Morphological Variability in Clovis Hafted Bifaces

Home , Adams Site, Dent Site, Persimmon Mound

MORPHOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CLOVIS HAFTED BIFACES

ACROSS NORTH AMERICA

JUSTIN PATRICK WILLIAMS

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Anthropology

MAY 2016

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of JUSTIN

PATRICK WILLIAMS find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

______William Andrefsky, Jr., Ph.D., Chair

______Colin Grier, Ph.D.

______Luke Premo, Ph.D.

______David Anderson, Ph.D.

Acknowledgements

There are so many people who helped with this and somehow I have to thank them on a couple pages.

First off I have to thank all of the museums, individuals, and organizations, each with their own wonderful staff, who allowed me to work with their artifacts. This long list includes:

The Milwaukee Public Museum, The Gilcrease Museum, The Iowa Office of the State

Archaeologist, The brave souls who work on the PIDBA, The Washington State Museum of

Anthropology, The Gault Archeological Project, University of Oregon Museum of Natural and

Cultural History, The Alabama Archaeological Society, The Office of Archaeological Research at The University of Alabama, the Grave Creek Mound Archaeological Complex, Idaho Museum of Natural History, Wyoming State Museum, the Amerind Museum and Research Center, the

Montana Historical Society, David Thulman, and Ashley Smallwood. I really fear I left folks out and if so I am sorry!

To Mike Mucio who taught me how to find a feature. To Jo Ann who gave me my first job in archaeology. To David and Jenny Harder who were the first two people to actually let me run a project. To Randy Cooper and Andrew Bradbury who convinced me that studying lithics was a legitimate career. To Phil Fisher, Louis Fortin, Matt Marino, Matt Landt, Charlie Reed,

Rand Greubel, Kimberly Redman, Jack McNassar, and Michelle Hannum, because, honestly, I did not know you could have that much fun at work. To DMB! To Fenris, Nanook and Suma the best foot warmers (in dog form) a guy could ever need. To Kristin Safi and Patrick Dolan who held the best graduate student office hours ever. To Kelly Derr, because I needed a big “sister” in archaeology, and until I met you, I did not know it.

iii

To my committee. Luke Premo, I cannot believe how much I learned from you in just a short time. To David Anderson, who, to me, has always been the authority on Paleoindian archaeology. To Colin Grier, who took me on the best project I have ever had the pleasure to work on. To William Andrefsky, Jr. When all the graduate students met to complain about their adviser’s, I never had a single word to say and I have you to thank for that. I have learned so much from you.

To Fernando Villanea, the best buddy a guy could have. To Jason and Nikki Williams who never let me get 100 miles from Louisville without having a great time. To my parents,

Patricia and Danny Williams. In their house, learning was what you did. To Rachel Williams, who, to me, is everything.

MORPHOLOGICAL VARIABILITY IN CLOVIS STYLE HAFTED BIFACES

ACROSS NORTH AMERICA

Abstract

by Justin Patrick Williams, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2016

Chair: William Andrefsky, Jr.

This study examines morphological variability of Clovis style hafted bifaces from across

North America. In total 695 Clovis hafted bifaces were analyzed. These data are analyzed using

a Lithic Technological Organization perspective. The effects of raw material availability, site

type, retouch and resharpening are considered. Several interesting trends in the morphological

variability of Clovis hafted bifaces are revealed. Each of these factors are revealed to have

significant effects on the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. These effects can bias future

studies of Clovis hafted biface morphology. In addition, the Northeast culture area is found to be

significantly different from the rest of the Clovis hafted biface sample. This study advances the

knowledge of Clovis hafted biface technology and surveys the variability in this artifact type

across geographic space and present a firm foundation on which further studies of Clovis hafted bifaces may stand.

Table of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. A Short History of the Clovis Type ...... 2 3. Clovis Hafted Biface Type vs Clovis Culture………………………………………5 4. A Review of Wide Ranging Studies of the Clovis Type……………………………6 5. Others Types within the Clovis Type……………………………………………...14 6. Scenarios of the Spread of Clovis Hafted Biface Technology ...... 16 7. Research Questions………………………………………………………………...19 8. Summary…………………………………………………………………………...19 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PREVIOUS CLOVIS HAFTED BIFACE STUDIES ...... 21 1. Introduction ...... 21 2.Evolutionary Theory, Cultural Transmission, and Clovis Hafted Bifaces ...... 21 3. History of Cultural Transmission Theory ...... 22 4. Style and Function ...... 23 6. Time Average Assemblages ...... 26 7. Forces of Cultural Evolution and Their Estimated Effects on Clovis Style Hafted Bifaces...... 27 8. Natural Selection ...... 27 9. Cultural Selection...... 29 10. Drift ...... 29 11. Random Variation ...... 30 12. Guided Variation ...... 32

13. Biased Transmission ...... 35 14. Application of Evolutionary Theory to Lithics ...... 36 15. Cladistics as Applied to Lithics ...... 36 16. Human Behavioral Ecology and its Application to Lithics ...... 39 17. Accumulated Copy Error ...... 42 18. Summary and Conclusions ...... 44 CHAPTER THREE THE SAMPLE ...... 45 1. Introduction ...... 45 2. Defining Clovis ...... 45 3. Sampling Methods ...... 51 4. Short Backgrounds of the Sites in the Sample ...... 55 5. Representativeness of the Sample ...... 71 6. Summary ...... 72 CHAPTER FOUR METHODS ...... 73 1. Introduction ...... 73 2. Why Images are Used ...... 73 3. Digital Image Use in Archaeology ...... 74 4. Image Measurement Methods ...... 77 5. Definitions of Measurements Taken ...... 76 6. Summary ...... 83 CHAPTER FIVE AN EXAMINATION OF WHAT THE MEAUREMENTS MEAN ...... 85 1. Introduction ...... 85 2. Size vs Shape ...... 85 3. Non-Stylistic Factors that Affect Hafted Biface Morphology ...... 86 4. Raw Material Availability and Raw Material Package Size and Shape ...... 87 5. Skills of the Manufacturer ...... 91 6. Usewear, Retouch and Resharpening ...... 95 7. Function ...... 98 8. Size and Shape Summary...... 99

vii

9. Previous Studies of Clovis Hafted Biface Morphology ...... 101 10. Summary ...... 104 CHAPTER SIX AN EXAMINATION OF THE DATA ...... 105 1. Introduction ...... 105 2. Ratio Scale Measurements ...... 105 3. Correlations of Measures ...... 111 4. Principal Components Analysis ...... 114 5. Non Ratio Scale Measurements ...... 119 6. Possible Factors Which Structure Clovis Hafted Biface Morphology ...... 122 7. Long Flute versus Short Flute ...... 122 9. Site Type ...... 125 10. Retouch, Usewear, and Resharpening ...... 132 10. Raw Material ...... 141 11. Discussion and Summary ...... 147 CHAPTER SEVEN REGIONAL VARIABILITY ...... 151 1.Introduction ...... 151 2. Regional Variability ...... 152 3. California ...... 158 4. The Columbia Plateau ...... 159 5. The Great Basin ...... 159 6. The Great Plains ...... 160 7. The Northeast ...... 161 8. The Southeast ...... 162 9. The Southwest ...... 163 10. Comparison Between Culture Areas ...... 163 11. Morphological Variability in Northeast Culture Area ...... 170 16. Summary ...... 172 CHAPTER EIGHT DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 173 1. Introduction ...... 173 2. Lithic Technological Organization of Clovis Hafted Bifaces ...... 173

viii

3. Clovis Morphological Variability across Geographic Space ...... 182 4. Conclusion ...... 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 189 APPENDIX A. THE DATA ...... 204 APPENDIX B. HISTOGRAMS OF LINEAR MEASUREMENTS ...... 220

List of Tables Page 1.Summary of the Hafted Biface Definitions ...... 46

2. Total Sample by Culture Area ...... 55

3. The Sites in the Sample...... 56

4. Maximum Error between Images and Actual Artifact Measurements ...... 75

5. Comparison of TEM and %TEM for Photos, Scanned Images, and Actual

Artifacts...... 76

6. Definitions of the Ratio Scale Measurements Taken ...... 79

7. Non-linear Attributes and Definitions ...... 83

8. Summary of Non-Style Factors on Hafted Biface Shape and Size ...... 100

9. Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient Matrix for Length Measurements...... 112

10. Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient Matrix for Width Measurements ...... 113

11. Eigen Values for a Four Component Solution ...... 115

12. Component Loadings for the First Four Components ...... 118

13. Distribution of Hafted Bifaces with More than One Flute on the Long Side by

Culture Area ...... 120

14. Distribution of Post Fluting Retouch in the Sample ...... 121

15. The Distribution of Site Types across the Culture Areas ...... 128

16. Coefficient of Variation for the Six Selected Measurements Divided by Site Type

for the Entire Sample ...... 129

17. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Site Types for Six Measurements ...... 130

18. A Comparison of the CoVs from the Four Cache Sites in the Sample ...... 131

19. Variability in Haft and Blade Length and Width Measurements ...... 133

20. Percentage and Distribution on Non Chert Hafted Bifaces in the Sample ...... 143

21. The Number of Complete Hafted Bifaces for Each Raw Material Type ...... 146

22. Results of a Kruskal-Wallis Test between Raw Materials...... 147

23. CoV of the Five Chosen Measurements for Each Culture Area ...... 165

24. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Culture Areas for Pertinent Measures ...... 167

25. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Culture Areas Pertinent Measurements Kill Sites

Only...... 167

26. Bonferroni Results between Culture Areas for Base Depth for Kill Sites Only ...... 168

27. Bonferroni Results between Culture Areas for Flute Depth on the Long Side for

Kill Sites Only...... 168

28. Bonferroni Results between Culture Areas for Flute Depth on the Short Side for

Kill Sites Only...... 169

29. T-tests between Northeast and Non Northeast Samples for Kill Sites Only ...... 170

30. T-statistics Results Resampled Data for Each Measurement ...... 171

List of Figures

1. Figure 1; The effects of environmental predictability and the cost of experimentation on the frequency of guided variation and social learning...... 34

2. Figure 2 ; Clovis hafted biface definition and tier assignment chart demonstrating how the bifaces are placed into the four confidence tiers ...... 49

3. Figure 3 ; Examples of Clovis hafted bifaces from tiers three (left) and four (right) ....50

4. Figure 4 ; A county map of the United States with the Culture Areas and sites include in the sample ...... 53

5. Figure 5; Examples of morphological the measurements made on the Clovis style hafted bifaces in the sample using Canvas 11 ...... 82

6. Figure 6 ; An example of a Clovis hafted biface made by an individual with a lower skill level from the Gault site ...... 94

7. Figure 7 ; Examples of Half Hafts from Dietz, Oregon ...... 97

8. Figure 8 ; Histogram depicting the distribution of the maximum length of Clovis style hafted bifaces ...... 108

9. Figure 9 ; A cumulative frequency graph showing Z-Scores of each of the

Measurements ...... 110

10. Figure 10 ; Histograms of comparing the flute depth on the long and short side of the Clovis style hafted bifaces in the sample ...... 124

11. Figure 11 ; Histograms of maximum length by site type, showing that caches have a wider

distribution and larger hafted bifaces ...... 127

xii

12. Figure 12 ; Example of three Dalton style hafted bifaces at different stages of their life

history: adapted from Goodyear (1974) ...... 128

13. Figure 13 ; A heavily retouched Clovis style hafted biface from Dietz which demonstrates

heavily retouched hafted bifaces are present in the sample ...... 135

14. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, showing a high correlation: this

suggests that both elements were both retouched during the use life of the hafted bifaces ...... 136

15. Figure 15. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, divided between site

types ...... 137

16. Figure 16. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, divided between site

types with 95% confidence intervals ...... 140

17. Figure 17. Boxplot of Raw Material’s Maximum Length suggesting that hafted biface made

from crystal quartz, fossiliferous cherts, and obsidian are smaller than those made of quartzite

and chert...... 145

18. Figure 18. The distribution of maximum length across five culture areas, demonstrating few

differences ...... 153

19. Figure 19 . The distribution of maximum width between five cultures areas few differences

...... 154

20. Figure 20. The distribution of base depth between five culture areas showing that base depth

in the Northeast is slight deeper than the other culture areas ...... 155

xiii

21. Figure 21. The distribution of maximum flute width between five culture areas, with few

differences ...... 156

22. Figure 22. The distribution of long side flute length across five culture areas suggesting the

northeast has deeper flutes ...... 157

23. Figure 23. The distribution of short side flute length suggesting that hafted bifaces from the northeast have the deepest flutes...... 158

xiv

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Introduction

The ultimate end goal of this work is to better understand the morphological variability in

the Clovis style hafted biface technology. Clovis points are hafted bifaces which are found

throughout the continental United States as well as parts of Canada and Mexico. These hafted bifaces have been dated to a period from 13,110-12,660 B.P. (Waters and Stafford 2007).

Though originally thought to be a part of the tool kit of the earliest peoples to inhabit North

America, sites such as Monte Verde (Dillehay 1988), the Manis site (Waters et al. 2011a) and the

Debra L. Friedkin site (Waters et al. 2011b), have demonstrated that there were people in North

and South America prior to those who use Clovis style hafted bifaces. The geographic origin and

dissemination of Clovis style hafted bifaces, however, remains an important question for

archaeologists. Few pieces of technology have become as widespread among hunter-gatherers

and people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces may still have been the earliest peoples to live in many parts of North America (Haynes 2002).

The overall goal of this study is evaluate the morphological variability of Clovis hafted bifaces from across North America. In doing so I will evaluate the findings of many recent

studies which utilize evolutionary theory. In addition, I will examine variability in Clovis hafted biface size and shape between the North America culture areas. The ultimate goal of this study is

to further the conversation about the origins of the Clovis hafted biface technology, by

examining trends in the morphological variability across North America.

In this chapter I provide a short history of the Clovis type. Next I examine key

differences between the Clovis hafted biface type and Clovis culture concepts, and elucidate

differences between the Clovis hafted biface type and some sub-types within the Clovis type.

Additionally, I provide a review of the results of previous distributional studies of the Clovis

hafted biface type and review the proposed scenarios describing how Clovis style hafted bifaces

may have spread. At the end of the chapter I clearly state the questions that I seek to answer in

this study.

A Short History of the Clovis Type

The history of the Clovis style hafted biface begins with the discovery of the first flute

style projectile point. The first fluted point located belongs in the Folsom type and it was

discovered by George McJunkin in 1908 (Boldurian and Cotter 1999:2). Mr. McJunkin was

checking fence lines after a flood and discovered the first recorded Folsom hafted biface lodged

in the bone of an extinct Bison. It was not until 1926 that this discovery was reported to professional archaeologists who then excavated the site (Boldurian and Cotter 1999: 2). The

association of this fluted hafted biface with an animal known to be extinct was a pivotal moment

in the archaeology of North America as it demonstrated the antiquity of human occupation in the

New World. Originally other hafted bifaces with flutes were thought of as being Folsomoid, or

Folsom-like (Haynes 2002:57).

After the discovery of the Folsom type and the excavation of several other Folsom aged

sites, such as Burnet Cave (Boldurian and Cotter 1999: 8), the Blackwater Draw site was

discovered and excavated. Like the Folsom site, Blackwater Draw had also been initially

discovered by non-professional archaeologists. The Blackwater Draw site is located near Clovis,

New Mexico, from which the Clovis type hafted bifaces take their name. The excavation and

formal study of the Blackwater Draw site began in 1933 (Boldurian and Cotter 1999: 12). The

hafted bifaces at Blackwater Draw were fluted like those from the Folsom site, but were associated with a variety of extinct fauna, including mammoth. The association with the extinct mammoth made it clear that these hafted bifaces dated to the Pleistocene, and did not belong in the Folsom type. Thus, the Blackwater Draw site was dubbed the type site for Clovis. It should be noted, however, that Blackwater Draw was not the first site where Clovis style hafted bifaces

were found. In 1932 at the Dent site hafted bifaces, later recognized as being Clovis, were found

associated with a mammoth (Haynes 2002). The individual in charge of the excavation at Dent, a

Jesuit priest, did not believe they were associated with the mammoth remains, thus adding

confusion to the excavation, which in turn helped delay the recognition of Dent as a Clovis site

(Haynes 2002: 57).

The association of Clovis type hafted bifaces with extinct Pleistocene mammals

contributed to the long held assumption that the people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces were the

first peoples to inhabit North America. David Meltzer summarizes the Clovis first stance best in

2002 stating:

“Back in the old days, say three years ago, we had a pretty compelling scenario for the peopling of the Americas. We believed the first Americans came out of Northeast Asia during the latest period of lowered sea-level. For a time, the massive North American ice sheets blocked

their way south, but after the Laurentide and Cordilleran glaciers melted back (say ̴̴12,000 years

ago) a group or groups sped through the newly opened “ice free” corridor….” Meltzer 2002:27

In Meltzer’s scenario, the people moving through the Ice-Free-Corridor are bearing

Clovis hafted bifaces. Kelly and Todd (1988) outlined the manner in which those using Clovis style hafted bifaces lived. They argued that these people were highly mobile big game hunters who lived and spread throughout the continent. The Clovis type hafted biface became an essential component in the story of how people first colonized the New World, simply by being the demonstrably oldest type of hafted biface yet found. Jablonski argues that Clovis technology acted as a point of comparison for all old technologies in North America.

“Since the mid 1960’s the Clovis site in New Mexico and the Clovis fluted tool complex,

dated to between 12,000 and 11,000 yr BP has been the “gold standard” against all other claims

for early arrival in the Americas have been judged.” Jablonski 2002:3

Due to the Clovis First mentality the Clovis hafted biface type became more than just a

style of hafted biface, but a temporal barrier, that if broken invited intense criticism from much

of the archaeological community. For this reason, it can be argued that no other hafted biface

type has held this level of importance to the North American archaeological record.

In 1997, however, a group of archaeologists went to Monte Verde (Dillehay 1989) to

review the artifacts and context of the site. When all but one of them left convinced that Monte

Verde was older than the Clovis hafted biface type, the Clovis First barrier was broken. As previously mentioned, since then several more Pre-Clovis sites have emerged and largely have been accepted by the archaeological community. For many archaeologists this has changed the

emphasis of Clovis hafted biface research from questions about how people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces first colonized North America to why Clovis style hafted bifaces are so well

spread geographically and where the origin of this technology may lie.

Clovis Hafted Biface Type vs Clovis Culture

It is important to make a distinction early in this work between the Clovis hafted biface type and what some archaeologists refer to as the Clovis culture. As explained by Haynes (2002) the concept of a Clovis culture includes a single group of people, with the Clovis style hafted biface, who spread from a single spot. To be a culture in the anthropological sense these people

would share a language, customs or religion. Proving or disproving the presence of a continent

wide Clovis culture, however, is not the goal of this study. This work only focuses on a single

style of lithic technology: the Clovis style hafted biface. Though this distinction may seem trivial

to some, it is important that the subject matter of this work be clearly identified before moving

forward. In this work I am careful to use the terms people who made Clovis hafted bifaces, and purposefully avoid the terms Clovis culture to avoid confusion

A Review of Wide Ranging Studies of the Clovis Type

Rather than summarize the result of all of the studies involving Clovis hafted bifaces, the

following literature review is focused on studies of Clovis hafted bifaces that encompass multi-

regional areas. Largely these studies can be grouped into two types: stylistic studies and

distributional studies. Distributional studies of the Clovis hafted bifaces are important as the

distribution of these hafted bifaces can have great effects on the sampling and results of any

stylistic study. The previous studies of Clovis hafted bifaces reviewed in this section are ordered

chronologically, but also grouped by author. This section focuses on the pertinent conclusions of

these studies and not the methods. For more details on the methods and measurements used in

the morphological hafted biface studies described here, see Chapter Five.

Mason (1962) was one of the first authors to examine the distribution and chronology

associated with the Clovis hafted biface. Mason (1962) compares the dates and distribution of

several hafted biface types including Clovis, Folsom and Sandia hafted bifaces. Mason (1962)

argues that at the time no hafted biface types had been found stratigraphically below Clovis style

hafted bifaces and they therefore likely represent the oldest type of hafted biface in North

America.

Twenty years after the paper by Mason, Brennan (1982) revisits the task of documenting the distribution of fluted hafted bifaces from across the country. Brennan opens by critiquing those who were, at the time, working on western Clovis sites stating, “…sites with in situ remains and by certain theoreticians of western bias who have commanded the literature with the

view that the tradition must have originated where they find it…” (Brennan 1982: 27). After

exposing this bias, Brennan proceeds to provide maps with the distribution of fluted hafted bifaces for the regions east of the Mississippi river. The result is a tally of more than 5,800 fluted

hafted bifaces (Brennan 1982: 45).

Anderson (1990) studies the distribution of Paleoindian hafted bifaces in the Eastern

Woodlands by state and county, and argues that the Paleoindian Period hafted bifaces are

unevenly distributed. Concentrations of Paleoindian Period hafted bifaces are noted along rivers

and near the Atlantic coast. Anderson (1990) proposes that these concentrations represent staging

areas from which later Early Archaic cultural patterns emerged. This does assume, however, that

there were not Pre-Clovis populations in the area. In 1995, Anderson again reinforces the idea

that peoples in both the Early Paleoindian, and Middle Paleoindian periods did have a “…sense

of place…” (Anderson 1995:13) unlike the highly mobile lifestyle suggested for Clovis by Kelly

and Todd (1988). Anderson (1995) continues, stating that people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces

that live in the Southeast likely maintained a culturally acceptable distance but also

communicated via social networks, likely meeting at resource rich areas. In 1998 Anderson and

Faught reevaluate the distribution of fluted hafted bifaces in light of the discovery of Monte

Verde. They suggest that the density of fluted hafted bifaces in the East, and suggest the origin of

the technology may lie there. They argue that the uneven distribution of fluted hafted bifaces

suggests that the population of those using them may have been unevenly distributed as well

(Anderson and Faught 1998: 176).

Several distributional studies have made use of a database known as the Paleoindian

Database of the Americas (PIDBA). This online database hosts measurement data, distribution

maps, and images of hafted bifaces. Using these data from the PIDBA Anderson and Faught

(2000) elucidate some major trends in the distribution of Clovis hafted bifaces throughout the

United States. First they point out that more Clovis hafted bifaces are found east of the

Mississippi River than are found to the west. This is despite the fact that Clovis hafted bifaces are usually thought of as a Great Plains and Southwest focused piece of technology. Anderson

and Faught (2000) also notice a correlation between the demise of megafauna and the appearance

of the Clovis hafted biface. Anderson (2004) notes that many of the Clovis hafted bifaces found

in the Southeastern United States are isolated. Despite the isolated nature of Clovis hafted bifaces in the Southeast, their prevalence and clustered nature also suggests that the Southeastern

United States may be the region of origin for the technology (Anderson 2004). Anderson (1991,

2004) and Anderson and Faught (2000) along with PIDBA, has provided a great deal of distributional information regard Clovis hafted bifaces across the United States. PIDBA is a online database of fluted points data that was started by David Anderson in 1990 (Anderson et al.

2010; 2015).

Morrow and Morrow (1999) measure both Clovis style hafted bifaces and Fishtail style hafted bifaces from North, Central, and South America. In total their assemblage includes 543 hafted bifaces. Of the 543 specimens 451 of them were found within North America. Morrow and Morrow (1999) use a series of the linear measurements to argue that there is a stylistic relationship between Clovis and Fishtail hafted bifaces and that as you move from the Northeast to the Southeast these hafted bifaces become increasingly more “waisted.” Waisted hafted bifaces, as defined by Morrow and Morrow (1999) are those hafted bifaces which feature lateral indentation such that the blade portions are significantly wider than the haft element. Morrow

and Morrow (1999) claim this trend indicates that Clovis style hafted biface likely originated in the Great Plains.

Another study which seeks to compare the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces to other types is O’Brien et al. (2001). Using a sample of 621 Paleoindian Period hafted bifaces from the

Southeastern United States they use cladistics to build a cladogram with 17 hafted biface classes

(types). The conclusion that O’Brien et al. (2001) draw about the relationship of the 17 types are limited, however, this work does show that the fluted Paleoindian Period hafted bifaces types are likely stylistically related to one another.

Though not a study of Clovis hafted biface morphology or distribution Waters and

Stafford (2007) took on the important task of re-dating many sites that contain Clovis style hafted bifaces. In total, Waters and Stafford re-date twelve sites with Clovis diagnostics, ten of which are represented in the sample used in this study. Waters and Stafford (2007) establish two date ranges for the Clovis sites, a maximum calibrated range of 12,660-13,110 B.P and a minimum range of 12,760-12,920 B.P. They also demonstrate that many non-Clovis sites, such as Monte Verde, pre-date this range and that, other sites, such as Fell’s Cave in South America, are within the range of Clovis aged sites.

Buchanan and Collard (2007) use cladistics to test the various possible entry routes into the New World. For more information of the measurements used in their study, and the others to follow using the same data set, see Chapter Five. Buchanan and Collard’s (2007) sample includes 216 points from three site types, caches, camp sites, and kill sites. Using this sample, they test four potential entry paths using paleo hafted bifaces technology. The four paths tested are the Ice-Free-Corridor, the Coastal Migration Route, Panama, and mid-Atlantic route. They

find that the most parsimonious trees (least homoplasies) are the Coastal Migration and Ice-Free-

Corridor (Buchanan and Collard 2007). Buchanan and Hamilton (2009 then expand the data set

and use the accumulated copy error model put forward by Bettinger and Eerkens (1997) to

examine Clovis hafted biface morphology. Buchanan and Hamilton (2009) argue that there is a

trend in decreasing size of Clovis style hafted bifaces as they move away from where the Ice-

Free-Corridor would have let out. They interpret this to mean that the Ice-Free-Corridor is the path that people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces would have taken to colonize southern North

America. Using the same data set, Buchanan et al. (2012a) examine the purpose of Clovis hafted bifaces found in caches. They then use 32 landmarks to make measurements on both cache and non-cache Clovis style hafted bifaces. They conclude that Clovis style hafted bifaces from caches were meant to be used for hunting and were not likely completely ritual in nature

(Buchanan et al. 2012a). Buchanan et al. (2012b), again using portions of the same dataset, suggest that blade length was always kept proportional to haft length. This argument was made to mitigate some of the critique concerning the blade element and the effects of life history, made about their earlier work. In 2014, again using the same data set, Buchanan et al. use geometric morphometrics to analyze Clovis style hafted bifaces from eight different regions in North

America. The methodological details of this paper are reviewed as part of Chapter Five. In their work Buchanan et al. (2014) argue that the northwest region shows significant differences from the Southwest and southern Great Plains. They also note that basal concavity differs greatly from one region to the next and they argue that this difference may be due to variation in the organic components that these bifaces were hafted to or may be caused by prey choice (Buchanan et al.

2014). Overall, the work of Buchanan et al. provides a rich collection of hypotheses about the variation of Clovis style hafted bifaces from across North America.

Beck and Jones (2010) attempt to explain the temporal and geographical relationship between the Western Stemmed hafted bifaces and Clovis. The authors point out that the

distribution of Clovis points is weighted toward the Eastern United States and that the most

Clovis blades seem to be concentrated in Kentucky and Tennessee. They argue that Clovis was present on the Columbia Plateau later than it was on the Plains. They hypothesize people bearing

Clovis hafted bifaces may have moved out of the Southeast among peoples and eventually to peoples who were already present in the Columbia Plateau (Beck and Jones 2010). They also

suggest that Clovis on the Columbia Plateau is so different from Clovis in other regions that they

could possibly be considered another type. Due to what they perceive as extreme differences in

Clovis hafted bifaces on the Columbia Plateau and the presence of stemmed style hafted biface bearing peoples they argue that Columbia Plateau may have been colonized from the west coast by people bearing non-Clovis technology (Beck and Jones 2010).

Mary Prasciunas (2011) examines many previous studies which attempt to discover the origin of Clovis by looking at only Clovis site geographic distribution. Her paper tests whether or not there is a bias in the distribution of Clovis hafted bifaces and questions the concept that more hafted bifaces in an area actually correlates to that area having a larger population in the past.

Her paper considers three biases: the modern population in an area (as a proxy for the number of collectors, the amount of cultivation, and the number of archaeological studies that have been done in that area (Prasciunas 2011). Prasciunas (2011) finds the distribution of Clovis hafted bifaces to be significantly related to the population, amount of cultivation, and amount of archaeological work, and argues that this may somewhat invalidate Clovis originated in the

Southeast arguments which rely on frequency and distribution. She concludes, stating that it will

take more than a frequency/distribution study to find the origins of Clovis (Prasciunas 2011).

Sholts et al. (2012) used sample of 50 Clovis style hafted bifaces to examine flake scar patterning. An important aspect of this study is that fact that eleven of the total 50 hafted bifaces

were modern reproductions. Using three dimensional scans the shape, size, and pattern of these

the flake scars on these hafted bifaces were compared. This analysis yielded a number of

conclusions. First the authors argue that flake scar patterning is very similar and that indicates

that Clovis style hafted bifaces likely came from a single source. They also suggest that there

was a communication network used by the people who made Clovis style hafted bifaces and

argue that quarries could have been used as potential meeting places. Finally, they argue that

there is region wide similarity, though this conclusion should be taken with apprehension as their

sample only includes one source outside the western Great Plains.

Though it is only focused on Clovis hafted bifaces from the Ohio valley, Eren et al.

(2015) attempts to answer the question of why Clovis style hafted biface vary in shape and size.

Eren et al. examine two potential hypothesizes. The first is that Clovis style hafted biface vary in

morphology due to drift. The second is that Clovis hafted bifaces vary in morphology as their

manufacturers attempted to adapt the form to different environmental regions, as per the arguments made by (Anderson 1990; 1995). Using two dimensional images, Eren et al. (2015)

apply a variety of methods including flake scar analysis and geometric morphometrics, to

analyze their sample. For more details on the methodology and the results concerning different

raw material types see Chapter Five. Their results indicate that raw material variation does not

have a great effect on Clovis style hafted biface morphology and that is it likely drift which

caused the differences in Clovis hafted biface morphology (Eren et al. 2015: 168). Recently Eren

et al. (2016) continue researching fluted hafted bifaces in the southeast and specifically seek to

test the models of Mason (1962). Using cladistics Eren et al. (2016) find that the southeast

contains the most phylogenetic types of hafted bifaces. They argue that the southeast shows the greatest diversity in Paleoindian fluted point classes. Additionally, they question whether this greater diversity is indicative of the origin of the technology.

This review of Clovis technological studies has revealed several recurring arguments.

The first critical aspect of the distribution of Clovis style hafted bifaces is that it is uneven.

Anderson and Faught (1998) argue that this could be due to uneven population distribution in the past, while Prasciunas (2011) argues that this uneven distribution could be due to the modern bias, such as acres under cultivation and distribution of modern populations. Despite the potential biases the fact still remains that more Clovis style hafted bifaces have been found East

of the Mississippi River than west of it (Anderson and Faught 1998; Beck and Jones 2010).

Another trend in Clovis style hafted biface data is from the stylistic studies of Morrow and

Morrow (1999) and Buchanan and Collard (2007). Both Morrow and Morrow (1999) and

Buchanan and Collard (2007) argue that there is some kind of stylistic transition moving from

the Northwest to the Southeast in North America. Though few have considered it, this trend

could also indicate movement from the Southeast to the Northwest. Buchanan and Collard

(2007) note that the size of the hafted bifaces decreases as you move southeast and Morrow and

Morrow (1999) note an increase in waistedness from the Northeast to the Southeast.

Others Types within the Clovis Type

Some archaeologists doubt that the definition of the Clovis style hafted biface type should be as all-encompassing as many archaeologists claim (Haynes 2002:82). Archaeologists have proposed several sub-types that exist, or as some argue should be separate from, the Clovis hafted biface type. This section summarizes the definitions of and geographic scope of some of the sub types. There are several sub types which have been proposed by archaeologist including but not limited to Gainey, and the hafted bifaces from the far Northeast (sites including Lamb,

Shoop, Debert, Vail and others) (Ellis 2004). The following two sections will briefly outline

some of the research on these two groups of hafted bifaces with a focus on the sites that are

actually in the sample.

First reported at the Gainey site in Michigan (Simmons et al. 1984), the Gainey hafted biface is thought by some to be a distinct yet separate type from Clovis (Morrow 1995; Morrow

1996; Sandstrom and Ray 2004). Sandstrom and Ray 2004 argue that several key differences are evident between Clovis and Gainey points. The first differences noted by Sandstrom and Ray are when the fluting occurs along the production sequence and how the flute is produced. Sandstorm and Ray (2004) argue that the fluting occurs mid-way through the production of a Clovis hafted biface, but in the production of a Gainey point, fluting occurs near the end or even as the last step in the production process. In addition to the timing of the fluting, Gainey hafted bifaces often feature short guiding flutes on either side of the main flute. Aside from differences in the manner of production, several archaeologists (Eren et al. 2011; Morrow 1995; Morrow 1996, and

Sandstorm and Ray 2004) argue that Gainey hafted bifaces are shorter and thinner than Clovis hafted bifaces. Eren et al. (2011) provide a helpful summary of the proposed differences between

Gainey and Clovis hafted bifaces. Eren et al. (2011) add that Gainey hafted bifaces have been proposed to have deeper basal indention among other traits (2011). Other scholars have argued

that more research and analysis should be done before Gainey is declared a separated type of

hafted biface from Clovis (Loebel 2009).

Though many of the attributes used to differentiate Clovis from Gainey hafted bifaces are

not metric, the data gathered here will be used to better understand the potential differences between Clovis and the proposed Gainey type.

The definition of Clovis used here allows for the inclusion of both traditional Clovis

hafted bifaces and Gainey hafted bifaces. Geographically, Gainey hafted bifaces occur within the

Great Lakes region (Deller and Ellis 1992: 125; Eren et al. 2011, Loebel 2009; Morrow 1996).

These doubts have led some researchers to regard Gainey hafted bifaces as simply a variant of

Clovis (Loebel 2009). The Great Lakes region is included in the Northeastern United States and

some of the hafted bifaces included were assigned, by other researchers, to the Gainey hafted biface type.

The relationship of fluted hafted bifaces to Clovis style hafted bifaces from other cultural

areas has long been under debate. The origins of this debate lie in the work of Whithoft (1952).

Whithoft (1952) reports on the Shoop site and in doing so concludes that the hafted biface

manufacturing tradition was likely related to the Clovis type, but was likely its own distinct

variant. Cox (1986), in his reexamination of the Shoop site, puts forth three possible scenarios.

The first is that Shoop may be older than the Clovis type, two that it may younger, or three that is

may represent an intermediary stage between the Clovis type and the hafted bifaces from Debert.

What all three of the scenarios proposed by Cox (1986) have in common, is that hafted bifaces

from Shoop are separate from Clovis. Cox (1986) argues that the hafted bifaces from both Bull-

Brook and Shoop have longer flute lengths, and greater amounts of retouch. Vail is another site

containing 66 hafted bifaces that may or may not be Clovis type. Vail is included in the sample

of this study as it has been radiocarbon dated to 11,050-10,800 uncalibrated B.P study (Gramly

and Rutledge 1981:360). Vail was compared to the Debert site and to other sites in this area.

Ellis (2004) argues that Debert, Vail and Lamb are morphological alike, and dissimilar to the rest

of the specimens within the Clovis type. This group has wider bases and deeper basal

concavities. Ellis (2004) further argues that Bull-Brook and Shoop represent a separate group

with narrow bases and shallow basal concavities. Despite this, at current, it is still unclear how

these hafted bifaces from these sites are related to the Clovis hafted biface type. The relationship between the fluted hafted bifaces in the Northeast and the rest of the continental United States

will be investigated in this work.

Scenarios of the Spread of Clovis Hafted Biface Technology

Through use of Occam’s Razor many have argued that Clovis hafted biface technology

came from Alaska, as it is the logical entry point of migrating peoples from Beringia. As many

have noted however, there are few Clovis assemblages within modern day Alaska (Buchanan and

Collard 2008:1683; Haynes 2002: 74) and those that are there postdate Clovis (Goebel et al.

2013). The absence of Clovis assemblages has caused some archaeologists to look for a stylistic

ancestor to Clovis among Alaska’s earliest lithic complexes: Nenana and Denali. By looking at

the frequency of over 70 different lithic tool types from Nenana and Denali sites in Alaska and

Clovis sites throughout the continental United States, Goebel (1991) argued that Clovis was most

closely related to Nenana. Using much of the same data but with different restraining algorithms,

Buchanan and Collard (2008) later argue that Denali is more closely related to Clovis. The third option is that neither of these studies truly explains the relationship between the three

technological complexes. This debate remains important, but the lack of a clear cut ancestral

relationship with either of the oldest technologies in Alaska suggests that the origins of Clovis

may lie elsewhere.

Gary Haynes has outlined three possible scenarios which could explain the origin and consequently the subsequent dispersal of the Clovis culture (2002). The first of his scenarios, which he dubs the “The Stations of the Cross,” depicts peoples armed with Clovis hafted bifaces slowly colonizing one environmental zone after another and in doing so, slowly spreading Clovis hafted bifaces across North America (Haynes 2002: 28). At the time of Haynes’ writing there was little stratigraphic evidence for other non-Clovis groups in North America (2002:29); since this time however, stemmed points have been recovered in present day Idaho which may be nearly as old or older than the typical time range of Clovis (Davis and Schweger 2004). In addition to this and more recently, Waters et al. (2011) have identified a pre-Clovis component at the Debra L. Friedkin site, in Texas, dating to 15,270-16,170 B.P. Another important discovery is the new pre-Clovis dates at the Manis Mastodon kill site, in Washington (Waters et al. 2011).

Of course, outside of North America there are the widely accepted pre-Clovis dates at Monte

Verde (Dillehay and Collins 1988, Meltzer et al. 1997). In light of these many pre-Clovis sites it is unlikely that Clovis were the first people in all of North America. However the “Stations of the

Cross” (Haynes 2002) model may still have merit in that people bearing Clovis technology may have been the first migrants into portions of North America.

Another scenario suggested by Haynes (2002) is labeled “Boyz in the Hood.” This perspective implies that each of the earliest hafted biface types represents a cultural group, or

“gang”, that foraged within different resource patches. Thus, according to the “Boyz in the

Hood” model, Clovis represents the most successful and wide spread of the early cultural groups

(Haynes 2002: 29). While this scenario may be true, testing this scenario would require a data set

made up of more than just Clovis hafted bifaces. For this reason, I do not consider this scenario

in my analysis. The final scenario proposed by Haynes (2002) is dubbed the “Andromeda

Strain.” Within this theorem, Haynes posits the spread of Clovis may not represent the physical

movements of late Pleistocene peoples but instead, the spread of highly adaptive idea among

already present peoples (Haynes 2002: 28). Clovis technology, then, would not indicate the

movement of new migrants into an area but, instead the movement of Clovis technology among people who were already present. Clovis was not truly a group of people, but instead just a

technological adaption which spread quickly across the New World. A similar view has recently been expressed by Bradley and Collins (2013), who view the idea of Clovis points as part of a

cultural reformation sweeping North America. Not mentioned by Haynes, but an important

observation, is the fact that these abovementioned theories are not mutually exclusive and that

the spread of Clovis culture may have been brought about by two or even all three in

combination.

These scenarios provide testable expectations which the morphological data collected in

this study can be used to address. This study will focus on two of these scenarios: Clovis moving

with migration populations and Clovis diffusing as an idea among already existing populations.

Research Questions

This study seeks to answer two research questions pertaining to Clovis style hafted bifaces. These research questions are:

1) What factors affect the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces?

2) Do Clovis hafted bifaces from different Culture Areas differ morphologically?

The following chapters will explain the theoretical basis for answering these questions, outline the methodology used for analysis, review the history of the sites in the sample, explore the morphological data, and finally show the results of the analysis.

Ultimately these question are being asked to further the archaeological discourse concerning the origin and method of spread of the Clovis hafted biface type. Questions concerning the origin and spread of the may be too lofty for the study at hand, but learning more about the morphological variability in Clovis hafted biface will do much to further this pursuit.

Summary

The literature review above has shown that the geographic origin of the Clovis hafted biface technology is still debated. As stated in the history of the Clovis type, Clovis hafted bifaces were first found in the Great Plains and are often found with associated extinct megafauna. Until recently, most archaeologists believed that the people bearing Clovis style hafted bifaces were the earliest inhabitants of the New World. More recent finds confirm that people were present in at least some parts of the New World prior to the use of the Clovis style

hafted bifaces. Several distributional and stylistic analyses of Clovis hafted biface had been performed prior to this study. These studies suggest that Clovis style hafted bifaces are unevenly

distributed and there are morphological trends in their production. Some archaeologists argue

there is enough morphological variability in the Clovis type to divide or sub divide it into several

novel types. For the purposes of this study, those types, such as Gainey and far Northeastern

fluted bifaces, will be considered Clovis, but these types will be tested to see how well they

match the rest of the sample. As shown throughout the chapter the geographic origin and the

method by which Clovis hafted biface spread is still debated. Gaining a better understanding of

Clovis hafted biface morphology in order to further the conversation about the method of spread

and origins Clovis hafted biface technology, are the ultimate goals of this work.

CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF PREVIOUS CLOVIS

HAFTED BIFACE STUDIES

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. Here I review the basic tenants of evolutionary theory with special attention to cultural transmission theory. Though this perspective will not be utilized in the analyses in this work, evolutionary theory has been the theory most often utilized in the study of Clovis hafted bifaces over the last decade. Therefore, to truly understand the importance of the majority of many of the most recent Clovis hafted biface studies, evolutionary theory, and specifically cultural transmission theory, must be carefully reviewed. The second reason for the inclusion of this chapter is to review the specific contributions of evolutionary studies to Clovis archaeology. A review of the methods archaeologists studying Clovis hafted bifaces have used is provided in Chapter Five, and their findings have been reviewed in Chapter

One. This discussion revolves around the theory on archaeologists have drawn upon to analyze

Clovis hafted bifaces and the mechanisms of evolution. A review of the methods of hafted bifaces and other lithic tools through the lens of evolutionary theory. Finally considering the effects of the various forces of evolution on an assemblage of hafted bifaces is a useful exercise before embarking on a study of their morphological variability.

Evolutionary Theory, Cultural Transmission, and Clovis Hafted Bifaces

“Our nonbiologist readers should not be misled into thinking that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is completely secure, for there are fundamental issues outstanding” (Boyd and

Richerson 1985: 3). This quote, though over thirty years old and not targeted specifically to

anthropology, still applies to much of the use of cultural transmission theory in anthropology,

and certainly, in archaeology. This is not to say that no forward momentum has occurred, as

many archaeologists have made headway into understanding how an evolutionary perspective

can be applied to the archaeological record. There is not, however, an optimum suite of theoretical perspectives and methodologies that applies to all aspects of prehistoric material culture. This section includes a very brief history of the use of evolutionary theory.

History of Cultural Transmission Theory

Cultural transmission theory (also known as dual inheritance theory) was developed in a

series of papers by biologists in the 1970s and 1980s. Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman examined and

modeled the inheritance of discontinuous cultural traits within families and maladaptive cultural

traits which can be learned from outside familial units (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1973;

Feldman and Cavalli-Sforza 1976). This work was expanded upon in their 1981 volume in which

they outline the forces and vectors (vertical, horizontal, and oblique) of cultural transmission.

Boyd and Richerson (1985) further the argument of Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) by expanding the concept of cultural transmission theory. Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) theory of cultural transmission was highly influential and is outlined in detail later in the chapter. The next sections provide an in depth look at forces and vectors of cultural transmission theory, with special attention to both its application to a Clovis style hafted biface assemblage and the forces of cultural evolution as outlined by Boyd and Richerson (1985). After reviewing the origins of

cultural transmission (dual inheritance) theory, its application to archaeology and lithics will be

examined, with specific attention to Clovis style hafted bifaces.

Style and Function

When studying functional artifacts, the separation of style and function is difficult. The age old style-function debate has never truly come to an end, and will certainly not be laid to rest by the work here. However, to conduct the kind of study proposed in this work, comments on the theory behind it must be made. This dichotomy of style and function was first eloquently elucidated in terms of evolutionary theory by Robert Dunnell (1978). Dunnell (1978) argues that traits are either stylistic, making them neutral in terms of natural selection, or functional, meaning that they are adaptations on which natural selection, has acted. Therefore, to understand variation in functional attributes of artifacts would require perfect knowledge of the past environment. This statement has led many archaeologists to proclaim that only those attributes in an artifact assemblage considered suitable for evolutionary analysis are those which are purely stylistic in nature (Nieman 1995: Dunnell 1978). Dunnell expresses it best in 1978 in this quote:

“The elegant simplicity of style behavior and the ability to distinguish a correct answer from one that is simply elegant have made style the archaeological forte. Because of the independence of style from its environment and its homologous character it can also be employed as a tool to delineate spatial interaction. But the very characteristics that make style such a useful archaeological tool prohibit its explanation in terms of natural selection. The

explanation of specific styles will have to come from non-evolutionary, stochastic processes

coupled with such devices as Markov chains to accommodate its mode of transmission.”

[Dunnell 1978: 199]

This theoretical approach was applied by Meltzer (1981), who makes the argument that scraper morphology is entirely functional, with no stylistic component. This application of the theory by Meltzer (1981) demonstrated that the theoretical stand point could be applied to lithic technology. Examining only stylistic traits is certainly enticing because they are better able to track the phylogenetic signal, but this dichotomy of purely stylistic and functional traits is not an

empirical reality (Bamforth 2002; Eerkens and Lipo (2007:255). Logically a trait can easily be aesthetic and at the same time useful. An item’s style can certainly be used to gain influence or sway with people that can lead to reproductive advantage. Therefore, it is possible that the traits of hafted bifaces lie not within bounds of style or function, but instead somewhere along a continuum between the two.

It is impossible in the analysis of most traits to claim that the results reflect purely style or function. Some kinds of stone tools, such as eccentrics, are obviously stylistic in nature, but may have conferred selective advantage as well. The functional aspect of Clovis hafted bifaces cannot be denied due to the prevalence of kill sites at which Clovis hafted bifaces were used (See

Chapter Three for a list of kill sites in this study’s sample. In this way the theoretical stance of my current study agrees with Bettinger and Eerkens (1997). They argue that any attempt to separate style and function will fail. As I recognized that Clovis hafted bifaces were functional artifacts I attempt to control for differences in artifact function as well as can be done.

It is difficult to argue that any one attribute of a hafted biface is entirely stylistic. An insistence on using attributes of artifacts that only reflect style would leave the Paleoindian period in North America largely barren of suitable artifact assemblages. Due to a lack of organic preservation, this period is dominated by lithic artifacts. Few bone tools used by people who also used Clovis style hafted bifaces are preserved and sites containing faunal remains or bone tools made by these peoples are rare, but do exist. (Haynes 2002: 118). Hemmings 2004 has documented 45 different osseous tool forms. Preserved wooden tools are also lacking for this period. Despite this lack of data it has been suggested that the bone tool kit of Clovis style hafted biface bearing people was actually quite diverse (Bradley et al. 2010: 114 ; Hemmings et al.

2004: 90). The lack of ceramic technology paired with the rarity of bone tools signifies that lithic technology remains the best pan North America representation of the people who used Clovis style hafted biface technology.

In 1995 Fraser Nieman wrote a seminal paper applying the work of Dunnell (1978) and the basic tenants of population genetics to an assemblage of Woodland period ceramics taken from Braun (1977). Nieman (1995) argues that drift, gene flow (inter-group transmission), and innovation are the major forces of neutral cultural change. Nieman (1995) claims that when innovation, inter-group transmission, and drift are considered, that counts of discrete categorical data make the battleship curves that archaeologists have examined for decades. The battleship curves essentially follow a normal distribution, with time as the X-axis. The frequency of an artifact type or trait increases until it reaches the maximum, then decreases until it becomes defunct. Using the neutrality model developed by Kimura and Crow (Crow and Kimura 1963,

1970; Kimura 1968), Nieman (1995) argues that inter group transmission started low in the Early

Woodland, increased to its apex during the Middle Woodland and decreased during the Late

Woodland. His paper was an example that many other evolutionary archaeologists have

attempted to follow. The implications of Nieman’s (1995) model and work are examined later in

the chapter in the section on cultural drift.

