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

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.

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.

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. 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

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)...... 9

Figure 1.5 The Hester site file card on record at Mississippi State University...... 12

Figure 2.1 A 2x2 matrix of the hypotheses used in this analysis...... 18

Figure 2.2 Artifact distribution as a result of bioturbation and gravity...... 21

Figure 2.3 Hypothetical vertical distribution of surface artifact assemblage resulting from bioturbation over time and resulting “stone line.” (Image from Johnson 1990)...... 22

Figure 3.1 Proposed 2017 field season unit placement...... 28

Figure 3.2 The 3x2-meter excavation block used for analysis showing the distribution of piece-plotted artifacts...... 31

Figure 4.1 Piece-plotted artifact distribution for the 2017 excavation...... 37

Figure 4.2 North profile view of soil horizons identified during the 2017 excavations...... 38

Figure 4.3 Result of the particle-size analysis and organic analysis for each sample taken at 5 cm intervals...... 39

Figure 4.4 North profile view of excavation block with piece-plotted artifacts...... 40

Figure 4.5 Stratigraphic association of diagnostic projectile points and the floatation column...... 42

viii

Figure 4.6 Counts for all size-grades of artifact recovered from the 3x2-meter excavation block...... 47

Figure 4.7 Rose diagram for strike measurements created using GeoRose 0.5.1 ...... 48

Figure 4.8 Plan and north profile view of the 20 refit pairs identified created using ArcMap 10.6...... 49

Figure 4.9 Results of the nearest neighbor analysis using ArcMap 10.6...... 50

Figure 4.10 Density Cluster of artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side- notched horizon created using ArcMap 10.6...... 51

Figure 4.11 North profile of dip angles for artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side-notched horizon created using ArcMap 10.6...... 52

Figure 4.12 Refit overlay of suspected early Archaic horizon created using ArcMap 10.6...... 53

Figure 4.13 Density cluster of artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side- notched horizon showing thermal alteration data created using ArcMap 10.6...... 54

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The small number and diffuse distribution of sites with intact Late

5-foot trench was excavated north/south across the Hester site. By later, during the 1978 field season, a 30-foot section of the trench was expanded (Brookes 1979; Burris 2006:

23; Figure 1.1) revealing stratified deposits containing flaked stone tool artifacts and pottery that represented the late Paleoindian through Woodland periods. While the excavations by Brookes (1979) revealed discrete stratigraphy at Hester, Hoffman (1992:

4) argues that an apparently intact vertical profile is not sufficient for making an argument for a lack of vertical mixing of deposits.

Subsequently, Burris (2006) re-analyzed the Hester biface assemblage collected by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) during their 1974 and

1978 excavations and developed an alternative typology. Burris’s findings demonstrated four apparently discrete occupations at the Hester site.

Figure 1.1 Plan view of the 1974 and 1978 MDAH excavations at the Hester Site.

Burris 2006: 24

It is possible that the purported occupations reported by Burris (2006) are an artifact of natural post-depositional processes such as bioturbation (Atkinson 1957;

Johnson 1989; Wood and Johnson 1979; Michie 1990), fluvial processes (Rick et. al

2006), or movement by wind and gravity (Michie 1990). These processes affect whether artifacts at an archaeological site are determined to be in a primary or secondary context

(e.g. Schiffer 1983:678-692; Stein 1990:519) and can substantially alter archaeological deposits. 2

Using data from the 2017 Mississippi State University field season at the Hester site, I demonstrate the degree to which natural post-depositional processes, or n- transforms (Schiffer 1983, 1988), have impacted the deposits at the Hester site. It is determined that the Hester site is a stratified site that has not been significantly altered by post-depositional processes. This adds Hester to the list of the few sites in the region – e.g., Dust Cave (Sherwood et al. 2004) and Stanfield-Worley (DeJarnette et al. 1962) in northwestern, Alabama – with a relatively undisturbed Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene occupational sequence. This research helps to solidify the Hester site as a valuable data point for understanding hunter-gatherer lifeways at the end of the Younger Dryas and the

Early Holocene, which is characterized as time of rapid warming in global climate

(Anderson 2001; Meltzer 2009; Meltzer and Holliday 2010).

Site Background

In the 1970s, archaeologists with MDAH were made aware of the Hester site, which is located approximately three miles northwest of the town of Amory in Monroe

County, Mississippi. Prior to professional excavations by MDAH in 1973, 1974, and

1978, two collectors, Beachum and Harrison, recovered a number of Dalton points and

Early Archaic points from the site (Goodyear 1999:463). Brookes (1979: xi) noted that the collectors “recovered several hundred of the better-made, more-complete artifacts.”

The site is located within the Tennessee River Hills physiographic region of northeast Mississippi (Figure 1.2) and, more specifically, in the alluvial flood plain approximately 400 meters east of the Tombigbee River (Brookes 1979:1; Goodyear

1999:463). The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a modern channel that was constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is east of the Hester site (Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.2 The physiographic regions of Mississippi.

Figure 1.3 A map of the Hester Site situated between the Tombigbee River and the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway (Google 2018).

The Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway was constructed to serve as a connection between the Tennessee and Tombigbee Rivers, with construction beginning in the 1970’s

(Brose 1991:3). Standifer Creek, a small tributary of the Tombigbee River, lies south and east of the Hester site, and it is thought to be one of the sources, along with the

Tombigbee River, of raw materials utilized in stone tool manufacture there (Brookes

1979:1-2).

Brookes (1979: xi) notes that at Hester, the “initial tests proved that there was a deep midden remaining under a substantial portion of the site.” Unfortunately, areas near

the Hester site have been destroyed by modern gravel mining operations (Brookes

1979:2). Today, the Hester site is on private property that is leased by a hunting club.

Brookes (1979) recorded temporally diagnostic artifacts (primarily pottery and projectile points) for the late Paleoindian through Late Woodland periods at Hester. More specifically, artifacts were recovered for the Late Paleoindian (9000 – 8000 B.C.), Early

Archaic (8000 – 6000 B.C.), Middle Archaic (6000 – 3000 B.C.), Late Archaic (3000 –

1000 B.C.), Gulf Formational (1000 – 100 B.C.), Middle Woodland (100 B.C. – A.D.

600), and Late Woodland (A.D. 600 – A.D. 1050) period occupational sequence found in the Tombigbee River Basin (Futato 1989). However, no shell-tempered pottery, to date, has been recovered there that would suggest a Mississippian period occupation (Brookes

1979:4). In addition, Brookes (1979:127-129) reported five radiocarbon dates, although the association between the recovered point types and the samples taken was uncertain

(Table 1.1). The Dalton occupation at the Hester site has not been dated (Brookes 1979).

Additionally, both a reworked Clovis and Cumberland projectile point have been recovered at Hester from within the “Dalton zone” (Brookes, personal communication).

At two other sites that are near Hester, and that were also examined by the MDAH,

Clovis and Cumberland points were recovered.

At the first site, the Beachum-Harrison site (22MO1011), which lies approximately 130 meters east-southeast of Hester, a Clovis base was recovered. The second site, which has been destroyed, yielded a surface find of a Cumberland point.

Unfortunately, a more detailed provenience for the Clovis and Cumberland points is unknown.

Table 1.1 Radiocarbon dates obtained from the Hester Site by the MDAH

Unit Sample Number Uncalibrated Association with a Point Radiocarbon Type/Vertical Location of Date Sample 15N-5E Sample 1 - U. Ga. 861 1050 ± 85 AD Unknown; Above Decatur Point 5N-5E Sample 2 – U. Ga. 862 4290 ± 400 BC Unknown; Above Decatur Point 10N-5E Sample 3 – U. Ga. 863 6385 ± 305 BC Unknown; Above Decatur Point; Within expected range for Pine Tree Point 65S-5E Sample 4 – U. Ga. 864 5015 ± 180 BC Thought to be associated with Beachum Point 15N-5E Sample 5 – U. Ga. 968 1140 ± 110 AD Unknown; Above Decatur Point

Brookes (personal communication) also noted that 22MO569, Hester proper, contained a Quad-phase occupation below a Dalton-phase occupation. As far as the

Hester site is concerned, the possible presence of a Quad-phase occupation below a

Dalton-phase occupation, in addition to 3 Clovis and 2 Cumberland bifaces recovered during the MDAH excavation, “makes for the best early site(s) in Mississippi” (Brookes personal communication).

MDAH Excavations

The initial test units placed at Hester in December 1973 by MDAH archaeologists revealed a “relatively deep midden,” which prompted further investigations in 1974 near the Beachum-Harrison excavation area (Figure 1.4) (Brookes (1979: xii). This area was recorded by Brookes (1983), and eventually designated 22MO1011 (Brookes 1983).

Brookes (1979: xii) also notes that the chronological sequence for points recovered from the 1973 initial test pits was not “readily apparent” since a small number of pits was excavated over a wide area, and it was thought that perhaps a further trench excavation might offer archaeological recording of a depositional sequence covering a larger area. 7

In 1974, a trench measuring 150 feet by 5 feet (45.7 meters by 1.5 meters) was excavated in 6 cm levels (0.2 feet) in an area northwest of 22MO1011 at what is now designated the Hester site (22MO569). The larger artifacts recovered from the MDAH trench were piece-plotted, the sediment was screened through ¼-inch hardware mesh, and artifacts were placed in bags according to unit and level (Brookes 1979:2; Brookes, personal communication).

Subsequently, soil removed from an expanded 30-foot block of the trench, excavated in 1978, was water screened through 1/16-inch hardware mesh (Brookes personal communication). Following the trench excavations, three additional test units were excavated. Two of the test units were in what Brookes (1979:3) describes as a low area between the MDAH trench and the Beachum-Harrison dig area, or 22MO1011, with the third unit being placed on the southwestern side of 22MO1011.

The first 5-foot test unit (Square 170S-145E) that was placed between the MDAH trench and the Beachum-Harrison dig area revealed an area of discolored soil in the southeast corner of the unit, and consequently the unit was expanded by 5 feet; however, no artifacts were present in the discolored soil (Brookes 1979:3).

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).

Only two artifacts were recovered from this unit: two biface distal ends. One appeared to be of heat-treated local gravel and “the other of translucent dark brown chert of unknown source” (Brookes 1979: 3). No flakes were found in this unit. Brookes 9

(1979:3) also notes that the soil in this unit is “very different” from the soils in the

MDAH trench and the Beachum-Harrison dig area, in that it is “predominantly clayey” throughout the profile, whereas the only clay-bearing horizon within the trench was situated “below a sterile sand layer, which underlay the Dalton zone” (Brookes 1979: 3).

The second test unit (Square 170S-320E) was placed on the southwestern edge of the Beachum-Harrison dig area, with artifacts recovered from this unit being mostly flakes and cores (Brookes 1979:3). Additionally, Brookes (1979:3) observed a soil composition in this unit similar to the MDAH trench soils.

The soil in the third test unit (Square 85S-150E) was similar to those in 170S-

145E, in that it was predominantly clay, and no artifacts were recovered.

Soil Horizons

Brookes (1979) described four distinct soil horizons present at Hester: 1) a layer of black, sandy humus, 2) reddish-brown sand, 3) yellow sand, and 4) white sand, all of which are representative of the description of the Eutaw soil series. Brookes (1979) makes note of Vestal and McCutcheon’s (1943:25) description of Eutaw soil: "Fresh sands of the Eutaw may be white, but commonly are gray to greenish gray; the weathered facies are deep reddish to brownish due to the oxidation of the iron-bearing constituents…”.

At Hester, all of the temporally diagnostic Early Archaic artifacts are found within the reddish-brown soil horizon, and this layer potentially contains the longest occupational sequence (Brookes 1979: 1). This was also the case for the diagnostic artifacts recovered during the 2017 excavations at Hester. The soil horizon is located

beneath a layer of black, sandy humus, which is reported to have been disturbed by modern-day human activity.

Beneath the reddish-brown horizon is a thin zone of yellow sand referred to as the

Dalton zone. Artifacts are found throughout this soil horizon, but the density and number of types of artifacts found in this horizon are lower compared to the upper reddish-brown soil (Brookes 1979: 2). Brookes (1979: 2) proposes that the yellow sand “indicates an early state of weathering and oxidation of the lower (sterile) white sand”, while the upper reddish-brown sand is “presumed to represent an advanced state of weathering.” While

Brookes (1979) notes that the white sand horizon is sterile, the site card for the Hester site (Figure 1.5) reveals that diagnostic Paleoindian artifacts were found within the white sand horizon.

Figure 1.5 The Hester site file card on record at Mississippi State University.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL APPROACH

For this thesis, I used formation theory (e.g. Schiffer 1972, 1983, 1988; Shott

1998, 2006) to guide my analysis of the geoarchaeolgoical context of the Hester site.

Schiffer (1983:675) argues that, “unless the genesis of deposits is understood, one cannot infer the behaviors of interest from artifact patterns in those deposits.” Schiffer

(1972:156) was ultimately interested in how the behavior of a cultural system forms the archaeological record, and asked three fundamentally important questions: “Why is there an archaeological record? How does a cultural system produce archaeological remains?

What kinds of inter-cultural and intra-cultural variables determine the structure of the archaeological record?” The latter question concerns concepts within the realm of reconstruction theory known as c-transforms and n-transforms, or cultural and non- cultural (i.e. natural or geologic) formation processes of the archaeological record

(Schiffer 1988:464).

Schiffer (1983: 471) defines a cultural formation process (c-transform) as “The cultural behaviors that occur during an artifact’s life history after it has taken part in a particular activity.” Examples of c-transforms include maintenance of given activity areas

(e.g. sweeping) and deposition within refuse pits (Schiffer 1983:472). The former can result in primary refuse deposits if an activity area has not been maintained and artifacts that have been discarded have not been moved as a result of the maintenance process.

Alternatively, secondary deposits result if the artifacts have been deposited elsewhere, e.g., in refuse pits.

Artifact translocation resulting from interaction with the natural environment is a non-cultural formation process (n-transform) (Schiffer 1983: 473). Examples of n- transforms include post-depositional processes that can alter cultural deposits, such as bioturbation (Atkinson 1957; Johnson 1989; Wood and Johnson 1979; Michie 1990), fluvial processes (Knox 1987; Leigh 2001; Rick et al. 2006), and movement by wind or gravity (Michie 1990).

While both natural and cultural formation processes can alter archaeological deposits, it is explicitly the effect that natural processes have had on the cultural deposits at the Hester site that this thesis is concerned with. Once it can demonstrated to what extent, if any, these processes have altered the cultural deposits at the Hester site, this research may provide a foundation not only for future research endeavors regarding cultural processes affecting the deposits, but aiding in the differentiation between the natural and cultural processes forming the archaeological record at Hester.

As an example of how archaeologists can make inferences regarding the effect of post-depositional processes, Surovell et al. (2005) examined Folsom deposits at the

Barger Gulch site in Colorado and were able to discern whether the deposits were the result of cultural or non-cultural depositional processes. Their work was based on the assumption that the discard of artifacts during an occupation would result in vertically discrete deposits. If the deposits were found to not be vertically constrained, then two explanations are possible: “(1) Multiple or long-term occupation occurred, resulting in the continual deposition of artifacts on a temporal scale similar to geologic deposition,

and/or (2) disturbance processes have served to disperse artifacts” (Surovell et al. 2005:

629).

In order to evaluate the depositional history and genesis of the deposits at Barger

Gulch, Surovell et al. (2005) relied on artifact densities, back plotting of temporally diagnostic artifacts recovered during their investigations, refit analysis, and artifact inclination, or dip. After back plotting all the artifacts that were piece-plotted during excavations, artifact density profiles were generated illustrating artifact densities in 5 cm levels. Artifact densities gradually increased with depth, with some units exhibiting multimodal peaks, with their greatest densities located at the base of the A horizon

(Surovell et. al 2005:631). In the case where more than one peak exists, the question then becomes whether or not one or multiple archaeological occupations exist.

In order to further determine whether or not the Folsom deposits represented one or multiple occupations, as well as to more firmly date the Folsom deposit at the site,

Surovell et al. (2005) relied on artifact density mass, inclination, refits, and lastly, radiocarbon dating. This required choosing an arbitrary depth assumed to be the occupation floor, which was the depth at which the maximum frequency of artifacts existed. All tests supported a single-component, single-occupation site which included: a clear trend in vertical dispersal and artifact mass, a single zone of relatively flat-lying artifacts with a dispersal pattern showing greater artifact dip measurements as one moved above and below away from the occupation floor, refits throughout the entire vertical profile, and a vertical distribution of Folsom diagnostics throughout the profile which mimicked the vertical distribution of the artifact assemblage (Surovell et al. 2005: 632-

634).

After determining the site stratigraphy, vertical artifact density profiles were overlaid on the stratigraphic profile, and subsequently, radiocarbon dating was used to further refine the chronology of the Barger Gulch Folsom occupation using datable materials at the peaks of artifact densities. Surovell et al. (2005) relied extensively on measurements such as dip and strike (e.g. Bertran and Texier 1995) and refits (e.g.

Hoffman 1992; Villa 1978, 1982), and these methods can be also be used to indicate if post-depositional processes have affected the Hester deposits.

As another example from Paleoindian archaeology, Derek Anderson (2011) conducted a refit analysis of a 4x4-meter excavation block at the Topper Site in South

Carolina containing Archaic and Clovis deposits. His results indicated that the Archaic and Clovis deposits seem reasonably undisturbed by post-depositional process and notes that “while some vertical displacement has occurred, in most cases movement of artifacts seems to be limited to less than 5 cm up or down the profile” (Anderson 2011: 19).

However, in a 64 square-meter block also at the Topper site, Miller (2007, 2010) used refits to argue for the presence of rodent burrows and tree-throws that likely negatively impacted the integrity of these deposits. These two studies demonstrate Hoffman’s (1992) argument that stratigraphic integrity must be demonstrated, not assumed.

Michie (1990) argued that bioturbation may also create a situation where it appears that artifacts are in their correct stratigraphic position. This is the result of older artifacts having more time and opportunities to be buried deeper relative to more recently discarded artifacts. This was particularly important in South Carolina, where he examined artifact distributions were the result of bioturbation and gravity in sandy soils and notes that “the rate of descent, or settling velocity, is dependent upon the character of the soil”

(Michie 1990:30). Soils that are dense, such as clays and sandy clays, restrict the movements of artifacts, whereas less dense soils, such as sands and sandy loams, are much less restrictive with regards to artifact movement as a result of bioturbation and gravity. This is particularly important for the analyses being performed for this thesis, as the soils at Hester are reported to be sandy (Brookes 1979).

Also relevant to the Hester site, Johnson (1990) examined how faunalturbation can be responsible for creating stone zones, or stone lines, that can potentially be mistaken for stratigraphically distinct deposits. Burrowing animals, such as gophers and earthworms, can substantially alter the vertical position of artifacts and naturally occurring lithic materials in the biomantle. In each scenario where burrowing animals are concerned, there is a direct correlation with the size of materials that will be found to move vertically. Materials too large to be moved by burrowing, or in the case of earthworms, being swallowed, result in a stone line, or stone zone that is created as the materials are buried via faunalturbation (Johnson 1990: 90-91).

Hypotheses

H0 - The archaeological deposits at Hester have been substantially altered by post- depositional processes.

Several expectations must be satisfied for the null hypothesis to be accepted (Figure 2.1).

First, when the artifacts recovered at Hester during the 2017 field season are back- plotted, there will be no clear breaks between occupations and there will be mixing of temporally diagnostics artifacts, indicating mixed cultural deposits (Anderson 2011;

Leigh 2001; Schiffer 1983). For example, pottery should not be found in the same

occupation as Paleoindian projectile points; if it is, then mixing or secondary deposition

(e.g., via high-energy fluvial activity) is indicated.

Second, more vertical rather than horizontal refits would indicate that the artifacts have been transported vertically by post-depositional processes such as bioturbation

(Atkinson 1957; Johnson 1989, 1990; Schiffer 1983, Surovell et al. 2005). Alternatively, very few or no vertical or horizontal refits will be present if a high-energy process (i.e. fluvial process) is responsible for the genesis of the Hester deposits.

Figure 2.1 A 2x2 matrix of the hypotheses used in this analysis. 18

This pattern would be expected, for example, if the deposits were discarded elsewhere and redeposited at the Hester site.

Third, the artifact dip measurements will be random, indicating a disturbance by post-depositional processes, such as bioturbation (Michie 1990; Schiffer 1983). A non- random distribution of strike measurements could also indicate that the Hester artifacts were transported via fluvial action or by slope wash (Bertran and Texier 1995; Byers et al. 2015; Schiffer 1983).

