and stone, are rare Late Pleistocene context. Indeed, the elaborately carved ivory and bone points and foreshafts found in Florida are considered by some to be works of art as well as utilitarian items. Similar aesthetic qualities are attached to unusually large or well made flaked stone tools, such as some of the more spectacular Clovis, Cumberland, or Dalton points. The fact that ochre was sometimes used to cover what appear to be ceremonial caches of artifacts, presumably to enhance their ritual or sacred context (Roper 1996), suggests ochre could have also been used in the production of Paleoindian parietal and chattel art. Great care, of course, must be used in evaluating any discoveries of Paleoindian era artwork, particularly given the number of frauds that have been perpetrated, both of artwork itself, and of fluted points for sale on the antiquities market.

Quarries and Workshops

Quarries and workshops comprise perhaps the best known and certainly among the most easily recognized Paleoindian property type. At these sites, lithic raw materials were extracted and initially processed for use at other locations. Paleoindian technological organization was based to a great extent on the use of high quality lithic raw materials, particularly during the Clovis period. The highly mobile lifestyle of these early peoples, which may have taken them far from lithic raw material source areas on occasion, placed a premium on having reliable tools whose behavior was predictable both in use and when undergoing rejuvenation and resharpening. Settlement and mobility was, therefore, to some extent constrained by the occurrence of high quality lithic raw materials on the landscape (Daniel 1998; Gardner 1977:258–260; Goodyear 1979, 1989). Sources of these materials were, accordingly, extensively exploited by Paleoindian populations, resulting in the accumulation of appreciable quantities of reduction and manufacturing debris, as well as discarded and lost tools and other remains from associated occupations.

Some of these properties are quite extensive, with evidence for the occurrence of a number of distinct or overlapping activities at a number of locations. Many of these sites are also multicomponent, with evidence for Clovis era activity as well as later use as well. Accordingly, strict separation of quarry/workshop, and occupation property types is difficult or impossible in some cases, as is the resolution of Clovis and terminal Paleoindian assemblages from those of later Archaic and Woodland periods. Researchers examining these property types should make every effort to resolve intrasite spatial patterning, which may vary appreciably over relatively small areas. Differences of no more than a few meters vertical elevation and a few tens of meters horizontal elevation may separate Paleoindian period quarrying, workshop, and possible habitation areas. Research has also shown that some possible raw material sources are now submerged, due to sea level rise and a reduction in stream gradients. Other deposits were buried at appreciable depths under colluvial deposits. Thus, while quarry/workshop localities are traditionally perceived as being highly visible, care must be taken to ensure that a representative sample of what is actually present is recognized and collected.

Studies of Paleoindian assemblages taken collectively, at and up to appreciable distances from quarries, have begun to occur in recent years, and have proven to be extremely important to our understanding of raw material use and, hence, technological organization, settlement, and mobility strategies (e.g., Morrow 1996; Tankersley 1989, 1990b, 1991, 1994, 1998; Tankersley and Morrow 1993). Settlement analyses, encompassing the analysis of site locational data and/or assemblage composition from a great many sites, has demonstrated how the occurrence of lithic raw materials may shape Paleoindian settlement. Research employing GIS technology and computerized site file and assemblage data, permits the examination of large numbers of sites simultaneously. It offers the potential to resolve site types based on their environmental associations, which can then be verified and explored further with direct field work. Use of these kinds of analytical procedures should pinpoint areas where various site types might be expected to occur on the landscape, and can be used to suggest what kind of activities and assemblages might be expected at sites where only minimal information may currently exist.

While this discussion has focused on lithic quarry/workshop property types, bone, shell, or ivory "quarry" and workshop locales are also other types of possible workshop types. The collection of dead or green bone or ivory for use in tools could be considered a special type of quarrying behavior, for example, and site types or activity areas may exist where these resources were processed.

Occupations

A great many Paleoindian occupation sites, defined as habitation areas or residential base camps occupied for unknown but presumably fairly lengthy periods of time, are known. Many quarry/workshop sites also have occupation areas within them or nearby. There are also a number of presumed Paleoindian habitation sites that are not located in direct proximity to lithic raw material sources, yet that have been extensively examined and that are well published. These sites provide appreciable insight into Paleoindian lifeways. The assemblages at these sites can also be used to derive expectations of what habitation assemblages may be like within quarry/workshop sites, where lithic raw material quarrying and initial reduction occurred, and where the associated massive debris likely masks their easy recognition.

Clovis-era habitation sites, characterized by appreciable numbers of Clovis points, bifacial and unifacial tools, and other artifacts, have been documented in a number of areas. Comparative analyses of Clovis site assemblages have been conducted by a number of authors, and provide some insight into the characteristics of residential assemblages of this period, and the kinds of research questions they can address (e.g., Faught 1996; Meltzer 1984b, 1988; Sanders 1990:65–69; Shott 1986a). Sanders (1990:65–69) looked at the presence or absence of specific site physical attributes such as size class, evidence for single versus multiple occupations, and functional activities represented (i.e., quarrying, workshop, hunting camp, habitation), as well as for a series of technological attributes related to reduction/manufacturing practices. This comparison encompassed roughly a dozen major Eastern Paleoindian sites, with 12 sites classified according to physical and functional characteristics, and the same 12 plus one additional site for technological practices). Interestingly, the presence of true blades and blade cores was noted to be more common on southeastern sites than those in the Midwest and Northeast (Sanders 1990:67), a finding used to suggest a fairly early date for these assemblages (Ellis et al. 1998:159). Raw material conservation was an essential aspect of life to these highly mobile peoples critically dependent on their stone tools, which was why they were made on predictable high quality materials and designed to maximize use-life (e.g., Goodyear 1979, 1989; Kelly and Todd 1988).

Research Needs and Questions / The Thematic Framework

In this section research issues and questions significant in understanding Earliest American life in the East are summarized in tabular format and subsequent text discussion within the National Historic Landmark Thematic Framework. Currently designated National Historic Landmarks and National Register properties whose current documentation records the existence of resources possessing levels of integrity capable to contributing or having the potential to contribute information affecting theories, concepts, and ideas at national, state, and local levels of significance are listed under appropriate thematic elements. Certainly, one major outcome of this new Theme Study should be the critical re-evaluation of the degree to which these existing NRHP properties can contribute significant data to address thematic elements (such as research issues dealing with Emerging Cultural Traditions, Territoriality and Identity) at a level worthy of Landmark designation. Portions of this section are adapted from Paleoindian Historic Contexts prepared from around the country.

Researchers and resource managers responsible for examining or managing Paleoindian properties should consider the research themes outlined below, which are adapted from the NHL thematic framework. These themes offer guidance by which Paleoindian sites may be found, examined, and evaluated for NRHP and NHL status. They discuss the major research questions facing Paleoindian researchers, and describe the kinds of information needed to answer these questions. Archaeological sites are traditionally evaluated for NRHP status under Criterion D, whether they "have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history." NHL designation under Criterion 6 additionally requires that this information must be "of major scientific importance."

The NHL research themes, accordingly, are designed to organize and make explicit the kinds of information we currently believe to be important, and need, to further our understanding of Paleoindian occupation. The relevance of many of the specific research questions advanced, of course, depends upon the nature of the investigation being undertaken and the kind of data available for consideration. Many of the questions and approaches raised in what follows, it should be noted, are derived from existing Paleoindian historic context studies. Some overlap between specific themes occurs, since many of the processes involved are interrelated.

Peopling Places

Discussion: This theme focuses on the initial settlement, diversification, and growth of human populations. Questions of general interest under this theme revolve around delimiting colonization dates, routes of migration, site types, patterns of population growth and expansion, and ultimately how regional and subregional cultural traditions emerged. Tied up with this is examining how factors of demography and geography operated together to shape patterns of movement and interaction in these early populations. Key questions to be considered under this theme include when did people arrive, who were they, where did they come from, how did they move, and how did they live? Most of these questions deal with the processes of colonization and initial settlement, and as such can be best explored at sites that date to the Initial Paleoindian and subsequent Clovis-era, prior to ca. 12,900 B.P. After that time, in the Terminal Paleoindian, human populations are well established, and subregional cultural traditions had emerged in many areas. Terminal Paleoindian occupations are of interest for how they shed light on earlier occupations, by illustrating the results of the colonization process.

This theme is concerned, therefore, with understanding when human populations first arrived in the New World, and what happened to them up through the end of the Clovis culture, about 10,800 rcbp. Crucial to answering these question will be the careful consideration of evidence from across the continent concerning the timing of initial human entry. It is plausible that human populations could have been present in low numbers all across the area now known as the United States by ca. 14,500 B.P., given their presence at this time in southern South America at Monte Verde. The timing of initial human entry into the New World remains the subject of appreciable debate, with some investigators arguing that there is no conclusive evidence for human presence anywhere prior to ca. 14,500 B.P. (i.e., Fiedel 1999, n.d.), while others believe human entry may date to 20,000 B.P. or earlier (e.g., Meltzer 1997). The location and verification of early sites anywhere in the New World south of the ice sheets, accordingly, will provide a date for which it will be plausible to assume human occupation could have occurred in any region. Thus, if human occupation in South America or the on the Great Plains, or in the Far West is eventually shown to date as far back as 15,000 B.P. or more, then it is possible human groups could have reached all other regions by this time as well.

