Continent-wide or region-specific? A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of variation in Clovis point shape

  • Briggs Buchanan
  • Michael J. O’Brien
  • Mark CollardEmail author
Original Paper


Researchers have debated the existence of regional variation in Clovis points for over 60 years. Here, we report an attempt to resolve this argument using a large sample of Clovis points from dated assemblages and a suite of shape analysis methods known as geometric morphometrics. The study tested the two main hypotheses that have been put forward in the debate: the continent-wide adaptation hypothesis, which holds that Clovis points do not vary regionally, and the regional environmental adaptation hypothesis, which holds that there is regional variation as a consequence of Clovis groups adjusting their food-getting toolkits to local conditions. We used discriminant function analysis and a multivariate extension of the t test to assess whether differences in shape exist at two scales. The first set of analyses compared points from the most obvious environmental regions in North America, the East and the West. The second set of analyses investigated differences among points from subregions within the East and West. The analyses revealed significant differences between points from the East and the West and among points from some subregions. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that these differences are not the result of the most common confounding factors, raw material quality and resharpening. As such, the analyses support the regional environmental adaptation hypothesis rather than the continent-wide adaptation hypothesis. We conclude from this that Clovis people modified their points to suit the characteristics of local prey and/or the habitats in which they hunted.


Clovis points Continent-wide adaptation Regional environmental adaptation Geometric morphometrics 



We thank the following institutions for permission to access collections: Eastern New Mexico University; University of Arizona; Arizona State Museum; Smithsonian Institution; Washington State Historical Society; Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture; Museum of the Great Plains; Canadian Museum of Civilization; Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology; Peabody Essex Museum; Maine State Museum; State of New Hampshire Department of Cultural Resources; University of Iowa; Montana Historical Society; and the Herrett Center for Arts and Sciences. We also thank L. Bement, J. Gingerich, D. Kilby, D. Simons, R. Maske, W. Rummells, and two anonymous reviewers for their assistance with the paper. BB's work was supported by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant, postdoctoral fellowship grants from the National Science Foundation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and by funding from the University of Missouri and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. MC's work was supported by the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, and Simon Fraser University.


  1. Adams JM (1997) Global land environments since the last interglacial. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. (; accessed July 2013)
  2. Adams DC, Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (2004) Geometric morphometrics: ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Ital J Zool 71:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahler SA, Geib PR (2000) Why flute? Folsom point design and adaptation. J Archaeol Sci 27:799–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson DG (1990) The Paleoindian colonization of eastern North America. In: Tankersley KB, Isaac BL (eds) Early Paleoindian economies of eastern North America. JAI, Greenwich, pp 163–216Google Scholar
  5. Anderson DG, Faught MK (2000) Palaeoindian artefact distributions: evidence and implications. Antiquity 74:507–513Google Scholar
  6. Anderson AD, Tiffany JA (1972) Rummells–Maske: a Clovis find spot in Iowa. Plains Anthropol 17:55–59Google Scholar
  7. Anderson DG, Miller DS, Yerka SJ, Faught MK (2005) Paleoindian database of the Americas: 2005 status report. Curr Res Pleistocene 22:91–92Google Scholar
  8. Andrefsky W Jr (1994) Raw-material availability and the organization of technology. Am Antiq 59:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Archer W, Braun DR (2010) Variability in bifacial technology at Elandsfontein, Western Cape, South Africa: a geometric morphometric approach. J Archaeol Sci 37:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bamforth DB (1991) Flintknapping skill, communal hunting, and Paleoindian projectile point typology. Plains Anthropol 36:309–322Google Scholar
