That moment I realized I've been wrong about Clovis points for 10 years

I've always argued that Clovis points were strictly for big game hunting, but last month I saw a microscopic wear analysis on a point from a site in Texas that showed plant processing residue. Turns out those tools were way more multipurpose than I ever gave them credit for. Has anyone else had their mind changed by residue analysis on a specific artifact site?

3 comments

3 Comments

pat_harris8d ago

@flores.mark hit it spot on with the micro-polish from plant silica. The thing is, that old textbook stuff stuck with a lot of us for way too long. But one detail that needs a gentle fix - Clovis points aren't always "points" for hunting. I've seen a study from a site in Oklahoma where wear patterns showed they were also used like knives for cutting reeds and grass. Mixing up the tool's full use range with just projectile points is an easy mistake to make when you're stuck on the big game hunting idea.

flores.mark8d ago

Take it from someone who spent years convincing people the same thing - that Clovis was strictly megafauna. Then a buddy of mine in the lab showed me a full-on starch grain on a Clovis point from a kill site in Kansas. Right there under the microscope, plant residue mixed right in with the blood residue. Your mileage may vary on the specific site, but the evidence keeps piling up that they were using those points for everything from scraping roots to cutting up small game. The trick is getting past the old textbooks and looking at the actual wear patterns. Once you see the micro-polish from plant silica, it's hard to unsee it.

anthony_jackson318d agoMost Upvoted

Whoa, that starch grain finding is wild.