Resolving unequivocal archaeological signatures to easily recognize these occupations will be important. This may not be possible, if some or all of these early occupations made use of comparatively simple flake stone tool assemblages, particularly if the tools were forms used later in prehistory. Why are these occupations so elusive, archaeologically practically invisible? Were population levels extremely low, or making use of a technology that we are currently unable to recognize, perhaps because we assume it dates later in time when we find examples in surface context? Or is their low incidence related to factors of preservation, specifically that most areas where early occupations may have occurred are either deeply buried or eroded away (Butzer 1991)?

As Initial Paleoindian occupations are identified, another major research area that can be explored under the theme Peopling Places is understanding the nature of these adaptations. That is, what can we learn about their technological organization, mobility and interaction patterns, and subsistence practices, to name a few topics that could begin to be explored given such a perspective? Related to this is the question of the nature of the transition from these earlier occupations to the widespread appearance of Clovis culture. It is currently difficult to reconcile the widespread appearance of Clovis technology with the minimal evidence for settlement prior to this. Does Clovis reflect the dramatic radiation of people, or the spread of a highly advantageous technology within a pre-existing population? We need hard evidence about Initial Paleoindian occupations before we can understand how the emergence of Clovis came about.

Any securely dated site of Initial Paleoindian age will be of profound importance, and unquestionably eligible for NRHP and NHL status. Great care will have to be taken to verify the precise age on any Initial Paleoindian sites that are found. Multiple dates, ideally involving more than one dating procedure, will have to be obtained from these sites, and the early context will have to be supported by multiple lines of evidence, such as valid stratigraphic, artifactual, and paleovegetational associations (Dincauze 1984; Griffin 1977).

To ensure that evidence relevant to the theme Peopling Places is even collected, great care will also be needed to ensure that the possibility that Paleoindian components are present in a given area has been thoroughly evaluated. That is, are site survey, testing, and analysis/evaluation strategies sufficient to determine whether early components are present? Excavation units must be deep enough to ensure that buried deposits are not missed, and some should be carried well below artifact-bearing levels to ascertain that cultural deposits have indeed been fully documented. Paleoindian remains may occur at considerable depths in some settings, such as within floodplains, in ponded, swampy, or peat deposits, or on hill slopes and bases where colluviation may have occurred. The absence of deeply buried deposits should be demonstrated rather than assumed wherever possible, particularly during CRM inventory and compliance projects. Field procedures should be designed to adequately reach and evaluate the differing depositional environments that occur in a study area. Where the potential for deeply buried deposits exists, deep stratigraphic column samples should be excavated using heavy machinery, with samples of the fill screened. In areas of shallow deposits, such as on eroded upland surfaces, in contrast, care must be taken to determine whether Paleoindian components may be present amid later remains. When Paleoindian assemblages are found, every effort should be made to recover datable materials that may help refine local chronologies.

Given these arguments, it is apparent that of critical importance to exploring the theme of Peopling Places is the question "What constitutes an Early Paleoindian site?" Equally important and related questions include "What constitutes later (Middle and Late) Paleoindian sites?" Given that even isolated artifacts can provide important information about early settlement systems, technological organization, and mobility strategies, and the finding from several areas that many so-called "isolated finds" are actually significant sites, it is important that these finds be formally recorded in state site files. Given the importance of recognizing and understanding the variability in Paleoindian assemblages, detailed descriptions of points and tools should be published whenever early assemblages are found. Since almost every state has an ongoing Paleoindian point survey, recording forms should be filled out for every projectile point found, and submitted with the site forms or reports to the appropriate authorities compiling this information. Where such surveys currently record information only about fluted points, they should be expanded to include all Paleoindian point forms, and eventually other artifact types as well, such as tools or cores. Given the comparatively low numbers of Paleoindian formal points and other tools known, this is not an unreasonable expectation.

Finally, of critical importance to exploring the theme of Peopling Places, as well as all the other research themes reported here, are the related questions "Where on the landscape did Paleoindian populations settle, and why?" That is, what specific landforms, soil types, and microenvironmental settings were used by Paleoindian populations? Are such settings sufficiently distinct or unusual that they can be used to predict the probability of finding early materials? What field methods are appropriate for these settings, to maximize the possibility of discovering and evaluating early components? As Paleoindian components are identified, their environmental associations should be noted and compared, with the goal of developing predictive models to help locate more such sites. GIS technology should prove invaluable in these analyses.

Creation of Social Institutions

Discussion: This theme examines the emergence of distinct cultural traditions. Key questions to be explored include determining how cultural traditions are identified, when and where they emerge, and how, when, and where do cultural traditions change? The clearest evidence for the emergence of subregional cultural traditions occurs after ca. 10,800 rcbp, during the Terminal Paleoindian period, when distinctive projectile point types or variants appear in a number of areas. Whether earlier Clovis or pre-Clovis cultures actually had a uniform culture is something that also warrants consideration under this theme. The Clovis toolkit is remarkable uniform across the continent, but how groups used it in differing areas remains largely unknown. At present, this theme can currently be best explored during the Terminal Paleoindian, given the many well documented artifacts and assemblages dating to this period. Appreciably more information about Initial and Clovis-era Paleoindian occupations, however, will be needed to explore this theme effectively during these periods.

To examine the "Creation of Social Institutions," we must carefully examine stylistic variability in site and artifact assemblages from across large areas. A crucial first step will be examining variation in Paleoindian projectile points, since the distribution of particular types or styles is already used to infer the existence of a number of discrete subregional cultural traditions (e.g., Anderson 1990a, 1995a, 1996). These distributions are interpreted as encompassing the area over which makers of these projectile points appear to have regularly or at least occasionally moved, and as such, are used as markers of group territories or ranges and, hence, cultural traditions. When the artifacts in question form highly distinctive categories, such as the Folsom or Cumberland types, typological classification and distributional analyses are relatively easy to accomplish. A bewildering array of Terminal Paleoindian period projectile point types and variants have been proposed, however, almost all of which are intuitively based. While many are valid and useful categories, some have questionable utility, since they overlap with other forms or appear to encompass highly localized or even idiosyncratic variation. Some of the variation appears due to resharpening stage or constraints on size or shape imposed by raw material. Existing typological constructs need to be rigorously evaluated though statistical analyses, and variation within existing assemblages needs to be explored the same way. It is probable that appreciable, behaviorally and temporally significant variation exists within Paleoindian projectile point assemblages, if we can just tease it out.

Until quite recently, the distribution of Paleoindian projectile point types was also intuitively based, reflecting impressions of where artifacts were found based on literature surveys, rather than on actual specimen counts. In the last decade this approach has changed, as maps based on actual artifact counts have appeared, making use of data from Paleoindian projectile point surveys from across the country (e.g., Anderson 1990a, 1990b, 1991, 1996; Anderson et al. 1998; Faught et al. 1994; Anderson and Faught 1998). These maps have provided insight into where people lived, and have been used to postulate areas of initial settlement and cultural diversification.

Quantitatively based typological and distributional analyses with Paleoindian assemblages need to be continued. Primary data must continue to be compiled, something that will require long term cooperative interaction between avocational and professional archaeologists. Specific questions of particular interest include delimiting where presumed cultural traditions actually occur within the larger landscape. Were different areas occupied at different times, or were some areas repeatedly occupied throughout the Paleoindian era? In many areas there is clear evidence for an expansion of settlement over the course of the Middle and Terminal Paleoindian period onto a wide range of landforms, suggesting the adoption of an increasingly diversified subsistence economy (e.g., Anderson 1990a; Gillam 1996b, n.d.; Lepper 1988, 1989, 1999; Meltzer and Smith 1986; O'Steen et al. 1986). Were there areas that remained unoccupied throughout most or all of the Paleoindian period, and, if so, why?

While we have a good handle on the distribution of Clovis and related fluted points, since most state surveys record these forms, our information on Terminal Paleoindian point forms is much more spotty. Locational and measurement data are not currently systematically recorded, something that must change if we are to understand the stylistic variation observed.

Another area to explore under the theme "Creation of Social Institutions" is how much time was actually involved in the emergence of local cultural traditions. The tremendous range of variation apparent in Terminal Paleoindian projectile point forms was disturbing to researchers for a number of years, since it implied extremely rapid cultural change. Even assuming high population growth rates, and a dramatic constriction in group ranges and interaction networks, there still appeared to be far more variability than expected. We now know that a major plateau occurs in the radiocarbon calibration between ca. 10,500–10,100 rcbp, so that the 800 radiocarbon years from 10,800 to 10,000 rcbp actually encompasses ca. 1500 calendar years, from ca. 12,750–11,200 B.P. There is thus a great deal more time involved in the Terminal Paleoindian period than we once thought, something that must be factored into our analyses and modeling of the processes by which the observed cultural differentiation came about.

