Was Yankeetown an Angel Mounds Progenitor?

Home , Adena culture, American Bottom, Ancient DNA, Angel Mounds, Angel Phase, Fort Ancient

A thesis submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Advanced Research

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Anthropology

of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

2012

Phoebe G. Pritchett

B. Arts, Indiana University, 2011

Committee: Kenneth B. Tankersley (Chair)

Heather Norton

Abstract

A significant and lingering question in Ohio Valley archaeology is the genetic ancestry and cultural origin of Mississippian peoples. Most archaeologists assume that Mississippian peoples migrated into the Mississippi River valley from an undefined cultural homeland. A plethora of recent archaeological data, however, challenges the cultural homeland hypothesis. An alternative hypothesis suggests that Mississippian culture developed from a pre-existing in situ population in the Ohio River valley, such as Yankeetown. Evidence in support of this hypothesis is the appearance of Mississippian-like artifacts and features that predate developed Mississippian populations. Presently, these diametrically opposed hypotheses remain untested. The development of Mississippian sites seems to happen simultaneously over a large area with a multitude of potential causes. Migration may have played a role in some areas, but not everywhere. Mississippianization of the area may be a result of a combination of human population growth, changes in subsistence strategy, and/or sociopolitical organization.

The Yankeetown site, which dates from ca. A.D. 700 to A.D. 1100, has been defined as both a Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian site depending upon cultural traits and inferred subsistence strategy. It is located in Warren County, Indiana, less than ten miles from the Mississippian Angel Mounds site located in adjacent Vanderburgh County, Indiana. Angel

Mounds was occupied between ca. A.D. 1050 and A.D. 1400 and is a classic example of a

Mississippian ceremonial center, village and mortuary site with platform mounds and a central plaza. The possible relationship between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds has long been debated.

Because of the chronological overlap and geographic proximity of these two sites, it seems likely that goods, services, or people were exchanged. Alternatively, it may be possible that the people of Yankeetown were the founding population of Angel Mounds.

If the Yankeetown people were the progenitors of Angel Mounds, then we should expect to see a closely related pattern of cultural traits (i.e., artifacts and archaeological features). In order to test the relationship of the cultural traits of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, I performed hierarchical cluster analysis on 364 distinctive cultural traits from sixteen penecontemporary archaeological assemblages in the Midwestern United States using Euclidean distances and maximum linkages (i.e., complete linkage clustering).

The resulting dendrogram, or cluster tree, shows varying degrees of similarity between

Yankeetown and other Late Woodland/Emergent Mississippian sites such as Raymond,

Dillinger, and the Lewis Phase, as well as Kincaid, a Mississippian site. Angel Mounds is more similar to Aztalan, a Mississippian site in Wisconsin than it is to Yankeetown. Hierarchical cluster analysis is a good indicator of the similarities between material cultures, and provides a clearer picture of the distinctions between different ancient Native American cultures than does genetic analysis. The mtDNA of prehistoric human populations in this study has too small a resolution to correlate with modern North American Indian tribal groups. Artifacts and archaeological features provide the best indicator of cultural affiliation. If studies utilizing expanded regions of the genome exhibit a similar pattern to those observed here, it could have important implications for the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA).

iii

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Kenneth Tankersley for helping make this research possible. I would also like to thank Dr. Heather Norton for being on my committee and being my second reader. I would also like to thank the Court Family Foundation. I owe all my fellow graduate students a debt of gratitude for their endless support and for making the department a cheerful place to work. I would like to thank my family for supporting my interests and pushing me to succeed, especially my mom, Holly Pritchett, who took time out of her own graduate career to proofread this work, and my dad, Charlie Pritchett, who eagerly supplied copies of my proposals to anyone who asked. Finally, I would like to thank Joseph Migliano for keeping me focused and reminding me that the glass is half-full.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgements ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... xi

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Hypotheses ...... 2

Chapter 2: Background ...... 4

History of the Yankeetown Type Site ...... 4

Mississippian Culture...... 7

Description of Angel Mounds ...... 8

Geochronology ...... 11

Interactions between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds ...... 15

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework ...... 17

Origin of Ancient Ohio Valley Cultures ...... 17

The Late Woodland Period ...... 18

Emergent Mississippian Hypotheses ...... 19

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis ...... 22

A History of Cluster Analysis in Archaeology ...... 22

Chapter 4: Methods ...... 24

Statistical Methods ...... 24

Chapter 5: Data ...... 26

Late Archaic (Glacial Kame) ...... 26

Early Woodland (Adena) ...... 27

Middle Woodland (Hopewellian Tradition) ...... 29

Middle Woodland (Laurel Focus) ...... 31

Late Woodland (Dillinger Phase) ...... 33

Late Woodland (Lewis Phase) ...... 34

Late Woodland (Newtown Phase) ...... 35

Late Woodland (Raymond Phase) ...... 36

Late Woodland (Yankeetown Phase) ...... 37

Late Woodland (Whittlesey) ...... 42

Mississippian (Angel Mounds) ...... 43

Mississippian (Kincaid) ...... 45

Mississippian (Aztalan) ...... 46

Fort Ancient ...... 48

Oneota ...... 50

Prehistoric Neutral ...... 52

Chapter 6: Analysis ...... 55

Dendrograms ...... 55

Chapter 7: Discussion ...... 60

An Introduction to Ancient Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) ...... 60

Problems with Ancient mtDNA ...... 62

Previous Eastern North American Ancient mtDNA Studies ...... 63

mtDNA Haplotype Networks ...... 67

vii

Haplotype Network Results ...... 68

Chapter 8: Conclusion...... 85

References ...... 88

Appendix 1: Cluster Analysis Data...... 98

Appendix 2: mtDNA Haplotype Data...... 117

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Yankeetown Phase radiocarbon dates ...... 11

Table 2: Angel Mounds 14C Dates ...... 12-14

Table 3: Glacial Kame cultural traits ...... 26-27

Table 4: Adena cultural traits ...... 28-29

Table 5: Hopewell cultural traits...... 29-31

Table 6: Laurel Focus cultural traits ...... 32-33

Table 7: Dillinger Phase cultural traits ...... 34

Table 8: Lewis Phase cultural traits ...... 35

Table 9: Newtown Phase cultural traits ...... 36

Table 10: Raymond Phase cultural traits ...... 37

Table 11: Yankeetown Phase cultural traits ...... 41

Table 12: Whittlesey cultural traits ...... 42-43

Table 13: Angel Mounds cultural traits ...... 44-45

Table 14: Kincaid cultural traits ...... 46

Table 15: Aztalan cultural traits ...... 47-48

Table 16: Fort Ancient cultural traits ...... 49-50

Table 17: Oneota cultural traits...... 51-52

Table 18: Prehistoric Neutral cultural traits ...... 53

Table 19: Order relationships of all cultures in the study, with chronologies ...... 59

Table 20: Haplogroup frequencies from ancient Native American mtDNA studies ...... 65-67

Table 21: List of haplotype studies used in Network Haplotype diagrams ...... 69-70

Table 22: F-statistic values ...... 83

List of Figures

Figure 1: Topographic map of the Yankeetown site ...... 5

Figure 2: Google Earth satellite map of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds ...... 16

Figure 3: Distribution of Yankeetown Phase sites ...... 38

Figure 4: Example of a grog tempered Yankeetown sherd...... 40

Figure 5: Yankeetown folded-over collar ...... 40

Figure 6: Dendrogram ...... 58

Figure 7: Haplotype Diagram color-coded by culture ...... 71

Figure 8: Haplotype Diagram color-coded by time ...... 72

Figure 9: Haplotype Diagrams separated into each major haplogroup and Color-coded by culture ...... 73

Figure 10: mtDNA tree by culture ...... 76-77

Figure 11: mtDNA tree by time period ...... 78-79

Figure 12: mtDNA tree by geographic location ...... 80-81

Chapter 1: Introduction

Determining the cultural and biological relationships between different archaeological cultures is

difficult to glean simply from excavation. Descriptions of cultural traits of archaeological sites

and cultures are in abundance, however, there are fewer studies that attempt to link different

cultures together and discuss the relationships between archaeological sites across time and

space.

The question of the origins of Mississippian culture would benefit from an analysis of cultural traits of not only Mississippian sites, but also Middle and Late Woodland period cultures that occur in geographic proximity to one another. Determining cultural relationships between

Late Woodland and Mississippian societies would help to identify possible progenitors of the

Mississippian culture. Presently, there are several different hypotheses for the origin of

Mississippian sites in the Midwest. The traditional view is that Mississippian peoples were immigrants from another region who came into the area from a defined cultural homeland.

Alternatively, Mississippian cultures such as Angel Mounds could represent population continuity from Late Woodland sites such as Yankeetown. Lastly, the Mississippians could have consisted of both local and non-local peoples, brought together via the extensive Mississippian interaction sphere.

Angel Mounds and Yankeetown are two sites located near Evansville, Indiana, less than ten miles from each other. Yankeetown, a Late Woodland Period society, is defined as Emergent

Mississippian due to Mississippian-like cultural traits, artifacts, and inferred subsistence strategy.

It has been hypothesized that the two cultures may have exchanged goods, services, and/or

people. It has also been postulated that the Yankeetown people were the progenitors of Angel

Mounds, suggesting not only a cultural relationship, but a biological one as well.

Hypotheses

1. If the Yankeetown people were the progenitors of Angel Mounds, then we should expect

to see a closely related pattern of cultural traits, including artifacts and archaeological

features.

2. If the people of Angel Mounds were an intrusive Mississippian culture that migrated into

the area from a Mississippian cultural homeland, then we would expect to find distinct

cultural differences between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds.

Chapter 2 of this work will give a background of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, the two cultures that are the focus of this study. This chapter will provide a history of the excavations and the types of data—ceramic analyses, isotopic studies, and genetic analyses—that have been derived from the archaeological data recovered from these sites. This chapter will also provide a brief treatise on the possible interaction between these two sites. The next chapter focuses on the definition of the terms Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian, and gives an introduction to the theory behind hierarchical cluster analysis used for this study. Chapter 4 further describes the statistical analysis and outlines how the data was compiled into a medium suitable for hierarchical cluster analysis. Chapter 5 summarizes each of the sixteen archaeological cultures used in the statistical analysis with accompanying tables listing the cultural traits of each.

Chapter 6 provides the analysis of this data with a dendrogram figure outlining the cultural relationships between Yankeetown, Angel Mounds, and the fourteen other cultures included in the analysis. Chapter 7 introduces the use of genetic data to complement the results from the

hierarchical cluster analysis. The conclusion presents my final thoughts on Yankeetown and

Angel Mounds with a look to future studies including a genetic analysis of Yankeetown skeletal material.

Chapter 2: Background

The two sites that are the focus for this study, Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, are located in

southern Indiana near the city of Evansville, in Warren and Vanderburgh Counties. This chapter

details the history surrounding these two sites as well as an overall description of the

Yankeetown and Mississippian phases.

History of the Yankeetown Type Site

The Yankeetown type site (12W1) was first discovered in the 1930s, when artifacts were found to be washing out of the banks of the Ohio. A local artifact collector, Smith Hazen, informed

Glenn A. Black (who was then leading excavations at Angel Mounds) of the site that would later be known as Yankeetown. Black investigated the eroding riverbanks, but it wasn’t until 1953 that Emily Blasingham first identified Yankeetown as a cultural complex and defined

Yankeetown pottery styles in her Master’s thesis. Hilda Curry (1954) described the Yankeetown type site in Archaeological Notes on Warrick County Indiana, a survey of archaeological sites in the county. The National Park Service conducted further excavations during the 1960s

(Garniewicz et al. 2008). Redmond’s 1990 dissertation provided the most comprehensive understanding of the Yankeetown phase, including the first radiocarbon dates from Yankeetown sites. Today, excavations at Yankeetown are being conducted by the Indiana State Museum.

Figure 1: Topographic map of the Yankeetown site. The blue and red dots within the circle represent Yankeetown features visible in the cutbanks from the Indiana State Museum’s 2008 survey and excavations (Garniewicz 2008:3).

Yankeetown is a deeply stratified site. It is famous for its Yankeetown component, but

there are also Middle Mississippian, Middle Woodland, and Archaic cultural deposits. Early

examinations of the eroding riverbank between 1939 and 1950 led Black to observe that the

Yankeetown component was a “pre-Mississippian, post-Middle Woodland cultural manifestation” (Redmond 1990:4). As noted above, the Yankeetown type site is rapidly being destroyed by the Ohio River. As such, most of the excavations conducted at the Yankeetown site are salvage projects to collect and excavate the eroding material. Due to the urgency of these excavations, there was “little opportunity” to analyze the Yankeetown material culture

(Garniewicz et al. 2008), and to this day there are few publications concerning the Yankeetown

site.

Radiocarbon dates at the Yankeetown site place the occupation of the site with a

maximum range of A.D. 700-1100. Radiocarbon dates indicate that Yankeetown was occupied

for at least two centuries, but occupations were seasonal. “A number of lines of evidence indicate

that the Yankeetown site was inhabited for an extended period of the year from early spring to

late fall (April to December) and then more or less abandoned for a brief period of time during

the winter months (January to March)” (Redmond 1990:244). The seasonal occupation would

have allowed the Yankeetown people to exploit the abundant resources on the floodplain during

the summer as well as cultivate maize, as evidenced by charred maize remains. During the winter

abandonment of the site, the Yankeetown people would have participated in hunting activities, as

seen in ethnohistoric accounts of other Native American groups.

Redmond argues that the winter destination for the Yankeetown people would have been

terrace edges or upland habitats. One of the closest such upland sites is the Ray site about a mile north of Yankeetown, which contains Yankeetown cultural material. Plant and animal remains at the Ray site—deer, turkey, dog, and hickory nuts—suggest that the Ray site was a “permanent, elevated, cold season base camp” for the Yankeetown people (Redmond 1990:250).

Redmond asserts that the cultural characteristics of Yankeetown and other Emergent

Mississippian populations should be considered to be “representing one stage in an evolutionary process that culminated in the development of a fully agricultural Middle Mississippian lifeway after A.D. 1000” (Redmond 1990:254). The Yankeetown phase was therefore a period of transition between two different strategies. The Yankeetown people were undergoing a change

from horticulture to agriculture, and they were also experiencing a change in socio-political organization, ultimately resulting in a chiefdom-level society in the Mississippian Period.

Mississippian Culture

The Mississippians are Muskogean-speaking peoples whose villages are located on alluvial floodplains. They are more culturally complex than their Late Woodland predecessors, with hierarchical social organization, territorial ownership of the land, and heavy dependence on agriculture. Cultural traits of the Mississippian period include “the construction and use of square or rectangular houses and platform mounds, and the manufacture of shell-tempered jars, bowls, pans, water bottles, or plates…, pottery trowels, triangular arrow points, stone discoidals, marine shell artifacts, and burials with abundant grave goods” (Redmond 1990:14). Mississippian cultural traits have been found to occur as early as A.D. 700, and Mississippian sites continue up until the Contact period. This range of dates suggests that Mississippian and Late Woodland cultures overlapped; this connection is the reason that further understanding of the relationship between Yankeetown and Mississippian cultures is desired.

Indeed, one of the major questions that plague Midwestern archaeologists today is the origin of the Mississippian peoples. It was first thought that the Mississippians migrated into the

Mississippi valley from elsewhere, a “cultural homeland” (Redmond 1990:17). As archaeological data for this region increased, however, the cultural homeland idea was rejected.

Other hypotheses claim that the Mississippian culture developed “in situ” from populations that already occupied the areas that would become Mississippian sites. The main evidence in support of this theory is the appearance of “Mississippian-like” features that “predate the supposed intrusion of developed Mississippian populations in many areas” (Redmond 1990:17). The

question remains, which culture, or cultures, became the Mississippians? The development of

Mississippian sites seems to happen simultaneously over a large area with a multitude of causes.

Migration played a part in some areas, but not others (Redmond 1990:17). It seems that the most

common impetus for “Mississippianization” stems from changes in population, subsistence

strategy, and sociopolitical organization.

Description of Angel Mounds

Angel Mounds is a palisaded Mississippian village that was most intensely occupied during the

Late Prehistoric period (A.D. 1050-1400). The village population was approximately 200 people

until its abandonment around A.D. 1400 (Marshall 2011). Angel Mounds is the largest but not

the only Angel Phase site; Angel sites extend along the Ohio River from the mouths of the

Anderson to the Wabash Rivers and up the Green and Wabash River Valleys (Marshall 2011).