Fourth, if only large artifacts are present in the cultural deposits, it could indicate a rapid deposition of sediment, such as via a fluvial or wind transport process, that removed the smaller artifacts (Byers et al. 2015; Bar-Yosef 1993; Gunn and Foss 1997;

Michie 1990; Schiffer 1983; Surovell et al. 2005). This deposition would also be indicated in the particle size analysis by the presence of large amounts of coarse sands and gravels indicative of high-energy deposition.

Fifth, the soil profiles and particle size analysis will not show clear stratigraphic breaks and/or an upward-fining sequence characteristic of gradual alluvial deposition, with clear O, A, E, B soil horizons (Holliday 2004).

Lastly, when spatial analysis of the artifacts recovered at Hester during the 2017 field season is conducted using nearest neighbor analysis (Clark and Evans 1954;

Whallon 1974), a random pattern should be found to exist, indicating that the spatial integrity of the deposits has not been preserved.

H1 – The deposits at Hester represent vertically discrete occupations in a primary context.

Several expectations must be satisfied for this hypothesis to be accepted (Figure 2.1).

First, artifact horizons are vertically discrete, and temporally diagnostic artifacts should be their correct chronological position. In other words, a clear, vertical spatial pattern should emerge between temporally diagnostic artifacts and occupations (Michie

1990; Schiffer 1983).

Second, the refit analysis should result in primarily horizontal refits, with any vertical refits vertically constrained, which might be indicative of a more stable ground surface where artifacts are less likely to be vertically transported by post-depositional processes or bioturbation (Hoffman 1992; Villa 1978, 1982).

Third, a non-random distribution of the dip measurements for the Hester artifacts should indicate that they are lying flat relative to the ground surface rather than vertically inclined, indicating little or no vertical movement of the artifacts (Bertran and Texier

1995; Michie 1990; Peacock and Fant 2002; Schiffer 1983; Surovell et al. 2005).

Similarly, a random distribution in strike measurements would indicate that the Hester artifacts were not horizontally disturbed or moved by post-depositional processes

(Bertran and Texier 1995; Schiffer 1983).

Fourth, artifacts from both small and large size grades must be present in the

Hester archaeological deposits. This would indicate that a rapid depositional event occurred that deposited sediments which buried the artifacts at Hester, but not so fast that it displaced or washed away the smaller artifacts (Byers et al. 2015).

Fifth, a spatial analysis using nearest neighbor analyses (Clark and Evans 1954;

Whallon 1974) should find a non-random pattern, indicating the presence of activity areas demonstrating that the spatial integrity of the deposits has been preserved. As examples, Surovell et al. (2005) found evidence of the differential deposition of artifacts

that are likely the remains of structures and activity areas and Anderson et al. (2016) found knapping clusters at Topper.

Lastly, the soil profiles and particle size analysis will show clear stratigraphic breaks and/or an upward-fining sequence characteristic of gradual alluvial deposition, with clear soil horizonization (Holliday 2004).

H2 –The deposits at Hester represent vertically discrete occupations in secondary context.

Several expectations must be satisfied for this hypothesis to be accepted (Figure 2.1).

It is possible that the surface at Hester is stable, but bioturbation and gravity have transported artifacts vertically down the profile (Michie 1990; Figure 2.2). This would result in artifacts being displaced vertically rather than buried by fluvial, colluvial, or eolian processes.

Figure 2.2 Artifact distribution as a result of bioturbation and gravity.

Michie 1990

When the artifacts recovered at Hester during the 2017 field season and refits are back-plotted using ArcMap 10.6, it should be illustrated that there is some degree of

mixing of temporally diagnostic artifacts. This would indicate that the Hester deposits have been affected by post-depositional processes, but not so much that individual artifact horizons cannot be distinguished. A clear, vertical spatial pattern should emerge between temporally diagnostic artifacts and occupations (Michie 1990; Schiffer 1983).

Second, if bioturbation and gravity are responsible for the vertical movement of artifacts, it would be expected that more vertical rather than horizontal refits will be found.

Figure 2.3 Hypothetical vertical distribution of surface artifact assemblage resulting from bioturbation over time and resulting “stone line.” (Image from Johnson 1990).

A stone line will be formed by artifacts and naturally occurring lithic materials that are too big to be displaced vertically by faunal activity in the biomantle but sink due to gravity and displaced soils (Johnson 1990; Figure 2.3). Consequently, this would also lead to a vertical sorting by size grade.

Third, if the particle size analysis displays a lack of abrupt changes, it might indicate that proisotropic pedoturbation processes (i.e., floralturbation) have affected the deposits (Johnson and Watson-Stegner 1987; Johnson 1990). Alternatively, if the particle-size analysis reveals abrupt changes in particle size or an upward fining sequence, this could indicate that artifacts could have been transported by alluvial processes and redeposited as part of a gravel bar. In the latter scenario, high-energy fluvial processes could result in size grading of artifacts, displace or wash away smaller size-grade artifacts altogether, or the mixing of temporally diagnostic artifacts. It would also be less likely that any vertical or horizontal refits would be present in the assemblage as a result of the high-energy fluvial processes.

Fourth, if the artifacts at Hester have been transported vertically, it would be expected that the dip measurements will be random, which would indicate that they have been affected by post-depositional processes (Russell 2015), and the strike measurements should have a random distribution, suggesting little or no horizontal displacement. On the other hand, if the deposits are vertically discrete sand or gravel bars, dip measurements should be expected to be random, and strike should be non-random, or re-orientated as a result of fluvial energy (Bertran and Texier 1995).

In the absence of the formation of stone lines, or evidence of the formation of a gravel bar, artifacts in vertically altered deposits should have a random distribution of dip

measurements and a random distribution of strike measurements. Similarly, artifacts in horizontally altered deposits should have a non-random distribution of dip measurements and a non-random distribution of strike measurements. If the deposits have been both vertically and horizontally altered, artifacts will have both random dip and random strike distributions.

Lastly, when spatial analysis of the artifacts recovered at Hester during the 2017 field season is conducted using nearest neighbor analyses (Clark and Evans 1954;

Whallon 1974), a random pattern should be found to exist, indicating that the spatial integrity of the deposits has not been preserved.

H3 - The deposits at Hester are in primary context, but no vertical separation of occupations is present.

Several expectations must be satisfied for this hypothesis to be accepted (Figure 2.1).

First, when the artifacts recovered at Hester during the 2017 field season are back- plotted using ArcMap 10.6, vertically discrete deposits are not able to be distinguished.

No clear pattern will be discernable between temporally diagnostic artifacts and the occupations.

Second, the dip measurements of a majority of the Hester artifacts should indicate that they are lying flat relative to the ground surface rather than vertically inclined

(Bertran and Texier 1995; Michie 1990; Peacock and Fant 2002; Schiffer 1983; Surovell et al. 2005). Similarly, a random distribution in strike measurements would indicate that the Hester artifacts were not disturbed or moved by post-depositional processes (Bertran and Texier 1995; Schiffer 1983). Furthermore, the refit analysis will result in both vertical and horizontal refits, unlike the expectation in H1.

Third, artifacts from both small and large size grades must be present in the

Fourth, a nearest neighbor analyses (Clark and Evans 1954; Whallon 1974) of artifacts should find a non-random pattern, indicating that the spatial integrity of the deposits has been preserved despite the inability to distinguish the deposits vertically.

This could be an indication of continuous occupation and deposition of artifacts.

CHAPTER III

DESCRIPTION OF METHODS, MATERIALS, AND ANALYSES

Borrowing primarily from Surovell et al.’s (2005) methodology for assessing the impact of post-depositional processes at the Barger Gulch site, I analyzed the artifacts and sediments that were recovered from six 1x1-meter units from the Hester Site in order to determine if 1) the occupations identified by Brooks (1979) and Burris (2006) are vertically discrete, and 2) if these deposits are in primary or second context. I define a deposit in primary context as a deposit containing artifacts that were dropped intentionally, or unintentionally, in that location by their original user or manufacturer

(i.e., artifacts and their associations have not been disturbed, or have been only minimally disturbed, by natural or cultural processes since their original deposition), and a deposit in a secondary context as a deposit containing artifacts that have been translocated from their primary place of deposition (i.e., artifacts and their associations have been disturbed by cultural or natural processes since their original deposition) (Stein 1990:519).

Field Methods

In August of 2016, I made an initial visit to the Hester Site after gaining permission from the current leaseholders of the property. The visit was to investigate whether or not the MDAH excavation trench and block could be located. Unfortunately, the site datum was removed following the excavations in the 1970’s and all that remains as evidence of a site being present is a National Register of Historic Places signpost that 26

was placed at or near the site. Brookes (personal communication) advised that the 1978 block had been backfilled with parts of an old structure that was present on the property.

In May 2017, Tony Boudreaux and Steven Harris from the University of

Mississippi used a magnetic gradiometer and ground penetrating radar (GPR) to locate the boundaries of the MDAH trench and excavation block. The east to west GPR transect located an anomaly that is likely the backfilled excavation trench. The gradiometer results indicate the possible foundation of the structure that was used to backfill the block as well as the excavation block itself. The MDAH trench was ground truthed and located during further excavations by Mississippi State University in the summer of 2018. In order to excavate in an area that was less likely to be disturbed, but primarily to obtain dip and strike measurements, which are not available from the earlier excavations, the

2017 field school excavations were done in an area approximately four meters to the northwest of the 1974 block.

Time was a limiting factor for the MDAH excavations. As such, the excavation methods used by the MDAH archaeologists were able to generate very useful data, but

“left much to be desired” (Brookes 1979:3). Spatial control data, such as dip and strike of the artifacts, or inclination and orientation respectively, were not recorded during the

MDAH excavations. While “All artifacts were plotted and then removed” during the

1970’s excavations by the MDAH, it is unclear to me whether all artifacts, including flakes, were individually piece plotted (Brookes 1979:3).

Much like it was with the MDAH investigations, time was a limiting factor during the 2017 excavations, as the excavations for this thesis were conducted during the 2017

MSU excavation field school. The placement of excavation units for the 2017 field

school was based on the excavations at the Hester site in 1978 that revealed a high concentration of archaeological materials in the northwest corner of the excavation block.

Consequently, I decided that fourteen 1 x 1 meter units should be placed in an area approximately four meters northwest of the 1978 block (Figure 3.1) in order to obtain a fresh view of the stratigraphic profile containing the cultural deposits at Hester and to obtain dip and strike data on piece-plotted artifacts. Of those fourteen units, I used a 3 x 2 meter block as the primary locus from which to obtain vertical profile views for this thesis. It is possible that deposits at Hester can be as deep as 1.5 meters. The units adjacent to the 3 x 2 meter block allowed for stepped-down excavations.

Figure 3.1 Proposed 2017 field season unit placement.

Adapted from Burris (2006) to show approximate location of the excavation units following geophysical analysis.

We excavated the A horizon of each unit in its entirety. Subsequent levels were excavated in 5 cm increments unless a change in natural soil color was noted. When a soil color change was noted, sub-levels were excavated in 5 cm arbitrary levels.

Following the excavation of each level, closing elevations were taken from the four corners and the center of the unit using a total station. Two plan photographs were taken for each unit: one oblique photo with photo board and north arrow, and one plan photo with photo points and north arrow with the photo board removed.

The depth of the known artifact-bearing deposits at Hester is approximately 2.5 feet, or 0.75 meters. As such, the aim was to excavate each unit to a depth of at least 1.5 meters, or to the sterile white sand soil horizon. Excavation of the primary 3 x 2 meter block continued several layers into the sterile white sand horizon. If artifacts were found to be present in the sterile white sand horizon, excavations continued until at least two consecutive 5 cm levels were excavated and found to be sterile. Before the conclusion of the each level, the soil texture and munsell color of the soil in each level was recorded.

The soil removed from each level, to include the A horizon, was screened using

1/8” mesh. All artifacts measuring 2 cm or greater in length and/or width were piece- plotted using a total station. This decision was based on the method of artifact recovery and piece-plotting used by Surovell et al. (2005: 630). The easting, northing, and elevation data of the piece-plotted artifacts allowed me to render a precise 3D reconstruction of the excavation block, displaying the spatial relationship of the piece- plotted artifacts using ArcMap 10.6 software for spatial analysis. Dip (inclination) and strike (orientation) data using the long axis of each piece-plotted artifact were also recorded by the excavator using an inclinometer and compass. Using these precise

methods (i.e., dip, strike, and piece-plotting all artifacts 2 cm or greater in size) resulted in a finer spatial resolution of the Hester site that I used to demonstrate whether vertically discrete occupations exist.

When a feature was encountered during excavation, it was photographed and then bisected. One-half of the soil removed during the bisection was screened through 1/8” screen. Once bisected, a second photograph was taken to capture a profile view of the feature. Additionally, profile and plan drawings were completed for each feature by the excavator. The remaining soil of the feature was collected for future flotation analysis.

When a partial feature was exposed in the unit, the unit was expanded to expose the entire feature.

When the excavation block was completed, I sampled the south vertical profile wall of unit N547E392 at every 5 cm for particle size analysis, resulting in 21 sediments samples being collected for analysis. The profile wall that was chosen appeared to be the most visibly intact. I processed these samples at the University of Tennessee’s

Archaeological Research Lab using a Malvern Laser Diffraction Analyzer.

Laboratory Methods

I conducted the laboratory analyses for this thesis using artifact and sediment data from a 3x2-meter block (Figure 3.3; Table A.1) that contained 1,065 of the piece-plotted artifacts recovered during excavations.

Figure 3.2 The 3x2-meter excavation block used for analysis showing the distribution of piece-plotted artifacts.

Particle-Size Analysis

Given the proximity of the Hester site to the Tombigbee River, determining whether or not the soil horizons at Hester are the result of one, or multiple depositional events with subsequent horizonization, and the rate at which deposition occurred, can be investigated using close-interval particle-size analysis. Information relating to individual depositional events, such as flooding, can potentially be obtained using this method

(Knox 1987; Leigh 2001; Rick et al. 2006).The particle-size analysis was conducted at the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s archaeological research laboratory. The twenty-one samples collected during excavations were processed using a Malvern

Mastersizer 3000 laser diffraction particle size analyzer (PSA). This method of analysis was chosen over the traditional sieving and hydrometer methods (Day 1965) due to its requirement for minimal sample size (Jedari et al. 2017), short time of analysis (Loizeau et al. 1994; Jedari et al. 2017), and accuracy (Jonkers et al. 2009; Jedari et al. 2017).

Mass Analysis of the Debitage

Using mass analysis allowed for a relatively fast and “highly objective” analysis of the debitage recovered at Hester (Andrefsky 2009:81). Artifacts were sorted by material (lithic - including sandstone, pottery, historic, other) and then each type of debitage was screened through a set of nested screens. The nested screens were used to sort the debitage into size grades (1-inch, 0.75-inch, 0.50-inch, 0.25-inch, and < 0.25- inch).

I recorded whether an artifact had been subjected to thermal alteration for each piece of lithic debitage or tool. This determination was made based on color and/or texture – e.g., glossiness. The choice to identify “thermal alteration” rather than “heat treated” was done so because “heat treated” implies a deliberate action. Other attribute data recorded for each piece-plotted artifact also included whether there was cortex present, and the condition of the flake or tool (e.g., proximal, medial, distal, complete).

I also weighed and recorded the weight of each individual piece-plotted artifact.

Additionally, I sorted each artifact according to artifact type (lithic, pottery, charcoal, other) and size-grade that was recovered in the screens from each unit and level. I then counted and weighed each bulk of size-graded material, resulting in count and weight for each size-grade of artifact type. I used this information, in conjunction with the particle size data, to test if periods of high-energy deposition of sediments impacted the 32

preservation of the archaeological deposits. In other words, levels associated with a higher percentage of sands relative to silts and clays correlated with few, if any smaller artifacts, could indicate that eolian or fluvial processes have substantially impacted the integrity of the deposits and displaced smaller, more susceptible artifacts. Furthermore, should a future investigation examining lithic tool production and reduction strategies be undertaken, this analysis could indicate whether that investigation could be negatively affected due to high-energy deposition.

Inclination and Orientation

I analyzed the horizontal and vertical integrity of the Hester deposits using artifact dip and strike. The strike, or orientation of the artifacts, was specifically used to determine the horizontal integrity of the deposits by measuring the degree of horizontal movement as a result of post-depositional processes (Bertran and Texier 1995; Byers et al. 2015). Once I obtained the strike of the piece-plotted artifacts, the results were displayed using a Rose diagram. Unless some post-depositional process has disturbed the cultural deposits at Hester, causing the artifacts to align in the direction of the force disturbing them, a random distribution of artifact orientation is assumed to exist (Byers et al. 2015; Russell 2015).

I analyzed the vertical integrity of the Hester deposits using the dip, or inclination, of the piece-plotted artifact assemblage recovered during excavations. Much like the strike, the analysis of dip assumes that “artifacts dropped on a flat surface should remain flat if they have not been disturbed” by post-depositional processes (Russell 2015: 68).

Additionally, size data of both the piece-plotted artifacts and the artifacts recovered during screening can be used to demonstrate the vertical integrity of the Hester deposits. 33

I conducted Pearson chi-square tests (Field et al. 2012; Plackett 1983) using

Microsoft Excel to determine if a random or non-random distribution exists for the artifact dip and strike measurements recorded for piece-plotted artifacts. For the analysis,

I chose arbitrary 15-degree and 30-degree increments for dip and strike respectively, resulting in 6 bins for the dip and strike chi-square analysis respectively. Artifacts that were determined to be in an identified pit feature were not included in the analysis under the assumption that they have been substantially disturbed during the filling process.

Refit Analysis

I analyzed the vertical and horizontal movement of the Hester artifacts were also using a refit analysis. I conducted the refit analysis using piece-plotted artifacts measuring 2 cm or greater in length. Following the mass analysis, I determined that some artifacts not measuring at least 2 cm in length were piece-plotted. I chose to remove those artifacts from the analysis for consistency. When refits were found, I recorded them and then entered each pair of refits into ArcMap 10.6, where I conducted further spatial analysis. I measured vertical displacement by finding the difference in elevation between the artifacts that refit. Similarly, the measurement function in ArcMap 10.6 was used to measure the vertical distance between two refit pairs.

I used the refit analysis to demonstrate the potential vertical and horizontal displacement of artifacts, a second purpose of the analysis was to demonstrate that refits were actually present in the lithic assemblage.

Additionally, I realized early in the analysis that based on time it would be an unrealistic goal to identify every refit present in the lithic assemblage that was recovered during the 2017 field season. Therefore, an arbitrary length of time in which to view the 34

assemblage and attempt to identify refits was set at 40 hours. A logbook was kept where the time spent looking at the assemblage and attempting to identify refits was recorded, along with the number of refits identified. An additional log was kept where the provenience information of the artifacts that were identified as refits was recorded. Each pair, or set, of refits was given a refit number.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

In total, the 2017 excavations resulted in the piece-plotting of approximately

1,600 individual artifacts across the 14 square meter block (Figure 4.1). The recovered lithic assemblage consists of flaked stone tools representing the Late Paleoindian (10500-

9900 BP) and Early Archaic periods (10000-8,000 BP) (McGahey 2004). Early lanceolate, stemmed, side-notched, and corner-notched types include Dalton (10500-9900

BP), Big Sandy (9500-9000), Jude (9500-9000 BP), and Decatur (9500-9000 BP) point types (McGahey 2004). In the upper strata at Hester, sand-tempered plain and sand- tempered cord marked pottery was present representing Gulf Formational to Late

Woodland period occupation at the site (Brookes 1979). Additionally, we identified seven subsurface features. Two of those features extended into units that have not been excavated. The identified features also intruded into the white, sandy soil horizon.

Figure 4.1 Piece-plotted artifact distribution for the 2017 excavation.

Overall, the excavations revealed a stratigraphic sequence comparable to that identified by Brookes, with three notable exceptions: 1) the absence of Middle to Late

Archaic diagnostic artifacts, and 2) the Dalton artifact that was recovered during the 2017 field season was from the reddish-brown soil horizon, resting on top of the yellow sand, or Brookes’ Dalton Horizon, and 3) the identification of a buried soil (A horizon) within

Brookes’ (1979) reddish-brown soil horizon (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2 North profile view of soil horizons identified during the 2017 excavations.