Finally, to further explore the theme of the "Creation of Social Institutions" we need to ask what specifically can we learn about the lives of people in specific subregional cultural traditions that makes them distinctive? Answering a question such as this, of course, will necessitate the careful comparative analysis of individual site assemblages from within and between differing areas. While much of the information derived from any examination of specific site assemblages can be used to answer a wide array of research questions, some of the information that can be collected is directly relevant to this theme.

That is, what information about group size or duration of occupation can be determined from Paleoindian site assemblages? Can special activity areas be identified within larger assemblages (i.e., hunting, butchering, cooking, sleeping areas)? Are site remains that are found the result of one or a few visits, or numerous visits? The resolution of activity areas within individual sites typically requires the total excavation or effective sampling of large areas. Excavations at later prehistoric communities frequently encompass thousands of square meters, and exposures of this kind are deemed critical to understanding how these sites were used. Excavations at Paleoindian sites, in contrast, rarely exceed more than a few tens or hundred square meters. Use of small scale excavation blocks is due, in part, to an absence of obvious architectural features on sites dating to this period, and to the great depths at which early materials are sometimes located, often underneath appreciable later cultural material. It is also due, at least in part, to a research tradition more directed toward acquiring stratigraphic column samples of artifacts for purposes of typology and chronology, and the exploration of diachronic change, than the collection of assemblages from across large horizontal areas useful for documenting activity areas, site function, and the exploration of synchronic phenomena. This needs to change, and excavations should examine large areas on Paleoindian sites whenever feasible.

Large area excavations at several northeastern Middle Paleoindian sites such as Debert, Bull Brook I, and Vail, coupled with refitting analyses, for example, have demonstrated the contemporaneity of widely separated artifact clusters (MacDonald 1968; Gramly 1982; Grimes 1979; Grimes et al. 1984). At Vail, Gramly (1982) was able to fit projectile point tips found in a 'killing ground' with bases in a presumed domestic camp several hundred meters away. Outlines of structures have been inferred amid debris patterns at French Upper Paleolithic sites such as at Pincevent (Leroi-Gourhan and Brezillon 1966), and similar strategies have been used to infer the presence of a structure at the G. S. Lewis Early Archaic site (38AK228) in South Carolina (Anderson and Hanson 1988:275-276). At Sloan, anything short of total excavation would have made it impossible to understand the apparent use of marked graves by a local group for an appreciable period of time (Morse 1997a, b).

Accordingly, when well-defined hearth or other features, or appreciable scatters of debitage, fire cracked rock, bone, or other artifactual debris are encountered in Paleoindian deposits, large block units should be excavated when this is feasible. Minimally, the area up to several meters around such features should be examined for evidence of stone tool manufacture or repair, butchering, hideworking, toss zones, or other special activities. Excavation should not stop when low artifact density areas are encountered, until it can be determined that they represent site boundary areas, since these areas may be the only surviving evidence of structures, sleeping areas, or other low artifact activity areas.

Expressing Cultural Values

Discussion: This theme addresses religious and ceremonial aspects of Paleoindian life, specifically their belief systems and means of representation. Key questions include what were the belief systems of the Earliest Americans, what is the evidence for these systems, and how has this evidence been interpreted? Among the subjects examined under this theme are the importance of prominent locations on the landscape for both sacred and secular activities, what kind of evidence is there for art and ritual, and what possible connections may exist between Paleoindians and modern American Indian origin sites, myths, legends, and beliefs.

Prominent locations on the landscape are known to have held a particular attraction for Paleoindian populations. Major Middle and Terminal Paleoindian assemblages have been found in close proximity to a number of dramatic physiographic features, such as near major shoals, sinkholes, or confluences, at extensive outcrops of high quality stone, at major ecotones, and at or near major mountain peaks. Many of these locations are rich in food or lithic resources, and would have been attractive for this reason alone. Most can also, however, be easily found on the landscape, something that would have facilitated rendezvous and interaction, a critical aspect of life to small, highly mobile groups occupying the vast, unpopulated landscape. The need to find mates and exchange information may have been more critical than finding high quality lithic raw materials to these peoples, and their movements were probably carefully calculated to enhance the possibility of social interaction. Over time areas that were repeatedly visited may have come to be embued with a sacred status, perhaps because the interaction behavior that occurred included ceremony and ritual, or perhaps simply because the importance of the area was reinforced by weight of tradition.

There is no question that Middle and Terminal Paleoindian populations placed great value on their tools of stone, bone, and ivory. The workmanship on many specimens is superb, reflecting a level of expertise rarely achieved by the flintknappers of subsequent periods. The aesthetic appeal of these artifacts to modern archaeologists and collectors alike no doubt helps to explain the widespread interest in these early peoples. Concern for exemplary craftsmanship was a major and widely shared Paleoindian cultural value, even in the production of everyday stone tools. Was the Paleoindian fascination with high quality lithic raw materials, accordingly, solely due to the needs of a highly curated toolkit, as Goodyear (1979, 1989) has argued? Or was it also shaped by the ceremonial potential of artifacts made from these materials, as exemplified by the presence of elaborate specimens in caches and burials, or their role in facilitating ceremony and interaction, as Walthall and Koldehoff (1998) have suggested for Sloan points in the central Mississippi Valley, markers of what they call a possible "Cult of the Long Blade." Visiting quarry areas, accordingly, may have been as much about promoting interaction as about procuring high quality stone, if groups knew they could find others at these locations at certain times of the year (Daniel 1998:194-195). Likewise, by procuring high quality stone, these same peoples were reinforcing a basic aspect of their culture.

How Paleoindian use of the landscape shaped their culture is a research topic to explore under the theme "Expressing Cultural Values." It has been suggested that Paleoindian populations were "technology-oriented" rather than "place-oriented," that is, able to range widely because of their highly portable and flexible toolkit (Kelly and Todd 1988). While probably an accurate description of initial colonizing populations, and particularly their scouting parties, appreciable evidence exists that once these people had spent some time within given areas, they became profoundly place-oriented, keying in on particular locations over and over again (Anderson 1990a, 1996). The distribution of Paleoindian sites and assemblages can be examined from such a perspective, much in the way predictive models of site location are developed. Gillam (1996a, 1996b, n.d.), for example, has shown that while settlement changed over time in northeast Arkansas from the Middle to the Terminal Paleoindian era, with later sites found over a much wider array of settings, both the fluted point and Dalton peoples made extensive use on the lithic raw material sources present in the area.

The importance of landscape features to the first Americans can also be explored through their impact on contemporary Indian peoples. Do the dramatic features on the landscape visited by Middle and Terminal Paleoindian populations appear in the oral tradition of contemporary peoples? Such research should be not only to see whether any traditions that might exist have great antiquity, but also to see how such locations are viewed by modern groups, perhaps shedding light on how they were perceived to the first peoples to see them. Whether or not such locations were considered sacred sites is not currently known, but could also be a subject for investigation with descendent populations.

Another area that can be explored under this theme is evidence for ceremonial and mortuary behavior. Walthall and Koldehoff (1998) have suggested that the exchange of elaborate ceremonial artifacts helped link Paleoindian groups together over large areas, in something akin to a Late Pleistocene Kula ring. We need to examine the settings in which human remains, ochre, or elaborate stone, bone and ivory tools or other decorative items are found. We also need to examine how unusual elaborate artifacts actually are, that is, whether our perceptions of Paleoindian craftsmanship have been colored by a few unusual cases. Likewise, we also need to consider whether additional sites with rich and elaborate artifact assemblages like the Sloan cemetery remain undiscovered, and how they may be located, preserved and protected or, if protection is not an option, carefully excavated. Are caches like Richey-Roberts/East Wenatchee or Anzik (Gramly 1993; Lahren and Bonnichsen 1974) common? What do cemetery and cache sites tell us about these cultures?

Possible burial settings, if threatened, should be examined during CRM compliance surveys, and not ignored. In addition to direct evidence for mortuary behavior, such as skeletal remains, researchers should be alert to indirect evidence. Unusual concentrations of artifacts in archaeological deposits dating to the Paleoindian and Early Archaic, particularly clusters of large, well made, or unused tools, may represent grave lot assemblages. In many soils poorly suited to the preservation of human remains, osteological materials will have likely long since deteriorated. Artifact distributional analyses may be the only means available in many settings to infer the existence of cemetery behavior. Artifact clusters, in fact, were initially used to infer the existence of Dalton cemetery behavior at the Sloan site in northeast Arkansas (Morse 1975a), a finding that was later supported by the identification of small human bone fragments hand-picked from and in soil samples from the site deposits. Where the possibility exists that a grave assemblage may be present, but no obvious bone is evident, close interval soil samples should be taken, and subjected to careful examination (i.e., soil chemistry, flotation) for traces of human remains. Finally, when dealing with human remains and grave goods, full attention must be given to state and federal legislation protecting such assemblages.

