Over the past 30 years research into the Early Paleoindian archaeological record around 11,000 B.P.) in the North American Lower Great Lakes region has mostly focused on data collection, individual site interpretation, and artifact descriptions. Large amounts of data are now available, which allows us to begin asking questions of broader anthropological relevance, beyond a mere regional synthesis. What options did hunter-forager humans Homo sapiens sapiens) have when colonizing an unfamiliar landscape? What sort of mobility patterns were used? And what kind of technology helped a band to tackle this new and potentially dangerous Ice-Age landscape? Studying early human colonization processes is problematic in most areas around the world. We cannot tell if the prehistoric foragers under consideration were colonizers or were already in place at the time that their stuff entered the archaeological record. However, recently deglaciated landscapes, like the Lower Great Lakes, offers us a blank slate: the earliest human detritus there must be that of colonizers. There simply could not have been human occupation any earlier because glaciers occupied the area. Despite the global warming trend taking place during the end of the Last Glacial period, an anomalous glacial re-advance, called the Younger Dryas cold-event, kept the climate and environment stable around the Great Lakes. It is well documented that extreme mobility among hunter-foragers plays an influential role in the way forager tools are designed, requiring differing degrees of portability, reliability, maintainability, and versatility. Thus, if the habitat and social organization in which prehistoric mobile foragers found themselves influenced the design, manufacture, maintenance, and discard of their stone tools, then the study of those tools should inform us about those same contexts and the strategies for dealing with them. This dissertation presents data on nearly 2,000 Paleoindian unifacial stone tools from seven base camps of early colonizers around the Lower Great Lakes. It establishes quantitative benchmarks for the amount of stone tool variability to be expected for different mobility, tool-maintenance, and tool-design strategies. From quantitative assessments of artifact morphological diversity this dissertation concluded that: 1) Colonizing Paleoindians in the Lower Great Lakes practiced logistical mobility, that is they moved their base camps long distances but infrequently. If Clovis colonizers in the Lower Great Lakes used a logistical mobility strategy, it follows that they did not follow intensively or rely exclusively upon terrestrial fauna. In turn, the traditional notion that humans were “pulled” into a new territory through their dependence on hunting loses strength while concurrently the pull factor of information acquisition becomes that much more compelling both through exploration of far away lands and learning of immediate environments). Information acquisition and exploration regarding far away lands would have occurred through logistical forays before any long-distance base camp move took place. The implication of this conclusion means that even though Clovis foragers moved far and fast across the landscape, we can infer they did not move blindly. And while this exploration may have been embedded in, or even an impetus for, logistical trips, it was probably positive assessment of landscape potential that ultimately determined base camp moves, the infrequency of which in turn allowed them to maximize their time in a single location to learn and adapt to their immediate environment. 2) With regards to unifacially flaked stone tools, rather than choosing or knapping a set of standardized “ideal” flake-blanks to later modify to particular tasks a responsive tool-maintenance strategy), colonizing foragers initially selected/created sets of variable morphologies which were maintained throughout the tool-sets use-life history an anticipatory strategy). This suggests that Clovis foragers broadly anticipated the sorts of tasks that would need to be conducted with sets of unifacially flaked hardware. 3) The unifacial stone tools of human colonizers in the Lower Great Lakes possessed attributes exhibiting both “maintainable” expediently made, quickly and easily refurbished, and readily converted for different uses) and “reliable” over-designed to tackle specific tasks, i.e. could not be adapted to multi-tasking) tool-design strategies. In other words, there seemed to be evidence that unifacial stone tools were both hand-held and hafted. There are very few such regions in the world where a clean slate is offered upon which to examine human hunter-forager colonization processes. Both the data and the conclusions reached here help to advance our understanding of the behavioral adaptations that determined how our species came to colonize the planet.