In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

9 Paleoindians Near the Edge: A Virginia Perspective Michael F. Johnson The following discussion synthesizes ideas presented in two papers: "An Analogy between Eastern Paleoindian and Historic Caribou Hunters: A Broad Perspective from Virginia" (M. Johnson 1992) and "The Lithic Technology and Material Culture of the First Virginians: An Eastern Clovis Perspective" (M. Johnson 1989). The first paper presented archaeological data indicating that caribou were a major human prey species during the Paleoindian period in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic. It also postulated through analogy that, being a major resource and being migratory, caribou were a driving force in an apparently mobile Paleoindian settlement pattern in the Northeast. The second paper presented both technological and settlement pattern differences between tools and sites found in Virginia and the Northeast and hypothesized a more restricted, Archaic -like settlement pattern for Virginia. The model presented here is that, during an as yet to be determined time span within the Paleoindian period, Virginia was situated on the southern side of an edge dividing distinctive southeastern and northeastern cultural areas. These cultural areas coincided with generally divergent ecological areas where flora and fauna differed sufficiently to induce different human adaptations, despite similar lithic technologies. A secondary hypothesis, involving risk minimization, is presented as one possible explanation for the apparent similarities between these two hypothetically divergent Paleoindian cultural areas. The argument here is for a movement away from the traditional normative or lumping approach to the data and toward a more cognitive or splitting approach. Gunn and others have made a strong argument for a more refined (Le., cognitive) method as a way to identify idiosyncratic behavior (Adovasio and Gunn 1977; Carlisle and Gunn 1977; Gunn 1975, 1977; Hill and Gunn 1977; M. Johnson 1993, 1995). In so doing, they were advocating a more balanced approach to the data. The normative tendency of focusing on functional integration tends to obscure the enormous range of variation found in society (Young and Bonnichsen 1984:3). Human decision-making processes behind cultural change are often obscured by environmental and other "causes." Defining central tenden- 188 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast cies is important. However, it is just as important to know what factors cause change and divergence as it is to understand those that resist them. Both approaches are useful. It is important to know how to use each effectively , while overcoming their limits. THE ANALOGY QUESTION Paleoindian models are not easily "confirmed," although an argument can be made for analogous cultures having occurred historically in the circumpolar and adjacent regions. An equally strong argument can be made that, as with Ice Age environments (Butzer 1971:144), there are no modem analogues for Ice Age cultures. As such, ethnographic analogy alone is inadequate as independent "confirmation" of Paleoindian culture . However, despite this weakness, analogy can provide important sources for hypotheses about Paleoindian culture in the Middle Atlantic and adjacent northeastern region (Custer and Stewart 1990; Eisenberg 1978; W. Gardner 1981; M. Johnson 1992; Meltzer 1984, 1985). The use of modem caribou-wild reindeer, hereinafter referred to as "caribou," and caribou hunters as an analogue for Paleoindian huntergatherers in the Northeast (including the Canadian maritime provinces) and Middle Atlantic is designed here to present an alternative to Custer and Stewart's (1990) model. Using an eastern Labrador analogue, they provided compelling inferential arguments, based on recent environmental reconstructions, for a more generalized foraging strategy during the Paleoindian period. Dincauze (1992; chapter 22, this volume) has reiterated the dynamism of the Late Glacial environments in the Northeast and offers caution in the use of caribou-based models to help explain Paleoindian adaptation there. However, Custer and Stewart (1990) failed to explain the persistent appearance of caribou faunal remains from most northeastern Paleoindian sites where faunal remains have been recovered (Fitting et ale 1966; Funk et al. 1970; Kopper et al. 1980; Spiess et al. 1984; Storck 1988). There is worldwide evidence that, wherever they occurred during the last 25,000 years, caribou were a significant human resource (Banfield 1974:386; Enloe 1993; Pike-Tay 1993; Spiess 1979). The degree of exploitation has varied in intensity through time and space because of availability (Delpach 1993). However, it is clear that if they were available, they probably were exploited. Based on the direct archaeological evidence as supported by indirect paleoenvironmental reconstructions (below), it is assumed here that caribou were an available and important Paleoindian resource in the Northeast and maybe to a lesser extent in the Middle Atlantic. This does not preclude...

Share