Editing Clovis culture (section)

==Material culture==
A feature considered to be distinctive of the Clovis tradition is overshot flaking, which is defined as [[Lithic flake|flakes]] that "during the manufacture of a biface are struck from prepared edges of a piece and travel from one edge across the face", with limited removal of the opposite edge. Whether or not the overshot flaking was intentional on the part of the [[Lithic reduction|stoneknapper]] has been contested,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eren |first1=Metin I. |last2=Patten |first2=Robert J. |last3=O'Brien |first3=Michael J. |last4=Meltzer |first4=David J. |date=March 2014 |title=More on the Rumor of "Intentional Overshot Flaking" and the Purported Ice-Age Atlantic Crossing |journal=Lithic Technology |volume=39 |issue=1 |pages=55–63 |doi=10.1179/0197726113Z.00000000033 |issn=0197-7261|doi-access=free }}</ref> with other authors suggesting that overface flaking (where flakes that travel past the midline but terminate before reaching the opposite end are removed) was the primary goal.<ref name=":16" /> Other elements considered distinctive of the Clovis culture tool complex include "raw material selectivity; distinctive patterns of flake and blade platform preparation, thinning and flaking; characteristic biface size and morphology, including the presence of end-thinning; and the size, curvature and reduction strategies of blades".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eren |first1=Metin I. |last2=Meltzer |first2=David J. |last3=Andrews |first3=Brian N. |date=July 3, 2018 |title=Is Clovis Technology Unique to Clovis? |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20555563.2018.1531277 |journal=PaleoAmerica |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=202–218 |doi=10.1080/20555563.2018.1531277 |issn=2055-5563|url-access=subscription }}</ref> It has long been recognised that the definition of the Clovis culture is to a degree ambiguous, the term being "used in a number of ways, referring to an era, to a culture, and most specifically, to a distinctive projectile point type", with disagreement between scholars about distinguishing between Clovis and various other Paleoindian archaeological cultures.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Beck |first1=Charlotte |last2=Jones |first2=George T. |last3=Taylor |first3=Amanda K. |date=April 3, 2019 |title=What's Not Clovis? An Examination of Fluted Points in the Far West |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20555563.2019.1613145 |journal=PaleoAmerica |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=109–120 |doi=10.1080/20555563.2019.1613145 |issn=2055-5563|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Tools===
====Clovis point====
[[File:Clovis Point.jpg|thumb|Example of a Clovis point]]

