Formation of the Ngandong Paleoanthropological Site and Solo River Terrace Sequence, Central Java, Indonesia

University of Iowa Iowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

Spring 2018

Formation of the Ngandong paleoanthropological site and Solo River terrace sequence, Central Java, Indonesia

Maija Eliina Sipola University of Iowa

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Geology Commons

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/6286

Recommended Citation Sipola, Maija Eliina. "Formation of the Ngandong paleoanthropological site and Solo River terrace sequence, Central Java, Indonesia." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.7l1okwsy

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd Part of the Geology Commons

FORMATION OF THE NGANDONG PALEOANTHROPOLOGICAL SITE AND SOLO RIVER TERRACE SEQUENCE, CENTRAL JAVA, INDONESIA

by Maija Eliina Sipola

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Geoscience in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa

May 2018

Thesis Supervisor: Professor E. Arthur Bettis, III

MAIJA ELIINA SIPOLA

2018

Graduate College The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

______

PH.D. THESIS

______

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Maija Eliina Sipola

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Geoscience at the May 2018 graduation.

Thesis Committee: ______E. Arthur Bettis, III, Thesis Supervisor

______Russell Ciochon

______Jeffrey Dorale

______Emily Finzel

______Mark Reagan

To my friends, family, and teachers

A computer is not a washing machine in which our data can be purified. A.M. Winkelmoen, 1982

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my wonderful parents for their sacrifice and continued support, my dear friends Lisa, Kat, Gina, Abby, Neo, Alissa, and Allison for their support and friendship, my thesis advisor, Art Bettis, and my committee members for their advice, encouragement, and patience throughout my PhD program, and all of my teachers and professors who have helped me work to reach my potential throughout my 29 years of formal education.

I would also like to acknowledge my generous funding sources for supporting this project: the University of Iowa Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Geological

Society of America, National Science Foundation, Australian Academy of Science, Wenner-

Gren Foundation, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, and the University of

Iowa Graduate and Professional Student Government (formerly Executive Council of Graduate and Professional Students).

I would also like to acknowledge Porkchop, Judith Schorsch, Robyn, Sigur Ros, and Pam

Schwartz, all of whom helped me keep moving forward throughout this project.

ABSTRACT

The Ngandong paleoanthropological site in Central Java, Indonesia has significant impact on the models for human migration and evolution out of the African continent. Located on a Late

Pleistocene fluvial terrace along the Solo River, paleoanthropological excavations at Ngandong have uncovered fourteen Homo erectus fossils that, based on their position at a low terrace level and preliminary ages produced by uranium-series dating, are believed to be possibly the most recent known occurrences of H. erectus in the world. However, this hypothesis cannot be substantiated by the results of previous studies at Ngandong due to a general scarcity of geologic knowledge of the

Solo River terrace sequence formation. This study seeks to overcome the limits of these previous studies by taking a comprehensive, geoarchaeological approach to this paleoanthropological site by pairing sedimentary, mineralogical and geochemical analyses with luminescence dating techniques to understand the timing and mechanics of the Ngandong site formation. The results of these analyses suggest the Ngandong terrace deposits and fossils within were deposited within a Solo River paleochannel over a relatively short period of time, and were largely sourced from the volcanic arc to the south, with the exception of a fine-grained mudflow layer derived mainly from local carbonate bedrock in the Kendeng Zone.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

The early human paleoanthropological site at Ngandong, Central Java, Indonesia has significant impact on the models for human migration and evolution out of the African continent.

Located on an abandoned stream bank above the Solo River, Ngandong archaeological digs have uncovered fourteen Homo erectus fossils that, based on their unique shape, are believed to have lived more recently than any other known examples of Homo erectus. However, this hypothesis has not been substantiated by previous studies at Ngandong due to a general lack of understanding about the formation of the site as a whole. This study seeks to overcome the limits of these previous studies by thoroughly examining the grain size, grain shape, mineralogy, geochemistry, and stratigraphy of the site to understand how it formed, and in turn, provide a necessary geological context to the

Ngandong Homo erectus fossils. The results outlined in this dissertation suggest the fossil-bearing layers were deposited at the site (at the time a channel bottom) over a short period of time and were sourced from the volcanic arc that forms the southern portion of Java island.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO NGANDONG SITE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR STUDY METHODS ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Paleoanthropological Background ...... 2 Geological Background: Java and the Kendeng Zone...... 6 Fluvial Terrace Formation ...... 15 Dating the Ngandong Site Stratigraphy ...... 18 Research Objectives ...... 22 Explanation and Justification of Research Methods ...... 23 Field Methods ...... 23 Laboratory Methods ...... 25 Grain-Shape Analysis ...... 36 Mineralogical and Geochemical Characterization ...... 37 Conclusion ...... 39

CHAPTER II: FORMATION OF THE NGANDONG SITE STRATIGRAPHY ...... 40 Abstract ...... 40 Introduction ...... 41 Geologic Background ...... 41 Paleoanthropological Background ...... 43 Methods ...... 44 Field Excavation ...... 44 Grain Size and Grain Shape Analyses ...... 45 Results...... 52 Stratigraphy ...... 52 Grain Shape Analysis ...... 69 Grain Size Analysis ...... 69 Interpretation ...... 84 Descriptive Facies Overview ...... 84 Interpretive Sedimentary Facies ...... 85 Discussion ...... 90 Conclusion ...... 92 CHAPTER III: LUMINESCENCE DATING OF VOLCANICLASTIC FLUVIAL SEDIMENTS OF THE SOLO RIVER TERRACE SEQUENCE AT NGANDONG IN EAST JAVA, INDONESIA ...... 94 Abstract ...... 94 Introduction ...... 95 Methods ...... 97 Results...... 97 Discussion ...... 99 Conclusion ...... 103

vii

CHAPTER IV: MINERALOGICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF NGANDONG SITE STRATIGRAPHY ...... 104 Abstract ...... 104 Introduction ...... 104 Methods ...... 106 Portable X-Ray Fluorescence ...... 106 Point-Counting ...... 107 Results...... 108 Data Analysis: Bulk Geochemistry ...... 108 Data Analysis: Mineralogy ...... 117 Discussion ...... 132 Conclusion ...... 134

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION...... 135

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY ...... 138 Red Thermoluminescence Dating...... 138 Mounting of Grains for Point-Counting ...... 146

APPENDIX B: WHOLE DATA ...... 148 U-Series Dating ...... 148 Grain-Size and Grain-Shape Data ...... 149 Red Thermoluminescence Data ...... 195 pXRF Data ...... 207

REFERENCES ...... 241

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Miocene-Pleistocene bedrock stratigraphy of the Kendeng Hills and Sangiran areas (from Watanabe and Kadar, 1985)...... 8 Table 2: Mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation calculated from three consecutive sphericity, symmetry and breadth:length measurements of sample 2016 of Facies D. Note the coefficient of variation remains <0.05...... 74 Table 3: Sphericity measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red)...... 75 Table 4: Symmetry measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red)...... 76 Table 5: Breadth:Length measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red)...... 77 Table 6: GRADISTAT statistical results for Ngandong-1, Ngandong-3, Matar, and Solo River samples analyzed in CAMSIZER®...... 78 Table 7: Particle size results of fine-grained "Facies E" samples from Ngandong-1, determined by traditional pipette methods...... 80

Table 8: Facies analysis of Ngandong-1 deposits (after Miall, 1978)...... 83 Table 9: Luminescence dates from Ngandong (translated from Rizal, 1998). The High Terrace described in Rizal (1998) is referred to as the Ngandong Terrace in Sartono (1976) and as the 20 m terrace in Sidarto and Morwood (2004)...... 96

Table 10: Stratigraphic relationships and equivalent doses measured with RTL ...... 98 Table 11: Intra-sample variability in equivalent dose measured from luminescence signal on red-wavelength ...... 99 Table 12: Published, preferred values of standard reference materials used for pXRF calibration in this study, sourced from the GeoReM online database...... 111 Table 13: Laboratory-measured values of standard reference materials during data collection with pXRF...... 112 Table 14: All whole point-counted samples, organized by facies and/or location. Data are expressed in percentages of all point counts per sample, following the mineral classifications in the left hand column...... 119 Table 15: Point-count percentages by size fraction for sieved samples. Sample numbers are followed by a letter code indicating the size fraction, as follows: W=whole fraction; A=>250µm; B=125-250µm; and C=63-125µm...... 120

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sunda subcontinent (outlined in green) and Java, Indonesia (outlined in pink) (modified from (Hall, 2002)). Note the subduction of the Indian- Australian plate under the Sunda Shelf on the Eurasian plate...... 3 Figure 2: Solo River drainage system in Central Java with other known paleoanthropological sites (black dots), and modern cities (square boxes) (modified from (Swisher et al., 1996)) ...... 4 Figure 3: Excavation of the "Facies A" fossiliferous layer at Ngandong. This fossiliferous layer rests directly on an erosional surface cut on local Pliocene bedrock (Kalibeng Marl). Photo by O. Frank Huffman...... 6 Figure 4: Tectonic map of SE Asia; with the island of Java outlined in red (modified from (Darman and Sidi, 2000) ...... 10 Figure 5: Geologic map of Central and East Java. The Solo River is highlighted in bold blue and the Kendeng Hills anticlinorium ("Kendeng Zone") is circled in red. The Solo River cuts northward through the Kendeng Hills, following fault lines. The bedrock cut by the Solo River at Ngandong is the Upper Miocene-aged Kalibeng Marl, and exposed elsewhere in the Kendeng Zone is the Early Pleistocene Pucangan formation (USGS, 1965). A-A‟ cross section is seen in Figure 6...... 11 Figure 6: Regional schematic A-A‟ (south-north) cross section (as drawn in Figure 5) summarizing the structure of East Java and Madura Island. Modified from Latief et al. (1990, cited in Darman and Sidi, 2000) (from Sharaf et al., 2005). Ngandong lies within the southern end of the transect, in the Kendeng Zone...... 12 Figure 7: Bouguer gravity anomaly map of east Java. Colors indicate the degree of gravity anomaly: warm indicate high/positive and cool indicate low/negative gravity anomaly (measured in micrometers per seconds squared. The significant negative anomaly in the Kendeng Basin indicates a very thick (up to 6km) depositional sequence derived from the volcanic arcs to the south (modified from Waltham et al., 2008)...... 13 Figure 8: Volcanic map and cross-section of central Java. Note the location of Ngandong within the Kendeng Basin, and the northward shift of active volcanism from the Oligocene-Miocene volcanoes of the Southern Mountains Ar to the locations of modern volcanoes Lawu and Wilis near the Kendeng Basin (modified from Waltham et al., 2008) ...... 14 Figure 9: Schematic cross-sectional view of examples of aggradational (top) and degradational (bottom) terrace classifications (from Easterbrook, 1999) ...... 17 Figure 10: Schematic cross section of a fluvial system with both degradational and aggradational terrace remnants (From Figure 2.11C, Burbank DW and Anderson RS (2001) Tectonic Geomorphology, 274p. Blackwell Science, in Merritts (2007))...... 18

Figure 11: Facies descriptions in Pit H10a based on field observations...... 24

Figure 12: Basic luminescence dating process (after Aitken, 1992 in Walker, 2005)...... 26 Figure 13: Determination of equivalent dose with additive dose method (after Walker, 2005) ...... 28 Figure 14: CAMSIZER® (right) with computer program (left) collecting grain- size and grain-shape data as grains cascade down the feeding tray and between two rapid-use digital cameras...... 33 Figure 15: CAMSIZER® measures the same aggregate grains to be a larger size than sieve analysis (from Moore et al., 2011) ...... 35 Figure 16: Underestimation of grain-size is common in sieve analysis because elongate grains may pass through apertures smaller than the length of the particle (from Mora et al., 1998) ...... 36 Figure 17: Plan view aerial image of the Solo River Valley sites investigated via pit excavation and sediment augering: Ngandong 1 (NDG-1), Ngandong-3 (NDG-3), and the Matar Hill area ...... 48

Figure 18: Plan map of pit excavations (in boxes) at NDG-1 ...... 49 Figure 19: E. Arthur Bettis, III examines the sedimentary structures on the north wall of excavation Pit F10cG10a ...... 50 Figure 20: Cumulative grain-size curves of each of three size analyses of sample 2016, as displayed by CAMSIZER® software. The three grain-size curves fully overlap, illustrating the repeatability of grain-size measurements ...... 51 Figure 21: Correlated NDG-1 excavation pits oriented according to elevation relationships. The terrace surface slopes downward toward the Solo River. Note that fossils were only found in Facies A and Facies C layers (marked in this diagram with stars and specimen numbers)...... 53

Figure 22: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit L10c ...... 54

Figure 23: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit L10a ...... 55

Figure 24: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit H10a ...... 56 Figure 25: Transition from crude bedding in facies C, upward into shallow trough cross-bedding in facies D. Structures are visible in photo A and outlined in photo B...... 57 Figure 26: Field photo of the western wall of Pit H10c with facies outlined and labeled. Photo and sketch by Art Bettis...... 58 Figure 27: Sketch of Pit H10c stratigraphy, as seen in the previous photo. Note the presence of three fine-grained "flows" in Facies E...... 59 Figure 28: Stratigraphy of Pit J10a. Note the dominance of the fine-grained facies E flows and the direct contact of the flows with the Kalibeng Marl...... 60 Figure 29: Sketch of Pit F10cG10a stratigraphy. Note the sloping, lenticular beds in Facies C...... 61 xi

Figure 30: Sketch of Pit G10c stratigraphy. Facies D displays type 1 ripple drift in this exposure (Walker, 1963)...... 62

Figure 31: Sketch of Pit H09a stratigraphy...... 63

Figure 32: Sketch of Pit H09ac stratigraphy ...... 64 Figure 33: Sketch of Pit G09a stratigraphy. The identity of the thick layer on the northern side (Facies E or fill) is uncertain...... 65 Figure 34: Ngandong-2 site stratigraphy, composed of very thin deposits overlying Kalibeng Marl. The pebbles are dominantly well-rounded and volcanic (bassalts and andesites)...... 66 Figure 35: Cross-section generated from a N-S transect of seven augers taken at the NGD-3 site. All holes were augered down to the Kalibeng Marl bedrock. Sediments are generally fine-grained to the south and more coarse-grained to the north, nearer the Solo River...... 67 Figure 36: Stratigraphy and sample collection sites in the Matar 20-m terrace deposit outcrop (L2, L2) across the Solo River from the Ngandong-3 site. Depth of 0cm marks the 20m terrace surface. Samples 2057 and OSL-5 were analyzed for grain-size and grain-shape...... 68 Figure 37: Field photo from Pit H10a with facies labeled (left). Grain-size histograms for sample 2501-dd of Facies A (A), sample 2020 of Facies B (B), sample 2018 of Facies C (C), sample 2016 of Facies D (D) (right). The x-axis of each histogram indicates particle diameter in millimeters, increasing to the right. The y-axis of each histogram indicates class weight in percentage, increasing upward...... 73 Figure 38: Cumulative grain-size curves of the averaged A, B, C and D facies samples from Ngandong. The B facies samples are typically fine-grained and well-sorted; D facies samples are of medium grain-size and moderately well sorted, and A and C facies samples are poorly sorted, ranging from sand to pebbles ...... 81 Figure 39: Grain size components (in weight percent) of Flow 1, Flow 2, and Flow 3 in Pit H10c, as determined by traditional pipette particle size analysis...... 82 Figure 40: Calibration curves comparing measured pXRF values of SRM (standard reference materials) vs. the published, preferred values of those SRM (in ppm). An R-squared value of the trendline greater than 0.95 indicates a high correlation between the two values, and therefore an accurate measurement by the pXRF (Ryan et al., 2017)...... 113 Figure 41: Bivariate plot of Strontium/Yttrium (Sr/Y) vs. Rubidium/Strontium (Rb/Sr) ratios of common facies at Ngandong-1 and other sites nearby. There is no discernable pattern among the facies by using these element ratios, and notably no differentiation of the facies E “flows” from the volcaniclastic deposits of facies A-D...... 114

xii

Figure 42: Bivariate plot using Potassium/Yttrium (K/Y) vs. Rubidium/Strontium (Rb/Sr) ratios to compare bulk geochemistry of Ngandong sediments with rocks from the Mt. Wilis and Mt. Lawu volcanic complexes (WVC and LVC, respectively). The Ngandong sediments form a cluster of relatively low potassium (K) and high rubidium (Rb), and are circled in red...... 115 Figure 43: Bivariate plot comparing Zirconium/Yttrium (Zr/Y) to Strontium/ Zirconium (Sr/Zr) ratios for Ngandong sediments and volcanic rocks from Mts. Merapi, Wilis and Lawu volcanic complexes. The Ngandong sediments form a cluster most similar to the youngest volcanic rocks from the Wilis Volcanic Complex (WVC) and Lawu Volcanic Complex (LVC), and are similar to the Merapi rocks of all ages included in this plot...... 116 Figure 44: Photomicrographs of sand grains in sample 2073a, of Facies C in Pit N10a. Common grain types/minerals are lithic fragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), and orthoclase (ORTH). Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length...... 121 Figure 45: Photomicrographs of sample 2501-dd of Facies A in Pit F10cG10a. Common grain types/minerals are lithic fragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), orthoclase (ORTH), and biotite (BT). Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length...... 122 Figure 46: Photomicrographs of the modern Solo River bedload deposits sampled upstream of the Ngandong site. Common grain types/minerals are lithic f ragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), volcanic glass (VG), and orthoclase (ORTH). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length...... 123 Figure 47: Photomicrographs of sample 2033 from Flow 1 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include oxides (OX), biotite (BT), and pyroxenes (PYX). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane- polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length...... 124 Figure 48: Photomicrographs of sample 2034a from Flow 2 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include oxides (OX), biotite (BT), and pyroxenes (PYX). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 10x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 100µm in length...... 125 Figure 49: Photomicrographs of sample 2035a from Flow 3 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are siltstone/mudstone (MUD), carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include volcanic glass (VG), orthoclase (ORTH), and pyroxenes (PYX)...... 126 Figure 50: QAPF diagrams showing the classification of volcanic rocks and volcanic rock fragments (from International Union of Geosciences)...... 127

xiii

Figure 51: QAPF diagram with all point-counted samples mapped. Source rocks of point-counted sediments are likely basalts, andesites and dacites...... 128 Figure 52: Ternary diagram illustrating the relationships between Ngandong samples for glass, lithics and heavy mineral composition. Samples are whole unless followed by capital letters A (>250 µm sieved fraction), B (125-250 µm sieve fraction) or C (63-125 µm sieved fraction). These results show that mineralogical composition of each sample varies based on grain-size fraction, with coarser fractions most enriched in lithics and finer fractions most enriched in glass and heavy minerals...... 129 Figure 53: Mineralogical compositions of whole samples from Pit H10a, representing Facies B, C, and D. Facies B is enriched in glass, Facies C is enriched in lithic fragments, and Facies D contains a higher feldspathic component than Facies B or C...... 130 Figure 54: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2020, Facies B. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene, hornblende, and oxides...... 130 Figure 55: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2018, Facies C. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene, hornblende, and oxides...... 131 Figure 56: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2016, Facies D. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene, hornblende, and oxides...... 131

xiv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO NGANDONG SITE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR STUDY METHODS

Introduction

The small village of Ngandong on the west bank of the Solo River in Central Java,

Indonesia is well known for the large number of Homo erectus and other Pleistocene vertebrate fossils that were discovered in terrace deposits there by members of the Dutch Geological Survey between 1931 and 1933. The H. erectus at Ngandong are found in a relatively low terrace level in the valley, suggesting that they may be recent enough to have persisted in Java later than any other known Homo erectus around the world, and other studies have suggested that they may have lived contemporaneously with Homo sapiens in Java. Any occurrence of early human remains are of great interest to paleoanthropologists, and these remains in Java are of special interest because they represent important constraints on models of human evolution and dispersion from the African continent. As a result, there is great interest in the age of these fossils, the mechanism for how they were deposited in the fluvial sediments, and the potential for locating similar, paleoanthropologically lucrative sites elsewhere along the Solo River.

Although the fossils have been the focus on research until now, a thorough geological study of the Solo River terraces is necessary to both date the fossils and understand how they came to be deposited in such high concentration at Ngandong. The dates produced from Ngandong materials are highly scrutinized because of the suspected recent age of H. erectus and the demonstrated difficulty in accurately dating fluvial sediment deposition at the site; therefore, an understanding of the Solo River terraces evolution is necessary to substantiate (or refute) any

dates derived from Ngandong materials. Although the early studies at Ngandong were driven

solely by paleoanthropological interest, we now realize the necessity of a comprehensive geological study to understand the formation of this important hominin site.

Background

Paleoanthropological Background

Indonesia is increasingly a place of interest for the study of human evolution because of its location at the far end of the H. erectus dispersion pathways out of Africa. The Indonesian

Archipelago is located on the Sunda subcontinent where it is isolated from other land masses during high sea stands (such as in modern times) but is connected to mainland Asia through land bridges during low sea stands. Hence, the paleoenvironmental history of the region is essential to understanding sea level-controlled arrival and dispersion of Homo erectus across Sunda (Van

Der Kaars et al., 2000)(Figure 1). Early paleoanthropological work on the island of Java (ter

Haar, 1934; von Koenigswald, 1935), unique hominin species recently discovered on the island of Flores (Westaway et al., 2007) and paleoenvironmental and geological studies have occurred on both Java (Bettis et al., 2004; Morwood et al., 2008) and Flores (Roberts et al., 2009; K E

Westaway et al., 2009; K.E. Westaway et al., 2009). Homo erectus fossils have been found at other localities on Java, such as Trinil, Sangiran, Sambungmacan, Kendengbrubus, and Perning

(Mojokerto), but not in such high concentration as at Ngandong (Huffman et al., 2010) (Figure

2).

Figure 2: Solo River drainage system in Central Java with other known paleoanthropological sites (black dots), and modern cities (square boxes) (modified from (Swisher et al., 1996))

The Dutch Geological Survey realized Ngandong‟s paleontological potential in 1931 and conducted excavations there between 1931 and 1933, which uncovered fourteen Homo erectus fossils as well as thousands of other vertebrate macrofossils held in a “bone bed” layer of pebbly fluvial sand. Since 1931, many teams have excavated in and around Ngandong in search of more

hominin fossils and for datable geologic materials (Huffman et al. 2010, and references therein). 8

Although the early excavations at Ngandong uncovered the high-profile Homo erectus fossils, the most common paleontological findings at the site have been Bovidae and Cervidae remains.

Von Koenigswald (1934/1935) reported the fossil count from Ngandong excavations within a 3- year span (1931-1934) to be over 25,000. The high concentration of vertebrate macrofaunal remains within a thin stratigraphic unit at Ngandong has led paleontologists to suspect the

Ngandong “bone bed” may be the product of a mass death event, possibly caused by a volcanic eruption in the volcanic arc to the south (Huffman et al., 2010). Taphonomic analysis of the bones has revealed little evidence for weathering or fossilization prior to deposition at

Ngandong, which suggests the bones were deposited in their current position soon after death

(Huffman et al. 2008). A significant obstacle to paleoanthropological and geological work in

Java is the island‟s long, intensive agricultural history; it can be difficult to find undisturbed stratigraphy because so much of the landscape has been modified, and it is not always clear whether or not sediments are in situ. There is reason to believe that most excavations at

Ngandong postdating those of the Dutch Geological Survey were in fact dug into historical fill sediment left by the Dutch excavations, thereby providing no stratigraphic provenance information for interpreting the site‟s geologic history or any fossil materials collected (Huffman et al., 2010).

A 2010 excavation led by geologists, paleontologists and paleoanthropologists from the

Institute of Technology-Bandung, University of Texas-Austin, Rutgers University and the

University of Iowa employed copies of the original Dutch excavation maps to revisit the site and excavate locations and depths not previous explored. In this expedition, it was imperative to explore below the bone bed, down to the marl bedrock (Kalibeng Formation) in order to map a

complete exposure of terrace stratigraphy across all open excavation pits. We sought to locate

and map undisturbed terrace fill and fossils with greater documentation and precision than had previous studies at Ngandong, and to collect as many fossils (primarily fragmented Bovidae and

Cervidae) as possible for a comprehensive and statistically valid taphonomical study (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Excavation of the "Facies A" fossiliferous layer at Ngandong. This fossiliferous layer rests directly on an erosional surface cut on local Pliocene bedrock (Kalibeng Marl). Photo by O. Frank Huffman.

Geological Background: Java and the Kendeng Zone

The island of Java is situated approximately 7° south of the equator along the northern edge of the Java Trench, where the Indian Plate subducts under the Sunda subcontinent, which generates the frequent seismic activity in the region as well as the Tertiary volcanic arc that forms much of southern Java (Darman and Sidi, 2000) (Figure 4). The Southern Mountains,

Kendeng Hills and Rembang Hills are the remnants of tectonic fold belts that are oriented east-

west, parallel to the Java Trench (Figure 5). The Plio-Pleistocene stratigraphy in the Kendeng

Zone of Java is composed of basal Pliocene calcareous marine deposits that grade upward into

Pleistocene terrestrial volcanic sands, gravels and conglomerates. The tectonic compression from the subducting Indian Plate and uplift of the Southern Mountains and stratovolcanoes led to folding, tilting, and uplift of the Kendeng Zone beginning in the late Pliocene, with pronounced tectonic uplift events differentiating Pliocene and Pleistocene depositional environments (evident in a marine-to-terrestrial facies change), and tectonic movement continuing through the

Pleistocene (de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972)(Figures 6-8).

Due to differential rates and angles of compression and uplift, typical stratigraphic sections established at one locality are not necessarily present or visible a short lateral distance away along the same fold belt. Hence, numerous Pleistocene stratigraphic facies schemata have been developed for different localities in Central and East Java, with conflicting chronostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic correlations. South of the Kendeng Hills the Kalibeng

Formation (Pliocene-Miocene marl and limestone) is overlain, in rising succession, by the

Pucangan (spelled Putjangan in other studies (de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972)) Formation

(early Pleistocene volcanic breccia), Kabuh Formation (early Pleistocene sandstone and siltstone) and Notopuro Formation (Middle Pleistocene sands, gravels, and pumices)(Itihara et al., 1985)(Table 1). This stratigraphic model and naming scheme was previously also applied to the stratigraphy present at Sangiran (100-150 km to the southwest), until Itihara, et al. (1985) renamed the corresponding Sangiran site stratigraphy as, in rising succession, Puren Formation,

Sangiran Formation, Bapang Formation, and Pohjajar Formation to avoid over-simplification of what appear to be fairly localized depositional sequences. Chronostratigraphic correlation across

the region is impeded by the prevalence of localized deposition, deformation, weathering, and

Table 1: Miocene-Pleistocene bedrock stratigraphy of the Kendeng Hills and Sangiran areas (from Watanabe and Kadar,

1985).

erosion during and since the early Pliocene, as well as the limited outcrops available for mapping due to dense vegetation and intensive agriculture and development over the last 6,000 years.

At Ngandong, the contact between the Kalibeng Formation and overlying Solo River fluvial deposits is an angular unconformity representing the time elapsed during the crustal folding and uplift of the Kendeng Hills in the Middle Pleistocene (Itihara et al., 1985). The

Homo erectus and other vertebrate remains at Ngandong were excavated from (according to de

Genevraye and Samuel, 1972) Late Pleistocene terrace deposits overlying the Kalibeng

Formation in what is likely an erosional unconformity developed through fluvial incision and tectonic uplift; however, Van Gorsel and Troelstra (1981) attribute the Ngandong Homo erectus to the Putjangan Formation, which would be conformable over the Kalibeng Formation and would mean the Ngandong H. erectus is at least Early Pleistocene in age; however, this is unlikely because the Putjangan Formation in the Kendeng Hills is tectonically deformed, and the fossiliferous beds at Ngandong are not. Early hominid fossils recovered from Perning

(Mojokerto) are attributed to the Pucangan/Putjangan Formation (Early Pleistocene) formation and the famous “Java Man” skullcap, limb bone, and tooth excavated at Trinil were excavated from what is believed to be the Middle Pleistocene Kabuh Formation (de Genevraye and Samuel,

1972; Huffman, 2001; Huffman et al., 2006). The general scientific consensus of the Ngandong stratigraphy is that the Homo erectus and other vertebrate macrofauna were excavated from the

Late Pleistocene terrace deposits, and not Early Pleistocene volcaniclastics, as suggested by Van

Gorsel and Troelstra (1981).

Java‟s position on the Sundaland continental craton has allowed it to be terrestrially connected to the Southeast Asia via land bridges during low sea stands, such as during

Pleistocene glaciations. Climatic factors were important to the dispersion of Homo erectus and

other macrofauna to Java because alternating connection to or isolation from continental Asia was a determining factor in faunal diversity, distribution, and evolution on the island (Van Der

Kaars et al., 2000). In addition to these biogeographical impacts, variable paleoclimate influenced vegetation communities that controlled habitat for fauna (including Homo erectus) and geologic processes, such as the changes in fluvial discharge during cooler and drier periods of glacial maxima (Voris, 2000) that may have been a contributing factor to Solo River incision and formation of the resulting terrace sequence.

Figure 4: Tectonic map of SE Asia; with the island of Java outlined in red (modified from (Darman and Sidi, 2000)

Figure 5: Geologic map of Central and East Java. The Solo River is highlighted in bold blue and the Kendeng Hills anticlinorium ("Kendeng Zone") is circled in red. The Solo River cuts northward through the Kendeng Hills, following fault lines. The bedrock cut by the Solo River at Ngandong is the Upper Miocene-aged

Kalibeng Marl, and exposed elsewhere in the Kendeng Zone is the Early Pleistocene Pucangan formation 8

(USGS, 1965). A-A‟ cross section is seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Regional schematic A-A‟ (south-north) cross section (as drawn in Figure 6: RegionalFigure schematic 5) summarizing A-A‟ (south the structure-north) cross of East section Java (asand drawn Madura in Island.Figure 5) summarizingModified from the structure Latief et ofal. East (1990, Java cited and in Madura Darman Island. and Sidi, Modified 2000) from Latief(from et al.Sharaf (1990, et al.,cited 2005) in Darman. Ngandong and Sidi,lies within 2000) the(from southern Sharaf end et al., of 2005).this transect,Ngandong in liesthe withinKendeng the Zone. southern end of the transect, in the

Kendeng Zone.

Figure 7: Bouguer gravity anomaly map of east Java. Colors indicate the degree of gravity anomaly: warm indicate high/positive and cool indicate low/negative gravity anomaly (measured in micrometers per seconds squared. The significant negative anomaly in the Kendeng Basin indicates a very thick (up to 6km) depositional sequence

derived from the volcanic arcs to the south (modified from Waltham et al., 2008).

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Figure 8: Volcanic map and cross-section of central Java. Note the location of Ngandong within the Kendeng Basin, and the northward shift of active volcanism from the Oligocene-Miocene volcanoes of the Southern Mountains Ar

to the locations of modern volcanoes Lawu and Wilis near the Kendeng Basin (modified from Waltham et al., 8

2008)

Geological Background: Solo River

The Ngandong site is located on an outer bend of the Solo River Valley in the Kendeng

Hills of Central Java. The Kendeng Zone was a foreland basin and site of marine deposition during the Miocene and Pliocene, until the marine sediments were thrust and folded during the

Pleistocene into the modern Kendeng Hills (Van Gorsel and Troelstra, 1981). The Solo River, which is the largest river in Java at approximately 550 km length, is an entrenched meandering stream system that currently flows from southwest to northeast through Central and East Java and empties into the Java Sea, draining approximately 16,000 km2 (Hoekstra, 1993). It is likely the Solo River originally flowed from northeast to southwest, but underwent a reversal due to tectono-volcanic uplift of the Tertiary stratovolcanic range that includes Mounts Merapi, Lawu and the Southern Mountains, probably during the Middle Pleistocene (Sartono, 1976). The Solo

River episodically incised as it cut through the Kendeng Zone along a fault in the anticline, leaving several terrace levels in the modern landscape (de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972). The terrace sequence in the Ngandong area includes the Low Terrace (modern floodplain), Middle

Terrace and the High Terrace (Rizal, 1998). The High Terrace [also known as the Ngandong

Terrace (Sartono, 1976) or 20 m terrace (Sidarto and Morwood, 2004)] at Ngandong is underlain by approximately 3 m of fluvial sediment overlying the Pliocene Kalibeng Formation marl bedrock. Here, Homo erectus fossils were found with other vertebrate macrofauna within pebbly, volcaniclastic alluvium approximately 2 m below the terrace surface.

Fluvial Terrace Formation

Fluvial terraces are step-like riser surfaces in a river valley above the current river flood

level. They are formed by episodic incision of a stream, which leaves former floodplain (or even

streambed) levels abandoned as terrace treads, and the steep slopes (risers) connecting the terrace treads. Fluvial terraces are often used to quantify fluvial incision rates, which can similarly provide information about tectonic uplift or paleoclimatic change. Dating the deposition of fluvial sediments below terrace levels can also be a useful tool for paleoanthropological work, such as in this project at Ngandong.

Fluvial terraces are formed when a stream continuously or episodically incises and erodes through its streambed; this is caused by a lowering of the base flow level, which is most often due to tectonic uplift, eustatic sea-level fall, or climatic factors that induce changes in discharge, sediment supply, and base flow (Merritts, 2007). When tectonic activity raises land elevation, the gravitational force of the water makes it resist flowing at a higher elevation, so the water erodes the streambed by cutting downward to maintain a downward slope. Eustatic sea-level lowering causes fluvial incision by increasing the gradient near the fluvial/marine interface, and the incision propagates upstream similar to a knick point. Terrestrial climate change can also influence stream behavior, such as drier conditions that lower the stream‟s base flow, colder conditions that decrease vegetative control on erosion, or wetter conditions that will cause more water and sediment runoff. A decrease in discharge or an increase in sediment supply may induce sediment aggradation in the channel and on the floodplain, but if sediment supply ceases and/or discharge increases, the channel may be incised and these sedimentary deposits will be left abandoned as fluvial terrace levels.

All terraces are created by fluvial incision, but the distinct classifications among terraces are dependent on the types of materials incised in this process. Terrace remnants can be generally classified into two categories: degradational terraces and aggradational terraces (Figure

9). Degradational terraces, also known as cut or strath terraces, are formed by fluvial incision

into bedrock materials, and typically leave thin (1-5 m scale) channel deposits on top of a bedrock terrace level before abandonment due to continued incision (Merritts, 2007).

Degradational terraces, as the name implies, are primarily erosive features in that more material is eroded from the local bedrock than is deposited on top of it. Aggradational terraces, also known as fill terraces, are formed when a river valley is filled by sediment deposition, and later the deposits are continuously or episodically incised, resulting in a fluvial terrace sequence

(Easterbrook, 1999). Such terraces are termed “aggradational” because they are formed by small-scale incision following the large-scale deposition that previously occurred in that locality.

Although there are two distinct types of fluvial terraces, both types may form within the same fluvial system, either at different localities or the same locality, contemporaneously or separated by time (Merritts, 2007)(Figure 10).

Figure 9: Schematic cross-sectional view of examples of aggradational (top) and

degradational (bottom) terrace classifications (from Easterbrook, 1999)

Figure 10: Schematic cross section of a fluvial system with both degradational and aggradational terrace remnants (From Figure 2.11C, Burbank DW and Anderson RS (2001) Tectonic Geomorphology, 274p. Blackwell Science, in Merritts (2007)).

Dating the Ngandong Site Stratigraphy

It has proven difficult to determine a numerical age of the Ngandong “bone bed”. The bones are not preserved well enough for radiocarbon dating (and the fossils may be beyond the range of this method), and the accuracy of uranium-series dating of vertebrate fossil material is impeded by the fact that bones behave as open systems during diagenesis. A non-destructive gamma-ray spectrometric method of uranium-series dating of the Homo erectus fossils indicated the samples have been leached of uranium, but produced ages ranging from 40 ka to 70 ka

(Yokoyama et al., 2008). Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating of vertebrate teeth from layers at Ngandong thought to be the bone bed has produced ages ranging from 27 to 53 ka (Swisher et al., 1996). Rainer Grün of The Australian National University found highly variable (average age is approximately 130 ka) and as yet unpublished uranium-series dates of vertebrate fossils collected in the summer 2010 field season. Previous U-Th dating of macrofauna fossils

indicated that the surface of the bones contained much less uranium than the bone centers,

thought to be due to uranium leaching after deposition (van der Plicht et al., 1989) and therefore produced erroneously young ages.

Because directly dating the fossils is so problematic, another possibility for determining a numerical age for the site is accurate dating of the terrace sediments containing the fossils.

Maximum ages can be provided by dating the crystallization age of minerals in volcanic clasts in the fluvial deposits, and minimum ages may be determined by dating deposition of the fluvial sediments encasing the fossils through luminescence dating. 40Ar-39Ar dating of pumice hornblende from the terrace stratigraphy has been attempted (Swisher et al., 1994), but the ages are often too old to be a useful maximum age for terrace formation, and there is not enough datable pumice within the local stratigraphy to determine a statistically valid age. More recent attempts to re-date the hornblendes from Ngandong pumice produced crystallization ages of approximately 550 ka (Indriati et al., 2011), which is not altogether helpful in narrowing down the age(s) of the Ngandong Homo erectus fossils because the hornblende and pumice may have crystalized and existed on the landscapes of the Southern Mountains long before being transported and deposited at Ngandong. Paleontologists believe the bone bed was deposited at

Ngandong soon after death, thereby suggesting the date of deposition is similar to the numerical age of the fossils (Huffman et al., 2010). This geochronologically contemporaneous relationship highlights the appropriateness of using luminescence dating methods which date deposition of the fossil-laden fluvial sediments below the Ngandong terrace to establish age of Homo erectus remains at this site. Rizal (1998) attempted thermoluminescence (TL) and infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) dating of fluvial deposits at Ngandong, resulting in highly variable Late

Pleistocene ages. Some sample ages were indeterminable, and others were variable and not

stratigraphically consistent; older terraces in some cases produced more recent dates than

stratigraphically younger ones, and Rizal found significant (>100,000 years) age differences between TL and IRSL methods. The lack of consistency of the terrace ages and the variability between methods suggests that ages from Rizal (1998) are not statistically significant, potentially due to the application of inappropriate luminescence techniques for the variety of volcaniclastic fluvial sediments below the Solo River terraces. It is also possible that the sediments in Rizal‟s study were not in situ terrace remnants, as his field work did not involve comprehensive stratrigraphic analyses prior to sample collection; the TL and IRSL sampling was completed in discrete pits opened for the purpose of fossil collection, not stratigraphic mapping along the terrace. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the quartz in the terrace sediments has been attempted in other, unpublished studies at Ngandong, but the age produced is approximately 6.5 ka, which is believed to be erroneously young for the terrace‟s position in the valley (Bettis, 2010).

Several luminescence techniques have been successfully used to date fluvial sediments

(DeLong and Arnold, 2007; Forman et al., 1988; Olley et al., 1998; Rittenour, 2008), such as TL,

OSL, IRSL, and RTL dating techniques applied to sediments from other regions. Other methods such as cosmogenic exposure dating (Guralnik et al., 2011; Hancock et al., 1999; Repka et al.,

1997) and U-Th dating of pedogenic carbonates (Sharp et al., 2003) have also been successfully applied to dating the development of fluvial terrace levels. However, the suitability of cosmogenic exposure dating and pedogenic carbonate dating of Ngandong materials are questionable because of the high degree of human disturbance of the land surface over the last

6,000 years through agriculture, and these methods are best applied to land surfaces that have experienced little to no significant erosion. Because of the past difficulties in dating the

deposition of the volcaniclastic fluvial sediments at Ngandong, any terrace ages derived from

numerical dating methods must be corroborated by a well-formulated depositional model of the

Solo River terraces; therefore, a study of the terrace development over time, in addition to a luminescence (burial) chronology, is a crucial component of my project.

In addition to answering paleoanthropological questions, river terraces are frequently studied as a means of quantifying tectonic uplift rates (Colombo et al., 2000; Cunha et al., 2008) and/or climate change in the form of eustatic sea-level change and changes in terrestrial precipitation patterns (Gao et al., 2008; Maddy et al., 2005; Merritts, 2007; Sugai, 1993; Wang et al., 2009, 2010) in a region. Because Java is a tectonically active island with significant uplift along its southern margin, it is believed that the Solo River incision is almost certainly driven in part by tectonic uplift; however, it is quite possible that this incision was enhanced by

Quaternary climate change (Bridgeland and Westaway, 2008; Voris, 2000). Information about the Solo River erosional/depositional history is essential to understand the mechanics and timing of the deposition of the Ngandong bone bed, as well as the formation and abandonment of the entire terrace sequence at Ngandong. The best way to place an accurate time constraint on the formation of the entire sequence is accurate luminescence dating; determining accurate depositional dates of the Solo River terraces could provide information about past tectonic uplift and paleoclimatic changes in moisture through channel incision rates.

Several studies (Bartstra, 1977; Sartono, 1976; Rizal, 1998; Sidarto and Morwood, 2004; ter Haar, 1934) have undertaken topographic mapping and classification of the Solo River terraces. The results of these studies typically disagree with one another in terms of the number of terraces present, the absolute altitudes and relative heights of these terraces, and the ages of the terraces. Some measurements within these studies may be imprecise because the heights of

the terraces were measured relative to the stage of the Solo River, which has been observed to

fluctuate greatly over short periods of time. There may be confusion about which topographic features can be attributed to fluvial deposition; Sartono (1976) claimed that some very high levels in the landscape were fluvial terraces, yet his descriptions of the sediments below those levels do not necessarily support that claim. Terrace mapping with high resolution along the

Solo River has yet to be accomplished because of environmental and technological limitations; the dense vegetative cover can complicate surveying or aerial photography, and the extensive anthropogenic modification of the landscape can blur the boundaries between features formed through natural versus anthropogenic processes. Excavation has generally been restricted to areas with known fossil accumulations, so there is very little knowledge of the subsurface stratigraphy of most of the terraces along the Solo River.

Research Objectives

One objective of this project is to use luminescence dating methods to date the sedimentary sequence underlying the Ngandong terrace, and specifically strive to determine a minimum age for the deposition of the bone bed that contained Homo erectus fossils. As a means of corroborating the luminescence dating results, I formulated a depositional model for the Solo River terrace sequence at Ngandong. To date, the focus of studies (Rizal, 1998;

Swisher et al., 1996; Yokoyama et al., 2008) at Ngandong has mainly revolved around numerical dating of the hominids, associated macrofauna and sediments, and these studies have not produced conclusive results because of the aforementioned dating difficulties. Therefore, it is useless to apply new numerical dating methods to the Ngandong materials without a comprehensive geological investigation of the site stratigraphy and terrace levels. To be

credible, numerical dating methods must be accompanied by accurate site provenance

information. A depositional model for the terraces may not only provide relative age information and an understanding of site formation mechanisms, but may also guide future archaeological, paleontological and paleoanthropological investigations in other terrace remnants along the Solo River. Previous terrace sequence mapping studies have solely focused on the terrace surfaces and correlated terraces based on elevation alone. This approach has led to inaccuracies in terrace identification and correlation (Sartono, 1976), so it is imperative in my study to carefully examine subsurface stratigraphy to locate real fluvial terrace levels, and by using sediment descriptions to outline depositional facies, formulate a more accurate approach to mapping spatial relationships between terraces. In addition to the impacts on work at Ngandong, the ability to compare uranium-series ages of the fossils with the depositional age of the enclosing sediments may shed light on the taphonomic and diagenetic history of the Ngandong fossils.

Explanation and Justification of Research Methods

Field Methods

The field work for my project began with a one-month open pit geoarchaeological/paleontological excavation and bucket augering in and around the Ngandong paleoanthropological site in the summer of 2010. Using maps from the original Dutch excavations of the site to guide us, we excavated 12 pits down to the Kalibeng Formation marl, the local bedrock. Fossil locations and orientations were carefully mapped in place and then removed for identification, cleaning, cataloging by project paleontologists and paleoanthropologists. After the fossils were removed from each excavation pit, the pit walls

were carefully measured, photographed, sketched, assigned provisional facies categorizations

(Figure 11), and sampled for luminescence dating, grain-size analysis and mineralogical analysis.

Burial ages cannot be determined if the sampled sediments are exposed to light, so these were collected by pounding a 20 cm long, 5 cm diameter opaque and capped polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe into a fresh face of sediment. Once the pipe was pounded into the wall, it was carefully dug out and immediately capped and sealed on both ends, with the sample orientation labeled on the pipe. Sediment samples for grain-size and mineralogical analyses are not light sensitive, so were simply collected into clear plastic bags. All spatial data for the excavation pit locations, measurements, fossils, stratigraphic layers and geologic samples were collected with a Sokkia

Set 500 Total Station and Carlson Data Collector so as to document spatial relationships of stratigraphic units, facies and fossils at the site.

Figure 11: Facies descriptions in Pit H10a based on field observations

Laboratory Methods

Laboratory methods in this study include grain-size and grain-shape analyses of loose sediments using a Retsch CAMSIZER, red thermoluminescence dating using a Risø photomultiplier, mineralogical analysis using point-count methods on a Nikon petrographic microscope with Nikon camera attachment, and geochemical analyses using an Olympus pXRF.

The specific methods for each of these analyses are detailed in the following chapters; following here are explanations for the applicability of these methods to this study.

Luminescence Dating

Luminescence refers to the release of trapped electrons from a crystalline material in the form of light (photons). Materials such as quartz, feldspars and even similar materials in pottery collect electrons in their structure from environmental radiation produced by radioisotopic decay within (internal radiation) and around the material, and by cosmic ray bombardment. By measuring the amount of electrons trapped within grain imperfections (assuming a constant dose rate of radiation), it is possible to determine the depositional age of the grain, or the period of time since the last bleaching event (exposure to heat or light)(Figure 12). Laboratory measurements determine the total amount of charge the material has accumulated over this time by measuring the amount of luminescence emitted after stimulation, and then testing known doses of artificial laboratory radiation on the material in an effort to recreate the natural luminescence signal. The amount of laboratory radiation that replicates the amount of natural radiation indicated by the stimulated material is the equivalent dose, or DE. Radiation dose is measured in grays (Gy), in which 1 Gy = 1 J/kg. The depositional age of the material is calculated by dividing the equivalent dose by the radiation dose rate:

Luminescence age = Equivalent dose

Dose rate 8

Figure 12: Basic luminescence dating process (after Aitken, 1992 in Walker, 2005)

As with any numerical dating technique, prior to expending funds, time and energy in the hopes of acquiring an age, it is important to consider what exactly is being dated. Luminescence dating can only provide a burial age; if the material is buried soon after deposition, it may approximate a depositional age, and if a material is deposited and buried soon after crystallization, it may approximate a crystallization age. However, such information cannot be assumed, particularly if samples are collected without stratigraphic measurement, description or development of a depositional model. It is imperative to analyze site stratigraphy before collecting samples because if the objective is to date site formation, only in situ sediments should

be dated, not those that may have been reworked by later biologic or anthropogenic turbation.

Because bleaching acts to reset the geologic clock, sample collection must be done carefully so that the sediment or other datable material is not bleached by exposure to heat or light. In sediment sampling, such as with eolian sand or fluvial sand deposits, this is typically done by cleaning off a vertical exposure to find a “fresh face” of the outcrop, and then perpendicularly pounding in an opaque tube (such as PVC pipe) that is approximately 20 cm long and 4 cm in diameter (depending on the sample size needed) in to the wall of sediment. The tube is excavated out, quickly capped and taped shut, and the wall-side orientation is marked on the sample in the form of an arrow. Samples should be stored in a cool, dark place to prevent accidental bleaching.

Field sampling methods for luminescence dating are not limited to the careful procurement of datable materials. As part of luminescence dating, it is necessary to make measurements and/or estimations of the radiation dose rate for an accurate age calculation; this may be done in the field at the time of sampling with a dosimeter, which measures the amount of environmental radiation of the sediments at the site (Lian, 2007). It is also important to note the organic material and moisture composition of the sediment, as these materials absorb radiation differently than mineral material and affect the amount of radiation the minerals experienced.

Additive Dose Method

The additive dose method of measuring equivalent dose of a material begins with the separation of the sample into multiple aliquots. One aliquot is stimulated by heat or light and its natural luminescence emission is measured in a photomultiplier. The remaining aliquots are given variable known doses of laboratory (artificial) radiation, after which their luminescence reactions are measured (Walker, 2005). The laboratory dose is plotted against the measured

laboratory luminescence emissions using an exponential function, resulting in a positive

trending, straight line. The intersection of the line with the x-axis indicates the equivalent dose

(DE)(Figure 13).

Figure 13: Determination of equivalent dose with additive dose method (after Walker, 2005)

Regenerative Dose Method

The regenerative dose method differs slightly from that of the additive dose method in that after one aliquot is used to measure the natural luminescence signal, the remaining aliquots are all artificially bleached by heat or light in the laboratory before applying variable doses of laboratory radiation (Walker, 2005; Westaway and Roberts, 2006). The laboratory doses are plotted against the laboratory luminescence signals, which form a curved line. The line is then shifted along the x-axis until it intersects with the values from an additive dose chart. The dose

value represented by this horizontal shift is the equivalent dose (DE).

Thermoluminescence Dating

Thermoluminescence (TL) dating was the first luminescence dating method to be developed, and is often applied to dating burned rocks, pottery, brick, tile and other kiln-baked materials (Walker, 2005). The luminescence signal of the material is measured after stimulation by high temperatures. Although this method is still frequently used, other methods (see below) have been found to provide more precise luminescence dates because they measure the luminescence emitted from more light-sensitive electron traps than is possible using thermoluminescence, which best measures electron release from heat-sensitive traps. Because most applications of luminescence dating seek to date the time elapsed since a light-bleaching, rather than a heat-bleaching event, luminescence methods that use light stimulation are most often applied in luminescence dating.

OSL Dating

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating was first implemented by Huntley et al.

(1985) by stimulating dune sands with argon-ion laser on green and blue light wavelengths (420-

560 nm) to determine the burial age (Teeuw et al., 1999). Common light sources in OSL dating include halogen lamps, argon-ion lasers and light-emitting diodes (LEDs); LEDs are becoming more prevalent because lasers are quite expensive and halogen lamps are not highly reliable

(Walker, 2005). OSL dating has become more commonly used than TL dating because it is able to measure the electrons released from more light-sensitive traps than TL; this results in more accurate and precise luminescence ages because it is less likely that residual signals from time before the material‟s last bleaching event are being released and measured as part of the natural luminescence signal.