  11. Beck C, Jones GT (1997) The Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene archaeology of the Great Basin. J World Prehist 11:161–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beck C, Jones GT (2010) Clovis and Western Stemmed: population migration and the meeting of two technologies in the Intermountain West. Am Antiq 75:81–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bement LC, Carter BJ (2010) Jake Bluff: Clovis bison hunting on the Southern Plains of North America. Am Antiq 75:907–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 29:1165–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boldurian AT, Cotter JL (1999) Clovis revisited: new perspectives on Paleoindian adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Bookstein L (1991) Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Bookstein FL, Chernoff B, Elder RL, Humphries JM Jr, Smith GR, Strauss RE (eds) (1985) Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Special Publications 15, Academy of Natural Sciences Press. PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Boulanger MT, O'Brien MJ, Buchanan B, Collard M, Lyman RL, Darwent J (n.d.) Innovation and cultural transmission in the American Paleolithic: phylogenetic analysis of eastern Paleoindian projectile-point classes. Manuscript on file, University of Missouri. ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  19. Briant RM, Bateman MD (2009) Luminescence dating indicates radiocarbon age underestimation in late Pleistocene fluvial deposits from eastern England. J Quat Sci 24:916–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brunswig RH Jr, Fisher DC (1993) Research on the Dent mammoth site. Curr Res Pleistocene 10:63–65Google Scholar
  21. Bryan AL (1991) The fluted-point tradition in the Americas—one of several adaptations to late Pleistocene American environments. In: Bonnichsen R, Turnmire KL (eds) Clovis: origins and adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pp 15–33Google Scholar
  22. Buchanan B (2005) Cultural transmission and stone tools: a study of Early Paleoindian technology in North America. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  23. Buchanan B, Collard M (2007) Investigating the peopling of North America through cladistic analyses of early Paleoindian projectile points. J Anthropol Archaeol 26:366–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Buchanan B, Collard M (2010) A geometric morphometrics-based assessment of blade shape differences among Paleoindian projectile point types from western North America. J Archaeol Sci 37:350–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Buchanan B, Hamilton MJ (2009) A formal test of the origin of variation in North American early Paleoindian projectile points. Am Antiq 74:279–298Google Scholar
  26. Buchanan B, Collard M, Hamilton MJ, O'Brien MJ (2011) Points and prey: an evaluation of the hypothesis that prey size predicts early Paleoindian projectile point form. J Archaeol Sci 38:852–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Buchanan B, Kilby JD, Huckell BB, O'Brien MJ, Collard M (2012) A morphometric assessment of the intended function of cached Clovis points. PLoS ONE 7(2):e30530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Butler BR (1963) An early man site at Big Camas Prairie, south-central Idaho. Tebiwa 6:22–33Google Scholar
  29. Butler BR, Fitzwater RJ (1965) A further note on the Clovis site at Big Camas Prairie, south-central Idaho. Tebiwa 8:38–39Google Scholar
  30. Byers DS (1954) Bull Brook—a fluted point site in Ipswich, Massachusetts. Am Antiq 19:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Byers DS (1955) Additional information on the Bull Brook site, Massachusetts. Am Antiq 20:274–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cannon MD (2004) Geographic variability in North American mammal community richness during the terminal Pleistocene. Quat Sci Rev 23:1099–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Cannon MD, Meltzer DJ (2004) Early Paleoindian foraging: examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and regional variability in prey choice. Quat Sci Rev 23:1955–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cardillo M (2010) Some applications of geometric morphometrics to archaeology. In: Elewa AMT (ed) Morphometrics for nonmorphometricians. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Charlin J, González-José R (2012) Size and shape variation in late Holocene projectile points of southern Patagonia: a geometric morphometric study. Am Antiq 77:221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cheshier J, Kelly RL (2006) Projectile point shape and durability: the effect of thickness: length. Am Antiq 71:353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Collins MB, Lohse JC (2004) The nature of Clovis blades and blade cores. In: Madsen DB (ed) Entering America: Northeast Asia and Beringia before the Last Glacial Maximum. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp 159–183Google Scholar