Shaping the Political Landscape

Discussion: This theme examines the emergence of group territories and ranges and the evolution of interaction strategies during the Paleoindian era. Key questions include how did the Earliest Americans organize political life, and what is the evidence for territoriality, group identify, and interaction? Paleoindian populations had to learn how to both interact with and avoid one another on the landscape, to ensure their own survival by acquiring mates, as well as to avoid exhausting critical plant and game resources. As discrete subregional cultural traditions emerged, as inferred by stylistic and distributional variability in projectile point and other artifact categories, important questions to consider are how did these groups interact, and how did interaction change over time? Are major aggregation sites where differing groups met present during the Paleoindian era, and if so, how are they to be recognized, and distinguished from other site types? If present, are aggregation sites more common at the center of group ranges, or it their margins?

In recent years considerable effort has been expended toward delimiting the extent of Paleoindian settlement systems through analyses of artifact stylistic variability and raw material sources. Projectile point distributions based on stylistic grounds and/or raw material type have been used to infer specific group ranges. Taking such analyses a step further, raw material fall off curves have been developed to show how far, and with what patterning, materials moved from quarry areas during various periods in prehistory, including during the Paleoindian era. This approach shows appreciable promise, and should be adopted wherever raw materials can be easily distinguished and occur in essentially fixed locations on the landscape.

Resolution of Paleoindian cultural entities as well as information about the scale or geographic extent of their movement thus appears to be possible employing distributional analyses. A number of Terminal Paleoindian subregional cultural traditions have been proposed in recent years, based on the occurrence of earlier fluted point concentrations, and the occurrence of distinctive descendent types (Anderson 1990a, 1995a, 1996). These are intuitive formulations, however, whose boundaries can now be rigorously evaluated using primary data. Much more research, of course, will be necessary to delimit possible Paleoindian group ranges or territories. Detailed attribute based analyses using large samples of points, however, should be able to resolve the existence and spatial occurrence of morphologically distinct forms, which should perhaps be classified as subregional scale variants or varieties. When these distributions are combined with analyses of raw material fall off curves, extent of resharpening, breakage, or discard, or associated assemblage composition, it may provide more specific data on group ranges.

GIS-based analyses of site locational and associated assemblage data can also be used to explore these same questions, in an effort to resolve the seasonal and annual movements of Paleoindian groups within a given area, to see how those movements shaped the social and political landscape. If distinct artifact styles or markedly different patterns of raw material use are evident, with little intergradation, it might indicate the presence of groups living in relative isolation from one another. Where groups interacted with one another appreciably, in contrast, raw material use or artifact styles would be expected to overlap appreciably across the landscape. Using fall-off curve analyses the available evidence suggests that the existence of group boundaries was minimal.

Another question that can be explored under the theme "Shaping the Political Landscape" is determining whether and why some areas were more heavily occupied during various Paleoindian periods than other. There is no question that fluted point concentrations are almost invariably located along major transportation arteries, notably along or near major river channels, and in areas rich in floral, faunal, and lithic resources (Anderson 1990a) Some areas were clearly more favored than others during this period. The same thing is indicated for the later Paleoindian as well, at least within specific intensively examined localities, where preferences for certain landform types are indicated. Unfortunately, the larger, regional scale distribution of most Terminal Paleoindian point types is largely unknown at present. When these artifact types can be mapped the way we can now plot fluted points, no doubt concentrations and voids will be found within the regional landscape that will profoundly influence our understanding of these occupations.

It is also important to ask how regional physiography, specifically the orientation of river drainages and the location of mountain ranges and shorelines, may have shaped group movement, interaction, and the rise of subregional cultural traditions during the Paleoindian. Greater movement and interaction would have clearly been more likely in some directions than in others, and perhaps at some times rather than others. Little interaction or movement, for example, might be expected across the Appalachian mountains, or between groups occupying the Atlantic and the Gulf Coasts, save in intermediate areas.

It is also likely that group ranges shifted in response to the major changes in temperature, sea-level, and biota that were occurring during the late Pleistocene, although this form of diachronic analyses has received only minimal attention. The most sophisticated analysis of this type that has occurred to date is Claggett and Cable's (1982; Cable 1982a, 1996) "Effective Temperature/technological Organization" model, that examined how Paleoindian and Early Archaic technological organization shifted from logistical to residential mobility in response to post-glacial warming, specifically increases in effective temperature (Anderson and Sassaman 1996b:27–28; Cable 1982a, 1996). The theoretical foundation for this argument is based on analyses of hunter-gatherers from around the world, whose technological organization and mobility strategies have been found to be closely linked to local effective temperature (Binford 1980; Kelly 1983; Kelly and Todd 1994). Changes in technological organization over both space and time among hunter-gatherers, accordingly, can to some extent be predicted by examining effective temperature isotherms. This is not altogether surprising, but it does caution us to consider that there may be appreciable change, and variation in Paleoindian adaptations over time and in different parts of the continent, particularly moving from north to south.

How the settlement of the continent may have proceeded, given the changes in vegetation that were occurring at the regional scale, has also been the subject of some fairly extensive modeling in recent years (Steele et al. 1998). Diachronic analyses will undoubtedly prove an increasingly important means of resolving how and why change occurred during the Paleoindian period, including how the social landscape emerged and evolved.

Patterns of large scale interaction, specifically between Paleoindian populations in different regions, is also something that can be explored under this theme. Lithic raw materials as well as the occurrence of particular point types have been used to track such long distance or large-scale interaction. A number of researchers have suggested that Paleoindian interaction was shaped first by a need to scout out new areas, and then, once these areas were settled, to maintain ties with peoples over large areas, to maintain mating networks and counter resource fluctuations or crashes (e.g., Anderson 1990a, 1995a; Anderson and Gillam 2000, 2001; L. Johnson 1989; M. Johnson 1996:21; Munson 1990; Spiess et al. 1998:245-248; Tankersley 1990b, 1991, 1994; Wykoff and Bartlett 1995). Interaction between the Middle Atlantic and Northeast has been specifically tied to caribou availability in the latter area, and the need for peoples to be able to move from one area to the other in the event of resource shortfalls (M. Johnson 1996:21). The likelihood that the Middle Atlantic, or possibly the upper Midwest, was the source for the first peoples to enter the Northeast is also thought to have shaped patterns of movement and interaction between the two areas (Dincauze and Jacobson 2001; Spiess et al. 1998:245-248). Similar arguments are used to explain the movement of materials and presumably peoples between the western part of the Southeast and the Great Plains (L. Johnson 1989; Wykoff and Bartlett 1995) and between the northern Southeast and the upper Midwest (Tankersley 1989, 1990b, 1991, 1994)

A final area that can be explored under the theme "Shaping the Political Landscape" are the relationships, if any, between the demise of the Clovis way of life, the emergence of subregional cultural traditions, the extinction of megafauna, and the sudden onset of the Younger Dryas cold period. All of these events occurred more or less simultaneously, about 12,900 B.P., and although it is likely that they are linked, how they were is currently poorly understood. The sudden and quite probably massive disruptions in climate and biota brought about by the onset of the Younger Dryas, when coupled with the extinction of megafauna about the same time, it was noted previously, likely created appreciable subsistence stress among Paleoindian populations. These changes created a feedback loop, forcing peoples to intensify, and increasingly diversify, the procurement of food resources in smaller package sizes, something that in turn would have reduced the need for long-distance movement, and led to the increasing regionalization. While these changes are assumed to have occurred gradually over the course of the Archaic period, it is possible that they were well underway by the start of the Terminal Paleoindian era.

Developing the American Economy

Discussion: Research topics that can be explored under this theme include resolving changes in patterns of resource extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and exchange, both of subsistence items, and raw materials used for tools, shelter, and other material goods. Key questions include what raw materials were used, where were they found, how were they modified and distributed, and how were they used and discarded? How were lithic materials located, quarried, and then shaped, and how were these activities shaped by the physical properties of specific materials? What is the relationship between Paleoindian site occurrence and lithic raw material availability? How do Paleoindian assemblages in areas where lithic raw materials are plentiful or of high quality compare with those found in areas where exploitable stone is rare or of poor quality? Does evidence for tool attrition increase with distance from high quality raw material sources? When and will lower quality stone be used as a substitute for high quality stone?

Additional questions that can be examined include resolving the nature of Paleoindian subsistence. Paleoindian groups focused on areas rich in biotic resources, such as along major drainages or near shoals, as well as their proclivity for outcrops of high quality stone. What was the nature of their diet? Were Pleistocene megafauna a regular part of the Paleoindian diet, at least until they went extinct, or were these animals only occasionally exploited, with subsistence more diversified, including a fairly appreciable range of plants as well as animals? What was the role of the Paleoindian peoples in the extinction of Pleistocene fauna? What changes in subsistence occurred over time, and in various areas, particularly given the dramatic changes in climate and biota that were occurring?

