Ice Age America: The Clovis Culture

in prehistoric island, or what made Alexander truly great.

With a subscription to History Hit, you can explore our ancient past alongside the world's leading historians and archaeologists. You'll also unlock hundreds of hours of original documentaries with a brand new release every single week covering everything from the ancient world to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com/subscrib.

They're known as America's prehistoric mammoth hunters, hunter-gatherads, who lived near the end of the Ice Age just over 10,000 years ago, defined by their iconic leaf-shaped stone spit-hips, and the great megafauna carcasses they butchered at sites across America, from New Mexico to Wyoming, from Washington State to Virginia.

Remembered as the cloveous culture, prehistoric peoples that have long since fascinated archaeologists

working on America's late Ice Age story. Over the decades, more and more information has come to light about who these people were and how they lived, and yet so many mysteries so many debates still remain. It's this archaeology that we're going to be exploring today. Welcome to the ancients, I'm Tristan Hughes your host, and this is the latest on America's

mammoth hunting cloveous culture. Our guest is Dr. Madeline Mackie, a junked professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming. Maddie, it is such a pleasure to have you on the show. It's great to be here, thank you for having me.

More than welcome, I love talking about these topics from free history, especially with prehistoric America, and the cloveous culture, Maddie, they've gained this intriguing reputation as America's prehistoric mammoth hunters.

“That's true, that is I think most people when they think of cloveous, what they think”

of is that iconic image of a small group of humans, kind of stalking this giant multi-ton animal, and it's just so different than how we think of, you know, I think a whole lot of us experience the world today, and it's created this fascination. Absolutely, and the general picture isn't it, and they've all got their large wooden spears, we've kind of stoned spear tips as well, and they're all kind of hunting the mammoth.

And as you say, that is the image that has just been passed down to us today when anyone mentions cloveous, the cloveous people, the cloveous culture. Yeah, exactly, and I think for a lot of us today, we feel like that feels really, you know, minimally like minimal on the technology front, right, where it's just spears with stone

tips, but that also kind of underplays how amazing the technology is for creating things

like that, the knowledge that goes into being able to live like that, and well, that image like captures a lot of the imagination, it also really undervalues the amazing kind of nature of what it took to live in what is today the Americas 13,000 years ago. You've anticipated my next question, which is the date, when talking about the cloveous

“culture of these people, I mean, how far back are we going?”

Yeah, so cloveous, we tend to think of, or, well, we know based off of your permaneance in a number of sites that they date to the very end of the ice age, or at the place to the scene, and we particularly have them narrow down to a few hundred years, most centrally between about 13,000, 100 years ago, to about 12,750 years ago, although there's a little bit of bluff, it could go a little bit further back than that, depending on kind of what sites

you're looking at and how you're looking at radio carbon dates. So we're really looking at a few hundred years right at the end of the ice age, and some of the kind of earliest widespread technologies that we see in North America. But that's remarkable in itself, I mean, for the ice age, which is this huge period of time, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, the fact that we've

clove this, you can pinpoint it to only a few hundred years right at the end of the ice age. I mean, that in itself is pretty staggering. Oh, for sure. And it's one of those things, too, where that's one of the things that makes cloveous

one of the many things we'll talk about, that makes cloveous so interesting, is that we have this kind of narrower timeframe, and also this wide geographic extent where we're seeing similar stone tool technologies, we're seeing some behaviors that seem kind of associated with lots of those faces, then things kind of start changing after that. So understanding how that all works is really interesting.

“And you measure their wide geographic extent, so how wide should we be thinking?”

So clove this is really defined by those stone projectile points, that's the kind of iconic

And we call these cloveous points, they're lancel it, so they don't have notches in them. They have concave bases, and then they're really known because they are what we call polluted. So fluting is when these flakes are taken, so these chips are taken from the center from the base of the point.

And on most cloveous points, they come up about a third to halfway up at most.

And this is a really distinctive type of stone tool that we see. They probably, but they would have been attached or halfed to spheres that were either thrusted or thrown or braced when they were used. And because that is such a unique thing, particularly that fluting, they're really identifiable. And they've been found basically coast to coast in North America, although their densities

vary depending on where you are on the continent. So from coast to coast, and I know it is such a large land mass, but can we get a picture of a general type of climate type of topography that these people were living in at the end

“of the ice age, North America some 13,000 years ago?”

Yeah, so we find, we definitely find or have found cloveous points on the surface, coast to coasts, but certainly there are more of them, especially east of the Rockies, and headed into particularly the American planes, into the south eastern portion of the United States of where we see some of those highest entities. And some of that is probably to do with things today, like population density today where

people are around kind of walking landscapes to pick those up, some of it may be some preservation stuff going on, and then some of it may also be reflecting like those spaces for people are using that type of technology. But the fact that we find them in such a wide geographic areas, really unique to clobus, and subsequent time periods, we see much more regionalization going on, and at least the

tipped spheres that are used. But of course, we say, I say, do you say this is the late high stage, but should we imagine should we be imagining environments covered in ice or step or tundra at this time? What should we be thinking? Yeah, exactly.

So this is going to be, you know, remembering an Ice Age America's the top of the continent is covered in these giant two giant ice sheets, the Laurentide and the Cordillian, and, you know, that comes down to a little bit depends on the time period, a little bit lower than the Canadian U.S. border today, although it does move depending on what's going on in Ice Age weather, and south of that, what we see are landscapes that are in many ways

are not totally analogous to what we see today. The geology may not be dramatically different, but particularly the ecosystems that are on those spaces could be really different.

“Most notably, I think, for the clobus story and something we hear a lot with clobus, is that”

this landscape is full of megafauna, more than 35 gener of which went extinct at the end of the Ice Age. This includes, of course, our mammoths, along with a number of other probacidians, or like the elephant order family, so mastodons, and we have gonfotheres, which are these like really cool multi-tusks, elephants.

