Recent research into Caddo bottle and biface morphology yielded evidence for two distinct behavioral regions, across which material culture from Caddo burials expresses significant morphological differences. This study asks whether Perdiz arrow points from Caddo burials differ across the same geography, which would extend the pattern of morphological differences to a third category of Caddo material culture. Perdiz arrow points collected from the geographies of the northern and southern Caddo behavioral regions were employed to test the hypothesis that morphological attributes differ, and are predictable, between the two communities. The analysis of linear metrics indicated a significant difference in morphology by behavioral region. Using the linear metrics combined with the tools of machine learning, a predictive model---support vector machine---was designed to assess the degree to which community differences could be predicted, achieving a receiver operator curve score of 97 percent, and an accuracy score of 94 percent. The subsequent landmark geometric morphometric analysis identified significant differences in Perdiz arrow point shape and size between the behavioral regions---one characterized by a comparatively smaller blade and larger stem (north), and the other by a comparatively larger blade and smaller stem (south)---coupled with significant results for modularity and morphological integration. These findings build directly upon recent investigations that posited two discrete Caddo behavioral regions defined on the basis of discernible morphological differences, which is expanded here to include a third category of Caddo material culture.

Temporal assignments carry substantive weight, and archaeologists regularly assume that artefacts from discrete temporal units may differ in ways that convey changes in preference or behaviour. Similarly, archaeologists regularly assume that raw material differences articulate with stone tool morphology, and the role of differential raw material quality and preference associated with Caddo lithic technology remains largely unexplored. Whether a particular artefact is found in or outside of burial contexts is a sensitive and regularly discussed topic in the archaeological literature, providing valuable insights related to prehistoric burial practices, as well as generational shifts in aesthetics, design, and raw material preferences. These assumptions were tested using geometric morphometrics, yielding results in support of the hypothesis that Perdiz arrow point shape is protean, and that significant differences existed in shape by time, raw material, and burial context.

This investigation aggregates intact or reconstructed Gahagan bifaces from the southern Caddo area and central Texas to test the hypothesis that Gahagan biface morphology differs between the regions. The Gahagan bifaces (n = 102) were scanned, then analysed using a novel landmarking protocol and the tools of geometric morphometrics. Results provide a preview of the significant differences in Gahagan biface morphology expressed between the southern Caddo area and central Texas regions. The size discrepancy represents an inversion of current theoretical constructs that posit a decrease in tool size thought to articulate with an increase in distance from the raw material source. It is posited that the contrasting morphologies represent two discrete communities of practise; one (emergent Caddo horticulturalists) where Gahagan bifaces were enlisted primarily for burial and ritualistic activities, and the other (central Texas hunter-gatherers) where Gahagan bifaces were utilised over a longer time span in more practical and utilitarian contexts.

This investigation follows a recent morphological study of the three largest samples of Gahagan bifaces, where a significant difference in biface shape was found to occur between Gahagan bifaces from the Mounds Plantation site (16CD12) and those recovered at the Gahagan Mound (16RR1) and George C. Davis sites (41CE19). This endeavor seeks to further characterize local morphological variation using 64 intact or reconstructed Gahagan bifaces from contexts where two or more specimens were recovered at the Gahagan Mound, George C. Davis, and Mounds Plantation sites. Gahagan bifaces are currently thought to be products of trade between east Texas Caddo groups and central Texas hunter-gatherers. The bifaces were scanned and analyzed using the tools of geometric morphometrics to identify whether Gahagan biface morphology differs between and among Caddo features. Results demonstrate significant differences in the shape and size of Gahagan bifaces recovered from different features. Gahagan bifaces from Burial Pit 2 at Mounds Plantation differ significantly from those in all features outside of the site, while the bifaces in Burial Pit 5 at Mounds Plantation did not differ significantly from Burial Pits 2 and 3 at Gahagan Mound. Gahagan bifaces from Burial Pit 3 at Gahagan Mound display greater size variation among individual bifaces relative to those from Burial Pit 2 at Mounds Plantation, and biface blade and base shapes were significantly integrated. These results provide a preview of the dynamic morphological relationships associated with Gahagan bifaces recovered from Caddo archaeological features. A preliminary sequence of geographic shape change is postulated for Gahagan bifaces that potentially indicates modifications employed by Caddo knappers, and not those of the hunter-gatherer groups thought to have manufactured them.

