DOCSLIB.ORG

James Strawn Thesis (3.118 Mb )

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
James Strawn Thesis (3.118 Mb ) Template B v3.0 (beta): Created by J. Nail 06/2015 A geoarchaeological analysis of the 2017 excavations at the Hester site (22MO569) By TITLE PAGE James Lewis Strawn A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Applied Anthropology in the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures Mississippi State, Mississippi August 2019 Copyright by COPYRIGHT PAGE James Lewis Strawn 2019 A geoarchaeological analysis of the 2017 excavations at the Hester site (22MO569) By APPROVAL PAGE James Lewis Strawn Approved: ____________________________________ Darcy Shane Miller (Major Professor) ____________________________________ James W. Hardin (Committee Member) ____________________________________ Evan Peacock (Committee Member) ____________________________________ David M. Hoffman (Graduate Coordinator) ____________________________________ Rick Travis Dean College of Arts & Sciences Name: James Lewis Strawn ABSTRACT Date of Degree: August 9, 2019 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Applied Anthropology Major Professor: D. Shane Miller Title of Study: A geoarchaeological analysis of the 2017 excavations at the Hester site (22MO569) Pages in Study 99 Candidate for Degree of Master of Arts The small number and diffuse distribution of sites with intact Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene occupations in the Southeastern United States consequently makes examining Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene settlement patterning in the region difficult (Goodyear 1999). The Hester Site (22MO569), located in northeastern Mississippi, contains intact Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene deposits that can potentially afford archaeologists with a better understanding of late Pleistocene/early Holocene settlement in the region (Brookes 1979; Goodyear 1999:463-465). Investigations at Hester by Brookes (1979) revealed a stratified site containing artifacts that represented the late Paleoindian through Woodland periods in the Southeastern United States. Burris (2006) developed an alternative typology by re-analyzing the Hester biface assemblage, which demonstrated four discrete occupations at the Hester site. I use formation theory to evaluate the degree to which post-depositional processes have impacted the deposits at the Hester site. I have determined that the Hester site has not been significantly altered by post-depositional processes. DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to Mr. Tom Hester and the Higginbotham family, especially the late Mr. Rick Higginbotham. Their interest in both the Hester site and the proposed research was paramount to the possibility of being able to host the 2017 and 2018 Mississippi State University field schools at the site. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people are responsible for the successful completion of the research in this thesis. It all began as an undergraduate student when Dr. Shane Miller asked me to look into a little site in Monroe County named the Hester site. Since then, it has been an amazing journey at Mississippi State University, culminating with the completion of this thesis. I must also thank Dr. Evan Peacock, Dr. Jimmy Hardin, and Derek Anderson, who along with Dr. Miller, guided me back on track when I was asking all of the wrong questions. This research and my success would also not have been possible without my parents, Jim and Janice Strawn. They continuously encouraged me to continue doing what I love and supported me during the development of this thesis. Kara Larson has been my rock and kept me grounded during the writing process. I also thank Sam Brookes for providing numerous conversations regarding the previous work undertaken at the site and for continued interest in current and future research at Hester. This research would also have not been possible without all of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and volunteers of the 2017 and 2018 Mississippi State University field schools who came out and tirelessly excavated in the Mississippi heat. iii Thanks must also be given to Dr. Stephen Carmody at Troy University and Howard Cyr at the University of Tennessee’s Archaeological Research Laboratory. Many of the conclusions drawn in this thesis are directly a result of your help with the analyses. Lastly, thank you to the staff at the Cobb Institute of Archaeology and the Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures at Mississippi State University where a majority of the analyses for this thesis were undertaken. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1 Site Background ....................................................................................................3 MDAH Excavations ........................................................................................7 Soil Horizons .................................................................................................10 II. THEORETICAL APPROACH ...........................................................................13 Hypotheses ..........................................................................................................17 H0 - The archaeological deposits at Hester have been substantially altered by post-depositional processes. .............................................17 H1 – The deposits at Hester represent vertically discrete occupations in a primary context. ..........................................................................19 H2 –The deposits at Hester represent vertically discrete occupations in secondary context. .........................................................................21 H3 - The deposits at Hester are in primary context, but no vertical separation of occupations is present. .................................................24 III. