Sourcing Bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5

Mississippi State University Scholars Junction

Theses and Dissertations Theses and Dissertations

8-9-2019

Sourcing bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5) using VNIR (Visible/Near-infrared Reflectance) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Reflectance) spectroscopy

Simon P. Sherman III

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td

Recommended Citation Sherman, Simon P. III, "Sourcing bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5) using VNIR (Visible/Near-infrared Reflectance) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Reflectance) spectroscopy" (2019). Theses and Dissertations. 3999. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/td/3999

This Graduate Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Template B v4.0 (beta): Created by L. Threet 2/5/19

Sourcing bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5) using VNIR

(Visible/Near-infrared Reflectance) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared

Reflectance) spectroscopy

By TITLE PAGE Simon P. Sherman III

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures

Mississippi State, Mississippi

August 2019

2019

Sourcing bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5) using VNIR

(Visible/Near-infrared Reflectance) and FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared

Reflectance) spectroscopy

By APPROVAL PAGE Simon P. Sherman III

Approved:

______Darcy Shane Miller (Major Professor)

______Evan Peacock (Committee Member)

______James W. Hardin (Committee Member)

______Diana M. Greenlee (Committee Member)

______Ryan M. Parish (Committee Member)

______David M. Hoffman (Graduate Coordinator)

______Rick Travis Dean College of Arts & Sciences

Name: Simon P. Sherman III ABSTRACT Date of Degree: August 9, 2019

Institution: Mississippi State University

Major Field: Applied Anthropology

Major Professor: Darcy Shane Miller

Title of Study: Sourcing bifaces from the Alexander Collection at Poverty Point (16WC5) using VNIR (Visible/Near-infrared Reflectance) and FTIR (Fourier Transform InfraredReflectance) spectroscopy

Pages in Study: 86

Candidate for Degree of Master of Arts

Poverty Point is a monumental earthwork center dating to the Late Archaic Period (ca.

3700-3100 Cal BP). The site is well known for its diverse collection of foreign lithic materials indicative of a wide-ranging acquisition network. Among the extra-local items recovered from the site are lithic raw materials that were used for bifaces in the form of projectile points and/or knives (PP/Ks). Here, I determined the atomic and molecular composition of 847 bifaces from the Alexander Collection using Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) and Fourier-

Transform Infrared Reflectance (FTIR) spectroscopy. The combined wavelength spectra datasets were compared to a raw material database to determine the location of the parent formations from which the raw materials were obtained. The PP/K raw materials analyzed were sourced to outcrops stretching across the Southeast, Mid-South and Mid-West.

DEDICATION

For Mom and Dad…Thank you for your sacrifices

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the Poverty Point Station Archaeology Program

(University of Louisiana-Monroe) and the Louisiana Office of State Parks for granting me access to the materials, especially Diana Greenlee and Alisha Wright, and to Ryan Parish from the

University of Memphis, for his help in “zapping” the materials. The suggestions and comments made by Drs. Evan Peacock and Diana Greenlee on earlier versions of this work were extremely insightful. Appreciation for their contributions to this document, and for their guidance more generally throughout my graduate student experience cannot be overemphasized. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Shane Miller for his essential input on this project, especially with realization of certain statistical techniques and his ArcMap expertise. My deepest appreciation is for his service on my Graduate Committee and as a mentor. To the faculty, staff and graduate students of

Mississippi State University, and especially to the Department of Anthropology and Middle

Eastern Cultures (AMEC), I want to express my sincerest gratitude. Finally, I want to thank my

Mother, Father, and my Shiba Inu (Baby Dirl) for their love and support over the last two-and-a- half years.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 5

Poverty Point: An Overview ...... 5 Previous Fieldwork ...... 8 Lithic Raw Materials at Poverty Point ...... 10 Exotic Materials at Poverty Point ...... 14 Poverty Point Models: Site Origin and Function ...... 16 Hypotheses ...... 19

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 21

VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy ...... 24 Description of the Raw Materials ...... 30 Bangor ...... 31 Bigby Cannon ...... 31 Brassfield ...... 32 Burlington ...... 32 Dover (Lower St. Louis) ...... 32 Fort Payne ...... 33 Kaolin ...... 33 Knife River Flint ...... 34 Novaculite ...... 34 Ste Genevieve ...... 34 Tallahatta Quartzite ...... 35 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert ...... 35 Upland Complex Gravels (Citronelle) ...... 36 Upper St. Louis ...... 36 iv

Warsaw ...... 37 Statistical Analysis ...... 37

IV. RESULTS ...... 40

V. DISCUSSION ...... 45

VI. CONCLUSIONS ...... 49

Future Directions ...... 50

REFERENCES ...... 53

APPENDIX

A. MASTER EXCEL SPREADSHEET WITH POINTS ANALYZED FOR THIS STUDY ...... 63

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Classification of potential site function/origin at Poverty Point ...... 19

Table 3.1 Locations of raw material sources used as reference samples...... 29

Table A.1 Master excel spreadsheet with points analyzed for this study ...... 64

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Poverty Point LiDAR topographic model with earthworks and bayous labeled. LiDAR data courtest of FEMA and the state of Louisiana; data distributed by “Atlas: The Louisiana Statewide GIS,” LSU CADGIS Research Laboratory, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Image used with permission of the Poverty Point Station Archaeology Program, University of Louisiana at Monroe ...... 6

Figure 2.2 Map showing some of the sources involved in the Poverty Point network (Gibson 1994b:130) ...... 15

Figure 3.1 Motley (left) and Delhi (right) PP/K types (Courtesy of the Poverty Point Station Archaeology Program 2018)...... 23

Figure 3.2 Visible Near/Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) (left) and Fourier Transform Infrared Reflectance (FTIR) (right) Spectroscopy instruments ...... 25

Figure 3.3 Chert spectrum in the visible near-infrared and middle infrared with spectral features labeled (Parish 2016:117) ...... 26

Figure 3.4 Map of geological formations sampled and used for spectral comparison analysis. The Warsaw formation is grouped in with the Fort Payne and St. Louis formations...... 30

Figure 4.1 Comparisons by raw material type. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals (Beals et al. 1945)...... 41

Figure 4.2 Discriminant Function (DFA) values. Plotted as artifacts relative to Dr.Parish’s background samples...... 42

Figure 4.3 Boxplot of mass (g) by raw material type...... 43

Figure 4.4 Boxplot of material type (Local vs. Mid-South) by weight (g). Local materials are Upland Complex Gravels and Mid-South materials are Bangor, Bigby-Cannon, Brassfield, Dover (Lower St. Louis), Fort Payne, Kaolin, Ste Genevieve, Tallahatta Quartzite, Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert, Upper St. Louis and Warsaw...... 44

Figure 5.1 Comparison of lithics by tool category and source (Spivey 2011: 54)...... 48

vii

INTRODUCTION

The Poverty Point site (16WC5) was occupied during the Late Archaic period, around ca.

3700-3100 cal yr. BP (Anderson and Sassaman 2012). The size and number of the mounds, extensive raw material diversity, shaped fired-earth balls known as PPOs, and the absence of burials make the site an anomaly when considering the typical characteristics of Late Archaic prehistory in the American Southeast (Anderson and Sassaman 2012:85-86; Steponaitis 1986).

Items typically found at Poverty Point can also be found at related sites throughout the modern- day geopolitical boundaries of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and include objects formed from materials that were imported from the Appalachian Mountains to the east, and the Ouachita

Mountains to the northwest (Steponaitis 1986).

Bifaces, including projectile points and/or knives (PP/Ks), are tools made of stone. The biface styles and their functions vary throughout space and time. The materials used to create these artifacts can provide valuable information about the tools and their uses, trade and/or exchange between prehistoric groups, the amount of effort expended to create the tools, and the distance that certain materials traveled to-and-from a specific location (Andrefsky 1994).

During the Late Archaic (4000-2500 B.P.) period in the Southeastern United States, a wide variety of raw materials was used by prehistoric hunter-gatherers (Steponaitis 1986). These materials include copper, steatite (soapstone), greenstone, slate, shell, and various types of cherts. However, no area shows the fantastic amounts of exotic materials coming to a single

place more than that of the Poverty Point culture (Steponaitis 1986). Partly because of the raw material abundance and diversity, the function of the Poverty Point site is ambiguous and has been subject to debate over the last century (Carr and Stewart 2004; Gibson 2000; Jackson 1991;

Jeter and Jackson 1994; Kidder and Sassaman 2009; Spivey 2011). Determining the geological origin of chert/flint types is relevant to some existing arguments on the site’s origin/function, while possibly opening up room for some new perspectives on exchange at the site. Using geoscientific methods, identifying the specific source locations of raw materials used at the

Poverty Point site is now possible (Parish 2011, 2013, 2016).

The study of provenance, regardless of material, is a common and essential practice in archaeological research (Parish 2011, 2016). Lithic provenance studies contribute to a greater understanding of material procurement strategies, trade networks and social interactions, especially with the use of chert (Parish 2011). Archaeologists traditionally have relied on the observation of macroscopic features such as color, luster, translucency, etc., to determine differences in raw material sources from a region. The visual analysis method for identifying raw materials has proven to be problematic (Parish 2016). For example, Price et al. (2010) tested regional experts with at least 19.5 years of experience in the Southeastern United States and found they accurately identified various raw materials from the Southeast only 53 percent of the time.

Archaeologists have also applied established geoscientific methods in chert source studies, including neutron activation analysis (NAA), X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), laser ablation inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)

(Speer 2014), inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and thin-section petrographic analysis (Parish 2011; Parish 2016). These petrographic and geochemical methods

have been used to identify potentially diagnostic mineralogical and/or chemical compositions.

Human error, cost, accuracy, and destructiveness are factors that should be considered when applying these methods and any particular technique. In addition, geological formations often overlap, making the sometimes visually similar chert types hard to distinguish. The formation of chert is a diagenetic process that occurs in geological time and increases the probability for variation inherent in outcrops, making accurate identification of chert provenance extremely difficult (Parish 2011).

Geochemical approaches are capable of great accuracy when sourcing obsidian lithics, but chert sources can exhibit as much chemical variation within a single source as between different sources (Carr and Bradbury 2000: 3-4). Detailed sampling of raw material source locales, along with continued refinement of methods and techniques, is needed to address these problems. To make such efforts mainstream, cost-efficient and non-destructive methods are desirable. Originally developed as a remote sensing system, recent application of a relatively new (~50 years) method called Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) spectroscopy shows promise for archaeological research, especially in raw material sourcing studies (Parish 2011).

With the use of reflectance spectroscopy, we can be 90 to 95 percent confident about characterizing chert by formation and by deposit through statistically identifying diagnostic features caused by molecular bonding and atomic configuration (Parish 2016).

In this thesis, I explore different models for site function that have implications for raw material presence/proportions at Poverty Point and, in so doing, test the accuracy of previous summary descriptions of various materials used in lithic tool production by using VNIR and

FTIR spectroscopy. The VNIR and FTIR methods were used to examine 847 bifaces from the

Alexander surface collection from Poverty Point. This biface sample is dominated by the Delhi

and Motley point types, although other types have been included. Comparison to an extensive raw material database was made to determine the location of the parent formation from which each of the biface was obtained. Analysis of the artifacts showed that the materials are sourced to

15 different outcrops, and/or formation(s) throughout the Southeast, Mid-South and Mid-

Western United States.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Poverty Point: An Overview

The Poverty Point site proper is an earthen architectural complex, constructed and occupied roughly around ca. 3700-3100 BP (Gibson 1990a). Kidder (2011) stated that the cultural pattern at Poverty Point is found throughout the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV), which spans from Memphis, Tennessee, to the Gulf of Mexico. Kidder (2011:461) argues,

“many characteristics of the cultural pattern are also unique for their time, especially the presence of settlement hierarchies based on site size and the accumulation of long-distance exchange goods.”

The Poverty Point site is situated on the eastern edge of a Pleistocene terrace known as the Macon Ridge. According to USDI (2013:30), “Its original configuration included four earthen mounds (Mounds A, B, C, and E); six concentric, semi-elliptical earthen ridges; a large, flat interior plaza; and several borrow areas. Other earthworks built during that time include an elevated causeway that crosses the southwestern borrow area and a ridge along the top of the dock (the gentle slope down to the Bayou Maςon).” Mound F is a small, dome-shaped mound that appears to be the last Late Archaic period earthwork at Poverty Point (Greenlee 2013, 2015).

Mound F was located on the eastern edge of the Macon Ridge, making it appear larger from

Bayou Maςon (Louisiana Division of Archaeology 2015). Mound D, a sixth mound, was

constructed by a later culture on top of one of the Poverty Point ridges roughly 1,700 to 2,000 years later (Greenlee 2011; Feathers and Sheikh 2012) (see Figure 2.1).

Geophysical surveys conducted in the plaza since 2001 indicate circular, or ring-shaped anomalies. According to USDI (2013: 55), these “Twenty-five to thirty large ring-shaped magnetic anomalies… range from 25 meters to 65 meters in diameter.” The ring-shaped, anomalies, which are associated with circles of large, buried, post-holes found in the plaza in

1973, 1975 and 2009, remain an area of interest (Greenlee 2009, 2011, 2012; Haag 1990;

Hargrave et al. 2018).

There are three other mound sites within the vicinity of Poverty Point: Lower Jackson mound (16WC10), Jackson Place mounds (16WC6), and Motley mound (16WC7) (Ortmann

2010). The Lower Jackson mound is located less than 4.8 kilometers from the site center of

Poverty Point. A dated charcoal sample indicates that this mound predates Poverty Point by as much as 1,500 to 2,000 years (Saunders et al. 2001). Jackson Place may have possessed six mounds and a ridge. Unfortunately, those earthworks were largely destroyed in the 1960s and, since then, agricultural activities have significantly reduced what remained. Due to the artifacts found at Jackson Place it is believed that those earthworks were part of a Woodland-period occupation (Greengo 1964; Moore 1913). Regarding Jackson Place, USDI (2013:29) states,

“Archaeologists believe that most, if not all, of the earthworks in this complex belonged to the

Late Woodland period (1500-1000 BP) and thus postdate Poverty Point by about 2,000 years.”

Greenlee (2018) acquired a radiocarbon date on a charred Diospyros virginiana (persimmon) seed from the base of Mound A at Jackson Place (Beta-503110; 1100 ± 30 14C). The last of the earthworks is the Motley mound, the construction date of which is unknown to this day, but it is believed by many to be contemporary with Poverty Point (Ford and Webb 1956; Webb 1982).

