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

xv Gault is an extensive and prolific prehistoric site occupied intermittently throughout the known archaeological record of central Texas. It is situated in the upper valley of Buttermilk Creek in southwestern Bell County. Springs, chert, and sundry flora and fauna are among attractions that brought people to this spot over the millennia. Culture-bearing deposits here range from a few centimeters to over three meters in thickness, derive from a variety of depositional processes, and have undergone an array of post-depositional alterations. Because Gault was recognized as highly prolific in artifacts perhaps as early as 1908, a major post-depositional alteration of the site has been at the hands (and sometimes machinery) of artifact collectors and looters. Very nearly all of the site deposits younger than about 8000 years have been destroyed by indiscriminate digging. Fortunately, in contrast , deposits of greater age have been minimally disturbed. Undisciplined digging was brought to a halt in the central core of the site in 1998 but continues today in some outlying areas. Professional archaeological investigations have transpired at Gault in 1929–1930, 1991, 1989–2002, and 2007–2010 and continue at the time of this writing. A large number of individuals have participated in these investigations under the guidance of several project directors hailing from various academic or other professional affiliations. The resulting trove of evidence about the past is enormous and complex. One of the longest associations has been with Texas A&M University. Tom Hester and I invited Harry Shafer and Mike Waters to excavate at the site when we first started large-scale investigations there in 1999. Their excavations concentrated on a part of the site known as Excavation Area 8. Here they conducted a field school in the spring semester of 2000. David Carlson conducted a field school excavation in the summer of 2001. Analysis of the material collected from these excavations continued through 2009. This well-written volume focuses on the Clovis record from Excavation Area 8. Here, Clovis artifacts resided in stream, pond, and colluvial deposits with intervals of soil formation. These deposits are at the tip of a bedrock divide between two drainages that flow into Buttermilk Creek. They form the physical basis for interpreting the geological settings of Excavation Area 8 before, during, and after each major episode of occupation. Organic preservation is generally very poor at the site, which limits interpretation and almost precludes radiocarbon dating. Clovis blade and biface technolForeword xvi FOREWORD ogy and its contexts of resources used, site formation processes, fauna, stone tool use and production, spatial patterning of activities, as well as the greater Clovis realm in time and space, are treated in depth in the pages that follow. Analytical approaches and resulting interpretations are comprehensive. Findings in Excavation Area 8 lead to the conclusions that Clovis inhabitants of Gault relied almost exclusively on local sources of chert, brought worn-out tools to the workshop area and produced replacements, used some of the tools they produced at the workshop and removed others to elsewhere in the site or beyond, and did these things (intermittently ) over a long period of time. Early in the operation of their workshop, knappers gathered around a central hearth, but the excavated part of the workshop lacked evidence of a hearth during later occupations. The workshop area was subject to physical changes as geological regimes of stream flow, ponding, slope wash, and stability varied over time. In broader terms, the Excavation Area 8 evidence does not support longstanding concepts of colonizing Clovis groups being highly mobile, depending on large animals, and staying briefly at any one locality. Instead, the picture that emerges is one of generalized foragers repeatedly occupying a large site for multiple domestic purposes. The site offered diverse and sufficient resources to Clovis foragers who likely learned of Gault from previous inhabitants. These findings square nicely with preliminary interpretations of Clovis from elsewhere in the site, but because the Texas A&M University sample is small compared to the overall data from the site, there are some differences. For example, in other areas of the site there is a small amount of exotic stone; clear evidence of exploitation of bison, horse, and mammoth; greater variation in stone tool production behavior; and considerable tangible evidence of Gault having been occupied earlier than Clovis as currently dated. As Clovis sites go, Gault is extraordinarily large and prolific. It reflects a greater than usual diversity of artifacts, features, and inferred activities. The full extent of the site is unknown because...

Share