We also have things like giant ground slots, who looked at ons, which you can kind of think of like a giant arm and dillow, the giant arm and dillow. The giant arm and dillow. It's a big challenge, right? Yeah.

Yeah. We can also think of horses, camels, bison antiquus, and even bigger bison species, and a lot of those species, or at least 35 genera of them, go extinct at the end of the Ice Age as well. So this is really a landscape that doesn't have analogies today in many ways, in the

ego systems and the species, both plant and animal communities that are living on it. But that's great to highlight straightaway, Maddie, as we delve into the clobus, people themselves. Is the fact that even though this is late in, you know, what we call the Ice Age, you still

have lots of those different genera, lots of those different amazing megafauna species,

still around, and still around in large numbers at that time. It's not like they've been, you know, some of them have already gone extinct. You still have lots coexisting with these early humans. Yeah. So this is one of the things that makes clobus also really unique and special is that we

have very serious overlap between a lot of those place to scene, megafauna, as we call them. And our clobus forwarders that are living on this landscape. Now, we don't have great radio carbon dates on, or like, an idea of when the extinction were for all 35 of these genera, that's definitely something.

There's a lot of research going on still working. But we know that a number of them are still alive and interacted with clobus populations, particularly species like mammoth, which actually there's a few different species of mammoth.

“We have the woolly mammoth, which I think is what a lot of people think of.”

Yes. And also south of the ice sheets, we find some woolly mammoth, but what we find more is Colombian mammoths, which are a little bit bigger, a little less hairy for some other biological differences going on. We also see massadons that were definitely around that late, gompethiers for sure, horses,

camels, ground slots, and a number of species. Oh, yeah, camels.

So a quick dumb question for me on the side, but I'll always think we've prehistoric

I'll always also think like sabotooth cats and diables, but have they gone by this time

while they still also around? Uh, they are still also around. I would mid. I don't know the date of sabotooth cat extinction off the top of my head, but they are definitely still around.

We also have a number of other big cats, like there is the American line in Cheetah as well, that we believe are still around at that time period, too. And of course, then you get emerging onto the stage. You get the arrival of humans and Maddie for a long time. I mean, I haven't my notes, the theory, the clobus, the clobus first theory.

“Now, can you explain what this is, what this grows, and what we now believe?”

Yeah. So clobus was, you know, the reason we call clobus points, clobus points is because of the

first site that they were reported kind of being at, particularly in association with

mammoth remains, which is the site of black water draw, which is located in New Mexico. And this was in the 1930s. Now, kind of important for understanding the context of this story is that this is only a few years after the discovery is at another site nearby, the site of Folsom, which is where another very well-known place to scene tool set, Folsom points, for first discovered

with Bison Antiquus, one of our extinct species of Bison. And that was also the site where the first was like wide recognition in the archeological community that humans had been on North America since the Ice Age. So, less than a decade later, we see the discovery is at Blackwater Draw, where we have clobus points in association with mammoths.

And actually, right around the same time, there was another site in Northern Colorado called

“the Dent site that has, I think it's 15 mammoths at it, if I remember correctly, also found”

in association with clobus points. And this kind of picked off this phase of a number of sites coming out where we see clobus, very clearly clobus points found in association with Megafana, particularly mammoths. And this started creating this story, especially with this widespread distribution of clobus, that these were the first populations in the Americas that they came in, following Megafana,

they initially settled all of these large landscapes, and we're going and following kind of these Megafana and going all across the continent. And that really starts in the early 1900s, mid 1900s, and kind of continues on. So that was, that used to be the thinking, but since then, more research has been done, that has revealed that actually the arrival of humans in America, in the Americas, is a few

thousand years earlier from correct. Yeah, so that was the kind of the running thought for a long period of time through most of the 20th century, there have been a lot of people who were looking for sites that were earlier, what we kind of term as pre-clobus sites, right, looking for occupations that predate that very clear clobus, time period of this kind of traditional story of clobus.

And what we've seen as a number of sites have been proposed. I would say this is probably one of the most acrobonyous debates in American archaeology. It gets pretty heated among places seen archaeologists when you start talking about this often. But we've seen that a number of sites that have come out that have been pretty widely accepted, although there's lots of debate among archaeologists, particularly with places seen archaeologists

of which ones have good evidence for humans before or after. So a lot of people have probably heard of some of these sites. The earliest one was the Monteverdi site in Chile. We also have sites like Paisley Caves in Oregon, Rupert's Ferry in Idaho, Pigslatzin in Florida. And a lot of this kind of made it.

So the majority of the archaeological community thinks that there were populations here before clobus probably for a few thousand years. Although, admittedly, there's a lot of debate about that. And if anybody follows archaeological literature, they know there's been a lot of recent debate about that in the literature as well.

No, I wanted to paint that up because we've done an interview in the past with Dr. David Meltzer. I kind of wrote about that, which I'll put a link to in the description. But just the important highlight that, you know, seems to be a few thousand years. Humans have reached the Americas North America and then you get the emergence in the archaeological record of these stunning cloveous points and these key sites.

And Maddie will explore some of these key sites now, including one that you have done a lot of work at. But I'm getting a sense that there's a bit of a trend in the types of sites where you'd have discovered cloveous archaeology.

I mean, it seems like they're always kind of extinct megafauna remains close by.

Yeah, lots of times there are not always, but lots of times.

“And I will say, and I think this connects a little bit to what I was just talking about as well.”

You know, one reason I was became really interested in cloveous apart from kind of a fortuitous opportunity walking through my door. Thanks to my mentors in graduate school is like this kind of iconic image and this idea of it being so associated with extinct megafauna, these species we don't see anymore. But also one thing I will note about cloveous is so often we talk about them.

The main focus is that timeline question. Like, are they a first or not? And there are so many other things to talk about cloveous that they are really interesting and cool

And that is a lot of what kind of drives my research and a lot of the things I'm looking at

is less kind of this time marker question. And more what do we know about life for cloveous? How do we figure that out? What are new ways we can look at this? How do we apply new technologies, et cetera?

