Book Reviews

The Mill Iron Site. George Frison (Editor), 1996, University of New MexicoPress, 248 pp., $80.00 (hardbound).

This volume brings together a number of different lines of research to report on thefield work and interpretations of the Mill Iron site in southeastern Montana. Locatedon BLM land, the work represents a successful joint venture between federal needsfor management and academic needs for research. A stratified, multiple-occupationsite, the focus of the research was on the Paleoindian occupation and its positionwithin the local and regional paleoenvirons and within regional and Great Plainschronologic frameworks. Intended for Paleoindian enthusiasts, the volume generallyis written in a straightforward style that makes it suitable for both scholars and laypeople. The more technical taphonomic and technological chapters present methodolo-gies that transcend a particular time period, and, therefore, the volume should be ofinterest to a broadbased audience.

The volume contains 11 chapters and three appendices. The appendices are as inter-esting and useful as the main chapters. Chapter 1, ‘‘Introduction,’’ sets the stage forthe excavations, analyses, and background concept of the Goshen cultural complexwhich Frison now terms Goshen-Plainview. Mill Iron was discovered through the Pa-leoindian deposits being exposed 1 m below surface in an eroded butte. Charcoal froman excavated hearth yielded an age of 11,340 6 120 yr B.P.; nine other charcoal datesprovided an age span of ca. 10,700 to 11,500 yr B.P. Due to some morphological simi-larities, the projectile points recovered were considered Plainview, but the first dateled to a reconsideration as Goshen (a type found below Folsom at Hell Gap). After fivefield seasons, the Goshen occupation appears to represent a bison bone bed reflectingbutchering activities and a camp.

Chapter 2, ‘‘Lithic Spatial Analysis,’’ uses debitage to investigate whether artifactdistribution is the result of natural or human processes. Chapter 3, ‘‘Geology,’’ focuseson the late Pleistocene and early Holocene landscapes but covers the late Quaternary.Remnants of six late Quaternary paleosurfaces were identified, with the S6 paleosur-face being the one occupied by Goshen peoples. During the late Pleistocene, ancestralHumbolt Creek flowed through the valley and small ephemeral streams drained intoit. The site itself is situated in a late Pleistocene paleoswale that drained southwest-erly into ancentral Humbolt Creek. This paleoswale was undergoing infilling and wasnot seriously affected by post-depositional erosional episodes until recent times.Slopewash and colluvial sediments are dominant with two episodes of stream deposi-tion. Six late Quaternary units were identified based on gross lithology and sedimen-tary structure. No one unit is continuous across the site area, with a number of faciesproducing a complex stratigraphy.

Chapter 4, ‘‘Flaked Stone and Worked Bone,’’ while covering the entire tool assem-blage, focuses on a technological and morphological analysis of the projectile points. Auseful section is included on definitions of terms and the chapter provides a careful,detailed technological description of each point as well as overall characteristics of

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 275–282 (1997) 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0883-6353/97/030275-08

BOOK REVIEWS

what defines Goshen. The conclusion is drawn that projectile point forms and pro-cesses have a strong affinity to Folsom while including traits more typical of Clovis.Chapter 5, ‘‘Microwear Studies,’’ takes a taphonomic approach in terms of all surfacemodifications and provides useful data in interpreting history and behavior at thesite. Perhaps the most innovative chapter, the approach and results underscore thattaphonomy is not just bones but that all site materials have their own life historiesvital to sound interpretation of that site. Chapter 6, ‘‘Raw Material,’’ identified almost95% of the lithic assemblage as locally available materials, with the Goshen peopleusing 17 different raw material types from six different source areas. Chapter 7,‘‘Taphonomy of the Bone Bed,’’ focused on the natural processes in the complexformational history of the bone bed. Chapter 8, ‘‘Dentition Studies,’’ complementsChapter 7 and presents a detailed recording of each individual’s lower teeth to pro-vide a more accurate age estimate, seasonality data, and minimum number ofindividuals.

Chapter 9, ‘‘Paleoenvironmental Interpretations,’’ focuses on the paleobotanical datathat provide a different view of the region than previously postulated based on dataelsewhere. During the Goshen occupation, about equal cool-season and warm-seasondrought-tolerant grasses covered the landscape, with a dominance of sagebrush at ca.11,000 yr B.P. Within this shrubland, pine and juniper grew on nearby hills. Thereconstructed seasonal pattern was one of hotter, drier summers and colder wintersthan today.