The results from the particle size analysis indicates an upward fining sequence (an increase in silt and clay relative to sand) and a continuous deposition of sediments at

Hester which consequently buried the cultural deposits at the site (Figure 4.3). An increase in organic materials (Figure 4.3) as well as an upward fining sequence as shown by the particle size analysis seems to indicate that periods of landscape stabilization may have allowed for not only vegetation growth, but also occupation of the landscape at

Hester, and the resulting pedogenesis indicated by the four discrete soil horizons identified in both the 1970’s and the most current excavations.

While a closer interval of sampling for the particle-size analysis may have provided a tighter analysis, two factors were taken into consideration when I collected the sediment samples: 1) the risk of contaminating the samples with sediments from other levels and 2) potentially collapsing a wall, considering the sandy nature of the soils at

Hester.

Figure 4.3 Result of the particle-size analysis and organic analysis for each sample taken at 5 cm intervals.

Once I input the spatial data gathered by the total station and attribute data resulting from the mass analysis for the piece-plotted artifacts into ArcMap 10.6, I created a geodatabase for the 2017 field season. I georeferenced the back-plotted artifacts against the north profile of the 3x2-meter block, showing their spatial distribution (Figure

4.4).

Interestingly, the area of the profile where the largest density of artifacts is located not only correlates with the levels identified in the organic analysis of having higher 39

organic concentrations, but it’s also the area where artifacts diagnostic to the late-

Paleoindian/Early Archaic periods were recovered.

This area also correlates with the PSA levels where an initial peak in silts and clays relative to sands is apparent which further suggests that a period of landscape stability may have contributed to the occupation and use of the Hester site during the Late

Pleistocene/Early Holocene.

Figure 4.4 North profile view of excavation block with piece-plotted artifacts.

In total, 5 radiocarbon samples were recovered by Brookes during the 1970’s excavations and processed at the University of Georgia, but the association between the samples and recovered points types was uncertain. The reason for so few samples being recovered for dating was that charcoal or other datable materials were either rare or too small for sampling (Brookes 1979). Until the 2017 excavations, the Dalton occupation at the Hester site had not been dated. 40

During the 2017 excavations, we recovered charcoal and other organic samples from the deposits at Hester. A 50-cm x 50-cm x 1-meter flotation column for ethnobotanical analysis was excavated by Dr. Stephen Carmody from the southern wall of excavation unit N547E392, which he analyzed at Troy University. Multiple Late

Paleoindian/Early Archaic bifaces were recovered from this unit during the 2017 field season.

Two hickory nutshell samples were recovered by Dr. Carmody from the flotation column and sent to the AMS radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona. Sample 1

(9589 ± 32 BP uncalibrated; 11106 – 10759 calBP) was taken from level 14 of the flotation column within which 2 Early Side-notched (Big Sandy), and 1 unidentified projectile point were associated. Sample 2 was taken from level 16 (10380 ± 34 BP uncalibrated; 12403 – 12075 calBP). The Dalton point recovered during the 2017 field season was associated with and located near the bottom of level 15 of the flotation column (Figure 4.5).

Figure 4.5 Stratigraphic association of diagnostic projectile points and the floatation column.

Given the sandy nature of the soils at Hester, some vertical artifact movement is to be expected, but it is not so much that it has caused extensive mixing of temporally diagnostic artifacts. When plotted against the profile wall of the excavated flotation column, the temporally diagnostic projectile points recovered during the excavations appear to be in their correct chronological position (i.e., pottery is in the upper strata and

Early Archaic point types appear in their correct position in the lower strata). In the sequence shown in Figure 4.5, two stemmed points fall within the sequence for early side-notched points. Big Sandy and Jude point types, which are two diagnostic, Early

Archaic projectile points, were coeval between 9500 – 9000 BP (McGahey 2004).

However, Hardin points, which occur later (9000-8500 BP), would be expected to follow both the Big Sandy and Jude points types. It is unclear at this time how the projectile points should be classified. Nonetheless, as previously stated, some artifact movement is to be expected in not only sandy soils, but also in a forested environment where deposits can be subjected to faunalturbation.

I completed the mass analysis on 1,065 individually piece-plotted artifacts in the

3x2-meter excavation block (Figure 3.2) analyzed for this thesis, resulting in the identification of 866 lithic flakes, 96 lithic tools (unifacially modified flakes, bifaces, sandstone grinding stones, and hammerstones), 20 potsherds, and 83 other lithic artifacts

(cobbles, petrified wood, sandstone) and historic artifacts (glass, nails, ferrous metal, etc.). The lithic assemblage consisted of 1,032 artifacts with size-grades measuring 1-inch

(n=77; 7.5%), 0.75-inch (n=131; 12.7%), 0.50-inch (n=555; 53.8%), and 0.25-inch

(n=269; 26%). Additionally, 422 (43.9%) of the 962 identified lithic debitage and lithic

tools had cortex present. Thermally altered lithic artifacts (n=685) accounted for 66% of the lithic assemblage.

There is a clear pattern that emerges when the counts of artifacts are plotted against elevation resulting in two occurrences of increasing, then decreasing artifact density (Figure 4.6). While it is clear that at least one continuous occupation at Hester can be distinguished based on the continuous presence of artifacts vertically throughout the profile, the results of the mass analysis may also indicate periods of increased site use, or multiple occupations, when artifact count is plotted against depth. That is, there are two areas where there is an increase in artifact density: between elevations of 100.700 and 100.400, and elevations and 100.400 and 99.850.

However, further delineation of discrete occupations cannot be determined.

Nonetheless, artifact horizons can be differentiated when plotted against each other according to elevation as seen in Figure 4.5.

The dip and strike analyses of 902 and 903 piece-plotted artifacts respectively, were conducted using Pearson’s Chi Square Goodness of Fit (Pearson 1900; Plackett

1983). The sample size for each test excludes artifacts that were piece-plotted in a suspected feature, and those that did not have a dip and/or strike measurement recorded.

A Cramer’s V statistic (Cramer 1946) was calculated to test for the possibility of a Type I error, or rejection of a true null hypothesis due to large samples size. The results indicate a non-random distribution of dip measurements (X2=327.08, df = 5, p=0.00, V=0.60), with 77% of the piece-plotted artifacts having a dip measurement of 45 degrees or less.

Of those artifacts, 43% had a dip measurement of 15 degrees or less (table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Results of the Chi-square analysis for dip measurements.

Dip Angle Observed Expected X2 0-15 300 150.3 149.10 16-30 200 150.3 16.41 31-45 197 150.3 14.49 46-60 101 150.3 16.19 61-75 39 150.3 82.45 76-90 65 150.3 48.44 Total 902 902.0 327.08

X2 = 327.08 df = 5 P = 0.00 Cramer’s V = 0.60

The strike analysis also resulted in a non-random distribution (X2=37.02, df=5, p=0.00, V=0.20), with 37% of the analyzed artifacts orienting in a more north/south direction between 331 degrees and 30 degrees or 180 degrees and 151 degrees (table 4.3).

The test indicates that it is possible that some process has caused an alignment in a more northeast to southwest direction in 22% of the artifacts and an east/southeast to west/northwest direction in 18% of the artifacts. The relatively low Cramer’s V statistic

(V=0.20) indicates that the resulting p-value of the chi-square analysis for artifact strike could potentially be affected by sample size. The strike measurements for the 903 artifacts included in the analysis are displayed using a rose diagram created using

GeoRose 0.5.1 (Figure 4.7).

Table 4.3 Results of the Chi-square analysis for strike measurements.

Strike Angle Observed Expected X2 0-30/180-210 202 150.5 17.62 31-60/211-240 160 150.5 0.60 61-90/241-270 140 150.5 0.73 91-120/271-300 163 150.5 1.04 121-150/301-330 102 150.5 15.63 151-179/331-359 136 150.5 1.40 Total 903 903.0 37.02

X2 = 37.02 df = 5 P = 0.00 Cramer’s V = 0.20

Figure 4.6 Counts for all size-grades of artifact recovered from the 3x2-meter excavation block.

Figure 4.7 Rose diagram for strike measurements created using GeoRose 0.5.1

The refit analysis resulted in 20 pairs of refits across the 3x2 meter block that was analyzed (Figure 4.8; Table A.4). The average horizontal distance between refitted pairs was 54.7 cm, while the average vertical distance was 4.0 cm. Some vertical movement is to be expected given the nature of the sandy soils at Hester, but horizontal refits were more prevalent in the refits identified.

Figure 4.8 Plan and north profile view of the 20 refit pairs identified created using ArcMap 10.6.

I suggest that some post-depositional event, such as fluvial action, may have had a force strong enough to align the artifacts in a certain direction (northeast to southwest and north/northwest to south/southeast), but those forces were also gentle enough that they did not wash the smaller artifacts away. All size-grades, ranging from ¼-inch, to greater than 1-inch were recovered in large amounts during the 2017 field season. This includes artifacts recovered in the screen bags for the units that were analyzed in this thesis.

I established an arbitrary occupation surface for an early Archaic component by isolating all the artifacts from an elevation of 100.130 and below using ArcMap 10.6. I chose the elevation of 100.130 because all of the early side-notched (Big Sandy point type) and early stemmed points (Jude point type) were recovered from below this elevation. This resulted in a profile slice of approximately 16.6 cm, and then running a 49

nearest neighbor analysis and a cluster density analysis using the kernel density function in ArcMap 10.6 to identify any statistically significant clusters of artifacts (Figure 4.9 and

Figure 4.10). The results of the nearest neighbor analysis indicate statistically significant horizontal (NN = 0.89; p <0.001) and vertical (NN = 0.92; p =0.001).clustering of artifacts. Two distinct, high-density clusters of artifacts were apparent in both the plan and north profile views. The elevation of 100.130 is also correlated with the area of highest artifact density, when plotting count versus elevation that was seen in Figure 4.6.

This likely indicates a stable occupation surface, especially when overlaid with both the dip data and strike data.

Figure 4.9 Results of the nearest neighbor analysis using ArcMap 10.6.

Plan view analysis (right) and Profile view analysis (right)

Figure 4.10 Density Cluster of artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side-notched horizon created using ArcMap 10.6.

Recalling that Surovell et al. (2005) used increasing dip measurements for artifacts when moving away from their Folsom occupation surface, a similar technique was used to make an inference with respect to an occupation surface using both the radiocarbon and dip data for the arbitrary occupation surface delineated The angle of dip measurements for the artifacts that were isolated are depicted by lines illustrating their angles. Artifacts nearest the arbitrarily defined occupation surface appear to be lying flatter (green lines) relative to those below them. Additionally, when the refit data is overlaid (Figure 4.11), most of the horizontal refits are seen near or just above this surface.

Figure 4.11 North profile of dip angles for artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side- notched horizon created using ArcMap 10.6.

Turning attention to the identified clusters, there also appears to refits within the clusters. Using the same artifacts, thermal alteration data is then used (Figure 4.12).

Given the high-density clustering of artifacts that can be isolated and the high number of thermally altered artifacts within the clusters, it can be suggested that the clustering may be evidence of a hearth feature, especially for the southern cluster. There is a refit

“cluster” present, that may be evidence of an area of toolmaking activity just northeast of the hearth feature, or it may be an indication of another hearth feature. In either case there is the need of further evaluation (Figure 4.12).

During excavation, the southern cluster was identified as a biface cluster where several bifacial artifacts were mapped. A sediment sample was taken from below the cluster. Charcoal has been isolated from the cluster and will be sent off for radiocarbon dating. It is hoped that that date returned is comparable to those returned from the flotation column. Future research may be able to be undertaken regarding site-use and to further investigate the clustering that has been identified.

Figure 4.12 Refit overlay of suspected early Archaic horizon created using ArcMap 10.6.

Figure 4.13 Density cluster of artifacts in the suspected early Archaic side-notched horizon showing thermal alteration data created using ArcMap 10.6.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this thesis research was to determine whether the cultural deposits at the Hester site are in a primary or secondary context and whether or not vertically discrete occupations can be demonstrated. Additionally, the excavations that we completed in the 2017 field season also allowed for a fresh stratigraphic view of the profile at the Hester site as well as the application of modern geoarchaeological methods

(e.g. Surovell et al. 2005) in order to understand how natural, post-depositional processes may have affected the cultural deposits at Hester.

Given the results of the research undertaken for this thesis, I reject the null hypothesis, hypothesis 2, and hypothesis 3. The results of the analyses that I conducted for this thesis suggest that the Hester site is a stratified site in or near a primary context.

Therefore, I accept hypothesis 1 that states: the deposits at Hester represent vertically discrete occupations in a primary context. First, I argue that there are two occupations at

Hester that are vertically discrete as indicated by the two occurrences of increasing artifact density in Figure 4.6 when artifact count is plotted against elevation.

Additionally, as seen in Figure 4.4, there is a lack of substantial vertical mixing between temporally diagnostic artifacts (i.e., pottery is not found in the lower strata mixed with the Late Paleoindian/Early Archaic artifacts). Nonetheless, given the sandy nature of the soils at Hester, some vertical displacement is to be expected, but it is not so much that

artifact horizons cannot be differentiated. These results demonstrate that Hester is a stratified site, supporting the acceptance of hypothesis 1 and the rejection of the null hypothesis and hypothesis 3.

Second, the result of the refit analysis I conducted suggests a lack of substantial vertical mixing as a result of post-depositional processes indicated by the presence of more horizontal rather than vertical refits as well as the average vertical distance between refit pairs of 4.0 cm. If there had been an absence in both vertical and horizontal refits, it could be suggested that a high-energy process, such as a fluvial process, is responsible for the genesis of the Hester deposits. If bioturbation and gravity were responsible for vertical displacement, it would be expected that more vertical rather than horizontal refits would be expected. Additionally, as seen in Figure 4.6, there does not appear to be any vertical sorting of artifacts according to size grade to suggest the formation of a stone line as a result of artifacts or naturally occurring lithic materials being displaced vertically by faunal activity in the biomantle that have sank due to displaced soils. Thus, the deposits at Hester appear to be at or near a primary context. Support for the acceptance of hypothesis 1 and the rejection of hypothesis 2 is warranted given the lack of evidence for substantial vertical displacement of the artifacts in the deposits at Hester.

Third, the dip and strike analyses I conducted resulted in a non-random distribution for each analysis respectively. The results of the Pearson’s Chi-square test I conducted illustrates a non-random distribution of dip measurements, with 77% of the artifact dip angles measuring 45 degrees or less. That is, 77% of the artifacts at Hester do not appear to be “on edge”, but instead at a relatively flat angle. I based this on the assumption that an object dropped on a flat surface will lay flat. It would be expected that

if the artifacts in the cultural deposits at Hester were not extensively disturbed by post- depositional processes, then a non-random distribution would exist with substantially more artifacts lying flat relative to the ground rather than on edge.

The strike analysis I conducted also resulted in a non-random distribution of strike measurements. A non-random distribution in strike measurements might suggest that some high-energy process caused artifacts to align in the direction of energy. However, when taken into consideration along with the fact that refits were identified, and the mass analysis of the lithic materials recovered, which included the size-grades of both piece- plotted and screened lithic materials, the results of the strike analysis may not be so alarming in terms of post-depositional movement.

Systematic bias when taking the strike measurement by the excavator cannot be ruled out with respect to the tendency to record observed angles along a parallel axis of the excavation grid rather than an angle that may actually be several degrees away from that axis – e.g., recording a 270-degree angle for an artifact that may have had a true angle of 268 degrees (Bertran and Texier 2005). This could explain why there appears to be the tendency for the alignment of more artifacts along a major axis (i.e., north to south or east to west).

Considering the results of the other analyses I conducted in this thesis that suggest minimal disturbance by post-depositional processes, the results of the strike analysis are not convincing evidence for a true, non-random distribution of strike measurements.

Moreover, the orientation of a higher number of artifacts in a more north/south or east/west direction as a result of systematic bias rather than as the result of a high-energy process (i.e., fluvial process) seems more likely at this juncture. The results of the dip and

strike analysis further supports the acceptance of hypothesis 1 and the rejection of hypothesis 2.

Fourth, all size grades of artifacts were found in the cultural deposits at Hester. If only large artifacts had been found, it could indicate that a high-energy deposition of sediments as a result of fluvial or eolian processes that removed or washed away the smaller artifacts. This would also be apparent by the presence of large gravels and coarse sands that would be indicative of high-energy deposition. When I plotted the counts for all artifacts against depth (Figure 4.6), there appears to be enough stability that the artifacts are not vertically sorting according to size grade. This likely suggests that either enough time has not elapsed to allow the vertical sorting of size grades, or that despite the soil being predominantly sandy, the deposits have not been subjected to a high-degree of vertical mixing from extensive bioturbation or gravity. Additionally, I suggest that a rapid depositional event occurred that deposited sediments which buried the artifacts at Hester, but not so fast that it displaced or washed away the smaller artifacts. This further supports the rejection of hypothesis 2.

Lastly, when the spatial analysis I conducted was completed using ArcMap 10.6 for the suspected Early Archaic horizon, a non-random pattern was found to exist illustrating statistically significant clustering of artifacts which may indicate activity areas that are spatially intact. If a random pattern had been found to exist, it may have indicated that the spatial integrity of the deposits had not been preserved. The results of the spatial analysis further support the acceptance of hypothesis 1 and the rejection of hypothesis 2.

CONCLUSION

In summary, I conclude that the research and resulting analyses conducted for this thesis support the acceptance of hypothesis 1. The 3x2-meter excavation block that I used for this thesis appears to be in a stratified and near primary context. The 2017 excavations at the Hester site afforded the view of a fresh stratigraphic profile and the taking of dip and strike data that was crucial to the understanding of how the cultural deposits at the

Hester site have been affected by post-depositional processes.

A major concern for both the research undertaken here as well as for Brookes

(1979) was whether the cultural deposits at the Hester site had been disturbed as a result of modern-day gravel mining operations in the area. The initial excavations in the 1970’s, as well as the recent 2017 excavations, demonstrate that the Hester site is a relatively undisturbed archaeological site with truly remarkable Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene occupation.

The site is rare in that it is an open-air site in the region that contains a Late

Pleistocene/Early Holocene occupational sequence spanning the Late Paleoindian through Late Woodland periods in the Southeastern United States. I believe that the research regarding formation processes undertaken here and determining how natural post-depositional processes may have affected the cultural deposits at Hester is an initial, crucial first step in determining how the archaeological record was formed at Hester.

Additionally, it is hoped that natural post-depositional factors can be taken into account in future research endeavors that may involve the cultural formation processes at the site, and potentially site use.

REFERENCES

A map of the Hester Site situated between the Tombigbee River and the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. Google Maps.2018

David G. Anderson. 2001 “Climate and Culture Change in Prehistoric and Early Historic Eastern North America.” Archaeology of Eastern North America, vol. 29, 2001, p. 143- 186.

Anderson, David G., Ashley M. Smallwood, and D. Shane Miller 2015 Pleistocene Human Settlement in the Southeastern United States: Current Evidence and Future Directions. PaleoAmerica (1): 7-51.

Anderson, Derek T. 2011 The 2010 4x4 Meter Unit at Topper: Preliminary Lithic and Spatial Analyses. Legacy (Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology 15(1):16-19.

Anderson, Derek T., Ashley M. Smallwood, Albert C. Goodyear, and Sarah E. Walters 2016 The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Occupations at the Topper Site. Tennessee Archaeology 8 (1-2): 102-113.

Andrefsky, William, Jr. 2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17: 65-103.

Atkinson, Richard J. C. 1957 Worms and Weathering. Antiquity 31:219-233

Bar-Yosef, Ofer 1993 Site Formation Processes from a Levantine Viewpoint. In Formation Processes in Archaeological Context, edited by Paul Goldberg, D. T. Nash, and M. D. Petraglia, pp. 13-32. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Bertran, Pascal and Jean-Pierre Texier 1995 Fabric Analysis: Application to Paleolithic Sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 22(4):521-535.

Brookes, Samuel O. 1979 An Early Archaic Occupation in Monroe County, Mississippi: A Preliminary Report. Mississippi Department of archives and History. Jackson, Mississippi

1983 Archaeological Site File Record for the Beachum-Harrison Site 22MO1011. Manuscript on File, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Brose, David S. 1991 Yesterday's river: the archaeology of 10,000 years along the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, OH, pp. 3.

Burris, Agnes 2006 Defining an Alternative Typology for Early Holocene Projectile Points from the Hester Site (22MO569), Northeast Mississippi: A Systematic Approach. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures, Mississippi State University.

