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

11 Chapter 2 New Insights into the Simon Clovis Cache Paul Santarone • When I began my research on the Simon Clovis cache in 2005, I thought that I was undertaking a straightforward project. However, while reading the published reports on the cache I was struck by discrepancies in the information reported. Careful examination showed that artifact inventories and descriptions did not agree between publications. As a result I undertook to determine how and why these discrepancies came about and to attempt to create a complete inventory of the documentable artifact assemblage. This chapter reports what I discovered about the history of the Simon site and the artifact inventory of the Simon cache. I also discuss how “changes” to the assemblage call into question popular inferences concerning the contents and nature of Clovis mixed biface caches. I use the term cache throughout this chapter, consistent with established practice. The use of this term is not intended to imply any particular function. Since some readers may not be familiar with the Simon cache, I begin by providing contextual background on the site and the assemblage. Following the contextual information I discuss what I have called “assemblage drift”—unreported changes in an archaeological assemblage since initial recovery (Santarone 2007). I next present the methods I used to document that previously unreported artifacts were part of the Simon cache assemblage, and then I describe the known cache assemblage. Finally, I discuss how the addition of previously unknown (and/or unreported) artifacts changes which inferences about the cache can be supported. Clearly my research provides a cautionary tale, but it also adds further insights into the roles of caches in Clovis lifeways. discov ery of the c ache The Simon cache site is located several kilometers east of the rural town of Fairfield in Camas County, south central Idaho. The larger landform on which the site lies is known as the Big Camas Prairie. The Snake River Plain is situated to the south of the Big Camas Prairie and the Soldier, Smoky, and Sawtooth Mountains are to the north. The Big Camas Prairie is separated from the Snake River Plain by inhospitable lava flows and rugged hills. Although specific details vary between witnesses, it is clear that heavy-equipment disturbance of the surface of a cultivated field led to the initial discovery of cache artifacts . Heavy equipment may have also been used in the recovery of artifacts (Bill Simon, personal communication 2008). Although the artifacts were discovered in the late summer or early fall of 1961, the collection was not brought to the attention of archaeologists until later that year (Butler 1963). The first archaeologists to visit the site arrived in early August 1962. During this visit it was 12 Chapter 2 determined that “nothing of archaeological value remained at the site” (Butler 1963:22). Butler (1963:23) reported the find as a collection of “29 chipped stone implements and an unworked spall fragment .” Butler noted that a large portion of the artifacts was broken prior to his examination. However, he attributed essentially all the breakage to contact with the heavy equipment that exposed the cache. Butler described 23 of the artifacts as points, although from his usage it is clear that he does not mean projectile points; this is likely a source of some confusion. Six of these 23 points were described as edge-ground lanceolate points with fluting or basal thinning. The remaining 17 are bifaces of various shapes and sizes with pointed distal ends. The six remaining artifacts were described as a pair of discoid knives, a large flake knife, a spokeshave, a unifacial side scraper, and a bifacial end scraper. Two years later Butler and Fitzwater (1965) reported that three artifacts described by Butler (1963) conjoin into a single artifact. Using Butler’s (1963) illustrations and descriptions it is possible to document which artifacts were present when the cache was initially reported. Table 2.1presents a summary of Butler’s descriptions and correlates his figure numbers with the current accession numbers of the artifacts. Thus far, what I have described substantially agrees with the published information on the discovery of the cache. But after the initial publication of the find neither the site nor the assemblage remained static. Few archaeologists realize that professional archaeological investigations at the site have been conducted at intervals since 1963. Further, additional artifacts have been recovered and artifacts have been separated into multiple collections . For clarity the history of the artifacts is discussed separately from the...

Share