Questions of Paleoindian subsistence, as we have seen, are difficult to address directly at present, primarily because the systematic collection of this kind of data is only a comparatively recent development. Given the importance of this kind of information, however, all fill from features found in deposits dating to the Paleoindian period should be saved and subjected to fine screening or flotation processing. Such procedures should apply particularly to fill around rock clusters, because traces of charcoal potentially indicative of firewood and food preferences may survive in such contexts. Late Pleistocene fossils should be examined for evidence of human modification (i.e., burning, tool cut marks, marrow extraction) wherever they are found, and fossil localities dating after ca. 15,000 B.P. should be routinely examined by both archaeologists and paleontologists. The possibility that well-preserved subsistence and other materials might be present in submerged deposits, such as in springs, sinkholes, ponds, peat bogs, or bays, also should be considered. Deposits of this kind examined during CRM compliance surveys should be directly inspected, ideally though deep coring or backhoe trenching. Archaeological investigations undertaken in rockshelter and cave deposits, which frequently offer favorable preservational conditions, should receive careful examination for paleosubsistence data.

Lithic raw material use can also be explored under this theme. A linkage or tethering (the restrictions of site distributions that result from dependence on fixed resources) of Paleoindian and possibly Early Archaic populations to high quality lithic raw material sources has been inferred by a number of investigators examining the Eastern North American archaeological record (Gardner 1977, 1983; Goodyear 1979, 1989; Meltzer 1984b, 1988). As we have seen, as far as the occurrence of occupation sites is concerned, this pattern is more the result of investigative activity directed to highly visible quarry areas than to actual site distributions. Nevertheless, Paleoindian populations were unquestionably attracted to and made extensive use of high quality stone, and the nature of this relationship needs to be carefully examined. That is, we need to explore at what times and in what areas the use of high quality lithic raw materials occurred, and how it shaped group technological organization and mobility (Meltzer 1989). If the inference about tethering is even generally true, it should facilitate the resolution of areas where Paleoindian artifacts and sites might be expected to occur in greater than expected numbers.

Another topic that can be explored under this theme is delimiting the source areas for raw materials used by Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations. How closely can we pinpoint the source areas of specific raw materials, using petrographic, microfossil, trace element, or other forms of analysis? Can fairly inexpensive testing Criteria be developed, to permit the sourcing of large numbers of artifacts? When sources are identified, over what geographic areas are these materials used, and what are possible reasons for these distributions? The accurate identification of lithic raw material source areas is critical to resolving prehistoric mobility patterns. The distance an artifact occurs from its source area indicates how far the material was carried by prehistoric populations, either directly as part of a regular settlement round, or indirectly through patterns of exchange. Lithic raw material source identification analyses should be conducted whenever possible.

Expanding Science and Technology

Discussion: This theme examines the material culture, technology, and technological organization of the Earliest Americans. Key questions include what was the nature of the tool kits of the Earliest Americans, and how was their technology organized? The elaborate and well made Paleoindian stone and bone toolkit was one of the most sophisticated ever to appear and questions about its emergence, evolution, and spread, in the ensuing Archaic period, have long fascinated researchers and the general public alike. The technology these early peoples developed is compelling evidence for a highly mobile lifestyle, by groups who carried much or all of what they possessed with them over the landscape. Technological organization, raw material procurement, and settlement and organization are closely linked aspects of culture, and can all be explored under this theme.

Specific questions that can be explored include the reasons for the appearance, wide distribution, and eventual disappearance of fluting technology. Wherever fluting technology emerged, how did it spread? Why were some areas, such as the Appalachian highlands and portions of the Gulf Coastal Plain, minimally visited by peoples using this technology? How and why did the transition from fluted to non-fluted points come about? What do toolkits look like at different times and places, and what are the reasons for the similarities and differences? Is the gradual abandonment of the highly curated Paleoindian toolkit directly related to emergence and increasing importance of foraging, generalist strategies during the Terminal Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods (Cable 1982a, 1996; Meltzer 1984b, 1988; Meltzer and Smith 1986; Morse 1973, 1975b, 1997b)?

Properties also may be nominated under this theme for contributions to the development of scientific thought and theory. Two of the most important topics which can be explored are technology history and interdisciplinary studies. First, the effort to understand the meaning of lithic technology development by Earliest Americans, as one of the great stories of human achievement, fostered many of the most significant advances in anthropological archeology. The interrelated concepts that underlie artifact typology, seriation, and chronology were defined systematically and tested rigorously in the hothouse glare of studies of Paleoindian sites and collections. This kind of work contributed to the growth of interdisciplinary scientific applications and formal research designs to be able to explain how stone tools were made, to what uses they had been put, and the history of technological change. New theoretical approaches using ethnographic analogy, experimental archeology, and cultural ecology all benefited from analyses of lithics, the most common archeological evidence about Paleoindian society and economy.

Second, our current understanding of the complex culture of the Earliest Americans is based upon far more extensive knowledge about a much more environmentally diverse range of sites containing the archeological evidence of what people had actually done in the distant past. The extraordinary expansion in the variety of inventoried and formally registered property types, containing an avalanche of data in multiple occupational components, began in the mid-1970s. Improved preservation and comprehensive research were the conjoined results of significant growth in cultural resources management and theoretical applications which began during that period. Today, the ability to conduct comparative analyses, the range of cultural elements which can be addressed, and the prospects for interdisciplinary studies are unprecedented. While isolated finds and single component sites are still important, their research utilities are measured increasingly against a rich tapestry of information and interpretation.

To address the development of scientific thought and theory, nominations may consider other NHL Criteria. For instance, nominations according to Criterion 1, association with events, would be appropriate for type sites or properties where testing of scientific methods and theories affected development of anthropological archeology to a major degree. Nominations according to Criterion 2, association with the lives of persons, would be appropriate for properties that exemplify the research locations of those who have made nationally significant contributions to understanding Paleoindian society and economy.

Transforming the Environment

Discussion: This theme examines the reactions of human groups to Late Pleistocene environmental change, as well as the impacts these human populations themselves produced on biotic communities. The Late Pleistocene was one of the most dramatic periods of environmental change in recent earth history, and how early populations met the challenges faced by glacial retreat, mass extinctions, sea-level rise, and extensive climatic and vegetational change can be examined under this theme. How critical, for example, was the human presence to changes observed in plant and animal distributions at this time? Are human populations directly implicated in the extinctions taking place at this time and, if so, how? Did the presence of human populations result in changes in fire frequency, with resulting changes in the distribution of vegetational communities? What strategies were adopted to exploit these changing resources, and what were the consequences of these actions? Did the passing of Pleistocene megafauna lead to a dramatic reduction of group mobility and the establishment of more tightly bounded cultural traditions? The paleoenvironmental focus of this theme highlights the importance of multidisciplinary research in the study of the Earliest Americans.

Specific questions that might be considered under this theme include what makes a cultural area, and is the concept even relevant during the Late Pleistocene? That is, are Paleoindian adaptations fairly unique in differing regions, or are they like those in other parts of the continent? How did changes in shoreline affect Paleoindian adaptations?

Another area that can be examined under this theme is resolving the relationship between varying environmental conditions on local Paleoindian adaptations. Is it realistic to expect that Paleoindian adaptations were the same in the dissicated karst terrain of Florida, on the High Plains, or in Alaska? Almost certainly not. Is it possible that some of the diversity currently attributed to the Terminal Paleoindian period, specifically the emergence of distinctive subregional cultural, may have actually begun earlier, during Clovis times or even before? Related to this, why do fluted point assemblages continue fairly late in some area, such as the Northeast, to perhaps as late as ca. 11,200 B.P. (e.g., Lepper and Meltzer 1991; Levine 1990; Spiess et al.1998), when these forms are clearly gone from other regions by this time? Is a replacement of fluted point styles a time transgressive phenomenon in North America and, if so, is this related to environmental factors, such as the gradual retreat of the ice sheets, and the expansion of forest canopies of one kind or another?

Changing Role of the United States in the World Community

Discussion: This final theme makes us consider a global perspective. That is, what was happening to Paleoindian populations in North America should be viewed in terms of cultural and environmental changes observed worldwide at the end of the Pleistocene. How do site and artifact assemblages and distributions from this time period in North America, for example, compare with those in other parts of the world? Can the observed similarities and differences give us insight about the relative uniqueness of North American cultures and adaptations? From a global perspective, how does initial colonization occur? Are there lessons that have been learned from the colonization and subsequent settlement of places such as Australia, for example, that can be applied? Australia was colonized upwards of 40,000 years ago, yet evidence for sites predating ca. 8,000 years ago is minimal. What does this say about the visibility of pre-Clovis remains in the New World? Can Clovis itself be viewed as the technology of a colonizing population, or is it similar to technologies in areas long occupied by human populations elsewhere in the world? From a broad comparative perspective, what might precursor technologies look like? The attention given lithic assemblages in extreme northeastern Asia in recent years, the likely source of new World populations, has been an attempt to locate possible precursor industries (Fiedel n.d.).

Additionally, this theme makes us take a look at the way we have been conducting research in First American studies. Key questions include whether Paleoindian archeological studies have contributed to major intellectual developments in archaeology and anthropology, and how has what we have learned contributed to development of broad intercontinental comparative perspectives? How adequate are our existing models of various aspects of Paleoindian life, and can these be improved by adopting a broad comparative and theoretical perspective? What can First American studies learn from, and contribute to, multidisciplinary investigations of global climate change, both during the late Pleistocene and in the modern era? There is no question that Late Pleistocene human populations were profoundly affected by the dramatic changes in sea level, climate, and biota that were occurring. As we learn more details about what happened to these peoples, are there lessons that can be applied to today's world, which also appears to be entering a period of major climate change?