Byers, David A, Elise Hargiss, and Judson Byrd Finley 2015 Flake Morphology, Fluvial Dynamics, and Debitage Transport. Geoarchaeology 30:379-392.

Cambron, James W. and David C. Hulse 1964 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology, part 1: Point types. The Archaeological Research Association of Alabama, Inc.

Chapman, Carl H. 1948 A Preliminary Survey of Missouri Archaeology, Part IV. Missouri Archaeologist 10(4): 135-64.

Clark, P. J. and F. C. Evans 1954 Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationship in populations. Ecology 34:445-453.

Cramér, Harald 1946 Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Day, P. R. 1965 Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis, edited by C.A. Black, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 545-567.

DeJarnette, David L. Edward Kurjack, James W. Cambron 1962 Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter Excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology. 8 (2).

Futato, Eugene M. 1989 An Archaeological Overview of the Tombigbee River Basin, Alabama and Mississippi. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama, Alabama State Museum of Natural History, Division of Archaeology.

Goldberg, P. and R.I. Macphail 2006 Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Goodyear, Albert C. 1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: A Geoarchaeological Summary. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americans, edited by Robson Bonnichsen and Karen L. Turnmire, pp. 432-481. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Gunn, Joel and John E. Foss 1997 Variable Artifact Displacement and Replacement in a Holocene Eolian Feature: In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Pedo- Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear, John E. Foss, and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 53-74. Anthropology Studies 10, Occasional Papers of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology: University of South Carolina.

Hoffman, Jack L. 1992 Putting the Pieces Together: An Introduction to Refitting. In Piecing Together the Past: Applications of Refitting Studies in Archaeology, edited by Jack L. Hoffman and J.G. Enloe, pp. 1-20. British Archaeological Reports International Series 578.

Holliday, Vance T. 2004 Soils in Archaeological Research. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Jedari, C., A.M. Palomino, H. Cyr, E.C. Drumm, and D. Boles 2017 Grain and Floc Size Distribution Analysis of Fine Coal Refuse Slurry. ICSMGE 2017 - 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 403–406.

Johnson, Donald L. 1989 Subsurface Stone Lines, Stone Zones, and Biomantles Produced by Bioturbation Via Pocket Gophers (Thomomys bottae). American Antiquity 54: 370–389.

1990 Biomantle Evolution and the Redistribution of Earth Materials and Artifacts. Soil Science 149 (2): 84-101.

Jonkers, Lukas, Maarten Prinns, Geert-Jan Brummer, Martin Konert, and Bryan Lougheed 2009 Experimental Insights into Laser Diffraction Particle Sizing of Fine- Grained Sediments for Use in Palaeoceanography. Sedimentology, vol. 56, no. 7, p. 2192–2206.

Kneberg, Madeline 1956 Some important projectile points found in the Tennessee Area. Tennessee Archaeological Society 12(1): 17-28.

Knox, James C. 1987 Stratigraphic Evidence of Large Floods in the Upper Mississippi Valley. In Catastrophic Flooding, edited by L. Mayer and D. Nash, pp. 155-179. Allen and Unwin, Boston.

Leigh, David S. 2001 Buried artifacts in Sandy Soils: Techniques for Evaluating Pedoturbation versus Sedimentation. In Earth Science and Archaeology, edited by V. T. Holliday P. Goldberg, R. Ferring, pp. 269-293. Plenum: New York.

Loizeau, J., D. Arbouille, S. Santiago, and J. Vernet 1994 Evaluation of a Wide Range Laser Diffraction Grain Size Analyser for Use with Sediments. Sedimentology, no. 2, p. 353-361.

McGahey, Samuel O. 2004 Mississippi Projectile Point Guide. Jackson, Miss.: Mississippi Dept. of Archives and History.

Meltzer, David J. 2009 First Peoples in a New World : Colonizing Ice Age America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Meltzer, David J., and Vance T. Holliday. 2010 Would North American Paleoindians Have Noticed Younger Dryas Age Climate Changes? Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 1-41.

Michie, James L. 1990 Bioturbation and Gravity as a Potential Site Formation Process: the Open Area Site, 38GE261, Georgetown County, South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities 22(1-2): 27-46.

Miller, D. Shane 2007 Site Formation Processes in an Upland Paleoindian Site: The 2006–2007 Topper Firebreak Excavations. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

2010 Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005–2007: Examining Site Formation Processes at an Upland Paleoindian Site along the Middle Savannah River. Occasional Papers 1, Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. Columbia.

Peacock, Evan and David W. Fant 2002 Biomantle Formation and Artifact Translocation in upland Sandy Soils: An Example from the Holly Springs National Forest, North-Central Mississippi, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 17(1):91-114.

Pearson, K. 1900 On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Phil. Mag. (5) 50, 157-175.

Plackett, R.L. 1983 Karl Pearson and the Chi-Square Statistic. International Statistics Review 51(1):59-72.

Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, and Rene L. Vellanoweth 2006 Taphonomy and Site Formation on California’s Channel Islands. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 21(6):567-589.

Russell, Adam D. 2015 Casting Stones: An Analysis of the Late Archaic Period at the Big Pine Tree Site, South Carolina, Based in Behavioral Ecology. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156-165.

1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48 (4):675-706.

1988 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Sherwood, Sarah C., Boyce N. Driskell, Asa R. Randall, and Scott C. Meeks 2004 Chronology and Stratigraphy at Dust Cave, Alabama. American Antiquity, no. 3: 533.

Shott, Michael J. 1998 Status and Role of Formation Theory in Contemporary Archaeological Practice. Journal of Archaeological Research 6(4):299-329.

2006 Formation Theory in Archaeology: Readings from American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity. Washington, D.C. Society for American Archaeology Press.

Stein, J. K. 1990 Archaeological stratigraphy. In Lasca, N. P., and Donahue, J. (eds.), Archaeological Geology of North America. Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America. Centennial Special Volume, Vol. 4, pp. 513–523.

Surovell, Todd A., Nicole M. Waguespack, James H. Mayer, Marcel Kornfeld, and George C. Frison 2005 Shallow Site Archaeology: Artifact Dispersal, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Dating at the Barger Gulch Locality B Folsom site, Middle Park, Colorado. Geoarchaeology 20:627-649.

Villa, Paola 1978 The Stone Artifact Assemblage from Terra Amata: A Contribution to the Comparative Study of Acheulian Industries in Southwestern Europe. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

1982 Conjoinable Pieces and Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity 47:276-290.

Whallon, Robert 1974 Spatial analysis of occupation floors II: The application of nearest neighbor analysis. American Antiquity 39:16-34.

Wood, W. Raymond, and Donald L. Johnson 1979 A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation. In Advances in archaeological method and theory (Vol. 1), edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 315-381. Academic Press, New York.

ARTIFACT DATA

Non-feature Artifact Data

Table A.1 Data for All Non-feature Artifacts

Unit Northing Easting Elevation Dip Strike Size Weight Grade (g) (in.) MON547E390-02 547.560 390.506 100.673 88 336 0.75 6.7 MON547E390-06 547.603 390.813 100.508 2 320 0.75 7.9 MON547E390-09 547.325 390.302 100.322 45 330 0.75 32.9 MON547E390-11 547.081 390.319 100.250 25 350 0.25 2.0 MON547E390-11 547.051 390.456 100.224 35 90 0.25 1.2 MON547E390-11 547.067 390.130 100.238 30 270 0.25 1.2 MON547E390-11 547.260 390.384 100.252 45 0 0.5 3.9 MON547E390-12 547.236 390.284 100.183 0 270 0.25 1.7 MON547E390-12 547.109 390.551 100.191 3 270 0.25 1.4 MON547E390-12 547.160 390.722 100.178 30 296 0.25 1.0 MON547E390-12 547.252 390.824 100.195 80 320 0.75 3.9 MON547E390-12 547.311 390.952 100.208 36 268 0.5 4.4 MON547E390-12 547.595 390.923 100.201 46 60 0.25 1.3 MON547E390-12 547.634 390.775 100.177 20 21 0.25 1.3 MON547E390-12 547.704 390.882 100.187 41 330 0.5 3.3 MON547E390-12 547.921 390.818 100.212 0 54 0.5 15.4 MON547E390-12 547.802 390.510 100.217 0 264 0.25 0.7 MON547E390-12 547.291 390.110 100.183 22 270 0.5 1.2 MON547E390-12 547.074 390.871 100.170 0 52 0.5 2.2 MON547E390-12 547.645 390.948 100.186 24 350 0.5 3.8 MON547E390-12 547.667 390.865 100.176 11 280 0.25 0.7 MON547E390-12 547.276 390.475 100.180 0 320 0.25 1.3 MON547E390-12 547.049 390.771 100.170 0 350 0.25 0.1 MON547E390-12 547.474 390.997 100.173 30 278 0.5 6.1 MON547E390-13 547.248 390.691 100.140 0 122 0.25 0.7 MON547E390-13 547.275 390.804 100.130 30 354 0.25 1.0 MON547E390-13 547.225 390.853 100.129 38 56 0.5 4.5 MON547E390-13 547.167 390.922 100.141 45 112 0.5 2.5 MON547E390-13 547.667 390.844 100.158 15 122 0.25 0.9 MON547E390-13 547.762 390.855 100.151 20 338 0.5 1.9 MON547E390-13 547.857 390.836 100.150 34 60 0.25 0.9 MON547E390-13 547.549 390.671 100.155 40 78 0.5 1.5 MON547E390-13 547.591 390.496 100.147 0 102 0.5 2.2 MON547E390-13 547.840 390.203 100.148 22 59 0.5 2.0 MON547E390-13 547.543 390.115 100.156 0 36 0.25 1.9 MON547E390-13 547.219 390.159 100.141 89 60 0.25 0.6

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E390-13 547.598 390.222 100.149 16 336 0.25 1.2 MON547E390-13 547.537 390.212 100.156 18 100 0.25 1.6 MON547E390-13 547.573 390.501 100.139 13 350 0.5 1.6 MON547E390-13 547.607 390.513 100.142 30 270 0.5 2.0 MON547E390-13 547.352 390.492 100.135 45 60 0.5 3.6 MON547E390-13 547.536 390.604 100.130 45 4 0.25 1.6 MON547E390-13 547.701 390.846 100.163 34 360 0.25 0.8 MON547E390-13 547.790 390.929 100.156 15 54 0.25 1.8 MON547E390-13 547.770 390.606 100.139 20 120 0.5 3.3 MON547E390-13 547.134 391.002 100.116 64 100 0.5 4.6 MON547E390-13 547.422 390.779 100.125 0 340 0.5 1.5 MON547E390-13 547.521 390.917 100.123 0 330 0.5 2.0 MON547E390-13 547.743 390.543 100.151 47 20 0.75 11.7 MON547E390-13 547.090 390.239 100.121 76 270 0.75 10.5 MON547E390-13 547.599 390.156 100.122 45 10 0.5 5.7 MON547E390-13 547.825 390.479 100.110 47 138 0.5 4.1 MON547E390-13 547.802 390.306 100.122 43 24 1 168.4 MON547E390-13 547.245 390.481 100.134 20 116 0.75 8.9 MON547E390-13 547.515 390.397 100.126 34 4 0.75 9.8 MON547E390-14 547.358 390.158 100.072 22 108 0.5 3.0 MON547E390-14 547.325 390.185 100.071 32 20 0.5 4.6 MON547E390-14 547.304 390.237 100.102 10 40 0.5 1.3 MON547E390-14 547.114 390.282 100.112 26 360 0.25 0.8 MON547E390-14 547.197 390.264 100.116 25 4 0.75 8.3 MON547E390-14 547.284 390.292 100.108 3 330 0.5 7.4 MON547E390-14 547.294 390.465 100.111 32 336 0.5 4.2 MON547E390-14 547.441 390.334 100.080 32 40 0.25 1.1 MON547E390-14 547.419 390.509 100.093 45 332 0.5 1.4 MON547E390-14 547.442 390.461 100.075 58 92 0.5 3.3 MON547E390-14 547.174 390.729 100.061 15 22 0.5 1.4 MON547E390-14 547.196 390.891 100.074 50 270 0.75 7.5 MON547E390-14 547.353 390.834 100.061 50 300 1 31.1 MON547E390-14 547.421 390.853 100.087 45 30 0.5 2.0 MON547E390-14 547.846 390.229 100.084 15 360 0.5 6.6 MON547E390-14 547.722 390.428 100.088 50 132 0.5 5.6 MON547E390-14 547.592 390.837 100.065 0 270 0.25 1.1 MON547E390-14 547.738 390.812 100.076 12 130 0.75 8.3 MON547E390-14 547.926 390.092 100.068 45 20 1 26.6 MON547E390-14 547.550 390.039 100.083 22 26 0.75 15.2 MON547E390-14 547.583 390.389 100.094 0 70 0.5 2.8 MON547E390-14 547.594 390.382 100.094 0 38 0.5 1.3 MON547E390-14 547.036 390.655 100.091 32 270 1 29.8

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E390-14 547.049 390.828 100.077 0 82 1 7.3 MON547E390-14 547.457 390.815 100.079 0 318 0.5 2.3 MON547E390-14 547.626 390.835 100.061 22 30 0.5 1.6 MON547E390-14 547.856 390.952 100.080 5 40 0.75 5.3 MON547E390-14 547.934 390.459 100.090 3 270 0.5 3.0 MON547E390-14 547.123 390.525 100.077 55 80 0.75 21.3 MON547E390-14 547.468 390.474 100.065 6 60 1 57.1 MON547E390-14 547.619 390.424 100.107 35 270 0.5 5.0 MON547E390-14 547.677 390.557 100.075 32 22 0.5 5.0 MON547E390-14 547.604 390.067 100.074 3 22 0.75 10.3 MON547E390-14 547.201 390.053 100.087 37 360 1 33.3 MON547E390-14 547.157 390.331 100.032 3 120 1 256.6 MON547E390-14 547.206 390.318 100.051 10 112 1 109.6 MON547E390-14 547.260 390.508 100.120 38 48 0.5 8.7 MON547E390-14 547.627 390.523 100.086 60 138 1 35.3 MON547E390-15 547.844 390.189 100.074 24 70 0.5 2.8 MON547E390-15 547.187 390.121 100.038 50 36 0.5 5.7 MON547E390-15 547.277 390.233 100.048 44 20 0.5 3.2 MON547E390-15 547.327 390.231 100.060 32 360 0.5 2.8 MON547E390-15 547.321 390.247 100.056 34 20 0.5 4.2 MON547E390-15 547.122 390.291 100.051 42 20 0.5 7.0 MON547E390-15 547.488 390.442 100.040 45 332 0.5 4.6 MON547E390-15 547.623 390.365 100.054 32 60 0.5 3.3 MON547E390-15 547.608 390.553 100.062 28 300 0.5 4.9 MON547E390-15 547.186 390.571 100.019 74 18 0.75 8.0 MON547E390-15 547.291 390.562 100.032 76 104 0.75 9.5 MON547E390-15 547.242 390.674 100.034 22 340 0.5 5.6 MON547E390-15 547.226 391.002 100.038 28 76 0.5 1.6 MON547E390-15 547.386 390.967 100.047 64 102 0.5 3.6 MON547E390-15 547.623 390.861 100.019 60 128 1 45.4 MON547E390-15 547.250 390.232 100.051 22 100 0.5 3.7 MON547E390-14 547.049 390.828 100.077 0 82 1 7.3 MON547E390-14 547.457 390.815 100.079 0 318 0.5 2.3 MON547E390-14 547.626 390.835 100.061 22 30 0.5 1.6 MON547E390-14 547.856 390.952 100.080 5 40 0.75 5.3 MON547E390-14 547.934 390.459 100.090 3 270 0.5 3.0 MON547E390-14 547.123 390.525 100.077 55 80 0.75 21.3 MON547E390-14 547.468 390.474 100.065 6 60 1 57.1 MON547E390-14 547.619 390.424 100.107 35 270 0.5 5.0 MON547E390-14 547.677 390.557 100.075 32 22 0.5 5.0 MON547E390-14 547.604 390.067 100.074 3 22 0.75 10.3 MON547E390-14 547.201 390.053 100.087 37 360 1 33.3

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E390-14 547.157 390.331 100.032 3 120 1 256.6 MON547E390-14 547.206 390.318 100.051 10 112 1 109.6 MON547E390-14 547.260 390.508 100.120 38 48 0.5 8.7 MON547E390-14 547.627 390.523 100.086 60 138 1 35.3 MON547E390-15 547.844 390.189 100.074 24 70 0.5 2.8 MON547E390-15 547.187 390.121 100.038 50 36 0.5 5.7 MON547E390-15 547.277 390.233 100.048 44 20 0.5 3.2 MON547E390-15 547.327 390.231 100.060 32 360 0.5 2.8 MON547E390-15 547.321 390.247 100.056 34 20 0.5 4.2 MON547E390-15 547.122 390.291 100.051 42 20 0.5 7.0 MON547E390-15 547.488 390.442 100.040 45 332 0.5 4.6 MON547E390-15 547.623 390.365 100.054 32 60 0.5 3.3 MON547E390-15 547.608 390.553 100.062 28 300 0.5 4.9 MON547E390-15 547.186 390.571 100.019 74 18 0.75 8.0 MON547E390-15 547.291 390.562 100.032 76 104 0.75 9.5 MON547E390-15 547.242 390.674 100.034 22 340 0.5 5.6 MON547E390-15 547.226 391.002 100.038 28 76 0.5 1.6 MON547E390-15 547.386 390.967 100.047 64 102 0.5 3.6 MON547E390-15 547.623 390.861 100.019 60 128 1 45.4 MON547E390-15 547.250 390.232 100.051 22 100 0.5 3.7 MON547E390-15 547.227 390.358 100.030 12 330 1 19.1 MON547E390-15 547.401 390.753 100.033 16 70 0.5 5.0 MON547E390-15 547.649 390.687 100.052 17 20 0.5 1.4 MON547E390-15 547.155 390.054 100.012 35 270 1 15.8 MON547E390-15 547.121 390.697 100.007 0 20 1 819.2 MON547E390-15 547.045 390.482 100.031 6 270 1 50.6 MON547E390-15 547.944 390.012 100.055 0 30 1 747.1 MON547E390-15 547.632 390.484 100.065 45 120 1 24.6 MON547E390-16 547.643 390.074 99.966 78 2 0.5 1.1 MON547E390-16 547.367 390.099 99.964 40 60 0.5 2.9 MON547E390-16 547.057 390.098 99.989 28 136 0.5 3.5 MON547E390-16 547.539 390.265 99.980 20 360 0.5 3.0 MON547E390-16 547.542 390.455 99.960 25 80 0.75 6.1 MON547E390-16 547.390 390.810 99.974 50 40 0.75 5.4 MON547E390-16 547.962 390.740 99.982 3 100 0.5 2.5 MON547E390-16 547.109 390.791 99.965 47 142 0.5 5.4 MON547E390-16 547.107 390.964 99.983 20 360 1 129.3 MON547E390-16 547.130 390.091 99.940 90 322 0.5 5.8 MON547E390-17 547.785 390.093 99.928 34 78 0.75 12.0 MON547E390-17 547.150 390.309 99.926 46 114 1 79.3 MON547E390-18 547.314 390.091 99.874 26 40 0.75 17.1 MON547E391-03 547.578 391.923 100.664 50 20 1 18.1