Angel Mounds is a mound center with twelve mounds, residential spaces, burial grounds, and

plazas. The largest of the mounds, Mound A, was erected quickly at the onset of site occupation,

at about A.D. 1050.

The first formal research on Angel Mounds was conducted in the late 1800s when Cyrus

Thomas published his Report on the Mound Explorations for the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Around this time, Angel Mounds already had experienced heavy looting (Marshall 2011).

Thomas made the first maps of the mounds, but as no surveying instruments were used, the resulting measurements of the mounds were inaccurate (Black 1944). The site then caught the attention of Eli Lilly, who described the site in his Prehistoric Antiquities of Indiana, published in 1937 (Black 1944). He photographed some of the mounds and included a more detailed map drawn by E. Y. Guernsey. Glenn Black conducted formal excavations at the site from the late

1930s until his death in 1964, with the aid of laborers from the Works Progress Administration.

Black’s ethnohistorical analysis of Angel Mounds identified connections with Muskogean

Southeastern groups and the Natchez (Black 1967; Marshall 2011). Excavations at Angel

Mounds continue through Indiana University’s Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology.

Angel Mounds consists of eleven earthworks or mounds, ranging in size from less than 2 meters high, to Mound A, which is nearly 44m high. Only four of these mounds have been excavated: Mound F nearly completely, and to a lesser extent, Mounds A, I, and K (Monaghan and Peebles 2010). Our understanding of the construction of mounds at Angel comes almost entirely from the excavations of Mound F, which indicates that there were two main episodes of construction and use of the mound. Radiocarbon dates from the primary surface of Mound F range from 1288 to 1397 calibrated years A.D., which is very late in the Angel sequence

(Monaghan and Peebles 2010:936).

Due to the destructive nature of excavation, most mounds at Angel have remained untouched and archaeologists had gained little insight into the dates of construction of these mounds until less invasive methods of looking beneath the surface were developed. In 2010,

Monaghan and Peebles used minimally invasive solid-earth cores and a multiprobe ER-profiler system, which was able to map “broad culturally derived mound fill sequences” to explore the construction of Mound A, Angel’s largest platform mound (Monaghan and Peebles 2010:938).

The new radiocarbon dates from this study indicate that the very base of Mound A yield a mean age of 893 ± 23 B.P., or 1044-1213 cal. A.D (Monaghan and Peebles 2010:945). The ER data combined with these new radiocarbon dates suggest that Mound A was constructed rapidly in a very short amount of time. This rapid expansion mirrors that of Monks Mound at Cahokia.

Some of the most informative archaeological studies of Angel Mounds analyzed the

skeletal material recovered at the site. Isotopic analysis of skeletal material by Schurr (1989)

indicates that the Angel population was heavily dependent on maize. These results are consistent

with the definition of Mississippian sites—that they practiced full-blown agriculture and were heavily dependent on maize for their subsistence. Schurr was also able to identify immigrants to

Angel Mounds through isotopic signatures (Schurr 1989; Marshall 2011). Another study by

Marshall 2011 analyzed the mtDNA of Angel skeletal material and discussed the frequencies of the five different Native American mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, D, and X) at the Angel Site.

The top hypotheses for the formation of the Angel Site are 1. The Angel people are immigrants from another region who came into the area with a planned town layout; 2. The

Angel population represents population continuity from Late Woodland and Emergent

Mississippian sites such as Yankeetown; and 3. The Angel population consists of both local and non-local people brought together by “migration, proselytization, or hybridity” (Marshall

2011:6).

There are multiple theories for the origin of Angel Mounds. The material culture from the site is most similar to that of the Kincaid site in Illinois (A.D. 1050-1350) (Marshall 2011). On the other hand, it has been suggested that Angel Mounds “might represent population continuity from Late Woodland and Emergent Mississippian peoples at local sites (ca. A.D. 700-1000), such as Yankeetown” (Marshall 2011). The site could also have been populated by a combination of both local and non-local peoples. After its abandonment around A.D. 1400, it has been suggested that the people of Angel Mounds migrated downriver to Caborn-Welborn sites such as Slack Farm and Hovey Lake (Marshall 2011).

Geochronology

Because Yankeetown is such a deeply stratified site, containing not only Yankeetown but also

Mississippian, Woodland, and even Archaic deposits, the initial designation of Yankeetown as

Pre-Mississippian but Post-Woodland was based on a well-defined stratigraphy. Even after the

advent of radiocarbon dating, however, only a single radiocarbon date of A.D. 900 ± 130 was available for the Yankeetown Site (Redmond 1990:11). More dates trickled in from other

Yankeetown sites at the time of Redmond’s dissertation: a date of A.D. 1090 ± 130 was reported for the Stull site in Kentucky and two dates from site 11-Sa-86 in Illinois yielded dates A.D. 655

± 65 and A.D. 685 ± 60. Redmond obtained two additional radiocarbon dates from wood charcoal from a small pit containing Yankeetown sherds from the type site, dating from A.D. 730

± 110 and A.D. 790 ± 120 (Redmond 1990:12). These dates, while still very few in numbers, indicate a time interval of A.D. 700-1100 and can be summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Yankeetown Phase radiocarbon dates (Redmond 1990).

Site Lab Number 14C Age (B.P.) Cal. 2σ Calendar Age

12-W-1 M-2007 1050 ± 130 A.D. 970 ± 147

12-W-1 B-17320 1220 ± 110 A.D. 814 ± 113

12-W-1 B-17321 1160 ± 120 A.D. 855 ± 123

15-Un-95 GX-7903 860 ± 130 A.D. 1142 ± 106

11-Sa-86 UGa-2699 995 ± 65 A.D. 1056 ± 72

11-Sa-86 UGa-2702 1265 ± 60 A.D. 762 ± 73

Initial estimates of the age of Angel Mounds proposed that the occupation of Angel

began during the Angel II phase (A.D. 1200-1325). In order to adhere to this preconceived acceptable age range, earlier radiocarbon dates—those older than A.D. 1200—were rejected as

unacceptable, yet no rationale was given: “neither poor contexts nor suspect material was cited”

(Monaghan and Peebles 2010:948). The new dates from Mound A, however, contradict this

earlier assumption and propose a Mississippian presence at Angel as early as A.D. 1050.

To date, there are currently 26 radiocarbon dates that have been reported from the Angel

Mounds site. Nine of these dates come from Monaghan and Peebles’ 2010 study on the

construction of Mound A. Monaghan and Peebles consider twenty-two of these dates to be

reliable, and the remaining four from Mound F “probably represent inappropriate or poor

contexts rather than contaminated samples” (Monaghan and Peebles 2010:948). Five radiocarbon

dates derive from Mound F, six from Mound A, and the remaining thirteen dates are from

structures or features scattered across the site.

Table 2: Angel Mounds 14C Dates (Monaghan and Peebles 2010:939).

Context Lab Number 14C Age (in years Cal. 2σ Calendar Age

B.P.)

Mound A Beta 232870 900 ± 40 A.D. 1034-1214

(Construction) Beta 232869 890 ± 40 A.D. 1035-1219

Beta 237776 890 ± 40 A.D. 1035-1219

Mound A (Structure Beta 252378 750 ± 40 A.D. 1211-1298

on upper platform) Beta 252379 690 ± 40 A.D. 1258-1324

A.D. 1345-1393

Beta 242377 520 ± 50 A.D. 1303-1365

A.D. 1383-1453

Mound F M2 1340 ± 120 A.D. 435-490

A.D. 509-517

A.D.529-905

A.D. 911-971

M9 1980 ± 130 B.C. 359-276

B.C. 259-262 A.D.

A.D. 278-328

M10 1850 ± 120 B.C. 116-430 A.D.

Beta 39232 840 ± 80 A.D. 1030-1281

DIC 2357 680 ± 50 A.D. 1258-1400

DIC 2358 630 ± 45 A.D. 1283-1404

Beta 39233 590 ± 60 A.D. 1287-1428

M4 530 ± 100 A.D. 1558-1631

DIC 2359 90 ± 110 A.D. 1634-1955

Angel House/feature Beta 39235 950 ± 80 A.D. 901-916

(“older”) A.D. 967-1257

M7 760 ± 100 A.D. 1042-1107

A.D.1117-1399

Beta 39234 750 ± 80 A.D. 1049-1084

A.D. 1124-1137

A.D. 1151-1399

Angel House/feature Beta 246694 690 ± 40 A.D. 1258-1303

(“younger”) A.D. 1345-1393

Beta 44768 660 ± 60 A.D. 1261-1411

Beta 44769 640 ± 60 A.D. 1272-1413

M5 580 ± 100 A.D. 1223-1496

A.D. 1507-1511

A.D. 1601-1615

Beta 246696 610 ± 40 A.D. 1291-1408

Beta 246695 570 ± 40 A.D. 1299-1370

A.D. 1389-1429

Beta 44771 570 ± 50 A.D. 1297-1431

Beta 44770 530 ± 50 A.D. 1302-1366

A.D. 1383-1448

DIC 1024 510 ± 50 A.D. 1305-1363

A.D. 1385-1463

DIC 1023 360 ± 50 A.D. 1449-1639

Calibrated Yankeetown radiocarbon dates range from A.D. 700 to 1100 and calibrated

radiocarbon dates from Angel Mounds range from A.D. 1050 to 1400. These dates indicate that the Yankeetown and Angel Mounds occupations overlapped by only fifty years, which is within the statistical margin of error for conventional beta-decay radiocarbon dating. In other words,

statistically speaking, fifty years is not a significant span of time on which to base theoretical assumptions or hypotheses. It is unlikely that Yankeetown and Angel had a definite trading relationship (although it cannot be discounted on these radiocarbon dates alone). It is more probable that, if the two villages had any relationship at all, then the Yankeetown people may have left Yankeetown and migrated into the Angel Mounds locale, either to eventually found the village as the progenitors of Angel, or to be assimilated into a pre-existing Mississippian culture.

Interactions between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds

Yankeetown and Angel Mounds are geographically close together, which has prompted discussions of the relationship between these two cultures that, according to radiocarbon dates, overlapped. There is some evidence from artifacts that suggest the two cultures were in contact.

At the Yankeetown site, “three grog tempered loop handles… closely resemble bifurcated or

‘horned’ handles from the Angel site collection” (Redmond 1990:276). This find seems to combine Yankeetown and Angel material cultural traits: the use of grog temper (bits of crushed pottery) is a distinctive Yankeetown trait and is paired with Angel-style pottery. Additionally, a chunky stone, a diagnostic Mississippian artifact, was found at the Yankeetown site during the

2009 Indiana University field school (personal observation, 2009). At Angel Mounds, there are also small amounts of Yankeetown pottery sherds scattered throughout the site (personal observation of Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology collections, 2011). The mixing of

Yankeetown and Angel artifacts could signify trade between the two cultures, or migration from

Yankeetown to Angel. Currently, there is not enough evidence to determine which scenario is correct.

Figure 2: Google Earth satellite map of Yankeetown and Angel Mounds.

Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework

The following chapter presents the theoretical framework that grounds the archaeological data

used in this study, including an introduction to the long debate on the origins of ancient Ohio

Valley cultures, the concept of Emergent Mississippian culture, and a history of the use of

hierarchical cluster analysis to solve archaeological problems.

Origin of Ancient Ohio Valley Cultures

The origin of the ancient peoples who settled in the Ohio Valley has been shrouded in mystery

ever since the first Europeans explored the region and speculated on the origin of the earthworks

they observed. The early theories surrounding the identity of the Mound Builders ranged from a

Lost Tribe of Israel, to Vikings, and even mythical giants. While these outrageous theories are

now a relic of the past, the origins of the Ohio Valley cultures, such as the Mississippians,

continue to be under strong debate.

Traditionally, many archaeologists assume that Mississippian peoples migrated into the

Mississippi River valley from an undefined cultural homeland. An alternative hypothesis, however, suggests that Mississippian culture developed from a pre-existing population in the

Ohio River valley. Some of these pre-existing Late Woodland populations have been given the moniker of “Emergent Mississippian,” due to the presence of Mississippian-like artifacts and features that predate developed Mississippian populations.

The Late Woodland Period

The Late Woodland period cultures used to be referred to by archaeologists as the “good gray

cultures” (Pollack and Henderson 2000:613). This term suggests a lack of complexity and a presumed step downwards from the extensive earthwork complexes of the Middle Woodland

Period. This assumption is fueled by the apparent decline of long-distance trade in exotic goods, the simplicity of ceramic decorations, and the lack of high-status burials. All of these traits seem to suggest social isolation of Late Woodland cultures. The Late Woodland period has been seen as a period of “cultural collapse or as a developmental lull” (Pollack and Henderson 2000:613), but with new research and insights into the Late Woodland cultures, archaeologists’ perceptions are beginning to change, and the Late Woodland is instead starting to be understood as a dynamic period of transition.

The Late Woodland period was a time when great changes were taking place. Although long-distance exotic trades seems to come to a halt around A.D. 500, the similarity of material culture and subsistence patterns of Late Woodland sites over a large geographic area suggests that interregional interaction between cultures was still taking place. Instead of considering this period to be a prehistoric Dark Age, archaeologists are beginning to notice the cultural developments that were happening at this time. For example, research at Late Woodland sites can examine “the relationship between population nucleation, intensification of food production, and the development of political centralization” (Pollack and Henderson 2000:613). Because the cultural changes taking place during the Late Woodland were not an abrupt process, they are sometimes difficult to detect in the archaeological record. It is for this reason that archaeologists incorrectly assumed that the Late Woodland cultures were “the good gray cultures:” boring, uninteresting, and not socially complex. In reality, this period is marked by “changes in plant

subsistence practices and hunting technology, a decline in long-distance exchange networks, and changes in ritual expression” (Pollack and Henderson 2000:615). Major innovations occurred

during this period, including the introduction of the bow and arrow around A.D. 800, and the

transition to full-blown maize agriculture.

In addition to these different cultural transitions taking place during the Late Woodland

period, some cultures were also beginning to adopt behaviors and cultural traits similar to the

following Mississippian period. Items such as stone discoidals used as chunkey stones in a

Mississippian game, “Chunkey” (also known as chunky, chenco, tchung-kee, or the hoop and

stick game) and ceramic figurines and effigy figures start to appear at some Late Woodland

sites—items that don’t seem to correspond to what archaeologists define as the Late Woodland

cultural tradition. Some sites, such as Yankeetown, look different. Some authors (Redmond

1990; Cobb and Garrow 1996; Pollack and Henderson 2000) defined these sites as Emergent

Mississippian sites.

Emergent Mississippian Hypotheses

The term Emergent Mississippian is used to define certain Late Woodland sites that behave more

like Mississippian peoples than other Late Woodland sites. Emergent Mississippian sites begin to

crop up at around 800 to 1000 A.D. and display increased cultural complexity and Mississippian-

like behavior and artifacts. “The definition of Emergent Mississippian assumes a dual meaning in

that it represents both a temporal interval preceding the Mississippian period and an evolutionary

stage incorporating some of the accoutrements of a widespread Mississippian manifestation”

(Cobb and Garrow 1996:21). An inherent duality exists in the term Emergent Mississippian:

these cultures preserved some local traditions at the same time as they adopted new

Mississippian traits. Which traits are preserved and which are changed, however, is a major question that archaeologists must ask, and the answer to this question will vary at each Emergent

Mississippian archaeological site. It is no surprise that one of the major problems in identifying

Emergent Mississippian cultures is the large amount of diversity exhibited between the different cultures. “A systematics dilemma cannot be ignored when dealing with A.D. 800-100 assemblages that exhibit marked deviation from the most commonly accepted Emergent

Mississippian traits” (Cobb and Garrow 1996:22). One of the reasons for such diversity is environmental and ecological variation—Emergent Mississippian sites occur over a wide geographic area.

There is still opposition to the idea that such a wide variety of Late Woodland sites can be classified into the overarching label of Emergent Mississippian. O’Brien (1991) objects to the

Emergent Mississippian label “because it promotes an essentialism that obscures variation across space and through time” (Cobb and Garrow 1996:24).

In order to understand the processes in which an archaeological society can change from being classified as Late Woodland, to Emergent Mississippian, to eventually becoming a

Mississippian polity, archaeologists must ask questions about agency and structure (Cobb and

Garros 1996). “How do individuals or small groups follow their own pursuits, yet arrive at a recognizable collective behavior or set of beliefs; and how does a collective structure constrain individuals while at the same time provide a creative outlet for a variety of behaviors and beliefs?” (Cobb and Garrow 1996:24). What are the driving factors behind the need for the

“Mississippianization” of a culture? A multiscalar approach to this problem takes into consideration both external and internal forces. “A major contribution toward understanding

Emergent Mississippian development will be addressing the nature of interregional connections

during the critical interval A.D. 800-1000” (Cobb and Garrow 1996:25). From an interregional

perspective, the Late Woodland period did not have the same long-distance trade networks trading exotic artifacts as the earlier Hopewell Interaction Sphere in the Middle Woodland. Long distance trade did exist in the Late Woodland; however, it existed on a much smaller scale and included a smaller number of exotic goods (Cobb and Barrow 1996:31).