IRSL Dating

Infrared Stimulated Luminescence (IRSL) dating is an OSL method used specifically for feldspars; this method cannot be applied to quartz materials as quartz electron traps are not sensitive to infrared light stimulation (Li et al., 2011). As the name implies, infrared light wavelengths (~850 nm) stimulate the light-sensitive electron traps within the material, and the photons released are measured in a photomultiplier (Wallinga et al., 2001). IRSL dating is a useful luminescence dating technique when feldspars are the predominant datable material available and a clean feldspar fraction can be isolated.However, the presence of feldspars can be problematic when they exist as small inclusions within quartz grains, as feldspars emit more photons than quartz when stimulated and therefore produce an erroneously high equivalent dose value in traditional blue-light OSL dating of quartz. IRSL dating measures even more light- sensitive electron traps than does traditional green-light OSL dating of quartz, so it is a more appropriate method for dating materials that may not have been thoroughly bleached prior to burial (Walker, 2005). A downfall of the IRSL dating method is the tendency for feldspars to undergo anomalous fading, or the slow escape of electrons from the traps in the crystal structure over time, which leads to erroneously smaller measurements of the equivalent dose, and younger apparent ages. Because of this, precise IRSL dating of feldspars is limited to younger (<150 ka) material because very old samples have undergone more fading of accumulated charge (Walker,

2005).

Red Thermoluminescence Dating

Red Themoluminescence (RTL) dating is a relatively new method that is most often used for young, volcanic quartz sediments; the volcanic environment produces a form of quartz that

emits very little luminescence on the shorter wavelengths, resulting in low precision, but the

luminescence peaks at the longer, red wavelength. With this method, the quartz is stimulated by heat, and the optical filter system in the photomultiplier is adjusted to read the luminescence signal on the red wavelength (~620 nm) (Westaway and Roberts, 2006). Westaway (2009) found that red thermoluminescence techniques may result in slight overestimation of TL ages and lower precision, but still provide more accurate ages than blue light emissions, which underestimate the natural luminescence signal by as much as 80%, resulting in erroneously young ages. RTL dating methods are not yet perfected, but have already demonstrated higher accuracy in dating volcanic quartz than traditional TL or OSL methods (Fattahi and Stokes,

2000; Stokes and Fattahi, 2003).

OSL dating of quartz on the blue wavelength have not produced viable ages and infrared washes of the sediments did not indicate a strong natural signal from feldspathic components.

Therefore, the most useful luminescence dating method for the Ngandong deposits is red thermoluminescence (RTL) dating.

Grain-Size Analysis

Traditional Methods: Sieve/Pipette

Traditional grain-size analysis is done using the sieve/pipette method. Fine sands through gravel particles in the sample are separated from the fine-grained particles, and then measured for grain-size by shaking through a stack of sieves with decreasing aperture size down to the basal collection pan. Once the sample has been satisfactorily agitated through the sieves, the mass of the contents held within each sieve is measured, and the percentage of the sample of each grain-size (each sieve) can be calculated. It is important to note that the sieve analysis measures grain-size by mass gradation, and particles are determined to be the size of the aperture

size they do not pass through during the mechanical sieving process. 8

Pipette grain-size analysis is used to determine the grain-size of the fine-grained particles

(silts and clays) within a sample. In this method, the fine-grained particles are poured into settling tubes of fluid, and aliquots of the sediment/fluid mixture are removed by pipette at timed intervals. The timed intervals in this method are based on known sedimentation rates of particle sizes as determined by Stokes‟ Law, which dictates the settling velocity of a spherical particle based on its radius, the dynamic viscosity of the fluid, and the friction of the particle/fluid interface. The sediments removed at each timed interval in this process are dehydrated and measured for mass (similar to the sieve method described above), resulting in the grain-size by mass gradation of the sample.

Emerging Method: Digital Imaging/CAMSIZER®

The development of high-resolution digital photography has produced exciting new possibilities for grain-size analysis, as well as simultaneously allowing for grain-shape analysis that is not possible with the traditional sieve/pipette methods. Digital imaging has been successfully used to measure aggregate grain-size for a variety of industrial (Baş et al., 2011) and engineering (Pham et al., 2011) applications, and to a lesser extent has been used for geologic materials (Andronico et al., 2009; Moore et al., 2011). Digital images of aggregates allow for grain-size measurement in multiple dimensions and calculates the grain-size by the percentage of the image the grain represents; therefore, the size measurement produced is in volume gradation

(as opposed to mass gradation, as in the sieve and pipette methods). The Retsch CAMSIZER® implements two CCD cameras to photograph cascading aggregates at a rate of 50 frames per second while simultaneously collecting grain-size and grain-shape data from those images

(Figure 14). The data are saved in a raw data file, which can be used to illustrate grain-size in a

variety of graphs with linear and/or logarithmic axes on millimeter or micrometer scales. Data

summaries are also saved in a Microsoft Excel format which may be used on computers that lack the CAMSIZER software. Grain-shape is measured in particle breadth-to-length ratio, particle symmetry, and particle span.

Figure 14: CAMSIZER® (right) with computer program (left) collecting grain-size and grain- shape data as grains cascade down the feeding tray and between two rapid-use digital cameras.

Comparison of Sieve/Pipette and CAMSIZER® Methods

The traditional and emerging methods of grain-size analysis are not interchangeable, which causes some reluctance among scientists and engineers to adopt the digital imaging

methods over the sieve/pipette analysis. An important factor in this discussion is the fact that the

respective methods measure different things; sieve/pipette produces a mass gradation, whereas digital imaging produces volume gradation. The Retsch CAMSIZER is capable of organizing grain-size data by traditional sieve series, which eases comparison between the two methods, but special conversions must be made to account for the mass vs. volume measurement differential prior to method comparison (Fernlund et al., 2007). These conversions have been developed to account for the fact that digital imaging results in a slightly higher grain-size than sieve methods; this is likely because actual grain-size is measured from the digital image, but in sieve analysis, the grain-size is determined by the aperture size a grain does not pass through (Figure 15). There are inherent inaccuracies in the sieve analysis method because large, elongate grains may pass through apertures much smaller than the length of the grain, thereby being counted as a smaller grain when the contents of the sieves are measured (Figure 16). In that way, digital imaging is likely to produce a much more accurate grain-size measurement than sieve/pipette analysis.

Digital imaging methods like the CAMSIZER also have higher precision and reproducibility than the traditional sieve methods in that the conditions of each sample run through the

CAMSIZER is the same. In the process of mechanical sieving, elongate grains may be oriented as such that they pass through small apertures during one sample run, but may be caught in a sieve with a larger aperture size in another sample run, thereby being assigned a different grain- size. This inherent variability in the method unfortunately cannot be solved and significantly contributes to analytical error. Digital imaging methods have limits as well, however; the Retsch

CAMSIZER can only measure grain-size and grain-shape for particles between 30 micrometers and 30 millimeters in diameter, whereas pipette analysis is able to measure grain-size for particles small than 30 micrometers. Because of this, digital imaging may be used as a

replacement for sieve analysis (with appropriate volume-mass conversions made, which is an

automated option in new CAMSIZER XT models), but pipette analysis will still be necessary for the <30 µm size fraction. The Ngandong stratigraphy comprises predominantly sandy and gravelly bedload deposits, making the CAMSIZER an appropriate mechanism for grain-size measurement.

Figure 15: CAMSIZER® measures the same aggregate grains to be a larger size than sieve analysis (from Moore et al., 2011)

Figure 16: Underestimation of grain-size is common in sieve analysis because elongate grains may pass through apertures smaller than the length of the particle (from Mora et al., 1998)

Grain-Shape Analysis

The importance of grain-shape in sediment erosion, transport and deposition (Komar and

Reimers, 1978) has been well documented in the literature (Johansson et al., 2007; Krumbein,

1941; Milan et al., 1999; Prothero and Schwab, 2004; Wadell, 1932; Winkelmolen, 1982). Grain shape is determined by the original dimensions of the grain upon aggregation, whereas roundedness is attributed to transport history and/or weathering history (Prothero and Schwab,

2004). Therefore, grain-size analysis can inform as to grain behavior within a transport medium

(in this case, within a fluvial system) and the amount of abrasion and weathering the grain has experienced in its environment prior to sampling. Although the importance of grain-shape in the sedimentary record has been recognized for some time, the ability to quantify grain-shape and

the standards for classification and reporting of grain-shape data have developed more recently.

Grain-shape can be measured in a variety of ways, from visual analysis of grains to more rapid measuring techniques that emerged in the late 20th century. Historically, grain-shape has been qualitatively measured by visual examination, and first attempts to quantify grain-shape have been to measure grain-size via sieve methods and approximate grain-shape by Fourier analysis

(Brown et al., 1980; Ehrlich and Weinberg, 1970; Kennedy and Lin, 1992). Technological developments have led to the use of rapid-measurement techniques via digital image processing

(Carter and Yan, 2005; Kwan et al., 1999; Maerz, 1998; Miller and Henderson, 2010), including the Retsch CAMSIZER®. The CAMSIZER has been used to measure grain-size and grain- shape in a variety of aggregates, such as industrial sand and gravels, food products such as coffee grounds and granola, and biomedical materials (Heinicke and Schwartz, 2006; Isa et al., 2011;

Patchigolla and Wilkinson, 2009). It has also proven useful for geological applications for its rapid measurement of sands between 30 µm and 30 mm in diameter (Dill et al., 2009; Jerolmack et al., 2011; Marshak, 2011; Moore et al., 2007), and has some benefits over other rapid techniques (such as laser diffraction) in that it is a dry method with rapid turnover between samples and between repeated runs of the same sample.

Mineralogical and Geochemical Characterization

Mineralogical and geochemical analyses of alluvial sediments inform as to the geologic source of sedimentary materials and the taphonomic and diagenetic history of those materials

(Garzanti et al., 2010; Garzanti and Ando, 2007; Ortiz and Roser, 2006). The headwaters of the modern Solo River drainage system lie between Mount Willis and Mount Lawu within the

volcanic arc that lines the southern length of Java; therefore, volcanic materials likely compose a

high percentage of the material currently being transported by the Solo River. However, the sedimentary materials may also be sourced from local marine bedrock formations that eroded as part of fluvial incision and reworking from older fluvial sequences upstream. Of interest in this study is the particular mineralogical and geochemical makeup of each layer present within the

Ngandong site stratigraphy, which may provide information about sediment source rock type and location. Mineralogical analyses were conducted by point-counting of sediment grain mounts and geochemical analyses were conducted by bulk geochemical analyses with portable X-ray fluorescence.

Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

Bulk geochemical analyses of sediments have been acquired via X-ray fluorescence in countless studies to date (Hutton and Elliott, 1980; Norrish and Hutton, 1969; Wheller et al.,

1987; and others). Bulk geochemical analyses of sediments provide important information about source materials, and indirectly the paleoflow dynamics of the sediment transport mechanism (in this case, the Solo River). Portable X-ray fluorescence instruments (pXRF) have allowed for even more rapid, inexpensive, and in situ measurements of bulk geochemistry (Frahm and

Doonan, 2013; Goodale et al., 2012; Ramsey and Boon, 2012). The pXRF has been especially useful in geoarchaeological provenance studies as a highly portable analytical tool that can be easily brought to field sites and museums for data collection rather than transport numerous samples or precious artifacts to a laboratory (Charalambous et al., 2014; Craig et al., 2007;

Forster and Grave, 2013; Frahm, 2014, 2012; Hayes, 2013). It is also a non-destructive method, appropriate for archaeological artifacts as well as for geological sample materials that are in limited supply and/or are sourced from areas that are difficult to access. I tested the application

of the pXRF instrument to produce repeatable and accurate geochemical data on the volcanic

sediments from Ngandong and nearby sampling sites. It proved to be an appropriate method for geochemical analysis of samples from Indonesian paleoanthropological excavations, which are expensive to extract, difficult to take out of Indonesia, and cumbersome to transport back to the

United States.

Point-Counting

Mineralogical analyses provide important sediment provenance information. Point- counting with a petrographic microscope is a standard method for calculating the frequency of identifiable minerals in a thin section of geologic material, either whole rock or sedimentary particles (Folk, 1980; Garzanti et al., 2010, 2007, 2006; Greenough et al., 2004; Ingersoll et al.,

1984; Mack and Jerzykiewicz, 1989; Weltje, 2004).

Conclusion

This study utilizes a suite of quantitative sedimentological methods to provide a comprehensive analysis of the fluvial terrace deposits at the Ngandong paleoanthropological site.

The data produced in this study may illuminate important sedimentological information regarding the paleoflow and depositional behaviors at Ngandong over time, such as fluvial drainage direction, velocity, viscosity and flow dynamics, as well as source of sedimentological materials and the burial age of deposited materials. This geological information will supplement the existing, but limited observations and interpretations of paleoanthropological materials recovered from Ngandong and will provide a better understanding of the site formation processes

that resulted in the Solo River terrace sequence.

CHAPTER II: FORMATION OF THE NGANDONG SITE STRATIGRAPHY

Abstract

A comprehensive field excavation of the Ngandong paleoanthropological site in 2010 uncovered hundreds of faunal remains and exposed in situ fluvial deposits underlying the Solo

River 20 m terrace. The facies relationships evident within the Ngandong site provide not only information about the formation of the local 20 m terrace, but an important context to the evolution of the Solo River drainage system as a whole. Although there is much excitement over the paleontological components of the Ngandong stratigraphy, comparatively little is known or documented regarding the geological processes that formed the stratigraphy observed at

Ngandong today. Numerical and relative dating methods used on paleontological and geological materials at the site are more reliable if interpreted with an understanding of the local and regional geomorphological and sedimentological context. This study interprets the grain size, grain shape, and stratigraphic relationships of sediments at Ngandong and nearby terraces as a series of rapidly-deposited stream channel and bar deposits.

Introduction

Geologic Background

The Ngandong site is located on an outer bend of the Solo River Valley in the Kendeng

Hills of Central Java. The Kendeng Zone was a foreland basin and site of marine deposition during the Miocene and Pliocene, until the marine sediments were thrust and folded during the

Pleistocene into the modern Kendeng Hills (Van Gorsel and Troelstra, 1981). The Oligocene-

Pleistocene stratigraphy in the Kendeng Zone of Java is composed of Oligocene basal calcareous marine deposits interbedded with and grading into Pleistocene terrestrial volcanic sands, gravels and conglomerates. The tectonic compression from the subducting Indian Plate and uplift of the

Southern Mountains and stratovolcanoes led to folding, tilting, and uplift of the Kendeng Zone beginning in the late Pliocene, with pronounced tectonic uplift events differentiating Pliocene and Pleistocene depositional environments (evident in a marine-to-terrestrial facies change) (de

Genevraye and Samuel, 1972).

Due to differential rates and angles of compression and uplift, typical stratigraphic sections established at one locality are not necessarily present or visible a short lateral distance away along the same fold belt. Hence, numerous Pleistocene stratigraphic schemata have been developed for different localities in Central and East Java, with conflicting chronostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic correlations. South of the Kendeng Hills the Kalibeng Formation

(Piocene-Miocene marl and limestone) is overlain, in rising succession, by the Pucangan (spelled

Putjangan in other studies (de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972)) Formation (early Pleistocene volcanic breccia), Kabuh Formation (early Pleistocene sandstone and siltstone) and Notopuro

Formation (Middle Pleistocene sands, gravels, and pumices)(Itihara et al., 1985). This

stratigraphic model and naming scheme was previously also attributed to the stratigraphy present

at Sangiran (100-150 km to the southwest), until Itihara, et al. (1985) renamed the corresponding

Sangiran site stratigraphy as, in rising succession, Puren Formation, Sangiran Formation, Bapang

Formation, and Pohjajar Formation to avoid over-simplification of what appears to be fairly localized depositional sequences. Chronostratigraphic correlation across the Kendeng Zone region is impeded by the prevalence of localized deposition, deformation, weathering, and erosion during and since the early Pliocene, as well as by the limited outcrops available for mapping due to dense vegetation and intensive agriculture and development over the last 6,000 years. At Ngandong, the Kalibeng Marl is the local bedrock formation underlying Pleistocene terrace deposits, and dips approximately 5° SE in this location.

The Solo River, which is the longest river in Java at approximately 550 km length, is a meandering stream system (at times following a more straight, fault-determined course in the

Kendeng Hills) that currently flows from southwest to northeast through Central and East Java and empties into the Java Sea, draining approximately 16,000 km2 (Hoekstra, 1993). It is likely the Solo River originally flowed from northeast to southwest, but underwent a reversal due to tectono-volcanic uplift of the Tertiary stratovolcanic range that includes Mounts Merapi, Lawu,

Wilis and the Southern Mountains, probably during the Middle Pleistocene (Sartono, 1976). The

Solo River episodically incised as it cut through the Kendeng Hills, leaving several terrace levels in the modern landscape. The terrace sequence in the Ngandong area includes the Low Terrace

(modern floodplain), Middle Terrace, and the High Terrace (Rizal, 1998). The High Terrace is also known as the Ngandong Terrace (Sartono, 1976) or 20 m terrace (Sidarto and Morwood,

2004)].

Paleoanthropological Background

At Ngandong, the contact between the Notopuro Formation and overlying Solo River fluvial deposits is an angular unconformity representing the time elapsed during the crustal folding and uplift of the Kendeng Hills in the Middle Pleistocene. The Homo erectus and other vertebrate remains at Ngandong were excavated from (according to de Genevraye and Samuel,

1972) Late Pleistocene terrace deposits overlying the Kalibeng Formation in what is likely an erosional unconformity developed through fluvial incision and tectonic uplift; however, Van

Gorsel and Troelstra (1981) attribute the Ngandong Homo erectus to the Putjangan Formation, which would be conformable over the Kalibeng Formation and would mean the Ngandong H. erectus is at least Early Pleistocene in age; however, this is unlikely because the Putjangan

Formation in the Kendeng Hills is tectonically deformed, and the fossiliferous beds at Ngandong are not. Early hominid fossils recovered from Perning (Mojokerto) are attributed to the

Pucangan/Putjangan Formation (Early Pleistocene) and the famous “Java Man” skullcap, limb bone, and tooth excavated at Trinil were excavated from what is believed to be the Middle

Pleistocene Kabuh Formation (de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972; Huffman, 2001; Huffman et al.,

2006). The general scientific consensus of the Ngandong stratigraphy is that the Homo erectus and other vertebrate macrofauna were excavated from the Late Pleistocene terrace deposits, and not Early Pleistocene volcaniclastics, as suggested by Van Gorsel and Troelstra (1981).

The Dutch Geological Survey realized Ngandong‟s paleontological potential in 1931 and conducted excavations there between 1931 and 1933, which uncovered fourteen Homo erectus fossils and >25,000 other vertebrate macrofossils held in a “bone bed” layer of pebbly fluvial sand (Huffman et al., 2010). The high concentration of vertebrate macrofaunal remains within a

thin stratigraphic unit at Ngandong has led paleontologists to suspect the Ngandong “bone bed”

may be the product of a mass death event, possibly caused by an eruption in the volcanic arc to the south (Huffman et al., 2010). Taphonomic analysis of the bones has revealed little evidence for weathering or fossilization prior to deposition at Ngandong, which suggests the bones were deposited in their current position soon after death (Huffman et al., 2008).

The paleoanthropological interest in the Ngandong site has generated geoarchaeological investigations to better understand the mechanisms and timing of site formation, which may improve upon current interpretations of fossil age, source area and transport history. To date, no comprehensive sedimentological studies of the fluvial deposits at Ngandong have been published, despite the fact that grain-size and grain-shape analyses of the sediments containing the vertebrate fossils may inform the erosion, transport and depositional histories of the fossils themselves. Grain-size is one of the most important factors in particle entrainment, transport and deposition (Bagnold, 1966; Folk and Ward, 1957) and is one of the main categories of sedimentary classification. Grain-size analyses can provide illuminating clues as to the sedimentary history of an environment, as well as provenance and transport history of the sedimentary deposits themselves. Grain-shape data provide similarly important information about transport history and depositional environment.

Methods

Field Excavation

Field observations of site stratigraphy during the 2010 Ngandong Field Season took place within excavated pits down to local bedrock, as well as bucket auger sampling at Ngandong-1 and Ngandong-3 (abbreviated as NDG-1 and NDG-3, respectively), and on the 20 m terrace across the Solo River (discussed here and in the literature as Matar (Fauzi et al., 2016)(Figure

17). Sample locations at the Ngandong-1 site were mapped using Sokkia SET 500 Total Station

on tripod and Carlson Data Collector, and samples were collected in bags and returned to the

University of Iowa for further laboratory analyses.

At Ngandong-1, ten excavation pits were dug from the surface of the 20 m terrace down to Kalibeng Marl, the local bedrock (Figure 18). Fossil locations were documented with a Total

Data Station prior to removal, taphonomic analysis, and U-series dating. Stratigraphic relationships evident in excavation pit walls were photographed, measured, and sketched, with boundaries documented with TDS and sedimentary layers sampled for a suite of laboratory analyses, including grain size and grain shape analyses (Figure 19).

Fossils were collected and fifteen (15) long-bone fossils extracted from facies A and facies C were sent to Rainer Grün at the Australian National University for U-Series dating using a diffusion-absorption-decay (DAD) model.

Grain Size and Grain Shape Analyses

Samples were prepared for analyses in the University of Iowa Quaternary Materials

Laboratory. Samples were repeatedly split with a sediment splitter to isolate a representative fraction of approximately 50 g. Sand- and gravel-dominant samples were then bathed in a mild acid solution of ~50 ml reverse osmosis water, 20 ml 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and 10 ml acetic acid (CH3COOH) and boiled for 1 hour at 400 ˚C. The mixtures were then left to rest for

24 hours before being rinsed through a 63 µm sieve with water to remove minor clays and silts and thoroughly dried in an oven to prevent clumping of grains. Mud-dominant samples were prepared for particle-size analysis by traditional pipette methods, which calculate the sand, coarse silt, fine silt, and clay fractions of a sample using known settling rates of particles in a

viscous fluid, as described by Stoke‟s Law (McLane, 1995).

Dried sand- and gravel-dominant samples were measured for grain-size and grain-shape with a Retsch CAMSIZER® attached to desktop computer. The CAMSIZER® is a dry aggregate measurement instrument that has been used for industrial aggregates (Baş et al., 2011;

Patchigolla and Wilkinson, 2009) as well as geological samples (Lo Castro et al., 2009; Moore et al., 2011b, 2007). The CAMSIZER® measures grain-size and grain-shape by calculating breadth and length of grains from digital images of the sample as it cascades through the instrument. CAMSIZER® software uses these basic dimensional measurements to calculate shape characteristics such as average sphericity, symmetry and breadth:length ratios of grains within each size fraction.

Measurement parameters were set to document grains between 63 µm and 40,000 µm in diameter (ranging from very fine sand to very coarse gravel) and ignore particles outside of that range. To test procedural repeatability, test samples representing each sand-and gravel- dominant, field-identified lithostratigraphic facies from the Ngandong-1 site (facies A, B, C and

D) were run through the CAMSIZER® three times each and the results were compared for consistency. Figure 20 illustrates the cumulative grain-size curves for each of three measurements of sample 2016 of Pit H10a, representing facies D lithostratigraphy. The three cumulative grain-size curves overlap, suggesting the CAMSIZER® has high grain-size measurement reproducibility of sand-sized fractions. Statistical analyses of the raw data of these multiple measurements of sample 2016 show that there is no statistical difference between the three consecutive measurements. Similarly, repeated measurements of shape characteristics sphericity, symmetry and breadth:length ratio are not statistically different (coefficient of variation <0.05) (Table 2). The coefficient of variation is a measure of relative variability, or the

ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of grain shape among the facies. This calculation

compares each size fraction of each facies to one another to determine the level of similarity in grain shape between different facies. A coefficient of variation value below 0.05 indicates there is minimal variation in grain shape characteristics between the multiple facies. This is necessary to see that a statistically significant amount of sample was not lost in the course of repeated measurements and grains did not cascade differently in the measuring process.

Figure 17: Plan view aerial image of the Solo River Valley sites investigated via pit excavation and sediment augering: Ngandong 1

(NDG-1), Ngandong-3 (NDG-3), and the Matar Hill area

Figure 18: Plan map of pit excavations (in boxes) at NDG-1

Figure 19: E. Arthur Bettis, III examines the sedimentary structures on the north wall of excavation Pit F10cG10a

G ra p h o f m e a s u re m e n t re s u lts : C :\...s\m sip o la \D e skto p \C A M S IZ E R \C A M D A T \m a ija \X L E , R D F cycle # 2 \n d g r2 0 1 6 -0 0 1 .rd f T a s k file : m a ija .a fg

p a s s in g [% ]

80 n d g r2 0 1 6 -0 0 1 .rd f n d g r2 0 1 6 -0 0 3 .rd f n d g r2 0 1 6 -0 0 2 .rd f 70

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 xc_ m in [m m ]

Figure 20: Cumulative grain-size curves of each of three size analyses of sample 2016, as displayed by CAMSIZER® software. The three grain-size curves fully overlap, illustrating the repeatability of grain-size measurements

Results

Stratigraphy

Stratigraphy determined by excavations and augering at sites NDG-1, NDG-3 and Matar are illustrated in Figures 21-36. Facies relationships as observed in excavation pits at the NDG-1 site are topographically correlated in Figure 21. Detailed sketches of in situ stratigraphy in each excavation pit at NDG-1 are provided in Figures 22-33. The thin stratigraphy present at the

NDG-2 location is provided in Figure 34. The stratigraphy of the NDG-3 site determined from a north-south transect of auger holes is illustrated in Figure 35. Lastly, the stratigraphy from the

Matar Hill area across the Solo River from NDG-3 is provided in Figure 36.

Preliminary sedimentary facies descriptions based on field observations of commonly identifiable stratigraphic layers (and corroborated by grain-size analyses later in this section) are as follows:

Facies A: coarse sand, marl cobbles and pebbles, contains macrofossils, massive

Facies B: well sorted, horizontally bedded fine to medium sand

Facies C: crudely bedded, poorly sorted, medium to very coarse sand and pebbles, contains macrofossils

Facies D: shallow trough cross bedded medium to coarse sand, moderately sorted, with some ripple drift

Facies E: clay to fine sand, commonly contains brecciated siltstone clasts at the base, contains pedogenic carbonates.

U-series ages of macrofaunal remains excavated from the NDG-1 site are approximately

130 ka (Grün, 2014; Appendix B).

Figure 21: Correlated NDG-1 excavation pits oriented according to elevation relationships. The terrace surface slopes downward toward the Solo River. Note that fossils were only found in Facies A and Facies C layers (marked in this diagram with stars and specimen numbers).

Figure 22: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit L10c

Figure 23: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit L10a

Figure 24: Stratigraphic sketch of Pit H10a

Figure 25: Transition from crude bedding in facies C, upward into shallow trough cross-

bedding in facies D. Structures are visible in photo A and outlined in photo B.

Figure 26: Field photo of the western wall of Pit H10c with facies outlined and labeled. Photo and sketch by Art Bettis.

Figure 27: Sketch of Pit H10c stratigraphy, as seen in the previous photo. Note the presence of three fine-grained "flows" in

Facies E.

Figure 28: Stratigraphy of Pit J10a. Note the dominance of the fine-grained facies E flows and the direct contact of the flows with the Kalibeng Marl.

Figure 29: Sketch of Pit F10cG10a stratigraphy. Note the sloping, lenticular beds in Facies C.

Figure 30: Sketch of Pit G10c stratigraphy. Facies D displays type 1 ripple drift in this exposure (Walker, 1963).

Figure 31: Sketch of Pit H09a stratigraphy

Figure 32: Sketch of Pit H09ac stratigraphy

Figure 33: Sketch of Pit G09a stratigraphy. The identity of the thick layer on the northern side (Facies E or fill) is uncertain.

Figure 34: Ngandong-2 site stratigraphy, composed of very thin deposits overlying Kalibeng Marl. The pebbles are dominantly well-

rounded and volcanic (bassalts and andesites).

Figure 35: Cross-section generated from a N-S transect of seven augers taken at the NGD-3 site. All holes were augered down to the Kalibeng Marl bedrock. Sediments are generally fine-grained to the south and more coarse-grained to the north, nearer the

Solo River.

Figure 36: Stratigraphy and sample collection sites in the Matar 20-m terrace deposit outcrop (L2, L2) across the Solo River from the Ngandong-3 site. Depth of 0cm marks the 20m terrace surface. Samples 2057 and

OSL-5 were analyzed for grain-size and grain-shape.

Grain Shape Analysis

The CAMSIZER® calculates grain-shape (sphericity, symmetry, and breadth:length ratio) from particle dimensions as measured in the grain-size data collection process. These data are shown for one characteristic sample of facies D (Table 2), as well as calculated mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV) of the four samples for sphericity

(Table 3), symmetry (Table 4), and breadth:length ratio (Table 5). The coefficient of variation is a measure of relative variability, or the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of grain shape among the facies. This calculation compares each size fraction of each facies to one another to determine the level of similarity in grain shape between different facies. A coefficient of variation value below 0.05 indicates there is minimal variation in grain shape characteristics between the multiple facies. As seen in Tables 3-5, the CV values are consistently below 0.05 for the sphericity, symmetry, and breadth:length ratio of the sand-sized fractions (0.1-2mm diameter) but there is higher variation among the pebble-sized fractions. This is likely due to low grain counts in the coarser fractions with too few grains to provide a statistically significant sample.

Grain Size Analysis

Field observations delineated five distinct sedimentary “facies”, designated A (medium sand to cobbles, poorly sorted), B (fine sand, well sorted), C (fine sand to cobbles, poorly sorted), D (medium sand, moderately sorted), and E (clay to fine sand, moderately sorted). The sedimentary terrace deposits at Ngandong-1, as a whole, are a predominantly fining-upward sequence, with coarse gravels to cobbles resting in angular unconformity with Kalibeng Marl carbonate bedrock, grading upward to mud-dominant deposits that cap the sequence; a detailed

example of stratigraphic relationships between facies A, B, C, and D at Ngandong-1 can be seen

70 in Pit H10a (Figure 37). As shown in these particle size histograms from Pit H10a, facies A and

C are characteristically poorly sorted sands and gravels, facies B is moderately well-sorted fine sand, and facies D is moderately-sorted medium sand. The grain size cumulation curves generated in the CAMSIZER® program corroborate the grain size histograms (Figure 38).

Raw CAMSIZER® data were analyzed using the GRADISTAT particle size software package developed and published by Blott and Pye (2001) and generated data reports of mean, sorting, skewness and kurtosis as seen in Table 6. Skewness is a calculation of the symmetry of the grain-size histogram, with a value of zero indicating a perfectly symmetrical size distribution, negative values indicating coarse-skewed and positive values indicating fine-skewed distributions on a logarithmic scale (McLane, 1995). Kurtosis is a calculation of the

“peakedness” of the grain-size distribution, with a value of one on the Folk and Ward logarithmic scale indicating a normal size distribution (mesokurtic), values greater than one indicating a narrow peak (leptokurtic) and values less than one indicating a broad peak

(platykurtic).

For ease of comparison between facies, GRADISTAT grain-size results in Table 6 are grouped by site (Ngandong-1, Ngandong-3, and Matar) and by individual facies, where appropriate (facies A, B, C, D at site Ngandong-1). GRADISTAT descriptions of the predominant results from the sandy deposits at Ngandong-1 are as follows:

Facies A: coarse sand, poorly sorted, platykurtic Facies B: fine to medium sand, moderately well to well sorted, leptokurtic Facies C: medium to very coarse sand, poorly sorted, platykurtic

Facies D: medium to coarse sand, poorly to moderately sorted, mesokurtic to leptokurtic

Facies A, B, C, and D at site Ngandong-1 appear to be distinct from one another, with the exception of facies A and C. The physical boundaries between the facies at Ngandong-1 are predominantly distinct (between facies A and B, between facies B and C, and between facies D and E) but grain size data in Table 6 indicate a gradational boundary between facies C and facies

D, showing evidence of fining-upward and increased sorting as facies C transitioned to facies D

(C to C/D to low D to D).

Grain-size data from Ngandong-3 were mainly collected in the field, via texture by feel of deposits extracted by 3-inch bucket augering down to bedrock (or some other obstruction that prevented further augering, such as large cobbles or hardpan) along a south-to-north transect running perpendicular to the current Solo River channel. The deposits were laid out on a tarpaulin and measured for thickness, and analyzed for texture (by feel), Munsell color, lithology, and presence of diagenetic structures such as roots and calcium carbonate concretions.

These auger data were used to draw a cross-section of the Ngandong-3 site that runs S-N toward the current Solo River (Figure 35). Similar to Ngandong-1, the deposits fine upwards and are generally thinnest and coarsest at the northern end of the transect (nearest the Solo River), and thicker and more fine-grained to the south, farther away from the river. Near the river, the

Kalibeng Marl is overlain by a thin layer of coarse gravel conglomerate with andesite pebbles and vertebrate fossils, similar to facies A at the Ngandong-1 site. Overlying this layer is a layer of medium to coarse volcaniclastic sand. The laboratory-analyzed sample from the Ngandong-3 site was taken from this sandy layer, accessed in a small (1m x 1m) luminescence dating sampling pit (dug near the site of Auger 6; see Figure 35). This layer is similar in position and lithology to facies B at Ngandong-1, but at Ngandong-3 this deposit is coarser and is not as well

sorted as facies B (Table 6). The deposits overlying this pseudo-facies B are a loamy sand, silty

72 to sandy loam, and a silty to clay loam, respectively. These fine-grained deposits appear to be similar to the fine-grained facies E present at Ngandong-1, although not confirmed by laboratory grain-size analysis due to lost or misplaced samples.

Samples taken from terrace deposit exposures at the Matar site across the Solo River are composed of medium to very coarse, poorly sorted sand with pebbles. Although characterized as poorly sorted, they appear to be better sorted than facies A and facies C seen at Ngandong-1, with coarse sand being more common and fewer fine grains present in the sample (Table 6).

Deposits at 40-80cm depth are massive, coarse sands with pebbles, and a minor clay and silt fraction in the upper 35cm of that interval. At 125-160cm depth, the deposits are composed of medium to coarse volcaniclastic sand with shallow trough cross-bedded concentrations of dark heavy minerals (Figure 36).

Grain-size analyses of fine-grained Facies E deposits from the Ngandong-1 site were completed by traditional pipette methods, which calculate the sand, coarse silt, fine silt, and clay fractions of a sample. These data are presented in Table 7, and graphically in Figure 39. The facies E deposits are mainly composed of fine silt and clay, with some variations in the fine sand

component.

Figure 37: Field photo from Pit H10a with facies labeled (left). Grain-size histograms for sample 2501- dd of Facies A (A), sample 2020 of Facies B (B), sample 2018 of Facies C (C), sample 2016 of Facies D (D) (right). The x-axis of each histogram indicates particle diameter in millimeters, increasing to the right. The y-axis of each histogram indicates class weight in

percentage, increasing upward.

Table 2: Mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation calculated from three consecutive sphericity, symmetry and breadth:length measurements of sample 2016 of Facies D. Note the coefficient of variation remains <0.05.

Sample 2016 Sphericity Symmetry Breadth:Length Size class (phi) Mean SD CV Mean SD CV Mean SD CV

0.00 3.32 0.891 0.001 0.001 0.872 0.001 0.001 0.661 0.003 0.004 3.32 3.00 0.870 0.002 0.002 0.874 0.001 0.001 0.662 0.000 0.001 3.00 2.64 0.869 0.001 0.001 0.879 0.000 0.001 0.674 0.001 0.001 2.64 2.32 0.854 0.003 0.003 0.877 0.002 0.002 0.678 0.002 0.003 2.32 2.00 0.852 0.005 0.005 0.879 0.002 0.003 0.689 0.002 0.004 2.00 1.67 0.844 0.004 0.005 0.878 0.003 0.003 0.699 0.001 0.001 1.67 1.32 0.837 0.005 0.006 0.878 0.003 0.003 0.705 0.001 0.002 1.32 1.00 0.833 0.003 0.003 0.878 0.002 0.002 0.712 0.001 0.001 1.00 0.67 0.824 0.002 0.002 0.879 0.000 0.001 0.715 0.002 0.002 0.67 0.32 0.816 0.001 0.002 0.880 0.000 0.001 0.721 0.004 0.006 0.32 0.00 0.845 0.003 0.003 0.877 0.002 0.002 0.731 0.001 0.001 0.00 -0.32 0.839 0.005 0.006 0.879 0.002 0.003 0.722 0.005 0.007 -0.32 -0.68 0.862 0.003 0.004 0.881 0.001 0.001 0.733 0.002 0.003 -0.68 -1.00 0.856 0.010 0.012 0.885 0.003 0.003 0.727 0.009 0.012 -1.00 -1.32 0.843 0.002 0.002 0.885 0.001 0.001 0.696 0.003 0.004 -1.32 -1.66 0.850 0.004 0.004 0.894 0.002 0.002 0.710 0.002 0.003 -1.66 -2.00 0.836 0.006 0.007 0.890 0.012 0.014 0.730 0.009 0.013 -2.00 -2.32 0.857 0.022 0.025 0.891 0.018 0.020 0.743 0.017 0.022

-2.32 -2.66 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 3: Sphericity measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red). Sphericity Comparing Facies A, B, C, D Facies A: 2501-dd Facies B: 2020 Facies C: 2018 Facies D: 2016 Sphericity Statistics Size class Size class Grain Grain Grain Grain Sphericity Sphericity Sphericity Sphericity Mean SD CV (mm) (phi) count count count count 0 0.1 3.64 3.32 2211050 0.903 7310438 0.902 2542358 0.905 1338548 0.892 0.901 0.005 0.006 0.1 0.125 3.32 3 532472 0.887 2153955 0.875 506107 0.878 468029 0.869 0.877 0.006 0.007 0.125 0.16 3 2.64 392367 0.88 2318834 0.874 408721 0.875 468189 0.869 0.875 0.004 0.004 0.16 0.2 2.64 2.32 205129 0.862 1715253 0.862 271668 0.858 329175 0.854 0.859 0.003 0.004 0.2 0.25 2.32 2 147230 0.857 1312230 0.861 231013 0.856 293471 0.854 0.857 0.003 0.003 0.25 0.315 2 1.67 85028 0.847 498657 0.851 137654 0.847 203045 0.846 0.848 0.002 0.002 0.315 0.4 1.67 1.32 45778 0.837 112721 0.838 70212 0.839 120737 0.839 0.838 0.001 0.001 0.4 0.5 1.32 1 19090 0.827 17290 0.818 30514 0.832 60667 0.834 0.828 0.006 0.007 0.5 0.63 1 0.67 9743 0.818 4636 0.797 13054 0.821 30251 0.826 0.816 0.011 0.014 0.63 0.8 0.67 0.32 4699 0.813 1620 0.772 5909 0.819 12631 0.817 0.805 0.019 0.024 0.8 1 0.32 0 2093 0.85 479 0.805 2654 0.849 4953 0.848 0.838 0.019 0.023 1 1.25 0 -0.32 1181 0.859 182 0.777 1352 0.849 1842 0.842 0.832 0.032 0.039 1.25 1.6 -0.32 -0.68 669 0.875 84 0.8 887 0.866 784 0.858 0.85 0.029 0.035 1.6 2 -0.68 -1 374 0.878 15 0.77 421 0.863 255 0.864 0.844 0.043 0.051 2 2.5 -1 -1.32 158 0.868 4 0.671 212 0.865 80 0.842 0.812 0.082 0.101 2.5 3.15 -1.32 -1.66 98 0.86 2 0.825 100 0.851 39 0.855 0.848 0.014 0.016 3.15 4 -1.66 -2 38 0.87 0 0 51 0.853 13 0.828 0.638 0.369 0.578 4 5 -2 -2.32 12 0.858 0 0 8 0.868 4 0.826 0.638 0.369 0.578 5 6.3 -2.32 -2.66 9 0.866 0 0 5 0.864 0 0 0.433 0.433 1 6.3 8 -2.66 -3 2 0.906 0 0 1 0.874 0 0 0.445 0.445 1 8 10 -3 -3.32 0 0 0 0 1 0.875 0 0 0.219 0.379 1.732 10 12.5 -3.32 -3.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4: Symmetry measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red).

Symmetry Comparing Facies A, B, C, D Facies A: 2501-dd Facies B: 2020 Facies C: 2018 Facies D: 2016 Symmetry Statistics Size class Size class Grain Symmetry Grain count Symmetry Grain count Symmetry Grain count Symmetry Mean SD CV (mm) (phi) count 0 0.1 3.64 3.32 2211050 0.875 7310438 0.875 2542358 0.875 1338548 0.872 0.874 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.125 3.32 3 532472 0.878 2153955 0.877 506107 0.874 468029 0.873 0.876 0.002 0.002 0.125 0.16 3 2.64 392367 0.883 2318834 0.882 408721 0.88 468189 0.879 0.881 0.002 0.002 0.16 0.2 2.64 2.32 205129 0.881 1715253 0.88 271668 0.878 329175 0.877 0.879 0.002 0.002 0.2 0.25 2.32 2 147230 0.882 1312230 0.879 231013 0.881 293471 0.88 0.881 0.001 0.001 0.25 0.315 2 1.67 85028 0.88 498657 0.875 137654 0.879 203045 0.878 0.878 0.002 0.002 0.315 0.4 1.67 1.32 45778 0.878 112721 0.872 70212 0.878 120737 0.879 0.877 0.003 0.003 0.4 0.5 1.32 1 19090 0.878 17290 0.867 30514 0.879 60667 0.879 0.876 0.005 0.006 0.5 0.63 1 0.67 9743 0.88 4636 0.871 13054 0.878 30251 0.88 0.877 0.004 0.004 0.63 0.8 0.67 0.32 4699 0.88 1620 0.853 5909 0.88 12631 0.879 0.873 0.012 0.013 0.8 1 0.32 0 2093 0.885 479 0.866 2654 0.88 4953 0.879 0.878 0.007 0.008 1 1.25 0 -0.32 1181 0.892 182 0.863 1352 0.888 1842 0.882 0.881 0.011 0.013 1.25 1.6 -0.32 -0.68 669 0.889 84 0.849 887 0.887 784 0.879 0.876 0.016 0.018 1.6 2 -0.68 -1 374 0.894 15 0.853 421 0.89 255 0.888 0.881 0.016 0.019 2 2.5 -1 -1.32 158 0.894 4 0.807 212 0.892 80 0.886 0.87 0.036 0.042 2.5 3.15 -1.32 -1.66 98 0.897 2 0.886 100 0.892 39 0.894 0.892 0.004 0.005 3.15 4 -1.66 -2 38 0.893 0 0 51 0.887 13 0.873 0.663 0.383 0.577 4 5 -2 -2.32 12 0.901 0 0 8 0.895 4 0.866 0.666 0.384 0.578 5 6.3 -2.32 -2.66 9 0.897 0 0 5 0.896 0 0 0.448 0.448 1 6.3 8 -2.66 -3 2 0.923 0 0 1 0.941 0 0 0.466 0.466 1 8 10 -3 -3.32 0 0 0 0 1 0.941 0 0 0.235 0.407 1.732 10 12.5 -3.32 -3.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5: Breadth:Length measurements of each coarse-grained facies at Ngandong-1. Note the coefficient of variation (CV) only exceeds 0.05 in the coarse size fractions where grain counts are low (underlined and marked in red).

Breadth:Length (B:L ratio) Comparing Facies A, B, C, D Facies A: 2501-dd Facies B: 2020 Facies C: 2018 Facies D: 2016 Breadth:Length Statistics Size class Size class B:L B:L B:L B:L Grain count Grain count Grain count Grain count Mean SD CV (mm) (phi) ratio ratio ratio ratio 0 0.1 3.64 3.32 2211050 0.681 7310438 0.679 2542358 0.682 1338548 0.663 0.676 0.008 0.011 0.1 0.125 3.32 3 532472 0.687 2153955 0.666 506107 0.678 468029 0.662 0.673 0.01 0.015 0.125 0.16 3 2.64 392367 0.69 2318834 0.675 408721 0.684 468189 0.675 0.681 0.006 0.009 0.16 0.2 2.64 2.32 205129 0.688 1715253 0.686 271668 0.683 329175 0.677 0.684 0.004 0.006 0.2 0.25 2.32 2 147230 0.693 1312230 0.708 231013 0.695 293471 0.689 0.696 0.007 0.01 0.25 0.315 2 1.67 85028 0.703 498657 0.726 137654 0.705 203045 0.7 0.709 0.01 0.014 0.315 0.4 1.67 1.32 45778 0.705 112721 0.736 70212 0.711 120737 0.706 0.715 0.013 0.018 0.4 0.5 1.32 1 19090 0.704 17290 0.726 30514 0.714 60667 0.711 0.714 0.008 0.011 0.5 0.63 1 0.67 9743 0.707 4636 0.698 13054 0.708 30251 0.717 0.708 0.007 0.01 0.63 0.8 0.67 0.32 4699 0.711 1620 0.683 5909 0.706 12631 0.726 0.707 0.015 0.022 0.8 1 0.32 0 2093 0.728 479 0.697 2654 0.719 4953 0.73 0.719 0.013 0.018 1 1.25 0 -0.32 1181 0.723 182 0.686 1352 0.719 1842 0.721 0.712 0.015 0.021 1.25 1.6 -0.32 -0.68 669 0.73 84 0.713 887 0.725 784 0.732 0.725 0.007 0.01 1.6 2 -0.68 -1 374 0.735 15 0.708 421 0.713 255 0.728 0.721 0.011 0.015 2 2.5 -1 -1.32 158 0.716 4 0.689 212 0.73 80 0.7 0.709 0.016 0.022 2.5 3.15 -1.32 -1.66 98 0.707 2 0.78 100 0.721 39 0.711 0.73 0.029 0.04 3.15 4 -1.66 -2 38 0.769 0 0 51 0.745 13 0.73 0.561 0.324 0.578 4 5 -2 -2.32 12 0.778 0 0 8 0.715 4 0.738 0.558 0.323 0.579 5 6.3 -2.32 -2.66 9 0.728 0 0 5 0.782 0 0 0.378 0.378 1.001 6.3 8 -2.66 -3 2 0.83 0 0 1 0.842 0 0 0.418 0.418 1 8 10 -3 -3.32 0 0 0 0 1 0.733 0 0 0.183 0.317 1.732 10 12.5 -3.32 -3.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 6: GRADISTAT statistical results for Ngandong-1, Ngandong-3, Matar, and Solo River samples analyzed in CAMSIZER®.

Folk&Ward-Logarithmic (φ) Folk & Ward Descriptions Facies Sample Pit Mean Sorting Skewness Kurtosis Mean Sorting Skewness Kurtosis A 2051-dd F10cG10a 0.276 1.843 -0.03 0.805 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Platykurtic A(b) 2063 H09ac 0.885 1.768 -0.174 0.853 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Platykurtic B 2020 H10a 2.257 0.655 0.041 1.274 Fine Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic B 2031 H10c 2.726 0.547 0.104 1.055 Fine Sand Mod. Well Sorted Fine Skewed Mesokurtic B 2080 G10c 2.712 0.724 0.037 1.036 Fine Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic B 2051-v F10cG10a 2.073 0.465 0.165 1.186 Fine Sand Well Sorted Fine Skewed Leptokurtic B 2051-w F10cG10a 1.633 0.469 0.091 1.251 Medium Sand Well Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic B 2051-x F10cG10a 1.676 0.593 0.023 1.209 Medium Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic B 2051-y F10cG10a 2.398 0.544 0.092 1.042 Fine Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic B 2051-z F10cG10a 2.348 0.528 0.063 1.094 Fine Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic B 2051-aa F10cG10a 2.399 0.62 -0.031 1.174 Fine Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic B 2059 H09a 2.416 0.964 -0.193 1.357 Fine Sand Moderately Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic C 2018 H10a 0.436 1.685 -0.083 0.805 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Platykurtic

C 2073a N10a 0.947 1.517 -0.479 1.518 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted V. Coarse Skewed V.Leptokurtic NDG-1 Site NDG-1 C 2027 L10a 1.022 1.821 -0.505 1.062 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted V. Coarse Skewed Mesokurtic C 2028 L10a -0.654 2.179 0.166 0.691 V. Coarse Sand V. Poorly Sorted Fine Skewed Platykurtic C 2051-u F10cG10a 0.103 1.58 -0.114 0.999 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Mesokurtic C 2032b G10c 1.74 1.035 -0.144 1.177 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic C 2082 G10c 0.672 1.63 -0.078 0.889 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Platykurtic C 2049 G10c 0.032 1.984 -0.206 0.727 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Platykurtic C/D 2051-t F10cG10a 0.788 1.005 -0.103 1.148 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic C/D 2081 G10c 1.478 0.963 -0.07 0.973 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic

Low D 2075 G10c 1.456 1.146 -0.074 0.904 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic

Table 6: Continued

Folk&Ward-Logarithmic (φ) Folk & Ward Descriptions Facies Sample Pit Mean Sorting Skewness Kurtosis Mean Sorting Skewness Kurtosis Low D 2051-s F10cG10a 1.455 0.77 -0.163 1.242 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic D 2016 H10a 0.998 1.121 -0.089 1.074 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic D 2051-g F10cG10a 1.567 0.915 -0.073 1.162 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic D 2051-h F10cG10a 1.123 1.15 -0.098 1.216 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic D 2051-i F10cG10a 1.163 0.773 -0.056 1.237 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic D 2051-j F10cG10a 1.04 1.124 -0.249 1.233 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic D 2051-k F10cG10a 0.834 1.273 -0.078 1.076 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic D 2051-L F10cG10a 1.454 0.771 -0.08 1.282 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic D 2051-m F10cG10a 1.441 1.435 -0.105 1.064 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Mesokurtic

D 2051-n F10cG10a 1.946 1.234 -0.065 1.188 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic NDG-1 Site NDG-1 D 2051-o F10cG10a 2.523 0.942 -0.142 1.031 Fine Sand Moderately Sorted Coarse Skewed Mesokurtic D 2051-p F10cG10a 2.374 0.732 0.029 0.981 Fine Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic D 2051-Q F10cG10a 1.683 0.713 -0.059 1.2 Medium Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic D 2051-r F10cG10a 2.367 0.712 0.036 0.988 Fine Sand Moderately Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic High D 2076 G10c 1.755 0.531 -0.046 1.237 Medium Sand Mod. Well Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic

NDG-3 Site 15 cm aboveOSL-15 bedrock NDG-3 1.317 1.033 -0.17 1.25 Medium Sand Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Leptokurtic

54-74 cm 2057 L2, L2 -0.67 1.207 0.073 0.895 V. Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Platykurtic 400-440 cm2058 L2, L2 -0.266 1.736 -0.01 1.054 V. Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic

Matar C. Sand OSL-5 L2, L2 0.689 1.038 -0.031 1.17 Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Leptokurtic

Bedload ModSolo Downstream -1.094 1.129 -0.293 1.041 V. Fine Gravel Poorly Sorted Coarse Skewed Mesokurtic Mod.Bedload

Bedload ModSolo Upstream -0.802 1.771 -0.059 0.966 V. Coarse Sand Poorly Sorted Symmetrical Mesokurtic

Table 7: Particle size results of fine-grained "Facies E" samples from Ngandong-1, determined by traditional pipette methods.