Time Averaged Assemblages

The style and function dichotomy is not the only assumption of a truly evolutionary model that will be examined in this study. First and foremost, as clarified by Premo (2014) an assemblage of artifacts that has been time-averaged does not qualify as a population in the biological sense. A biological population consists of a group of individuals that lived at the same time. The assemblage used in this study represents a palimpsest of Clovis style hafted bifaces which have been preserved in the archaeological record and originally were made by an unknown number of different individuals whom, using Waters and Stafford’s (2007) time scale, existed during a period between 250 and 500 years long. Thus the Clovis hafted bifaces in the sample of this study represent many generations of flint knappers and therefore many populations. Many factors need to be examined, both methodological and theoretical, before models meant to be applied to biological populations can be applied to time-averaged archaeological data.

Forces of Cultural Evolution and Their Estimated Effects on Clovis Style Hafted Bifaces

This section is a detailed description of the forces of cultural evolution as proposed by

Boyd and Richerson (1985). I consider the applicability of each force to the study at hand and the past cultural transmission studies. In addition to the forces proposed by Boyd and Richerson

(1985),

Boyd and Richerson (1985) outlined the various forces that affect cultural evolution,

natural selection, drift, random variation, guided variation, and biased transmission. In this section these five forces will be briefly outlined and I will discuss the potential effects they had on the morphology of Clovis style hafted bifaces. Beyond the forces proposed by Boyd and

Richerson (1985) I also included cultural selection. These forces were defined for use within populations. As argued above, the data used here is a time-averaged assemblage (Premo 2014) of artifacts and therefore they were made probably by people from several different populations.

Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) model applies to biological populations, not time-averaged assemblages of artifacts, thus both theoretical and methodological adaptations are required for the study at hand. In the following sections the resolution of these data in regards to the forces of cultural evolution will be discussed.

Natural Selection

Natural selection can and does operate on culture (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 11;

Richerson and Boyd 2005: 76; Lipo and Eerkens 2005). Of specific concern to this work is how natural selection can affect material culture created by prehistoric hunter-gatherers and more

specifically the size and shape (morphology) of hafted bifaces. As argued above, many previous works on the application of evolutionary theory to archaeology (Dunnell 1978; Nieman 1995)

claim that the effect of natural selection on the material record is best controlled for by only

looking at stylistic traits. They recommend that the use of traits that are purely stylistic mitigates

these effects.

It is difficult for the data from the current study to track natural selection among the people who used Clovis style hafted bifaces. This is not to say this force did not affect Clovis

hafted biface morphology, just that to be able to accurately track this force of evolution would

require several pieces of information that are not available. Tracking natural selection would

require population level data about the people who made Clovis hafted bifaces. We would need

to know who made what biface and whether or not the style of biface they made, provided them

with reproductive advantage. Additionally, if a certain style of hafted biface provided selective

advantage it would likely then be transmitted and adopted by others. Population level data would

allow archaeologist to track this, but the incomplete nature of our archaeological assemblages

makes this difficult. Our ability to track and pinpoint which attributes is limited because this is a

time-averaged assemblage. Thus, due to the time-averaged nature of sample of Clovis hafted bifaces, this study does not have the resolution of data to track the reproductive success of the

individuals who made the hafted bifaces. Archaeologists may, however, be able to track biased

transmission, which is explained later in this chapter.

Cultural Selection

Often an aspect of an artifact may be purely stylistic but the adoption of that style may lead to social advantage in the form of social power or political strength, which in turns leads to greater reproductive sucess. Cavilli-Sforza and Feldman (1981) dub this Cultural Selection.

Some, have argued that Clovis hafted bifaces may have been transmitted due to Cultural Section

(Bradley and Collins 2013). Though they do not use the terms cultural selection, or biased transmission, the revitalization movement described by Bradley and Collins (2013) would certainly fit the concepts. This suggests that Clovis hafted biface may have been transmitted, via diffusion, not because they provided selective advantage in the physical environment, but instead within the social environments of the time. They suggest that Clovis hafted bifaces are the material correlates of a religious revitalization movement that swept across North America as an idea.

Drift

Boyd and Richerson (1985:9) outlined what they refer to as an “analogue of genetic drift.” For the purposes of simplicity this analogue will be referred to as drift and the terms genetic drift will be reserved for drift in the biological sense. The concept of drift is crucial to

Nieman (1995). According to Boyd and Richerson (1985) drift is the random changes in the frequency of cultural variants within a population. These random changes in the frequency of cultural variants can cause rare variants to disappear entirely. Due to their stochastic nature, drift is stronger in small populations. The kind of archaeological data most appropriate to record and

monitor drift are counts of artifacts or counts of attributes found on artifacts with knowledge of

which generation (and therefore population) the manufacturer of the artifact belonged to.

Nieman’s (1995) use of design features on the rims of Early, Middle and Late Woodland ceramic

vessels is such an artifact assemblage. Each of these periods represents between four to six

hundred years (Milner 2004:9; Nieman 1995). Many transmission events may have occurred

during this long period of time. U1sing time-averaged assemblages where the number of

transmission events is unknown in conjunction with biological methodology created for population (generational) level data violates the assumptions of these models (Premo 2014).

The data in the current study consist mostly of metric measurements that record aspects

of Clovis style hafted biface morphology. Biologists use a conceptual framework dubbed

effective population size to understand drift in biological population. It is difficult for

archaeologists to construct a metaphorically similar measurement as effective population size for

artifacts measured with continuous ratio scale attributes. Therefore, methodologies built for population level data, like that of Crow and Kimura (1963, 1970) and applied by Nieman (1995)

are not appropriate for the study of linear measurements. It should be noted that drift is

especially powerful in small populations as random effects can eliminate rare cultural variants all

together (Boyd and Richerson 1985:9).

Random Variation

As defined by Boyd and Richerson (1985), random variation, includes any type of error

that occurs when trying to reproduce a behavior or manufacture a material object. Boyd and

Richerson (1985) argue that this random variation is the analogue to mutation within biological

evolution.

One group of archaeologists (Bettinger and Eerkins 1997;1999; Eerkens 2000; Eerkens

and Bettinger 2001; Eerkens and Lipo 2005, 2007) has spent a lot of time seeking to understand

how random variation can affect artifact assemblages. Eerkens (2000) argues that an important

aspect of cultural transmission is copy error, which is an aspect of random variation. Copy errors

are inconsistencies that are made when someone is attempting to copy aspects of a material

object during manufacture. Most commonly in archaeology these copy errors result in

differences in size and shape (morphology) between the original item (the template) and the item produced. Eerkens (2000) reviews a concept known as the Weber fraction. The Weber fraction posits that there is a limit to human perception in that people cannot tell differences in length,

width, and weight of objects if they are very close to one another. This limit to human perception

dictates that even when someone is attempting to copy an item as faithfully as possible during

the manufacturing process that without the aid of precision measuring tools, there will be some

imperceptible variability between the original and the copy. Random variation can be seen within

the archaeological record and may represent a useful tool for determining the origin of a

technology and potentially even the way it was transmitted from group to group across space. An

example of the accumulation of copy error is found in the work of Bettinger and Eerkens (1997)

who track variation across over 5,000 hafted bifaces from the Great Basin. This study and others

will be discussed in detail later on in the chapter.

Guided Variation

Boyd and Richerson (1985) define guided variation as the ability of humans to change or modify their behavior in response to their current environment. They liken this to the theory of

Lamarckian evolution, noting that humans can change their behavioral “phenotype.” Guided variation occurs through trial and error modification to an existing cultural variant. Boyd and

Richerson (1985) assume that under guided variation individuals rank the effect of their behavior using certain criteria. These criteria are based on knowledge of the environment. It is important to note, however, that the individual’s knowledge of the environment can be imperfect. This imperfect knowledge can lead to error when people guess which behavior is best suited to the environment (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 94).

The prevalence of guided variation within a population will vary based on two factors.

These two factors are the predictability of the environment and the cost (and therefore the error rate) of experimentation via guided transmission (Boyd and Richerson 1985). Figure 1 demonstrates how the rates of social learning and guided variation will vary within a theoretical population where all other aspects of learning are held constant. Environmental predictability is

simply how constant the environment is across time and space including encounter rates for

flora, fauna, as well as aspects of climate. The cost of guided variation is determined by a

number of factors including how costly the materials are to make items, the time required to

make an item or exhibit a behavior, and the accuracy of a person’s knowledge about what behavior is better adapted to the current environment. The resolution of data in the current study does not allow for all of these factors included in environmental predictability and the cost of guided variation to be known but the effects of guided variation on the metric attributes

measured can be detected. Guided variation should affect significant and quick directional

change to the mean value of a trait within an assemblage. Hamilton and Buchanan have shown that random variation decreases the mean size of artifacts (2009), but here I am suggesting that guided variation would affect artifact morphology more quickly (over less transmission events) and likely to a greater extent. As an example, imagine that in a new environment it was more adaptive to have hafted bifaces with longer blades. As individuals experiment with longer blade lengths the mean blade length should increase over time. Guided variation would cause the mean to increase to reflect what is adaptive in the new environment. In the same manner, if it was more

adaptive to have shorter blade lengths the mean would decrease as individuals decreased their blade lengths over time.

If a population relied heavily on guided variation in a certain area for a long period of

time variation in that trait should be higher than in areas where no guided variation has taken place. A region with high variability could represent an area where a new type of technology was

created or heavily modified to adapt to a new social or physical environment. It should be noted,

however, that if the initial period of guided variation was short it may difficult to find it in the

archaeological record. With the inherent biases in archaeological sampling and preservation it

may be difficult to locate guided variation in the archaeological record at all.

Figure 1. The effects of environmental predictability and the cost of experimentation on the frequency of guided variation and social learning.

Biased Transmission

Biased transmission occurs when some factor encourages the transmission of one cultural variant over other available variants (Boyd and Richerson 1985: 9). Boyd and Richerson outline three types of biased transmission: direct, indirect, and frequency based. Direct bias favors a cultural variant because of some factor that the variant itself possesses (Boyd and Richerson

1985). The variant chosen via direct bias is simply more attractive or efficient. In other words, given the chance to try out each available variant, most people would choose this variant due to it being inherently superior to all others. Indirect bias causes a cultural variant to be selected via an

evaluation of the person who has chosen to display or use it (Boyd and Richerson 1985). Several

types of indirect biases have been suggested, including success bias (choosing to copy the variant

the most successful individual), prestige bias (choosing to copy the variant of the most famous

individual), and similarity bias (choosing to copy the variant of an individual deemed most

similar to yourself) (Heinrich and McElreath 2003). The third type, frequency bias, occurs when

an individual chooses a particular cultural variant due to the number of people currently using or

displaying it. This bias comes in two forms, conformist and non-conformist bias. Conformist bias

occurs when an individual selects a trait that many people are using, while non-conformist bias

occurs when an individual selects a variant because few individuals are using or displaying it

(Boyd and Richerson 1985). In opposition to the various biased forms of transmission is

unbiased transmission. Unbiased transmission occurs when an individual attempts to copy a

cultural variant from a randomly chosen individual in the population (Boyd and Richerson 1985).

With the exception of non-conformist bias, biased transmission, serves to reduce the

number of unique cultural variants while increasing the frequency of the variant or variants that

the type of active bias supports. Without complete knowledge of the social and physical

environments in which artifacts are made it may be difficult to tell conformist, direct, prestige,

and success bias apart, as all of these mechanisms would serve to reduce the variability in a population.

Application of Evolutionary Theory to Lithics

Most attempts to apply evolutionary theory to lithic analysis have come from four different methodological perspectives: cladistics, Human behavioral Ecology, Selectionist

(which has been reviewed above), and cultural transmission (Andrefsky and Goodale 2015).

Each section will review the previous research within, theoretical perspectives of and the applicability of these perspectives to the analysis of Clovis style hafted bifaces.

Cladistics as Applied to Lithics

In the past three decades several archaeologists have attempted to use cladistics to better understand morphological change among hafted bifaces (Buchanan and Collard 2007; Darwent and O'Brien 2006; Lyman and 2000; O'Brien et al. 2001) and other archaeological materials

(Jordan and Shennan 2003). In biology cladistics is a method used to build phylogenetic trees.

Phylogenetic trees, or cladograms as they are often called, are diagrams which show the potential relationships between a set of related species. As populations evolve through time the novel phenotypic traits that accrue are recorded. Cladistics, as used in biology, tracks the heritable

traits from one species to the next and attempts to build cladograms. The inheritance and

transmission of the traits are continuous, yet within most data populations several possible

versions of a cladogram exist. The number of homoplasies in each cladogram is calculated. The

cladogram with the least homoplasies is the best fit for the data. Homoplasies can come in

several forms including parallelism, reversals, and convergence (O’Brien et al. 2002). Reversals

take place when a species develops a derived trait but then later reverts to the ancestral trait.

Parallelism takes place when the same derived trait appears along two different phylogenetic

lines. Convergence occurs when the derived trait appears in two different branches of the

cladogram. There are many different ways to determine the goodness of fit, essentially the

accuracy, of a cladogram and all cladograms should have some homoplasy (O’Brien et al. 2002).

Eerkens et al. (2006) have leveled some critiques against the use of cladistics in

archaeology. Eerkens et al. (2006) construct a simple model using only Excel to examine the

effects of the guided variation, indirect bias, and conformist transmission. The consistency index

(CI) is used to evaluate how well the modeled populations adhere to cladograms. They find that

cladistics works relatively well when transmission occurs under indirect or conformist bias but

does not function well when cultural transmission occurs under guided variation. These results

are not surprising as the methods used in cladistics are built for biological evolution. In biological evolution there is no force analogous to guided variation; therefore, cladistics, a

methodology developed for biological evolution, cannot handle its effects without modification.

More recently Shott (2015) has added his voice to the critique of cladistics use on lithic data set,

arguing that cladistics requires that continuous measurements, such as length, widths and angles, be simplified into ordinal scale measurements, which do not adequately represent hafted biface

morphology. Additionally, Shott (2015) argues that cladistics studies do not account for hafted biface resharpening. Life history and resharpening will be considered in depth in Chapter Five.

An additional problem with cladistics is that it is only built for vertical transmission. In biology genes can only be transferred vertically, however, in cultural evolution cultural variants can be transferred horizontally and obliquely as well (Boyd and Richerson 1985). Any horizontal or oblique transmission would likely be seen as a homoplasy within cladistics. Horizontal and oblique transmission could appear as parallelism as two separate groups could appear to have developed the same artifact trait, when in fact one group taught it to the other via horizontal or oblique transmission. Many have already argued that Clovis hafted bifaces may have spread from group to group as an idea (Bradley and Collins 2013; Haynes 2002:28-29), via horizontal transmission. Thus any method that cannot deal with horizontal transmission is invalid in evaluating the method and route of Clovis hafted biface dispersal. Reversals, which are also common in the archaeological record, are seen as homoplasies as well.

The transmission of Clovis style hafted biface technology is undoubtedly a situation where both oblique and horizontal transmission occurred. Thus, without modification, cladistics is not an appropriate method to go about studying this sequence of transmissions.

Due to diverse environments, relatively short chronology (when compared to biological evolutionary time spans), and large spatial spread from which the assemblage of Clovis style hafted bifaces used within this study are drawn it is likely that guided variation has played at least a small role in shaping their morphology. In addition to its lack of resolution concerning guided variation, few cladistics studies of hafted biface style have considered only a single hafted biface type. O'Brien et al. (2001) do produce meaningful cladograms, but do so using

over 13,000 years of hafted biface morphological variability. An exception lies in the work of

Buchanan and Collard (2007) who apply cladistics to only the Clovis hafted biface type.

Buchanan and Collard (2007) make use of cladistics to test potential origin points for Clovis

style hafted bifaces. Buchanan and Collard (2007) determine that the cladograms with the least

homoplasies are those made for the Ice-Free-Corridor and Coastal Migration routes. The presence of well dated Pre-Clovis sites such as the Debra L. Friedkin site, dating to 13,200-

15,500 B.P. (Waters et al. 2013) casts doubt on these conclusions, as people were in North

America prior to the invention of the Clovis hafted biface type.

Human Behavioral Ecology and its Application to Lithics

Human behavioral ecology (HBE) theorists envision culture as a set of human behaviors

that enable people to better adapt to their current environment (both social and physical)

(Andrefsky and Goodale 2015; Boone and Smith 1998: 141). If adopting a broad perspective of

HBE, as Andrefsky and Goodale (2015) do, many classic studies of the adaptation of stone tool

technology to the social and physical environment should be considered within the purview of

HBE theory. There are many examples of such classic studies, including, but not limited to:

Andrefsky (1994); Kelly and Todd (1988), Parry and Kelly (1987), Bamforth (1986), Surovell

(2009), and Shott (1986). As shown by the variety of papers cited, HBE includes research on

stone tool optimization, risk management, mobility, and production strategies. This broad

definition of HBE used by Andrefsky and Goodale (2015) is the same perspective that will be

adopted in this work.

Beck et al. (2002) provides a central place foraging model to better understand the degree to which toolstone will be high graded before being brought to camp. They find that the greater the distance from the quarry to camp the more reduction, or high grading, will take place out in the field. Others (Ferris 2015) have continued using central place foraging models but in this case she argues that abundant raw material in the Baja area led to no field processing of raw materials. This use of central place foraging could prove very useful when studying Clovis hafted bifaces, but the data in this sample do not include enough information on both the location and breadth of raw materials available to people who made Clovis hafted bifaces. If more detailed research on the raw material quarries available to Clovis hafted biface manufacturers were available, this could prove to be a fruitful research agenda. Without the quarry data however, this research cannot be pursued in this work.

Another HBE methodological approach that has been adapted to stone tools is the Tech

Investment model (Bright et al. 2002, Ugan et al. 2003). This model, which was later refined by

Bettinger et al. (2006), suggests that people invest more in extractive technologies that help them reduce the effort needed to procure resources. Most recently Clarkson et al. (2015) have adapted this model to better understand the life history of flake tools. To do this Clarkson et al. (2015) create an experimental assemblage of flake tools and use them to scrape wood. They suggest that proper maintenance was essential to the early lifeways of flake tools users and that maintenance of flake tools is an optimal behavior only when raw materials are scarce.

While these papers show how investigating tool creation and handling time can be a very useful research agenda, the data set of Clovis hafted bifaces used in this study is again not detailed enough to allow for the application of these kinds of models. These models require that

a researcher be able to calculate return rates and investment times required to use a particular

stone tool technology. Investment times could be calculated with experimental archaeology, but

return rates would require that archaeologists have a better hold on the diet of the people who

used Clovis hafted bifaces. The diet breadth of people using Clovis hafted bifaces is still

unknown (Williams 2012). Originally Clovis hafted biface bearers were thought to be only big

game hunters (Kelly and Todd 1988), who optimized their tool kit for a highly mobile lifestyle.

Some, like Nicole Waguespack (2013), still argue for this highly mobile lifestyle and support the

overkill of megafauna. Others, like Cannon and Meltzer (2004) and Meltzer (2009), argue that people using Clovis hafted bifaces were generalists, eating any dietary options available to them.

Haynes and Hutson (2013) argue that the people bearing Clovis hafted bifaces diets varied

greatly from one region to the next. This debate will not be resolved in this work, because as

Waguespack (2013:317) states, “It will take more than new data to resolve this issue.” Thus, with

no agreement as to the diet of peoples bearing Clovis hafted bifaces was, it is not currently

appropriate to apply these tech investment models.

After a review of some of the approaches to the application of HBE to Clovis hafted biface data, it appears that these approaches could be useful, but given the current state of the

Clovis hafted biface data across North America it may be some time until these data are accurate enough for the application of the models continent-wide. Despite this, in the most generalized sense this work will apply HBE theory in that certain aspects of the Clovis hafted bifaces under study, I will argue, have been adapted to certain environments (both social and physical).

Accumulated Copy Error

In addition to cladistics, another methodology, accumulated copy error, has been developed to study lithics and other archaeological materials. Eerkens and Lipo (2005) point out that although unfortunately there is no heritable unit of cultural transmission such as DNA archaeologists can study the effects of cultural transmission. Eerkens, Bettinger, and Lipo are interested in the variation of metric measurements across space and time. They argue that variability is caused primarily by copy error, which is part of Boyd and Richerson’s force known as random variation (1985). They argue that accumulated copy error can inform archaeologists about the presence of biased transmission and guided variation (Bettinger and Eerkens 1997).

Low variability, as measured by the coefficient of variation (CoV), can be indicative of some form of biased transmission which is working to reduce variability. During experimentation as part of guided variation, CoV (variability) should be higher as individuals are trying out new morphological forms independent of one another, leading to conscious efforts to vary lengths, widths, and thicknesses of archaeologically observable attributes. Regardless of the effect of biased transmission or guided variation, variance in metric attributes should accumulate over time, due to the limits of human perception, (Eerkens 2000). Eerkens (2000) argues that copy errors (random variation) occur due to the maker’s inability to perfectly copy a model. Many questions, however, still remain concerning how this copy error accumulates. We do not well understand if copy error ever reaches an equilibrium state and, if this equilibrium exists, how many transmission events are required to reach it. That being said, many argue the optimum

statistical tool to measure dispersal of ratio scale data in archaeological assemblages is the CoV

(Bettinger and Eerkens 1999, Eerkens and Lipo 2005, 2007, Lyman et al. 2008).

Several scholars have applied this methodology to lithic technology. Bettinger and

Eerkens (1997) were the first to use this style of CT analysis on an assemblage of over 5,000 hafted bifaces from the Great Basin. In this work they suggest that the majority of the variability found within several different point types is due to errors in production, which are tolerated within the form of the final product. Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) continued this research and

apply this method of CT to understand the variability of Rosegate and Elko Corner-Notched

hafted bifaces from central Nevada and California. Bettinger and Eerkens state that, “It is

impossible to observe these transmission processes directly in the archaeological record, of

course, but their statistical signatures should be clear nonetheless” (1999: 237). Bettinger and

Eerkens (1999) conclude that variables acquired through indirect transmission should be correlated while those acquired through the force of guided variation should not. They argue that

Rosegate style bifaces were transmitted under the force of guided variation in California, but were transmitted under indirect (biased) transmission within Nevada (Bettinger and Eerkens

1999: 237). The correlation between basal width and weight are in Nevada indicates that the hafted bifaces were transmitted as an entire package from one person to the next. By contrast, basal width and weight vary independently in California, suggesting that individuals experimented with the hafted biface form through guided variation.

Summary and Conclusions

This chapter provides a discussion of the basic concept of evolutionary theory as applied to archaeology and more specifically lithics. While this study will not utilize these theoretical concepts, the vast majority of studies on Clovis style hafted bifaces in the last decade have.

Cladistics, and cultural transmission theory are popular perspectives to adopt when analyzing

Clovis style hafted bifaces. It is important therefore to review the theoretical underpinnings of these studies before moving forward with the present study. The evaluation provided allows me to better orient the findings of this work with those from the past decade.

CHAPTER THREE THE SAMPLE

Introduction

In this Chapter a definition of the Clovis hafted biface type is provided. Additionally, I discuss the methodology that was used to build the sample. Then I present the contents of the

sample and the background of each of the Clovis sites sampled.

Defining Clovis

A first essential step in procuring a sample of Clovis hafted bifaces is to have a solid definition of what a Clovis hafted biface is. Since the first Clovis hafted biface was found in

1932 the definition of the Clovis hafted biface type has changed several times (Boulanger 2015).

A comparison of Clovis hafted biface definitions is provided in Table 1. This comparison, highlights aspects the scholars have agreed and differed upon, while trying to arrive at a consensus on what a Clovis style hafted biface should look like. What is immediately clear is that most scholars agree that Clovis style hafted bifaces should have concave bases, and should feature at least one, if not two, flutes. Archaeologists vary as to whether both sides should be fluted. Additionally, the length of the flute varies from one archaeologist’s definition to the next.

The length of flute, number of flutes, and concave nature of the base, are all attributes which mostly or entirely occur on the haft element (for a description of haft element see Chapter Five and/or Andrefsky 2005: 77). Most archaeologists also agree that the blade shape of Clovis style hafted bifaces should be lanceolate, or the margins should be convex or parallel. These traits, however are measured on the blade and therefore may change throughout the use of the hafted

biface (for more on the effects of retouch see Chapter five). Due to the effects of retouch on the blade element, the definition of the Clovis hafted biface type used in this work focuses on

attributes of the haft element. These attributes include flute length, and concavity of the base.

Table 1. Summary of Clovis Hafted Biface Definitions

Reference Length Width Blade Basal Sides Basal Basal Flute Shape Concavit Fluted Constriction Grinding Length y Wormington 38-127 Parallel Yes 2 Yes 1/3-2/3 1957 mm or length Convex Ritchie 1961 25-127 Parallel Yes 1-2 Yes mm or Convex Prufer and Parallel Yes 1-2 No Baby 1963 or Convex Roosa 1965 Max at Yes 1-2 midline Willey 1966 70-120 30-40 Lanceo- Yes 2 Yes Yes ¼-1/2 mm mm late length Hester 1972 51-152 25-51 Convex Yes 2 Slight Yes 1/3-2/3 mm mm length Jennings 76-152 19-38 Lanceo- Yes 2 1974 mm mm late Cox 1986 Parallel Yes 2 Yes <1/2 or length Convex Justice 1987 Parallel Yes 1-2 Yes <1/2 or length Convex Morrow - - Parallel Yes 2 Yes ¼-1/2 1995 or length Convex Haynes 25-150 25- Convex - - Yes Yes 1/3-2/3 2002 mm 50mm length Dixon 1999 - - Lanceo- Yes - - Yes - late This table has been modified with permission from Boulanger 2015

After reviewing the available definitions of the Clovis style hafted biface type, a classification system was constructed. The first requirement of the Clovis type is that the hafted biface be fluted. While there are certainly Clovis bifaces that are not fluted, and therefore likely not hafted, these are not included in the sample of this project, as they may not represent the complete product intended to be produced by the maker. The use of these unfinished hafted bifaces would cause bias as they may not be at the same stage of production as finished bifaces.

A flute is defined as a flake scar running from the base of the hafted biface toward the distal end

that was made during the later stages of manufacture. Optimally, the length of the flute should be

less than half of the total length of the hafted biface, and longer than ten millimeters. In some

cases, due to resharpening, a Clovis hafted biface may have a flute that extends more than half of

the total length of the hafted biface. A hafted biface may have multiple flutes on a single side and

only be fluted on one of the two sides.

The second requirement is that Clovis style hafted bifaces should feature a concave base.

Having set these two requirements, the Clovis type can then be further defined by constructing a

chart based on a series of yes or no questions which divides the hafted bifaces into those that are

Clovis and those that are not (Figure 2). Additionally, this chart places Clovis hafted bifaces into

a tier system which I describe below.

This typology is used to determine whether a hafted biface should be included in the

study, whether or not it is considered Clovis, and how confident I am that the point is from the

Clovis period. The confidence level is measured in tiers. A hafted biface from tier one is dated to

the Clovis period and is Clovis in morphological form, while hafted bifaces in tier two fits the

morphological type well and have good site context, a tier three hafted biface fits the

morphological definition well but is not in good context, and a tier four hafted biface fits the type but exhibits extreme amounts of retouch or is incomplete and also is not in good context.

Examples of tier three and tier four bifaces are shown in Figure 3.

By dividing the sample into four tiers, the lowest tiers can be eliminated during portions of the analysis to see what effects the inclusion of these Clovis which do not well fit the definition may have. For example, during certain portions of the analysis tier four, those hafted bifaces that as least likely to be Clovis can be eliminated. The results including tier four can then be compared to an analysis not including tier four. Essentially the placement of the sample in these tiers, allows the researcher to vary the stringency of the Clovis hafted biface type definition, by adding or removing one or more of the tiers from the analysis. Tier Three, an example of which is picture of the left of Figure 3, are hafted bifaces that are not found in good context. A key aspect of a tier three hafted biface is that it has a flute that measures less than half the total length. The hafted biface on the right of Figure 3 shows evidence of extensive retouch and has a flute which runs more than half the total length of the biface. It does not fit all of the aspects of the Clovis hafted biface definition, but these violations are likely due to extensive use and breakage.

Figure 2. Clovis hafted biface definition and tier assignment chart demonstrating how the bifaces are placed into the four confidence tiers.

Figure 3. Examples of Clovis hafted bifaces from tiers three (left) and four (right).

These Images are Courtesy of the Gilcrease Museum

Sampling Methods

Sampling artifacts from the entirety of the Clovis hafted biface range is a substantial challenge, because Clovis is the most widespread of prehistoric hafted biface types in North

America (Meltzer 1993: 107). Binford (1964) stated that regions would be the most important of archaeological units, but the Clovis region spans the majority of the unglaciated North America at the end of the Pleistocene. Because one of the major goals of this study is to provide an accurate sample of Clovis hafted bifaces from across the contiguous United States, the sampling strategy is a key component to the overall success of the project. In 1975, James Mueller outlined the essential parts of a well-planned archaeological sampling strategy. Mueller (1975) advocates that three essential traits must be identified before a good sample can be procured. The first of these is the studies’ element. Elements are items on which attributes may be measured (Mueller

1975: 17). In this study, the elements are the Clovis hafted bifaces which I scanned or found images of then analyzed. These elements are drawn from the total population of Clovis hafted bifaces from across North America.

Having defined the element and total population to be sampled, a convenient concept

must be adopted. Concepts, or units of sampling, act as way to organize elements, and have no

inherent meaning or interpretable value alone (Mueller 1975:37). The classic example from

archaeological field work is the test unit itself. For this study, the sampling unit is counties in the

United States. Each county is treated as an individual point such that a Clovis hafted biface

found on the Western edge of Fayette County, Kentucky would be considered to be found at the

same point as a Clovis point found on the Eastern edge, at the center of the county. There are

several advantages and disadvantages to this choice of sampling unit. The disadvantage of

choosing counties as the unit of sampling is that they are not uniform in terms of geographical

size, modern population, or amount of cultivated land. As mentioned above and demonstrated by

Prasciunas (2011), these three factors can have a great effect on the amount of Clovis hafted bifaces found in each county. Counties were formed and defined for a variety of reasons,

including but not limited to: historical factors, geographic variation, and population. With only a

cursory examination of a county map of the United States, it is clear that counties east of the

Mississippi River are much smaller than those west of the Mississippi (Figure 4). In order to

account for this bias of county size, counties in states with small overall county sizes, like

Kentucky, are grouped together into larger analytical units. Using counties as the unit of

sampling increases the sample population and makes provenience information easier to obtain.

The sample will be stratified using the Culture Areas defined by Clark Wissler (1975)

and Alfred Krober (1939). The culture areas that contain a substantial number of Clovis hafted bifaces were mapped onto a county map of the United States (Figure 3). Archaeologists have long thought in terms of culture areas (Krober 1939, Wissler 1975, Fagan 2005), and thus much of the data and material remains collected by archaeologists are organized by culture area. The second advantage is that the borders defined by the culture regions are very similar to those defined by paleoenvironmental data. This study is not the first attempt to stratify the sample of

Clovis hafted bifaces by such zones (for another example see Buchanan and Hamilton (2009)).

While collecting the sample I contacted over 60 museums with archaeological

collections. In addition, numerous internet search engines were used to search for scaled Clovis

hafted biface images online. Publications containing images of Clovis hafted bifaces were

scanned as well. One of the major sources of non-site Clovis style hafted bifaces is the

Figure 4. A county map of the United States with the Culture Areas and sites include in the sample.

Paleoindian Database of the Americas (PIDBA) (Anderson et al. 2010). The image sections of the PIDBA for Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Florida were included in the sample for an approximate total of 250 Clovis style hafted bifaces. While not ideal for building a representative sample, this opportunistic sample strategy was used in an effort to procure as large a sample of these rare artifacts as possible.

Clovis style hafted bifaces found by collectors, donated to museums found during archaeological survey are included in the sample as long as they have at least county level provenience. All of the non-site bifaces included are considered either tier three or four (see

Figure 2). Due to the recent work of Waters and Stafford (2007) this decision may not be as

anachronistic as it first appears. Waters and Stafford (2007) re-analyzed many in situ Clovis sites

using AMS dating. They find that all Clovis sites fit into a range from 13,110- 12,660 cal. B.P at

maximum and 12,920-12,760 cal. B.P. at minimum. If the span of Clovis period hafted bifaces

only lasts for at most 200-550 years, then the presence of a Clovis hafted biface is nearly as

chronologically diagnostic as a radiocarbon date. Another projection of the date range for Clovis

that of Thulman and Faught (2013), estimates the range to be between 450 and 600 years. While

this estimate is greater than that of Waters and Stafford (2007), this still represents a short time period. This means that the Clovis hafted biface form is highly restricted in time. Thus, I make

the assumption that all hafted bifaces that morphologically adhere to the Clovis hafted biface

type were created during the period from 13,110-12,660 B.P., then any Clovis hafted biface can be used in a stylistic analysis of that period. Admittedly there are some post-depositional processes such as the C-transform, reuse, and noted by Schiffer (1975), that can affect the

morphological form and geographic context of Clovis hafted bifaces but overall, the assumption

that the majority of Clovis hafted bifaces were used and made during the period described by

Waters and Stafford (2007) can be defended. The dates for Clovis have been further refined

using Bayesian models by Thulman and Faught (2013). Together the set of dates suggests by

Waters and Stafford (2007) and Thulman and Faught (2013) provide a strong chronological basis

for the Clovis period. This assumption would allow any hafted biface that meets the Clovis type

definition to be used in this study. By not requiring a radiocarbon date, or even that the hafted

bifaces be found in situ, the population of Clovis hafted bifaces available for sampling is greatly

improved.

In total the sample includes 695 Clovis style hafted bifaces (Table 2). This includes

Clovis hafted bifaces from 25 sites as well as Clovis style hafted bifaces from collectors and

surveys.

Table 2. Total Sample by Culture Area and Tier.

Culture Area Total Number Tier One Tier Two Tier Three Tier Four of Hafted Bifaces California 6 0 0 5 1 Great Basin 35 0 31 3 1 Great Plains 85 45 11 23 6 Northeast 256 4 21 157 74 Columbia 5 3 0 2 0 Plateau Southeast 285 2 2 211 70 Southwest 23 16 6 1 0 Total 695 66 70 402 156

Short Backgrounds of the Sites in the Sample

Though the majority of the sample is from non-site collections the sample of Clovis hafted bifaces used in this work contains hafted bifaces from 25 sites across North America. The locations of these sites are shown in Table 3 and the key for the map (shown in Figure 4), tier and number of hafted bifaces from each in the sample is found in Table 3. In this section a brief synopsis of the research that has taken place at each of these sites is provided. For some of the sites, images were not available of all the hafted bifaces. In those cases, only those hafted bifaces

for which there were images of that were available for pictures or scanning are included in the sample.

Table 3. The Sites in the Sample.

Site Name Culture Area Tier Number of Hafted Bifaces 1) Lange-Ferguson Great Plains 1 1

2) Carson-Conn-Short Southeast 2 2

3) Anzick Great Plains 1 3

4) Dent Great Plains 1 3

5) Paleo Crossing Northeast 1 4

6) Lehner Southwest 1 8

7) Murray Springs Southwest 1 7

8) Naco Southwest 2 6

9) Colby Great Plains 1 1

10) Domebo Northeast 1 4

11) Peterson Southeast 2 9

12) Vail Northeast 3 14

13) Dietz Northwest 2 25

14) Wenatchee Cache Northwest 1 3

15) Simon Cache Northwest 2 6

16) Gault Great Plains 1 19

17) Martens Northeast 2 4

18) Williamson Northeast 2 6

19) Blackwater Draw Great Plains 1 10

20) Jake Bluff Great Plains 1 4

21) Little River Complex Southeast 2 5

22) Rummells-Maske Northeast 2 5

23) Lamb Northeast 3 3

24) Bull-Brook Northeast 3 7

25) Topper Southeast 1 2

Radiocarbon dates are provided for those sites that have them, but as dates are not used in the analysis they are not considered further. Therefore, if multiple date ranges have been reported no judgement call on which is accurate is provided.

Lange-Ferguson

Lange-Ferguson is located in Shannon County South Dakota and was excavated from

1980-1982 (Hannus 1984). Beyond Clovis hafted bifaces the assemblage from the site also contains the remains of two Mammoths identified as Mammuthus jeffersonia. One of the mammoths was adult aged, while the other was juvenile. These two mammoths were likely buried in mud directly after being butchered. In addition to the single Clovis style hafted biface as it has been argued by Hannus (1984, 1985) that portions of the juvenile mammoth were used to make bone tools. Two radiocarbon dates have been taken on materials from the site resulting

in dates of 10,670±300 and 10,730±530 radiocarbon years B.P.(Hannus 1984). Lange-Ferguson

has been dated to 11,080 radiocarbon years by Waters and Stafford (2007). The hafted biface

from Lange-Ferguson are placed in tier one, because the site has been dated.

Carson-Conn-Short

The Carson-Conn-Short site is located in Benton County, Tennessee. Surface collection of the site produced 27 Clovis style hafted bifaces, other bifaces, a unifacial tool and a single

Cumberland style hafted biface (Broster and Norton 1993. Excavation at the site resulted in the collection of more Clovis period artifacts including channel flakes. Images for four hafted bifaces from the assemblage were available for study from the Carson-Conn-Short site and were included this sample. These four hafted bifaces have been placed into tier two, as no radiocarbon dates from the site have been published.

Anzick

Anzick, which is located in Park County Montana, is a Clovis cache with human remains possibly associated. The Anzick assemblage was collected in 1968 on private land and was not excavated by professional archaeologists. The site assemblage contains approximately 112-115 stone and osseous tools (Wilke et al. 1991; Rasumussen et al. 2014). Eight Clovis hafted bifaces are included in the assemblage, but only three are included the sample of this study. Many of the artifacts from this site were covered in red ochre. The association of the juvenile human remains with the Clovis cache has been debated since the site was excavated. The debate concerns the

radiocarbon dates from the human remains and red ochre. Red ochre associated with the human

remains produced a date of 10,680±50 radiocarbon years B.P., while red ochre from elsewhere produced a date of 8,600±90 radiocarbon years B.P. (Morrow 2006). Most recently the human remains were re-dated to 10,705±35 radiocarbon years B.P (12,707-12,556 calibrated), and the

MtDNA was typed as D4H3a (Rasumussen et al. 2014) Rasumussen et al. conclude by arguing

that the individual buried there was Clovis in age and most related to two modern South

American samples. Waters and Stafford (2007) have dated the site to 11,040±35. The hafted bifaces from Anzick are included in tier one, due to the presence of radiocarbon dates from the site.

Dent

The Dent site, which was excavated by Conrad Bilgery in 1932 and Jesse Figgins between 1932-1933, was the first site to show a clear association between Clovis hafted bifaces and mammoth (Haynes et al. 1998). In total the site’s assemblage consists of the remains of at least 15 mammoths and 3 associated Clovis style hafted bifaces (Haynes 2002: 57). All three hafted bifaces are in the sample of this work. The radiocarbon dates from the site range from

11,220±220 to 10,810±40 radiocarbon years B.P. so it is likely that these mammoths were killed over multiple episodes (Haynes 2002: 57). Waters and Stafford (2007) have dated the site to

10,990±25 radiocarbon years B.P. Due to the radiocarbon dates which fall inside the Clovis period, the hafted bifaces from this site is placed in tier one.

Paleo-Crossing

Paleo-Crossing is a multi-component site with a Clovis aged assemblage. The site was excavated and surface collected from 1989-1993 by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

The site is located in Medina County, Ohio (#5 on Figure 3.) (Eren et al. 2004). In total 34 fluted hafted bifaces have been recovered from this site. Image of four of the hafted bifaces were available for study and included in this sample. In addition, over 400 unifacial stone tools were also recovered (Eren et al. 2013). The Clovis component has been dated to 10,980±75 radiocarbon years B.P. Waters and Stafford (2007) have dated the site to 10,980±75 radiocarbon years B.P. This site is included in tier one.

Lehner

The Lehner site is Clovis age and located in Cochise County, Arizona. The Lehner assemblage contains a variety of faunal remains including: Mammuthus, Equus, Bison, Tapirus

(Lance 1959) along with thirteen Clovis style hafted bifaces (Haynes 2002:63), of which eight are included in this sample. Along with the faunal remains is an assemblage of butchering tools and charcoal (Mehringer and Haynes 1965) from at least four hearths (Haynes 2002:63). The site was originally excavated in 1955 and 1956 by the Arizona State Museum (Mehringer and

Haynes 1965). Several radiocarbon dates have been taken along with the pollen samples which date to, 10,410±190, and 10,940±100. Waters and Stafford (2007) recently re-dated the site to

10,950±40. Lehner, along with Murray Springs and Naco are often referred to as the San Pedro sites, as they are all in the San Pedro valley and in 27 kilometers of one another (Haynes

2002:64). Because Lehner has been radiocarbon dated these hafted bifaces are included in tier

one.

Murray Springs

Murray Springs is a Clovis aged site that was excavated in 1966 (Haynes and Hemmings

1966). The artifact assemblage from Murray Springs includes twenty Clovis hafted bifaces and thousands of pieces of debitage (Haynes 2002: 63). The faunal assemblage includes both mammoth and bison scattered across three activity centers (Haynes 2002:63). Also included amongst the Murray Springs assemblage is the famous Clovis bone shaft wrench (Haynes and

Hemmings 1966). Murray Springs has been dated to 10,885±50 radiocarbon years by Waters and

Stafford (2007). As mentioned above Murray Springs, along with Lehner and Naco are all located in the San Pedro valley in Cochise County, Arizona. Due the radiocarbon dates which place this site within the Clovis period, the hafted bifaces from Murray Springs are included as part of tier one.

Naco

Originally discovered by an amateur archaeologist and his son, the Naco site consists of a single mammoth (Haury 1952) and nine (Agenbroad 1967) associated Clovis style hafted bifaces

(Haury 1952). Naco is located in Cochise County, Arizona. Six of the nine Clovis hafted bifaces

are included in the sample of this study. The mammoth at Naco shows no sign of butchery, and

thus despite the fact that it was hit with eight Clovis style hafted bifaces, this beast may have

escaped (Haynes 2002:63). Naco serves to show the difficulty inherent in hunting mammoth as

the people who hunted the Naco mammoth lost eight Clovis style hafted bifaces and came home

empty handed. Naco is the third and final site in the San Pedro valley. Due to the fact that there

are not absolute dates from Naco, but it is in agreement that the artifacts from this site are Clovis

in age, the six hafted bifaces in the sample have been placed in tier two.

Colby

This site assemblage includes the faunal remains of at least seven mammoths associated

with Clovis aged artifacts. Colby is located in Washikie County, Wyoming. The Colby site was

first recognized in 1973 by a heavy equipment operator, though the site may truly have been

discovered in 1907, but not reported (Frison and Todd 1986:6-7). Excavations took place from

1973-1978 as land owner and water levels allowed (Frison and Todd 1986). No charcoal was

recovered from the site but a portion of mammoth bone was submitted for radiocarbon testing

resulting in a date of 11,220±220. A total of four hafted bifaces, one flake tool and thirty pieces

of debitage make up the chipped stone assemblage (Frison and Todd 1986). Colby has been

dated to 10,870±20 radiocarbon years by Waters and Stafford (2007). One of the four hafted bifaces is included in this sample and as the site has been radiocarbon dated, is included in tier

one.

Domebo

The site was first reported in 1961 by J.E. Patterson and excavations began in 1962. The site is located in Caddo County, Oklahoma. The site assemblage includes two complete Clovis hafted bifaces, and a fragment which were found alongside the faunal remains of a single mammoth (Gilbert 1979:21). Also within the assemblage are three pieces of debitage

(Leonhardy 1966). The site has produced 4 radiocarbon dates. The dates are 10,123±280,

11,045±647, 11,220±500, 9,400±300 radiocarbon years B.P.. Domebo has been dated to

10,960±30 radiocarbon years by Waters and Stafford (2007). The hafted bifaces from Domebo

are included in tier one.

Peterson

Peterson was excavated in 2013 by students at the St. Louis Community College and is located in Atchison County Missouri. The site was discovered by amateur archaeologist Steve

Peterson. The site assemblage consisted of 26 Clovis style hafted bifaces including both complete and fragmentary bifaces. Additionally, over 23 scrapers, blade tools, cores, and debitage are included in the site assemblage (Fuller 2013). As it is largely agreed that these hafted bifaces are from an accepted Clovis site, the nine hafted bifaces have been placed in tier two.

Vail

Vail is a fluted hafted biface site that was initially excavated in 1980 (Gramly 2010). Vail is made up of two different site areas, one being a kill site and the other a camp (Gramly 2010).

Though they have not been definitively proclaimed to be Clovis, the fluted hafted bifaces at Vail in Maine, remain some of the few fluted bifaces to have been found in situ in the Northeast.

Sixty-six fluted bifaces, which vary in morphological form, have been recovered from the site

(Gramly and Rutledge 1981). A single uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 11,120±180 B.P.

(Gramly and Rutledge 1981:360) places the site right outside of the 11,050-10,800 uncalibrated

B.P. of Clovis as defined by Waters and Stafford (2007). In his later work on the site, however,

Gramly (2010) defined the date of the site to be one to two hundred years after the beginning of the Younger Dryas. He continues and adds that he considers the beginning of the Younger Dryas to occur at 12,900 calibrated years B.P. (Gramly 2010). The places the age of the site from

12,800-12,700 calibrated years B.P., which is at the end of Waters and Stafford’s (2007) wide range of Clovis dates. Due to the fact some feel Vail may not be considered to be a Clovis site

(Ellis 2004) and the very late dates, the hafted bifaces from this site have been placed in Tier three.

Dietz

The original excavations of the Dietz site took place from 1983 to 1985 under the direction of John L. Fagan, C. Melvin Aikens, and Judith A. Willig. Dietz is located in Lake

County, Oregon. Additional excavations under the direction of Ariane Pinson took place from

1993 to 2001(Pinson 2011). As of 2011, 75 fluted bifaces had been recovered from the Dietz site and 25 of those 75 are included in the sample of this study. All of the hafted bifaces that were included from this site were made of obsidian. The Dietz lithic assemblage also includes unifaces, cores, biface blanks, and expedient flake tools. Pinson (2011) makes a strong argument that Dietz should be considered to have a Clovis component and that in fact was a repeated use campsite, and thus Dietz is included in Tier two.

East Wenatchee Clovis Cache (Richey-Roberts Clovis Cache)

This cache was discovered on private land was discovered in 1987 (Kilby and Huckell

2013) by orchard workers and excavated by Peter Mehringer in 1988 and then again by R.

Michael Gramly in 1990. In total fourteen hafted bifaces, 7 preforms, 14 beveled bone rods and other tools were found in the cache (Haynes 2002:107). The hafted bifaces at East Wenatchee are made of chalcedony, chert, and a local agate from less than 50 kilometers away (Kilby and

Huckell 2013). Three of the fourteen hafted bifaces from the East Wenatchee cache are included in the current sample. East Wenatchee has been dated to more than 11,125±130 (Waters and

Stafford 2007) and therefore it is included as part of tier one.

Simon

This cache site was first discovered by William D. Simon while working his farm. Mr.

Simon brought the cache to the attention of the Idaho State College Museum, who sent representatives who examined the assemblage (Butler 1963:22). There are 29 chipped stone tools in the collection, of which 23 are hafted bifaces (Butler 1963: 24). Six of the hafted bifaces from

this site are included in the sample. No radiocarbon dates have been taken at Simon, but the

artifacts from the cache are Clovis in style, thus these hafted bifaces are placed in tier two.

Gault

Gault was first excavated by professional archaeologists by J.E Pearce in 1929-1930, but

the majority of the excavations have taken place from 1998 to the present under the direction of

Michael Collins (Speer 2013). Gault is located in Bell County, Texas. The gault site contains

more Clovis artifacts than any other site west of the Mississippi river (Waters et al. 2011). The

Gault site is crucial to the understanding of the people who used Clovis hafted bifaces as it is one

of the few known Clovis residential camps. The Gault site has produced over 600,000 artifacts of

which 33 are hafted bifaces (Speer 2013). Of these artifacts nineteen hafted bifaces are included

in this sample. Poor preservation of organics has resulted in little radiocarbon dateable materials, but optically stimulates luminescence (OSL) dates of 12,900±700 and 13,220±740 (Waters et al.

2011). The hafted bifaces from Gault are included in tier one.

Martens

The Martens site was first discovered by Dick Martens and later excavated under the direction of Juliet Morrow in 1997 (Fuller 2009). The Martens site is a Clovis aged habitation/workshop located in St. Louis County, Missouri. The site assemblage has sixteen

Clovis style hafted bifaces, preforms, endscrapers, two blade cores, and side scrapers (Koldehoff et al. 1995). Four of the sixteen Clovis style hafted bifaces are within the sample of the current study. These four hafted bifaces were placed in tier two, as there are no radiocarbon dates from the site.