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-03 547.826 391.483 100.620 n/a n/a 0.5 2.5 MON547E391-03 547.973 391.369 100.634 n/a 320 0.5 40.3 MON547E391-03 547.328 391.298 100.658 0 350 1 78.9 MON547E391-03 547.122 391.600 100.592 30 340 1 41.6 MON547E391-04 547.077 391.757 100.554 25 335 0.5 3.3 MON547E391-05 547.539 391.795 100.515 0 355 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-05 547.539 391.795 100.515 0 355 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-07 547.219 391.518 100.422 5 345 0.25 1.2 MON547E391-07 547.622 391.355 100.417 15 268 0.5 1.7 MON547E391-07 547.727 391.651 100.392 0 280 0.5 1.2 MON547E391-07 547.890 391.633 100.396 10 25 0.5 2.0 MON547E391-07 547.946 391.474 100.392 n/a n/a 0.25 1.1 MON547E391-08 547.572 391.046 100.349 0 70 0.25 1.0 MON547E391-08 547.616 391.293 100.375 12 15 0.5 1.5 MON547E391-08 547.648 391.621 100.370 0 285 0.5 0.8 MON547E391-08 547.629 391.857 100.364 18 315 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-08 547.849 391.877 100.347 35 25 0.5 4.0 MON547E391-09 547.299 391.660 100.303 17 318 0.75 3.4 MON547E391-09 547.388 391.416 100.351 0 100 0.25 1.4 MON547E391-09 547.719 391.359 100.300 0 280 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-09 547.789 391.101 100.301 0 339 0.5 2.9 MON547E391-10 547.413 392.006 100.254 40 298 0.5 2.6 MON547E391-10 547.112 391.603 100.263 35 7 0.5 12.5 MON547E391-10 547.512 391.045 100.249 0 90 0.25 0.3 MON547E391-10 547.376 391.213 100.271 52 77 0.25 2.9 MON547E391-10 547.357 391.620 100.295 18 118 0.5 2.5 MON547E391-10 547.834 391.565 100.297 20 0 0.5 2.5 MON547E391-10 547.934 391.579 100.268 0 10 0.5 0.9 MON547E391-10 547.859 391.914 100.239 0 348 0.5 1.8 MON547E391-10 547.564 391.063 100.245 0 78 0.5 5.6 MON547E391-10 547.880 391.129 100.256 38 300 0.5 6.7 MON547E391-11 547.415 391.968 100.219 12 17 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-11 547.436 391.946 100.220 36 50 0.5 4.2 MON547E391-11 547.070 391.159 100.199 0 338 0.5 1.5 MON547E391-11 547.504 391.140 100.212 8 330 0.5 6.6 MON547E391-11 547.549 391.214 100.220 0 330 0.5 1.9 MON547E391-11 547.647 391.868 100.236 18 280 0.25 1.5 MON547E391-11 547.763 391.728 100.208 0 28 0.5 1.7 MON547E391-11 547.733 391.696 100.212 0 332 0.5 1.1 MON547E391-11 547.838 391.160 100.197 0 237 0.5 4.6 MON547E391-12 547.087 391.557 100.154 28 24 0.25 0.5 MON547E391-12 547.100 391.722 100.164 44 20 0.25 1.4

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-12 547.251 391.096 100.164 0 290 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-12 547.309 391.115 100.157 22 352 0.5 2.0 MON547E391-12 547.310 391.152 100.151 0 298 0.5 1.9 MON547E391-12 547.298 391.543 100.159 0 2 0.25 3.5 MON547E391-12 547.441 391.189 100.177 0 42 0.25 0.7 MON547E391-12 547.512 391.174 100.178 20 298 0.5 3.4 MON547E391-12 547.564 391.323 100.198 5 338 0.5 3.4 MON547E391-12 547.455 391.567 100.194 20 352 0.75 22.4 MON547E391-12 547.572 391.565 100.178 75 10 0.75 3.9 MON547E391-12 547.730 391.700 100.175 68 278 0.75 7.5 MON547E391-12 547.607 391.634 100.168 0 292 0.25 0.4 MON547E391-12 547.681 391.056 100.156 0 294 0.5 3.2 MON547E391-12 547.677 391.689 100.173 56 56 0.75 16.4 MON547E391-12 547.746 391.793 100.165 22 309 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-12 547.699 391.945 100.147 50 11 0.5 4.8 MON547E391-12 547.879 391.168 100.161 25 40 0.25 1.4 MON547E391-12 547.749 391.453 100.156 0 74 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-12 547.780 391.810 100.155 38 40 0.75 5.5 MON547E391-12 547.851 391.809 100.168 50 356 0.5 1.9 MON547E391-12 547.869 391.867 100.184 37 18 0.25 1.4 MON547E391-12 547.878 391.459 100.152 43 49 0.5 2.3 MON547E391-12 547.909 391.555 100.155 3 298 0.5 2.8 MON547E391-12 547.894 391.567 100.153 0 40 0.5 6.3 MON547E391-12 547.890 391.662 100.174 30 348 0.25 1.4 MON547E391-12 547.150 391.324 100.161 34 34 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-12 547.150 391.388 100.169 0 270 0.5 3.6 MON547E391-12 547.291 391.101 100.151 29 338 0.5 0.6 MON547E391-12 547.387 391.143 100.164 26 40 0.5 15.0 MON547E391-12 547.393 391.205 100.147 25 348 0.5 1.4 MON547E391-12 547.461 391.144 100.152 12 282 0.5 2.0 MON547E391-12 547.495 391.268 100.158 49 232 0.5 2.5 MON547E391-12 547.510 391.323 100.153 49 262 0.5 4.9 MON547E391-12 547.473 391.396 100.157 0 60 0.5 4.9 MON547E391-12 547.608 391.317 100.173 0 342 0.5 6.6 MON547E391-12 547.762 391.805 100.151 0 330 0.5 2.7 MON547E391-12 547.891 391.103 100.149 22 340 0.5 1.3 MON547E391-12 547.872 391.126 100.148 25 348 0.5 1.2 MON547E391-12 547.916 391.852 100.155 62 30 0.5 3.4 MON547E391-12 547.683 391.600 100.172 25 68 0.25 2.1 MON547E391-12 547.793 391.732 100.149 0 352 0.5 3.3 MON547E391-12 547.517 391.559 100.160 0 10 0.5 4.1 MON547E391-13 547.274 391.157 100.128 20 12 0.25 2.3

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-13 547.383 391.134 100.139 10 297 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-13 547.454 391.147 100.142 10 21 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-13 547.414 391.214 100.145 0 12 0.75 3.9 MON547E391-13 547.511 391.161 100.135 13 298 0.5 1.7 MON547E391-13 547.504 391.297 100.127 14 348 0.5 3.6 MON547E391-13 547.627 391.255 100.130 14 297 0.5 2.2 MON547E391-13 547.631 391.324 100.127 25 60 0.25 0.7 MON547E391-13 547.653 391.197 100.138 6 351 0.5 2.0 MON547E391-13 547.648 391.240 100.136 38 68 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-13 547.710 391.298 100.140 10 2 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-13 547.812 391.417 100.141 26 338 0.5 1.0 MON547E391-13 547.792 391.493 100.126 34 352 0.25 0.4 MON547E391-13 547.883 391.452 100.117 0 20 0.75 5.4 MON547E391-13 547.664 391.531 100.129 37 310 0.25 0.4 MON547E391-13 547.594 391.523 100.139 0 338 0.25 0.7 MON547E391-13 547.939 391.697 100.147 9 82 0.5 10.5 MON547E391-13 547.882 391.655 100.126 10 58 0.5 5.0 MON547E391-13 547.955 391.793 100.149 8 12 0.25 1.0 MON547E391-13 547.816 391.806 100.116 15 30 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-13 547.756 391.833 100.135 14 360 0.5 1.5 MON547E391-13 547.703 391.829 100.131 10 43 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-13 547.775 391.756 100.128 0 102 0.25 0.4 MON547E391-13 547.746 391.589 100.134 0 350 0.5 1.3 MON547E391-13 547.681 391.619 100.138 0 22 0.5 1.2 MON547E391-13 547.645 391.625 100.136 0 57 0.25 0.6 MON547E391-13 547.658 391.719 100.118 16 62 0.75 8.5 MON547E391-13 547.616 391.709 100.120 40 300 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-13 547.622 391.632 100.124 15 18 0.25 0.6 MON547E391-13 547.669 391.674 100.124 0 46 0.25 1.3 MON547E391-13 547.488 391.690 100.136 24 99 0.25 0.5 MON547E391-13 547.326 391.657 100.137 5 91 0.5 8.0 MON547E391-13 547.121 391.318 100.094 6 78 0.5 2.9 MON547E391-13 547.186 391.081 100.103 0 19 0.25 1.4 MON547E391-13 547.259 391.083 100.113 8 340 0.5 5.2 MON547E391-13 547.250 391.314 100.095 0 328 0.25 2.4 MON547E391-13 547.380 391.094 100.115 7 300 0.5 4.5 MON547E391-13 547.474 391.094 100.118 10 282 0.5 3.5 MON547E391-13 547.532 391.106 100.114 26 278 0.75 6.4 MON547E391-13 547.419 391.173 100.125 8 62 0.25 0.5 MON547E391-13 547.437 391.185 100.113 2 15 0.5 3.0 MON547E391-13 547.522 391.165 100.091 34 302 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-13 547.477 391.306 100.118 0 338 0.5 2.5

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-13 547.293 391.486 100.102 0 50 1 17.4 MON547E391-13 547.348 391.438 100.102 10 288 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-13 547.419 391.456 100.106 12 20 0.25 1.2 MON547E391-13 547.375 391.488 100.106 0 350 0.5 4.1 MON547E391-13 547.819 391.083 100.099 0 290 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-13 547.946 391.209 100.082 0 92 0.25 1.1 MON547E391-13 547.946 391.242 100.079 20 348 0.25 0.6 MON547E391-13 547.948 391.469 100.089 5 50 0.25 0.4 MON547E391-13 547.946 391.556 100.096 10 32 0.5 4.6 MON547E391-13 547.975 391.771 100.119 8 318 0.5 3.2 MON547E391-13 547.974 391.781 100.119 20 90 0.75 4.2 MON547E391-13 547.811 391.647 100.092 15 50 0.5 3.5 MON547E391-13 547.739 391.641 100.108 0 338 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-13 547.656 391.680 100.106 0 20 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-13 547.429 391.673 100.105 5 295 0.5 3.9 MON547E391-13 547.205 391.971 100.079 0 275 0.25 2.0 MON547E391-13 547.332 391.554 100.106 3 310 0.5 3.1 MON547E391-13 547.414 391.318 100.100 25 10 0.5 1.2 MON547E391-13 547.498 391.345 100.093 0 20 0.5 1.3 MON547E391-13 547.411 391.308 100.094 15 342 0.5 1.8 MON547E391-13 547.426 391.305 100.093 10 280 0.25 1.3 MON547E391-13 547.384 391.216 100.110 7 19 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-13 547.400 391.192 100.111 5 61 0.25 1.8 MON547E391-13 547.375 391.165 100.102 0 352 0.25 0.8 MON547E391-13 547.362 391.118 100.107 10 88 0.75 4.9 MON547E391-13 547.417 391.113 100.103 0 278 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-13 547.359 391.089 100.086 18 356 1 13.2 MON547E391-13 547.382 391.056 100.104 16 358 0.5 1.3 MON547E391-13 547.450 391.079 100.098 10 77 0.75 14.2 MON547E391-13 547.078 391.294 100.090 23 58 0.5 6.3 MON547E391-13 547.478 391.051 100.075 10 360 1 32.1 MON547E391-13 547.516 391.201 100.089 0 320 1 43.5 MON547E391-14 547.369 391.072 100.090 34 336 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-14 547.421 391.054 100.103 0 316 0.25 0.2 MON547E391-14 547.442 391.043 100.095 0 324 0.5 2.9 MON547E391-14 547.464 391.059 100.097 12 322 0.25 2.1 MON547E391-14 547.443 391.084 100.102 15 282 0.5 3.6 MON547E391-14 547.344 391.241 100.096 15 282 1 23.7 MON547E391-14 547.397 391.223 100.095 12 16 0.75 4.9 MON547E391-14 547.384 391.274 100.090 0 324 0.5 2.2 MON547E391-14 547.352 391.277 100.093 20 278 0.75 6.7 MON547E391-14 547.407 391.333 100.060 24 294 0.25 0.8

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-14 547.428 391.435 100.096 5 0 0.5 2.0 MON547E391-14 547.575 391.211 100.060 32 300 0.5 2.3 MON547E391-14 547.862 391.059 100.062 0 300 0.5 1.0 MON547E391-14 547.110 391.184 100.064 10 0 0.5 1.6 MON547E391-14 547.313 391.550 100.084 22 294 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-14 547.490 391.479 100.065 52 18 0.25 1.5 MON547E391-14 547.577 391.505 100.092 0 342 0.25 1.3 MON547E391-14 547.727 391.529 100.085 36 24 0.5 2.3 MON547E391-14 547.602 391.601 100.073 45 356 0.5 2.4 MON547E391-14 547.519 391.655 100.075 34 36 0.25 1.0 MON547E391-14 547.157 391.779 100.061 3 268 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-14 547.408 391.690 100.064 48 312 0.25 1.1 MON547E391-14 547.499 391.772 100.045 45 10 0.25 2.7 MON547E391-14 547.653 391.749 100.075 45 216 0.5 4.3 MON547E391-14 547.688 391.767 100.069 34 232 0.5 1.1 MON547E391-14 547.371 391.094 100.090 44 342 0.5 4.2 MON547E391-14 547.332 391.082 100.094 40 318 0.5 1.2 MON547E391-14 547.331 391.070 100.054 30 220 0.5 3.5 MON547E391-14 547.348 391.148 100.082 24 220 0.5 2.3 MON547E391-14 547.236 391.232 100.095 16 324 0.5 4.3 MON547E391-14 547.307 391.200 100.052 0 278 0.75 8.4 MON547E391-14 547.363 391.264 100.089 45 308 0.5 3.5 MON547E391-14 547.349 391.245 100.093 45 312 0.25 2.7 MON547E391-14 547.348 391.235 100.066 25 22 1 26.0 MON547E391-14 547.407 391.274 100.067 86 58 0.5 2.8 MON547E391-14 547.049 391.385 100.043 18 50 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-14 547.569 391.523 100.068 30 74 0.5 2.3 MON547E391-14 547.566 391.524 100.060 51 76 0.75 6.0 MON547E391-14 547.489 391.238 100.047 20 0 0.25 1.0 MON547E391-14 547.694 391.263 100.066 18 315 0.75 3.1 MON547E391-14 547.398 391.271 100.075 20 40 1 40.4 MON547E391-14 547.250 391.750 100.052 n/a n/a 0.5 2.9 MON547E391-14 547.188 391.408 100.052 22 92 1 20.9 MON547E391-14 547.402 391.249 100.094 35 282 1 14.0 MON547E391-14 547.615 391.303 100.063 36 350 0.5 4.2 MON547E391-14 547.637 391.476 100.057 38 280 0.5 1.9 MON547E391-14 547.830 391.289 100.044 0 282 0.5 3.9 MON547E391-14 547.766 391.600 100.067 50 290 1 23.7 MON547E391-14 547.458 391.380 100.034 45 66 0.5 5.6 MON547E391-14 548.002 391.950 100.067 26 314 0.5 6.3 MON547E391-14 547.695 391.204 100.059 35 0 1 59.1 MON547E391-15 547.380 391.221 100.001 34 0 0.5 1.6

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E391-15 547.378 391.319 99.991 35 316 0.5 2.1 MON547E391-15 547.591 391.406 100.021 38 302 0.75 4.6 MON547E391-15 547.886 391.539 99.985 35 96 0.75 4.6 MON547E391-15 547.265 391.534 100.030 34 95 0.5 4.3 MON547E391-15 547.214 391.768 100.024 78 102 0.75 5.3 MON547E391-15 547.080 391.883 100.032 89 20 0.5 5.5 MON547E391-15 547.414 391.261 99.994 0 12 0.5 3.0 MON547E391-15 547.488 391.439 99.987 86 16 0.5 2.7 MON547E391-15 547.523 391.80 99.981 45 102 1 105.4 MON547E391-15 547.399 391.714 99.998 50 358 1 22.6 MON547E391-15 547.948 392.036 100.030 18 90 0.75 9.1 MON547E391-16 548.048 391.011 99.989 30 0 1 24.4 MON547E391-16 547.392 391.008 99.975 31 44 0.5 5.3 MON547E391-16 547.267 391.077 99.975 52 94 0.5 4.2 MON547E391-16 547.810 391.289 99.982 34 84 0.5 2.7 MON547E391-16 547.709 391.159 99.971 36 348 0.25 2.0 MON547E391-16 547.647 391.294 99.962 90 96 0.5 3.7 MON547E391-16 547.503 391.681 99.972 40 118 0.5 2.8 MON547E391-17 548.023 391.580 99.910 34 66 0.75 8.2 MON547E391-17 547.513 391.048 99.918 43 22 0.5 3.1 MON547E391-18 547.694 391.086 99.863 14 72 0.5 2 MON547E392-04 547.523 392.938 100.627 30 n/a 1 26.1 MON547E392-05 547.946 392.896 100.527 30 128 0.75 6.2 MON547E392-05 547.946 392.896 100.527 30 128 0.75 6.2 MON547E392-06 547.827 392.829 100.468 n/a n/a 0.25 0.7 MON547E392-08 547.673 392.704 100.360 5 15 0.25 1.8 MON547E392-09 547.802 392.547 100.343 30 20 0.5 2.9 MON547E392-09 547.827 392.646 100.326 20 20 0.5 1.2 MON547E392-09 547.093 392.830 100.328 50 250 0.25 1.6 MON547E392-09 547.870 392.654 100.321 50 250 0.5 3.7 MON547E392-09 547.759 392.897 100.304 n/a n/a 0.25 0.6 MON547E392-10 547.849 392.762 100.264 0 70 0.25 1.9 MON547E392-10 547.658 392.770 100.275 60 120 0.25 2.2 MON547E392-10 547.280 392.571 100.287 n/a n/a 0.5 1.7 MON547E392-10 547.728 392.547 100.277 60 120 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-11 547.776 392.175 100.226 40 230 0.5 2.4 MON547E392-11 547.687 392.694 100.221 50 100 0.5 0.9 MON547E392-11 547.728 392.846 100.238 45 0 0.75 8.9 MON547E392-11 547.614 392.928 100.219 n/a n/a 0.5 5.3 MON547E392-11 547.190 392.870 100.226 45 160 0.25 1.8 MON547E392-11 547.203 392.480 100.224 n/a n/a 0.5 3.2 MON547E392-11 547.195 392.204 100.230 30 245 0.5 6.1

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E392-11 547.726 392.347 100.247 30 320 0.75 18.0 MON547E392-11 547.578 392.858 100.247 n/a n/a 0.5 6.2 MON547E392-11 547.470 392.652 100.210 20 n/a 1 119.1 MON547E392-12 547.236 392.088 100.208 90 324 0.25 2.0 MON547E392-12 547.842 392.469 100.174 52 340 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-12 547.627 392.441 100.190 13 220 0.5 2.8 MON547E392-12 547.502 392.426 100.190 44 145 0.5 3.5 MON547E392-12 547.361 392.315 100.195 35 158 0.5 4.7 MON547E392-12 547.217 392.345 100.199 33 28 0.5 5.6 MON547E392-12 547.097 392.432 100.229 14 280 0.25 1.6 MON547E392-12 547.209 392.545 100.188 57 83 0.5 2.5 MON547E392-12 547.367 392.843 100.203 55 344 0.5 2.2 MON547E392-12 547.423 392.608 100.179 58 82 0.25 2.2 MON547E392-12 547.045 392.830 100.174 36 90 0.5 1.0 MON547E392-12 547.114 392.872 100.162 24 115 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-12 547.438 392.903 100.208 41 300 0.5 1.2 MON547E392-12 547.577 392.472 100.185 26 51 0.5 2.5 MON547E392-12 547.710 392.410 100.181 0 4 0.5 1.2 MON547E392-12 547.749 392.914 100.177 45 184 0.5 1.9 MON547E392-12 547.935 392.761 100.197 72 108 0.5 1.7 MON547E392-12 547.950 392.142 100.213 90 7 0.5 2.6 MON547E392-12 547.730 392.936 100.179 70 250 1 32.6 MON547E392-12 547.514 392.397 100.190 24 198 0.75 23.4 MON547E392-12 547.207 392.245 100.194 15 271 0.75 18.3 MON547E392-12 547.063 392.238 100.168 0 50 1 22.2 MON547E392-12 547.422 392.529 100.190 n/a n/a 0.5 3.7 MON547E392-12 547.114 392.351 100.205 7 290 1 55.1 MON547E392-12 547.660 392.790 100.167 10 50 1 50.3 MON547E392-12 547.664 392.125 100.170 40 151 1 39.0 MON547E392-13 547.498 392.131 100.134 18 95 0.5 4.2 MON547E392-13 547.477 392.191 100.155 47 68 0.5 4.4 MON547E392-13 547.408 392.086 100.161 n/a n/a 0.25 1.0 MON547E392-13 547.147 392.809 100.155 16 102 0.25 2.2 MON547E392-13 547.070 392.745 100.140 15 187 0.5 4.6 MON547E392-13 547.026 392.427 100.138 70 337 0.75 13.0 MON547E392-13 547.131 392.327 100.147 33 64 0.5 2.4 MON547E392-13 547.288 392.516 100.156 46 72 0.5 3.1 MON547E392-13 547.326 392.592 100.143 57 47 0.5 2.2 MON547E392-13 547.510 392.548 100.156 2 330 0.75 12.0 MON547E392-13 547.580 392.516 100.153 75 73 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-13 547.581 392.473 100.158 77 151 0.5 2.9 MON547E392-13 547.485 392.357 100.163 30 132 0.5 3.8