  38. Collins MB, Hester TR, Headrick PJ (1992) Engraved cobbles from the Gault site, central Texas. Curr Res Pleistocene 9:3–4Google Scholar
  39. Costa AG (2010) A geometric morphometric assessment of plan shape in bone and stone Acheulean bifaces from the middle Pleistocene site of Castel di Guido, Latium, Italy. In: Lycett SJ, Chauhan PR (eds) New perspectives on old stones: analytical approaches to Paleolithic technologies. Springer, New York, pp 23–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Cotter JL (1937) The occurrence of flints and extinct animals in pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico: part IV, report on excavation at the gravel pit, 1936. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil 89:1–16Google Scholar
  41. Cotter JL (1938) The occurrence of flints and extinct animals in pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico: part VI, report on field season of 1937. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil 90:113–117Google Scholar
  42. Cox SL (1986) A re-analysis of the Shoop site. Archaeol East N Am 14:101–170Google Scholar
  43. Curran ML (1984) The Whipple site and Paleoindian tool assemblage variation: a comparison of intrasite structuring. Archaeol East N Am 12:5–40Google Scholar
  44. Curran ML (1987) The spatial organization of Paleoindian populations in the Late Pleistocene of the Northeast. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts. AmherstGoogle Scholar
  45. Curran ML (1994) New Hampshire Paleo-Indian research and the Whipple site. N H Archeologist 33(34):29–52Google Scholar
  46. Dryden IL, Mardia KV (1998) Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Dudoit S, Shaffer JP, Boldrick JC (2003) Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Stat Sci 18:71–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ellis C (2004) Understanding “Clovis” fluted point variability in the Northeast: a perspective from the Debert site, Nova Scotia. Can J Archaeol 28:205–253Google Scholar
  49. Ferring CR (2001) The archaeology and paleoecology of the Aubrey Clovis site (41DN479), Denton County, Texas. Center for Environmental Archaeology, Department of Geography, University of North Texas, Denton, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Forth Worth District, Texas.Google Scholar
  50. Figgins JD (1933) A further contribution to the antiquity of man in America. Colorado Museum of Natural History Proceedings No. 12. DenverGoogle Scholar
  51. Flenniken JJ, Raymond AW (1986) Morphological projectile point typology: replication experimentation and technological analysis. Am Antiq 51:603–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Frison GC (1991) The Clovis cultural complex: new data from caches of flaked stone and worked bone artifacts. In: Montet-White A, Holen S (eds) Raw material economies among prehistoric hunter–gatherers, 19th edn. University of Kansas Publications in Anthropology, Lawrence, pp 321–333Google Scholar
  53. Frison GC, Bradley BA (1999) The Fenn cache: Clovis weapons and tools. One Horse Land and Cattle Company, Santa FeGoogle Scholar
  54. Frison GC, Todd LC (1986) The Colby mammoth site: taphonomy and archaeology of a Clovis kill in northern Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  55. Gardner WM, Verrey RA (1979) Typology and chronology of fluted points from the Flint Run area. Penn Archaeol 49:13–46Google Scholar
  56. Gingerich JAM (2007) Picking up the pieces: new Paleoindian research in the Upper Delaware Valley. Archaeol East N Am 35:117–124Google Scholar
  57. Gingerich JAM (2011) Down to seeds and stones: a new look at the subsistence remains from Shawnee–Minisink. Am Antiq 76:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Goebel T, Waters MR, O'Rourke DH (2008) The late Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans in the Americas. Science 319:1497–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Graham RW, Kay M (1988) Taphonomic comparisons of cultural and noncultural faunal deposits at the Kimmswick and Barnhart sites, Jefferson County, Missouri. In: Laub RS, Miller NG, Steadman DW (eds) Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene paleoecology and archaeology of the eastern Great Lakes region. Bull Buffalo Soc Nat Sci 33:227–240.Google Scholar