Williamson

Williamson is a Clovis aged lithic workshop that is located in Dinwiddie County,

Virginia. The site has been excavated by professional archaeologists twice, once in 1965 by

Vance Haynes and from 1973-1975 by Ben C. McCary (Peck 2004). The total tool assemblage is estimated to consist of between 150-170 hafted bifaces and between 800-1000 scrapers

(Smallwood 2012: 693). The site is located near a source of good raw material called both “Little

Cattail Creek Chalcedony” and “Williamson Chert” (Smallwood 2012: 693). Images of six of the

150-170 hafted bifaces from the site were provided by Ashley Smallwood and are included in the sample of this work. The hafted bifaces from Williamson are from are associated with many

Clovis type artifacts, but have not been associated with an absolute date, and thus are placed in tier two.

Blackwater Draw

Blackwater Draw is the type site for the Clovis hafted biface. The initial excavations took place between 1933-1937 and were led by Edgar B. Howard from the University of Pennsylvania museum (Boldurian and Cotter 1999). At Blackwater Draw there are multiple components including a Folsom component. Twenty-one artifacts are reliably dated to the Clovis period

(Boldurian and Cotter 1999: 56). Ten hafted bifaces from this site are included in the sample. A wide range of radiocarbon dates have been acquired for the various Clovis localities at the site

(Hester 1972), and it is likely that different Clovis hafted bifaces users hunted here at different times. The fact that there are radiocarbon dates from the site, however, means that the hafted bifaces from this site was placed in tier one.

Jake Bluff

The Jake Bluff site has been excavated from 2001 to 2007. The Jake Bluff site is located in Harper County, Oklahoma and has both a Folsom and Clovis aged assemblages. The Clovis assemblage is comprised of Bison bone representing at least 22 individuals, five Clovis hafted bifaces, one of which has been reworked into a drill, 23 pieces of debitage, several possible

hammerstones (Bement and Carter 2010: 919). The minimum number of individual bison is 22.

Protein analysis on the Clovis hafted bifaces revealed bison, as expected, but also bear (Bement

and Carter 2010). Radiocarbon dates have yielded a mean date of 10,806±16 and all four dates produce a calibrated range of 12,825-12,850 B.P. (Bement and Carter 2010: 918). Jake Bluff has

also been dated to 10,765 ±25 radiocarbon years by Waters and Stafford (2007). As Jake Bluff

has been radiocarbon dated to the Clovis period, the four hafted bifaces in the sample have been placed into tier one.

Little River Complex

The Little River Complex is a series of sites in Western Kentucky all nearby the Little

River. All five sites are located in Christian County Kentucky (Gramly and Yahnig 1991; Yahnig

2009). The complex includes the Adams, Boyd-Ledford, Roeder, Ezelll and Brame sites (Yahnig

2009: 214). These five sites have been surface collected by amateur archaeologists for years.

Five hafted bifaces from these sites are within the sample and are included as part of tier two.

Rummells-Maske

Rummells-Maske was discovered by two amateur archaeologists named Wayne

Rummells and Richard Maske in 1964. The site was then excavated by the Office of the State

Archaeologist of Iowa (Morrow and Morrow 2002). The site is located in Cedar County, Iowa.

In total fifteen hafted bifaces were found in the Rummells-Maske cache site (Morrow and

Morrow 2002). Five of the fifteen hafted bifaces are included in this sample. Morrow and

Morrow (2002) argue that these hafted bifaces are similar to both Clovis and Gainey style hafted bifaces. No absolute dates are available from Rummells-Maske, therefore the hafted bifaces from

this site are place in tier two.

Lamb

The first artifact from the Lamb site was discovered in 1965 and excavations began in

1986 and went until 1990 (Gramly 1999: 19). The site has been divided into three spatial clusters, each contain lithic artifacts. Gramly (1999) considers the hafted biface from the site to be of a debert or vail style which he views to be different from Clovis style hafted bifaces.

Thirteen hafted bifaces are reported in Gramly (1999), though he separates them into point and knives. Also included within the assemblage are pieces of debitage, preforms, unifaces and flaked tools (Gramly 1999: 36). Three hafted bifaces from Lamb are included within the sample.

These hafted bifaces are included in tiers three and four as it is unclear to me whether or not they should be considered Clovis.

Bull Brook

The Bull Brook site was discovered in 1951 and first excavated by members of the 4 Massachusetts Archaeology Society. The site is located in Essex County, Massachusetts (Byers

1954). The site has produced a variety of stone tools including fluted hafted bifaces, side scrapers, end scrapers, and gravers (Byers 1954). Byers (1959) reports four radiocarbon dates which range from 9,400±400 to 6,940±800 radiocarbon years. Robinson et al. (2009) argues that the artifacts from Bull Brook represent a single occupation in what they dub the Gainey/Bull

Brook phase. This site is often compared to and associated with Vail and Debert as is done in

Robinson et al. (2009). The radiocarbon dates from Byer (1959) remain problematic, as the hafted bifaces appear more stylistically similar to older assemblages, thus the site’s association

with Gainey (and therefore Clovis) remains unclear. Seven hafted bifaces from Bull Brook are

included in this sample in tiers three and four, as their association with Clovis is unclear.

Topper

Topper is a multi-component site in Allendale county, South Carolina which includes a

Clovis component. Albert Goodyear first excavated here in 1986 (Smallwood 2012). The Clovis component at the site includes 174 bifaces and biface fragments, five of which are considered

Clovis hafted bifaces. The Clovis component has been dated to 13,000±200 (Waters et al. 2009).

Two of the five Clovis hafted bifaces are included in this study. This site, due to its proximity to a quarry will be considered a camp and therefore placed in tier one.

Representativeness of Sample

The sample of 695 Clovis style hafted bifaces well represents the total currently known population of Clovis hafted bifaces found in the continental United States. A significant trend in this sample is that the majority of the hafted bifaces are from the Northeast and Southeast

Culture areas (Table 2). Distributional studies have long reported the prevalence of Clovis hafted biface east of the Mississippi (Anderson and Faught 2000; Brennan 1982; Mason 1962). While some have argued that the high number of Clovis hafted biface found in the East is due to cultivation, and the distribution of modern populations, (Prasciunas 2011), the abundance of

Clovis hafted bifaces in the Eastern portion of the country is the reality of archaeologically known population of Clovis hafted biface and should be reflected in an accurate sample.

Two culture areas, California and the Columbia Plateau, feature less than ten Clovis hafted bifaces each (Table 3). In a similar study Hamilton and Buchanan (2009) include no hafted bifaces from California and only hafted bifaces from the same two sites in this sample, for the Plateau. Morrow and Morrow (1999) only include one Clovis hafted biface from California and only the hafted bifaces from the Wenatchee Cache (some of which are in this study) for the

Columbia Plateau. This suggests that Clovis hafted bifaces in these two regions are rare or not easily available for study.

Summary

The sample for this work is made up of 695 Clovis hafted bifaces from seven culture areas. Clovis hafted bifaces are defined as having a concave base and at least one flute on one side. Further aspects of the definition are provided in Figure 2 and examples of tier three and four are shown in Figure 3. These hafted bifaces are divided into four confidence tiers using the method in Figure 2. The sample comes from 25 sites as well as non-site collections found in museums and the PIDBA. Summaries of the background and history of each of the 25 sites was provided within this chapter. Finally, the distribution and representativeness of the sample was

reviewed.

CHAPTER FOUR METHODS

Introduction

This chapter outlines the methods used to analyze the Clovis style hafted bifaces included

in the sample. Due to the rarity of Clovis hafted bifaces, measurements were not taken on the

actual artifacts but were instead made using digital images. In this chapter I provide a justification for the measurement of images as opposed to the measurement of actual artifacts. As part of this justification a small study of image measurement accuracy is conducted. Following

this I define each measurement in detail. Detailed definitions of the measurements are provided

so that another researcher could recreate the analysis. These measurements are used to record

the morphology of the Clovis hafted bifaces.

Why Images Are Used

Before detailing the methodologies used to measure the Clovis hafted, it should be

explained why images are used in place of actual Clovis hafted bifaces. Hafted bifaces are

largely only two dimensional. Thus top down scaled photographs, or scans of hafted bifaces

made using flatbed scanners, can yield high quality, measureable images. The use of images

greatly increased the sample size of this work, as only 91 of the 695 hafted bifaces used were

made physically available to the author during the research. Thus, approximately 87 percent of

the total sample was analyzed using images alone. The use of images in this work allowed access

to collections that would have otherwise been unavailable. Images can be sent via email or other

digital means and save the expense of requiring that a researcher be physically present at a

museum to measure the artifacts.

Digital Image use in Archaeology

As mentioned above, images are very accessible and many other researchers have used images to study hafted bifaces (Buchanan and Collard 2007, Hamilton and Buchanan 2009;

Buchanan et al. 2012, 2014; Thulman 2012). Despite the use of images in other research, there are still some concerns which must be dealt with prior to moving forward with the analysis.

The primary concern when replacing actual artifacts with images is the accuracy of the measurements. A small pilot study was conducted to better understand the accuracy of image analysis (Williams and Andrefsky 2013). In this 2013 study, 24 Clovis hafted bifaces. Twelve of the 24 images were photos and twelve were scanned images. These 24 images were measured using Canvas and then compared to measurements taken by other analysts on the actual artifacts.

The measurements produced were then compared to better understand the accuracy of using measurements (Table 4).

Table 4. Maximum Error between Images and Actual Artifact Measurements

Measurement Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Width Comparison Type Length Average Length Width Average Maximum Difference Maximum Difference Difference Difference

Photo vs actual 1.065 mm 2.29 mm .435 mm .96 mm

Scanned vs actual .94 mm 3.03 mm .61 mm 1.56 mm

Re-tabulated from Williams and Andrefsky (2013).

To better understand how the measurement error of digital photos and scanned images

compares to in person measurements the measurements from the Williams and Andrefsky (2013)

study were compared to the measurements taken by Lyman and VanPool (2009). Lyman and

VanPool (2009) each measured the maximum length of 30 non-Clovis style hafted bifaces. They

then compared the measurements and use them to calculate the technical error of measurement

(TEM). TEM is found via the following formula:

TEM= √ [( ∑ )/2N]

Where D is the difference between the two measurements and N is the number of artifacts

measured. The constant two indicates the number of measurements being taken (Lyman and

VanPool 2009). If three people had measured the hafted bifaces this constant would be three.

These TEM values can then standardized using a formula similar to the calculation of the

Coefficient of Variation to calculate what is called the percent TEM (%TEM). The formula for

%TEM is:

%TEM=[ TEM/the grand mean]*100

The grand mean is the mean of all measurements. In this case the grand mean is the measurements of hafted biface be each person. The TEM and %TEM for Photos, scanned images and Lyman and VanPool’s (2009) measurements are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of TEM and %TEM for Photos, Scanned Images, and Actual Artifacts

Measurement Type Number of TEM %TEM Measurements Photo vs actual 12 .857 1.47 % Scanned Image vs 12 .872 .945 % Actual Actual vs Actual 30 .184 .705 % From Lyman and VanPool (2009)

When the TEM and %TEM is considered it becomes clear that scanned images are superior to photos. The %TEM between scanned images and two actual artifacts is very close with only a .245% difference. Photos have nearly twice the error of when two actual artifacts are

measured, but this level or error is still deemed acceptable for this project. It should also be noted

that for both photo vs. actual and scanned images vs. actual these measurements were made by

two different archaeologists using two difference methodologies. This means that for the

Williams and Andrefsky (2013) measurements there are two potential sources of variability:

differences between the two archaeologists measuring the artifacts and difference caused by the

use of two different methodologies. The presence of two sources of variability provides further justification for the higher %TEM value seen during the measurement of images.

In some ways the use of images serves to increase the accuracy of measurements taken

on hafted bifaces. In Figure 5 the black line is the haft blade division line. Using image editing

software, this guide line can be permanently added to the image. This line gives the analyst a

constant reminder of where the haft blade division is. If the analyst had instead measured an

actual hafted biface, they would have had to estimate the division line each time they went to

take a new measurement. Additionally, every image is saved with the measurement lines on it.

Thus, if another archaeologist ever wanted to review the measurements that a researcher using

this method had taken, they could simply send them the images of the measured hafted bifaces.

Image Measurement Methods

Having shown the accuracy of image measurements, the specific methodology that will be used in this study are described here. Though the 2015 version of Canvas is currently

available, the 2011 version was used as the researcher was familiar with its functions. Canvas is

a piece of graphics software that also has a very powerful measurement tool. To take

measurements the length and width of the image must be input into the software. When using a

flatbed scanner this was easy to do, as the area that was scanned was defined by the scanner

when the image was made. With photos, the total area of the image must be estimated using the

scale that was pictured along with the artifact. Images without scales cannot be used.

To estimate the size of a photo the picture has to have been taken from directly over top

the artifact. Fortunately, most archaeologists take images of artifacts while standing over them and often include a scale. To resize the image, first I measured the scale. Then I divided the actual length of scale by the measurement just acquired. Then the current length and width of the measurement was multiplied by the resulting number. Next, the scale was measured again to ensure the image had been re-sized correctly. For example, if there was a 10 millimeter scale which measured 20 millimeters and the image was 200 millimeters in length and 100 millimeters in width, the resulting length and width of the re-sized image would be 100 millimeters in length and 50 millimeters in width. Using this method images were re-sized with acceptable accuracy.

After resizing the image, the measurements were made using the point and click measurement tool in the Canvas software. This tool was used to simply click the two end points of the linear measurement desired. Canvas then displayed both the measurement line and the metric value of the measurement. These lines and values were then saved directly on the image as seen in Figure 5. Canvas also allows the analyst to draw non-measurement guide lines, like the haft and blade division line seen in Figure 5. Angles were measured by drawing two such guiding lines and then clicking on both with the angle measurement tool. It should be noted that other pieces of software, such as ImageJ, are also available and provide similar measurement functions.

Definitions of the Measurements Taken

Having described the method used to take measurements in Canvas, definitions of each of the individual measurements taken are provided. The data in this work consist of a series of traditional linear measurements (henceforth TLM) and stylistic attributes. The definitions for each of the TLM are provided in Table 6. These measurements are made using Canvas. Canvas has a measurement function that can measure straight lines and even the angle of two lines.

Examples of these measurements are shown in Figure 5. The non-linear attributes in the study and their definitions are shown in Table 7.

Table 6. Definition of the Ratio Scale Measurements Taken.

Haft/Blade Division This is a straight line from margin to margin that divides the haft

element from the blade element. Edgewear and retouch are taken

into to account to decide where the haft blade division line should

be.

Maximum Length The length from tip to the point along the base directly beneath the

highest point of the tip.

Maximum Width The widest point from margin to margin perpendicular to the

maximum length line.

Maximum Blade Length The length from the tip to the point along the haft/blade division line

directly below it.

Maximum Blade Width The widest point from margin to margin perpendicular to the

maximum blade length.

¼ Blade Width The width at the line which crosses the point at ¼ of the blade length

line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines should

be 90 degrees.

½ Blade Width The width at the line which crosses the point at 1/2 of the blade

length line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines

should be 90 degrees.

¾ Blade Width The width at the line which crosses the point at 3/4 of the blade

length line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines

should be 90 degrees.

Max haft length The length from the haft/blade division line to the lowest point along

the base.

Max haft width The widest point from margin to margin perpendicular to the

maximum length line on the haft.

Haft width at ¼ The width at the line which crosses the point at ¼ of the haft length

line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines should

be 90 degrees.

Haft width at ½ The width at the line which crosses the point at ½ of the haft length

line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines should

be 90 degree

Haft width at ¾ The width at the line which crosses the point at ¾ of the haft length

line. All four angles made by the intersections of these lines should

be 90 degrees.

Base Width The length between the two points that are furthest from the tip of

the blade and on either side of the basal concavity.

Base depth The linear length from an imaginary line drawn across the base to

the deepest point of the base.

Flute Length (Long and The furthest extent of the Flute on sides one and two. If there are

Short Sides) multiple flutes than the flute length is the extent of the flute which

extends toward the tip of the blade on that particular side.

Base Angle This measurement is taken by drawing two lines (one from each

tang) to where the cavity which is deepest. The angle formed at the

meeting of these two lines is the base angle.

Maximum Flute Width The Maximum dimension at perpendicular to the maximum length

of the hafted biface, of the widest flute.

Figure 5. Examples of morphological the measurements made on the Clovis style hafted bifaces in the sample using Canvas 11.

Photo courtesy of Washington State University of Museum of Anthropology

Table 7. Non-linear Attributes and Definitions

Number of Flutes Long Side This attribute is one plus the number of flutes beyond the first that are more than 10mm in maximum linear length. Thus, the first flute does not have to be 10mm in length but any additional flutes must be. Raw Material This attribute is left blank if the raw material of the hafted biface appears to be chert. If the raw material appears to be something other than chert, such as quartzite, obsidian, or crystal quartz, then that is recorded. Post Flute Retouch This attribute has two states: yes or no. Yes indicates that post flute retouch has occurred. Post flute retouch is evident on a hafted biface when there are flake scars that interrupt a flute flake scar. The interruption of a fluting flake scar indicates that the flake scar was created after the flute was removed. No indicates that no post flute flakes are evident.

Summary

In this chapter I argue that the use of images is both an accurate and convenient way to

measure a sample of hafted bifaces. The accuracy of making measurements on images has been

suggested in Williams and Andrefsky (2013) and also shown in the small pilot study conducted

here. Furthermore, guide lines made on the image ensure that it easy to keep track of which portion of the hafted biface these measurements should be taken at. The use of images provides

access to Clovis style hafted bifaces that normally would not be available for research. All of the

measurements and attributes used in this study are defined in Tables 6 and 7. Finally, I provided a brief outline of how to rescale images, and how to take measurements in Canvas.

CHAPTER FIVE EXAMINATION OF WHAT THE MEASUREMENTS MEAN

Introduction

In this chapter I outline factors other than style and random variation (as per Boyd and

Richerson 1985) that affect shape and size of Clovis hafted bifaces. In addition to examining

these factors I review the methods that other archaeologists have applied to the study of Clovis

hafted biface morphology. Having examined these factors, I review other studies of Clovis style

hafted bifaces.

Size vs Shape

There are a myriad of methods an archaeologist can use to analyze a population of hafted bifaces. The vast majority of these techniques seek to quantify or categorize aspects of either

stone tool shape or size. Both size and shape contribute to overall hafted biface morphology but

it is important to understand whether a given measurement is recording an aspect of size, shape,

or both. Archaeologists have long known that both size and shape are both recorded by the

measurements we take (Andrefsky 1986; Benfer and Benfer 1981; Gunn and Prewitt 1975).

Many previous studies have sought to understand how measurements of size and shape sort

hafted bifaces into chronological and stylistic types (Andrefsky 1986; Benfer and Benfer 1981;

Gunn and Prewitt 1975). Size and shape measurements are used to better understand how

knowledge of the Clovis hafted biface, spread throughout North America. The goal of these

analyses is to come to conclusions about how style and cultural drift (Boyd and Richerson

1985:9; Eerkins 2000) have affected the size and shape of the Clovis style hafted bifaces found

within the sample.

Size and shape are both in turn affected by several factors beyond style and cultural drift, including, but not limited to: raw material availability as well as package size and shape, usewear, intended function, and skill of the manufacturer. To better determine what is being measured by the attributes selected in the study each of these factors are discussed in turn, with special attention to how they affect the study at hand.

Non-Stylistic Factors that Affect Hafted Biface Morphology

The goal of the analysis is to understand how the style of Clovis hafted bifaces has changed through time and space. Evolutionary forces that can affect Clovis style have already been discussed in Chapter Two. Unfortunately, several other factors can affect the size and shape

(collectively known as morphology) of Clovis style hafted bifaces beyond style. Four broad factors including raw material availability and package size and shape, manufacturer skill, usewear, and function are discussed here. Each factor is given its own section. In each section that factor is defined, scholarly work documenting how this factor may affect Clovis hafted biface is discussed, and the degree to which this factor affects Clovis hafted bifaces is estimated.

Many archaeologists argue that partitioning the hafted biface into the blade and haft element is essential when seeking to understand variability in the shape and size of hafted bifaces

(Andrefsky 1997, 2005, 2006; Ellis 2004; Flenniken and Wilke 1989; Thulman 2012), though some doubt that this is important for the understanding of Clovis style hafted bifaces (Buchanan

et al. 2012b). When considering each factor’s effect on Clovis style, hafted bifaces the potential

effects on the haft and blade elements are considered individually.

Raw Material Availability and Raw Material Package Size and Shape

This section deals with raw material availability and raw material package size. Raw material availability can affect the type and size of raw materials a flint knapper chooses to use.

In this study, raw material availability is defined as the spatial arrangement, general quantity and quality of the glass like materials available to a group of prehistoric peoples with which they can make stone tools. Raw material package size and shape can also greatly affect the morphology of the hafted bifaces made from them. Raw material availability and raw material package size and shape are distinct yet related concepts which structure the raw materials used by prehistoric peoples and I will discuss them together here. Discussions of raw materials are often linked to a

dichotomy of stone tool use patterns: expedient versus curated (Binford 1979; Bamforth 1986;

Parry and Kelly 1987). Expedient tools are those that are quickly used and discarded, while

curated tools are those which take more effort to make and are kept for long periods of time. A

similar set of terms, formal and informal, are often used to describe tools as well (Andrefsky

2005: 31; Andrefsky 1994). In this case informal tools are similar to expedient tools, requiring

little time or effort to make and formal tools are those that require a greater amount of effort

during the stages of manufacture. For the study at hand the effects of raw material availability on

expedient tools can largely be ignored, as Clovis hafted bifaces should certainly be classified as

formal (curated) tools. This is not to say that the peoples who used and manufactured Clovis

style hafted bifaces did not make expedient tools, they undoubtedly did. This research, however,

is focused on hafted bifaces and therefore need not consider them.

The first aspect I will discuss is raw material package size. Flenniken and Wilke (1989)

have documented that flake blank size greatly affects the size and shape of the resulting biface.

More recent studies document that raw material package size impacts debitage size and shape

(Bradbury and Franklin 2000). Logically if the size and shape of debitage is affected the size and

shape of the hafted biface from which the flakes were taken, the resulting biface would be affected as well. Few other studies have considered the effects of raw material package form on hafted biface shape and size, but some general statements can be made. For instance, it is impossible to make a hafted biface with a maximum linear dimension greater than the raw material from which it was made. Thus, the dimensions of the available raw materials dictate the maximum dimensions of any resulting stone tool. Therefore, the size of available raw materials

is a limiting factor on the ultimate size of the resulting stone tools made out of them. In this way the size of the raw materials that were available to prehistoric peoples limits the overall size of

Clovis style hafted bifaces.

Raw material package shape is also highly variable. Take, for example, two raw materials

found within the current sample. Edward’s Plateau Chert from Texas is a high quality material

that is often found in rectangular, tabular, blocks. Many of the Clovis materials found at Gault

are made of this high quality chert (Speer 2013). The Dietz site in Oregon is dominated by

Clovis style hafted bifaces made of Obsidian from Glass Butte. Some of this obsidian comes in

the form of egg shaped pyroclastic bombs. These two package shapes, at least in the initial stages

of production, require different flint knapping strategies, even if the eventual goal of the flint

knapper using each piece is to make a similar shaped Clovis style hafted bifaces. This one example of differing shapes among the raw materials used to produce Clovis style hafted bifaces illustrates that differing raw material package shapes may have affected the size and shape of the resulting hafted bifaces.

The quality and type of raw material used by a flint knapper can have effects on the size

and shape of the hafted biface produced. One of the prevailing statements about the Clovis lithic

tool kit (and those of the Paleoindians period in general) is that they favored high quality raw materials (Kelly and Todd 1988; Smallwood 2012) and sometimes more specifically high quality chert (Goodyear 1979). Archaeologists have recorded hafted bifaces made for chert sources very distant from the location where the hafted biface was found (Huckell 2004; Morrow 1995). In the current analysis it was sometimes difficult to determine the raw material from which a hafted biface from an image alone. This caveat aside, only 10% of the sample has been positively identified as a raw material besides chert. Despite this the possible effect of different raw materials is tested in Chapter Seven, by comparing the morphology of the hafted biface made out

of the different raw materials.

Several studies have compared the shape of Clovis style hafted bifaces from several different raw materials (Eren et al. 2015; Smallwood 2012). These different raw materials likely nodules of different sizes and shapes and likely vary in quality and quantity. Surprisingly, both of these recent studies have concluded that the aspects of raw material availability and package size and shape have little effect on the morphology of Clovis style hafted bifaces. Smallwood

(2012) has an impressive sample of 1,493 Clovis style hafted bifaces, though it should be noted that many of these data were taken from the measurements on PIDBA and thus inter-rater

reliability may be an issue (for a discussion of this see Dukeman 2002; Prasciunas 2008;

Williams 2010). Smallwood (2012) makes a convincing case that raw material does not affect

the final shape of Clovis style hafted bifaces in the southeast:

“Through reduction, potential raw-material shape limitations were also overcome. Early-

stage bifaces from Carson-Conn-Short and Topper share a common shape, and in spite of

inherent differences between the tabular Fort Payne chert at Carson-Conn-Short and nodular

Coastal Plain chert at Topper, knappers at both sites produced similar biface shapes early in production.” [Smallwood 2012: 706-707]

Eren et al. (2015) echo this confidence that Clovis style hafted bifaces are not effected by

aspects of raw material availability and package size and shape. Eren et al. (2015) use a sample

of Clovis style hafted bifaces from the Ohio valley from three different raw material types:

Wyandotte, Upper Mercer and Hopkinsville cherts. In this study they use two types of analysis,

Geometric morphometrics (GM) following the guidelines of Buchanan et al. (2014) and a flake

scar invasiveness method. Eren et al. (2015) argue that because the flake scar patterns are

similar, while the shapes of the hafted bifaces are different, that raw material does not affect the

overall morphology of the hafted bifaces. It should be noted that all of the hafted bifaces within

the Eren et al. (2015) study are made of high quality cherts.

Despite the evidence presented in these two studies, the effect of raw material availability

and package size and shape upon Clovis styles hafted bifaces is tested in this study. Another

important factor is that this study includes raw materials, such as obsidian, which are not represented in the above mentioned studies. For these reasons it is assumed that raw material availability and package size and shape does affect hafted biface size and may affect hafted biface shape, at least until proven otherwise.

Overall the effect of raw material availability and package size and shape on Clovis style hafted bifaces is still unclear. The literature suggests that there is little effect; however, common sense dictates that at least raw material package size and shape must in some way limit the size and shape of the hafted biface that can be produced from it. It is thus likely that both the size and shape of the haft element and blade element is occasionally affected by raw material availability.

Smallwood (2012) and Eren et al. (2015) both present compelling evidence that Clovis hafted biface shape is not greatly affected by raw material variability on either the blade or haft elements and that perspective is adopted within this work.

Skill of the Manufacturer

As a result of the most recent wave of lithic style analysis driven by evolutionary theory, a critique has been leveled which points out that even in the best of conditions it requires not only knowledge of techniques available to make stone tools, but also skill and practice

(Bamforth 2008; Bamforth and Finlay 2008; Bamforth and Hicks 2008; Bleed 2008; Ferguson

2008). These papers argue that two flint knappers could have the same knowledge of flint knapping, but differ in the amount of practice and fine motor skills required to produce stone tools. They argue that skill is comprised of both the knowledge and practice motor skills (Bleed

2008). This differential degree of motor skills and practice has certainly influenced the size and

shape of hafted bifaces within the archaeological record. This difference in skill results in hafted bifaces made by highly skill knappers which are symmetrical when first manufactured and show

uniform well planned flake scars. Those hafted bifaces made by low skill individuals can be non-

symmetrical, feature multiple step fractures, have non uniform flake scars, and instance in which far too much material was removed in a single blow.

Bamforth and Finlay (2008) argue that different types and styles of stone tools require

different levels of skill. The fluting technique required to make a Clovis hafted biface is a risky

technique (Whittaker 1994: 241) and Clovis style hafted bifaces are regarded as requiring a high

level of craftsmanship in general (Bradley et al. 2010). The difficulty inherent in producing a

Clovis hafted biface suggests that many of the Clovis hafted bifaces in the sample were produced by highly skilled flint knappers. There are, however, a few hafted bifaces which appear to have been created by less skilled or apprentice flint knappers. An example of such a Clovis hafted biface from this sample is shown in Figure 6. This Clovis point, from Gault, exhibits entire areas with little or no flaking, a complete lack of overshot flakes for which Clovis hafted bifaces are known (Bradley et al. 2010), and two flake scars from the detachment of flakes which, likely due to a high arc of the blow removed far too much material. The hafted biface shown in Figure 6 appears to be made of high quality chert, yet as previously described several flint knapping errors are evident. This example provides evidence, that despite the high level of flint knapping skill required to proficiently make Clovis hafted bifaces, some of the Clovis hafted bifaces in the archaeological record were made by flint knappers who did not possess this level of skill. These hafted bifaces were likely created by children or individuals who were just learning to flint knap.

The presence of Clovis hafted bifaces with such obvious indication of low skill flint knappers

indicates that individuals with a wide range of skill levels flint knapped Clovis hafted bifaces

within the current sample. The wide range of skill has undoubtedly affected the size and shape of

the Clovis hafted bifaces within this sample.

Errors performed by low skill flint knappers are equally likely to affect the blade or haft portion of a hafted biface during the manufacturing process. If a hafted biface made by an

amateur came into use, the blade would be more affected than the haft, as the amateur flint

knapper would be forced to resharpen the blade. The rate at which these amateurs made Clovis

style hafted bifaces were used is unknown though it has been noted that hafted bifaces with signs

of learning (i.e. presence of low skill flint knappers) at Clovis camps (Bradley et al. 2010: 106).

The rate at which lower skill manufacturing is seen at Clovis camps are tested within this study.

It may be that Clovis hafted bifaces made by those of low skill were discarded at camps and

never actually used in the field. If low skill flint knapping is more prevalent at camps, removing the Clovis hafted bifaces found at Clovis camps may help control for this bias.

Figure 6. An example of a Clovis hafted biface made by an individual with a lower skill level from the Gault site.

Too much material removed

THinge fracture resulting in too much material removed

Total lack of reduction in large area

Image Courtesy of the Gault Archaeological Project at Texas State University

Usewear, Retouch and Resharpening

Like sculpture or wood carving, the production of a stone tool is a process through which

the objective piece is reduced in size and modified in shape (Andrefsky 2010, 2008, 2005;

Bamforth and Hicks 2008: 147; Ellis 2004; Gunn and Prewitt 1975). Understanding the intended

shape and size of hafted bifaces during manufacture is the goal of stylistic hafted biface analysis, but often the elements of the shape and size of a hafted biface that are actually recorded are the products of use and maintenance post use. As per Andrefsky (2009), I use the term retouch to

mean any modification to a hafted biface (the objective piece) that removes a flake.

Resharpening is a special form of retouch in which the functional goal is to maintain the edge on

a stone tool.

To better understand the process a hafted biface undergoes, many archaeologists have

adopted the concept of life history from biology (Andrefsky 2008, 2009; Ellis 2004). In biology,

life history theory refers to the cycle of life of an organism, but when applied to stone tools it

refers to the process, through which an individual stone tool was manufactured, used,

maintained, modified, and then eventually discarded or lost such that it became part of the

archaeological record. Life history is most useful, however, as a theoretical concept that

archaeologists must recognize and account for when taking shape and size measurements of

hafted bifaces and other stone tools.

One important aspect of understanding the effects of resharpening and retouch on a

hafted biface is that not all parts of the hafted biface are resharpened. It is imperative to

recognize that resharpening occurs on the blade portion of most hafted bifaces. Therefore, the

shape and size of this portion changes more often and on more hafted bifaces. This is not to say,

however, the haft element is immune to retouch after the initial manufacture of the hafted biface.

The haft element of Clovis hafted bifaces has been known to be modified post production

during a process dubbed re-hafting. Bradley et al. (2010: 103) and Huckell (2007) both suggest

that Clovis style hafted biface hafts may have routinely broken midway up the haft, and then the portion still containing the blade element, would be re-worked. Bradley et al. (2010) even go so

far as to say that Clovis style hafted bifaces were reworked more often than not. The Dietz site provides some evidence that this type of reworking may have been taking place. This evidence comes in the form of discarded lower haft portions, but few blade portions. It is likely that these lower hafts represent the portions of hafted bifaces left behind while the blade element and upper haft were re-worked. An example of one of these is provided in Figure 7.

From an examination of the literature it appears that the blade element of Clovis style hafted bifaces can be heavily affected by usewear. It remains to be seen how often the haft element is affected by usewear and retouch. Eliminating this variability from the sample may be difficult, but avoiding the use of unstandardized measurements which capture hafted biface size should help mitigate these effects.

Figure 7. An Example of a Half Haft from Dietz, Oregon.

Image Courtesy of University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History

Function

Many papers have been written in an effort to better understand hafted biface function. In fact, many of the terms archaeologists apply to hafted bifaces infer function. These terms include, point, dart point, projectile point, projectile point knife (PPK), and arrowhead. For the purposes of this work the review of literature of stone tool and function and its effect on stone tool shape and size is limited to the most basic of papers on hafted bifaces and more focused on those pertaining to Clovis style hafted bifaces. To further focus the discussion here, this review and analysis is limited to macroscopic methods of functional lithic analysis, as this is the scope of the study at hand.

Statements about the function of hafted bifaces have shown that they were used for a variety of tasks including cutting, slicing, and as tips for projectiles (Andrefsky 2005: 22,

Andrefsky 1997; Goodyear 1974). The specific functions for which Clovis style hafted bifaces have been examined by many researchers. Clovis style hafted bifaces served as tips for projectile weapons and likely as general butchering tools. Evidence for this lies in the multitude of kill sites, in which Clovis hafted bifaces were left behind. Haynes (2002: 94) reports twenty-two separate sites with mammoth or mastodont remains with possible Clovis association. Clearly these hafted bifaces were used as spear or lance tips which were at least occasionally used to kill and butcher these megafauna. Spatially these kill sites range from the modern day states of

Washington, to Arizona in the South and New York in the Northeast. Not only were Clovis style hafted bifaces used to kill and butcher megafauna but, at least occasionally they were utilized in the butchering (or killing) of smaller game. The evidence for this lies in a blood residue analysis

where researchers have found evidence of Clovis and Gainey hafted bifaces being used on

rabbits, bison, and deer or elk (Seeman et al. 2008).

A cursory review of the data suggests that Clovis hafted bifaces were used for similar

functions throughout the wide range of their distribution. While it is undoubtedly true that the

intended function of these hafted biface had effects on the size and shape of the hafted bifaces

that were created, it is more likely that other aspects such as raw material availability and

usewear had effects that varied through space and time.

Size and Shape Summary

The previous sections have briefly discussed the non-stylistic factors which can affect the size and shape of the haft and blade elements of Clovis style hafted bifaces. A summary of the effects of these four factors on Clovis style hafted bifaces is shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Summary of Non-Style Factors on Hafted Biface Shape and Size

Factor Effect on Effect on Effect Blade Effect Blade

Haft Size Haft Shape Size Shape

Raw Material Limits overall May affect, Limits overall May affect, but

Availability and size but literature size literature suggest

Package Size and suggest no no

Shape

Skill Great effects Great effects Great effects Great effects but

but low skill but low skill but low skill low skill biface

biface can be biface can be biface can be can be identified

identified identified identified

Usewear, Retouch and Only during Only during Great as Great as

Resharpening rehafting rehafting resharpening resharpening

targets blade targets blade

Function Adhere to Adhere to Adhere to Adhere to

functional functional functional functional

constraints constraint constraint constraint

100

Previous Studies of Clovis Hafted Biface Morphology

There have been many previous studies which have sought to understand style change

among Clovis hafted bifaces across space (Buchanan and Collard 2007; Buchanan and Hamilton

2009; Morrow and Morrow 1999; O’Brien et al. 2001). This research and other research

(Andrefsky 1986; Gunn and Prewitt 1975; Benfer and Benfer 1981) have suggested that some

measurements only record hafted biface size and others record aspects of shape. Before moving

forward with the analysis at hand the way in which previous studies of Clovis style hafted bifaces have dealt with measurements of size and shape are reviewed and critiqued.

Chronologically the first study which is reviewed here is the seminal paper by Morrow

and Morrow (1999). The conclusions and general methods of this paper have already by

discussed in Chapter One, thus this discussion is limited the measurements they took and

whether the measurement captures the size or shape of the hafted bifaces. Morrow and Morrow

(1999) use a suite of linear measurements which likely all capture hafted biface size. Morrow

and Morrow counteract this however, by standardizing these measures. They use some of the

measurements to build an index of how “waisted” the hafted bifaces are and argue that as you

move south and east the lateral margins of the hafted bifaces become more concave, switching

from the Clovis style hafted biface, to the Fishtail paleo style found in central and South America

(Morrow and Morrow 1999).

Buchanan, Collard, and Hamilton have used the data set from Buchanan’s dissertation to

write a series of papers using measurements on Clovis hafted bifaces (Buchanan and Collard

101

2007; Buchanan and Hamilton 2009, Hamilton and Buchanan 2009). Again the results and

methods of these papers have been reviewed in Chapter One and this discussion focuses on how

their measurements captured size and shape of the hafted bifaces within their sample. Though this paper claims to be using geometric morphometrics it is important to clarify that they are not

using shape analysis like that of Thulman (2012). A careful reading of the methods sections

reveals they are making a series of traditional linear measurements instead. Many of the

measurements taken here effectively measure hafted biface size and likely do not represent variation within hafted biface shape. Within Hamilton and Buchanan (2009) they note this and

argue that size of hafted bifaces should decrease over time, as per the findings of their agent based model.

Buchanan and others have suffered from critiques of their use of total hafted biface

measurements and use of blade length and width within stylistic analyses. To combat this, they

reexamined a sample of Clovis hafted biface from caches, kills, and camps. Using Coefficient of

Variation (CoV) as a unit of variability they make the argument that the blade portions of Clovis

hafted bifaces are no more variable than the haft portions (Buchanan et al. 2012b). While these

are intriguing results, the fact that haft measurements are as variable as blade measurements does

not mean that blades are not differentially affected by use-wear, as it is not the amount of

variability which demands the division of haft and blade elements, but instead the source of the

variability. The fact that haft measurements are equally variable as blade elements, does not

mean that one is the product of stylistic variability while the other is not.

In 2014, Buchanan et al. again set out to understand the variation in Clovis hafted biface

shape between different paleo environments in North America. This time they use a true

102

Geometric Morphometric (GM) method including twenty semi-landmarks and three land marks.

The use of semi-landmarks is generally disapproved of in biology (Zeldritch 2004), but seems to be necessary when using GM on artifacts. Here again Buchanan et al. (2014) do not divide the

hafted bifaces in blade and haft elements citing their 2012 paper, as justification. They note that basal concavity is variable between environmental zones, suggesting it varies independent of

size. This is also supported within this analysis above, as basal concavity loaded highly on a non-

size factor.

Eren et al. (2015) use the methods of Buchanan et al. (2014) along with a retouch index

very similar to that of Andrefsky 2006, to examine how Clovis hafted bifaces from the Ohio

valley vary across different raw materials. There are three different raw materials represented

within the sample including: Wyandotte, Upper Mercer, and Hopkinsville. All three of these are

high quality cherts. They too find that basal concavity is the measurement which differs between

the three raw material populations. Overall they make the argument that raw material has little

effect on the morphology and that instead cultural drift is responsible for the difference in

morphology between of hafted bifaces populations (Eren et al. 2015). They justify these

conclusions as the GM analysis did find morphological difference between the three material populations, but the flake scar analysis showed few differences.

Previous studies have revealed a number of trends. The first is that size measurements can be used in stylistic analyses as long as they are standardized. Second there is a debate over whether separating the haft and blade is useful when analyzing Clovis hafted bifaces. This work adopts the stance of Andrefsky (2005) and Thulman (2012) that the separation of the haft and blade elements is key, but this is tested in later chapters. The third trend identified in the

103

literature is that basal concavity is highly variable and may vary independently of size. This is considered in the later analyses of this research.

Summary

The aim of this chapter was twofold. The first portion of this chapter examined non- stylistic factors which can affect the shape and size Clovis hafted bifaces. The results of this review are best summarized in Table 9. Aspects of raw material availability as well as package size and shape, retouch and usewear, affect the haft element and blade element differently.

Functional constraints likely affected all Clovis hafted bifaces as it seems that Clovis hafted bifaces were used for similar tasks across North America.

The second portion of this chapter consisted a review of the previous literature on studies

of Clovis hafted biface size and shape revealed that base depth may be an important

measurement in understanding Clovis hafted biface style. Additionally, some of these papers

argued that the distinction between haft element and blade element may not be as important as previously thought and that raw material availability and package size and shape may not have a

great effect on Clovis hafted biface shape and size. The assumptions presented in these previous

studies are evaluated in later chapters. This study has a wider data set in terms of the raw

materials included and the geographic scope of the data. This presented an opportunity to test the

conclusions of other Clovis style hafted biface studies.

104

CHAPTER SIX AN EXAMINATION OF THE DATA

Introduction

In Chapter Five I reviewed some of the factors that may structure morphological variability in hafted bifaces in this study. This chapter explores the nature of this data set and accounts for the variability in the linear measures that I employed to understand the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. Few studies have analyzed such a large number of Clovis hafted bifaces from such an expansive geographical area. Thus these data present an opportunity to better understand Clovis hafted biface morphology. The analyses in this chapter attempt to identify if factors other than style affect the morphology of the Clovis style hafted bifaces in this study.

These factors include retouch and resharpening, raw material package, size, shape and availability, as well as differences in site type. Ultimately this chapter evaluates and explores the data collected in this study in an effort to learn about Clovis hafted biface lithic technological organization.

Ratio Scale Linear Measurements

The first step in exploring these data is an evaluation of the linear measurements that were taken to record overall hafted biface morphology. In total eighteen linear measurements

105

were defined and measured on the hafted bifaces in the data set. Due to the fact that many bifaces were incomplete, every measurement was not taken on every biface. For full definitions

of each of the linear measurements see Chapter Four. The first section in this chapter focuses on

the variability among the eighteen ratio scale linear measurements that were taken. The

variability in a single measurement can reveal important trends in the data or meaningful groups.

I examined the distribution of the linear measurements to better ascertain the lithic

technological organization of Clovis style hafted bifaces. The distribution of linear

measurements can inform archaeologists about many factors which can affect the morphology of

hafted bifaces. A unimodal distribution could suggest that the manufacturers had a similar

concept of how long and wide a hafted biface should be or that hafted biface users had a similar

concept of when to discard a biface. If the distribution of linear measurements is multi-modal,

this could indicate that there was more than one concept of how long and wide a stone tool

should be. Multi-modality could also indicate that the analyst has accidently lumped two separate

stone tool types together in the sample. Right skewed distributions could show the life history of bifaces, and a left skewed distribution could indicate a preference toward larger bifaces or a lack of resharpening and retouch.

In this data set, the distribution of each of the linear measurements is unimodal, and most are slightly skewed right. Using maximum length as an example, Figure 8 shows a typical distribution of linear measurements. This unimodal nature of the distribution suggests that there may have been a consensus among prehistoric flint knappers as to what a Clovis style hafted biface should look like and/or when a hafted biface should be discarded. The original form of the

Clovis hafted bifaces is obfuscated by the effects of their life history and overall it is difficult to

106

determine whether these unimodal distributions reflect uniformity in discard history, original biface form, or both.

The distribution of these Clovis style hafted bifaces is the product of the reductive nature of lithic technology and life history. Additionally, the right skewed nature of these linear data indicates that the upper boundary of Clovis hafted biface size was less strict. There is likely a lower limit on the size a Clovis hafted biface can be and still function as a Clovis hafted biface.

At some point retouch and resharpening would reduce a hafted biface down to a size that it could not work as a projectile or a knife. Again, using maximum length as an example, the shortest complete hafted biface in this sample has a maximum length of 10.94 mm and the largest measures 215.61 mm.

107

Figure 8. Histogram depicting the distribution of the maximum length of Clovis style hafted

bifaces.

Both the unimodal distribution of these measurements and their right skewed nature can be informative. There are several factors that may explain this. The first is life history and the

reductive nature of lithic technology. Curation is the relationship between maximum and used

utility of a tool (Andrefsky 2008). The longer an item is curated and used, the more it will be

retouched. As time goes by and the hafted biface is further reduced, the chances that it will be

discarded gradually increase (as it has been used and curated for a longer period of time). Thus it

should be expected that hafted bifaces in the archaeological record should be skewed right, as the

longer a tool has been used the smaller it will become. Therefore, there should be more small

108

hafted bifaces in the assemblage since the smaller hafted bifaces have likely been curated for a greater period of time. As mentioned above there is likely a length, and overall size, at which a

Clovis hafted bifaces became too small to function. As the hafted bifaces approach this non- functional size, it is more likely that the user will discard it. Thus, many of the bifaces which have been discarded are smaller in size. This causes the linear measurements to be skewed right.

It should be noted, however, that some of the bifaces in these distributions have hardly been retouched, so both the right skewed and unimodal nature of these distributions could have alternate explanations.

In order to better display the similarity of the linear measurements used in this study I converted all of the values into Z-scores. Figure 9 shows the frequency of the Z-scores for each measurement. Essentially the graph is overlaid histograms in which the frequency of Z-scores is represented by a continuous line. This allows for the easy comparison of these measures. For ease of viewing one outlier base depth Z-score of 7.088 was removed from the graph. In this figure only those hafted bifaces on which I took all of the measurements are shown. This figure includes the data from the 383 hafted bifaces on which all measurements were possible. These frequencies are expressed in linear form for ease of comparison. The uniform nature of the lines depicted in this graph demonstrate how similar the distribution of z-scores was for these linear measurements.

In addition, the histograms of each individual linear measurement are available in

Appendix B. In this small subsection I will quickly outline the central tendency data for the

109

Figure 9. A frequency graph showing Z-Scores of each of the measurements.

Clovis hafted bifaces in this sample to provide a better understanding of the morphology of

Clovis hafted bifaces. The mean maximum length of Clovis hafted bifaces is 69.68 mm and the mean maximum width is 27.23 mm. Maximum length, however, has a wide distribution ranging from 10.94 mm to 215.61 mm. Maximum width is much less variable and ranges from 13.6mm to 61.91 mm. The mean base depth is 3.91mm and the range of base depth is from .78mm to

18.33mm. The average blade length is 44.08 mm and the mean haft length is 25.95. Average long side flute length is 25.62 mm and the mean of short side flute lengths is 18.46mm. Thus

110

most of the Clovis style hafted bifaces in this date set feature flutes that are less than half the

total length of the hafted biface. Some, however, have long side flutes which are more than half

the total length, but these were placed into tier 4 (see Chapter Three). In this subsection I provide a brief description of the morphological distribution of Clovis style hafted biface as other aspects of their morphological variability will be explored later in this chapter.

Overall the fact that all of the linear measurements are distributed in a similar manner

suggests that all of the linear measurements may in fact be correlated with each other. This is

likely because many of the linear measurements are greatly affected by the overall size of the biface. I test these potential correlations in the next section.

Correlations of Measures

Here, I analyze the correlation between the linear measurements to understand variability in Clovis hafted biface morphology. Logically, length measurements are likely more correlated to other length measurements than width measures and vice versa. Thus, before running the correlation analysis I separated the measures into length measurements, including base depth and both long and short flute length, and width measurements. These correlations were calculated using Spearman’s Rho. All of the linear measurements are significantly correlated with p-values of less than .01. Table 9 shows the correlation between length measurements.

111

Table 9. Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient Matrix for Length Measurements

Measurement Max Max Haft Base Max Blade Long Side Length Length Depth Length Flute Max Length - Length Max Haft .853 - Length Base Depth .416 .383 - Max Blade .955 .717 .394 - Length Flute Length .577 .576 .362 .538 - Long Flute Length .514 .517 .346 .478 .745 Short

Max length, max haft length, and max blade length are all highly correlated. Base depth is not highly correlated with any of the other measures. Flute lengths, both long and short, are not highly correlated with the other length measurements but are correlated with each other. Table

10 shows the correlation between each of the width measurements. All of these measurements are significantly correlated with p< .01 All of the width measurements are highly correlated to each other, with the exception of max flute width. All of the measurements, again with the exception of max flute width, correlate highly with max width.

This analysis suggests that most of the length and width measurements could simply be represented by one of the respective length or width measurements. Base depth, long flute length, short flute length, and max flute width, though they are significantly correlated to all the other measurements, are not as highly correlated.

