The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast

3. Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast

3 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast David G. Anderson Resolving the lifeways of the first Americans entails the recovery and interpretation ofinformation about a range ofphenomena, includingsettlement and mobility strategies, subsistence pursuits, information exchange and mating networks, technological organization, burial customs, and the whole host of behaviors that make up archaeologically recoverable human culture. The material remains from the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, however, are comparatively few and far between when compared with the assemblages left by later peoples, and with rare exceptions , the preservation of perishables is minimal. To complicate matters , there are no ethnographic analogues to help us understand how preagricultural human populations colonized continental land masses the magnitude of North and South America, which were themselves characterized by climates and ecosystems lacking modem analogues. Understanding the initial human occupation of the New World, including the area we now know as the southeastern United States, is thus a supremely interesting challenge facing archaeologists, and in this volume , we are seeing how this challenge has been met. Here I will briefly recount some recent models that have been developed to interpret and explain the Paleoindian and Early Archaic archaeological record in the Eastern Woodlands, with particular attention to those of relevance in the Southern Appalachian area. The review proceeds from models that are broad in scale and scope, to more focused efforts dealing with smaller areas or subsets of the overall record. It also proceeds diachronically, from earlier to later in time, in acknowledgment of the marked changes that are evident over the roughly 3,500-year interval under examination. PALEOINDIAN COLONIZATION MODELS Regardless of whether one accepts the evidence for earlier occupationfor the so-called pre-Clovis or preprojectile point horizons-there is little 30 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast doubt that beginning about 11,500 years ago a major radiation of technology and presumably population occurred across the New World. Evidence for this earliest and broadest securely dated occupational horizon, identified by Clovis projectile points, has been found across unglaciated North America, with dense concentrations in the East (figure 3.1). Little more than 500 years later, however, regional traditions had begun to emerge, indicating that the initial radiation had largely ceased. This initial rapid spread, possibly of people and certainly of technology, across huge areas of the New World is so distinctive that it warrants separate discussion, under the general rubric of "colonization models." The Clovis radiation is most commonly explained as a result of initial colonization, with the resulting archaeological horizon formed by the rapid movement and growth of human populations encountering a pristine resource-rich landscape. Discrete models examining the mechanics of the colonization process include Martin's (1973) "overkill hypothesis" or wave-advance model, which envisions populations expanding over the landscape in the pursuit of megafauna, growing exponentially, and leaving an impoverished landscape in their wake; Kelly and Todd's (1988) "technology-oriented" or "high-technology forager" model, with its emphasis on frequent range shifts and a generalist large-mammal hunting adaptation; and a series of "place-oriented" models, which continue to emphasize high residential, logistical, and range mobility but with some population tethering or staging in resource rich areas (e.g., Anderson 1990a, 1991b, 1995a; W. Gardner 1977, 1983a-b; Goodyear 1979). An alternative perspective has the Clovis radiation occurring within existing New World populations and sees it as the result of a technological advance that conferred such an adaptive advantage that either the technology itself or the populations employing it were able to spread 0 quickly over the continent (MacNeish 1976). In the absence of convincing evidence for pre-Clovis human populations, refinement of this model is difficult, although it should not be dismissed outright. Clovis technology , after all, had to originate someplace. Resolution of this question will require far better assemblage data and chronologicalcontrol from all across the continent than is available at present (Dincauze 1984; Griffin 1977; Haynes 1987, 1992). While some authorities have suggested that Clovis technology arose within the Southeast, primarily because of the large numbers of fluted points found along the major rivers in the central portion of the region, Kulturkreis arguments equating assemblage quantity with temporal priority have long been discredited in anthropology, and resolving Clovis origins cannot proceed on these grounds alone. Given current dating of western versus eastern fluted point horizons, in fact, an Eastern origin cannot be demonstrated at present. Only in the past few years, however, have any radiocarbon dates at all become...