  60. Graham RW, Haynes CV Jr, Johnson DL, Kay M (1981) Kimmswick: a Clovis–mastodon association in eastern Missouri. Science 213:1115–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gramly RM (1982) The Vail site: a Paleo-Indian encampment in Maine. Bull Buffalo Soc Nat Sci 30Google Scholar
  62. Gramly RM (1984) Kill sites, killing ground, and fluted points at the Vail site. Archaeol East N Am 12:101–121Google Scholar
  63. Gramly RM (1993) The Richey Clovis cache: earliest Americans along the Columbia River. Persimmon, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  64. Gramly RM (1999) The Lamb site: a pioneering Clovis encampment. Persimmon, BuffaloGoogle Scholar
  65. Gramly RM, Rutledge K (1981) A new Paleo-Indian site in the state of Maine. Am Antiq 46:354–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Grimes JR (1979) A new look at Bull Brook. Anthropology 3:109–130Google Scholar
  67. Grimes JR, Eldridge W, Grimes B, Vaccaro A, Vaccaro J, Vaccaro N, Orsini N (1984) Bull Brook II. Archaeol East N Am 12:159–183Google Scholar
  68. Hamilton MJ, Buchanan B (2007) Spatial gradients in Clovis-age radiocarbon dates across North America suggest rapid colonization from the north. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:15625–15630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hannus AL (1985) The Lange/Ferguson site—an event of Clovis mammoth butchery with the associated bone tool technology: the mammoth and its track. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah. Salt Lake CityGoogle Scholar
  70. Hannus AL (1990) The Lange–Ferguson site a case for mammoth bone-butchering tools. In: Agenbroad LD, Mead JI, Nelson LW (eds) Megafauna and man: discovery of America's heartland. Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, Scientific Papers 1, pp 86–99. Hot Springs, SDGoogle Scholar
  71. Haury EW, Antevs E, Lance JF (1953) Artifacts with mammoth remains, Naco, Arizona. Am Antiq 1:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Haury EW, Sayles EB, Wasley WW (1959) The Lehner mammoth site, southeastern Arizona. Am Antiq 25:2–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Haynes CV Jr (1964) Fluted projectile points: their age and dispersion. Science 145:1408–1413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Haynes CV Jr (1980) The Clovis culture. Can J Anthropol 1:115–121Google Scholar
  75. Haynes CV Jr, Hemmings ET (1968) Mammoth-bone shaft wrench from Murray Springs, Arizona. Science 159:186–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Haynes CV Jr, Huckell BB (eds) (2007) Murray Springs: a Clovis site with multiple activity areas in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Anthropological Papers, University of Arizona No. 71. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  77. Haynes CV Jr, Donahue DJ, Jull AJT, Zabel TH (1984) Application of accelerator dating to fluted point Paleoindian sites. Archaeol East N Am 12:184–191Google Scholar
  78. Haynes CV Jr, McFaul M, Brunswig RH, Hopkins KD (1998) Kersey–Kuner terrace investigations at the Dent and Bernhardt sites, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 13:201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Haynes G, Anderson DG, Ferring CR, Fiedel SJ, Grayson DK, Haynes CV Jr, Holliday VT, Huckell BB, Kornfeld M, Meltzer DJ, Morrow J, Surovell T, Waguespack NM, Wigand P, Yohe RM II (2007) Comment on “Redefining the age of Clovis: implications for the peopling of the Americas”. Science 317:320bCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hemmings ET (1970) Early Man in the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  81. Hemmings ET, Haynes CV Jr (1969) The Escapule mammoth and associated projectile points, San Pedro Valley, Arizona. J Arizona Acad Sci 5:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hester JJ (1972) Blackwater draw locality no. 1: a stratified early man site in eastern New Mexico. Fort Burgwin Research Center Publication No. 8. Ranchos de Taos, NMGoogle Scholar