Chapter 10, ‘‘Soils,’’ explores the development and significance of the Mill Iron Pa-leosol that was developed on S6 after the Goshen occupation. Polygenetic in nature,this soil evolved under relatively moist conditions with tall or mixed grasses in theearly Holocene and then transformed under arid conditions during the middle Holo-cene into a calcareous, highly alkaline soil. Very distinctive, it may be a useful re-gional marker for Paleoindian sites in well-drained areas.

Chapter 11, ‘‘Discussion,’’ both summarizes the results of the various analyses andpresents the rationale for using the term Goshen-Plainview rather than Goshen toidentify the people who occupied Mill Iron. They see a technological relationship be-tween Goshen and Folsom, with Goshen as a technological precursor of Folsom andFolsom fluting as unrelated to Clovis fluting. The Goshen tool kit is much more gener-alized than previous models for early peoples, and it was altered to meet immediateneeds. Lastly, all the caveats surrounding the Mill Iron database and interpretationsare presented as justification for reopening Hell Gap.

This volume makes a significant contribution to Paleoindian studies in terms of itsprecise excavation and recording, well-defined terms and technological details, tapho-nomic approach to both bones and lithics, and combined taphonomic-spatial analysisof lithics. Inconsistencies and redundancy run throughout the chapters, and, whiledistracting, they are minor. Somewhat bothersome is the lack of in-depth discussionof the radiocarbon ages and reconciling the two distinct groupings with an age forGoshen. Table 1.1 is difficult to interpret as one cannot tell what is being dated, withno specific reference in the text other than four of the ages are AMS dates on charcoal.Several chapter authors cite the younger grouping or ca. 10,700 yr B.P. as the age ofoccupation without stating why this age grouping is accepted rather than the olderone. Presumably, this age is the preferred one based on Hell Gap stratigraphy andtechnological relationship with Folsom.

The main concern, however, is primarily with the interpretation of the Goshen-

276 VOL. 12, NO. 3

BOOK REVIEWS

Plainview cultural complex and data used to support that interpretation in Chapters1, 4, and 11. A number of important issues are raised by Frison and others in thesechapters, but they are not addressed and appear more as asides. Among these issuesare what defines a cultural complex, the roles of technology and morphology in estab-lishing a point design, at what threshold does technological difference become signifi-cant (i.e., how much variation should be tolerated), and whether or not contemporane-ity of point designs represent different peoples. Because of similarities seen betweenGoshen and Plainview projectile points, the use of the term Goshen-Plainview culturalcomplex is proposed and used throughout the volume (and various other presentationsand publications) as a means of designating the Northern Plains Goshen material.They erect that term because Goshen points are viewed as technologically andtypologically the same as Plainview (Bradley and Frison, 1996:66). The only techno-logical difference claimed is that Plainview retains remnants of original flake blanksurfaces. Morphological and other technological differences are either downplayedor not mentioned. However, Goshen is thinner and more narrow than Plainview,and this thinness is reflected in the edge-angle index that is far less acute forGoshen. Goshen are made from bifacial blanks (Bradley and Frison, 1996:65)whereas the common method for Plainview is with flake blanks (Knudson, 1983),although recent data indicate a bifacial component as well (Hartwell, 1995). Thesetechnological differences coupled with geochronological data underscore that theyare not the same. Furthermore, the technological processes involved with Goshenindicate a relationship to Folsom rather than Plainview (Frison et al., 1996:208).Bradley and Frison (1996:66) admit that ‘‘Goshen and Plainview points are associ-ated with assemblages that have significantly different dates and stratigraphicrelationships’’ and that it would be a stretch to understand how they could be thesame with ca. 1000 years between them (Frison et al., 1996:206). In their specula-tions, they seem to reject the possibility of parallel traditions of lanceolate andfluted point designs and to try very hard either to discount Goshen’s pre-Folsomstratigraphic position in favor of a later period (i.e., post-Folsom) to accommodatea Goshen-Plainview relationship or discount Plainview’s post-Folsom stratigraphicposition and battery of radiocarbon ages in favor of an older period (i.e., pre-Folsom) to accommodate the relationship (Frison et al., 1996:206–208). They con-clude that both terms should be used (i.e., one not subsumed into the other) untilthe perceived or actual relationships are better understood (Frison et al., 1996:206).Nevertheless, they propose the term ‘‘Goshen-Plainview’’ for the Northern Plainsas a more suitable designation than Goshen (Frison et al., 1996:206) as a meansto avoid confusion for Goshen material on the Northern Plains and yet acknowledgethe close similarity with Plainview (Frison, 1996:13). This scheme only adds to theconfusion rather than clarifying it. The more productive approach would have beento use the extensive Mill Iron database to address the broader issues and providea foundation for making technological and morphological decisions less subjective.

