Sources of Variability in Ceramic Artifacts Recovered from Refuse-Filled Pit
Features at the Hahn’s Field Site, Hamilton County, Ohio
A thesis submitted to the
Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of Anthropology
of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences
2015
by
Tyler C. Swinney
B.A., University of Cincinnati, 2009
Committee:
Alan P. Sullivan, III, Ph.D., Chair
Susan E. Allen, Ph.D. ABSTRACT
This research focuses on pit formation processes and ceramic technology at Hahn’s Field
(33HA10), a multicomponent site located in the lower Little Miami River Valley of Hamilton
County, Ohio. This site was selected because of the ubiquity of pit features and ceramics, long occupation span, and evidence of discard processes.
Although pit features are routinely encountered on Fort Ancient (A.D. 1000-1670) sites in the middle Ohio Valley, their inferential potential has not been adequately realized. This situation is attributable to pit feature variability, unstandardized description, and an under-appreciation as to how formation process research can advance Midwestern archaeology. While traditional studies of pit features have focused on mining ethnographic accounts for functional analogs, greater attention to the variability within pit features and their contents can enable advanced interpretations about discard behavior and the evolution of ceramic technology.
To identify patterns of pit feature variability, 25% ceramic subsamples from the Upper and Lower Zones of three refuse-filled contexts—a storage pit (Feature 37), an earth oven
(Feature 38), and a basin-shaped depression (Feature 146)—were analyzed. Differences among six variables—sherd type, temper composition, weight, maximum thickness, and interior- and exterior-surface damage of partial ceramic vessels—were examined to identify sources of environmental and anthropogenic variability. To statistically substantiate patterning in the Upper and Lower Zones of the three pit features, chi-square analyses were conducted for temper compositions and interior- and exterior-surface damage. Conventional and AMS radiocarbon assays provide chronological information for the pit features and their filling histories.
Patterns of discard behavior intensity in specific temporal and functional contexts were identified. Radiocarbon assays, temper composition frequencies, and traces of interior- and
i exterior-surface damage show that Features 37 and 38 were filled quickly by small-scale domestic discard activities during the Late Fort Ancient Period (A.D. 1450-1670). In contrast,
Feature 146 was filled gradually by a combination of environmental processes and large-scale communal discard activities during the Late Woodland (A.D. 500-1000) through Middle Fort
Ancient Periods (A.D. 1250-1450).
Important patterns regarding temper composition, mean sherd weight, and mean maximum thickness were also documented. Although maximum thickness remains relatively constant in all features regardless of temper composition, sherd weight is highly variable and is therefore a strong indicator of exposure to formation processes. Furthermore, surface damage data indicate that only some ceramics were discarded directly into an empty pit, and that sherds with roughened surfaces are more resistant to mechanical attrition than those with plain surfaces.
The data analyzed here align with local and regional models of Fort Ancient ceramic technology (e.g., Cowan 1986; Essenpreis 1982; Turnbow and Henderson 1992), while also providing additional information about formation processes with which more geographically and temporally specific models can be developed. Moreover, because ceramics from Hahn’s Field have not been studied comprehensively, the ceramic data collected from Features 37, 38, and 146 can be used to refine Riggs’ (1998) model of ceramic technology in the lower Little Miami River
Valley by contributing information about chronology, vessel thickness, and the selection of tempering materials through time.
ii
iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to thank my family for their continued support and encouragement throughout all of my graduate studies. Without them none of this research would have been possible. I would also like to thank my advisor and first chair, Dr. Alan Sullivan, III, as well as
Dr. Susan Allen for being on my committee and providing an invaluable second perspective.
Thanks also to the Court Archaeological Research Fund and the Charles P. Taft Research Center, both of which provided funding for this thesis. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr.