Sample Pit Top Sand Coarse Silt Fine Silt Clay 2033 H10c Flow 1 16 15 25 44 2034a H10c Flow 2 4 12 39 44 2035a H10c Flow 3 10 10 55 25 2032a H10c Diamicton 14 6 63 17 2062 H09a Diamicton 23 9 25 42 2067 H09ac Flow above breccia 25 13 19 43 2064 H09ac Flow above breccia 7 10 69 14 Loess Standard Loess Standard 0 2 43 36 19

Figure 38: Cumulative grain-size curves of the averaged A, B, C and D facies samples from Ngandong. The B facies samples are typically fine-grained and well-sorted; D facies samples are of medium grain-size and moderately well sorted, and A and C

facies samples are poorly sorted, ranging from sand to pebbles

Figure 39: Grain size components (in weight percent) of Flow 1, Flow 2, and Flow 3 in Pit H10c, as determined by

traditional pipette particle size analysis.

Table 8: Facies analysis of Ngandong-1 deposits (after Miall, 1978).

Facies Lithofacies Sedimentary Description Interpretation Structures

A Gm Massive or crudely medium sand to cobbles, Channel lag deposits of rapid bedded gravel and poorly sorted; volcaniclastic flow (thalweg), overlying cobbles, forms in sand that contains rounded eroded bedrock discrete deposits on white clasts of local Kalibeng top of bedrock marl bedrock. Contains vertebrate macrofossils.

B Sh Horizontal bedding fine sand, well- to moderately- Plane bed under low flow with shallow well sorted; dark gray/black regime troughs volcaniclastic sand

C Gm Crudely bedded fine sand to cobbles, poorly Channel lag deposits under gravel sorted, grades into facies D. rapid flow Contains vertebrate macrofossils.

D St Shallow cross medium sand, moderately Flow diminishes from fast bedding dipping to sorted; coarser and more (thalweg) into lower flow the south, some poorly sorted at base (Facies regime over facies C to facies trough cross- C/D boundary) and typically D transition bedding fines upward. Some ripple drift structures near the top of the deposit

E Fsc Massive, matrix- clay to fine sand, moderately Localized mudflows that supported sorted, in some exposures incorporated desiccated contains brecciated siltstone siltstones/mud chips from clasts at base floodplain and Kalibeng Marl

clasts

Interpretation

Descriptive Facies Overview

The CAMSIZER® grain-size data collected in this study quantitatively support the provisional field observations of grain-size and sorting of the sediment layers at Ngandong. The five depositional facies delineated during field excavations (facies A, B, C, D and E) are evident; grain-size data from the CAMSIZER® and pipette analysis support these observations, and although facies A and C were deposited at different times, these deposits are similar in grain-size and sorting (Figure 38). The laboratory particle-size analyses highlighted discreet relationships between the facies that were not evident in field analyses, such as the gradational boundary of facies C upward into facies D, and the slight textural differences between Flow 1, Flow 2, and

Flow 3 in Pit H10c (Tables 6 and 7; Figure 39).

Although the sediment layers clearly differ in grain-size, they do not significantly differ in grain-shape. The calculated coefficient of variation (CV) of the same size fractions for samples 2501-dd, 2020, 2018, 2016 (representing facies A, B, C, and D, respectively) show that the size fractions are statistically similar in all grain-shape characteristics (sphericity, symmetry, and breadth:length ratio)(Tables 3-5). The samples are not calculated as statistically similar for grain-shape in the coarse (granule to pebble) size fractions, but this is likely because there are too few grains to statistically analyze (see grain counts in Tables 3-5). The grain-shape data do not significantly differ between any layers at Ngandong; therefore, it is unlikely that grain-shape was a determining factor in the depositional processes that created the various facies at the site.

Interpretive Sedimentary Facies

Multiple papers (Friedman, 1967; Middleton, 1976; Visher, 1969) have discussed the attempts to directly attribute the characteristics of grain-size distribution to the mechanics of sediment transport and deposition, but there are complications related to sediment sampling and the intricacies of grain-shape, density, and diagenetic effects on sediment deposits (Bridge,

1993). Visher (1969) outlines the history of grain-size studies tied to general depositional environments (such as tidal inlet, tidal flat, minor tidal channel, fluvial, eolian, shelf, relict, and strand in Sindowski (1957)) and to more detailed micro-environments or processes (such as surface creep, saltation, and suspension as described in Inman (1949) and Bagnold (1956)).

Visher (1969) compared grain-size curves of modern environments to those of ancient deposits and found that the shape of modern vs. ancient grain-size log probability plots are very similar but have some notable differences. For example, ancient fluvial deposits contain fewer fine (<44

µm) clays than modern fluvial sediments, possibly due to the effect diagenetic weathering, clay illuviation, or the difficulty of sampling modern suspended sediments (Visher, 1969). It is advised that grain-size distribution alone should not be relied upon to interpret depositional environment, but should be used in conjunction with sedimentary structures, fossils, and physical relationships to other beds (Miall, 1978).

Facies analysis and interpretation can be used at a variety of scales, from discriminating aeolian and glacial deposits, to interpreting the specific location on a carbonate shelf. Because all the deposits examined in this study underlie fluvial terraces and show characteristics typical of fluvial channel deposits, such as trough cross-bedding (Bridge, 1993), the goal of facies

analysis in this context is to determine the particular flow conditions and fluvial micro-

86 environment in which each deposit formed. The descriptions and interpretations of the

Ngandong-area fluvial facies are summarized in Table 8 and discussed as follows:

Facies A: Medium sand to cobbles, poorly sorted, overlies the eroded surface of the

Kalibeng Marl across the Ngandong site and contains vertebrate macrofossils. Facies A is a primarily massive, coarse deposit with a minimal mud component, suggesting it was deposited as coarse lag deposits at the Solo River stream bottom following erosion of the Kalibeng Marl

(Miall, 1978). The longbone fossils within facies A are oriented horizontally, further indicating a low-viscosity flow producing lag deposits rather than a hyperconcentrated flow or debris flow, in which the fossils could be oriented sub-vertically. Facies A is similar to the coarse-grained deposits found at the base of a traditional model of a meandering stream point bar sequence

(Bridge, 1985).

Facies B: This deposit is made up of fine, well- to moderately-well sorted sand, and is horizontally planar-bedded with some shallow trough crossbeds. Facies B is rich in volcaniclastic sand and heavy minerals, with concentrations of the latter demarcating the horizontal and trough beds. Its fine-grained, well-sorted texture and horizontal bedding structure suggests it was deposited under low flow conditions (Miall, 1978) in a point bar within a meandering stream.

Facies C: This deposit is made of up fine sand to cobbles, is poorly sorted, crudely bedded with forests dipping to the south, and contains many vertebrate macrofossils (Figure 25).

It typically overlies facies B with a distinct boundary evident in both the field and laboratory grain-size analyses (Table 6), suggesting a marked change in fluvial dynamics between the deposition of facies B and facies C, and possibly the local erosion into facies B deposits during

formation of facies C. Facies C is interpreted to have been formed as channel lag deposits (Miall,

1978), in a similar fashion as facies A, but the crude bedding in this layer suggests a slightly lower flow velocity that allowed for the preservation of tractional bedding on the leeward side of gravel bar structures (Bridge, 2003). Sedimentological studies of other vertebrate fossil-rich fluvial sites, such as Late Cretaceous alluvial deposits in the Bakony Mountains of modern

Hungary, as discussed in Botfalvai, et al. (2016) have uncovered similarly poorly sorted gravel beds containing vertebrate fossils. However, the fossils in that locality were oriented sub- vertically within the deposit, suggesting a higher viscosity flow at the time of deposition, such as a debris flow associated with a flash flood (Botfalvai et al., 2016). Because the vertebrate fossils found in facies A and C at Ngandong were deposited horizontally, they were likely deposited as channel lag deposits under a lower-viscosity flow regime (Miall, 1978; Roberts, 2007). As these flow conditions changed, the upper bounds of facies C transitioned into the conditions that formed facies D, indicated by a gradational boundary.

Facies D: This deposit is made up of medium sand and is moderately sorted. The deposit has shallow, southward-dipping cross-bedding and some trough cross-bedding and ripple drift lamination, indicating formation in a channel bar environment under low to medium flow regime

(Miall, 1978). The base of facies D deposits are typically more coarse and poorly sorted than the upper limits of the deposit, suggesting higher flow velocity (such as the thalweg) during deposition of the basal sediments and low flow regime during the deposition of the upper sediments, producing shallow trough cross-bedding and ripple drift lamination. The gradational relationship with underlying facies C deposits suggests continuous deposition from the thalweg conditions that formed facies C to the medium- to low-flow regimes that formed the middle- to

upper-levels of facies D. Other recent studies at Ngandong-1 (Indriati et al., 2011) similarly

88 interpret facies D as channel bar deposits, but do not specify the particular flow regime at the time of deposition.

Facies E: The texture of this deposit ranges from clay to fine sand, and is primarily composed of fine silt and clay (Table 7). This deposit is massive, matrix-supported, and discontinuous across the Ngandong-1 site and ranges in thickness from centimeter-scale to over

2 meters. It is also visible in the southern end of the transect at NDG-3 (Figure 35). In some exposures of facies E at Ngandong-1 (such as in excavation pit H09ac), normally-graded, brecciated siltstone clasts are evident at the base of the deposit, as well as angular clasts of the local bedrock, Kalibeng Marl. Facies E is not laminated, nor does it contain root casts or abundant organic material, all of which are common characteristics of fine-grained floodplain deposits topping point bar sequences; therefore, it is unlikely this deposit formed through overbank deposition onto a floodplain. In addition, the distinct, truncating relationship of facies

E into underlying facies (such as in Pit H10c in Figure 26) suggests the possibility that facies E eroded the underlying deposits prior to deposition, which is not typical of floodplain deposits.

Facies E comprises several individual deposits, evident by coarser sediments at the base of each flow (Figure 27). Particle-size analysis indicates some variation in grain-size between these deposits (Table 7, Figure 39). The mineralogy of facies E (discussed in greater detail in Chapter

IV) is more rich in local sediments (carbonate marl clasts, and carbonate microfossils) and contains significantly less volcaniclastic sand than underlying deposits of facies A, B, C, and D.

Because of the grain-size and graded bedding within it, I interpret facies E to be a matrix- supported mudflow that moved as a turbidity current into the Solo River channel and eroded point bar deposits as it did so, creating flame structures at the boundary between the underlying

sandy layers and facies E (as in pit H09ac; see Figure 32). Based on the high mud and Kalibeng

Marl component, I interpret facies E to have been formed by localized mudflows in the Kendeng

Hills, rather than volcanic lahars sourced from the Southern Mountains. Due to the high degree of angularity of siltstone clasts within the deposit, I posit the mudflow did not travel long distances, and may have formed via local stream bank collapse-generated turbidity flow into subaerially exposed sandbar deposits. Facies E caps all other facies in most pit exposures and appears to be the uppermost facies present, except in pit H09ac (Figure 32) where there is a thin deposit of Facies D overlying a portion of Facies E. This indicates the deposition of local mudflows did not completely fill the channel but that the low flow regime conditions continued, at least in that particular location.

Ngandong-2: The deposit at this location are very thin (maximum 26cm thickness) and not laterally continuous over a broad area (Figure 34). The deposit is composed of fine to medium volcaniclastic sand with common pebbles 1-3cm in diameter, predominantly volcanic in origin. This thin deposit at NDG-2 is similar in composition, texture, and thickness to the gravel conglomerate at the auger 6-7 sites at NDG-3 (see next section), and can likely be correlated to that nearby deposit.

Ngandong-3: The deposits below the 20 m terrace at this location are thinner and less distinct than at a similar terrace level at Ngandong-1, but generally follow the same patterns of fining-upward and becoming more fine-grained with greater distance from the Solo River

(Figure 35). The stated similarities to Ngandong-1 deposits are based on grain-size distributions measured by field textural analysis, and because samples were extracted by bucket auger, these lack the benefit of sedimentary structure analysis. However, there is similarity between facies A at Ngandong-1 and the gravel conglomerate overlying the Kalibeng Marl in the location of

augers 6 and 7, and it is likely that the well-sorted medium sand (drawn in green on Figure 35)

90 formed in similar low flow regime conditions as facies B at Ngandong-1. The loamy sand deposits likely formed in lower flow regime (similar to facies D), and I interpret the clay loam and silty loam deposits to have formed under similar bank-collapse conditions as facies E found at Ngandong-1.

Matar: The deposits on the 20 m terrace level across the Solo River from Ngandong-1 are coarser, and better sorted than the coarse deposits (facies A and C) that are seen at

Ngandong-1. The Matar stratigraphy is composed of thick (over 400cm) layers of coarse gravels, but in our sample locations did not include any fine grained fractions or vertebrate fossils as seen at Ngandong-1 (Figure 36). This suggests the Matar site formed under different fluvial conditions than Ngandong-1, and the considerable thickness and homogeneity of the gravels there suggest its placement as the main Solo River channel location for a significant period of time. Based on the grain-sizes and sedimentary structures, the Matar deposits likely formed through subaqueous dune migration under low flow regime (trough cross-bedded sands) and as sand bar deposits (Miall, 1978). Comparatively, the Ngandong-1 terrace deposits are thinner with greater variability in grain size, suggesting more frequently-changing flow conditions (such as a more rapidly migrating thalweg) and sediment supply, and possibly a smaller channel system at time of formation.

Discussion

The depositional facies present at Ngandong have consistent internal characteristics in terms of grain-size, but stratigraphic relationships between each facies vary significantly on a local scale. For example, the five facies appear to have consistent stratigraphic relationships

(facies A overlain by facies B, overlain by facies C, overlain by facies D, overlain by facies E)

through observations in pits H10a and G10c (Figure 24 and Figure 30), but those stratigraphic

91 relationships do not continue in Pit F10cG10a (Figure 29) a short (10 m) lateral distance to the west, away from the Solo River. Figure 32 illustrates the highly undulatory nature of some facies contacts, particularly the interfaces between sandy layers (such that deposited by facies D) and mud flows (facies E).

The detailed examination of multiple excavation pits across this site allows for facies correlation and localized fluvial dynamics reconstruction to improve understanding of how the

Ngandong site (and perhaps other paleoanthropological sites within the Solo River drainage system) formed. This comprehensive analysis over a near-continuous cross section under the 20 m terrace highlights the stratigraphic variability possible within a remarkably small geographic area, and calls into question the validity of type sections described in earlier studies (Bartstra,

1977; de Genevraye and Samuel, 1972; Itihara et al., 1985; Sartono, 1976) where perhaps only one pit was excavated for descriptions, or where only surface sediments and perceived elevation differences were used to map Solo River terraces. These results also illuminate the influences of elevation on the location and extent of each facies; for example, it appears the excavation pits farther northeast (nearer the modern Solo River) feature more facies E deposits than the lenses of fine-sand and medium-sand facies, which are thicker and more continuous to the southwest

(away from the modern Solo River). These grain-size relationships differ from those evident at the NDG-3 site, where sands and gravels are more common near the Solo River and fine-grained deposits blanket the terrace farther away from the river (Figure 35). This variability over a short lateral distance highlights the localized nature of each fluvial facies along this segment, and likely the entirety, of the Solo River. The variation in facies complicates the search for more fossil-rich deposits, as none of the observed deposits at NDG-1, NDG-3, or across the river are

continuous and the migration of the Solo River channel over time means they cannot be

92 confidently linked to the modern configurations of the river (such as fossiliferous deposits consistently found on outside bends of the modern river).

The U-series dates that suggest similar ages (~130 ka) for all dated fossils from facies A and facies C support existing hypotheses that the Ngandong fossil deposits are the result of a single mass death, and possibly a single mass burial event. The facies interpretations within this chapter support that hypothesis as a possibility; the two fossiliferous facies do not appear to be separated by a period of subaerial exposure or significant time, as there is no evidence of rooting, burrowing, weathering zones, or soil formation within facies A, B, C, or D. The deposits at

NDG-1, NDG-2, NDG-3, and Matar are all thin, non-lithified, stream deposits that are in some locations capped by a single, modern (and poorly developed, due to an actively farmed and/or excavated surface) soil. The fossils within this stratigraphy are disarticulated but show no signs of subaerial desiccation or scavenger chewing prior to burial. Therefore, it is likely that the 20m terrace stratigraphy formed relatively quickly, and could have been formed after a single death event as others have hypothesized.

Conclusion

The stratigraphic mapping component of this study, although fairly small in scale, highlights significant lateral variability of stratigraphic sequences within two fills of the 20 m terrace along the Solo River. These stratigraphic relationships indicate that the mechanisms for fossil deposition were likely highly localized. However, the stratigraphic relationships around the fossil assemblages in this mapping study are fairly constant; fossil assemblages within the 20

m terrace are characteristically found on or slightly (30 cm) above the Kalibeng Marl bedrock,

93 and the fossiliferous layers are characterized by 10-30 cm lenticular beds of poorly-sorted, gravely sediments. The consistency of these relationships may aid in paleontological reconnaissance and may help to identify other fossiliferous terrace deposits along the Solo River.

CHAPTER III: LUMINESCENCE DATING OF VOLCANICLASTIC FLUVIAL SEDIMENTS OF THE SOLO RIVER TERRACE SEQUENCE AT NGANDONG IN EAST JAVA, INDONESIA

Abstract

The Ngandong paleoanthropological site in Central Java, Indonesia is located on an abandoned fluvial terrace 20 meters above the Solo River. The site is composed of sandy fluvial deposits ranging from two to four meters thick that contain two distinct stratigraphic layers rich in vertebrate fossils. Dutch Geological Survey excavations from 1931 to 1933 uncovered approximately 25,000 vertebrate fossils from these layers, including twelve crania and two tibiae that were identified as being from Homo erectus. Homo erectus fossils have been uncovered elsewhere along the Solo River at sites Sambungmacan and Trinil, but the Ngandong specimens have attracted special attention from paleoanthropologists because of their unique and seemingly modern cranial morphology. Young (27-46 ka) ages have been measured from associated bovid tooth enamel via electron spin resonance (ESR) dating, but these ages have not been corroborated by other dating methods and the age relationship between the bovid and H. erectus fossils within the Ngandong assemblage is unknown. This study seeks to determine the minimum age of the Ngandong Homo erectus by dating the burial age of the sandy fluvial deposits associated with the fossiliferous layers. Preliminary optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of sands from Ngandong indicated poor natural signal response on the blue wavelength.

Because the sands are sourced from the volcanic range in southern Java, the natural luminescence signal is strongest on the red wavelength; therefore, the red thermoluminescence

(RTL) dating method with the dual-aliquot protocol is the preferred method for determining the

95 burial age of these sediments. However, preliminary runs in this study indicate highly variable equivalent dose measurements, likely due to the rarity of pure quartz, contamination by volcanic glass, and the mixing of grains with varied residual signals prior to burial. Presented here are the challenges and results of dating the volcanic sediments at Ngandong.

Introduction

Paleontologists believe the bone bed was deposited at Ngandong soon after death, thereby suggesting the date of deposition is similar to the numerical age of the fossils (Huffman et al., 2010). This geochronologically contemporaneous relationship highlights the appropriateness of using luminescence dating methods to date deposition of the fossil-laden fluvial sediments below the Ngandong terrace. Rizal (1998) attempted thermoluminescence

(TL) and infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) dating of fluvial deposits at Ngandong, resulting in highly variable Late Pleistocene ages (Table 9). Some sample ages were indeterminable, and others were variable and not stratigraphically consistent; older terraces in some cases produced more recent dates than stratigraphically younger ones, and Rizal found significant (>100,000 years) age differences between TL and IRSL methods. The cause of the age inconsistencies is unclear, as Rizal (1998) did not report mineralogical composition or environmental dose rate of the samples. It is also possible that the sediments in Rizal‟s study were not in situ terrace remnants, as his field work did not involve fluvial facies descriptions prior to sample collection. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of the quartz in the terrace sediments has been attempted in other, unpublished studies at Ngandong, but the age produced is approximately 6.5 ka, which is believed to be erroneously young for the terrace‟s

position in the valley (Bettis, 2010).

The best option for successfully dating the burial of the fossils in volcaniclastic sediments at Ngandong stratigraphy is likely red thermoluminescence (RTL) dating, which has been successful in determining equivalent doses from volcanic quartz, which emits its highest natural signal on the red end of the light spectrum (620-740 nm) (Westaway, 2009). This method has been useful in determining burial ages of volcanic sediments in Indonesia (Roberts et al., 2009;

Westaway and Roberts, 2006) and other volcanic terrains (Stokes and Fattahi, 2003).

Table 9: Luminescence dates from Ngandong (translated from Rizal, 1998). The High Terrace described in Rizal (1998) is referred to as the Ngandong Terrace in Sartono (1976) and as the 20 m terrace in Sidarto and Morwood (2004).

Terrace level TL TL IRSL IRSL

Equivalent dose method ADD Regenerative ADD Regenerative

Upper High Terrace Undetermined 66.15 ± 6.37 350.16 ± 350.16 Undetermined

High Terrace 234.42 ± 23.4 Undetermined 196.37 ± 19.58 58.03 ± 5.81

Middle Terrace 85.79 ± 8.5 5.89 ± 0.54 109.82 ± 10.55 47.12 ± 4.65

Low Terrace 237.38 ± 23.92 Undetermined 78.04 ± 7.83 20.31 ± 2.01

Methods

Eighteen samples were collected during the 2010 field season at Ngandong by pounding opaque, 7.5 inch PVC tubes into fresh faces of excavation pits and extracting them before capping and sealing. Sample locations within site stratigraphy were documented in site sketches and geospatially documented via Total Data Station. Environmental dose rate was estimated by laboratory measurement of gamma and beta counts. Nine samples were prepared and dated at the

Macquarie University Luminescence Dating Laboratory (detailed methods available in Appendix

A). Upon opening under dark conditions, 5 cm of sediment were removed from each end to ensure a light-tight sample. The samples were wet-sieved to isolate the 90-212 µm size fraction, washed in 10% HCl acid and 10% H2O2 to remove carbonates and organic materials, density- separated within sodium polytungstate twice to isolate the quartz fraction, etched in 40% HF for

45 minutes to remove contaminating feldspar inclusions, rinsed in 10% HCL to remove fluorides, magnetically separated and sieved again to isolate the 90-125 µm size fraction of quartz for red TL dating. Grains were adhered to 10 mm-diameter aluminum disks with

Silkospray and measured for luminescence properties with dual-aliquot protocol (DAP) in an automated Risø TL/OSL reader.

Results

Glow curves and test doses indicate the samples do carry a natural signal and respond to laboratory radiation (see complete RTL data in Appendix B). However, equivalent doses measured in the unbleachable signal do not concur with stratigraphic relationships observed in the Ngandong site stratigraphy. In several cases, samples that are stratigraphically higher appear

to have a higher equivalent dose measured from the unbleachable signal than samples taken from

98 underlying facies (Table 10). Multiple aliquots of the same sample produce highly variable equivalent doses in the unbleachable signal, as seen in Table 11.

Table 10: Stratigraphic relationships and equivalent doses measured with RTL

TL Sample Facies Location Preliminary Equivalent Dose, Equivalent Dose Error, in measured in grays (Gy) grays (Gy)

1 B H10a 30.55 66.9

4 D H10a 75.47 121.9

5 - L2 101.79 197.83

7 B H09ac 110.13 187.17

11 D (low) H09ac 13.01 59.71

12 D (high) G10c 124.27 148.46

15 A G10c 64.45 67.92

18 B F10cG10a 58.93 315.11

19 D F10cG10a 19.44 83.14

Table 11: Intra-sample variability in equivalent dose measured from luminescence signal on red- wavelength

Disc# TL Sample Equivalent Dose (s) Equivalent Dose (Gy) Equivalent Dose Error (Gy)

1 7 1335.46 165.74 214.44

2 7 1182.81 146.79 583.83

3 7 90.45 11.225 121.24

4 7 599.44 74.39 171.04

5 7 886.86 110.13 187.17

Discussion

Based on these preliminary data, the equivalent doses of sedimentary layers at Ngandong do not appear to follow expected stratigraphic relationships. There is also significant variability in equivalent dose measured from different aliquots of the same sample. These irregularities are troublesome and may be attributed to difficult mineralogical compositions for dating, significant mixing and irregular bleaching of fluvial grains prior to burial, and/or sampling error that corrupted or mixed the natural signal within sample sediments.

The mineralogical compositions of the Ngandong sediments are not optimal for red thermoluminescence dating; samples have abundant glass, heavy minerals, and lithic fragments, whereas feldspar comprises a smaller percentage of most samples and monocrystalline quartz is rare (Chapter IV). The glass fraction is not removed in the sample preparation protocol and may be diluting the natural signal of aliquots that are presumed to be pure quartz. Glass lacks a

crystalline structure and is therefore a poor dosimeter, suggesting that increasing percentages of 99

100 glass within a sample would result in decreasing measureable natural luminescence signal from that sample.

An additional factor that may contribute to the equivalent dose variability in these samples is sampling and/or transport error. The samples were extracted into opaque tubes in daylight from a freshly-shorn sediment face and were clearly marked for the “into wall” direction, along with being securely sealed with duct tape. Samples were kept as still as possible in a cool, dark place, although the samples were not in researchers‟ control during air transport from Indonesia to the United States or from the United States to Australia. It is possible that samples were opened as part of airport security checks, although clearly marked with requests to open only under dark light conditions. Another possibility is that samples were agitated enough during transport that bleached grains from the ends of the samples migrated within the tube to be mixed with unbleached grains; this is not believed to be the case, however, for upon opening the samples under the dark light conditions in Australia the sediments appeared to still be packed tightly within sample tubes. Another possible cause for observed variability is the mixing and irregular bleaching of fluvial sediments. Several luminescence techniques have been successfully used to date fluvial sediments (DeLong and Arnold, 2007; Forman et al., 1988;

Olley et al., 1998; Rittenour, 2008) from other regions, with all known luminescence methods

(TL, OSL, IRSL, and RTL). However, fluvial sediments are more difficult to date accurately and precisely with luminescence dating techniques because the sediments are not uniformly bleached prior to burial, causing “mixing” of the natural signal and equivalent dose upon laboratory measurement. To quantify this, Murray et al. (1995) and Olley et al. (1998) tested small aliquots of modern fluvial channel and overbank deposits of known (via historical record

and corroborating 14C dates) burial ages to examine the distribution of apparent doses. Murray et

100

101 al. found that the degree of bleaching among fluvial assemblages varies based on their location and grain size; overbank deposits (which are also commonly fine-grained) appear to receive the greatest exposure to light prior to burial, and therefore are the most homogenously bleached.

Conversely, the majority of sand grains within modern channel bar deposits were found to be well-bleached, but the presence of few, poorly-bleached grains contaminated the aliquots and prevented accurate measurements of equivalent dose(Murray et al., 1995). In the follow-up study, Olley et al (1998) found that channel deposits known to have been buried 70 years ago produced apparent ages of 400-730 years, indicating incomplete bleaching prior to burial. When separated by size fraction, the coarsest fraction (212-250µm) was the most thoroughly bleached, and in general, the variation in dose measurements increased with a decrease in particle size; however, as in previous studies, it was found that the majority of grains in all size fractions were well-bleached, but were mixed with a small number of grains that were poorly-bleached, which therefore skewed the apparent age. To determine the accurate age from a distribution of aliquots with unknown levels of contamination, Olley et al. found that selecting the 5% of the aliquots with the similar, lowest (youngest) apparent ages produced a burial age of 64 ± 7 years, consistent with the known burial age of 70 years. This suggests that in a mixed fluvial assemblage of pure quartz, the best estimate of the true burial dose will likely be found in the groups of aliquots that produce the lowest equivalent doses (Olley et al., 1998). However, this approach to the Ngandong sediments may be complicated by the mineralogy, as magnetic separations in the laboratory suggested the “pure quartz” fraction was contaminated with heavy minerals and Chapter IV suggests a high glass content, which is a poor dosimeter. Therefore,

only considering the low equivalent dose measurements of small aliquots might produce low

101

102 ages based on improper minerals with poor signal preservation (such as glass and heavy minerals), rather than well-bleached quartz grains.

The mixing and contamination issue continues with fluvial sediments, but recent advancements in single grain dating procedures seek to account for this mixing in burial age determinations. Single grain approaches have been shown to be an important check on small aliquot analyses, as the number of grains in each small aliquot vary and can produce unreliable results (Olley et al., 1999). Some samples were analyzed by single grain procedures by Olley et al. (1999) found that only 32% of the single grains had measured doses that were consistent with the known burial age, whereas other samples had well-bleached grains numbering at 82% of the sample. This suggests the degree of contamination by poorly-bleached grains does vary in nature and should be tested by single grain procedures prior to burial age determination. This is accomplished by analyzing a multitude of single grains, and then examining the distribution of equivalent doses from the series of grains, using a dose distribution model. The shape of the dose distributions is used to calculate the probability of the number of unbleached grains within the distribution. If the distribution is strongly asymmetric (contamination levels below 5%), the low dosage end of the distribution indicates the population of grains that were well-bleached prior to burial, and will therefore produce an accurate burial age (Olley et al., 1999).

More recent studies build upon the principles outlined above, but apply finite mixture models to isolate the individual components (in fluvial deposit contexts, the well-bleached, poorly-bleached, and unbleached particles) to better determine an accurate burial age (Galbraith et al., 2005; Galbraith and Roberts, 2012). The common age and central age models are similarly appropriate for fluvial, mixed samples; the common age model computes a weighted average

with log values for samples all assumed to have one true burial age, whereas the central age

102

103 model assumes a natural distribution of age estimates due to slight variations in luminescence properties of grains or variation in the natural dose rate the grains experienced while buried

(Lubinski et al., 2014). These models can be useful in determining the burial age of the

Ngandong fluvial deposits, but only if we can be confident that the grains measured are of a pure quartz fraction without contamination by glass, heavy minerals, or feldspar inclusions.

Conclusion

The preliminary RTL analyses of Ngandong and other terrace deposits do not provide consistent or reliable equivalent doses. Given the intra-stratigraphic and intra-sample variability observed in this study, the next step will be to modify sample preparation protocol for these sediments to remove volcanic glass components that may be diluting the quartz aliquot signals.

One technique would be additional density separations with heavy liquids that could further isolate volcanic quartz for improved consistency in the measured natural signal. Additionally, an acid treatment that would remove glass but preserve quartz could ensure increased purity of sample. Once a pure quartz fraction can be isolated, small aliquot and single grain protocols for presumed mixed (fluvial) samples should be followed to isolate the grains that were well- bleached prior to burial, and therefore can provide an accurate burial age for the Ngandong site stratigraphy.

103

104

CHAPTER IV: MINERALOGICAL AND GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF NGANDONG SITE STRATIGRAPHY

Abstract

The Ngandong paleoanthropological site in Central Java, Indonesia is located on a strath terrace above the Solo River. The site is contained in sandy fluvial deposits ranging from two to four meters thick that contain two distinct stratigraphic layers rich in vertebrate fossils, including fourteen Homo erectus fossils that, based on morphology, appear to be examples of recently- living Homo erectus. There is great interest and excitement in the age of these fossils, but little is known about their source and stratigraphic or sedimentary context or the source of the sediments that contain them. Mineralogical and geochemical characterization of the Ngandong site stratigraphy can provide some insight into the sediment transport and deposition of the Solo

River at the time of site formation and can augment existing geological and paleoanthropological data. Point-counting of sediment grain mounts indicate two distinct regional sources for the

Ngandong sediments, and significant mineralogical differences between sieved grain size fractions of each sample. Geochemical analyses of bulk sediment samples from Ngandong show little variability within the site stratigraphy, but does suggest similarities between the volcaniclastic Ngandong sediments and the younger lava emissions of Mt. Wilis, Mt. Lawu, and

Mt. Merapi.

Introduction

The Ngandong paleoanthropological site in Central Java, Indonesia is located on a strath

terrace 20 meters above the Solo River. The site is composed of sandy fluvial deposits ranging 104

from two to four meters thick that contain two distinct stratigraphic layers rich in vertebrate

105 fossils, including Homo erectus fossils that were uncovered in the 1931-1933 field season conducted by the Dutch Geological Survey (Huffman et al., 2010). The morphology of the fossils suggests they may be examples of recently-living Homo erectus, but the numerical age of these fossils have been difficult to confidently determine through U-Th dating due to their mineralized condition and diagenetic interaction with groundwater (Grün and Thorne, 1997).

Young ages have been found through ESR dating of bovid teeth uncovered at Ngandong

(Swisher et al., 1996), but neither the stratigraphic nor the age association between the bovid teeth and the Homo erectus fossils are known. Recent 40Ar/39 dating of hornblende in pumice clasts recovered from Ngandong and the nearby Jigar site provide a maximum age of approximately 550 ka (Indriati et al., 2011). Indriati et al. (2011) re-attempted ESR and U-series dating of faunal teeth believed to be stratigraphically associated with Ngandong Homo erectus and found ages spanning 74-110 ka. Preliminary attempts to determine burial age through luminescence dating techniques have produced uncertain results (see Chapters II and III), and would of course provide only a minimum age for the fossils (Roberts, 1998). Given the limitations of numerical dating methods, better understanding of the local and regional sedimentary processes may augment existing age uncertainties by providing some constraints on the source and fluvial history of the Ngandong sediment and fossil deposits. Specifically, the characterization of the mineralogical and geochemical compositions of the Ngandong deposits may provide insight into the evolution of the site and the Solo River drainage system as a whole.

105

106

Methods

Portable X-Ray Fluorescence

Sediment samples collected during excavations of the Ngandong-1 site in 2010 were boiled in a mild acid wash (10% acetic acid, 30% hydrogen peroxide) over 400 ˚C heat for one hour before being thoroughly rinsed and oven-dried. Acetic acid, rather than hydrochloric acid, was chosen to remove pedogenic carbonate coatings but preserve carbonate grains that may be sourced from local carbonate bedrock (USGS X-ray powder diffraction procedure). Dried aggregate samples and standard reference materials were placed in labeled 32 mm diameter sample cups for laboratory analysis inside a lead-lined Delta docking station. Some samples were additionally milled and combined with a binding agent to form XRF pellets, to be analyzed for methods comparison against aggregate samples. An Innov-X Delta pXRF instrument on

Geochemistry mode setting was used to collect geochemical data with two beams: beam 1 at 40 kilovolts (kV) analyzing elements V, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, W, Hg, As, Se, Pb, Bi, Rb, U, Sr,

Y, Zr, Mo, Ti, Mn, with trace elements Ag, Cd, Sn, and Sb for 30 seconds, and beam 2 at 10 kV analyzing elements Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, and Mn for 30 seconds. Each sediment sample was run three times stationary, and three times having been shaken and inverted between each run to measure for intra-sample variability and to check measurement repeatability. In addition, five samples were run without an acid wash sample preparation to compare the effectiveness of the acetic acid wash at removing secondary carbonates, and to diagnose the presence of authigenic (pedogenic) carbonates versus allogenic carbonate pieces eroded from local marine bedrock (see Appendix B for raw pXRF data). To check for instrument accuracy and measurement precision, standard reference materials NIST 2710a, NIST 2711a, TILL-2,

BIR-1, and MESS-3 were repeatedly run throughout the sediment analyses, and correlation

106

107 curves were plotted to quantify the level of agreement between the published, preferred values of each standard versus the measured values determined by the Innov-X Delta pXRF.

Point-Counting

Field observations of site stratigraphy during the 2010 Ngandong Field Season took place within pits excavated down to local bedrock, as well as via bucket auger sampling at Ngandong-

1, Ngandong-2, Ngandong-3 and at Matar (on the 20 m terrace across the Solo River, 1 km upstream of Ngandong-1). Sample locations at the Ngandong site were mapped using a Sokkia

Set 500 Total Station interfaced with a Carlson data collector and samples were collected in plastic bags and returned to the University of Iowa for further laboratory analyses.

Samples were prepared for analyses in the University of Iowa Quaternary Materials

Laboratory. Samples were repeatedly split with a sediment splitter to isolate a representative fraction of approximately 50 g. Samples were then bathed in a mild acid solution of ~50 ml reverse osmosis water, 20 ml 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and 10 ml acetic acid (CH3COOH) and boiled for 1 hour at 400 ˚C. The mixtures were then left to rest for 24 hours before being rinsed through a 63 µm sieve with water to remove clays and silts and thoroughly dried in an oven to prevent clumping of grains.

Grain mounts of sediment samples were prepared according to standard procedures of the

University of Iowa Thin Section Petrography Laboratory as outlined in Appendix A. Mounted grains were identified and photographed using a Nikon 50i microscope with Petrog

SteppingStage and Nikon DS-Ri1 camera attachment. Area of interest was set on each grain mount to maximize the countable area but exclude areas of mounts where grains were plucked out or shattered. Two hundred grains were characterized on each grain mounted thin section,

counting points fallen on lithic fragments as lithic fragments rather than the mineral held within 107

108

(Basu, 1976; Ingersoll et al., 1984); these compositional data were then plotted on ternary diagrams to illustrate compositional trends among samples taken from Ngandong and the surrounding areas.

Results

Data Analysis: Bulk Geochemistry

Instrument repeatability

To check analytical precision, linear regression analysis was used to compare the measurements of standard reference materials (SRM) by pXRF to the published preferred values

(Tables 12 and 13; Figure 40). The pXRF did not reliably measure all elements of each SRM with high precision (namely, the lighter elements such as Mg, Si, and Cl), but did accurately measure (R2 value>0.95, following the guidelines outlined in Ryan et al., 2017) the following elements: K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Cu, Zn, As, Sr, Pb, which were then the elements of focus in comparing bulk geochemistry of stratigraphy. By the strict guidelines in Ryan et al. (2017), Rb, K, and Zr were not measured reliably enough in the published standards to qualify as accurate, but due to their reasonably high R2 value and utility in comparing volcanic rock sources, these elements are also considered in this study. Elements with relatively light atomic weights (such as Mg, Al, and

Si) were not considered due to their tendency to absorb secondary X-rays in the measurement process and therefore produce an erroneous chemical signature (Gill, 1997). Instrument repeatability was measured by multiple (3+) analyses of each sample from Ngandong; coefficient of variation (CV) showed that the results from three consecutive measurements of a single, stationary aliquot were consistently statistically similar (CV<0.05). However, aliquots that were inverted and shaken between each measurement showed greater geochemical variation within a

series of repeated measurements than when the aliquot was held stationary throughout the series 108

109 of measurements. This effect was particularly pronounced in loose aggregate samples with greatest grain size and mineralogical heterogeneity. Not surprisingly, the aliquots that showed the least variation across repeated measurements were those in the form of powdered pellets, which also produced slightly different geochemical signatures from aggregate aliquots of the same sample. It is not clear whether averages of aggregate analyses or averages of powdered analyses actually produce the most accurate reading, but these data suggest that the two forms of aliquots are not directly comparable to one another.

Intra-site Facies Comparisons

Mean values of repeated sample measurements were used to generate bivariate plots to illustrate geochemical variation among common facies at Ngandong-1, and single samples from

Ngandong-3 and Matar (Figure 41). There appears to be a small spread in the data, with Flow 2 of facies E showing the lowest value of Sr with relation to Y, and the volcaniclastic sand deposits at NDG-3 appearing to be the most enriched in Sr with relation to Y. The aggregate form and powdered form of samples from Flow 1 appear to be fairly geochemically similar, at least within the elemental ratios expressed in Figure 41. There is no distinctive pattern in these groupings solely based on site placement (NDG-1, NDG-3, Matar), site stratigraphy, or grain size, as Flow

1 and 3 are very fine-grained but according to these data are geochemically similar to samples from the coarser facies A-D (Chapter II). The lack of distinct geochemical differentiation between facies A-D and facies E does not necessarily suggest those facies are from a similar source, but instead might appear geochemically similar due to residual pedogenic carbonates

coating the grains.

109

110

Comparison to Volcanic Complexes in Java

Comparison of the Ngandong volcaniclastic sediments (facies A-D, and samples from

NDG-3 and Matar) to published whole rock bulk geochemical data for the Mt. Wilis Volcanic

Complex (WVC) and Mt. Lawu Volcanic Complex (LVC) can be seen in Figure 42 (Hartono,

1994). By comparing K/Y to Rb/Sr ratios, it appears the Ngandong sediments cluster together and have relatively low K and relatively high Rb. This is high Rb value could possibly be due to the presence of pedogenic carbonates, and therefore may be highlighting diagenetic, rather than genetic relationships.

Bivariate analysis of more environmentally immobile, and genetically important elements Zr/Y and Sr/Zr show the Ngandong sediments are most similar to the Young Lawu emissions, youngest Wilis emissions (Arkokalangan, <1 Ma), and rocks from “very old Merapi”

(also known as proto-Merapi, ~135 ka) through to new Merapi (4.8 ka-recent) (del Marmol,

1990; Gertisser et al., 2012; Hartono, 1994)(Figure 43). The Wilis Volcanic Complex (WVC) has been geochemically characterized by Hartono (1994) and showed chemical shifts over time.

From oldest to youngest, the sequence is as follows, with available 40K-40Ar age data included: pre-caldera Klotok basalts and basaltic andesite (~1.89 Ma); pre-caldera Pawonsewu andesite

(~1.61 Ma); caldera Ngebel dacite and high-Si andesite; post-caldera Jeding basaltic andesite

(~1.09 Ma), and post-caldera Argokalangan andesite (Hartono, 1994). Figure 43 shows the

Ngandong sediments are most similar to the youngest of the WVC, the Argokalangan, as well as the younger materials from Mt. Lawu, and the materials sourced from Very Old Merapi (170 ka-

30 ka), Old Merapi (30 ka-4.8 ka), and New Merapi (4.8 ka-present) (Gertisser et al., 2012).

110

111

Table 12: Published, preferred values of standard reference materials used for pXRF calibration in this study, sourced from the GeoReM online database.

SRM referred values used (ppm) BIR-1 NIST2711a NIST2710a TILL-2 MESS-3 Al 73339.7 69727.0 59500.0 84849.8 85900.0 Si 200630.3 287753.8 302392.7 284770.0 270000.0 P 104.0 1007.0 1050.0 750.0 1200.0 K 230.0 24200.0 21000.0 25485.0 24766.0 Ca 86174.7 33908.1 9640.0 9094.8 14700.0 Ti 5231.2 3320.0 3110.0 5274.0 4400.0 V 319.0 80.7 94.0 77.0 243.0 Cr 391.0 52.3 23.0 74.0 105.0 Mn 1226.5 675.0 2140.0 776.0 324.0 Fe 74140.3 38668.8 43200.0 38400.0 43400.0 Co 52.0 9.9 6.0 15.0 14.4 Cu 119.0 140.0 3420.0 150.0 33.9 Zn 72.0 414.0 4180.0 130.0 159.0 As 0.4 107.0 1540.0 26.0 21.2 Rb 0.2 113.0 102.2 143.0 135.0 Sr 109.0 242.0 255.0 144.0 129.0 Y 15.6 33.0 29.0 40.0 22.5 Zr 15.6 245.5 233.0 390.0 177.0 Mo 0.1 0.0 7.6 14.0 2.8 Pb 3.1 1405.0 5520.0 31.0 21.1 Th 0.0 12.0 14.0 18.4 11.8

111

112

Table 13: Laboratory-measured values of standard reference materials during data collection with pXRF.

SRM values determined by pXRF during analysis of Ngandong samples (ppm) Reading SRM K Ti Zn Rb Sr Y Zr Pb #11 BIR-1 0 5173 73 0 117 17 18 10 #12 BIR-1 0 5407 84 0 121 20 16 0 #13 BIR-1 0 5029 73 0 117 21 19 0 #136 BIR-1 0 5275 71 0 119 19 17 11 #180 BIR-1 0 5067 77 0 114 19 11 0 #254 BIR-1 0 5263 69 0 113 19 15 0 #255 BIR-1 0 4991 75 0 112 19 14 0 #2 NIST 2711a 21819 3404 436 116 232 41 285 1505 #3 NIST 2711a 21943 3327 433 118 230 39 277 1510 #4 NIST 2711a 22111 3139 417 114 237 37 282 1515 #135 NIST 2711a 21722 3075 429 117 238 42 289 1521 #179 NIST 2711a 22056 3448 447 117 236 38 285 1522 #251 NIST 2711a 21913 3431 424 116 237 37 287 1513 #252 NIST 2711a 21972 3380 440 121 236 37 294 1559 #253 NIST 2711a 21861 3287 433 115 231 36 290 1507 #5 NIST 2710a 20233 2956 4162 106 242 36 203 5650 #6 NIST 2710a 20332 3125 4239 108 245 36 205 5780 #7 NIST 2710a 20329 2945 4210 108 250 40 208 5752 #134 NIST 2710a 20320 2874 4229 108 253 39 206 5780 #178 NIST 2710a 20401 2958 4190 108 248 38 209 5795 #248 NIST 2710a 19962 3085 4160 106 245 39 201 5702 #249 NIST 2710a 20150 2943 4211 104 248 41 205 5717 #8 TILL-2 22040 5002 145 149 158 42 339 35 #9 TILL-2 23580 5201 146 150 156 39 344 35 #10 TILL-2 23741 4942 143 149 155 40 343 37 #263 TILL-2 23132 5194 142 146 150 42 343 39 #264 TILL-2 23443 5038 142 147 153 41 342 37 #265 TILL-2 23461 5075 147 146 153 39 340 40 #14 MESS-3 24517 4499 177 153 142 31 142 32 #15 MESS-3 24593 4462 176 155 141 25 140 29 #16 MESS-3 24386 4367 172 151 139 25 141 28 #137 MESS-3 24831 4355 174 147 137 31 139 26 #181 MESS-3 25207 4426 177 149 139 27 135 26 #257 MESS-3 24813 4387 180 153 139 27 139 33

#258 MESS-3 24698 4088 170 149 138 27 139 29 112

113

Figure 40: Calibration curves comparing measured pXRF values of SRM (standard reference materials) vs. the published, preferred values of those SRM (in ppm). An R-squared value of the trendline greater than 0.95 indicates a high correlation between the two 113

values, and therefore an accurate measurement by the pXRF (Ryan et al., 2017).

114

Bulk geochemistry of the 20m terrace stratigraphy: Sr/Y vs. Rb/Sr 0.12

0.1 Facies C Flow 2 Facies B Facies A 0.08 Facies D NDG-3 Flow 3 Matar Flow 1 powder 0.06

Rb/Sr Flow 1 agg.

0.04

0.02

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sr/Y

Figure 41: Bivariate plot of Strontium/Yttrium (Sr/Y) vs. Rubidium/Strontium (Rb/Sr) ratios of common facies at Ngandong-1 and other sites nearby. There is no discernable pattern among the facies by using these element ratios, and notably no differentiation of the facies E “flows” from the volcaniclastic deposits of

facies A-D.

114

115

rubidium (Rb), and are circled in red.

115

116

Figure 43: Bivariate plot comparing Zirconium/Yttrium (Zr/Y) to Strontium/Zirconium (Sr/Zr) ratios for Ngandong sediments and volcanic rocks from Mts. Merapi, Wilis and Lawu volcanic complexes. The Ngandong sediments form a cluster most similar to the youngest volcanic rocks from the Wilis Volcanic Complex (WVC) and Lawu Volcanic Complex (LVC), and are similar to the Merapi rocks of all ages included in

this plot.

116

117

Data Analysis: Mineralogy

Mineralogical trends are apparent along grain-size distinctions but there are no consistent trends visible among samples from the same facies or the same excavation pits (Tables 14 and

15). Sands from all facies at Ngandong and even samples of the modern Solo River bedload are highly volcaniclastic in composition, rich in glass, feldspars, and basaltic and andesitic lithic fragments (Figures 44-46). Mapped on a QAPF diagram, the point-count data suggest the source rocks are predominantly basalts, andesites and dacites (Figure 50). The most common mineralogical components in the samples surveyed were volcanic lithic fragments, volcanic glass, feldspars, and opaque heavy minerals. Ternary diagrams with glass, lithics and feldspar axes illustrate the greatest spread among samples (Figure 51). In general, facies C contained higher percentages of lithic fragments than other stratigraphic layers, but this is perhaps expected given the documented coarseness of that facies layer (sample 2501-dd from the very coarse facies A is similarly enriched in lithic fragments). As a whole, the coarser samples contained higher percentages of lithic fragments than glass and feldspar, whereas the finer fractions displayed the highest concentrations of glass and heavy minerals/opaques (Table 15, Figures 53-

56). These relationships are evident in the samples from each facies in pit H10a, where the coarsest sample (sample 2018, assigned to facies C) is 10% glass, 55% lithics, 9.5% feldspar and

2.5% heavy minerals whereas the finest sample (sample 2020, assigned to facies B) is 48.5% glass, 2.5% lithics, 18% feldspar and 3% heavy minerals (Figure 55). However, the most consistent mineralogical trend is a compositional disparity between the “whole” sample and the sieved fractions (ending in C: 63-125 µm; B: 125-250 µm; and A: >250 µm) of that sample, with the finer fractions containing a higher percentage of single-crystal grains than the coarser

fractions, which contain higher percentages of multi-crystalline, lithic grains (Table 15, Figures

117

118

54-56). The finer fractions also have the highest percentages of heavy minerals present within the sample (Table 15, Figures 54-56). Samples 2033, 2034a and 2035a from the very fine- grained, mudflow-like facies E have significantly different mineralogical compositions as they are rich in secondary carbonates and contain few detrital grains (Table 14, Figures 47-49). The modern Solo River bedload sample is mineralogically similar to samples from facies C, suggesting the general source area for Solo River bedload sediment has not significantly changed between the time of Ngandong site formation and the present. The modern Solo River floodplain

deposits are mineralogically similar to older Ngandong deposits (Table 14).

118

Table 14: All whole point-counted samples, organized by facies and/or location. Data are expressed in percentages of all point counts per sample, following the mineral classifications in the left hand column.