“And I think that's relevant to some of the sites that I believe we're going to talk about.”

Yeah, so I mean, I mean, give us a sense, Maddie. So where we're sitting now in 2026. I mean, has there been a lot more ecological work done? More information revealed, not just that, you know, that they're these extinct mammoths and that they had these sharp spearpoints and that, you know, debates about the date. Do we now have more information, have we now found new sites that is revealing more

tentalizing information about the people themselves who they were, how they lived? Yeah, I definitely think that we're starting to see both some new site discoveries or kind of diving into existing sites and new discoveries at those existing sites that's starting to offer really different perspectives on cloveous. And this is something that's certainly relevant to a lot of the work that has kind of inspired

my research. So as I mentioned in my graduate studies, I had the opportunity to start working on a site that I'm now co-principle investigator on the little crawl site, which is located in eastern

“Wyoming. And that site, I think, really typifies how continued research at existing sites.”

Or new research of these sites and new technologies can offer these much more in-depth perception of what's going on during these time periods. And geographically, because I once, I had to look at the map just before starting. You mentioned the cloveous site, the original cloveous site, Blackwater draw in New Mexico. That's the type site for the cloveous culture. And then I looked at where La Pearl is in Wyoming.

And it's like a, a thousand kilometers north of Blackwater draw. And I think that in itself just gives you a sense of kind of the geographic extent of this country we're talking about. Yeah. And this is one of the things. So clove, one thing we do know about cloveous from a number of sites across the continent is that these people were moving and they were moving far and they were moving often. And one of the ways we see this is that we find the stone tools they're making,

the stone, they're making them out of transported hundreds of kilometers in different time periods. You know, we also see that to some degree, there's certainly some variation. People are making a projectile point, right? That's tipped on this sphere that looks similar across the thousands of miles in some cases. Now, you know, that's not to say every person who made a cloveous point identified as the exact same community, right? We as archaeologists, we, we love our materials, right?

We don't, it's not the same as like a self-identified culture of today. But it's really

amazing when we think about this geographic scale. And yeah, La Puele is, you know, very far away from

the blackwater draw site. And there's, there's cloveous sites and plenty of cloveous points in between those. But it's through the scale, especially when we compare it to other, you know, continents is really amazing. And it'd be mind-blowing. And is that something we should also really highlight straight away? Is the fact that, I mean, generally speaking, these are what we, we know is kind of prehistoric, hunter-gatherers or hunter-gatherer fishes, you know, kind of

moving through the landscape, going after the herds, hunting these great beasts and a small beast or scavenging. And then go in a place place. But I guess the important point for the archaeology is the fact that they're not leaving great stone houses behind. I mean, the archaeology that they leave behind is, you know, naturally more invisible than what you get later on. Yeah. And this is something I talked to my students a lot about when teaching in the US is that

I think when people think of archaeology, they think of these like massive, you know,

tombs and temples and Indiana Jones and like that stuff is amazing. But when we talk about

Ice Age archaeology, we're talking about stuff that like you could walk fast. And you have no idea that it's there unless you really know what you're looking for or someone goes out kind of looking for it. Because most of these sites what we find is, you know, some chipped, maybe a few thousand pieces of chipped stone, some projectile points, maybe some animal bone if we have good preservation. But it's very minimal on kind of impacts to the topography of an area that's not these big

“constructions. And that's just because of how these people live, right? And that's what we see”

from more recent foragers in ethnographic accounts as well is that sometimes they do create big constructions like mounds. But lots of times it's much, much more a femoral on the landscape and what harder to see them. Well, let's focus on this like they've done lots of work at and how it's revealing more about the people themselves alongside their activities. So the problem, I mean, how, how was this site discovered in rural Wyoming? So actually, this site like many of the

Clovis sites that have really defined how we talk about Clovis was discovered by locals. So the site

were walking along the Pral Creek and they noticed some large bones coming out. And this is one

“reason why I think we do see a lot of mammoth remains reported when maybe we don't see smaller animal”

remains reported is like, you know, if you see a bison, you could be like, oh, that might be a cow unless you're familiar with, you know, it's kind of just pretty hard to tell those parts still. When you see a mammoth, you're like, that's big. This is weird. What is that? So they, the fine eventually got reported to the university, Wyoming in a very well-known planes or geologists, Dr. George Frisen, who went out and tested the site, found the partial remains

of a subadult mammoth, a nearly fully grown, but still not quite fully grown. And then a stone tool

and a couple chips from resharpening a stone tool. And basically that he left with the idea that this

maybe culturally associated there may have been humans involved. You know, that was really notable and would be a really important site, but wasn't able to go back and in the 2000s myself on with my copi eyes, thought sort of all about Kelly Spencer Pelton, about Brian. We got the opportunity to go back and start working on site and one of the first things we wanted to resolve was was there a human signature here, because there had been some very reasonable questions raised on if it was

a natural mammoth death site with some archeology that fell on top of it or if it was associated

“with actual human activity. So we started going back in about 2014 and spent, I think it was nine”

seasons over the next 11 years working on this site, so we've done a ton since that time. And what did you slowly uncover through those excavation seasons? Was this just the site from a natural mammoth meeting its end or were their humans also at play?

So the first thing we found out or the first question we said to answer was exactly that.

It was were humans at play or not, and we started by excavating kind of right around where the mammoth bone was originally found. We found some artifacts, but most importantly, it was a pretty lucky discovery, a very talented retired archeologist, Dr. Rich Adams was building a path to help us get to our screens for screening all of the sediment that came out of the site. And he found this large chopping tool about 10 meters away from the mammoth, the first season we were out there.

And all of us were like, "Oh, that's really interesting." And what do you mean by a chopping tool? What should we be thinking? So basically, it kind of looks like an old one, tool.