The transition from the Late Archaic (4000-2500 B.P.) to the Early Woodland period

(2500 to 1950 B.P.) is one of the most notable behavioral and technological transformations ever recorded in the prehistory of eastern North America (Kidder 2006). Global changes in climate eventually increased flooding in the Mississippi River watershed. These changes were believed to have led to the changes in the actions of prehistoric hunter-gatherers of the time. According to

Kidder (2006: 196), “A complex sequence of river avulsion, meander belt shifts, and crevasse splay formation occurred between 5500 – 2500 cal B.P. Large -scale floods resulted in major changes in settlement organization, especially between 3600 -3000 cal B.P.” These massive

floods, brought on by changes in temperature and a rise in sea level, purportedly caused climate- related evolution of the northeastern Louisiana landscape, and the people at Poverty Point left.

Contrary to the postulates made by Kidder (2006), Gibson (1990b, 2010) and the USDI

(2013) offer several reasons why massive flooding did not cause Poverty Point’s inhabitants to rapidly abandon the site. According to the USDI (2013:16-17):

“At Poverty Point, Macon Ridge is about 7-9 m higher than the adjacent lowlands to the east. Prior to eighteenth through twentieth century construction of the artificial levee systems along the Mississippi River and its tributaries, the bottomlands around Macon Ridge were subject to frequent seasonal flooding (Winters et al. 1938; Worthen and Belden 1911). The elevation difference between the top of the Macon Ridge and the floodplain below was apparently enough to keep Poverty Point out of water. Not even the catastrophic flood of 1927, which broke levees and inundated much of the Lower Mississippi Valley (Barry 1997), impacted the site (Gibson 1990b) …This also means that there has been no significant sedimentation on Macon Ridge over the past 15,000 years, and thus the archaeological record on that landform is at the surface, not deeply buried.” Gibson (2010) argues that levee failures at Joes Bayou occurred at the time of Poverty

Point’s fluorescence [3580 and 3469 cal BP] and would have been a semi-common occurrence during this time period. Flooding wouldn’t have overly affected subsistence practices either, because under certain circumstances, flooding can be favorable to fishermen/fisherwomen

(Gibson 2010: 35). The opposing views between Kidder (2006) and Gibson (2010) are still debated.

Previous Fieldwork

The Poverty Point site was described initially by engineer Samuel H. Lockett in 1872, when he observed earthworks and artifacts, followed by the first published report of the site

(Lockett 1873). The next archaeological venture came when Clarence Bloomfield (C.B.) Moore visited and excavated at the site in February 1913 (Moore 1913). During the 1930s, Clarence

Webb collected artifacts in fields at and near the Poverty Point site. A local artifact collector named Carl Alexander later joined Webb. Together, Webb and Alexander amassed over 100,000 artifacts, many of which had some form of provenience recorded by Alexander (Connolly 2008).

A portion of the bifaces collected by Alexander are the focus of the current study

Between the years 1952 and 1955, the first scientific excavations took place at Poverty

Point. James Ford, who conducted fieldwork during these years, was joined by several notable colleagues. These colleagues were Clarence Webb, William Haag, Robert Neitzel, Junius Bird, and George Quimby (Ford and Webb 1956). The ridges were explored by James Ford and his team, providing further information about their construction. USDI (2013:81) states, “under

Ford’s guidance, ten excavation units were placed in various segments of the ridges, Mound A was cored to a depth of about 18.5 m, and Mound B was trenched.” Since the excavations by

Ford and his team, archaeological research has been split between park development- conservation projects and problem-oriented research endeavors (USDI 2013).

William Haag and Deborah Woodiel conducted archaeological testing of the plaza in the

1970s. Haag, who was the Principal Investigator at the time, found multiple filled-in post holes, but in no decipherable patterns (Haag 1990). Woodiel was the Principal Investigator on another excavation in the plaza, where the current park Visitors’ Center is located. Jon L. Gibson (1984,

1987a, 1989, 1990b, 1993, 1994a, 1997) conducted excavations on various mounds and ridges throughout the site from 1983-1992. T.R. Kidder (2002) produced the first high-precision topographic map of the site. Cores and limited excavation have been used to examine mound construction techniques and chronology for the mounds and ridges (Gibson 1984, 1987a, 1989,

1990b, 1993, 1994a, 1997; Connolly 2002; Ortmann 2007; Kidder et al. 2009; Greenlee 2011,

2013, 2015). Over the years there have been many attempts to estimate the volume of dirt moved during the Late Archaic occupation at Poverty Point. Recent estimates suggest that about

750,000 m3 of soil were moved in earthwork construction and that about as much was probably moved in landscape preparation (Ford and Webb 1956; Gibson 1987b; Ortmann 2007).

Geophysical survey has been a preferred research method in recent years due to its non- invasive nature. Geophysical surveys were conducted by Tad Britt, Michael Hargrave, and Janet

Simms in 2001. Hargrave later collaborated with Berle Clay, Lewis Somers, and Rinita Dalan

(USDI 2013). Timothy de Smet, Matthew Sanger, and Carl Lipo have most recently applied geophysical methods to the Poverty Point landscape. The methods employed include but are not limited to: ground penetrating radar (GPR), light detection and ranging (LIDAR), magnetic gradiometry, magnetic susceptibility, resistivity, and conductivity. Curated artifacts, which have been acquired previously through surface collection and excavation, are used for a variety of research projects. Most of the field strategies that are applied today are non-invasive, however, coring and excavation are still used when appropriate. Despite all the work that has been done, less than 1% of the site’s surface area has been disturbed through excavation (Connolly 1999).

Lithic Raw Materials at Poverty Point

The first attempt to describe and identify lithic raw materials at the site was made by

James Ford and Clarence Webb (1956) in their examination of some of the projectile points from surface and excavation collections. Ford and Webb (1956:125-126) identified potential sources for the exotic materials present at Poverty Point and created four major groups for classifying the materials: brown chert and red jasper pebbles, white-to-cream colored chert nodules, a broad range of high-quality grey flints, and novaculite (Ford and Webb 1956: 51). The brown chert and 10

red jasper likely came from the basal gravels of the old elevated terraces of the Mississippi River

(Ford and Webb 1956). The white-to-cream colored materials were described as nodular cherts of excellent flaking capabilities and came from northwestern Arkansas to southern Missouri

(Ford and Webb 1956:51; Conn 1976:16). Grey flints were believed to have come from Missouri and southern Indiana (Ford and Webb 1956:126; Conn 1976: 16-17). Lastly, novaculite from northern Arkansas was described as distinguishable from other materials. This study concluded that a reasonable portion of the lithic assemblage were possibly Midwestern in origin (Ford and

Webb 1956).

Thomas Conn (1976) used macroscopic identification to observe more than 6200 chipped stone artifacts obtained from Poverty Point surface collections. Conn concluded that 14 different kinds of chert/flint raw materials came from at least 5 possible geographic areas: west-central

Arkansas, the southern Illinois-eastern Missouri area, the upper Ohio River valley, the Tennessee

River valley, and locally [30 miles from Poverty Point] (Conn 1976:38). He found that almost one third of the chert utilized at Poverty Point was from “local” gravel sources (Conn 1976:82).

Like Ford and Webb, Conn argues that this material was probably obtained from the adjacent areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas. These two studies are also similar due to a noticeable portion of novaculite present in both samples. Material from around the Ohio River, specifically in the Meade County, Kentucky area, was found to be at least 12 percent of Conn’s sample (Conn 1976). Conn did not find a high percentage of material macroscopically comparable to southern Illinois-eastern Missouri sources (Conn 1976:82). Lastly, Conn found that the highest count of nonlocal material was sourced to the Fort Payne formation (northern

Alabama and western Tennessee).

Sandra Bass (1981) used macroscopic identification of Pleistocene gravels from quarries in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Bass attempted to systematically sample “local” gravel deposits and characterize them in terms of material and size, in order to compare them to a sample of chipped stone artifacts from Poverty Point. She wanted to see if chert and other material previously identified as “exotic” could be found in the local gravels and how gravel stone package size might limit artifact size. Bass concluded that Poverty Point’s inhabitants were utilizing local gravels from both sides of the Mississippi River for the majority of their chipped stone tools (Bass 1981: 88). Although the local gravel sources included lithic materials that were visually consistent with many artifacts, not all material types in the lithic assemblage were represented in the gravels. She noted that, although the non-local stone was likely imported, the trade network need not have been as extensive as previously suggested (Bass 1981:85).

Jon Gibson (1973, 1990a, 1999, 2007), believes that there are 10 or more sources located throughout the South and Midwest that supplied the primary amount of exotic materials for

Poverty Point’s lithic assemblage: Novaculite, quartz, and other materials came from the

Ouachita Mountains in central and western Arkansas, as well as Crescent Hills chert from the

Ozark Rim in eastern Missouri; Mill Creek and Dongola/Cobden cherts from Shawnee Hills in southern Illinois; Wyandotte and Harrodsburg flints from northern Kentucky to southern Indiana;

Fort Payne, Dover, Camden, and Pickwick cherts from the Tennessee River; and Tallahatta quartzite from western Alabama and eastern Mississippi (Gibson 1990a: 259; 1999: 58; 2007).

Gibson also uses general identifiers like “Gray Northern Flint” to identify certain materials like

Dover, from the Mid-South region (Carr and Stewart 2004). Gibson (1999) postulates that the nearest “foreign” stone-supply area is 260 straight-line kilometers (slk) from Poverty Point, in the Ouachita Mountains; more than 500 slk from the Dover outcrops on the Tennessee River;

and 650 slk from the Ozark Rim flint quarries (Gibson 1999:59). Later, however, he recognized the various problems created by visual identification of raw materials (Carr and Stewart 2004;

Gibson 1990a, 2007).

Connolly (2001) used visual identification to characterize chert types in the 1980-1982

Goad excavations. “A trend from the use of local pebble chert in pre-ridge contexts to exotic flints in ridge contexts was observed for projectile point manufacture. Also, Motley points in ridge contexts were often composed of Northern Gray flints, but in pre-ridge contexts were made predominantly of local and unknown flint varieties” (Connolly 2001: 143). Connolly (2001,

2008:100) describes the gray flints as materials comparable to Cobden, Harrison County, Knox or other Midwestern flints that have outcrops throughout the states of Illinois and Tennessee.

Philip Carr and Lee Stewart macroscopically identified raw material flake debris from surface collections (n=1,024) and excavation units (n=1,021) from the ridges at the Poverty Point site (Carr and Stewart 2004). They conclude that local gravels, as well as Burlington chert, made up a larger percentage of the assemblage of material examined, than those identified as Fort

Payne and Dover (Carr and Stewart 2004: 141). Carr and Stewart used these lithic assemblages to examine different modes of material acquisition at the site: Direct and Indirect (exchange) acquisition. Their analysis revealed an abundance of low quality exotic chert, and the debitage indicated it had been brought in a largely unmodified state (Carr and Stewart 2004: 143), observations that were not consistent with expectations for either direct or indirect modes of acquisition. They suggested that stockpiling of raw materials by a sedentary population, in a situation where quantity outranks quality, might explain the distribution. They concluded that scenarios for indirect acquisition provided a closer, but imperfect, fit to their data.

Margaret Spivey (2011) used macroscopic identification of lithic assemblages at Poverty

Point to evaluate possible hypotheses about site origin (function/sedentariness and founding population) at the site. She used material from past excavations, coupled with Least Cost

Pathways (LCP) analysis to assess the possible distances that certain materials may have traveled to Poverty Point. She concluded that a great deal of the material present in her assemblages, across time and space, was Burlington chert (Spivey 2011: 81).

Exotic Materials at Poverty Point

Poverty Point is recognized for both its massive earthworks and abundance of material goods. According to Carr and Stewart (2004:129-130), “The assemblage includes a wide variety of personal items such as cylindrical, tubular, and disc-shaped beads, ground-stone pendants in geometric and zoomorphic shapes, and perforated human and animal teeth. The number of utilitarian items such as projectile points, atlatl weights, plummets, and clay balls is impressive.”

The most abundant artifacts at Poverty Point are the chipped stone debitage from biface production and the fired-earth balls known as Poverty Point Objects (PPOs). The latter artifacts are small, shaped, baked balls made of loess which were probably used for cooking. Pottery is generally rare at Poverty Point but has been identified in an array of contexts spanning from the sites flourishing to its abandonment (Hays and Weinstein 2004; Ortmann and Schmidt 2016).

Poverty Point is in an advantageous position near the confluence of six major waterways

(Gibson 1994b). The site’s ecologically rich and diverse natural environment could support a large, possibly sedentary, hunting-fishing-gathering population. The Macon Ridge setting was above the flood zone yet provided easy access to water for resource acquisition and transportation needs (Gibson 1994b, 1999,2000, 2007).

Stone was not naturally available at that locale, so tons of rock were imported from various sources (Ford and Webb 1956; Gibson 1994b, 1999, 2000, 2007). There is an estimated total of 71 metric tons of exotic materials incorporated into the fill dirt used to build the encircling ridges at the site (Gibson 1990a:256; Gibson 1994b). This abundance of lithic material accounts for only a fraction of the possible total of raw material present at the site, if one also considers what was deposited as occupational debris on top of the ridges.

Archaeologists and geologists agree that there are several possible sources for some of the extra-local lithic raw materials present at the site (Figure 2.2). According to Gibson

(1990a:253), "several places in the Upper Mississippi Valley and Midwest, as well as isolated points in the Far West and Deep South, are the known or suspected sources.” Among the exotic materials at Poverty Point are assorted cherts and flints, sandstone, quartzite, slate, shale, igneous rock, limonite, hematite, magnetite, steatite [soapstone], greenstone, crystal quartz, copper, galena, and dozens of other minor materials (Gibson 1990a).

Figure 2.2 Map showing some of the sources involved in the Poverty Point network (Gibson 1994b:130) 15

It was previously assumed that obsidian at Poverty Point came from Wyoming until

Greenlee et al. (2014) analyzed all four obsidian fragments via x-ray fluorescence (P-XRF), neutron activation analysis (NAA), and obsidian hydration analysis. They found that obsidian at the site was the product of modern-day flint-knappers working stone from sources as distant as

Glass Buttes, Oregon.

It is typically assumed that many of the exotic materials at Poverty Point, such as galena, hematite, and magnetite, were brought by canoes down three of the largest Lower Mississippi

Valley rivers: the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Arkansas (Walthall et al. 1982). Archaeologists have postulated differing explanatory frameworks via which the raw materials arrived at the site: direct access, trade or exchange with other groups, and trade fairs where people brought wares to the site. One view suggests that Poverty Point’s inhabitants were a group of ‘prehistoric voyageurs’ who went to gather and transport raw materials from their source locations (Williams and Brain 1983). Prehistoric voyageurs are envisioned as extractors rather than traders (Carr and

Stewart 2004). The abundance of nonlocal raw materials, however, is typically pictured as evidence of an extensive trade network. There is no evidence, though, for what the people of

Poverty Point may have provided in exchange (Gibson 1999). Other archaeologists consider

Poverty Point as a major gateway community for trade (Bruseth 1991).