All in all, this volume certainly is worth having in one’s library. It provides a wealthof data, some new or expanded methodologies that transcend a particular time period,and a multidisciplinary approach to Paleoindian studies. It also underscores the needfor all in Paleoindian studies to publish their unpublished data regarding these mat-ters in order to create a more realistic view of Paleoindian dynamics in North America.Lastly, it is a most thought-provoking book which provides an exhilarating coursethrough its pages.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 277

BOOK REVIEWS

REFERENCES

Hartwell, W.T. (1995). The Ryan’s Site cache: comparisons to Plainview. Plains Anthropologist40, 165–184.

Knudson, R. (1983). Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages. Reports ofInvestigations 60. Pullman: Washington State University, Laboratory of Anthropology.

Eileen JohnsonMuseum of Texas Tech University

Lubbock, Texas 79409-3191

Humans at the End of the Ice Age: The Archaeology of the Pleistocene–Holocene Transition. Lawrence Guy Straus, Berit Valentin Eriksen, JonM. Erlandson, and David R. Yesner (Editors), 1996, Plenum, xiv 1 378 pp.,$65.00 (clothbound).

Although archaeologists may not agree on much, they do seem to agree that thePleistocene/Holocene transition was of extraordinary significance in human history.Even the textbooks suggest that the period between about 15,000 and 8000 years agowas ‘‘a critical interval’’ (Wenke, 1990:231) for understanding the origins of agricul-ture, and thus of all that is dependent on agriculture. By the end of this period, many,though not all, parts of the world had seen an increase in archaeological site density,in technological diversification, and in the use of both aquatic resources and of small,presumably higher-cost, plant foods. Indeed, before this interval was over, plants ap-pear to have been domesticated in places as far-flung as New Guinea and the NearEast. Equally important from a global perspective are places where these things seemnot to have happened—Australia, for instance, and at least much of arid westernNorth America.

What a valuable idea, then, to review this period of time on a global scale, or, ascoeditor Lawrence G. Straus put it in his letter to the potential contributors to Hu-mans at the End of the Ice Age, to

briefly document and discuss in the broadest, most synthetic terms the timing andnature of changes in human adaptations on a regional basis to the environmentalchanges during the critical period from around 13,000 to around 8,000 BP (Strausto invitees, 3 November 1993).

‘‘How,’’ he asked his potential authors to consider, ‘‘might the environmental and cul-tural changes have been related (or not)?’’

The archaeologists who responded to Straus’ request show remarkable control overthe paleoenvironmental and archaeological records at issue. In addition, nearly allresponded impressively well to his call for syntheses of environmental and archaeolog-ical change, and many perceived the issues involved in similar ways. Thus, scholarsranging from Allen and Kershaw (Greater Australia) through Pookajorn (southernThailand and southeast Asia) and Aikens and Akazawa (Japan), to coeditor Erlandson

278 VOL. 12, NO. 3

BOOK REVIEWS

and Moss (Pacific coastal North America) recognize and stress the importance ofchanging sea levels to understanding the prehistory of their regions. Likewise, Straus(southwest Europe), Bar-Yosef (southwest Asia), coeditor Eriksen (northwest Europe),Dolukhanov (east European Plain), and coeditor Yesner (eastern Beringia) all knowl-edgeably discuss the nature, and potential impacts of, the Younger Dryas. Much thesame can be said for the discussion of the archaeology itself, with a few exceptionsthat I will discuss shortly.

Authors dealing with the Old World begin by summarizing what it is we seem toknow about the paleoenvironmental record for this period of time, and then repeat theapproach for the archaeology. Exploring the relationship between these two data setsthen largely becomes aligning the two chronologically and providing an ecologicallyoriented assessment of how aspects of the latter might have been caused by aspectsof the former.