One of the ways of interpreting the system of emerging Mississippian polities is to picture a system of “nested black boxes” (Smith 1990:3) that represent regions, individual polities, communities, and even household units. These differently sized boxes each carry a label such as “American Bottom” or “Coles Creek,” and “interaction-exchange lines of communication and movement of people, objects, and ideas” connect each of these boxes to others (Smith 1990:3). In this way, different villages, polities, and regions are all interconnected while retaining their own individual entity. This nested black box metaphor for the Mississippian

Emergence is criticized for being “overly static and mechanistic” (Smith 1990:3), but at the same time, it does provide a basic model for the development of Mississippian societies.

Why did the cultural change from Late Woodland to Emergent Mississippian to

Mississippian come about? One of the most elusive goals of archaeology is to understand behavioral change as it is reflected by cultural sequences in the archaeological record.

Archaeologists are forced to use the leftovers of past human occupations—sifting through material culture garbage, and only that which has been preserved in the ground after thousands of years—to attempt to answer the question of why people change. The most testable agents of change are catastrophic ones—“either the environment suddenly changed or the migration of a

superior society took place” (Morse and Morse 1990:169). These tests for catastrophic changes,

however, often come up negative. This result suggests that cultural change is more often a

gradual process, one that is far more difficult for archaeologists to detect.

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

The purpose of cluster analysis is to “reduce the number of units of study by combining similar units into classes which will then form a new basis for interpretation… [T]he results will be presented diagrammatically as a hierarchical tree or ‘dendrogram’ showing the progressive fusion of units into larger clusters” (Hodson 1970:300).

There are two main types of hierarchical cluster analysis: Single- and Double-Linkage.

Single Linkage is the earliest and most common type of classification. The resulting dendrograms from Single Linkage analysis are easily followed. The two most similar units in the analysis are joined first, and the next highest similarity is linked to the previous, and so on until all the units are linked into one group. According to Hodson, Single Linkage is “the most simple and direct approach and one that is theoretically acceptable” (Hodson 1970:317). An alternative to Single Linkage analysis is Double Linkage. This type of analysis “allows clusters that would be immediately fused in Single Linkage to overlap by a certain number of units before fusing”

(Hodson 1970:308). In short, Double Linkage allows for two similarity links between a unit rather than just one. The results of a Double Linkage analysis are better displayed in Venn

Diagrams rather than dendrograms.

A History of Cluster Analysis in Archaeology

Cluster analysis is a useful tool for archaeologists because it “makes use of numerical procedures to divide a given group of units into homogenous sub-groups” (Hodson 1970:299). Any

archaeological pursuit in which classification or compression is a goal can be facilitated by

cluster analysis. It has not been as widely embraced by archaeologists as other numerical seriation techniques, partly due to its inaccessibility until the widespread use of computers made the numerous calculations involved in cluster analysis less tedious.

Archaeologists can use cluster analysis to classify material culture for a defined

archaeological population or site. An example of using cluster analysis to solve this type of

problem would be the investigation of the technology behind tools, such as “the way that styles

of retouch are related to types of raw material, shapes of blanks and so forth” (Hodson

1970:301). Cluster analysis of stone tools would demonstrate the relationships and the degrees of

similarity between artifacts. Other types of cluster analyses that use archaeological data include

the ‘pointedness’ of Roman spearheads and classifying medieval brooches (Orton 1980).

Chapter 4: Methods

The data used for this study, i.e., the cultural traits of sixteen distinct archaeological cultures, were derived from pre-existing literature describing these cultures in detail. This chapter describes the method of converting these cultural data into a medium useable by the statistical program SYSTAT.

Statistical Methods

For this study, Single Linkage cluster analysis will be the method used for measuring the similarity of different cultures, using over 300 cultural traits.

Sixteen different cultures were analyzed by identifying the cultural traits that signified each culture. These cultures belong to the Late Archaic, Early, Middle and Late Woodland, and the Mississippian periods and are located in the Midwestern United States. Besides Yankeetown and Angel Mounds, the other cultures used in this analysis are Prehistoric Neutral, Glacial Kame,

Adena, Hopewell, Fort Ancient, Whittlesey, Laurel Focus, Aztalan, Oneota, Kincaid, Raymond,

Newtown, Dillinger, and the Lewis Phase. A list of the cultural traits for all of these cultures was compiled, using archaeological literature for the Midwest and the Eastern United states

(Griffin 1952, Lewis 1986), and all of these traits were then listed together alphabetically. In total, 364 different cultural traits were identified and compiled into an Excel 2010 spreadsheet.

These traits identify not only the material cultural traits but also traits such as subsistence patterns, settlement locations, burial customs, and house construction styles. Some of the noted comparisons between cultural traits include the differences between pottery styles, bone tools, and lithic technology. The presence of a given particular trait within a culture was marked with a

‘1’, representing the presence of said trait. The absence of a trait was marked with a ‘0’. The

spreadsheet in its entirety is located in Appendix A.

Now that these data are described in numerical terms (i.e. in ones and zeroes), we can

measure the ‘alikeness’ of the data using similarity coefficients. Using similarity coefficients will

turn these data from simply a list of cultural traits to a number of objects in a space: “each object

can be thought of as a point in a space, closer to objects which are more similar… and further

from objects that are less similar” (Orton 1980:45).

The contents of the spreadsheet were entered into the SYSTAT program (Burmaster

1997) and a cluster analysis was performed using Euclidian distances and maximum linkages

(i.e., complete linkage clustering) where d is the chosen metric, and the linkage criteria includes the sum of all intra-cluster variance.

For this single linkage cluster analysis, the similarity matrix will be searched for the smallest coefficient, and these two cultures will be grouped together in the first cluster, representing the closest branches in the dendrogram. The matrix will then be searched for the next smallest coefficient. If it is between one of the objects in the first cluster and a third object,

then this object will join the cluster. If the next smallest coefficient is instead between two

objects that do not belong to the first cluster, then these two will be grouped together to form the

second cluster.

The formation of clusters will continue in this fashion, either adding new objects to pre-

existing clusters, forming new clusters, or merging two clusters, until the dendrogram is

completed and all sixteen cultures in this study are linked to one another and the cultural

relationships are determined from the dendrogram.

Chapter 5: Data

A description of the main traits of the fourteen other cultures used for the hierarchical cluster analysis is outlined in this chapter. The cultures are discussed in chronological order. All sixteen cultures are then presented in three dendrograms that result from the hierarchical cluster analysis.

Late Archaic (Glacial Kame)

The Glacial Kame culture is the oldest culture used in this study, dating to the Late Archaic and

Early Woodland periods, around 3000 to 500 B.C. Sites are located in northwestern Ohio, northeastern Indiana, and southern Michigan (Griffin 1952:85). The culture is characterized by the practice of digging burials into the glacial kames, or knolls. Burials were mostly flexed and often found in conjunction with red ochre. Conch shell fragments found among the grave goods indicate that the Glacial Kame culture had a trading relationship with the Gulf or Atlantic coastal regions (Griffin 1952:85). Other types of ornamental artifacts include crude copper ornaments and ivory.

Table 3: Glacial Kame cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Conical Projectile Points

• Harpoon Points

Burials • Pit Burials • Red Ochre

• Dog Burials • Flexed Position

Ceramics • No ceramic data

Copper • Ornaments

Groundstone Tools • Atlatl weights • Celts

• Slate Gorgets

Ivory • Gorgets • Spheres

Shell • Conch Shell Fragments • Gorgets

• Beads

Village Organization • No mounds

Early Woodland (Adena)

The Adena people occupied the southern half of Ohio, northern Kentucky, southeastern Indiana, northwestern West Virginia, and southwestern Pennsylvania. Some Adena constructions are thought to have been erected as early as 1000 B.C., however; the generally accepted early date for Adena earthworks is 500 B.C. (Muller 1986). Adena sites were small (around a dozen structures) and were occupied seasonally. The Adena culture is distinguished mainly by the distinct burial style. Burials were placed in mounds, and the differential treatment of some individuals suggests that the Adena were beginning to be more socially complex, but “there are few indications of great social distinctions beyond those that might be acquired by individuals in their lifetimes” (Muller 1986:94). Some burials occur in log tombs and are often covered with

bark. Material culture traits of the Adena include thick, round-bottomed pottery that exhibits

cordmarking or incising. The pottery was either grit or limestone tempered.

Table 4: Adena cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Spatulae

• Conical Projectile Points • Turtle Carapace Spoons

• Awls • Beads

Burials • Grave Goods • Burial Mounds

• Log Tombs • Use of Red Ochre

• Cremation •

Ceramics • Cordmarked • Added Rim Strip

• Incised • No handles

• Conical Legs • Grit and/or Limestone

Temper

Copper • Beads • Crescents

• Pins • Gorgets

• Rings • Pendants

• Axes

Flakestone • Ungrooved Axes • Leaf-shaped Blades

Tools • Drills • Side-notched and stemmed

• Flake Scrapers points

Groundstone • Abrading Stones • Hematite Axes (Ungrooved)

Tools • Disks • Igneous Axes (Ungrooved)

• Slate Gorgets • Stone Pipes

Shell • Mussel Shell Hoes • Gorgets

• Mussel Shell Spoons

Village • Geometrical Earthworks • Burial Mounds

Organization • Sacred Circles • Enclosures

• Subconical Mounds • Circular, Post Mold Houses

Middle Woodland (Hopewell Tradition)

The Hopewell cultural period is known for its impressive construction of large mounds, earthworks, and extensively planned complexes. Long distance trade increased; obsidian from

Wyoming and conch shells from the Gulf of Mexico found among the grave goods of Hopewell burials (Muller 1986:96). The elaborate Hopewell earthworks along with differential burial treatment suggest a greater degree of social complexity than with the previous Early Woodland societies. “The implication is that considerable power was being concentrated in central locations and in persons who were capable of planning large-scale and long-term projects” (Muller

1986:97).

Table 5: Hopewell cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Awls

• Digging Implements • Needles

• Skewers • Pins

• Spatulae • Turtle Carapace Containers

• Human Parietal Gorgets • Incised long bones

Burials • Grave Goods • Stone Slab Graves

• Flexed Burials • Burial Mounds

• Extended burials • Red Ochre

• Bundle Burials • Charnel Houses

• Cremation

Ceramics • Beads • Pottery – Incised

• Ear Ornaments • Pottery – Cordmarked

• Human Figurines • Pottery – Plain

• Button Cores • Pottery – Stamped

• Pipes • Pottery – No Handles

• Pottery – Round Bottom • Pottery – Conical Legs

• Pottery – Bowls, Plates, Jars • Temper: Grit and/or Limestone

Copper • Bracelets • Ear spools

• Gorgets • Pins

• Pendants • Sheet Copper (decorated)

• Adzes • Axes

• Rolled Cone Points

Flakestone • Bladelets • Drills

Tools • Leaf Shaped Blades • Corner-notched Points

• Triangular Blades • Side-notched Points

• Scrapers – Notched, Oval, • Stemmed Points

Rectangular

Groundstone • Abrading Stones • Atlatl Weights

Tools • Ungrooved Axes • Ear spools

• Hammerstones • Gorgets

• Pendants

Village • Enclosures • Geometrical Earthworks

Organization • Burial Mounds

Shell • Pendants

Middle Woodland (Laurel Focus)

The Laurel focus was a long-lived Middle Woodland cultural tradition spanning nearly 1,400

years from 200 B.C. to A.D. 1200. Laurel sites occur in modern-day Minnesota, Michigan, and

Ontario and as a result this complex is “the largest culture area of the Middle Woodland pattern

on the continent” (Reid and Rajnovich 1991:193). Most Laurel villages consist of round domed burial mounds in a variety of sizes. These mounds contain multiple bundle burials, sometimes more than a hundred (Griffin 1952:112). Pottery came in a wide variety of forms and was predominantly plain, although decoration did sometimes occur in the form of cordmarking, fabric marking, and a punctate-stamped-incised pattern that is typical of many Middle Woodland complexes. Lithic technology included stemmed projectile points, blades, and scrapers.

Groundstone objects were constructed out of schist, greenstone, and steatite. The Laurel focus consists of a wide variety of bone tools, including antler points, harpoon points, awls, tubes, whistles, scapula ladles or hoes, chisels, and angular-cut beaver teeth, which are considered to be

a diagnostic Laurel artifact (Griffin 1952:113). Ornamental artifacts were constructed out of

copper and shell.

Table 6: Laurel Focus cultural traits

Bone Tools • Antler Chisels • Socketed Projectile Points

• Awls • Harpoon Points

• Carved Dagger • Hoes

• Pipes • Scapula Ladle

• Whistles

Burials • Burial Mounds • Bundle Burials

• Multiple Person Burials

Ceramics • Pottery – Cordmarked • Pottery – Stamping

• Pottery – Incised • Pottery – Punctate

• Pottery – Net Fabric Marking • Decorated Rim

• Pottery – Polishing • No Handles

• Round Bottom • Bowls

• Bell Shaped

Copper • Thin Knives • Bracelets

• Beads • Gorgets

• Sheet Copper • Awls

• Chisels • Triangular Points

Flakestone • Diamond-shaped Blades • Stemmed Points

• Leaf-shaped Blades • Side Scrapers

• Rectangular Blades • Triangular Scrapers

Groundstone • Worked Greenstone • Worked Schist

Village Organization • Mounds • Oval Houses

• Post Mold Houses

Shell • Shell Pendants

Late Woodland (Dillinger Phase)

The Dillinger phase dates to A.D. 800 to 1000. Dillinger sites are found in a wide variety of locations, from the Mississippi river floodplain to the uplands along tributaries. The Dillinger people were a “semi-sedentary” culture that was just beginning to rely on agriculture as a main food service, as evidenced by shell and chert hoes found at Dillinger sites (Muller 1986:157).

Dillinger ceramics are predominantly cordmarked, with only a few plain sherds recovered, and tempered with a mixture of grog and grit. This feature does make Dillinger pottery difficult to distinguish from Lewis pottery. Dillinger peoples buried their dead in stone slab graves, a common practice among terminal Late Woodland societies. Griffin notes that the Dillinger focus is “strongly influenced” by Mississippian culture because of the material culture found at

Dillinger sites. While Dillinger does exhibit Mississippian-like traits, Muller argues that they are economically and socially similar to the earlier Raymond phase (Muller 1986:159). An example of a Mississippian trait at Dillinger is the stone and pottery discoidals that have been identified as

“Chunkey” stones. At the type site, two percent of sherds are shell tempered, which is also a

Mississippian trait. Due to these traits, Dillinger is classified as an Emergent Mississippian phase.

Table 7: Dillinger Phase cultural traits

Bone Tools • No Data

Burials • No Data

Ceramics • Cordmarked • Notched Rim

• Fillet • Lugs

• Bowls, Jars, and Plates • Constricted Neck

• Conoidal-shaped • Grit or Grog Temper

Late Woodland (Lewis Phase)

The Lewis phase was “originally defined as a ‘focus’… in the area around the Kincaid Mound sites in Massac and Pope counties, Illinois” (Muller 1986:131). Lewis sites are located in floodplain environments close to rivers. Lewis structures are primarily rectangular with posthole construction. Another type of Lewis construction is the rock cairn or mound, which range between 2.4 and 3.0 meters in diameter, consisting of built-up stone slabs covering a pit (Muller

1986:134). Lithic technology of the Lewis phase included the Lowe Flared Base type projectile points, which were later replaced by the small triangular projectile points known as Madison points, which were most likely used as true arrowheads with the invention of the bow and arrow

(Muller 1986:140). Lewis ceramics were tempered with a mixture of grit and grog. Early ceramic vessels were “generally elongated oval forms with more or less pointed bases” (Muller

1986:143), while later vessels were more globular. The surface of the pottery was cordmarked or plain, with rare occurrences of incising or notching on the rims. Rarer still are red-filmed vessels, which are painted red with a thin wash (Muller 1986:143).