  83. Holliday VT (2000) The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains. Geoarchaeology 15:227–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Holliday VT, Haynes CV Jr, Hofman JL, Meltzer DJ (1994) Geoarchaeology and geochronology of the Miami (Clovis) site, Southern High Plains of Texas. Quat Res 41:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Howard EB (1935) Occurrence of flints and extinct animals in pluvial deposits near Clovis, New Mexico, part I, introduction. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil 87:299–303Google Scholar
  86. Hunt CB (1967) Physiography of the United States. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  87. Kelly RL (1995) The foraging spectrum: diversity in hunter-gatherer lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  88. Kelly RL, Todd LC (1988) Coming into the country: early Paleoindian hunting and mobility. Am Antiq 53:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Kendall DG (1984) Shape manifolds, Procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull London Math Soc 16:81–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Klingenberg CP (2011) MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics. Mol Ecol Resour 11:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Krieger AD (1954) A comment on “Fluted point relationships” by John Witthoft. Am Antiq 19:273–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lahren L, Bonnichsen R (1974) Bone foreshafts from a Clovis burial in southwestern Montana. Science 186:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Leonhardy FC (ed) (1966) Domebo: a Paleo-Indian mammoth kill in the Prairie–Plains. Museum of the Great Plains, Contributions No. 1. Lawton, OKGoogle Scholar
  94. Levine MA (1990) Accommodating age: radiocarbon results and fluted point sites in northeastern North America. Archaeol East N Am 18:33–64Google Scholar
  95. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N (2013) A 3D morphometric analysis of surface geometry in Levallois cores: patterns of stability and variability across regions and their implications. J Archaeol Sci 40:1508–1517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N, Gowlett JA (2010) A comparative 3D geometric morphometric analysis of Victoria West cores: implications for the origins of Levallois technology. J Archaeol Sci 37:1110–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lyman RL, O'Brien MJ, Hayes V (1998) A mechanical and functional study of bone rods from the Richey–Roberts Clovis cache, Washington, U.S.A. J Archaeol Sci 25:887–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. MacDonald GF (1966) The technology and settlement pattern of a Paleo-Indian site at Debert, Nova Scotia. Quaternaria 8:59–74Google Scholar
  99. MacDonald GF (1968) Debert: a Palaeo-Indian site in central Nova Scotia. National Museums of Canada, Anthropology Papers No. 16. OttawaGoogle Scholar
  100. McAvoy JM, McAvoy LD (1997) Archaeological investigations of site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County Virginia, vol 8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  101. McNett CW (ed) (1985) Shawnee Minisink: a stratified Paleoindian–Archaic site in the upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania. Academic, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  102. Melillo JM, McGuire AD, Kicklighter DW, Moore B III, Vorosmarty CJ, Schloss AL (1993) Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363:234–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Meltzer DJ (1988) Late Pleistocene human adaptations in eastern North America. J World Prehist 2:1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Meltzer DJ (1993) Is there a Clovis adaptation? In: Soffer O, Praslov ND (eds) From Kostenki to Clovis: upper Paleolithic–Paleo-Indian adaptations. Plenum, New York, pp 293–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Morrow JE, Morrow TA (1999) Geographic variation in fluted projectile points: a hemispheric perspective. Am Antiq 64:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Morrow JE, Morrow TA (2002) Rummells–Maske revisited: a fluted point cache from east central Iowa. Plains Anthropol 47:307–321Google Scholar
  107. Morrow JE, Fiedel SJ, Johnson DL, Kornfeld M, Rutledge M, Wood WR (2012) Pre-Clovis in Texas? A critical assessment of the “Buttermilk Creek Complex”. J Archaeol Sci 39:3677–3682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Musil, RR (1988) Functional efficiency and technological Change: a hafting tradition model for prehistoric America. In: Willig JA, Aikens CM, Fagan JL (eds) Early human occupation in far western North America: the Clovis-Archaic interface. Anthropological Papers No. 21, Nevada State Museum, Carson City, Nevada, pp 373–387Google Scholar