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS, MATERIALS, AND ANALYSES ...............26 Field Methods ......................................................................................................26 Laboratory Methods ............................................................................................30 Particle-Size Analysis ....................................................................................31 Mass Analysis of the Debitage ......................................................................32 Inclination and Orientation ............................................................................33 Refit Analysis ................................................................................................34 IV. RESULTS ...........................................................................................................36 v V. DISCUSSION .....................................................................................................55 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................59 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX A. ARTIFACT DATA .............................................................................................67 Non-feature Artifact Data ....................................................................................68 Feature Artifact Data ...........................................................................................94 Lithic Tools .........................................................................................................95 Refit Data .............................................................................................................98 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Radiocarbon dates obtained from the Hester Site by the MDAH ......................7 Table 4.2 Results of the Chi-square analysis for dip measurements. ..............................45 Table 4.3 Results of the Chi-square analysis for strike measurements. ...........................46 Table A.1 Data for All Non-feature Artifacts ...................................................................68 Table A.2 Data for All Feature Artifacts ..........................................................................94 Table A.3 Data for Flaked Stone Tool, Hammerstone, and Grinding Stone Artifacts................................................................................................95 Table A.4 Refit Data .........................................................................................................98 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Plan view of the 1974 and 1978 MDAH excavations at the Hester Site. ..........2 Figure 1.2 The physiographic regions of Mississippi. ........................................................4 Figure 1.3 A map of the Hester Site situated between the Tombigbee River and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Google 2018). ...........................5 Figure 1.4 Illustration from Brookes (1979) showing plan view of the 1973 and 1974 excavations at the Hester site and the Beachum-Harrison dig area (22MO1011).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schedule of Presentations, 2019 Southeastern Archaeological Conference Jackson, Mississippi
    Schedule of Presentations, 2019 Southeastern Archaeological Conference Jackson, Mississippi Wendesday Afternoon Assemblages from the St. Albans November 6 Site Sexual Harrasment Training 8:40 Miller, D. Shane, Stephen Briarwood Carmody What Happened at the 3:00-5:00 End of the Early Archaic?: SEAC Board Meeting Examining Paleoindian and Newbury Archaic Subsistence Trajectories 7:30 in the Mid-South Thursday Morning 9:00 Hollenbach, Kandace Nuts, November 7 Seeds, and River Valleys: The Newbury Late Archaic/Early Woodland 9:00- Film Screenings Haley, Messer, Transition in East Tennessee 12:00 Analise Hollingshead, Jayur 9:20 Baumann, Timothy J., Gary Mehta, Mike Russo, Jeff Shanks Crites, Peggy Humes, Tony Windsor IV and V Krus Full of Beans: The Story of 10:00- NAGPRA Workshop: the Common Bean (Phaseolus 1:00 Cultivating a Community of vulgaris) in the Midsouth Practice for Southeastern 9:40 Purcell, Gabrielle Sweet NAGPRA Practitioners Potatoes on Cherokee Sites: A Amanda Thompson, Tim Closer Look Using SEM Analysis Bauman, Jennifer Bedell, 10:00 BREAK RaeLynne Butler, Bryant Celeste, 10:20 Whyte, Thomas R. How Ancient Melanie O'Brien, Kirk Perry, Lithic Scavenging Influences Aexandra Smith, Emman Spain, Models of Settlement, Mobility, Ian Thompson, Victor Thompson, and Exchange in the Appalachian John Underwood, LeeAnne Summit Wendt, and Ryan Wheeler 10:40 Kimball, Larry R., Alice P. Windsor I Wright, Timothy J. Horsley, Symposium, Backhoes & Thomas R. Whyte, Gary Trowels, Ancestor Idols & Crites, John Wolf, Cala Murals: Some Contributions to Castleberry, M. Scott Shumate Southeastern Archaeology by Biltmore Mound and Village Jefferson Chapman and 11:00 Sherwood, Sarah The Legacy of Friends, Part I Prepared Clay Surfaces 8:00 Davis, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeology Inventory Table of Contents
    National Historic Landmarks--Archaeology Inventory Theresa E. Solury, 1999 Updated and Revised, 2003 Caridad de la Vega National Historic Landmarks-Archeology Inventory Table of Contents Review Methods and Processes Property Name ..........................................................1 Cultural Affiliation .......................................................1 Time Period .......................................................... 1-2 Property Type ...........................................................2 Significance .......................................................... 2-3 Theme ................................................................3 Restricted Address .......................................................3 Format Explanation .................................................... 3-4 Key to the Data Table ........................................................ 4-6 Data Set Alabama ...............................................................7 Alaska .............................................................. 7-9 Arizona ............................................................. 