Table 8: Lewis Phase cultural traits

Bone Tools • No data

Burials • Burial Mounds • Extended

Ceramics • Pottery – Cordmarked • Folded Rim

• Pottery – Incised • Notched Rim

• Pottery – Plain • Lugs

• Pointed Bottom • Grog and Grit Temper

Flakestone Tools • Lowe Flared Base • Arrowheads (Madison

Points Points)

• Chert Hoes

Village Organization • Stone Mounds

• Rectangular, Post Mold Houses

Late Woodland (Newtown Phase)

The Newtown phase takes place from approximately A.D. 300 to 1000 during the Middle and

Late Woodland periods, and occupies northern Kentucky and southern Ohio. Houses were oval rather than rectangular, which is a trait of an egalitarian society. The identifying factor of the

Newtown phase is “the presence of jars with thickened angular shoulders” (Railey 1996:115).

Other Newtown artifacts include expanded stem projectile points, slate and bone gorgets. (Railey

1996:116).

Table 9: Newtown Phase cultural traits

Bone Tools • Drilled Elk Incisors • Gorgets

Burials • Burial Mounds • Extended Burials

Ceramics • Pottery – Cordmarked • Globular Jars with Angular

• Pottery – Plain Shoulders

• Pottery – Collared Rim • Grit Temper

Flakestone Tools • Arrowheads • Stemmed Points

Groundstone • Celts • Slate Gorgets

Village • Mounds

Organization

Late Woodland (Raymond Phase)

The Raymond phase is extremely similar both temporally and culturally to the Lewis phase. In fact, most of their material culture appears to be identical. Traditionally, the difference was thought to lie in the tempering styles between the two cultures. It was originally thought that

Raymond pottery was grit tempered and Lewis was grog tempered, but this assumption is problematic. Instead, “there seems to be a gradient from southeast to northwest across southern

Illinois in regard to tempering” (Muller 1986:144). In general, however, more Raymond sites have higher percentages of grit tempered pottery than do the Lewis phase sites. One of the differences between the Raymond and Lewis ceramic assemblages is that the Raymond assemblage contains a larger percentage of cordmarked sherds (around 90 percent).

Table 10: Raymond Phase cultural traits

Bone Tools • Unmodified antler tine punches • Sharpened bone splinters

Burials • No Data

Ceramics • Cordmarked • Notched

• Conoidal Vessels • Constricted Neck

• Grit Temper

Flakestone • Arrowheads • Lowe Flared Base Points

• Flake knives • Scrapers

Groundstone • Celts • Atlatl weight

Late Woodland (Yankeetown Phase)

The Yankeetown Phase is located throughout the lower Ohio River Valley and includes sites in southwestern Indiana, northwestern Kentucky, and southeastern Illinois (Redmond 1990:7). The material culture of the Yankeetown Phase includes grog-tempered (tempered with clay or crushed sherds) with distinctive decorations that sets Yankeetown pottery apart from other cultural complexes. Other diagnostic artifacts are pottery discs, human effigy figurines, clay beads, and pottery “trowels” (Redmond 1990:8). Non-ceramic Yankeetown artifacts include triangular projectile points, groundstone tools such as hammerstones, anvils, celts, adzes and discoidals, and bone tools (mainly constructed from deer bones). Most Yankeetown sites are located in the fertile floodplain zones rather than in upland region, however, there are also bluff edge sites that would have been able to exploit both upland and lowland resource zones

(Redmond 1990). One of the best examples of a bluff edge site is the Ray site, which is “located

at the perimeter of the upland forest zone along a high bluff that overlooks the extensive

Yankeetown floodplain” (Redmond 1990:242).

Figure 3: Distribution of Yankeetown Phase sites (Redmond 1990:9)

The Yankeetown complex occurs during the Late Woodland period, but it is also referred

to as an Emergent Mississippian culture because it exhibits “Mississippian-like attributes,” such as “globular jars, thick-walled ‘salt pans’, and rounded bowls with rim folds and fine-line incised and filleted decorations, loop handles, pottery discs and trowels, stone discoidals, triangular points, and chert hoes” (Redmond 1990:2) In general, these Emergent Mississippian traits include an increase in population size, aggregation into discontinuous riverine environments, and the intensification of maize production (Redmond 1990:147).

Blasingham (1953) divided Yankeetown pottery into four types: Yankeetown Plain,

Yankeetown Incised, Yankeetown Fillet, and Yankeetown Cordmarked.

Yankeetown Incised vessels incorporate patterns of incised lines with tool impressing on the lip and neck in various combinations. Yankeetown

Fillet vessels are also decorated in various patterns, however the lines are created from applied ribbons of clay that have been notched. The Yankeetown Plain type includes vessels void of any decorative marking or had only tool impressions at the lip and/or neck. Yankeetown Cordmarked included vessels with notable cordmarking on the surface. (Garniewicz et al. 2008:77) Redmond (1990) notes that while these types are very useful for identifying large quantities of

sherds, they are far too generalizing and “incapable of identifying much of the stylistic

variability within Yankeetown ceramic assemblages” (Redmond 1990:26). Other pottery

classifications have been identified since Blasingham’s initial 1953 report. The classifications

are: Yankeetown Lip Impressed, which have tool-decorated lips but plain necks; Yankeetown

Thick-Walled Pan, which are large, thick pans shaped like woks; and the miniature bowl type, a small undecorated bowl (palm-sized) that is relatively thick (Garniewicz et al. 2008).

Yankeetown pottery was constructed using the coiling method with apparent smoothing on most of the sherds. It is grog tempered (a temper constituted of crushed up pieces of other pottery), with some sherds exhibiting amounts of sand and grit. The grog temper has been a diagnostic tool when distinguishing Yankeetown Plain from Mississippian Plain pottery, for example, in the

Angel Mounds artifact collections located in the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology at

Indiana University. Another distinctive feature of Yankeetown pottery is the folded-over collar.

Folding clay from the lip over the exterior surface of the rim makes the folded-over collar.

Figure 4: Example of a grog tempered Yankeetown sherd (Garniewicz et al. 2008:80)

Figure 5: Yankeetown folded-over collar (Garniewicz et al. 2008:79)

The diversity of pottery shapes and forms—bowls, jars, and pans of varying sizes— reflect a shift in food storage and production associated with full-time maize horticulture

(Redmond 1990:149). In general, Yankeetown pottery styles between different sites are homogenous, which suggests that the Yankeetown Phase sites in southern Indiana, northern

Kentucky, and Illinois exhibit signs of social cohesion and integration. The homogeneity of

pottery styles “would have served to strengthen the social ties between localities and maintained

social boundaries with neighboring groups through the signalling (sic) of social identity”

(Redmond 1990:143).

Table 11: Yankeetown Phase cultural traits

Bone Tools • Bone Splinter Awls • Notched Deer Phalange

• Bone Gravers • Bone Needles

• Drilled Turtle Carapace

Ceramics • Beads • Pottery – Incised

• Human Figurines • Pottery – Plain

• Pottery Disks • Pottery – Filleted

• Pottery Trowels • Folded-over Rim

• Bowls, Jars, Salt Pans • Loop Handles

• Pottery – Bar Stamped • Rim Castellations

• Pottery - Cordmarked • Grog Temper

Flakestone • Expanded-base Drills • Chert Hoes

Tools • Triangular Points • Flake Scrapers

Groundstone • Anvils • Celts

Tools • Discoidals (Chunkey Stones)

Village • Post Mold, Rectangular Houses

Organization

Late Woodland (Whittlesey Focus)

The Whittlesey focus is located “south of Lake Erie in Ohio from the Pennsylvania boundary to the western end of the lake, and on some of the islands” (Griffin 1952). The culture flourished from ca. A.D. 600 to 1200 (Lepper 2005). Whittlesey villages were fortified and located along streams in defensible areas, such as high bluffs. Pottery was tempered with grit, shell, or a combination of the two and was usually cordmarked. Some vessels exhibited loop handles or lugs. Decoration consisted of impressing or incising on the rim of the vessel, and an added rim strip. The Whittlesey people utilized the bow and arrow and many different varieties of bone tools, including a tool for removing corn from the cob constructed out of deer jaws. The

Whittlesey culture did not build mounds; they interred their dead in cemeteries, in simple pits in flexed position.

Table 12: Whittlesey cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Beaver Tooth Chisels

• Antler Chisels • Bird Bone Beads

• Antler Combs • Mandible Corncob Tool

• Antler Long Pins • Deer Tooth Pendants

• Awls • Fishhooks

Burials • Pit Burials • Cemeteries

• Flexed Position

Ceramics • Pipes – Tapered Stem • Pottery – Notched

• Pipes – Incised • Pottery – Decorated Rim

• Pipes – Elbow • Loop Handles

• Pottery – Added Rim Strip • Lugs

• Pottery – Cordmarked • Wide Mouthed Jars

• Pottery – Fabric Impressed • Grit and Shell Temper

• Pottery – Incised

Flakestone • Stemmed Blades • Expanded-base Drills

• Unnotched Points • Scrapers

• Arrowheads

Groundstone • Ungrooved Adzes • Slate Gorgets

• Ungrooved Axes • Pipes

Shell • Mussel Shell Hoes

Mississippian (Angel Mounds)

Angel Mounds is a large Mississippian mound center located in Evansville, Indiana. Angel is a typical Mississippian palisaded village, with a central plaza and a network of mounds with

Mound A, a large platform mound around forty-four feet tall, as its centerpiece. The lithic technology of Angel consists largely of small triangular points with either a straight or concave base. Black notes that these points are very similar to points found at Cahokia (Black 1944:513).

Larger points and blades also occur but are rarer than the ubiquitous triangular arrowheads. Bone

tools at the site were typical: awls, antler tines, pins, and fishhooks. Squared astragalus bones

may have served as gaming dice. Perforated teeth of bear, puma, raccoon, and dog suggest the

use of teeth for necklaces (Black 1944:517). A wide variety of ceramic vessels are represented at

the Angel Site, including wide-mouthed bowls, jars, bottles, plates, and salt pans, suggesting a

wide range of uses. A large amount of sherds at Angel are plain, however, the more unique sherds display negative painted designs. One common motif is the “equal-armed cross and sun symbol” (Black 1944:521). Effigy figurines, handles, and vessels are also common.

Table 13: Angel Mounds cultural traits

Bone Tools • Conical Projectile Points • Polished and squared

• Awls Austragalus

• Bird Bone Flutes • Pins

• Fishhooks • Beads

• Pendants

Burials • Pit Burials • Under/Around Houses

• Bundle Burials • Extended Burials

Ceramics • Beads • Pottery – Negative Painted

• Ear Ornaments • Pottery – Effigy Handles

• Pendants • Bowls, Bottles, Plates, Salt

• Effigy Pendants Pans

• Animal Effigy Pipes • Pottery Disks

• Human Effigy Pipes • Pottery Trowels

• Pottery – Fabric Roughening

Copper • Beads • Sheet Copper

• Awls

Fluorite • Beads • Pendants

• Human Effigy Figurine • Effigy Pendants

Flakestone • Lanceolate Blades • Stemmed Points

• Rectangular Blades • Scrapers

• Expanded-base Drills • Base-notched Points

• Chisels • Concave Base Points

Groundstone • Abrading Stones • Anvils

• Grooved Axes • Full-Grooved Hammerstones

• Elbow Pipes • Slate Gorgets

• Animal Effigy Pipes • Celts

• Human Effigy Pipes

Village • Platform Mounds

Organization • Rectangular, Post Mold Houses

• Central Plaza

Shell • Mussel Shell Knives • Earspools

• Mussel Shell Scrapers • Gorgets

• Mussel Shell Spoons • Beads

Mississippian (Kincaid)

The Kincaid type site is located in Massac County, Illinois. Radiocarbon dates from Kincaid indicate that the culture flourished from around A.D. 1050 to 1300 (Butler 1991). The material culture of Kincaid is similar to that of many other Mississippian sites, with small triangular chert points, shell tempered pottery, chunkey stones, and shell ornaments (Muller 1986). Elaborate

effigy bowls and lugs shaped like human hands were common designs. Like Angel Mounds,

Kincaid also used fluorspar or fluorite for disks, earplugs, and beads (Griffin 1952). The village organization is also typically Mississippian, with a mound center consisting of platform mounds, a central plaza, and a palisade.

Table 14: Kincaid cultural traits

Bone Tools • No Data

Burials • Stone Slab Graves • Log Tombs

• Extended Position

Ceramics • Bird Effigy Vessels • Loop Handles

• Salt Pans • Strap Handles

• Shell Temper • Lugs

Flakestsone • Triangular Arrowheads • Long, Lanceolate Blades

Fluorite • Beads • Earplugs

• Disks

Groundstone • Discoidals (Chunkey Stones)

Village • Platform Mounds • Conical Mounds

Organization • Wattle and Daub Construction • Rectangular Houses

Mississippian (Aztalan)

Aztalan is an Early Mississippian palisaded village located in southern Wisconsin (Griffin

1952:120). The village was settled around A.D. 1100 and subsequently abandoned at around

A.D. 1250. The layout of Aztalan is similar to other Mississippian villages, with platform mounds, a central plaza, and residential areas outside the palisade. “Pottery styles found throughout the town indicate that at least two different groups of people lived here: the

Mississippians, perhaps from Cahokia itself, and many people referred to… as Late Woodland, who inhabited southern Wisconsin and the Upper Midwest at this time” (Birmingham and

Goldstein 2005:xi). The Mississippian style ceramics at Aztalan are similar in nature to those at

Cahokia—shell tempered with a wide variety of sizes and shapes, loop handles, and elaborate incising designs. The most abundant type of lithic technology is the small triangular point common at sites that utilized bow and arrow technology. Copper was used for the construction of ornaments, awls, fishhooks, and knives (Griffin 1952:121).

Table 15: Aztalan cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Awls

• Needles • Triangular Points

Burials • Grave Goods

Ceramics • Pottery – Incised • Decorated Rims

• Pottery – Polished • Loop Handles

• Pottery – Smoothed • Lugs

• Angular Shoulders • Beakers, Jars, Bowls, Plates

• Shell Temper

Copper • Thin Knives • Engraved Disks

• Awls • Stone Ear spool Overlay

• Fishhooks • Triangular Points

Flakestone • Blades • Unnotched Points

Tools • Drills • Basal-notched Points

• Side-notched Points

Groundstone • Celts • Grooved Hammerstone

Tools • Hoes • Discoidals

• Earspools (incised)

Village • Bark Roof • Wattle and Daub Construction

Organization • Rectangular Houses • Platform Mounds

• Central Plaza • Palisaded

Shell • Hoes • Beads

• Pendants

Fort Ancient

The Fort Ancient culture is located in southern Ohio, southeastern Indiana, northern Kentucky,

and in northwestern West Virginia (Griffin 1952:93). The culture flourished from A.D. 1000 up

until European contact, as evidenced by the European artifacts excavated at many Fort Ancient

sites. Villages were located in valleys or terraces, with circular houses of post-mold construction.

Fort Ancient pottery was tempered with grit, shell, or a combination of the two, and was normally either plain or cordmarked. Decoration in the form of incising, notching, and punctuating occurred on the rim and shoulder of some vessels. A common and distinctive Fort

Ancient incised decoration is the curvilinear guilloche motif. Handles, when they occurred, were

either of the loop or strap varieties. Lithic technology includes small triangular points that are distinctive of a bow and arrow culture, and ungrooved axes and adzes. Mussel shell hoes were abundant. The Fort Ancient culture was contemporary to the Mississippian culture but they displayed distinctly different cultural traits because the two groups belonged to different language families—Fort Ancient to the Algonquian family, and Mississippians to the

Muskogean.

Table 16: Fort Ancient cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Antler Combs

• Conical Projectile Points • Antler Pendants

• Harpoon Points • Awls

• Bird Bone Beads • Scrapers

• Bird Bone Flutes • Mandible Corncob Tool

• Bird Bone Pendants • Knives

• Weaving Tools • Fishhooks

• Hoes • Pins

• Tooth Pendants • Rattles

Burials • Stone Slab Graves • Burial in Cemeteries

• Bark Tombs • Burials under/around houses

• Extended and Flexed Positions

Ceramics • Cordmarked • Animal Effigy Rim

• Incised • Loop Handles

• Notched • Strap Handles

• Plain • Bowls, Jars, Salt Pans

• Punctate • Grit and Shell Temper

• Smoothed

Flakestone • Corner-notched Blades • Arrowheads

• Oval Blades • Corner-notched points

• Side-notched Blades • Stemmed points

• Double Pointed Drills

• Expanded Base Drills

Groundstone • Abrading Stones • Chunkey Stones

• Ungrooved Adzes • Mortar/Pestle

• Ungrooved Axes • Pendants

Shell • Pendants • Mussel Shell Spoons

• Mussel Shell Hoes • Beads

• Mussel Shell Knives • Hair Pins

• Mussel Shell Scrapers

Oneota

The Oneota culture, which existed from ca. A.D. 900 to A.D. 1600 in areas of Wisconsin,

Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana, was contemporary to the Mississippians (Kreisa

1993). Despite its wide geographic area, the Oneota culture is relatively homogenous. Oneota villages are medium-to-large with associated cemeteries. Oneota pottery was shell tempered and smoothed with decoration consisting of incised or trailed lines with punctate borders on the rim

and shoulder area of the vessel (Griffin 1952:122). The most common vessel shape was the

globular jar, and handles are of either the strap or loop variety. The lithic toolkit was typical,

with small triangular points, knives, drills, and scrapers. Copper was utilized for beads and

pendants, and there is also evidence of post-contact trade materials such as glass beads, brass ear coils, and iron objects.

