You're asserting a causal relationship, not a functional or morphological similarity. You haven't made an argument for that yet.

> This says the Clovis people of Clovis, New Mexico are the oldest around

They aren't. Pre-clovis is well established at this point. I'm not sure you intend this with your phrasing, but maybe this will be useful. Archaeological cultures like Clovis don't name a "people" because the actual humans or may not have shared unified identities. Type sites also just represent a clear example of the broader category they're naming rather than anything about where things originated.

There's also thousands and thousands of years separation between Clovis Mexica, Mound cultures, or the Maya, so unless you make an argument I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you think all lithics are the same?

> The Olmecs, Aztecs, and Mayans all worked stone.

1) you've made the same naming mistake again and 2) this isn't an argument for anything.