Jarrod Burks of Ohio Valley Archaeology Inc., for providing remote sensing data from Hahn’s
Field and Dr. Robert Cook of Ohio State University, for generously providing one AMS date from each of the analyzed pit features. Thank you also to the Cincinnati Museum Center and the
Anderson Township Park District for providing me with the opportunity to work at the Hahn’s
Field Site and to pursue my interests in the Late Prehistoric archaeology of the middle Ohio
Valley. Finally, special thanks go to Robert A. Genheimer and Ted Sunderhaus for the enormous amount of support and guidance that they have bestowed upon me with respect to excavation methodology, laboratory procedures, artifact identification, and ceramic analysis. To anyone I may have missed, I apologize and thank you as well.
iv
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the memory of:
Gene Allen Swinney, Jr., (1956-2006)
and
Cornelius “Gramps” Arnold (1930-2014)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………...i
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………iv
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………………....v
Table of Contents…vi
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………vii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………..ix
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………1
Chapter 2: Background…………………………………………………………………………...12
Chapter 3: Hahn’s Field and Methodological Considerations…………………………………………….32
Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results…………………………………………………………………...52
Chapter 5: Interpretation and Conclusions………………………………………………………………82
References Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………97
Appendix A. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 37………………………………………………….116
Appendix B. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 38………………………………………………….130
Appendix C. Ceramic Subsample from Feature 146……………………………………………...134
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in Hamilton County, Ohio………………………1
Figure 3.1. Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in the lower Little Miami River Valley… 33
Figure 3.2. Magnetic Susceptibility of Hahn’s Field…………………….... 37
Figure 3.3. Gradiometry survey of Hahn’s Field ……………………. 37
Figure 3.4. Processed remote sensing data from Hahn’s Field…………………… 38
Figure 3.5. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37……………………………………..47
Figure 3.6. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 3848
Figure 3.7. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 35 of Feature 146….. 49
Figure 3.8. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 27 of Feature 146….. 49
Figure 4.1. Location of Features 37, 38, and 146 at the Hahn’s Field Site…….52
Figure 4.2. Cluster chart showing the frequencies for the 25% ceramic subsamples from Features
37, 38, and 146 by temper composition……………………………………………….....54
Figure 4.3. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for the 25% ceramic subsample…………...…56
Figure 4.4. Mean sherd weight values for Features 37, 38, and 146…………………….. 56
Figure 4.5. Mean sherd weight values by temper composition……………………………...... 57
Figure 4.6. Distribution of maximum thickness for the 25% ceramic subsample…………………...58
vii
Figure 4.7. Mean maximum thickness values for Features 37, 38, and 146 . . …………….59
Figure 4.8. Mean maximum thickness values by temper composition………………………....60
Figure 4.9. Interior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample...... 61
Figure 4.10. Exterior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample……………….....62
Figure 4.11. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 37…. 65
Figure 4.12. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 37…………………………...66
Figure 4.13. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 37………………….68
Figure 4.14. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 38……………………….71
Figure 4.15. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 38……………………………...72
Figure 4.16. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 38……...74
Figure 4.17. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 146…………………...77
Figure 4.18. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 146…………78
Figure 4.19. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Unit 35 of Feature 146…………………81
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Radiocarbon dates from the Hahn’s Field Site obtained from Cincinnati Museum Center
Excavations prior to this research ...…………41
Table 3.2. Dimensions, estimated volumes, and ceramic assemblages of Feature 37, 38, and 146…..42
Table 3.3. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37…....45
Table 3.4. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38……....45
Table 3.5. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 27 of Feature 146…..46
Table 3.6. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 35 of Feature 146..46
Table 3.7. Radiocarbon dates from Features 37, 38, and 146…………50
Table 4.1. 25% ceramic subsamples from Features 37, 38, and 146 by Upper and Lower
Zones…………………………………………………………………………………………..53
Table 4.2. Frequencies for Features 37, 38, and 146 by sherd type………………………..53
Table 4.3. Frequencies for Features 37, 38, and 146 by temper composition……………………54
Table 4.4. Upper and Lower variability from Feature 37 by sherd type...……63
Table 4.5. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 37 by temper composition………...64
Table 4.6. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37……..67
Table 4.7. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 38 by sherd type………………………………...69
ix
Table 4.8. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 38 by temper composition………………………70
Table 4.9. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38…………73
Table 4.10. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 146 by sherd type………………..75
Table 4.11. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 146 by temper composition……………………76
Table 4.12. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146…………………….80
Table 5.1. Adjusted chi-square residual values for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature
146 by combined temper categories.………………………………………………….....89
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This thesis investigates pit formation processes and ceramic discard practices during the
Middle and Late Fort Ancient Periods (circa A.D. 1250-1670) in the middle Ohio Valley (Cowan
1986:131, 143, 147; 1987). Pit features are ubiquitous at Fort Ancient sites and because they were frequently repurposed for refuse disposal, an analysis of ceramics recovered from pit feature deposits can offer opportunities to consider aspects of formation processes and behavior beyond subsistence practices (Grooms 1999).