Table 17: Oneota cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Projectile Points

• Awls • Fishhooks

• Fiber Shredders • Hoes

• Incised Bone Tubes

Burials • Rectangular Graves • Cemeteries

• Extended Position

Ceramics • Perforated Pottery Disks • Trailed Lines

• Incised Decoration • Decorated Rim/Shoulder

• Punctate Decoration • Rounded Bottom

• Smoothed • Jars

• Loop Handles • Shell Temper

• Strap Handles

Copper • Beads • Pendants

Flakestone • Oval Blades • Rectangular Scrapers

• Flat Base Projectile Points • Triangular Scrapers

• Expanded Base Drills

Groundstone • Abrading Stones • Celts

• Full-Grooved Hammerstone • Mortar/Pestle

• Disk Pipes • Whetstones

Shell • Mussel Shell Hoes • Mussel Shell Spoons

• Beads

Prehistoric Neutral

The Prehistoric Neutral were an Iroquoian culture that inhabited southern Ontario in the fertile region North of Lake Erie (Griffin 1952:74). The culture is described as a Terminal Late

Woodland site, but the post-A.D. 1400 dates for the Prehistoric Neutral justified it being grouped with the Mississippian time periods for the purposes of this study. Prehistoric Neutral pottery was globular with slightly constricted necks, often with castellated rims, and tempered with grit.

Vessels were usually plain and utilitarian; and decoration was confined to the rim of the vessel and consisted of incising and punctating. Ceramic pipes were also common, and Griffin (1952) notes that the Prehistoric Neutral pipe styles mirror those of historically known Iroquoian pipe styles. Pipes were decorated with incising and punctating, and human effigy pipes were common.

Table 18: Prehistoric Neutral cultural traits

Bone Tools • Chert Flaking Tools • Awls

• Antler Combs • Harpoon Points

• Conical Projectile Points

Burials • No burial data

Ceramics • Pipes – Incised and/or Punctate • Pottery – Punctate

• Pipes – Human Effigy • Decoration on Rim/Shoulder

• Pipes – Elbow • Round Bottomed Vessels

• Pottery – Cordmarked • Collared Rim

• Pottery – Incising • Castellated Rim

• Pottery – Net Fabric Markings • Grit Temper

Copper • Beads • Awls

Flakestone • Notched and Unnotched Points • Concave Base Points

• Stemmed Points • Leaf-shaped and Triangular

Points

Groundstone • Ungrooved Axes • Hammerstones

• Rectangular Slate Gorgets • Pendants

• Whetstones

Village • Post Mold Houses • Long and Narrow House

Organization Shape

These sixteen archaeological cultures are located in the Midwestern United States—a relatively small geographic location. The geographical proximity of contemporary Middle

Woodland, Late Woodland, and Mississippian, Fort Ancient, Oneota, and Prehistoric Neutral people would have facilitated the exchange of goods and/or DNA. For some of these cultures, for example, the Mississippian polities, we do have archaeological evidence supporting trade of goods, ideas, and people. Determining the relatedness of these cultures can help to form tentative ideas about the trading relationships between contemporary cultures, and aid in identifying possible progenitors for cultures that do not occur simultaneously.

Chapter 6: Analysis

The following chapter provides a hierarchical cluster tree figure that demonstrates the statistical relationships between the cultures used in this study. These relationships are then listed in a chart and described in detail.

Dendrograms

A cluster tree, or dendrogram, was created that includes all sixteen original cultures intended for analysis as described in Chapter 5. The dendrogram, illustrated in Figure 6, indicates that the

Dillinger and Raymond cultures have the two most closely related cultures according to the 364 different cultural traits used in this study. The second and third order relationships show the

Newtown and Lewis phases are also closely related to Dillinger and Raymond. These relationships make sense from a temporal standpoint, because they fall within the Late Woodland time period (Raymond: A.D. 600-900, Dillinger: A.D. 800-1000, Newtown: A.D. 300-1000, and

Lewis: A.D. 600-900). The fourth order relationship indicates that Glacial Kame is culturally similar to the first four cultures. Glacial Kame is the earliest-dating culture in this study (3000-

500 B.C.), and this relationship appears to suggest a similarity in culture that may not necessarily translate to any biological relationship (due to both the difference in age and geographic location) between Glacial Kame people and any of these Late Woodland cultures.

The next and most unexpected hierarchical order relationship suggests a cultural similarity between Kincaid, a Mississippian mound center in Illinois, and the previously mentioned Late Woodland sites. Kincaid dates from approximately A.D. 1050 to 1300, and the phase occurs in the same region as the preceding Lewis, Dillinger, and Raymond phases. This result suggests that these Late Woodland sites could have been possible progenitors of the

Mississippian Kincaid site, strengthening the hypothesis that Mississippian sites developed out of

pre-existing Late Woodland sites.

The fifth order relationship groups Yankeetown with the other Late Woodland/Emergent

Mississippian sites and with Kincaid, further suggesting a relationship between Late Woodland

and Mississippian cultural traits. The next two cultures, the Laurel Focus, a Middle Woodland

culture, and the Prehistoric Neutral Culture, a Terminal Late Woodland culture, are both

statistically equidistant from the previous order relationships. These two cultures are primarily

located in Canada and, while they both may have had trading relationships with Ohio Valley peoples, any cultural similarities they share most likely arose independently.

The seventh order relationship indicates that Oneota is the next-most related culture to the previous groups. Oneota occupation (A.D. 900-1600) spans a length of time that includes both the Late Woodland and Mississippian time periods. The Whittlesey culture (A.D. 1300-

1600) is closely related to Oneota, indicating a possible relationship between the two cultures.

This similarity could either be a result of trade or independent innovation of similar cultural traits due to the fact that these two cultures have a chronological overlap.

The eighth order relationship includes both Aztalan and Adena. These two cultures are not culturally similar to each other, yet they are equally similar to the previous order relationships. The ninth order relationship shows that Angel Mounds is very similar to Aztalan.

These two cultures are both Mississippian and are occupied contemporaneously (Angel Mounds from AD 1050 to 1400 and Aztalan from AD 1100-1250). A similarity of Mississippian cultural traits is to be expected, because one of the defining traits of Mississippian culture is that it is an interaction sphere that extends across the Midwest and southeastern United States. The

Mississippian interaction sphere involved the long-distance trade of goods, people, and ideas.

The last two order relationships indicate that the Hopewell and Fort Ancient cultures are the least related to the first order relationship, Dillinger and Raymond. The dissimilarity of Fort

Ancient to the other cultures in this study, especially the Emergent Mississippian and

Mississippian peoples, is a predictable result because the Mississippians and their predecessors were Muskogean-speaking peoples, and Fort Ancient were Algonquian. These two different language families would have had many cultural differences. The Hopewell and Adena cultures are also quite distinct from the first order relationship, which is most likely a consequence of the difference between Early and Middle Woodland cultures (Hopewell and Adena) and the Late

Woodland cultures. The temporal distinction between these cultures is quite small—in fact,

Hopwell lasts up to A.D. 500, which actually overlaps some of the earliest Late Woodland culture dates. What is more important, however, is the distinction between the Middle and Late

Woodland Period. As is metioned in Chapter 3, the Late Woodland period represents a time of change and transition—and while the Late Woodland cultures reach their apex only a few centuries after the decline of Hopewell, they are markedly different from the Early and Middle

Woodland cultures.

Figure 6: Dendrogram

Table 19: Order relationships of all cultures in the study, with chronologies

Order Cultural Tradition Age Ranges

1st Order Raymond A.D. 600 – 900

Dillinger A.D. 800 – 1000

2nd Order Newtown A.D. 300 – 1000

3rd Order Lewis Phase A.D. 600 – 900

4th Order Glacial Kame 3000 – 500 B.C.

5th Order Kincaid A.D. 1050 – 1300

6th Order Yankeetown A.D. 700 – 1100

7th Order Laurel Focus 200 B.C. – A.D. 1200

Ontario (Prehistoric Neutral) A.D. 1400

8th Order Oneota A.D. 900 – 1600

9th Order Whittlesey A.D. 1300 – 1600

10th Order Adena 1000 – 200 B.C.

11th Order Aztalan A.D. 1100 – 1250

12th Order Hopewell 200 BC – 500 A.D.

13th Order Angel Mounds A.D. 1050 – 1400

14th Order Fort Ancient A.D. 1000 – Contact

This dendrogram shows that Late Woodland cultures—Raymond, Dillinger, Newtown,

Lewis, and Yankeetown—display similar cultural traits. This similarity is a predictable

observation; while this period experiences a halt in long-distance trade, Late Woodland cultures

are known to exhibit similar material cultures and subsistence strategies due to an interregional interaction sphere (Pollack and Henderson 2000). A surprising find is that Kincaid is also closely related to these Late Woodland sites. This could suggest that at least one of these Late Woodland cultures was the progenitor of the Kincaid culture. Two other Mississippian cultures, Angel

Mounds and Aztalan, do not seem to be as closely related to Kincaid and the Late Woodland cultures. In fact, Aztalan and Angel Mounds are again some of the least related to Yankeetown

and other Late Woodland sites.

The distances between Yankeetown and Angel shows that their cultural traits are not as similar the progenitor hypothesis suggests. A marked contrast between the two cultures is the

difference in pottery styles. The Angel ceramic complex consists of elaborate effigy figurines

and vessels and a prevalence of negative painted pottery. Yankeetown’s pottery is distinctly

different from Angel and this variation could account for the difference in cluster analysis. One

cannot just assume, however, that different pottery styles indicate completely different people.

As easy as it is for archaeologists to equate artifacts with people, this is not an absolute means of

assessing the relationships between Yankeetown, Angel, and the other cultures included in this

study.

Cluster analysis of cultural traits is a useful method of seeing tentative relationships

between ancient cultures. A problem with this type of analysis, however, is that material culture

is non-genetic. It is assumed that genetic relationships may be elucidated through the study of

ancient mtDNA extracted, cloned, and amplified from bone collagen.

Chapter 7: Discussion

This chapter discusses the relevance of ancient mtDNA in answering archaeological questions. It introduces mtDNA and the difficulties in retrieving DNA data from ancient skeletal material. It then introduces the reader to other ancient Native American mtDNA studies that have been conducted in North America, including that of Angel Mounds. These previous studies are then compiled into graphics that demonstrate the genetic relationships between ancient Native

American skeletal populations.

An Introduction to Ancient Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

Ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) retrieved from archaeological populations can be used to determine the level of biological relatedness and to “test hypotheses of past population movements or interaction[s]” (Bolnick and Smith 2007:627). At archaeological sites with indeterminable relationships between human skeletal assemblages, mtDNA can be used to shed light on the relationships both within the population and between populations by comparing skeletal assemblages between two or more archaeological sites. If retrieving DNA from human skeletal material is to be considered a new innovation, then the field of ancient DNA retrieval is even more recent. In 1989, Hagelberg successfully amplified DNA from ancient human bone collagen (Napier 2000: 4).

Genetic studies of Native American populations focus largely on mtDNA haplogroups

(Bolnick and Smith 2007; Kaestle and Smith 2001; Raff 2008). mtDNA haplogroups are important because “populations that share recent common ancestry usually exhibit similar haplogroup frequencies. Only closely related populations share similar or identical haplogroups”

(Bolnick and Smith 2007:630). This fact, combined with a faster mutation rate than autosomal

DNA, makes mtDNA an excellent proxy for studying population genetics and the degree of

relatedness between different ancient populations. The high mutation rate makes it easy to assess

diversity in many samples, and the low effective population size leads to increased genetic drift,

which has resulted in highly structured lineages, some of which are specific to single continents

(Jobling et al. 2004). Additionally, mtDNA has a high copy number per cell, making it ideal for

the analysis of ancient samples that may be degraded. Worldwide, there are twenty-seven major mtDNA haplogroups (Jobling et al. 2004:291). Due to a specific case of genetic drift known as the founder effect, or “reduced genetic diversity of a population founded by a small number of individuals” (Jobling et all 2004:502), Native Americans in both North and South America only exhibit five different haplogroups: A, B, C, D, and X. Because of the low amount of genetic diversity in Native Americans, mtDNA may not be the best method of resolving the long- debated biological relationship between Yankeetown and Mississippian cultures.

According to Kaestle and Smith (2001), the five Native American haplogroups are highly variable between different Native American populations, and some groups may even completely lack one or more haplogroups. “Groups that are closely genetically related should exhibit similar frequencies of the five haplogroups, while groups with very different frequencies are probably not closely related to each other” (Kaestle and Smith 2001:2). Due to the limited sampling capability of this study, however, a similarity in haplogroup frequencies between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds may not necessarily indicate that these two cultures share ancestry. Likewise, significantly different haplogroup frequencies at Yankeetown may not indicate that these individuals share ancestry with a different culture, for example, the Oneota at Norris Farms

(Stone and Stoneking 1998). Looking at haplotypes can make this analysis even more specific.

Shared haplotypes between Yankeetown and Angel Mounds could be an indicator of gene flow between these two populations. If the two populations did not share any haplotypes, however, it may not be an indicator of an absence of gene flow—it may be an effect of sampling biases. In general, we are only able to extract, clone, and amplify a small number of mtDNA sequences from bone collagen. Most studies from eastern North America do not have sufficient data in which to definitively conclude any information about interpopulation genetic relationships. What the data used in this study can tell us, however, is the amount of genetic variation that exists between the samples used.

Problems with Ancient mtDNA

The retrieval of mtDNA from ancient skeletons is a very difficult task. The ability to extract, clone, and amplify DNA from bone samples is a relatively new endeavor and the process is not without its problems. In fact, “less than 1% of the DNA molecules extracted from ancient remains are undamaged” (Napier 2000:3). Different factors, such as environmental conditions, poor excavation methods, and different types of contamination can all lead to the poor preservation of DNA.

The first of these preservation problems is that—most of the time—DNA does not survive in the archaeological record. Poor preservation of skeletal material leads to extreme degradation of

DNA and often means that the extracted DNA is fragmented at best, if any remains at all.

Marshall’s 2011 dissertation on the mtDNA of Angel Mounds experienced an “unexpectedly poor” preservation of bone samples (Marshall 2011:30). This is a common problem with mtDNA studies that use ancient Midwestern populations. The temperate climate of southwestern Indiana and the surrounding states does not present ideal conditions for preservation. Marshall notes that

“the hydrology of the Angel Mounds archaeological site is not ideal for DNA preservation, as

most of the ~300 excavated burials originated from river terrace landforms with poor drainage

that are subject to flooding” (Marshall 2011:31). Other conditions that can affect the preservation

of mtDNA are acidic soil conditions and poor archaeological excavation methods. In some

excavations, as with Angel Mounds, the skeletal material was left exposed to the elements,

becoming bleached by the sun, which severely degraded the DNA. Due to the sheer magnitude

of Glenn Black’s excavations of Angel Mounds, “most burials were exposed, platformed, and

then left in situ for weeks or months” (Marshall 2000:31). Exposure to the sun “inflicts a thermal

shock to DNA that results in irreparable genetic damage” (Marshall 2011:32). As a result, many

of the sequences from Angel Mounds are incomplete (i.e., they could not be replicated

completely and therefore contain large blocks of loci in which the bases could not be

determined), and some attempts to replicate the Angel individuals failed entirely. Thankfully,

Marshall did experience some luck, because five of the individuals had excellent DNA

preservation, and overall, ten of her sequences were sufficiently complete for use in this study.