Poverty Point Models: Site Origin and Function

Trying to document the overall breadth, or magnitude, of mechanisms via which raw materials were brought into Poverty Point is a daunting task given the extensive region from which they came (Figure 2.2) and the enormous size and diversity of the lithic assemblage. The nearest known source of local lithic material is located 40 km west of Poverty Point (Gibson

1994b). 16

The resource acquisition models, so aptly described by Carr and Stewart (2004), often confine trade/exchange into two categories: Direct acquisition of raw material would describe a system where groups made logistically organized trips for the specific purpose of acquiring certain stone (cherts/flints) from their respective formations or outcrops. There are two subsets of direct acquisition: direct and embedded procurement (Binford 1979; Carr and Stewart 2004).

Direct procurement involves explicit intent to acquire a particular material (Carr and Stewart

2004). Embedded procurement is used to indicate when other materials are acquired secondarily on the same trip (Binford 1979). Indirect acquisition is synonymous with exchange (Carr and

Stewart 2004:136). However, there do not seem to be definitive boundaries for differentiating direct from indirect acquisition (Meltzer 1989).

Data that might be useful in evaluating direct vs. indirect acquisition models could be the surface collected and excavated material acquired from “smaller” Poverty Point related sites in

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These smaller sites are located near tributaries and other riverways that could have served as possible rest-areas/hamlets for prehistoric hunter-gatherers.

Lithic raw material analysis can be applied to other research issues and, as shown by Spivey has implications for hypotheses of “site origin” (Spivey 2011:8).

Four existing models surround site function and/or origin and are described as the vacant ceremonial center (Jackson 1991), the intersocietal trade fair hypothesis (Jackson 1991; Jeter and

Jackson 1994); the local population model (Gibson 2000); and the multi-ethic aggregation model

(Kidder and Sassaman 2009).

The vacant ceremonial center model argues for the periodic aggregation of an egalitarian group (Jackson 1991; Carr and Stewart 2004). “As a vacant ceremonial center, Poverty Point would be a place to which people traveled for specific activities” (Spivey 2011:22).

The trade fair hypothesis (Jackson 1991; Jeter and Jackson 1994), is similar to the vacant ceremonial center model, but the site is a special kind of center, a home to trade fairs (Spivey

2011). According to Jackson (1991: 266), "a trade fair is, in essence, a periodic, large, spatially and temporally predictable gathering of unrelated hunter-gatherers, often representing ethnically and linguistically distinct groups." These trade fairs would have been enabled by an easy way to access the site. This travel was likely made possible by water route (Jackson 1991:276).

The multi-ethnic aggregation model is a recent development by T.R. Kidder and Ken

Sassaman (Kidder and Sassaman 2009). Similar to the intersocietal trade fair and vacant ceremonial center model, this model envisions “Poverty Point as a place of aggregation for many different peoples” from significant geographic distances. It differs from the other models, though, by predicting the maintenance of a larger, year-round (i.e., sedentary) population.

In contrast to these models, Jon Gibson (1999; 2000; 2007) has argued that Poverty Point was a long-lived local residential community. From Gibson’s perspective, those who inhabited

Poverty Point were descendants of those indigenous to the area, and/or place (Gibson 2000:216-

231). He argued that those who had built the earthworks at Poverty Point were descendants of the people who built the nearby Lower Jackson mound during the Middle Archaic period (7000 –

4000 cal. B.P.) (Gibson 2007).

These “site origin” models are models of site function/community origins, as demonstrated in this simple classification (Table 2.1). For the purposes of this research, I will use the distribution of raw materials used to a sample of 847 bifaces from the Alexander surface collection to examine a key variable used in the construction of the four models listed above – are the bifaces made from local resources, or sources that are more geographically distant? And

if they are made from sources that are not locally available, what are the sources? Below I derive implications for these two scenarios.

Table 2.1 Classification of potential site function/origin at Poverty Point

Residential Non-Residential

Local Population Local Residential Vacant Ceremonial Center

Non-Local Population Multi-Ethnic Aggregation Trade Fair

Hypotheses

As the first hypothesis, I examine the raw material composition of the bifaces to assess whether the visual identification of Mid-South (Western Tennessee, North Mississippi,

Southern Missouri, Western Kentucky, Central, Northeast, Northeast Arkansas, and Northwest

Alabama) cherts by previous researchers is correct. The foreign population scenario rests on the assumption that the majority of cherts are from extra-local sources. If the majority of cherts are determined, via VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy, to be consistent with a local origin, then this has strong implications for rejecting the foreign population hypothesis. Second, if the local population model were true, one would expect that the local raw material sources would dominate the assemblages because local populations would already be familiar with local sources.

Third, if the size of the points by raw material are not statistically different, that would mean that both local and extra-local materials are entering the archaeological record about the same size. In other words, are points made of non-local cherts bigger than points made of local 19

material? If non-local materials are bigger in size, then this action of conspicuous consumption, or costly signaling (Gurven and Hill 2009), could be associated with trade. But, if the non-local and local materials are all the same size, people are not treating the points by raw material type differently, and it is likely that raw material was not a factor in regards to when to discard or rejuvenate a projectile point.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this research, I analyzed temporally diagnostic bifaces used as either blades or projectile points or knives, also known as PP/Ks. Odell (1996:383) defined projectile points as a

“tool with approximately symmetrical edges forming a base on one end and a point at the other end. At the base, the projectile point is hafted for use as a dart, spear, knife, scraper, or drill.”

Kidder (2012: 465) argues that “the projectile point or knife styles and forms of the people who first settled Poverty Point are remarkably diverse and contrast with earlier and later settlements where only one or two styles are found at a given time.” At Poverty Point, there are many point styles in various contexts, but seven are closely associated with the Poverty Point culture: Carrollton, Delhi, Ellis, Epps, Gary, Motley and Pontchartrain types. They have restricted but overlapping geographical distributions in the territories in and around Poverty

Point (Connolly 2001,2002). There still is much room for debate on the temporal range and/or ordering of certain Poverty Point diagnostic point types.

I used a sample of 847 points that primarily consisted of the Delhi and Motley projectile point and/or knife types, but also included some bifaces that could also be classified as one of the myriad of types found at Poverty Point (Figure 3.1). Delhi and Motley biface types are both found throughout ridge contexts. In northeast Louisiana, Delhi points are thought to be an earlier type than Motley points (Griffing 2018), although McGahey (2000) indicates Delhi and Motley points cover the same time span, 3500-2500 BP, in Mississippi.

The Delhi projectile point is named after a town near the Poverty Point site. This point type is corner notched, typically made of slate-gray, light gray and tan cherts (Ford and Webb

1956). David Griffing (2018) indicates the time range for Delhi points in this area is 4000-3100

B.P.

The Motley point was named after the Motley Place, located just north of Poverty Point.

Connolly (2002:55) states, “Motley points are deeply corner-notched tools with large, well-made triangular blades.” Northern grey flints, as they are described by Gibson (1990a, 1999), are thought to be the predominate material used to create this point, however, the Motley point is made of a variety of materials. The northern grey flints are typically the Dover (Lower St.

Louis), Fort Payne, and other materials found within the geopolitical boundaries of Illinois,

Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio (Connolly 2008). Griffing (2018) provides an age range of 3700-

3100 B.P. for Motley points in northeast Louisiana.

Figure 3.1 Motley (left) and Delhi (right) PP/K types (Courtesy of the Poverty Point Station Archaeology Program 2018).

The sample of projectile points were drawn from the Alexander surface collection. Connolly

(2012:92) described that collection as:

More than 15,000 whole and broken projectile points are currently curated from the Poverty Point site. Over 8,000 surface collected specimens have been categorized by type, assigned a unique accession number, and have had basic morphological

characteristics and provenience information recorded in an electronic database. Of these 8,000, approximately 70% are provenienced to a specific ridge, sector, or other locale of the Poverty Point earthwork complex. For this analysis, I chose only bifaces from the collection that had a complete hafting element, the first half portion of the triangular blade, and had at least one corner notch present.

VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy

Lithic assemblages can be useful for examining and identifying how economics, politics, territoriality, and mobility patterns are constructed (Parish and Durham 2015). Southeastern lithic analysts have relied heavily on visual characteristics to identify the sources of raw materials used to make stone tools, including at Poverty Point (e.g., Conn 1976; Bass 1981;

Gibson 1973, 1990a, 1999; Carr and Bradburry 2000; Connolly 2002; Carr and Stewart 2004;

Spivey 2011), a practice which can be problematic.

Spectroscopy is the study of interactions that electromagnetic radiation makes with other forms of matter. A spectrometer is an instrument that measures this interaction. Parish and Finn

(2016:46) contend that, “Reflectance spectroscopy techniques non-destructively record the interactions of matter and electromagnetic radiation at both the atomic and molecular scale and provide a valid method for discerning the geologic source of lithic raw materials.” They have identified VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy as methods that can help document both the spectral and compositional variation present in raw material types (Figure 3.2). This allows the determination of geologic sources for lithic assemblages that may have originated from chert formations throughout the continent, particularly Mid-South, and Mid-West materials. Mid-South cherts likely are represented at Poverty Point (Gibson 1990a, 1994b; Parish and Finn 2016).

Figure 3.2 Visible Near/Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) (left) and Fourier Transform Infrared Reflectance (FTIR) (right) Spectroscopy instruments

Using VNIR and FTIR, different materials “produce unique reflectance patterns that collectively represent a material’s atomic structure and molecular dipole bonding, which in turn is related to mineralogical structure, and chemical composition. VNIR analyzes two main areas of the electromagnetic spectrum, the visible and the infrared” (Parish 2011:3). VNIR and FTIR are used to obtain spectra from chert samples, potentially used to characterize both in-situ parent formation material and secondary residuum (Parish and Finn 2016). Small impurities change the form of silica features present in the material creating potentially diagnostic features related to diagenetic processes altering distinct deposits within a particular region (Parish and Finn 2016:

47). Parish (2016:116) describes the process of VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy as:

The reflected electromagnetic radiation contains information related to atomic and chemical functional groups within a compound. The incident radiation in the visible 25

portion of the spectrum (350-750 nm) stimulates vibration of atoms whereas dipole bonded molecules are stimulated in the near and middle infrared (751-25,000 nm) regions. Absorption of the incident radiation is wavelength dependent meaning absorption occurs at the wavelength frequencies corresponding to vibration energy states of the atom or molecule present. This means that the absorption of the radiation will show different atomic, structural, and molecular composition. The best way to graphically visualize these reflectance values is to plot them on a line graph (Figure 3.3). Parish (2016:117) states, “When graphically portrayed, the reflectance values per wave unit produce a line graph composed of Gaussian and Lorentzian curves.”

Figure 3.3 Chert spectrum in the visible near-infrared and middle infrared with spectral features labeled (Parish 2016:117)

There are different slope changes in the chert’s wavelength spectrum that will show microscopic mineral impurities and these impurities can provide diagnostic information regarding the deposit location (Parish 2016). Parish (2016: 119) states, “Spectral data exists as arbitrary percent reflectance decimal numbers between 0 and 1 per wave frequency. Each reflectance value is a potentially ‘diagnostic’ variable relating to an atomic or molecular composition characteristic of paleo-depositional and post-depositional environments.”

Reflectance spectroscopy in chert provenance research has been tested through a three- step accuracy checklist. These tests are used to evaluate the range in variation among raw material types and to assess the accuracy of reflectance spectroscopy at various spatial scales.

According to Parish (2016: 119), “The first test examines the accuracy of reflectance spectroscopy in distinguishing chert type (inter-formation)…The second test refines the spatial scale of the provenance study through characterization and differentiation of multiple chert deposits within a single geological formation (intra-formation). The third and final test explores intra-deposit variability by differentiating sub-set samples of chert within a single deposit.”

In this study, I used a PSR+3500 manufactured by Spectral Evolution Inc., for generation of the VNIR analysis and an Agilient 4300 FTIR spectrometer to collect the middle-infrared data. These instruments collect reflectance values within the regions of the visible/near and middle-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, respectively. The VNIR spectrometer measures reflectance data from 350 to 2500 nanometers (nm), while the FTIR instrument measures the middle-infrared region from 2500 to 16,000 nanometers (nm). Following Parish

(2016), I used a quartz-halogen bulb for illuminating the artifacts for VNIR analysis. It typically takes one minute to record a composite electromagnetic reflectance spectrum of the specimen. A white reference reading was taken after every ten samples to recalibrate the instrument, thereby

minimizing drift. The FTIR instrument produces a middle-infrared beam of radiation which stimulates a small, 1 cm, area of the artifact held to the detector orifice.

Once recorded, the reflectance data were converted to absorbance values and then derivatively transformed. Parish (2016:123) argues that the transforms “provide a more robust means for quantitative analysis as well as highlighting the subtle spectral slope changes.” These derivatively transformed absorbance values were compared to already existing reference samples collected by Dr. Ryan Parish over the last ten years. Parish’s database holds over 6000 geologic samples from 200 deposits representing close to 20 chert types. The majority of the reference samples are from the Southeast and Midwest but others are from more distant geographic regions. For the artifact spectral dataset (n=847), I used discriminant function analysis to characterize the mineralogical composition of the cherts and to determine how they compare to the reference samples of cherts compiled by Parish (2011).

In this study, the lithic samples analyzed from Poverty Point were determined to have mineralogical signatures similar to 15 specific raw material locations and/or formations of the

Southeast, Mid-South and Midwest previously collected by Parish (Table 3.1; Figure 3.4). To explain these geographic regions we will use basic, more conventional understandings of the regions, and sub-regions. The Southeast region is described to be Alabama, Florida, Georgia,

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Mid-

South region consists of Western Tennessee, North Mississippi, Southern Missouri, Western

Kentucky, Central, Northeast, and Northeast Arkansas, and Northwest Alabama (Mooney 1920).

Often, the area around Southern Illinois is included in this informally described region (Mooney

1920). Lastly, the Mid-West consists of 12 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Table 3.1 Locations of raw material sources used as reference samples.

Raw Material Location of Material Used as Count of Reference Material Formation/Source Reference Sample in the Chert Type Database Name

Bangor Northern Alabama 60

Bigby Cannon Small section of highland rim; Central, 30 Tennessee; South-central, Kentucky. Brassfield Tennessee River. Known colloquially as 30 “Tennessee Blue-Grey”.

Burlington Illinois, Iowa, Missouri. Varying 30 deposits throughout Mid-West.

Dover (Lower St. Louis) Discreet locations in North-central, 60 Tennessee. Fort Payne Southern Tip of Illinois, to Northwestern 60 Georgia; Kentucky; Indiana. (Mid- South) Kaolin Union County, Illinois. Known 60 Colloquially as “Iron Mountain”.