In some instances, this approach is extremely effective. Close, for instance, providesa compelling account of the interrelationship between changing rainfall regimes andchanging human subsistence and settlement systems in the eastern Sahara and NileValley, seamlessly integrating the paleoenvironmental and archaeological records toshow how even small changes in effective precipitation had major impacts on thehuman utilization of this region. Similarly, Aikens and Akazawa, in a paper of re-markably effective simplicity, show that the northward spread of Jomon ceramics,beginning at about 12,700 B.P., tracks the similar northward movement of temperatewoodlands (see also Aikens, 1995). They hypothesize that these ceramics were used toprocess and store the foods that were newly provided by these woodlands. This is aneasy hypothesis to test; it will be surprising if it is shown to be incorrect.

The contributions by Close, on the one hand, and by Aikens and Akazawa, on theother, succeed because they focus on the interrelationships between a few key andpowerful variables. In Close’s case, these are water history and settlement distribu-tions; for Aikens and Akazawa, woodland and ceramics. Other authors attempt farbroader syntheses, with widely varying results.

Straus, for instance, provides a broad, readable overview of southwest Europe, fromPortugal to southern France, with a heavy emphasis on the interrelationship betweenchanging climates and subsistence systems. He argues that the end of the Pleistocenehad a far greater impact on the peoples of southern France than on those of the Ibe-rian Peninsula, since the former area saw the collapse of its reindeer population, whilethe resource base continued relatively unaltered to the south (see also Straus, 1995).Although I suspect he paints the subsistence focus in southwestern France with toonarrow a brush—the end of the Pleistocene, for instance, was not the first time rein-deer populations crashed here; it was simply the last—this is a fascinating essay,inviting the measurement of diet breadths both across space and through time.

Other Old World offerings are less successful. Powers provides an excellent descrip-tive synthesis of much of what is known of the environmental and archaeological his-tory of Siberia. He is certainly not to be faulted for being unable to examine the effectsof terminal Pleistocene environmental change on the peoples of this region, since therequired detailed paleonenvironmental and archaeological information is just now be-coming available. Indeed, it is precisely this issue that King is currently investigatingin the Upper Kolyma region (e.g., King and Slobodin, 1996), with detailed paleoenvi-ronmental records provided, in part, by Anderson and Lozhkin (e.g., Lozhkin et al.,1993). If the papers in the recently published American Beginnings (West, 1996) are

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 279

BOOK REVIEWS

any indication, the next decade or so will see tremendous strides in our understandingof these issues in Siberia.

At the other extreme, however, are papers so heavily focused on details, presumablyin the hopes that something interesting might emerge, that, at the end, one is notquite sure what to think. In Schild’s paper on the north European Plain, for instance,one reads of Zinken groovers and Havelte points, but while one does learn that thingschanged as time passed, why this was the case, and what the possible relationshipsmight be to environmental change, does not emerge.

Unfortunately, two of the New World papers, on the North American Plains (Frisonand Bonnichsen) and East (Morse, Anderson, and Goodyear) fail to move much beyonda focus on projectile point form and chronology. They even make little reference to thefamous debate over the timing and causes of late Pleistocene extinctions, somethingmany think might (or might not) be of importance in understanding the developmentof Archaic economies in the New World.

In his carefully argued and illuminating paper on southern South America, how-ever, Borrero tackles this issue directly. He argues that of this region’s diverse, nowextinct, late Pleistocene large mammal fauna, there is secure evidence only for thehunting of the extinct horse Hippidion. This provides an interesting contrast withNorth America, where horses were abundant but evidence that they were hunted bypeople is lacking (Grayson, 1991). Borrero concludes that the loss of late Pleistocenemammals in his region had little impact on human adaptations, and notes that, fromthe beginning of the secure record, diets appear to have been broad. In an intriguingargument, he also cautions us to expect tremendous variability in the early archaeo-logical record of this region, as small human groups occupied the area and then be-came both isolated and differentially extinct.

The contribution of Erikson and Moss on the Pacific Coast of North America isinformative but largely descriptive. As with some other parts of the world, there issimply not a lot of information on the late Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistoryof this area. What there is, however, is summarized in this offering, one that can beprofitably read in conjunction with Moss and Erlandson (1995) and Erlandson (1994).

Of all the authors in this volume, Yesner makes the heaviest use of concepts drawnfrom evolutionary ecology. In his insightful paper on eastern Beringia, he argues thatthe decline in abundance of such large, gregarious mammals as bison and wapiti bythe early Holocene in interior Alaska resulted in broader humans diets that now in-cluded smaller, higher-cost resources. Likewise, he argues that true coastal economiesin this region were entirely a Holocene phenomenon, thus directly questioning thosewho argue that such adaptations may have been crucial to the initial peopling of theNew World.