9-10 Arkansas ..............................................................10 California .............................................................11 Colorado ..............................................................11 Connecticut ........................................................ 11-12 District of Columbia ....................................................12 Florida ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jfl/V 0 3 2001 NFS Form 10-900USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NFS Form 10-900USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No. 1024-0018 HESTER SITE Pagel United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service _____ ___ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: HESTER SITE Other Name/Site Number: Hester-Standifer Creek Site (22Mo569), Beachum-Harrison Site (22Mol011) 2. LOCATION Street & Number: N/A Not for publication: X City/Town: Amory Vicinity: X State: Mississippi County: Monroe Code: 095 ZipCode:38821 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: X Building(s): __ Public-local: __ District: __ Public-State: __ Site: X Public-Federal: Structure: __ Object: __ Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing ___ buildings 1 ___ sites ___ structures ___ objects 1 0 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: _1_ Name of related multiple property listing: N/A Jfl/V 0 3 2001 NFS Form 10-900USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) OMB No 1024-0018 HESTER SITE Page 2 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service____________________________________ National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 4. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • A Biface, Anyone? We’Ll Never Know What Purpose the Clovis Knapper Had in Mind for This Magnificent Preform When He Buried It in Colorado 13,000 Years Ago
    Volume 22, Number 2 ■ April, 2007 Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology Texas A&M University 4352 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4352 www.centerfirstamericans.com A biface, anyone? We’ll never know what purpose the Clovis knapper had in mind for this magnificent preform when he buried it in Colorado 13,000 years ago. He may have cached it at a location his party routinely visited on hunting trips as a ready supply of toolstone for refurbishing their toolkits. Or it may have been simply too wonderful to use, and so he buried it as a ceremonial offering. Whatever his motive, he buried it so that no one could find it. And no one did, until J. David Kilby, a doctoral candidate at the University of New Mexico. Kilby has studied more than 20 Clovis caches in the West and as far north as Minnesota. Our story on the conclusions he has reached begins on page 13. J. DAVID KILBY he Center for the Study of the First Americans fosters research and public T interest in the Peopling of the Americas. The Center, an integral part of the Department of Anthropology at Texas A&M University, promotes interdisciplinary scholarly dialogue among physical, geological, biological and social scientists. The Mammoth Trumpet, news magazine of the Center, seeks to involve you in the peopling of the Americas by reporting on developments in all pertinent areas of knowledge. Volume 22, Number 2 Center for the Study of the First Americans Department of Anthropology April, 2007 Texas A&M University, 4352 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4352
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan for the State of Mississippi
    The Historic Preservation Division of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (HPD of MDAH) is responsible for the development and implementation of a Statewide Preservation Plan under National Park Service requirements. The Plan addresses the preservation of Mississippi’s historic and cultural resources, including architectural, historic, and prehistoric properties. The Plan identifies the trends affecting historic and cultural resources so that informed decisions can be made about the management and care of these properties. Individuals, private businesses, community groups, local governments, and state and federal agencies can and should be active participants in the implementation of this Plan. Since Mississippi does not have a formal statewide governmental planning program, the development of partnerships between the public and private sector is crucial to the success of the preservation plan. Planning Process The Comprehensive Plan for 2011 through 2016 is an update and revision of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, building upon the earlier framework with modifications and new goals and objectives derived with input from the public and the experience of the users. During the spring of 2010, the staff of HPD of MDAH conducted a well-advertised public meeting at the Eola Hotel in downtown Natchez, Mississippi, in conjunction with the Statewide Preservation Conference. The meeting was well attended by a broad spectrum of Mississippi’s community leaders—elected officials, economic development coordinators, merchants, businessmen, educators, housing authorities, tourism promoters, and representatives of non-profit organizations, in addition to preservationists. A Web-based questionnaire was sent to over 1000 people throughout the state and was available through the homepage of the MDAH Web site.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoindian/Early Archaic Period1