Figure 1.1 Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Pit features are routinely analyzed in a way that can potentially misconstrue the role and diversity of pit features as indicators of behavior and formation processes. Moreover, the interpretation of pit features has often relied on ethnographic correlates “as a means of interpreting archaeologically observed phenomena, rather than as a means for provoking new types of investigation” (Binford 1967:1). That is, the interpretation of pit features has been habitually founded on ethnographic evidence, without giving appropriate consideration to the
1 diverse behavioral evidence concealed within variable pit deposits. This practice has propagated a commitment to argument by analogy (Gould and Watson 1982:372) and uniformitarianism
(Moore 1994:931), which problematically assumes continuity between the processes that operate today and those that have introduced variability into the archaeological record.
The case study presented here focuses on the Hahn’s Field Site (Chapter 3), a multicomponent Late Prehistoric settlement located in Hamilton County, Ohio (Figure 1.1). In order to better understand ceramic variability and pit-filling histories at the site, 25% subsamples of ceramic artifacts recovered from the Upper and Lower Zones of three refuse-filled pits have been analyzed (Features 37, 38, and 146). Each pit feature was also dated using conventional and
AMS radiocarbon methods to provide finer resolution temporal data on their pit-filling histories.
The Correlate Conundrum
There is little doubt that American archaeological research has drawn heavily from cultural anthropology with regards to the selection of research problems (Longacre 1991, 2000), units of analysis (Dunnell 1982), and methods of inference (Gibbon 2013). These practices have been both theoretically and methodologically problematic. First, the application of ethnographic data to archaeological phenomena has provided a misleading view of archaeological inference where access to past behavior is provided by a set of ethnographic correlates, which relate behavioral phenomena to material and spatial phenomena (Schiffer 1975). Second, when applied directly to archaeological patterning, the inferential procedure provided by ethnographic correlates assumes that archaeological variability is reflective of past human behaviors—rather than post-depositional events—which were the primary determinates of the present-day characteristics of archaeological deposits (e.g., Binford 1962). Third, the application of
2 ethnographic correlates encourages the affirmation of ethnographic data (e.g., Lekson 2002;
Waguespack 2002). Fourth, the use of cultural anthropological theory incorrectly promotes a commitment to presentism, which assumes that the sources of archaeological variability are equivalent to the sources of contemporary cultural variability (Trigger 2006:26).
These problems have perpetuated a dependence on cultural anthropology, which has denied archaeology its own theory and the opportunity for archaeologists to conceptualize the archaeological record on its own terms (e.g., Sullivan [ed.] 2008). The reflectionist approach is inaccurate because the sources of anthropological and archaeological phenomena cannot be assumed to be equivalent. The archaeological record does not remain static; rather it is endlessly transformed by virtue of the actions of human and non-human agents that contribute to contemporary archaeological variability (Lucas 2005). Hence, archaeological research that is constrained by frameworks derived from cultural anthropology is inappropriate because of the vast differences that exist in subject matter as well as the events and processes that modify and create the archaeological phenomena being investigated (e.g., Sullivan 2007; Wobst 1978).