The most daunting of the regional challenges issued by Straus must have been thatreceived by Allen and Kershaw, to analyze Greater Australia, from New Guinea toTasmania. They do a remarkable job, even tossing in parts of Melanesia. They argue,among many other things, that the abandonment of southwestern Tasmania by 12,000B.P. was due to the encroachment of rain forest and resultant decline in subsistenceresources. They also argue, with others, that agriculture originated independently inNew Guinea by 9000 B.P., and observe that acceptable explanations of this phenome-non have yet to be offered. Importantly, they also note that there is little unequivocalevidence for significant and widespread dietary change during the Pleistocene/Holo-

280 VOL. 12, NO. 3

BOOK REVIEWS

cene transition in mainland Australia, even though substantial environmental changeoccurred during these years.

Interestingly enough, the challenge of dealing with Greater Australia in this contextdirectly spurred a second excellent volume on the Pleistocene/Holocene transition (forwhich Straus thus also deserves some credit), this one edited by Allen and O’Connelland dealing entirely with Greater Australia (Allen and O’Connell, 1995).

Among the many intriguing similarities and differences between these two volumes,I will mention but one here. In his concluding chapter in Straus et al., Jochim arguesthat the application of that branch of evolutionary ecology known as foraging theory(e.g., Smith and Winterhalter, 1992) to the adaptational issues raised in this volumemight well provide us with a powerful explanation of the ‘‘transitions’’ (or lack thereof)at issue.

Interestingly, it is in the Allen and O’Connell volume that one finds a detailed appli-cation of this approach. Here, Edwards and O’Connell (1995) place the Australian‘‘broad spectrum revolution,’’ which many argue occurred at about 5000 B.P., in globalperspective, and use foraging theory to explore such revolutions in general, and theAustralian case in particular. While not all may agree with their conclusion thatlower-ranked resources most likely entered the Australian diet earlier than the ar-chaeological record now seems to suggest, their arguments and predictions show usprecisely why Jochim’s call should be heeded.

Thus, there are now two excellent volumes on this important period of time. Thereis even a companion volume to Humans at the End of the Ice Age, edited by Eriksenand Straus, that is to be published in Quaternary International. We now have easyaccess to excellent and current syntheses of what it is we seem to know about thisperiod of time, and suggestions of powerful ways to proceed in our attempts to under-stand the significant events that mark it.

REFERENCES

Aikens, C.M. (1995). First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan. In W.K. Barnettand J.W. Hoopes, Eds., The Emergence of Pottery, pp. 11–21. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Allen, J., and O’Connell, J.F., Eds. (1995). Transitions: Pleistocene to Holocene in Australia andPapua New Guinea. Antiquity 69, 649–862.

Edwards, D., and O’Connell, J.F. (1995). Broad Spectrum Diets in Arid Australia. Antiquity 69,769–783.

Erlandson, J.M. (1994). Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. New York: PlenumPress.

Grayson, D.K. (1991). Late Pleistocene Extinctions in North America: Taxonomy, Chronology,and Explanations. Journal of World Prehistory 5, 193–232.

King, M.L., and Slobodin, S.B. (1996). A Fluted Point from the Uptar Site, Northeastern Siberia.Science 273, 634–636.

Lozhkin, A.V., Anderson, P.M., Eisner, W.R., Ravako, L.G., Hopkins, D.M., Brubaker, L.B.,Colinvaux, P.A., Miller, M.C. (1993). Late Quaternary Lacustrine Pollen Records from South-western Beringia. Quaternary Research 39, 314–324.

Moss, M.L., and Erlandson, J.M. (1995). Reflections on North American Pacific Coast Prehistory.Journal of World Prehistory 9, 1–46.

Smith, E.A., and Winterhalter, B., Eds. (1992). Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. NewYork: Aldine de Gruyter.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 281

BOOK REVIEWS

Straus, L.G. (1995). The Upper Paleolithic of Europe: An Overview. Evolutionary Anthropology4(1), 4–16.

Wenke, R.J. (1990). Patterns in Prehistory, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.West, F.H., Ed. (1996). American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Donald K. GraysonBurke Memorial MuseumUniversity of Washington

Seattle, Washington 98195

282 VOL. 12, NO. 3