    1 PALEOINDIAN/EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD1 Samuel O. McGahey2 Introduction Over the past few years, a serious effort has been made to draw together all available early lithic data from Mississippi in order to form the basis for "historical contexts" for the state preservation plan. The archaeological contexts are defined by geographical and chronological dimensions. The chronological dimensions are those that are generally accepted by the archaeological community. Since, in the view of the writer, Paleoindian and Early Archaic are a continuum and the end of this continuum is recognized abruptly with the onset of the Middle Archaic, it has been decided to treat them as a unit. This unit is somewhat arbitrarily divided into five subperiods for the study of broad general trends in artifact if not people distribution. The geographical dimensions are the ten physiographic regions generally recognized by the natural scientists who study plant and animal communities. They are: the Yazoo Basin, the Loess Hills, the North Central Hills, the Flatwoods, the Pontotoc Ridge, the Black Prairies, the Tombigbee Hills, the Jackson Prairie, the Longleaf Pine Belt, and the Coastal Pine Meadows (fig. 1). While the ideal is to discuss the contexts as a physiographic region within a given archaeological period, it has not been possible to attain this goal because of a lack of data in certain areas and the ten physiographic regions have been consolidated into four for the present. Nevertheless enough data has been accumulated that certain regional differences are obvious, and this is the primary reason for this paper. The data is presented below in the form of histograms representing the five subperiods (fig.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Aboriginal Archaeological Plant Food Remains from Eastern North America: 1901–1991
    A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANT FOOD REMAINS FROM EASTERN NORTH AMERICA: 1901–1991 Richard A. Yarnell Thomas O. Maher M. Jean Black Research Report No. 11 Research Laboratories of Anthropology The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1993 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ABORIGINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANT FOOD REMAINS FROM EASTERN NORTH AMERICA: 1901–1991 by Richard A. Yarnell Thomas O. Maher and M. Jean Black Research Report 11 Research Laboratories of Anthropology University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3120 October, 1993 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................................................... 6 INDEX BY STATE AND REGION......................................................................................................................................59 Northeast ......................................................................................................................................................................59 Coastal Southeast .........................................................................................................................................................61 Middle South................................................................................................................................................................63
    [Show full text]
  • 74Th Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma
    74th Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma 1 Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 60, 2017 2 74th Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma BULLETIN 60 2017 Proceedings and Abstracts of the 74th Annual Meeting November 8-11, 2017 Hyatt Regency Tulsa, Oklahoma Organized by: Thomas Foster, Scott Hammerstedt, Patrick Livingood, Amanda Regnier, Miriam Belmaker, Bobi Deere, Paige Ford, Kara Foster, Shawn Lambert, Alicia Odewale, Danielle Macdonald, Kim Ivey, and Katie Williams 3 Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 60, 2017 Cover: Map of Indian Territory, 1837-1855. Image ITMAP.0152 is used with permission of the Research Division of the Oklahoma Historical Society © Southeastern Archaeological Conference 2017 4 74th Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma TABLE OF CONTENTS Hyatt Regency Floor Plan........................................................................................6 List of Donors............................................................................................................8 SEAC Sessions...........................................................................................................9 Preface and Acknowledgements..........................................................................10 Statement on Photographs of Human Remains................................................11 General Information..............................................................................................12 Special Events Schedule........................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Ritual and Subsistence: Paleobotany at the Smith Creek Site (22Wk526)
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Anthropology Senior Theses Department of Anthropology Spring 2016 Ritual and Subsistence: Paleobotany at the Smith Creek Site (22wk526) Alexandria T. Mitchem University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/anthro_seniortheses Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Mitchem, Alexandria T., "Ritual and Subsistence: Paleobotany at the Smith Creek Site (22wk526)" (2016). Anthropology Senior Theses. Paper 165. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/anthro_seniortheses/165 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ritual and Subsistence: Paleobotany at the Smith Creek Site (22wk526) Abstract The Smith Creek Archaeological Project focuses on a mound site in Wilkinson County, Mississippi. The site (22Wk526) has three earthen mounds surrounding an open plaza dating to the Coles Creek period (AD 700 – 1200) and a probable village are at the south end of the site dating to the Anna Phase of the Plaquemine period (AD 1200 – 1350). This thesis examines paleobotanical material from the flotation and water screening samples from this village area. The discussion centers around both subsistence, with a focus on the beginnings of corn agriculture, and ritual uses of plants, with a focus on sweet gum. Additionally, other plant remains found at the site will be discussed in terms of what they illuminate about the use of plants at the Coles Creek-Plaquemine transition. Disciplines Anthropology This thesis or dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/anthro_seniortheses/165 Ritual and Subsistence: Paleobotany at the Smith Creek Site (22wk526) Alexandria T. Mitchem Faculty Advisor: Dr. Megan Kassabaum Submitted to The Department of Anthropology University of Pennsylvania 2016 Abstract Alexandria T.