“Okay, so that's really a river cobble with a couple of flakes taken off the chart.”

And old one, too, so that's like what they were using early humans or what should a

pithcus were using in Central Africa, almost three million years ago.

Yeah, so and by that I mean, you know, not making analogy for what's, you know, anything along lines except in the fact this was a really probably something was made right on site, someone picked up a cobble from a river nearby, needed a pretty sharp blunt instrument to maybe butcher a mammoth, right? And made a little sharp edge on it. And that was what we found. But we found it in a place where we didn't think there was archeology for it. And we also found

in a place where it was geologically out of place. The site was buried with kind of gradual flooding. And then we found this big cobble and we were like, "Well, nature probably wouldn't move that." So maybe a human did. And that led us to start testing kind of wider areas of the site. And what we found was eventually something like more than 50,000 flakes, at least four concentrations of artifacts, a few hundred stone tools. We found some eventually mammoth ivory.

And we started finding out that this site wasn't just a set of butchered mammoth remains. But it was really kind of this space where humans probably lived while they were interacting with kind of those mammoth remains, but during them, processing them, preserving them, whatever they're kind of interested in doing with that animal. Yeah. I mean, it's logical, isn't it, though? The fact that, as you find more

realizing that, okay, this isn't just a butchered site. We have evidence of, as we make sense, if you're butchering a mammoth or mammoths, which have lots of food on them, and you've got a small community, there's evidence that the people were staying here for some time while they were doing that. And do much else. So you've got a campsite there as well, I guess. Exactly. So think of it this way. If you take down a multi-toned mammal, like a mammoth,

and you're already what we call residentially mobile, you move your house or all the time. Instead of driving portions of that animal back to your house, it makes much more sense to just move your house to that animal. Your pitch tent, yeah, you pitch your tent, that, right, yeah. You pitch your tent there. Now, I should say this is not like an idea we came up with, a stuff like this has been hypothesized. And in fact, there is another site where we have an

excavated campsite in North America. This site is in Southern Arizona. It's called Murray Springs. And they found a campsite associated with both mammoth and bison butchering, a clove of smammoth and bison butchering down in those spaces. And that site was the campsite was also found by accident. When someone was kind of, I think it was their parking area, if I remember correctly,

borders use landscapes, right? And this is also something we see in subsequent time periods when other communities acquire lots of resources. They often move to them, right? There's some, there's some analogies we can make to ethnographic accounts of elephant hunters in Central Africa today, where those fortune communities will move to, to butcher the elephant remains for a short period of

time and use them. Now, what's really amazing about the campit look prowl is that by finding that,

it opens up this avenue to ask and answer questions that go just beyond where they're using the animal, right? It lets us ask questions about where they're coming from, where the stone tools coming

“from, what does social organization look like, are how are people cooperating, what else are people doing?”

And my other favorite part about this is it also really drives home that this is a community, right? We're going to have everyone here. We're going to have adults, we're going to have kids, we're going to have elderly, we're going to have men, we're going to have women, we're going to have everyone kind of participating in this event and we get a much more complete picture of what is going on in the past and it lets us kind of address these things. They're often really hard to get at

in the archaeological record unless you kind of have a circumstance like this. And everyone has to

play their part as well in these communities, isn't it? I mean, kids from a young age will have to learn to hunt and to butcher and to do all those other things and people want to the quite old will also have to be involved in it as well because it's all about kind of the sustaining of the community and these small groups at that time. Yeah, exactly. We should expect everyone to be participating. We also, you know, like, there's a good reason that when you have a group project,

everyone does slightly different things, right? And so we also expect the different kind of portions of population are probably going to be doing different things. And so this is also a way

“for it to try to get at some of that, right? Like, what are all the tasks that are going on?”

Instead of just, you know, like, a photo of people hunting a mammoth with tipspears, right? Which is that image we so focus on and forget about all the other contexts that has to go on to allow that to happen. If you love a good story, why aren't you listening to Dan Snow's History Hip podcast?

It's a show where we tell you every amazing, crazy, and important thing that has ever happened

in human history, from the perilous voyages of the first pollinations, the discoveries of Captain Cook, the deadly Viking raids on Britain and Ireland, the rise and fall of the Great English Kings and Queens. We'll tell you how Waterloo was won. The alamo was lost and all the history in the twig. To make sure you check it out, Dan Snow's history it for the best true stories ever told, wherever you get your podcasts.

[Music] And one thing I'd like to ask straightaway, then in regards this is a bit more on the location, is the peril quite a suitable location for a campsite. I mean, is there fresh water nearby, for instance? You've got to think if they're going to be staying there for so long, they need continual access to water as well as the food that they've got nearby.

So the site is located on a pretty small, well, for the area not super small, but pretty small stream, but it's actually only a mile away from the plat river, which is one of the major waterways throughout the region. In fact, it's probably the plat that helps contribute to the site being preserved. As far as if this is like a super remarkable place on the landscape, I would not say there's anything that makes it like incredibly notable. And so, you know,

what makes it notable is the fact that we have the old dirt preserved and the old space preserved that lets that kind of archeology be in a pretty good space where we can start asking and answering these questions. But it is good access to water. We also know that there are certainly mammoth populations in that personal Wyoming at that time period. Actually, I know of at least four other mammoth sites within a short drive from that site. So it seems like there's a pretty

hearty mammoth population in that area, and that probably also contributes. And you know, these are some of the questions we're starting to get at now that we're in kind of our big analysis faceable prowl is like, how did this get so, you know, how did this face become that place? What is it in the greater context of Ice Age, you know, what becomes Wyoming and other sites in the region, right? How does this kind of place in all those spaces? Well, let's kind of delve into what you guys

have found out over the years. So as you did more and more excavations, before focusing on the artifacts themselves, I mean, do we have more of a sense than of the layout of this campsite, Maddie,

“do we have an idea of, do we say the buildings or the tents or what life was like?”