What will be the impact on archaeological research of using calendrical, rather than radiocarbon years, in our research, now that calibrations exist for the past 20,000 years or so? Archaeologists have employed radiocarbon years as a matter of convention when talking about Paleoindian sites and occupations for the past several decades. Thus, Clovis occupations are traditionally placed between ca. 11,200 and 10,800 rcbp, while the end of the Paleoindian era itself is placed at 10,000 rcbp. We now know, however, that use of radiocarbon time severely distorts our perspective, since calendrical dates for the Paleoindian period may be as much as 2000 years earlier, and because there are plateaus and reversals in the calibration. Researchers worldwide are going to have to come to grips with these problems, and start using calendrical time, which is itself distorted by radiocarbon reversals.

Another important question that can be considered under this theme is the effectiveness of our existing chronologies and culture sequences for the Paleoindian period. To refine our understanding of the relative and absolute placement of Paleoindian assemblages, far more primary fieldwork is needed.

An additional question that can be explored under this theme are our procedures for examining morphological variation in Paleoindian projectile point assemblages. At present, the identification of Early, Middle, and Terminal Paleoindian components suffers from considerable ambiguity, particularly in cases where supposedly well described and dated diagnostics like Clovis or Dalton points are lacking. As we have seen, however, appreciable morphological variation is subsumed under these types, much of which is poorly documented or understood at present. How much of this variation reflects temporal or cultural phenomena, and how much of it is due to constraints imposed by raw material, or the position of the artifact in a use-life cycle?

Finally, this theme makes us consider the long term future of Paleoindian resources. What, for example, are the impacts of contemporary land-use practices on Paleoindian cultural resources? The archaeological record is degraded each year by erosion, development, and looting. The extent of this damage is difficult to assess, just as solutions are difficult to foresee or implement (Anderson and Horak 1993; Dincauze 1997; Ehrenhard 1990). The effects of reservoir construction and subsequent inundation on Paleoindian sites is a specific example of the kinds of loss to the record that can be explored under this theme. Reservoir construction has led to considerable erosion of floodpool shoreline deposits, although the effects of reservoir construction on permanently flooded deposits is not well known. Paleoindian assemblages that were deeply buried prior to inundation, for example, may be less likely to suffer erosional damage than sites in areas of fluctuating water levels. Vast numbers of Paleoindian and later period artifacts have been found along the shores of artificial lakes, indicating valuable information is being lost that should be documented. Agencies responsible for managing reservoirs should, accordingly, conduct periodic surveys of cultural resources exposed along shorelines, to assess erosional effects on archaeological deposits, and to obtain samples of materials that would otherwise be lost. Coupled with this, collections in the hands of private individuals obtained from these reservoirs should be examined, and all Paleoindian artifacts recorded.

Avocational collecting is also reducing the Paleoindian archaeological record, although when sites and collections are recorded, this can be a highly positive activity. Unfortunately, most collectors do not document their collections well, or make provisions to pass them on to responsible curatorial repositories. As these collectors pass away or disperse their materials, any associated provenience information is usually lost, rendering them nearly worthless for research purposes. The development of outreach programs directed to educating collectors, and recording their collections, should occur in every state. Likewise, what will the increasing output of modern Paleoindian replicas do to the sale of Paleoindian antiquities? Is it likely to depress the market sufficiently to discourage the looting of Paleoindian sites? Parenthetically, given the increasing incidence of replicas, some of which are sold to unwitting collectors, researchers recording Paleoindian points will have to be on their guard to avoid legitimizing artifacts of this kind by including them in their surveys (e.g. Table 6).

Evaluation Criteria

Information contained in this theme study may be used to evaluate significance of Paleoindian archeological resources as National Historic Landmarks and as properties possessing National, State, and Local significance in the National Register of Historic Places. Paleoindian archeological sites and districts considered for National Register nomination must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association at national, state, or local levels of significance relating to one or more of the following Criteria:

1. Association with events, activities or patterns;
2. Associations with important persons;
3. Distinctive physical characteristics of design, construction, or form; or
4. Potential to yield important information.

NRHP eligibility is typically determined by Criterion D, the potential of a property to yield information important to understanding the past (Grumet 1988). Paleoindian property types, accordingly are evaluated for NRHP status under Criterion D, whether they "have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history."

National Historic Landmark Criteria reflect a similar but more rigorous evaluative framework appropriate for properties possessing the potential to contain information of the highest level of national significance. As set forth in 36 CFR 65.4, properties meeting these Criteria are those that:

1. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly represent, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and appreciation of those patterns may be gained; or
2. Are associated importantly with the lives of persons nationally significant in the history of the United States: or
3. Represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or
4. Embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
5. Are composed of integral parts of the environment not sufficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual recognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptionally historical or artistic significance, or outstandingly commemorate or illustrate a way of life or culture; or
6. Have yielded or may be likely to yield information of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those that have yielded, or which may be reasonably expected to yield data affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a major degree.

Paleoindian resources, like all other archeological properties, are usually nominated under National Historic Landmarks Criterion 6. That is, NHL designation requires that the information the site contains must be "of major scientific importance." Application of Criterion 6 is at once the most critical and most challenging component of an archeological National Historic Landmark nomination. Nominations made under Criterion 6 must address two questions:

1. What information is the site likely to yield?
2. Is the information nationally significant?

Establishing Significance

Those nominating Paleoindian sites and districts as National Historic Landmarks or as listings in the National Register of Historic Places must show how information preserved within resource boundaries can make significant contributions to existing knowledge at the national, statewide, or local levels. This standard requires that potentially recoverable data are likely to revolutionize or substantially modify a major prehistoric or historic concept, resolve a substantial historical or anthropological debate, or close a serious gap in a major theme of United States prehistory or history.

The only way to document the significance of a particular property is through the development of research designs and historic context statements providing explicit procedures by which archaeological materials from a given property can address specific archeological research questions. In the case of archaeological NHLs, two questions in particular must be considered, what kinds of information is the site likely to yield, and is this information of national importance?

When fieldwork is contemplated, how a property can contribute important information is determined during the research design stage of the investigations, when strategies for data collection, analysis, and interpretation are drawn up. The evaluation of properties for possible inclusion on either the NHL or NRHP follows a similar procedure. The potential of the archaeological remains to yield important contributions to research must be explicitly stated and justified, even though fieldwork may not be immediately forthcoming or, indeed, may have already occurred on one or more prior occasions. Landowner consent is a crucial part of the NRHP and NHL nomination process, which cannot proceed without it in the case of individual properties, or a majority of the landowners in cases involving multiple property or district nominations. Likewise, the locations of designated properties can be withheld under Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, if releasing this information may cause harm to the resource. Typically, NRHP or NHL status is not granted to properties that have been totally excavated or destroyed, although this sometimes happens where clearly outstanding contributions to knowledge were obtained, making them eligible under other NRHP and NHL Criteria (Grumet 1988, this volume). As such, NHL and NRHP nominations can be considered both management tools for designating and helping to preserve significant sites, and also blueprints for the conduct of future research at these properties.

Effectively evaluating the research potential of historic properties must be done using arguments developed from what Butler (1987) called the contemporary theoretical and substantive knowledge base of the discipline. The information and questions summarized in this historic context, and in other documents dealing with Paleoindian occupations, indicate the kinds of information currently considered of great research importance. For specific properties, NRHP and NHL evaluation should proceed by first completing a property designation matrix, which provides a basic overview of condition and research potential, and can serve as a guide to the preparation of detailed nomination statements. An example matrix is provided at the end of this section. How specific research questions and themes outlined in the matrix apply to Paleoindian properties, however, are given here and in the regional contexts.

NHL Property Type and Integrity

Linked with the evaluation of specific NHL property classes and categories is an assessment of their integrity. Property integrity refers to the physical condition of the remains under investigation, that is, their preservation, context, and ability to contribute important information. Assessing property integrity is thus a crucial aspect of the evaluation of NRHP and NHL status.

To be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or designation as an NHL, Paleoindian properties must possess deposits with sufficient integrity to yield information capable of identifying discrete periods of occupation or utilization, property function or type, and clearly defined boundaries. A property's state of preservation integrity is linked to its ability to contribute information to address significant research needs and questions. Neither size nor quantity is a critical determinate; very small undisturbed intact features, feature remnants, pieces of living floors, and sealed strata have the potential to contribute significant new information about Paleoindian life.

Three levels of integrity are employed in the present NHL theme study, High, Moderate, and Low.

High

• Clearly identified Paleoindian component or components.
• Demonstrable context consisting of:
  • Identifiable sedimentary matrix.
  • Clearly identifiable intrusions or disturbances.
• Secure calendric dating.