112

Table 10. Spearman’s Rho Correlation Coefficient Matrix for Width Measurements

113

Effectively it seems that there are three aspects which influence these morphological measurements. The first of these three factors are size and shape. All of the measurements are significantly correlated with each other (at the <.01 level), indicating that size and shape greatly influences the overall morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. Three of the length measurements are highly correlated. These three variables are max length, max haft length and max blade length. Due to their high correlation, for the rest of the analysis only maximum length will be considered. The same is true of max width. Max width is highly correlated with all of the width measurements but least correlated with maximum flute width. As mentioned above four measures are not as highly correlated with max length or max width. These four measures, long side flute length, short side flute length, base depth, and max flute width are all related to haft morphology and likely represent an aspect of hafting style that varies somewhat independently of total hafted biface size. It should be noted that long side flute length, short side flute length, and maximum flute width are aspects a single flake scar and it is difficult to control the length and width of a single flake scar. This may explain why these variables stand out.

Principal Components Analysis

In an effort to further understand the relationships between the ratio scale attributes which were measured in this study, principal components analysis (PCA) was run. Missing data was addressed using listwise deletion. This method of deletion only allows for the inclusion of hafted bifaces which have recorded measurements for all of the attributes. This requirement only allows for the inclusion of 383 of the 695 total hafted bifaces found within the sample. Solutions with various numbers of components were examined. PCA analysis can be run on the actual

114

data, or the data can be standardized (Dawson 2001). For this analysis the data were standardized by converting them into Z-scores in order to reduce the effect larger measures can have on the

data. If the data were not standardized, measures with larger values, such as maximum length,

may dominate the analysis. The PCA was run using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. After this

analysis it was determined that a four component solution was the most appropriate. While only

the first two components have an eigen value over one, components three and four reveal

important trends about base depth. The eigen value for the first component is significantly higher

than that of any of those that follow. The eigen values for a four component solution are shown

in Table 11.

Table 11. Eigen Values for a four Component Solution.

Component Eigen Value Percentage of the Variability Explained

1 13.581 75.453

2 1.043 5.794

3 .861 4.782

4 .722 4.014

All the variables load highly onto the first component; thus this component is likely

related to hafted biface size and possibly also shape (Table 12). This indicates that all the

measurements are highly correlated with the size, and possibly shape, of the artifact. This

correlation with size is especially evident among width measurements. Component One explains

75 percent of the variability in the data set. The second component, however, reveals several

interesting trends. The three variables which load most highly onto Component Two are long

115

side flute length, short side flute length, and maximum flute width. Thus, a driving influence of

Component Two is flute size and shape. Flute morphology likely played a role in how a Clovis style hafted biface was hafted. Component Two, then, likely represents aspects of the hafting technology of Clovis bifaces. Components Three and Four have eigen values less than one, which indicates they explain less variability than a single measurement (Shennan 2004: 290).

Despite this, these components may provide useful information that can be examined with further analysis. Base depth loads highly onto Component Three, while max length and blade length load negatively. This is not surprising as base depth is the variable that is least correlated with maximum length. Only one variable loads highly onto Component Four. This single variable, again, is base depth. This suggests that not all of the variation in base depth is entirely explained by variation in the other measurements.

Table 12. Component Loadings for the First Four Components.

Measurement Components

1 2 3 4

Max Length .877 .003 -.370 .211

Max Width .978 -.135 .049 -.060

116

Haft-Blade .978 -.120 .068 -.066 Division

Max Haft .856 .065 -.218 .116 Length

Max Haft .953 -.094 .092 -.086 Width

Haft Width ¼ .931 -.092 .249 .016

Haft Width ½ .956 -.082 .190 -.006

Haft Width ¾ .960 -.103 .151 -.038

Base Width .824 -.075 .258 .018

Base Depth .549 .263 .439 .597

Flute Length .686 .610 -.096 -.064 Long Side

Flute Length .677 583. -.094 -.053 Short Side

Max Flute .618 .322 .171 -.467 Width

117

Max Blade .824 -.012 -.410 .231 Length

Max Blade .970 -.149 .020 -.067 Width

Blade Width .967 -.147 -.047 -.061 ¼

Blade Width .942 -.143 -.131 -.049 ½

Blade Width ¾ .909 -.129 -.213 -.048

*Values in bold are discussed This principal components analysis (PCA) suggests that four variables stand out: long

side flute length, short side flute length, maximum flute width, and base depth (Table 13). As

suggested by Benfer and Benfer (1981:384) and Gunn and Prewitt (1975), statistical analyses

like discriminate function analysis and PCA can produce both size and shape factors when used

to examine stone tool data. Based on the results of the PCA analysis, this is exactly the trend I

argue has occurred. Expectedly, the measurements such as the various length and width

measurements represent the overall size and shape of the hafted biface. This analysis suggests

that flute length, width, and base depth are not entirely explained by variation in size and as

mentioned above warrant further investigation. Thus there seem to be three underlying

dimensions of variation affecting Clovis: hafted biface morphology size, shape, and hafting. As suggested by both the correlation matrices and the PCA, size and shape (represented by

118

component one) are the most explanatory factors indicating that these linear measurements are best at capturing aspects of hafted biface size.

Non Ratio Scale Measurements

In addition to the eighteen linear ratio scale measurements, two other attributes were recorded. These other two attributes were the presence or absence of post fluting retouch, and the number of flutes on the side with the longest flutes.

From the total sample of 695 hafted bifaces, 523 feature only a single flute on the long flute side. The distribution of the remaining 144 hafted bifaces with more than one flute per side is shown in Table 13. On bifaces with multiple flutes, the flute length was measured on the longest flute. With the exception of California, each culture area contains Clovis hafted bifaces with multiple flutes. Additionally, Clovis hafted bifaces with multiple flutes seems to be evenly spread across the three site types as well. This suggests that multi flute creation was not unique to one culture area or site type (Table 13).

119

Table 13. Distribution of Hafted Bifaces with More than One Flute on the Long Side by Culture

Area.

Culture Area Total Multi- Caches Kills Camps

Flute

Total

California 6 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0(0%)

Great Basin 35 8(23%) 4(11%) 0(0%) 4(11%)

Great Plains 85 9(11%) 1(1%) 5(6%) 3(1%)

Northeast 256 41(16%) 3(1%) 38(14%) 0(0%)

Columbia Plateau 9 3(33%) 3(33%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Southeast 281 80(28%) 0(0%) 80(28%) 0(0%)

Southwest 23 3(13%) 0 (0%) 3(13%) 0(0%)

Total 695 144(21%) 11(2%) 126(18%) 7(1%)

Post fluting retouch and bifaces with multiple flutes are related. If a biface had multiple

flutes, it was considered to have post fluting retouch. In addition, some hafted bifaces featured small flakes along on the haft element which interrupted the flute scar and therefore, had to be

made after the flute was created. In total, 372 (54 percent) of the hafted bifaces featured post fluting retouch (Table 14). This indicates that the hafts of many of the Clovis hafted bifaces were retouched after the original flute was made. This demonstrates that the haft element of Clovis hafted bifaces was often retouched after the first flute was made.

120

Table 14. Distribution of Post Fluting Retouch in the Sample

Culture Area Total Post Flute Caches Kills Camps

Retouch

Total

California 6 1(17%) 0(0%) 1(17%) 0(0%)

Great Basin 35 26(74%) 5(14%) 2(6%) 19(54%)

Great Plains 85 21(25%) 1(1%) 6(7%) 14(16%)

Northeast 256 127(50%) 4(2%) 121(47%) 2(1%)

Columbia Plateau 9 5(55%) 3(33%) 2(22%) 0(0%)

Southeast 281 181(64%) 0(0%) 177(63%) 4(1%)

Southwest 23 11(48%) 0(0%) 11(48%) 0(0%)

Total 695 372(52%) 13(2%) 200(29%) 39(6%)

While not the focus of this study, non-ratio scale attributes are informative when

discussing the lithic technological organization of Clovis hafted bifaces. Hafted bifaces with multiple flutes on a single side are found at kills sites, caches, and camps. Post fluting retouch was found to be very common in the sample, which suggests that hafts were retouched and modified more often than it has been previously argued by Buchanan et al. (2012). This suggests that many Clovis hafts are not in their original form, once they have been discarded. This indicates that resharpening and retouch may have great effects on the overall morphology of some of the hafted bifaces in the sample.

121

Possible Factors that Structure Clovis Hafted Biface Morphology

Having explored the variability among the measurements taken on the Clovis hafted bifaces from the sample, this section examines what factors may structure Clovis hafted biface morphology. As many of the length measurements are highly correlated to maximum length, it will be considered in these analyses. Additionally, base depth, long side flute length, and short side flute length will be considered, as they are related to hafting technology. Maximum width will be considered in these analyses as it is highly correlated to all of the width measurements, except maximum flute width. Maximum flute width is also considered, as it was not as highly correlated to maximum width, and loaded onto non-size and shape related components during the

PCA. In each section both the linear measurements and the coefficient of the linear measurements will be considered.

Long Flute versus Short Flute

One potential bias affecting these data is that images of both sides of a hafted biface are not always available. Previously researchers have noted that Clovis hafted bifaces have one side with a significantly longer flute than the other side (Bradley et al. 2010). During this analysis, if only a single side of the Clovis hafted biface was available for study, it was assumed that the flute on that side was the longer of the two. If long side and short side flutes are significantly different then this assumption may bias any portion of the analysis which involves flute lengths.

If the flutes on the different sides are significantly different there are several potential

122

explanations. The first explanation is that there was a functional or stylistic reason for making

the flute on one side longer than the flute on the other. One explanation is that there was a

functional advantage to have different length flutes. Another potential explanation is that even

the most experienced flint knappers may have a difficult time making two flutes the same length.

In this section, I will compare the lengths of flutes for hafted bifaces with images of both sides to

understand if there is a significant difference in flute lengths and if so what the reason may be.

Figure 10 shows a histogram of both short and long side flute lengths. As mentioned

above, both distributions are unimodal and skewed right. The values on the Y-axis are expressed

in millimeters.

Upon visual inspection, the distributions of the two measures look similar. The means

and standard deviations, however, suggest that the two measures may be significantly different.

A t-test was conducted which included all hafted bifaces for which short side and long side flute length measurements were present. The t-test resulted in an t-value of 10.665 and a p-value of

.001. This indicates that the measurements of the long and short side flutes are significantly

different from one another.

123

Figure 10. Histograms of comparing the flute depth on the long and short side of the Clovis style hafted bifaces in the sample.

While there is a significant difference, the question remains as to whether the flutes were intentionally made at different lengths or not. Eerkens (2000) provides a useful model to test this assumption against (See Chapter Two for more details on this approach). Eerkens (2000) argues that humans can only perceive a three to five percent difference in lengths. We could expect an error rate of at least six to ten percent, as someone could estimate three to five percent larger or smaller and thus the error rate should be doubled. On average short side flutes are 26% smaller than long side flutes. While this is higher than one would expect based on the limits of human

124

perception, Eerkens (2000) points out that working with different mediums, such as clay versus stone, and variation in methods such as pottery making versus flint knapping, certainly affects the amount of copy error. It is likely that reductive technologies such as flint knapping would have higher than expected error rates, due to the imprecision in flake removal and the inability of the maker to reattach a flake after removal. Experimental studies may be required to produce reasonable expectations of flute length accuracy.

The examination of these two measures indicates two important trends. It appears that

Clovis hafted bifaces often have flutes of significantly different lengths. The functional, or perhaps stylistic, purpose of the differing flute lengths is unknown. Admittedly this difference in flute length could also simply be the result of the difficulty in making two flutes the same length.

Predicting and controlling the exact length and width of a flake scar is difficult for even the most experienced knappers.

Site Type

Buchanan and Collard (2007) proposed that there are three types of Clovis sites: kill sites, camp sites, and caches. This same typology was used here, with one exception. All isolated surface finds were considered to be kill sites as it was likely that this hafted biface was lost or discarded during a hunt. As mentioned previously in Chapter Three this was done as isolated hafted bifaces were most likely lost while hunting or discarded while butchering animals and most likely belong in the kill site category. The type of site that a Clovis hafted biface is found at

may have effects on morphological variability of that biface. Therefore, the effect that site type

has on Clovis hafted biface morphology will be examined before considering the questions

125

proposed in Chapter One. As the coefficient of variation will be the primary measurement used

to answer the questions proposed in this work, I will pay special attention to how site type affects

the CoV of morphological measurements of Clovis hafted biface variability. The three different

site types are not evenly distributed throughout the sample (Table 15). For example, all but one

of the cache sites, Rummels-Maske, are located in the inland Northwest. The uneven geographic

distribution and possible functional differences in the Clovis styles hafted bifaces from these

different site types may have an effect on the analyses to come later.

126

Figure 11. Histograms of Maximum Length by Site type, showing that caches have a wider distribution and larger hafted bifaces.

Cache Camp 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 Kill Percent 30 20 10 0 0 100 200 Max Length Graphs by Site Type

127

Table. 15. The Distribution of Site Types across the Culture Areas.

Culture Area Kill Cache Camp Total

California 6 (100%) 0 0 6 (1%)

Great Basin 4 (11%) 6 (17%) 25 (72%) 35 (6%)

Great Plains 53 (62%) 3 (2%) 29 (34%) 85 (12%)

Northeast 241 (93 %) 5 (2%) 14 (5%) 260 (38%)

Plateau 2 (40%) 3 (60%) 0 5 (1%)

Southeast 277 (98.5%) 0 4 (2.5%) 281 (41%)

Total 610 (88%) 17 (2%) 68 (10%) 695

Figure 11 shows histograms of maximum length for each of site types. Cache sites are highly variable in terms of maximum length and are therefore are not unimodal. The first crucial question to be examined is whether or not there is a difference in the morphological variability of the hafted bifaces from these three different site types. Table 16 shows the CoV for each of the five measurements used previously for each site type. These data clearly show that cache sites are more variable when these six measurements are considered. The only exception to this lies in base width. In terms of base width, kill sites are more variable than camp sites, except for base width. These results indicate that the uneven geographic distribution of these site types and heightened morphological variability of cache sites, may have a great effect on the CoV on many regions.

128

Table 16. Coefficient of Variation for the Six Selected Measurements Divided by Site Type for

the Entire Sample.

Max Flute Flute Max Max Base Site Type N= Flute Length Length Length Width Depth Width Long Short

Kill Sites 602 0.29 0.38 0.22 0.52 0.45 0.49

Cache 17 0.29 0.42 0.28 0.60 0.49 0.50 Sites

Camp 76 0.22 0.32 0.15 0.38 0.35 0.37 Sites

The areas that are most affected by the increased morphological variability of cache sites are the northwestern Great Plains, Columbia Plateau, and northern Great Basin. With the exception of

Rummels-Maske, all of the cache sites are located in these regions. To further test the difference between site types I ran a Kruskal-Wallis test between the three site types (Table 17). For long

side flute, short side flute, and maximum flute width, I only considered the hafted bifaces with

images of both sides. The test has demonstrated that at least one site type is significantly

different from one other site type for all six measurements tested. Though base depth is not

significant at .05 level, it is significant at the .10 level, which suggests that there are some

differences between the base depth of hafted bifaces from the different site types. Again, the vast

majority of the sample are hafted bifaces from kill sites and the representation of both camp and

cache sites is low.

129

Table 17. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Site Types for Six Measurements

Measurement Significance Max Length <.001 Max Width <.001 Base Depth .097 Flute Length Long .007 Flute Length Short .005 Maximum Flute Width .001

The realization that caches are highly variable in terms of haft morphology signifies that another aspect of cache biface morphology should be investigated. Further analysis will be employed to determine whether this morphological variability is between or within the four cache sites in this sample. Table 18 presents the CoV for each of the five measurements for each individual cache site. Of the cache sites, Rummels-Maske is the most standardized, while the

East Wenatchee Cache is overall the most variable. The only exception to this is again base width. Most of the cache sites feature base width measurements which are somewhat consistent across the cache sites. Anzick features high variability in terms of base width.

130

Table 18. A Comparison of the CoVs from the Four Cache Sites in the Sample.

Max Flute Flute Base Site N= Flute Base Depth Length Length Width Width Long Short

Simon

(Camas, Idaho) 6 0.21 0.11 0.38 0.24 0.21

Anzick, 3 0.25 0.27 0.19 0.16 n/a* (Park, Montana)

East Wenatchee

(Douglas, 3 0.17 0.07 0.39 0.48 0.62

Washington)

Rummels-Maske 5 0.27 0.06 0.24 0.26 0.36 Cedar, Iowa)

0.25 Cache Site Total 17 0.29 0.60 0.49 0.50

*only one side of the hafted bifaces from Anzick were available, therefore short side flute length was not measured

131

Retouch, Usewear and Resharpening

In this section I evaluate the effect that retouch and resharpening has on Clovis style hafted bifaces. Additionally, I test to what degree the haft and blade elements are differentially affected by usewear, resharpening and retouch.

As reviewed previously, many archaeologists have argued that the haft and blade elements of hafted bifaces are differentially affected by retouch and usewear (Andrefsky 2005;

Ellis 2004; Thulman 2012). Others, however, have argued that Clovis hafted bifaces were not retouched extensively and therefore blade elements are appropriate for stylistic analyses of

Clovis hafted biface morphology (Buchanan et al. 2012b). Thus, if blades and hafts are retouched equally, morphological measures of length and width should be equally variable as long as multiple stages of life history are represented in my total data set. If morphological measures of length and width are significantly more variable on either the haft or blade element, the likely cause is that this element was retouched, and resharpened more often than the other. If only blades are routinely retouched, then the CoV values of the linear measurements on the blade element should be significantly higher than those on the haft element.

132

Table 19. Variability in Haft and Blade Length and Width Measurements

Measurement Element Mean Standard Coefficient of Location Deviation Variation Haft Length Haft 25.95 8.74 .34

Haft Width Haft 26.78 5.91 .22

Haft Width ¼ Haft 24.28 4.92 .20

Haft Width ½ Haft 24.92 5.32 .211

Haft Width ¾ Haft 25.76 5.56 .22

Base Width Haft 20.44 4.36 .21

Blade Length Blade 44.08 20.92 .47

Blade Width ¼ Blade 27.05 6.19 .23

Blade Width ½ Blade 23.09 6.09 .26

Blade Width ¾ Blade 16.68 4.84 .29

Overall, Table 19 suggests that measurements of blade morphology are more variable than measurements of haft element morphology, but not to a great degree. To evaluate the differences between the CoV of blade and haft element measurements, I ran a Mann-Whitney test between them. This test in a significance value of .067. While this is not significant at the

.05, it is significant at the .10 level. This suggests that blade elements are slightly more variable than haft elements. Perhaps both haft and blade elements were retouched, but blade elements were retouched with greater intensity.

133

The work is not the first analysis to suggest that variability in blade and haft elements of

Clovis hafted biface are similar. Buchanan et al. (2012b) have come to similar conclusions. This suggests that Clovis hafted bifaces either were not sharpened very often or that Clovis hafted biface users made a conscious effort to maintain a certain haft to blade size ratio. Determining which of these two options is the case is a crucial aspect of this work.

Goodyear’s (1974) data set of Dalton style hafted bifaces from the Brand site provides a more than adequate comparison to this sample of Clovis hafted bifaces, as they are both

Paleoindian hafted biface types. Dalton hafted bifaces style are a late Paleoindian type and show a very different pattern of retouch than Clovis. Figure 12 depicts three Dalton style hafted bifaces at various stages of their life history. Goodyear (1974) defines three stages in the life history of

the Dalton style hafted biface: initial, advanced, and final. An example of each of these stages is shown in Figure 12. Throughout the life history of a Dalton style hafted biface the width of the blade element is reduced but that haft element is left largely untouched (Goodyear 1974). The haft width to blade width ratio is not maintained throughout the life history of Dalton style hafted bifaces, and through resharpening the blade element becomes more narrow. Few, if any, Clovis hafted bifaces in this sample are shaped like the final stage of Dalton style hafted biface. When extremely retouched, Clovis hafted bifaces become triangular in shape, suggesting that Clovis style hafted bifaces undergo a different method of retouch and resharpening. Overall, the blade to haft width ratio is maintained, but the blade length is reduced. Figure 12 provides an example of a heavily retouched Clovis style hafted biface from the Dietz site in Oregon.

134

Figure 12. Example of three Dalton style hafted bifaces at different stages of their life history:

adapted from Goodyear (1974).

*Moving from left to right these stages are initial, advanced, and final.

135

Figure 13. A heavily retouched Clovis style hafted biface from Dietz which demonstrates heavily retouched hafted bifaces are present in the sample.

Image Courtesy of University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History

If the makers of Clovis hafted bifaces did attempt to keep the blade and haft at similar width throughout the life history of the biface, then the half haft and half blade width measurements should be highly correlated. Figure 14 shows a regression between the half haft and half blade width measurements. The measurements were selected as they will represent the difference in shape between Dalton style hafted bifaces and Clovis style hafted bifaces after retouch. As shown the two measurements are highly correlated (R=.850, R2=.724 p= <.01)

even though the sample of Clovis hafted bifaces in this study are drawn from various stages in

their life history. If only the blade element was being retouched, the correlation between these

two mid width measurements would not be this high. As seen in Figure 12, this is not true for

Dalton style hafted bifaces, as the width of the blade is significantly reduced at each stage, but

the width of the haft is largely maintained. This comparison between Dalton and Clovis style

hafted bifaces again suggests that Clovis hafted bifaces were either rarely retouched or that when

136

they were retouched both the haft and blade were retouched in an effort to keep the width ratio

the same. The presence of heavily retouched hafted bifaces, such as Figure 13, the example from

Dietz, suggests that Clovis style hafted bifaces were at least occasionally retouched.

Additionally, the presence of half hafts at Clovis camp sites suggests that when hafts were broken, the remaining haft and blade were retouched into a functional hafted biface (an example of a half haft is found in Figure 7 in Chapter Five). To produce a functional Clovis style hafted biface after the base break off would require significant retouch on the haft element.

Figure 14. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, showing a high correlation: this suggests that both elements were both retouched during the use life of the hafted bifaces.

137

The presence of half hafts, heavily retouched hafted bifaces, and the correlation between blade width and haft widths suggests that the ratio between haft width and blade width may have been maintained throughout the uselife of a Clovis hafted biface or that Clovis hafted bifaces were rarely resharpened.

No true retouch index was used in this study but some of the recorded elements may serve as proxies for retouch. One such element recorded on these hafted bifaces is the kind of site that the hafted biface was found at. As shown above there are significant differences between the three site types identified in this study. Figure 15 shows the same regression as Figure 14, but the

Figure 15. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, divided between site types.

138

data are broken up by site type. I ran a regression on each site type and the resulting lines of best

fit and the original line of best fit, shown in black, are plotted. The regressions for each site type

are all significant at the p= <.01 level. For caches R=.956, R2=.914 for camps R=.782, R2=.609,

and for kill sites R=.846, R2=.715. Here it is assumed that site type and life history or correlated.

If the hafted bifaces from caches are largely unused, cache sites should feature Clovis hafted bifaces with the least retouch. That is to say that hafted biface from caches should be at earlier points in their life history. Kill sites and camps should feature Clovis style hafted bifaces which

are typically further into their life history and therefore more retouched. Progressing from

caches to kill sites, and on to camps the slope of their respective lines of regression decreases.

This suggests that hafted bifaces from cache sites show the most standardization in haft and blade width while kill sites and camps sites show significantly less. If most hafted bifaces at

caches are newly created hafted bifaces, this suggests that haft and blade width is highly

standardized when Clovis hafted biface are first created. Kill sites should feature some hafted bifaces that are early on in their life history, used a few times then discarded or lost, and should also have hafted bifaces used almost until the end of their life history. Camps likely contain hafted bifaces in the middle and end of their life history. This is reflected in Figure 15 in that caches sites have the highest slope in haft to blade ratio, kill sites have the median slope, and camp sites have the lowest. These data suggest that while they are modifying both the haft and the blade, the blade element is more affected by retouch (Figure 15). Figure 16 shows the same

regression, again partitioned by site type, with the 95% confidence intervals.

139

Figure 16. Regression between half haft width and half blade width, divided between site types

with 95% confidence intervals.

Unfortunately, the confidence intervals for the regressions of the three site types overlap and therefore site type may not work well as a proxy for amount of retouch. This indicates that this trend may be due to the uneven sample sizes found among the three site types. Kill sites clearly dominate sample, while both camps and caches are represented by only 35 and fourteen complete hafted bifaces, respectively. The small sample size for camp and cache sites makes

140

running statistical tests between these data difficult. That being said the strong correlation between half haft width and half blade width suggests that Clovis hafted biface manufacturers may have intentionally maintained this width ratio throughout the life history of the hafted bifaces. As suggested in in Figure 12, this does not appear to be true for Dalton style hafted bifaces. The maintenance of this width ratio may have been achieved through resharpening of the blade and occasional retouching of the haft element, suggesting that Clovis hafted biface makers did modify both the haft and blade elements after initial manufacture.

Raw Material

Such a large data set of Clovis hafted bifaces provides an opportunity to explore the kinds of raw materials that were used to manufacture them. Many of the archetypal sites with Clovis hafted bifaces such as Blackwater Draw (Boldurian and Cotter 1999) and Gault (Speer 2013) contain assemblages dominated by high quality chert. Kelly and Todd (1988) argue that the people who made Clovis hafted bifaces predominantly used high quality cherts.

This section addresses the following questions:

1) How many and what kinds of non-chert hafted bifaces exist within the population of

Clovis Style hafted bifaces?

2) To what extent does raw material availability and package size and shape explain

morphological variation?

141

Many artifact images are black and white or not of a high enough quality to see raw material grain size. Raw material of the Clovis hafted bifaces from the sample were only recorded if the analyst was certain, from the image alone, that the hafted biface was made of or not made of chert. This section will explore the geographic bounds and morphological variability among Clovis hafted bifaces that are not made of high quality chert.

Of the 695 Clovis style hafted bifaces in this sample, 64 (nine percent) were determined to be a raw material other than high quality cherts. The percentage of each and the regions and states that these hafted bifaces are from are shown in Table 20. The most frequent non-chert material is obsidian, which is geographically limited to areas west of the Mississippi River. Dietz contributes the vast majority of the obsidian Clovis hafted biface assemblage, as 24 out of the 28 obsidian hafted bifaces in the sample are from the Dietz site in Oregon. The fossiliferous chert hafted biface sample is similar to the obsidian sample, as the majority, eight out of nine, come from a single site. That single site is Peterson, which, like Dietz, is a Clovis aged camp. Both the quartzite and crystal quartz assemblages are from kill sites.

To better understand the morphological variability of non-chert Clovis hafted bifaces, I compared those raw material groups that represent more than one percent of the total sample, obsidian, quartzite, crystal quartz and fossiliferous cherts, to the rest of sample (Figure 17). From this simple examination of the means of several measurements it is apparent that obsidian, crystal quartz, and fossiliferous chert Clovis style hafted bifaces are overall smaller than those made of chert or quartzite (Figure 17). It should be noted that basalt and chalcedony are not in this graph, as both categories only contain three or less hafted bifaces. The smaller size of these hafted bifaces could be the result of several different factors, including increased curation and

142

retouch of non-chert raw materials, smaller initial package size of non-chert raw materials and a slight bias toward finding non chert hafted bifaces at camps where discarded hafted bifaces are likely further along in their life history. The fact that the majority of both the obsidian and fossiliferous assemblages come from Clovis camps may help to explain their overall smaller size.

Table 20. Percentage and Distribution of Non Chert Hafted Bifaces in the Sample.

Percentage of Total Culture Areas found Raw Material Type States found in Sample (n=) in

North Carolina,

1% Northeast, Southeast, Maryland, South Crystal Quartz N=9 Great Plains Carolina, Arkansas,

Georgia, Florida

4% Southwest, Columbia Oregon, California, Obsidian N=28 Plateau, Great Basin Arizona

Wisconsin, Illinois, 2% Northeast, Great Florida, Missouri, Quartzite N=14 Plains, Southeast Georgia, Maryland,

Minnesota

143

1% Missouri, Fossiliferous Cherts Great Plains, Northeast N=9 Pennsylvania

>1% Great Plains, Great Arizona, Oklahoma, Basalt N=3 Basin, Southwest Oregon

>1% Chalcedony Southeast North Carolina N=1

144

Figure 17. Boxplot of Raw Material’s Maximum Length suggesting that hafted biface made from

crystal quartz, fossiliferous cherts, and obsidian are smaller than those made of quartzite and chert.

Table 21 shows the number of complete hafted bifaces for each raw material type. It is evident from this table that Chert hafted biface dominate the sample. That being said, a Kruskal-

Wallis Test was run between these raw material groups. The results of this test are shown in

Table 22. I tested six measurements which loaded highly on the size and shape component of the

PCA in this chapter. Three of the measurements, max length, max blade length, and max haft

145

length were significantly different when hafted bifaces of differing raw materials are compared.

Despite the small sample size for non-chert materials, these results suggest that there are differences in artifact size, which are correlated with the raw material that the artifact was made from. Eren et al. (2015:165) have argued that raw material does not greatly affect the morphology of Clovis hafted biface. It should be noted, however, the Eren et al. (2015) study only includes high quality cherts from the Ohio valley.

Table 21. The number of Complete Hafted Biface for Each Raw Material Type.

Raw Material N=

Chert 565

Crystal Quartz 8

Fossiliferous 3

Obsidian 5

Quartzite 14

146

Table 22. Results of a Kruskal-Wallis Test between Raw Materials.

Measurement Significance

Max Length .008

Max Width .246

Base Depth .448

Flute Length Long .061

Max Blade Length .017

Max Haft Length .023

These analyses suggest that at least one raw material is different from the rest in terms of these measurements. These differences may bias or influence further analysis of the Clovis hafted bifaces from this sample.

Discussion and Summary

The data exploration in this chapter has illuminated several important trends. The chapter begins with a discussion of Clovis lithic technological organization. The presence of multiple flutes and post fluting retouch indicates that the haft elements of Clovis hafted bifaces were modified after the first flute was produced. Additionally, these practices of post initial flute modification seem to occur in each culture region and across site types. Another aspect of lithic technological organization that was confirmed by this study is the presence of long and short side

147

flutes. These differences in flute length could have been purposeful, but may have simply been

due to the inherent difficulty in making flutes the same length.

After examining each attribute, I considered the correlations between each of the linear measurements. First off all of the linear measurements are significantly correlated. This correlation likely represents variation in the overall size and shape of Clovis hafted bifaces. As revealed by the PCA, however, some variables, including base depth, long side and short side flute length, and maximum flute width show non-size and shape related variability. These variables may be influenced by some other factor beyond hafted biface size and shape and will be given special consideration in further analyses. The other linear measurements, however, are highly correlated and will be represented by maximum length and width in the remaining analyses.

In Chapter Five I identified resharpening and usewear as potential factors which may affect linear measurements and the overall morphology of Clovis style hafted bifaces. Some archaeologists have suggested that the blade portions of Clovis hafted bifaces are not disproportionally resharpened when compared to the haft element (Buchanan et al. 2012b). The analyses in this section have shown that blade elements are only slightly more variable than the haft element of Clovis hafted bifaces. This suggests that either Clovis hafted bifaces were not often resharpened or that the haft element was retouched during the life history of the hafted biface to keep it proportional to the blade element. The fact that 52% of Clovis hafted bifaces feature post fluting retouch on the haft element suggests that both the haft and blade element were retouched throughout the life history of the biface. These two reduction strategies are certainly not mutually exclusive. In some regions Clovis hafted biface may not have been

148

retouched heavily, while in others both the blade and haft element were retouched. Further

evidence comes in the form of examples of resharpened triangular hafted bifaces, such as Figure

13.

These analyses have discovered several factors which structure the variability of Clovis hafted bifaces. The discovery of these factors are crucial both to gain an understanding of Clovis hafted bifaces The first of these two factors was site type. Differing site types may contain

Clovis hafted bifaces that were used for different function or that are at different points in their life history. Caches are the most variable site type, followed by kill sites. This indicates that the type of site at which a Clovis hafted biface is found may affect the variability in linear measurements and therefore overall morphology of the hafted bifaces. The second factor which affects Clovis hafted biface morphology is the raw material from which it is made. Again, the raw material that a Clovis style hafted biface is made of does seem to have an overall effect on the morphology of the hafted biface. However, the vast majority of the Clovis hafted bifaces in the study are made from chert.

The analyses in this chapter have suggested several new trends in the lithic technological organization of Clovis style hafted bifaces. There is a difference in length between the long side and short side flute of a Clovis style hafted biface. In addition, this study has reiterated that the morphology of the blade and haft element of Clovis hafted bifaces are equally variable. This, along with the presence of heavily retouched hafted bifaces, indicates that when resharpening of

Clovis hafted biface occurred, the haft was retouched as well. Third, the type of site a Clovis hafted biface is found at and the raw material from which it is made have effects on its

149

morphology. The trends identified in this chapter will be taken into account in the analyses and discussion throughout the rest of this work.

150

CHAPTER SEVEN: REGIONAL VARIABILITY

Introduction

The analyses in this chapter seek to answer the following question, as posed in Chapter

One:

1) Do Clovis hafted bifaces from different Culture Areas differ morphologically?

Understanding the ways Clovis hafted bifaces vary across space can be very useful to

Paleoindian archaeologists. Previously some archaeologists have suggested that the Clovis hafted biface from certain regions like the Great Basin (Beck and Jones 2010), and the Northeast in the

area around the Great Lakes (Morrow 1995; Morrow 1996; Sandstrom and Ray 2004) and those

from the far Northeast (Ellis 2004) are morphologically distinct from those of other regions.

Additionally, in future stylistic studies archaeologists should focus on attributes which vary

across geographic space, so to facilitate these future studies I will test aspects of Clovis hafted bifaces to better understand if and how they are variable.

151

Regional Variability

In this section I analyze the variability of Clovis hafted biface morphology across seven culture areas to discern which measurements vary across geographic space. If a measurement varies across space, there are several factors which may explain this. It may have been transmitted across geographic space from one hunter-gatherer group to another, or perhaps raw material is significantly variable from one region to the next. Choice in prey could also help explain differing morphology. While many factors may explain this variability, the first step in understanding it is to identify if it exists and where that, geographically speaking, that morphological variability is located. In Chapter Six I identified six measurements for further analysis. Two of these measurements represent overall hafted biface size (maximum length and width) and four represent variability in haft form, (long side flute length, short side flute length, maximum flute width, and base depth). This section starts with an examination of these measurements in each culture area, individually by culture area. After this, the six measurements are compared across the seven culture areas to ascertain which, if any, of these measurements are variable across geographic space.

In an effort to understand the variability in Clovis hafted bifaces across space, the data

were split into culture areas. The regions used here are the culture areas proposed by Kroeber

(1967). In addition to evaluating which measurements vary across space the Clovis hafted bifaces from each culture area are accessed to see if they are significantly different from the rest

of the sample. If a culture area is significantly different from the rest of the sample, this could

152

mean that the hafted bifaces from this culture area may not belong in Clovis hafted biface type.

Figures 18 through 23 depict histograms of the six selected measurements for all culture areas with more than ten hafted bifaces. I refer to these figures throughout the section.

153

154

155

156

157

California

The California culture area contains a sample of six hafted bifaces. All six hafted bifaces

are isolated kill sites and three of the six are made of obsidian. Maximum length varies between

41.59 and 135.21 mm and maximum width varies between 23.58 and 42.27 mm. The Clovis

hafted bifaces from California are highly variable in terms of size. Base depth varies between

1.11 and 6.27 mm. Long side flute length varies between 13.22 and 41.12 mm and short side

flute length ranges from 6.54 to 23.91 mm. Maximum flute width among California Clovis

hafted bifaces varies between 5.92 and 18.69 mm. The few hafted bifaces in the sample from

California show significant variance in terms of overall size flute morphology and base depth.

158

These data show no clear stylistic groupings in the California culture area, but with such a small

sample this lack of clear pattern is likely due to sample size.

The Columbia Plateau

This sample includes five Clovis style hafted bifaces from the Columbia Plateau. Three

of these hafted bifaces come from the Wenatchee Clovis cache. The other two hafted bifaces are

surface finds. Very few conclusions can be made about such a small sample. Only three of the

hafted bifaces are complete. Two of the three are from the Wenatchee cache and the remaining

complete hafted biface is from an isolated kill site. The two hafted bifaces from the Wenatchee

Cache are significantly larger than the other complete hafted biface. The two hafted bifaces from

the cache are 215 and 193 mm long, while the isolated hafted biface is only 91 mm long. Base

depth is highly variable among the five hafted bifaces ranging from 3.01 to 7.04 mm. Long side

flute length is also highly variable ranging from 29.5 to 79.93 mm and short side flute length

ranges from 19.66 to 66.58. Overall the hafted bifaces from the Columbia Plateau are highly

variable. Ultimately this is due to the fact that the hafted bifaces from the Wenatchee Cache are

much larger than the two hafted bifaces found the two isolated kill sites.

The Great Basin

The Great Basin is represented by a sample of 35 Clovis style hafted bifaces. Six of the hafted bifaces come from caches, four from kill sites, and the remaining 25 come from the Dietz camp site in Oregon. Only ten of the 35 hafted bifaces from the Great Basin are complete.

Figures 18 and 19 show the distribution of Maximum length and width for the Great Basin. The

159

wide distribution of sizes found amongst hafted bifaces in the Great Basin is likely due to the fact that the sample is dominated by camps and caches. As shown in Chapter Six, cache sites usually have the largest and most morphologically variable hafted bifaces while camps have the smallest and least variable of hafted bifaces. The distribution of base depth measurements in the

Great Basin is similar to many of the other cultures areas in that it is unimodal and ranges from

1.1 to 6.69 mm (Figure 20). Flute morphology among the Clovis style hafted bifaces from the

Great Basin is similar to other culture areas in that all three flute measurements, long side length, short side length, and maximum width, are unimodal and normally distributed. The key difference between the hafted bifaces from the Great Basin and the other culture areas is their size. As stated above this is likely due to the lack of complete hafted bifaces. Maximum length is only measured on complete bifaces and many of the hafted bifaces in the Great Basin are broken.

Thus few maximum length measurements were taken on bifaces from the Great Basin.

The Great Plains

In total, the Great Plains is represented in this sample by 85 Clovis style hafted bifaces.

Three of the hafted bifaces come from the Anzick Cache, 29 come from the campsites at Gault and Peterson, and the remaining 53 were found at various kill sites. The distribution of both maximum length and width are roughly unimodal and normally distributed (Figures 18 and 19).

One hafted biface is a significant outlier in terms of flute morphology. This Clovis hafted biface is from Arkansas and has been placed in tier four due to its extremely long flute. With the exception of this outlier, the distribution of the measurements from the Great Plains overlap with the other culture areas. This significant overlap suggests that the hafted biface from the Great

Plains are not significantly different from those from the other culture areas.

160

The Northeast

The Northeast culture area is represented by 256 Clovis hafted bifaces in this sample. The

Northeast contains a single cache site, Rummels-Maske, with five hafted bifaces and three camp

sites with a total of fourteen total hafted bifaces. The majority of the hafted bifaces are made

from chert, but two are made of crystal quartz, one from fossiliferous chert, and nine from

quartzite. As previously mentioned in Chapter One, the Northeast is unique as some

archaeologists have argued that it contains hafted bifaces that belong in the Clovis sub type

dubbed Gainey (Morrow 1995; Morrow 1996; Sandstrom and Ray 2004). If this sub type exists it

may introduce more morphological variability into the hafted bifaces from this culture area. In

addition to the Gainey sub type, the Northeast also contains the Vail-esque sub type. These

hafted bifaces are found in the far Northeast at Vale, Lamb and Bull Brook. Like the Gainey sub

type, it is debatable whether these hafted bifaces belong in the Clovis type. The hafted bifaces

from the Northeast are highly variable in terms of maximum length, as the measurements range

from 23.62 to 205.68 mm. Unlike the other culture areas, the longest hafted bifaces from this

culture area do not come from cache sites, and instead were found at isolated kill sites. The

distribution of the maximum width is unimodal with a distribution that is similar to the other

culture areas. The base depth among the hafted bifaces of the Northeast is notably different from

all of the other culture areas. The distribution of the base depth is wider than other culture areas

as it ranges from .84 to 18.33 mm (Figure 20). The hafted bifaces with the deepest base depth

come from a wide geographic range including hafted bifaces from Kentucky, Maryland,

Missouri and Maine. This is not surprising as deeper basal concavity is often cited by

archaeologists as being a hallmark of Gainey type hafted bifaces (Eren et al. 2011). The

161

distribution of maximum flute width is largely similar to that of other culture areas, but flute

length, both short and long side are both right skewed with longer tails (Figures 22 and 23). The range of long side flute length in the Northeast is 7.16 to 78.37 mm and short side ranges from

5.56 to 53.95. This is the widest distribution of flute length among any of the culture areas. This

too, may be due to the presence of Vail-esque and Gainey type hafted bifaces. Cox (1986) argues

that hafted bifaces from the far Northeast exhibit longer flute lengths than Clovis. Surprisingly

though the hafted bifaces with the longest flutes are not from the far northeast (where Vail-esque

hafted bifaces are from) but instead from Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois and Missouri. Overall the

Northeast features the most variable hafted bifaces in terms of base depth and flute morphology.

The Southeast

The Southeast contains the largest sample of Clovis style hafted bifaces, with a total of

287 bifaces. Despite comprising such a large proportion of the sample, there are only three camps in this subsample. These camps contain a total of nine hafted bifaces. The remaining 278 hafted bifaces are from kill sites. Despite having the largest sample, the Southeast has the least variation in terms of maximum length and width, besides the Southwest. The maximum length of hafted bifaces from the Southeast range from 10.94 to 132.06 and maximum width is spread from 15.03 to 40.88 mm. This is likely explained by the lack of non-kill sites in the culture area.

As suggested in Chapter Six, the site type at which they are found explains much of the morphological variability in Clovis hafted bifaces. The distribution of base depth among hafted bifaces in the Southeast is slightly right skewed but features a narrower distribution than the

hafted bifaces in the Northeast. Maximum flute width is normally distributed and matches the

distribution of the other culture areas. The Southeast has a wide distribution of flute lengths,

162

second only to the Northeast. Long side flute length ranges from 5.36 and 71.71 mm. Short side

flute length ranges from 2.94 to 39.65 mm. With exception to the of maximum length and width,

the Southeast is similar to the rest of the sample.

The Southwest

The sample of hafted bifaces from the Southwest is highly geographically concentrated in

a single county. Of the 23 total hafted bifaces from the Southwest, only one comes from a county

other than Cochise, Arizona. All of the hafted bifaces from the Southwest are from kill sites.

Overall the Southwest is the least features the hafted biface with the least variation. The

distribution of each of the measurements is quite narrow and unimodal. Only two of the hafted bifaces from the Southwest are not made of chert. One of those hafted bifaces is made of basalt

and the other is made of obsidian. The uniformity of the hafted biface from the Southwest is

unsurprising as the majority of the sample comes from a single county.

Comparison between Culture Areas

The coefficient of variation (CoV) for each of the six chosen measurements are shown in

Table 23. CoV standardizes variation and allows for the comparison of measures with different

scales and therefore provide a quick summary of how variable the hafted bifaces from a region

are and allows this variability to be compared across different measurements. As explained

above, some culture areas, such as California, include very small sample sizes that come from a

163

very large area. For instance, California is 163,696 square miles, but this sample includes only

six hafted bifaces from that area. In these analyses only bifaces for which both sides were

available for measurement were considered for long side flute length, short side flute length and flute with. This was done to control for the bias of differing long side and short side flute morphology noted in Chapter Six. An examination of Table 23 reveals that culture areas with lower sample sizes tend to have higher CoVs. This difference in the sample sizes from each of the culture areas is due to the uneven distribution of Clovis hafted bifaces in North America. The

Great Plains is highly variable in terms of long side flute length and flute width, while the

Northeast is highly variable in terms of base depth. Some regions such as California and the

Columbia Plateau do not have adequate sample size to infer much about the variability of Clovis hafted bifaces from that region.

164

Table 23. CoV of the Five Chosen Measurements for Each Culture Area.

Flute Flute Max Max Max Base Length Length Culture Flute N= Length Width Depth Long Short Area Width Side Side

California .56 .26 .46 .42 .61 .35 6

Great .50 .20 .22 .39 .49 .42 35 Basin

Great .38 .22 .27 .42 .49 .42 85 Plains

Northeast .42 .25 .29 .53 .45 .52 256

Columbia .40 .26 .26 .46 .50 .56 9 Plateau

Southeast .32 .17 .28 .41 .39 .41 281

Southwest .30 .19 .25 .41 .29 .30 23

Total .40 .22 .29 .51 .45 .49 695

This section addresses whether or not there are significant geographical differences in the same regions and if there are differences that correlate with Clovis style hafted biface morphology. Therefore, the analysis here seeks to understand if there are significant differences

165

in the morphology of the Clovis style hafted bifaces between each of the seven different culture areas included in the sample. To better understand the variability between Clovis style hafted biface morphology between culture areas a one-way I employed a Kruskal-Wallis test.

The Kruskal-Wallis test is non-parametric and therefore provides an analysis which is resistant to non-normally distributed data sets. When all of the hafted bifaces are considered the test suggests that all of the measurements, with the exception of maximum flute width, are variable between different culture areas (Table 24). Due to the known bias that Clovis hafted bifaces from different site types present, the Kruskal-Wallis test was re-run using only the 602

hafted bifaces from kill sites. These results indicate that at least one of the culture areas is

different from at least one other culture area in terms of base depth, long flute length, and short

side flute length (Table 25). Maximum length, width and maximum flute width are not found to

vary between culture areas when only kill sites are examined. This suggests that some of the

variability in these three measurements may be due to the uneven distribution of the non-kill

sites across the culture areas and not because they vary between the different culture areas.

To examine the variability in long side flute depth, short side flute depth, and base depth

I employed a Bonferroni test on these three measurements. Again, in these analyses only kill

sites are considered. The results of the post-hoc Bonferroni tests are shown in Tables 26-28. For

flute depth the Great Basin and Columbia Plateau are not considered. After the elimination of

non-kill sites and hafted bifaces with only one side available for study, the sample from each

culture area was too small for study.

166

Table 24. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Culture Areas for Pertinent Measurements.

Measurement Significance

Max Length .012

Max Width <.001

Base Depth .00011

Flute Length Long <,.001

Flute Length Short <.001

Maximum Flute Width .073

Table 25. Kruskal-Wallis Test between Culture Areas for Pertinent Measurements Kill Sites Only.

Measurement Significance Significance with Columbia Plateau and the Great Basin Max Length .424 .378

Max Width .019 .408

Base Depth <.001 <.001

Flute Length Long .001 <.001

Flute Length Short .001 .001

Maximum Flute Width .529 .393

167

Table 26. Bonferroni Results between Culture Areas for Base Depth for Kill Sites Only. Culture California Great Great Northeast Columbia Southeast Southwest Area Basin Plains Plateau California - Great 1.0 - Basin Great 1.0 1.0 - Plains Northeast 1.0 1.0 .068 - Columbia 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - Plateau Southeast 1.0 1.0 1.0 <.001 1.0 - Southwest 1.0 1.0 1.0 .092 1.0 1.0 -

Table 27. Bonferroni Results between Cultural Areas for Flute Length on the Long Side for Kill Sites Only. Culture California Great Great Northeast Columbia Southeast Southwest Area Basin Plains Plateau California - Great - - Basin Great 1.0 - - Plains Northeast 1.0 - 1.0 - Columbia - - - - - Plateau Southeast 1.0 - 1.0 .002 - - Southwest 1.0 - .141 .004 - .474 -

168

Table 28. Bonferroni Results between Cultural Areas for Flute Length on the Short Side for Kill Sites Only. Culture California Great Great Northeast Columbia Southeast Southwest Area Basin Plains Plateau California - Great - - Basin Great 1.0 - - Plains Northeast .851 - 1.0 - Columbia - - - - - Plateau Southeast 1.0 - .637 <.001 - - Southwest 1.0 - .170 .012 - 1.0 -

It is clear from this analysis that some or all of the Clovis style hafted bifaces from the

Northeast culture area are significantly different from the rest of the sample. Previously, researchers have suggested that the fluted hafted bifaces from the Northeast are significantly different from Clovis hafted bifaces (Ellis 2004; Cox 1986; Morrow 1995; Morrow 1996;

Sandstrom and Ray 2004; Whithoft 1952). Ellis (2004), Cox (1986), and Whithoft (1952) have argued that many of the sites in the far northeast, such as Shoop, Vail, Debert, Lamb, and Bull

Brook are separate from the Clovis type and perhaps were made during a later time period.