This analysis of Gahagan biface morphology enlists the three largest samples of Gahagan bifaces, to include that of the type site (Gahagan Mound) as well as the Mounds Plantation and George C. Davis sites. Results indicate a significant difference in Gahagan biface morphology at the Mounds Plantation site when compared with Gahagan bifaces from the Gahagan Mound and George C. Davis sites. Tests for allometry and asymmetry were not significant. The test of morphological disparity indicates that Gahagan bifaces produced at the Mounds Plantation site occupy a more restricted range of morphospace than those produced at Gahagan Mound, providing evidence for standardisation and diversity in Caddo biface production. While the sample includes a wide range of variability, the test of morphological integration indicates that Gahagan bifaces are significantly integrated, meaning that those traits used to characterise their shape (blade and base) vary in a coordinated manner. These results articulate with a shift in Caddo bottle morphology over the same geography, potentially indicating two previously unrecognised and morphologically-distinct lithic and ceramic production areas.

This text represents a monumental undertaking in scope and breadth of topical coverage and geographic extent and the editorship and authors have done a tremendous service in its production. The title is an appropriate thumbnail sketch of what this volume presents to the reader. The crux of this book addresses and brings to question the variables that researchers have used and continue to use to identify “modern human behavior” in the prehistoric record. Discussions of what constituted modern human behavior at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition across Africa and Western Europe have relied largely on trait lists and how these are combined in the archaeological record. The combined papers in the present volume all suggest that, although such trait lists are an appropriate approach to identifying modern human behavior, trying to apply them in toto to parts of Asia beyond Europe and Africa is not feasible.

This text represents a monumental undertaking in scope and breadth of topical coverage and geographic extent and the editorship and authors have done a tremendous service in its production. The title is an appropriate thumbnail sketch of what this volume presents to the reader. The crux of this book addresses and brings to question the variables that researchers have used and continue to use to identify “modern human behavior” in the prehistoric record. Discussions of what constituted modern human behavior at the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition across Africa and Western Europe have relied largely on trait lists and how these are combined in the archaeological record. The combined papers in the present volume all suggest that, although such trait lists are an appropriate approach to identifying modern human behavior, trying to apply them in toto to parts of Asia beyond Europe and Africa is not feasible.

From the Pleistocene to the Holocene, edited by Bousman and Vierra, resets our thinking on the pace and overall patterns of transitions in North America at this time. This book brings together detailed archaeological syntheses from multiple geographic regions. The result is a volume that stands alone as a new interpretative framework for cultural change during the transition from the last Ice Age to the beginning of the Holocene.

Clovis Lithic Technology presents a detailed technological, typological, and spatial analysis and interpretation of the Clovis lithic assemblage from the Gault Site in central Texas. The Gault site itself is a sine qua non of Clovis sites and represents one of the few of such locales that can be identified as a workshop associated with this industry. The technical descriptions, published data, and interpretive detail of this volume make it a welcome addition to the growing body of new technological information on Clovis in general.

This volume represents the outgrowth of practical and theoretical research in lithic analysis in the southeastern United States. Although the papers are regionally specific, the examples and methods used provide ample reason for lithic analysts and interested archaeologists in any region to acquire a copy. The text is organized into thirteen chapters on topics of the individual author’s choosing with the caveat that all papers relate to lithic research and analysis in the greater southeastern United States. The editors placed no theoretical or methodological constraints upon the contributors. Each paper follows an organization of technology approach in method and interpretation.