Examples of locales whose deposits have been found to possess high integrity levels in the past include Big Eddy in Missouri, Wisconsin's Chesrow, Lucas, and Metzig Garden sites, and Ohio's Paleo Crossing site in the Midwest; the Bull Brook I site in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania's Shawnee-Minisink site, Templeton in Connecticut, and New Hampshire's Whipple site in the Northeast; and Adams and other Little River Complex sites in Kentucky, South Carolina's Allendale Quarry sites, Aucilla River Complex locales in Florida, Alabama's Dust Cave, Nottoway Valley Complex Cactus Hill and Williamson sites in Virginia, and the Sloan site in Arkansas.

High Intergrity Properties whose integrity is High are potential NHLs or have national-level NRHP significance. Sites with High integrity have clearly identified Paleoindian component(s) in secure context, and with precise calendric dating. That is, the geologic and sedimentary context of the assemblage(s) are well documented, with sources of intrusion or disturbance recognized and controlled, and the age of the deposits ascertained using one or more absolute dating procedures, such as radiocarbon or thermoluminescent dating. Sufficient age determinations must, however, have been obtained from samples in secure context to ensure confidence in the results. Individual dates, accordingly, or even large numbers of dates from controversial associations, will probably not be considered sufficient, unless supported by other kinds of evidence, such as unambiguous geological or biotic associations.

Moderate

• Paleoindian component slightly mixed with later materials.
• Moderately intact context consisting of:
  • Identifiable sedimentary matrix that may or may not be contemporaneous with artifacts or features.
  • Possibly identifiable intrusions or disturbances.
• Indirect calendric or typological dating.

Examples of locales whose deposits have been found to possess moderate integrity levels in the past include Midwestern locales such as the Gainey site in Michigan, Ohio's Nobles Pond and Sandy Springs sites, the Aebischer site in Wisconsin, and the Lincoln Hills/Ready, Mueller, and Martens sites in Illinois; Northeastern sites such as Pennsylvania' Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Arc in New York, Hedden in Maine, and Wapanucket 8 in Massachusetts; and Alabama's Quad site in the Southeast.

Moderate Intergrity Properties whose integrity is Moderate are potential NHLs or have national- or state-level NRHP significance. Sites with Moderate integrity have Paleoindian component(s) that are to some extent mixed with later materials, in moderately secure context, and with relative rather than absolute dating. That is, the geologic and sedimentary context may be somewhat uncertain, with some mixing or reworking of the deposits. Control for disturbance is less secure. The age of the deposits is also somewhat less secure, and may depend upon stratigraphic relationships, seriation, or the cross-dating with materials securely dated elsewhere. That is, sites with Dalton points are assumed to date between ca. 10,500 and 9,900 rcbp (12,500 and 11,100 B.P.) regardless of where they are found, because that is the radiocarbon age range currently accepted based on an evaluation of known dates and contexts (Goodyear 1982). As we have seen, however, the actual temporal occurrence for Dalton points appears to vary appreciably, and may extend well beyond these inferred starting and ending dates, making use of cross-dating less secure than absolute dating.

Low

(Potential state- or local-level National Register listing):

• Paleoindian component mixed with numerous other materials.
• Highly disturbed context.
• No secure dating of any type associated with the Paleoindian component.

Sites identified as having low levels of integrity represent the majority of Paleoindian archeological resources in the East. Formerly intact locales whose deposits may have low integrity levels due to site damage, complete data recovery, inundation, or other factors include such Midwestern resources as Bostrom and C-B North in Illinois, Holcombe Beach site in Michigan, and Iowa's Rummels-Maske site; the Adkins and Lamoreau sites in Maine and New York's Twin Fields site in the Northeast; and now-flooded locales in the Southeast such as Parrish Village in Kentucky, the Haw River sites in North Carolina, and Georgia's Rucker's Bottom.

Low Intergrity Properties whose integrity is Low are not considered NHL candidates. If they were to be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, it would probably be at the state or local level of significance. Sites with Low integrity have presumed Paleoindian components that are in highly disturbed context, and whose age may be uncertain or questionable. Lithic scatters lacking diagnostics, absolute dates, or sound stratigraphic contexts are examples of such sites, as are sites with diagnostics whose deposits are severely disturbed or are thoroughly mixed with materials of later periods.

Isolated finds are a special Paleoindian property class of great importance for research purposes, but whose integrity is considered Low, and hence have minimal potential for inclusion on the NRHP, or designation as an NHL. If properly identified, however, isolated finds are typically not considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, unless the artifact itself is of exceptional significance. There is one exception to this. Groups of culturally related but otherwise isolated Paleoindian remains found in connection with diagnostic land-forms or other paleogeological, geomorphological, or paleoenvironmental contexts may be nominated as contributing properties within a district. That is, isolated finds, taken collectively, may under certain conditions (i.e., high density, significant paleoenvironmental associations) be considered important enough to warrant inclusion on the NRHP or as part of an NHL.

Evaluation Standards: NRHP Criteria

Although NHL designation is not the same thing as NRHP status, any successful NHL nomination will also have to meet NRHP Criteria. Since explicit Criteria by which Paleoindian properties may be considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP have been presented in a number of state historic contexts, these Criteria are summarized and presented here. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, outlined four Criteria under which a historic or prehistoric site could be qualified for listing on the NRHP. These are listed in 36 CFR 60:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

1. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history; or
2. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
3. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
4. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Archeological site eligibility is normally considered under Criterion (D), the potential to yield information important to prehistory and history. Determining what information is important in prehistory or history can be accomplished only through explicit arguments linking the site(s) and cultural resources in question to theoretical and substantive questions and issues of archeological or historic knowledge. This process has been described in detail by Butler (1987:821-823):

The intent of the cultural resource laws dating from the 1890s… is to preserve and protect elements of our national patrimony. Protection includes physical protection as well as the act of preserving the information contained in such resources. Preservation of information can be accomplished only by individuals properly trained to gather and interpret those data to generate knowledge. Thus, the preservation of knowledge from archaeological resources requires that information be gained and interpreted based on the current theoretical and substantive concerns of the discipline. ...Hence compliance with the cultural resources laws demands that National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance for archaeological properties be well understood... Importance is based on the theoretical and substantive knowledge (T&SK) of the discipline—nothing more, nothing less; i.e., what we know and what we do not know (Butler 1987:821-823).

These linking arguments, or significance justifications, must be present in NRHP and NHL nominations. The potential of identified Paleoindian properties to yield important contributions to research much be explicitly stated and justified.

The presence of any of the following characteristics on sites yielding Paleoindian artifacts would tend to automatically make them eligible for inclusion on the NRHP:

1. Intact buried deposits, particularly assemblages yielding features or preserved floral and faunal remains. These types of sites are extremely rare at this time level.
2. Stratified deposits, with components that can be isolated horizontally or vertically. This would facilitate detailed examination of single periods of occupation.
3. Major quarry sites with extensive reduction or manufacturing debris, and evidence for utilization during the Paleoindian period.
4. Areally extensive surface scatters from plowzone or eroded upland context, particularly if evidence for artifact relocation beyond more than a few meters is minimal. Controlled surface collection procedures can recover discrete occupational episodes or activity areas on sites of this kind.

To these attributes can be added consideration of Glassow's (1977) Criteria by which site significance can be assessed. By themselves, however, these are not eligibility Criteria, but only guidelines to consider when assessing the information potential of a Paleoindian property.

1. Degree of Integrity. What condition is the property in? Does the site contain intact remains which allow each component to be segregated and studied individually, or are the remains so badly disturbed as to preclude the recovery of information important to prehistory? Three levels of integrity have been provided in this study for use in the evaluation of Paleoindian properties, High, Moderate, and Low, together with explicit Criteria by which a property can be placed in one of these categories.
2. Degree of Preservation. Does the site possess cultural features, or faunal/floral remains, or skeletal remains, or materials suited to absolute dating techniques, which would allow this site to make important contributions to the study of prehistory?
3. Uniqueness. Can preservation or data recovery at a particular site yield information of a critical nature, or does this site possess information also possessed by numerous other archeological sites? Do better examples of this particular site type exist, or have better examples been excavated? Can this site present new and contributing information through uniqueness, preservation, integrity, or the application of new analytical techniques, or is the information available redundant?

When assessing NHL or NRHP significance, the important thing is not simply that a property may possess one or more of these characteristics, but how they contribute to its ability to contribute important information. This can only be done through the development of explicit statements detailing the kinds of information that can be learned, as well as how it can be collected and analyzed from this specific property or district. NRHP or NHL nominations are thus true research designs and syntheses, and not mere rote listings of physical attributes or general research questions.

The presence of any of the following characteristics tends to automatically make a site yielding Paleoindian materials ineligible for inclusion on the NRHP:

1. Sites consisting only of a single isolated artifact. Little information beyond that obtained at the time of collection can be derived from such assemblages. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that the presence of other deposits has been ruled out. Isolates may be the only detected evidence of a complex site.
2. Heavily disturbed surface scatters. This does not include plowzone scatters, from which significant assemblage and intra-site distributional information can be recovered given careful data collection. Care must be taken when examining presumably disturbed deposits that the presence of undisturbed deposits has been completely ruled out.
3. Sites damaged by cultural or natural factors to the extent that deposit integrity is destroyed.