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E392-13 547.666 392.331 100.162 28 262 0.25 2.7 MON547E392-13 547.670 392.380 100.146 52 103 0.5 3.1 MON547E392-13 547.788 392.172 100.149 46 64 0.25 1.6 MON547E392-13 547.505 392.703 100.151 n/a n/a 0.25 1.5 MON547E392-13 547.450 392.932 100.159 7 258 0.5 2.7 MON547E392-13 547.369 392.925 100.162 7 282 0.5 3.1 MON547E392-13 547.331 392.766 100.139 73 126 0.5 4.5 MON547E392-13 547.050 392.491 100.138 83 345 0.5 3.1 MON547E392-13 547.130 392.630 100.115 39 127 0.5 3.5 MON547E392-13 547.097 392.811 100.118 90 161 0.25 2.8 MON547E392-13 547.077 392.860 100.124 63 223 0.5 2.2 MON547E392-13 547.186 392.831 100.130 47 245 0.25 1.2 MON547E392-13 547.400 392.921 100.141 12 218 0.5 1.7 MON547E392-13 547.545 392.910 100.136 39 251 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-13 547.730 392.831 100.123 35 85 0.5 2.2 MON547E392-13 547.807 392.926 100.125 16 258 0.75 5.9 MON547E392-13 547.486 392.611 100.130 n/a n/a 0.5 4.8 MON547E392-13 547.652 392.386 100.121 79 64 0.5 6.5 MON547E392-13 547.773 392.279 100.127 n/a n/a 0.75 12 MON547E392-13 547.938 392.098 100.168 85 151 0.5 2.6 MON547E392-13 547.559 392.475 100.131 50 121 0.5 6.3 MON547E392-13 547.702 392.613 100.138 34 285 0.5 5.2 MON547E392-13 547.763 392.662 100.159 n/a n/a 0.25 2.0 MON547E392-13 547.591 392.875 100.167 n/a n/a 0.25 1.2 MON547E392-13 547.328 392.847 100.168 10 260 0.25 1.7 MON547E392-13 547.052 392.858 100.143 17 10 0.25 0.8 MON547E392-13 547.046 392.721 100.122 7 300 0.5 6.9 MON547E392-13 547.731 392.706 100.157 9 215 1 31.3 MON547E392-13 547.428 392.609 100.124 40 200 0.75 19.4 MON547E392-14 547.473 392.194 100.119 23 240 0.5 1.6 MON547E392-14 547.702 392.194 100.125 5 104 0.5 2.4 MON547E392-14 547.796 392.423 100.112 90 4 0.5 2.6 MON547E392-14 547.741 392.485 100.115 33 11 0.5 3.1 MON547E392-14 547.627 392.364 100.114 42 247 0.5 2.0 MON547E392-14 547.463 392.351 100.113 n/a n/a 0.5 3.2 MON547E392-14 547.411 392.441 100.109 52 298 0.5 4.0 MON547E392-14 547.275 392.222 100.072 49 344 0.5 3.9 MON547E392-14 547.153 392.325 100.087 33 200 0.5 2.5 MON547E392-14 547.048 392.470 100.103 28 102 0.75 7.7 MON547E392-14 547.215 392.670 100.095 9 173 0.5 1.4 MON547E392-14 547.110 392.872 100.107 62 64 0.5 4.4 MON547E392-14 547.240 392.852 100.056 65 45 0.5 5.5

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E392-14 547.627 392.800 100.099 n/a n/a 0.5 2.4 MON547E392-14 547.697 392.867 100.082 61 171 0.5 3.2 MON547E392-14 547.702 392.921 100.119 30 76 0.5 2.3 MON547E392-14 547.912 392.892 100.111 67 321 0.75 6.2 MON547E392-14 547.707 392.259 100.087 65 237 0.25 1.5 MON547E392-14 547.920 392.205 100.090 38 152 0.5 1.2 MON547E392-14 547.822 392.232 100.113 40 221 0.5 7.2 MON547E392-14 547.228 392.268 100.088 52 179 0.5 3.4 MON547E392-14 547.197 392.954 100.067 90 279 0.75 17.7 MON547E392-14 547.111 392.033 100.112 0 318 1 25.5 MON547E392-14 547.220 392.172 100.060 90 13 0.5 6.1 MON547E392-14 547.807 392.481 100.088 n/a n/a 0.25 1.3 MON547E392-15 547.663 392.157 100.028 45 340 0.5 4.9 MON547E392-15 547.680 392.815 100.033 90 110 0.5 7.6 MON547E392-15 547.295 392.629 100.026 45 130 0.5 2.5 MON547E392-15 547.274 392.591 100.032 30 90 0.5 1.6 MON547E392-15 547.070 392.611 100.020 90 40 0.5 4.4 MON547E392-15 547.408 392.258 100.032 0 90 0.25 2.6 MON547E392-15 547.894 392.163 100.036 n/a n/a 0.5 7.7 MON547E392-16 547.253 392.889 99.989 10 37 0.25 0.6 MON547E392-16 547.542 392.625 100.015 8 17 0.25 1.7 MON547E392-16 547.535 392.604 100.006 10 87 0.5 4.4 MON547E392-16 547.700 392.567 100.002 5 18 0.25 1.5 MON547E392-16 547.686 392.579 100.001 4 48 0.5 1.1 MON547E392-16 547.716 392.419 100.022 10 58 0.75 10.9 MON547E392-16 547.782 392.375 100.007 8 10 0.5 1.2 MON547E392-16 547.709 392.219 100.022 2 85 0.5 2.1 MON547E392-16 547.217 392.635 99.998 0 22 1 12.2 MON547E392-16 547.153 392.240 99.998 34 65 0.25 1.4 MON547E392-16 547.272 392.261 99.984 8 38 0.25 1.8 MON547E392-16 547.564 392.933 100.019 8 12 0.5 2.3 MON547E392-16 547.691 392.195 100.011 n/a n/a 0.25 1.8 MON547E392-16 547.548 392.619 100.000 n/a n/a 0.75 10.4 MON547E392-16 547.282 392.330 100.002 20 160 0.5 3.6 MON547E392-16 547.877 392.616 100.022 2 58 0.5 3.8 MON547E392-16 547.851 392.151 100.019 35 80 0.5 4.4 MON547E392-16 547.766 392.808 99.965 90 10 0.75 33.9 MON547E392-16 547.031 392.126 100.017 2 0 1 32.1 MON547E392-17 547.800 392.299 99.972 60 330 0.75 5.4 MON547E392-17 547.921 392.475 99.997 5 30 0.75 5.9 MON547E392-17 547.836 392.540 99.956 30 30 0.5 2.9 MON547E392-17 547.568 392.782 99.976 20 0 0.25 1.7

Table A.1 (continued)

MON547E392-17 547.104 392.691 99.978 20 120 0.5 1.8 MON547E392-17 547.139 392.327 99.950 25 50 1 25.1 MON547E392-17 547.209 392.297 99.956 35 15 0.5 2.2 MON547E392-17 547.198 392.421 99.979 0 120 0.5 6.2 MON547E392-17 547.267 392.465 99.943 90 60 0.5 3.4 MON547E392-18 547.503 392.212 99.904 12 262 0.25 1.4 MON547E392-18 547.174 392.450 99.916 73 200 0.5 1.8 MON547E392-18 547.158 392.306 99.917 8 0 1 15.0 MON547E392-18 547.581 392.180 99.926 53 236 0.75 5.8 MON547E392-18 547.843 392.405 99.910 58 3 0.75 7.2 MON547E392-19 547.058 392.085 99.879 n/a n/a 0.5 3.3 MON548E390-05 548.487 390.377 100.516 45 58 0.5 3.0 MON548E390-05 548.627 390.319 100.507 43 351 0.75 9.1 MON548E390-09 548.072 390.272 100.338 35 260 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-10 548.859 390.804 100.274 50 335 0.25 0.5 MON548E390-10 548.371 390.638 100.291 9 271 0.25 0.8 MON548E390-10 548.168 390.319 100.276 30 231 1 16.0 MON548E390-10 548.165 390.391 100.313 55 270 0.25 0.8 MON548E390-10 548.844 390.495 100.298 35 270 0.25 1.9 MON548E390-11 548.588 390.985 100.210 35 200 0.25 1.4 MON548E390-11 548.559 390.974 100.205 34 210 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-11 548.762 390.673 100.235 43 210 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-11 548.834 390.109 100.244 8 270 0.5 2.5 MON548E390-11 548.416 390.585 100.244 40 230 0.25 1.3 MON548E390-11 548.331 390.816 100.257 33 300 0.5 1.0 MON548E390-11 548.221 390.844 100.212 39 310 0.5 2.6 MON548E390-11 548.363 390.344 100.249 62 241 0.5 5.1 MON548E390-11 548.249 390.399 100.265 20 218 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-11 548.214 390.361 100.251 8 202 0.5 1.8 MON548E390-11 548.130 390.152 100.267 28 320 0.75 6.8 MON548E390-11 548.834 390.996 100.208 18 230 0.5 5.7 MON548E390-12 548.059 390.954 100.174 50 291 0.5 1.9 MON548E390-12 548.148 390.720 100.178 8 225 0.5 3.6 MON548E390-12 548.014 390.215 100.213 25 220 0.25 0.7 MON548E390-12 548.221 390.534 100.197 75 212 0.5 6.9 MON548E390-12 548.323 390.821 100.182 61 321 0.25 2.0 MON548E390-12 548.323 390.328 100.211 46 215 0.25 1.7 MON548E390-12 548.456 390.419 100.224 10 0 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-12 548.558 390.624 100.187 45 212 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-12 548.492 390.767 100.200 54 348 0.5 1.1 MON548E390-12 548.605 390.828 100.203 55 341 0.25 1.3 MON548E390-12 548.535 390.849 100.196 73 0 0.25 0.6

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E390-12 548.658 390.932 100.190 70 270 0.5 4.8 MON548E390-12 548.601 390.547 100.198 38 344 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-12 548.725 390.500 100.201 40 251 0.25 0.7 MON548E390-12 548.801 390.839 100.173 48 186 0.75 5.3 MON548E390-12 548.882 390.811 100.196 62 336 0.5 3.0 MON548E390-12 548.942 390.734 100.173 20 190 1 26.0 MON548E390-12 548.900 390.382 100.199 8 250 0.5 2.7 MON548E390-12 548.615 390.868 100.188 30 279 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-12 548.481 390.652 100.191 58 310 0.5 5.1 MON548E390-13 548.255 390.693 100.167 4 90 0.5 1.4 MON548E390-13 548.251 390.648 100.122 67 91 0.5 1.1 MON548E390-13 548.090 390.214 100.116 46 90 0.5 7.2 MON548E390-13 548.078 390.121 100.159 62 83 0.5 1.4 MON548E390-13 548.180 390.320 100.122 6 109 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-13 548.199 389.952 100.124 56 274 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-13 548.236 389.988 100.118 70 268 0.5 6.8 MON548E390-13 548.445 390.732 100.144 23 10 0.25 1.1 MON548E390-13 548.481 390.528 100.131 74 312 0.25 3.7 MON548E390-13 548.455 390.100 100.130 46 278 0.75 5.1 MON548E390-13 548.523 390.424 100.138 84 42 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-13 548.540 390.577 100.130 22 324 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-13 548.516 390.501 100.128 25 20 0.75 9.3 MON548E390-13 548.566 390.394 100.133 44 56 0.25 0.8 MON548E390-13 548.756 390.459 100.147 40 40 0.75 5.7 MON548E390-13 548.866 390.458 100.117 80 330 0.5 3.4 MON548E390-13 548.719 390.773 100.143 n/a n/a 0.25 1.9 MON548E390-13 548.761 390.756 100.132 45 40 0.75 3.6 MON548E390-13 548.945 390.741 100.143 90 40 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-13 549.000 390.649 100.129 n/a n/a 0.25 1.5 MON548E390-13 549.009 390.443 100.145 45 340 0.5 2.6 MON548E390-13 549.017 390.362 100.135 20 60 0.5 5.1 MON548E390-13 548.986 390.139 100.152 n/a n/a 0.5 2.6 MON548E390-13 548.905 389.993 100.129 60 280 0.25 3.0 MON548E390-13 548.880 389.965 100.141 90 320 0.25 0.8 MON548E390-13 548.980 389.938 100.120 60 60 0.5 2.9 MON548E390-13 548.356 390.451 100.139 80 40 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-13 548.370 390.455 100.132 80 40 0.5 1.1 MON548E390-13 548.472 390.852 100.130 n/a 45 0.5 1.8 MON548E390-13 548.442 390.763 100.125 50 20 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-13 548.562 390.639 100.141 30 290 0.5 4.2 MON548E390-13 548.770 390.772 100.116 90 310 0.5 1.4 MON548E390-13 548.863 390.779 100.133 n/a n/a 0.25 1.2

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E390-13 548.414 390.826 100.136 30 20 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-13 548.445 390.779 100.129 30 25 0.5 1.1 MON548E390-13 548.512 390.841 100.133 n/a 90 0.5 4.5 MON548E390-13 548.543 390.708 100.139 10 40 0.25 2.0 MON548E390-13 548.637 390.581 100.129 n/a n/a 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-13 548.390 390.782 100.123 35 110 0.5 6.2 MON548E390-13 548.916 390.387 100.135 10 290 0.5 2.5 MON548E390-13 548.142 390.736 100.139 69 340 0.5 6.8 MON548E390-13 548.315 390.386 100.137 38 311 1 48.1 MON548E390-13 548.418 390.482 100.110 4 90 1 36.8 MON548E390-13 548.660 390.522 100.146 45 100 0.5 3.1 MON548E390-13 549.019 390.293 100.131 45 15 1 24.9 MON548E390-13 548.439 390.090 100.142 10 300 0.75 15.8 MON548E390-13 548.546 390.731 100.129 10 45 0.75 10.4 MON548E390-13 548.194 390.583 100.164 54 39 0.75 14.2 MON548E390-13 548.294 390.870 100.140 n/a n/a 0.25 2.3 MON548E390-14 548.284 390.187 100.082 70 15 0.5 1.4 MON548E390-14 548.339 390.315 100.100 10 240 0.25 1.0 MON548E390-14 548.187 390.670 100.100 5 135 0.25 0.4 MON548E390-14 548.242 390.583 100.085 34 144 0.5 2.8 MON548E390-14 548.299 390.600 100.108 5 160 0.5 3.0 MON548E390-14 548.327 390.620 100.109 15 290 0.25 1.6 MON548E390-14 548.400 390.629 100.097 30 16 0.5 1.6 MON548E390-14 548.366 390.480 100.110 24 135 0.5 0.9 MON548E390-14 548.450 390.471 100.091 75 184 0.25 1.0 MON548E390-14 548.534 390.412 100.095 20 155 0.25 1.5 MON548E390-14 548.515 390.457 100.099 22 230 0.5 2.5 MON548E390-14 548.557 390.578 100.103 72 168 0.5 0.9 MON548E390-14 548.457 390.695 100.111 17 170 0.5 1.0 MON548E390-14 548.451 390.785 100.117 48 154 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-14 548.249 390.730 100.115 37 49 0.25 1.4 MON548E390-14 548.370 390.800 100.114 8 62 0.75 5.2 MON548E390-14 548.372 390.815 100.113 33 330 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-14 548.466 390.901 100.123 4 50 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-14 548.563 390.785 100.112 5 358 0.25 1.1 MON548E390-14 548.410 390.328 100.111 5 334 0.25 1.4 MON548E390-14 548.528 390.214 100.106 78 188 0.5 0.9 MON548E390-14 548.587 390.682 100.112 13 68 0.5 1.2 MON548E390-14 548.640 390.803 100.105 32 292 0.75 13.7 MON548E390-14 548.647 390.223 100.113 14 237 0.5 1.9 MON548E390-14 548.642 390.506 100.117 15 34 0.5 2.1 MON548E390-14 548.748 390.150 100.114 33 300 0.75 8.7

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E390-14 548.861 390.745 100.102 77 60 0.5 3.5 MON548E390-14 548.898 390.722 100.111 16 112 0.5 3.2 MON548E390-14 548.019 390.760 100.073 60 310 0.25 1.6 MON548E390-14 548.016 391.007 100.092 10 40 0.25 2.7 MON548E390-14 548.078 390.988 100.089 80 40 0.5 2.9 MON548E390-14 548.053 390.846 100.083 0 0 0.25 0.5 MON548E390-14 548.086 390.834 100.084 0 10 0.5 0.7 MON548E390-14 548.099 390.812 100.084 40 100 0.5 2.1 MON548E390-14 548.206 390.752 100.075 10 90 0.5 1.2 MON548E390-14 548.282 390.694 100.079 n/a n/a 0.5 1.6 MON548E390-14 548.148 390.506 100.083 n/a n/a 0.25 1.9 MON548E390-14 548.351 390.596 100.080 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3 MON548E390-14 548.405 390.758 100.083 35 30 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-14 548.324 390.827 100.107 n/a n/a 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-14 548.388 390.878 100.115 50 0 0.25 0.7 MON548E390-14 548.322 390.918 100.096 15 25 0.5 3.5 MON548E390-14 548.517 390.815 100.104 0 30 0.25 2.0 MON548E390-14 548.637 390.811 100.095 n/a n/a 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-14 548.867 390.774 100.043 80 300 0.25 2.2 MON548E390-14 548.818 390.620 100.089 45 260 0.5 2.1 MON548E390-14 548.867 390.461 100.067 70 350 0.75 7.6 MON548E390-14 548.920 390.344 100.094 40 340 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-14 548.587 390.422 100.086 60 90 0.25 0.8 MON548E390-14 548.533 390.283 100.073 65 110 0.25 2.0 MON548E390-14 548.514 390.270 100.076 60 30 0.5 0.8 MON548E390-14 548.378 390.204 100.074 65 0 0.5 0.7 MON548E390-14 548.373 390.091 100.072 30 230 0.75 4.6 MON548E390-14 548.361 390.105 100.070 35 280 0.75 3.8 MON548E390-14 548.267 390.122 100.075 50 350 0.5 1.3 MON548E390-14 548.321 390.481 100.056 70 30 0.5 3.3 MON548E390-14 548.447 390.633 100.080 10 330 0.5 5.0 MON548E390-14 548.444 390.783 100.090 50 20 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-14 548.514 390.833 100.078 45 300 0.5 2.1 MON548E390-14 548.519 390.942 100.068 45 320 0.5 3.4 MON548E390-14 548.205 390.520 100.097 2 311 0.25 1.5 MON548E390-14 548.178 390.775 100.085 5 15 1 49.4 MON548E390-14 548.477 390.693 100.086 10 340 0.25 3.8 MON548E390-14 548.350 390.920 100.104 15 340 0.5 6.5 MON548E390-14 548.742 390.360 100.062 60 40 0.5 7.1 MON548E390-14 548.148 390.242 100.050 15 270 1 245.7 MON548E390-14 548.420 390.593 100.098 n/a n/a 0.25 1.7 MON548E390-15 548.079 390.098 100.025 70 0 0.5 3.5