Sample 2501-dd 2020 2501-aa 2059 2018 2073a 2501-u 2016 2501-J 2033 2034a 2035a OSL-5 2057 2058 OSL-15 Modern Solo 104-113cm 185-200cm 320-328cm Facies/Location Facies A Facies B Facies C Facies D Facies E Matar NDG-3 Bedload Modern Solo Floodplain Heavy Minerals/Opaques % 25 5 9 5 5 5 12 5 7 0 1 2 11 7 21 12 3 2 5 2 Hematite, Limonite, Magnetite % 5 6 11 8 7 8 2 3 6 0 0 0 2 2 10 0 7 2 2 23 Carbonate grains, shells % 4 1 0 4 2 0 1 7 2 90 95 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Siltstone/Mudstone % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 Glass % 2 47 40 20 10 41 8 25 39 1 1 2 16 48 15 34 3 3 81 15 Amphiboles % 3 2 0 2 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 7 1 5 3 3 1 1 1 Muscovite and Biotite % 4 2 1 3 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 Pyroxenes % 4 4 4 6 4 6 3 4 4 0 0 0 10 5 5 9 5 0 3 1 Andesite % 16 1 0 0 49 3 23 9 5 1 0 0 6 6 1 2 37 0 0 0 Basalt % 8 1 1 0 5 0 26 2 3 0 0 0 15 7 0 0 8 0 0 0 Olivine % 1 1 0 2 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 2 6 3 1 3 2 1 0 1 Orthoclase % 18 15 30 31 8 24 16 23 20 6 0 4 22 16 27 30 15 6 6 40 Plagioclase % 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 Monocrystalline Quartz % 9 6 1 8 2 3 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Polycrystalline Quartz % 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Sphene/Titanite % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 Organics, Resin & Amber % 1 4 2 3 1 2 0 6 4 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 4 1 0 7

119

Table 15: Point-count percentages by size fraction for sieved samples. Sample numbers are followed by a letter code indicating the size fraction, as follows: W=whole fraction; A=>250µm; B=125-250µm; and C=63-125µm.

Sample 2020W 2020A 2020B 2020C 2018W 2018A 2018B 2018C 2016W 2016A 2016B 2016C OSL-8A OSL-8B OSL-8C OSL-5W OSL-5A OSL-5B Facies/Location Facies B Facies C Facies D Loamy Sand Matar Heavy Minerals/Opaques % 5 1 4 74 5 2 19 20 5 3 23 29 3 15 27 11 2 29 Hematite, Limonite, Magnetite % 6 9 2 2 7 3 5 21 3 5 7 9 5 3 10 2 1 0 Carbonate grains, shells % 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 5 7 2 3 6 2 2 11 0 0 0 Siltstone/Mudstone % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glass % 47 13 9 5 10 4 10 7 25 12 7 7 9 18 9 16 2 5 Amphiboles % 2 0 3 1 2 1 5 2 3 1 4 5 1 0 4 7 2 7 Muscovite and Biotite % 2 0 3 3 0 0 5 12 0 1 4 3 1 3 6 0 2 5 Pyroxenes % 4 1 12 5 4 3 6 10 4 2 10 6 4 8 7 10 4 12 Andesite % 1 21 22 0 49 52 12 0 9 26 6 4 24 6 0 6 50 13 Basalt % 1 20 12 0 5 6 8 2 2 17 6 3 23 7 0 15 13 4 Olivine % 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 6 3 1 Orthoclase % 15 23 23 7 8 15 16 10 23 19 17 16 18 26 17 22 14 17 Plagioclase % 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 Monocrystalline Quartz % 6 1 3 1 2 0 4 7 4 2 3 5 1 2 4 0 1 4 Polycrystalline Quartz % 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 3 0 0 1 1 Sphene/Titanite % 0 1 3 0 0 1 4 1 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Organics, Resin & Amber % 4 5 0 1 1 2 3 1 6 3 4 3 3 4 3 1 1 0

120

Figure 44: Photomicrographs of sand grains in sample 2073a, of Facies C in Pit N10a. Common grain types/minerals are lithic fragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), and orthoclase (ORTH). Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length.

121

Figure 45: Photomicrographs of sample 2501-dd of Facies A in Pit F10cG10a. Common grain types/minerals are lithic fragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), orthoclase (ORTH), and biotite (BT). Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length.

122

Figure 46: Photomicrographs of the modern Solo River bedload deposits sampled upstream of the Ngandong site. Common grain types/minerals are lithic fragments (LF), orthopyroxene (OPX), volcanic glass (VG), and orthoclase (ORTH). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is 200µm in length.

123

124

Figure 47: Photomicrographs of sample 2033 from Flow 1 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include oxides (OX), biotite (BT), and pyroxenes (PYX). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 4x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar is

200µm in length.

124

125

Figure 48: Photomicrographs of sample 2034a from Flow 2 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include oxides (OX), biotite (BT), and pyroxenes (PYX). A shell fragment is also visible. Photos taken at 10x magnification under plane-polarized light (left) and cross-polarized light (right). Scale bar

is 100µm in length.

125

126

Figure 49: Photomicrographs of sample 2035a from Flow 3 of Facies E in pit H10c. Common grain types/minerals are siltstone/mudstone (MUD), carbonate fragments (CARB), and minor components include volcanic glass (VG), orthoclase

(ORTH), and pyroxenes (PYX).

126

127

Figure 50: QAPF diagrams showing the classification of volcanic rocks and volcanic rock fragments (from International Union of Geosciences).

127

128

Figure 51: QAPF diagram with all point-counted samples mapped. Source rocks of point-

counted sediments are likely basalts, andesites and dacites.

128

129

Figure 52: Ternary diagram illustrating the relationships between Ngandong samples for glass, lithics and heavy mineral composition. Samples are whole unless followed by capital letters A (>250 µm sieved fraction), B (125-250 µm sieve fraction) or C (63- 125 µm sieved fraction). These results show that mineralogical composition of each sample varies based on grain-size fraction, with coarser fractions most enriched in

lithics and finer fractions most enriched in glass and heavy minerals.

129

130

Mineralogical compositions of Facies B, C and D in Pit H10a

2016 whole, Facies D Glass Lithics 2018 whole, Facies C Feldspar Heavy Minerals 2020 whole, Facies B Remaining Minerals

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 53: Mineralogical compositions of whole samples from Pit H10a, representing Facies B, C, and D. Facies B is enriched in glass, Facies C is enriched in lithic fragments, and Facies D contains a higher feldspathic component than Facies B or C.

Figure 54: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2020, Facies B. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene,

hornblende, and oxides. 130

131

Figure 55: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2018, Facies C. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene, hornblende, and oxides.

Figure 56: Mineralogical compositions of the whole and sieved fractions of sample 2016, Facies D. The coarsest (>250µm) fraction is enriched in lithic fragments, whereas the finer (125-250 µm and 63-125 µm) fractions have greater components of heavy minerals and other minerals, such as orthopyroxene, 131

hornblende, and oxides.

132

Discussion

The Ngandong samples and samples from surrounding terraces generally share very similar modal mineralogy and, based on the point-counting completed in this study, facies A, B,

C, and D, as well as modern Solo River floodplain and bedload sediments appear to share common source rocks (predominantly volcanic basalts and andesites, with rare local Kalibeng

Marl components). Mineralogical differences are apparent between the facies underlying the

Ngandong-1, Ngandong-3, and Matar sites, but these differences appear to be controlled by grain size differences, rather than significant variations in source rocks. The fine-grained “flow” layers (facies E) do differ from sandy layers (facies A-D) in mineralogy in that they lack a significant volcaniclastic fraction and instead are mainly carbonate and mudstone, which is similar to local carbonate bedrock formations in the Kendeng Hills, such as the Kalibeng Marl

(Chapter II).

Geochemically, it appears the volcaniclastic Ngandong sediments are similar to the materials from the younger stages of Mt. Lawu and Mt. Wilis (<1 Ma), and Merapi (<170 ka) in the modern volcanic arc lying to the south of the site, and near the headwaters of the modern

Solo River (Gertisser et al., 2012; Hartono, 1994). While this does not provide a chronology of the Ngandong site formation, it does suggest the coarse-grained facies at Ngandong are primarily formed from the more recent volcanic emissions of these southern complexes and that they have not been significantly mixed with older deposits from those volcanic bodies. In addition, the geochemical similarity to the southern volcanoes suggests the Ngandong sites formed at some point after the fluvial reversal suggested by Sartono (1976), when the Solo River began flowing

in its current direction (south to north).

132

133

As a whole, the geochemical relationships between the individual sedimentary facies of the 20 meter terrace in and around Ngandong do not appear to be distinctly different from one another, suggesting a common source for all layers of the Ngandong stratigraphy. This may be due to the elements chosen for bivariate analysis, the relatively low number of samples extracted from Ngandong-3 and Matar, and/or the influence of diagenetic contamination (such as residual pedogenic carbonates not completely removed during acetic acid treatment). Statistical analysis of the pXRF data in this study show the geochemical results are influenced by sample grain size, heterogeneity, and sample orientation, as has been referenced in other pXRF studies (Piercey and

Devine, 2014; Conrey et al., 2014; Frahm, 2013). The powdered pellet aliquots produce a slightly less variable bulk geochemistry and therefore are preferred for laboratory analyses, but of course require much more sample preparation and is likely not possible if pXRF analyses are taken in the field. The particular instrument used in this study has been shown in other projects to be highly reliable in measuring certain oxides and elements (K2O, Zn, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and Ca) precisely over the course of multiple years (Tibbits, 2016), so it is unlikely that instrument error or imprecision is a factor in this study, but rather the incomplete removal of diagenetic carbonates, inadequate data analysis, small sample size, or operator error It is also a possibility that the geochemical signatures of the facies are not distinct because they are all sourced from predominantly the same material and there is no reason for them to be chemically distinguishable. However, this is not consistent with the mineralogical data, which indicate the facies E mudflow deposits are derived from carbonate and siltstone formations rather than the andesites, basalts, and dacite rocks from the southern volcanic complexes that appear to be the

primary source of facies A-D deposits. Therefore, I suggest the mineralogical data are the most

133

134

reliable in differentiating particular sources of the Ngandong sediments, and can act as an important check on (possibly imprecise) bulk geochemical data.

Conclusion

The volcaniclastic composition and geochemical signatures of facies A, B, C, and D stratigraphy indicate that the volcanoes south of Ngandong, at the headwaters of the Solo River are the primary sediment sources for those layers. Facies E, however, appears to be derived from carbonate and siltstone/mudstone rock formations exposed and eroded in the Kendeng Hills, such as the Kalibeng Marl which forms the base of the strath terraces in and around Ngandong.

There is a possibility that future research of the microfossils present in the facies E deposits

(such as the shells visible in thin sections (Figures 46-48) could be used to compare to the microfossil assemblages present in the Kalibeng Marl, to better pinpoint the exact carbonate rock sources of the facies E mudflows. In addition, pursuit of a more focused geochemical analysis of individual minerals could pinpoint more specific volcanic source(s) than the bulk approach used

in this study.

134

135

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

This comprehensive study sought to provide important stratigraphic and sedimentologic context to augment existing interpretations of the Ngandong paleoanthropological site and to provide new answers as to the timing and mechanics of formation. The large grain-size, grain- shape, mineralogical and geochemical datasets produced by this study serve as important documentation of this site and are increasingly valuable as additional excavations of Ngandong remove in situ fossils and sediments and all of the provenance information with them.

The results of this study indicate that the sandy and gravely sediments within the

Ngandong-1, Ngandong-3, and Modern Solo River sampling sites are generally similar in mineralogy, geochemistry, and grain-shape, suggesting they were derived from similar (if not the same) sources. Higher-resolution sourcing may be attempted via ICP-MS trace element methodology, but the fact that the sediments are not primary deposits (such as ash-fall tuffs) may obscure any discernable geochemical signatures resulting from individual volcanic systems or events. Rather, the notable differences between deposits within this study are of grain-size, suggesting that the stratigraphy at sites around Ngandong was developed in varying flow environments. These data are useful in understanding paleoflow dynamics of the Solo River, as well as the type of flow conditions that may be responsible for depositing the highly fossiliferous

“bone beds” that are of such great interest to paleoanthropologists.

The physical relationships between facies A through E in and around Ngandong indicate hydrodynamic variability and migration of the Solo River channel as it incised and meandered through the valley. The grain-size and sedimentary structures within facies B and D suggest they

formed during normal stream flow conditions, and the spatial variability of these deposits can be

135

136

attributed to the changing location of the stream channel over time. Facies A and C are clast- supported conglomerates rich in macrofossils that likely formed within the channel as lag deposits. The mineralogy of these deposits is predominantly volcanic, but do include cobbles of local carbonate bedrock, suggesting the flow (facies A) could have acted as an erosive force as it flowed over the local Kalibeng Marl bedrock.. The grain-shape evident in CAMSIZER analysis in Chapter II and point-count analysis in Chapter IV indicate that not all of the volcaniclastic grains are angular (in fact, some are quite rounded), so the grains that deposited in and around

Ngandong were likely a mix of “new” volcanic material as well as grains that had already experienced abrasion within the Solo River system, and were not sourced solely from young deposits on the slope of the volcano(es). Facies E, due to its predominantly fine-grained, matrix- supported texture and highly discontinuous patterns in the Ngandong-1 site, likely formed as a much more localized mudflow within the Solo River valley than the more regional facies A and

C, and based on its carbonate mineralogy could be sourced from the Kalibeng Marl itself

Analyses of materials and data from this study will continue in an effort to provide as scientifically sound results as possible. As discussed in Chapter III, red thermoluminescence dating of quartz aliquots was not a reliable method in this particular study due to the paucity of monocrystalline quartz, the contamination by volcanic glass, and the mixed nature of residual signals common in fluvial deposits. Therefore, future attempts at improving the depositional chronology of the Ngandong sediments would be best done on single-grain analysis of feldspars using infrared stimulated luminescence. This approach will be a more suitable one for the mixed volcaniclastic assemblages present at the Ngandong sites. Similarly, geochemical approaches should be modified to accommodate the challenging mineralogical composition of samples from

Ngandong. Geochemical analyses with higher precision (such as laboratory XRF or LA ICP-

136

137

MS) instrumentation may be explored to see if it could provide any more detailed provenance information than provided in this study. Additionally, I advise that in future studies, samples be homogenized (such as by powdering or dissolving into solution) prior to bulk geochemical analysis in an effort to improve reproducibility and therefore strengthen the dataset for both qualitative (comparison between sedimentary facies) and quantitative (sourcing to particular volcanoes and rock formations) research at Ngandong in the future.

This study examined in great detail the sedimentary and stratigraphic relationships of the

Solo River terraces within a small, localized area. The purpose of this approach was to highlight which geomorphological factors are consistent and which are variable within this small area, which therefore can provide some insight into the sedimentary and stratigraphic relationships we can expect to see elsewhere within the Solo River drainage system. This knowledge of these physical relationships may play a large role in exploration for yet undiscovered

paleoanthropological sites in Central and East Java.

137

138

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

Red Thermoluminescence Dating

Opening tubes: carefully peel off tape from the tubes. Beware that duct tape sometimes luminesces when doing this. Scrape 5 cm off of each end into a pre-weighed beaker to dry in the hot oven (“blaster”) to prepare for gamma spec/alpha and beta-counting. Place interior, non- light exposed sediments in a large beaker; commence wet sieving.

Wet sieving: To isolate the 90-212 um fraction for dating, stack a 212 um sieve over a 90 um sieve over a catch pan for the wet sieving process. Save fines from the catch pan; double-bag into small baggies because they are very wet (in standing water). Save the >212 um fraction; place into beakers and dry in cool (40C) oven before storing. Between samples, clean sieves thoroughly using paintbrush and ultrasonic bath to prevent cross-contamination. Collect 90-212 um fraction in beakers (tall beakers) for acid washes. Be sure that your sieving is complete and that you get all the fines out of the 90-212 um fraction; remaining fines will slow down acid reactions, drying, and can severely complicate the density separation step later on.

Acid wash: Under fume hood, stir in 10% HCl solution into beakers of 90-212 um sediment. Monitor reaction for violent fizzing or heat. Let sit overnight ~24 hrs. After 24 hrs, stir mixture to see if more reaction occurs. Pour off old acid, then add some fresh 10% HCl to ensure it no longer reacts. If no continued reaction occurs, pour off acid and rinse and decant with tap water three times. Immediately commence with hydrogen peroxide step. Pour in 10%

H2O2 solution and stir while monitoring reaction. Note that H2O2 reactions may be delayed 5-

10 minutes. Let sit ~24 hours. After 24 hours, stir to see if reaction continues. Pour off old acid and pour in new acid to check if reaction has completed. If there is no additional reaction, pour

off acid and rinse and decant with tap water three times, and a fourth time with distilled water.

138

139

Drain distilled water out thoroughly and place beakers under fume hood or in cool (40C) oven to dry completely before mineral separation.

Milling gamma sample: remove completely dry gamma samples from hot oven. Remove two gold metal crucibles from the Retch M400 milling machine and fill each to near the top with sediment. Bag any remaining sediment for storage; two crucibles‟ worth should be enough for the gamma spec. Tightly close the lid on each crucible and reattach to machine, hearing clicking on from the locks as you tighten each one (lid sides of crucibles face outward). Set at 27 (rps?) for 10 minutes (3 minutes if carbonate-rich); monitor machine and readjust if machine makes very loud noises. When sediment is powderized (looks like talcum powder), empty into small baggie to store until gamma spec time.

Density separations of minerals: 2.7 g/cm3 to separate heavy minerals (sink) from quartz and feldspar (float), then 2.62 g/cm3 to separate quartz (sink) from feldspar (float). Heavy liquid used is Sometu brand sodium polytungstate. NA6(H2W12O40) x H2O. Start first by checking the density of the 2.7g/cm3 mixture in the labeled “Dense” capped bottle. Pour some in a narrow graduated cylinder and CAREFULLY (don‟t drop it in!) place the hydrometer into the cylinder, pushing it down into the liquid and letting it rise to ensure an accurate reading. If too dense, pour liquid into a “mixing” beaker, quirt in a tiny amount of distilled water, swirl vigorously to mix, and test again in the graduated cylinder. Repeat as necessary until a density of 2.7g.cm/3 is reached. Once it‟s ready, prepare your centrifuge tubes (clean ones from bag left of centrigue) , making sure they are dry first so you don‟t alter the density of the heavy liquid. Pour 30 ml of liquid into four centrifuge tubes, and pour a little of the completely dried sample into each tube, trying to get an equal amount and not so much that there is not enough room for a good

separation or for safely pouring off the lighter fraction. Cap the tubes tightly, shake vigorously

139

140

to resuspend/mix sediments and place into Eppendorf Centrifuge 5702; run for 5 minutes at 1.0

(x1000) rpm. Hold the machine when starting so it doesn‟t go off balance. When done, carefully pour the top (Q+F) fraction into one filter and funnel over a “Dense” beaker, pouring as much of the heavy liquid into this filter without dropping heavy minerals into it. Then pour the heavy mineral fraction into a different filter/funnel set with a “Dilute” beaker. Use distilled water to clean out the HM fraction into the filter and rinse the filter with DI water to get the polytungstate out. When drained (both QR and HM filters), carefully place each over QF and

HM labeled beakers and with a sharp blast of distilled water, break open the bottom tip of the filter to rinse sediments into the beakers. Pour off water (into washings if careful to not pour off sediments) and dry sediments in the cool (40C) oven. NOTE: sodium polytungstate is extremely expensive ($500/kg) so we must preserve all of it for reuse. All materials (sediments, beakers, tubes, filters) must be rinsed with distilled water into the dilute “washings” beaker and heated on the hot plate to remove the water so the liquid goes back down to the required density. When taking the washings off the hot plate, let them cool completely before testing its density (only accurate after cooling) and before putting in contact with sediments (to prevent accidental bleaching). Washing scan be on overnight, but not over the weekend. An amount of 1800 ml boils down to ~500 ml over 19 hours at 140 C. At 150 C, boils down ~100 ml/hour.

For my samples, because of the high heavy mineral content, I did three separations: 2.7 g/cm3, 2.62 g/cm3 and then another 2.7 g/cm3 again to be sure to get all the heavy minerals out.

I‟m glad I did this as I got quite a bit of HM out with the second 2.7 round.

Beta counting: To make the “pots”, lay down a paper towel and a piece of pergamin paper with three plastic pots and three closing rings on the pergamin paper. Pour the milled

(powderized) sample into the three pots so that they are heaping with the sediment, and pick up

140

141

and drop each pot a few times to let the sediments settle into any air pockets that may exist.

Then, use the metal spatula to press down the sediments and make a flat top of the pot that is completely full with sediments (you don‟t feel just the pot edges when you push down the spatula on top of it). You may need to add more sediment to make it full. When the pot is satisfactorily full, carefully place a small square of cling wrap over the top and seal it onto the sediment with the closing ring. Do not touch the cling-wrapped top of the pot. Label the top

(carefully with a sharpie) with the sample name and #1, #2, #3 for your aliquots of the sample

(the three pots). Cut off excess cling rap from each pot.

Loading into the Beta-counter: Run the three aliquots of each sample with the known standards, MgO (very few counts-“cool”) and SHAP (lots of counts-“hot”). Our supply of

SHAP is extremely limited, so DO NOT BREAK THE SHAP POT. It would take a long time to have to calibrate the machine to a new standard, so be very careful with the one we have.

Carefully load the three aliquots of sample and the two standards into the holder. The order doesn‟t matter, although you should not place SHAP in position #5. Enter the sample and standard names/numbers into the counting program (not that the numbered order on the holder is sort of inverse from what is on the screen). Carefully slide the holder with the samples all the way into the counter slot, and then slide in the orange-looking supporter under that. If it gets stuck, pull both out a little before pushing in again. Make sure the program is set to run 24 cycles of 60 min (24 hours total) and click “Start”. Save the data to a file with your sample name. Note: when changing samples after 24 hours, rearrange the standard positions in the holder. Again, do not put SHAP in position #5.

Hydrofluoric Acid Treatment: Once “quartz” fractions are rinsed of sodium polytungstate

and thoroughly dry, they are ready for HF treatment. HF is extremely corrosive and at

141

142

Macquarie only people like Kira are allowed to work with it. Pour the quartz fractions from beakers into labeled opaque, white Teflon beakers (top shelf of beakers). Place in red Teflon tray under fume hood. HF is highly reactive with carbonates, so first we recheck that there are no carbonates remaining in the samples by doing a quick HCl acid wash. Pour 10% HCl into white beakers containing sample; stir and monitor to see that there is no reaction. Once done with the HCl check, decant the HCl down the drain and then rinse and decant with tap water and least 3 times. The wet sediment is then ready for HF treatment.

Safety: Dress in a lab coat with pants and closed shoes. If handling the HF, snap the lab coat cuffs so they aren‟t loose. Wear the rubber butcher‟s apron, safety, glasses (facemask if handling the HF) and double gloves-long gloves over the lab coat cuffs, and disposable nitrile gloves over those. Emergency number is 9999, security is 7112. Emergency shower is corner if

HF touches skin (remove clothing if HF touches clothing) and a calcium gluconate gel to neutralize the reaction with skin. If exposure does occur, immediately flush the affected area with water for 15 minutes, then rub calcium gluconate into effected area for at least 15 minutes and seek medical attention immediately.

Applying HF: In tray, orient all beakers so that the spouts are in the direction you‟ll be pouring for easier handling. Pour/quirt HF into each beaker from a no-drip bottle so that the sediments are covered. Let sit for 45 minutes (if using 40% HF, as we did) or 40 minutes (if using 45% HF). After the time has passed, fill each beaker with tap water and decant into a dilute HF washings bottle (DO NOT POUR HF DOWN THE SINK UNTIL HIGHLY

DILUTED!) Repeat, and then fill with water and let soak until you‟ve done the same with all samples. Then you can pour the highly diluted washings down the drain, rinse and decant with

water again before repeating an HFl treatment to get rid of fluorides left from the HF treatment.

143

Re-applying HCl: Pour 10% HCl into each beaker stir and let sit for 30 minutes. Then rinse and decant frequently until the rinses are no longer cloudy (then you will know that the fluorides are off.) Do the last rinse with the distilled water, and decant off as much water as possible and set in cool (40C) oven to dry thoroughly.

Magnetic separations: My samples were still very dark after the HF acid treatment, so I did some magnetic separations on the dried samples. Pouring a very thin layer of sediment on a clean, white sheet of paper, run a magnet under the sediments to draw the magnetic sediments to the edge of the paper. These sediments will be those that are most strongly magnetic. Once these are removed, carefully run the magnet over the sediments, being careful to not make contact with the sediments, as even those that are not magnetic may stick to the magnet. Once all the magnetic bits are removed, the “clean” sediments are ready for sieving.

Dry sieving: Stack the small “cocktail” sieves in the descending order: 212 um, 180 um,

125 um, 90 um, pan. There should be some <90um fraction because of the grain size change as part of the HF acid treatment. Pour the clean sediment into the top sieve (212 um), put the lid on, and tap the sieve stack on the counter to agitate. When sieving is complete, fill 5 labeled tubes with each size fraction (if a tube fills and you have excess material, pour it all together

(non-separated by fraction) into a labeled baggie). We use the 90-125 um size fraction for dating.

Plating discs: We use the single aliquot (SA) 10 mm-diameter discs for RTL. Place a layer of paper towel down on the counter. Select the number of discs you need (plus one, in case of errors) into the spaces on the metal (looks silver?) tray, flat (not beveled) side up. Depending

on how large aliquots you want, place the appropriately sized “mask” over the top to hold the

143

144

disks in place. We started by using a mask w/ 7mm holes, but for running Aliquot A, we didn‟t so we could use all 10mm diameter of the surface for grains (more grains=more signal). With mask on or without, hold tray upright over the sink and spray across twice in swooping,

“wafting” motions. DO NOT spray directly onto discs. The spray we use is Silkospray, which lightly adheres the grains to the disks, but the grains can still fall off very easily (particularly if the Silkospray has dried). It doesn‟t hold them onto the disks like silicone gel, but is much easier to deal with and produces much more even aliquots of grains on each disk. Once the disks are sprayed, pour a little pile of the desired sediment onto a sheet of Pergamin (waxed) paper. Using tweezers, carefully drop the sprayed side of a disk onto the sediment and push down on it lightly to make the sediments stick. Then pick up with tweezers and tap the tweezers to dislodge any loose grains. Then place disk on paper towel, grain-side up, and slide around w/ tweezers to clean the back and circle with the tweezers to make sure no grains are hanging off the edge

(especially important if grains are plated on all 10mm diameter). Then load plate into carrying case and wrap into black plastic for carrying into the other room for loading. Note: the columns on the edges of the carrying case come in contact with the lid if you hold it by pushing the lid down on the tray, so avoid placing unused discs on the edges of the case.

Riso runs:

July 20:

Dose 1: 200 Gy (1610 seconds), D2: 100 Gy (805 sec), D3: 300 Gy (2416 sec), D4: 0 Gy,

D5: 200 Gy (1610 sec). Test dose: 100 Gy (805 sec).

Exporting BIN files to Excel:

144

145

ExportCurrent Data Displaymake sure Every Data Channel is checked. Go to

ExcelOpenselect file”Delimited in Text import wizard, NextCommaFinish.

If you‟re looking at a SAR or DAP run in Analysis and want to export to Excel, first falsify all the “bleach” points so you see only the data necessary to make the regenerative curve.

To do this, go to Records and Unselect by data type “Bleach” to “False”. Then you are ready to click the SAR button in Analysis.

Dose rate July 23, 2012: 0.12418 Gy/sec

100 Gy 50 Gy 200 Gy 0Gy 100 Gy

Aliquot A run set Monday afternoon, July 23, 2012:

Natural 100 Gy (805sec) 50Gy (403 sec) 300 Gy (2416sec) 0Gy (0sec)

100Gy(805sec)

100 Gy test dose.

Dose rate: 0.12418 Gy/sec

July 31: Dose rate: 0.12411 Gy/sec

100Gy 50Gy 200Gy 0Gy 100Gy

August 2: Dose rate: 0.12409 Gy/sec

Aliquot A run with 12 disks

145

146

Positions 1,2,3,4 are INDOSL-12, Positions 5,6,7,8 are INDOSL-1, and Positions

9,10,11,12 are INDOSL-4. Checking for intra-sample variability within samples that had behaved decently in previous runs.

August 7: Quick run on Riso 2, doing a glow cuve and blue shinedown on four disks.

Dose rate: 0.17792 Gy/sec where 500Gy=2810 sec. Disks were used for a previous run, so we‟re not looking for a natural signal here. In order, the disks were Sample 12, disk #3 from Aug 2 run, Sample 12 disk#4 from Aug 2 run, Sample 1 disk #1 from Aug 2 run, and Sample 4, disk 11 from Aug 2 run.

August 7: Riso-1 Dose rate: 0.12405 Gy/s

Purring on one disk of INDOSL-4 with Aliquot A protocol plus an extra isothermal measurement (OSL260 for 1000 seconds) at the end of each “Run” in the program (after dose and test dose) to remove any residual signal that may be building up and altering our results.

100 Gy 50 Gy 200Gy 0Gy 100Gy

806sec 403 sec 1612 sec 0sec 806 sec

Mounting of Grains for Point-Counting

An aliquot of each sample was acid-washed (as in grain-size analysis procedure), rinsed, sieved to remove grains smaller than 63 µm, and oven-dried before being impregnated with epoxy. Epoxy cups were vacuumed in a bell jar three times to remove air bubbles trapped within

the sediments and cured at 95˚F for 24 hours. Epoxy „pucks‟ were ground down on 240 grit 146

147

paper to expose the grains. The pucks were then washed in an ultrasonic bath for five minutes to remove loose grains and grit powder before polishing by hand on 400 and 600 grit plates with a five minute ultrasonic bath after each grit set. After the last set was clean, the pucks were placed in the oven overnight at 95˚F to dry. Once the pucks were dry, they were affixed to glass slides with UV-setting epoxy. Three to four drops of UV epoxy were poured on top of the clean grain mount surface and the frosted side of a clean slide held in place on it under UV light to set for 45 seconds. Once the slides were adhered to the mounts, alcohol and paper towels were used to clean off excess UV epoxy that had not solidified. Slides were then chopped and ground down to 30 µm thickness using a Petrothin machine and bathed in an ultrasonic bath for five minutes.

Slides were then hand-polished in a circular motion on 400 grit until the quartz/feldspars were not blue under cross-polarized light; on the 600 grit until the quartz and feldspars lighten to approach a straw color under cross-polarized light; and 1000 grit until the pale yellow color under cross-polarized light is just about gone, with two to five minute ultrasonic baths after each grit stage. Slides were then quick-polished for 30 seconds in each 90˚ direction using a soft pile plate on the grinder and 0.3 micrometer white aluminum polish, after which slides were carefully rinsed and blow-dried with a pressure hose.

147

148

APPENDIX B: WHOLE DATA

U-Series Dating

Table A.1: U-series DAD dating of Ngandong dense limb-bone fossils.

148

149

Grain-Size and Grain-Shape Data

Table B.1: Statistics of 2016

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2016, D facies, H10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 429.0 1.223 GRAVEL: 5.5% COARSE SAND: 30.3% MODE 2: 537.5 0.898 SAND: 94.3% MEDIUM SAND: 34.2% MODE 3: MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 14.5%

D10: 196.2 -0.514 V FINE SAND: 2.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 484.7 1.045 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.1%

D90: 1427.5 2.350 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 7.277 -4.576 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 1231.4 2.863 FINE GRAVEL: 0.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.742 5.964 V FINE GRAVEL: 5.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0% (D75 - D25): 518.5 1.455 V COARSE SAND: 12.5% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 699.4 505.0 0.986 500.7 0.998 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 675.6 2.198 1.136 2.174 1.121 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.660 0.124 -0.124 0.089 -0.089 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 11.64 3.709 3.709 1.074 1.074 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

149

150

Table B.2: Statistics of 2018

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2018, C facies, H10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 23.5% COARSE SAND: 17.1% MODE 2: 273.0 1.875 SAND: 76.0% MEDIUM SAND: 22.7% MODE 3: 1860.5 -0.893 MUD: 0.5% FINE SAND: 14.1%

D10: 176.1 -1.783 V FINE SAND: 4.6%

MEDIAN or D50: 680.1 0.556 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3%

D90: 3440.4 2.505 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 19.54 -1.406 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 1.6% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 3264.3 4.288 FINE GRAVEL: 5.3% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 6.384 -1.900 V FINE GRAVEL: 16.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0% (D75 - D25): 1598.2 2.675 V COARSE SAND: 17.5% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1382.4 735.8 0.443 739.4 0.436 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1662.1 3.196 1.676 3.215 1.685 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.269 -0.010 0.010 0.083 -0.083 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 8.905 2.521 2.521 0.805 0.805 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 100 1000 10000 Particle Diameter (mm)

150

151

Table B.3: Statistics of 2027

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2027, C facies, L10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 17.0% COARSE SAND: 11.8% MODE 2: 673.0 0.574 SAND: 82.5% MEDIUM SAND: 26.6% MODE 3: 1484.5 -0.568 MUD: 0.5% FINE SAND: 29.8%

D10: 142.2 -2.095 V FINE SAND: 6.4%

MEDIAN or D50: 316.0 1.662 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.4% D90: 4271.2 2.814 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 30.03 -1.343 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 1.3% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 4129.0 4.908 FINE GRAVEL: 9.1% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 4.843 175.9 V FINE GRAVEL: 6.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0% (D75 - D25): 786.4 2.276 V COARSE SAND: 7.8% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1210.5 488.0 1.035 492.3 1.022 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 1975.9 3.453 1.788 3.534 1.821 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.296 0.819 -0.819 0.505 -0.505 Very Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 7.234 2.808 2.808 1.062 1.062 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 151

Particle Diameter (mm)

152

Table B.4: Statistics of 2020

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2020, B facies, H10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 217.5 2.203 GRAVEL: 0.2% COARSE SAND: 3.3% MODE 2: SAND: 99.0% MEDIUM SAND: 29.1% MODE 3: MUD: 0.9% FINE SAND: 54.0%

D10: 117.3 1.485 V FINE SAND: 11.3%

MEDIAN or D50: 213.7 2.226 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.7% D90: 357.3 3.091 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.045 2.082 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 239.9 1.606 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.698 1.410 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0% (D75 - D25): 112.9 0.764 V COARSE SAND: 1.2% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 249.6 213.0 2.231 209.2 2.257 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 199.3 1.693 0.760 1.575 0.655 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 5.844 0.128 -0.128 -0.041 0.041 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 54.98 8.299 8.299 1.274 1.274 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 4.0

2.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 152

Particle Diameter (mm)

153

Table B.5: Statistics of 2028

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2028, C facies, L10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Very Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 48.5% COARSE SAND: 10.8% MODE 2: 342.0 1.550 SAND: 51.1% MEDIUM SAND: 15.4% MODE 3: 2331.5 -1.219 MUD: 0.5% FINE SAND: 9.9%

D10: 198.9 -3.288 V FINE SAND: 4.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 1836.8 -0.877 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.4% D90: 9767.0 2.330 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 49.10 -0.709 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 15.7% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 9568.1 5.618 FINE GRAVEL: 17.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 13.49 -0.563 V FINE GRAVEL: 15.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0% (D75 - D25): 4891.7 3.754 V COARSE SAND: 11.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 3353.0 1470.7 -0.556 1573.1 -0.654 Very Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 3593.7 4.351 2.121 4.529 2.179 Very Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.055 -0.290 0.290 -0.166 0.166 Fine Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 2.878 1.951 1.951 0.691 0.691 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 153

154

Table B.6: Statistics of 2031

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2031, B facies, H10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Moderately Well Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 174.0 2.525 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 0.4% MODE 2: SAND: 98.2% MEDIUM SAND: 7.4% MODE 3: MUD: 1.8% FINE SAND: 63.3%

D10: 90.14 2.065 V FINE SAND: 27.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 154.7 2.692 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 1.4%

D90: 239.0 3.472 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 2.651 1.681 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1%

(D90 - D10): 148.8 1.407 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 1.640 1.303 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 76.18 0.714 V COARSE SAND: 0.1% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 164.2 150.3 2.734 151.2 2.726 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 76.56 1.541 0.624 1.461 0.547 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.404 -1.217 1.217 -0.104 0.104 Fine Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 47.73 12.55 12.55 1.055 1.055 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 154

155

Table B.7: Statistics of 2032b

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2032b, ~C facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 2.2% COARSE SAND: 14.7% MODE 2: 342.0 1.550 SAND: 97.0% MEDIUM SAND: 36.6% MODE 3: MUD: 0.8% FINE SAND: 32.8%

D10: 131.4 0.329 V FINE SAND: 8.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 283.7 1.818 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.6%

D90: 796.0 2.928 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 6.057 8.895 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 664.6 2.599 FINE GRAVEL: 0.4% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.405 2.123 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.8% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 267.5 1.266 V COARSE SAND: 4.7% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 432.1 306.6 1.705 299.3 1.740 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 514.5 2.144 1.100 2.050 1.035 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.367 0.431 -0.431 0.144 -0.144 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 27.18 4.810 4.810 1.177 1.177 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

155

156

Table B.8: Statistics of 2049

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2049, C facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 33.2% COARSE SAND: 15.9% MODE 2: 273.0 1.875 SAND: 66.4% MEDIUM SAND: 23.1% MODE 3: 3271.5 -1.708 MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 12.4%

D10: 193.8 -2.706 V FINE SAND: 3.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 764.3 0.388 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3% D90: 6523.1 2.368 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 33.67 -0.875 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 5.9% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 6329.3 5.073 FINE GRAVEL: 14.3% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 10.15 -0.980 V FINE GRAVEL: 13.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 2906.4 3.343 V COARSE SAND: 11.2% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 2151.1 949.1 0.075 977.9 0.032 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 2664.7 3.819 1.933 3.956 1.984 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.512 0.129 -0.129 0.206 -0.206 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 4.257 2.010 2.010 0.727 0.727 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

156

157

Table B.9: Statistics of 2057

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2057, L2, L2 ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Very Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 2082.5 -1.056 GRAVEL: 41.4% COARSE SAND: 20.7% MODE 2: 1057.5 -0.078 SAND: 58.6% MEDIUM SAND: 8.0% MODE 3: 4591.0 -2.197 MUD: 0.1% FINE SAND: 1.1%

D10: 513.7 -2.189 V FINE SAND: 0.2%

MEDIAN or D50: 1642.2 -0.716 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.1%

D90: 4559.1 0.961 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 8.875 -0.439 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.7% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 4045.4 3.150 FINE GRAVEL: 13.4% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 3.338 -0.136 V FINE GRAVEL: 27.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 2024.3 1.739 V COARSE SAND: 28.6% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 2129.9 1560.4 -0.642 1590.7 -0.670 Very Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1662.4 2.288 1.194 2.309 1.207 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.345 -0.304 0.304 -0.073 0.073 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 4.611 2.749 2.749 0.895 0.895 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

157

158

Table B.10: Statistics of 2058

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2058, L2, L2 ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Very Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 1184.0 -0.241 GRAVEL: 32.5% COARSE SAND: 20.6% MODE 2: 1860.5 -0.893 SAND: 67.0% MEDIUM SAND: 13.6% MODE 3: 429.0 1.223 MUD: 0.5% FINE SAND: 5.9%

D10: 262.3 -2.624 V FINE SAND: 2.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 1204.6 -0.269 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3% D90: 6165.3 1.931 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 23.51 -0.736 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 7.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 5903.0 4.555 FINE GRAVEL: 8.9% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 4.722 -0.638 V FINE GRAVEL: 16.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 2032.7 2.239 V COARSE SAND: 24.1% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 2208.9 1185.1 -0.245 1202.2 -0.266 Very Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 2614.3 3.238 1.695 3.331 1.736 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.940 -0.227 0.227 0.010 -0.010 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 6.020 3.123 3.123 1.054 1.054 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

100 1000 10000 158

Particle Diameter (mm)

159

Table B.11: Statistics of 2059

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2059, B facies, H09a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.7% COARSE SAND: 6.2% MODE 2: SAND: 97.6% MEDIUM SAND: 17.3% MODE 3: MUD: 1.8% FINE SAND: 47.8%

D10: 90.74 0.966 V FINE SAND: 22.9%

MEDIAN or D50: 180.4 2.471 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 1.4% D90: 511.8 3.462 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 5.641 3.583 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1% (D90 - D10): 421.1 2.496 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 2.088 1.551 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.7% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 136.9 1.062 V COARSE SAND: 3.4% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 271.8 196.4 2.348 187.4 2.416 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 314.4 2.068 1.048 1.950 0.964 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.848 0.613 -0.613 0.193 -0.193 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 20.89 5.521 5.521 1.357 1.357 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 159

160

Table B.12: Statistics of 2063

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2063, A(b) facies, H09ac ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 244.0 2.037 GRAVEL: 16.9% COARSE SAND: 16.6% MODE 2: 194.5 2.364 SAND: 82.3% MEDIUM SAND: 21.1% MODE 3: 342.0 1.550 MUD: 0.8% FINE SAND: 21.0%

D10: 127.8 -1.529 V FINE SAND: 8.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 469.8 1.090 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.6%

D90: 2885.2 2.968 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 22.57 -1.941 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.5% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 2757.3 4.496 FINE GRAVEL: 6.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 6.436 -4.865 V FINE GRAVEL: 9.9% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 1160.3 2.686 V COARSE SAND: 14.7% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1107.7 543.8 0.879 541.5 0.885 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1481.5 3.301 1.723 3.406 1.768 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.338 0.227 -0.227 0.174 -0.174 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 8.656 2.439 2.439 0.853 0.853 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5 160 0.0

100 1000 10000 Particle Diameter (mm)

161

Table B.13: Statistics of 2065

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2065, H09ac ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 6.9% COARSE SAND: 22.5% MODE 2: 429.0 1.223 SAND: 92.2% MEDIUM SAND: 31.0% MODE 3: 273.0 1.875 MUD: 0.8% FINE SAND: 19.5%

D10: 134.4 -0.660 V FINE SAND: 7.9%

MEDIAN or D50: 408.4 1.292 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.6% D90: 1579.9 2.895 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 11.75 -4.388 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.5% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 1445.5 3.555 FINE GRAVEL: 1.2% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 3.342 5.676 V FINE GRAVEL: 5.3% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 541.4 1.741 V COARSE SAND: 11.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 723.1 434.6 1.202 430.9 1.215 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 1038.4 2.603 1.380 2.566 1.359 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.590 0.266 -0.266 0.091 -0.091 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 29.47 3.643 3.643 1.074 1.074 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 2.0

1.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 161

Particle Diameter (mm)

162

Table B.14: Statistics of 2068

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2068, H09a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 0.5% COARSE SAND: 19.6% MODE 2: SAND: 99.2% MEDIUM SAND: 41.4% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 29.4%

D10: 150.9 0.457 V FINE SAND: 5.3%

MEDIAN or D50: 311.7 1.682 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 728.4 2.728 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 4.826 5.967 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 577.5 2.271 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.279 2.140 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.5% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 272.4 1.189 V COARSE SAND: 3.5% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 396.6 322.7 1.632 323.1 1.630 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 298.1 1.878 0.909 1.846 0.885 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.070 0.020 -0.020 0.080 -0.080 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 19.63 4.269 4.269 1.014 1.014 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 162

163

Table B.15: Statistics of 2073a

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2073a, B/C facies, N10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Medium Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 13.3% COARSE SAND: 19.7% MODE 2: 12683.5 -3.663 SAND: 86.6% MEDIUM SAND: 41.1% MODE 3: 10119.5 -3.337 MUD: 0.1% FINE SAND: 17.2%

D10: 206.6 -2.013 V FINE SAND: 1.3%

MEDIAN or D50: 409.6 1.288 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.1% D90: 4036.5 2.275 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 19.54 -1.130 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 6.9% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 3829.9 4.288 FINE GRAVEL: 3.1% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.931 6.213 V FINE GRAVEL: 3.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 536.0 1.551 V COARSE SAND: 7.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1418.0 575.2 0.798 518.5 0.947 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 2745.2 3.068 1.617 2.862 1.517 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.922 1.335 -1.335 0.479 -0.479 Very Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 10.54 4.153 4.153 1.518 1.518 Very Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

163

164

Table B.16:Statistics of 2082

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2082, C facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 17.1% COARSE SAND: 20.6% MODE 2: 342.0 1.550 SAND: 82.2% MEDIUM SAND: 23.0% MODE 3: 945.0 0.084 MUD: 0.7% FINE SAND: 15.5%

D10: 154.3 -1.532 V FINE SAND: 6.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 583.1 0.778 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.5%

D90: 2892.0 2.696 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 18.74 -1.760 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 2737.7 4.228 FINE GRAVEL: 4.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 5.202 -3.722 V FINE GRAVEL: 12.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 1145.4 2.379 V COARSE SAND: 17.1% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1096.0 618.6 0.693 627.6 0.672 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1245.3 3.005 1.588 3.094 1.630 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.968 -0.014 0.014 0.078 -0.078 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 6.878 2.630 2.630 0.889 0.889 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 164

165

Table B.17: Statistics of 2075

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2075/OSL-11, low D facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 1.9% COARSE SAND: 24.1% MODE 2: 273.0 1.875 SAND: 97.8% MEDIUM SAND: 29.7% MODE 3: 429.0 1.223 MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 27.7%

D10: 137.9 -0.078 V FINE SAND: 7.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 354.4 1.497 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3% D90: 1055.8 2.859 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 7.659 -36.478 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 918.0 2.937 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 3.190 3.600 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.9% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 439.4 1.673 V COARSE SAND: 9.3% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 504.7 366.8 1.447 364.6 1.456 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 454.2 2.206 1.142 2.213 1.146 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.270 0.108 -0.108 0.074 -0.074 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 9.831 2.996 2.996 0.904 0.904 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 2.0

1.0

0.0 165 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

166

Table B.18: Statistics of 2081

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2081, C facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Trimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 0.7% COARSE SAND: 23.9% MODE 2: 342.0 1.550 SAND: 99.1% MEDIUM SAND: 38.3% MODE 3: 429.0 1.223 MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 26.0%

D10: 156.7 0.187 V FINE SAND: 4.6%

MEDIAN or D50: 348.9 1.519 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2%

D90: 878.6 2.674 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 5.608 14.32 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 721.9 2.488 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.516 2.619 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.7% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 340.8 1.331 V COARSE SAND: 6.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 454.8 360.8 1.471 359.0 1.478 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 348.1 1.950 0.964 1.950 0.963 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.236 0.178 -0.178 0.070 -0.070 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 10.01 2.805 2.805 0.973 0.973 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 166

167

Table B.19: Statistics of 2080

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2080, B facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.1% COARSE SAND: 2.2% MODE 2: SAND: 96.8% MEDIUM SAND: 11.6% MODE 3: MUD: 3.1% FINE SAND: 51.8%

D10: 80.03 1.836 V FINE SAND: 30.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 157.2 2.670 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 2.6% D90: 280.0 3.643 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 3.499 1.984 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1% (D90 - D10): 200.0 1.807 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 1.955 1.434 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.1% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 104.1 0.967 V COARSE SAND: 1.1% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 191.4 156.2 2.679 152.6 2.712 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 179.3 1.815 0.860 1.652 0.724 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 5.508 -0.007 0.007 -0.037 0.037 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 42.75 8.303 8.303 1.036 1.036 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 167

Particle Diameter (mm)

168

Table B.20: Statistics of Modern Solo Bedload, Downstream

SAMPLE IDENTITY: SAMPLE STATISTICS

Modern Solo River Bedload, Downstream of NDG-1 ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Very Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 1326.0 -0.405 GRAVEL: 47.1% COARSE SAND: 11.0% MODE 2: 12683.5 -3.663 SAND: 52.7% MEDIUM SAND: 0.5% MODE 3: 2922.5 -1.545 MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 0.4%

D10: 933.9 -3.205 V FINE SAND: 0.6%

MEDIAN or D50: 1886.6 -0.916 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.1%

D90: 9222.8 0.099 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 9.875 -0.031 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 10.9% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 8288.9 3.304 FINE GRAVEL: 10.6% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.850 0.170 V FINE GRAVEL: 25.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 2291.2 1.511 V COARSE SAND: 40.2% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 3130.6 2161.4 -1.112 2134.4 -1.094 Very Fine Gravel SORTING (s): 3105.6 2.351 1.233 2.187 1.129 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.943 -0.196 0.196 0.293 -0.293 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 5.828 5.766 5.766 1.041 1.041 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 168

Particle Diameter (mm)

169

Table B.21: Statistics of Modern Solo Bedload, Upstream

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: Modern Solo, Upstream of NDG-1 ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sandy Gravel SEDIMENT NAME: Sandy Very Fine Gravel

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 1184.0 -0.241 GRAVEL: 41.3% COARSE SAND: 19.6% MODE 2: 2922.5 -1.545 SAND: 58.3% MEDIUM SAND: 8.4% MODE 3: 6442.0 -2.685 MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 4.2%

D10: 354.9 -3.054 V FINE SAND: 2.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 1532.2 -0.616 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 8304.1 1.495 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 23.40 -0.489 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 11.3% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 7949.2 4.548 FINE GRAVEL: 13.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 5.275 -0.216 V FINE GRAVEL: 16.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 3180.2 2.399 V COARSE SAND: 24.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 2928.0 1593.2 -0.672 1743.2 -0.802 Very Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 3125.5 3.306 1.725 3.412 1.771 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.371 -0.365 0.365 0.059 -0.059 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 3.702 3.181 3.181 0.966 0.966 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 169

170

Table B.22: Statistics of OSL-5

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: OSL-5 matrix, L2, L2 (across river) ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 601.5 0.736 GRAVEL: 6.6% COARSE SAND: 41.4% MODE 2: 273.0 1.875 SAND: 93.3% MEDIUM SAND: 25.8% MODE 3: MUD: 0.1% FINE SAND: 8.2%

D10: 258.0 -0.634 V FINE SAND: 0.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 634.1 0.657 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.0% D90: 1552.0 1.955 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 6.016 -3.082 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.8% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 1294.0 2.589 FINE GRAVEL: 3.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.395 32.12 V FINE GRAVEL: 2.9% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 566.4 1.260 V COARSE SAND: 17.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 948.0 653.6 0.614 620.4 0.689 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1219.2 2.189 1.130 2.053 1.038 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.200 0.469 -0.469 0.031 -0.031 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 23.00 5.187 5.187 1.170 1.170 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 170

171

Table B.23: Statistics of OSL-15

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: OSL-15 matrix, NDG-3 ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Medium Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 4.9% COARSE SAND: 23.7% MODE 2: 8074.0 -3.011 SAND: 94.9% MEDIUM SAND: 42.5% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 19.9%

D10: 182.5 -0.064 V FINE SAND: 3.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 384.2 1.380 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 1045.4 2.454 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 5.728 -38.327 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 3.2% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 862.9 2.518 FINE GRAVEL: 1.1% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.339 2.693 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.6% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 346.5 1.226 V COARSE SAND: 5.8% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 807.8 433.7 1.205 401.4 1.317 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 1656.3 2.412 1.270 2.046 1.033 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.268 1.382 -1.382 0.170 -0.170 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 20.02 6.790 6.790 1.250 1.250 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

