Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/556853
Title:
Clovis and Folsom Functionality Comparison
Author:
Richard, Andrew Justin
Issue Date:
2015
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Embargo:
Release after 5-May-2016
Abstract:
This thesis uses experimental archaeology as a method to discover the functional differences between Clovis and Folsom projectile points filtered through a behavioral ecology paradigm. Porcelain is used as a substitute for tool stone for its consistency and control value. The experiment was devised to find out which technology, Clovis or Folsom, was more functional, had a higher curation rate and contributed to increased group subsistence. Paleoindian tool technology transitions can be seen as indicators for adaptation triggered by environmental conditions and changes in subsistence. Folsom technology, when compared to Clovis technology, was functionally superior in performance, refurbishment and curation. Technological design choices made by Folsom people were engineered toward producing a more functional tool system as a sustainable form of risk management. The Clovis Folsom Breakage Experiment indicates that Folsom tool technology was specifically adapted to bison subsistence based on increased functionality and curation.
Type:
text; Electronic Thesis
Keywords:
Clovis; Experimental Archaeology; Folsom; PaleoIndian; Projectile Point; Anthropology; Ceramic Projectile Points
Degree Name:
M.A.
Degree Level:
masters
Degree Program:
Graduate College; Anthropology
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Holliday, Vance T.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.titleClovis and Folsom Functionality Comparisonen_US
dc.creatorRichard, Andrew Justinen
dc.contributor.authorRichard, Andrew Justinen
dc.date.issued2015en
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en
dc.description.releaseRelease after 5-May-2016en
dc.description.abstractThis thesis uses experimental archaeology as a method to discover the functional differences between Clovis and Folsom projectile points filtered through a behavioral ecology paradigm. Porcelain is used as a substitute for tool stone for its consistency and control value. The experiment was devised to find out which technology, Clovis or Folsom, was more functional, had a higher curation rate and contributed to increased group subsistence. Paleoindian tool technology transitions can be seen as indicators for adaptation triggered by environmental conditions and changes in subsistence. Folsom technology, when compared to Clovis technology, was functionally superior in performance, refurbishment and curation. Technological design choices made by Folsom people were engineered toward producing a more functional tool system as a sustainable form of risk management. The Clovis Folsom Breakage Experiment indicates that Folsom tool technology was specifically adapted to bison subsistence based on increased functionality and curation.en
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Thesisen
dc.subjectClovisen
dc.subjectExperimental Archaeologyen
dc.subjectFolsomen
dc.subjectPaleoIndianen
dc.subjectProjectile Pointen
dc.subjectAnthropologyen
dc.subjectCeramic Projectile Pointsen
thesis.degree.nameM.A.en
thesis.degree.levelmastersen
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen
thesis.degree.disciplineAnthropologyen
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen
dc.contributor.advisorHolliday, Vance T.en
dc.contributor.committeememberKuhn, Steven L.en
dc.contributor.committeememberTowner, Ronald H.en
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.