So the big one thing that's really notable about Lafrella is the spatial dynamics we have going on. So how the artifacts are outlayed and what the maps look like when we map all of these different

being a fire feature, right? And just like today when you go camping and, you know, you go out to

“go camping, if you're with your friends or your family, like one of the first things, lots of people”

want to do is let a fire, right? Because it's heat and worth, but it's also community and cooking and all the fun stuff of kind of being outside, right? And, and hearts are really important for

for foragers, right? Like the amazing part about finding a heart is it is a centerpoint of activity,

right? And so we the first kind of area that we excavated, we called Block B, and it's right next to where that chopper was found. And there's no very obvious heart that we see, there's no sediment indicator of a heart, so we don't see like a big ash stain or oxidation, which is when sediments get hot, they turn a little red. But instead what we realized once we finished excavating it, we started plotting the artifacts was that we had a number of burn artifacts, like little pieces of

burn bone, little pieces of burn stone tool, or particularly flakes. So what's made when you manufacture a stone tool, and they all concentrated in one little portion of this area, and that told us that well, maybe we didn't find the remains of the heart, there was a heart present

“there in the past. And we can use that to do an analysis. And I think the coolest analysis that”

comes out of this is we can basically use that to identify if this used to be an inside space

or an outside space. Please continue. What did you then find out? Basically the way this works is like if you think about how you interact with space, it's very different if you're, you know, let's say at a campsite, inside your tent versus outside, right? And basically tent walls or structure walls act as a barrier because artifacts can't be transported to them. So we find in the archaeological record is that walls just structures tend to accrue artifacts, they're a barrier to

artifacts. So you can kind of think of this like a bull's eye if you think you're looking top down on a tent, right? So you give your heart in the center and there's a lot of stuff going on right around there. People are using the light, people are warming up, people are cooking, people are shuffling stuff when they're walking around, stuff gets shuffled into that heart. And then there's

“that kind of dead space where people are walking around, doing activities, sitting themselves, right?”

And then when you get in your wall of a tent, you know, that's your storage spot, right? Or that's the spot where you can't sit yourself the walls too close and things kind of accrue there. So we basically took our spatial dynamics and said, do we see a pattern like that where we have this barrier effect? Does it look like there's walls that are holding an artifacts or is something much more dispersed? And what we found in Block B is that it definitely looks like

there is that bull's eye barrier effect aspect going on and this is probably an inside space. It also amazingly was our second kind of line of evidence for this, is that this area also has a lot of ochre, so ochre is a hematite, a red, it's actually, yes, iron, yeah, and it's often used as a pigment. And we had this big ochre scene, it was about a meter and a half by two meters. And that basically lined up with where we're seeing this barrier as well. And our thought is

well that, you know, there's probably something going on with ochre inside an interior space. So they're doing some sort of painting by the fire as well as, you know, maybe making these stone tools, setting stories, butchering animal, cooking and stuff like that. You get that, I love the fact that you've got, oh, I'll just say again, paint, you've got color surviving as well. Yeah, and it was, I mean, it was a wild experience. Like there was so much ochre that the, the

sediments turned pink and in the screens. But it was just, we didn't have big chunks of it. It was just teeny, tiny, really nice. And we've done a little bit of chemical analysis and we, with the stone tool from that area is probably coming from the heartfelt uplift, which is about 50 miles away down the plot river. And we also think that that might be where

the ochre is coming from as well, which is really amazing in talking about kind of transporting

materials. The other thing that's really interesting is that was also the first space where we found bone needles. So needles were selling made out of bone. So definitely kind of leans towards maybe some five processing, et cetera, going on. There could be other meanings certainly behind that ochre use that are much harder to get it when we're looking at materials. But this kind of picture starts emerging in your brain of how people are using those spaces. And reinforcing

something that's sort of so often so invisible in the surviving archaeological record, which is textiles, which is clothing. And the fact that that must have happened in these societies. There must have been people making these clothes, making, you know, taking all parts of the animal that they're buttoring and eating. And they said the bone decorations as well, the needles as well. All those resources. And, you know, starting now is going to picture. You've got the needles. You've got this

colour. You've got what seems to be a half and inside this tent that's no longer there. Like, are they decorating their clothes? This would've colour that haven't survived and things like that.

prompted us to start kind of testing other portions of the same, you know, around the mammoth remains.

“And we ended up finding two more. Or so three right around the mammoth's be a three of”

heart centered areas. And then another one about 30 meters away further up the terrace. And one

thing that was also kind of amazing that we found. So just when we excavated Block B, we did not have

any diagnostics on site yet. We knew that this I dated to the Clovis time period. But we didn't have anything that clearly looks like Clovis. And actually, when we were doing some of that testing, we happened to find a Clovis of fragment of a Clovis point, another about five meters, 10 meters south of that Block B area, which offered this kind of idea that this is associated with Clovis. We excavated all around it and interestingly enough, it is kind of all on its low and some,

there's not much around it for a couple of meters. But we continued to test and found another large concentration of artifacts further into the terrace for that. And so have the days come back. Have they have they revealed that yes, this activity happened some 13,000 years ago.