Previous Eastern North American Ancient mtDNA Studies

To date, only a handful of mtDNA studies concerning ancient Native American mtDNA have

been conducted. These include Schultz-Shook (2005), Stone and Stoneking (1998), Napier

(2000), Bolnick and Smith (2007), Mills (2003), Marshall (2011), Kaestle and Smith (2001), Parr

et al. (1996), Schultz et al. (2001), Merriwether et al. (1995), Tankersley and Tench (2009),

Dewar et al. (2010), and Raff (2008). Of these studies, four in particular investigate

Mississippian populations (Marshall 2011; Napier 2000; Raff 2008; Schultz-Shook 2005). These populations exhibit markedly different frequencies of each haplogroup. Napier (2000), who

studied human skeletal remains from Mound 72 at Cahokia, found that 25 percent were from

Haplogroup A, 62.5 percent of the sample belonged to Haplogroup B and 12 percent were from

Haplogroup C. Raff (2008) worked with the Schild Mississippian population in Illinois. She found that 38.3 percent of the individuals studied belonged to Haplogroup A, 12.8 percent were from Haplogroup B, 23.4 percent belonged to Haplogoup C, 8.5 percent to Haplogroup D, and

17 percent belonged to Haplogroup X. So far, the Schild Mississippian sample is the only

Mississippian population to include any individuals from Haplogroup X. Unfortunately, the samples from Cahokia (Napier 2000) and Schild (Raff 2008) were too incomplete, containing too many unreplicable loci, and the mtDNA sequences too short to warrant inclusion in this study.

The most relevant study to the current research is Marshall’s dissertation (2011) on the mtDNA from the Angel Mounds population in southern Indiana. Marshall was more specific than other studies in her identification of haplogroups and assigned her sequences to not just the five main Native American haplogroups, but also narrowed her classifications down to subhaplogroups. These sublineages are given numerical suffixes along with the capital letter of the haplogroups to which they belong (C1, D1, etc.). For the purposes of this study, which did not warrant such specificity, the Angel Mounds individuals are only classified into the main five haplogroups; however, Marshall’s subhaplogroup findings are worth noting here. Marshall found that 52 percent of her sample was associated with Haplogroup A2 (a subhaplogroup of A), 4 percent to Haplogroup B2, 20 percent to Haplogroup C1, 8 percent to Haplogroup C4c, and 12 percent to Haplogroup D1. Both C1 and C4c are haplogroup subclades belonging to Haplogroup

C. According to Marshall, the Haplogroup C1 is common among Native Americans, but the C4c is relatively rare, only reported in three living individuals from the Americas (Marshall 2011:52).

As noted above, haplogroup frequencies between ancient Native American populations

vary greatly, even among Mississippian sites. This variation is illustrated in Table 21, which

shows the haplogroup frequencies of the ancient Native American mtDNA studies used in this

study. Presently, there are not enough studies to assess the reasons for this variation, but it does

suggest that it will be difficult to predict the haplogroup frequencies of the human skeletal

remains at the Yankeetown type site. Despite the geographic proximity of Angel Mounds, the

actual frequencies of haplogroups and haplotypes may be quite unpredictable. It is for this reason

that obtaining the mtDNA for Yankeetown (or any archaeological site) is so important: there is

still so much that we do not know.

Table 20: Haplogroup Frequencies from ancient Native American mtDNA studies

Geog. Culture Age Sample Haplogroup Count (Percentage in %) Source

Location Size A B C D X

SW United Numic Peoples 7250 ± 60 18 2 (11) 6 (33) 0 (0) 10 0 (0) Kaestle and

States (Pyramid Lake) B.C. to 1090 (56) Smith 2001

± 75 A.D.

SW United Numic Peoples 1250 ± 90 21 1 (5) 8 (38) 0 (0) 12 0 (0) Kaestle and

States (Stillwater Marsh) B.C. to 1660 (57) Smith 2001

± 80 A.D.

SW Ohio Glacial Kame 950 B.C. 18 3 (16) 11 3 1 (5) 0 (0) Schultz-Shook

(61) (16%) 2005

Illinois Red Ochre (Morse 750 B.C. 9 1 (11) 3 (33) 5 (55) 0 (0) 0 (0) Schultz-Shook

River Site) 2005

Valley

Ohio River Hopewell (Riker- 329 ± 50 to 1 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Tankersley

Valley Todd Mound) 10 ± 50 B.C. (100) and Tench

2009

Ohio River Hopewell 220 ± 290 34 14 3 (9) 10 7 (21) 0 (0) Mills 2003

Valley A.D. (41) (29)

Illinois Hopewell (Klunk 175 ± 75 39 9 5 19 5 1 Bolnick and

Mound) A.D. (33.1) (12.8) (48.7) (12.8) (2.6) Smith 2007

SW United Fremont 200 B.C. to 30 0 (0) 25 3 (10) 2 (7) 0 (0) Parr et al. 1996

States 1775 A.D. (83)

Illinois Schild Late 750 A.D. 19 5 1 4 1 8 Raff 2008

River Woodland (26.3) (5.3) (21.1) (5.3) (42.

Valley 1)

Illinois Mississippian 950 – 1050 8 2 (25) 5 1 0 (0) 0 (0) Napier 2000

(Cahokia) A.D. (62.5) (12.5)

Southern Mississippian 1050 – 1400 25 13 1 (4) 7 (28) 3 (12) 0 (0) Marshall 2011

Indiana (Angel Mounds) A.D. (52)

Illinois Schild 1050 A.D. 47 18 6 11 4 8 Raff 2008

River Mississippian (38.3) (12.8) (23.4) (8.5) (17)

Valley

Illinois Mississippian 1150 A.D. 11 5 (26) 0 (0) 3 (15) 3 (15) 0 (0) Schultz-Shook

River (Orendorf) 2005

Valley

SW Great Western 1150 A.D. 6 2 (33) 0 (0) 4 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) Schultz-Shook

Ontario Park (Western 2005

Basin)

West Oneota (Norris 1250 A.D. 108 34 13 46 9 6 Stone and

Central Farms) (31.5) (12) (42.6) (8.3) (5.6) Stoneking

Illinois 1998

SW Great Western 1043 – 1385 6 2 (33) 0 (0) 4 (67) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dewar et al.

Ontario Park (Western A.D. 2010

Basin)

mtDNA Haplotype Networks

While other mtDNA studies have compiled lists from prior research in Native American

haplogroups (Mills 2003; Raff 2008; Malhi et al. 2001), there is no comprehensive list of

haplotype frequencies in different ancient Native American haplogroups, nor has there been any

attempt to infer how these mtDNA haplogroups vary over time and space. The best way to assess

the evolutionary relationships between the sequences obtained from previous studies is to look at

their results side by side. In order to interpret these data, I used the Network 4.6.1.0 program by

Fluxus to create median-joining phylogenic networks (Bandelt et al 1999). This program

reconstructs least-complex phylogenetic networks when given genetic loci, which vary within

the sample.

Before the mtDNA sequences are entered into Network, they have to be modified to

satisfy the constraints of the program. First, the number of loci (the mtDNA base locations) to be

used in the diagram has to be determined. In order to determine this parameter for the compiled

list of mtDNA sequences, the amount of mtDNA sequenced in each study was compared. Studies

that had significantly shorter portions of mtDNA sequenced were omitted (Tankersley and Tench

2009; Napier 2000). Fortunately, this did not add up to a large number of omissions. Ten

individuals from Cahokia and the single sequence analyzed from the Riker-Todd Mound were

left out due to inadequate length. This study analyzed part of the control region from bases

16092 to 16365—a length of 273 base pairs. Only 71 locations, however, showed variation (both from one another and from the Cambridge Reference Sequence), so it was only necessary to analyze these 71 locations. In addition, the program cannot accurately analyze sequences with missing data; individuals that were not fully complete (i.e. with any missing loci) were excluded from this analysis. Twenty-one incomplete sequences were excluded from the Network diagram

due to incomplete data. Fifteen of these incomplete sequences were from Marshall’s 2011

dissertation on Angel Mounds. Three Glacial Kame sequences and two Orendorf Mississippian

sequences (from Schultz-Shook’s 2005 dissertation), and one sequence from Dewar’s 2010 study

of the Western Basin Culture located in Great Western Park were omitted. In total, 32 sequences

were omitted from the analysis due to either inadequate length or incomplete sequence data, leaving 160 sequences that had useable data. Of the 160 different individuals included in this study, 77 unique haplotypes were identified.

Haplotype Network Results

I used the Network program to analyze all previous haplotype studies conducted on ancient

Native American populations that met my defined criteria—having no incomplete or missing data and having an adequate length (spanning the loci 16092 to 16365). The cultures represented in these diagrams are shown in Table 22. This table also indicates which studies have omitted sequences that were not included in this analysis. Studies such as Schultz-Shook 2005, Bolnick and Smith 2007, and Stone and Stoneking 1998 had some individuals in which the haplogroups could be identified but the mtDNA not could not be fully sequenced, so the number of individuals to which a haplogroup could be assigned is greater than the number of individuals

with full mtDNA sequence data. In some cases, therefore, the numbers in the original sample

size column in this table disagree with those in Table 21, which discusses haplogroups only. In total, three different diagrams were created, which illustrate the same raw data in three different ways—color-coded by culture, by time period, and then split into the separate haplogroups.

Table 21: List of haplotype studies used in Network haplotype diagrams

Culture Time Original Samples Total # Number of Location Source

Period Sample Omitted used in Haplotypes

Size Study

Glacial Kame 950 15 3 12 8 Ontario Schultz-

B.C. Shook

2005

Red Ocher 750 5 0 5 5 Illinois Schultz-

B.C. Shook

2005

Hopewell 220 ± 34 0 34 21 Ohio Mills 2003

(Ohio) 290

A.D.

Hopewell 175 ± 29 0 29 22 Illinois Bolnick

(Klunk 75 and Smith

Mound) A.D. 2007

Angel 1050 – 25 15 10 7 Indiana Marshall

Mounds 1400 2011

A.D.

Orendorf 1150 10 2 8 8 Illinois Schultz-

Mississippian A.D. Shook

2005

Western 1150 5 0 0 4 Ontario Schultz-

Basin A.D. Shook

2005

Norris Farms 1250 52 0 52 25 Illinois Stone and

Oneota A.D. Stoneking

1998

Western 1043 – 6 1 5 4 Ontario Dewar et

Basin 1385 al. 2010

A.D.

Figure 7: Haplotype Diagram color -coded by culture

Figure 8: Haplotype Diagram color-coded by time

Figure 9: Haplotype Diagrams separated into each major haplotype and color-coded by culture

Figure 7 shows all haplotypes included in the study, coded by culture. Most of the haplotypes are exhibited by only one individual, and many of the haplotypes differ from each other by one site. The more common haplotypes are shared across multiple cultures with no discernible pattern. There are no discernible clusters of cultures, and the largest group of shared haplotypes (sequence 40) is observed in seven of the ten cultures, suggesting a low amount of genetic variation between the different populations.

In figure 8, which depicts the haplotypes color-coded by time period rather than by culture, no apparent clusters appear. This suggests that the variation in haplotypes has stayed mostly constant through time. This makes sense, considering that the variation in Native

American populations has stayed very low since the genetic bottleneck during the migration into the Americas (Jobling et al. 2004). Additionally, the samples in this study occupy a span of time from approximately 1000 B.C. to A.D. 1400, only 2,400 years—which is not a significant span of time, genetically speaking, for radical distinctions between the different populations to arise.

We should expect to see a uniform variation of haplotypes across only 2,400 years, which is illustrated in this figure.

Figure 9 depicts the distribution of haplotypes within each haplogroup, again color-coded by culture in order to determine if there are any correlations between haplogroups, haplotypes, and the cultures in which they are represented. For haplogroups A and C, all cultures seem to be equally represented. In haplogroup B, the Orendorf, Red Ocher, and Western Basin cultures are absent, and there is only one individual from Angel Mounds. Given that these populations are some of the smallest sample sizes in this study, they are not equally represented (compared to large samples such as the Hopewell populations and Norris Farms) among all of the haplogroups.

While haplogroup B is absent from these particular samples, this small sample is not necessarily

a representative of the population as a whole. The rest of the cultures, Ohio Hopewell, Klunk

Hopewell, and Norris Farms Oneota, are represented fairly equally—probably due to the large

sample size of these populations. Haplogroup D lacks the Red Ocher and Western Basin

populations, and the Hopewell culture is dominant. Only two cultures have the rare haplogroup

X: Norris Farms and Klunk Hopewell. These two cultures represent the largest number of samples in this study, so one cannot assume that haplogroup X is absent in all other populations—it may very well be present but not sampled in the studies.

These three haplotype Network Diagrams are helpful for providing a visual medium to view how the different ancient mtDNA haplotypes cluster together; the data, however, must also

be statistically analyzed in order to assess the significance of any similarities between the

different cultures, locations, and time periods assessed in this study. A distance matrix tree was

constructed in the MEGA program using Saitou and Nei’s neighbor-joining method (Tamura et

al. 2011). This method “provides an approximate algorithm for finding the shortest (minimum

evolution) tree… by sequentially finding neighbors that minimize the total length of the tree”

(Graur and Li 2000:189). This tree, depicting the 160 different sequences used in this study, was

labeled by the culture each sequence represented, the geographic location of the culture (by state

or Canadian province), and the time period (Archaic/Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and

Mississippian) to which the sequence belongs. If one of these proxies (space or time) exhibits

more clustering than the other, it would suggest that there is a higher level of genetic variation

within the different groupings: culture, geographic location, or time.

Figure 10: mtDNA tree by culture

Figure 11: mtDNA tree by time period

Figure 12: mtDNA tree by geographic location

These mtDNA trees indicate that there is little genetic clustering through time or through

space. There are few distinct clusters that appear in these trees, indicating that there are no

distinct patterns of genetic variation in this population. A final way to illustrate the low amount

of differentiation between the ancient Native American populations in this study is to display the

results mathematically using F-statistics via an analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA).

F-statistics were used to determine the amount of genetic variance between the eight populations in this study. FST is defined as the variance among subpopulations relative to total

variance. “If FST is small, it means that allele frequencies within each population are very

similar; if it is large, it means that allele frequencies are very different” (Holsinger and Weir

2009:2). An FST that falls within a range of 0.0 to 0.05 indicates little genetic differentiation, a range of 0.05 to 0.15 indicates moderate genetic differentiation, the range 0.15 to 0.25 indicates great genetic differentiation, and values above 0.25 indicate very great genetic differentiation

(Wright 1978). The current estimate of the average amount of genetic variation worldwide

produces an FST of 0.24-0.27 for mtDNA data (Jorde et al. 2000). For this study, FST was

calculated by using an analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) statistical test with the

Arlequin 3.5.1.3 program (Excoffier et al. 2010). The AMOVA method can be used to measure

the degree of differentiation between populations.

The 160 mtDNA sequences with 77 distinct haplotypes were entered into Arlequin

organized into their eight populations (Orendorf, Angel Mounds, Norris Farms Oneota, Western

Basin, Glacial Kame, Red Ocher, Klunk Mound Illinois Hopewell, and Ohio Hopewell). The

AMOVA analysis generated by Arlequin resulted in an FST value of 0.03623. The sequences

were then grouped by time periods (Early Woodland/Archaic, Middle Woodland, and

Mississippian Periods) and AMOVA was calculated to compare the genetic variation across

time, resulting in an FST value of 0.01739. Lastly, the sequences were differentiated by geographic location (Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Ontario) to show the genetic variation across space, resulting in an FST value of 0.01571. All of these numbers are between 0.0 and 0.05, which Wright (1978) suggests is a range that indicates little genetic variation for this population through space and time. This range of FST values is an expected result due to the low amount of genetic variation produced by the genetic bottleneck at the onset of the migration of ancient

Native Americans into the Americas. Using the entire HVS I region in comparisons between the four main language families in modern Native Americans—Algonquian, Siouan, Iroquoian, and

Muskogean—values of FST ranged from 0.029 (between Siouans and Muskogeans) to 0.125

(between Algonquians and Iroquoians) (Bolnick and Smith 2003). Using geographic regions rather than language family produces an FST value of 0.031 (Bolnick and Smith 2003), which is comparable to the FST value between the different ancient cultures for this study.