A hallmark of the toolkit associated with the Clovis culture is the distinctively shaped lithic point known as the [[Clovis point]]. Clovis points are bifacial (having flakes removed from both faces) and typically fluted (having an elongate flake removed from the base of the point<ref name=":16" />) on both sides, with the fluting typically running up a third<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last1=Buchanan |first1=Briggs |last2=O'Brien |first2=Michael J. |last3=Collard |first3=Mark |date=June 2014 |title=Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12520-013-0168-x |journal=Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=145–162 |doi=10.1007/s12520-013-0168-x |bibcode=2014ArAnS...6..145B |issn=1866-9557|url-access=subscription }}</ref> or a half of the length of the point, distinct from many later Paleoindian traditions where the flute runs up the entire point length.<ref name=":16" /> Clovis points are typically parallel-sided to slightly convex, with the base of the point being concave.<ref name=":8" /> Although no direct evidence of what was attached to Clovis points has been found,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Eren |first1=Metin I. |last2=Meltzer |first2=David J. |last3=Story |first3=Brett |last4=Buchanan |first4=Briggs |last5=Yeager |first5=Don |last6=Bebber |first6=Michelle R. |date=October 2022 |title=Not just for proboscidean hunting: On the efficacy and functions of Clovis fluted points |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports |volume=45 |pages=103601 |doi=10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103601|doi-access=free |bibcode=2022JArSR..45j3601E }}</ref> Clovis points are commonly thought to have served as tips for [[spear]]s/darts likely used as handheld thrusting or throwing weapons (or possibly as ground-mounted pikes<ref name=":23" />) , possibly in combination with a [[Spear-thrower|spear thrower]], for hunting and possibly self-defense.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last1=Eren |first1=Metin I. |last2=Meltzer |first2=David J. |last3=Story |first3=Brett |last4=Buchanan |first4=Briggs |last5=Yeager |first5=Don |last6=Bebber |first6=Michelle R. |date=October 1, 2021 |title=On the efficacy of Clovis fluted points for hunting proboscideans |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports |volume=39 |pages=103166 |bibcode=2021JArSR..39j3166E |doi=10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103166 |issn=2352-409X |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Baldino |first1=Jacob |last2=McKinny |first2=Scott |last3=Taylor |first3=Jaymes |last4=Wilson |first4=Michael |last5=Buchanan |first5=Briggs |last6=Walker |first6=Robert S. |last7=Story |first7=Brett |last8=Bebber |first8=Michelle R. |last9=Eren |first9=Metin I. |date=October 20, 2023 |title=North American Clovis Point Form and Performance V: An Experimental Assessment of Spear Thrusting Penetration Depth and Entry Wound Size |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01977261.2023.2270255 |journal=Lithic Technology |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=295–310 |doi=10.1080/01977261.2023.2270255 |issn=0197-7261|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Wear on Clovis points indicates that they were multifunctional objects that also served as cutting and slicing tools, with some authors suggesting that some Clovis-point types were primarily used as knives.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mika |first1=Anna |last2=Buchanan |first2=Briggs |last3=Walker |first3=Robert |last4=Key |first4=Alastair |last5=Story |first5=Brett |last6=Bebber |first6=Michelle |last7=Eren |first7=Metin I. |date=July 3, 2022 |title=North American Clovis Point Form and Performance III: An Experimental Assessment of Knife Cutting Efficiency |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01977261.2021.2016257 |journal=Lithic Technology |volume=47 |issue=3 |pages=203–220 |doi=10.1080/01977261.2021.2016257 |issn=0197-7261}}</ref> Clovis points were at least sometimes resharpened, though the idea that they were continually resharpened "long-life" tools has been questioned.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Buchanan |first1=Briggs |last2=Eren |first2=Metin I. |last3=Boulanger |first3=Matthew T. |last4=O'Brien |first4=Michael J. |date=September 2015 |title=Size, shape, scars, and spatial patterning: A quantitative assessment of late Pleistocene (Clovis) point resharpening |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352409X15300067 |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports |volume=3 |pages=11–21 |doi=10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.05.011|bibcode=2015JArSR...3...11B |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The shape and size of Clovis points varies significantly over space and time;<ref name=":5" /> the largest points exceed {{Convert|10|cm|in}} in length.<ref name=":0" /> The points required considerable effort to make and often broke during knapping,<ref name=":5" /> particularly during fluting. The fluting may have served to make the finished points more durable during use by acting as a "shock absorber" to redistribute stress during impact, though others have suggested that it may have been purely stylistic or used to strengthen the [[hafting]] to the spear handle.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Buchanan |first1=Briggs |last2=Hamilton |first2=Marcus J. |last3=Gala |first3=Nicholas |last4=Smith |first4=Heather |last5=Wilson |first5=Michael |last6=Eren |first6=Metin I. |last7=Walker |first7=Robert S. |date=April 2024 |title=Comparing Clovis and Folsom fluting via scaling analysis |journal=Archaeometry |volume=66 |issue=2 |pages=266–281 |doi=10.1111/arcm.12921 |issn=0003-813X|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Thomas |first1=Kaitlyn A. |last2=Story |first2=Brett A. |last3=Eren |first3=Metin I. |last4=Buchanan |first4=Briggs |last5=Andrews |first5=Brian N. |last6=O'Brien |first6=Michael J. |last7=Meltzer |first7=David J. |date=May 2017 |title=Explaining the origin of fluting in North American Pleistocene weaponry |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305440317300365 |journal=Journal of Archaeological Science |volume=81 |pages=23–30 |doi=10.1016/j.jas.2017.03.004|bibcode=2017JArSc..81...23T |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The points were generally produced from [[Nodule (geology)|nodules]] or siliceous [[cryptocrystalline]] rocks.<ref name=":5" /> Clovis points were thinned using end-thinning ("the removal of blade-like flakes parallel to the long-axis").<ref name=":16" /> They were initially prepared using percussion flaking, with the point being finished using [[pressure flaking]].<ref name=":5" />