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E390-15 548.144 390.070 100.033 55 10 0.5 1.4 MON548E390-15 548.378 390.304 100.052 25 310 0.5 1.7 MON548E390-15 548.077 390.543 100.038 40 25 0.5 2.7 MON548E390-15 548.375 390.451 100.051 20 350 0.5 3.8 MON548E390-15 548.290 390.665 100.046 45 20 0.5 3.6 MON548E390-15 548.286 390.830 100.04 90 340 0.25 0.6 MON548E390-15 548.209 390.913 100.035 90 20 0.25 1.2 MON548E390-15 548.223 391.012 100.06 40 10 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-15 548.410 391.019 100.047 60 270 0.25 1.0 MON548E390-15 548.508 390.770 100.017 90 20 0.25 1.4 MON548E390-15 548.901 390.888 100.011 5 80 1 54.2 MON548E390-15 548.490 390.551 100.022 n/a n/a 0.5 3.0 MON548E390-15 548.506 390.558 100.020 15 20 0.5 2.2 MON548E390-15 548.578 390.663 100.014 45 300 0.5 1.5 MON548E390-15 548.626 390.562 100.037 30 40 0.5 1.3 MON548E390-15 548.779 390.353 100.022 90 300 0.75 7.6 MON548E390-15 548.752 390.502 100.010 30 20 0.5 3.8 MON548E390-15 548.726 390.525 100.040 50 45 0.5 4.3 MON548E390-15 548.739 390.112 100.019 n/a n/a 1 27.8 MON548E390-15 548.319 390.591 100.057 50 20 1 16.3 MON548E390-15 548.622 390.836 100.036 10 90 1 32.2 MON548E390-15 548.721 390.203 100.023 10 340 0.25 4.8 MON548E390-16 548.037 390.145 99.987 45 90 0.5 2.9 MON548E390-16 548.252 390.268 99.977 45 300 0.25 0.7 MON548E390-16 548.341 390.543 99.992 50 25 0.25 2.8 MON548E390-16 548.141 390.575 100.018 20 5 0.5 5.6 MON548E390-16 548.033 391.002 100.009 5 300 0.5 2.6 MON548E390-16 548.327 390.794 99.986 40 320 0.25 0.9 MON548E390-16 548.531 390.736 99.989 n/a n/a 0.75 3.5 MON548E390-16 548.756 390.780 99.985 5 90 0.75 9.6 MON548E390-16 548.774 390.443 99.980 n/a n/a 0.5 0.9 MON548E390-16 548.895 390.164 99.999 30 40 0.75 8.0 MON548E390-16 548.403 390.321 99.972 n/a n/a 0.25 0.6 MON548E390-16 548.436 390.145 99.986 70 250 0.5 3.0 MON548E390-16 548.397 390.152 99.989 5 270 0.5 3.5 MON548E390-16 548.392 390.037 100.008 0 340 0.75 8.2 MON548E390-16 548.216 390.660 100.008 10 300 1 17.6 MON548E390-16 548.272 390.574 99.995 30 340 1 49.6 MON548E390-16 548.503 391.038 100.008 15 30 1 151.7 MON548E390-16 548.805 390.670 100.003 20 290 0.75 15.8 MON548E390-17 548.035 390.212 99.945 5 50 0.75 10.7 MON548E390-17 548.169 390.556 99.973 5 340 0.75 6.8

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E390-17 548.304 391.016 99.998 n/a n/a 0.25 0.3 MON548E390-17 548.799 390.242 99.965 n/a n/a 0.75 10.7 MON548E390-17 548.797 390.210 99.967 10 330 0.5 4.3 MON548E390-17 548.217 390.881 99.958 10 30 1 184.6 MON548E390-17 548.574 390.332 99.935 20 80 0.75 12.6 MON548E391-10 548.576 391.782 100.354 60 60 0.5 3.2 MON548E391-10 548.087 391.722 100.375 20 50 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-11 548.884 391.715 100.367 40 340 0.75 8.1 MON548E391-11 548.897 391.433 100.342 40 325 0.25 1.4 MON548E391-11 548.888 391.305 100.312 0 270 0.25 1.6 MON548E391-11 548.620 391.873 100.341 0 350 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-11 548.539 391.911 100.327 90 175 0.25 0.4 MON548E391-11 548.385 391.183 100.335 0 240 0.5 2.2 MON548E391-11 548.261 391.764 100.347 20 20 0.5 1.6 MON548E391-11 548.134 391.835 100.315 10 340 0.25 0.6 MON548E391-11 548.065 391.773 100.292 45 220 0.5 2.9 MON548E391-11 548.093 391.626 100.335 0 230 0.75 5.4 MON548E391-11 548.148 391.439 100.332 20 20 0.25 0.7 MON548E391-12 548.704 391.856 100.271 40 30 0.25 2.3 MON548E391-12 548.622 391.719 100.264 30 90 0.75 6.8 MON548E391-12 548.601 391.975 100.290 n/a n/a 0.5 0.8 MON548E391-12 548.353 391.866 100.272 n/a n/a 0.25 0.4 MON548E391-12 548.928 391.352 100.261 n/a n/a 0.25 1.2 MON548E391-12 548.886 391.230 100.255 40 350 0.5 0.7 MON548E391-12 548.776 391.118 100.289 40 300 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-12 548.604 391.140 100.289 15 220 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-12 548.382 391.134 100.284 n/a n/a 0.25 0.6 MON548E391-12 548.386 391.363 100.266 n/a n/a 0.5 4.0 MON548E391-12 548.273 391.276 100.255 40 300 0.25 0.3 MON548E391-12 548.230 391.310 100.265 20 260 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-12 548.138 391.419 100.257 90 180 0.5 3.3 MON548E391-12 548.135 391.542 100.286 n/a n/a 0.5 2.5 MON548E391-12 548.146 391.109 100.262 n/a n/a 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-12 548.104 391.078 100.287 45 240 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-12 548.174 391.047 100.260 30 280 0.5 2.9 MON548E391-12 548.819 391.898 100.236 0 20 0.75 13.8 MON548E391-13 548.619 391.245 100.215 35 355 0.75 6.9 MON548E391-13 548.716 391.291 100.224 35 240 0.25 0.7 MON548E391-13 548.938 391.413 100.207 90 340 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-13 548.873 391.562 100.203 30 80 0.5 3.9 MON548E391-13 548.665 391.763 100.211 n/a n/a 0.25 1.8 MON548E391-13 548.721 391.971 100.213 55 60 0.25 3.3

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-13 548.515 391.720 100.223 n/a n/a 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-13 548.424 391.722 100.215 n/a n/a 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-13 548.373 391.684 100.206 5 0 1 2.2 MON548E391-13 548.384 391.973 100.190 0 200 0.5 9.0 MON548E391-13 548.218 391.958 100.199 30 190 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-13 548.194 391.814 100.220 n/a n/a 0.25 0.7 MON548E391-13 548.147 391.733 100.202 20 180 1 6.5 MON548E391-13 548.053 391.506 100.209 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-13 548.149 391.441 100.208 n/a n/a 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-13 548.093 391.349 100.201 90 280 0.5 5.6 MON548E391-13 548.131 391.138 100.197 90 90 0.25 0.5 MON548E391-13 548.214 391.095 100.246 45 300 0.25 1.3 MON548E391-13 548.223 391.191 100.200 n/a n/a 0.25 0.7 MON548E391-13 548.306 391.216 100.213 60 190 0.5 3.0 MON548E391-13 548.271 391.312 100.224 n/a n/a 0.25 0.4 MON548E391-13 548.308 391.348 100.221 n/a n/a 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-13 548.399 391.314 100.230 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-13 548.382 391.185 100.206 45 220 1 3.5 MON548E391-13 548.397 391.112 100.238 90 90 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-13 548.338 391.105 100.241 90 280 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-13 548.220 391.126 100.198 45 274 0.5 2.4 MON548E391-13 548.283 391.050 100.229 20 350 0.5 3.4 MON548E391-13 548.330 391.439 100.194 90 250 0.5 2.3 MON548E391-13 548.546 391.274 100.199 5 270 0.5 2.9 MON548E391-13 548.674 391.026 100.234 15 300 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-13 548.692 391.123 100.241 58 250 0.5 4.6 MON548E391-13 548.140 391.208 100.187 15 220 1 26.0 MON548E391-13 548.356 391.388 100.216 30 190 0.5 2.6 MON548E391-13 548.539 391.883 100.225 0 120 0.5 4.4 MON548E391-14 548.809 391.235 100.155 0 80 0.75 1.0 MON548E391-14 548.787 391.241 100.154 0 20 0.5 1.8 MON548E391-14 548.787 391.101 100.172 55 10 1 4.1 MON548E391-14 548.722 391.083 100.184 90 40 0.25 1.7 MON548E391-14 548.682 391.064 100.192 0 10 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-14 548.634 391.132 100.179 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-14 548.577 391.135 100.198 5 280 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-14 548.394 391.209 100.192 30 270 0.5 3.4 MON548E391-14 548.332 391.191 100.180 30 340 0.5 1.6 MON548E391-14 548.368 391.113 100.184 0 340 0.5 2.5 MON548E391-14 548.377 391.094 100.173 0 350 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-14 548.311 391.112 100.165 40 330 0.25 1.5 MON548E391-14 548.252 391.078 100.162 n/a n/a 0.25 1.0

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-14 548.157 391.059 100.158 n/a n/a 0.25 0.2 MON548E391-14 548.078 391.057 100.159 20 210 0.5 4.9 MON548E391-14 548.751 391.471 100.163 10 350 0.5 5.2 MON548E391-14 548.742 391.702 100.184 n/a n/a 0.75 1.2 MON548E391-14 548.684 391.689 100.157 5 80 0.5 0.8 MON548E391-14 548.526 391.880 100.202 n/a n/a 0.5 5.2 MON548E391-14 548.486 391.964 100.193 50 100 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-14 548.287 391.956 100.162 n/a n/a 0.25 0.4 MON548E391-14 548.337 391.745 100.158 30 350 0.5 2.7 MON548E391-14 548.344 391.603 100.167 0 320 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-14 548.315 391.500 100.181 n/a n/a 0.75 2.1 MON548E391-14 548.243 391.656 100.191 20 340 0.5 2.2 MON548E391-14 548.175 391.464 100.166 45 180 0.5 3.8 MON548E391-14 548.178 391.424 100.189 30 220 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-14 548.126 391.429 100.182 50 190 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-14 548.355 391.552 100.159 50 220 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-14 548.049 391.265 100.151 10 270 0.25 0.6 MON548E391-14 548.315 391.169 100.159 40 210 0.5 2.6 MON548E391-14 548.342 391.075 100.172 45 350 0.5 4.8 MON548E391-14 548.188 391.667 100.193 50 160 0.5 5.7 MON548E391-14 548.204 391.686 100.173 50 220 0.25 2.0 MON548E391-15 548.835 391.839 100.108 30 110 0.5 1.9 MON548E391-15 548.809 391.849 100.101 50 120 0.5 2.9 MON548E391-15 548.782 391.897 100.133 10 40 0.25 2.0 MON548E391-15 548.615 391.932 100.119 90 100 0.5 2.6 MON548E391-15 548.621 391.817 100.115 0 80 0.25 2.3 MON548E391-15 548.541 391.974 100.137 90 50 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-15 548.414 391.830 100.112 n/a n/a 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-15 548.428 391.945 100.103 25 130 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-15 548.303 391.894 100.107 20 200 0.75 5.8 MON548E391-15 548.245 391.955 100.115 30 160 0.5 1.1 MON548E391-15 548.163 391.677 100.106 n/a n/a 0.5 3.0 MON548E391-15 548.111 391.862 100.109 90 210 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-15 548.074 391.884 100.110 40 120 0.5 2.9 MON548E391-15 548.061 391.943 100.113 5 150 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-15 548.601 391.697 100.105 n/a n/a 0.5 2.7 MON548E391-15 548.455 391.568 100.110 n/a n/a 0.5 2.6 MON548E391-15 548.136 391.412 100.102 n/a n/a 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-15 548.185 391.576 100.103 50 180 0.5 1.7 MON548E391-15 548.090 391.439 100.103 n/a n/a 0.5 2.6 MON548E391-15 548.123 391.516 100.097 20 220 0.25 1.5 MON548E391-15 548.035 391.536 100.130 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-15 548.793 391.594 100.088 45 320 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.681 391.487 100.145 n/a n/a 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-15 548.649 391.353 100.119 30 300 0.25 2.4 MON548E391-15 548.693 391.127 100.130 n/a n/a 0.5 1.8 MON548E391-15 548.589 391.238 100.099 45 280 0.5 2.3 MON548E391-15 548.549 391.230 100.115 0 260 0.25 0.6 MON548E391-15 548.513 391.322 100.118 90 280 0.5 2.2 MON548E391-15 548.430 391.222 100.114 35 300 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-15 548.472 391.193 100.129 40 320 0.5 3.7 MON548E391-15 548.437 391.160 100.137 15 350 0.5 2.4 MON548E391-15 548.400 391.307 100.119 n/a n/a 0.75 4.3 MON548E391-15 548.257 391.337 100.112 20 170 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-15 548.157 391.242 100.107 45 190 0.25 1.8 MON548E391-15 548.095 391.289 100.108 20 320 0.5 0.9 MON548E391-15 548.069 391.199 100.095 30 120 0.75 6.8 MON548E391-15 548.730 391.088 100.137 20 280 0.25 2.0 MON548E391-15 548.643 391.126 100.137 0 230 0.25 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.619 391.091 100.132 90 350 0.25 1.3 MON548E391-15 548.634 391.038 100.134 90 270 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.482 391.057 100.148 45 210 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-15 548.450 391.037 100.152 50 340 0.5 1.1 MON548E391-15 548.362 391.112 100.145 n/a n/a 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-15 548.286 391.147 100.105 n/a n/a 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-15 548.236 391.174 100.106 39 260 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-15 548.080 391.190 100.095 0 0 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.187 391.077 100.134 30 320 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-15 548.148 391.073 100.129 50 350 0.5 2.0 MON548E391-15 548.108 391.040 100.140 60 240 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-15 548.020 391.078 100.127 n/a n/a 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-15 548.226 391.013 100.168 10 340 0.5 4.6 MON548E391-15 548.759 391.822 100.090 20 315 0.75 12.1 MON548E391-15 548.659 391.849 100.089 40 10 0.5 4.0 MON548E391-15 548.321 391.818 100.125 n/a n/a 0.75 2.9 MON548E391-15 548.226 391.686 100.140 50 17 0.5 3.7 MON548E391-15 548.253 391.371 100.106 n/a n/a 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-15 548.196 391.357 100.111 30 230 0.25 3.1 MON548E391-15 548.250 391.132 100.098 n/a n/a 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-15 548.164 391.067 100.089 35 200 0.5 7.4 MON548E391-15 548.428 390.921 100.097 n/a n/a 0.5 1.5 MON548E391-15 548.479 390.968 100.105 45 125 0.5 2.8 MON548E391-15 548.504 391.078 100.105 35 20 0.5 2.7 MON548E391-15 548.560 391.063 100.112 10 30 0.25 2.2

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-15 548.573 391.028 100.106 n/a n/a 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.587 390.905 100.124 40 135 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-15 548.618 390.959 100.114 30 115 0.5 1.2 MON548E391-15 548.692 391.041 100.111 n/a n/a 0.25 1.7 MON548E391-15 548.666 391.091 100.110 n/a n/a 0.5 1.3 MON548E391-15 548.699 391.116 100.103 0 20 0.5 2.0 MON548E391-15 548.687 390.874 100.105 10 325 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-15 548.783 390.985 100.085 n/a n/a 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-15 548.847 391.024 100.100 n/a n/a 0.5 0.8 MON548E391-15 548.482 390.988 100.098 50 85 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-15 548.478 390.944 100.101 10 40 0.5 2.2 MON548E391-15 548.555 391.012 100.113 25 105 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-15 548.540 391.007 100.099 40 20 0.75 4.2 MON548E391-15 548.426 390.975 100.097 n/a n/a 0.25 1.5 MON548E391-15 548.170 391.783 100.131 25 140 0.5 4.6 MON548E391-15 548.254 391.088 100.120 90 230 0.25 1.6 MON548E391-15 548.726 391.827 100.092 90 325 0.5 9.9 MON548E391-15 548.606 390.973 100.101 20 50 0.75 14.5 MON548E391-15 548.355 391.874 100.103 n/a n/a 0.25 2.4 MON548E391-16 548.769 391.822 100.061 30 295 0.5 6.0 MON548E391-16 548.361 391.690 100.055 n/a n/a 0.5 2.1 MON548E391-16 548.051 391.760 100.080 45 185 0.5 0.6 MON548E391-16 548.278 391.597 100.067 n/a n/a 0.25 0.7 MON548E391-16 548.023 391.502 100.081 n/a n/a 0.5 1.5 MON548E391-16 548.039 391.446 100.070 45 180 0.25 1.9 MON548E391-16 548.291 391.466 100.050 50 225 0.75 5.1 MON548E391-16 548.410 391.455 100.079 0 200 0.5 1.7 MON548E391-16 548.440 391.455 100.068 n/a n/a 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-16 548.137 391.367 100.091 n/a n/a 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-16 548.218 391.228 100.062 n/a n/a 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-16 548.334 391.330 100.090 40 260 0.75 3.7 MON548E391-16 548.388 391.141 100.070 90 0 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-16 548.540 391.334 100.079 40 260 0.5 0.8 MON548E391-16 548.606 391.297 100.105 n/a n/a 0.25 0.6 MON548E391-16 548.565 391.204 100.096 45 285 0.5 1.1 MON548E391-16 548.722 391.216 100.068 20 200 0.75 3.5 MON548E391-16 548.265 391.754 100.053 45 40 0.25 1.2 MON548E391-16 548.071 391.597 100.048 60 200 0.25 0.4 MON548E391-16 548.155 391.387 100.050 25 300 0.5 1.6 MON548E391-16 548.144 391.299 100.039 n/a n/a 0.25 0.5 MON548E391-16 548.416 391.190 100.045 25 340 0.5 2.3 MON548E391-16 548.554 391.333 100.078 35 300 0.25 0.7

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-16 548.592 391.267 100.105 10 260 0.5 0.8 MON548E391-16 548.721 391.240 100.069 20 15 0.5 1.4 MON548E391-16 548.860 391.432 100.069 10 255 0.75 8.2 MON548E391-16 548.115 391.544 100.060 10 255 0.5 3.3 MON548E391-16 548.276 391.729 100.081 n/a n/a 0.5 1.6 MON548E391-17 548.817 391.620 100.060 20 340 0.25 0.9 MON548E391-17 548.786 391.773 100.038 n/a n/a 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-17 548.221 391.817 100.042 30 145 0.5 6.8 MON548E391-17 548.152 391.910 100.035 10 165 0.75 4.7 MON548E391-17 548.015 391.625 100.016 n/a n/a 0.25 1.6 MON548E391-17 548.364 391.377 100.031 n/a n/a 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-17 548.230 391.215 100.020 50 290 0.75 10.1 MON548E391-17 548.144 391.207 100.003 90 250 0.5 4.8 MON548E391-17 548.507 391.292 100.030 5 275 0.75 10.7 MON548E391-17 548.588 391.284 100.040 n/a n/a 0.5 3.0 MON548E391-17 548.791 391.433 100.042 n/a n/a 0.5 3.4 MON548E391-17 548.160 391.913 100.025 40 230 0.5 1.8 MON548E391-17 548.640 391.105 100.013 35 245 0.25 1.3 MON548E391-17 548.163 391.411 100.016 25 280 0.75 7.4 MON548E391-17 548.274 391.258 100.012 15 0 0.5 2.3 MON548E391-17 548.695 391.093 100.010 5 220 0.5 4.2 MON548E391-17 548.607 391.196 100.008 90 29 1 25.6 MON548E391-17 548.664 391.787 100.062 15 40 0.25 1.7 MON548E391-17 548.075 391.405 99.973 50 255 0.5 12.3 MON548E391-18 548.662 391.943 99.973 20 10 0.5 5.4 MON548E391-18 548.440 392.016 99.973 30 356 0.5 5.1 MON548E391-18 548.402 391.958 99.979 40 302 0.75 3.9 MON548E391-18 548.498 391.605 99.986 14 324 1 24.2 MON548E391-18 548.860 391.787 99.994 42 29 0.5 5.1 MON548E391-18 548.853 391.711 99.998 10 60 0.25 0.8 MON548E391-18 548.022 391.546 99.976 75 58 0.5 1.7 MON548E391-18 548.374 391.408 100.003 45 48 0.5 1.7 MON548E391-18 548.275 391.294 99.989 20 85 0.5 1.0 MON548E391-18 548.414 391.095 99.995 10 310 0.25 1.1 MON548E391-18 548.329 391.571 99.967 22 322 1 22.9 MON548E391-18 548.176 391.124 99.982 77 342 0.5 7.4 MON548E391-18 548.256 391.160 99.986 15 348 0.5 1.8 MON548E391-18 548.433 391.736 99.958 0 38 1 145 MON548E391-18 548.559 391.681 99.986 8 52 1 73.6 MON548E391-18 548.044 391.661 99.981 36 40 1 98.5 MON548E391-19 548.493 391.629 99.958 25 165 0.5 4.2 MON548E391-19 548.078 391.655 99.937 n/a n/a 0.25 2.5