    [Show full text]
  • Hester: 7 Ample Supply of Food, and Stone for Making Tools
    April ■ 2009 1 were doubtless a principal reason for repeated occupations. Hunter-gatherers scouting for an ideal location for a base camp sought to satisfy three requisites: a reliable source of water, an Hester: 7 ample supply of food, and stone for making tools. At Hester The Paleoamerican Site That they found all three. Although the Tuscaloosa chert was infe- 1 rior in knapping quality to, say, fine Edwards chert, we’ll see Wasn’t Supposed to Be There how resourceful toolmakers found a way to work around the deficiency in local toolstone. Brookes and McGahey visited the site in December of 1973 by Mark R. Barnes and immediately excavated five 5-by-5-ft test pits to define the depth and extent of the site and hopefully to determine which 8 Colored bits of stone caught the eye of two amateur projectile- cultures had occupied Hester and their sequence. Their exca- point collectors in early 1973 as they combed the ground vations revealed four distinct soil zones at the Hester site: abutting a creek in northeastern Mississippi. This region in the Eutaw Hills had never produced a find of major archaeological 1) a surface layer of black sandy humus 1.2 ft deep; significance and was now home to an unglamorous gravel 2) a layer of red-brown sand, extending to 3.4 ft below the surface; 2 operation. Thanks to their alertness and the guidance of pro- 9 fessionals, collectors Glenn Beachum and Alan Harrison were 3) a layer of yellow sand 3.4–4.4 ft below the surface; about to make an important contribution to early Southeastern 4) a layer of white sand that overlies the tan Tuscaloosa prehistory, for the Hester site they discovered is today recog- chert deposits.
    [Show full text]
  • NPS Archeology Program: the Earliest Americans Theme Study
    NPS Archeology Program: The Earliest Americans Theme Study A, B, C, D sections F. associated property G. geographical data types E. statement of historic H. summary of contexts introduction identification and Anderson, Brose, evaluation methods introduction Dincauze, Shott, Grumet, Anderson, Brose, Waldbauer project history Dincauze, Shott, Grumet, Robert S. Grumet Waldbauer southeast property types David G. Anderson acknowledgments southeast context David G. Anderson northeast property types I. major bibliographical Dena F. Dincauze references northeast context Dena F. Dincauze midwest property types references cited Michael J. Shott midwest context Figures and Tables Michael J. Shott Credits DOI | History & Culture | Search | Contact | FOIA | Privacy | Disclaimer | USA.gov Last updated: EJL/MDC http://www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/PUBS/NHLEAM/index.htm[2/26/2013 2:15:10 PM] NPS Archeology Program: The Earliest Americans Theme Study A, B, C, D sections NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 E. statement of historic (March 1992) contexts F. associated property United States Department of the Interior types National Park Service G. geographical data National Register of Historic Places H. summary of Multiple Property Documentation Form identification and evaluation methods This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National I. major bibliographical references Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places 2001 Weekly Lists
    National Register of Historic Places 2001 Weekly Lists WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 12/26/00 THROUGH 12/29/00 .................................... 3 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/02/01 THROUGH 1/05/01 ........................................ 7 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/08/01 THROUGH 1/12/01 ...................................... 12 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/16/01 THROUGH 1/19/01 ...................................... 15 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/22/01 THROUGH 1/26/01 ...................................... 19 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/29/01 THROUGH 2/02/01 ...................................... 24 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/05/01 THROUGH 2/09/01 ...................................... 27 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/12/01 THROUGH 2/16/01 ...................................... 31 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/19/01 THROUGH 2/23/01 ...................................... 34 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/26/01 THROUGH 3/02/01 ...................................... 36 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/05/01 THROUGH 3/09/01 ...................................... 40 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/12/01 THROUGH 3/16/01 ...................................... 43 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/19/01 THROUGH 3/23/01 ...................................... 47 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/26/01 THROUGH 3/30/01 ...................................... 49 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/02/01 THROUGH 4/06/01 ...................................... 53 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/09/01 THROUGH 4/13/01 ...................................... 55 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/16/01 THROUGH 4/20/01 .....................................
    [Show full text]