Following the arguments noted above, and given how rare these sites are, full justifications should also be provided in cultural resource management studies detailing why Paleoindian properties cannot yield information important to history or prehistory.

Evaluation Criteria Matrix/Registration Requirements

Properties considered for designation MUST possess deposits with integrity sufficient to yield information capable of addressing one or more research questions at National Historic Landmark or National Register national, state or local significance levels by identifying:

• Discrete periods of occupation or utilization.
• Property function or type.
• Clearly defined boundaries.
• Collection curatorial facility or location.

Properties considered for designation also SHOULD possess deposits with integrity sufficient to yield information capable of addressing one or more research questions at National Historic Landmark or National Register national, state or local significance levels by identifying:

• Intrasite variability.
• Relationships with other locales or communities.
• Environmental information.
• A time period or periods presently unrepresented or under-represented in National Historic Landmark or National Register listings.
• A culture or cultures presently unrepresented or under-represented in National Historic Landmark or National Register listings.
• A geographic area or areas presently unrepresented or under-represented in National Historic Landmark or National Register listings.
• A research theme or themes presently unrepresented or under-represented in National Historic Landmark or National Register listings.

Properties containing physical attributes and representational values capable of addressing research questions will be marked National Historic Landmark, N (for national), S (for state), or L (for local) levels of significance within appropriate grid boxes in the Designation Matrix below. Properties capable of addressing research questions must possess all required and one or more optional physical attributes or representational values. Properties meeting this requirement will be nominated for designation at the highest marked level of significance.

Properties considered for designation must possess deposits with integrity sufficient to yield information to identify:

Table 10a. Earliest Americans Theme Study Property Designation Matrix

Properties possessing these attributes also should yield or possess potential to yield information that can:

Table 10b. Earliest Americans Theme Study Property Designation Matrix

Using the Evaluation Matrix — The Thunderbird Archeological District National Historic Landmark Example

Robert S. Grumet

The Evaluation Matrix is a grid showing in graphic form how information contained in a nomination form addresses key research questions at local, state, national, and National Historic Landmark levels of significance. The vertical grid column lists key research questions as National Historic Landmark thematic elements.

Using this grid, properties nominated under the thematic element "Peopling Places," for example, can show how contributing resources address key demographic research questions on local, state, national or National Historic Landmark significance levels.

Horizontal rows list property integrity and representational values required to address key research questions.

A property nominated for its ability to shed light on peopling places, for example, must possess clearly identified, dated, and bounded intact resources. The property should also possess vertical or horizontal stratigraphic integrity, ability to indicate relations with other locales, or environmental information bearing upon demographic issues of particular levels of significance. Further, the information contained in the nomination form should show how the property addresses time periods, cultures, geographic areas, or research themes currently un-represented or under-represented at a particular significance level.

All information used to evaluate the abilities of designated properties to address key research questions in this theme study is drawn from the latest drafts of nomination forms on file in the National Register, History, and Education Division in the National Center for Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnership, Washington, D.C. Each form contains information used to formally identify, evaluate, and designate the property as a National Historic Landmark or a listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Forms are periodically updated to reflect new findings, condition assessments, and other developments affecting a property's ability to represent significant aspects of American history and culture.

The following example shows how information contained in the Thunderbird Archeological District National Historic Landmark nomination form addresses themes of exceptional national significance. Designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1977, the Thunderbird Archeological District encompasses three contributing properties; the Thunderbird, Fifty, and Fifty Bog sites on the South Fork of the Shenandoah River near Front Royal, Virginia. The three properties are components of the larger Flint Run Archeological District listed in the National Register of Historic Places a year earlier as a property preserving resources at the state level of significance.

Table 11a. The Thunderbird Matrix

Table 11b. The Thunderbird Matrix

Discussion

The following introductory paragraphs of Thunderbird National Historic Landmark nomination forms' statement of significance, written by nomination form preparers Francine Weise, William Gardner, and Gary Haynes, succinctly describe the districts' contributing properties, components, and significance:

The first undisturbed Paleoindian site to be discovered in Eastern North America, Thunderbird also represents the first known base camp on the continent to exhibit stratification and cultural continuity between the beginning of the Paleoindian and the end of the Early Archaic periods. Excavations at the site have also revealed evidence for the earliest structures in the western hemisphere. The Fifty site represents the first known stratified Paleoindian to Early Archaic hunting-processing camp while the Fifty Bog is the only extinct late Pleistocene/Early Holocene habitat in Eastern North America known to be associated with human occupation and to contain well preserved organic materials.

The sites have helped to clarify the chronological sequence, primarily for the early periods, in the Middle Shenandoah Valley. This regional sequence has in turn influenced archeological theories for Eastern North America in general. Taken together, the sites have changed the archeological definition of the nature of the Eastern Paleoindian and have influenced thinking on the differences and similarities between Paleoindian and Early Archaic cultures. The potential exists for studying the nature of the various aspects of cultural systems and the changes which occurred in them during these periods. When viewed in relation to the larger area of the South Fork Valley, the sites have contributed greatly to an understanding of the settlement pattern for the early prehistoric periods of the East (ca. 9500 - 6500 B.C.).

Although subsequent researchers have since found additional examples of the above-cited property types, Thunderbird nevertheless remains a key evaluatory benchmark against which all potential Paleoindian and Early Archaic National Historic Landmark nominations are measured on both national and regional scales. Review of nomination documentation conducted through this theme study by Diversity Intern Andrew Bashaw reveals that the Thunderbird nomination form cites the presence of intact archeological resources contributing to the following five elements of National Historic Landmark level of significance;

Peopling Places:

A suite of radiocarbon dates securely associated with intact features, horizons, and diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts identifies Thunderbird as a locale occupied during the initial peopling of eastern North America. Site content, size, and distribution suggest that district locales functioned as base camps and quarry workshops. Artifact distributions and geomorphological boundaries clearly delimit areas occupied by the site's initial occupants. Differential artifact and feature distribution reveal intra site variability. Discoveries of widely spread Paleoindian tools, several made from exotic raw materials, indicate contact with people from other places. Bone and plant remains preserve evidence of the kinds of environmental conditions encountered by Thunderbird's earliest occupants. Thunderbird is also the first of three designated National Historic Landmarks (and the only one possessing intact plant and animal remains) identifying a time period, culture, and group of themes unrepresented in National Historic landmarks located in the Southeast Region. As such, Thunderbird resources provide key data contributing to research shedding light on the first peopling of Eastern North America.

Developing the American Economy:

Charred seeds, nuts, and other organic remains, many in association with chipped stone artifacts near small hearths, activity area concentrations, and around the earliest known house-pattern in North America preserve evidence of Paleoindian hunting and gathering economic activities. The small size of site deposits and the absence of grinding tools, bones of big game, and domesticated plant and animal remains suggest that Thunderbird's occupants pursued a mixed subsistence economy focusing on the hunting of small game and the gathering of locally available wild plants. Close associations with outcrops of jasper stone used for tool manufacture further indicate that stone quarrying was an important component of the Paleoindian economy at Thunderbird.

Expanding Science and Technology:

Securely dated resources discovered at Thunderbird locales reveal that site occupants worked jasper stone quarries to obtain raw materials for projectile points, knives, scrapers, and other implements that constituted the preserved portion of Paleoindian technological tool kits in the East. Variations in lithic reduction techniques over time in turn suggest technological changes. Comparatively rapid replacement in site technological inventories of Paleoindian fluted points by Early Archaic small notched points suggest a shift from hand-held lances to smaller spear-throwers. The absence of axes, adzes, and other ground stone artifacts made by later peoples indicate that tools required by people living in dense Holocene forests were not used by Paleoindians inhabiting less densely timbered late Pleistocene environments.

Transforming the Environment:

Pollen samples and other plant remains preserved in Fifty Bog deposits have the potential to yield nationally significant insights into late Pleistocene and early Holocene environments at Thunderbird. Rapid environmental change at the end of the late Pleistocene may correlate with the equally swift technological shift from fluted points to smaller triangular notched points. Further analyses may also shed new light on human activities influencing or influenced by rapid environmental change at the dawn of the Holocene.

Changing Role of the United States in the World:

Development of the first well-dated chronological sequence in the Southeast at Thunderbird has played a major role in placing North American prehistory within the broader context of worldwide human cultural development. Identification of Paleoindian and Early Archaic settlement-subsistence patterns has further facilitated broader comparisons with peoples at similar levels of socio-cultural integration in other places and times. Future analysis of organic remains preserved within intact sealed strata at Fifty Bog may also contribute new insights into worldwide climate changes during Younger Dryas times.

section E

next

E. statement of historic contexts

F. associated property types

introduction

NHL property types as categories

research needs and questions / the thematic framework

evaluation criteria

establishing significance

NHL property type and integrity

evaluation standards: NRHP criteria

evaluation criteria matrix/registration requirements

figure 8

table 10a

table 10b

using the evaluation matrix

table 11a

table 11b

southeast property types

northeast property types

midwest property types

G. geographical data

H. summary of identification and evaluation methods

I. major bibliographical references

Figures and Tables