Others (Morrow 1995; Morrow 1996; Sandstrom and Ray 2004) have argued that some of the

Clovis style hafted bifaces, dubbed Gainey, are actually a separate stylistic type. These results indicate that the hafted bifaces in the Northeast culture area are significantly different from the rest of the sample. For more details about hafted biface types which may exist within or outside the Clovis style hafted biface type, see Chapter One.

The Southwest stands out from the rest of the sample in terms of flute length, both long and short. The Southeast is also different from Great Plains in terms of short side flute length.

169

Morphological Variability in the Northeast Culture Area

The previous analyses suggest that the Clovis style hafted bifaces from the Northeast culture area are unlike the Clovis hafted bifaces from the rest of the sample. To further show this, the data were divided into two groups. The first group consisted of the Clovis style hafted bifaces from the Northeast, and the second group included all other Clovis hafted bifaces in the sample.

An independent sample t-test was run between the two groups for each of the same three measurements analyzed above. The t-test was used over a non-parametric test to make the later bootstrapping analysis less difficult. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 29.

Table 29. T-Tests between Northeast and Non Northeast Samples for Kill Sites Only.

t from Degrees Non- Northeast Measurement Levine’s Significance of Northeast N= test Freedom N=

26.674 <.001 594 237 359 Base Depth

Long Side 19.379 <.001 451 164 289 Flute Length

Short Side 28.295 <.001 457 165 294 Flute Length

170

These tests show slightly different results from the Bonferroni test results outlined in

Tables 26-28. The results of these t-tests suggest that the hafted bifaces from the Northeast are

different from the rest of the sample in terms of Base Depth, Long Side Flute Length, Short Side

Flute Length.

To test the accuracy of these t-test results, I repeated the analysis between groups of the

same sample size. The groups were filled by randomly selecting measurements (with

replacement) from the original data. To score the reliability of the t-tests, I ran this analysis for

each measurement 10,000 times. To determine the reliability, I calculated the runs of the test

with t-statistics that were equal or higher the t-statistic from the actual data. Table 30 shows the

number of times the bootstrapped data exceeded the t-statistic for each of the measurements.

Table 30. T-statistic Results Resampled Data for Each Measurement.

Number of t from Runs with a Number of Measurement Equality of Higher T- Runs means statistic than original

-6.12 10,000 0 Base Depth

Long Side Flute -4.96 10,000 2 Length

Short Side Flute -5.177 10,000 1 Length

171

These data show that the results for base depth, long side flute depth, and short side flute depth are highly unlikely when the data are resampled. The overall results suggest the Northeast is significantly different from the rest of the sample in terms of base depth, and flute depth (both long and short side). These differences may be due to the presence of Clovis variant types such as Gainey and Vail-esque hafted bifaces. Another alternative is that this region is just more

morphologically variable and represents the last or first place that the Clovis hafted biface technology made it to or was created. Due to the later radiocarbon dates associated with this region it is more likely that last place that this technology made it to. Regardless of the reason, these analyses show that the Northeast does stand out in terms of Clovis hafted biface morphology.

Summary

In this chapter I have examined the variability in the overall size and haft characteristics in Clovis hafted bifaces from across seven culture areas. These analyses suggest that many of these attributes, including maximum length, width, and maximum flute width are not highly variable across geographic space. The majority of the morphological variability in overall hafted biface size is due to the uneven differences in site type and their uneven distribution across space. The Northeast culture differs from the Southeast and the and Great Plains in terms of base depth, and the Southeast and Southwest when flute length is considered. This suggests that some of the Clovis hafted bifaces in the Northeast may actually be part of a distinct type, likely Gainey or Vail-esque style hafted bifaces.

172

CHAPTER EIGHT DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

Understanding how and from where the people using Clovis hafted bifaces spread throughout North America is an important question in archaeological discourse. Primarily this project functions to examine and answer questions about the morphological variability of Clovis style hafted bifaces from across North America in order to further the discussion about the origin of this technology. To achieve this goals a sample of 695 Clovis style hafted bifaces was assembled and analyzed. Considered first in this work was the lithic technology of Clovis hafted bifaces. Next the study examined the morphological variability in Clovis style hafted bifaces across seven culture areas. I found three measurements which were variable across the seven culture areas. Because these measurements varied across space they may have been transmitted from one hunter-gatherer group to another. In this chapter I review and discuss the pertinent conclusions of this work. I divide the discussion into three sections: the lithic technology of

Clovis hafted bifaces and the section outlining the results of the analysis concerning morphological variation across geographic space. After this discussion I suggest further avenues of research and make overall all conclusions about Clovis hafted biface morphology.

Lithic Technology of Clovis Hafted Bifaces

The analyses in Chapter Six revealed several trends in Clovis hafted biface lithic technological organization. First off, the linear measurements used in this study are highly correlated. These measurements indicate that most of the variability in Clovis hafted biface

173

morphology is due to the overall size and shape of the biface. The overall size and shape of

Clovis hafted bifaces is affected by several different factors. I review and discuss some of these factors here.

The first factor which affects Clovis hafted biface size is the type of site at which a

Clovis hafted biface is found. To determine whether the type of site at which these bifaces are found is a mitigating factor, I used the three types of Clovis hafted biface sites proposed by

Buchanan and Collard (2007). These three site types are kills, caches and camps. It should be noted that I used the kill category as a catch all for hafted bifaces that were isolated finds, or for which the site type could not be determined. Hafted bifaces from caches are larger than kill sites, and kill sites typically contain larger hafted bifaces than camps. As all of the linear measurements are significantly correlated this affects all of the linear measurements taken on the hafted bifaces in this study. Site type is therefore a major factor that correlates with Clovis hafted biface morphology. Previous studies (Beck and Jones 2007; Hamilton and Buchanan 2009) have made the argument that there is a significant size difference in hafted bifaces found in camps, and kills are larger in size than those found at cache sites. These previous studies, however, offer very few explanations for why this size difference occurs. There are several factors that could be the cause of this size difference. Cache sites often feature hafted bifaces which have not been used. Therefore, the hafted bifaces from caches have not been retouched or resharpened. This is not to say, however, that all hafted bifaces from cache sites are unretouched. One of the exceptions, the Rummels-Maske cache, is represented in this sample. The Rummels-Maske site features hafted bifaces which, “…all exhibit medial to random percussion flake patterns with extensive pressure retouch and trimming.” (Morrow and Morrow 2012: 315). The other three

174

cache sites in the sample, and likely the majority of Clovis cache sites, lack hafted bifaces with

significant retouch and use. The overall lack of retouch at the other cache sites means that the

size of the hafted biface from these sites has not been reduced. Clovis hafted bifaces from cache

sites are larger, camps tend to feature hafted bifaces which are smaller, while the size of hafted bifaces from kill sites is widely distributed (see Figure 11). Camps often contain Clovis hafted bifaces which are broken or that have been resharpened to the point where they are no longer

useful. Clovis camps, such as Gault, are often nearby high quality lithic raw materials, giving the

occupants an opportunity to discard unwanted tools and create new hafted bifaces out of local

raw materials. This means that the Clovis hafted bifaces found at camp sites have a higher probability of being at the end of their life history and have been heavily resharpened. Camps

may stand out morphologically for an additional reason other than the advanced stage of the

uselife of the hafted bifaces found there. At Gault, several hafted bifaces appear to have been

made by amateurs (see Figure 6). It would be logical to train new flint knappers when at camps

such as Gault, that are nearby good raw material. This would be the time when raw material is

readily available and therefore less costly to use for training. It is likely that training and amateur

flint knapping is another factor which differentiates the hafted biface morphology at camps.

Hafted bifaces from kill sites run the gamut of sizes. This is because a hafted biface at a kill site

could have been lost or discarded on the first day it was used, or after many resharpening and

retouch sessions.

The bias of site type has far reaching effects on any multi-regional study of Clovis style

hafted biface morphology. As mentioned in Chapter Six, the vast majority of the Clovis cache

sites are in western North America (Beck and Jones 2010). A high number of cache sites in a

175

region would cause an increase in the average size of its hafted bifaces. This trend of large

Clovis hafted bifaces in the west is likely in part due to the prevalence of cache sites in that region. Not only do differences in site type have effects on the morphology of Clovis style hafted bifaces, these different site types are not uniformly distributed geographically. Therefore, differences in Clovis style morphology due to site type may differentially affect the hafted bifaces from different regions.

Here I have suggested that the difference in the size of Clovis hafted bifaces is significantly affected by the type of site at which it was found. The hafted bifaces from different site types are often at different stages of their life history. These differences in life history between site types are ultimately connected to the amount of retouch and resharpening that a hafted biface has undergone. The effects of site type on Clovis hafted bifaces therefore is tied to retouch and resharpening. Resharpening and retouch is one of the other aspects of Clovis hafted biface lithic technological organization that I examined in this work. The first key element of

Clovis hafted biface resharpening and retouch that I noted was that the haft and blade elements were nearly equally variable. Many archaeologists have argued that typically the blade element of hafted bifaces should be more affected by retouch and resharpening than the haft element

(Andrefsky 2005: 77; Ellis 2004; Thulman 2012). While conventional wisdom maintains that this is true for most hafted bifaces, I argue that this is not the case for Clovis style hafted bifaces.

As shown in Chapter Six, the blade element of the Clovis style hafted bifaces is not much more variable than the haft element. If the blade element was being retouched and the haft element was not being retouched the haft element should be significantly less variable. This would occur if the blade element was being retouched while the hafted biface was still fitted into the haft

176

(Andrefsky 2005: 77). This trend of nearly equally variable haft and blade elements of Clovis

had been noted by other scholars as well (Buchanan et al. 2012b; Eren et al. 2015). Eren et al.

(2015) and Buchanan et al. (2012b) interpret this to mean that Clovis hafted bifaces were not

often resharpened. In total 52% of the total hafted bifaces in this study feature post fluting

retouch on the haft element. This indicates that over half the hafted bifaces feature flake scars

that were made after the first flute was completed. This suggests that modification to the haft

after the hafted biface was complete was commonplace. Bradley et al. come to a similar

conclusion, stating, “Reworking broken Clovis points was the rule rather than the exception”

(2010: 101). I have provided several examples of heavily resharpened Clovis hafted bifaces such

as Figure 13 and the broken half hafts in Figure 7. Also as argued above, life history and

resharpening are likely reasons that Clovis hafted bifaces from different site types vary in

morphology. In Chapter Six I demonstrated the high correlation between mid-haft and mid-blade

width. This correlation suggests that manufacturers of Clovis hafted bifaces attempted to keep

the width of the blade and haft at the same ratio throughout the life history of the hafted biface.

Furthermore, I argue that Clovis style hafted bifaces are resharpened, but unlike other hafted bifaces types, such as Dalton, both the haft and blade element are retouched during their life histories. Though the function of this is still unknown, this effort to keep the haft and blade element the same size may be an effort to keep the width of these two portions the same. If the width of the blade was reduced and the haft was not this would cause the hafted biface to have shoulders near its midsection. These shoulders would prevent the hafted biface from penetrating into the flesh of the prey, when Clovis hafted bifaces were used as a projectile. Penetrating power may have been an important aspect of Clovis hafted biface technology, especially if the

hunting of large megafauna was commonplace. An experimental study of the potential function

177

of retouching both the haft and blade elements of Clovis hafted bifaces to determine the function of this would be a fruitful method for further research.

To better understand how Clovis style hafted bifaces were retouched I split the sample

into different site types and considered the haft width to blade width ratio. This reveals that the

ratio of haft to blade width breaks down throughout the life history of the hafted biface as the

ratio is different between cache, kill, and camp sites. Admittedly, however, my sample is

dominated by kill sites and the difference in the haft and blade ratio between these site types,

may be due to the small samples for both camp and cache sites. The confidence intervals of these

three site types, however, overlap suggesting that this trend may be a product of the small sample

size for cache and camp sites.

The third aspect of Clovis hafted biface morphology I analyzed in this study is the effect

of differing raw materials on the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. As explained previously,

many researchers have argued that the prehistoric manufacturers of Clovis style hafted bifaces preferred high quality cherts to the exclusion of other raw materials. Of the 695 total hafted

bifaces present in the sample, 65 (roughly nine percent) were identified as being made of raw

materials other than high quality chert. The use of non chert materials seems to vary based on the

locally available raw materials. For instance, the use of crystal quartz is common for Clovis

hafted bifaces made in and around the North Carolina. Crystal quartz is known to be a difficult

raw material to work with, due to its macrocrystalline structure. This use of hard to work

material suggests that the makers of these Clovis hafted bifaces were not aware of better raw

materials that were locally available. Like crystal quartz, obsidian is used by Clovis hafted biface produces when it is locally available. Obsidian from glass butte and other nearby sources is the

178

only material of which Clovis hafted bifaces were made at the Dietz site. Like Gault, the Dietz

site features evidence of retooling in the form of heavily resharpened and broken discarded

hafted bifaces. Overall the obsidian hafted bifaces in the sample are smaller than those made of

other raw materials, but only five of the 28 obsidian hafted bifaces in the sample do not come

from Dietz. As suggested above the hafted bifaces from campsites tend to be smaller and thus

the variability in size introduced by site type and raw material clearly overlaps when obsidian is

concerned. Like obsidian, the majority of the hafted bifaces made from fossiliferous chert are

found at a single campsite, Peterson. In total 32 (49 percent) of the non-high quality chert sample

comes from camps. This indicates that much of the size difference between obsidian,

fossiliferous chert and the rest of the sample may be due to life history and not constraints of the

raw material. The other raw material found to be significantly smaller than the rest of the sample,

crystal quartz, as mentioned above, is particularly difficult to work with, which could result in

hafted bifaces of smaller sizes. Unlike crystal quartz, obsidian, and fossiliferous cherts, Clovis

hafted bifaces made of quartzite were found to be, on average, larger than those made of high

quality cherts. Unlike obsidian and crystal quartz, many of the hafted bifaces made of quartzite

are not limited to a single region. Quartizite hafted bifaces in this sample come from Wisconsin,

Illinois, Florida, Georgia, and Minnesota. Several conclusions can be drawn about the raw

materials of Clovis hafted bifaces from this project. First, the majority of Clovis style hafted bifaces, 91 percent in this sample, are made from high quality chert. Second, despite this, Clovis

hafted biface makers did rely on a variety of raw materials including obsidian, fossiliferous

cherts, quartzite, chalcedony and even crystal quartz. Obsidian Clovis hafted bifaces are found

west of the Mississippi, while crystal quartz hafted bifaces are limited to the east. Clovis hafted bifaces made of some materials such as obsidian, crystal quartz, and fossiliferous cherts, are

179

smaller than other Clovis style hafted bifaces. For obsidian and fossiliferous cherts this is likely because the majority of the hafted bifaces made from these raw materials are found at camps and

they are likely further along in the life histories. Essentially Clovis hafted bifaces are willing to

use whatever high quality material is locally available and do not limit themselves to only high

quality chert.

Beyond the influence of site type, raw material, resharpening and retouch, this research

revealed another factor that affects the technological organization of Clovis style hafted bifaces.

The first of these factors is the presence of a long and short side flute on most Clovis style hafted bifaces. My analysis suggests that one flute is typically significnatly longer than the other on

Clovis hafted bifaces. Though the function of the long side and short side flutes remains

unknown, this could represent a functional aspect of Clovis hafted biface technology that was previously unconfirmed. This difference in flute length, however, could not be functional at all

and instead a testament to the difficulty of making two flutes of exactly the same length.

Though not the central goal of this work, this work confirmed the presence of many

technological trends by differential flute length. Despite recent work that suggests otherwise

(Buchanan et al. 2012; Eren et al. 2015), this study’s results indicate that Clovis hafted bifaces

were often resharpened, retouched, and reworked. Evidence for this is provided by extremely

resharpened hafted bifaces, basal fragments at campsites, and the fact that haft and blade

elements of the Clovis hafted bifaces are nearly equally variable. Unlike other hafted biface

types, Clovis hafted bifaces appear to be often retouched on both the haft and blade element.

Additionally, this process of resharpening and retouch means that different site types often

exhibit Clovis hafted bifaces which are morphologically very different from one another. Raw

180

material availability or package size and shape may also influence hafted biface morphology, but due to the overlap of non chert raw materials and non-kill sites in the sample it is difficult to discern what effect differing raw materials may have.

These results have many implications for pan-regional studies of Clovis hafted bifaces.

First, many factors other than style or transmission can serve to explain the variability in Clovis hafted biface morphology. The linear measurements used in this study define and evaluate variation in Clovis hafted biface size very well. The variation in these linear measurements were greatly affected by resharpening and retouch, site type, and raw material variability. This suggests that much of the inherent variability in Clovis hafted biface size has more to do with these factors than culturally transmitted size templates. Archaeologists wishing to understand how Clovis hafted biface technology was transmitted across space should control for these factors as well as possible when utilizing linear measurements.

The analyses in Chapter Six revealed that the linear measurements taken in this study are all highly correlated. I argue that this high degree of correlation is largely due to the fact that these linear measurements are capturing aspects of hafted biface size and shape. Admittedly the relationship between these linear measurements is not as well accounted for by the measurements taken in this study. It may be the methodologies which only record hafted biface shape, such as Geometric Morphometric Analysis, may not be influenced by factors of raw material availability, nodule size, resharpening and retouch, and site type. This however, needs more testing as clearly these factors do affect the overall size and shape of Clovis style hafted bifaces. Further research should focus on methods which better capture aspects of Clovis style

181

hafted biface through only shape analysis to understand if these same factors are influential as

well.

Clovis Morphological Variability across Geographic Space

As part of this study, I examined how the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces varied across the seven culture areas in the sample. In this analysis I focused the six measurements identified in Chapter Six: maximum length, maximum width, base depth, long side flute length, short side flute length, and maximum flute width. Such a widespread examination of Clovis hafted biface morphology answers a few questions previously posed by archaeologists and reveals a few noteworthy trends.

Several archaeologists have questioned whether the Clovis hafted biface type truly spread across North America. One particular set of archaeologists question whether or not the Clovis hafted bifaces found in the Great Basin are similar enough to other Clovis hafted bifaces to be considered Clovis (Beck and Jones 2007). Admittedly, the sample of Clovis hafted bifaces from the Great Basin is small in number, but these hafted bifaces stand apart from the rest of the sample. Flute length was not considered for the hafted bifaces of the Great Basin. Often both sides of the hafted bifaces were not available for study on Great Basin hafted bifaces. Due to this

I could not determine which flute was the short flute and which was the long flute for these bifaces. Specifically, Beck and Jones (2007) argue that Great Basin Clovis style hafted bifaces

182

have deeper basal concavities. The Clovis style hafted bifaces from the Great Basin do not

appear to have deeper base depths than the rest of the sample. The Great Basin does feature a broad range of hafted biface sizes, but this is likely due to the fact that the sample from the Great

Basin consists of a combination of caches and camps. Thus, in this data set it does not appear that the hafted bifaces from the Great Basin are significantly different from the rest of North

America.

Unlike the Clovis hafted bifaces of the Great Basin, the hafted bifaces from the Northeast

were found to be significantly different form the rest of the sample. This is not surprising as

some archaeologists have predicted that certain sub-types of Clovis hafted bifaces exist in the

Northeast. Archaeologists have suggested that both Vail-esque (Cox 1986) and Gainey sub-types are different from other Clovis hafted biface in terms of flute length and base depth (Eren et al.

2011). As predicted, the Northeast shows significant differences from the rest of the sample in terms of base depth and flute length, both long and short side. This suggests that many of the fluted hafted bifaces in the Northeast may actually belong in a Clovis sub-type or within a different hafted biface type altogether. This trend needs further research to confirm.

Unfortunately, because the primary goal of this study was not to evaluate the types of the

Northeast, some of the key sites needed for further analysis are not part of this sample.

Three sites from the sample are in the Vail-esque group: Lamb, Vail and Bull Brook.

Two of these sites have one or more radiocarbon dates. As mentioned in Chapter Three, one date at Vail places it in the wide range of Clovis dates, established by Water and Stafford (2007). In a later publication, however, Gramly (2010) argues that the site likely dates to the beginning of the

Younger-Dryas, from12,800-12,700 calibrated years B.P. Vail would have just been occupied at

183

the end of the narrow range for Clovis dates proposed by Waters and Stafford, and only occupied at the end of the wide range of dates. For reference, these two ranges are 13,110-12,660 calibrated B.P. (wide) and 12,920-12,760 (narrow) (Waters and Stafford 2007). The earliest date from Bull Brook is 9,400±400 (Byers 1959). I calibrated this date from Bull Brook using CALIB

14 and the IntCal13 correction curve. This results in a calibrated date of 11,303-10,208 calibrated B.P. at the level of one standard deviation. This date is far outside the date range of for

Clovis hafted bifaces of 12,660-13,100 cal B.P. proposed by Waters and Stafford (2007). As these sites contain hafted bifaces with drastically different haft morphology and dates that are at the edge and long after the accepted dates for the Clovis hafted biface period, it is likely that this style of hafted bifaces was created at the end of the Clovis period and continued through the

Younger-Dryas. The relationship between the hafted bifaces from Debert, Vail, Shoop, Bull

Brook, and Lamb and the Clovis hafted biface type is unknown (Cox 1986; Ellis 2004). When compared to a large sample of Clovis hafted bifaces from the continental United States, these hafted bifaces are significantly different in terms of base depth and long side flute depth. The occurrence of a flute and concave base are two of the defining characteristics of the Clovis type

(definitions in Chapter One). Overall, it appears that these hafted bifaces should not be considered part of the Clovis hafted biface type. Further data from sites like Shoop and Debert would help to strengthen this analysis.

The presence of Gainey type hafted bifaces in the Northeast also likely contributes to the morphological differences seen there. Gainey hafted bifaces are reported to have deeper basal depths and longer flutes than Clovis style hafted bifaces (Eren et al. 2011). Like the Vail-esque hafted bifaces several key sites are missing from this data set if this sub-type is to be better

184

defined. First and foremost, the addition of the Gainey type site would increase the validity of the sample. The hafted bifaces from this site would be crucial in defining how Gainey type hafted biface are different from Clovis style hafted bifaces. Better defining the fluted types in the

Northeast is another potential avenue for further research. It is most likely that Gainey and Vail-

esque style hafted biface are a post-Clovis form and are more closely related to the full fluted

forms such as Folsom in the Great Plains, and Redstone and Cumberland in the Southeast.

Upon comparison of the Clovis hafted bifaces between culture areas, only three of the six

measurements were significantly variable across the seven culture areas when only kill sites were

considered. Again, due to the bias introduced by multiple site type, I argue that the elimination of

non-kill sites in the proper way to conduct this analysis. This indicates the majority of the

variability in maximum length, width, and therefore the size of hafted bifaces is due to uneven geographic distribution of the three site types. Several archaeologists have argued that

differences in Clovis hafted biface size is a crucial attribute in understanding Clovis hafted biface

transmission (Buchanan and Hamilton 2009). These data, however, indicate that size is not

highly variable between the seven culture areas, and that this variability is instead due to retouch

and site type.

The lack of variation in Clovis hafted biface size between culture areas is an important

trend to discuss. Several archaeologists have argued that variation in hafted biface size and other

linear measurements which evaluated size, such as various length and widths, are the key to

understanding morphological variability in Clovis hafted bifaces across space and time

(Buchanan and Collard 2007; Buchanan and Hamilton 2009). While these results do not

invalidate these studies, they do indicate that further study should to be undertaken to investigate

185

whether variability in Clovis hafted biface size is an attribute which is transmitted from one hunter-gatherer group to the next. Furthermore, archaeologists using size related measures need to perform preliminary analyses that demonstrate that these measures are not biased by non- transmission related factors.

Conclusion

This work includes one of the largest geographical data sets of Clovis hafted bifaces to ever be assembled. Accordingly, I made several important statements about Clovis hafted biface morphology. In this work I examined the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. In doing so I revealed several important factors which affect the morphology of Clovis hafted bifaces. Beyond these aspects of lithic technology and Clovis hafted biface morphology, this study highlights several important factors which are important to future application of cultural transmission, or other theoretical perspectives on lithic technology.

All of the measurements were explored to better understand what non stylistic factors affect them. Doing this revealed that many measurements taken may not be appropriate for future cultural transmission style analyses. Many of these measurements are highly correlated with one another and others do not vary across space. This analysis shows the importance of understanding the patterns of lithic technology before applying a methodology based in culture

186

transmission. While the preliminary analysis did not identify attributes which were undoubtedly

transmitted under a cultural transmission framework (Boyd and Richerson 1985), it did bring possible biases and other factors which can change the morphology of hafted bifaces to the forefront. Knowledge of these non-transmission related biases and factors allows an analyst to formulate ways to control for and limit their effects. Effectively, lithic analysts should not abandon the processual methods of lithic analysis when adopting a cultural transmission perspective but instead use both in tandem to better effect.

This examination of the linear measurements for the entire geographically dispersed

sample of the Clovis style hafted bifaces reveals unimodal distributions for all eighteen of the

linear measurements. This suggests that the makers of Clovis style hafted bifaces had a specific

size and shape in mind when creating this style of hafted biface. This unimodality is highly

important as it suggests that I included hafted bifaces from only a single defined type and style.

On average Clovis hafted bifaces are 70 mm in length and 28 mm in maximum width. The

average maximum haft width is 26 mm and the mean maximum blade length is 44 mm, thus blade element is typically about twice as long as the haft element. The long side flute length

mean is 26 mm and the short side flute length mean is 18 mm in length. The mean base depth is

4 1mm. This suggests that Clovis typically have a long side flute that runs approximately the

length of the haft. In some ways this was predetermined by the definition of the Clovis hafted biface use in this study, which stated that the haft length should not be longer that half the

maximum length of the hafted biface. Overall this small description along with the histograms in

Appendix B, go a long way toward establishing the range of morphological variability which

should be allowed in the Clovis style hafted biface type.

187

In the course of this research several new research questions have emerged. I argue that both the haft and blade element of Clovis hafted bifaces were retouched. As shown by the

example of Dalton type bifaces, not all hafted bifaces from the Paleoindian period are

resharpened in that way. An examination of which Paleoindian hafted biface types are

resharpened in this manner and which are not may strengthen the definition of hafted biface

types and reveal patterns of behavior that differ between the users of each perspective type.

Changes in retouch patterns over time may reveal a shift in raw material acquisition, prey choice,

or mobility patterns. As suggested above further research into the sub-types of Clovis hafted bifaces which may exist in the Northeast is warranted. Gainey or Vail-esque type hafted bifaces may be separate types from and postdate the Clovis hafted biface types. The creation of more specific stylistic types may clarify the chronological and spatial relationships between these hafted bifaces and ultimately clarify the culture history of the Paleoindian period in the

Northeast.

This study has not revealed the origin of the Clovis hafted biface type, but instead has made steps forward in the effort to catalog the variability of these important artifacts. With a better understanding of Clovis hafted biface morphology provided by this study, researchers can continue to move forward in establishing where the origin of this technology may lie.

188

DISSERTATION BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agenbroad, Larry D. 1967 The Distribution of Fluted Points in Arizona. Kiva. 32 : 113-120.

Anderson David G. 2004 Paleoindian Occupations in the Southeastern United States. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp. 119-128. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 1995 Paleoindian Interaction Networks in the Eastern Woodlands. In Native American Interaction: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Michael S. Nassaney and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 1–26. University of Tennessee Press 1990 The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View from the Southeastern United States. In Early Paleoindian Economies of Eastern North America, edited by Kenneth Tankersley and Barry Isaac, pp. 163–216. Research in Economic Anthropology Supplement 5.

Anderson, David G. and Michael Faught 2000 Paleoindian Artifact Distributions: Evidence and Implications. Antiquity 74:507-513 1998 The Distribution of Fluted Paleoindian Projectile Points: Update 1998. Archaeology of Eastern North America 26:163–187.

Anderson David G., Albert C. Goodyear, James Kennett, and Allen West 2012 Multiple Lines of Evidence for Possible Human Population Decline/Settlement Reorganization during the Early Younger Dryas. Quaternary International 242:570–583.

Anderson, David G., R. Jerald Ledbetter, , and Lise D. O’steen 1990 Update on the Georgia Paleoindian Survey. Lithic Studies.

Andrefsky, William Jr. 2010 Human Land Use Strategies and Projectile Point Damage, Resharpening and Discard Patterns. Human Evolution 25(1-2): 13-30. 2009 Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 65-103. 2008 An Introduction to Stone Tool Life History and Technological Organization. In Lithic Technology: Measures of Production, Use, and Curation edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 3- 22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approached to Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1997 Thoughts on Stone Tool Shape and Inferred Function. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 13: 125-144. 1994 Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59: 21- 35. 1986 Numerical Types and Inspectional Types: Evaluating Shape Characterization Procedures. North American Archaeologist 7: 95-112

189

Andrefsky, William, Jr. and Nathan Goodale Interpreting Lithic Technology Under the Evolutionary Tent. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky, Jr., pp.3-26. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Bamforth, Douglas B. 2002 Evidence and Metaphor in Evolutionary Archaeology. American Antiquity 67 : 435-452 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51: 38-50.

Bamforth, Douglas B. and Finlay, N. 2008 Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Lithic Production Skill and Craft Learning. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1): 1-27.

Bamforth, Douglas B. and Keri Hicks 2008 Production Skill and Paleoindian Workgroup Organization in the Medicine Creek Drainage, Southwestern Nebraska. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1): 132-153.

Benfer, Robert A. and Alice N. Benfer 1981 Automatic Classification of Inspectional Categories: Multivariate Theories of Archaeological Data. American Antiquity 46 : 381-396.

Bettinger, Robert L., and Eerkens, Jelmer W. 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission Theory, and the Spread of Bow and Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64 : 231-242. 1997 Evolutionary Implications of Metrical Variation in Great Basin Projectile Points. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archeological Explanation, edited by C. Michael Barton and Geoffrey A. Clark, pp. 177–191. Archaeological Papers, No. 7, American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C.

Beck, Charlotte, Amanda K. Taylor, George T. Jones, Cynthia M. Fadem, Caitlyn R. Cook, and Sara A. Millward 2002 Rocks are Heavy: Transport Costs and Paleoarchaic Quarry Behavior in the Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21: 481-507.

Bleed, P. 2008 Skill Matters. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1): 154-166.

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

Boone James L., and Eric Alden Smith 1998 Is it Evolution Yet? A Critique of Evolutionary Archaeology. Current Anthropology 39(Supp): 141-173.

190

Boldurian, Anthony T. 1985 Variability in Flintworking Technology at the Krajacic Site: Possible Relationships to the Pre-Clovis Paleoindian Occupation of the Cross Creek Drainage in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Boldurian, Anthony T and John L. Cotter 1999 Clovis Revisted: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Drwa, New Mexico. University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,.

Boulanger, Matthew 2015 Phylogenetic and morphometric analyses of eastern fluted point forms. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Bradbury, Andrew P. and Jay D. Franklin 2000 Raw Material Variability, Package Size, and Mass Analysis. Lithic Technology 25 (1): 42-58

Bradley, Bruce and Michael Collins 2013 Imaging Clovis as a Cultural Revitalization Movement. In Paleoamerican Odyssey edited by Kelly Graf, Caroline V. Ketron and Michael R. Waters, pp. 247-255. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M, College Station.

Bradley, Bruce, Michael B. Collins, Andrew Hemmings, Marilyn Shoberg, and Jon C. Lohse 2010 Clovis Technology. International Monographs in Prehistory. Ann Harbor, Michigan Braun, D. P. 1977 Middle Woodland-Early Late Woodland So-cial Change in the Prehistoric Central Midwestern U.S. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Brennan, Louis 1982 A Compilation of Fluted Points of Eastern North America by County and Distribution: An AENA Project. Archaeology of Eastern North America10:27-46.

Bright, Jason, Andrew Ugan, and Lori Hunsaker The Effect of Handling Time on Subsistence Technology. World Archaeology 34: 164-181.

Broster, John B. and Mark R. Norton 1993 The Carson-Conn-Short Site (40BN190): An Extensive Clovis Habitation in Benton County, Tennessee. Current Research in the Pleistocene 10: 3-4.

Buchanan, Briggs and Mark Collard 2007 Investigating the Peopling of North America through Cladistic Analyses of Early Paleoindian Projectile Points. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26: 366-392.

191

2008 Phenetics, Cladistics, and the Search for the Alaskan Ancestors of the Paleoindians: a Reassessment of Relationships among the Clovis, Nenana, and Denali, Archaeological Complexes. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 : 1683-1694.

Buchanan, Briggs, and Marcus J. Hamilton 2009 A Formal Test of the Origin of Variation in North American Early Paleoindian Projectile Points. American Antiquity 74:279-298.

Buchanan, Briggs, J. David Kilby, Bruce B. Huckel, Michael J. O’Brien, and Mark Collard 2012a A Morphometric Assessment of the Intended Function of Cached Clovis Points. PLOS One 7 (2)

Buchanan, Briggs, Michael J. O’Brien, J. David Kilby, Bruce B. Huckel, and Mark Collard 2012b An Assessment of the Impact of Hafting on Paleoindian Point Variability. PLOS One 7 (5)

Buchanan Briggs, Michael J. O’Brien, and Mark Collard 2014 Continent Wide or Region Specific? A Geometric Morphometrics Based Assessment . Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences: 6: 145-162.

Butler, B. Robert 1969 An Early Man Site at Big Camas Prairie, South Central Idaho. Tebiwa 6: 22-37.

Byers, Douglas 1954 Bull Brook a Fluted Point Site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. American Antiquity 19: 343- 351. 1959 Radiocarbon Dates for the Bull Brook Site, Massachusetts. American Antiquity 24: 427- 429.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. and Feldman, Marcus. 1981 Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 1973 Cultural versus Biological Inheritance: Phenotypic Transmission from Parents to Children (a Theory on the Effect of Parent’s Phenotypes on Children’s Phenotypes. American Journal of Human Genetics 25:618-637.

Cox, Steven L. 1986 A Re-analysis of the Shoop site. Archaeology of Eastern North America 14: 70-101

Darwent, J. and O'Brien, M. J. 2006 Using Cladistics to Construct Lineages of Projectile Points from Northeastern Missouri. In Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Approaches in Anthropology and Prehistory, Lipo, C. P. O'Brien, M. J., Collard, M. and Shennan, S. J., Aldine, New York. pp. 185-208.

Davis, Loren and Charles E. Schweger

192

2004 Geoarchaeological Context of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene Occupation at the Cooper’s Ferry Site, Western Idaho, USA. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 19: 685- 704.

Dawson, Peter C. 2001 Interpreting Variability in Thule Inuit Architecture: A Case Study from the Canadian High Arctic. American Antiquity 66: 453-470. Deller, Brian D. Christoper J. Ellis 1992 Thedford II a Paleo-Indian Site in the Ausable River Watershed of Southwestern Ontario. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor Michigan

Dillehay, Thomas 1989 Monte Verde a Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile Volume 1. Paleoenvironment and Site Context. Smithsonian Institute Press. Washington, D.C.

Dillehay, Thomas D. and Michael B. Collins 1988 Early Cultural Evidence from Monte Verde, Chile. Nature 332: 150-152.

Dixon, E. James 1999 Bones, Boats and Bison: Archaeology and the First Colonization of Western North America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Dunnell, Robert C. 1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43: 192-202.

Dukeman, Casey 2002 An Analysis of Analysts: A Critical Assessment of the Replicablity of Debitage Attributes. Unpublished M.A. Thesis Western State College of Colorado, Gunnison, Colorado.

Eerkens, Jelmer W. 2000 Practice Makes Within 5% of Perfect: Visual Perception, Motor Skills, and Memory in Artifact Variation. Current Anthropology 41: 663- 668.

Eerkens Jelmer W. and Robert Bettinger 2001 Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Variability? American Antiquity 66: 493-504.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., and Carl P. Lipo 2005. Cultural Transmission, Copying Errors, and the Generation of Variation in Material Culture and the Archaeological Record. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 316–334.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Robert, Richard McElreath 2006 Cultural Transmission Phylogenetics and the Archaeological Record. In Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Approaches in Anthropology and Prehistory, Lipo, C. P. O'Brien, M. J.,

193

Collard, M. and Shennan, S. J., Aldine, New York. pp.169-183.

Eren, Metin I., Anne Chao, Chun-Huo Chiu, Robert K. Colwell, Briggs Buchanan, Matthew T. Boulanger, John Darwent, and Michael J. O’Brien 2016 Statistical Analysis of Paradigmatic Class Richness Supports Greater Paleoindian Projectile-Point Diversity in the Southeast. American Antiquity 81: 174-192.

Ellis, Christopher 2004 Understanding Clovis Fluted Point Variability in the Northeast: A perspective from the Debert Site, Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 28: 205-253.

Eren, Metin I., Stanley Vanderlaan, and John D. Holland 2011 Overshot Flaking at the Arc Site, Genesee County, New York: Examining the Clovis- Gainey Connection. The Open Anthropology Journal 4: 40-52.

Eren ,Metin I, Brian G. Redmond, and Mark A. Kollecker 2004 The Paleo-Crossing (33-ME-274) Fluted Point Assemblage. Current Research in the Pleistocene 21:38-39.

Eren, Metin I, Thomas A. Jennings, and Ashley Smallwood 2013 Paleoindian Unifacial Stone Tool Spurs: Intended Accessories or Incidental Accidents? PLos One 8 (11): e78419.

Eren Metin I, Briggs Buchanan, and Michael J. O’Brien 2015 Social Learning and Technological Evolution During the Clovis Colonization of the New World. Journal of Human Evolution 80: 159-170.

Fagan, Brian 2005 Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. Thames and Hudson Press, London, United Kingdom.

Feldman, Marcus and L. Cavalli-Sforza 1976 Cultural and Biological Evolutionary Processes, Selection for a Trait Under Complex Transmission. Theoretical Population Biology 9: 238-259.

Ferguson, J. R. 2008 The When, Where, and How of Novices in Craft Production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 15(1): 51-67.

Ferris, Jennifer M. 2015 Procurement Costs and Tool Performance Requirements: Determining Contraints on Lithic Toolstone Selection in Baja California Sur. In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky, Jr., pp.139-155. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Fladmark, K. R.

194

1979 Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North America. American Antiquity 44 (1) : 56-69.

Flinniken and Wilke 1989 Typology, Technology, and Chronology of the Great Basin Dart Points. American Anthropologist 91: 149-158.

Frison, George C. and Lawrence C. Todd 1986 The Colby Mammoth Site: Taphonomy and Archaeology of a Clovis Kill in Northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Fuller, Michael 2013 Peterson Site (23AN1180). Electronic Document, http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/Peterson.html, accessed June 6th, 2015. 2009 Martens Site, 23SL222. Electronic Document. http://users.stlcc.edu/mfuller/martens/, accessed June 10th, 2015.

Gilbert, Claudette Marie 1979 Mammoth Hunters: The Domebo Site. Prehistoric People of Oklahoma number 4. The University of Oklahoma Stovall Museum of Science and History and Oklahoma Archaeological Survey, Norman Oklahoma.

Goebel, Ted 1991 The Nenana Complex of Alaska and Clovis Origins. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by R. Bonnicsen and K. Turnmire, pp. 49-79. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvalis.

Goebel, Ted, Heather L. Smith, Lyndsay DiPiertro, Michaeol R. Waters, Bryan Hockett, Kelly E. Graf, Robert Gal, Sergei B. Slobodin, Robert J. Speakman, Steven G. Driese, David Rhode. Serpentine Hot Springs, Alaska: Results of Excavations and Implications for the Age and Significance of Northern Fluted Points. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 4222-4233.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Material among Paleo-Indian Groups of North America. Research Manuscript Series 156. Columbia Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina. 1974 The Brand Site: A Techno Functional Study of a Dalton Site in Northeast Arkansas. Publications on Archaeology Research Series 7.: Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Gramly, Richard Michael and Kerry Rutledge 1981 A New Paleo-Indian Site in the State of Maine. American Antiquity 48: 354-361.

195

Gramly, Richard Michael and Carl Yahnig 1991 The Adams site (15Ch90) and the Little River, Christian County, Kentucky, Clovis Workshop Complex. Southeastern Archaeology 10: 134-145.

Gramly, Richard Michael 2010 The Vail Habitation and Kill Site: Implications for Palaeo-American Behavior and Band Size. Ohio Archaeologist 60:4-17. 1999 The Lamb Site: A Pioneering Clovis Encampment. Persimmon Press, Kenmore, New York.

Gunn, Joel and Elton R. Prewitt 1975 Automatic Classification: Projectile Points from West Texas. Plains Anthropologist 20 (68):139-149.

Hamilton, Marcus J. and Briggs Buchanan 2009 The accumulation of Stochastic Copying Errors Causes Drift in Culturally Transmitted Technologies: Quantifying Clovis Evolutionary Dynamics. Journal Anthropological Archaeology 28: 55-69.

Hannus, L. Adrien 1985 The Lange/Ferguson-An Event of Clovis Mammoth Butchery with the Associated Bone Tool Technology: The Mammoth and its Track. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Harbor. 1984 Bone Tools in a Clovis Context. Mammoth Trumpet 1(2): 1,5.

Haury, Emil W. 1952 The Naco Mammoth. Kiva 18: 1-20.

Haynes, C. Vance, and E.Thomas Hemmings 1968 Mammoth Bone Shaft Wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona. Science 159 (3811): 186- 187.

Haynes Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Haynes, Gary, Michael McFaul, Robert H. Brunswig, and Kenneth D. Hopkins. 1998 Kersey-Kurner Terrace Investigation at the Dent and Bernhardt Sites, Colorado. Geoarchaeology. 13: 201-218.

Hemmings, C. Andrew, James S. Dunbar, S. David Webb 2004 Florida’s Early-Paleoindian Bone and Ivory Tools In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp 87-91. Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station.

196

2004 The Organic Clovis: A Single Continent-Wide Cultural Adaptation. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida.

Henrich, Joseph and Richard McElreath 2003 The Evolution of Cultural Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12:123-135.

Hester, James J. 1972 Blackwater Locality No. 1: A Stratified Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Publication of the Fort Burgwin Research Center No. 8, Fort Burgwin Research Center, Rancho de Taos, New Mexico.

Huckell, Bruce 2007 Clovis Lithic Technology: A View from the Upper San Pedro Valley. In Murray Springs A Clovis Site with Multiple Activity Areas in the Sand Pedro Valley, Arizona, edited by C.V. Haynes and B. Huckell, pp. 170-213. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

Jablonski, Nina G. 2002 Changing Perspectives of the First Americans. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World Edited by Nina G. Jablonski, pp. 1-8. Allen Press, San Francisco, California

Jennings, Jesse D. 1974 Prehistory of North America. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York, New York.

Justice, Noel D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indian University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Kelly, Robert L. and Lawrence C. Todd 1988 Coming into the Country Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53 : 231-244.

Kilby, J. David and Bruce B. Huckell 2013 Clovis Caches: Current Perspective and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican Odyssey edited by Kelly E. Graf, Carline V. Ketron, and Michael R. Waters, pp.257-272 Center for the Study of the First Americans, College Station.

Kimura, Motoo 1968 Evolutionary Rate and the Molecular Level. Nature 217: 624-626. 1963 The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.

Koldehoff, Brad, Juliet E. Morrow, Toby A. Morrow, and Richard Martens

197

1995 The Martens Site (23SL222): A Clovis Occupation in St. Louis County, Missouri. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 24-26.

Koldehoff, Brad and Thomas Loebel 2009 Clovis and Dalton: Unbounded and Bounded Systems in the Midcontinent of North America In Lithics Materials and Paleolithic Societies edited by B. Adams and B.S. Blades, pp. 270-281 Wiley and Blackwell, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Kroeber, Alfred 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Press, Los Angeles, California.

Lance, John 1959 Faunal Remains from the Lehner Mammoth Site. American Antiquity. 25: 35-42.

Lipo, Carl P. and Jelmer W. Eerkens 2007 Cultural Transmission Theory and the Archaeological Record: Providing Context to Understanding Variation and Temporal Changes in Material Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research

Loebel, Thomas J. 2009 Withington (47GT158): A Clovis/Gainey Campsite in Grant County, Wisconsin. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 34 (2): 223-248.

Frank C. Leonhardy 1966 Domebo: A Paleo Indian Mammoth Kill in the Prairie. Great Plains Historical Association. Lawton, Oklahoma.

Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O’Brien 2000 Measuring and Explaining Change in Artifact Variation with Clade-Diversity Diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:39-74.

Lyman, Lee and Todd VanPool 2009 Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Inter-Analyst Variation. American Antiquity 74:485-504.

Mason, Ronald J. 1962 The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 3:227-278.

Meltzer, David .J. 2008 First Peoples in a New World: Colonizing Ice Age America. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California.

198

2002 The Exploration and Colonization of New Lands. In The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World Edited by Nina G. Jablonski, pp. 27-58. Allen Press, San Francisco, California 1993 Search for the First Americans. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 1981 A study of style and function in a class of tools. Journal of Field Archaeology 8:313-326.

Mehringer, Peter J. and C. Vance Haynes, Jr. 1965 The Pollen Evidence for the Environment of Early Man and Extinct Mammals at the Lehner Mammoth Site, Southeastern Arizona. American Antiquity 31:17-23.

Morrow Juliet E. and Toby A. Morrow 2004 Rummells-Maske Revisted: A Fluted Point Cache from East Central Iowa. Plains Anthropologist. 47: 307-321. 1999 Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective. American Antiquity. 64 : 215-231.

Morrow Juliet E 2006 Anzick A Clovis Burial in Montana. Central States Archaeological Journal. 53: 27-32. 1996 The Organization of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation , Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. 1995 Clovis Projectile Point Manufacture: a Perspective from the Ready/Lincoln Hills Site, 11JY46, Hersey County, Illinois. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 20: 167-191 Mueller, James W. 1975 Archaeological Research as Cluster Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology edited by James W. Mueller, pp. 33-44. The University of Arizona Press Tuscon, Arizona.

O’Brien, Michael J., John Darwent, R. Lee Lyman 2001 Cladistics is Useful for Reconstructing Archaeological Phylogenies : Paleoindian Points from Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28: 1115-1136

O’Brien, Michael J., R. Lee Lyman, and John Darwent 2002 Cladistics and Archaeological Phylogeny. In Perspectivas Integradoras entre Arqueología y Evolución. Teoría, Métodos y Casos de Aplicación, edited by G. Martínez and J. L. Lanata, pp. 175–186. Olavarría, Argentina

Parry, William .J. and Robert L. Kelly 1987. Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In, J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow (Eds.) Organization of Core Technology. BAR pp. 284-304, , Oxford, England

Peck, Rodney M. 2004 America's Largest Paleo-Indian Workshop Site, Dinwiddie County Virginia: The Williamson Site. Peck’s Place Publishing, Kannipolis, North Carolina.

199

Pinson, Ariane 2011 The Clovis Occupation of the Dietz (35LK1529), Lake County Oregon, and its Bearing on the Adaptive Diversity of Clovis Foragers. American Antiquity. 76: 285-313.

Prasciunas, Mary 2011 Mapping Clovis, Projectile Points, Behavior, and Bias. American Antiquity 76: 107-126.

Premo, Luke S. 2014 Cultural Transmission and Diversity in Time-Averaged Assemblages. Current Anthropology 55: 105-114.

Prufer, Olaf H. and Raymond S. Baby 1963 Paleoindians of Ohio. The Ohio Historical Society. Columbus, Ohio.

Rasumussen, Morten, Sarah L. Anzick, Michael R. Waters, Pontus Skoglund, Michael De Giorgio, Thomas W. Stafford, Simon Rasmussen, Luda Moltke, Anders Albrechtsen, Shane M. Doyle, G. David Poznick, Valborg Gudmundsdottir, Rachita Yadav, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, Samuel Stockton White V., Morten E Allentoft, Omar E. Cornejo, Kristiina Tanbets, Anders Eriksson, Peter D. Heintzman, Monika Karmin, Thorfinn Sand Korneliussen, David J. Meltzer, Tracey L. Pierre, Jesper Stenderup, Lauri Saag, Vera M. Warmuth, Margarida C. Lopes, Ripan S. Malhi, Sǿren Brunak, Thomas Sicheritz-Ponten, Ian Barnes, Matthew Collins, Ludovis Orlando, Francois Balloux, Andrea Manica, Ramneek Gupta, Mait Metspalu, Carlos D. Bustamante, Mattias Jakobosson, Rasmus Nielsen, and Eske Willerslev. 2014 The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human from a Clovis Burial Site in Western Montana. Nature 506: 225-229.

Ritchie, William A. 1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and Science Service Bulletin . No 384, Albany, New York.