Knife River Chert/Flint North Dakota 60

Novaculite Arkansas, Ozark “Highlands” 30

Ste Genevieve “Northern Gray Flints” (Gibson); 60 Tennessee River; Northern Alabama. Tallahatta Quartzite Alabama; Central, Mississippi. 2

Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert Fort Payne chert re-deposited. Also 60 postulated that it is labeled as “Horse Creek”and “Pickwick”. Mississippi, Alabama.

Upland Complex Gravels . Crowley’s Ridge, Arkansas; Gravel 60 (Citronelle) Bars throughout central Mississippi, Northeastern Louisiana, and from river beds in Memphis, Tennessee.

Upper St. Louis Northern Gray Flints” (Gibson); Central 60 Kentucky; Central Tennessee; Northern Alabama; Southern Illinois Warsaw East and west Tennessee; Highland Rim, 57 Kentucky, Northern Alabama, Northeast Mississippi (Tishomingo County, MS), North-West Georgia. Totals 719

Figure 3.4 Map of geological formations sampled and used for spectral comparison analysis. The Warsaw formation is grouped in with the Fort Payne and St. Louis formations.

Description of the Raw Materials

The 15 material types I used in this analysis extend from the Southeast, Mid-South, and

Mid-West. They are named alphabetically as Bangor, Bigby Cannon, Brassfield, Burlington,

Dover (Lower St. Louis), Fort Payne, Kaolin, Knife River flint, Novaculite, Ste Genevieve,

Tallahatta Quartzite, Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert, Upland Complex Gravels (Citronelle, Local

Pebble Cherts, and/or Louisiana Highland Terrace), Upper St. Louis, and Warsaw (Table 3.1;

Figure 3.4).

Bangor

This material comes from the Bangor formation in north-central Alabama, central to eastern Tennessee, and northwestern Georgia (Jeter and Futato 1994). This material varies in terms of quality because there are fractures and other fossils that appear in this material type. It is postulated that the higher-quality nodules of Bangor chert come from outcrops in the Tennessee

Valley of north-central Alabama, between the modern day towns of Huntsville and Decatur

(Jeter and Futato 1994). The color of this material type ranges between a light beige to red, and at its darkest, black.

Bigby Cannon

Bigby-Cannon Limestone is a formation that has exposures in central Tennessee (Big

Bigby Creek and Maury counties). The formation consists of generally nearly uniform, granular crystalline, laminated, phosphatic limestone of gray or bluish color. Also, shades of Brownish- gray phosphatic calcarenite and light-gray to brownish-gray, crypto grained to medium- grained, even-bedded limestone (Hayes and Ulrich 1903).

Brassfield

Brassfield is a limestone and dolomite formation exposed in Arkansas, Ohio, Kentucky,

Indiana, Tennessee and West Virginia (Foerste 1906; McFarland 2004). The color of this material varies from a nearly white color to light gray, through darker shades of gray, and a salmon-ish pink to brownish red. There are sparse areas of dolomite inclusions. Fossil inclusions are abundant for this material.

Burlington

Burlington is a geological formation located in northwestern Arkansas, western Kansas,

Illinois along the Mississippi River, Iowa, and Missouri. Burlington Limestone is made of almost entirely on the remains of various fossils, the most important of which are crinoids. Some portions of the Burlington formation, or other outcrops, however, are not so evidently crinoidal, as for example, the so-called "white ledge" quarried in the northeastern part of Missouri (Moore

1928). The color of this material can be described as a white-gray to nearly white, occasionally with some brown layers, and/or bands.

Dover (Lower St. Louis)

The Dover quarries lie within the Cumberland River watershed along the western portion of the Highland Rim physiographic province of Tennessee (Parish 2011). Dover chert is assigned near the base of the St. Louis Limestone formation, and before 1956, was otherwise called

“McKissick Grove Shale” (Thompson 2001; Parish 2011). The Dover, or Lower St. Louis chert, is often described as a dense to vesicular material that usually appears yellowish brown to dark brown to almost black (Parish and Durham 2015).

Fort Payne

Fort Payne chert(s) are located within Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. Upper beds of this material are similar to those of the Warsaw formation. This material appears as a microcrystalline mosaic of calcite and silica particles (Parish and Durham

2015). Fort Payne chert varies in color. This type of chert is typically grey to brown in color and often has mottled or striped patterning (Conn 1976). A Fort Payne designation has been loosely assigned to material types that possess a relatively distinctive bluish-gray to grayish-blue to occasional brownish material (Jeter and Futato 1994). These high-quality versions of Fort Payne are located over a broad geographical area covering roughly over 500 kilometers, being associated with the lower portions of the Fort Payne formation (Parish and Durham 2015).

Kaolin

The Vienna Limestone formation and a secondary geologic deposit of unknown origin have been noted as the origin of Kaolin chert (Borgic 2017). The Vienna limestone formation is believed to be associated with Kaolin chert (Spielbauer 1984). The Kaolin chert type possesses outcrops that occur in one tributary in Union County, Illinois. Some Kaolin chert has been mistakenly called Novaculite and Chalcedony because of its considerable high quality (Hofman and Morrow 1989; Borgic 2017). Much of the matrix is translucent, that is, light will pass through it. This variable translucency is a quite distinctive property for Illinois cherts. The color of this material varies from whites to light to solid pinks, tans, creams, beiges, buffs, yellows, purple, brown, orange, and black.

Knife River Flint

Knife River Flint is located in northwestern North Dakota in present day Dunn and

Mercer counties (Clayton, Bickley and Stone 1970). Knife River Flint is an exceptionally high- quality and durable tool stone, highly utilized by Paleo-Indians. This material has a wide distribution range archaeologically throughout the Mid-Western states and even farther removed from its source in North Dakota (Evilsizer 2016: 7-11). This material is a finely textured, uniform, and nonporous. It occurs in secondary deposits in the form of subangular, tabular, and blocky pieces that can range in size from gravel to small boulders. Knife River Flint is distinctive in appearance, often described using the term translucent. The general color scheme of brown to dark brown, often being compared to that of a beer bottle glass.

Novaculite

The Novaculite formation is in parts of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. For Poverty

Point, the probable source location of novaculite is from the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Arkansas novaculite materials vary in color and texture. The most common description of these colors would be a blue-ish opaque gray. Pink color will be present in this material type if heat treated (Jeter and Jackson 1994).

Ste Genevieve

The Ste. Genevieve limestone takes its name from the town of Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, on the Mississippi River, about 45 miles south of St. Louis, where it is exposed and was first described. There are outcrops in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Kentucky. The formation extends to a narrow outcrop from the Ohio to Tennessee Rivers. It is a thick bedded limestone that overlaps with the other St. Louis Limestones. It consists mainly of sandy white fossiliferous

limestone interbedded with fine-textured oolitic limestone and calcarenite. Beds in the Ste.

Genevieve cannot be differentiated in areas in which they overlie finely oolitic limestone beds of the St. Louis Limestone (Kansas Geological Survey 2005[1968]). The color of this material is generally light gray to nearly white. Chert is common within this formation and is generally a gray color. In some instances there is a change from grey to black, to mainly dark greenish gray, red, purple, or green. These varieties of colors occur within the upper part of the formation.

Tallahatta Quartzite

Tallahatta Quartzite is a formation over the southwestern portion of Alabama, continuing northwest into Mississippi, and then finally plunging under the earth’s surface. The most popular quarry site is known to be between the Meridian, Mississippi and Alabama state line (Jeter and

Futato 1994). Tallahatta Quartzite is somewhat distinctive to the trained eye. The material can be described as having a translucent, glistening lead-gray matrix, which contains small opaque irregular inclusions (Jeter and Futato 1990).

Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert

The Tuscaloosa Formation is named for exposures along the Black Warrior River near the east-central portion of Mississippi and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. It is sometimes identified colloquially, as Red or Yellow Jasper. This material likely washed down river and creek systems in the form of pebbles and cobbles, spreading the material across much of the western portion of the state of Alabama (Barry 2004). Although Tuscaloosa Gravel is often labeled a local resource, it does occur outside of the Black Warrior Valley, washing down the Black Warrior River from the north. Other deposits include Cretaceous gravels found in Hardin County, Tennessee and down into northern Alabama. They are believed to be redeposited Fort Payne chert infused with

iron oxides and have a red center, yellow and outer dark grey to black. Other colors of

Tuscaloosa Gravels are typically white, brownish yellow, tan, yellow tan and red (Skrivan and

King 1983).

Upland Complex Gravels (Citronelle)

The Citronelle formation is found in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and into the panhandle of Florida. Although the high volume of this material comes from the geopolitical boundaries mentioned above, it should be noted that this material may be derived from other Mid-South sources in the states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

The formation commonly contains both chert and quartz pebbles. According to Jeter and Jackson

(1994), “The Ouachita River heads in the Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas and drops rather abruptly as it passes through the south-west-central part of the state” (Jeter and Jackson

1994: 140). The gravels found in relatively nearby sources like the Ouachita Hills, are macroscopically like materials from distant source locations. Lastly, the color of this material typically has varying shades of buff, brown, or red (Conn 1976), although other colors are known

(Bass 1981).

Upper St. Louis

The St. Louis Limestone is a large geologic formation covering a wide area of the

Midwest of the United States. It is named after an exposure at St. Louis, Missouri. It consists of sedimentary limestone with scattered chert beds, including the heavily chert-ified Lost River

Chert Bed in the Horse Cave Member. It is exposed at the surface through western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee, including at the city of Clarksville, Tennessee. The St.

Louis formation (Upper St. Louis) is typically exposed in Illinois in the Mississippi River bluffs

at Alton, Madison County (Collinson et al. 1954). It is also well exposed in the Mississippi and

Illinois Valleys in western and southern Illinois, and along the Ohio River in Hardin County. The color of this material is generally light gray to nearly white to dark gray.

Warsaw

The Warsaw is unconformable on Keokuk-Burlington beds in central and eastern Kansas, seemingly conformable in western Kansas, to Missouri to western and southwestern Illinois (Lee

1956; Goebel 1966). The Warsaw formation is also found throughout the Highland Rim of

Tennessee above the Fort Payne and below the St. Louis.

The Warsaw consists of gray shale containing beds of argillaceous limestone. Quartz geodes are common and locally abundant; some are replacements of fossils. Composed mainly of semi- granular limestone interlaminated with saccharoidal dolomite, the Warsaw includes relatively large amounts of distinctive colors for the material type. The color is described as gray.

Statistical Analysis

I used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), created by IBM, for all statistical tests. Following Parish (2016), I used the discriminant function analysis (DFA) to evaluate the variable wavelengths for each sample, removing undiagnostic reflectance values recorded per wavelength, identified during the stepwise analysis, from the model.

The X-axis wavelength positions were coded as individual integer variables and positioned as column headings. Chert sample names were positioned as the row headings.

Individual cells contained the first derivative transformed reflectance values at corresponding wavelength position. A grouping variable was created in the first column in order to designate

sample classes. The grouping values were labeled 1 through 27, representing groups of samples from each of the 15 sample locations (Parish 2013:179).

A canonical discriminant function analysis is used to determine which continuous variables discriminate between two or more naturally occurring groups. The determination of which portions of the dataset to analyze was controlled by a priori explorative data analysis and software limitations (Parish 2013). Assigning classification to unknown samples is done so that each unknown is assigned to a class within the current chert database (Parish 2013).

Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) is a multivariate analysis of variance (Poulsen and French 2008). In DFA the groups are predefined so that differences can be maximized in the model. In DFA, the independent variables are the predictors, and the dependent variables are the groups (Poulsen and French 2008). DFA can answer questions concerning the combination of variables used to predict group membership. Originally, the artifacts are not assigned a group, so the DFA assigns them to one of the predefined groups. If there is not enough spectral variance between the chert groups then the results will be inaccurate, and the DFA will wrongly assign geologic samples to other formations (chert type groups). I used a stepwise function that goes one reflectance value at a time (out of thousands) to assess the ‘discriminatory power’ of the value in the model. If it does not do a good job in separating out the sample into a distinctive chert group then the particular value is removed from the model. What is left after this process is only the best or most diagnostic variables to separate out the chert groups given it. The

Mahalanobis statistical measure assigns all unknown values to a source, even if that source is not currently in the reference sample database. In other words, it will force an observation into a class. Future uses of this data will generate 95% confidence ellipses around each chert type

group in the canonical DFA. Until then, the results of this study are preliminary, and should be treated with caution.

To determine if there were differences in the size of the projectile points, I performed a non-parametric Wilcoxon (1945) rank-sum test. This test is useful for testing whether multiple samples come from the same population against an alternative hypothesis, particularly whether a categorical value has a different median value when compared to others.

RESULTS

To test my hypotheses regarding the transport of materials to Poverty Point, it was necessary to establish whether VNIR and FTIR spectrometry confirms the visual identification of most cherts as being from the Mid-South region by past researchers. Accordingly, I analyzed 847 bifaces from the Alexander Surface Collection using the VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy method with Dr. Parish. After Dr. Parish compared the points to his geological background database, he found that the majority of the points analyzed were sourced to what would be considered the

Mid-South geographical region (Figure 4.1, 4.2). The most abundant materials present in the collection were Fort Payne (n=62) from northern Alabama, central Tennessee, Southern Illinois and Kentucky; Dover (Lower St. Louis) (n= 155) from north-central Tennessee; Ste Genevieve

(n=86) from the Tennessee River area in northern Alabama; Upper St. Louis (n=243) from central Kentucky, central Tennessee and southern Illinois. Local materials (Upland Complex

Gravels/Citronelle/LA Highland Terrace) from as close as 30 miles to the Poverty Point site, made up the second highest total of raw materials used, with 157 points sourced to this material type using Parish’s method.

The geological sources with the fewest points sourced were Bangor (n=11) from northern

Alabama; Bigby Cannon (n=20) from central Tennessee, as well as the Highland Rim; Brassfield

(n=3) from the Tennessee River area; Burlington (n=8) from Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and other deposits throughout Mid-West; Kaolin (n=15) from a small outcrop in southern Illinois; Knife

River Flint (n=1) from northwestern North Dakota; Novaculite (n=3) from western to central portion of Arkansas; Tallahatta Quartzite (n=17) from north-central Mississippi; and Tuscaloosa

Gravel Chert (n=36) from north-central Alabama.

Thus, while specific identifications based on visual characteristics were not tested, the results of the VNIR/FTIR analysis agree with previous generalizations regarding the geographical region most frequently represented.

Figure 4.1 Comparisons by raw material type. The error bars show 95% confidence intervals (Beals et al. 1945).

Figure 4.2 Discriminant Function (DFA) values. Plotted as artifacts relative to Dr.Parish’s background samples.

If the size of the points by raw material are not statistically different, that would mean that both local and extra-local materials are entering the archaeological record about the same size. If non-local materials are bigger in size, than this action of conspicuous consumption could be associated with trade. Moreover, if the non-local and local materials are all the same size, people are not treating the points by type differently, and it is likely points were discarded after use irrespective of the raw materials used to produce them. To test the frequencies of raw materials by weight, I used a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Wilcoxon 1945) to evaluate the relationship, where I retained the null hypothesis that the medians of each sample are equal (X2 = 21.76; df =14; p =.0836) (Figure 4.3). 42

Figure 4.3 Boxplot of mass (g) by raw material type.