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E391-19 548.118 391.406 99.94 n/a n/a 0.5 3.4 MON548E391-19 548.173 391.182 99.925 40 280 0.5 1.5 MON548E391-19 548.192 391.097 99.953 15 35 0.25 1.0 MON548E391-19 548.391 391.169 99.962 20 350 0.25 2.4 MON548E391-20 548.032 391.560 99.894 20 40 0.5 1.6 MON548E392-06 548.033 392.618 100.527 8 162 0.5 4.0 MON548E392-06 548.567 392.741 100.489 72 185 0.5 2.9 MON548E392-06 548.393 392.809 100.492 12 168 0.5 6.9 MON548E392-06 548.282 392.957 100.501 12 27 1 20.0 MON548E392-06 548.281 392.882 100.510 14 9 1 21.9 MON548E392-06 548.075 392.585 100.499 55 115 1 14.6 MON548E392-09 548.484 392.581 100.367 55 70 0.75 9.9 MON548E392-09 548.349 392.188 100.319 10 300 0.5 9.7 MON548E392-10 548.651 392.744 100.310 5 10 0.5 7.8 MON548E392-10 548.455 392.813 100.268 20 160 1 11.5 MON548E392-10 548.297 392.685 100.290 10 160 0.75 6.4 MON548E392-10 548.463 392.904 100.247 25 160 1 12.1 MON548E392-10 548.403 392.938 100.272 0 80 0.75 12.2 MON548E392-10 548.312 392.895 100.303 45 25 0.75 7.6 MON548E392-10 548.210 392.835 100.284 60 10 0.75 9.4 MON548E392-10 548.094 392.620 100.311 0 60 0.5 2.0 MON548E392-11 548.052 392.712 100.217 60 220 0.5 2.1 MON548E392-11 548.104 392.564 100.211 20 240 0.5 3.0 MON548E392-11 548.205 392.560 100.208 30 290 0.5 2.6 MON548E392-11 548.318 392.546 100.187 n/a n/a 0.5 2.0 MON548E392-11 548.230 392.464 100.178 80 210 0.5 2.0 MON548E392-11 548.451 392.380 100.214 30 340 0.5 3.3 MON548E392-11 548.542 392.420 100.198 10 280 0.5 2.3 MON548E392-11 548.549 392.443 100.197 10 290 0.5 2.8 MON548E392-11 548.735 392.256 100.224 n/a n/a 0.5 1.4 MON548E392-11 548.808 392.136 100.183 40 350 0.5 1.6 MON548E392-11 548.699 392.089 100.172 25 350 0.5 1.4 MON548E392-11 548.477 392.223 100.198 30 60 0.25 1.1 MON548E392-11 548.423 392.207 100.230 60 340 0.5 2.1 MON548E392-11 548.250 392.266 100.171 90 140 0.5 1.9 MON548E392-11 548.307 392.250 100.158 45 230 0.5 1.8 MON548E392-11 548.301 392.190 100.161 60 60 0.75 11.5 MON548E392-11 548.142 392.146 100.180 0 240 0.5 3.4 MON548E392-11 548.000 392.388 100.173 60 230 0.5 8.7 MON548E392-11 548.205 392.350 100.174 n/a n/a 1 26.8 MON548E392-11 548.976 392.271 100.178 30 280 0.75 19.6 MON548E392-12 548.666 392.509 100.162 45 280 0.5 3.4

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E392-12 548.602 392.504 100.142 28 220 0.75 5.7 MON548E392-12 548.630 392.518 100.160 25 230 0.5 2.4 MON548E392-12 548.398 392.521 100.129 35 12 0.25 1.2 MON548E392-12 548.191 392.608 100.145 55 45 0.75 12.7 MON548E392-12 548.843 392.669 100.150 20 320 0.5 4.2 MON548E392-12 548.398 392.442 100.142 30 20 0.5 2.0 MON548E392-12 548.130 392.421 100.139 30 300 0.75 10.8 MON548E392-12 548.092 392.065 100.147 25 220 0.75 3.8 MON548E392-12 548.560 392.117 100.118 85 10 0.5 3.2 MON548E392-12 548.640 392.097 100.148 30 5 0.75 5.0 MON548E392-12 548.731 392.073 100.139 2 230 0.75 4.3 MON548E392-12 548.754 392.177 100.142 40 10 0.75 21.5 MON548E392-12 548.691 392.296 100.174 18 340 0.25 1.0 MON548E392-13 548.424 392.804 100.090 5 353 1 17.9 MON548E392-13 548.432 392.562 100.065 10 60 0.75 17.6 MON548E392-13 548.430 392.525 100.052 25 140 0.75 8.2 MON548E392-13 548.002 392.762 100.080 90 15 0.5 3.3 MON548E392-13 548.009 392.734 100.025 4 220 0.5 3.1 MON548E392-13 548.356 392.536 100.039 13 10 0.5 1.7 MON548E392-13 548.826 392.734 100.049 37 193 0.5 3.5 MON548E392-13 548.794 392.713 100.059 33 27 0.75 3.8 MON548E392-13 548.656 392.677 100.015 90 288 0.75 8.3 MON548E392-13 548.598 392.623 100.084 2 349 0.75 8.6 MON548E392-13 548.451 392.503 100.007 12 160 1 184 MON548E392-13 548.007 392.157 100.100 19 130 0.5 3.5 MON548E392-13 548.010 392.251 99.995 23 20 0.75 10.2 MON548E392-13 548.204 392.472 100.076 83 50 1 41.3 MON548E392-13 548.188 392.534 100.115 40 270 0.75 5.5 MON548E392-13 548.319 392.370 100.058 40 40 0.5 2.5 MON548E392-13 548.350 392.146 100.076 30 80 0.75 5.3 MON548E392-13 548.474 392.214 100.086 15 80 0.5 5.9 MON548E392-13 548.627 392.058 100.103 20 320 0.5 4.3 MON548E392-13 548.011 392.174 100.004 3 297 1 5.3 MON548E392-13 548.955 392.523 100.048 60 282 0.5 7.4 MON548E392-13 548.753 392.201 100.040 0 165 0.5 3.1 MON548E392-13 548.813 392.055 100.087 57 230 0.75 2.6 MON548E392-13 548.426 392.373 100.012 28 110 0.5 6.0 MON548E392-13 548.163 392.063 100.045 0 300 0.75 8.8 MON548E392-13 548.870 392.425 100.095 32 260 0.75 11.5 MON548E392-13 548.337 392.075 100.022 35 58 0.5 4.0 MON548E392-13 548.155 392.374 100.021 30 40 0.75 12.9 MON548E392-14 548.952 392.720 99.959 28 36 1 47.6

Table A.1 (continued)

MON548E392-14 548.865 392.744 100.005 15 320 0.25 1.3 MON548E392-14 548.371 392.499 99.957 60 52 0.5 0.6 MON548E392-14 548.379 392.008 99.985 3 252 0.5 7.6 MON548E392-14 548.846 391.976 99.988 30 28 0.5 3.4 MON548E392-14 548.797 392.372 99.952 20 34 0.5 4.1 MON548E392-14 548.842 392.495 99.993 n/a n/a 0.25 0.6 MON548E392-15 548.694 392.477 99.904 40 22 0.25 0.5 MON548E392-16 548.258 392.520 99.893 n/a n/a 0.5 4.0 MON548E392-16 548.427 392.900 99.875 20 40 1 24.1 MON548E392-16 548.511 392.894 99.882 55 300 0.5 10.9

Feature Artifact Data

Table A.2 Data for All Feature Artifacts

Unit Northing Easting Elevation Dip Strike Size Weight Grade (g) (g) MON547E391-03 547.578 391.923 100.664 50 20 1 18.1 MON547E391-10 547.413 392.006 100.254 40 298 0.50 2.6 MON547E391-11 547.415 391.968 100.219 12 17 0.25 0.9 MON547E391-11 547.436 391.946 100.220 36 50 0.50 4.2 MON547E392-12 547.236 392.088 100.208 90 324 0.25 2.0 MON547E392-13 547.498 392.131 100.134 18 95 0.50 4.2 MON547E392-13 547.477 392.191 100.155 47 68 0.50 4.4 MON547E392-13 547.408 392.086 100.161 n/a n/a 0.25 1.0 MON547E392-14 547.473 392.194 100.119 23 240 0.50 1.6 MON547E392-18 547.503 392.212 99.904 12 262 0.25 1.4 MON548E392-06 548.033 392.618 100.527 8 162 0.50 4.0 MON548E392-06 548.567 392.741 100.489 72 185 0.50 2.9 MON548E392-06 548.393 392.809 100.492 12 168 0.50 6.9 MON548E392-06 548.282 392.957 100.501 12 27 1 20.0 MON548E392-06 548.281 392.882 100.510 14 9 1 21.9 MON548E392-06 548.075 392.585 100.499 55 115 1 14.6 MON548E392-09 548.484 392.581 100.367 55 70 0.75 9.9 MON548E392-10 548.651 392.744 100.310 5 10 0.50 7.8 MON548E392-10 548.455 392.813 100.268 20 160 1 11.5 MON548E392-10 548.297 392.685 100.290 10 160 0.75 6.4 MON548E392-10 548.463 392.904 100.247 25 160 1 12.1 MON548E392-10 548.403 392.938 100.272 0 80 0.75 12.2 MON548E392-10 548.312 392.895 100.303 45 25 0.75 7.6

Table A.2 (continued)

MON548E392-10 548.210 392.835 100.284 60 10 0.75 9.4 MON548E392-10 548.094 392.620 100.311 0 60 0.50 2.0 MON548E392-11 548.052 392.712 100.217 60 220 0.50 2.1 MON548E392-11 548.104 392.564 100.211 20 240 0.50 3.0 MON548E392-11 548.205 392.560 100.208 30 290 0.50 2.6 MON548E392-11 548.318 392.546 100.187 n/a n/a 0.50 2.0 MON548E392-12 548.666 392.509 100.162 45 280 0.50 3.4 MON548E392-12 548.602 392.504 100.142 28 220 0.75 5.7 MON548E392-12 548.630 392.518 100.160 25 230 0.50 2.4 MON548E392-12 548.398 392.521 100.129 35 12 0.25 1.2 MON548E392-12 548.191 392.608 100.145 55 45 0.75 12.7 MON548E392-12 548.843 392.669 100.150 20 320 0.50 4.2 MON548E392-13 548.424 392.804 100.090 5 353 1 17.9 MON548E392-13 548.432 392.562 100.065 10 60 0.75 17.6 MON548E392-13 548.430 392.525 100.052 25 140 0.75 8.2 MON548E392-13 548.002 392.762 100.080 90 15 0.50 3.3 MON548E392-13 548.009 392.734 100.025 4 220 0.50 3.1 MON548E392-13 548.356 392.536 100.039 13 10 0.50 1.7 MON548E392-13 548.826 392.734 100.049 37 193 0.50 3.5 MON548E392-13 548.794 392.713 100.059 33 27 0.75 3.8 MON548E392-13 548.656 392.677 100.015 90 288 0.75 8.3 MON548E392-13 548.598 392.623 100.084 2 349 0.75 8.6 MON548E392-13 548.451 392.503 100.007 12 160 1 184.0 MON548E392-14 548.952 392.720 99.959 28 36 1 47.6 MON548E392-14 548.865 392.744 100.005 15 320 0.25 1.3 MON548E392-14 548.371 392.499 99.957 60 52 0.50 0.6 MON548E392-16 548.258 392.520 99.893 n/a n/a 0.50 4.0 MON548E392-16 548.427 392.900 99.875 20 40 1 24.1 MON548E392-16 548.511 392.894 99.882 55 300 0.50 10.9

Lithic Tools

Table A.3 Data for Flaked Stone Tool, Hammerstone, and Grinding Stone Artifacts

Unit Northing Easting Elevation Condition Artifact Type MON547E390-11 547.067 390.130 100.238 unidentifiable UMF MON547E390-12 547.276 390.475 100.180 complete UMF MON547E390-13 547.743 390.543 100.151 complete UMF MON547E390-13 547.090 390.239 100.121 complete UMF MON547E390-13 547.599 390.156 100.122 distal biface MON547E390-13 547.825 390.479 100.110 medial biface

Table A.3 (continued)

MON547E390-14 547.123 390.525 100.077 unidentifiable UMF MON547E390-14 547.468 390.474 100.065 unidentifiable biface MON547E390-14 547.619 390.424 100.107 distal biface MON547E390-14 547.677 390.557 100.075 complete UMF MON547E390-14 547.604 390.067 100.074 unidentifiable biface MON547E390-14 547.201 390.053 100.087 complete biface MON547E390-14 547.157 390.331 100.032 Hammerstone MON547E390-15 547.250 390.232 100.051 complete biface MON547E390-15 547.227 390.358 100.030 complete biface MON547E390-15 547.401 390.753 100.033 distal biface MON547E390-15 547.649 390.687 100.052 distal biface MON547E390-15 547.155 390.054 100.012 unidentifiable biface MON547E390-15 547.121 390.697 100.007 grindstone MON547E390-15 547.944 390.012 100.055 grindstone MON547E390-16 547.109 390.791 99.965 complete UMF MON547E391-12 547.683 391.600 100.172 unidentifiable biface MON547E391-12 547.793 391.732 100.149 proximal biface MON547E391-13 547.078 391.294 100.090 unidentifiable UMF MON547E391-13 547.478 391.051 100.075 medial biface MON547E391-14 547.694 391.263 100.066 complete biface MON547E391-14 547.398 391.271 100.075 complete biface MON547E391-14 547.250 391.750 100.052 proximal biface MON547E391-14 547.188 391.408 100.052 complete biface MON547E391-14 547.402 391.249 100.094 unidentifiable biface MON547E391-14 547.615 391.303 100.063 unidentifiable biface MON547E391-14 547.637 391.476 100.057 distal UMF MON547E391-14 547.830 391.289 100.044 complete UMF MON547E391-14 547.766 391.600 100.067 unidentifiable biface MON547E391-14 547.458 391.380 100.034 complete biface MON547E391-14 548.002 391.950 100.067 unidentifiable biface MON547E391-15 547.414 391.261 99.994 distal biface MON547E391-15 547.488 391.439 99.987 distal UMF MON547E391-17 547.513 391.048 99.918 distal biface MON547E392-10 547.728 392.547 100.277 distal UMF MON547E392-12 547.730 392.936 100.179 distal biface MON547E392-13 547.477 392.191 100.155 distal biface MON547E392-13 547.559 392.475 100.131 distal biface MON547E392-13 547.702 392.613 100.138 complete UMF MON547E392-13 547.763 392.662 100.159 medial biface MON547E392-13 547.591 392.875 100.167 proximal biface MON547E392-13 547.328 392.847 100.168 distal biface MON547E392-13 547.052 392.858 100.143 proximal biface

Table A.3 (continued)

MON547E392-13 547.046 392.721 100.122 unidentifiable biface MON547E392-14 547.822 392.232 100.113 complete biface MON547E392-14 547.228 392.268 100.088 distal UMF MON547E392-14 547.197 392.954 100.067 medial biface MON547E392-14 547.111 392.033 100.112 unidentifiable biface MON547E392-14 547.220 392.172 100.060 medial biface MON547E392-16 547.282 392.330 100.002 complete biface MON547E392-16 547.877 392.616 100.022 complete biface MON547E392-16 547.851 392.151 100.019 complete biface MON547E392-17 547.198 392.421 99.979 complete biface MON547E392-17 547.267 392.465 99.943 distal biface MON548E390-13 548.390 390.782 100.123 complete UMF MON548E390-13 548.916 390.387 100.135 distal biface MON548E390-14 548.205 390.520 100.097 unidentifiable biface MON548E390-14 548.178 390.775 100.085 unidentifiable biface MON548E390-14 548.477 390.693 100.086 unidentifiable biface MON548E390-14 548.350 390.920 100.104 unidentifiable biface MON548E390-14 548.742 390.360 100.062 unidentifiable biface MON548E390-14 548.148 390.242 100.050 Hammerstone MON548E390-15 548.726 390.525 100.040 distal UMF MON548E390-15 548.739 390.112 100.019 complete biface MON548E390-16 548.216 390.660 100.008 unidentifiable uniface MON548E390-17 548.217 390.881 99.958 Hammerstone MON548E391-13 548.692 391.123 100.241 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-13 548.140 391.208 100.187 complete uniface MON548E391-13 548.356 391.388 100.216 complete biface MON548E391-14 548.342 391.075 100.172 medial biface MON548E391-14 548.188 391.667 100.193 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-14 548.204 391.686 100.173 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-15 548.170 391.783 100.131 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-15 548.254 391.088 100.120 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-15 548.726 391.827 100.092 distal biface MON548E391-15 548.606 390.973 100.101 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-16 548.860 391.432 100.069 complete biface MON548E391-16 548.115 391.544 100.060 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-17 548.163 391.411 100.016 unidentifiable biface MON548E391-17 548.274 391.258 100.012 complete biface MON548E391-17 548.695 391.093 100.010 complete UMF MON548E391-18 548.329 391.571 99.967 distal biface MON548E391-18 548.176 391.124 99.982 distal biface MON548E391-18 548.256 391.160 99.986 unidentifiable biface MON548E392-12 548.843 392.669 100.150 complete biface

Table A.3 (continued)

MON548E392-13 548.870 392.425 100.095 distal biface MON548E392-13 548.337 392.075 100.022 proximal biface MON548E392-14 548.952 392.720 99.959 complete uniface MON548E392-16 548.258 392.520 99.893 complete biface UMF: unifacially modified flake

Refit Data

Table A.4 Refit Data

Unit Artifact N E Z refit HD VD # # (cm) (cm) MON547E390-14 19 547.846 390.229 100.084 1 15.9 1.6 MON547E390-14 26 547.926 390.092 100.068 1 MON547E391-12 12 547.730 391.700 100.175 2 12.1 2.0 MON547E391-12 20 547.780 391.810 100.155 2 MON547E390-13 14 547.543 390.115 100.156 3 120.8 0.3 MON547E391-12 34 547.510 391.323 100.153 3 MON547E391-13 56 547.974 391.781 100.119 4 21.1 2.7 MON547E391-13 57 547.811 391.647 100.092 4 MON547E391-13 18 547.882 391.655 100.126 5 34.2 6.6 MON547E391-14 52 547.566 391.524 100.060 5 MON547E391-14 13 547.344 391.241 100.096 6 19.4 0.2 MON547E391-13 74 547.450 391.079 100.098 6 MON548E390-12 2 548.148 390.720 100.178 7 36.3 16.1 MON548E390-15 12 548.508 390.770 100.017 7 MON547E391-14 52 547.566 391.524 100.060 8 48.0 9.5 MON547E391-12 43 547.916 391.852 100.155 8 MON547E390-17 2 547.150 390.309 99.926 9 104.9 4.7 MON548E390-17 2 548.169 390.556 99.973 9 MON547E391-14 10 547.442 391.043 100.095 10 28.0 0.0 MON547E391-14 43 547.236 391.232 100.095 10 MON547E391-14 10 547.442 391.043 100.095 11 18.6 0.0 MON547E391-14 14 547.397 391.223 100.095 11 MON547E391-12 12 547.730 391.700 100.175 12 21.7 0.9 MON547E391-12 22 547.869 391.867 100.184 12 MON547E391-14 38 547.688 391.767 100.069 13 51.9 3.4 MON548E391-15 20 548.090 391.439 100.103 13

Table A.4 (continued)

MON547E390-12 10 547.704 390.882 100.187 14 36.8 8.4 MON547E391-13 71 547.417 391.113 100.103 14 MON547E391-13 71 547.417 391.113 100.103 15 3.9 0.1 MON547E391-14 12 547.443 391.084 100.102 15 MON548E390-13 18 548.516 390.501 100.128 16 54.6 11.7 MON548E390-15 14 548.901 390.888 100.011 16 MON547E391-16 2 547.392 391.008 99.975 17 138.3 1.0 MON548E390-16 11 548.756 390.780 99.985 17 MON548E390-15 14 548.901 390.888 100.011 18 153.5 0.1 MON547E391-13 38 547.380 391.094 100.115 18 MON547E392-13 4 547.131 392.327 100.147 19 162.1 5.1 MON548E391-13 31 548.220 391.126 100.198 19 MON548E391-16 29 548.721 391.240 100.069 20 11.6 6.1 MON548E391-15 26 548.693 391.127 100.130 20 Average Displacement 54.7 4.0 N: northing; E: easting; Z: elevation; HD: horizontal displacement; VD: vertical displacement