171

172

Table B.24: Statistics of 2076

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2076/OSL-12, high D facies, G10c ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 305.5 1.713 GRAVEL: 0.3% COARSE SAND: 7.4% MODE 2: SAND: 99.6% MEDIUM SAND: 61.3% MODE 3: MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 28.0%

D10: 189.8 1.059 V FINE SAND: 1.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 295.4 1.759 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 480.0 2.397 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.529 2.264 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 290.2 1.338 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.546 1.435 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.3% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 129.8 0.629 V COARSE SAND: 1.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 332.4 300.1 1.736 296.3 1.755 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 200.6 1.521 0.605 1.445 0.531 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 5.603 0.594 -0.594 0.046 -0.046 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 53.56 6.449 6.449 1.237 1.237 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 172

173

Table B.25: Statistics of 2501-dd

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-dd, A facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 28.4% COARSE SAND: 16.8% MODE 2: 429.0 1.223 SAND: 71.1% MEDIUM SAND: 19.0% MODE 3: 273.0 1.875 MUD: 0.6% FINE SAND: 13.2%

D10: 161.0 -2.220 V FINE SAND: 5.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 792.7 0.335 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.5%

D90: 4660.5 2.635 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 28.94 -1.187 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 4499.4 4.855 FINE GRAVEL: 12.2% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 7.489 -1.411 V FINE GRAVEL: 16.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 1997.4 2.905 V COARSE SAND: 16.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1609.4 820.2 0.286 826.0 0.276 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1810.7 3.443 1.784 3.588 1.843 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.509 -0.072 0.072 0.030 -0.030 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 4.402 2.155 2.155 0.805 0.805 Platykurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

1.0

0.5

0.0 100 1000 10000 173

Particle Diameter (mm)

174

Table B.26: Statistics of 2051-aa

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-aa, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.2% COARSE SAND: 2.6% MODE 2: SAND: 99.1% MEDIUM SAND: 20.7% MODE 3: MUD: 0.7% FINE SAND: 60.8%

D10: 110.6 1.604 V FINE SAND: 14.5%

MEDIAN or D50: 189.5 2.400 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.6% D90: 329.0 3.176 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.974 1.981 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 218.4 1.572 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.697 1.378 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 101.5 0.763 V COARSE SAND: 0.6% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 221.8 192.8 2.375 189.6 2.399 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 171.4 1.626 0.701 1.536 0.620 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 6.848 0.493 -0.493 0.031 -0.031 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 74.75 7.588 7.588 1.174 1.174 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 174

175

Table B.27: Statistics of 2051-z

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-z, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Moderately Well Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 1.4% MODE 2: SAND: 99.6% MEDIUM SAND: 23.3% MODE 3: MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 63.9%

D10: 121.4 1.700 V FINE SAND: 10.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 199.1 2.328 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3%

D90: 307.8 3.042 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.536 1.790 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 186.4 1.342 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.602 1.340 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 93.93 0.680 V COARSE SAND: 0.3% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 214.8 197.1 2.343 196.4 2.348 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 103.7 1.502 0.587 1.442 0.528 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.930 -0.276 0.276 -0.063 0.063 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 32.49 8.571 8.571 1.094 1.094 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 175

176

Table B.28: Statistics of 2051-y

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-y, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Moderately Well Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 0.7% MODE 2: SAND: 99.5% MEDIUM SAND: 22.3% MODE 3: MUD: 0.5% FINE SAND: 62.9%

D10: 113.6 1.742 V FINE SAND: 13.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 193.4 2.371 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.4%

D90: 299.0 3.138 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.632 1.802 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 185.4 1.396 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.649 1.355 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 96.25 0.721 V COARSE SAND: 0.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 203.5 188.5 2.408 189.7 2.398 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 80.66 1.489 0.574 1.458 0.544 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.551 -0.686 0.686 -0.092 0.092 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 9.437 7.491 7.491 1.042 1.042 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

4.0

2.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 176

Particle Diameter (mm)

177

Table B.29: Statistics of 2051-x

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-x, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 0.8% COARSE SAND: 10.0% MODE 2: SAND: 99.0% MEDIUM SAND: 61.7% MODE 3: MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 23.7%

D10: 186.3 0.934 V FINE SAND: 2.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 315.0 1.666 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 523.3 2.424 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.808 2.594 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 336.9 1.490 FINE GRAVEL: 0.7% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.641 1.544 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.1% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 157.1 0.715 V COARSE SAND: 0.9% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 375.2 317.1 1.657 313.0 1.676 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 413.4 1.637 0.711 1.509 0.593 Moderately Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 9.066 1.049 -1.049 -0.023 0.023 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 97.09 9.452 9.452 1.209 1.209 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 177

178

Table B.30: Statistics of 2051-w

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-w, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 0.1% COARSE SAND: 6.9% MODE 2: SAND: 99.8% MEDIUM SAND: 73.6% MODE 3: MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 16.6%

D10: 210.3 1.082 V FINE SAND: 2.4%

MEDIAN or D50: 325.4 1.620 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 472.3 2.249 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.246 2.078 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 262.0 1.167 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.467 1.409 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.1% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 124.8 0.553 V COARSE SAND: 0.3% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 339.8 317.4 1.655 322.4 1.633 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 135.0 1.450 0.536 1.384 0.469 Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.639 -0.594 0.594 -0.091 0.091 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 38.12 6.295 6.295 1.251 1.251 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 178

179

Table B.31: Statistics of 2051-v

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-v, B facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Well Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Well Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 0.7% MODE 2: SAND: 99.6% MEDIUM SAND: 45.3% MODE 3: MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 48.5%

D10: 151.6 1.543 V FINE SAND: 5.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 243.0 2.041 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3% D90: 343.2 2.721 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 2.264 1.764 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 191.6 1.179 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.482 1.319 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 94.67 0.568 V COARSE SAND: 0.1% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 248.6 233.3 2.100 237.6 2.073 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 94.78 1.444 0.530 1.381 0.465 Well Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 5.409 -1.317 1.317 -0.165 0.165 Fine Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 87.27 12.72 12.72 1.186 1.186 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 179

180

Table B.32: Statistics of 2051-u

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-u, C facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 945.0 0.084 GRAVEL: 21.6% COARSE SAND: 24.5% MODE 2: 1184.0 -0.241 SAND: 78.3% MEDIUM SAND: 21.0% MODE 3: 480.0 1.061 MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 8.5%

D10: 244.2 -2.302 V FINE SAND: 1.9%

MEDIAN or D50: 851.3 0.232 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.1% D90: 4931.8 2.034 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 20.20 -0.883 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 2.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 4687.6 4.336 FINE GRAVEL: 11.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 4.176 -1.569 V FINE GRAVEL: 8.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 1326.7 2.062 V COARSE SAND: 22.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 1613.2 908.4 0.139 931.4 0.103 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 1918.3 2.922 1.547 2.990 1.580 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 1.994 0.140 -0.140 0.114 -0.114 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 6.473 2.767 2.767 0.999 0.999 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

100 1000 10000 180

Particle Diameter (mm)

181

Table B.33: Statistics of 2051-t

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-t, C/D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Coarse Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 429.0 1.223 GRAVEL: 5.4% COARSE SAND: 36.2% MODE 2: 537.5 0.898 SAND: 94.3% MEDIUM SAND: 33.7% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 7.4%

D10: 253.1 -0.557 V FINE SAND: 2.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 552.7 0.855 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 1471.3 1.982 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 5.813 -3.558 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 1218.2 2.539 FINE GRAVEL: 2.1% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.380 8.284 V FINE GRAVEL: 3.3% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 514.7 1.251 V COARSE SAND: 15.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 811.3 583.6 0.777 579.0 0.788 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 924.9 2.145 1.101 2.007 1.005 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.174 0.209 -0.209 0.103 -0.103 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 24.01 5.018 5.018 1.148 1.148 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 181

182

Table B.34: Statistics of 2051-s

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-s, C/D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 2.8% COARSE SAND: 18.3% MODE 2: SAND: 97.1% MEDIUM SAND: 54.1% MODE 3: MUD: 0.1% FINE SAND: 19.6%

D10: 198.3 0.403 V FINE SAND: 1.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 350.9 1.511 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.0% D90: 756.2 2.334 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.812 5.788 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.8% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 557.8 1.931 FINE GRAVEL: 1.3% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.883 1.900 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.7% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 232.1 0.913 V COARSE SAND: 3.3% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 564.1 383.2 1.384 364.6 1.455 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 1036.4 1.982 0.987 1.706 0.770 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 6.353 1.516 -1.516 0.163 -0.163 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 45.61 9.614 9.614 1.242 1.242 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 182

Particle Diameter (mm)

183

Table B.35: Statistics of 2051-r

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-r, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Moderately Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 2.6% MODE 2: SAND: 99.0% MEDIUM SAND: 28.4% MODE 3: MUD: 1.0% FINE SAND: 49.7%

D10: 101.2 1.473 V FINE SAND: 18.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 196.5 2.347 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.8%

D90: 360.1 3.305 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.558 2.243 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 258.9 1.831 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.969 1.520 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 133.7 0.977 V COARSE SAND: 0.2% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 221.2 193.8 2.367 193.8 2.367 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 124.5 1.677 0.746 1.638 0.712 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.648 -0.380 0.380 -0.036 0.036 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 18.43 5.940 5.940 0.988 0.988 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 183

184

Table B.36: Statistics of 2051-Q

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-Q, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 0.5% COARSE SAND: 12.8% MODE 2: SAND: 99.3% MEDIUM SAND: 53.2% MODE 3: MUD: 0.2% FINE SAND: 27.6%

D10: 170.6 0.747 V FINE SAND: 3.4%

MEDIAN or D50: 307.8 1.700 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 595.8 2.551 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.493 3.415 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 425.2 1.804 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.815 1.686 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.5% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 188.3 0.860 V COARSE SAND: 2.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 371.1 315.8 1.663 311.5 1.683 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 278.8 1.703 0.768 1.639 0.713 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.838 0.464 -0.464 0.059 -0.059 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 41.58 4.663 4.663 1.200 1.200 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

184

185

Table B.37: Statistics of 2051-p

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-p, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Moderately Sorted Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 194.5 2.364 GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SAND: 2.9% MODE 2: SAND: 98.8% MEDIUM SAND: 28.1% MODE 3: MUD: 1.2% FINE SAND: 48.7%

D10: 98.93 1.443 V FINE SAND: 18.9%

MEDIAN or D50: 195.1 2.358 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 1.0% D90: 367.8 3.337 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.718 2.313 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 268.9 1.894 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.010 1.538 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 137.4 1.007 V COARSE SAND: 0.2% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 221.5 192.8 2.375 192.9 2.374 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 127.2 1.698 0.764 1.661 0.732 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.543 -0.344 0.344 -0.029 0.029 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 17.11 5.577 5.577 0.981 0.981 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

185

186

Table B.38: Statistics of 2051-o

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-o, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Fine Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 138.5 2.854 GRAVEL: 0.1% COARSE SAND: 5.8% MODE 2: 601.5 0.736 SAND: 96.7% MEDIUM SAND: 20.3% MODE 3: MUD: 3.2% FINE SAND: 41.2%

D10: 80.29 1.213 V FINE SAND: 28.1%

MEDIAN or D50: 166.1 2.590 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 2.6% D90: 431.5 3.639 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 5.374 3.001 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1% (D90 - D10): 351.2 2.426 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 2.370 1.650 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.1% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 153.2 1.245 V COARSE SAND: 1.4% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 229.4 176.1 2.505 174.0 2.523 Fine Sand SORTING (s): 213.4 2.019 1.014 1.921 0.942 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.809 -0.045 0.045 0.142 -0.142 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 24.73 5.616 5.616 1.031 1.031 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 186

187

Table B.39: Statistics of 2051-n

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-n, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 3.3% COARSE SAND: 12.4% MODE 2: 98.50 3.346 SAND: 94.2% MEDIUM SAND: 32.6% MODE 3: MUD: 2.4% FINE SAND: 29.2%

D10: 90.48 0.318 V FINE SAND: 16.0%

MEDIAN or D50: 260.6 1.940 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 1.9% D90: 802.1 3.466 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 8.864 10.89 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1% (D90 - D10): 711.6 3.148 FINE GRAVEL: 0.9% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 2.773 2.201 V FINE GRAVEL: 2.5% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 273.5 1.471 V COARSE SAND: 4.0% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 432.6 269.9 1.890 259.5 1.946 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 622.5 2.463 1.301 2.353 1.234 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.373 0.268 -0.268 0.065 -0.065 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 25.77 4.719 4.719 1.188 1.188 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 187

Particle Diameter (mm)

188

Table B.40: Statistics of 2051-m.

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-m, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 5.4% COARSE SAND: 17.6% MODE 2: 945.0 0.084 SAND: 92.8% MEDIUM SAND: 31.4% MODE 3: 98.50 3.346 MUD: 1.8% FINE SAND: 20.8%

D10: 104.0 -0.548 V FINE SAND: 11.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 343.2 1.543 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 1.4% D90: 1462.4 3.265 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.1%

(D90 / D10): 14.06 -5.955 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.1% (D90 - D10): 1358.4 3.814 FINE GRAVEL: 2.3% FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 / D25): 3.524 4.486 V FINE GRAVEL: 3.1% V FINE SILT: 0.1%

(D75 - D25): 499.0 1.817 V COARSE SAND: 11.2% CLAY: 0.1%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 662.1 374.6 1.417 368.2 1.441 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 1000.6 2.757 1.463 2.703 1.435 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.268 0.236 -0.236 0.105 -0.105 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 24.79 3.715 3.715 1.064 1.064 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 188

Particle Diameter (mm)

189

Table B.41: Statistics of 2051-L

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-L, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 0.7% COARSE SAND: 19.5% MODE 2: SAND: 99.0% MEDIUM SAND: 54.9% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 17.1%

D10: 193.1 0.433 V FINE SAND: 3.5%

MEDIAN or D50: 353.2 1.501 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2% D90: 740.5 2.372 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.834 5.473 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 547.4 1.939 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.858 1.877 V FINE GRAVEL: 0.7% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 227.9 0.894 V COARSE SAND: 4.1% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 435.0 363.2 1.461 365.1 1.454 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 328.8 1.793 0.842 1.706 0.771 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 4.128 -0.085 0.085 0.080 -0.080 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 30.26 6.059 6.059 1.282 1.282 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 4.0

2.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 189

190

Table B.42: Statistics of 2051-k

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-k, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 429.0 1.223 GRAVEL: 7.7% COARSE SAND: 27.9% MODE 2: 601.5 0.736 SAND: 91.7% MEDIUM SAND: 31.4% MODE 3: 1326.0 -0.405 MUD: 0.6% FINE SAND: 11.4%

D10: 189.0 -0.827 V FINE SAND: 4.5%

MEDIAN or D50: 522.7 0.936 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.5% D90: 1774.0 2.403 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 9.385 -2.906 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 1585.0 3.230 FINE GRAVEL: 2.5% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 3.114 43.14 V FINE GRAVEL: 5.2% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 660.8 1.639 V COARSE SAND: 16.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 838.8 551.5 0.859 560.9 0.834 Coarse Sand SORTING (s): 946.5 2.460 1.299 2.416 1.273 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.021 0.064 -0.064 0.078 -0.078 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 13.76 3.484 3.484 1.076 1.076 Mesokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000 Particle Diameter ( m)

m 190

191

Table B.43: Statistics of 2051-J

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-J, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 342.0 1.550 GRAVEL: 7.0% COARSE SAND: 24.7% MODE 2: 429.0 1.223 SAND: 92.7% MEDIUM SAND: 42.2% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 12.9%

D10: 210.1 -0.616 V FINE SAND: 2.8%

MEDIAN or D50: 434.9 1.201 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.2%

D90: 1533.1 2.251 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 7.298 -3.652 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 1323.0 2.868 FINE GRAVEL: 1.9% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.502 4.054 V FINE GRAVEL: 5.1% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 444.6 1.323 V COARSE SAND: 10.0% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 723.5 492.4 1.022 486.4 1.040 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 842.9 2.257 1.175 2.179 1.124 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.122 0.477 -0.477 0.249 -0.249 Coarse Skewed KURTOSIS (K ): 13.94 4.162 4.162 1.233 1.233 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

191

192

Table B.44: Statistics of 2051-i

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-i, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Unimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 429.0 1.223 GRAVEL: 1.1% COARSE SAND: 31.1% MODE 2: SAND: 98.7% MEDIUM SAND: 49.5% MODE 3: MUD: 0.3% FINE SAND: 9.3%

D10: 233.9 0.170 V FINE SAND: 2.4%

MEDIAN or D50: 436.4 1.196 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3%

D90: 889.0 2.096 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 3.801 12.35 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 655.1 1.926 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 1.884 2.290 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.1% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 287.2 0.914 V COARSE SAND: 6.4% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 526.7 443.7 1.172 446.6 1.163 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 361.6 1.780 0.832 1.709 0.773 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 3.015 -0.055 0.055 0.056 -0.056 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 17.09 4.332 4.332 1.237 1.237 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

0.0

100 1000 10000 192

Particle Diameter (mm)

193

Table B.45: Statistics of 2051-h

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-h, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Polymodal, Poorly Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 480.0 1.061 GRAVEL: 5.1% COARSE SAND: 26.1% MODE 2: 383.0 1.387 SAND: 94.3% MEDIUM SAND: 38.4% MODE 3: 1662.0 -0.731 MUD: 0.6% FINE SAND: 14.5%

D10: 177.8 -0.450 V FINE SAND: 4.7%

MEDIAN or D50: 435.7 1.199 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.4%

D90: 1366.2 2.492 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 7.686 -5.536 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0%

(D90 - D10): 1188.4 2.942 FINE GRAVEL: 0.2% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.582 3.934 V FINE GRAVEL: 4.9% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 443.5 1.368 V COARSE SAND: 10.6% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 638.3 455.6 1.134 459.2 1.123 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 619.0 2.254 1.172 2.219 1.150 Poorly Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.549 -0.054 0.054 0.098 -0.098 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 10.74 4.192 4.192 1.216 1.216 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0 Class Weight (%) Weight Class

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm) 193

194

Table B.46: Statistics of 2051-g

SAMPLE STATISTICS

SAMPLE IDENTITY: 2051-g, D facies, F10cG10a ANALYST & DATE: Maija, 03-25-13 SAMPLE TYPE: Bimodal, Moderately Sorted TEXTURAL GROUP: Slightly Gravelly Sand SEDIMENT NAME: Slightly Very Fine Gravelly Medium Sand

mm f GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MODE 1: 273.0 1.875 GRAVEL: 1.1% COARSE SAND: 18.8% MODE 2: 342.0 1.550 SAND: 98.5% MEDIUM SAND: 44.5% MODE 3: MUD: 0.4% FINE SAND: 24.9%

D10: 154.4 0.354 V FINE SAND: 5.5%

MEDIAN or D50: 328.0 1.608 V COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% V COARSE SILT: 0.3% D90: 782.3 2.695 COARSE GRAVEL: 0.0% COARSE SILT: 0.0%

(D90 / D10): 5.066 7.609 MEDIUM GRAVEL: 0.0% MEDIUM SILT: 0.0% (D90 - D10): 627.9 2.341 FINE GRAVEL: 0.0% FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 / D25): 2.184 2.116 V FINE GRAVEL: 1.1% V FINE SILT: 0.0%

(D75 - D25): 269.2 1.127 V COARSE SAND: 4.7% CLAY: 0.0%

METHOD OF MOMENTS FOLK & WARD METHOD Arithmetic Geometric Logarithmic Geometric Logarithmic Description mm mm f mm f MEAN ( x ): 427.6 339.2 1.560 337.5 1.567 Medium Sand SORTING (s): 351.5 1.936 0.953 1.886 0.915 Moderately Sorted SKEWNESS (Sk ): 2.902 0.100 -0.100 0.073 -0.073 Symmetrical KURTOSIS (K ): 14.12 4.391 4.391 1.162 1.162 Leptokurtic

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

Particle Diameter (f) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

Class Weight (%) Weight Class 3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 100 1000 10000

Particle Diameter (mm)

194

195

Red Thermoluminescence Data

BETA DOSE MEASUREMENTS (ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE) SA reader 1 SG reader 9/12/2015 1st run secs se using montecarlo 50 secs se Disc# ED ED_Err N.Signal BG.signal Test_Signal Test_Dose Residual_Signal Test_Signal_Change Recycling1 Recycling1_Err Recycling2 Recycling2_Err Ln/Tn 37.31 0.62 37.21 0.31 24.61 1.08 1 24.61 1.08 21795 2906 30529 30 1806 1.05 0.99 0.04 -1 -1 0.77 37.11 0.85 37.13 0.29 25.67 1.25 3 25.67 1.25 14403 1876 19912 30 1460 1.14 0.99 0.04 -1 -1 0.78 37.95 1.06 37.98 0.38 25.33 1.09 5 25.33 1.09 11289 1571 16827 30 1305 1.25 0.98 0.04 -1 -1 0.75 35.36 0.56 35.4 0.32 27.37 1.03 7 27.37 1.03 35157 1783 42656 30 1336 1.17 0.96 0.04 -1 -1 0.86 38.52 1.24 38.5 0.34 24.52 1.17 9 24.52 1.17 10790 1985 16694 30 1297 1.14 0.96 0.04 -1 -1 0.71 35.53 0.71 35.53 0.72 28.04 1.11 11 28.04 1.11 19307 2027 26568 30 1325 1.09 0.94 0.04 -1 -1 0.78 22.56 1.06 13 22.56 1.06 10371 1285 16070 30 1208 1.09 0.93 0.04 -1 -1 0.68 22.67 1.09 15 22.67 1.09 20559 1811 31420 30 1512 0.91 1.01 0.04 -1 -1 0.69 2nd run 38.34 0.43 38.27 0.41 37.32 0.28 37.33 0.35 25.09625 1.11 34.63 0.35 34.45 0.37 34.54 0.38 34.48 0.28 0.191662 Gy/s 35.63 0.52 36.13 0.48 11.49973 Gy/min 37.22 0.22 37.24 0.21 using int 1-8 with 100 monte carlo 36.62167 0.601667 36.6375 0.371667

0.131343 Gy/s 0.131286 Gy/s Disc# Grain# ED ED_Err N.Signal BG.signal Test_Signal Test_Dose Residual_Signal Test_Signal_Change Recycling1 Recycling1_Err Recycling2 Recycling2_Err Ln/Tn 7.880581 Gy/min 7.877175 Gy/min 14/11/11 20 25.4 0.85 45033 3582 32595 30 1573 1.05 1.04 0.04 -1 -1 1.52 secs se 22 29.85 1.19 22670 2719 18364 30 1244 0.99 0.99 0.04 -1 -1 1.36 using integration 1-8 channels 25.4 0.85 24 26.00 1.04 19485 3569 15964 30 1798 0.98 0.98 0.05 -1 -1 1.45 29.85 1.19 26 26.18 1 23896 3477 18861 30 1479 0.95 1 0.04 -1 -1 1.48 just first just secondjust first just second 26 1.04 28 26.71 1.04 20895 3023 16745 30 1564 0.97 0.95 0.04 -1 -1 1.44 36.96333 36.28 36.95833 36.31667 26.18 1 30 25.24 0.92 19143 2625 16035 30 1571 0.96 0.96 0.04 -1 -1 1.38 26.71 1.04 0.130129 0.13258 0.130147 0.132446 25.24 0.92 7.807737 7.954796 7.808794 7.946765 26.56333 1.006667

0.181077 Gy/s

10.8646 Gy/min

195

196

Ngandong Dual-Aliquot Protocol Aliquot B Red TL Started July 27, 2012 Riso 2 Dose rate: 0.12414 Gy/sec Samples: INDOSL-1 (disk 1), INDOSL-4 (d2), INDOSL-5 (d3), INDOSL-7 (d4), INDOSL-11(d5), INDOSL-12(d6), INDOSL-15(d7), INDOSL-18(d8), INDOSL-19(d9) Disks: 10 mm Mask: 10mm Grain size: 90-125 um Quartz fraction Filters: Red Preheat: 260 C Cut heat: 260 C Dose points Groupings for aliquot B run: R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Disks Samples Dose rate Natural 50 Gy 25 Gy 100 Gy 0 Gy 50 Gy 3,4,6 INDOSL-5,7,12 0.12414 Dose (Gy) 50 Gy 25 Gy 100 Gy Dose (s) 403 201 806 Unbleachable paleodose:Disk 3 Disk 4 Disk 6 100 Gy 110 124 806 886 999 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 2,7,8 INDOSL-4,15,18 Dose (Gy) 35 17 75 Natural 35 Gy 17 Gy 75 Gy 0 Gy 35 Gy Dose (s) 282 137 604 Unbleachable paleodose:Disk 2 Disk 7 Disk 8 75 Gy 64 Gy 59 Gy 604 516 475 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 1,5,9 INDOSL-1,11,19 Dose (Gy) 15 7 30 Natural 15 Gy 7 Gy 30 Gy 0 Gy 15 Gy Dose (s) 121 56 242 Unbleachable paleodoseDisk 1 Disk 5 Disk 9 31 13 19

250 105 153

196

197

Disk 1 INDOSL-1 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error curve fitting 1_6 N Natural 4014 3376 3988 3388 1.063 0.209 a 0.546 R1 121 3671 3369 3810 3524 1.056 0.431 b 0.00596 R2 56 3612 3462 3638 3415 0.673 0.454 R3 242 3810 3388 3588 3360 1.851 0.772 R4 0 3628 3371 3812 3352 0.559 0.209 R5 121 4020 3398 3791 3428 1.713 0.466

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_7 N Natural 4701 3938 4679 3953 1.051 0.186 R1 121 4233 3931 4407 4111 1.02 0.441 a 0.532 R2 56 4075 4039 4194 3984 0.171 0.435 b 0.00475 R3 242 4488 3953 4247 3920 1.636 0.532 R4 0 4244 3932 4433 3911 0.598 0.202 R5 121 4647 3964 4322 3999 2.115 0.663

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_5 N Natural 3310 2813 3283 2824 1.083 0.251 a 0.642 R1 121 3158 2808 3084 2937 2.381 1.362 b 0.00496 R2 56 2984 2885 3055 2846 0.474 0.406 R3 242 3188 2823 3031 2800 1.58 0.621 R4 0 3097 2809 3217 2793 0.679 0.22

R5 121 3436 2832 3125 2857 2.254 0.714

197

198

Disk 2 INDOSL-4 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_4 N Natural 3618 2393 3041 2290 1.631 0.189 a 1.27 R1 282 3755 2400 2868 2394 2.859 0.468 b 0.00583 R2 137 3593 2350 2984 2331 1.904 0.243 R3 604 5075 2420 2853 2415 6.062 1.024 R4 0 3003 2347 2763 2335 1.533 0.308 R5 282 3931 2403 2963 2408 2.753 0.391 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_5 N Natural 4452 2992 3801 2862 1.555 0.163 a 1.25 R1 282 4538 3000 3488 2992 3.101 0.533 b 0.00636 R2 137 4382 2937 3670 2914 1.911 0.234 R3 604 6145 3025 3485 3019 6.695 1.177 R4 0 3779 2934 3499 2918 1.454 0.245 R5 282 4733 3004 3604 3010 2.911 0.425 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.28 1_6 N Natural 5255 3590 4440 3435 1.657 0.174 b 0.00558 R1 282 5283 3599 4248 3591 2.563 0.374 R2 137 5203 3525 4419 3496 1.818 0.202 R3 604 7010 3630 4127 3623 6.706 1.189 R4 0 4486 3520 4082 3502 1.666 0.294

R5 282 5630 3604 4241 3612 3.221 0.479

198

199

Disk 3 INDOSL-5 Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.61 int N Natural 2855 1777 2200 1776 2.542 0.411 b 0.00497 1_3 R1 403 3625 1851 2344 1783 3.162 0.385 R2 201 3286 1788 2107 1784 4.638 0.922 R3 806 5206 1839 2311 1810 6.721 0.877 R4 0 2761 1790 2378 1780 1.624 0.208 R5 403 3716 1837 2349 1803 3.441 0.428

Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error int N Natural 3795 2370 3001 2368 2.251 0.289 a 1.73 1_4 R1 403 4706 2468 3185 2378 2.773 0.277 b 0.00411 R2 201 4120 2383 2870 2379 3.538 0.547 R3 806 6545 2452 3074 2414 6.202 0.711 R4 0 3687 2387 3111 2373 1.762 0.206 R5 403 4805 2449 3022 2403 3.806 0.473 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.67 1_6 N Natural 5535 3555 4366 3552 2.432 0.291 b 0.00432 R1 403 6603 3702 4600 3567 2.808 0.265 R2 201 5855 3575 4167 3568 3.806 0.582 R3 806 9119 3679 4562 3621 5.781 0.569 R4 0 5270 3580 4573 3560 1.668 0.175

R5 403 6918 3674 4421 3605 3.975 0.454

199

200

Disk 3 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_8 N Natural 7328 4739 5671 4736 2.769 0.324 a 1.73 R1 403 8581 4936 5967 4756 3.01 0.275 b 0.00459 R2 201 7521 4767 5671 4758 3.016 0.359 R3 806 11293 4905 5892 4827 5.998 0.595 R4 0 6853 4774 5946 4746 1.733 0.174 R5 403 8815 4898 5726 4807 4.262 0.493

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_10 N Natural 8974 5924 7021 5919 2.768 0.306 a 1.76 R1 403 10415 6170 7297 5945 3.14 0.284 b 0.00467 R2 201 9164 5959 6976 5947 3.115 0.364 R3 806 13330 6131 7258 6034 5.882 0.566 R4 0 8451 5967 7358 5933 1.743 0.164

R5 403 10540 6123 7078 6008 4.128 0.458

200

201

Disk 4 INDOSL-7 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.44 1_4 N Natural 3049 2279 2580 2269 2.476 0.602 b 0.00734 R1 403 4450 2320 2751 2356 5.392 0.998 R2 201 3962 2374 2821 2303 3.066 0.451 R3 806 5836 2391 2821 2344 7.222 1.105 R4 0 3198 2386 2847 2273 1.415 0.219 R5 403 4587 2352 2920 2367 4.042 0.552 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.21 1_5 N Natural 3694 2849 3192 2836 2.374 0.565 b 0.0761 R1 403 5333 2900 3332 2945 6.287 1.308 R2 201 4711 2967 3421 2878 3.212 0.496 R3 806 7030 2989 3420 2929 8.23 1.351 R4 0 3887 2982 3596 2841 1.199 0.168 R5 403 5537 2940 3666 2959 3.673 0.442 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.37 1_8 N Natural 5922 4559 5143 4537 2.249 0.402 b 0.0058 R1 403 7758 4640 5311 4711 5.197 0.887 R2 201 6947 4747 5345 4605 2.973 0.427 R3 806 10017 4782 5623 4687 5.593 0.62 R4 0 6047 4772 5527 4546 1.3 0.17

R5 403 7961 4705 5646 4735 3.574 0.418

201

202

Disk 4 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_10 N Natural 7244 5698 6469 5672 1.94 0.304 a 1.36 R1 403 9350 5800 6605 5889 4.958 0.793 b 0.00626 R2 201 8521 5934 6753 5756 2.595 0.315 R3 806 11907 5977 6809 5859 6.242 0.753 R4 0 7415 5965 6755 5683 1.353 0.177 R5 403 9661 5881 6943 5918 3.688 0.426

Disk 5 bad; not including data here INDOSL-11

int

202

203

Disk 6 INDOSL-12 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_5 N Natural 3697 2821 3104 2887 4.037 1.487 a 1.74 R1 403 5328 2889 3371 2914 5.337 0.947 b 0.00719 R2 201 4888 2977 3170 2960 9.1 3.419 R3 806 7113 3024 3554 2946 6.725 0.907 R4 0 4347 2947 3715 2887 1.691 0.195 R5 403 5578 2971 3334 2850 5.386 0.896 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.63 1_6 N Natural 4475 3385 3730 3465 4.113 1.358 b 0.00694 R1 403 6290 3467 4171 3497 4.188 0.564 R2 201 5656 3573 3814 3552 7.95 2.63 R3 806 8210 3629 4202 3535 6.868 0.92 R4 0 5005 3537 4382 3464 1.599 0.184 R5 403 6427 3565 3953 3420 5.37 0.885 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 1.63 1_7 N Natural 5191 3949 4426 4042 3.234 0.814 b 0.00686 R1 403 7240 4045 4741 4080 4.834 0.705 R2 201 6588 4168 4443 4144 8.094 2.532 R3 806 9198 4233 4899 4125 6.415 0.801 R4 0 5701 4126 5041 4042 1.577 0.18

R5 403 7370 4159 4641 3990 4.932 0.723

203

204

Disk 7 INDOSL-15 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 0.652 3_6 N Natural 2518 2280 2403 2216 1.273 0.593 b 0.0068 R1 282 2909 2243 2530 2267 2.532 0.721 R2 137 2790 2299 2493 2233 1.888 0.57 R3 604 3607 2303 2596 2295 4.332 1.038 R4 0 2541 2261 2773 2322 0.621 0.182 R5 282 3038 2231 2648 2363 2.832 0.748

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 0.826 1_6 N Natural 3799 3420 3735 3324 0.922 0.28 b 0.00675 R1 282 4669 3365 3809 3401 3.196 0.7 R2 137 4536 3449 3836 3350 2.237 0.431 R3 604 5983 3455 3988 3442 4.63 0.752 R4 0 4001 3392 4258 3484 0.787 0.143

R5 282 4780 3347 4114 3545 2.518 0.419

204

205

Disk 8 INDOSL-18 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_4 N Natural 2523 2196 2467 2189 1.176 0.38 a 1.01 R1 282 2707 2240 2439 2204 1.987 0.649 b 0.00419 R2 137 2648 2231 2410 2274 3.066 1.626 R3 604 3595 2281 2647 2258 3.378 0.639 R4 0 2523 2279 2512 2246 0.917 0.353 R5 282 3059 2203 2481 2263 3.927 1.284

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_3 N Natural 1874 1647 1802 1642 1.419 0.639 a 0.488 R1 282 1946 1680 1874 1653 1.204 0.423 b 0.00461 R2 137 1989 1673 1795 1706 3.551 2.456 R3 604 2708 1711 1973 1693 3.561 0.806 R4 0 1834 1709 1930 1685 0.51 0.273 R5 282 2398 1652 1953 1697 2.914 0.731

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 1_2 N Natural 1297 1098 1144 1095 4.061 4.047 a 0.175 R1 282 1399 1120 1250 1102 1.885 0.705 b 0.00648 R2 137 1346 1116 1218 1137 2.84 1.808 R3 604 1905 1141 1316 1129 4.086 1.12 R4 0 1183 1140 1384 1123 0.165 0.187

R5 282 1637 1102 1400 1132 1.996 0.423

205

206

Disk 9 INDOSL-19 int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 0.292 1_4 N Natural 2650 2257 2548 2272 1.424 0.439 b 0.00728 R1 121 2709 2227 2676 2289 1.245 0.29 R2 56 2452 2269 2675 2268 0.45 0.186 R3 242 2902 2257 2620 2312 2.094 0.531 R4 0 2457 2262 2735 2208 0.37 0.139 R5 121 2692 2205 2601 2286 1.546 0.409

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error a 0.265 1_8 N Natural 5218 4513 5069 4543 1.34 0.312 b 0.00601 R1 121 5126 4454 5228 4579 1.035 0.218 R2 56 4913 4538 5083 4536 0.686 0.216 R3 242 5448 4515 5086 4625 2.024 0.484 R4 0 4733 4524 5190 4417 0.27 0.129 R5 121 5072 4410 5337 4573 0.866 0.17

int Dose Signal BG Test Signal Test BG Lx/Tx Lx/Tx error 3_6 N Natural 2656 2257 2461 2272 2.111 0.853 a 0.186 R1 121 2407 2227 2585 2289 0.608 0.271 b 0.00599 R2 56 2492 2269 2625 2268 0.625 0.229 R3 242 2771 2257 2557 2312 2.098 0.664 R4 0 2326 2262 2554 2208 0.185 0.199

R5 121 2546 2205 2626 2286 1.003 0.29

206

207

pXRF Data

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #1 Cal Check #2 NIST 2711a 0 0.6 6.42 0.11 24.06 0.11 0.0872 0.0083 0.109 0.0041 0 0.23 2.1819 0.0126 2.6326 0.014 0.3404 0.0126 #3 NIST 2711a 0 0.57 6.55 0.1 24.39 0.11 0.1071 0.0082 0.111 0.004 0 0.23 2.1943 0.0123 2.6352 0.0136 0.3327 0.0123 #4 NIST 2711a 1.31 0.35 6.63 0.11 24.73 0.14 0.0878 0.0081 0.117 0.004 0 0.22 2.2111 0.0145 2.6553 0.0164 0.3139 0.0121 #5 NIST 2710a 0 0.65 6.11 0.1 23.19 0.12 0.0995 0.0078 1.45 0.0106 0 0.26 2.0233 0.0124 0.7555 0.007 0.2956 0.0114 #6 NIST 2710a 0 0.64 6.43 0.1 23.23 0.12 0.0937 0.0077 1.444 0.0106 0 0.26 2.0332 0.0124 0.7437 0.007 0.3125 0.0115 #7 NIST 2710a 0 0.64 6.23 0.1 23.13 0.12 0.0919 0.0077 1.453 0.0107 0 0.26 2.0329 0.0124 0.7601 0.007 0.2945 0.0114 #8 Till-2 0 0.65 8.17 0.11 22.62 0.11 0.0849 0.0074 0.023 0.0035 0 0.28 2.204 0.0128 0.6896 0.0068 0.5002 0.0139 #9 Till-2 0 0.64 8.45 0.11 23.57 0.11 0.0786 0.0075 0.035 0.0037 0 0.28 2.358 0.0135 0.7288 0.0072 0.5201 0.0142 #10 Till-2 1.23 0.37 8.34 0.12 23.75 0.14 0.0845 0.0077 0.037 0.0038 0 0.27 2.3741 0.0161 0.7382 0.0077 0.4942 0.0141 #11 BIR-1 2.6 0.41 9.01 0.13 19.03 0.13 0 0.015 0 0.0076 0 0.21 0 0.018 9.29 0.06 0.5173 0.0157 #12 BIR-1 2.98 0.42 9.01 0.13 19.21 0.13 0 0.0149 0.017 0.0038 0 0.21 0 0.0177 9.41 0.06 0.5407 0.0161 #13 BIR-1 2.64 0.41 8.91 0.12 19.11 0.13 0 0.0148 0 0.0075 0 0.21 0 0.0179 9.3 0.06 0.5029 0.0157 #14 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.65 8.39 0.12 23.15 0.11 0.1262 0.0087 0.159 0.0048 0 0.3 2.4517 0.0142 1.4612 0.01 0.4499 0.0139 #15 MESS-3 Marine Sed 1.21 0.38 8.36 0.12 23.28 0.15 0.1243 0.0087 0.161 0.0048 0 0.29 2.4593 0.017 1.4433 0.0113 0.4462 0.014 #16 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.63 8.53 0.12 23.09 0.11 0.0969 0.0083 0.164 0.0048 0 0.3 2.4386 0.0141 1.4431 0.0099 0.4367 0.0137 #17 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.63 6.27 0.11 18.69 0.1 0 0.0175 0 0.0097 0 0.25 0.2998 0.0054 4.9763 0.0256 0.565 0.0151 #18 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0 0.62 6.62 0.11 18.68 0.1 0 0.0168 0 0.0095 0 0.25 0.3222 0.0054 5.0097 0.0253 0.4731 0.014 #19 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0 0.64 6.38 0.11 18.4 0.1 0 0.0171 0.011 0.0035 0 0.26 0.3109 0.0054 4.841 0.025 0.5073 0.0144 #20 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 1.28 0.4 6.43 0.11 18.78 0.13 0 0.0168 0 0.0097 0 0.25 0.3215 0.0056 4.9359 0.032 0.5471 0.0151 #21 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0 0.64 6.21 0.11 18.48 0.1 0 0.017 0 0.0097 0 0.26 0.3114 0.0054 4.8832 0.0254 0.5088 0.0145 #22 Loess Soil Standard 0 0.58 5.79 0.1 23.93 0.11 0.0784 0.008 0.016 0.0035 0 0.24 1.3559 0.0093 2.4452 0.013 0.4151 0.0133 #23 Loess Soil Standard 1.14 0.35 5.74 0.1 23.89 0.14 0.0712 0.0079 0.02 0.0035 0 0.24 1.3563 0.0104 2.4462 0.0155 0.4199 0.0133 #24 Loess Soil Standard 1.2 0.35 5.69 0.1 23.83 0.14 0.0847 0.008 0.014 0.0034 0 0.24 1.3648 0.0105 2.4432 0.0155 0.4273 0.0135 #25 2016 all runs same position 1.46 0.35 8.59 0.11 22.5 0.13 0.0705 0.0089 0 0.0073 0 0.21 0.5715 0.0067 6.5266 0.0363 0.4421 0.0139 #26 2016 powdered 0 0.47 8.59 0.11 22.34 0.11 0.0534 0.0087 0 0.0074 0 0.21 0.5525 0.0064 6.4708 0.0284 0.4196 0.0135 #27 2016 powdered 0 0.48 8.57 0.11 22.46 0.11 0.0554 0.0087 0 0.0073 0 0.21 0.5656 0.0064 6.4591 0.0284 0.4422 0.0138

#28 2016 shifted from runspowdered 25-27 1.44 0.34 8.67 0.11 22.5 0.13 0.0641 0.0088 0 0.0074 0 0.21 0.5583 0.0067 6.4989 0.0358 0.4379 0.0138

207

208

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #29 2016 same position as powderedrun 28 0 0.47 8.46 0.11 22.45 0.11 0.0564 0.0087 0 0.0074 0 0.21 0.5657 0.0064 6.4445 0.0284 0.396 0.0133 #30 2016 powdered 1.1 0.34 8.73 0.11 22.7 0.13 0.0675 0.0089 0 0.007 0 0.21 0.5627 0.0067 6.5369 0.036 0.4357 0.0139 #31 2020 pellet runs hereafterpowdered 1.41 0.34 9.12 0.11 22.9 0.13 0.0462 0.0084 0 0.0072 0 0.22 0.585 0.0068 5.7101 0.0316 0.4691 0.014 #32 2020 all in same positionpowdered 1.12 0.33 9 0.11 22.98 0.13 0.0473 0.0084 0 0.0072 0 0.22 0.5891 0.0068 5.5932 0.0309 0.4624 0.014 #33 2020 powdered 0 0.48 9.06 0.11 22.78 0.11 0.0525 0.0084 0 0.0075 0 0.22 0.5858 0.0065 5.6178 0.025 0.4436 0.0137 #34 2027 powdered 1.57 0.34 8.49 0.11 21.72 0.13 0.0511 0.008 0 0.0078 0 0.23 0.5368 0.0065 4.8541 0.0278 0.6215 0.015 #35 2027 powdered 1.35 0.34 8.33 0.11 21.63 0.13 0.0549 0.008 0 0.008 0 0.23 0.5331 0.0064 4.7699 0.0272 0.5775 0.0146 #36 2027 powdered 1.43 0.34 8.33 0.11 21.77 0.13 0.0544 0.008 0 0.0079 0 0.23 0.5408 0.0065 4.8359 0.0275 0.6095 0.0147 #37 2033 powdered 0 0.43 7.56 0.1 17.45 0.09 0 0.014 0.012 0.003 0 0.19 0.1897 0.0045 8.7857 0.0376 0.3294 0.0121 #38 2033 powdered 1.1 0.33 7.43 0.1 17.95 0.11 0 0.0138 0 0.0068 0 0.19 0.1931 0.0047 8.8193 0.0477 0.3193 0.0121 #39 2033 powdered 0 0.61 10.31 0.11 20.18 0.1 0.0294 0.0063 0 0.0091 0 0.31 0.1901 0.0048 1.6453 0.0094 0.4207 0.0118 #40 2034b powdered 0 0.61 10 0.11 19.89 0.1 0.0308 0.0062 0 0.0092 0 0.31 0.1779 0.0047 1.6171 0.0093 0.4431 0.012 #41 2034b powdered 0.98 0.31 10.37 0.11 20.35 0.12 0.0371 0.0063 0 0.009 0 0.3 0.1813 0.0048 1.6328 0.0106 0.4248 0.0119 #42 2034b powdered 0 0.61 10.3 0.11 20.31 0.1 0.0291 0.0063 0 0.0092 0 0.31 0.1845 0.0049 1.6424 0.0094 0.429 0.0119 #43 2038 powdered 0 0.62 10.01 0.11 20.35 0.1 0 0.014 0 0.0091 0 0.3 0.1391 0.0047 1.8081 0.0101 0.4074 0.0118 #44 2038 powdered 0 0.6 10.19 0.11 20.44 0.1 0.022 0.0063 0 0.0091 0 0.31 0.1241 0.0047 1.786 0.01 0.4214 0.0118 #45 2038 powdered 1.08 0.32 10.24 0.12 20.79 0.12 0.0214 0.0064 0.01 0.0031 0 0.3 0.133 0.0048 1.8329 0.0117 0.447 0.0123 #46 2047 powdered 1.09 0.33 9.77 0.12 22.34 0.13 0.0408 0.0078 0 0.0077 0 0.25 0.2233 0.0054 4.2788 0.0244 0.5387 0.0142 #47 2047 powdered 0 0.51 9.81 0.11 22.22 0.11 0.0276 0.0076 0 0.0082 0 0.25 0.2165 0.0053 4.2056 0.0197 0.5423 0.014 #48 2047 powdered 1.14 0.33 9.84 0.12 22.47 0.13 0.0512 0.0079 0 0.0076 0 0.25 0.2247 0.0054 4.1958 0.0238 0.5553 0.0143 #49 2501-? powdered 0 0.48 8.7 0.1 22.62 0.1 0.0753 0.0082 0 0.0074 0 0.23 0.6495 0.0066 4.7983 0.0216 0.3963 0.0128 #50 2501-? powdered 0 0.48 8.8 0.11 22.63 0.1 0.0588 0.008 0 0.0074 0 0.23 0.6623 0.0067 4.8264 0.0217 0.406 0.013 #51 2501-? powdered 0 0.49 8.68 0.1 22.56 0.1 0.0554 0.0079 0 0.0074 0 0.23 0.6502 0.0066 4.7082 0.0212 0.3816 0.0126 #52 2058 powdered 1.13 0.32 7.44 0.1 22.3 0.13 0.0522 0.0075 0.087 0.0036 0 0.24 0.4126 0.0058 3.6933 0.0211 0.5098 0.0136 #53 2058 powdered 1.85 0.33 7.47 0.1 22.55 0.13 0.0488 0.0076 0.086 0.0037 0 0.24 0.4235 0.0058 3.7361 0.0214 0.5112 0.0137 #54 2058 powdered 1.5 0.32 7.57 0.1 22.73 0.13 0.0435 0.0075 0.091 0.0037 0 0.24 0.4266 0.0059 3.7311 0.0213 0.5142 0.0137 #55 2059 powdered 1.05 0.33 8.29 0.11 20.56 0.12 0.0451 0.0083 0 0.0076 0 0.22 0.4492 0.006 6.3533 0.0349 0.4371 0.0135 #56 2059 powdered 0 0.47 8.22 0.1 20.49 0.1 0.0358 0.0081 0 0.0072 0 0.22 0.4397 0.0057 6.3629 0.0283 0.4338 0.0132

#57 2059 powdered 0 0.47 8.34 0.1 20.54 0.1 0.0474 0.0082 0 0.0073 0 0.22 0.4406 0.0057 6.3156 0.0279 0.4431 0.0133

208

209

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #58 2065 powdered 0 0.47 8.1 0.1 21.25 0.1 0.0466 0.0082 0 0.0073 0 0.22 0.5476 0.0062 6.1123 0.0272 0.387 0.0129 #59 2065 powdered 0 0.46 8.29 0.1 21.51 0.1 0.0773 0.0086 0 0.0073 0 0.22 0.5682 0.0063 6.1333 0.0271 0.3767 0.0128 #60 2065 powdered 0 0.47 8.14 0.1 21.38 0.1 0.0563 0.0082 0 0.0072 0 0.22 0.5483 0.0062 6.1248 0.0271 0.3844 0.0129 #61 2068 powdered 0 0.49 8.39 0.11 21.13 0.1 0.0539 0.0081 0 0.008 0 0.23 0.5181 0.0061 5.2844 0.0242 0.467 0.0136 #62 2068 powdered 0 0.49 8.19 0.1 20.94 0.1 0.0545 0.008 0 0.008 0 0.23 0.5155 0.006 5.2913 0.0243 0.4844 0.0138 #63 2068 powdered 1.57 0.33 8.59 0.11 21.53 0.12 0.0602 0.0082 0 0.0074 0 0.23 0.5243 0.0064 5.329 0.0296 0.4602 0.0136 #64 2073a powdered 0 0.47 8.98 0.11 23.32 0.11 0.0881 0.0087 0 0.0073 0 0.23 0.6458 0.0068 5.3992 0.0243 0.4251 0.0136 #65 2073a powdered 0 0.47 8.92 0.11 23.12 0.11 0.0631 0.0084 0 0.0077 0 0.23 0.6345 0.0067 5.284 0.0238 0.4046 0.0132 #66 2073a powdered 1.44 0.33 9.23 0.11 23.52 0.13 0.0799 0.0087 0 0.0075 0 0.23 0.6623 0.0072 5.3444 0.0294 0.4532 0.014 #67 2080 powdered 1.73 0.33 8.94 0.11 21.86 0.13 0.0534 0.0082 0 0.0077 0 0.23 0.4837 0.0063 5.5622 0.0307 0.4311 0.0135 #68 2080 powdered 0 0.48 8.86 0.11 21.53 0.1 0.0462 0.0081 0 0.0077 0 0.23 0.4585 0.006 5.4727 0.0246 0.4052 0.013 #69 2080 powdered 0 0.48 8.64 0.11 21.41 0.1 0.0408 0.008 0 0.0078 0 0.23 0.4652 0.0059 5.4186 0.0244 0.4182 0.013 #70 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0 0.48 8.93 0.11 22.43 0.11 0.0636 0.0084 0 0.0078 0 0.23 0.4821 0.0062 5.4564 0.0248 0.4695 0.0139 #71 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 1.54 0.33 9.14 0.11 22.69 0.13 0.0568 0.0084 0 0.0073 0 0.23 0.4717 0.0064 5.4602 0.0302 0.4625 0.0139 #72 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 1.39 0.32 9.05 0.11 22.67 0.13 0.0411 0.0082 0 0.0072 0 0.23 0.4879 0.0064 5.4738 0.0302 0.4734 0.014 #73 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0 0.48 8.58 0.1 21.54 0.1 0.0525 0.0079 0 0.0076 0 0.24 0.5936 0.0064 4.8161 0.022 0.3723 0.0126 #74 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 1.03 0.31 8.7 0.11 21.72 0.12 0.0614 0.008 0 0.0075 0 0.24 0.584 0.0066 4.8681 0.0267 0.3619 0.0125 #75 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0 0.49 8.46 0.1 21.81 0.1 0.0497 0.0079 0 0.0075 0 0.24 0.5855 0.0064 4.917 0.0224 0.3807 0.0127 #76 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 1.32 0.39 3.16 0.08 6.81 0.06 0 0.0131 0 0.0054 0 0.11 0 0.0119 23.37 0.14 0.2994 0.0138 #77 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 1.18 0.39 3.31 0.08 6.82 0.06 0 0.013 0 0.0053 0 0.11 0 0.0119 23.33 0.14 0.309 0.0139 #78 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0 0.29 3.24 0.08 6.7226 0.05 0 0.0131 0 0.0053 0 0.11 0 0.0119 23.58 0.11 0.319 0.0141 #79 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 1.72 0.41 3.35 0.09 7.09 0.06 0 0.0147 0 0.0057 0 0.11 0 0.0128 22.08 0.14 0.3107 0.0143 #80 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 1.47 0.41 3.52 0.09 7.38 0.06 0 0.0138 0 0.006 0 0.12 0 0.0134 21.47 0.14 0.2901 0.0141 #81 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.33 3.64 0.09 7.31 0.05 0 0.0139 0 0.006 0 0.12 0 0.0134 20.63 0.1 0.3085 0.0141 #82 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.49 5.67 0.1 16.63 0.09 0.0282 0.0086 0 0.0084 0 0.21 0.2589 0.005 8.3825 0.0407 0.4594 0.0143 #83 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.56 5.76 0.1 16.86 0.1 0 0.0165 0 0.0096 0 0.24 0.3185 0.0054 6.7107 0.0342 0.4551 0.0144