Next, I performed a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test to evaluate the relationship between local materials and mid-south materials. Local materials in this case were the Upland

Complex Gravels (Citronelle/LA Highland Terrace), and Mid-South materials were Bangor,

Bigby Cannon, Brassfield, Dover (Lower St. Louis), Fort Payne, Kaolin, Ste Genevieve,

Tallahatta Quartzite, Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert, Upper St. Louis, and Warsaw (Figure 4.4). After performing this test, the null hypothesis that the medians of each sample are equal was rejected

(X2 = 4.4564; df =1; p =0.0348).

DISCUSSION

The first hypothesis is that the cherts used to make points in the Poverty Point surface collection are from sources in the Mid-South region, an assertion of previous studies that relied on visual identification (e.g. Gibson 1973, 1994b, 1999; Conn 1976; Bass 1981; Connolly 2002;

Carr and Stewart 2004; Spivey 2011). Moreover, through geoscientific means, I can unpack a bigger question consistently asked of the site: Where exactly are the raw materials coming from?

After performing the analysis of these materials via the use of VNIR-FTIR spectroscopy, we can conclude that a large portion of the lithic materials used to make the study sample of projectile points/knives came from the Southeast, Mid-South, and Mid-Western geographical regions. The most predominant sources are those labeled as Upland Complex Gravels (also known as

Citronelle or Louisiana Highland Terrace gravels) (n=157); Dover (Lower St. Louis) (n=155); and Upper St. Louis (n=243) (Table 4.1). It was also unexpected to find a source in the upper

Mid-West (North Dakota), which is commonly referred to as Knife River flint (n=1). After Dr.

Parish compared all of the points to his geological background database, he found that the vast majority of the points were sourced to what would be considered the Mid-South geographical region. Consequently, I find support for the first hypothesis, and conclude that the previous attempts to macroscopically identify the bulk of points are from sources from the Mid-South geographical area are, for the most part, correct. However, I found one source of chert well beyond those suggested in previous analyses, namely Knife River flint from North Dakota. The

most well-known source of Knife River chert overlaps the modern day counties of Dunn and

Mercer county, North Dakota, over 2393.095 kilometers (1,487 miles) from Poverty Point. The small sample size and the treatment of outliers in the present statistical models (DFA) suggests that this point sourced to the Knife River flint quarries might also be another material type.

The second hypothesis states that if the local population model were true, one would expect that the local raw material sources would dominate the assemblages because local populations would already be familiar with local sources. From the analysis conducted, I found that substantially more material came from the Mid-South geographical region than Local

(Upland Complex Gravels/Citronelle/LA Highland Terrace) materials. However, it is also possible that there might be material preference for specific PP/Ks, as I only observed mostly

Delhi and Motley point types. Again, there could be differences in the use of raw material types for the seven or more diagnostic Poverty Point PP/K types.

For the third hypothesis I examined the relationship between the weights and frequencies of raw materials present in points from the Alexander surface collection. When calculating the weight in grams of the raw materials, I find that the average weight is similar across raw material types. However, while the points in this analysis were complete to fully complete projectile points and/or knives (PP/Ks), the proportionality of weight by raw material type shows that the points discarded at Poverty Point were consistent in their size. To better test this assumption, I used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (1945), which provided further support for size similarity (at time of discard) for PP/Ks present in the Alexander Collection. The relative size similarity is an important factor in respect to the distance certain materials traveled to Poverty Point, because some materials traveled/brought to the site coming from farther than 300 kilometers, while local sources were acquired about 40 kilometers away.

Overall, I found that the point types, regardless of raw material, were being discarded at relatively the same size. Nonetheless, when testing for local vs. Mid-South materials, there were slight differences in size between materials at time of discard. From the statistical tests performed, the Mid-South materials were slightly larger than local materials at time of discard.

Of course, the Mid-South materials which came from farther away, could be due to trade, conspicuous consumption, but also, they (Mid-South materials) could be larger because the starting package size for raw material in the Mid-South is larger. In other words, the Upland

Complex gravels are smaller due to transport and abrasion “rounding” down rivers, tributaries, and streams, whereas cherts sources in the Mid-South are derived from cobbles and tabular sources that are much larger.

Because lithic debitage was not included in this study, there can be little-to-no conclusion regarding site origin/function from the analysis. If I compared all the tools and debitage for material A against material B, then it might be possible to test hypotheses about how much reduction is happening on site as opposed to off-site manufacturing and bringing in finished tools. Spivey (2011) argues that the substantial amount of lithic materials, including flakes, other forms of debitage, and broken bifaces indicates that lithic reduction was happening on site (Carr and Stewart 2004; Spivey 2011). This observation could help build the case for the local population model based on the proportion of flakes to the number of completed bifaces.

However, the surface collections from Poverty Point are likely biased toward the interesting and big stuff – previous researchers have picked up some flakes, cores and chunks, but clearly not everything available on the surface. For excavations, when excavations or shovel tests used screens, the material recovered are dominated by Poverty Point object (PPO) fragments and debitage (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Comparison of lithics by tool category and source (Spivey 2011: 54).

CONCLUSIONS

One of the goals of the project was to conduct the first analytical sourcing program to identify the lithic raw materials used at Poverty Point through the application of techniques in the archaeological sciences (Archaeometry). Through the testing of multiple hypotheses, I found support for hypotheses that suggested that the geographic source of lithic material used at

Poverty Point is far-reaching. First, the VNIR and FTIR methods confirms that some, but not all, of the raw material are coming from the Mid-South geographical region. Additionally, previous researchers (e.g. Conn 1976; Bass 1981; Gibson 1990a,1999,2007; Connolly 2002; Carr and

Stewart 2004; Spivey 2011) arguments about the probable source locations of the material coming to Poverty Point were accurate despite their reliance on visual identification. A new material type was tentatively added to the Poverty Point lithic repertoire, namely Knife River

Flint.

With the testing of the second hypothesis, I demonstrated that 80.04723% of the raw materials were consistent with the Mid-South reference samples, whereas as only 18.53601% were from the local, Upland Complex gravels. The overwhelming majority of the sample came from the Upper St. Louis formation (n=243). The high percentage of non-local raw materials would seem to support a non-local model for site origin/function.

In the last hypothesis, I tested if point weights by raw material type were equivalent.

Overall, I found that the sizes are not statistically different across all of the raw material types.

However, after creating new categories to encompass only the Mid-South materials present from the study sample against local materials, I found the samples to be statistically different.

Meaning, that in terms of size (at time of discard), PP/Ks made of local materials were smaller than those that came from Mid-South sources. The materials coming from the Mid-South are likely arriving at the Poverty Point site as larger pieces of stone because they are not constrained by the package size, like gravels (local material).

The Poverty Point site is like many archaeological sites for its time period because it has copious amounts of lithic materials, including flakes, broken bifaces and other forms of debitage, which indicates that lithic reduction was happening on site. There is, however, unprecedented diversity among raw material sources, where materials appear to be coming from disparate parts of eastern North America and were eventually discarded at Poverty Point. So, the stone may be exotic, but the materials brought to the site likely came raw or as pre-forms, and there is local precedent for several styles. Of course, more analyses of the lithic materials are required to truly contribute to debates about the development and purpose of the Poverty Point site.

Future Directions

The study is the first attempt to move beyond the reliance on visual identification of chert sources used to make artifacts discarded at the Poverty Point site (16WC5). Despite the uniqueness of the Poverty Point site, there has been a serious lack of integration of chipped stone tool and flake debris data within a broader theoretical and analytical framework. For example, it is commonplace to find in CRM reports that classification of flakes simply by the cortex amounts, usually without regard for the location of the cortex (on the dorsal surface or platform) and whether it is indicative of a primary deposit or river gravel source (Carr and Bradbury 2000).

At Poverty Point and related sites, systematically recording cortex and other indicators of lithic 50

reduction can go a long way towards demonstrating whether local Upland Complex Gravels (the most abundant raw material used for Delhi points at Poverty Point) were being reduced at

Poverty Point, or if finished bifaces were merely being retouched. Given these factors, flakes provide the best evidence of stone-tool production and maintenance at a given location (Carr and

Bradbury 2000: 121-122). Moreover, a further examination of the seven-or-more diagnostic point types at Poverty Point using a problem oriented classification (Dunnell 1970, 1978) and/or use of geometric morphometrics (Thulman 2012) to qualitatively assess the point types would help to make sure further analyses relying on interpretations based on the PP/Ks are replicable and meaningful.

In an attempt to re-classify the existing types, in a paradigmatic classification, I could choose relevant dimensions of analysis (which would need to be problem-oriented) and construct stylistic classes such that any individual object could only be identified with one class. I could then use classes to conduct an object-oriented seriation of the resultant class members, which would allow me to order the specimens through time regardless of whether someone would call them a “Motley,” or “Delhi.”

Expanding VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy beyond bifaces to other finished tools and flake debris is another avenue for future research. For example, integrating the current dataset used for this thesis with a larger total number of PP/Ks as well as debitage present at Poverty Point and the many known Poverty Point-associated sites could help yield more insights into the ways in which stone tools and lithic debris ended up at Poverty Point.

Moving forward, it is critical that those interested in raw material diversity at Poverty

Point trade in the use of macroscopic identification for appropriate (archaeometric) techniques in identifying extant lithic assemblages. The burgeoning of new technologies allows for innovative

ways to access valuable information, as well as to completely preserve archaeological material.

VNIR and FTIR spectroscopy provided a non-destructive way to analyze PP/Ks present at the

Poverty Point site. The data produced from the experiment indicates that the majority of materials brought to the site came from the Mid-South area of the United States. A new source was identified from the Midwestern portion of the country – Knife River Flint (North Dakota).

The range of materials identified from this project reaffirms the idea that materials from expansive swaths of territory arrived at the Poverty Point site.

REFERENCES

Anderson, David G. and Kenneth G. Sassaman 2012 Archaic Diversity. In Recent Developments in Southeastern Archaeology: From Colonization to Complexity, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 66-111. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C.

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1994 Raw-material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity, 59: 21-34.

Barry, John M. 1997 Rising Tide: The Great Mississippian Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.

Barry, Steven E. 2004 Lithic Raw Materials and Chipped Stone Tools: A Comparison of Two Sites in the Moundville Chiefdom. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.

Bass, Sandra A. 1981 A Closer Examination of Local Lithic Sources for Tool Manufacture at the Poverty Point Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Beals, Ralph L., George. W. Brainerd, and Watson Smith 1945 Appendix III: Statistical Methods Used in the Determination of the Pottery Chronology. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 44: 164– 171.

Binford, Lewis R. 1979 Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(3): 255- 273.

Borgic, B. 2017 Stone Tool Raw Material Distribution Network and Predictability Study in Southern Illinois. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geographic Information Science and Technology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Bruseth, James E. 1991 Poverty Point Development as Seen from the Cedarland and Claiborne Sites, Southern Mississippi. In The Poverty Point Culture: Local Manifestations, Subsistence Practices, and Trade Networks, edited by Byrd, Kathleen M. Byrd, pp. 7-26. Geoscience and Man, Vol. 29, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Carr, Philip J. and Andrew P. Bradbury 2000 Contemporary Lithic Analysis and Southeastern Archaeology, Southeastern Archaeology, 19(3): 1-272.

Carr, Philip J. and Lee H. Stewart 2004 Poverty Point Chipped Stone Tool Raw Materials: Inferring Social and Economic Strategies. In Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast, edited by Jon Gibson, David Anderson, and Richard Jefferies. pp. 129-145. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Clayton, Lee, W. B. Bickley, Jr., and W. J. Stone 1970 Knife River Flint. Plains Anthropologist, 15(50): 282-290.

Collinson, Charles W., David H. Swann, and Harold B. Willman 1954 Guide to the Structure and Paleozoic Stratigraphy along the Lincoln Fold in Western Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Guidebook Series, vol. 3, St. Louis, Missouri

Conn, Thomas L. 1976 The Utilization of Chert at the Poverty Point Site. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Geography and Anthropology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.

Connolly, Robert P. 1999 1999 Annual Report: Station Archaeology Program at the Poverty Point State Commemorative Area. Unpublished report submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Baton Rouge. Department of Geosciences, Northeast Louisiana University, Monroe.

2001 Final Report on the 1980 - 1982 Excavations, Northwest Ridge One, the Poverty Point Site (16WC5), Volume 1. Unpublished report submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Baton Rouge. Department of Geosciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe.

2002 The 1980-1982 Excavations on the Northwest Ridge 1 at the Poverty Point Site. Louisiana Archaeology. Vol. 25., whole volume. Baton Rouge.

2008 Scratching the Surface: The Role of Surface Collections in Solving the “Mystery” of Poverty Point. Louisiana Archaeology. 35: 79-115.

Dunnell, Robert C. 1970 Systematics in Prehistory. Free Press, NY

1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity, 43(2):192-202

Evilsizer, Laura J. 2016 Knife River Flint Distribution and Identification in Montana. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Montana, Missoula

Feathers, James K. and Sehar Sheikh 2012 Luminescence Dating for Mound D at Poverty Point, Louisiana. Unpublished report on file, Poverty Point Station Archaeology Program, Epps, Louisiana.

Foerste, Aug. F. 1906. The Silurian, Devonian, and Irvine Formations of East-Central Kentucky, with an Account of Their Clays and Limestones. Geological Survey of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Ford, James A. and Clarence Webb 1956 Poverty Point: A Late Archaic Site in Louisiana. Anthropological Papers Vol. 46, Part 1. New York, New York: American Museum of Natural History.

Gibson, Jon L. 1973 Social Systems at Poverty Point: An Analysis of Intersite and Intrasite Variability. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

1984 The Earthen Face of Civilization: Mapping and Testing at Poverty Point, 1983. Unpublished report submitted to the Louisiana Division of Archaeology. University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1987a The Ground Truth About Poverty Point: The Second Season, 1985. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 7, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1987b Poverty Point Reconsidered. Mississippi Archaeology 22(2): 14-31.

1989 Digging on the Dock of the Bay(ou): The 1988 Excavations at Poverty Point. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 8, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1990a Over the Mountain and Across the Sea: Regional Poverty Point Exchange. In Exchange in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Contiguous Areas in 1100 B.C., edited by J.L. Gibson, pp. 251-299. Lafayette, Louisiana.

1990b Search for the Lost Sixth Ridge: The 1989 Excavations at Poverty Point. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 9, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1993 In Helona’s Shadow: Excavations in the Western Rings at Poverty Point, 1991. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 11, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1994a Cool Dark Woods, Poison Ivy, and Maringoins: The 1993 Excavations at Poverty Point, Louisiana. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 12, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1994b Empirical Characterization of Exchange Systems in the Lower Mississippi Valley Prehistory. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America, edited by Timothy G. Baugh and Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 127-175. Plenum Press, New York.