Robinson, Brian S., Jennifer C. Ort, William A. Eldridge, Adam L. Burke, Bertrand G. Pelletier 2009 Paleoindian Occupation and Social Context at Bull Brook. American Antiquity 74: 423- 447.

Roosa, William B. 1965 Some Great Lakes Fluted Point Types. Michigan Archaeologist 11(3-4): 89-102.

Sandstrom, Carl B., and Jack H. Ray 2004 A Point Identification Guide for Southwest Missouri. Ozarks Chapter, Missouri Archaeological Society, Springfield

Seeman, Mark F., Nils E Nilsson, Garry L. Summers, Larry L, Morris, Paul J. Barans, Elaine, Dowd, Margaret E. Newman

200

2008 Evaluating Protein Residues on Gainey Phase Paleoindian Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 35 :2742-2750.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist. 77 (4): 836-848

Sholts, Sabrina B., Dennis J. Stanford, Louise M. Flores, Sebastian K.T.S. Wärmländer 2012 Flake scar patterns of Clovis points analyzed with a new digital morphometrics approach: evidence for direct transmission of technological knowledge across early North America. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, (9) : 3018-3026

Shott. Michael 2015 Theory in Archaeology: Morphometric Approaches To the Study of Fluted Points. . In Lithic Technological Systems and Evolutionary Theory edited by Nathan Goodale and William Andrefsky, Jr., pp.48-60. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1986 Settlement Mobility and Technological Organization: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42: 15-51.

Simmons, Donald B. , Michael J. Shott, and Henry T. Wright. 1984 The Gainey Site: Variability in a Great Lakes Paleoindian Point Assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12:266-279.

Speer. Charles A. 2013 Source Determination of Edwards Plateau Chert Using LA-ICP-MS. Poster Presented at the 2nd Paleo Odyssey Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2013 Clovis Mobility at the Gault Site: A Chert Provenance Study Using Laser Ablation- Ablation-Inductively Couples Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Unpublished PhD. Dissertation. The University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas.

Smallwood, Ashley 2012 Clovis Technology and Settlement in the American southeast: Using Biface Analysis to evaluate Dispersal Models. American Antiquity 74 : 689-713. 2012 Clovis Biface Technology at the Topper Site, South Carolina: Evidence for variation and Technological Flexibility. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 2412-2425.

Surovell, Todd A. Toward a Behavioral Ecology of Lithic Technology: Cases from Paleoindian Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tuscan, Arizona.

Thulman, David K. 2012 Discriminating Paleoindian Point Types from Florida using Landmark Geometric Morphometrics. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1599-1607.

Thulman, David K. and Michael Faught

201

2013 How Long did Clovis Last? A Re-assessment of the Clovis and Other Paleoindian Occupations Using Bayesian Statistics. Poster presented at the Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Ubelaker, Douglas H. 1976 Prehistoric New World Population Size: Historical Review and Current Appraisal on New American Estimates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology:

Ugan, Andrew, Jason Bright, and Alan Rogers 2003 When is Technology Worth the Trouble? Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1315 1329

Waters, Michael R. and Thomas W. Stafford 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for Peopling of the Americas. Science 315: 1122-1126

Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford Jr., H. Gregory McDonald, Carl Gustafson, Morten Rasmussen, Enrico Cappellini, Jesper V. Olsen, Damian Szklarczyk, Lars Juhl Jensen, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Eske Willerslev 2011 Pre-Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site, Washington. Science 334:351-353.

Waters, Michael R. , Steven L, Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese, Joshua M. Feinber, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles T. Hallmark, Michael B. Collins, and James E. Wiederhold. 2011b The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas. Science 331: 1599-1603

Waters, Michael . R., C. D. Pevny and David. L. Carlson 2011c Clovis Lithic Technology: Investigation of a Stratified Workshop at the Gault Site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Waters, Michael, Rr, Stephen L. Forman, Thomas Stafford, Jr., and John Foss 2009 Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree Sites, Allendale County, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 : 1300-1311.

Whithoft, John 1952 A Paleo-Indian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96 (4): 464-495. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Willey, Gordon R. 1956 An Introduction to American Archaeology Vol. 1 North America and Middle America. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

202

Wilkie, Phillip J. Jeffery Flenniken, and Terry L. Ozbun 1991 Clovis Technology and the Anzick Site, Montana. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 13: 242-272.

Williams, Justin P. 2012 Debating the Complexity of Clovis: Insights into the Complexity Paradigm. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 46: 115-121. 2010 Debitage Attribute Replicability. Paper presented at the 67th Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Lexington.

Williams, Justin P. and William Andrefsky, Jr. 2013 An Image is Worth 1000 Measurements: Using Images to Analyze Paleo-Period Artifacts. Poster presented at the Paleoamerican Odyssey Conference, Santa Fe.

Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

Wissler, Clark 1975 Societies of the Plains Indians. AMS Press, New York, New York. Reprint.

Wormington, H.M. 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History Popular Series,No 4 Peerless Printing Company , Denver Colorado.

Yahnig, Carl 2009 My Hundred and One Favorite Artifacts from the Little River Clovis Complex. Self Published, Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

203

APPENDIX A THE DATA

Key # = Clovis Hafted Biface Number Tier = Sampling Tier CA = Culture Area BC? = Blade Complete? HC? = Haft Complete? LOC= Location RMN= Raw Material Notes F#= Number of Flutes on Long Side PFR= Post Fluting Retouch?

ML= Max Length MW= Max Width HBD= Haft Blade Division MHL= Max Haft Length MHW= Max Haft Width HW1/4= Haft Width at ¼ HW1/2= Haft Width ½ HW3/4= Haft Width ¾ BW= Base Width BD= Base Depth FD= Flute Depth Long Side FDS= Flute Depth Short Side BA= Base Angle MBL = Max Blade Length MBW = Max Blade Width BW1/4= Blade Width ¼ BW1/2 = Blade Width ½ BW3/4= Blade Width

204

Tier CA ST BC? HC? LOC RMN F# PFR ML MW HBD MHL MHW HW1/4 HW1/2 HW3/4 BW BD FD FDS MFW BA MBL MBW BW1/4 BW1/2 BW3/4

1 2 Southwest Kill Yes No Cochise, Arizona (Naco) 25.16 24.43 50.75 24.43 23.06 20.82 16.12 2 1 Southwest Kill No No Cochise, Arizona (Murray 26.9 2.96 151 Springs) 3 2 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Naco) 1 No 94.55 24.29 24.43 31.52 24.22 21.4 22.48 23.42 18.51 1.88 17.5 12.53 9.87 158 62.89 24.72 25.09 22.48 17.27 4 1 Southwest Kill No Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 2 Yes 23.84 26.02 29.71 29.96 23.42 25.08 26.24 15.44 1.3 26.1 10.99 12.72 161 5 2 Southwest Kill Yes No Cochise, Arizona (Naco) 2 Yes 32.68 32.68 32.82 26 20.46 19.77 83.13 32.96 32.82 29.64 20.82 6 2 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Naco) 1 No 71.15 25.01 24.29 24.22 24.36 19.52 22.12 23.13 15.85 2.78 23.7 19.8 14.49 139 47.57 25.3 24.36 21.25 16.34 7 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 No 73.01 27.61 27.4 32.75 27.54 23.93 26.96 27.54 19.66 4.35 24.3 21.25 13.7 126 40.41 27.4 26.17 20.04 16.48 8 2 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Naco) 1 Yes 67.54 30.94 30.94 27.47 31.23 27.47 29.64 30.62 21.31 5.14 15.5 14.89 16.01 129 40.41 31.23 28.12 24.79 17.86 9 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Murray 1 No 49.54 24.15 24.22 21.11 24.22 21.98 22.34 23.06 19.69 4.83 18.3 15.47 19.52 129 28.92 24.22 22.19 19.16 12.72 Springs) 10 1 Southwest Kill No No Cochise, Arizona (Murray 30.29 29.57 29.57 Springs) 11 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Murray 1 No 70.7 31.88 31.81 30.11 31.81 29.86 30.51 31.37 19.74 4.7 15.7 14.1 20.24 131 40.94 31.59 31.23 27.25 19.08 Springs) 12 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Murray obsidian 1 Yes 41.78 21.4 20.82 21.29 21.4 17.57 19.45 20.91 11.86 2.26 15.3 10.3 10.52 140 20.71 20.82 18.33 15.97 9.65 Springs) 13 2 Southwest Kill No Yes Cochise, Arizona (Naco) basalt 1 Yes 29.64 29.64 34.55 29.64 27.55 28.81 28.81 24.08 4.48 15.7 12.72 26.02 139 29.64 14 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Murray 1 Yes 48.72 23.89 23.89 18.8 23.89 21.83 21.94 22.7 18.8 4.77 18.4 9.98 16.41 127 30.22 23.89 22.99 19.59 12.58 Springs) 15 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 No 62.03 31.08 30.43 28.05 31.08 25.45 27.54 29.93 22.66 2.32 24.3 14.93 15.58 154 34.1 30.43 29.49 24.79 18.22 16 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 Yes 55.23 24.07 23.57 21.61 23.71 22.12 22.55 23.42 17.99 1.71 15 12.9 157 33.83 24.07 22.7 19.51 13.45 17 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 Yes 50.74 27.47 27.25 21.04 27.4 25.23 25.66 26.68 20.49 2.13 21 15.4 13.23 156.7 30 27.47 25.59 20.03 13.08 18 1 Southwest Kill Yes No Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 27.77 27.4 49.3 27.9 26.24 21.54 15.04

2 19 1 Southwest Kill No Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 Yes 16.01 15.54 17.53 15.87 15.65 15.79 15.61 11.53 2.63 6.87 5.89 12.51 129 15.11 0 20 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 Yes 31.01 16.48 16.01 12.83 16.55 16.27 16.41 16.25 12.45 1.26 10.3 9.58 12.36 155 18.54 15.83 14.49 12.64 8.46 5

21 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Lehner) 1 Yes 46.32 20.57 19.91 14.6 20.57 20.24 20.31 20.44 17.59 3.32 13.2 7.27 19.08 135 31.92 20.04 18.78 17.58 13.6 22 1 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Cochise, Arizona (Murray 1 No 70.61 31.72 31.72 30.79 31.72 29.53 29.99 31.25 20.5 4.71 10.7 10.69 15.9 127 40.01 31.72 31.25 26.8 19.4 Springs) 23 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Weld, Colorado (Dent) 1 No 89.58 35.57 34.97 32.98 35.3 31.92 33.51 34.71 24.44 4.32 26.3 19.31 14.24 139 56.8 34.97 31.45 26.38 19.28 24 1 Great Plains Kill No Yes Weld, Colorado (Dent) 1 No 36.23 35.77 32.32 36.1 32.12 33.44 34.97 26.56 4.79 33.6 26.22 14.96 139 35.77 25 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Weld, Colorado (Dent) 1 No 113.34 29.6 28.73 39.48 29.93 28.8 29.53 29.07 19.58 2.72 31.5 15.47 20.02 147 74.19 28.73 24.35 23.06 15.83 26 2 Great Basin Cache Yes Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 3 Yes 108.3 34.24 33.31 45.12 34.24 32.18 32.45 33.64 26.68 1.59 36.2 25.88 17.42 164 63.44 34.24 30.52 25.42 16.86 27 2 Great Basin Cache Yes Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 2 Yes 181.69 35.44 34.91 46.05 35.3 34.64 33.91 35.04 28.73 3.32 23.4 19.91 17.13 153 135.37 35.3 33.44 29.59 23.36 28 2 Great Basin Cache No Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 1 Yes 32.98 32.45 38.02 32.98 31.79 32.65 33.05 22.16 1.66 29 19.11 25.45 161 32.45 29 2 Great Basin Cache Yes Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 2 Yes 181.03 38.22 37.16 51.63 37.89 37.16 37.69 37.96 27.01 3.12 19 18.58 14.25 151 129.53 37.29 35.04 31.58 23.89 30 2 Great Basin Cache Yes Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 3 Yes 158.46 37.43 36.63 58.26 37.43 35.97 36.76 31.59 24.96 3.45 29.5 27.74 16.88 149 100.07 36.76 34.9 29.72 21.1 31 2 Great Basin Cache Yes Yes Camas, Idaho (Simon) 1 No 93.69 35.63 34.64 37.09 35.63 33.11 34.84 35.63 21.97 1.59 22 16.39 19.88 162 56.8 34.64 32.25 27.07 18.18 32 2 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) 1 No 84.41 25.44 25.22 24.4 25.37 22.18 23.14 24.18 15.66 3.93 22.7 8.98 13.33 123 60.38 25.29 24.4 22.25 16.17 33 2 Great Plains Camp Yes No Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 29.53 31.93 31.66 29.06 21.17 34 2 Great Plains Camp No Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 74.34 26.02 25.7 25.21 26.34 21.57 22.63 24.6 18.18 3.39 23.5 19.23 11.96 137.08 49.04 21.33 15.76 35 2 Great Plains Camp Yes No Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 22.35 22.54 22.35 24.7 14.54 12 24.16 22.54 20.52 17.13 11.96 36 2 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 53.49 25.05 24.56 22.46 25.05 22.93 23.99 23.9 12.9 2.83 17.4 14.59 127 31.4 24.56 22.79 19.89 14.14 37 2 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) 1 No 47.44 22.38 20.69 17.7 22.38 21.49 21.82 20.93 18.67 4.04 13.8 12.93 12.73 129 30.06 20.28 18.83 15.11 10.34 39 2 Great Plains Camp No Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 24.55 24.33 19.14 24.55 22.92 23.51 24.4 20.35 4.9 10.6 8.27 16.69 128.38 24.33 40 2 Great Plains Camp Yes No Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 24.4 16.1 10.02 13.41 25.59 24.4 23.36 20.99 14.76 41 2 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 34.42 20.4 19.73 11.2 20.4 20.03 20.4 20.1 16.32 3.04 14.3 10.87 13.86 138.08 23.62 19.77 17.99 15.13 9.2 42 2 Great Plains Camp Yes No Atchison, Missouri (Peterson) Fossiliferous 1 No 22.18 16.3 16.16 18.4 22.18 43 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Benton , Missouri Burlington Chert 1 No 61.73 27.23 25.37 25.21 27.23 26.34 26.44 26.58 23.19 5.818 18.8 17.86 124 36.6 25.94 23.84 19.79 14.55 44 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, Missouri 1 No 30.87 19.47 18.91 12.2 18.75 17.86 17.78 18.75 15.43 2.1 15.7 12.85 145 18.67 19.47 19.4 17.7 12.28 45 2 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Atchison, Missouri 1 No 103.25 24.42 24.28 28.21 24.42 22.25 23.42 23.75 19.69 3.53 21 14.08 145 75.57 24.28 23.68 22.35 16.96

46 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri (Martens) Burlington Chert 1 No 62.43 25.1 24.47 25.42 23.73 20.25 22.15 23.2 16.14 0.84 21.4 13.84 13.13 164 37.65 25.1 23.94 21.98 16.19 47 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri (Martens) Burlington Chert 1 No 62.8 24.19 23.07 29 24.19 20.17 21.43 23.16 16.09 1.31 26.1 15.16 9.81 168 34.09 23.63 23.63 20.55 16.62 48 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri (Martens) Burlington Chert 1 No 59.97 28.09 28.09 19.04 27.99 24.94 26.09 27.04 18.94 1.58 16.3 10.31 165 41.03 27.88 27.15 23.36 14.62 49 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri (Martens) Burlington Chert 1 No 50.3 20.1 19.3 17.51 19.35 17.18 18.12 18.87 13.97 1.23 11.4 11.37 156 32.84 20.1 19.21 17.22 12.32 50 1 Great Plains Cache Yes Yes Park, Montana (Anzick) 1 No 158.8 37.38 36.16 57.17 37.26 37.13 37.86 36.4 31.31 1.83 22.4 18.71 162 102.61 35.49 30.66 27.61 20.77 51 1 Great Plains Cache Yes Yes Park, Montana (Anzick) 1 No 73.52 24.89 24.55 20 24.89 22.95 24.43 24.77 18.64 1.82 17.1 14.45 156 53.29 24.21 23.97 21.47 14.32 52 1 Great Plains Cache Yes Yes Park, Montana (Anzick) 2 Yes 66.41 29.46 28.23 13.56 29.46 28.59 29.29 28.76 22.95 1.29 17.3 11.27 165 53.08 27.36 25.6 23.27 14.85 53 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Caddo, Okalahoma 1 No 67.49 20.11 20.11 24.69 20.11 19.31 19.31 19.64 16.66 1.66 22.8 19.44 14.31 151 42.8 20.11 19.24 16.32 11.75 (Domebo) 54 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Caddo, Okalahoma 2 Yes 66.23 19.64 19.24 24.56 19.64 18.51 18.92 19.51 15.4 1.79 22.3 20.18 6.83 153 42.27 19.38 18.25 15.59 11.55 (Domebo) 55 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Caddo, Okalahoma 1 Yes 77.91 24.69 24.82 32.91 25.35 24.02 24.55 25.61 18.72 1.86 35.1 19.52 153 44.59 24.82 24.02 21.3 15.53 (Domebo) 56 1 Great Plains Kill No No Caddo, Okalahoma basalt? 22.17 22.1 20.8 12.08 (Domebo) 57 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) 2 Yes 45.4 37.33 14.2 58 2 Great Basin Camp Yes Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 61.11 28.75 27.31 23.47 27.86 24.43 27.17 18.13 4.25 37.7 13.75 137 37.47 28.75 28.27 24.15 15.03 59 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 19.49 19.49 8.99 19.49 17.6 18.08 18.84 13.73 1.1 21.7 18.77 13.68 159 19.49 60 2 Great Basin Camp Yes No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 33.35 26.66 26.26 13.04 26.66 26.42 26.16 26.49 22.92 3.57 14.4 12.97 13.72 143 20.45 26.35 24.02 20.24 14.68 61 2 Great Basin Camp No Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) basalt? 1 Yes 25.12 25.12 20.86 25.12 22.64 23.74 24.43 14.97 2.2 23.7 16.34 13.79 149 62 2 Great Basin Camp No Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 25.94 24.84 27.04 27.04 27.31 22.4 3.85 20.4 11.12 17.61 142 63 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian Yes 24.71 3.44 142 64 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian Yes 29.23 4.59 14.78 142 65 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Halifax, North Carolina 1 Yes 41.03 24.05 24.05 18.17 24.05 21.98 22.22 22.78 19.47 1.9 23 159 23.01 24.05 22.85 19.6 13.73 66 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Harnett, North Carolina 1 Yes 41.98 18.33 17.62 16.27 18.09 17.89 18.01 18.01 15.47 2.22 19.9 12.73 147 25.71 18.39 17.22 16.27 12.3 67 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 24.04 3.43 140 68 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 27.45 3.98 142 2 69 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 No 15. 2 148 06 01 1.9 70 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 27.87 5.77 133

71 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 24.43 2.2 160 72 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 22.07 2.78 20.18 152 73 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 No 29.96 3.61 148 74 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 32.31 3.73 153 75 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 2 Yes 34.72 3.57 154 76 2 Great Basin Camp No Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 2 Yes 22.3 35.2 29.16 28.56 27.37 25.34 20.39 2.54 33.8 23.47 13.79 151 77 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 No 29.51 5.22 9.33 12.45 136 78 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 34.72 4.39 15 13.79 151 79 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 2 Yes 28.21 20.5 29.06 27.61 28.38 28.55 22.01 2.47 23.3 21.5 13.87 154 80 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 16.48 3.06 138

81 2 Great Basin Camp No Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 20.14 26.25 22.17 21.49 22.68 22.26 15.72 3.91 25.7 22.43 13.94 126 82 2 Great Basin Camp No Yes Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 No 24.55 19.8 23.62 20.05 22.94 23.19 13.53 4.33 23.1 22.43 10.62 119 83 2 Great Basin Camp No No Lake, Oregon (Dietz) obsidian 1 Yes 27.53 5.44 16.82 138 84 3 Plateau Kill No Yes Linn, Oregon obsidian 1 Yes 21.17 22.5 21.9 21.37 21.23 20.97 20.67 3.96 11.4 8.46 137 85 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Nash, North Carolina 1 No 73.08 24.18 23.86 23.3 24.18 23.94 23.83 23.94 21.74 6.1 20.7 12.44 121 50.17 23.86 23.3 20.77 16.17 86 1 Plateau Cache Yes Yes Douglas, Washington (East 3 Yes 193.06 61.91 59.4 70.58 61.91 52.56 58.07 60.07 40.65 6.18 79.9 66.58 27.37 142 122.81 59.07 58.57 52.39 38.21 Wenatchee) 87 1 Plateau Cache Yes Yes Douglas, Washington (East 2 Yes 215.61 55.97 55.64 52.06 55.86 48.82 51.05 53.31 35.2 7.04 29.5 19.66 26.48 137 164 56.19 54.29 46.36 36.98 Wenatchee) 88 1 Plateau Cache No Yes Douglas, Washington (East 3 Yes 42.38 42.22 39.98 42.38 40.38 41.63 40.63 37.21 3.01 50.5 32.04 19.86 157 42.22 Wenatchee) 89 3 Plateau Kill Yes Yes Grant, Washington 1 Yes 91.11 33.71 33.71 40.46 33.71 29.45 31.79 32.91 24.03 6.51 30.6 28.32 15.19 125 50.56 33.71 31.29 27.53 19.77 90 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Edgecombe, North Carolina 1 No 32.73 31.46 26.46 31.46 27.97 28.05 29.08 23.99 5.24 18.1 21.37 128

91 3 Northeast Kill No Yes Cambden, North Carolina 1 No 23.04 23.04 17.32 23.04 21.13 21.69 22.09 15.9 3.65 13.1 10.09 129 92 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes La Crosse, Wisconsin Quartzite 1 No 77.77 27.47 27.47 31.85 27.47 25.35 26.34 27.07 20.97 5.18 29.2 27.61 16.84 127 46.05 27.47 25.48 22.63 16.59 93 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Wisconsin 1 No 75.25 37.56 37.16 18.45 37.36 33.44 35.83 36.23 28.07 6.44 18.2 17.12 16.48 128 57.2 37.56 35.57 33.179 22.56 94 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Juneau, Wisconsin 1 No 74.06 21.77 21.3 21.97 20.97 18.65 19.91 20.5 15.41 4.58 14.2 9.16 9 116 52.42 21.77 21.77 20.42 14.86 95 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 21.75 7.54 24 14.69 15.23 107 (Gault) 96 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 Yes 20.17 4.55 27.5 25.42 11.94 134 (Gault) 97 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 21.55 4.77 14.59 7.36 131 (Gault) 98 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 19.93 2.52 13.96 14.32 150 (Gault) 99 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 63.51 25.43 25.43 26.2 25.43 18.43 21.65 24.43 13.71 2.66 13.8 8.73 9.68 136 37.31 25.43 23.37 19.986 12.49 (Gault) 100 1 Great Plains Camp No Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 2 Yes 28.94 31.15 28.94 24.91 25.44 27.058 22.38 3.87 22.3 13.5 10.08 143 (Gault) 101 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 2 Yes 71.39 30.64 30.31 32.65 30.64 27.23 27.57 29.39 32.98 3.93 19.8 16.66 11 144 39.08 30.48 26.42 22.93 21.53 (Gault) 102 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 27.15 17.1 10.12 19.08 27.54 (Gault) 103 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 72.88 21.76 20.79 26.27 20.92 17.38 19.83 20.28 14.36 2.39 23.2 15.52 10.1 140 46.87 21.67 21.67 18.73 15.52 (Gault) 104 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 99.25 27.25 25.08 43.56 27.25 25.15 26.5 26.87 16.83 3.26 29.4 25 9.05 134 55.85 26.35 24.63 22.23 16.39 (Gault) 105 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 98.5 32.19 32.19 36.94 32.19 27.07 29.37 29.82 21.68 2.37 26.1 16.1 149 62.6 32.19 28.93 25.36 18.54 (Gault) 106 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 18.21 6.5 (Gault) 2 107 1 Great Plains Camp No Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 Yes 37.82 41.46 37.82 26.19 28.92 33.57 23.05 3.84 30.4 26.7 14.56 146 07 (Gault) 108 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 60.82 24.13 24.06 32.88 24.13 23.1 23.55 24.21 19.04 4.5 24.4 21.4 15.52 133 28.19 24.06 22.07 19.042 13.36 (Gault) 109 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 56.67 21.56 21.21 24.45 21.44 18.2 18.2 19.73 16.35 1.41 23.7 20.62 13.48 160 32.22 21.56 21.38 19.911 14.73 (Gault) 110 1 Great Plains Camp No Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 21.94 21.54 24.84 21.94 21.29 21.34 21.49 20.1 2.15 24.8 24.14 13.88 152 21.69 (Gault) 111 1 Great Plains Camp No Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 2 Yes 25.21 24.86 23.03 25.21 24.57 24.74 24.8 21.74 2.3 17.6 14.55 10.14 153 24.74 (Gault) 112 1 Great Plains Camp Yes Yes Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 Yes 56.48 24.92 24.92 19.8 24.92 22.36 22.6 23.76 19.65 3.9 22.3 9.85 15.86 135 36.81 24.92 21.95 21.37 14.91 (Gault) 113 1 Great Plains Camp No No Bell and Williamson, Texas 1 No 23.31 4.83 21.8 15.68 15.33 131 (Gault) 114 3 California Kill Yes Yes Inyo, California obsidian 1 No 53.02 22.51 22.01 22.05 22.51 22.37 22.37 22.15 17.55 4.43 13.2 11.93 15.96 128 31.37 22.51 21.44 18.94 13.72 115 3 California Kill Yes Yes Kern, California obsidian 1 No 42.16 26.8 26.01 15.08 26.01 23.72 24.58 25.13 19.44 3.82 14.8 6.54 14.17 136 27.15 26.8 25.65 17.17 14.29 116 3 California Kill Yes Yes Kern, California 1 No 41.59 23.58 22.58 16.36 22.65 20.44 21.87 22.15 16.44 1.11 14.4 13.47 9.31 162 25.37 23.58 22.23 17.54 12.22 117 3 California Kill Yes Yes Kern, California obsidian 1 No 50.67 24.94 24.87 13.86 24.94 22.15 22.94 24.01 17.69 4.79 17.2 13.5 5.92 121 36.94 24.87 24.15 23.44 15.15 118 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 No 73.31 32.11 30.65 33.41 30.9 25.3 26.84 29.11 19.87 3 15.6 8.57 146 40.46 32.11 31.87 28.54 19.54 119 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 No 66.49 30.78 30.25 25.06 30.25 25.87 27.57 29.68 20.03 2.51 19.8 7.86 150 42 30.78 30.41 27.41 21.65 120 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 No 60.01 30.81 29.92 20.43 29.92 28.62 29.11 29.44 24.98 5.19 19.5 15.37 135 39.65 30.81 30.65 29.6 21 121 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 No 69.74 25.38 24.41 23.43 21.08 22.3 23.19 24.41 2.03 15.4 9.67 149 46.71 25.38 24.89 22.62 16.7 122 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 Yes 35.68 21.49 19.62 9.89 19.62 18.33 18.41 18.73 14.6 1.78 11.6 6.6 149 25.79 21.59 21.25 19.178 13.83 123 2 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Dwinddle, Virginia (Williamson) 1 No 42.17 22.38 21.33 16.11 21.73 20.6 20.52 21.57 17.52 2.92 21.6 13.31 140 26.27 22.38 21.61 19.95 14.19 124 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Cherokee, Alabama 1 No 101.74 40.88 40.51 46.14 40.51 30.52 33.97 38.15 22.63 3 43.6 12.17 20.68 150 55.59 40.88 39.33 35.33 24.43 125 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Choctaw, Alabama 1 No 31.94 23.16 22.93 13.55 23.16 22.78 22.34 22.71 20.85 4.32 11.2 7.37 9.29 132 18.54 23.16 21.29 18.17 11.99 126 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Colbert, Alabama 1 No 27.14 27.33 27.14 23.49 25.64 25.64 20.54 4.12 30.4 21.34 14.02 137

127 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Colbert, Alabama 30.94 27.64 30.94 25.52 27.72 29.69 19.48 5.42 14.8 14.06 119 128 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Colbert, Alabama 1 Yes 71.65 32.05 31.04 23.39 31.04 28.91 29.58 29.86 22.72 1.69 19.8 19.23 18.87 161 48.7 32.05 30.71 27.78 20.13 129 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Colbert, Alabama 1 No 79.16 28.32 28.2 30.57 28.2 25.48 25.95 26.42 21.02 3.2 27.4 27.14 12.52 144 48.94 28.32 26.07 24.65 16.95 130 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Colbert, Alabama 2 Yes 65.73 31.77 31.77 22.4 31.77 30.21 31.46 31.04 23.96 1.67 29.6 26.82 14.64 165 43.44 31.77 30 24.79 18.85 131 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Colbert, Alabama 1 No 59.2 23.22 22.84 22.84 22.84 20.71 20.8 21.19 18.16 3.44 24.5 13.48 12.07 136 35.8 23.22 22.84 21.77 15.87 132 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, Alabama 2 Yes 97.33 28.91 28.21 33.77 28.23 25.31 26.09 27.16 22.68 4.67 44.4 28.71 9.23 132 63.65 28.91 28.13 25.41 17.52 133 4 Southeast Kill No No Lauderdale, Alabama 2 Yes 30.94 37.81 31.02 28.19 28.7 29.22 24.28 5.24 18.4 16.59 16.67 135 134 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 46.08 23.95 22.66 22.32 23.95 23.17 22.91 22.83 20.46 3.8 137 24.1 22.66 20.46 17.63 11.92 135 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 2 Yes 75.21 29.23 29.11 28.4 29.11 26.85 27.57 28.87 22.87 3.68 31.1 14.79 19.68 144 46.58 29.23 28.28 26.74 19.49 136 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 No 115.8 29.59 27.71 28.1 27.71 26.32 25.93 26.82 23.16 3.36 29.8 12.57 14.01 147 87.68 29.59 29.49 27.61 18.21 137 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 Yes 95.98 28.31 27.19 39.15 27.81 23.71 24.94 26.58 18.16 3.38 23.1 17.89 13.03 137 27.04 28.31 27.8 24.94 17.27 138 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 2 Yes 60.67 26.31 26.07 25.06 26.31 27.25 27.31 26.19 21.57 4.38 31.5 23.38 14.78 135 139 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 Yes 22.84 3.89 28.7 27.22 12.86 142 140 3 Southeast Kill No Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 No 29.5 29.04 29.86 29.77 29.59 29.86 23.44 2.91 26.1 22.31 16.66 148 141 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 55.77 24.34 25.42 19.26 2.16 9.72 7.47 155 32.89 142 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 No 75.48 32.69 32.69 32.36 32.69 27.9 29.9 31.09 20.45 4.29 48.8 22.97 19.27 131 43.85 143 4 Southeast Kill no Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 Yes 33.07 33.07 39.18 33.07 30.64 33.34 33.83 21.93 4.76 30 23.99 15.27 124 144 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 30.92 29.91 21.21 29.91 24.75 25.6 26.36 20.48 1.52 10.94 160 145 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lauderdale, Alabama 1 No 75.61 26.64 25.52 27.77 26.55 23.36 23.92 25.8 20.76 3.19 31.8 9.01 17.99 143 48.31 26.64 24.91 20.4 15.9 146 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Yellow Medicine, Minnesota 1 No 48.89 23.8 23.8 16.49 23.8 22.79 26.21 23.39 16.67 3.71 18 12.6 133 32.16 23.8 22.21 20.03 15.37 147 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lawrence, Alabama 1 No 73.9 25.21 24.66 29.83 25.21 21.63 21.99 23.3 18.54 2.95 31.5 14.82 146 44.52 25.12 24.03 21.49 15.41 148 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Limestone, Alabama 3 Yes 68.11 28.4 26.96 23.07 26.96 25.63 25.85 25.96 24.07 3.22 22.8 14.14 147 45.37 28.4 27.29 25.73 19.97 149 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Limestone, Alabama 1 No 25.66 25.36 31.69 25.66 22.8 23.52 24.64 21.06 3.89 20.7 19.73 18.04 138 150 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Limestone, Alabama 1 No 83.55 31.79 31.79 30.41 31.79 27.49 28.87 30.41 18.94 4.61 27.3 14.36 23.47 124 53.29 31.79 29.1 27.95 21.58 151 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Limestone, Alabama 1 No 92.93 32.86 29.15 27.12 29.15 26.44 26.78 27.79 23.58 5.32 26.7 18.76 15.71 127 65.56 32.86 31.85 32.01 25.26 152 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Limestone, Alabama 1 Yes 60.39 24.79 24.02 21.92 24.02 22.78 23.26 23.35 19.43 4.21 31.2 11.57 12.62 133 38.47 24.79 24.21 21.82 17.04

2 153 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Limestone, Alabama 2 Yes 57.04 25.4 24.95 22.51 24.95 19.78 20.76 23.05 16.28 2.97 17.8 5.84 143 34.61 25.4 25.48 22.81 17.42 08 154 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Alabama 2 Yes 51.76 27.65 27.37 20.85 27.37 22.9 24.44 26.07 17.93 2.7 26.4 20.31 8.52 149 31.1 27.65 28.86 25.13 19.88

155 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Alabama 2 Yes 70.16 27.49 26.71 31.15 27.49 25.49 25.61 26.55 25.77 3.1 25.7 24.77 12.44 151 39.13 26.71 25.16 20.61 13.3 156 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Madison, Alabama 1 No 75.26 30.88 29.59 28 29.59 27.2 26.81 27.2 24.83 5.36 17.1 12.71 18.77 128 47.36 30.88 30.88 27.88 19.56 157 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marshall, Alabama 1 No 45.62 24.27 24.27 19.2 24.27 21.11 21.86 23.06 17.95 1.45 16.2 14.99 11.47 165 26.07 24.27 23.26 20.55 15.04 158 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Morgan, Alabama 41.02 20.65 20.65 14.33 20.65 18.45 18.91 20.15 15.54 2.27 11.2 144 26.75 20.65 19.44 16.603 11.57 159 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Morgan, Alabama 1 No 84.64 29.68 28.62 29.68 28.77 25.04 25.5 27.48 22.93 2.28 23.8 20.02 14.02 156 55.11 29.68 28.31 27.4 19.48 160 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 Yes 104.18 25.75 24.86 25.75 25.16 23.31 23.53 24.12 21.01 2.59 34.3 23.82 18.7 149 78.58 25.75 25.6 22.12 16.87

161 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 52.56 21.69 21.25 18.45 21.32 18.08 19.77 20.88 15.89 2.87 10.4 11.33 136 34.62 21.69 20.73 17.93 11.39 162 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 3 Yes 112.18 36.76 36.76 33.45 36.76 33.96 35.29 36.02 28.74 2.21 37.6 18.18 161 79.1 36.76 35.21 30.72 20.51 163 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 47.652 28.49 28.49 14.54 28.49 25.75 27.45 27.6 21.76 3.7 33.2 16.2 141 33.52 28.49 26.79 22.05 14.13 164 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 37.96 14.13 13.76 11.1 13.76 12.8 13.25 13.54 9.81 1.29 12.2 8.3 152 26.93 14.13 13.17 12.65 8.92 165 1 Great Plains Kill No Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 35.66 34.85 29.75 35.66 34.63 33.67 35.96 28.95 2 24.9 24.59 164 166 1 Great Plains Kill No Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 21.65 21.42 17.69 21.42 18.44 19.18 20.15 15.08 1.79 12.6 14.56 155 167 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 3 Yes 45.72 25.44 25.07 15.84 25.07 24 24.37 25.03 19.85 2.72 27.9 8.09 149 30.14 25.07 23.52 20.95 13.97 168 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 1 No 45.36 25.07 25.07 12.94 25.07 22.64 23.23 24.04 19.92 2.17 17.5 14.74 153 32.49 25.07 23.3 19.26 12.28 169 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Roosevelt, New Mexico (Blackwater Draw) 58.66 22.17 21.69 11.72 21.93 21.2 21.74 22.13 18.08 3.61 136 46.58 22.17 21.5 17.69 11.94 170 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Adams, Pennsylvania 1 Yes 20.46 20.36 18.59 20.36 18.85 18.7 19.27 17.09 3.32 10.4 8.21 12.24 133 171 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Allegheny, Pennsylvania 1 Yes 59.94 22.64 22.64 18.9 22.64 20.67 21.04 21.2 19.27 4.4 17.3 13.91 18.3 129 41 22.4 21.98 17.78 11.36 172 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Allegheny, Pennsylvania 1 Yes 39.11 23.06 23.06 18.36 23.06 21.08 21.24 22.15 15.81 2.55 18 10.04 18.71 142 20.91 23.06 21.74 17.87 11.24 173 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Berks, Pennsylvania 1 No 28.38 16.22 14.72 15.16 16.22 16.02 15.54 15.44 14.65 2.01 17.5 11.45 7.54 147 13.39 14.72 13.18 10.62 6.56 174 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Berks, Pennsylvania 1 No 40.31 24.16 23.25 13.1 24.16 24.39 24.44 23.53 21.09 4.59 26.1 25.63 12.97 135 27.05 23.25 19.84 15.81 11.45 175 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Berks, Pennsylvania 2 Yes 37.3 20.97 20.21 12.18 20.85 20.91 20.34 20.21 19.38 3.35 27.7 23.93 9.9 144 25.06 20.97 19.38 17.53 11.48 176 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Berks, Pennsylvania 1 Yes 35.13 20.29 19.03 14.63 20.29 19.36 19.09 19.45 16.76 3.56 31.6 17.12 12.97 137 20.41 19.15 18.85 16.87 12.69 177 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Bradford, Pennsylvania 1 Yes 58.71 27.55 26.76 27.39 27.55 26.76 26.37 26.84 23.62 6.36 21.1 16.88 13.25 125 31.16 26.76 22.68 20.64 15.07

178 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Butler, Pennsylvania 1 No 23.07 20.99 20.99 23.3 20.94 21.57 21.86 17.25 4.1 18.9 15.55 131 179 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Cambria, Pennsylvania 2 Yes 39.67 21.28 20.99 13.78 21.28 20.7 21.42 21.49 16.74 2.02 17.5 14.93 10.35 125 26.18 20.99 19.91 16.51 11.61 180 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Chester, Pennsylvania 2 Yes 159.89 36.5 35.29 39.03 35.62 31.98 33.41 34.24 26.7 7.37 36.5 36.4 22.11 122 120.74 36.5 35.95 32.42 24.37 181 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Clearfield, Pennslyvania 1 No 75.89 27.46 27.26 25.72 27.26 26.82 26.65 26.82 26.07 5.5 39.9 38.64 19.25 134 50.4 27.46 27.34 23.75 18.65 182 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Clinton, Pennslyvania 1 No 74.13 28.48 28.22 24.23 28.42 26.78 26.91 27.57 25.09 4.98 23.9 20.89 14.7 139 50.3 28.48 28.16 24.29 17.68 183 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 71.1 29.64 29.3 25.9 29.3 26.64 27.26 27.54 23.34 4.71 28.1 26.66 18.31 136 45.1 29.64 28.06 24.59 17.72 184 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 49.36 24.08 21.99 23.31 24.08 22.79 22.47 21.59 20.79 3.61 25.1 15.63 15.13 146 26.36 21.99 20.87 18.18 14.08 185 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 93.66 24.87 24.32 27.06 24.79 22.75 22.91 23.53 17.49 3.61 22.6 14.61 15.98 135 66.91 24.87 24.24 23.14 17.81 186 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Tioga, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 32.96 19.76 19.06 14.73 19.76 19.34 18.99 18.71 15.62 1.47 12.8 6.62 9.05 159 18.15 19.06 17.53 15.85 10.27 187 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Tioga, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 64.35 26.93 26.28 27.58 26.93 25.52 25.74 26.06 22.69 3.68 24.4 20.01 16.2 138 37.09 26.82 25.74 22.49 15.68 188 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Pennslyvania 1 No 51.09 23.62 22.68 21.44 23.62 23.36 22.94 23.51 19.16 5.05 27.1 19.61 14.96 127 29.6 22.68 20.6 17.48 12.12 189 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 54.44 24.24 24.24 23.01 24.24 23.11 23.83 24.45 19.63 1.95 28.8 24.76 16.51 158 31.43 24.24 21.57 19.1 14.18 190 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Pennslyvania Fossiliferous 1 No 42.32 20.3 19.95 17.98 20.3 19.44 19.78 19.61 18.24 3.1 9.79 143 24.38 19.95 18.84 16.77 11.44 191 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Venango, Pennslyvania 1 No 46.25 26.07 25.82 23.22 26.07 23.31 24.43 25.17 16.72 3.67 27.5 27.02 14.48 134 23.3 25.82 23.4 19.69 15.19 192 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Warren, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 58.29 27.55 27.15 22.18 27.55 27.65 27.55 28.25 25.16 5.17 23.9 16.69 131 25.9 27.26 25.36 19.6 12.14 193 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Warren, Pennslyvania 1 No 30.89 33.77 30.89 28.2 28.74 29.73 26.49 5.84 25.7 23.35 20.69 133 194 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Pennslyvania 1 No 63.95 26.47 26.47 27.84 26.47 23.4 24.4 25.3 19.7 2.96 25.9 10.32 15.34 148 36.42 26.47 25.3 22.66 16.52 195 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 48.14 23.18 22.82 19.7 23.18 20.37 20.55 22.56 14.1 3.66 36.5 23.54 13.46 131 28.44 22.82 21.31 19.7 12.44 196 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 93.85 29.43 27.41 39.87 29.43 29.28 28.08 28 24.36 4.96 26.6 19.67 19.06 134 54.65 27.41 24.48 21.15 16.97 197 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Pennslyvania 1 No 62.79 23.53 23.29 20.4 23.29 21.4 21.76 22.35 17.15 1.92 18.1 15.73 15.08 155 42.33 23.53 23.24 19.87 12.3 198 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Westmoreland, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 42.85 25.75 25 17.31 25.75 24.53 24.66 24.94 21.33 3.27 19.6 19.08 14.02 150 25.62 25 24.6 22.21 14.44 199 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Westmoreland, Pennslyvania 2 Yes 64.05 23 23 26.7 23 21.42 21.98 22.32 19.98 3.48 22.4 17.16 10.26 140 37.58 23 20.86 18.73 14.13 200 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Westmoreland, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 31.8 19.97 19.61 16.27 19.97 19.48 18.98 19.11 17.69 3.7 20.5 13.25 13.3 138 15.84 19.61 17.87 15.53 11.2 201 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wyoming, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 31.1 19.47 18.9 12.9 19.47 18.97 18.65 18.46 18.39 3.67 20.9 18.71 13.26 136 18.46 19.153 18.77 17.45 13.53 202 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes York, Pennslyvania 2 Yes 70.24 25.77 25.4 26.14 25.4 23.68 24.3 24.74 19.87 3.78 30.6 23.19 15.28 138 44.47 25.77 24.85 23.43 17.94 203 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes York, Pennslyvania 1 Yes 46.24 23.92 23.92 19.23 23.92 22.08 22.58 22.99 17.93 6.02 15.8 11.12 15.99 116 27.01 23.92 20.99 17.93 11.71

2 204 4 Northeast Kill No Yes York, Pennslyvania 1 No 24.06 22.38 24.06 20.9 21.49 22.87 18.84 1.92 24.7 16.76 17.62 155 09 205 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes York, Pennslyvania 2 Yes 35.46 20.84 20.03 10.38 20.92 19.95 20.32 20.77 15.13 2.3 13.8 12.46 8.65 144 25 20.03 18.25 14.46 9.49

206 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Abbeville, South Carolina 1 No 42.69 17.78 16.95 16.51 16.95 16.4 16.4 16.95 12.26 2.47 22 16.81 12.19 135 26.42 17.78 16.68 16.74 11.67 207 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Aiken, South Carolina 1 No 53.94 24.71 24.71 27.04 27.71 21.02 22.77 23.41 16.58 0.78 19.7 18.56 15.15 165 27.49 24.07 23.22 20.49 14.36 208 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 2 Yes 56.14 30.78 29.79 27.43 30.78 28.22 28.81 29.5 20.88 4.62 26.4 18.58 14.84 123 28.71 30.78 27.04 24.29 15.73 209 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 1 No 78.96 30.44 30.44 34.25 30.44 26.32 26.8 28.38 23.78 3.88 25.5 20.22 18.74 143 44.71 30.44 29.49 26.55 20.29 210 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 1 Yes 85.06 31.31 30.7 35.14 31.31 31.14 31.14 31.57 27.25 7.57 36.8 15.48 15.63 123 49.92 30.7 26.89 22.61 14.96 211 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 2 Yes 85.92 31.02 30.62 37.23 30.62 26.03 27.65 29.61 25.7 3.37 24.4 18.01 14.18 150 48.83 31.02 30.08 25.63 17.67 212 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 1 Yes 56.79 31 29.64 22.44 29.64 25.76 26.5 27.15 17.65 2.4 25.4 8.22 15.79 151 34.44 31 30.29 29.96 19.48 213 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Barnwell, South Carolina 38.29 21.29 20.54 14.85 21.29 20.6 20.79 20.98 18.32 3.16 14.1 144 23.06 20.54 18.32 14.72 9.35 214 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Beaufort, South Carolina 2 Yes 42.46 24.23 24.23 19.36 24.23 22.36 22.11 23.48 18.25 1.37 14.1 11.74 10.96 164 23.48 24.23 21.98 17.67 13.55 215 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Beaufort, South Carolina 2 Yes 25.51 33.8 25.51 24.22 24.49 24.95 23.12 3.13 28.3 20.66 149 216 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Beaufort, South Carolina Crystal Quartz 2 Yes 43.39 23.3 23.3 16.51 23.3 21.93 22.38 22.23 17.58 1.3 10.9 9.09 6.16 160 27.04 23.3 22.69 20.93 14.21 217 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Berkeley, South Carolina 1 Yes 48.14 23.44 23.13 21.48 23.44 22.97 23.28 23.52 19.28 5.19 18.1 16.13 15.42 124 26.75 23.13 22.42 19.67 14.47 218 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Berkeley, South Carolina 3 Yes 62.96 30.21 28.58 24.31 28.58 24.22 24.68 26.22 21.68 2.9 26.1 17.23 152 39.01 30.21 30.12 27.85 20.32 219 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Berkeley, South Carolina 1 Yes 85.16 26.4 25.62 34.51 26.59 27.08 26.59 26.89 19.95 7.33 26.8 16.92 10.81 110 50.06 25.62 23.66 19.06 12.03 220 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Clarendon, South Carolina 1 Yes 47.76 25.76 22.52 25.12 25.76 24.52 23.56 23.08 21.91 2.88 22.9 21.79 14.23 147 22.52 25.76 20.91 17.71 11.94 221 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Darlington, South Carolina 2 Yes 47.93 22.14 21.37 18.39 22.14 20.09 20.61 21.63 17.55 2.81 26.9 12.34 8.25 145 29.88 21.54 20.6 19.84 13.96 222 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Darlington, South Carolina 1 No 59.79 28.77 28.77 30.85 28.77 25.34 26.58 27.73 21.02 3.04 24.9 13.75 15.15 149 28.85 28.77 26.7 22.38 15.99 223 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Dillon, South Carolina 1 No 25.14 23.26 27.99 25.14 24.99 25.21 24.31 20.7 4.8 33.1 20.49 17.66 123 224 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dillon, South Carolina 1 Yes 52.34 24.8 24.15 23.17 24.8 21.94 22.26 23.37 19.92 2.34 9.57 7.81 10.64 155 28.97 24.35 23.37 19.65 14.71 225 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Greenville, South Carolina 1 Yes 40.93 23.91 22.23 18.71 23.91 23.47 22.94 22.32 19.06 1.2 19.6 11.2 14.38 160 22.7 22.23 18.77 14.32 8.64 226 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Hampton, South Carolina 1 Yes 44.49 23.94 23.94 16.78 23.94 23.34 23.64 23.84 18.07 3.67 9.44 7.07 138 27.71 23.94 21.75 17.68 11.62 227 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jasper, South Carolina 2 Yes 53.61 20.12 19.83 21.46 19.83 18.77 18.38 19.35 17.81 3.27 20.6 7.7 8.18 140 32.43 20.12 19.44 17.09 12.9 228 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jasper, South Carolina 3 Yes 35.1 17.16 16.42 17.49 17.16 17.04 16.87 16.93 15.24 3.05 12.1 6.83 7.19 138 17.89 16.42 15.01 12.7 9.09 229 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Kershaw, South Carolina 1 Yes 70.85 32.02 31.6 30.69 31.6 26.28 27.53 30.02 21.96 6.32 28.4 22.02 121 39.92 32.02 31.19 27.69 19.38