Yes, so we think the site dates about 12,950 calendar years ago. We do have, so I always joke,

actually, all the copias and I joke that the site is kind of a roller coaster, because every time we're like, oh, yeah, we know what's going on. Then something happens, we're like, oh, well, all right, that's archaeology. And you know, finding a house in our area is certainly one of those moments when we were kind of just looking at this as a mammoth, you know, butchery kill site. Another one was actually some of our, the house in our area that's directly east of that

Clovis point. So about 10 meters away, we were excavating. It's our densest portion of the site. We have,

“I think it's something like 30,000 artifacts and majority of them. I'm like little tiny chips,”

micro micro pieces of flakes, but we also have bonitals. We have scrapers for processing hides. We have mammoth ivory in that portion of the site. We also have another diagnostic artifact, and it is a full-sum point, which is the subsequent kind of archaeological culture that we see on the plains, the full-sum complex. And so what we've recently been working on a lot is kind of what does that look like? We think of full-sum is subsequent to Clovis and a lot of spaces on the

plains, and it seems like that LeBrell are running hypothesis. Is that their data the same occupation? How existent? The same time. It's not that one comes after the other. Okay, interesting. Yeah, and that's something we're currently working on in writing up right now. So there'll be more to be out there on that very soon. But I feel like for talking about LeBrell, we got to mention that there's like now multiple food and point out, like, is it? No, no, absolutely. And before we

“dove into the bones of the animals that we know of there, that they were feasting on and then”

using four things like needles. This pitch to you created that, you know, clearly seems to be that they're pitching their tents, they're creating their hearts and they're kind of scattered around the mammoth remains and kind of pitching care therefore put on period of time. Is that also being shown at other sites in America now on other archaeological? Do we have evidence elsewhere that is also revealing that side of the Clovis story? It's not just a problem. So there's definitely

been a lot of discussion of there being sites with potential with kind of multiple households, like we're seeing at LeBrell. And there's been a lot of theorizing about kind of where we would expect to see that. And there certainly are other sites where we have multiple heart-centered areas. But a lot of them also need a lot more work. We'd be incorrect to say it is totally unique. But it's really opening up some avenues of going back to other sites and looking to see do we

have kind of similar campsites, et cetera? And one thing to say, we would not have probably ever found any of that if it had not been for the furtuitous chopper discovery. We were a little, we were being good archaeologists. But like, there was some luck because archaeological tendency is, you know, the bone stops, the artifacts stops, you stop excavating because you don't want to, you want to use your resources as well as you can. And at LeBrell, what we do

see is there are like little spatial gaps, you know, a few meters, so there's just not much going on because it's between kind of areas of activity that people are using. So there's a lot of sites in the archaeological record from a ton of different time periods. But, you know, let's talk about Clovis where, you know, there just needs to be more testing that are done over larger spatial extends. And it is a little bit of a boomer bust prospect, right? Like, you know,

you either get something really cool or you're like, I dug a lot of holes. And I checked the last pieces. But it's something that is really kind of tantalizing when we think about kind of these other spaces. Well, let's focus on the animal bones then, Maddie. This is very exciting parts. So obviously, the megafauna bones of mammoths. But what did looking at these halves and looking at these other parts of the site? What did they reveal about the other

animals at this campsite? Yeah. So one of the amazing techniques that has come out,

you can take teeny teeny tiny or non-destructive samples of bone and look at the proteins that are

“in them. And it can tell you what group of animals that may have come from. So sometimes this is”

down to specific species. Sometimes it's a little bit higher up, it depends on, you know, biology of different animal species. But what that means is that for tiny artifacts, even like the needles, we have, we have the ability to figure out what type of animal they came from, right? So we were really interested in implementing this particularly on the needles. And we also have a possible bead bone bead on site. And so we started running zooms analysis on a lot of those materials. And

what we found is that many of them are made of hair. So grab it. But we also have some really unexpected animals that are in those. We have one that is made of red fox. So canad, but not domesticated canad,

right? Red fox. And then we also have one that tested to feel it. So cat. So I had mentioned

that we see, we have a number of extinct cats. We also have, you know, coobers, et cetera today. And so at least some of those needles were probably also created from cat. We can't get it down to specific species, although we're kind of still seeing if we can. But we have it narrowed down to a couple different potential cat species. So that is revealing that Clovis peoples, they're not just hunting mammoths 24/7, not just the big beasts. They're also hunting, you know,

probably what is the more much more common, you know, small game, like swift rabbits and foxes

“and so on. Yeah. And the one thing that I think is really interesting, and I think also is really”

important for thinking about when we talk about the archaeological record, is that one, there's

something really cool about the fact that all these species are fur-bearing, right? So like, if you

think about the fact that those species are fur-bearing themselves and being used for sewing, on another reason why those species may be being selected, is it maybe that their bone thickness is just right for making a needle easier, right, on the functional side? Another thing is a lot of those are probably species that would have been trapped, right, or not, like, spear-hunted, right? And so if we think about what a trapping site would be behind and how much less likely we

are to find that in the archaeological record versus something like a mammoth, there's some really interesting questions about autonomy and research bias and like all those sorts of things that go in. And again, you read my mind for the next question, which was about hunting techniques. Did you say we've clove this, we think of the long wooden spears, or maybe not the wooden part,

“but the clove is stone's standpoint. But yes, for honestly small game whether they had traps or”

bow and arrow technology did they have, do we know anything about that? So there definitely is not bow and arrow in North America that early. It isn't much much later in pre-contact time period as that we see that. So this would have been spears, and it probably would have been trusting, throwing, or potentially use of at-lottles for spears as well. There's actually kind of been a lot of debate recently in the archaeological literature, particularly about cloveus and what potential technologies

were used. Also, hunting, we have ideas about how mammoth may have been hunted, but there is not a lot of smoking guns for how the actual knowledge that was used to hunt mammoths, right? And that's because that stuff that's really hard to preserve in the archaeological record. And what we do see when we look at cloveous sites is that a lot of them do have big megaphone at them. So there's about 15 sites across the continent that have cloveous diagnostics or attributed to cloveous that have megaphone

at them. Most of them have probecytians. So mammoths, mastodon, scompothiers, big elephant species. We also have sites with horse and camel at them, so we definitely see those being hunted. That's the camels, that's the camels again on the other side. We know that those are a significant number of the cloveous sites, right? And when we talk about cloveous and kind of classical interpretations of cloveous, there's really about 30 to 40 sites that really define our understanding of them.