Table 22: F-statistic values

FST - Cultures 0.03623

FST - Time Periods 0.01739

FST - Geographic Location 0.01571

An important result of examining these genetic data from ancient populations across

North America is the demonstration of a remarkably low amount of genetic differentiation both within and among these populations. This reduced variation is consistent with the initial bottleneck that the ancestors of modern Native Americans experienced during their migration

into the Americas. After the initial migrations into the Americas, ancient Native American populations did not have sufficient time or physical isolation in which to differentiate genetically from one another. As a result of this low genetic variation within this 273-base portion of the mtDNA control region, it is apparent that the archaeological record provides a better resolution than genetic evidence when seeking to differentiate ancient cultures given the genetic technology currently available. If larger regions of the genome could be studied in multiple ancient cultures, it is possible that more genetic data (such as the entire mtDNA genome or even autosomal

DNA), could provide a finer resolution. The retrieval of Yankeetown mtDNA, however, may not be as powerful as once considered. The low level of variation suggests that the addition of

Yankeetown mtDNA to the haplotype diagrams and trees would not indicate a clear genetic relationship between Yankeetown and any other population. There is simply not enough genetic variation between populations, and the sample sizes of most of the previous ancient Native

American mtDNA studies (including that of Angel Mounds) are too small to draw sound conclusions about population genetics. It is still an important venture, however, to obtain genetic material from not just Yankeetown individuals, but individuals from other ancient cultures across time and space. All gathering of genetic data can improve our understanding of ancient Native

American DNA variation and how it relates to cultural affiliation.

Chapter 8: Conclusion

The origin of Mississippian culture and the role of Late Woodland cultures in the formation of

Mississippian societies is a subject that has seen much debate. The original belief that the Late

Woodland period was a time of social isolation and stagnation is falling out of popularity with

archaeologists, while new hypotheses concerning the dynamic changes and Emergent

Mississippian cultures that display Mississippian-like cultural traits are gaining momentum due to new evidence from Emergent Mississippian sites such as Yankeetown.

Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to compare the cultural traits of Yankeetown,

Angel Mounds, and fourteen other penecontemporary cultures, using a list of over three hundred different cultural traits. A dendrogram was created from this data to demonstrate the relationships between these cultures. The dendrogram shows similarities between many Late

Woodland sites, which is a predictable result considering the known interaction between Late

Woodland groups. Yankeetown and Angel cultural traits did not appear to be as statistically similar to each other as was suggested by proponents of the progenitor hypothesis.

While this hierarchical cluster analysis does offer insight into the similarities of the cultural traits of these penecontemporary Midwestern archaeological cultures, they cannot provide genetic relationships between the people who occupied the Yankeetown and Angel

Mounds sites.

Haplotype network diagrams, mtDNA trees, and the F-statistics performed on the genetic sequences used from archaeological sites in Eastern North American indicate a low level of genetic differentiation between and among the different populations across time and space.

Indeed, the material remains of archaeological cultures provide a better degree of differentiation

between cultures than does the available genetic evidence. It is possible that the ability to

examine longer sequences of the genome will provide better resolution between ancient Native

American DNA cultures, however, most current ancient mtDNA studies can only examine a

small portion of the mtDNA genome. Given the data available, it is unlikely that continuing to

examine small portions of the mtDNA genome will broaden our understanding of the genetic

relationships given the remarkably low amount of genetic variation within these small portions

of mtDNA exhibited by individuals tested through time and space. The question of the role of

Yankeetown in the formation of Angel Mounds will best be answered through the archaeological record than through the retrieval of Yankeetown mtDNA.

If these ancient Native American populations have remained as genetically similar in modern times as in the past, this finding could have profound implications for the Native

American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Currently, the law indicates that

Cultural affiliation is established when the preponderance of the evidence – based on geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, historical evidence, or other information or expert opinion – reasonably leads to such a conclusion. [43 CFR 10.2 (e)]

This study demonstrates that biological relationships between archaeological Native American populations cannot be adequately established using ancient mtDNA obtained from this 273-base portion of the control region. The failure of this region of mtDNA to distinguish among archaeological popualtions will most likely also fail to distinguish between archaeological populations and modern populations. More sequence data, such as the full mtDNA genome or even autosomal DNA, could feasibly be attained from ancient populations as genetic technology improves. Additional mtDNA data or autosomal DNA may be able to offer a higher resolution and allow future genetic studies to better differentiate between ancient Native American populations, and between ancient and modern Native American populations. The current

genomic studies, however, cannot provide the resolution needed for NAGPRA claimants. As an important reminder, culture changes much faster rate than the mtDNA genetic mutation rate.

This study, which spans only 2,400 years from the Late Archaic to the Mississippian periods, has seen major cultural innovations such as the invention of pottery, the bow and arrow, and the adoption of agriculture. Culture has the ability to change rapidly and profoundly, and genetic changes will lag behind cultural innovation. Therefore, cultural affiliations must for now rely on the archaeological record.

References

Ball, Stephen J.

1996 The Ray site: Angel phase mortuary behavior at an outlying site. From

http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/abstracts/93/ball_93.html, accessed January 31, 2012.

Bandelt, H-J., Forster, P., and Röhl, A.

1999 Median-joining Networks for Inferring Intraspecific Phylogenies. Molecular Biology and

Evolution 16:37-48.

Birmingham, R.A. and L. G. Goldstein.

2005 Aztalan: Mysteries of an Ancient Indian Town. Wisconsin Historical Society Press,

Madison, Wisconsin.

Black, Glenn A.

1944 Angel Site, Vanderburgh County Indiana: An Introduction. Indiana Historical Society

Prehistory Research Series 2(5):451-521

Bolnick, D.A., and D.G. Smith

2003 Unexpected Patterns of Mitochondrial DNA Variation Among Native Americans From

the Southeastern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122:336-354.

2007 Migration and Social Structure among the Hopewell: Evidence from Ancient DNA.

American Antiquity 72(4):627-644.

2003 Unexpected Patterns of Mitochondrial DNA Variation among Native Americans from the

Southeastern United States. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 122(4):336-354.

Burmaster, David E.

1997 Review of Systat for Windows, Version 7.0. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

3(4):537-541.

Butler, B. M.

1991 Kincaid Revisited: The Mississippian Sequence in the Lower Ohio Valley. In: Cahokia

and the Hinterlands: Middle Mississippian Cultures of the Midwest, edited by T. E. Emerson

and R. B. Lewis, pp. 264-273. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.

Cobb, C. R. and P. H. Garrow.

1996 Woodstock Culture and the Question of Mississippian Emergence. American Antiquity

61(1):21-37.

Curry, Hilda J.

1954 Archaeological Notes on Warrick County Indiana. Indiana Historical Bureau,

Indianapolis, Indiana.

Dewar, G., Ginter, J. K., Shook, B. A. S., Ferris, N., & H. Henderson.

2010 A Bioarchaeological Study of a Western Basin Tradition Cemetery on the Detroit River.

Journal of Archaeological Science 37(9):2245-2254.

Excoffier, L., and Lischer, H. E. L.

2010 Arlequin Suite Ver 3.5: A New Series of Programs to Perform Population Genetics

Analyses under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources 10:564-567.

Graur, Dan, and Li, Wen-Hsiung

2000 Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Massachusetts.

Griffin, James B.

1952 Archaeology of Eastern United States. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

Illinois.

Hodson, F. R.

1970 Cluster Analysis and Archaeology: Some New Developments and Applications. World

Archaeology 1(3):299-320.

Holsinger, Kent E. and Weir, Bruce S.

2009 Genetics in Geographically Structured Populations: Defining, Estimating, and

Interpreting FST. EEB Articles. Paper 22. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/eeb_articles/22, accessed October 11, 2012.

Jobling, M.A., Hurles, M.E., and Tyler-Smith, C.

2004 Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples, and Disease. Garland Publishing, New

York.

Jorde, L. B., Watkins, W. S., Bamshad, M. J., Dixon, M. E., Ricker, C. E., Seielstad, M. T., and

Batzer, M. A.

2000 The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity: A Comparison of Mitochondrial,

Autosomal, and Y-Chromosome Data. The American Journal of Human Genetics 66:979-988.

Kaestle, Frederika A. and K. Ann Horsburgh.

2002 Ancient DNA in Anthropology: Methods, Applications, and Ethics. American Journal of

Physical Anthropology 119(35):92–130

Kaestle, Frederika A. and David Glenn Smith.

2001 Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Evidence for Prehistoric Population Movement: The Numic

Expansion. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 115(1):1-12.

Kreisa, Paul P.

1993 Oneota Burial Patterns in Eastern Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology

18(1):35-60.

Lepper, Bradley T.

2005 Ohio Archaeology: An Illustrated Chronicle of Ohio’s Ancient American Indian Cultures.

Orange Frazer Press, Wilmington, Ohio.

Malhi, R.S., B.A. Schultz, & D.G. Smith.

2001 Distribution of Mitochondrial DNA Lineages among Native American Tribes of

Northeastern North America. Human Biology 73(1):17-55.

Marshall, Charla.

2011 An Ancient DNA perspective on Angel Mounds (12-Vg-1): A Mississippian

Archaeological Site. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana

University, Bloomington.

Mills, L.

2003 Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Ohio Hopewell of the Hopewell Mound Group.

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University.

Monaghan, G.W. and Peebles, C.S.

2010 The Construction, Use, and Abandonment of Angel Site Mound A: Tracing the History

of a Middle Mississippian Town through its Earthworks. American Antiquity 75(4):935-953

Muller, Jon.

1986 Archaeology of the Lower Ohio River Valley. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Napier, Nancy S.

2000 The Inter- and Intrapopulation Genetics of the Early Mississippian Elite of Cahokia, an

Ancient Native American Metropolis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

O’Brien, M. J.

1991 Review of The Mississippian Emergence, by B. D. Smith. Southeastern Archaeology

10:147-148

Orton, Clive

1980 Mathematics in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Parr, R.L., Carlyle, S. W., & O’Rourke, D. H.

1996 Ancient DNA analysis of Fremont Amerindians of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99(4):506-518.

Pollack, David and Henderson, A. Gwynn.

2000 Late Woodland Cultures in Kentucky. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and

Transformation across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and

Andrew Fortier, pp. 613-641. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Raff, Jennifer Anne.

2008 An Ancient DNA Perspective on the Prehistory of the Lower Illinois Valley.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University,

Bloomington.

Railey, Jimmy A.

1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by R. Barry Lewis, pp, 79-125,

The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Redmond, Brian G.

1990 The Yankeetown Phase: Emergent Mississippian Cultural Adaptation in the Lower Ohio

River Valley. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana

University, Bloomington.

1996 A Survey of Yankeetown Phase Sites in Southwestern Indiana. Retrieved from

http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/abstracts/86/redmond_86.html. Accessed April 31, 2012.

Reid, C. S. and Grace Rajnovich.

1991 Laurel: a Re-evaluation of the Spatial, Social, and Temporal Paradigms. Canadian

Journal of Archaeology 15:193-234.

Stone, A. C. and Mark Stoneking.

1998 mtDNA Analysis of a Prehistoric Oneota Population: Implications for the Peopling of the

New World. American Journal of Human Genetics 62(5):1153-1170.

Stoneking, Mark, Fontius, Jennifer J., Clifford, Stephanie L.

1997 Alu Insertion Polymorphisms and Human Evolution: Evidence for a Larger Population

Size in Africa. Genome Research 7: 1061-1071.

Schultz-Shook, B.A.

2005 Ancient DNA and the Biological History and Prehistory of North America. Unpublished

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Tamura, K., Peterson, D., Peterson, N., Stecher, G., Nei, M., and Kumar, S.

2011 MEGA5: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Using Maximum Likelihood,

Evolutionary Distance, and Maximum Parsimony Methods. Molecular Biology and Evolution

28:2731-2739.

Tankersley, K. B. and P. A. Tench.

2009 Riker-Todd Mound: A Salvaged Ohio Hopewell Mound. North American Archaeology

30(2):195-217.

Wright, S.

1978 Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Volume 4: Variability Within and Among

Natural Populations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Appendix 1: Cluster Analysis Data

Yankeet Prehist Glacial Hope Fort Whittles Laurel Trait own Neutral Kame Adena well Ancient ey Focus Bone - Antler - Chert Flaking Tools 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Bone - Antler - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Bone - Antler - Combs 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Bone - Antler - Combs - Animal Effigy Handles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Bone - Antler - Conical Projectile Points 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Bone - Antler - Socketed Projectile Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Antler - Harpoon Points 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Bone - Antler - Implement Handles 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Long Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Bone - Antler - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Astragalus - Polished and Squared (Dice?) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Bone - Awls - Bird Bone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Bone - Awls - Long Bone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Awls - Bone Splinter 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Bone - Awls - Deer shoulder 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Elk shoulder 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Metatarsal 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Bone - Awls - Unlae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Bone - Awls - Whole mammal bones 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Beaver - Cut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Beaver - Tooth - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Bone - Bird - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Bone - Bird - Flutes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Bird - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Carved Dagger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Deer - Metapodial - Scraper 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Deer - Leg bone - Spatulae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Mandible - Corncob Tool 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Bone - Deer - Phalange - Notched 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Ribs - Weaving tool 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Hoes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Scraper 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Knives 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Digging Implements 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Bone - Dog - Teeth - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Bone - Elk - Incisors - Drilled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Fiber Shredders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Fishhooks 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Bone - Gorget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Gravers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Hoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Needles 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Misc. Teeth - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Pins 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Bone - Pipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Scapula - Ladle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bone - Skewers 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Small Mammal - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Spatulas 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Triangular Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Tubes - Incised 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Tubes - Plain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turkey - Skull - Rattles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Drilled 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Containers 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Rattles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Spoons 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bone - Beads 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Bone - Human - Parietal - Gorgets 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Human - Jaw - Perforated (ornament) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Animal - Long Bones - Incised 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Animal - Jaw - Perforated (ornament) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Whistles/Musical Instruments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Burials - Graves - Grave Goods Common 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Pit Burials 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Burials - Graves - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Stone slab graves 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Burials - Graves - Log tomb 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Covered with Bark 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Burials - Location - Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Burials - Location - Charnel Houses 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Mounds 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Burials - Location - Ossuaries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Under/around 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

Houses

Burials - Offerings - Beads 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Burials - Offerings - Red Ochre 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Burials - Other Burials - Dog Burials 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Type - Bundle 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Burials - Type - Cremation 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Burials - Type - Multiple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Burials - Type - Extended 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Burials - Type - Flexed 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Burials - Misc. Practices - Cannibalism 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Button Cores 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Beads 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Ear Ornaments 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Human Figurines 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Cylindrical Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Effigy Pendants (Owl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Tapered Stems 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Animal Effigy 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Incised 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Punctate 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Human Effigy 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Blocked-end mouthpiece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Cylindrical Bowl 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Elbow 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Flaring Mouthpiece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Platform 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Tubular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown Buff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown/Orange 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Buff 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Dark Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Deep Black 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Dull Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Gray 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Added Rim Strip 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Bar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100

Stamping Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Bird Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Cordmarked 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Fabric Roughening 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Fillet 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Chevrons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Diamonds 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Scrolls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Semicircles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Rectilinear Motif 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Spirals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Squares 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Zig-zags 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Net- Fabric markings 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Triangles 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Negative painted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - On Rim 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Plain 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Polished 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Punctate 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rectilinear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim/shoulder 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Slipped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Smoothed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Stamped 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - Folded Rim 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

101

Animal effigy Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Trailed lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Negative painted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Cooking 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Mortuary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Storage 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Decorated 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Loop 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Lugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - No Handles 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Strap 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Angular shoulders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Beakers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bell shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Pointed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Round 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Flat 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bowls 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Conoidal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Constricted Neck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Four Conical Legs 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Globular Jar 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Hemispherical bowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Plates 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Salt Pans 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Seed Bowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Straight Sides 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Wide- Mouthed 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Rim - Flaring 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Rim - Collared 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Neck - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

102

Narrow

Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Grit 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Grog 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Limestone 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Shell 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery Disks 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery Disks - Perforated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery Trowels 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ceremonial - Thin Knives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Copper - Ornaments - Beads 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Copper - Ornaments - Bracelets 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Copper - Ornaments - Breastplate 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Crescents 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Earspool 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Engraved Disks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Gorgets 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Copper - Ornaments - Pendants 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Pins 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Rings 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Stone Earspool Overlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Sheet Copper 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Copper - Sheet Copper - Decorated 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Adzes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Awls 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Copper - Tools - Axes 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Copper - Tools - Fishhook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Rolled cone-shaped points 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Triangular Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Fluorite - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluorite - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluorite - Effigy Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluorite - Human Effigy Figurine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Axes - Ungrooved 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Bladelets 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Corner notched 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Diamond shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Flakestone - Bades - Lanceolate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Leaf- 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