1997 By the Shining Bayou Waters: The 1995 Excavations at Poverty Point, Louisiana. Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 13, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

1999 Swamp Exchange and the Walled Mart: Poverty Point’s Rock Business. In Raw Materials and Exchange in the Mid-South: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Mid-South Archaeological Conference, Jackson, Mississippi, June 3-4, 1995, edited by Evan Peacock and Samuel O. Brookes, pp. 57-63. Archaeological Report No. 29, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

2000 The Ancient Mounds of Poverty Point: Place of Rings. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

2007 Formed from the Earth at That Place: The Material Side of Community at Poverty Point. American Antiquity, 72(3):509-523.

2010 “Nothing but the River’s Flood”: Late Archaic Diaspora or Disengagement in the Lower Mississippi Valley and Southeastern North America. In Trend, Tradition, and Turmoil: What Happened to the Southeastern Archaic? Edited by David Hurst Thomas and Matthew C. Sanger, pp. 33-41. American Museum of Natural History. New York, NY.

Goebel, Edwin D. 1966 Stratigraphy of Mississippian Rocks in Western Kansas: Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geology, University of. Kansas, Lawrence.

Greengo, Robert E. 1964 Issaquena: An Archaeological Phase in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Salt Lake City: Society for American Archaeology.

Greenlee, Diana M. 2009 2009 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point State Historic Site. Unpublished report submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Department of Geosciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

2011 2011 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point State Historic Site. Unpublished report submitted to the United States National Park Service. Department of Atmospheric Science, Earth Science and Physics, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

2012 2012 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point State Historic Site. Unpublished report submitted to the Division of Archaeology, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Department of Geosciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

2013 2013 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point State Historic Site. Unpublished report submitted to the United States National Park Service. School of Sciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

2015 2015 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point World Heritage Site. Unpublished report submitted to the United States National Park Service. School of Sciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

2018 2018 Annual Report of the Station Archaeology Program at Poverty Point World Heritage Site. Unpublished report submitted to the United States National Park Service. School of Sciences, University of Louisiana at Monroe, Monroe, Louisiana.

Greenlee, Diana M., Richard E. Hughes, and Thomas M. Origer 2014 Poverty Point’s Obsidian. Louisiana Archaeology 37. pp. 89-107.

Griffing, David L. 2018 Prehistoric Artifacts of Northeastern Louisiana: An Identification Guide for Chipped Stone, Ground Stone, Earthware and Clay Artifacts. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Gurven Michael and Kim Hill, 2009 Why Do Men Hunt? A Reevaluation of “Man the Hunter” and the Sexual Division of Labor, Current Anthropology, 50(1): 51-74.

Haag, William G. 1990 Excavations at the Poverty Point Site: 1972-1975. In Recent Research at the Poverty Point Site, edited by Kathleen M. Byrd, pp. 1-36. Louisiana Archaeology, No. 13. Louisiana Archaeological Society, Lafayette.

Hargrave, Michael L., R. Berle Clay, Diana M. Greenlee, and Rinita Dalan 2018 New Evidence for Poverty Point’s Complex Development History. Poster presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Hayes, Charles W. and Edward O. Ulrich 1903 Tennessee: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Atlas of the United States Folio, GF-95, 6 p., scale 1:125,000, United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

Hays, Christopher T., and Richard A. Weinstein 2004 Early Pottery at Poverty Point: Origins and Functions. In Early Pottery: Technology, Function, Style, and Interaction in the Lower Southeast, edited by Rebecca Saunders and Christopher T. Hays, pp. 150-168. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Hofman, Jack L. and Carol A. Morrow 1989 Chipped Stone Technologies at Twenhafel: A multicomponent site in Southern Illinois. In Lithic Resource Procurement: Proceedings from the Second Conference on Prehistoric Chert Exploitation, edited by Susan C. Vehik, pp. 165-182. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Jackson, Edwin H. 1991 The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Intersocietal Trade in the Evolution of Poverty Point Culture. In Between Bands and States, edited by Susan A. Gregg, pp. 265-286. Occasional Papers 9. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Jeter, Marvin D. and Eugene M. Futato 1994 Notes on some Alabama Lithic Materials and the Poverty Point Exchange System(s). Louisiana Archaeology 17: 57-92.

Jeter, Marvin D. and Edwin H. Jackson 1994 Poverty Point Extraction and Exchange: The Arkansas Lithic Connections. Louisiana Archaeology 17: 133-206.

Kansas Geological Survey 2005 Stratigraphic Sequence in Kansas (1968). February 17th, 2019. http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/189/06_miss.html.

Kidder, Tristram R. 2002 Mapping Poverty Point. American Antiquity 67: 89-101.

2006 Climate Change and the Archaic to Woodland Transition (3000-2500 Cal B.P.) in the Mississippi River Basin, American Antiquity 71(2): 195 – 231.

2011 Transforming Hunter-Gatherer History at Poverty Point. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process, edited by K. E. Sassaman and D. H. Holley, Jr., pp. 95-119. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

2012 Poverty Point. In Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited by T. Pauketat, Oxford University Press, New York.

Kidder, T.R. and Kenneth E. Sassaman 2009 The View from the Southeast. Archaic Societies: Diversity and Complexity Across the Midcontinent, edited by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath and Andrew C. Fortier, pp. 667- 694. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Kidder, Tristram R., Lee J. Arco, Anthony L. Ortmann, Timothy Schilling, Caroline Boeke, Rachel Bielitz, Katie A. Adelsberger 2009 Poverty Point Mound A: Final Report of the 2005 and 2006 Field Seasons. Ms., On File, Louisiana Archaeological Survey and Antiquities Commission.

Lee, Wallace 1956 Stratigraphy and Structural Development of the Salina Basin Area: Kansas Geologic Survey Bulletin 121: 167.

Lockett, Samuel H. 1873 Mounds in Louisiana. Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1872, pp. 429-430. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Louisiana Division of Archaeology 2015 Mound F. Poverty Point: Mound F. April 9th, 2018. https://www.crt.state.la.us/dataprojects/archaeology/povertypoint/mound-f.html.

McFarland, John D. 2004 Stratigraphic Summary of Arkansas. Arkansas Geological Commission Information Circular 36: 7–8.

McGahey, Samuel M. 2000 Mississippi Projectile Points. Archaeological Report No. 31, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

Meltzer, David J. 1989 Why Don’t We Know When the First People Came to North America? American Antiquity, 54: 471-490.

Mooney, Charles P. 1920 The Mid-South and its Builders: Being the Story of the Development and a Forecast of the Future of the Richest Agricultural Region in the World. Thomas W. Briggs Company, Memphis.

Moore, Clarence B. 1913 Some Aboriginal Sites in Louisiana and Arkansas. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 16: 7-99.

Moore, Raymond C. 1928 Early Mississippian Formations in Missouri. Missouri Bureau of Geology and Mines, Rolla, Missouri.

Odell, George H. 1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor.

Ortmann, Anthony L. 2007 The Poverty Point Mounds: Analysis of the Chronology, Construction, History, and Function of North Americas Largest Hunter-Gatherer Monuments. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.

2010 Placing the Poverty Point Mounds in Their Temporal Context. American Antiquity, 75(3): 657-678

Ortmann, Anthony L. and Caroline Schmidt 2016 Investigating the Function of an Archaic-Period Earthwork Using Microartifacts. Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. I, pp. 25 – 37.

Parish, Ryan M. 2011 The Application of Visible/Near-Infrared Reflectance (VNIR) Spectroscopy to Chert Sourcing: A Case Study from the Dover Quarry Sites, Tennessee. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 26:420-439.

2013 The Application of Reflectance Spectroscopy to Chert Provenance of Mississippian Symbolic Weaponry. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Memphis.

2016 Reflectance Spectroscopy as a Chert Sourcing Method. Archaeologia Polona 54: 15- 128.

Parish, Ryan M. and Ellis Durham 2015 The Problems with Visual Identification of Dover and Fort Payne Chert. Southeastern Archaeology, Vol. 34., pp. 71-83.

Parish, Ryan M. and Adam Finn 2016 Quantifying Regional Variation in Terminal Pleistocene Assemblages from the Lower Tennessee River Valley Using Chert Sourcing. Tennessee Archaeology 8 (1,2): 42-58.

Poulsen, John and Aaron French 2008 Discriminant Function Analysis, San Francisco State University: San Francisco, CA. http://userwww. sfsu. edu/~ efc/classes/biol710/discrim/discrim. pdf.

Price, Sarah E., Philip J. Carr, and Andrew P. Bradbury 2010 Lithic Raw Material Identification in the Southeast, Poster presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference (SEAC), Lexington, Kentucky.

Saunders, Joe, Thurman Allen, Dennis LaBatt, Reca Jones and David Griffing 2001 An Assessment of the Antiquity of the Lower Jackson Mound. Southeastern Archaeology 20: 67-77.

Skrivan, Robert J. and Van D. King, Jr. 1983 Lithic Raw Materials. In The Archaeology of the Emmett O’Neal Site (22Ts954) in the Bay Springs Lake Segment of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Tishomingo County, Mississippi, edited by Lawrence S. Alexander, pp. 94-107. Report of Investigations 37 Office of Archaeological Research, University. University of Alabama, Moundville.

Speer, Charles A. 2014 Experimental sourcing of Edwards Plateau chert using LA-ICP-MS. Quaternary International 342:199-213.

Spielbauer, Ronald 1984 Potentialities for Trace Element Analyses in Southern Illinois Cherts. In Prehistoric Chert Exploitations: Studies from the Midcontinent, edited by Brain Butler and Ernest May, pp.271-285. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 2. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Spivey, Margaret S. 2011 Modeling Poverty Point through Extant Lithic Assemblages. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Washington University; St. Louis.

Steponaitis, Vincas P. 1986 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Southeastern United States, 1970-1985. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 363-404.

Thompson, Thomas L. 2001 Lexicon of Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Report of Investigation. No. 73.

Thulman, David K. 2012 Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1599-1607.

United States Department of the Interior (USDI) 2013 Monumental Earthworks of Poverty Point. Nomination to the World Heritage List by the United States of America, Submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

Walthall, John A., Clarence H. Webb, Stephen H. Stow, and Sharon I. Goad 1982 Galena Analysis and Poverty Point Trade. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7: 133-48.

Webb, Clarence H. 1982 The Poverty Point Culture, 2nd edition, revised. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Wilcoxon, Frank 1945 Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin. 1 (6): pp. 80–83.

Williams, Stephen and Jeffrey P. Brain 1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site: Yazoo County, Mississippi 1958-1960. Peabody Museum Papers Vol. 74, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Winters, R.K., J.A. Putnam and I.F. Eldredge 1938 Forest Resources of the North- Louisiana Delta. Miscellaneous Publications No. 309, Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C

Worthen, Edmund L. and Herbert L. Belden 1911 Soil Survey of East Carroll and West Carroll Parishes, Louisiana. Field Operations of the Bureau of Soils, 1908, Tenth Report. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture.

MASTER EXCEL SPREADSHEET WITH POINTS ANALYZED FOR THIS STUDY

Table A.1 Master excel spreadsheet with points analyzed for this study

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 61 M 19 862 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 62 M 12.9 854 Fort Payne 68/pp 63 M 17.5 855 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 64 M 13.6 856 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 65 M 11.8 853 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 66 M 14.2 833 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 68 M 4.6 832 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 69 M 14.2 831 Fort Payne 68/pp 70 M 16.2 830 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 71 M 12.7 829 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 72 M 18 859 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 73 M 17.2 848 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 74 M 8.4 847 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 75 M 9.5 846 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 76 M 15.1 845 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 103 M 14.1 843 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 104 M 18.6 842 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 134 M 13.3 837 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 201 M 9.2 836 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 213 M 18.7 858 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 216 M 12.6 860 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 224 M 9.9 861 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 229 M 11.1 857 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 230 M 9.7 852 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 231 M 9 851 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 232 M 6.4 850 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 236 M 18.6 849 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 237 M 11.3 844 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 243 M 11.7 813 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 244 M 9.2 814 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 256 M 11.3 820 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 272 M 11.1 811 Fort Payne 68/pp 273 M 12.2 812 Fort Payne 68/pp 275 M 26.1 809 Upper St. Louis

Table A.1(Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 276 M 13 822 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 277 M 15.2 823 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 278 M 14.4 824 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 279 M 18.9 840 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 284 M 12.4 839 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 285 M 14.8 838 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 286 M 12 815 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 287 M 13.7 816 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 289 M 9.8 807 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 290 M 13.7 803 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 306 M 13.4 802 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 307 M 12 808 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 311 M 8.3 817 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 324 M 8.6 821 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 327 M 13.9 835 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 332 M 19.4 834 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 355 M 41.1 818 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 358 M 11.9 805 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 360 M 12.5 798 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 361 M 16.3 794 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 364 M 12.9 800 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 368 M 16.5 801 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 369 M 24.3 799 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 370 M 22 819 Fort Payne 68/pp 371 M 9.7 825 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 373 M 11 774 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 374 M 9.4 786 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 375 M 21 787 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 376 M 28.5 790 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 377 M 15 793 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 385 M 11.8 826 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 386 M 10.7 827 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 389 M 20.5 810 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 390 M 13.9 828 Kaolin 68/pp 395 M 11.7 770 Warsaw 68/pp 397 M 20.2 773 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 398 M 13.8 783 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 399 M 17.8 776 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 400 M 20.5 791 Fort Payne 68/pp 401 M 18.7 788 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 402 M 12.6 792 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 403 M 13.8 797 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 404 M 10.8 795 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 405 M 12.6 796 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 406 M 15.4 750 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 407 M 18.6 747 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 408 M 9.5 746 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 410 M 12.9 768 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 411 M 13.7 760 Fort Payne 68/pp 412 M 17 762 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 414 M 8.1 748 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 416 M 8.3 763 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 417 M 14.6 758 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 418 M 13.1 759 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 419 M 13.7 765 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 422 M 15.9 769 Fort Payne 68/pp 434 M 20 772 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 435 M 13.9 782 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 448 M 11.4 742 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 449 M 18.9 743 Fort Payne 68/pp 450 M 15 741 Fort Payne 68/pp 451 M 22.2 745 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 452 M 24.2 756 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 454 M 23.2 740 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 455 M 9.3 739 Kaolin 68/pp 456 M 14.7 736 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 457 M 15.4 767 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 458 M 17.5 785 Fort Payne 68/pp 464 M 12.5 766 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 498 L-1 7.6 764 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 499 L-1 11.7 789 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 500 L-1 11.5 841 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 501 L-1 22.8 744 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 508 L-1 14.6 738 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 509 L-1 8.5 733 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 533 L-1 9.9 732 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 534 L-1 12.2 731 Fort Payne 68/pp 536 L-1 9.7 723 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 537 L-1 13.5 722 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 566 L-1 19.9 725 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 568 L-1 16.6 728 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 580 L-1 19.5 727 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 583 L-1 11.2 726 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 588 L-1 15.6 729 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 589 L-1 11.5 730 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 590 L-1 8.8 755 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 591 L-1 20.2 754 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 612 L-1 30 751 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 624 L-1 6.3 752 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 625 L-1 12.3 753 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 646 L-1 20.3 761 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 648 L-1 18.1 780 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 650 L-1 10.8 720 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 685 L-1 20 719 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 686 L-1 20.2 715 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 687 L-1 27.2 714 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 688 L-1 17.5 717 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 689 L-1 13.1 716 Warsaw 68/pp 690 L-1 9.5 718 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 727 L-1 11.5 721 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 747 L-1 14.9 724 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 840 L-1 16.7 138 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 843 L-1 14.7 152 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 844 L-1 13.4 151 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 845 L-1 9.7 149 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 846 L-1 9.7 145 Kaolin 68/pp 847 L-1 12.7 144 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 874 L-1 17.4 147 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 876 L-1 16.8 150 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 878 L-1 30.6 146 Warsaw 68/pp 879 L-1 6.8 148 Bigby Cannon