#84 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.67 6.14 0.1 17.96 0.1 0 0.0167 0 0.0096 0 0.25 0.3557 0.0056 6.2509 0.0315 0.4642 0.0145

209

210

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #85 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 1.53 2.15 0.09 2.917 0.038 0.0397 0.0069 0.058 0.0037 0 0.58 0.3311 0.0048 2.2989 0.0157 0.3237 0.0114 #86 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 1.48 2.28 0.09 3.2884 0.04 0 0.0363 0.06 0.0036 0 0.55 0.2679 0.0044 2.3385 0.0157 0.3152 0.0111 #87 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 2.17 0.57 2.44 0.09 3.7663 0.049 0.0367 0.0071 0.062 0.0038 0 0.56 0.3742 0.0056 2.3658 0.0211 0.3183 0.0117 #88 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.53 6.46 0.1 16.38 0.09 0.0275 0.008 0.04 0.0034 0 0.24 0.4266 0.0056 6.4403 0.032 0.5567 0.0147 #89 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.55 6.67 0.1 16.42 0.09 0.0354 0.0081 0.041 0.0035 0 0.25 0.4063 0.0056 6.0181 0.0305 0.6751 0.016 #90 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.53 6.73 0.1 16.34 0.09 0.0308 0.008 0.035 0.0034 0 0.24 0.3842 0.0055 6.1022 0.0306 0.607 0.0153 #91 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.69 0.38 6.81 0.11 18.04 0.12 0 0.0164 0 0.0094 0 0.24 0.3389 0.0058 6.4489 0.0401 0.4974 0.0151 #92 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.15 0.37 6.87 0.11 18.3 0.12 0 0.0163 0 0.0097 0 0.26 0.3935 0.0061 5.9121 0.0371 0.5112 0.0152 #93 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.57 6.85 0.11 18.46 0.1 0 0.0168 0 0.0093 0 0.25 0.4266 0.0061 5.9589 0.0303 0.419 0.0143 #94 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.26 0.37 6.94 0.11 18.31 0.12 0 0.0164 0 0.0097 0 0.25 0.458 0.0064 5.9162 0.0368 0.3801 0.0137 #95 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.58 6.64 0.11 17.92 0.1 0 0.0173 0 0.0103 0 0.26 0.4398 0.0061 5.7817 0.0299 0.3678 0.0137 #96 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.58 6.64 0.11 17.93 0.1 0 0.0171 0 0.0101 0 0.26 0.4671 0.0063 6.2816 0.0323 0.3603 0.0138 #97 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.55 6.44 0.1 15.39 0.09 0 0.0165 0 0.0091 0 0.26 0.1738 0.0044 4.7816 0.025 1.2185 0.0189 #98 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.33 0.37 6.5 0.11 15.79 0.11 0.0304 0.0078 0 0.0101 0 0.26 0.22 0.0049 5.124 0.0328 0.9467 0.0183 #99 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.99 0.38 6.49 0.11 16.82 0.12 0.0311 0.0083 0.02 0.0035 0 0.25 0.2946 0.0055 5.6439 0.0363 0.6423 0.0162 #100 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.34 0.36 6.82 0.11 17.05 0.11 0.0348 0.0077 0 0.0097 0 0.26 0.2532 0.0051 4.9015 0.0306 1.0296 0.0186 #101 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.55 0.36 6.66 0.11 16.81 0.11 0.0255 0.0076 0 0.0096 0 0.27 0.2896 0.0053 4.6016 0.0292 0.8521 0.0175 #102 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.85 0.37 6.56 0.11 17.18 0.12 0 0.0169 0.012 0.0034 0 0.27 0.2757 0.0053 4.5238 0.029 0.7022 0.0164 #103 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.39 0.33 7.77 0.11 19.25 0.12 0 0.0152 0 0.0091 0 0.26 0.4681 0.0061 4.3703 0.0259 0.4757 0.0138 #104 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.47 0.35 7.22 0.11 18.41 0.12 0.0309 0.0077 0 0.0101 0 0.27 0.4425 0.0061 4.2518 0.0261 0.4451 0.0137 #105 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.74 0.36 7.29 0.11 18.61 0.12 0.0251 0.008 0 0.0098 0 0.26 0.4213 0.0061 4.8829 0.0301 0.479 0.0145 #106 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.23 0.34 7.55 0.11 19.48 0.12 0.0272 0.0079 0 0.0096 0 0.27 0.5145 0.0065 4.4092 0.0266 0.44 0.0138 #107 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.63 0.37 7.25 0.11 18.41 0.12 0.0361 0.0082 0 0.0103 0 0.28 0.4307 0.0063 4.4638 0.0287 0.6325 0.0162 #108 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 1.22 0.36 7.62 0.11 19.67 0.13 0 0.0163 0 0.0096 0 0.28 0.5324 0.0068 4.2782 0.0266 0.419 0.0139 #109 2012 aggregate 0 0.41 5.68 0.1 13.09 0.08 0 0.0151 0 0.0076 0 0.18 0.161 0.0043 11.77 0.06 0.3976 0.0138 #110 2012 aggregate 1.49 0.38 5.58 0.1 12.57 0.09 0 0.0168 0 0.0077 0 0.18 0.1162 0.0043 12.21 0.07 0.3268 0.0135

#111 2012 aggregate 0 0.42 5.75 0.1 12.46 0.08 0 0.0152 0 0.0074 0 0.18 0.1324 0.0043 12.71 0.06 0.381 0.0141

210

211

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #112 2027 aggregate 0 0.59 7.25 0.11 19.78 0.11 0.0472 0.0079 0 0.01 0 0.27 0.5524 0.0064 3.9426 0.0202 0.3787 0.0129 #113 2027 aggregate 0 0.61 7.27 0.11 19.59 0.11 0.0467 0.0082 0 0.0108 0 0.29 0.571 0.0067 3.8109 0.0204 0.4436 0.0141 #114 2027 aggregate 0 0.6 6.96 0.11 19.84 0.11 0.0777 0.0087 0 0.0101 0 0.28 0.5956 0.0068 4.3046 0.0226 0.4581 0.0143 #115 2031 aggregate 1.39 0.34 7.81 0.11 19.17 0.12 0 0.0155 0 0.0095 0 0.27 0.4395 0.0061 4.4345 0.0265 0.4126 0.0133 #116 2031 aggregate 1.18 0.34 7.45 0.11 18.52 0.12 0 0.0161 0 0.0103 0 0.28 0.4057 0.0059 3.8014 0.0235 0.4194 0.0133 #117 2031 aggregate 0 0.6 7.4 0.11 18.8 0.1 0 0.0166 0 0.0105 0 0.29 0.425 0.006 3.9504 0.0207 0.4092 0.0134 #118 2033 aggregate 0 0.55 7.28 0.11 17.24 0.1 0 0.0162 0 0.0096 0 0.26 0.1889 0.005 5.8288 0.0292 0.42 0.0136 #119 2033 aggregate 1.19 0.38 6.53 0.11 15.97 0.11 0 0.0174 0 0.0102 0 0.25 0.1795 0.0051 6.7837 0.0434 0.4178 0.0143 #120 2033 aggregate 0 0.57 6.74 0.11 16.53 0.1 0 0.0172 0 0.0101 0 0.26 0.1908 0.005 6.0399 0.0312 0.4225 0.0139 #121 2034a aggregate 0 0.62 7.76 0.11 17.48 0.1 0 0.0171 0 0.0108 0 0.3 0.1002 0.0047 3.8973 0.0204 0.391 0.0128 #122 2034a aggregate 1.09 0.35 7.63 0.11 17.63 0.12 0 0.017 0 0.0113 0 0.31 0.1083 0.0047 3.2829 0.021 0.4224 0.013 #123 2034a aggregate 0 0.65 7.69 0.11 17.85 0.1 0 0.017 0 0.0111 0 0.31 0.1182 0.0047 3.1942 0.0171 0.4004 0.0126 #124 2035a aggregate 0 0.42 6.19 0.1 14.31 0.08 0.0326 0.0088 0 0.0077 0 0.19 0.2115 0.0046 10.72 0.05 0.3584 0.0132 #126 2035a aggregate 1.12 0.37 6.1 0.1 14.14 0.1 0.0287 0.0091 0 0.0077 0 0.19 0.1961 0.0048 11.25 0.07 0.3727 0.0139 #127 2035a aggregate 0 0.42 5.96 0.1 14.05 0.08 0 0.0152 0 0.0077 0 0.19 0.2027 0.0046 11.06 0.05 0.3628 0.0135 #128 2034b aggregate 1.65 0.36 8.28 0.12 16.29 0.11 0 0.0184 0 0.0133 0 0.37 0.1742 0.0048 1.4626 0.0108 0.437 0.0126 #131 2034b aggregate 1.45 0.35 8.52 0.12 16.48 0.11 0 0.0178 0 0.0131 0 0.38 0.1588 0.0048 1.3903 0.0103 0.4311 0.0125 #132 2034b aggregate 0 0.79 8.49 0.11 16.52 0.1 0 0.0183 0 0.0126 0 0.38 0.1543 0.0048 1.4003 0.0093 0.4237 0.0124 #133 Cal Check tested 3.89 0.65 1.51 0.1 0.5732 0.021 0.1124 0.0081 0.949 0.0105 0 0.26 0.8395 0.0092 0.151 0.0046 0 0.0275 #134 NIST 2710a 0 0.58 5.55 0.1 22.88 0.12 0.1002 0.0075 1.488 0.0107 0 0.27 2.032 0.0125 0.6721 0.0067 0.2874 0.0112 #135 NIST 2711a 0 0.53 6.17 0.1 23.93 0.11 0.0996 0.008 0.092 0.0039 0 0.24 2.1722 0.0126 2.5829 0.0138 0.3075 0.0122 #136 BIR-1 2.13 0.39 8.48 0.12 17.98 0.12 0 0.0163 0 0.0078 0 0.22 0 0.0182 9.4 0.06 0.5275 0.016 #137 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.61 8.01 0.11 22.63 0.11 0.1268 0.0084 0.11 0.0044 0 0.31 2.4831 0.0144 1.3202 0.0095 0.4355 0.0137

#138 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.61 5.74 0.1 17.78 0.1 0 0.0173 0 0.0098 0 0.26 0.2856 0.0053 4.9091 0.0258 0.5117 0.0145

211

212

Reading Sample Notes Mg Mg +/- Al Al +/- Si Si +/- P P +/- S S +/- Cl Cl +/- K K +/- Ca Ca +/- Ti Ti +/- #139 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.23 0.38 6.37 0.11 18.11 0.12 0.034 0.0087 0 0.0092 0 0.25 0.4182 0.0062 6.2476 0.0393 0.4257 0.0144 #140 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.59 6.09 0.1 17.15 0.1 0.0348 0.0086 0 0.0096 0 0.26 0.4367 0.006 6.0123 0.0313 0.3791 0.0138 #141 2027 shaken aggregate 0 0.67 6.45 0.11 18.65 0.11 0 0.0173 0 0.0102 0 0.29 0.5403 0.0064 3.4281 0.0189 0.4308 0.0137 #142 2027 shaken aggregate 1.22 0.37 6.66 0.11 19.41 0.13 0 0.017 0 0.0099 0 0.28 0.5253 0.0068 4.0365 0.0262 0.3971 0.0138 #143 2027 shaken aggregate 0 0.62 6 0.1 19.55 0.11 0 0.0165 0 0.0101 0 0.27 0.5397 0.0064 3.9358 0.0211 0.5053 0.0146 #144 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.59 6.29 0.1 16.07 0.09 0 0.0186 0 0.0093 0 0.26 0.1582 0.0048 5.8987 0.0303 0.4051 0.0134 #145 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.59 6.23 0.1 15.77 0.09 0 0.0175 0 0.0094 0 0.26 0.155 0.0047 5.8736 0.0306 0.4173 0.0137 #146 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.58 5.88 0.1 14.84 0.09 0 0.0189 0 0.0093 0 0.25 0.1485 0.0045 6.126 0.0319 0.3967 0.0134 #147 2038 shaken aggregate 0 0.7 8.69 0.11 17.88 0.1 0.0247 0.0068 0 0.0114 0 0.35 0.1256 0.0048 1.8538 0.0112 0.4693 0.013 #148 2038 shaken aggregate 0 0.76 8.24 0.11 16.99 0.1 0 0.0192 0 0.012 0 0.36 0.1089 0.0047 1.7762 0.011 0.4922 0.0133 #149 2038 shaken aggregate 1.19 0.37 8.28 0.12 16.88 0.12 0.0319 0.0068 0 0.0121 0 0.37 0.0995 0.0047 1.6763 0.0121 0.4419 0.0128 #150 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.77 7.95 0.11 16.7 0.1 0 0.0184 0 0.0122 0 0.37 0.1047 0.0046 1.6886 0.0106 0.425 0.0125 #151 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.74 7.93 0.11 16.47 0.1 0 0.018 0 0.0121 0 0.37 0.0972 0.0045 1.6315 0.0101 0.412 0.0121 #152 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.82 7.43 0.11 15.67 0.09 0 0.0193 0 0.013 0 0.38 0.0787 0.0044 1.647 0.0105 0.4073 0.0122 #153 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.62 8.31 0.11 18.11 0.1 0.0249 0.0073 0 0.0097 0 0.3 0.1515 0.0049 3.4207 0.0179 0.4187 0.0129 #154 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.71 8 0.11 16.96 0.1 0 0.0176 0 0.0119 0 0.34 0.194 0.005 2.4823 0.014 0.3391 0.0119 #155 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.72 7.94 0.11 17.03 0.1 0 0.0186 0 0.012 0 0.35 0.1965 0.0052 2.6454 0.0152 0.3305 0.0122 #156 2057 shaken aggregate 1.45 0.35 6.32 0.1 16.73 0.11 0.0547 0.0071 0 0.0102 0 0.29 0.32 0.0052 3.1372 0.0205 1.193 0.019 #157 2057 shaken aggregate 0 0.61 6.17 0.1 16.96 0.1 0.0625 0.0072 0 0.0101 0 0.28 0.3214 0.0051 3.2603 0.0179 1.0529 0.0177 #158 2057 shaken aggregate 1.24 0.36 6.15 0.1 16.65 0.12 0.0452 0.0072 0 0.0105 0 0.29 0.3058 0.0053 3.2599 0.0216 1.0554 0.0185 #159 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.68 5.8 0.1 14.92 0.09 0.0884 0.0075 0.293 0.0049 0 0.32 0.2577 0.0048 2.7676 0.0163 0.8062 0.0156 #160 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.68 5.83 0.1 15.51 0.1 0.0841 0.0078 0.219 0.0046 0 0.31 0.2555 0.005 3.1093 0.0181 0.8384 0.0165 #161 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.69 5.78 0.1 15.23 0.1 0.0866 0.0078 0.2 0.0045 0 0.32 0.2006 0.0047 3.1862 0.0184 0.7354 0.0156 #162 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 2 0.35 5.45 0.1 14.89 0.1 0.0825 0.0071 0 0.0098 0 0.27 0.2053 0.0045 3.2999 0.0215 1.7406 0.0222 #176 Cal Check tested aggregate 3.77 0.72 1.47 0.11 0.5514 0.021 0.1036 0.0082 0.93 0.0108 0 0.26 0.8655 0.0098 0.1439 0.0046 0 0.0279 #177 Cal Check aggregate #178 NIST 2710a aggregate 0 0.64 5.77 0.1 23.14 0.12 0.1045 0.0078 1.502 0.0109 0 0.26 2.0401 0.0125 0.6896 0.0068 0.2958 0.0114 #179 NIST 2711a aggregate 0 0.55 6.19 0.1 24.13 0.11 0.1092 0.0082 0.09 0.0039 0 0.23 2.2056 0.0126 2.5971 0.0137 0.3448 0.0126 #180 BIR-1 aggregate 2.77 0.41 8.35 0.12 17.67 0.12 0 0.0158 0 0.0072 0 0.21 0 0.0165 9.48 0.06 0.5067 0.0157 #181 MESS-3 Marine Sed aggregate 1.45 0.38 8.09 0.12 22.98 0.14 0.1325 0.0086 0.113 0.0045 0 0.3 2.5207 0.0174 1.3269 0.0107 0.4426 0.0139 #182 NDGR-2018 standard aggregate 0 0.6 5.96 0.1 18.34 0.1 0 0.0167 0 0.0091 0 0.25 0.2715 0.0051 4.9822 0.0254 0.5083 0.0142 #183 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 1.85 0.4 6.42 0.11 18.46 0.13 0 0.0164 0 0.0087 0 0.23 0.4242 0.0062 6.2927 0.0399 0.4447 0.0146

#184 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.59 6.16 0.1 18.12 0.1 0 0.0167 0 0.0089 0 0.24 0.4803 0.0061 6.2759 0.0314 0.3576 0.0134

212

213

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #1 Cal Check #2 NIST 2711a 0.0396 0.0056 0.0085 0.0025 0.0806 0.0031 3.5278 0.0205 0.0188 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0176 0.0007 0.0436 0.0008 0.0088 0.001 #3 NIST 2711a 0.0315 0.0053 0.0136 0.0025 0.0699 0.0029 3.4611 0.0197 0.0242 0.0025 0 0.0037 0.0163 0.0007 0.0433 0.0008 0.0074 0.0009 #4 NIST 2711a 0.0374 0.0053 0.0177 0.0026 0.0727 0.0029 3.4765 0.0231 0.0232 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0157 0.0007 0.0417 0.0008 0.0066 0.0009 #5 NIST 2710a 0.0436 0.0051 0 0.0074 0.2118 0.0044 5.1894 0.0282 0.034 0.0029 0 0.0038 0.3735 0.0033 0.4162 0.0031 0.1422 0.0022 #6 NIST 2710a 0.0421 0.0051 0.0071 0.0023 0.2249 0.0045 5.2562 0.0282 0.0306 0.0029 0 0.0037 0.3822 0.0033 0.4239 0.0031 0.1449 0.0022 #7 NIST 2710a 0.0367 0.005 0.009 0.0023 0.222 0.0045 5.2383 0.0285 0.0319 0.003 0 0.0037 0.3774 0.0033 0.421 0.0031 0.1522 0.0022 #8 Till-2 0.0376 0.0055 0.01 0.0024 0.0856 0.0031 5.0132 0.0268 0.0309 0.0029 0 0.0009 0.021 0.0008 0.0145 0.0005 0.0032 0.0002 #9 Till-2 0.0346 0.0055 0.0153 0.0025 0.0845 0.0031 5.0629 0.0268 0.0301 0.0029 0 0.004 0.0203 0.0008 0.0146 0.0005 0.0032 0.0002 #10 Till-2 0.0401 0.0056 0.0137 0.0025 0.0907 0.0032 5.0539 0.0325 0.0339 0.003 0 0.004 0.0218 0.0008 0.0143 0.0005 0.0029 0.0002 #11 BIR-1 0.0461 0.0063 0.0289 0.0031 0.1268 0.0042 9.4 0.06 0.0673 0.0045 0 0.0014 0.0173 0.0009 0.0073 0.0005 0 0.0014 #12 BIR-1 0.0398 0.0063 0.0343 0.0032 0.1281 0.0042 9.53 0.06 0.0734 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.0165 0.0009 0.0084 0.0005 0 0.0014 #13 BIR-1 0.04 0.0062 0.0325 0.0032 0.1316 0.0043 9.56 0.06 0.0654 0.0045 0 0.0015 0.017 0.0009 0.0073 0.0005 0 0.0014 #14 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0608 0.006 0.0155 0.0027 0.0414 0.0026 5.5465 0.0296 0.036 0.0032 0 0.0043 0.006 0.0006 0.0177 0.0006 0.0022 0.0002 #15 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0585 0.006 0.0076 0.0025 0.0367 0.0025 5.543 0.0363 0.0349 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0055 0.0006 0.0176 0.0006 0.0026 0.0002 #16 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0719 0.0061 0.0143 0.0026 0.0367 0.0025 5.4842 0.0291 0.0342 0.0031 0 0.001 0.0056 0.0006 0.0172 0.0006 0.0029 0.0002 #17 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0557 0.006 0.0078 0.0025 0.1384 0.004 6.8233 0.0376 0.0322 0.0036 0 0.0043 0.0046 0.0006 0.0082 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #18 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0.05 0.0057 0.0091 0.0024 0.1425 0.0039 6.8437 0.0371 0.0348 0.0035 0 0.0043 0.0048 0.0006 0.0071 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #19 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0.051 0.0058 0 0.0085 0.1387 0.0039 7.1753 0.0393 0.0411 0.0037 0 0.0042 0.0038 0.0006 0.0083 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #20 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.0581 0.0061 0 0.0088 0.1354 0.004 7.3511 0.0495 0.0364 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0038 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #21 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.0562 0.0059 0 0.0085 0.1406 0.004 7.2664 0.0401 0.0444 0.0037 0 0.0044 0.0039 0.0006 0.0091 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #22 Loess Soil Standard 0.0452 0.0056 0.0108 0.0024 0.0982 0.0032 3.4331 0.0199 0.0216 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0041 0.0005 0.0072 0.0004 0.0014 0.0002 #23 Loess Soil Standard 0.0324 0.0054 0.0138 0.0025 0.0993 0.0033 3.4002 0.0229 0.0265 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.004 0.0005 0.0066 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #24 Loess Soil Standard 0.038 0.0056 0.0122 0.0025 0.0962 0.0032 3.4327 0.0232 0.0229 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0037 0.0005 0.0072 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #25 2016 all runs same position 0.0441 0.0057 0.0088 0.0025 0.1284 0.0038 6.434 0.0388 0.0453 0.0035 0 0.004 0.0029 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0 0.0016 #26 2016 powdered 0.0561 0.0058 0.0076 0.0025 0.1273 0.0037 6.3864 0.0318 0.0428 0.0034 0 0.004 0.003 0.0005 0.008 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #27 2016 powdered 0.0576 0.0059 0.0079 0.0025 0.1252 0.0037 6.4095 0.0319 0.0456 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0033 0.0005 0.0083 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002

#28 2016 shifted from runspowdered 25-27 0.0482 0.0058 0 0.0081 0.1329 0.0038 6.3981 0.0384 0.0477 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.004 0.0005 0.0074 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002

213

214

#28 2016 shifted from runspowdered 25-27 0.0482 0.0058 0 0.0081 0.1329 0.0038 6.3981 0.0384 0.0477 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.004 0.0005 0.0074 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002

214

215

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #29 2016 same position as powderedrun 28 0.0453 0.0056 0 0.0081 0.1336 0.0038 6.4081 0.032 0.045 0.0034 0 0.004 0.004 0.0005 0.0078 0.0004 0 0.0016 #30 2016 powdered 0.0489 0.0058 0 0.008 0.1289 0.0038 6.475 0.0387 0.0474 0.0035 0 0.004 0.0033 0.0005 0.0076 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #31 2020 pellet runs hereafterpowdered 0.0372 0.0056 0 0.008 0.1177 0.0036 6.5071 0.0386 0.0462 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0027 0.0005 0.0084 0.0004 0 0.0016 #32 2020 all in same positionpowdered 0.0482 0.0058 0.0079 0.0024 0.1164 0.0036 6.4526 0.0383 0.0458 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0038 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0 0.0016 #33 2020 powdered 0.0437 0.0056 0.0072 0.0024 0.1171 0.0036 6.4728 0.0321 0.0444 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0037 0.0005 0.0078 0.0004 0 0.0015 #34 2027 powdered 0.0501 0.0057 0.0083 0.0024 0.1289 0.0037 8.85 0.05 0.0613 0.0039 0 0.004 0.0034 0.0005 0.0102 0.0005 0 0.0015 #35 2027 powdered 0.0557 0.0058 0 0.008 0.1337 0.0038 8.85 0.05 0.0592 0.0039 0 0.0039 0.0032 0.0005 0.0104 0.0005 0.0006 0.0002 #36 2027 powdered 0.0419 0.0056 0 0.008 0.1376 0.0038 8.8 0.05 0.0526 0.0038 0 0.004 0.0038 0.0005 0.0102 0.0005 0 0.0015 #37 2033 powdered 0.0432 0.0053 0 0.0077 0.0813 0.003 4.8285 0.0254 0.0387 0.0029 0 0.0039 0.004 0.0005 0.006 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #38 2033 powdered 0.0306 0.0052 0 0.0076 0.0777 0.003 4.927 0.0306 0.0324 0.0029 0 0.0039 0.0039 0.0005 0.0059 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #39 2033 powdered 0.0322 0.0047 0 0.0073 0.1053 0.0031 6.4445 0.0309 0.0474 0.0031 0 0.0037 0.0061 0.0005 0.0078 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 #40 2034b powdered 0.0269 0.0046 0 0.0072 0.1012 0.003 6.4903 0.0313 0.0394 0.003 0 0.0037 0.0068 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #41 2034b powdered 0.0324 0.0047 0 0.0072 0.1019 0.003 6.4909 0.0368 0.0439 0.003 0 0.0035 0.0058 0.0005 0.0081 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #42 2034b powdered 0.0322 0.0047 0 0.0073 0.1059 0.0031 6.448 0.031 0.0442 0.0031 0 0.0037 0.0061 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #43 2038 powdered 0.038 0.0048 0 0.0073 0.1015 0.0031 6.6211 0.0319 0.0413 0.0031 0 0.0037 0.0062 0.0005 0.0079 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #44 2038 powdered 0.0405 0.0048 0 0.0072 0.1001 0.003 6.5919 0.0315 0.0416 0.0031 0 0.0036 0.0067 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 #45 2038 powdered 0.0346 0.0049 0 0.0073 0.103 0.0031 6.7041 0.0385 0.0496 0.0032 0 0.0037 0.0059 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #46 2047 powdered 0.0542 0.0057 0 0.0079 0.1292 0.0037 8.3366 0.048 0.0544 0.0038 0 0.0042 0.0048 0.0006 0.0099 0.0005 0 0.0016 #47 2047 powdered 0.0496 0.0056 0 0.0077 0.1301 0.0037 8.1632 0.0387 0.0521 0.0037 0 0.0039 0.0058 0.0006 0.01 0.0005 0 0.0016 #48 2047 powdered 0.0374 0.0055 0 0.0079 0.1342 0.0038 8.2635 0.0473 0.0561 0.0038 0 0.004 0.0048 0.0006 0.0095 0.0005 0 0.0016 #49 2501-? powdered 0.0361 0.0053 0 0.0077 0.1118 0.0034 5.4792 0.0277 0.0351 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0034 0.0005 0.0068 0.0004 0 0.0016 #50 2501-? powdered 0.0425 0.0055 0 0.0079 0.1141 0.0035 5.5499 0.028 0.0396 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0029 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #51 2501-? powdered 0.042 0.0053 0.0089 0.0023 0.1052 0.0033 5.4286 0.0274 0.0394 0.0031 0 0.0038 0.0037 0.0005 0.0069 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #52 2058 powdered 0.0437 0.0053 0 0.0078 0.0991 0.0032 7.0992 0.0412 0.0529 0.0034 0 0.0039 0.0027 0.0005 0.008 0.0004 0.0013 0.0002 #53 2058 powdered 0.0387 0.0053 0 0.0078 0.1033 0.0033 7.1709 0.0417 0.0475 0.0034 0 0.0039 0.003 0.0005 0.0083 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #54 2058 powdered 0.0445 0.0054 0.0073 0.0023 0.1021 0.0033 7.1789 0.0416 0.0503 0.0034 0 0.0039 0.0038 0.0005 0.0086 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #55 2059 powdered 0.043 0.0055 0.0074 0.0024 0.1056 0.0034 6.3581 0.0379 0.0467 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0031 0.0005 0.0072 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #56 2059 powdered 0.0376 0.0054 0 0.0076 0.1105 0.0034 6.31 0.0316 0.0458 0.0033 0 0.004 0.0046 0.0005 0.0076 0.0004 0 0.0015

#57 2059 powdered 0.0471 0.0056 0 0.008 0.1106 0.0034 6.3322 0.0316 0.0453 0.0033 0 0.0039 0.0032 0.0005 0.0078 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002

215

216

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #58 2065 powdered 0.0383 0.0054 0.0086 0.0024 0.1148 0.0035 5.4852 0.0283 0.0402 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0032 0.0005 0.007 0.0004 0 0.0016 #59 2065 powdered 0.0425 0.0055 0 0.0079 0.1125 0.0035 5.5464 0.0284 0.0347 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0029 0.0005 0.0071 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #60 2065 powdered 0.052 0.0056 0 0.0077 0.1171 0.0035 5.5113 0.0283 0.0378 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0036 0.0005 0.0073 0.0004 0 0.0016 #61 2068 powdered 0.0469 0.0056 0 0.0078 0.1181 0.0035 6.5537 0.0328 0.0455 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0033 0.0005 0.0079 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #62 2068 powdered 0.0472 0.0056 0 0.0078 0.1213 0.0036 6.5609 0.033 0.0448 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0034 0.0005 0.0073 0.0004 0 0.0015 #63 2068 powdered 0.0405 0.0055 0.0081 0.0024 0.1244 0.0036 6.5682 0.0389 0.0423 0.0034 0 0.0039 0.0027 0.0005 0.0074 0.0004 0 0.0015 #64 2073a powdered 0.0408 0.0056 0 0.008 0.1265 0.0037 6.5294 0.0324 0.0384 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0042 0.0006 0.008 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #65 2073a powdered 0.0596 0.0058 0 0.0081 0.1294 0.0037 6.4367 0.0319 0.0429 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0052 0.0006 0.0078 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #66 2073a powdered 0.046 0.0058 0 0.0079 0.1248 0.0037 6.5588 0.0386 0.045 0.0035 0 0.004 0.0043 0.0005 0.0073 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #67 2080 powdered 0.0372 0.0055 0.0073 0.0024 0.1193 0.0036 6.3381 0.0376 0.0393 0.0033 0 0.004 0.0041 0.0005 0.0073 0.0004 0 0.0016 #68 2080 powdered 0.0386 0.0054 0 0.0077 0.121 0.0036 6.2934 0.0314 0.0425 0.0033 0 0.0039 0.003 0.0005 0.0077 0.0004 0 0.0016 #69 2080 powdered 0.0473 0.0055 0.0106 0.0024 0.1121 0.0035 6.2395 0.0312 0.0394 0.0033 0 0.0039 0.0023 0.0005 0.0076 0.0004 0 0.0015 #70 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.0522 0.0058 0 0.0083 0.1254 0.0037 7.3424 0.0359 0.0457 0.0036 0 0.0041 0.003 0.0005 0.0091 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #71 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.049 0.0057 0 0.0082 0.1264 0.0037 7.3562 0.0428 0.0513 0.0037 0 0.0041 0.0043 0.0006 0.0082 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #72 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.0373 0.0056 0.0104 0.0025 0.1367 0.0039 7.3592 0.0428 0.0534 0.0037 0 0.0042 0.0032 0.0005 0.0097 0.0005 0 0.0016 #73 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0519 0.0055 0.0078 0.0024 0.1042 0.0033 5.5644 0.0284 0.0309 0.0031 0 0.0038 0.0029 0.0005 0.0078 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #74 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0442 0.0054 0 0.0078 0.1072 0.0034 5.5624 0.0331 0.0444 0.0031 0 0.0039 0.0037 0.0005 0.0062 0.0004 0 0.0016 #75 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0511 0.0055 0 0.0078 0.106 0.0034 5.5813 0.0285 0.0498 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0041 0.0005 0.0069 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #76 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0436 0.0064 0.0141 0.0029 0.1337 0.0043 3.7182 0.0279 0.0258 0.003 0 0.0044 0.0054 0.0006 0.0055 0.0004 0 0.0018 #77 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0317 0.0061 0.0088 0.0028 0.1421 0.0044 3.7247 0.0278 0.025 0.003 0 0.0009 0.0032 0.0005 0.0052 0.0004 0 0.0018 #78 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0437 0.0064 0.0098 0.0029 0.1559 0.0046 3.7672 0.0243 0.0301 0.003 0 0.0046 0.0043 0.0006 0.0053 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #79 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0478 0.0066 0.0119 0.003 0.1475 0.0046 3.8644 0.0299 0.0283 0.0031 0 0.001 0.0042 0.0006 0.0056 0.0004 0 0.0019 #80 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.034 0.0064 0.0131 0.003 0.1436 0.0046 3.8384 0.03 0.0242 0.0031 0 0.001 0.0049 0.0006 0.0058 0.0004 0 0.0019 #81 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0384 0.0064 0 0.0089 0.15 0.0045 4.1703 0.027 0.0295 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0047 0.0006 0.0061 0.0004 0 0.0019 #82 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0436 0.0059 0.0075 0.0025 0.166 0.0043 6.3009 0.035 0.0385 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.0039 0.0006 0.0076 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #83 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0495 0.006 0 0.0088 0.1496 0.0042 5.9343 0.0343 0.0503 0.0035 0 0.0043 0.0039 0.0006 0.0074 0.0005 0.0006 0.0002

#84 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0598 0.0062 0 0.0089 0.1364 0.004 5.851 0.0334 0.0372 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.004 0.0006 0.0075 0.0005 0 0.0018

216

217

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #85 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0377 0.0048 0 0.0085 0.0821 0.003 4.2175 0.03 0.029 0.0027 0 0.0043 0.0035 0.0005 0.0063 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #86 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0379 0.0047 0 0.0082 0.0969 0.0031 4.3957 0.0305 0.0318 0.0027 0 0.0042 0.0042 0.0005 0.007 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #87 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0312 0.0048 0.0074 0.0021 0.0966 0.0033 4.656 0.0422 0.0396 0.0029 0 0.0044 0.0038 0.0005 0.0073 0.0004 0 0.0018 #88 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0593 0.006 0.0087 0.0025 0.1674 0.0042 7.332 0.0397 0.0508 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0055 0.0006 0.0092 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #89 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0739 0.0064 0 0.0087 0.1782 0.0044 7.5857 0.0414 0.0395 0.0038 0 0.0043 0.0042 0.0006 0.0093 0.0005 0 0.0017 #90 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0525 0.006 0.009 0.0025 0.1736 0.0043 7.5461 0.0409 0.0458 0.0038 0 0.0042 0.005 0.0006 0.01 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #91 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0483 0.0061 0 0.0086 0.1461 0.0042 6.2611 0.0422 0.0376 0.0036 0 0.0043 0.0046 0.0006 0.0077 0.0005 0 0.0017 #92 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.041 0.006 0 0.0088 0.1436 0.0042 6.276 0.0423 0.0421 0.0036 0 0.0045 0.0039 0.0006 0.0071 0.0005 0 0.0017 #93 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0447 0.006 0 0.0088 0.1254 0.0039 5.425 0.0316 0.0378 0.0034 0 0.0042 0.0052 0.0006 0.0069 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #94 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0502 0.006 0.0085 0.0026 0.1714 0.0045 5.3865 0.0369 0.0322 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.0046 0.0006 0.0077 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #95 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0546 0.0061 0 0.009 0.1356 0.0041 5.1771 0.0309 0.0374 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.0036 0.0006 0.0063 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #96 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0554 0.0062 0 0.0089 0.1087 0.0038 5.0238 0.0303 0.035 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.0037 0.0006 0.0068 0.0004 0 0.0018 #97 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0796 0.0066 0 0.0085 0.1664 0.0042 11.66 0.06 0.0489 0.0044 0 0.004 0.0046 0.0006 0.0106 0.0006 0 0.0013 #98 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0692 0.0065 0 0.0087 0.1678 0.0043 9.69 0.06 0.0433 0.0042 0 0.0042 0.0047 0.0006 0.0094 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #99 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0703 0.0064 0 0.009 0.1425 0.0041 7.86 0.05 0.0416 0.0039 0 0.0043 0.0035 0.0006 0.0076 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #100 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0804 0.0067 0 0.0087 0.1632 0.0043 10.79 0.07 0.056 0.0044 0 0.0042 0.0046 0.0006 0.0107 0.0006 0.0008 0.0002 #101 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0631 0.0064 0 0.0087 0.147 0.0041 8.2 0.05 0.0304 0.0038 0 0.0043 0.0041 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.0011 0.0002 #102 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0513 0.0061 0 0.0084 0.1402 0.004 7.2853 0.0483 0.0309 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0032 0.0006 0.0079 0.0005 0 0.0017 #103 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0537 0.0057 0.0108 0.0024 0.1177 0.0036 6.0514 0.0378 0.0332 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0036 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #104 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0569 0.0058 0 0.0085 0.1141 0.0036 5.8848 0.0381 0.0287 0.0032 0 0.0041 0.0046 0.0006 0.007 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 #105 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0474 0.0059 0 0.0086 0.108 0.0036 5.6068 0.0372 0.0294 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0039 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #106 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0366 0.0056 0 0.0083 0.108 0.0035 5.283 0.0344 0.0357 0.0031 0 0.004 0.0043 0.0005 0.007 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #107 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0619 0.0064 0 0.0088 0.1229 0.0039 6.8746 0.046 0.0381 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0043 0.0006 0.0078 0.0005 0 0.0017 #108 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0566 0.006 0.0091 0.0026 0.1109 0.0037 5.4478 0.0363 0.0299 0.0032 0 0.0042 0.0035 0.0005 0.0067 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #109 2012 aggregate 0.0346 0.0057 0 0.0084 0.1284 0.0039 5.1087 0.0295 0.0283 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0052 0.0006 0.0074 0.0004 0 0.0017 #110 2012 aggregate 0.0501 0.0061 0 0.0087 0.1223 0.004 4.9116 0.0347 0.0324 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0051 0.0006 0.0071 0.0004 0 0.0018

#111 2012 aggregate 0.0422 0.0061 0.009 0.0027 0.1281 0.004 5.1565 0.0306 0.0324 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.0053 0.0006 0.0081 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002

217

218

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #112 2027 aggregate 0.0502 0.0056 0 0.0083 0.1149 0.0036 6.344 0.0343 0.0392 0.0034 0 0.0042 0.0049 0.0006 0.007 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #113 2027 aggregate 0.0512 0.0059 0 0.0086 0.1025 0.0036 6.4657 0.0362 0.0364 0.0035 0 0.0043 0.0043 0.0006 0.0077 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #114 2027 aggregate 0.0572 0.0061 0 0.0089 0.1084 0.0037 6.3878 0.0358 0.0417 0.0036 0 0.0042 0.004 0.0006 0.0074 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #115 2031 aggregate 0.0503 0.0056 0 0.0081 0.1171 0.0036 5.9589 0.0377 0.0361 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0036 0.0005 0.0069 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #116 2031 aggregate 0.0407 0.0055 0 0.0082 0.0954 0.0033 6.2327 0.0399 0.0379 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0037 0.0005 0.0074 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 #117 2031 aggregate 0.039 0.0055 0.0089 0.0024 0.1033 0.0035 6.0826 0.0338 0.036 0.0034 0 0.0042 0.0048 0.0006 0.0068 0.0004 0 0.0017 #118 2033 aggregate 0.0309 0.0055 0 0.0083 0.087 0.0033 6.073 0.0338 0.0298 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.006 0.0006 0.0084 0.0005 0 0.0017 #119 2033 aggregate 0.0449 0.006 0.0079 0.0025 0.1024 0.0037 5.7672 0.0403 0.0343 0.0034 0 0.0045 0.006 0.0006 0.0091 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #120 2033 aggregate 0.0404 0.0058 0.0084 0.0025 0.0852 0.0033 6.1527 0.0353 0.0349 0.0035 0 0.0044 0.0046 0.0006 0.008 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #121 2034a aggregate 0.0398 0.0053 0 0.0084 0.1436 0.0039 6.5889 0.036 0.0318 0.0034 0 0.0042 0.0082 0.0006 0.0093 0.0005 0.0015 0.0002 #122 2034a aggregate 0.0344 0.0052 0.0102 0.0023 0.1481 0.0039 6.6939 0.0432 0.0402 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0077 0.0006 0.0096 0.0005 0.0012 0.0002 #123 2034a aggregate 0.0409 0.0053 0 0.0081 0.1457 0.0038 6.6437 0.036 0.0359 0.0034 0 0.0042 0.0078 0.0006 0.0084 0.0005 0.0012 0.0002 #124 2035a aggregate 0.0414 0.0057 0.0093 0.0025 0.1218 0.0038 5.078 0.029 0.0307 0.0032 0 0.0009 0.0064 0.0006 0.0088 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #126 2035a aggregate 0.0468 0.0061 0.0109 0.0027 0.1262 0.004 5.0751 0.0348 0.0279 0.0032 0 0.0009 0.0065 0.0006 0.0083 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #127 2035a aggregate 0.0448 0.0059 0 0.0085 0.1256 0.0039 4.8844 0.0284 0.0337 0.0032 0 0.0009 0.0054 0.0006 0.0082 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #128 2034b aggregate 0.0369 0.005 0 0.008 0.1093 0.0033 6.9923 0.0451 0.0415 0.0033 0 0.004 0.0081 0.0006 0.0093 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #131 2034b aggregate 0.027 0.0048 0 0.0078 0.1103 0.0033 6.9761 0.0446 0.0428 0.0033 0 0.004 0.0079 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.0012 0.0002 #132 2034b aggregate 0.038 0.005 0 0.0082 0.1125 0.0034 6.9767 0.038 0.044 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0087 0.0006 0.0084 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #133 Cal Check tested 0.0589 0.0065 13.34 0.1 1.8526 0.0241 66.86 0.46 0.2469 0.0162 7.9 0.06 0.3812 0.0111 0 0.0009 0 0.0008 #134 NIST 2710a 0.0431 0.0051 0.0086 0.0023 0.219 0.0044 5.1989 0.0284 0.0357 0.0029 0 0.0038 0.3789 0.0034 0.4229 0.0032 0.1417 0.0022 #135 NIST 2711a 0.0418 0.0055 0.0125 0.0025 0.076 0.003 3.5148 0.0205 0.0275 0.0025 0 0.0038 0.0177 0.0007 0.0429 0.0008 0.0085 0.001 #136 BIR-1 0.0404 0.0063 0.0335 0.0032 0.1346 0.0044 9.42 0.06 0.0581 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.0162 0.0009 0.0071 0.0005 0 0.0015 #137 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0534 0.0059 0.0144 0.0026 0.0331 0.0025 5.5074 0.0296 0.0376 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0054 0.0006 0.0174 0.0006 0.0028 0.0002

#138 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0536 0.0059 0 0.0088 0.1375 0.0039 6.9864 0.0391 0.0392 0.0036 0 0.0044 0.004 0.0006 0.0088 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002

218

219

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #139 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0511 0.0061 0 0.0089 0.1224 0.0039 5.4863 0.038 0.0347 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.0032 0.0006 0.0075 0.0005 0.0006 0.0002 #140 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0589 0.0061 0.008 0.0026 0.1143 0.0038 5.1823 0.0311 0.0316 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.0032 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0 0.0018 #141 2027 shaken aggregate 0.0567 0.0058 0 0.0086 0.1024 0.0035 6.6008 0.0374 0.0428 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.0036 0.0006 0.0078 0.0005 0.0016 0.0002 #142 2027 shaken aggregate 0.0537 0.006 0 0.0089 0.1127 0.0038 6.0085 0.041 0.0404 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.0045 0.0006 0.0068 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #143 2027 shaken aggregate 0.0617 0.0061 0.009 0.0025 0.1283 0.0039 6.8185 0.0381 0.0479 0.0036 0 0.0043 0.0042 0.0006 0.008 0.0005 0.0013 0.0002 #144 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0353 0.0055 0 0.0085 0.0832 0.0032 6.0125 0.0343 0.0332 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.006 0.0006 0.009 0.0005 0 0.0018 #145 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0515 0.0058 0 0.0084 0.092 0.0034 6.1703 0.0357 0.0279 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.0057 0.0006 0.0088 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #146 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0347 0.0055 0 0.0085 0.069 0.0031 5.9167 0.0345 0.0323 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.0056 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #147 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0468 0.0053 0 0.0079 0.1107 0.0034 7.2762 0.0387 0.0462 0.0035 0 0.0041 0.0063 0.0006 0.0084 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #148 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0438 0.0053 0 0.0082 0.1086 0.0034 7.4559 0.0406 0.04 0.0035 0 0.0041 0.006 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #149 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0389 0.0051 0 0.008 0.1078 0.0034 7.2204 0.0471 0.0411 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0062 0.0006 0.0088 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #150 2041 shaken aggregate 0.0315 0.0049 0 0.008 0.1637 0.0039 7.1147 0.0388 0.0456 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0075 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #151 2041 shaken aggregate 0.0341 0.0049 0 0.0078 0.1624 0.0038 7.0795 0.0381 0.0513 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0077 0.0006 0.0089 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #152 2041 shaken aggregate 0.0277 0.0048 0 0.0078 0.1689 0.004 7.0268 0.0391 0.0412 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0072 0.0006 0.0086 0.0005 0.0006 0.0002 #153 2047 shaken aggregate 0.0464 0.0054 0.0078 0.0023 0.1505 0.0039 6.1246 0.0331 0.0283 0.0032 0 0.0041 0.0043 0.0005 0.007 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #154 2047 shaken aggregate 0.0346 0.005 0.007 0.0022 0.1121 0.0034 6.1465 0.034 0.0357 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0055 0.0006 0.0077 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #155 2047 shaken aggregate 0.0449 0.0054 0 0.0083 0.1194 0.0036 6.0635 0.0345 0.0334 0.0033 0 0.0042 0.0044 0.0006 0.0075 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #156 2057 shaken aggregate 0.0864 0.0065 0 0.0085 0.1729 0.0043 13.41 0.08 0.0761 0.0048 0 0.0041 0.0058 0.0007 0.0131 0.0006 0.0008 0.0002 #157 2057 shaken aggregate 0.0904 0.0064 0.0074 0.0024 0.1609 0.0041 11.55 0.06 0.0617 0.0044 0 0.004 0.0052 0.0006 0.0105 0.0006 0 0.0014 #158 2057 shaken aggregate 0.0805 0.0065 0 0.0088 0.1489 0.0041 11.69 0.07 0.0524 0.0045 0 0.0042 0.004 0.0006 0.0109 0.0006 0 0.0014 #159 2058 shaken aggregate 0.0674 0.0058 0.0075 0.0023 0.0965 0.0034 12.43 0.07 0.0585 0.0045 0 0.0042 0.0067 0.0007 0.0112 0.0006 0.0036 0.0003 #160 2058 shaken aggregate 0.0798 0.0062 0 0.009 0.1096 0.0036 10.44 0.06 0.0546 0.0043 0 0.0044 0.0053 0.0007 0.0102 0.0006 0.003 0.0003 #161 2058 shaken aggregate 0.0681 0.006 0 0.0088 0.1099 0.0036 9.82 0.06 0.0391 0.0041 0 0.0042 0.0036 0.0006 0.0091 0.0005 0.0022 0.0002 #162 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0.1093 0.007 0 0.0079 0.2325 0.0049 17.67 0.11 0.0695 0.0054 0 0.0037 0.0043 0.0007 0.0138 0.0007 0 0.0011 #176 Cal Check tested aggregate 0.0755 0.0069 13.36 0.11 1.8532 0.025 66.95 0.51 0.262 0.0167 8 0.07 0.3789 0.0113 0 0.0009 0 0.0008 #177 Cal Check aggregate #178 NIST 2710a aggregate 0.0434 0.0052 0.0072 0.0023 0.2221 0.0045 5.2046 0.0285 0.0318 0.003 0 0.0038 0.379 0.0034 0.419 0.0032 0.1461 0.0022 #179 NIST 2711a aggregate 0.0332 0.0055 0 0.0076 0.0733 0.0029 3.4659 0.02 0.0267 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0167 0.0007 0.0447 0.0008 0.0068 0.0009 #180 BIR-1 aggregate 0.0533 0.0065 0.0298 0.0031 0.1307 0.0042 9.34 0.06 0.0705 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.0177 0.0009 0.0077 0.0005 0 0.0014 #181 MESS-3 Marine Sed aggregate 0.0614 0.0061 0 0.0085 0.0369 0.0025 5.512 0.0361 0.0325 0.0032 0 0.001 0.0052 0.0006 0.0177 0.0006 0.0026 0.0002 #182 NDGR-2018 standard aggregate 0.0563 0.0059 0 0.0084 0.1455 0.0039 7.1923 0.0389 0.0383 0.0036 0 0.0042 0.004 0.0006 0.0083 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #183 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0433 0.0061 0.01 0.0026 0.1288 0.004 5.5211 0.0383 0.0362 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.0041 0.0006 0.0072 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002

#184 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0582 0.0061 0 0.0088 0.1056 0.0036 4.8803 0.0287 0.0395 0.0032 0 0.0044 0.0047 0.0006 0.0059 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002