103

shaped Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Narrowed-stem shape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Oval 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Side notched 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Stemmed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Triangular 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Double pointed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Expanded- base 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Notched 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Plain 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Single pointed 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Slight bases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Chert - Hoes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Notched 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Unnotched 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Arrow Points 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Basal Notches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Concave Base 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Corner Notched 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Flat Base 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Large 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Leaf-shaped 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Side Notched 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Small 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Stemmed 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Triangular 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Elongate 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - End scraper 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

104

Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Flake 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Irregular-shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Notched 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Oval 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Round 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Side 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Snub nosed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Stemmed 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Thumbnail 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Triangular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Groundstone - Abrading Stones 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Abrading Stones - Sandstone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Adzes - Grooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Adzes - Ungrooved 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Anvils 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Atlatl weights 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Grooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Hematite 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Igneous 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Polished 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Ungrooved 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Wedge- shaped 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Celts 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Chunkey Stone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Clubs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Disks 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Oval/Round 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Pitted 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Plain 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Full-grooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Misc. - Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

105

Lithics - Groundstone - Misc. - Schist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Groundstone - Mortar/Pestle 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ceremonial Blades 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Discoidals 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Earspools 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Earspools - Incised 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - One hole 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Two holes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Diamond-shaped 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Elliptical 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Expanded center 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Rectangular 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Reel- shaped 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ivory - Gorget 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ivory - Shpere 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Pendants 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Slate - Gorgets 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Pipes 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lithics - Pipes - Animal Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Disk pipe (Siouan) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Conoidal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Elbow Pipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Blocked-end Mouthpiece 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Flaring Mouthpieces 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Human Effigy 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Vasiform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Whetstones - Sandstone 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Whetstones - Shale 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Stone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Organization - Earthworks - Enclosures 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Geometrical 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Conical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Domed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Platform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

106

Organization - Earthworks - Sacred Circles 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Subconical 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Bark roofs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Post Mold 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Wattle and daub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Council House 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Pole Lodges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Circular 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Long 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Narrow 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Ideology - Clan Organization 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Along streams/rivers 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Floodplains 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - High Bluffs 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Valleys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Valley Terraces 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Organization - Villages - Plaza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Stockaded/Fortified 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Shell - Conch Shell Fragments 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Decorations 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Hoes 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Shell - Mussel - Knives 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Scrapers 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Spoons 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Gorgets 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Beads 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Earspools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Conch Shell - Beads 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Hair Pins 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Marine Shell - Beads 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Pendants 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Subsistence - Agriculture 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Subsistence - Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

107

Subsistence - Fishing 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Beans 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Bird 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Butternuts 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Corn 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 Subsistence - Foods - Fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Subsistence - Foods - Mammal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Shellfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Subsistence - Foods - Squash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Sunflower 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Tobacco 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Subsistence - Foods - Wild nuts and berries 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Subsistence - Gathering 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Subsistence - Hunting 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 Subsistence - Sedentary 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Crosses 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Circles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Spiders 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Weeping Eye 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Motifs - Pottery - Curvilinear Guilloche 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Subsistence - Weaponry - AtlAtl 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Subsistence - Weaponry - Bow and Arrow 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

108

Angel Lewis Trait Aztalan Oneota Kincaid Raymond Newtown Mounds Phase Dillinger Bone - Antler - Chert Flaking Tools 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Combs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Combs - Animal Effigy Handles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Conical Projectile Points 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Antler - Socketed Projectile Points 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Harpoon Points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Implement Handles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Long Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Antler - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Astragalus - Polished and Squared (Dice?) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Awls 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Awls - Bird Bone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Awls - Long Bone 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Awls - Bone Splinter 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Awls - Deer shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Elk shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Metatarsal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Unlae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Awls - Whole mammal bones 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Beaver - Cut 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Beaver - Tooth - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Bird - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Bird - Flutes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Bird - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Carved Dagger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Metapodial - Scraper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Leg bone - Spatulae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Mandible - Corncob Tool 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Phalange - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Ribs - Weaving tool 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Hoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Scraper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Deer - Scapula - Knives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Digging Implements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Dog - Teeth - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Elk - Incisors - Drilled 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Fiber Shredders 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Fishhooks 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Gorget 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Bone - Gravers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Hoes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Needles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Misc. Teeth - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Pins 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Pipes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Scapula - Ladle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Skewers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Small Mammal - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Spatulas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Triangular Points 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Tubes - Incised 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Tubes - Plain 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

109

Bone - Turkey - Skull - Rattles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Drilled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Containers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Rattles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Turtle Carapace - Spoons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bone - Human - Parietal - Gorgets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Human - Jaw - Perforated (ornament) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Animal - Long Bones - Incised 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Animal - Jaw - Perforated (ornament) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bone - Whistles/Musical Instruments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Grave Goods Common 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Pit Burials 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Burials - Graves - Rectangular 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Stone slab graves 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Log tomb 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Graves - Covered with Bark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Cemeteries 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Charnel Houses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Mounds 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Burials - Location - Ossuaries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Location - Under/around Houses 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Burials - Offerings - Beads 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Offerings - Red Ochre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Other Burials - Dog Burials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Type - Bundle 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Burials - Type - Cremation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Type - Multiple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Type - Extended 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Burials - Type - Flexed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burials - Misc. Practices - Cannibalism 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Button Cores 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Ear Ornaments 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Human Figurines 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Cylindrical Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Effigy Pendants (Owl) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Tapered Stems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Animal Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Incised 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Decoration - Punctate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Human Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Blocked-end mouthpiece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Cylindrical Bowl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Elbow 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Flaring Mouthpiece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Platform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pipes - Shape - Tubular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown Buff 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Brown/Orange 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Buff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Dark Gray 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Deep Black 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

110

Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Dull Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Color - Gray 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Added Rim Strip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Bar Stamping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Bird Effigy 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Cordmarked 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Fabric Roughening 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Fillet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Chevrons 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Diamonds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Scrolls 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Semicircles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Rectilinear Motif 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Spirals 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Squares 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Zig- zags 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Net-Fabric markings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Incising - Triangles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Negative painted 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - On Rim 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Plain 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Polished 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Punctate 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rectilinear 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim/shoulder 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Slipped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Smoothed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Stamped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - Folded Rim 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - Notched 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Rim - Animal effigy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Decoration - Trailed lines 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Cooking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Mortuary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Function - Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Decorated 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Loop 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

111

Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Lugs 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - No Handles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Strap 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Handles - Effigy 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Angular shoulders 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Beakers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bell shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Pointed 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Round 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottom - Flat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bottles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Bowls 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Conoidal 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Constricted Neck 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Four Conical Legs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Globular Jar 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Hemispherical bowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Plates 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Salt Pans 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Seed Bowl 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Straight Sides 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Wide-Mouthed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Rim - Flaring 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Rim - Collared 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Neck - Narrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Shape - Rim - Castellations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Grit 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Grog 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Limestone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery - Temper - Shell 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery Disks 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery Disks - Perforated 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ceramics - Pottery Trowels 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Copper - Ceremonial - Thin Knives 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Beads 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Bracelets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Breastplate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Crescents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Earspool 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Engraved Disks 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Gorgets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Pendants 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Rings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Ornaments - Stone Earspool Overlay 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Sheet Copper 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Copper - Sheet Copper - Decorated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Adzes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Awls 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Copper - Tools - Axes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Fishhook 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Copper - Tools - Rolled cone-shaped points 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

112

Copper - Tools - Triangular Points 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluorite - Beads 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Fluorite - Pendants 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Fluorite - Effigy Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Fluorite - Human Effigy Figurine 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Axes - Ungrooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Bladelets 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Corner notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Diamond shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Bades - Lanceolate 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Leaf-shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Narrowed-stem shape 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Oval 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Side notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Stemmed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Blades - Triangular 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Double pointed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Expanded-base 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Plain 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Single pointed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Drills - Slight bases 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Chert - Hoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lithics - Flakestone - Chisels 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Notched 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Unnotched 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Arrow Points 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Basal Notches 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Concave Base 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Corner Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Flat Base 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Large 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Leaf- shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Side Notched 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Stemmed 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Projectile Points - Triangular 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Elongate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - End scraper 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Flake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Irregular- shaped 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Notched 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

113

Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Oval 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Rectangular 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Round 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Side 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Snub nosed 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Stemmed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Thumbnail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Flakestone - Scrapers - Triangular 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Abrading Stones 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Abrading Stones - Sandstone 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Adzes - Grooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Adzes - Ungrooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Anvils 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Atlatl weights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Grooved 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Hematite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Igneous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Polished 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Ungrooved 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Axes - Wedge-shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Celts 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Chunkey Stone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lithics - Groundstone - Clubs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Disks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Oval/Round 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Pitted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Plain 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hammerstone - Full- grooved 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Hoes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Misc. - Greenstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Misc. - Schist 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Groundstone - Mortar/Pestle 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ceremonial Blades 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Discoidals 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Earspools 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Earspools - Incised 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - One hole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Two holes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Diamond- shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Elliptical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Expanded center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Rectangular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Gorgets - Reel-shaped 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ivory - Gorget 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Ivory - Shpere 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Pendants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Ornamental - Slate - Gorgets 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Lithics - Pipes 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Animal Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Disk pipe (Siouan) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Conoidal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

114

Lithics - Pipes - Elbow Pipes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Blocked-end Mouthpiece 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Flaring Mouthpieces 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Human Effigy 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lithics - Pipes - Vasiform 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Whetstones - Sandstone 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lithics - Whetstones - Shale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Stone 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Enclosures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Geometrical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Conical 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Domed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Platform 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Sacred Circles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Earthworks - Mounds - Subconical 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Bark roofs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Post Mold 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Organization - Houses - Construction - Wattle and daub 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Council House 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Pole Lodges 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Circular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Long 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Narrow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Houses - Shape - Rectangular 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Organization - Ideology - Clan Organization 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Along streams/rivers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Floodplains 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Organization - Villages - Location - High Bluffs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Valleys 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Location - Valley Terraces 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Organization - Villages - Plaza 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Organization - Villages - Stockaded/Fortified 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Conch Shell Fragments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Decorations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Hoes 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Shell - Mussel - Knives 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Scrapers 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Mussel - Spoons 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Gorgets 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Beads 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Earspools 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Conch Shell - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Hair Pins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Marine Shell - Beads 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shell - Ornamental - Pendants 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Agriculture 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Subsistence - Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

115

Subsistence - Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Beans 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Bird 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Butternuts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Corn 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Mammal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Shellfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Squash 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Sunflower 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Foods - Wild nuts and berries 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Subsistence - Gathering 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Subsistence - Hunting 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Subsistence - Sedentary 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Crosses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Circles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Spiders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motifs - Gorgets - Weeping Eye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Motifs - Pottery - Curvilinear Guilloche 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Weaponry - AtlAtl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subsistence - Weaponry - Bow and Arrow 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

116

Appendix 2: mtDNA Haplotype Data

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 P LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 1 C C T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A G A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 2 A C T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 3 X T C T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A C C C C C C C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 4 X T C T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A T T G C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 4 X T C T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A T T G C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 6 C4c T C T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 7 D T C T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 L. Wood. 8 A T T C C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 9 C T T T T C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M Wood. 11 A T T T C T C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 12 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A T C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 13 D T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A T C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 15 B T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

117 16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Dewar 2010 GWP

16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T T A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 17 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A C A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 18 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A C A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 20 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 22 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 23 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M Wood. 25 C T T T C C C C T T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 26 C T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 26 C T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 27 C T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 28 A T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 28 A T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 29 B T T T C C C C C C G C G A A C C A A C T C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

117

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 1 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 2 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 3 X C C C A C C G A T C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 4 X C C C A C C G A T C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C C T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 4 X C C C A C C G A T C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C C T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 6 C4c C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Marshall 2011 Angel 7 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 L. Wood. 8 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 9 C C C C A T C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T T Bolnick and Smith 2007 M Wood. 11 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 12 A T C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 13 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 15 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Dewar 2010 GWP 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

118 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 16 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

17 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 18 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 20 A C T C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 22 A C C C A C C A A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 23 A C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M Wood. 25 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 26 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A C A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 26 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A C A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 27 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 28 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 28 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 29 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

118

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 31 D T T T C C C C C T G T G A A C C A A C C T C T C G T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G.Kame 32 D T T T C C C C C T G C A G A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A C C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 33 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C T C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C T C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C T C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C T C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 34 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C T A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 36 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A T C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 36 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A T C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 37 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 37 D1 T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 37 D1 T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 119 37 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

37 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 37 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 38 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A G T C C Mills 2003 HW 39 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Dewar 2010 GWP

119

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 31 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G.Kame 32 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 33 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 33 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 34 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 36 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 36 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 M. Wood. 37 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 37 D1 C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 37 D1 C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 37 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 37 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 120 37 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

38 D C C C G C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 39 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Dewar 2010 GWP

120

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Dewar 2010 GWP 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 121 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW 40 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 41 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A T C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 43 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C T T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 44 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

121

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Dewar 2010 GWP 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

122 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW 40 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 41 A C C T A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 43 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 44 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 44 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

44 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

122

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 45 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 46 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 46 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 47 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 48 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 49 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 49 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 49 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 49 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 49 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 50 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 51 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C G A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 52 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW

123 52 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 53 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW

53 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 53 C1 T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 54 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 55 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A G A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 56 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C T Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss 57 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 57 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 58 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 59 C1 T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 60 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A T A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 61 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A T A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A T A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A T A A A T C C Dewar 2010 GWP 62 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin

123

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 45 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T G C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 46 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T G T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 46 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T G T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 47 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 48 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 49 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 49 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 49 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 49 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 49 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 50 C C C C A C C G A C T A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 51 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T G T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 52 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A C A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 52 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A C A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 124 53 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A C A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW

53 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A C A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 53 C1 C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A C A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Marshall 2011 Angel 54 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G C A T A G C C G A G T A T C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 55 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T T G T A T C G T C G A G C A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 56 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss 57 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 57 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 58 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G C A T A G C T G G G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 59 C1 C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T C T C Marshall 2011 Angel 60 C C C C A C C A A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin 61 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 61 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G C T G A G T A C C T T T C Dewar 2010 W. Basin 62 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C T T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 W. Basin

124

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 62 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Dewar 2010 GWP 63 C4c T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 63 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 64 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 65 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

125 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW 69 C T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C T C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 70 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 70 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 73 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 74 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 75 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 75 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 76 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 77 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 77 B2 T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 77 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C C C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 79 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 80 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T G T C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 81 X T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C C C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

125

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 62 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C T T T T C Dewar 2010 GWP 63 C4c C C C C C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Marshall 2011 Angel 63 C C C C C C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 64 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A A T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 65 C C C C A C C G A C C A T C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 66 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW 69 C C C C A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T T G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 Red Ocher 126 70 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A C C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame

70 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A C C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 73 A C C T A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 74 A T C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 75 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 75 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 76 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 77 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Schultz-Shook 2005 G. Kame 77 B2 C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Marshall 2011 Angel 77 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 79 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C C T T C Mills 2003 HW 80 A C C T A C C G A C C A C C C C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 81 X C C C A C T G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T T C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms

126

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p LOT 9 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 # YPE 2 3 4 4 7 8 1 4 6 9 2 6 2 6 6 9 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 2 3 9 6 7 3 7 4 5 1 7 9 0 6 Source Comments 82 A T T T C C T T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 83 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 84 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 85 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 85 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 85 A2 T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A2 T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A2 T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 85 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 85 A T T T C C C T C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW

127 86 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T T A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 87 B T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A C C C C C C C A T A C C A C A A A T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW

88 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A G C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 89 A T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 90 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW 91 D T T T C C C C C T G C G A A C C A A C C C C T C A T A T C A C A A A T C C Mills 2003 HW

127

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 A HAP 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 P LOT 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 # YPE 7 9 1 5 8 0 4 5 8 0 3 4 5 8 1 3 4 9 1 8 9 5 7 9 5 6 2 3 4 5 7 9 2 5 Source Comments 82 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 83 A C C T A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 84 A C C C A C C G A C T A C T T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 85 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Schultz-Shook 2005 Miss. 85 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 85 A2 C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A2 C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A2 C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Marshall 2011 Angel 85 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Stone and Stoneking 1998 N. Farms 85 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 85 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 LW 86 A C C C A C T G G C T A C C T C G T A C A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW 87 B C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G T C G A G T A C C T T C C Bolnick and Smith 2007 MW 88 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 128 89 A C C C A C C G A C T A C C T C G T A T A A T C G A G T A C C T T T C Mills 2003 HW

90 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A C A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW 91 D C C C A C C G A C C A C C T C G T A T A G C C G A G T A C C T T C C Mills 2003 HW

128