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 881 L-1 10.9 160 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 882 L-1 27.8 153 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 893 L-1 20.8 159 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 924 L-1 12.4 162 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 956 L-1 5.1 161 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 967 L-1 13.6 163 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 974 L-1 17.2 165 Fort Payne 68/pp 976 L-1 17.5 164 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 987 L-1 32.9 154 Warsaw 68/pp 988 L-1 15.6 156 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 991 L-1 10.7 139 Fort Payne 68/pp 992 L-1 14.4 141 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 993 L-1 7.5 140 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 994 L-1 9.5 142 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 996 L-1 16.1 143 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1022 L-1 11.1 158 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1029 L-1 23.2 133 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1030 L-1 17.7 106 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1061 L-1 11.2 132 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1088 L-1 12.8 129 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 1090 L-1 11.1 131 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1152 L-1 11.4 119 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1253 M 13.7 130 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1254 M 12.9 114 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1255 M 10 126 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1268 M 16.1 125 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1269 M 11.5 123 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1270 M 15.6 108 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1302 M 17.3 112 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1306 M 12.4 110 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1348 M 25.3 113 Fort Payne 68/pp 1370 M 13.2 117 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1371 M 15 120 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1415 M 20.4 116 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1416 M 13.1 128 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1423 M 11.6 127 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1426 M 10.2 124 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 1446 M 20.5 155 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1452 M 16.9 137 Fort Payne 68/pp 1457 M 13 136 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1485 M 16.9 134 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1499 M 11.5 121 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1502 M 16.2 122 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1505 M 14.9 118 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 1508 M 16.1 135 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1509 M 10.6 115 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1521 M 22.9 107 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1528 M 20 109 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1547 M 18.8 105 Kaolin 68/pp 1551 M 14.5 104 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1552 M 9.3 86 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1556 M 15 88 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1559 M 17.7 89 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1924 M 11 102 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1926 M 10.2 96 Fort Payne 68/pp 2550 F-103379 16.8 99 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2551 F-103379 11.3 103 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2552 F-103379 16.5 111 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 2553 F-103379 8.4 85 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2554 F-103379 10.7 83 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2555 F-103379 7.7 82 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2556 F-103379 20.9 91 Fort Payne 68/pp 2557 F-103379 17.5 92 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2558 F-103379 9.6 100 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2560 F-103379 25.8 98 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2561 F-103379 22.4 97 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2562 F-103379 15.7 101 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 2563 F-103379 11.8 90 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2564 F-103379 14.2 17 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2570 F-103381 9.9 5 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 2604 F-103379 15.3 73 Fort Payne 68/pp 2605 F-103379 21.9 77 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2636 F-103379 16 78 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2637 F-103379 15.6 84 Upper St. Louis

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 2638 F-103379 23.2 4 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 2639 F-103379 19.2 16 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2640 F-103379 13 8 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 2641 F-103379 12.6 76 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2642 F-103379 8.7 71 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2646 F-103379 15.6 67 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2761 F-103379 8.2 64 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2762 F-103384 9.5 61 Bangor 68/pp 2763 F-103384 17.2 62 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 2764 F-103384 12.5 65 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 2765 F-103384 13.5 55 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 2766 F-103384 12.2 44 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 2767 F-103384 16.4 29 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2872 F-103379 25.2 1 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2874 F-103379 17.4 74 Fort Payne 68/pp 2875 F-103379 13.2 70 Burlington 68/pp 2876 F-103379 8.5 63 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2877 F-103379 16.8 54 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2878 F-103379 11 68 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2880 F-103379 10 81 Fort Payne 68/pp 2882 F-103379 13.7 80 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2884 F-103379 15.9 79 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2885 F-103379 15 75 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2890 F-103379 15.2 52 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 2891 F-103379 12.8 51 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2892 F-103379 13.9 53 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2893 F-103379 12.3 50 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2894 F-103379 6.8 48 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2898 F-103376 16.9 49 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 2908 F-103379 12.9 56 Burlington 68/pp 2909 F-103379 12.4 46 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 2911 F-103379 11.1 45 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 2952 F-103379 7.9 72 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 2953 F-103379 7.1 3 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2957 F-103379 23.5 14 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3044 F-103379 7.3 59 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3056 F-103387 9.3 47 Ste Genevieve

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 3057 F-103387 12.6 34 Warsaw 68/pp 3058 F-103387 17.6 36 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3059 F-103387 18.8 42 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3060 F-103387 11.9 58 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3061 F-103387 14 94 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3063 F-103387 8.5 93 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3064 F-103387 8.9 95 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3065 F-103387 6.4 69 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3066 F-103387 28.1 57 Fort Payne 68/pp 3067 F-103387 13.1 60 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3068 F-103387 10 87 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3072 F-103387 13.8 9 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 3076 F-103387 11.7 13 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3080 F-103387 11.4 2 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3101 F-103387 8.3 12 Warsaw 68/pp 3206 F-103387 20.5 32 Fort Payne 68/pp 3207 F-103387 9.1 31 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3214 F-103390 12 28 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3215 F-103390 12.8 35 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3216 F-103390 16.8 40 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3217 F-103393 23.1 38 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3218 F-103393 22.3 43 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3219 F-103394 29 41 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3245 F-103390 14.5 66 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3246 F-103390 11.2 6 Kaolin 68/pp 3247 F-103390 18.2 11 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3249 F-103390 11.1 37 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3250 F-103390 14.8 7 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3258 F-103390 15.3 33 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3260 F-103390 11.4 25 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3261 F-103390 11.9 27 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3262 F-103390 14.9 21 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 3295 F-103390 17.2 24 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3296 F-103390 14.7 30 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3306 F-103384 8.5 10 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3307 F-103384 10.7 18 Upland Complex Gravels

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 3308 F-103384 9.5 19 Fort Payne 68/pp 3309 F-103384 16.5 20 Burlington 68/pp 3310 F-103384 19.2 22 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3311 F-103384 13.1 26 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3315 F-103390 14.7 23 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3322 F-103393 22.1 15 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 1596 M 14.6 424 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1597 M 13.3 422 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1603 M 11.4 409 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1604 M 12.6 404 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1606 M 8.9 398 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 1610 M 10.1 400 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1613 M 10.1 401 Fort Payne 68/pp 1618 M 15.7 388 Kaolin 68/pp 1685 M 12.4 413 Fort Payne 68/pp 1687 M 9.9 402 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 1691 M 15.6 407 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 1692 M 13.4 406 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2019 M 18.3 411 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2021 M 16 399 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 2026 M 12.9 412 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2046 M 14.4 410 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2047 M 20 416 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2048 M 15.6 417 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 2071 M 8.5 415 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2114 M 11.6 423 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2147 M 9.8 387 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2298 F-103384 9.6 385 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2299 F-103384 14.3 391 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2300 F-103384 11.9 414 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2301 F-103384 14.8 408 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 2302 F-103384 8.2 397 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2303 F-103384 17.3 396 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 2304 F-103384 19.3 393 Burlington 68/pp 2342 F-103384 15.2 383 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 2343 F-103384 15.4 380 Ste Genevieve

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 2344 F-103384 19.8 472 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3396 F-103390 11.1 484 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3397 F-103390 13.7 455 Fort Payne 68/pp 3398 F-103390 14.4 491 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3399 F-103390 11.8 439 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3400 F-103390 10.8 490 Fort Payne 68/pp 3401 F-103390 9.7 394 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3402 F-103390 7.3 403 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3404 F-103390 14.8 405 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3405 F-103390 18.2 386 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3406 F-103391 9.6 373 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3407 F-103390 10 390 Fort Payne 68/pp 3408 F-103390 10.9 389 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3409 F-103390 17.1 372 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3410 F-103390 14.2 371 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3411 F-103390 10.4 470 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3412 F-103390 14.5 446 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3413 F-103390 9 445 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3416 F-103390 7.8 471 Fort Payne 68/pp 3542 F-103390 6.8 468 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3543 F-103390 7.6 457 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3546 F-103390 15.5 456 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3547 F-103390 11.7 375 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3554 F-103390 14.3 376 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3555 F-103390 15.4 374 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3556 F-103390 10.3 377 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3557 F-103390 11 378 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3558 F-103390 7.4 379 Fort Payne 68/pp 3559 F-103390 14.9 384 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3560 F-103390 17.4 381 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3561 F-103390 9.7 467 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3562 F-103390 8.1 466 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3564 F-103393 10.2 465 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3565 F-103393 8.2 464 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3603 F-103390 5.2 463 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3637 F-103390 9.1 462 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3638 F-103390 11.3 458 Kaolin

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 3640 F-103390 13.1 441 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3641 F-103390 14.2 442 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3642 F-103390 6.4 459 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3643 F-103390 10.8 454 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3645 F-103390 14 453 Burlington 68/pp 3646 F-103390 15.3 560 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3647 F-103390 10.5 469 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3648 F-103390 15.1 451 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 3649 F-103390 8.3 483 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3651 F-103390 9.9 474 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3652 F-103390 11.8 452 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 3653 F-103390 9.6 382 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3654 F-103390 15.3 438 Bangor 68/pp 3655 F-103390 10.7 418 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 3656 F-103390 14.2 419 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3657 F-103390 8.1 421 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 3658 F-103390 9.2 420 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3660 F-103390 16.2 428 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3862 F-103390 11.7 430 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3863 F-103393 13.6 429 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3864 F-103390 20.9 434 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 3865 F-103390 12.5 436 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4174 F-103390 9.8 425 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4629 T 10 521 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4630 T 9.7 518 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4631 T 7.9 519 Warsaw 68/pp 4632 T 16.7 426 Warsaw 68/pp 4633 T 10.6 427 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4634 T 9.7 432 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4635 T 12.2 431 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4636 T 7.4 433 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4637 T 12.4 435 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4638 T 7.9 395 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4639 T 14.8 392 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4640 T 31.2 437 Fort Payne 68/pp 4641 T 17.2 488 Upland Complex Gravels

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 4642 T 13.5 495 Fort Payne 68/pp 4643 T 18.7 505 Fort Payne 68/pp 4644 T 29.5 493 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4645 T 12.8 494 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4646 T 19.3 499 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4669 L-166 15.9 500 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 4671 L-133 8.3 501 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4672 L-139 17.9 502 Fort Payne 68/pp 4673 L-139 14.4 503 Fort Payne 68/pp 4674 L-139 6.9 504 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4675 L-126 11.9 509 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4677 L-162 9.1 515 Warsaw 68/pp 4678 L-145 10.4 523 Fort Payne 68/pp 4679 L-129 10.8 516 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4680 L-160 5.7 517 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4681 L-122 12.5 481 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4682 L-163 11.8 461 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4777 L-156 14.5 492 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4778 L-122 19.6 485 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4779 L-126 16.6 487 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4780 L-146 12.4 473 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4781 L-146 13 496 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4782 L-166 13.1 507 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4783 L-126 17.5 489 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4784 L-166 13.4 486 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4785 L-89 10.4 520 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4786 L-133 9.9 522 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4787 L-167 8.2 498 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4788 L-166 21.8 561 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4790 L-148 20.7 547 Brassfield 68/pp 4792 L-139 11.4 460 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4793 L-148 14.6 476 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4794 L-147 16.4 482 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4795 L-126 13.3 475 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4796 L-85 8.7 480 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4797 L-126 16.5 497 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4798 L-127 29.9 478 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 4799 L-122 9.3 479 Burlington 68/pp 4804 L-58 17.9 450 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4817 L-107 6.2 449 Burlington 68/pp 4818 L-145 10.5 448 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4882 L-161 19.2 443 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4883 L-161 9.8 444 Fort Payne 68/pp 4888 L-161 13.7 447 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4889 L-161 15.3 477 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4890 L-161 16.2 554 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4891 L-161 26.7 530 Fort Payne 68/pp 4896 L-130 9.7 537 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4899 L-128 10.4 544 Fort Payne 68/pp 4900 L-128 12.4 526 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4907 L-128 13.6 543 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4912 L-46 13 555 Warsaw 68/pp 4931 L-74 7.7 566 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4932 L-74 20 563 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4933 L-74 10.4 565 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4934 L-74 9.5 557 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4935 L-74 16.8 540 Fort Payne 68/pp 4936 L-74 13.8 533 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4937 L-74 12.6 536 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4959 L-74 11.4 541 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4960 L-74 13.8 556 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4961 L-74 14.5 558 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4963 L-74 19.7 553 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4964 L-74 14.8 545 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 4982 L-94 13.3 546 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4983 L-94 10.1 551 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4984 L-94 6.7 549 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4988 L-94 4.4 550 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4994 L-100 9.4 548 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4997 L-101 13.9 552 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5002 L-111 12.8 535 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5007 L-111 10.6 529 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 5015 L-113 20 508 Warsaw 68/pp 5016 L-114 20.5 532 Upper St. Louis