  109. Narum SR (2006) Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conserv Gen 7:783–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. O'Brien MJ, Darwent J, Lyman RL (2001) Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the southeastern United States. J Archaeol Sci 28:1115–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. O'Brien MJ, Buchanan B, Collard M, Boulanger MT (2012) Cultural cladistics and the early prehistory of North America. In: Pontarotti P (ed) Evolutionary biology: mechanisms and trends. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. O'Higgins P (1999) Ontogeny and phylogeny: morphometric approaches to the study of skeletal growth and evolution. In: Chaplain MAJ, Singh GD, McLachlan J (eds) On growth and form: spatio-temporal pattern formation in biology. Wiley, New York, pp 373–393Google Scholar
  113. O'Higgins P (2000) Quantitative approaches to the study of craniofacial growth and evolution: advances in morphometric techniques. In: O'Higgins P, Cohn M (eds) Vertebrate ontogeny and phylogeny: implications for the study of hominid skeletal evolution. Academic, London, pp 163–185Google Scholar
  114. Owsley DW, Hunt DR (2001) Clovis and early Archaic period crania from the Anzick site (24PA506), Park County, Montana. Plains Anthropol 46:115–121Google Scholar
  115. Prasciunas MM (2011) Mapping Clovis: projectile points, behavior, and bias. Am Antiq 76:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Robinson BS, Ort JC, Eldridge WA, Burke AL, Pelletier BG (2009) Paleoindian aggregation and social context at Bull Brook. Am Antiq 74:423–447Google Scholar
  117. Rohlf FJ (1998) On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Syst Biol 47:147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rohlf FJ (2003a) Bias and error in estimates of mean shape in geometric morphometrics. J Hum Evol 44:665–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rohlf FJ (2003b) tpsSmall version 1.20 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.; accessed July 2013.
  120. Rohlf FJ (2004) tpsSuper version 1.14 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.; accessed July 2013.
  121. Rohlf FJ (2008) Relative warps version 1.46 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.; accessed July 2013.
  122. Rohlf FJ (2010) tpsDig version 2.15 shareware program. Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook.; accessed July 2013.
  123. Rohlf FJ, Bookstein FL (eds) (1990) Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Special Publication No. 2. Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  124. Rohlf FJ, Marcus LF (1993) A revolution in morphometrics. Trends Ecol Evol 8:129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Rohlf FJ, Slice DE (1990) Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 39:40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Rohlf FJ, Loy A, Corti M (1996) Morphometric analysis of Old World Talpidae (Mammalia, Insectivora) using partial-warp scores. Syst Biol 45:344–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Sanchez MG (2001) A synopsis of Paleo-Indian archaeology in Mexico. Kiva 67:119–136Google Scholar
  128. Sellards EH (1938) Artifacts associated with fossil elephant. Bull Geol Soc Am 49:999–1010Google Scholar
  129. Sellards EH (1952) Early man in North America. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  130. Sholts SB, Stanford DJ, Flores LM, Wärmländer SKTS (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. J Archaeol Sci 39:3018–3026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Simons DB (1997) The Gainey and Butler sites as focal points for Caribou and people. In: Jackson LJ, Thacker PT (eds) Caribou and reindeer hunters of the Northern Hemisphere. Avebury, Farnham, pp 105–131Google Scholar
  132. Simons DB, Shott MJ, Wright HT (1984) The Gainey site: variability in a Great Lakes Paleo-Indian assemblage. Archaeol East N Am 12:266–279Google Scholar
  133. Simons DB, Shott MJ, Wright HT (1987) Paleoindian research in Michigan: current status of the Gainey and Leavitt projects. Curr Res Pleistocene 4:27–30Google Scholar
  134. Slice DE (2001) Landmark coordinates aligned by Procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. Syst Biol 50:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Slice DE (ed) (2005) Modern morphometrics in physical anthropology. Kluwer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  136. Slice DE (2007) Geometric morphometrics. Ann Rev Anthropol 36:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Smallwood AM (2010) Clovis biface technology at the Topper site, South Carolina: evidence for variation and technological flexibility. J Archaeol Sci 37:2413–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Smallwood AM (2012) Clovis technology and settlement in the American Southeast: using biface analysis to evaluate dispersal models. Am Antiq 77:689–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Stanford DJ, Jodry MA (1988) The Drake Clovis cache. Curr Res Pleistocene 5:21–22Google Scholar
