The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast

14. Recent Paleoindian Research in Tennessee

14 Recent Paleoindian Research in Tennessee John B. Broster and Mark R. Norton In its first attempt to use a systematic approach for data recovery for the entire state, since 1988 the Tennessee Division of Archaeology has been conducting a state-wide Paleoindian projectile point and site survey. Previously , only the survey of Paleoindian fluted points in Smith County could be considered a systematic attempt to gather information (Morse et ale 1964), and while numerous fluted projectile points have been recorded in the Tennessee Archaeologist, this was usually based on collectors' sending in information to the journal and was dependent upon the good relations between selected collectors and members of the University of Tennessee anthropology faculty. The majority of the fluted points published were from the Kentucky Lake region; other high-density areas of Paleoindian materials were not as well represented. By 1983, a total of 389 fluted projectile points had been recorded by the University of Tennessee , but unfortunately, no accurate numbers of later Paleoindian types were tabulated during this period of research (Guthe 1983). In 1988, we decided that a comprehensive survey of sites and projectile points was long overdue. Working with collectors throughout the state, we gathered information on projectile points and uniface tools, our main goal being to establish exact locations for these early tools and to ground-check the accuracy of such finds when possible. Early emphasis was on projectile points, with locational information generally restricted to county provenience. We strove to get more accurate and precise information on actual find spots from the collectors and have been surprisingly successful, for approximately 75 percent of the artifacts examined have been precisely located and have been assigned a state site survey number. The division has recorded measurements on a total of 2,239 projectile points, with the addition of 748 points being identified in the published literature. Of the total number of fluted projectile points examined by the division, the following types were noted: 654 Clovis, 217 Cumberland, and 4 Redstone (e.g., figures 14.1 and 14.2). The remaining 1,602 projectile points were nonfluted and Middle or Late Paleoindian in age. A total of 225 fluted points were found as isolates (155 Clovis, 65 a d Recent-Paleoindian Research in Tennessee 289 b c e f o centimeters 5 g h Figure 14. 1 Paleoindian points from Tennessee: (a) Dalton [40HS60]; (b) Beaver Lake [40HS60]; (c) Greenbrier [40HS174]; Quad [40HS174]; (e, g-i) Clovis [40HS174, 40HS102, 40HS282, 40HS278]; Clovis/Redstone [40HS60]. 290 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast c g 5 f centimeters o Figure 14.2 Paleoindian artifacts from Tennessee: (a-d) fluted preforms [40BN190]; (e, g, h, j-l) Clovis; (f, i) Cumberland. Recent Paleoindian Research in Tennessee 291 Cumberland, and 4 Redstones), with 236 isolated Late Paleoindian projectile points being recovered. Some 108 Late Paleoindian and 51 fluted points were found on later multicomponent prehistoric sites. These items probably represent the later use of Paleoindian points by Archaic and Mississippian peoples. Of probable greater importance than raw projectile point counts was the recognition of 47 Paleoindian sites and 77 localities within the data':' base, although the difference between sites and localities was arbitrary, with five or more diagnostic artifacts being used as the determination of an archaeological site versus a locality. This definition, given certain inherent problems of visibility at the time of investigation, has still proved to have its analytical usefulness. Early Paleoindian fluted point components are represented on 29 sites and 63 localities (Broster and Norton 1992:table 15.1). For many years, Tennessee has been known to produce numerous Paleoindian projectile points and tools, and several locations and sites have been published iI) the regional literature (Broster 1982, 1987; Guthe 1966, 1983; Lewis and Kneberg 1958; Nuckolls 1958). The first year of survey revealed a great number of artifacts that were potentially. available for study (Broster 1989). Because of the magnitude, we decided to concentrate our efforts within two specific regions, and toward this effort , work in recent years has concentrated in the Kentucky Lake region (Tennessee River) and the Cumberland River centered within the Nashville Basin and the Western Highland Rim. Eighteen sites and 10 localities have been recorded in the Kentucky Lake region. The Cumberland drainage has produced 12 sites and 19 localities. Interestingly, eight of the sites in the Kentucky Lake survey have produced 100 or more artifacts of a Paleoindian age...