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 5020 L-80 12.6 511 Warsaw 68/pp 5025 L-121 11.7 514 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 5026 L-137 11.8 513 Warsaw 68/pp 5027 L-137 10.7 524 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5028 L-137 19.1 525 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5037 L-155 14.3 527 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5038 L-155 11.7 534 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5058 L-25 26.3 506 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5066 L-30 8.4 531 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5068 L-30 10.2 528 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5069 L-30 9 512 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5070 L-30 14 564 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5072 L-30 12.1 562 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5079 L-30 10.7 559 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5094 L-30 28.7 539 Kaolin 68/pp 5095 L-30 14.2 542 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5096 L-30 24.7 538 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4303 M 40.6 704 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4304 M 11.3 705 Novaculite 68/pp 4305 M 19.6 712 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4306 M 12.4 711 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4307 M 7.9 710 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 4308 M 22.4 699 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4309 M 23.5 700 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4310 M 17 676 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 4311 M 18.3 686 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4312 M 18.9 687 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4313 M 12.1 688 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4314 M 16.1 689 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4315 M 8.8 690 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4316 M 11.2 695 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4317 M 11.7 706 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 4318 M 18 707 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4319 M 31 701 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4320 M 9.9 679 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 4321 M 13.7 674 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4332 T 7.3 669 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4333 T 19.8 667 Upper St. Louis 77

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 4334 T 19.5 666 Fort Payne 68/pp 4335 T 17.7 663 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 4336 T 14.3 664 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4337 T 11.9 665 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4338 T 14.5 668 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4339 T 9.6 662 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 4386 M 10.4 681 Kaolin 68/pp 4426 M 19.2 713 Warsaw 68/pp 4427 M 11.3 708 Kaolin 68/pp 4428 M 19.1 702 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4429 M 17.8 691 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 4430 M 9.7 680 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 4431 M 15.4 703 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4432 M 12.2 698 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 4434 M 12.4 683 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5104 L-30 16.8 671 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5106 L-30 10.1 685 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5168 L-30 13.9 670 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5169 L-30 14 675 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 5170 L-30 7.9 673 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5172 L-30 15.6 672 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5167 L-30 19.4 651 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5181 L-30 13 652 Bangor 68/pp 5182 L-30 9 655 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5183 L-30 8.7 656 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5214 L-30 17.9 658 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5215 L-30 10.2 646 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5216 L-30 11.5 657 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5217 L-30 9.3 654 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5218 L-30 10.6 661 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5219 L-30 10.3 678 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5220 L-30 16.6 653 Kaolin 68/pp 5221 L-30 18.7 649 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5222 L-30 11.4 660 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5223 L-30 10.4 677 Fort Payne 68/pp 5224 L-30 9.8 659 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5225 L-30 12.2 650 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5226 L-30 7.7 604 Upland Complex Gravels 78

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 5266 L-30 28.5 605 Warsaw 68/pp 5267 L-30 7.1 607 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5269 L-30 8.5 606 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5270 L-30 8.7 608 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5271 L-30 13.5 611 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5272 L-30 19.1 603 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 5535 L-547 19.1 591 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5539 L-550 12.1 586 Brassfield 68/pp 5576 L-539 6.2 587 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5604 L-554 6.8 588 Fort Payne 68/pp 5642 L-553 13 589 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5710 L-30 9.9 602 Warsaw 68/pp 5716 L-304 8.9 624 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5717 L-304 16.1 622 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6011 L-300 8.3 621 Fort Payne 68/pp 6016 L-191 11.6 618 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6023 L-300 9.4 619 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6024 L-300 7.8 609 Bangor 68/pp 6034 L-194 9 610 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6037 L-193 12.3 612 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6053 L-196 11.8 613 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6063 L-212 7.8 614 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6076 L-194 10.3 617 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6078 L-224 17.7 615 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6079 L-224 10.9 616 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 6081 L-210 12.1 620 Warsaw 68/pp 6088 L-211 9.7 623 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6092 L-225 8.3 632 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6107 L 12.6 634 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6112 L-213 9.5 633 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6113 L-213 8.3 635 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6114 L-213 9.8 638 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6125 L-58 9.7 637 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6131 L-233 15.7 636 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6132 L-234 14.6 647 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6133 L-234 15.9 682 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6138 L-234 10.5 692 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 6146 L-235 5.6 693 Upper St. Louis 6612p:6128/pp 6148 L-239 9 694 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6167 L-275 15.5 709 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6177 L-288 17 697 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6205 W4997-18 16.6 696 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6208 W4997-18 16.1 648 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6216 W4997-18 10.3 645 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6245 W4997-18 20.7 644 Brassfield 68/pp 6260 W4985-8 11.9 600 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6279 W4985-8 15.4 601 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6281 W4985-8 15.1 598 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6283 W4985-8 20.6 628 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6291 W4985-8 21.2 629 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6292 W4985-8 19.8 643 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6293 W4985-8 12.6 641 Knife River Chert 68/pp 6294 W4985-8 10.8 642 Fort Payne 68/pp 6295 W4985-8 8.2 639 Fort Payne 68/pp 6316 W4993-1 11.4 640 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6330 W4993-1 8.7 590 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6332 W4993-1 18.4 592 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6375 W4993-6 13.4 584 Kaolin 68/pp 6376 W4993-6 10.4 585 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6377 W4993-6 11.3 583 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6379 W4993-6 14.1 593 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6390 W4993-1 14.6 594 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6391 W4993-1 11.2 597 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6392 W4993-1 9 595 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 6411 W4993-7 14.6 596 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6417 W4993-7 13.6 625 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6418 W4993-7 7.6 626 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6419 W4993-7 6.8 627 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6420 W4993-7 13.3 631 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6421 W4993-7 16.3 630 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6422 W4993-7 16.6 599 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6423 W4993-7 11 578 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6424 W4993-7 12 575 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6425 W4993-7 17.6 574 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 6426 W4993-7 10.4 573 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6427 W4993-7 20.3 581 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6454 W4993-7 14.8 572 Fort Payne 68/pp 6503 W4993 17.6 571 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6667 W4993-2 16 570 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6687 W4993-2 12.4 569 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6713 W4994 21.5 567 Fort Payne 68/pp 6767 W4994-7 11.9 568 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6768 W4994-7 9.8 580 Bangor 68/pp 6769 W4994-7 18.9 576 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6773 W4994-5 9.7 577 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6774 W4994-5 26.3 579 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6775 W4994-5 19 582 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5160 L-181 5.2 684 Fort Payne 68/pp 5325 L-136 16.6 362 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5337 L-136 21.8 359 Warsaw 68/pp 5339 L-136 11.5 344 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5351 L-120 9.8 367 Novaculite 68/pp 5364 L-107 12.7 368 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5371 L-120 20.2 322 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5376 L-119 11.6 350 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5388 L-136 8.8 348 Fort Payne 68/pp 5405 L-120 12.4 336 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5411 L-304 8.2 337 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5412 L-334 18.5 330 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5413 L-332 16.3 334 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5418 L-376 7 347 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5422 L-459 16.1 361 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5430 L-465 11.3 358 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5446 L-459 9.1 363 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5450 L-456 9.8 366 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5470 L-304 6.5 356 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5478 L-585 15 369 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5488 L-539 5.5 352 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5876 L-515 10.3 351 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5881 L-494 7.8 354 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5895 L-487 6.9 355 Warsaw

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 5909 L-489 11.9 346 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5924 L-764 23.9 365 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 5935 H-905 11.4 353 Burlington 68/pp 5939 L-225 12 349 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5945 L-215 17.3 343 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5947 L-172 16.2 364 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5949 L-493 10.3 340 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5951 L-493 8.4 357 Bangor 68/pp 5952 L-493 7.6 331 Warsaw 68/pp 5954 L-504 20.2 325 Bangor 68/pp 5959 L-494 13.8 338 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 5963 L-178 15.7 360 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 5965 L-182 12.7 342 Warsaw 68/pp 5971 L-181 9.5 341 Kaolin 68/pp 5975 L-171 13.3 335 Fort Payne 68/pp 5996 L-183 16 328 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6839 W4994 16.5 326 Warsaw 68/pp 6845 W4994-7 18.9 327 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6846 W4994-7 18.3 332 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6847 W4994-7 7.9 333 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6849 W4994-7 28.2 323 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6850 W4994-7 17.7 329 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6851 W4994-7 20.9 370 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 6852 W4994-7 12.9 345 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6853 W4994-7 13.6 298 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6855 W4994-7 20 320 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6848 W4994-7 10.7 324 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6857 W4994-7 10 303 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6860 W4994-4 15.7 316 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6861 W4994-4 10.2 302 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6862 W4994-4 11.4 299 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6863 W4994-4 15 300 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6869 W4994-4 14.9 305 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6882 W4994 15.5 306 Novaculite 68/pp 6896 W4994 10.1 309 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 6897 W4994 12.9 310 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 6898 W4994 10.7 277 Dover (Lower St.Louis)

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 6901 W4994 3.5 275 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6919 W4994-3 16.8 276 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 6920 W4994-3 16.2 268 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6921 W4994-3 14.7 311 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 6922 W4994-3 12.1 301 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 6928 W4994-2 7.6 270 Fort Payne 68/pp 6929 W4994-2 10.7 297 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6930 W4994-2 9.8 271 Bangor 68/pp 6931 W4994-4 8.8 269 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 6968 W4994-1 16.5 274 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7012 W4993-3 9.7 288 Warsaw 68/pp 7013 W4993-3 9.2 278 Warsaw 68/pp 7014 W4993-3 11.4 308 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7030 W4993-3 9.5 273 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7031 W4993-3 12.3 282 Fort Payne 68/pp 7036 W4993-3 8.8 279 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7037 W4993-3 10.7 280 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7050 W4985-8 7.3 281 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 7055 W4993-4 31.6 284 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7060 W4993-4 17.8 285 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7061 W4993-4 12.4 317 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7062 W4993-4 14.6 318 Fort Payne 68/pp 7064 W4993-4 13.1 319 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7065 W4993-4 10.7 321 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7067 W4993-4 25.3 251 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7068 W4993-4 6.5 253 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 7070 W4993-4 25.6 254 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7074 W4993-5 9.7 255 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7075 W4993-5 19 256 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7076 W4993-5 12.5 257 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7077 W4993-5 13.9 258 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7078 W4993-5 16.1 226 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7079 W4993-5 10.5 259 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7080 W4993-5 22.2 260 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7081 W4993-5 10.8 307 Warsaw 68/pp 7082 W4993-5 15.6 261 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7083 W4993-5 20.9 262 Tallahatta Quartzite

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 7084 W4993-5 13.9 249 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7085 W4993-5 27.6 263 Fort Payne 68/pp 7086 W4993-5 15.4 231 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7096 W4993-4 11.9 240 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7097 W4993-4 12.1 245 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7098 W4993-4 7.2 248 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7099 W4993-4 13.2 247 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7101 W4993-4 21.1 243 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7102 W4993-4 19.5 264 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7103 W4993-4 9.4 265 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7105 W4993-4 8.9 266 Fort Payne 68/pp 7106 W4993-4 7.5 267 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 7108 W4993-4 12.4 272 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7110 W4993-4 9.1 287 Warsaw 68/pp 7111 W4993-4 9.8 289 Bangor 68/pp 7112 W4993-4 7.3 283 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7114 W4993-4 10.4 250 Fort Payne 68/pp 7115 W4993-4 14 286 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7116 W4993-4 12.4 242 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7117 W4993-4 15.3 290 Fort Payne 68/pp 7118 W4993-4 11.3 291 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7119 W4993-4 7.8 293 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7120 W4993-4 13.7 292 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7121 W4993-4 18.6 227 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7122 W4993-4 14 294 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7127 W4993-4 8.9 295 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7129 W4993-4 19.2 238 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7131 W4993-4 19.9 246 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7132 W4993-4 11.9 230 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7133 W4993-4 9.6 296 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7134 W4993-4 8.1 229 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7135 W4993-4 16 234 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7137 W4993-4 9 304 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7139 W4993-4 15.6 312 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7140 W4993-4 16.8 225 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7143 W4993-4 13.2 217 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7144 W4993-4 16.8 216 Ste Genevieve

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 7145 W4993-4 19 233 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7147 W4993-4 19.6 237 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7148 W4993-4 12.8 236 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7155 W4984-6 16.5 239 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7156 W4984-6 22.8 232 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7157 W4987-16 10.6 235 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7158 W4985-8 19.6 314 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7185 W4983-1 17 313 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7192 W4977 9.4 315 Fort Payne 68/pp 7193 W4977 10.5 228 Bigby Cannon 68/pp 7194 W4977 8.7 203 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7195 W4977 7.3 191 Fort Payne 68/pp 7197 W4977 9.7 201 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 7200 W4977 13.5 202 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 7214 W4983-5 23.6 221 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7222 W4979 8.4 206 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7262 W4987-4 14.5 205 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7263 W4987-4 15.4 207 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7264 W4987-4 20.6 214 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7265 W4987-4 10.5 219 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7266 W4987-4 9.1 218 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7267 W4987-4 12.6 220 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7268 W4987-4 7.8 215 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7269 W4987-4 11 224 Kaolin 68/pp 7270 W4987-4 7.6 222 Bangor 68/pp 7271 W4987-4 12.6 241 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 7272 W4987-4 9.8 204 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7273 W4987-4 6.8 244 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7297 W4985-8 15.4 199 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7298 F-103390 8.1 197 Bangor 68/pp 7299 F-103390 8.6 198 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7300 F-103390 11.5 211 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7301 W4985-8 15 196 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7377 W4987-16 12.5 210 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7378 W4987-16 15.3 212 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7379 W4987-16 13.6 213 Warsaw 68/pp 7399 W 25.1 209 Upper St. Louis

Table A.1 (Continued)

Code Acc.# coll Wt (g) Sample # Raw Material 68/pp 7401 W 15.9 223 Fort Payne 68/pp 7430 W4980 8.6 200 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7441 W4980 15.4 187 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7442 W4980 16.7 190 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7443 W4980 16.7 195 Warsaw 68/pp 7447 W4980 13.1 208 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7449 W4980 15.7 192 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7475 W4985-8 23.3 166 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7485 W4985-8 17 170 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7500 W4984-8 22.7 172 Tallahatta Quartzite 68/pp 7501 W4987-29 27.6 252 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 7510 W4987-30 17.5 194 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 7511 W4987-30 12.2 176 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 7512 W4987-30 20 169 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7541 W4987-16 20.2 178 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7716 W4993 20.6 181 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7854 Hm 10.1 183 Kaolin 68/pp 7898 Hm 11.4 184 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 7922 Hm 12.3 185 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7923 Hm 14.8 189 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7938 Hm 4.2 179 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 7988 Hm 14.5 180 Upland Complex Gravels 68/pp 8001 Hm 20.9 182 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8002 Hm 10.7 188 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8003 Hm 14.3 186 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8031 Hm 13.8 193 Warsaw 68/pp 8032 Hm 10.9 177 Warsaw 68/pp 8118 W4994-7 8.4 168 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8126 W4994-8 15.2 167 Dover (Lower St.Louis) 68/pp 8131 W4981-16 18.8 171 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8132 W4994-7 16.3 173 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8133 W4994-5 24.7 174 Upper St. Louis 68/pp 8134 W4987-16 33.5 175 Ste Genevieve 68/pp 5453 L-304 17.1 339 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert 68/pp 4776 L-141 13 510 Tuscaloosa Gravel Chert