And that's not because there are others. There's been thousands of cloveous points found across continent, but a lot of them are found on the surface, and we don't know much else about their context. And there's a number of other cloveous sites that have been excavated, but oftentimes they may not be well reported, or they were excavated in a time period where methods were very different than what we used today, but we had some uncertainty. And so they're one of the big debates

that is still ongoing about cloveous. And in fact, there were just last week, two different articles that came out about this is where they specialists for megaphone were they really focused, you know, was the majority of their diet made up of large game, particularly from a city, and particularly elephant species. And that is something that is still kind of being bought out in the archeological community. And it kind of because of questions just like the ones you're

because of where we're looking, because of that's not what they were eating, right? Like,

“is it absent because they're not doing it or is it absent because we're not looking the right way?”

And that's something that we see a lot of research still being done. And I actually think is a really interesting question, particularly about cloveous. It's one of the things that I think about a lot because how you structure your life, if you're going after those big animals consistently, is very different. And if you're eating a much broader kind of generalist diet. If you love a good story, why aren't you listening to Dan Snow's History Hip Podcast?

It's a show where we tell you every amazing crazy and important thing there's ever happened

in human history, from the perilous voyages of the first Polynesians, the discoveries of Captain Cook, the deadly Viking raids on Britain and Ireland, the rise and fall of the great English kings and queens. We'll tell you how Waterloo was won. The alamo was lost and all the history in the tweet. So make sure you check it out. Dan Snow's history it for the best true stories ever told. Wherever you get your podcasts.

Is it generally accepted now? I mean, I certainly think so and it seems to be for what you're saying as well, Maddie. Is it generally accepted now that these people? They were actively hunting mega fauna rather than they were scavenging. They were just scavenging the remains of dead mega fauna.

“That's what the topic of one of the articles that just came out. Actually exactly that is”

like how much is it hunting versus how much is it scavenging. I think most people think there certainly is some hunting. I think there is a little bit of disagreement on how much scavenging are hunting there is. I will say right now. I lean towards the majority of them were hunted.

I'm not saying they were never scavenged. I also think one other question is worth considering

which is thinking about regardless of if some of these animals were scavenged versus hunted, they're still being used as a resource. And so like just discounting the scavenging as kind of a separate case and not playing in. Potentially some other stuff. There's a little more nuanced there right that could be considered. I definitely I think I would be curious to see a poll of that. But I think more people kind of lean towards a poor, a large portion of them were hunted.

And I think we have some good evidence for that, you know, particularly in the case that for many of these 15 widely accepted sites, there's projectile points like onsite or in the remains. We also find lots of projectile points that have indications that they had impacts and impact fractures. But we definitely still see some debate about that in the community as well. I'm also really fascinated by that, you know, that ongoing debate about whether they were specialist

megafauna hunters or whether there was much more to their diet that's just more visible in the archaeological record. Because you think if they got their stone spears, that they could also use them as harpoons for fishing as well and foraging, which leaves much less of a signal

“archologically. But I guess that's still a question that's how unless until they find lots more”

fish bones or a big midden heat, I guess at one of these sites. Yeah, and I mean, I actually have the same thing. I'm currently working on looking some at particularly thinking about plant remains and like how archaeologists often look for plant remains in very specific ways, often only in parts. And like, how often have we actually looked for them in the Clovis record, right? And I'm very, I'm very curious what the results of some of that will be when we start pulling together

the data set. And I think, you know, you mentioned fishing. There's fish remains also don't preserve well. I think the other thing to remember is that even if they are specialists, that's not saying

they're never going to use those resources. It's just saying that they won't use them as often,

potentially, right? And I think that is a nuance that's opting to kind of left out of that discussion in the sense that like you can be a mega fauna specialist and still eat a fish. Right. That needs to be a mutation somewhere. Yeah. Yeah. There's still space for that. And so, but I do think it's an interesting question. And actually one of my colleagues Nathaniel Kichel, who works in the fluted point period, which is a little bit after Clovis in the North East,

he did this, he and I did this really interesting study. Mostly him. He gets matured at the credit on this one where we looked at the hearts from fluted pointed sites and which one of them had seeds in them and which didn't in which we're investigated for seeds. And what was found was that a lot of them had seeds, but a lot of them, the seeds that they have were like really easy to get stuff like berries. Things that didn't require a lot of processing, right? And didn't require

like intensive grinding or any of that. So, well, that is the use of plants, that also leads towards people being hunting specialists because it's the easy to get stuff. I was going to ask this later, but I feel like Manel must ask this, given that we've highlighted the thoughts around

long after, do you think that Clovis peoples play an active primary significant role in the extinction of the mega fauna like the mammoths? The classic overkill debate as it is so called, right? This question of all of these species go extinct, especially on the Americas and North America. We see this bias towards big animals. What is the human component versus the environmental

component, which I cannot, I apologize, I cannot remember the paper. I always do if this is overkill,

versus overkill, because of a paper that was written, it was a title on a paper. But yeah, it's a really fascinating question. And I will admit that I am one of those people who

“rides the middle ground. I think it's a little bit of both. That's not really the best way”

to dare to approach these questions to be fair. Which I admit is like, you know, not the most satisfying, okay, you're like, it's both. But I think it's a really nuanced question, right? And I think there can be contributions from both and we talk about it. Now, I do think if we're going to talk about what species has the best case for overkill, it's probably mammoths. And that's for a variety of reasons. The number of sites we find them at, the fact that they're really big fauna that

would have really slow reproduction rates, which makes them more susceptible to things like hunting.