230 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lancaster, South Carolina 1 No 54.52 22.48 22.15 27.59 22.48 21.76 21.03 20.9 20.05 2.42 17.7 8.65 15.25 152 26.87 22.15 20.38 17.17 10.68 231 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lancaster, South Carolina 1 No 48.41 27.14 21.82 2.81 9.15 16.93 148 21.31 232 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lexington, South Carolina 1 No 51.69 20.5 19.84 21.53 20.5 19.77 19.99 20.72 17.28 3.08 25.9 14.72 12.44 143 30.02 19.84 17.87 15.67 10.84 233 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Orangeberg, South Carolina 1 Yes 51.25 20.36 19.78 20.46 20.36 19.49 19.52 20.07 16.03 2.83 22.3 14.37 12.84 140 30.79 19.78 18.03 15.25 10.67 234 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes York, South Carolina 2 Yes 35.42 16.27 15.99 15.45 16.27 15.27 15.18 15.72 12.59 2.08 13.6 12.29 8.07 143 20.24 15.99 15 13.1 9.44 235 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Waukesha, Wisconsin 1 No 62.92 18.42 17.95 29.61 18.42 17.49 17.88 17.95 14.06 2.19 29 21.9 10.1 146 33.71 17.49 16.45 13.18 8.81 236 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Wisconsin 1 No 66.09 34.24 32.65 29.86 29.86 29.2 31.85 34.11 21.63 3.72 15.3 21.4 145 36.23 33.11 32.58 29.33 20.64 237 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Crawford, Wisconsin 1 No 46.5 19.67 19.67 16.49 19.67 17.22 17.81 19.21 15.38 1.66 16 11.13 10.75 161 30.14 19.67 19.21 17.62 12.78 238 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dane, Wisconsin 1 No 76.98 23.23 22.89 35.57 23.16 18.91 21.04 22.1 13.9 4.25 42 13.74 18.29 117 41.4 23.23 21.5 17.91 13.07 239 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dane, Wisconsin 1 No 53.49 23.76 22.83 27.87 23.76 23.62 23.62 23.49 20.11 3.78 15.1 14.13 10.55 139 25.95 23.03 21.37 17.92 13.01 240 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dane, Wisconsin Quartzite 1 No 75.18 25.3 23.86 22.05 24.72 23.21 23.42 24.36 15.12 1.59 21.3 11.02 14.53 147 53.2 25.3 24.87 25.16 18.07

241 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dane, Wisconsin 1 No 38.6 26.17 22.48 17.86 26.17 26.46 26.89 24.87 19.3 3.33 7.16 6.65 10.81 146 20.89 22.7 20.53 15.69 9.18 242 2 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dane, Wisconsin 1 Yes 36.29 20.17 17.64 15.47 20.17 20.17 19.88 18.87 14.45 3.76 11.9 6.72 11.28 122 20.89 17.86 15.83 12.94 8.17 243 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dodge, Wisconsin 1 No 45.03 15.08 14.64 18.91 15.08 14 13.64 14.94 9.45 1.01 19.5 13.71 11.55 155 25.83 14.94 14.79 12.7 9.02 244 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dodge, Wisconsin 48.06 19.63 19.19 16.67 19.48 17.82 18.11 18.26 13.35 1.59 13.8 12.88 152 31.6 19.63 19.27 18.4 14 245 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, Wisconsin 1 Yes 37.09 14.29 14.29 15.73 14.29 12.12 12.7 13.64 9.31 1.88 17.8 10.57 9.49 140 21.32 14.29 12.32 11.33 7.97 246 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, Wisconsin 1 No 27.78 13.6 12.52 10.5 13.6 13.24 13.21 12.95 12.05 2.81 15.5 7.36 8.59 130 17.32 12.52 11.37 10.07 6.93 247 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Langlade, Wisconsin 17.1 17.1 22.8 17.1 15.08 15.8 16.52 10.18 0.87 165 248 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Mantiwoc, Wisconsin Quartzite 1 No 49.14 15.3 15.15 20.2 15.15 13.85 14 14.14 12.2 3.32 11.6 7.43 11.69 122 29.01 15.3 14.65 13.06 9.89 249 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Mantiwoc, Wisconsin Quartzite 1 No 33.55 14.14 14.14 12.84 14.22 13.85 14 14.22 12.72 2.96 10.6 8.3 9.67 126 20.93 14.14 13.49 11.11 7.87 250 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Monroe, Wisconsin 1 No 44.02 19.77 19.05 20.35 19.77 17.03 18.62 19.63 12.04 2.02 11.7 5.56 8.95 143 23.74 19.05 10.68 251 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Monroe, Wisconsin 1 No 42.57 19.99 19.48 20.85 19.99 16.24 17.5 19.48 12.5 1.52 17.6 5.84 9.45 151 21.94 19.48 18.83 15.8 9.96 252 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Portage, Wisconsin Quartzite 1 No 77.06 25.4 24.82 28.21 25.4 19.48 22.44 23.23 15.23 3.32 20.3 17.25 13.06 133 48.78 25.15 22.95 20.13 16.31 253 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Racine, Wisconsin 1 No 49.24 18.33 17.86 13.18 17.86 15.65 15.73 16.3 12.93 3.03 11.6 10.79 6.82 132 36.06 18.33 17.6 16.3 11.96 254 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Sheboygan, Wisconsin 1 Yes 47.16 17.99 16.51 17.47 17.99 16.95 17.16 17.25 15.18 1.82 15.7 6.93 10.43 153 29.82 16.95 15.08 14.17 10.53

21 255 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Sheboygan, Wisconsin 1 No 31.6 18.83 18.83 13.57 18.83 17.53 17.51 18.54 12.96 4.15 10.6 9.06 11.19 117 18.11 18.83 17.68 15.58 11.08 256 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Wisconsin 2 Yes 55.85 25.33 24.39 21.36 25.33 24.32 25.04 25.18 18.42 2.38 25.3 9.71 12.77 154 34.49 24.89 24.53 22.8 16.02 0

257 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Washington, Wisconsin 1 Yes 35.14 15.55 14.36 16.6 15.44 14.65 14.71 15.51 12.15 2.16 13.5 8.34 138 18.72 15.55 14.68 13.06 9.2 258 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dupage, Illinois 1 Yes 127.38 31.69 30.74 40.22 30.85 26.85 28.21 28.85 22.71 4 24.4 12.53 137 86.96 31.69 31.27 30.04 22.74 259 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Knox, Illinois 2 Yes 53.67 26.77 26.22 23.88 26.77 25.39 26.35 26.69 22.21 3.59 21.3 11.04 144 29.66 26.49 22.35 20.35 14 260 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 1 Yes 44.08 20.97 20.38 20.35 20.97 20.63 20.56 21.04 19.64 4.76 13.4 12.14 129 23.87 20.56 19.25 15.45 10 261 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes LaSalle, Illinois Quartzite 1 No 90.79 27.99 26.07 42.85 27.99 26.8 26.89 27.26 21.94 6.75 41.2 20.51 19.6 115 48.23 26.08 24.52 22.24 15.77 262 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes LaSalle, Illinois Quartzite 1 No 120.32 33.25 33.25 33.8 33.25 20.84 29.25 30.91 25.94 7.17 52 19.04 122 86.37 33.25 21.73 26.49 19.25 263 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes McClean, Illinois 1 No 85.48 31.6 31.39 34.77 31.6 26.63 28.56 30.63 21.25 4.35 41.7 21.11 135 50.91 31.39 29.6 26.28 18.42 264 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Scioto, Ohio 2 Yes 88.08 34.48 34.48 34.47 34.48 29.82 30.34 32.32 25.35 8.45 53 41.71 14.56 112 53.69 34.48 31.28 27.49 20.34 265 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Schuyler, Illinois 1 No 104.11 31.63 31.54 41.89 31.54 27.23 28.92 30.55 22.41 7.84 28.4 22.58 15.43 108 62.05 31.63 30.85 28.26 20.94 266 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Morgan, Illinois 1 Yes 121.48 31.85 31.26 36.81 31.26 26.74 27.48 29.55 24.53 2.96 27.2 18.89 19.05 151 85.33 31.85 31.93 30.59 22.67 267 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Henry, Tennessee 1 Yes 113.51 33.88 33.27 42.14 33.61 28.96 31.46 33.18 24.19 5.26 71.7 37.32 17.07 134 72.05 33.88 32.58 28.78 19.56 268 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes DeKalb, Tennessee 1 No 110.24 32.46 31.58 42.6 31.58 27.43 27.96 29.46 24.43 6.79 46.1 23.29 21.16 124 67.73 32.46 32.9 29.72 22.67 269 3 Southwest Kill Yes Yes Montezuma, Colorado 2 Yes 99.8 35.68 35.34 38.18 35.34 32.75 32.58 33.78 30.46 4.14 26.6 19.39 15.82 146 61.88 35.68 32.66 26.98 18.53 270 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 No 106.35 31.54 31.54 45.6 31.54 28.53 29.48 30.6 16.99 3.79 33.5 22.24 18.79 135 60.67 31.54 30.42 26.37 19.22 271 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 No 106.7 32.35 32.15 36.8 32.23 28.96 30.42 31.03 22.98 7.67 38.4 23.61 16.72 115 70.33 32.15 31.11 29.39 23.01 272 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Scioto, Ohio 1 No 85.84 29.13 28.7 33.27 28.7 24.74 25.17 26.29 21.22 4.31 36.6 27.58 14.31 134 53.18 29.13 28.7 26.37 19.31 273 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Scioto, Ohio 1 No 94.46 28.61 28.53 32.84 28.53 24.91 25.86 26.98 22.68 3.36 54 28.96 22.25 149 61.88 28.61 28.18 25.59 19.56 274 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Maury, Tennesee 1 No 65.68 25.17 25.08 28.7 25.17 23.01 23.1 24.65 17.56 4.48 19.2 13.1 15.56 125 36.97 25.08 22.84 19.82 13.88 275 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Illinois 1 No 54.47 25.51 25.42 26.46 25.51 21.12 22.24 24.39 18.04 5.09 29.7 28.96 15.38 124 28.44 25.51 23.31 21.02 15.77 276 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Coles, Illinois 2 Yes 28.2 27.94 37.08 27.94 22.06 23.37 25.82 19.35 3.34 16.3 6.59 138 28.2 277 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 1 No 91.36 34.46 34.46 42.76 34.46 27.01 28.7 31.58 24 2.24 30.6 25.34 18.79 158 48.6 34.46 32.94 28.194 19.73 278 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Clair, Illinois 1 No 87.22 36.45 34.65 35.16 34.65 26.89 28.01 31.97 24.31 3.45 35.2 17.15 148 52.4 36.45 35.94 32.49 22.84 279 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Perry, Illinois 1 No 86.18 30.68 29.65 37.4 29.65 22.29 24.48 27.32 16.03 3.79 33.6 17.71 18.19 133 48.61 30.68 30.25 27.49 21.03 280 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Ohio 1 No 120.83 33.53 33.53 42.83 33.53 29.56 30.25 31.8 24.48 6.03 33.4 20.43 17.58 126 78.08 33.53 32.92 28.59 21.12

281 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 no 57.4 23.36 23.01 10.77 23.36 23.53 23.18 23.01 22.22 5 46.1 21.98 133 46.71 23.01 21.29 18.53 13.96 282 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 1 Yes 52.06 15.6 15.6 21.37 15.6 14.44 14.48 14.74 13.44 0.87 22.7 7.41 13.41 166 30.68 15.6 14.35 12.84 8.75 283 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Illinois 3 Yes 68.52 26.37 25.6 21.8 25.6 23.18 23.79 24.13 19.91 2.07 22.4 13.79 7.22 157 47.06 26.37 25.77 23.01 16.63 284 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Warren, Ohio 1 No 124.11 28.79 27.32 33.27 27.32 23.01 22.53 26.03 19.51 3.84 36.6 18.53 21.12 139 91.01 28.79 27.67 25.86 18.79 285 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Ohio 1 No 102.81 30.37 30.22 35.41 30.22 25.93 27.3 28.48 22.26 4.33 52.4 48.18 137 68 30.37 28.89 26.29 19.18 286 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Coshocton, Ohio 1 Yes 88.94 28.53 28.18 33.96 28.35 25.6 26.54 27.41 23.76 6.29 46.4 27.32 19.61 125 55.16 28.35 27.32 24.82 16.72 287 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Pike, Illinois 1 No 126.17 31.11 29.99 36.46 30.17 25.6 26.72 28.79 21.12 5.26 47.1 13.53 18.92 132 89.82 31.11 30.68 27.83 21.46 288 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes LaSalle, Illinois 1 No 113.94 29.13 29.13 28.96 28.96 26.2 26.72 27.67 20.86 4.4 38 36.63 16.2 138 84.81 29.13 28.18 25.33 20.17 289 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Howard, Arkansas 1 Yes 122.24 30.46 29.58 29.58 29.58 27.43 27.92 28.31 25.47 6.67 19.5 18.37 9.14 122 92.86 30.46 29.78 29.97 24.29 290 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 1 Yes 150.06 39.97 38.3 39.28 39.28 35.26 35.56 37.32 28.93 3.05 47.5 26.64 23.35 151 110.75 39.97 39.62 38.1 28.62 291 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Ross, Ohio 2 Yes 160.86 52.07 50.29 52.07 50.29 38.44 44.11 48.09 24.13 5.67 67.4 36.75 24.74 130 108.71 52.07 48.43 44.54 30.81 292 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wabash, Illinois 1 No 139.62 49.64 46.28 43.44 46.28 33.79 39.21 42.92 22.94 6.21 60 53.95 19.22 125 97.22 49.64 48.78 47.49 35.08 293 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St Genevieve, Missouri 1 Yes 166.52 50.15 48.19 63.08 48.39 36.05 41.24 26.04 26.37 7.3 58.1 52.4 19.56 122 104.02 50.15 46.85 46.42 35.56 294 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Missouri 1 Yes 147.12 41.53 40.06 43.1 40.06 32.42 35.26 38.49 25.97 9.65 40.5 26.42 14.87 108 104.41 41.53 41.53 38.102 27.13 295 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 124.79 43.09 41.28 45.33 41.28 32.66 36.2 38.96 24.99 8.32 42.4 40.33 19.22 110 79.63 43.09 42.75 38.69 29.22 296 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Boone, Missouri 1 No 115.66 33.18 30.51 31.63 30.51 27.32 27.75 29.22 22.63 1.44 35.3 33.01 19.61 166 83.94 33.18 32.71 31.89 24.3 297 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 No 107.21 29.65 29.39 35.64 29.39 25.81 27.02 27.84 23.36 4.09 26.9 25.42 19.52 141 71.88 29.65 29.13 27.32 21.98 298 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Saline, Missouri 1 Yes 101.77 27.6 26.63 29.99 26.63 24.25 24.78 25.58 19.97 4.86 22.2 17.73 17.5 127 72.14 27.6 27.25 25.137 19.4 299 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Warren, Missouri 1 No 98.77 36.29 34.82 31.11 34.82 32.66 33.36 34.3 27.49 6.38 52.9 30.42 19.22 131 67.4 36.29 35.51 33.09 23.79 300 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 94.98 30.94 30.34 33.09 30.51 28.7 29.48 29.82 22.69 7.33 37.6 36.54 18.14 112 62.05 30.94 29.39 28.44 20.08 301 4 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 Yes 22.84 21.72 21.5 15.69 21.55 21.37 20.81 21.16 17.43 3.88 18.4 15.6 13.19 132 17.32 21.72 21.2 17.79 11.89 302 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 39.99 17.06 16.85 15.36 16.85 16.16 16.42 16.12 13.28 1.9 19.8 19.48 8.36 150 24.78 17.06 16.46 14.48 10.17 303 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 43.61 21.93 21.93 17.37 21.93 20.77 21.2 21.59 16.42 3.71 20.9 18.62 15.57 132 26.03 21.59 19.78 16.55 11.51 304 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 47.83 18.66 18.4 16.76 18.66 18.06 18.27 18.23 15.42 2.76 22.4 14.44 12.28 136 30.86 18.4 17.84 16.8 11.12 305 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 49.86 26.25 24.73 18.81 26.25 25.37 26.05 25.91 21.71 6.32 21.6 17.65 15.74 116 31.44 24.73 23.07 19.59 14.25 306 4 Great Plains Kill No Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 22.53 22.33 18.61 22.33 19.3 20.32 21.45 16.36 2.25 24.5 19.69 11.98 147

211 307 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 2 Yes 54.36 25.86 25.86 18.9 25.86 23.8 23.75 23.7 20.42 5.58 25.9 21.99 8.94 127 35.65 25.86 25.18 20.87 14.74 308 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 2 Yes 58.18 28.21 26.74 15.67 28.21 28.31 28.31 27.69 26.08 6.44 18.8 13.34 7.41 127 42.22 26.74 24.64 20.67 14.01

309 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 65.53 25.87 24.49 25.17 24.59 24.1 23.12 23.9 19.86 2.55 26 24.45 147 40.45 25.86 25.47 23.08 16.55 310 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Boone, Missouri 1 No 80.32 28.7 28.7 38.18 28.7 25.77 27.32 27.58 22.18 5.95 28.3 15.83 123 42.14 28.7 26.72 24.48 18.01 311 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Howard, Missouri 1 No 77.74 26.2 24.05 23.1 24.22 22.32 23.23 23.79 20.14 4.87 15.1 14.5 7.41 127 54.99 26.2 26.2 24.22 18.53 312 4 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Missouri 1 No 81.19 29.14 28.87 31.29 29.39 26.29 27.07 27.84 23.17 6.55 44 20.25 18.44 122 50.59 29.14 28.87 25.25 18.27 313 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Lincoln, Missouri 2 Yes 84.12 33.87 33.61 30.68 33.87 31.03 32.06 32.23 24.99 7.07 38.9 15.43 117 53.61 33.61 32.06 30.42 21.2 314 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis Missouri, 1 No 82.91 27.41 26.89 23.87 26.89 26.2 26.72 26.54 21.31 6.29 21.9 11.2 12.89 114 59.29 27.41 26.8 26.2 19.91 315 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 86.87 25.34 23.7 25.25 23.87 23.27 23.27 23.87 19.13 8.02 19.3 8.64 11.94 100 61.71 25.34 24.91 24.65 20.43 316 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 52.4 20.68 20.3 15.68 20.3 18.18 18.7 19.43 15.3 2.2 20 18.08 143 36.8 20.68 19.74 16.81 11.81 317 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Butler, Missouri 1 No 53.09 26.11 26.11 21.72 26.11 25.94 25.08 25.51 20.71 3.75 31.2 31.16 19.31 138 32.06 26.11 25.17 21.89 15.77 318 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 56.71 24.05 23.73 19.31 23.73 21.29 21.81 23.1 18.53 4.74 23 22.84 17.28 124 37.15 24.05 22.49 19.9 13.79 319 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 No 65.5 26.12 26.11 25.25 26.11 24.22 24.82 25.25 21.39 2.5 33.3 21.89 15.34 152 40.25 26.12 24.91 21.63 16.81 320 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 No 68.95 21.72 20.08 28.1 21.72 21.37 20.94 21.03 20.79 6.03 20.5 17.67 16.64 119 40.68 20.08 18.02 16.29 11.98

321 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 70.24 27.88 27.88 30.72 27.88 24.74 26.46 27.06 20.9 5.82 15.3 13.45 120 36.94 27.88 26.55 23.701 16.64 322 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, Missouri 1 No 66.02 25.08 25.08 23.79 25.08 21.81 22.32 23.87 18.1 3.62 17 13.53 7.11 137 42.66 25.08 24.05 21.37 16.12 323 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 No 70.15 28.35 27.23 31.73 27.23 23.79 24.3 25.6 23.02 4.35 26.5 16.63 8.96 139 38.61 28.35 28.7 26.97 19.91 324 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, Missouri 1 no 69.12 22.58 20.43 15.26 20.43 19.39 19.69 20.43 15 1.68 9.95 6.03 10.77 152 54.12 22.58 21.63 22.32 17.84 325 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Missouri 1 no 71.88 23.96 23.96 33.53 23.96 23.53 23.7 24 18.41 3.71 20.8 19.31 15.94 136 38.43 23.96 22.15 19.22 14.05 326 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 no 74.29 26.89 26.2 25.86 27.41 26.46 26.89 27.41 22 7.5 32.1 9.65 13.44 113 49.04 26.54 25.6 22.32 15.17 327 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Callaway, Missouri 1 no 75.5 27.06 27.06 33.87 27.06 22.32 23.7 25.12 18.55 5.17 26.9 20.34 15.9 122 41.8 27.06 25.68 22.06 14.91 328 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 2 Yes 76.87 28.61 26.2 24.22 26.2 22.24 22.41 24.13 20.19 3.79 17.8 11.12 13.01 134 52.66 28.61 28.96 26.89 21.12 329 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, Missouri 1 Yes 75.84 26.55 26.55 32.66 26.55 22.49 23.01 25.17 18.79 2.67 20.5 12.32 150 43.35 26.55 25.3 22.19 17.19 330 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 78.26 26.89 26.89 29.73 26.89 23.36 24.82 25.77 19.05 4.22 41.2 19.74 13.62 134 48.35 26.89 26.03 23.36 17.76 331 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 no 114.19 35.08 33.78 40.77 33.96 30.86 31.29 32.58 25.86 4.31 67.2 48.09 18.1 141 103.77 35.08 34.3 33.35 26.29

332 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Illinois 2 Yes 129.77 31.11 29.56 42.67 29.56 25.93 27.18 28.15 22.4 4.41 17.6 17.63 11.44 140 87.55 31.11 30.67 28.073 21.41 333 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Illinois 1 No 125.66 30.18 29.67 37.57 29.84 26.23 26.81 28.83 23.79 4.46 49.9 49.47 17.99 135 87.92 30.18 29.92 26.73 20.81 334 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Sandusky, Ohio 1 No 126.17 34.39 33.53 40.25 34.39 30.9 32.23 32.45 27.02 6.55 77.9 48.44 20.77 129 85.67 34.39 33.18 29.3 20.77 335 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Pike, Illinois 1 No 110.49 35.68 35.68 32.84 35.68 31.11 32.41 34.13 24.66 6.12 44.9 39.82 22.32 125 78.06 35.68 35.94 33.18 26.54 336 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wabash, Illinois 1 Yes 100.58 28.96 28.96 38.7 28.96 25.68 25.51 26.98 24.26 5.39 34.7 19.99 133 61.71 26.98 29.39 25.59 20.94 337 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Hancock, Ohio 1 Yes 98.94 31.46 30.43 33.74 30.51 26.37 28.96 29.79 21.2 4.61 35.3 26.89 15.39 132 65.5 31.46 30.77 28.61 20.94 338 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Cole, Missouri Quartzite 1 No 93.51 26.67 26.2 26.47 26.67 24.74 25.34 26.54 21.29 7.15 31.2 30.68 14.57 110 67.22 26.54 25.34 21.2 16.98 339 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 No 91.3 29.65 28.98 32.73 29.17 26.93 27.72 28.38 22.55 5.92 37 25.3 19.99 124 59.05 29.65 29.17 27.23 20.17 340 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Clair, Illinois 1 Yes 82.74 28.18 28.18 23.18 28.18 26.59 26.54 27.11 23.61 2.5 13.7 8.71 156 59.81 23.18 26.89 24.56 18.92 341 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Effingham, Illinois 1 Yes 86.1 24.65 24.43 26.03 24.48 22.41 23.23 23.53 20.71 2.97 18.4 15.25 9.44 148 59.81 24.65 23.36 21.71 16.98 342 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Illinois 1 Yes 83.6 30.51 29.95 27.36 29.95 26.24 27.23 29.04 23.28 5.56 38.8 24.13 20.64 129 56.19 30.51 29.35 24.99 20.04 343 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes White, Indiana 1 No 80.35 25.57 25.57 25.91 25.57 24.81 24.98 24.89 22.61 5.25 24.2 22.75 11.33 132 54.44 25.57 23.23 21.16 15.49 344 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Illinois 1 No 51.5 24.44 24.13 22.11 24.13 21.8 22.45 23.14 19.19 3.75 23.4 16.12 14.57 131 29.56 24.44 23.14 19.56 13.36 345 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Ross, Ohio 1 Yes 59.04 27.19 27.19 26.46 27.19 25.34 26.16 26.54 22.53 3.62 45.7 37.53 18.06 142 32.84 27.19 24.61 21.98 15.77 346 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Illinois 1 No 86.7 32.2 29.22 27.36 29.22 25.34 25.98 27.24 21.3 3.36 42.8 39 17.93 146 59.21 32.2 31.97 30.5 24.22 347 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Licking, Ohio 1 No 84.63 28.1 27.05 32.45 27.23 23.1 24.74 26.8 21.35 2.59 36.3 19.13 19.22 153 52.23 28.1 28.01 25.68 18.44 348 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Trousdale, Tennessee 1 Yes 80.15 29.22 28.61 25.6 28.61 25.94 26.89 27.58 24.05 5.95 38.4 15.56 128 54.19 29.22 29 26.37 19.85 349 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Illinois 2 Yes 74.81 26.29 25.86 28.44 25.86 23.01 24.05 25.25 20.37 2.94 26.5 21.72 12.76 150 46.45 26.29 26.63 24.39 18.18 350 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Clair, Illinois 1 No 86.87 25.6 24.82 26.29 24.82 22.97 23.18 23.7 21.57 4.18 14.3 11.72 16.63 139 60.33 25.6 25.64 22.75 17.75 351 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Illinois 1 Yes 92.82 29.17 24.91 23.79 24.91 23.27 23.93 24.7 19.5 5.09 16.9 15.04 13.96 125 68.86 29.17 29.04 28.74 22.41 352 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Clair, Illinois 1 Yes 92.37 24.15 22.81 24.22 23.04 20.44 21.7 22.15 15.24 4.67 44 29.89 13.7 120 68.29 24.15 24.3 23.77 18.96 353 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Knox, Illinois 1 No 95.15 34.13 31.03 28.18 31.03 26.76 28.48 29.91 22.42 6.08 43.5 37.92 19.05 124 66.88 34.13 34.13 33.48 26.46 354 1 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Medina, Ohio (Paleo Crossing) 1 Yes 96.7 29.73 27.92 30.25 29.73 25.08 25.42 26.98 21.86 4.87 38.6 28.7 14.48 133 66.71 29.73 29.65 27.622 20.47 355 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Illinois 1 No 94.46 33.44 32.92 31.63 32.92 29.65 30.94 32.66 25.42 6.21 40.7 16.12 15.25 128 62.74 33.44 32.41 29.65 22.06 356 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 1 No 64.18 25.1 23.96 18.12 24.05 22.65 23.33 23.66 18.26 3.73 33.3 20.87 14.61 133 46.31 25.1 24.94 21.125 15.62 357 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Illinois 1 No 62.4 23.23 22.67 26.16 22.67 18.44 19.91 21.07 16.25 4.22 16.4 15.04 7.54 127 36.11 23.23 22.19 20.42 15.09

212 358 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Illinois 1 No 76.7 23.05 23.05 22.97 23.05 21.85 22.32 22.71 20.07 4.61 22.4 13.27 12.5 129 53.87 23.05 20.34 17.58 12.76 359 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Illinois 66.19 26.46 25.94 28.01 25.94 18.87 20.34 22.32 32.41 3.15 136 38.44 26.46 23.92 18.4 11.81

360 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Illinois 1 Yes 72.91 28.92 28.79 31.59 29 25.98 26.89 27.79 23.4 3.28 12.4 7.24 10.39 148 41.11 28.92 26.93 24.09 16.5 361 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jersey, Illinois 2 Yes 67.57 27.84 27.67 25.94 27.84 25.38 26.5 27.45 22.31 5 32.5 27.71 13.58 132 41.89 27.67 25.81 22.67 15.43 362 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Union, Illinois 1 No 23.1 22.41 19.52 23.01 21.37 22.02 22.24 18.72 4.91 25.9 21.03 13.22 123 23.1 363 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Stark, Illinois 1 No 28.7 27.58 21.63 27.58 24.3 25.04 26.54 19.38 4.35 19.2 14.31 8.84 134 28.7 364 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes St. Louis, Missouri 1 Yes 56.19 31.54 27.15 26.2 31.54 30.12 28.61 28.05 28.66 7.89 14.9 13.83 14.44 122 29.73 31.54 24.65 20.51 12.88 365 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wood, West Virginia 1 Yes 53.49 27.45 27.1 22.58 27.24 25.54 26.53 26.74 22.34 3.32 18.8 15.91 16.94 146 31.33 27.45 24.56 21.73 15.17 366 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wood, West Virginia 1 Yes 68.39 25.67 25.46 29.78 25.51 24.13 24.77 25.62 21.15 6.23 24.5 14.28 108 38.88 25.67 23.22 19.39 12.68 367 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Wood, West Virginia 1 Yes 71.38 22.85 22.43 26.85 22.85 21.04 20.99 22 19.5 5.17 21.9 18.64 11.96 122 44.74 22.68 22.8 20.03 15.34 368 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baker, Georgia 1 No 74.97 30.96 30.65 27.47 30.96 29.67 29.14 30.5 23.73 4.4 20.2 13.85 138 47.95 30.65 29.06 26.63 20.11 369 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baker, Georgia 1 No 132.06 37.86 35.97 27.86 8.24 33.63 33.85 34.74 28.42 8.35 20.3 11.47 18.1 120 93.99 37.86 37.08 35.21 25.39 370 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baker, Georgia 3 Yes 73.6 27.46 27.46 32.98 27.46 24.81 25.72 27.3 21.7 2.24 61.4 13.48 13.36 156 40.73 27.3 25.18 23.52 17.18 371 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baldwin, Georgia 2 Yes 113.02 36.64 36.02 47.77 36.64 32.32 35.54 35.94 25.77 7.5 44.2 13.77 118 65.33 36.38 34.7 29.66 18.76 372 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baldwin, Georgia 1 No 87.55 28.28 28.28 29.36 28.28 26.7 27.25 27.65 24.41 6.85 34.3 22.52 20.18 121 58.27 28.28 25.76 23.86 18.1 373 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Baldwin, Georgia 1 No 26.28 26.28 14.59 26.28 24.42 24.77 25.52 17.97 2.92 19.7 10.76 154 26.28 374 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Baldwin, Georgia 2 Yes 51.6 20.17 19.43 16.42 20.04 19.77 19.63 20.04 15.36 1.37 13.9 13.77 7.61 161 35.52 20.17 19.84 18.16 14.74 375 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Barrow, Georgia 2 Yes 69.42 35.99 35.72 33.09 35.99 29.82 31.27 33.56 24.39 1.12 27.9 19.47 10.48 168 36.42 35.72 33.79 29.67 21.25 376 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Bartow, Georgia 2 Yes 20.3 20.18 21.42 20.18 17.1 17.46 18.34 13.51 1.78 15.3 10.65 6.92 146 377 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Bartow, Georgia 2 Yes 43.49 22.05 21.17 20.71 22.05 20.71 21.64 22.05 15.05 2.41 16 8.38 8.91 140 23.31 21.17 19.3 14.14 8.38 378 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Ben Hill, Georgia 1 Yes 41.65 20.66 19.76 13.12 19.76 18.94 19.14 19.7 12.9 2.45 22.5 7.81 11.61 137 28.58 20.66 19.75 17.2 11.74 379 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Berrien, Georgia 1 no 98.71 33.96 33.96 40.49 33.96 27.29 28.96 31.79 25.09 4.37 20.1 15.4 16.3 142 58.45 33.96 32.87 29.72 22.34 380 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Bibb, Georgia 3 Yes 61.22 30.13 27.7 29.44 30.13 29.44 29.51 28.75 25.03 6.47 27.6 27.44 14.72 123 31.91 27.7 25.59 21.52 16.09 381 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Bleckley, Georgia 1 no 55.92 23.73 23.59 27.65 23.65 19.67 20.36 21.94 16.72 1.72 13.6 10.94 154 28.48 23.59 21.6 18.78 12.93 382 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Brooks, Georgia 2 Yes 123.6 39.09 34.3 29.06 34.35 29.79 31.57 33.57 28.83 3.45 35 23.16 18.99 149 94.87 39.09 38.19 38.19 31.74 383 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 56.62 24.12 23.52 30.82 24.12 22.11 22.92 23.85 18.23 2.14 25.7 23.12 16.08 154 26.13 23.52 21.24 17.29 11.73

384 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 Yes 57.69 27.13 26.09 21.99 26.09 23.59 23.67 24.78 21.62 3.43 12.4 12.3 11.7 144 35.78 27.13 27.06 23.67 16.29 385 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 62.83 26.97 26.84 26.65 26.84 22.21 23.92 25.89 18.09 2.67 28 145 36.24 26.97 26.34 23.48 15.23 386 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 34.5 24.13 23.75 15.5 24.13 24.13 23.91 23.58 19.14 3.49 26.1 21.62 20.64 140 19.05 23.75 20.74 16.65 10.32 387 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 2 Yes 34.39 22.42 21.53 13.94 22.42 21.83 22.42 21.73 17.73 4.29 15.3 6.21 15.47 129 20.4 21.53 18.67 14.04 9.36 388 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 2 Yes 92.32 41.88 39.99 36.93 39.99 39.63 39.63 39 30.55 4.68 27.6 5.83 10.86 146 55.66 41.88 42.06 39.09 27.92 389 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 56.15 25.33 23.85 24.79 23.85 17.89 19.16 21.71 15.06 1.88 21.3 5.83 26.3 154 31.63 25.33 25.33 23.45 17.29 390 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 86.28 27.92 26.48 23.87 26.48 25.49 25.4 25.58 23.33 3.15 33.8 23.24 14.19 148 62.87 27.92 27.56 24.99 17.02 391 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 39.54 25.7 23.02 16.34 25.7 24.77 24.59 24.48 21.28 4.59 16.2 22.04 136 23.31 23.49 20.81 17.5 12.5 392 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 80.98 30.24 29.11 23.79 29.11 28.12 27.86 27.99 25.2 2.81 23.8 23.88 153 57.28 30.24 32.79 31.14 23.01 393 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 62.12 26.02 26.02 22.82 26.02 24.83 24.66 25.08 20.86 4.33 15.3 10.76 133 39.41 26.02 25.51 22.62 17.63 394 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 58.19 25.51 24.59 24.33 24.53 22.51 21.2 22.96 21.55 4.24 25.3 14.83 137 34.05 25.51 25.18 22.31 16.11 395 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, Georgia 1 No 49.91 24.12 23.25 19.1 23.25 21.04 20.84 21.31 18.44 1.81 12 10.75 18.7 156 30.29 24.12 24.12 20.84 14.61 396 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Georgia 1 No 43.67 27.24 27.24 21.18 27.24 25.79 25.66 26 24.42 4.13 26.3 23.52 20.02 143 22.29 27.24 25.04 21.8 14.17 397 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Clarke, Georgia 1 No 35.12 21.98 21.98 12.27 21.98 20.76 20.93 21.22 17.21 2.56 17.6 13.66 10 146 22.79 21.98 19.65 17.04 11.28 398 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Clay, Georgia 2 Yes 57.59 25.49 24.38 25.72 25.49 24.52 24.3 23.93 20.13 4.03 27.6 22.66 14.84 142 31.75 24.97 23.7 22.14 15.88 399 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Clinch, Georgia 1 No 60.25 25.04 25.04 21.05 25.04 21.94 22.01 24.97 18.46 1.51 30 17.27 163 39.21 25.04 25.04 24.56 23.94 400 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Coffee, Georgia 1 No 62.2 27.77 27.35 27 27.35 23.05 23.53 25.55 19.02 3.47 26.4 15.34 15.83 140 35.54 27.77 26.66 23.18 16.38

401 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Coffee, Georgia 1 No 51.27 24.19 24.19 25.67 24.19 19.9 20.91 23.25 17.65 2.48 37.5 10.19 14.6 153 25.46 24.19 22.85 20.17 13.8 402 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Georgia 1 Yes 53.66 23.26 22.4 21.41 23.26 23.39 23.19 23.06 19.77 3.7 22.2 13.79 136 32.05 22.4 21.61 19.43 14.47 403 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Georgia 2 Yes 70.83 28.02 26.37 17.58 26.37 22.99 23.72 24.85 16.32 1.32 11.6 9.3 160 53.32 28.02 27.82 25.64 18.83 404 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Georgia 1 No 64.04 29.43 29.43 38.88 29.43 24.58 27.04 28.52 20.2 1.64 41.6 17.92 160 25.4 29.43 27.37 23.02 15.37 405 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Georgia 2 Yes 103.52 30.43 29.05 33.62 29.05 24.68 25.96 28.19 21.81 3.94 36.9 18.71 140 69.79 30.43 29.74 26.01 21.39 406 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Cook, Georgia 2 Yes 53.21 21.24 21.24 24.68 21.24 20.47 21.03 21.45 17.95 2.45 17.6 12.95 149 28.53 21.24 20.4 18.3 12.62 407 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Crawford, Georgia 2 Yes 45.99 23.66 23.32 18.24 23.33 22.27 22.33 22.99 19.3 5.35 14.1 12.03 11.9 122 28.02 23.33 22.86 21.34 16.19 408 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dodge, Georgia 2 Yes 67.2 30.2 29.21 25.69 29.21 26.74 26.86 28.31 22.22 2.15 26.6 20.06 16.7 159 41.4 30.2 29.42 27.21 20.23

213 409 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dodge, Georgia 2 Yes 59.43 28.36 27.08 26.21 27.08 23.34 25.17 26.17 18.91 1.87 26.2 18.48 6.51 157 33.14 28.36 26.77 26.53 20.47 410 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dooly, Georgia 1 No 57.56 28.95 28.95 19.48 28.95 27.5 27.44 27.5 17.52 1.4 17.9 17.48 162 38.26 28.95 28.55 26.11 17.73

411 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dooly, Georgia 1 No 102.23 30.89 30.89 39.6 30.89 27.8 29.21 29.96 24.15 5.8 34.6 27.34 19.66 131 62.44 30.89 29.68 27.06 20.45 412 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dooly, Georgia 1 Yes 67.95 31.03 30.95 31.63 31.03 26.65 28.56 30.67 18.72 2.55 20.6 13.3 15.95 149 36.32 30.95 28.92 25.65 18.16 413 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Dougherty, Georgia 2 Yes 45.35 22.27 22.27 19.53 22.27 22.09 21.86 22.15 20.84 4.19 22.5 14.42 7.2 137 26.51 22.27 20.58 16.22 10.41 414 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Early, Georgia 1 Yes 79.38 32.77 31.75 33.78 31.75 26.42 27.18 29.53 22.36 3.43 20.1 19.51 145 45.34 32.77 32.64 27.62 21.02 415 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Echols, Georgia 1 Yes 37.17 35.93 40.57 35.93 28.46 30.53 33.77 21.08 3.57 33.9 21.51 139 416 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Echols, Georgia 1 Yes 52.53 26 25.66 22.18 25.66 21.11 22.11 24.46 17.89 2.68 11.8 13.3 146 30.42 26 25.26 21.17 14.54 417 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Elbert, Georgia 1 Yes 54.3 19.68 19.56 23.11 19.68 17.86 18.14 19.19 16.37 4.44 23 11.93 123 31.35 19.68 18.71 16.4 10.63 418 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Georgia 1 No 108.72 37.21 36.86 46.86 36.86 26.63 30.29 33.72 17.97 1.8 39.65 18.69 153 61.75 37.21 36.16 33.08 25.35 419 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Fannin, Georgia 1 Yes 29.88 17.91 17.15 13.72 17.91 18.08 17.97 17.91 15.37 3.14 25.6 24.27 13.89 131 16.45 17.15 14.65 12.59 8.43 420 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Floyd, Georgia 1 No 44.07 31.86 31.86 19.75 31.86 31.02 31.44 31.36 23.47 7.71 34.1 14.89 113 24.66 31.86 28.64 24.49 17.46 421 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gordon, Georgia 1 No 58.43 25.4 23.48 27.61 25.4 25.33 24.66 24.52 22.99 5.09 33 24.59 13.78 132 30.56 23.48 21.64 19.37 14.68 422 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gordon, Georgia 1 Yes 124.72 34.02 33.82 53.29 34.02 28.9 30.9 32.9 25.42 5.12 62 38.02 15.67 137 71.53 33.82 33.51 31.67 24.7 423 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Greene, Georgia Crystal Quartz 1 44.44 25 24.84 20.04 25 22.82 22.87 23.37 18.45 3.22 17.7 15.01 11.61 143 24.62 24.84 23.8 20.35 15.01 424 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Greene, Georgia 1 no 30.96 19.65 18.73 17.38 19.65 19.15 19.23 19.49 16.3 1.9 8.1 8.08 152 13.62 18.73 15.01 13.62 6.71 425 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Hall, Georgia 1 no 22.3 21.87 26.11 21.87 21.38 21.52 22.01 16.67 2.21 21.6 14.75 11.1 143 426 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Hart, Georgia 1 Yes 76.91 24.75 24.07 26.57 24.07 22.46 22.92 23.43 18.03 2.08 24.8 24.58 14.67 153 50.34 24.75 23.56 22.46 18.81 427 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Henry, Georgia Quartzite 1 Yes 37.63 22.36 21.29 16.59 22.15 22.31 22.2 21.18 18.43 4.03 8.73 7 135 20.88 22.36 19.24 16.54 10.11 428 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Houston, Georgia 1 no 36.02 17.05 15.47 15.35 17.05 16.48 16.33 16.04 15.42 2.07 15.4 10.15 12.77 152 20.74 15.47 14.78 12.47 7.98 429 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Irwin, Georgia 2 Yes 67.38 28.86 28.61 26.28 28.61 24.84 25.12 27.38 20.75 3.32 18.3 11.1 143 41.2 28.86 27.59 24.02 16.4 430 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jenkins, Georgia 1 no 44.61 20.43 20.07 16.45 20.27 18.32 18.32 19.2 15.35 1.67 21.8 7.85 13.06 156 28.2 20.07 19.64 17.65 12.47 431 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jones, Georgia 1 no 100.89 31.86 30.12 33.77 30.12 25.33 25.75 28.62 20.66 3.32 40 14.29 145 67.04 31.86 32.03 32.02 25.31 432 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Laurens, Georgia 1 No 35.99 21.69 21.45 14.83 21.69 20 20.47 21.57 15.03 2.62 25.1 22.91 13.18 138 21.05 21.45 20 18.2 13.37 433 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Laurens, Georgia 1 Yes 56.13 31.56 30.88 26.08 31.56 30.4 32.09 31.41 23.5 1.95 22.8 20.18 16.67 162 30.05 30.88 29.52 25.49 19.2 434 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Laurens, Georgia 1 Yes 57.14 26.25 24.66 21.78 26.25 24.85 24.05 24.58 23.78 4.82 34.8 15.82 20.4 134 35.43 24.66 21.25 19.35 13.73

435 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 1 Yes 64.01 25.17 24.07 29.3 25.17 23.6 24.54 25.23 20.38 5.06 39.2 35.36 12.26 127 34.71 24.59 23.43 19.65 13.49 436 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 2 Yes 61.84 28.51 24.98 20.23 24.98 20.59 20.95 22.25 16.2 2.09 18.1 13.61 10.8 140 41.54 28.51 27.72 27.57 20.38 437 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 2 Yes 73.02 28.92 28.13 30.87 29.82 25.72 26.84 28.09 21.25 4.61 22.1 16.26 12.32 135 42.32 28.13 25.31 23.23 17.34 438 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 2 Yes 32.44 31.58 41.27 32.44 29.85 30.63 31.93 24.82 7.62 48.7 38.76 14.29 117 439 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 1 Yes 68.98 30.93 28.39 24.32 28.39 26.61 26.1 27.63 23.22 4.7 28.6 19.45 21.96 138 44.66 30.93 30.34 29.15 21.31 440 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lee, Georgia 2 Yes 81.82 31.27 30.71 27.24 30.71 28.83 28.65 29.02 26.23 7.49 27.8 24.48 11.51 121 55.05 31.27 30.61 27.9 19.8 441 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lincoln, Georgia 1 No 38.95 23.43 23.08 17.44 23.08 22.15 22.21 22.38 19.65 3.49 8.66 6.51 7.26 140 21.4 23.08 21.74 17.73 10.17 442 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Macon, Georgia 2 Yes 48.28 24.49 24.21 20.7 24.49 22.9 24.49 24.45 16.58 1.58 18.1 6.89 151 27.44 24.21 22.25 19.1 12.79 443 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Miller, Georgia 1 No 65.41 25.34 23.45 25.84 23.64 23.64 23.64 23.6 20.37 4.14 25 17 135 39.61 25.34 24.43 22.76 18.97 444 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Miller, Georgia 28.84 28.49 21.8 28.84 25.99 26.28 28.31 21.94 2.97 18 150 445 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Miller, Georgia 1 Yes 74.89 31.92 31.83 30.33 31.92 31.45 32.2 32.2 27.99 9.64 27.3 26.28 15.3 111 44.75 31.83 28.46 24.15 16.2 446 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Mitchell, Georgia 2 Yes 58.88 28.2 27.99 24.49 27.99 26.65 26.62 27.24 22.32 6.26 22.3 14.44 122 34.46 28.2 27.72 24.97 16.16 447 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Mitchell, Georgia 1 Yes 58.39 27.01 26.85 28.05 27.01 23.38 23.98 24.9 20.56 2.67 23 5.5 13.87 147 30.43 26.96 26.13 22.59 14.98 448 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Oconee, Georgia 1 Yes 35 19.88 18.75 9.59 19.88 19.68 19.48 19.07 17.81 1.57 13.8 17.52 157 25.52 18.75 18.2 16.04 10.06 449 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Putnam, Georgia 1 No 63.28 33.16 32.93 28.07 32.93 30.27 30.12 31.22 27.39 4.63 19.7 19.05 22.67 143 35.28 33.16 32.17 28.11 21.36 450 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Randolph, Georgia 1 No 90.62 33.14 31.64 35.85 31.64 25.93 26.91 28.97 22.28 2.53 33.6 30.1 18.59 155 54.86 33.14 32.11 30.24 22.98 451 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Richmond, Georgia 1 No 49.01 20.64 20.64 21.75 20.64 19.42 19.54 19.77 17.33 1.51 21.1 11.6 158 27.27 20.64 20.12 18.43 12.73 452 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Screven, Georgia 1 No 53.34 23.12 22.72 20.24 22.72 21.84 21.78 21.91 19.7 3.82 9.85 9.72 14.01 141 33.37 23.12 23.05 21.44 16.28 453 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Telfair, Georgia 2 Yes 83.71 27.32 25.73 28.99 25.73 22.16 23.03 23.63 19.15 2.78 16.2 9.21 147 54.88 27.02 25.53 21.44 17.39 454 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Turner, Georgia 1 Yes 67.08 24.58 23.98 28.04 23.98 20.68 20.6 22.42 18.34 1.78 15.1 12.47 157 38.85 24.58 24.24 20.98 15.14 455 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Turner, Georgia 2 Yes 40.02 22.63 21.73 9.58 22.63 20.63 20.86 22.46 13.49 2.65 17.1 17.14 137 30.32 22.63 21.02 17.89 12.12 456 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Turner, Georgia 1 Yes 60.97 28.24 28.06 26.29 28.06 26.08 26.44 27.16 23.01 3.47 8.57 9.6 147 34.86 28.06 23 17.4 9.73 457 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Turner, Georgia 1 Yes 34.4 19.55 19.55 15.98 19.55 17.2 17 18.27 13.03 1.38 9.67 10.76 155 18.78 19.55 17.87 15.01 10.36 458 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Webster, Georgia 2 Yes 33.12 30.98 31.18 30.98 28.2 28.04 30.22 22.17 2.94 31.3 31.22 11.04 151 459 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Whitfield, Georgia 3 Yes 20.95 20.39 17.29 20.95 20.55 20.67 20.95 17.25 5.82 19.3 18.44 7.41 109 460 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wilcox, Georgia 2 Yes 107.19 33.51 32.2 42.31 32.2 26.68 28.83 30.52 22.38 5.06 33.6 16.85 133 64.87 33.51 32.44 30.33 22.89

21 461 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wilkes, Georgia 2 Yes 80.76 32.71 32.2 37.71 32.2 28.31 29.75 30.85 20.93 2.46 28.6 27.72 13.56 154 42.97 32.71 32.03 27.46 18.64 462 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wilkinson, Georgia 1 Yes 68.28 26.47 25.97 33.13 25.97 25.03 25.03 25.6 21.99 3.47 21.6 14.18 142 34.94 26.47 25.46 23.25 16.42 4

