banner

 

Lithic Technology

 

Clovis Caches

 

This page is provided in an attempt to make sense of the rare and special collections recovered from caches. Articles found in caches represent the full range of normal production activities and beyond. Interpretations range from lost “everyday” tool kits, to fail-safe provision caches, to spiritual offerings.

Links to generalized discussions of Clovis caches:

An investigation of Clovis caches: Content, function, and technological organization by David Kilby

A Comparison of Clovis Caches by Robert Lassen

There are many more Clovis era caches than listed here, and I report the Watts cache for the first time in this web page. Click on the site name for a discussion of each cache.

Discovery year

Cache name

State

Quantity

Bone rods

Platter bifaces

1968

Drake

CO

14 artifacts

0

0

2009

Mahaffy

CO

80+ tools

0

yes

Pre-1941

Watts

CO

7 artifacts

0

yes

1968

Carlisle

IA

38 tools

0

0

1996

McKinnis

IA

23 artifacts

0

0

1965

Rumells-Maske

IA

11 pts

0

0

1961

Simon

ID

35 artifacts

0

yes

1968

Busse

KS

78 artifacts, 24 lbs

0

yes

1968

Anzick

MT

112 artifacts

6

42

2004

Bastrop County

TX

13 artifacts

0

0

1950's

DeGraffenried

TX

5 artifacts

0

0

1987

Richey-Roberts

WA

58 artifacts

yes

yes

1978

Crook County

WY

9 artifacts

0

yes

1902?

Fenn

WY

56 artifacts, 20 lbs

yes

yes

As a group, the known Clovis caches provide a useful pattern of how tool kits were assembled and maintained. Apparently equilibrium was established by leaving stone in an unfinished state until tools had to be replaced or flakes were needed for camp tasks. By attending to what intermediate states of reduction were favored, we learn the importance of each phase of activity. Relative numbers of components in the tool kits show us the proportional requirements of various tool categories.

Ochre is usually evident on cached material unless weathering has been severe.
Comparable large artifacts are known from isolated finds in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah.
The author has been privileged to examine items from all but the Simon Cache.

Weaponry from Clovis caches is usually very different from that found in camp or kill context. A possible defensive use is indicated by:

Lack of repair
Exotic, highly aesthetic material
Large size
Aesthetic flake scars
Cache habit

At the time, very large and dangerous predators like the American Lion, Short Faced Bear, and Dire Wolf were in the habit of eating whatever they wanted. Special weapons were used in Africa by Massai cattle herders to deter lions. In the Philippines, jungle people carried short spears with impressive tips to ward off Tigers. People at the end of the Pleistocene had just as good reasons to develop and carry personal defensive weaponry. Implements that served for a lifetime are likely candidates for caches. Pointed ivory rods, also found in caches, may have been foreshafts, but they could have worked to deter predators as well.

Large platter-like bifaces are also seldom seen except in caches. Use as a core or blank is indicated by:

Great distance from the source of stone
Thickness too small for camp flakes, but good for projectiles
Snapped bifaces were obviously converted to projectile points
Caches seldom include camp tools

Hunters at the end of the Pleistocene had their choice of many prey species, but none of them dominated the landscape. Consequently, a Clovis hunter had to be prepared to deal with quite a range of potential meat sources. If Mammoth were taken, he needed to have large choppers and flensers. The large bifaces would have performed admirably. If he was successful with smaller prey, there could be a surplus of the large tool kit components after camp flakes were exhausted. Instead of carrying the extra load back to a quarry, it would have made sense to build a cache that could be returned to if a future hunt found them short. The surplus might easily include projectile points.

Wilke, et al (1991) make a good case for the practice of deliberately breaking large bifaces and converting them into projectile preforms. Evidence includes:

Broken biface remnants in cache
Incomplete preforms with remnants of squared edges
Asymmetry of small preforms
Bias of flake initiations from sharp edge.