We can also talk about the fact that when we talk about overkill, it's not necessarily saying that humans hunted all 35 genera, but that they're hunting kind of tip the scales for a lot of those, so we can have things like trophic cascades, right? Where there's, when there's less mammoths on the landscape, because the new predator comes in, then the things that were previously eating mammoths suddenly lose their prey, right? And all those circumstances. But I also think it's really

interesting how that debate has developed and how we see very different opinions from very different fields of study, right? 'Cause overkill is something that interests archaeologists and paleoecologists and lots of other communities. And we see that, you know, from a lot of the impressions I've

“gotten like a paleoecology community is very human-stit-it. And the archaeological community, I think”

me is more towards environment-did it, although there certainly are a number of people who are

overkill proponents. As far as where I stand, I think when we talk about it's not all the species necessarily, but I do think there's contributions from both. I think humans probably had a helping hand if it was a touch or a shove. It's a little harder to say, and I think there's still a lot of research that can be done to help prove that. Yes, what's sent it to you? Yeah, and I also will say this, I think, you know, one of the keys of that is still figuring out when a lot of these species went

extinct. Some of them probably went extinct before or potentially before humans appeared. But a lot of those, we don't have a lot of radio carbon data on. So there's also a lot of research to be done, particularly on those species that are maybe less visible, right? The stuff that's just not seen as as enigmatic as propocityans are trying grounds less. Imagine this has been pretty into me before we could completely wrap up going back, well, keeping on things that are more

invisible, but going back to the humans themselves is quite interesting that the one thing we haven't really talked about from the archaeology is the remains of the Clovis people themselves. Is if human remains of human bones, is that a bigger normally we have from the Clovis culture from that period? So there is one instance of human ancestor remains or ancestors from attributed to Clovis, which is Anzac, which is located in Montana. But apart from that, we don't see it. That being said,

everything indicates as a low population density. There's probably not a lot of people not a lot of Clovis spirit where wielding people across North America at this time period. We also have the fact that this is 13,000 years ago, right? It's really rare for sites to be preserved from this time period and potentially, you know, particularly when we talk about ancestors and remains. And also, we probably don't see circumstances, you know, like these people are mobile,

they're moving around. We don't know what those burial practices look like in those cases and those circumstances. And that's probably kind of a lot of the reason why we don't see more.

“I would also say, you know, in this case, it's important to remember that Clovis is the Anzacters”

to millions of Indigenous people that live across the Americas today, including our communities in what is today the United States. And if we were to have more cases, it's really important that that type of research is only done with consultation and collaboration. So I do think, to me, it doesn't seem odd, right? It's something that just seems like, you know, this is people moving across the landscape at a really low population density 13,000 years ago, and not sure we should

expect to find it. Well, Matty, it's still regardless, it's very exciting to hear what you've done at places like La Prale, because we've talked, we're focusing on their lives of these people. We've

the tools, the animals that they were hunting and using for different parts and so on. So it sounds like from the artifacts you've found so far at La Prale, you're getting these tantalizing little insights into various aspects of their lives. Is there anything else we should mention any other

“key artifacts that you found that were revealing other parts of their lives down? Is there still”

quite a lot shrouded in mystery? We've covered the big ones. I mean, I think that definitely covers a lot of the stuff that we've put out so far. We certainly have more analyses that we're working on right now, and I'm definitely looking forward to getting some of those out there and also finalizing some of them. They're still potentially some surprises to come through the email. I will say when the bone needle results can't through the email. I'm like, that's wild. That's a fun email to get.

And also, you know, I think looking at the fact that we have multiple diagnostics is going to be something that's going to be really interesting coming out in the future. And we might see some changes to some of our interpretations, which is how good archaeology works, right? This is I think a lot of people think that archaeologists have like a magic archaeology one and we just like

“leaving over our sights. We get all these interpretations, but it's really important to remember that”

this is all evidence-based and evidence-building and sometimes you just prove yourself. And sometimes you just prove other people or sometimes you put stuff out there and you're like, "I really think it's this and someone comes along and you're like, "No." So we're really looking forward, you know, I'm really looking forward to getting everything out there, continuing. I have some other research projects I'm cooking on, and all this coming out and seeing what other evidence comes out to support

it. Well, that's the thing, Maddie, the work you're doing at La Prairie, like identifying of the harvest and so on. And the fact that people are going to be going back to those other butchery sites and realizing, "Well, hang on, you've got the butchery site. There must be a campsite somewhere nearby." And now we know generally what we should be looking out for, what could be evidence of where harvest were and so on and so forth. So that's exciting for future excavations. Now they

have more an idea of what else to look for to learn more about the people alongside the butchered

mammoth remains, the megafauna remains. Yeah, and it, you know, archaeology, you never know

what you're going to find and tell you to find out. And it's always just, you have these ideas, you come in with these research designs and they normally get shot into the sun pretty quickly.

“But I think La Prairie certainly for me, obviously my career has been very intertwined with it.”

It was part of my doctoral dissertation. I worked on the site for, you know, I became a copia on the site, worked on it for number of years and it really does form some of my view of some of the questions I'm looking at. But I'm also very curious if that continues or not, right? And when what we find, we start looking at other sites and how that's supported. So for instance, more recently in the last few years, I've been working on a site called Colby, which is another site dug by

Dr. George Frisen in the 1970s, a little bit before he worked on La Prairie. This site's a little different. It has seven mammoths at it, at least seven mammoths, along with queer, Clovis points. They appear to be butchered. So we're taking some of the things that we learned at La Prairie and trying to kind of apply it to Colby and see what comes out. We didn't find some things we were

hoping to find. We found some other stuff. We didn't expect to find. So it's kind of always that

archeological journey when you're looking at moving forward. Maddie, this has been brilliant. It just goes me to say thank you so much for taking the time to come and the show. Yeah, thank you so much for having me. Well, there you go. There was Dr. Maslin Mackey talking all the things that closed this culture and her work at the La Prairie site in Wyoming. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you so much for listening. If you'd like to hear more about Ice Age America,

what we've recorded a few episodes on that very topic on the ancients over the years with figures like Dr. David Meltzer and we'll put a link to those episodes that first Americans and Ice Age America in the show. Now if you've been enjoying the ancients, please make sure to follow the show on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. That really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favor. If you be kind enough to leave us a rating as well, where we'd really

appreciate that. Finally, don't forget, you can also sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours

of original documentaries within you release every week. Sign up at historyhit.com/subscribe. That's all from me. I'll see you in the next episode.