219

220

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #185 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0.0889 0.0068 0 0.0084 0.1999 0.0046 13.69 0.09 0.0506 0.0049 0 0.004 0.0044 0.0007 0.0117 0.0006 0 0.0013 #186 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0.0458 0.0062 0.0077 0.0025 0.1571 0.0042 8.51 0.06 0.0413 0.0041 0 0.0043 0.003 0.0006 0.0091 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #187 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0.0589 0.0062 0 0.0088 0.1268 0.0038 6.7503 0.0382 0.0387 0.0036 0 0.0042 0.0042 0.0006 0.0077 0.0005 0 0.0017 #188 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0593 0.0059 0 0.0084 0.1235 0.0036 6.4588 0.0359 0.0303 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0031 0.0005 0.0064 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #189 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0544 0.0059 0.0084 0.0025 0.1048 0.0035 5.3026 0.0302 0.0272 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0035 0.0005 0.0063 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #190 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0397 0.0059 0 0.0086 0.1043 0.0035 5.3516 0.0308 0.0385 0.0033 0 0.0042 0.0033 0.0005 0.0066 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #191 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0511 0.006 0 0.0083 0.0913 0.0034 4.9595 0.029 0.0355 0.0032 0 0.0043 0.0034 0.0005 0.0064 0.0004 0 0.0018 #192 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.043 0.0056 0.0106 0.0025 0.1088 0.0035 5.6285 0.0309 0.0368 0.0033 0 0.0042 0.0045 0.0006 0.0063 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #193 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.0417 0.006 0.0085 0.0026 0.0961 0.0036 4.8857 0.0295 0.0316 0.0032 0 0.0044 0.0044 0.0006 0.0062 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #194 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.0514 0.0061 0 0.0086 0.0973 0.0035 5.1927 0.0305 0.0368 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.005 0.0006 0.0061 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #195 2063 aggregate 0.0479 0.0061 0 0.0084 0.1646 0.0042 7.2668 0.039 0.0368 0.0037 0 0.0042 0.0039 0.0006 0.0081 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #196 2063 aggregate 0.0649 0.0064 0 0.0085 0.1476 0.0041 6.7049 0.0374 0.0389 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0037 0.0006 0.0073 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #197 2063 aggregate 0.0653 0.0067 0.0095 0.0027 0.1414 0.0042 6.2269 0.0423 0.0251 0.0036 0 0.0044 0.0036 0.0006 0.0067 0.0005 0.0006 0.0002 #198 2065 aggregate 0.0751 0.0062 0 0.008 0.1703 0.0041 8.59 0.05 0.0417 0.0038 0 0.004 0.0037 0.0006 0.0075 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #199 2065 aggregate 0.0563 0.006 0 0.0084 0.1283 0.0038 6.2467 0.0415 0.0305 0.0034 0 0.004 0.0041 0.0006 0.0075 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #200 2065 aggregate 0.0514 0.0059 0.0116 0.0025 0.1865 0.0044 6.4051 0.0358 0.0377 0.0035 0 0.0041 0.0049 0.0006 0.0074 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #201 2068 aggregate 0.0446 0.0058 0 0.0082 0.1041 0.0035 5.2483 0.0297 0.0337 0.0032 0 0.0041 0.0041 0.0005 0.0063 0.0004 0 0.0018 #202 2068 aggregate 0.0522 0.0061 0 0.0088 0.1076 0.0037 5.1414 0.0309 0.0192 0.0032 0 0.0042 0.0024 0.0005 0.0063 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #203 2068 aggregate 0.0651 0.0063 0 0.0088 0.109 0.0037 5.4253 0.0371 0.0381 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.0038 0.0006 0.007 0.0004 0.001 0.0002 #204 2073a aggregate 0.0594 0.0061 0 0.0083 0.1472 0.004 7.1597 0.0452 0.0265 0.0036 0 0.0042 0.0039 0.0006 0.0086 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #205 2073a aggregate 0.0606 0.0061 0 0.0086 0.13 0.0038 6.563 0.0364 0.0277 0.0035 0 0.0041 0.0051 0.0006 0.0067 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #206 2073a aggregate 0.0643 0.006 0.0115 0.0025 0.1206 0.0037 6.0602 0.0396 0.0371 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.0044 0.0006 0.0073 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #207 2073a aggregate 0.0523 0.006 0 0.0086 0.1297 0.0038 6.2854 0.0348 0.0354 0.0035 0 0.0042 0.0044 0.0006 0.0078 0.0005 0 0.0017 #208 2076 aggregate 0.0394 0.0055 0 0.0083 0.1277 0.0037 5.2331 0.0301 0.0337 0.0032 0 0.0042 0.0043 0.0006 0.0069 0.0004 0 0.0018 #209 2076 aggregate 0.0605 0.0058 0.0082 0.0024 0.1402 0.0039 5.1473 0.0292 0.035 0.0031 0 0.0041 0.0052 0.0006 0.0069 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #210 2076 aggregate 0.0532 0.0058 0 0.0081 0.15 0.004 5.1663 0.0294 0.0335 0.0032 0 0.0042 0.0046 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #211 2075 aggregate 0.0427 0.0057 0.01 0.0025 0.1036 0.0035 5.735 0.0317 0.0371 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0043 0.0006 0.0071 0.0004 0.0014 0.0002 #212 2075 aggregate 0.0425 0.0058 0 0.0083 0.1144 0.0037 5.5445 0.0366 0.034 0.0033 0 0.0043 0.0035 0.0005 0.0067 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #213 2075 aggregate 0.0628 0.006 0 0.0085 0.1115 0.0036 5.467 0.0307 0.0333 0.0032 0 0.0041 0.0039 0.0005 0.0076 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #214 2080 aggregate 0.0541 0.0058 0 0.0081 0.1279 0.0037 5.5852 0.0363 0.0352 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0053 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #215 2080 aggregate 0.0464 0.0058 0 0.0085 0.1169 0.0036 5.4933 0.031 0.034 0.0032 0 0.0042 0.0045 0.0006 0.0074 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #216 2080 aggregate 0.0436 0.0058 0 0.0085 0.1082 0.0036 5.6073 0.0314 0.0368 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0042 0.0006 0.007 0.0004 0 0.0018 #217 2081 aggregate 0.0553 0.0058 0.0081 0.0024 0.1255 0.0036 6.169 0.0385 0.0367 0.0033 0 0.004 0.0044 0.0005 0.0074 0.0004 0.0012 0.0002 #218 2081 aggregate 0.0579 0.0057 0 0.0079 0.157 0.0039 6.0174 0.0371 0.0368 0.0033 0 0.0038 0.0056 0.0006 0.0071 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #219 2081 aggregate 0.0588 0.0058 0 0.0082 0.1473 0.0039 5.814 0.0313 0.0343 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0044 0.0005 0.0076 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #220 2082 aggregate 0.0691 0.0064 0 0.0088 0.1339 0.0039 9.95 0.05 0.0556 0.0043 0 0.0043 0.0054 0.0006 0.0099 0.0005 0.0013 0.0002 #221 2082 aggregate 0.0793 0.0066 0 0.0091 0.1373 0.004 8.3157 0.0458 0.0467 0.004 0 0.0044 0.0046 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0.001 0.0002

#222 2082 aggregate 0.0551 0.0065 0 0.0088 0.1303 0.0039 8.25 0.05 0.0465 0.004 0 0.0042 0.0044 0.0006 0.0082 0.0005 0.0011 0.0002

220

221

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #223 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.083 0.0066 0 0.0086 0.1888 0.0044 10.62 0.06 0.0585 0.0044 0 0.0041 0.007 0.0007 0.0105 0.0005 0 0.0015 #224 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.075 0.0064 0 0.0085 0.1865 0.0044 10.22 0.05 0.0589 0.0043 0 0.0042 0.0066 0.0007 0.0106 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #225 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0705 0.0063 0.0078 0.0024 0.1848 0.0044 10.32 0.06 0.0573 0.0043 0 0.0041 0.0059 0.0006 0.0096 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #226 2501-u aggregate 0.1153 0.0074 0 0.0086 0.1963 0.0047 14.94 0.09 0.0792 0.0054 0 0.0041 0.0086 0.0008 0.0132 0.0007 0 0.0012 #227 2501-u aggregate 0.0459 0.006 0.0104 0.0025 0.1424 0.004 6.9769 0.0465 0.0351 0.0037 0 0.0042 0.006 0.0006 0.0082 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #228 2501-u aggregate 0.0495 0.0055 0 0.0082 0.1143 0.0035 5.5244 0.0308 0.0367 0.0032 0 0.0039 0.0039 0.0005 0.008 0.0004 0 0.0016 #229 2501-t aggregate 0.0533 0.0058 0 0.0083 0.1059 0.0035 4.8197 0.0274 0.0283 0.003 0 0.0041 0.0047 0.0006 0.0069 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 #230 2501-t aggregate 0.0543 0.0059 0 0.0084 0.1105 0.0036 4.831 0.0281 0.0284 0.0031 0 0.0042 0.0044 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #231 2501-t aggregate 0.0444 0.0058 0.0081 0.0025 0.0962 0.0034 4.893 0.0283 0.0337 0.0031 0 0.004 0.0043 0.0005 0.006 0.0004 0.0009 0.0002 #232 2501-j aggregate 0.0518 0.0061 0 0.0081 0.1581 0.0041 6.3904 0.041 0.0311 0.0034 0 0.0041 0.0045 0.0006 0.0078 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #233 2501-j aggregate 0.0529 0.006 0 0.0084 0.158 0.0041 6.176 0.0349 0.0347 0.0035 0 0.0044 0.0045 0.0006 0.0074 0.0004 0 0.0017 #234 2501-j aggregate 0.0552 0.006 0.0093 0.0025 0.1457 0.004 5.101 0.0296 0.0329 0.0032 0 0.0041 0.0048 0.0006 0.0068 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #235 2501-dd aggregate 0.0643 0.0066 0 0.0091 0.1509 0.0042 7.938 0.0443 0.043 0.004 0 0.0044 0.0047 0.0006 0.0086 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #236 2501-dd aggregate 0.0613 0.0064 0 0.0089 0.1449 0.0041 7.2006 0.0412 0.0455 0.0039 0 0.0045 0.0035 0.0006 0.0081 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #237 2501-dd aggregate 0.0715 0.0067 0 0.0092 0.1585 0.0044 8.1 0.05 0.0507 0.0041 0 0.0044 0.0045 0.0006 0.008 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 #238 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0678 0.0066 0 0.009 0.1632 0.0044 8.45 0.06 0.0442 0.0041 0 0.0043 0.0047 0.0006 0.0073 0.0005 0.0009 0.0002 #239 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0853 0.0069 0 0.0086 0.1591 0.0043 9.95 0.06 0.0538 0.0044 0 0.0042 0.005 0.0006 0.0094 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #240 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0748 0.0068 0.0105 0.0027 0.1873 0.0047 7.62 0.05 0.0411 0.004 0 0.0043 0.0049 0.0006 0.0067 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #241 2501-aa aggregate 0.0612 0.0059 0 0.0081 0.1353 0.0037 7.0116 0.0439 0.0345 0.0035 0 0.0039 0.0044 0.0006 0.0075 0.0004 0 0.0016 #242 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0532 0.0066 0.0102 0.0027 0.1393 0.0042 7.8211 0.0447 0.0389 0.0041 0 0.0045 0.004 0.0006 0.007 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #243 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0.0524 0.0058 0 0.0083 0.1365 0.0038 7.0019 0.0441 0.0308 0.0035 0 0.004 0.0032 0.0005 0.0081 0.0005 0.0012 0.0002 #244 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0.0374 0.0055 0.007 0.0023 0.1152 0.0035 5.8835 0.0375 0.028 0.0032 0 0.004 0.0047 0.0006 0.0067 0.0004 0.0007 0.0002 #245 2059 one wash aggregate 0.0579 0.0061 0.0094 0.0025 0.1042 0.0036 5.7493 0.0382 0.0293 0.0034 0 0.0043 0.0035 0.0006 0.0059 0.0004 0 0.0017 #246 2059 one wash aggregate 0.0556 0.0061 0 0.0088 0.1022 0.0036 5.3104 0.0311 0.0367 0.0033 0 0.0041 0.0041 0.0006 0.0065 0.0004 0.0006 0.0002 #247 2059 one wash aggregate 0.0387 0.0059 0 0.0087 0.0968 0.0035 5.2327 0.0312 0.0302 0.0033 0 0.0042 0.0036 0.0006 0.0067 0.0004 0 0.0018 #248 NIST 2710a shifted 0.037 0.0051 0.009 0.0023 0.2123 0.0043 5.1843 0.0282 0.0282 0.0029 0 0.0037 0.3749 0.0033 0.416 0.0031 0.1451 0.0022 #249 NIST 2710a shifted 0.0417 0.0052 0 0.0075 0.2164 0.0044 5.1867 0.0283 0.0341 0.003 0 0.0039 0.3791 0.0034 0.4211 0.0032 0.1428 0.0022

#250 NIST 2710a shifted 0.0367 0.0051 0.007 0.0023 0.2201 0.0045 5.1442 0.0281 0.0245 0.0029 0 0.0038 0.3728 0.0033 0.4197 0.0031 0.1443 0.0022

221

222

Reading Sample Notes V V +/- Cr Cr +/- Mn Mn +/- Fe Fe +/- Co Co +/- Ni Ni +/- Cu Cu +/- Zn Zn +/- As As +/- #251 NIST 2711a 0.0477 0.0056 0.01 0.0024 0.0771 0.0029 3.4437 0.0196 0.0233 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0156 0.0007 0.0424 0.0008 0.0082 0.0009 #252 NIST 2711a 0.0415 0.0056 0.0088 0.0024 0.0707 0.0029 3.515 0.0202 0.0261 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0173 0.0007 0.044 0.0008 0.0052 0.0009 #253 NIST 2711a 0.0296 0.0054 0.0152 0.0025 0.0756 0.003 3.466 0.02 0.0238 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0173 0.0007 0.0433 0.0008 0.0066 0.0009 #254 BIR-1 0.0471 0.0064 0.0321 0.0032 0.1314 0.0043 9.3 0.06 0.0586 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.018 0.0009 0.0069 0.0005 0 0.0014 #255 BIR-1 0.0438 0.0064 0.0283 0.0031 0.1354 0.0043 9.4 0.06 0.0629 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.0167 0.0009 0.0075 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 #256 BIR-1 0.0406 0.0065 0.0311 0.0032 0.1307 0.0043 9.42 0.06 0.0607 0.0046 0 0.0015 0.0168 0.0009 0.0084 0.0005 0 0.0015 #257 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0569 0.0061 0.0148 0.0027 0.0403 0.0026 5.4499 0.0302 0.0352 0.0033 0 0.001 0.006 0.0006 0.018 0.0006 0.0022 0.0002 #258 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0666 0.0062 0.0142 0.0027 0.0374 0.0026 5.4612 0.0302 0.0342 0.0033 0 0.001 0.0062 0.0006 0.017 0.0006 0.0027 0.0002 #259 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0535 0.006 0.0135 0.0026 0.0404 0.0026 5.4198 0.0298 0.0394 0.0033 0 0.0044 0.0049 0.0006 0.0172 0.0006 0.0023 0.0002 #260 Loess Soil Standard 0.0344 0.0056 0.0145 0.0025 0.0978 0.0032 3.396 0.02 0.0237 0.0025 0 0.0008 0.0033 0.0005 0.0067 0.0004 0.0012 0.0002 #261 Loess Soil Standard 0.0419 0.0056 0.0077 0.0023 0.1035 0.0033 3.3248 0.0219 0.0241 0.0024 0 0.0008 0.0038 0.0005 0.0075 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 #262 Loess Soil Standard 0.041 0.0056 0.0107 0.0024 0.0949 0.0032 3.301 0.0219 0.0239 0.0024 0 0.0008 0.0042 0.0005 0.0069 0.0004 0.0012 0.0002 #263 Till-2 0.0292 0.0056 0.0114 0.0024 0.085 0.0031 4.9564 0.0265 0.034 0.003 0 0.0041 0.0213 0.0008 0.0142 0.0005 0.0028 0.0002 #264 Till-2 0.0447 0.0058 0.0093 0.0025 0.0842 0.0031 5.0061 0.0268 0.0342 0.003 0 0.0009 0.0215 0.0008 0.0142 0.0005 0.0033 0.0003 #265 Till-2 0.0365 0.0057 0.0094 0.0024 0.0828 0.0031 4.9216 0.0263 0.0354 0.003 0 0.0009 0.0205 0.0008 0.0147 0.0005 0.0028 0.0002 #266 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0501 0.006 0 0.0085 0.135 0.0039 7.1724 0.0396 0.0369 0.0037 0 0.0044 0.0033 0.0006 0.0088 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002 #267 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0549 0.006 0 0.0086 0.1334 0.0039 7.1177 0.0393 0.0383 0.0037 0 0.0042 0.0051 0.0006 0.0085 0.0005 0 0.0016

#268 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0569 0.006 0.0108 0.0025 0.1329 0.0039 7.22 0.0399 0.0374 0.0037 0 0.0043 0.0035 0.0006 0.0092 0.0005 0.0007 0.0002

222

223

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #1 Cal Check #2 NIST 2711a 0.0006 0.0001 0.0116 0.0002 0.0232 0.0003 0.0041 0.0002 0.0285 0.0003 0 0.005 0 0.0321 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.09 #3 NIST 2711a 0.0005 0.0001 0.0118 0.0002 0.023 0.0003 0.0039 0.0002 0.0277 0.0003 0 0.0048 0 0.0312 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #4 NIST 2711a 0.0005 0.0001 0.0114 0.0002 0.0237 0.0003 0.0037 0.0002 0.0282 0.0003 0 0.0049 0 0.0312 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #5 NIST 2710a 0 0.0019 0.0106 0.0002 0.0242 0.0003 0.0036 0.0003 0.0203 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0008 0 0.0326 0 0.05 0 0.07 #6 NIST 2710a 0.0011 0.0002 0.0108 0.0002 0.0245 0.0003 0.0036 0.0003 0.0205 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0008 0 0.0322 0 0.05 0 0 #7 NIST 2710a 0 0.0019 0.0108 0.0002 0.025 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 0.0208 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0009 0 0.0326 0 0.05 0 0.07 #8 Till-2 0 0.0009 0.0149 0.0002 0.0158 0.0002 0.0042 0.0002 0.0339 0.0003 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0308 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #9 Till-2 0.0004 0.0001 0.015 0.0002 0.0156 0.0002 0.0039 0.0002 0.0344 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0308 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #10 Till-2 0.0004 0.0001 0.0149 0.0002 0.0155 0.0002 0.004 0.0002 0.0343 0.0004 0.0017 0.0002 0 0.031 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #11 BIR-1 0 0.0009 0 0.0012 0.0117 0.0002 0.0017 0.0001 0.0018 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0307 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #12 BIR-1 0.0003 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0121 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 0.0016 0.0002 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0309 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #13 BIR-1 0.0004 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0117 0.0002 0.0021 0.0001 0.0019 0.0002 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0308 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #14 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0005 0.0001 0.0153 0.0002 0.0142 0.0002 0.0031 0.0002 0.0142 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0316 0 0.0386 0 0.06 0 0.08 #15 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0004 0.0001 0.0155 0.0002 0.0141 0.0002 0.0025 0.0002 0.014 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0316 0 0.0388 0 0.06 0 0.08 #16 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0004 0.0001 0.0151 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.0025 0.0002 0.0141 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0314 0 0.0386 0 0.06 0 0.08 #17 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0005 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0428 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0316 0 0.0389 0 0.06 0 0.08 #18 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0.0007 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0408 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0085 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0311 0 0.0382 0 0.06 0 0.08 #19 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0.0003 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0393 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0309 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #20 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0407 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0313 0 0.0389 0 0.06 0 0.08 #21 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.0004 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0406 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0086 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0313 0 0.0389 0 0.06 0 0.08 #22 Loess Soil Standard 0.0003 0.0001 0.0068 0.0002 0.0167 0.0002 0.0034 0.0001 0.0421 0.0004 0 0.0053 0 0.0327 0 0.0403 0 0.06 0 0.08 #23 Loess Soil Standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0067 0.0002 0.0168 0.0002 0.0035 0.0001 0.0418 0.0004 0 0.0053 0 0.0326 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 0.08 #24 Loess Soil Standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0065 0.0002 0.0166 0.0002 0.0035 0.0001 0.0413 0.0004 0 0.0053 0 0.0328 0 0.0401 0 0.06 0 0.08 #25 2016 all runs same position 0.0003 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0393 0.0004 0.0025 0.0001 0.0128 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.031 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #26 2016 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0387 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0128 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0308 0 0.0382 0 0.06 0 0.08 #27 2016 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0395 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0132 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0309 0 0.0383 0 0.06 0 0.08

#28 2016 shifted from runspowdered 25-27 0 0.0009 0.0024 0.0001 0.0388 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0129 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.031 0 0.0382 0 0.06 0 0.08

223

224

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #29 2016 same position as powderedrun 28 0.0005 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.039 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0134 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0311 0 0.0381 0 0.06 0 0.08 #30 2016 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0395 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0133 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0313 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #31 2020 pellet runs hereafterpowdered 0.0005 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0427 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0152 0.0003 0 0.0045 0 0.0307 0 0.0378 0 0.06 0 0.08 #32 2020 all in same positionpowdered 0.0005 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0421 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0146 0.0003 0 0.0045 0 0.0309 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #33 2020 powdered 0 0.0009 0.0023 0.0001 0.0426 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0143 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0306 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #34 2027 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0356 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.013 0.0003 0 0.004 0 0.0275 0 0.0339 0 0.06 0 0.07 #35 2027 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0358 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0123 0.0003 0 0.004 0 0.0275 0 0.034 0 0.06 0 0.07 #36 2027 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0354 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0127 0.0003 0 0.004 0 0.0274 0 0.0337 0 0.05 0 0.07 #37 2033 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0347 0.0003 0.0014 0.0001 0.0075 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.031 0 0.0382 0 0.06 0 0.08 #38 2033 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0351 0.0003 0.0015 0.0001 0.0073 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0312 0 0.0387 0 0.06 0 0.08 #39 2033 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0022 0.0001 0.0194 0.0002 0.0022 0.0001 0.0091 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0272 0 0.0337 0 0.05 0 0.07 #40 2034b powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0193 0.0002 0.0022 0.0001 0.0094 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0273 0 0.0337 0 0.05 0 0.07 #41 2034b powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0193 0.0002 0.0021 0.0001 0.0094 0.0002 0 0.0039 0 0.0272 0 0.0335 0 0.05 0 0.07 #42 2034b powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0197 0.0002 0.0022 0.0001 0.0094 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0274 0 0.0338 0 0.05 0 0.07 #43 2038 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0014 0.0001 0.0247 0.0003 0.0021 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0273 0 0.0337 0 0.05 0 0.07 #44 2038 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0015 0.0001 0.0244 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0 0.0039 0 0.0271 0 0.0334 0 0.05 0 0.07 #45 2038 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0015 0.0001 0.025 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.0085 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0276 0 0.0339 0 0.06 0 0.07 #46 2047 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0015 0.0001 0.0399 0.0004 0.0028 0.0001 0.0186 0.0003 0 0.0042 0 0.0282 0 0.0348 0 0.06 0 0.07 #47 2047 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.039 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0186 0.0003 0 0.0042 0 0.0278 0 0.0346 0 0.06 0 0.07 #48 2047 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0012 0.0001 0.0396 0.0004 0.0024 0.0001 0.0178 0.0003 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.028 0 0.0346 0 0.06 0 0.07 #49 2501-? powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0399 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0138 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0307 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #50 2501-? powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0403 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0137 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0308 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #51 2501-? powdered 0 0.0009 0.0025 0.0001 0.0393 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0134 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0304 0 0.0376 0 0.06 0 0.08 #52 2058 powdered 0.0007 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0329 0.0003 0.0016 0.0001 0.0117 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0283 0 0.035 0 0.06 0 0.08 #53 2058 powdered 0.0007 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0332 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.012 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0284 0 0.0351 0 0.06 0 0.08 #54 2058 powdered 0.0007 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.0334 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.0122 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0285 0 0.0353 0 0.06 0 0.08 #55 2059 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0019 0.0001 0.0391 0.0004 0.0014 0.0001 0.0092 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0303 0 0.0374 0 0.06 0 0.08 #56 2059 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.0394 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.009 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.03 0 0.037 0 0.06 0 0.08

#57 2059 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0384 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0093 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0301 0 0.0373 0 0.06 0 0.08

224

225

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #58 2065 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0386 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0125 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0311 0 0.0386 0 0.06 0 0.08 #59 2065 powdered 0 0.0009 0.0022 0.0001 0.0391 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0131 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0314 0 0.039 0 0.06 0 0.08 #60 2065 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0386 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0126 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.031 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #61 2068 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0.0386 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0127 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.03 0 0.037 0 0.06 0 0.08 #62 2068 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0396 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0126 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.03 0 0.0371 0 0.06 0 0.08 #63 2068 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0392 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0123 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0299 0 0.0369 0 0.06 0 0.08 #64 2073a powdered 0.0005 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.041 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0169 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.031 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #65 2073a powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0407 0.0004 0.0024 0.0001 0.0166 0.0003 0 0.0045 0 0.0307 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #66 2073a powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0417 0.0004 0.0027 0.0001 0.0169 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0311 0 0.0383 0 0.06 0 0.08 #67 2080 powdered 0.0005 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0403 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0127 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0304 0 0.0377 0 0.06 0 0.08 #68 2080 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0397 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0126 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0301 0 0.0374 0 0.06 0 0.08 #69 2080 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0.0403 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0118 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.03 0 0.0373 0 0.06 0 0.08 #70 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0399 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0141 0.0003 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0299 0 0.037 0 0.06 0 0.08 #71 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0396 0.0004 0.0024 0.0001 0.0148 0.0003 0 0.0044 0 0.0299 0 0.0368 0 0.06 0 0.08 #72 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0 0.0008 0.0021 0.0001 0.0394 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.0145 0.0003 0 0.0044 0 0.0298 0 0.0368 0 0.06 0 0.08 #73 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0379 0.0003 0.0017 0.0001 0.0109 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0306 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #74 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0004 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0379 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0113 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0305 0 0.0378 0 0.06 0 0.08 #75 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.0003 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.039 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0109 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0307 0 0.0381 0 0.06 0 0.08 #76 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.0254 0.0003 0.0018 0.0001 0.0061 0.0002 0 0.0054 0 0.0377 0 0.0463 0 0.08 0 0.1 #77 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0015 0.0001 0.0254 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.0058 0.0002 0 0.0053 0 0.0376 0 0.0465 0 0.08 0 0.1 #78 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.0255 0.0003 0.0023 0.0001 0.0063 0.0002 0 0.0054 0 0.0384 0 0.0475 0 0.08 0 0.1 #79 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0016 0.0001 0.0243 0.0003 0.002 0.0001 0.0057 0.0002 0 0.0055 0 0.0389 0 0.048 0 0.08 0 0.1 #80 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0015 0.0001 0.0269 0.0003 0.0022 0.0001 0.0057 0.0002 0 0.0056 0 0.0395 0 0.049 0 0.08 0 0.11 #81 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.0258 0.0003 0.0017 0.0001 0.006 0.0002 0 0.0055 0 0.0383 0 0.0472 0 0.08 0 0.1 #82 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0027 0.0001 0.0431 0.0004 0.0021 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0324 0 0.0401 0 0.06 0 0.09 #83 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0428 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0333 0 0.0409 0 0.07 0 0.09

#84 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0429 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0077 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0332 0 0.0407 0 0.07 0 0.09

225

226

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #85 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0465 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0335 0 0.0411 0 0.07 0 0.09 #86 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0413 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0081 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0327 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 0.09 #87 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0452 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0335 0 0.0409 0 0.07 0 0.09 #88 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0446 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0304 0 0.0374 0 0.06 0 0.08 #89 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0007 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0459 0.0004 0.0025 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0309 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #90 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0447 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0 0.0043 0 0.0302 0 0.0375 0 0.06 0 0.08 #91 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0472 0.0005 0.0021 0.0001 0.0071 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0333 0 0.0412 0 0.07 0 0.09 #92 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0465 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0073 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0335 0 0.0413 0 0.07 0 0.09 #93 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0468 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0071 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0345 0 0.0423 0 0.07 0 0.09 #94 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0483 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.034 0 0.042 0 0.07 0 0.09 #95 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0484 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0348 0 0.043 0 0.07 0 0.09 #96 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0479 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0086 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0358 0 0.044 0 0.07 0 0.09 #97 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0007 0.0023 0.0001 0.0438 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0071 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0248 0 0.0308 0 0.05 0 0.07 #98 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0479 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0072 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0282 0 0.0349 0 0.06 0 0.08 #99 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0023 0.0001 0.0482 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0073 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0309 0 0.0378 0 0.06 0 0.08 #100 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0008 0.0021 0.0001 0.0447 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.008 0.0003 0 0.0038 0 0.0268 0 0.0332 0 0.05 0 0.07 #101 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0473 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0093 0.0003 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0296 0 0.0365 0 0.06 0 0.08 #102 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.046 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0308 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #103 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0481 0.0004 0.0015 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.031 0 0.0381 0 0.06 0 0.08 #104 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0029 0.0001 0.0481 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0316 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.08 #105 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0509 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0326 0 0.0403 0 0.06 0 0.09 #106 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0505 0.0005 0.0015 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0324 0 0.0399 0 0.06 0 0.09 #107 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0505 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0085 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0321 0 0.0397 0 0.06 0 0.09 #108 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0009 0.003 0.0001 0.0514 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0077 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0331 0 0.0406 0 0.07 0 0.09 #109 2012 aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0022 0.0001 0.0327 0.0003 0.0015 0.0001 0.0062 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0334 0 0.0412 0 0.07 0 0.09 #110 2012 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0316 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0064 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0348 0 0.0432 0 0.07 0 0.09

#111 2012 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0338 0.0004 0.0014 0.0001 0.0066 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0348 0 0.043 0 0.07 0 0.09

226

227

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #112 2027 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0033 0.0001 0.0483 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0081 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0315 0 0.0388 0 0.06 0 0.08 #113 2027 aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0034 0.0001 0.0494 0.0005 0.0021 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0324 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 0.09 #114 2027 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0034 0.0001 0.0495 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0329 0 0.0408 0 0.07 0 0.09 #115 2031 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0519 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0071 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0316 0 0.0389 0 0.06 0 0.08 #116 2031 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0471 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0313 0 0.0387 0 0.06 0 0.08 #117 2031 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0518 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0093 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0322 0 0.0396 0 0.06 0 0.08 #118 2033 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0403 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0074 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0322 0 0.0397 0 0.06 0 0.09 #119 2033 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0404 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.034 0 0.0417 0 0.07 0 0.09 #120 2033 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0408 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0327 0 0.0404 0 0.07 0 0.09 #121 2034a aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0248 0.0003 0.0017 0.0001 0.0087 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0303 0 0.0375 0 0.06 0 0.08 #122 2034a aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0022 0.0001 0.023 0.0003 0.0015 0.0001 0.0093 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0299 0 0.0368 0 0.06 0 0.08 #123 2034a aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0206 0.0003 0.0014 0.0001 0.0098 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0299 0 0.037 0 0.06 0 0.08 #124 2035a aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0376 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0072 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0336 0 0.0413 0 0.07 0 0.09 #126 2035a aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0381 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0071 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0345 0 0.0423 0 0.07 0 0.09 #127 2035a aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0389 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0068 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0339 0 0.0419 0 0.07 0 0.09 #128 2034b aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0244 0.0003 0.0024 0.0001 0.0118 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0288 0 0.0353 0 0.06 0 0.08 #131 2034b aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0237 0.0003 0.0023 0.0001 0.011 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0287 0 0.0352 0 0.06 0 0.07 #132 2034b aggregate 0 0.0008 0.0028 0.0001 0.0238 0.0003 0.0028 0.0001 0.0107 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.029 0 0.0357 0 0.06 0 0.08 #133 Cal Check tested 0 0.0004 0 0.0005 0 0.0004 0 0.0005 0 0.0007 1.2627 0.0094 0 0.0059 0 0.0075 0 0.01 0 0.01 #134 NIST 2710a 0.0007 0.0002 0.0108 0.0002 0.0253 0.0003 0.0039 0.0003 0.0206 0.0003 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0009 0 0.0326 0 0.05 0 0.07 #135 NIST 2711a 0.0005 0.0001 0.0117 0.0002 0.0238 0.0003 0.0042 0.0002 0.0289 0.0003 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0323 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.09 #136 BIR-1 0.0003 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0119 0.0002 0.0019 0.0001 0.0017 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0316 0 0.039 0 0.06 0 0.08 #137 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0005 0.0001 0.0147 0.0002 0.0137 0.0002 0.0031 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0316 0 0.0387 0 0.06 0 0.08

#138 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0404 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0085 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0317 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.09

227

228

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #139 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0473 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0069 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0345 0 0.0423 0 0.07 0 0.09 #140 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0465 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0087 0.0002 0 0.0051 0 0.0349 0 0.0431 0 0.07 0 0.09 #141 2027 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0483 0.0005 0.0021 0.0001 0.0098 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0321 0 0.0394 0 0.06 0 0.09 #142 2027 shaken aggregate 0 0.001 0.003 0.0001 0.0484 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0334 0 0.0415 0 0.07 0 0.09 #143 2027 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0443 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0319 0 0.0394 0 0.06 0 0.08 #144 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0392 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0086 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0322 0 0.0397 0 0.06 0 0.09 #145 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0439 0.0004 0.0086 0.0002 0.0079 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0325 0 0.0398 0 0.06 0 0.09 #146 2033 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0412 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0323 0 0.04 0 0.06 0 0.09 #147 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0281 0.0003 0.0025 0.0001 0.0106 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0291 0 0.0357 0 0.06 0 0.08 #148 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0292 0.0003 0.0024 0.0001 0.012 0.0002 0 0.0043 0 0.029 0 0.0358 0 0.06 0 0.08 #149 2038 shaken aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0.0272 0.0003 0.0026 0.0001 0.0104 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0291 0 0.036 0 0.06 0 0.08 #150 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.0008 0.0021 0.0001 0.0232 0.0003 0.0025 0.0001 0.0102 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0288 0 0.0356 0 0.06 0 0.08 #151 2041 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0235 0.0003 0.0028 0.0001 0.0099 0.0002 0 0.0042 0 0.0284 0 0.035 0 0.06 0 0.07 #152 2041 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0229 0.0003 0.0026 0.0001 0.0108 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0288 0 0.0356 0 0.06 0 0.08 #153 2047 shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0018 0.0001 0.0491 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0062 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0307 0 0.0376 0 0.06 0 0.08 #154 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0021 0.0001 0.0447 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0074 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0303 0 0.0374 0 0.06 0 0.08 #155 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0021 0.0001 0.0461 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.007 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0318 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.08 #156 2057 shaken aggregate 0 0.0007 0.0023 0.0001 0.0394 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0086 0.0003 0 0.0033 0 0.0235 0 0.029 0 0.05 0 0.06 #157 2057 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0405 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.009 0.0003 0 0.0036 0 0.0252 0 0.031 0 0.05 0 0.07 #158 2057 shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0467 0.0005 0.0022 0.0002 0.0089 0.0003 0 0.0036 0 0.0257 0 0.0316 0 0.05 0 0.07 #159 2058 shaken aggregate 0.0009 0.0001 0.0017 0.0001 0.0532 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0084 0.0003 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0239 0 0.0296 0 0.05 0 0.06 #160 2058 shaken aggregate 0.0009 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.052 0.0005 0.0021 0.0001 0.0077 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0267 0 0.0329 0 0.05 0 0.07 #161 2058 shaken aggregate 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.0001 0.0478 0.0005 0.0015 0.0001 0.0065 0.0002 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0272 0 0.0336 0 0.05 0 0.07 #162 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0019 0.0001 0.038 0.0005 0.0022 0.0002 0.0073 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0196 0 0.0242 0 0.04 0 0.05 #176 Cal Check tested aggregate 0 0.0004 0 0.0005 0.0014 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0 0.0007 1.2372 0.01 0 0.006 0 0.0075 0 0.01 0 0.01 #177 Cal Check aggregate #178 NIST 2710a aggregate 0 0.0019 0.0108 0.0002 0.0248 0.0003 0.0038 0.0003 0.0209 0.0003 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0009 0 0.0327 0 0.05 0 0.07 #179 NIST 2711a aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0117 0.0002 0.0236 0.0003 0.0038 0.0002 0.0285 0.0003 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0318 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #180 BIR-1 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0114 0.0002 0.0019 0.0001 0.0011 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0309 0 0.0383 0 0.06 0 0.08 #181 MESS-3 Marine Sed aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0149 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.0027 0.0002 0.0135 0.0002 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0315 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #182 NDGR-2018 standard aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0419 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0305 0 0.0377 0 0.06 0 0.08 #183 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0472 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0074 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0338 0 0.0418 0 0.07 0 0.09

#184 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0033 0.0001 0.048 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0087 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0347 0 0.0428 0 0.07 0 0.09

228

229

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #185 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0024 0.0001 0.0395 0.0005 0.0024 0.0002 0.0116 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.023 0 0.0282 0 0.05 0 0.06 #186 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0034 0.0001 0.0394 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0088 0.0003 0 0.0043 0 0.0299 0 0.0367 0 0.06 0 0.08 #187 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0435 0.0004 0.0023 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.032 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.08 #188 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0491 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0309 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #189 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0482 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0324 0 0.0399 0 0.06 0 0.09 #190 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0037 0.0001 0.0476 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0334 0 0.0413 0 0.07 0 0.09 #191 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0042 0.0001 0.0469 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0086 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0338 0 0.0415 0 0.07 0 0.09 #192 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.051 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0322 0 0.0396 0 0.06 0 0.09 #193 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0458 0.0004 0.0015 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0051 0 0.035 0 0.0432 0 0.07 0 0.09 #194 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0484 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0077 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0345 0 0.0425 0 0.07 0 0.09 #195 2063 aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0021 0.0001 0.0505 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.006 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0304 0 0.0377 0 0.06 0 0.08 #196 2063 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0483 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0056 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.032 0 0.0395 0 0.06 0 0.09 #197 2063 aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.0472 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0057 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0336 0 0.0414 0 0.07 0 0.09 #198 2065 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0023 0.0001 0.0489 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.007 0.0002 0 0.004 0 0.0278 0 0.0342 0 0.06 0 0.07 #199 2065 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0524 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0318 0 0.0393 0 0.06 0 0.08 #200 2065 aggregate 0.0007 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0498 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0314 0 0.0388 0 0.06 0 0.08 #201 2068 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0033 0.0001 0.0509 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0331 0 0.0409 0 0.07 0 0.09 #202 2068 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0537 0.0005 0.0023 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0346 0 0.043 0 0.07 0 0.09 #203 2068 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0523 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.034 0 0.0418 0 0.07 0 0.09 #204 2073a aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0489 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0305 0 0.0374 0 0.06 0 0.08 #205 2073a aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0496 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0074 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0312 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #206 2073a aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0473 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0081 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0318 0 0.0395 0 0.06 0 0.09 #207 2073a aggregate 0.0007 0.0001 0.0034 0.0001 0.0494 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0324 0 0.0402 0 0.06 0 0.09 #208 2076 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0458 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0328 0 0.0404 0 0.07 0 0.09 #209 2076 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0457 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0086 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0328 0 0.0406 0 0.07 0 0.09 #210 2076 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0478 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0334 0 0.041 0 0.07 0 0.09 #211 2075 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0478 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0091 0.0002 0 0.0047 0 0.0326 0 0.0401 0 0.06 0 0.09 #212 2075 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0479 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0089 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0331 0 0.041 0 0.07 0 0.09 #213 2075 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0481 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.009 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.033 0 0.0407 0 0.07 0 0.09 #214 2080 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0499 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0081 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0318 0 0.039 0 0.06 0 0.08 #215 2080 aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0508 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0325 0 0.0398 0 0.06 0 0.09 #216 2080 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0504 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0327 0 0.0403 0 0.06 0 0.09 #217 2081 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.048 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.031 0 0.0382 0 0.06 0 0.08 #218 2081 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0475 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0306 0 0.0377 0 0.06 0 0.08 #219 2081 aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0033 0.0001 0.0469 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0313 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #220 2082 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0454 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0081 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0272 0 0.0336 0 0.05 0 0.07 #221 2082 aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0455 0.0004 0.002 0.0001 0.008 0.0003 0 0.0043 0 0.0297 0 0.0365 0 0.06 0 0.08

#222 2082 aggregate 0.0006 0.0001 0.0031 0.0001 0.0441 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0089 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0297 0 0.0363 0 0.06 0 0.08

229

230

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #223 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0459 0.0004 0.0019 0.0001 0.0082 0.0003 0 0.0037 0 0.0262 0 0.0325 0 0.05 0 0.07 #224 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0455 0.0004 0.0022 0.0001 0.0078 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0267 0 0.0329 0 0.05 0 0.07 #225 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.0008 0.0027 0.0001 0.0457 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0079 0.0002 0 0.0038 0 0.0263 0 0.0325 0 0.05 0 0.07 #226 2501-u aggregate 0 0.0007 0.0022 0.0002 0.0409 0.0005 0.0021 0.0002 0.0076 0.0003 0 0.0032 0 0.0228 0 0.0284 0 0.05 0 0.06 #227 2501-u aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0031 0.0001 0.046 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0 0.0046 0 0.0312 0 0.0383 0 0.06 0 0.08 #228 2501-u aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0411 0.0004 0.0011 0.0001 0.0075 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0316 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.09 #229 2501-t aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0034 0.0001 0.0502 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0 0.0048 0 0.0332 0 0.041 0 0.07 0 0.09 #230 2501-t aggregate 0 0.001 0.0036 0.0001 0.0493 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0088 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0339 0 0.0417 0 0.07 0 0.09 #231 2501-t aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0033 0.0001 0.0502 0.0004 0.0017 0.0001 0.0085 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0334 0 0.0415 0 0.07 0 0.09 #232 2501-j aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0027 0.0001 0.0506 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.008 0.0002 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0312 0 0.0386 0 0.06 0 0.08 #233 2501-j aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0025 0.0001 0.05 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0322 0 0.0398 0 0.06 0 0.09 #234 2501-j aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0029 0.0001 0.0524 0.0005 0.0018 0.0001 0.0077 0.0002 0 0.0049 0 0.0338 0 0.0419 0 0.07 0 0.09 #235 2501-dd aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0001 0.0461 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0081 0.0003 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0311 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #236 2501-dd aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0035 0.0002 0.0459 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0084 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0319 0 0.0392 0 0.06 0 0.08 #237 2501-dd aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0466 0.0005 0.0022 0.0001 0.0082 0.0003 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0307 0 0.0379 0 0.06 0 0.08 #238 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0032 0.0002 0.0455 0.0005 0.0019 0.0001 0.0079 0.0003 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.0297 0 0.0367 0 0.06 0 0.08 #239 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0002 0.0454 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0082 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0278 0 0.0341 0 0.05 0 0.07 #240 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0004 0.0001 0.0032 0.0002 0.0534 0.0005 0.002 0.0001 0.0079 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0315 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.08 #241 2501-aa aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0478 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0089 0.0002 0 0.0043 0 0.0295 0 0.0366 0 0.06 0 0.08 #242 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0035 0.0002 0.0489 0.0005 0.0025 0.0002 0.0085 0.0003 0 0.0046 0 0.0319 0 0.0397 0 0.06 0 0.08 #243 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0471 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0 0.0043 0 0.0298 0 0.0367 0 0.06 0 0.08 #244 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0026 0.0001 0.0498 0.0005 0.0015 0.0001 0.0083 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0308 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08 #245 2059 one wash aggregate 0 0.0009 0.0028 0.0001 0.0497 0.0005 0.0017 0.0001 0.0077 0.0002 0.0006 0.0002 0 0.033 0 0.0409 0 0.07 0 0.09 #246 2059 one wash aggregate 0.0003 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0494 0.0004 0.0015 0.0001 0.0076 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.034 0 0.0417 0 0.07 0 0.09 #247 2059 one wash aggregate 0.0005 0.0001 0.0025 0.0001 0.0494 0.0005 0.0016 0.0001 0.0073 0.0002 0 0.005 0 0.0345 0 0.0426 0 0.07 0 0.09 #248 NIST 2710a shifted 0 0.0019 0.0106 0.0002 0.0245 0.0003 0.0039 0.0003 0.0201 0.0003 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0008 0 0.0324 0 0.05 0 0.07 #249 NIST 2710a shifted 0.0009 0.0002 0.0104 0.0002 0.0248 0.0003 0.0041 0.0003 0.0205 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0009 0 0.0327 0 0.05 0 0

#250 NIST 2710a shifted 0.0007 0.0002 0.0109 0.0002 0.0248 0.0003 0.0038 0.0003 0.0202 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0008 0 0.0327 0 0.05 0 0

230

231

Reading Sample Notes Se Se +/- Rb Rb +/- Sr Sr +/- Y Y +/- Zr Zr +/- Mo Mo +/- Ag Ag +/- Cd Cd +/- Sn Sn +/- Sb Sb +/- #251 NIST 2711a 0.0005 0.0001 0.0116 0.0002 0.0237 0.0003 0.0037 0.0002 0.0287 0.0003 0 0.0048 0 0.0313 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #252 NIST 2711a 0.0007 0.0001 0.0121 0.0002 0.0236 0.0003 0.0037 0.0002 0.0294 0.0003 0.0005 0.0002 0 0.0317 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #253 NIST 2711a 0.0005 0.0001 0.0115 0.0002 0.0231 0.0003 0.0036 0.0002 0.029 0.0003 0 0.0049 0 0.0317 0 0.0009 0 0.06 0 0.08 #254 BIR-1 0.0003 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0113 0.0002 0.0019 0.0001 0.0015 0.0002 0.0008 0.0002 0 0.0312 0 0.0384 0 0.06 0 0.08 #255 BIR-1 0.0006 0.0001 0 0.0012 0.0112 0.0002 0.0019 0.0001 0.0014 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0313 0 0.0388 0 0.06 0 0.08 #256 BIR-1 0.0006 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0113 0.0002 0.002 0.0001 0.0017 0.0002 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0315 0 0.0391 0 0.06 0 0.08 #257 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0005 0.0001 0.0153 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.0027 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0327 0 0.0402 0 0.06 0 0.08 #258 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0004 0.0001 0.0149 0.0002 0.0138 0.0002 0.0027 0.0002 0.0139 0.0002 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0325 0 0.0401 0 0.06 0 0.08 #259 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.0004 0.0001 0.015 0.0002 0.0141 0.0002 0.0025 0.0002 0.0136 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0322 0 0.0395 0 0.06 0 0.08 #260 Loess Soil Standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0068 0.0002 0.0163 0.0002 0.0035 0.0001 0.0421 0.0004 0 0.0053 0 0.0326 0 0.0403 0 0.06 0 0.09 #261 Loess Soil Standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0066 0.0002 0.0168 0.0002 0.0033 0.0001 0.0408 0.0004 0 0.0052 0 0.032 0 0.0392 0 0.06 0 0.08 #262 Loess Soil Standard 0.0003 0.0001 0.0065 0.0002 0.0165 0.0002 0.0033 0.0001 0.0408 0.0004 0 0.0052 0 0.0323 0 0.0396 0 0.06 0 0.08 #263 Till-2 0.0003 0.0001 0.0146 0.0002 0.015 0.0002 0.0042 0.0002 0.0343 0.0003 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0309 0 0.0381 0 0.06 0 0.08 #264 Till-2 0.0003 0.0001 0.0147 0.0002 0.0153 0.0002 0.0041 0.0002 0.0342 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0313 0 0.0383 0 0.06 0 0.08 #265 Till-2 0.0004 0.0001 0.0146 0.0002 0.0153 0.0002 0.0039 0.0002 0.034 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.031 0 0.0381 0 0.06 0 0.08 #266 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0402 0.0004 0.0018 0.0001 0.0087 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0 0.0311 0 0.0385 0 0.06 0 0.08 #267 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0004 0.0001 0.0028 0.0001 0.0394 0.0004 0.0015 0.0001 0.0082 0.0002 0 0.0044 0 0.0308 0 0.038 0 0.06 0 0.08

#268 NDGR-2018 standard 0.0005 0.0001 0.003 0.0001 0.0403 0.0004 0.0016 0.0001 0.0084 0.0002 0 0.0045 0 0.0311 0 0.0386 0 0.06 0 0.08

231

232

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #1 Cal Check #2 NIST 2711a 0 0.0138 0.0022 0.0004 0.1505 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 60.19 0.18 #3 NIST 2711a 0 0.0135 0.0023 0.0003 0.151 0.0013 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0114 59.79 0.17 #4 NIST 2711a 0.003 0.0008 0.0021 0.0004 0.1515 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0014 0.0003 58.02 0.27 #5 NIST 2710a 0.022 0.002 0.0028 0.0007 0.565 0.0035 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.0021 0.0003 59.01 0.19 #6 NIST 2710a 0.018 0.002 0.0037 0.0007 0.578 0.0036 0 0 0.004 0.0005 0.0018 0.0003 58.52 0.19 #7 NIST 2710a 0.02 0.002 0.0034 0.0007 0.5752 0.0036 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.0016 0.0003 58.84 0.19 #8 Till-2 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0072 0.0035 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.41 0.18 #9 Till-2 0 0.0108 0.0014 0.0003 0.0035 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0016 0.0003 58.92 0.18 #10 Till-2 0 0.0109 0.0013 0.0003 0.0037 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0008 0.0003 57.59 0.28 #11 BIR-1 0.003 0.0008 0 0.0071 0.001 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0092 49.82 0.3 #12 BIR-1 0 0.01 0.0015 0.0004 0 0.0059 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0009 0.0003 48.96 0.3 #13 BIR-1 0.002 0.0008 0 0.0069 0 0.0058 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 49.65 0.3 #14 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.0112 0.0014 0.0003 0.0032 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 58.03 0.19 #15 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.011 0.0011 0.0003 0.0029 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0 0.0113 56.74 0.29 #16 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.0111 0.0011 0.0003 0.0028 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0008 0.0003 58.07 0.19 #17 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.0104 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0118 62.07 0.19 #18 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0 0.0102 0.0011 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0.0009 0.0003 61.74 0.19 #19 NDGR-2018 standard shaken 0 0.0103 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0.001 0.0003 62.08 0.19 #20 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.003 0.0007 0.0013 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.05 0.31 #21 NDGR-2018 standard unshaken after run #18 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0072 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0113 62.02 0.19 #22 Loess Soil Standard 0 0.0106 0.0011 0.0003 0.0022 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0004 0 0.0111 62.27 0.17 #23 Loess Soil Standard 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0069 0.0024 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0012 0.0002 61.25 0.27 #24 Loess Soil Standard 0 0.0104 0.0008 0.0003 0.0023 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0002 61.26 0.27 #25 2016 all runs same position 0 0.01 0.001 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0112 53.11 0.26 #26 2016 powdered 0 0.01 0.0015 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0112 54.88 0.19 #27 2016 powdered 0 0.0103 0.0012 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0 0.0112 54.73 0.19