====Blades====
Clovis [[Blade (archaeology)|blades]]—long flakes removed from specially prepared conical or wedge-shaped cores—are part of the global [[Upper Paleolithic]] blade tradition.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Collins |first=Michael B. |title=Clovis Blade technology: a comparative study of the Keven Davis Cache, Texas |date=1999 |publisher=University of Texas |isbn=978-0-292-71235-5 |series=Texas archaeology and ethnohistory series |location=Austin (Tx)}}</ref> Clovis blades are twice as long as they are wide and were used and modified to create a variety of tools, including endscrapers (used to scrape hides), serrated tools, and gravers.<ref name=":16" /> Unlike bifaces, Clovis blade cores do not appear to have been regularly transported over long distances, with only the blades typically carried in the mobile toolkit.<ref>Kilby, David. "A Regional Perspective on Clovis Blades and Blade Caching." In "Clovis: On the Edge of a New Understanding," Ed. by Ashley Smallwood and Thomas Jennings, TAMU Press., 2014.</ref>

====Bifaces====
Bifaces served a variety of roles for Clovis hunter-gatherers, such as cutting tools, preforms (partially shaped precursors) for formal tools such as points, and as portable sources of large flakes useful as preforms or tools.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kelly |first=Robert L. |date=October 1988 |title=The Three Sides of a Biface |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/three-sides-of-a-biface/52F4532317BFCC8AAA6BAEA22A474309 |journal=American Antiquity |volume=53 |issue=4 |pages=717–734 |doi=10.2307/281115 |jstor=281115 |issn=0002-7316|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

====Other tools====
Other tools associated with the Clovis culture are [[adzes]] (likely used for woodworking),<ref name=":16" /> bone "shaft wrenches" (suggested to have been used to straighten wooden shafts),<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Haynes |first1=C. Vance |last2=Hemmings |first2=E. Thomas |date=January 12, 1968 |title=Mammoth-Bone Shaft Wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.159.3811.186 |journal=Science |volume=159 |issue=3811 |pages=186–187 |doi=10.1126/science.159.3811.186 |pmid=17792354 |bibcode=1968Sci...159..186V |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref> as well as rods, some of which have [[bevel]]ed (diagonally shaped) ends. These rods are made of bone, antlers,<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal |last=Sutton |first=Mark Q. |date=July 3, 2018 |title=Paleoindian-Era Osseous Rods: Distribution, Dating, and Function |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20555563.2018.1525600 |journal=PaleoAmerica |language=en |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=183–201 |doi=10.1080/20555563.2018.1525600 |issn=2055-5563|url-access=subscription }}</ref> and ivory.<ref name=":16" /> The function of the rods is unknown and has been subject to numerous hypotheses. Rods that were beveled on both ends are most often interpreted as foreshafts to which stone points were hafted, with a pair of rods surrounding each side of the point (or alternatively, the point being surrounded by a single beveled rod and the end of the wooden shaft,<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal |last1=Byram |first1=R. Scott |last2=Lightfoot |first2=Kent G. |last3=Sunseri |first3=Jun Ueno |date=August 21, 2024 |editor-last=Barkai |editor-first=Ran |title=Clovis points and foreshafts under braced weapon compression: Modeling Pleistocene megafauna encounters with a lithic pike |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=e0307996 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0307996 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=11338624 |pmid=39167742|bibcode=2024PLoSO..1907996B }}</ref>) while rods that are beveled on only one end, with the other being pointed, are most often interpreted as projectile points. The rods may have served other purposes, such as prybars.<ref name=":4" /> Clovis people are also known to have used ivory and bone to create projectile points.<ref name=":16" />

{{gallery|Clovis beveled rod replica.png|Replica of a Clovis beveled bone rod from the East Wenatchee site|Clovis spear shaft diagram.png|Diagram of a hypothetical reconstruction of a hafted Clovis weapon, including a Clovis point (gray), a beveled rod (cream), and a wooden shaft (brown)|File:Reconstructed Clovis spear.png|Hypothetical reconstruction of a hafted Clovis weapon, including a Clovis point, a beveled rod, a wooden shaft, and lashings|||||||width=185|height=|lines=|align=center|title=Beveled rod and Clovis spear reconstructions}}

===Caches===
A distinctive feature of the Clovis culture generally not found in subsequent cultures is "caching", where a collection of artifacts (typically stone tools, such as Clovis points or bifaces) were deliberately left at a location, presumably with the intention to return to collect them later, though some authors have interpreted cache deposits as ritual behavior. Over twenty such "caches" have been identified across North America.<ref name=":0" />