463 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wilkinson, Georgia 1 No 42.56 22.56 22.27 17.04 22.56 21.34 22.03 22.3 15.74 3.28 9.48 9.3 9.88 134 25.52 22.27 20.99 16.72 9.85 464 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Worth, Georgia 1 Yes 59.57 24 22.7 23.59 22.7 18.3 19.12 20.43 15.78 2.13 10.5 12.17 147 36.04 24 23.66 21.32 14.58 465 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Worth, Georgia 1 Yes 66.27 24.5 24.5 29.62 24.5 22.16 21.86 22.33 17.99 3.98 28.7 17.97 16.02 133 36.95 24.5 22.92 19.54 14.15 466 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Humphrey's, Tennessee 1 No 119.73 32.41 32.37 52.6 32.41 29.95 31.25 31.97 24.51 8.9 40.6 33.98 12.34 108 66.88 32.27 30.58 26.2 17.7 467 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, Missouri 1 Yes 136.2 52.1 48.75 45.73 48.75 36.99 42.38 45.97 25.66 10.62 31.9 31.36 19.77 100 90.97 52.1 51.89 48.63 32.5 468 4 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Arkansas 1 No 147.63 52.82 50.61 54.02 50.61 39.08 44.46 46.42 31.6 8.45 98.1 55.3 28.84 123 94.04 52.82 52.82 47.28 33.71 469 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Worchester, Maryland 2 Yes 27.25 19.95 19.95 8.97 19.95 18.33 18.92 19.66 15.89 1.74 15.6 9.94 153 18.3 19.95 18.4 15.39 9.3 470 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Maryland 1 Yes 53.26 23.24 22.34 25.27 23.24 22.6 22.85 23.18 21.18 3.03 16.7 15.62 149 27.7 23.11 21.3 19.62 14.72 471 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 3 Yes 64.18 30.11 28.89 29.84 30.11 29.02 29.09 29.3 25.97 6.34 18.5 15.2 127 34.2 28.89 26.16 21.6 12.6 472 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 1 Yes 43.9 22.79 22.15 15.3 22.15 19.56 20.53 21.11 13.21 2.03 15.3 12.85 147 28.66 22.79 22.01 19.82 13.69 473 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Maryland 1 no 71.92 31.7 31.7 25.89 31.7 27.95 29.75 31.12 18.21 2.84 35.6 16.01 140 46.29 31.7 30.41 27.89 21.05 474 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 2 Yes 50.03 22.21 21.7 20.85 21.7 20.01 20.21 20.79 17.74 2.13 20.1 9.43 143 29.37 22.21 21.3 17.82 12.59 475 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Caroline, Maryland 1 Yes 59.52 28.8 28.8 26.34 28.8 26.99 26.79 27.44 23.69 2.97 22.3 20.6 153 33.12 28.8 27.11 24.6 18.46 476 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Maryland 2 Yes 45.45 20.14 20.14 20.14 20.14 19.75 19.53 19.76 16.61 2.74 15.1 9.11 143 25.24 20.14 19.24 16.5 11.56 477 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Maryland Crystal Quartz 1 no 41.45 21.95 20.14 17.75 21.95 20.95 21.63 21.08 17.3 1.19 13.1 9.94 164 23.63 20.72 19.79 17.5 12.33 478 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Montgomery, Maryland 1 no 28.92 26.73 30.6 26.73 24.86 24.92 25.37 22.07 1.87 22 16.79 162 479 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Charles, Maryland 1 no 41.06 18.72 18.4 13.69 18.4 17.46 18.08 18.56 14.3 2.78 16.6 11.94 138 27.31 18.72 18.27 13.56 9.04 480 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Calvert, Maryland 1 no 16.98 14.85 16.59 16.98 16.62 16.08 15.88 14.7 1.84 10.7 15.04 145

481 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 47.04 19.44 18.87 25.73 19.44 18.84 19.58 19.52 14.06 3.17 18.9 131 21.54 18.87 16.95 13.37 8.56 482 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 1 Yes 59.14 28.28 27.18 22.72 28.28 28.41 27.7 28.02 22.47 5.81 14.9 15.56 124 36.66 27.18 25.18 21.76 14.72 483 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida Quartzite 1 No 74.51 28.44 27.47 26.89 27.47 24.91 25.43 26.47 21.87 3.92 27.9 24.07 19.37 140 47.75 28.44 28.25 25.63 18.56 484 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Columbia, Florida Quartzite 1 Yes 75.22 30.19 27.47 25.6 27.47 25.46 25.59 26.63 20.86 2.92 24.8 14.51 12.12 149 49.63 30.19 29.87 27.05 19.47 485 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, Florida 3 Yes 69.37 27.3 27.3 26.19 27.3 22.22 23.12 25.7 21.22 3.31 19.9 17.36 10.55 148 42.81 27.3 26.74 24.29 17.3

486 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Taylor, Florida 1 Yes 71.1 30.42 28.42 29.5 28.42 24.71 24.65 26.99 23.62 4.39 22.2 16.72 13.69 140 41.88 30.42 30.01 27.68 20.77 487 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 Yes 76.5 34.09 29.88 26.32 29.88 22.35 23.01 26.08 20.97 3.01 22.3 20.66 12.44 151 50.36 34.09 33.67 31.14 24.03 488 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 No 86.47 29.55 27.31 28.36 29.55 17.67 18.96 22.84 14.07 2.58 19.5 14 11.39 139 57.83 29.55 29.65 27.38 19.52 489 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gilchrist, Florida 1 No 72.7 25.08 24.19 28.42 24.19 22.79 22.14 23.11 19.49 5.61 22.1 21.46 17.91 120 44.51 25.08 24.9 23.43 18.44 490 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 Yes 63.4 24.58 23.69 20.95 23.69 20.37 21.31 22.47 15.37 1.63 21.1 16.26 14.71 156 42.21 24.58 23.89 22.47 16.42 491 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 Yes 65.61 26.33 25.36 23.27 25.36 23.05 23.32 24.4 19.07 3.44 24.5 16.23 15.1 142 42.56 26.33 25.9 23.75 17.73 492 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 2 Yes 70.41 21.87 21.62 28.3 21.62 17.95 18.69 20.24 15.6 2.4 24.4 14.99 7.82 147 42.09 21.87 21.44 19.95 15.42 493 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 2 Yes 55.24 21.51 21.06 19.51 21.06 19.77 19.7 20.42 16.97 2.72 15.4 14.37 8.12 142 35.87 21.51 21.51 19.86 15.93 494 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 Yes 65.37 23.32 22.5 25.93 22.5 17.76 18.36 20.43 12.93 1.63 17.3 14.27 11.77 147 39.98 23.32 23.15 20.6 14.93 495 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 Yes 54.3 18.04 18 16.18 18 16.77 17.32 17.57 14.74 1.5 15.3 14.32 11.2 160 38.26 18.04 17.72 16.27 12.33 496 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 No 47.96 19.16 18.88 19.65 18.88 19.2 18.64 18.8 18.7 3.07 18.5 11.74 12.14 145 28.24 19.16 18.72 17.47 12.99 497 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Union, Florida 1 Yes 25.15 22.15 21.84 25.15 24.17 22.02 21.66 20.98 6.25 13.7 12.15 16.46 118 498 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 No 101.87 29.68 25.02 32.05 25.1 19.05 19.7 22.24 16.61 3.27 21.9 14.72 14.35 132 69.82 29.68 28.21 28.45 21.5 499 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Levy, Florida 1 No 71.8 23.3 22.4 25.81 22.4 20.31 20.01 21.39 16.97 2.57 21.6 13.44 13.56 149 45.88 23.3 23.36 20.72 15.42 500 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 Yes 53.9 23.73 22.53 22.07 22.53 19.3 18.47 20.04 16.87 2.44 17.9 10.87 14.24 148 31.79 23.73 23.77 20.92 15.02 501 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 Yes 90.7 29.99 26.87 28.28 26.87 22.84 22.84 24.96 22.35 2.97 20.5 11.81 14.07 150 61.94 28.99 28.49 27.15 19.94 502 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Levy, Florida 1 Yes 68.7 32.69 32.69 25.09 32.69 29.09 29.09 30.58 24.83 4.58 16.4 12.29 17.72 139 43.61 32.69 31.32 25.95 17.26 503 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gilchrist, Florida 1 No 85.36 28.61 26.52 30.02 28.61 27.13 28.21 28.47 22.19 3.57 23.4 19.32 18.7 144 55.67 27.73 26.86 25.55 19.32 504 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Marion, Florida 1 No 25.81 25.21 29 25.27 21.7 23.32 24.46 20.26 2.76 16.7 13.91 14.18 149 505 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Leon, Florida 1 No 105.85 36.63 35.62 44.02 35.62 27.3 29.7 32.59 26.08 4.28 30.8 16.21 21.51 144 62 36.63 35.63 32.3 21.63 506 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 Yes 48.2 24.15 21.8 17.03 21.08 20.85 20.4 20.58 19.62 4.28 11.7 10.58 14.3 132 31.3 24.15 24.05 21.45 16.4 507 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, Florida 1 No 82.47 28.88 27.91 29.77 28.88 27.46 27.69 27.84 25.01 7.55 17.2 7.11 16.23 119 52.55 27.91 26.24 23.93 16.75 508 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Florida 2 Yes 57.6 25.28 24.3 17.74 24.81 23.23 23.65 24.63 18.67 5.24 15.3 13.87 8.16 121 40.07 25.28 24.95 23.47 16.65 509 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 2 Yes 52.68 25.48 24.91 22.61 24.46 20.05 21.2 23.05 16.89 2.08 14.1 9.45 8.21 149 30.16 25.48 24.29 19.51 12.36 510 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 No 100.81 30.97 30.7 40.53 30.94 29.5 30.3 30.94 24.55 5.12 40.6 29.6 20.15 131.95 60.12 30.86 30.22 25.9 16.87 511 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 1 Yes 90.77 34.26 32.76 34.64 32.76 25.02 26.3 30.51 21.78 2.48 19.5 15.11 11.46 154 56.5 34.26 33.96 30.05 20.96

21 512 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 Yes 56.31 26.24 25.03 21.16 25.03 21.72 21.69 22.87 19.23 3.36 21 15.73 12.24 141 35.15 26.24 26.04 23.88 17.9 513 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Taylor, Florida 1 Yes 59.74 24.22 24.01 27.58 24.01 20.11 20.22 21.82 18.59 3.15 22 19.31 14.35 141 32.7 24.22 23.58 20.48 13.82 5

514 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, Florida 1 No 68.64 29.82 28.42 23.73 28.42 26.29 26.77 27.56 23.13 3.59 39 15.33 20.99 147 45.52 29.82 28.42 27.26 20.26 515 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gilchrist, Florida 1 Yes 66.52 27.73 27.26 27.42 27.42 25.1 25.58 26.58 22.31 2.79 28.6 15.16 153 39.26 27.73 26.74 23.79 17.26 516 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 2 Yes 57.26 24.87 23.79 20.05 23.79 22.17 21.99 23.02 18.83 3.02 13.3 7.75 12.16 144 37.3 24.87 24.33 21.04 13.74 517 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 3 Yes 85.06 30.5 29.64 33.23 30.5 29.44 29.37 30.1 26.21 8.37 17.8 13.23 8.51 116 51.7 29.64 28.91 25.78 17.11 518 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 1 Yes 62.64 28.52 28.32 27.07 28.32 22.1 23.23 25.8 19.32 2.3 12.1 11.14 16.03 154 35.51 28.57 26.62 23.78 16.78 519 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 2 Yes 39.53 25.4 25.01 20.63 25.4 24.48 23.41 23.88 20.94 2.92 21 10.61 18.84 148 18.97 25.01 22.82 19.3 13.13 520 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida Crystal Quartz 1 Yes 34.94 20.69 20.06 14.88 20.06 17.08 16.51 18.31 13.17 1.06 9.18 6.3 7.25 161 20.27 34.94 19.34 18.32 14.59 521 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Florida 3 Yes 31.01 31.01 24.9 31.01 26.5 28.1 29.94 22.17 3.06 18.8 10.46 8.94 149 522 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 no 61.32 27.05 24.47 21.63 24.47 22.86 22.26 22.98 20.85 1.82 15.1 13.27 17.22 161 39.77 27.05 26.33 24.76 17.81 523 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 Yes 31.81 15.03 14.67 12.42 14.67 13.56 13.4 14.18 10.6 1.83 5.36 2.94 2.89 146 19.49 15.03 14.28 13.09 9.07 524 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 Yes 57.06 28.18 27.21 24.88 28.18 24.66 24.76 25.69 21.89 2.82 20.1 16.69 17.32 125 32.39 28.18 26.81 25.15 18.89 525 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Pinellas, Florida 1 Yes 65.77 21.36 20.79 18.94 21.06 20.87 20.25 20.44 17.66 3.86 14.4 14.29 14.65 132 46.714 21.36 20.16 18.05 14.02 526 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 Yes 62.86 26.63 26.63 23.98 26.63 21.21 21.8 23.81 17.96 2.5 22.3 13.99 12.56 151 39 26.63 26.14 23.43 15.73 527 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Hamilton, Florida 1 Yes 31.78 30.81 26.97 30.81 32.41 31.01 31.28 29.06 8.21 27.5 12.01 16.59 120 528 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 Yes 81.5 32.87 30.34 28.9 30.34 23.46 24.31 27.22 22.62 3.29 25.9 18.18 16.72 147 52.87 32.87 32.19 30.55 24.18 529 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 2 Yes 68.43 30.99 29.79 26.9 29.79 26.25 26.41 27.56 24.51 3.93 22.3 21.39 10.7 146 41.58 30.99 30.12 28.27 20.84 530 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Taylor, Florida 1 no 46.58 24.25 23.68 23.44 23.68 20.52 21.4 22.75 17.38 1.62 22 10.32 16.28 157 23.33 24.25 23.4 21.78 15.82 531 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 1 Yes 53.72 24.57 24.57 24.07 24.57 21.28 22.38 23.48 17.3 2.2 18.4 16.11 14.6 152 29.88 24.57 23.43 19.49 13.45 532 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Gadsen, Florida 1 Yes 26.59 28.41 26.59 22.89 23.04 24.34 19.8 3.49 14.9 17.31 143 533 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 2 Yes 53.7 28.06 26.47 22.9 26.47 23.14 22.99 23.96 20.2 3.37 21.5 19.96 11.81 144 30.8 28.06 27.86 26.6 18.29 534 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 2 Yes 63.69 24.57 22.39 21.82 22.55 20.34 20.03 21.12 17.95 3.3 13.6 10.6 7.5 140 41.67 24.57 24.42 21.61 17.82 535 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 1 Yes 54.49 24.8 22.11 16.59 24.8 23.76 22.35 21.83 21.39 2.4 17 12.49 16.98 157 38.33 22.82 22.11 21.97 17.07 536 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 Yes 81.47 29.81 27.66 24.33 29.81 23.34 23.87 25.42 21.13 4.46 20.6 18.85 14.72 134 57.04 29.81 29.31 27.99 20.6 537 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 No 97.62 32.7 32.7 33.08 32.7 28.98 30.37 32.11 22.93 5.46 29.1 15.5 14.18 129 64.54 32.7 30.18 28.24 20.3

538 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 No 77.29 32.82 31.53 33.86 31.53 24.97 26.19 28.52 22.21 4.17 17.9 12.76 19.79 141 43.61 32.82 32.02 28.03 20.76 539 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 2 Yes 82.09 27.19 23.32 23.91 23.39 20.07 21.35 22.01 17.55 1.3 21.5 17.83 9.4 160 58.15 27.19 25.88 25.46 20.87 540 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 2 Yes 71.09 24.03 23.86 26.06 23.86 22.93 22.27 23.15 15.35 2.47 21.5 5.2 11.89 143 45.42 24.03 23.99 21.56 15.79 541 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Jackson, Florida 1 No 66.34 24.06 22.38 23.36 22.38 20.22 20.11 21.79 17.56 2.71 26.7 20.3 17.78 147 43.2 24.06 24.17 23.17 16.37 542 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 No 65.12 26.56 26.51 25.49 26.51 23.19 23.62 25.06 20.19 5.25 23.6 13.17 22.12 125 39.79 26.51 25.09 23.29 17.54 543 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 2 Yes 43.74 20.05 18.71 17.94 20.05 19.36 18.59 18.75 17.02 1.42 11.9 10.67 7.39 163 25.81 19.52 19.48 17.2 12.46 544 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Hamilton, Florida 2 Yes 29.76 29.76 35.98 29.76 25.25 25.85 28.16 22.48 3.97 24.6 22.59 15.77 142 545 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Volusia, Florida 1 No 65.89 26.95 25.99 28.38 25.99 20.14 20.68 23.17 17.86 3.4 18.7 15.73 16.85 139 35.82 26.95 26.1 23.65 15.95 546 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Union, Florida 1 Yes 70.55 30.52 29.08 29.02 28.71 23.08 24.27 26.96 19.77 4.63 21.1 12.82 16.35 129 48.91 30.52 30.27 27.52 19.51 547 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Levy, Florida 2 Yes 32.12 28.97 26.04 28.97 22.49 23.38 26.44 20.17 6.24 29.4 21.62 12.35 117 548 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 2 Yes 77.75 23.55 22.86 30.39 22.86 21.27 21.53 22.16 18.62 2.53 16.9 14.31 7.39 152 47.55 23.55 23.17 23.36 18.8 549 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Volusia, Florida 1 No 64.27 26.85 26.75 27.69 26.85 24.15 24.46 26.28 19.74 6.56 23.9 16.86 19.2 114 36.22 26.75 25.66 22.32 16.86 550 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 No 53.7 27.13 26.27 23.89 26.27 19.79 21.04 24.28 15.77 1.47 27 13.7 14.82 158 29.98 551 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 No 56.52 23.2 23.11 19.2 23.11 20.53 20.89 21.86 15.2 2.13 15.9 15.55 16.04 153 37.59 23.2 22.48 20.26 13.42 552 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 2 Yes 85.94 34.43 31.54 28.79 31.54 27.59 27.38 27.94 23.16 3.25 30 19.4 15.66 150 57.29 34.43 34.43 32.03 22.3 553 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wakulla, Florida 1 No 107.06 31.37 30.68 33.2 30.68 27.03 28.24 29.72 23.72 5.56 29.6 21.59 17.47 128 74.04 31.37 30.59 27.24 20.51 554 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Marion, Florida 1 No 97.51 22.28 21.89 26.3 21.89 20.85 21.5 21.47 17.26 2.09 24.8 21.7 18.1 153 71.36 22.28 21.78 19.34 15.39 555 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Taylor, Florida 1 Yes 59.65 23.97 23.42 27.45 23.42 19.01 18.85 20.89 18.02 2.98 18.3 16.72 14.24 143 32.55 23.97 22.93 20.25 14.44 556 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 1 No 72.04 33.64 31.82 28.19 31.82 24.67 24.9 28.19 20.71 3.91 18.2 14.69 20.08 139 44.02 33.64 33.48 29.91 19.98 557 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alachua, Florida 1 No 60.15 28.45 28.15 22.04 28.45 26.52 27.61 28.2 22 1.82 28.5 24.85 17.41 161 38.21 28.35 27.61 24.36 16.32 558 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lafayette, Florida 1 No 57.79 26.22 26.22 22.64 26.22 23.21 23.4 25.31 21.84 2.91 25.3 21.97 23.69 151 35.34 26.22 25.5 21.92 15.52 559 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Sumter, Florida 1 No 55.43 21.18 21.14 21.18 21.14 17.45 18.42 20 15.18 4.69 17.8 13.4 13.73 115 34.38 21.18 20.13 17.19 10.66 560 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Leon, Florida 1 No 39.43 19.55 19.55 14.25 19.55 18.12 18.75 18.99 12.66 1.33 15.9 15.41 13.59 157 25.18 19.55 19.09 16.8 11.56

561 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Putnam, Florida 1 No 99.29 29.29 28.98 33.15 28.98 25.67 26.54 27.17 22.15 4.8 38 20.71 19.53 134 66.3 29.29 28.74 26.62 20.47 562 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Suwannee, Florida 3 Yes 94.94 30.63 30.33 33.76 30.33 28.69 29.81 29.51 21.95 3.58 30.6 6.71 8.5 143 61.41 30.63 29.36 26.68 19.45

216 563 4 Southeast Kill No Yes Suwannee, Florida 24.51 30.99 24.51 22.39 22.6 24.05 17.32 2.87 142 564 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Calhoun, Florida 1 Yes 45.35 26.21 25.6 19.68 26.06 25.83 25.21 25.21 23.38 1.23 32.3 28.82 20.1 169 25.9 25.98 25.21 23.98 19.52

565 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Maryland 34.88 19.88 19.8 15.98 19.8 19.41 19.29 19.29 15.21 2.93 138 19.32 19.88 18.55 14.7 9.33 566 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Maryland 1 no 53.01 23.55 23.17 20.73 23.55 22.85 23.23 23.55 21.21 2.73 17.2 12.32 151 32.44 23.36 23.07 20.76 15.79 567 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 3 Yes 63.91 30.21 29.12 29.63 29.63 29.15 29.09 29.34 6.54 18.33 35 18.33 13.98 126 34.53 29.12 26.48 22.35 14.24 568 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 1 no 44.11 23.11 22.72 16.17 22.72 19.67 20.88 21.29 13.25 1.94 17.9 9.74 12.43 145 28.13 23.11 21.96 20.3 14.07 569 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Queen Anne's , Maryland 1 Yes 47.99 20.13 20 13.51 20 18.79 19.36 19.7 14.38 3.64 20.1 17.54 12.33 125 34.73 20.13 19.9 17.34 11.28 570 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, Maryland Quartzite 1 no 56.63 23.4 23.36 22.65 23.4 18.98 20.39 21.71 14.44 2.35 15.3 13.3 145 34.07 23.36 21.05 18.42 13.25 571 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 2 Yes 48.87 21.89 21.83 21.25 21.89 19.96 20.03 21.28 17.29 2.32 20.7 9.85 149 27.91 21.89 20.89 17.13 11.53 572 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Harford, Maryland 1 Yes 90.86 36.31 34.91 34.91 35.5 31.72 33.57 34.68 22.53 9.04 46.8 40.69 20.53 103 56.1 36.31 34.39 33.35 22.9 573 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Caroline, Maryland 1 no 29.39 29.25 19.72 29.25 25.69 27.22 28.09 21.14 2.77 19.9 17.99 21.55 150 574 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Caroline, Maryland 1 Yes 63.6 28.92 28.59 28.2 28.97 27.19 27.12 27.72 23.36 2.93 24.5 19.19 19.57 151 35.2 28.92 27.39 24.65 18.9 575 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Somerset, Maryland 2 Yes 44.71 20.09 20.09 20.33 20.09 19.71 19.37 19.66 16.14 2.62 19.5 11.87 9.16 143 24.53 20.09 19.28 16.51 11.5 576 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Fredric, Maryland Crystal Quartz 1 Yes 20.93 20.57 22.24 20.93 21.04 21.4 20.74 18.23 2.76 8.27 9.9 146 577 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Montgomery, Maryland 1 Yes 18.95 18.95 17.99 18.95 17.9 18.54 18.93 14.56 1.58 15.6 11.87 10.1 157 578 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Montgomery, Maryland 1 Yes 18.9 18.9 16.14 18.9 18.9 18.78 18.72 15.68 1.98 17.1 13.5 154 579 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Montgomery, Maryland 1 no 29.48 27.37 30.53 27.37 25.84 25.7 26.13 22.03 1.82 23.7 23.26 23.8 162 580 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Charles, Maryland 1 no 50.07 23.65 22.45 21.34 23.65 22.4 23.36 23.41 18.61 1.22 14.3 14 14.44 161 29.07 23.07 21.3 19.14 15.11 581 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Anne Arundel, Maryland 1 No 23.62 16.08 14.83 10.94 16.08 16.03 15.54 15.17 13.55 1.99 12.5 7.24 9.7 146 12.8 14.83 13.92 12.91 9.72 582 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Charles, Maryland 1 No 40.82 19.05 18.09 14.79 19.05 17.85 18.5 18.83 14.45 2.68 33.9 10.19 16.51 140 25.98 18.95 17.95 14.31 9.67 583 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 1 No 44.58 23.72 23.72 20.76 23.72 22.39 22.77 23.15 18.79 2.72 20.8 19.9 15.07 148 24.03 23.72 21.57 18.28 12.77 584 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 1 Yes 41.31 26.27 23.42 21.13 26.27 25.75 24.62 24.37 23.37 7.28 29.2 25.27 18.94 115 20.27 24.13 21.75 18.51 13.09 585 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 1 Yes 59.06 28.01 26.87 23.74 28.01 28.26 27.93 27.9 21.98 5.74 25.6 14.52 21.61 126 35.28 26.9 25.29 21.72 14.92 586 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dorchester, Maryland 1 Yes 39.14 24.6 23.93 13.13 23.93 21.44 22.35 23.45 19.1 3.68 30.4 28.51 12.76 139 26.13 24.6 24.02 21.22 15.67 587 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Calvert, Maryland 1 No 66.58 31.38 31.38 24.82 31.38 30.23 30.11 30.81 25.03 4.97 39.7 6.81 21.84 137 41.63 31.38 23.94 25.59 17.95 588 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Fulton, Illinois Quartzite 1 No 110.23 34.17 33.2 37.49 33.2 28.67 30.12 31.51 23.49 5.49 40.4 38.94 18.11 128 72.8 34.17 33.5 29.46 21.31

589 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Greene, Indiana 1 No 114.61 41.73 41.17 46.44 41.66 35.13 37.42 41.35 23.87 5.29 31.8 23.29 130 68.31 41.73 40.23 35.23 25.72 590 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Washikie, Wyoming 1 Yes 55.66 27.89 27.35 25.96 27.89 25.53 27.41 27.89 15.35 3.62 17.3 10.56 14.52 128 30 27.47 24.69 19.56 13.82 591 1 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Medina, Ohio (Paleo Crossing) 1 No 42.01 20.1 20.1 20.21 20.1 17.66 18.22 18.93 16.02 2.74 16.7 12.79 135 21.86 20.1 20.09 16.68 13.21 592 1 Northeast Camp Yes Yes Medina, Ohio (Paleo Crossing) 1 No 48.16 19.85 19.85 18.2 19.85 18.75 19.12 19.48 16.22 1.22 13.9 12.24 161 29.65 19.85 18.63 15.4 11.39 593 1 Northeast Camp No No Medina, Ohio (Paleo Crossing) 20.15 4.63 132 594 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Darke, Ohio 1 No 129.73 40.98 39.78 44.31 40.32 34.86 37.26 39.85 26.54 5.12 21.8 14.71 136 85.82 40.25 40.98 37.06 27.01 595 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Blue Earth, Minnesota 1 No 59 23.93 22.94 21.74 22.94 22.08 22.24 22.77 17.73 2.72 15.3 14.65 15.95 144 37.46 23.93 25.53 21.78 17.8 596 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Blue Earth, Minnesota 1 No 73.47 26.67 26.67 24.57 26.67 25.78 26.28 26.54 14 1.65 20.9 19.32 14.76 152 49.21 26.67 24.64 19.13 15.87 597 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Blue Earth, Minnesota Quartzite 1 No 45.15 20.56 20.56 20.36 20.56 20.36 20.3 20.56 17.95 3.97 29.2 19.83 17.12 134 24.92 17.85 14.78 9.68 598 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Lawrence, Arkansas 2 Yes 78.99 24.2 23.25 31.2 24.2 23.16 23.08 23.85 19.47 5.01 15.4 9.68 127 47.96 23.85 21.74 18.88 15.34 599 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Craighead, Arkansas 1 Yes 69.31 28.86 28.52 26.1 28.52 25.32 25.58 26.14 20.84 2.77 26.1 15.64 150 43.12 28.86 27.31 22.21 15.17 600 4 Great Plains Kill No Yes Craighead, Arkansas 2 Yes 26.85 26.31 21.23 2.14 28.5 16.94 157 601 3 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Garland, Arkansas Crystal Quartz 1 Yes 51.63 26.73 26.55 20.34 26.55 24.36 24.59 25.31 20.77 4.83 15.9 12.04 130 31.47 26.73 25.82 22.81 14.41 602 4 Great Plains Kill No Yes Pope, Arkansas 1 Yes 29.71 29.71 21.89 29.71 24.1 25.7 27.66 19.3 3.16 21.4 14.23 142 603 4 California Kill Yes Yes Fresno, California 1 No 60.3 31.57 31.2 28.27 31.57 28.86 29.09 31.02 24.6 3.81 41.1 23.91 18.08 145 31.8 31.2 27.35 20.38 12.44 604 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Barnstable, Massachusetts 1 No 70.45 27.16 26.97 26.97 27.09 22.92 24.76 26.24 19.02 5.63 34.1 15.22 119 43.62 27.16 27.39 24.76 18.72 605 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Dukes, Masaschusetts 1 No 99.84 32.07 30.83 39.35 31.6 31.73 31.22 31.29 29.59 7.67 26.1 24.4 123 60.49 32.07 30.52 25.02 16.34 606 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Hampden, Massachusetts 1 No 48.23 19.56 18.9 18.06 19.56 18.6 18.84 19.02 17.4 3.12 25.3 13.2 138 30.11 19.38 18.36 16.2 12.06 607 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 No 69.31 24.1 24.1 26.88 24.1 23.59 23.66 24.03 20.87 4.53 46.2 10.96 129 42.87 24.1 23.08 19.43 14.24 608 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 No 27.63 34.08 30.55 29.09 29.63 30.49 20.95 7.13 25.3 22.56 112 609 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Essex, Massachusetts 2 Yes 27.95 27.03 26.47 27.95 27.21 27.46 27.28 22.35 6.1 22.4 21.92 11.7 121 610 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 No 47.22 28.25 27.11 19.43 28.25 28.36 28.41 26.72 17.85 5.03 21.4 15.08 16.83 122 27.9 27.11 25.02 21.63 16.04 611 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 Yes 64.95 22.76 22.48 23.83 22.69 22.05 22.55 22.55 18.62 3.76 20.6 10.67 18.08 134 41.48 22.76 22.19 19.29 14.82 612 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 Yes 42.25 23.44 20.62 18.24 23.44 22.88 21.86 21.46 20.17 4.41 25.9 13.39 11.3 133 24.12 20.62 18.64 15.76 10.11 613 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Essex, Massachusetts 1 Yes 55.33 24.26 23.14 23.07 23.88 21.13 22.07 22.44 18.2 3.69 24.4 8.53 10 136 32.57 24.26 21.97 17.07 10.5 614 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 68.42 26.42 26.13 24.66 26.42 25.9 25.9 26.27 22.55 7.98 30.1 10.98 109 43.98 26.34 23.09 21.29 15.22

217 615 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 3 Yes 47.13 28.83 28.25 18.95 28.83 28.28 28.32 28.65 25.98 7.39 15 10.98 121 28.03 28.69 27.73 23.78 18 616 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 53.23 28.58 28.02 27.57 28.58 26.04 27.42 28.06 21.84 8.44 23.9 15.32 104 25.81 28.02 25.1 20.55 14.98

617 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 2 Yes 82.76 30.8 29.41 28.51 29.45 28.66 28.7 29.15 27.19 9.95 23.1 13.03 109 54.63 30.8 30.31 27.46 19.31 618 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 77.12 29.62 29.32 24.56 29.32 25.77 27.09 28.07 22.41 7.9 12.6 22.61 110 52.45 29.62 29.44 26.64 20.97 619 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 32.02 29.48 29.19 26.82 29.48 28.74 28.74 28.89 25.79 8.5 9.09 11.75 115 25.27 29.19 25.2 20.02 12.78 620 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 54.56 26.37 25.24 24.26 26.37 26.07 26.07 26.22 23.43 8.99 19.7 15.34 104 30.68 25.62 23.65 19.2 13.3 621 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 2 Yes 62.55 25.12 24.67 22.65 24.9 21.82 23.85 24.68 19.96 6.53 18.7 12.34 113 40.05 25.12 22.8 19.72 13.65 622 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 43.87 24.97 24.07 14.18 24.97 24.22 24.52 24.82 19.89 5.1 10.5 18.6 124 29.85 24.07 22.46 17.99 12.56 623 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 64.32 31.42 30.41 21.33 31.42 30.88 31.42 30.41 26.21 7.45 10.2 14.28 121 43.21 30.41 28.36 25.33 20.75 624 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 2 Yes 64.04 27.8 27.34 19.5 27.49 26.11 26.72 27.26 21.27 7.29 22.5 14.67 112 44.53 27.8 25.11 23.34 16.89 625 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 2 Yes 54.99 34.04 33.35 25.09 34.04 33.92 33.85 33.5 25.78 9.18 25.7 14.31 108 30.06 33.35 31.23 27.34 20.23 626 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 90.71 43.52 43.06 36.71 43.52 34.57 39.24 42.3 23.1 7.92 44.9 42.11 31.28 111 54.23 43.52 42.07 35.11 24.94 627 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Oxford, Maine (Vail) 1 Yes 42.83 39.62 28.68 41.07 36.33 38.55 39.24 28.39 8.95 36.3 27.08 112 628 4 Northeast Kill No Yes Pasquotank, North Carolina 1 Yes 20.47 18.87 20.47 18.16 18.24 19.67 16.17 2.39 12.3 13.46 147 629 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Pasquotank, North Carolina 1 Yes 71.43 28.83 28.11 25.96 28.43 27.95 28.51 28.03 24.71 6.85 26.5 20.23 119 45.31 28.83 28.67 25.37 16.4 630 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Tyrrell, North Carollina 1 Yes 71.19 26.38 24.15 23.91 24.23 21.61 21.77 23.36 14.86 2.62 18.1 12.18 140 47.27 26.38 26.06 24.07 18.35 631 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Bladen, North Carolina 1 Yes 90.57 32.34 31.3 30.43 31.3 28.13 28.52 30.43 23.6 1.91 27.4 19.94 160 60.3 32.34 32.18 28.92 22.48 632 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Durham, North Carolina 1 No 64.2 25.58 24.07 19.19 24.07 22.41 22.72 23.52 18.68 3.81 20.2 11.68 138 45.29 25.58 25.5 23.44 16.61 633 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Franklin, North Carolina 2 Yes 60.94 24.87 24.39 22.88 24.87 23.99 23.83 24.39 19.62 5.01 18.9 11.12 126 38.22 24.39 23.6 21.29 17.08 634 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Granville, North Carolina 1 Yes 40.28 19.86 19.47 17 19.86 19.62 18.99 18.83 15.82 4.33 15.7 12.95 124 23.4 19.86 19.15 16.84 12.35 635 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alamance, North Carolina Crystal Quartz 1 Yes 76.11 33.29 33.29 30.31 33.29 28.16 29.95 32.14 22.93 4.33 21.3 14.3 138 45.92 33.29 32.65 29.72 22.01 636 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Alamance, North Carolina 1 No 39.37 22.11 19.73 20.76 22.11 20.76 20.44 20.36 17.42 3.82 12.4 12.97 130 18.85 19.73 16.23 14.64 9.23 638 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Rowan, North Carolina 3 Yes 91.53 33.92 32.5 30.83 32.5 29.63 29.32 30.59 25.5 4.85 42.1 14.94 137 60.7 33.92 33.69 31.46 23.83 639 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, North Carolina 2 Yes 95.26 28.92 28.68 20.9 28.68 25.5 25.9 27.65 22.41 3.81 29.7 10.3 144 74.29 28.92 28.13 26.86 21.29 640 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, North Carolina 3 Yes 58.89 25.29 24.81 22.99 25.05 23.46 23.78 24.65 21.51 5.23 16.4 8.88 126 36.07 25.29 24.57 22.35 16.33 641 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Burke, North Carolina 1 Yes 44.47 20.13 17.99 14.11 18.03 17.83 17.68 17.43 16.07 1.19 22.7 12.37 160 30.52 20.13 19.86 19.53 15.42

642 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Granville, North Carolina 1 Yes 96.97 30.32 29.04 39.36 29.04 25.16 25.63 26.82 21.19 2.54 15.6 20.24 151 57.61 30.32 30.24 26.35 21.9 643 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Granville, North Carolina 1 Yes 68.09 25.13 24.4 28.77 25.68 24.41 24.33 24.65 22.15 5.55 25.4 13.63 122 39.47 25.13 23.46 21.08 16.17 644 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wake, North Carolina 1 Yes 119.04 33.57 33.17 37.77 33.49 29.52 31.35 32.77 22.23 6.03 31.4 15.71 124 81.26 33.57 33.09 30.79 24.28 645 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Granville, North Carolina 3 Yes 75.31 31.11 29.12 24.92 29.12 24.92 26.19 27.77 20.67 3.81 22.3 11.98 141 50.71 31.11 30.63 26.19 20.63 646 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Granville, North Carolina 48.88 27.46 26.11 17.78 26.11 25.83 25.75 25.93 21.59 2.06 160 30.95 27.46 27.22 22.78 14.92 647 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wake, North Carolina 1 Yes 54 27.79 24.86 19.48 24.38 23.91 24.31 21.3 1.58 26.4 19.24 163 34.76 27.79 26.76 24.94 18.92 648 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Wake, North Carolina 1 Yes 45.6 24.39 24.39 22.81 24.39 23.28 23.43 23.99 20.75 1.9 17.2 12.91 157 22.88 24.39 22.56 19.24 13.62 649 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Rockingham, North Carolina 2 Yes 53.85 29.27 28.71 21.16 28.71 25.69 25.93 27.04 24.95 3.34 16.6 14 146 32.61 29.27 27.52 24.42 15.99 650 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Richmond, North Carolina 1 Yes 72.05 31.43 30.72 26.84 30.72 26.05 26.29 28.66 21.93 4.51 27.8 15.36 137 45.37 31.43 31.11 29.29 22.42 651 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Montgomery, North Carolina 2 Yes 111.26 38.25 35.87 33.65 35.87 29.12 29.92 32.06 25.01 5.63 18.2 16.99 128 77.85 38.25 38.41 36.43 27.14 652 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Yadkin, North Carolina 1 No 71.02 25.87 25.16 23.81 25.16 24.2 23.97 24.12 19.62 2.86 19.4 19.13 146 47.14 25.87 25.71 23.01 17.14 653 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Yadkin, North Carolina 1 Yes 60.39 25 24.44 18.09 24.64 23.09 23.81 23.93 19.22 3.73 28.4 17.22 137 42.46 25 25.47 22.5 17.9 654 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Iredell, North Carolina Crystal Quartz 2 Yes 49.62 25.84 25.44 22.27 25.44 24.49 24.65 25.13 19.19 1.59 29.6 12.85 163 27.35 25.84 24.41 21.43 15.93 655 4 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Lincoln, North Carlolina 2 Yes 46.27 22.5 22.22 19.87 22.5 20.03 20.67 21.62 16.21 2.47 27.4 10.51 147 26.52 22.5 20.63 18.16 13.14 656 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Cherokee, North Carolina Crystal Quartz 1 Yes 70.07 31.47 30.76 23.7 30.76 27.35 28.14 29.96 23.48 7.21 24.4 26.4 116 46.37 31.47 31.23 28.94 22.11 657 3 Southeast Kill Yes Yes Cherokee, North Carolina 3 Yes 93.22 31.94 30.2 25.05 30.4 27.82 28.54 29.09 22.14 5.07 19.6 13.79 127 68.25 31.94 31.39 28.93 22.91 658 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Shannon, South Dakota 1 No 51.83 20.74 20.49 20.68 20.68 19.25 19.87 20.49 15.89 3.55 20.8 11.03 16.39 132 32.2 20.74 19.25 17.75 12.15 659 3 California Kill Yes Yes San Diego, California 1 Yes 135.21 42.27 39.73 26.68 39.73 35.16 36.96 38.02 27.98 6.27 24.1 18.69 134 106.85 42.27 41.42 39.3 31.65 660 3 Great Basin Kill Yes Yes Washoe, Nevada 1 No 120.55 47.16 47.16 38.82 47.16 44.34 46.68 46.79 34.53 2.28 54.6 20.06 164 81.36 47.16 43.87 37.82 27.08 661 3 Great Basin Kill Yes Yes Washoe, Nevada 1 Yes 95.91 35.05 34.95 33.46 35.05 32.24 33.78 34.84 28 3.29 30.2 22.3 152 62.56 34.95 34.63 29.63 19.65 662 4 Great Basin Kill Yes Yes Elko, Nevada 1 Yes 55.12 34.09 32.82 21.88 34.09 31.65 32.61 33.88 29 6.69 33.5 18.29 130 33.57 33.72 28.31 24.22 15.51 663 3 Great Basin Kill Yes Yes Nye, Nevada 50.54 34.51 33.8 24.53 34.51 31.96 33.13 33.82 25.18 6.16 16.3 127 26.33 33.8 30.05 26.38 17.94 664 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Clark, Kentucky 1 Yes 83.35 29.33 28.6 31.41 29.33 26.4 27.38 28.48 21.66 5.44 44.7 26.77 21.8 126 52.19 29.33 28.6 26.46 20.23 665 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Webster, Kentucky 1 Yes 67.4 27.52 27.26 26.46 27.52 25.85 25.85 26.91 23.29 4.5 30.4 20.31 139 41.2 27.26 24.97 20.55 14.47 666 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Woodford, Kentucky 2 Yes 195.23 48.34 46.61 67.17 47.24 42.53 43.94 46.45 36.68 14.75 46.2 37.66 16.96 100 128.45 48.34 47.94 42.69 28.17 667 3 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Christian, Kentucky 1 No 60.73 25.17 25.17 21.55 25.17 24.85 24.95 25.27 21.57 2.2 24.4 11.66 156 39.39 25.17 23.25 21.3 15.34

218 668 3 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Christian, Kentucky 1 Yes 69.5 26.9 25.91 27.13 26.28 24.05 24.69 25.75 18.48 4.03 17.8 12.78 130 42.47 26.9 26.23 23.4 18.37 669 3 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Christian, Kentucky 1 Yes 79.1 28.88 26.65 19.59 26.65 26.28 26.17 26.07 23.01 3.61 23.9 10.17 142 59.8 28.88 27.77 26.8 18.42

670 3 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Christian, Kentucky 2 Yes 10.94 33.66 29.52 27.13 29.52 29.04 29.57 29.46 24.9 3.5 46.3 16.23 145 82.18 33.66 32.7 32 25.7 671 3 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Christian, Kentucky 1 No 53.73 23.68 22.51 17.94 22.51 20.28 20.97 22.35 15.34 1.81 15.7 11.66 152 35.41 23.68 23.68 20.2 15.61 672 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Hickman, Kentucky 1 Yes 205.68 54.97 53.14 48.09 53.14 45.73 47.34 50.03 37.04 12.78 78.4 26.69 110 157.16 54.97 54.86 51.85 38.32 673 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Onondaga, New York 1 No 60.89 26.68 23.35 19.06 26.68 25.9 24.92 24.92 21.6 8.89 24.1 16.4 103 41.84 24.83 23.85 20.23 15.54 674 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Greene. New York 1 No 87.67 27.27 26.49 26 26.78 24.53 25.22 26.19 18.87 4.5 42.8 17.09 127 61.87 27.27 27.37 25.61 17.1 675 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Otsego, New York 2 Yes 86.79 32.45 31.47 27.37 31.47 29.13 29.42 30.59 24.57 6.84 36.4 19.67 123 59.52 32.45 31.67 30.01 21.8 676 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Greene, New York 1 No 85.13 29.71 29.52 27.47 29.52 25.36 26.78 27.81 22.33 4.06 22.3 11 138 57.67 29.71 28.98 26.93 19.3 677 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Onondaga, New York 3 Yes 64.31 28.44 27.86 21.31 27.95 27.03 27.12 28.1 21.94 6.01 22.7 13.49 124 42.91 28.44 27.9 25.22 17.98 678 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Madison, New York 2 Yes 40.56 24.73 24.44 13.1 24.44 23.65 23.84 24.24 18.09 2.54 21 12.28 150 27.66 24.73 23.65 21.84 16.86 679 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Jefferson, New York 1 No 80.34 31.13 30.5 19.45 30.3 29.32 29.62 30.2 24.93 7.04 47 20.35 119 60.94 31.13 30.79 29.42 22.33 680 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Suffolk, New York 1 No 70.79 31.64 31.18 20.15 31.18 28.04 28.81 29.8 25.13 7.13 36.4 23.69 122 50.57 31.64 31.18 27.3 19.15 681 4 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Genesee, New York 1 No 92 29.58 29.58 34.53 29.58 26.38 27.59 28.73 22.17 9.06 46.4 43.82 20.58 104 57.47 29.58 27.89 24.51 18.11 682 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Genesee, New York 1 Yes 84.59 33.97 33.86 26.73 33.86 28.74 30.76 31.52 21.41 8.33 32.5 20.09 106 58.14 33.97 33.42 30.59 22.16 683 3 Northeast Kill Yes Yes Genesee, New York 2 Yes 108 31.25 30.27 32.82 30.37 27.05 28.52 29.61 22.98 8.98 47.3 20.47 104 75.39 31.25 30.7 27.7 21.23 684 2 Northeast Cache Yes Yes Cedar, Iowa (Rummells-Maske) 1 Yes 96.24 31.77 31.63 36.62 31.63 29.23 29.23 30.76 22.03 5.91 45.6 31.77 19.64 123 59.43 31.77 30.39 27.71 20.18 685 2 Northeast Cache Yes Yes Cedar, Iowa (Rummells-Maske) 3 Yes 95.87 31.91 31.08 28.22 31.08 27.52 28.91 30.02 22.3 6.44 29.9 23.18 15.66 120 67.93 31.91 31.45 29.09 22.12 686 2 Northeast Cache No Yes Cedar, Iowa (Rummells-Maske) 2 Yes 33.16 41.1 33.16 28.35 30.34 32.19 22.57 9.19 38.9 37.27 16.07 102 687 2 Northeast Cache Yes Yes Cedar, Iowa (Rummells-Maske) 2 Yes 71.86 26.83 26.37 32.37 26.83 25.12 26.46 26.69 21.19 5.03 27.7 12.61 11.24 128 39.72 26.51 25.54 23.18 16.63 688 2 Northeast Cache Yes Yes Cedar, Iowa (Rummells-Maske) 1 No 67.05 25.4 24.76 22.77 25.08 24.34 24.48 24.61 19.17 6.05 24.3 23.77 9.98 117 44.38 25.4 25.21 23.09 15.75 689 2 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Benton, Tennessee 1 No 80.76 31.15 25.8 20.22 25.8 23.41 23.3 24.34 19.93 2.91 23.7 17.2 149 60.77 31.15 29.92 30.27 22.83 690 2 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Benton, Tennessee 1 Yes 42.76 24.34 21.96 12.67 21.96 21.21 20.74 21.44 18.43 1.51 10.5 11.74 162 30.15 24.34 24.34 21.67 16.56 691 2 Southeast Camp Yes Yes Allendale, South Carolina 1 No 36.49 25.49 36.49 30.07 32.4 35.3 20.36 0.89 21.7 17.09 692 2 Southeast Camp No Yes Allendale, South Carolina 1 No 21.21 4.29 16.5 18.71 143 695 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Harper, Oklahoma 1 No 52.54 26.17 25.98 20.46 26.17 23.18 23.7 25.39 19.29 3.31 16.4 15.39 145 32.15 25.98 23.77 32.15 13.44

696 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Harper, Oklahoma 1 No 43.44 17.93 17.6 11.43 17.6 16.82 16.56 16.88 14.42 2.27 9.35 13.77 145 32.28 17.92 17.21 14.87 10.46 697 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Harper, Oklahoma 1 No 81.43 35.97 35.97 31.69 35.97 30.39 32.02 34.29 24.03 3.57 17.5 17.21 148 49.74 35.97 34.68 30.98 22.14 698 1 Great Plains Kill Yes Yes Harper, Oklahoma 1 No 61.43 19.87 19.68 22.66 19.68 18.7 19.16 19.29 15.44 1.82 16.8 12.08 154 39.03 19.87 19.22 17.92 14.22

219

APPENDIX B: HISTOGRAMS OF ALL OF THE LINEAR MEASUREMENTS

Maximum Length

220

Maximum Width

221

Haft-Blade Division Width

222

Maximum Haft Length

223

Max Haft Width

224

Haft Width at ¼

Haft Widith at ½

225

Haft Width at ¾

226

Base Width

227

Base Depth

228

Long Side Flute Length

229

Maximum Flute Width

230

Short Side flute Length

231

232

Max Blade Length

233

Max Blade Width

234

Blade Width ¼

235

Blade Width ½

236

Blade Width ¾

237