#28 2016 shifted from runspowdered 25-27 0 0.01 0.0013 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0 0.0113 53.14 0.26

232

233

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #29 2016 same position as powderedrun 28 0 0.0097 0 0.0065 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0.0009 0.0003 54.92 0.19 #30 2016 powdered 0 0.0104 0.0014 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0 0.0112 53.1 0.26 #31 2020 pellet runs hereafterpowdered 0 0.0096 0.0009 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0113 52.97 0.26 #32 2020 all in same positionpowdered 0 0.01 0 0.0067 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0114 53.46 0.26 #33 2020 powdered 0 0.01 0.0011 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0 0.0111 54.7 0.19 #34 2027 powdered 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0168 0 0.0096 52.99 0.27 #35 2027 powdered 0 0.0092 0.0012 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0172 0.0009 0.0003 53.59 0.26 #36 2027 powdered 0 0.0093 0 0.0062 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0168 0 0.0098 53.34 0.26 #37 2033 powdered 0 0.01 0 0.0066 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.019 0 0.0108 60.63 0.17 #38 2033 powdered 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0069 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0108 59.06 0.26 #39 2033 powdered 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0058 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0167 0.0007 0.0002 60.54 0.17 #40 2034b powdered 0 0.0088 0.0013 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0166 0 0.0089 61.14 0.17 #41 2034b powdered 0 0.0083 0.0013 0.0003 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0166 0.0007 0.0002 59.3 0.25 #42 2034b powdered 0 0.0086 0 0.0058 0.002 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0167 0.0007 0.0002 60.42 0.17 #43 2038 powdered 0 0.0087 0.0012 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0169 0 0.0094 60.43 0.17 #44 2038 powdered 0 0.0088 0.0009 0.0003 0.0017 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0166 0 0.0092 60.19 0.17 #45 2038 powdered 0 0.0087 0.0009 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0168 0 0.0092 58.51 0.26 #46 2047 powdered 0 0.0097 0.0013 0.0003 0.0026 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0175 0 0.0102 53.07 0.26 #47 2047 powdered 0 0.0091 0.0017 0.0003 0.0025 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0173 0 0.0098 54.5 0.19 #48 2047 powdered 0 0.0096 0.001 0.0003 0.0025 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0173 0.001 0.0003 52.95 0.26 #49 2501-? powdered 0 0.01 0.001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0 0.0112 57.03 0.18 #50 2501-? powdered 0 0.0098 0.0009 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0 0.0113 56.79 0.18 #51 2501-? powdered 0.002 0.0006 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0189 0.0008 0.0003 57.26 0.18 #52 2058 powdered 0 0.0089 0.0011 0.0003 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0175 0.0008 0.0003 57.01 0.26 #53 2058 powdered 0 0.0092 0.001 0.0003 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0177 0.0011 0.0003 55.89 0.26 #54 2058 powdered 0 0.0088 0.001 0.0003 0.001 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0175 0.0009 0.0003 55.93 0.26 #55 2059 powdered 0 0.0094 0 0.0063 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.011 56.2 0.26 #56 2059 powdered 0 0.0096 0 0.0065 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0184 0 0.011 57.44 0.18

#57 2059 powdered 0 0.0097 0.0013 0.0003 0.0009 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0186 0.001 0.0003 57.27 0.18

233

234

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #58 2065 powdered 0 0.0098 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0114 57.8 0.18 #59 2065 powdered 0.002 0.0006 0 0.007 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0197 0.0008 0.0003 57.24 0.18 #60 2065 powdered 0 0.0097 0.0008 0.0003 0.0018 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0114 57.58 0.18 #61 2068 powdered 0.002 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0187 0.0012 0.0003 57.32 0.18 #62 2068 powdered 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0017 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0187 0 0.0109 57.67 0.18 #63 2068 powdered 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0067 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0186 0.0008 0.0003 55.08 0.26 #64 2073a powdered 0 0.0096 0.0011 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0 0.0113 54.33 0.19 #65 2073a powdered 0.003 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0189 0.0008 0.0003 54.83 0.19 #66 2073a powdered 0 0.0097 0.0011 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0114 52.41 0.26 #67 2080 powdered 0 0.0099 0 0.0067 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0 0.011 54.33 0.26 #68 2080 powdered 0 0.0096 0.0013 0.0003 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.019 0 0.0109 56.66 0.18 #69 2080 powdered 0 0.0098 0 0.0066 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0186 0.0009 0.0003 57.08 0.18 #70 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0 0.0098 0.0014 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0187 0 0.0106 54.52 0.19 #71 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0.003 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0184 0 0.0109 52.52 0.26 #72 2081 aliquot 1 powdered 0 0.0096 0.0017 0.0003 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0184 0 0.0106 52.75 0.26 #73 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0 0.0102 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.001 0.0005 0 0.0111 58.21 0.18 #74 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0 0.0099 0.0012 0.0003 0.0018 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0189 0 0.0109 56.85 0.25 #75 2081 aliquot 2 powdered 0.002 0.0006 0.0011 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0 0.0112 57.93 0.18 #76 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0 0.0119 0.0013 0.0003 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0229 0 0.0127 61.06 0.3 #77 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0 0.012 0.0012 0.0003 0.0014 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0226 0 0.0125 61.07 0.3 #78 2012 unwashed stable aggregate 0 0.0122 0.0013 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0229 0 0.0128 62.08 0.18 #79 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.0118 0.0011 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0234 0.001 0.0003 61.3 0.32 #80 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0087 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0236 0 0.0134 61.76 0.32 #81 2012 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.0119 0.0014 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0231 0 0.013 63.67 0.18 #82 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.0105 0.001 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0202 0 0.0121 61.94 0.19 #83 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.011 0.0012 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 63.64 0.19

#84 2016 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.011 0.0012 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 62.67 0.19

234

235

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #85 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0072 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0126 87.44 0.12 #86 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0 0.0103 0 0.007 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0121 86.82 0.12 #87 2020 unwashed shaken aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0213 0 0.0128 83.56 0.5 #88 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.0103 0 0.0069 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0188 0 0.0115 61.98 0.19 #89 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.0103 0.0013 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 61.78 0.19 #90 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.0104 0.0012 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0109 61.87 0.19 #91 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0109 0.0011 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0126 59.6 0.3 #92 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0071 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0208 0.0013 0.0003 60.28 0.3 #93 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0011 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0127 62.17 0.19 #94 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.011 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 61.01 0.3 #95 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0108 0.0013 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0131 63.37 0.19 #96 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0013 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0221 0 0.0132 63.01 0.19 #97 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.008 0 0.0055 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0153 0 0.0091 59.97 0.2 #98 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0098 0.0015 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0105 60 0.3 #99 2018 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0101 0 0.0067 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0.0012 0.0003 59.89 0.31 #100 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0 0.0062 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0165 0 0.0099 57.4 0.29 #101 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0101 0.0016 0.0004 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0112 60.69 0.3 #102 2018 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0105 0.0015 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0.0012 0.0003 61.32 0.3 #103 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0099 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0.0009 0.0003 59.94 0.27 #104 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0103 0 0.0069 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 61.56 0.28 #105 2020 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0108 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.68 0.29 #106 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0015 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0125 60.8 0.28 #107 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0105 0.001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0201 0 0.0122 59.97 0.3 #108 2020 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0107 0.001 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.52 0.29 #109 2012 aggregate 0 0.0107 0 0.0073 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0205 0 0.0119 63.55 0.18 #110 2012 aggregate 0 0.0115 0.0011 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0121 62.53 0.3

#111 2012 aggregate 0 0.0117 0.0017 0.0003 0.0012 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0215 0 0.0124 63.14 0.18

235

236

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #112 2027 aggregate 0 0.0105 0.0011 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0198 0.0011 0.0003 61.42 0.19 #113 2027 aggregate 0 0.0107 0.001 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0124 61.53 0.19 #114 2027 aggregate 0 0.0105 0 0.0072 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0126 61.09 0.19 #115 2031 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0068 0.0011 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0199 0 0.0121 60.1 0.28 #116 2031 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0012 0.0003 61.74 0.28 #117 2031 aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.02 0.0009 0.0003 62.66 0.19 #118 2033 aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0073 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0118 62.74 0.18 #119 2033 aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0012 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0209 0 0.0123 62.9 0.31 #120 2033 aggregate 0 0.0107 0.0011 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0206 0 0.0121 63.69 0.19 #121 2034a aggregate 0 0.0098 0.0014 0.0003 0.0025 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0101 63.51 0.18 #122 2034a aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0183 0 0.0102 62.85 0.29 #123 2034a aggregate 0 0.01 0.0011 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0012 0.0003 63.82 0.18 #124 2035a aggregate 0 0.0107 0 0.0072 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0208 0 0.0121 62.83 0.18 #126 2035a aggregate 0 0.0114 0.0012 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0215 0.001 0.0003 61.42 0.29 #127 2035a aggregate 0 0.0112 0 0.0075 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0213 0.0009 0.0003 63.2 0.18 #128 2034b aggregate 0 0.0094 0.0011 0.0003 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0013 0.0003 64.46 0.3 #131 2034b aggregate 0 0.0096 0 0.0063 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0013 0.0003 64.36 0.29 #132 2034b aggregate 0 0.0095 0 0.0063 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 65.78 0.18 #133 Cal Check tested 0.02 0.0036 0 0.0029 0.008 0.002 0 0 0 0.0044 0.0066 0.0011 #134 NIST 2710a 0.021 0.0021 0.0036 0.0007 0.578 0.0036 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.0018 0.0003 59.87 0.19 #135 NIST 2711a 0.003 0.0008 0.0024 0.0004 0.1521 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0121 60.67 0.17 #136 BIR-1 0.003 0.0008 0 0.0072 0.0011 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0097 51.74 0.3 #137 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.0111 0.0009 0.0003 0.0026 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0 0.0114 59.15 0.19

#138 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.0103 0.0015 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0109 63.48 0.19

236

237

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #139 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.013 61.38 0.3 #140 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0 0.0115 0.001 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0213 0.0015 0.0003 64.43 0.19 #141 2027 shaken aggregate 0 0.0106 0.0013 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 63.62 0.19 #142 2027 shaken aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.0013 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0013 0.0003 61.46 0.3 #143 2027 shaken aggregate 0 0.0105 0.0013 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0199 0 0.0118 62.33 0.19 #144 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.0107 0.001 0.0003 0.0029 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 64.94 0.18 #145 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.0101 0.0014 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 65.12 0.18 #146 2033 shaken aggregate 0 0.0105 0.001 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0119 66.48 0.18 #147 2038 shaken aggregate 0 0.0096 0.0012 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0101 63.41 0.18 #148 2038 shaken aggregate 0 0.01 0.0013 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0099 64.68 0.18 #149 2038 shaken aggregate 0 0.0095 0 0.0063 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.01 63.92 0.3 #150 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.0094 0.0011 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0098 65.71 0.18 #151 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.0094 0.001 0.0003 0.0025 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0097 66.07 0.18 #152 2041 shaken aggregate 0 0.0095 0 0.0063 0.0028 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0176 0 0.0095 67.45 0.18 #153 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.0098 0.0014 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0118 63.13 0.18 #154 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.0101 0.0011 0.0003 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0114 65.62 0.18 #155 2047 shaken aggregate 0 0.0101 0.0014 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0118 65.52 0.18 #156 2057 shaken aggregate 0 0.0082 0 0.0055 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0142 0 0.0086 56.98 0.29 #157 2057 shaken aggregate 0 0.0089 0.0017 0.0004 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0153 0 0.0091 60.23 0.2 #158 2057 shaken aggregate 0 0.0089 0.0013 0.0004 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0157 0 0.0096 59.23 0.3 #159 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.0086 0.0013 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0018 0.0004 62.31 0.2 #160 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.0094 0.0014 0.0004 0.001 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0015 0.0003 63.37 0.2 #161 2058 shaken aggregate 0 0.0095 0.0021 0.0004 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0013 0.0003 64.46 0.19 #162 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0 0.0073 0 0.0047 0 0.0048 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.007 54.18 0.3 #176 Cal Check tested aggregate 0.024 0.0037 0 0.0028 0.0076 0.002 0 0 0 0.0046 0.0045 0.0011 #177 Cal Check aggregate #178 NIST 2710a aggregate 0.024 0.0021 0.0025 0.0007 0.5795 0.0036 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0017 0.0003 59.33 0.19 #179 NIST 2711a aggregate 0 0.0137 0.0018 0.0003 0.1522 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 60.43 0.17 #180 BIR-1 aggregate 0 0.0104 0.0017 0.0004 0 0.0057 0 0.0001 0 0.0181 0 0.0095 51.54 0.3 #181 MESS-3 Marine Sed aggregate 0 0.011 0.0015 0.0003 0.0026 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0113 57.22 0.29 #182 NDGR-2018 standard aggregate 0 0.0098 0.0013 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0188 0 0.0112 62.43 0.19 #183 2016 Aliquot 1 aggregate 0 0.0108 0.0014 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 60.29 0.31

#184 2016 Aliquot 2 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0077 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0216 0 0.0126 63.44 0.18

237

238

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #185 OSL-5 matrix shaken aggregate 0 0.0083 0.002 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.014 0 0.0083 58.04 0.31 #186 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0 0.0097 0.0015 0.0004 0.0011 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0185 0 0.0108 60.85 0.32 #187 OSL-5 matrix aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0072 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 62.97 0.19 #188 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0 0.0101 0 0.0067 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0 0.0116 65.07 0.18 #189 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0 0.0107 0.0011 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 64.38 0.18 #190 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0 0.0107 0.0013 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0126 63.29 0.18 #191 OSL-15 matrix aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0013 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0212 0 0.0129 63.74 0.18 #192 2059 rewashed aggregate 0 0.0105 0.0011 0.0003 0.0013 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0202 0 0.0123 61.95 0.18 #193 2059 rewashed aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 65.09 0.18 #194 2059 rewashed aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0017 0.0003 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0215 0.001 0.0003 63.54 0.18 #195 2063 aggregate 0 0.0095 0.0016 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0193 0 0.0118 61.02 0.19 #196 2063 aggregate 0 0.0106 0.0011 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0123 61.72 0.19 #197 2063 aggregate 0 0.011 0.0013 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.021 0 0.0126 60.02 0.3 #198 2065 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0063 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0171 0 0.0105 61.06 0.28 #199 2065 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0015 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0198 0 0.012 62.21 0.3 #200 2065 aggregate 0 0.0102 0.0013 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0198 0.001 0.0003 64.52 0.18 #201 2068 aggregate 0 0.011 0.0013 0.0003 0.002 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0209 0 0.0125 62.65 0.18 #202 2068 aggregate 0 0.011 0.0011 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0218 0.0011 0.0003 65.24 0.18 #203 2068 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0015 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.013 62.03 0.3 #204 2073a aggregate 0 0.0095 0.0011 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0189 0 0.0115 60.21 0.28 #205 2073a aggregate 0 0.0099 0.0012 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0195 0 0.0116 64.08 0.18 #206 2073a aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0 0.0072 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.02 0.0012 0.0003 61.19 0.29 #207 2073a aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0014 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.02 0.0009 0.0003 61.73 0.19 #208 2076 aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0071 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0205 0 0.0122 65.13 0.18 #209 2076 aggregate 0 0.0109 0.0015 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 63.82 0.18 #210 2076 aggregate 0 0.011 0.0014 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0208 0 0.0125 63.13 0.18 #211 2075 aggregate 0 0.0104 0 0.007 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0122 62.07 0.18 #212 2075 aggregate 0 0.011 0.0014 0.0003 0.0021 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0125 60.91 0.29 #213 2075 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0124 62.81 0.18 #214 2080 aggregate 0 0.0106 0.0012 0.0003 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0117 62.52 0.28 #215 2080 aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 63.41 0.18 #216 2080 aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.0012 0.0003 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0125 61.75 0.19 #217 2081 aggregate 0 0.0099 0.0014 0.0003 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0 0.0116 61.07 0.27 #218 2081 aggregate 0 0.01 0.0011 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0189 0 0.0115 61.2 0.27

#219 2081 aggregate 0 0.0103 0.001 0.0003 0.0015 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0194 0.0009 0.0003 62.53 0.18 238 #220 2082 aggregate 0 0.0095 0 0.0064 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0103 61.51 0.2

#221 2082 aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0 0.0069 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0112 61.68 0.2 #222 2082 aggregate 0 0.0102 0.0015 0.0004 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0109 60.54 0.3

239

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #223 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0 0.0089 0.0017 0.0004 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0097 60.71 0.2 #224 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0.0011 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0097 61.39 0.19 #225 ModSoloBedload aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0.0013 0.0004 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0164 0 0.0099 59.61 0.29 #226 2501-u aggregate 0 0.0082 0 0.0054 0.0015 0.0004 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0083 54.19 0.3 #227 2501-u aggregate 0 0.0104 0 0.007 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0116 61.37 0.3 #228 2501-u aggregate 0 0.0098 0.0013 0.0003 0.0017 0.0002 0 0.0001 0 0.0195 0 0.0114 65.41 0.17 #229 2501-t aggregate 0 0.0104 0.0009 0.0003 0.0016 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0126 62.72 0.18 #230 2501-t aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0075 0.0022 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0211 0 0.0125 63.68 0.18 #231 2501-t aggregate 0 0.0107 0.001 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0128 63.52 0.18 #232 2501-j aggregate 0 0.01 0.0016 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.012 60.88 0.28 #233 2501-j aggregate 0 0.0103 0 0.0067 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.02 0.0009 0.0003 63.91 0.18 #234 2501-j aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0 0.0074 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0213 0.001 0.0003 63.29 0.18 #235 2501-dd aggregate 0 0.0105 0.0012 0.0004 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0115 61.07 0.2 #236 2501-dd aggregate 0 0.0106 0.0012 0.0003 0.0012 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0 0.012 62.77 0.2 #237 2501-dd aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0.0013 0.0004 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0014 0.0003 59.57 0.31 #238 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0 0.0097 0.0012 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0006 0.0012 0.0003 59.69 0.3 #239 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0 0.0096 0.002 0.0004 0.0024 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0173 0 0.0103 59.42 0.3 #240 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0 0.0106 0.0011 0.0003 0.0023 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0.0012 0.0003 61.27 0.31 #241 2501-aa aggregate 0 0.0096 0.0012 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0183 0 0.0111 62.94 0.28 #242 2501-dd Shaken/sieved aggregate 0.003 0.0008 0.0012 0.0004 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.02 0.0012 0.0003 62.08 0.2 #243 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0.002 0.0007 0.0015 0.0003 0.0014 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0187 0 0.0112 62.35 0.28 #244 2501-aa shaken aggregate 0 0.01 0.001 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0117 61.89 0.28 #245 2059 one wash aggregate 0.003 0.0007 0.0012 0.0003 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0207 0.001 0.0003 61.29 0.29 #246 2059 one wash aggregate 0 0.0109 0.0014 0.0003 0.0018 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0003 63.49 0.19 #247 2059 one wash aggregate 0 0.0112 0.0011 0.0003 0.0017 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0219 0.0014 0.0003 64.17 0.19 #248 NIST 2710a shifted 0.02 0.002 0.0039 0.0007 0.5702 0.0036 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.0022 0.0003 59.85 0.19 #249 NIST 2710a shifted 0.017 0.002 0.0034 0.0007 0.5717 0.0036 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.002 0.0003 59.39 0.19

#250 NIST 2710a shifted 0.018 0.002 0.0034 0.0007 0.5663 0.0036 0 0 0.003 0.0005 0.0012 0.0003 59.14 0.19

239

240

Reading Sample Notes W W +/- Hg Hg +/- Pb Pb +/- Bi Bi +/- Th Th +/- U U +/- LE LE +/- #251 NIST 2711a 0 0.0135 0.0024 0.0004 0.1513 0.0013 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.87 0.17 #252 NIST 2711a 0 0.0135 0.0024 0.0004 0.1559 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0 0.0116 60.39 0.17 #253 NIST 2711a 0.003 0.0008 0.002 0.0004 0.1507 0.0014 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0005 0.0009 0.0003 60.74 0.17 #254 BIR-1 0 0.0104 0 0.007 0 0.0057 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0 0.0092 53.5 0.29 #255 BIR-1 0 0.0103 0 0.007 0 0.0055 0 0.0001 0 0.0182 0 0.0095 51.61 0.29 #256 BIR-1 0 0.0099 0 0.0069 0.0009 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.003 0.0006 0 0.0097 52.06 0.3 #257 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.0116 0.0011 0.0003 0.0033 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0 0.0116 59.81 0.19 #258 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0.002 0.0007 0.001 0.0003 0.0029 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0013 0.0003 59.79 0.19 #259 MESS-3 Marine Sed 0 0.0115 0 0.0073 0.0028 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0014 0.0003 59.6 0.19 #260 Loess Soil Standard 0 0.0104 0.0012 0.0003 0.0023 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0005 0.0008 0.0002 63.98 0.16 #261 Loess Soil Standard 0.002 0.0006 0.0008 0.0003 0.0026 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0004 0.0008 0.0002 63.06 0.26 #262 Loess Soil Standard 0.002 0.0006 0 0.0069 0.002 0.0002 0 0.0001 0.002 0.0004 0.0011 0.0002 62.69 0.26 #263 Till-2 0 0.0109 0.001 0.0003 0.0039 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0008 0.0003 59.84 0.18 #264 Till-2 0 0.0103 0.0012 0.0003 0.0037 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 59.69 0.18 #265 Till-2 0.003 0.0007 0.0011 0.0003 0.004 0.0003 0 0.0001 0.004 0.0005 0.0011 0.0003 59.86 0.18 #266 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.0104 0 0.0069 0.0013 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0191 0 0.0114 62.81 0.19 #267 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.0102 0.0012 0.0003 0.0016 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0 0.0113 63.46 0.19

#268 NDGR-2018 standard 0 0.0103 0 0.0068 0.0019 0.0003 0 0.0001 0 0.0192 0.0012 0.0003 62.85 0.19

240

241

REFERENCES

Andronico, D., Scollo, S., Cristaldi, A., Ferrari, F., 2009. Monitoring ash emission episodes at Mt. Etna: The 16 November 2006 case study. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 180, 123–134. doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2008.10.019 Bagnold, R., 1966. An approach to the sediment transport problem from general physics. Washington, DC. Bartstra, G., 1977. The height of the river terraces in the transverse Solo valley in Java. Mod. Quat. Res. Southeast Asia 3, 143–155. Baş, N., Pathare, P.B., Catak, M., Fitzpatrick, J.J., Cronin, K., Byrne, E.P., 2011. Mathematical modelling of granola breakage during pipe pneumatic conveying. Powder Technol. 206, 170–176. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2010.06.015 Basu, A., 1976. Petrology of Holocene fluvial sand derived from plutonic source rocks: Implications to paleoclimatic interpretation. J. Sediment. Petrol. 46, 694–709. Bettis, E.A., Zaim, Y., Larick, R.R., Ciochon, R.L., Suminto, Rizal, Y., Reagan, M., Heizler, M., 2004. Landscape development preceding Homo erectus immigration into Central Java, Indonesia: The Sangiran Formation Lower Lahar. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 206, 115–131. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2004.01.016 Bettis, E.A.I., 2010. Personal Communication. Blott, S.J., Pye, K., 2001. GRADISTAT: a grain size distribution and statistics package for the analysis of unconsolidated sediments. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 26, 1237–1248. doi:10.1002/esp.261 Botfalvai, G., Haas, J., Bodor, E.R., Mindszenty, A., Osi, A., 2016. Facies architecture and palaeoenvironmental implications of the upper Cretaceous (Santonian) Csehbánya formation at the Iharkút vertebrate locality (Bakony Mountains, Northwestern Hungary). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 441, 659–678. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.10.018 Bridge, J.S., 1993. Description and interpretation of fluvial deposits: a critical perspective. Sedimentology 40, 801–810. Bridge, J.S., 1985. Paleochannel patterns inferred from alluvial deposits: A critical evaluation. J. Sediment. Petrol. 55, 579–589. Brown, P., Ehrlich, R., Colquhoun, D., 1980. Origin of patterns of quartz sand types on the southeastern United States continental shelf and implications on contemporary shelf sedimentation--Fourier grain shape analysis. J. Sediment. Petrol. 50, 1095–1100. Carter, R.M., Yan, Y., 2005. Measurement of particle shape using digital imaging techniques. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 15, 177–182. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/15/1/030 Charalambous, A., Kassianidou, V., Papasavvas, G., 2014. A compositional study of Cypriot bronzes dating to the Early Iron Age using portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry

(pXRF). J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 205–216. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2014.03.006 241

Colombo, F., Busquets, P., Ramos, E., Verges, J., Ragona, D., 2000. Quaternary alluvial terraces

242

in an active tectonic region : the San Juan River Valley , Andean Ranges , San Juan Province, Argentina. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 13, 611–626. Craig, N., Speakman, R.J., Popelka-Filcoff, R.S., Glascock, M.D., Robertson, J.D., Shackley, M.S., Aldenderfer, M.S., 2007. Comparison of XRF and PXRF for analysis of archaeological obsidian from southern Perú. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 2012–2024. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.01.015 Cunha, P., Martins, A., Huot, S., Murray, A., Raposo, L., 2008. Dating the Tejo river lower terraces in the Ródão area (Portugal) to assess the role of tectonics and uplift. Geomorphology 102, 43–54. Darman, H., Sidi, F., 2000. An outline of the geology of Indonesia. Indonesian Association of Geologists, Jakarta. de Genevraye, P., Samuel, L., 1972. Geology of the Kendeng Zone (Central & East Java), in: Indonesian Petroleum Association, First Annual Convention and Exhibition. pp. 17–30. del Marmol, M.-A., 1990. The petrology and geochemistry of Merapi Volcano, central Java, Indonesia. DeLong, S.B., Arnold, L.J., 2007. Dating alluvial deposits with optically stimulated luminescence, AMS 14C and cosmogenic techniques, western Transverse Ranges, California, USA. Quat. Geochronol. 2, 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2006.03.012 Dill, H.G., Klosa, D., Steyer, G., 2009. The “Donauplatin”: source rock analysis and origin of a distal fluvial Au-PGE placer in Central Europe. Mineral. Petrol. 96, 141–161. doi:10.1007/s00710-009-0060-7 Easterbrook, D., 1999. Fluvial Landforms in Surface Processes and Landforms, Second Edition. Ehrlich, R., Weinberg, B., 1970. An exact method for characterization of grain shape. J. Sediment. Petrol. 40, 205–212. Fattahi, M., Stokes, S., 2000. Extending the time range of luminescence dating using red TL (RTL) from volcanic quartz. Radiat. Meas. 32, 479–485. doi:10.1016/S1350- 4487(00)00105-0 Fauzi, M.R., Ansyori, M.M., Prastiningtyas, D., Intan, M.F.S., Wibowo, U.P., Wulandari, Rahmanendra, H., Widianto, H., Simanjuntak, T., 2016. Matar: A forgotten but promising Pleistocene locality in East Java. Quat. Int. 416, 183–192. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.091 Fernlund, J.M.R., Zimmerman, R.W., Kragic, D., 2007. Influence of volume/mass on grain-size curves and conversion of image-analysis size to sieve size. Eng. Geol. 90, 124–137. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.12.007 Folk, R., 1980. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Folk, R., Ward, W., 1957. Brazos River Bar: A study in the significance of grain size parameters. J. Sediment. Petrol. 27, 3–26. Forman, S.L., Jackson, M.E., Mccalpin, J., Maat, P., 1988. THE POTENTIAL OF USING THERMOLUMINESCENCE TO DATE BURIED SOILS DEVELOPED ON COLLUVIAL AND FLUVIAL SEDIMENTS FROM UTAH AND COLORADO, USA:

PRELIMINARY RESULTS. Quat. Sci. Rev. 7, 287–293. 242

Forster, N., Grave, P., 2013. Effects of elevated levels of lead in ceramics on provenancing

243

studies using non-destructive PXRF: a case study in Byzantine Cypriot glazed ceramics. X- Ray Spectrom. 42, 480–486. doi:10.1002/xrs.2507 Frahm, E., 2014. Characterizing Obsidian Sources with Portable XRF: Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Field Relationships in a Case Study from Armenia. J. Archaeol. Sci. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2014.05.003 Frahm, E., 2012. Non-Destructive Sourcing of Bronze Age Near Eastern Obsidian Artefacts: Redeveloping and Reassessing Electron Microprobe Analysis for Obsidian Sourcing. Archaeometry 54, 623–642. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00648.x Frahm, E., Doonan, R.C.P., 2013. The technological versus methodological revolution of portable XRF in archaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 1425–1434. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.10.013 Friedman, G.M., 1967. Dynamic processes and statistical parameters compared for size frequency distribution of beach and river sands. SEPM J. Sediment. Res. Vol. 37, 327–354. doi:10.1306/74D716CC-2B21-11D7-8648000102C1865D Galbraith, R.F., Roberts, R.G., 2012. Statistical aspects of equivalent dose and error calculation and display in OSL dating: An overview and some recommendations. Quat. Geochronol. 11, 1–27. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2012.04.020 Galbraith, R.F., Roberts, R.G., Yoshida, H., 2005. Error variation in OSL palaeodose estimates from single aliquots of quartz: a factorial experiment. Radiat. Meas. 39, 289–307. doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2004.03.023 Gao, H., Liu, X., Pan, B., Wang, Y., Yu, Y., Li, J., 2008. Stream response to Quaternary tectonic and climatic change: Evidence from the upper Weihe River, central China. Quat. Int. 186, 123–131. Garzanti, E., Ando, S., 2007. Heavy mineral concentration in modern sands: Implications for provenance interpretation. Dev. Sedimentol. 58, 517–545. doi:10.1016/S0070- 4571(07)58020-9 Garzanti, E., Andò, S., France-Lanord, C., Vezzoli, G., Censi, P., Galy, V., Najman, Y., 2010. Mineralogical and chemical variability of fluvial sediments1. Bedload sand (Ganga– Brahmaputra, Bangladesh). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 299, 368–381. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.09.017 Garzanti, E., Andò, S., Vezzoli, G., Ali Abdel Megid, A., El Kammar, A., 2006. Petrology of Nile River sands (Ethiopia and Sudan): Sediment budgets and erosion patterns. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 252, 327–341. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2006.10.001 Garzanti, E., Vezzoli, G., Andò, S., Lavé, J., Attal, M., France-Lanord, C., DeCelles, P., 2007. Quantifying sand provenance and erosion (Marsyandi River, Nepal Himalaya). Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 258, 500–515. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2007.04.010 Gertisser, R., Charbonnier, S.J., Keller, J., Quidelleur, X., 2012. The geological evolution of Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia. Bull. Volcanol. 74, 1213–1233. doi:10.1007/s00445-012-0591-3 Goodale, N., Bailey, D.G., Jones, G.T., Prescott, C., Scholz, E., Stagliano, N., Lewis, C., 2012.

pXRF: a study of inter-instrument performance. J. Archaeol. Sci. 39, 875–883. 243

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.014

244

Greenough, J.D., Mallory-Greenough, L.M., Baker, J., 2004. Orthopyroxene, augite, and plagioclase compositions in dacite: application to bedrock sourcing of lithic artefacts in southern British Columbia. Can. J. Earth Sci. 41, 711–723. doi:10.1139/e04-012 Grün, R., 2014. Personal Communication. Grün, R., Thorne, A., 1997. Dating the Ngandong Humans. Science (80-. ). 276, 1575–1576. doi:10.1126/science.276.5318.1575 Guralnik, B., Matmon, A., Avni, Y., Porat, N., Fink, D., 2011. Constraining the evolution of river terraces with integrated OSL and cosmogenic nuclide data. Quat. Geochronol. 6, 22– 32. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2010.06.002 Hancock, G.S., Anderson, R.S., Chadwick, O.A., Finkel, R.C., 1999. Dating fluvial terraces with 10 Be and 26 Al profiles : application to the Wind River , Wyoming. Geomorphology 27, 41–60. Hartono, U., 1994. The Petrology and Geochemistry of the Wilis and Lawu Volcanoes, East Java, Indonesia. Hayes, K., 2013. Parameters in the use of pXRF for archaeological site prospection: a case study at the Reaume Fort Site, Central Minnesota. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 3193–3211. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.04.008 Heinicke, G., Schwartz, J.B., 2006. Assessment of dynamic image analysis as a surrogate dissolution test for a coated multiparticulate product. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 11, 403–8. doi:10.1080/10837450600770072 Hoekstra, P., 1993. Late Holocene development of a tide-induced elongate delta, the Solo delta, East Java. Sediment. Geol. 83, 211–233. doi:10.1016/0037-0738(93)90014-V Huffman, F., de Vos, J., Berkhout, A.W., Aziz, F., 2010. Provenience Reassessment of the 1931– 1933 Ngandong Homo erectus (Java), Confirmation of the Bone-Bed Origin Reported by the Discoverers. PaleoAnthropology 1–60. doi:10.4207/PA.2010.ART34 Huffman, O.F., 2001. Geologic context and age of the Perning/Mojokerto Homo erectus, East Java. J. Hum. Evol. 40, 353–62. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0464 Huffman, O.F., Zaim, Y., Kappelman, J., Ruez, D.R., de Vos, J., Rizal, Y., Aziz, F., Hertler, C., 2006. Relocation of the 1936 Mojokerto skull discovery site near Perning, East Java. J. Hum. Evol. 50, 431–51. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2005.11.002 Hutton, J.T., Elliott, S.M., 1980. An accurate XRF method for the analysis of geochemical exploration samples for major and trace elements using one glass disc. Chem. Geol. 29, 1– 11. doi:10.1016/0009-2541(80)90002-9 Indriati, E., Swisher, C.C., Lepre, C., Quinn, R.L., Suriyanto, R. a, Hascaryo, A.T., Grün, R., Feibel, C.S., Pobiner, B.L., Aubert, M., Lees, W., Antón, S.C., 2011. The age of the 20 meter Solo River terrace, Java, Indonesia and the survival of Homo erectus in Asia. PLoS One 6, 1–10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021562 Ingersoll, R., Bullard, T., Ford, R., Grimm, J., Pickle, J., Sares, S.W., 1984. The effect of grain size on detrital modes: A test of the Gazzi-Dickinson point-counting method. J. Sediment. Petrol. 54, 103–116.

Isa, N.A.M., Sani, Z.M., Al-Batah, M.S., 2011. Automated Intelligent real-time system for 244

245

aggregate classification. Int. J. Miner. Process. 100, 41–50. doi:10.1016/j.minpro.2011.04.009 Itihara, M., SudijonoKadar, D Shibasaki, T., Kumai, H Yoshikawa, S., Aziz, F., Soeradi, T., WikarnoKadar, A., Hashibuan, F., Kagemori, Y., 1985. Geology and stratigraphy of the Sangiran area, in: Quaternary Geology of the Hominid Fossil Bearing Formations in Java. pp. 11–43. Jerolmack, D.J., Reitz, M.D., Martin, R.L., 2011. Sorting out abrasion in a gypsum dune field. J. Geophys. Res. 116, F02003. doi:10.1029/2010JF001821 Johansson, E., Miskovsky, K., Loorents, K.-J., Löfgren, O., 2007. A Method for Estimation of Free Mica Particles in Aggregate Fine Fraction by Image Analysis of Grain Mounts. J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 17, 250–253. doi:10.1007/s11665-007-9127-y Kennedy, S.K., Lin, W., 1992. A comparison of Fourier and Fractal techniques in the analysis of closed forms. J. Sediment. Petrol. 62, 842–848. Komar, P., Reimers, C., 1978. Grain Shape Effects on Settling Rates. J. Geol. 86, 193–209. Krumbein, W.C., 1941. Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. J. Sediment. Petrol. 11, 64–72. Kwan, A.K.H., Mora, C.F., Chan, H.C., 1999. Particle shape analysis of coarse aggregate using digital image processing. Cem. Concr. Res. 29, 1403–1410. doi:10.1016/S0008- 8846(99)00105-2 Li, B., Li, S.-H., Duller, G. a. T., Wintle, A.G., 2011. Infrared stimulated luminescence measurements of single grains of K-rich feldspar for isochron dating. Quat. Geochronol. 6, 71–81. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2010.02.003 Lian, O.B., 2007. Luminescence dating. pp. 1480–1491. Lo Castro, M., Andronico, D., Nunnari, G., Spata, A., Torrisi, A., 2009. Shape measurements of volcanic particles by CAMSIZER 2009. Lubinski, P.M., Feathers, J., Lillquist, K., 2014. Single-grain luminescence dating of sediment surrounding a possible late pleistocene artifact from the wenas creek mammoth site, Pacific Northwest, USA. Geoarchaeology 29, 16–32. doi:10.1002/gea.21461 Mack, G., Jerzykiewicz, T., 1989. Detrital modes of sand and sandstone derived from andesitic rocks as a paleoclimatic indicator. Sediment. Geol. 65, 35–44. Maddy, D., Demir, T., Bridgland, D.R., Veldkamp, A., Stemerdink, C., van der Schriek, T., Westaway, R., 2005. An obliquity-controlled Early Pleistocene river terrace record from Western Turkey? Quat. Res. 63, 339–346. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2005.01.004 Maerz, N., 1998. Aggregate sizing and shape determination using digital image processing, in: Center for Aggregates Research (ICAR) Sixth Annual Sympostium Proceedings. pp. 195– 203. Marshak, J., 2011. Grain Size and sediment trapping efficiency of the Attakapas crevasse splay along Bayou Lafourche , Louisiana. McLane, M., 1995. Sedimentology. Oxford University Press, USA.

Merritts, D., 2007. Fluvial Environments: Terrace Sequences. Encycl. Quat. Sci. 245

246

Miall, A.D., 1978. Lithofacies types and vertical profile models in braided river deposits: a summary. Fluv. Sedimentol. 5, 597–600. Middleton, G., 1976. Hydraulic interpretation of sand size distributions. J. Geol. 84, 405–426. Milan, D.J., Heritage, G.L., Large, A.R.G., Brunsdon, C.F., 1999. Influence of particle shape and sorting upon sample size estimates for a coarse-grained upland stream. Sediment. Geol. 129, 85–100. doi:10.1016/S0037-0738(99)00090-1 Miller, N. a., Henderson, J.J., 2010. Quantifying Sand Particle Shape Complexity using a Dynamic, Digital Imaging Technique. Agron. J. 102, 1407. doi:10.2134/agronj2010.0097 Moore, A., Goff, J., McAdoo, B.G., Fritz, H.M., Gusman, A., Kalligeris, N., Kalsum, K., Susanto, A., Suteja, D., Synolakis, C.E., 2011a. Sedimentary Deposits from the 17 July 2006 Western Java Tsunami, Indonesia: Use of Grain Size Analyses to Assess Tsunami Flow Depth, Speed, and Traction Carpet Characteristics. Pure Appl. Geophys. 168, 1951– 1961. doi:10.1007/s00024-011-0280-8 Moore, A., Goff, J., McAdoo, B.G., Fritz, H.M., Gusman, A., Kalligeris, N., Kalsum, K., Susanto, A., Suteja, D., Synolakis, C.E., 2011b. Sedimentary Deposits from the 17 July 2006 Western Java Tsunami, Indonesia: Use of Grain Size Analyses to Assess Tsunami Flow Depth, Speed, and Traction Carpet Characteristics. Pure Appl. Geophys. 168, 1951– 1961. doi:10.1007/s00024-011-0280-8 Moore, A.L., McAdoo, B.G., Ruffman, A., 2007. Landward fining from multiple sources in a sand sheet deposited by the 1929 Grand Banks tsunami, Newfoundland. Sediment. Geol. 200, 336–346. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2007.01.012 Morwood, M.J., Sutikna, T., Saptomo, E.W., Westaway, K.E., Awe Due, R., Moore, M.W., Yuniawati, D.Y., Hadi, P., Zhao, J. -x., Turney, C.S.M., Fifield, K., Allen, H., Soejono, R.P., 2008. Climate, people and faunal succession on Java, Indonesia: evidence from Song Gupuh. J. Archaeol. Sci. 35, 1776–1789. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.11.025 Murray, A.S., Olley, J.M., Caitcheon, G.G., 1995. Measurement of equivalent doses in quartz from contemporary water-lain sediments using optically stimulated luminescence. Quat. Sci. Rev. 14, 365–371. doi:10.1016/0277-3791(95)00030-5 Norrish, K., Hutton, J.., 1969. An accurate X-ray spectrographic method for the analysis of a wide range of geological samples. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 33, 431–453. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(69)90126-4 Olley, J., Caitcheon, G., Murray, A., 1998. The distribution of apparent dose as determined by optically stimulated luminescence in small aliquots of fluvial quartz: Implications for dating young sediments. Quat. Geochronol. 17, 1033–1040. Olley, J., Caitcheon, G., Roberts, R., 1999. The origin of dose distributions in fluvial sediments , and the prospect of dating single grains from fluvial deposits using optically stimulated luminescence. Radiat. Meas. 30, 207–217. Ortiz, E., Roser, B.P., 2006. Major and trace element provenance signatures in stream sediments from the Kando River, San‟in district, southwest Japan. Isl. Arc 15, 223–238. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1738.2006.00523.x

Patchigolla, K., Wilkinson, D., 2009. Crystal Shape Characterisation of Dry Samples using 246

Microscopic and Dynamic Image Analysis. Part. Part. Syst. Charact. 26, 171–178.

247

doi:10.1002/ppsc.200700030 Pham, A.M., Descantes, Y., de Larrard, F., 2011. Determination of sieve grading curves using an optical device. Mechatronics 21, 298–309. doi:10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.11.008 Prothero, D.R., Schwab, F., 2004. Sedimentary Geology. W. H. Freeman. Ramsey, M.H., Boon, K.A., 2012. Can in situ geochemical measurements be more fit-for- purpose than those made ex situ? Appl. Geochemistry 27, 969–976. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.05.022 Repka, J.L., Anderson, R.S., Finkel, R.C., 1997. Cosmogenic dating of fluvial terraces, Fremont River, Utah. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 152, 59–73. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(97)00149-0 Rittenour, T.M., 2008. Luminescence dating of fluvial deposits: applications to geomorphic, palaeoseismic and archaeological research. Boreas 37, 613–635. doi:10.1111/j.1502- 3885.2008.00056.x Rizal, Y., 1998. Die Terrasse entlang des Solo-Flusses in Mittel- und Ost-Java, Indonesien [The terrace along the Solo River in Central and East Java, Indonesia]. Roberts, E.M., 2007. Facies architecture and depositional environments of the Upper Cretaceous Kaiparowits Formation, southern Utah. Sediment. Geol. 197, 207–233. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.10.001 Roberts, R.G., 1998. LUMINESCENCE DATING IN ARCHAEOLOGY : FROM ORIGINS TO OPTICAL. Radiat. Meas. 27, 819–892. Roberts, R.G., Westaway, K.E., Zhao, J., Turney, C.S.M., Bird, M.I., Rink, W.J., Fifield, L.K., 2009. Geochronology of cave deposits at Liang Bua and of adjacent river terraces in the Wae Racang valley, western Flores, Indonesia: a synthesis of age estimates for the type locality of Homo floresiensis. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 484–502. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.01.003 Ryan, J.G., Shervais, J.W., Li, Y., Reagan, M.K., Li, H.Y., Heaton, D., Godard, M., Kirchenbaur, M., Whattam, S.A., Pearce, J.A., Chapman, T., Nelson, W., Prytulak, J., Shimizu, K., Petronotis, K., 2017. Application of a handheld X-ray fluorescence spectrometer for real-time, high-density quantitative analysis of drilled igneous rocks and sediments during IODP Expedition 352. Chem. Geol. 451, 55–66. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2017.01.007 Sartono, S., 1976. Genesis of the Solo Terraces. Mod. Quat. Res. Southeast Asia 2, 1–21. Sharaf, E., Simo, J. a. (Toni), Carroll, A.R., Shields, M., 2005. Stratigraphic evolution of Oligocene–Miocene carbonates and siliciclastics, East Java basin, Indonesia. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Bull. 89, 799–819. doi:10.1306/01040504054 Sharp, W.D., Ludwig, K.R., Chadwick, O. a, Amundson, R., Glaser, L.L., 2003. Dating fluvial terraces by 230Th/U on pedogenic carbonate, Wind River Basin, Wyoming. Quat. Res. 59, 139–150. doi:10.1016/S0033-5894(03)00003-6 Sidarto, Morwood, M., 2004. Solo River terrace mapping in the Kendeng Hills area, Java: use of landsat imagery and digital elevation model overlays. J. Geol. Resour. 14, 196–207. Stokes, S., Fattahi, M., 2003. Red emission luminescence from quartz and feldspar for dating applications: an overview. Radiat. Meas. 37, 383–395. doi:10.1016/S1350-4487(03)00060-

X 247

248

Sugai, T., 1993. River terrace development by concurrent fluvial processes and climatic changes. Geomorphology 6, 243–252. doi:10.1016/0169-555X(93)90049-8 Swisher, C., Curtis, G., Jacob, T., Getty, A., Suprijo, A., Widiasmoro, 1994. Age of the Earliest Known Hominids in Java, Indonesia. Science (80-. ). 263, 1118–1121. Swisher, C.C., Rink, W.J., Antón, S.C., Schwarcz, H.P., Curtis, G.H., Suprijo, A., Widiasmoro, 1996. Latest Homo erectus of Java: potential contemporaneity with Homo sapiens in southeast Asia. Science (80-. ). 274, 1870–1874. Teeuw, R.M., Rhodes, E.J., Perkins, N.K., 1999. Dating of Quaternary Sediments from Western Borneo, Using Optically Stimulated Luminescence. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 20, 181–192. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00053 ter Haar, C., 1934. Het Ngandong Terras, Rapport over Ontdekking, Uitgraving en Geologische Ligginger van uitgebracht [The Ngandong Terrace, Report on the Discovery, Excavation and Geological relationships]. Van Der Kaars, S., Wang, X., Kershaw, P., Guichard, F., Setiabudi, D.A., 2000. A Late Quaternary palaeoecological record from the Banda Sea, Indonesia: Patterns of vegetation, climate and biomass burning in Indonesia and northern Australia, in: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. pp. 135–153. doi:10.1016/S0031-0182(99)00098-X van der Plicht, J., van der Wijk, A., Bartstra, G.J., 1989. Uranium and thorium in fossil bones: activity ratios and dating. Appl. Geochemistry 4, 339–342. Van Gorsel, J.T., Troelstra, S.R., 1981. Late Neogene planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and climatostratigraphy of the Solo River section (Java, Indonesia). Mar. Micropaleontol. doi:10.1016/0377-8398(81)90005-0 Visher, G., 1969. Grain size distributions and depositional processes. J. Sediment. Petrol. 39, 1074–1106. von Koenigswald, G., 1935. Rapport overdevindplaatsen van fossielegewerveldedierenuit de Solo-vallei [Report on the discovery sites of fossil vertebrate animals from the Solo valley]. Voris, H., 2000. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: shorelines, river systems and time durations. J. Biogeogr. 27, 1153–1167. Wadell, H., 1932. Volume, Shape, and Roundness of Rock Particles. J. Geol. 40, 443–451. Walker, M., 2005. Quaternary Dating Methods. John Wiley & Sons. Wallinga, J., Y, Y., Murray, A.S., Duller, G.A.T., To, T.E., 2001. Testing optically stimulated luminescence dating of sand-sized quartz and feldspar from £ uvial deposits 193. Wang, A., Smith, J., Wang, G., Zhang, K., Xiang, S., Liu, D., 2009. Late Quaternary river terrace sequences in the eastern Kunlun Range, northern Tibet: A combined record of climatic change and surface uplift. J. Asian Earth Sci. 34, 532–543. Wang, P., Jiang, H., Yuan, D., Liu, X., Zhang, B., 2010. Optically stimulated luminescence dating of sediments from the Yellow River terraces in Lanzhou: Tectonic and climatic implications. Quat. Geochronol. 5, 181–186. Weltje, G.J., 2004. A quantitative approach to capturing the compositional variability of modern

sands. Sediment. Geol. 171, 59–77. doi:10.1016/j.sedgeo.2004.05.010 248

249

Westaway, K.E., 2009. The red, white and blue of quartz luminescence: A comparison of De values derived for sediments from Australia and Indonesia using thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence emissions. Radiat. Meas. 44, 462–466. doi:10.1016/j.radmeas.2009.06.001 Westaway, K.E., Morwood, M.J., Roberts, R.G., Zhao, J. -x., Sutikna, T., Saptomo, E.W., Rink, W.J., 2007. Establishing the time of initial human occupation of Liang Bua, western Flores, Indonesia. Quat. Geochronol. 2, 337–343. doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2006.03.015 Westaway, K.E., Morwood, M.J., Sutikna, T., Moore, M.W., Rokus, a. D., van den Bergh, G.D., Roberts, R.G., Saptomo, E.W., 2009. Homo floresiensis and the late Pleistocene environments of eastern Indonesia: defining the nature of the relationship. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 2897–2912. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.07.020 Westaway, K.E., Roberts, R.G., 2006. A dual-aliquot regenerative-dose protocol (DAP) for thermoluminescence (TL) dating of quartz sediments using the light-sensitive and isothermally stimulated red emissions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 25, 2513–2528. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.06.010 Westaway, K.E., Roberts, R.G., Sutikna, T., Morwood, M.J., Drysdale, R., Zhao, J., Chivas, a R., 2009. The evolving landscape and climate of western Flores: an environmental context for the archaeological site of Liang Bua. J. Hum. Evol. 57, 450–64. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.01.007 Wheller, G.E., Varne, R., Foden, J.D., Abbott, M.J., 1987. Geochemistry of quaternary volcanism in the Sunda-Banda arc, Indonesia, and three-component genesis of island-arc basaltic magmas. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. doi:10.1016/0377-0273(87)90041-2 Winkelmolen, A., 1982. Critical remarks on grain parameters, with special emphasis on shape. Sedimentology 29, 255–265. Yokoyama, Y., Falguères, C., Sémah, F., Jacob, T., Grün, R., 2008. Gamma-ray spectrometric dating of late Homo erectus skulls from Ngandong and Sambungmacan, Central Java, Indonesia. J. Hum. Evol. 55, 274–7. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.01.006

249