  140. Steele J, Adams J, Sluckin T (1998) Modelling Paleoindian dispersals. World Archaeol 30:286–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Storck PL, Spiess AE (1994) The significance of new faunal identifications attributed to an early Paleoindian (Gainey complex) occupation at the Udora site, Ontario. Am Antiq 59:121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Tallavaara M, Manninen MA, Hertell E, Rankama T (2010) How flakes shatter—a critical evaluation of quartz fracture analysis. J Archaeol Sci 37:2442–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Tankersley KB (1994) The effects of stone and technology on fluted-point morphometry. Am Antiq 59:498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Thulman DK (2012) Discriminating Paleoindian point types from Florida using landmark geometric morphometrics. J Archaeol Sci 39:1599–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Titmus GL, Woods JC (1991) Fluted points from the Snake River plain. In: Bonnichsen R, Turnmire KL (eds) Clovis: origins and adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pp 119–131Google Scholar
  146. Wang W, Lycett SJ, von Cramon-Taubadel N, Jin JJH, Bae CJ (2012) Comparison of handaxes from Bose Basin (China) and the western Acheulean indicates convergence of form, not cognitive differences. PLoS ONE 7(4):e35804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Warnica JM (1966) New discoveries at the Clovis site. Am Antiq 31:345–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Waters MR, Stafford TW Jr (2007) Redefining the age of Clovis: implications for the peopling of the Americas. Science 315:1122–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Waters MR, Forman SL, Jennings TA, Nordt LC, Driese SG, Feinberg JM et al (2011a) The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin site, Texas. Science 331:1599–1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Waters MR, Pevny CD, Carlson DL (2011b) Clovis lithic technology: investigation of a stratified workshop at the Gault site, Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  151. Webster M, Sheets HD (2010) A practical introduction to landmark-based geometric morphometrics. In: Alroy J, Hunt G (eds) Quantitative methods in paleobiology. The Paleontological Society Papers, Volume 16, pp 163–188Google Scholar
  152. Wilke PJ, Flenniken JJ, Ozbun TL (1991) Clovis technology at the Anzick site, Montana. J Cal Great Basin Anthropol 13:242–272Google Scholar
  153. Willey GR, Phillips P (1958) Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  154. Willig JA (1991) Clovis technology and adaptation in far western North America: regional pattern and environmental context. In: Bonnichsen R, Turnmire KL (eds) Clovis: origins and adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis, pp 91–118Google Scholar
  155. Wilmsen EN (1970) Lithic analysis and cultural inference: a Paleo-Indian case. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Anthropological Papers No. 16Google Scholar
  156. Witthoft J (1952) A Paleo-Indian site in eastern Pennsylvania: an early hunting culture. Proc Am Phil Soc 96:464–495Google Scholar
  157. Witthoft J (1954) A note on fluted point relationships. Am Antiq 19:271–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Woods JC, Titmus GL (1985) A review of the Simon Clovis collection. Idaho Archaeol 8:3–8Google Scholar
  159. Wormington HM (1957) Ancient man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, DenverGoogle Scholar
  160. Zelditch ML, Swiderski DL, Sheets HD, Fink WL (2004) Geometric morphometrics for biologists: a primer. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Briggs Buchanan
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Michael J. O’Brien
    • 2
  • Mark Collard
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Human Evolutionary Studies Program and Department of ArchaeologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of ArchaeologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  4. 4.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of TulsaTulsaUSA

Personalised recommendations