Fort Ancient Cultural Tradition
Fort Ancient is a collective term used to refer to Late Prehistoric (A.D. 1000-1670) archaeological complexes of the middle Ohio Valley (Drooker 1996). Although Fort Ancient cultural characteristics were first recognized in the literature by Frederick Ward Putnam of the
Peabody Museum at Harvard University (Putnam 1886:500), the Fort Ancient label was coined by William C. Mills (1906:134-136) to differentiate sites in the Scioto and Miami River drainage systems from the antecedent Adena and Hopewell cultural traditions that resided in the same geographic area during the earlier Woodland Period (Cook 2008:33).
3
Foremost, it is important to recognize that the term Fort Ancient is an archaeological construct for societies that are thought to share similar geography, village orientations, subsistence practices, and material culture during the late prehistory of the middle Ohio Valley
(Griffin 1978). The term Fort Ancient therefore masks the considerable temporal and spatial variability that existed during the last centuries before sustained European contact by homogenizing cultural variation into a convenient label that is used to refer to archaeological phenomena that are interconnected by means of a shared cultural trait list. As further Fort
Ancient research has been conducted, however, it has become clear that, “while they are unified by various material traits, the best way to view Fort Ancient societies is to take into account regional adaptations to local conditions” (Cowan 1998:287). Our understanding of Fort Ancient cultural development has improved dramatically due to large-scale research projects aimed at understanding major changes over time in areas with varying environmental and geographic conditions, including southwestern Ohio (Cowan 1986; Drooker 1996, 1997; Essenpreis 1982;
Riggs 1986), eastern Ohio and West Virginia (Church 1987; Graybill 1981) as well as northern and central Kentucky (Henderson [ed.] 1992; Henderson and Turnbow 1987).
Trajectory of Fort Ancient Archaeological Research
The Fort Ancient tradition existed over a geographic area that is roughly 31,000 miles2
(Cowan 1998:287). However, the traits that were initially used to tie all of the societies of this region together were based largely on ceramic criteria deciphered from museum collections (e.g.,
Griffin 1943). Ceramically, the emergence of Fort Ancient societies is marked by the adoption of shell as a tempering medium and the appearance of appendages and incised or trailed motifs on jars (Pollack et al. 2008:241). As the primary definer of the “Fort Ancient Aspect,” James B.
Griffin’s (1943:2, 327-341) goal was to “find and isolate smaller groupings within the larger
4 cultural whole” by using the McKern (1939) or Midwestern Taxonomic System, which employs a comparative trait list to quantify the degree of similarity between sites, and by extension cultures. In doing so, Griffin (1943:3) viewed ceramics as the “most important single factor in the interpretation of archaeological cultural relationships” and used ceramic distributions to define his geographically oriented Baum, Anderson, Feurt, and Madisonville foci.
Griffin (1943:207) recognized that the four regional foci reflected temporal differences due to the presence of Euroamerican trade goods at the Madisonville Site and observed definite connections between Fort Ancient and the Woodland traditions from the northeast, but with southeastern influences shaping the former. In effect, Griffin believed the Fort Ancient tradition
“to represent a number of different groups with Woodland antecedents, who became more
Mississippianized as Mississippian traits moved into the region” (Henderson and Turnbow
1992:12). Simply put, Fort Ancient cultural developments appear to have been in situ, blending
Late Woodland and Mississippian forms to mitigate environmental and economic risk due to population growth and an increasing dependence on agriculture (Nass and Yerkes 1998:62).
As important as Griffin’s (1943) seminal work on Fort Ancient archaeology was in creating a model in which modern researchers still work, it seriously restricted the development of local and regional chronologies. Problems arose in part due not only to the lack of provenience and stratigraphic controls during early excavations, and the limited number of Fort
Ancient sites excavated at the time of his research, but also because of major complications stemming from Griffin’s use of the McKern Classification System and the need for absolute dating techniques (Henderson and Turnbow 1992:12). These problems convoluted the identification of multiple components at single sites, which enabled a synchronic view of the
Fort Ancient cultural tradition and confounded early attempts at developing an accurate pan-Fort
5
Ancient chronology in the middle Ohio Valley. Consequently, after the advent of radiocarbon dating, development of a Fort Ancient chronology with a diachronic system of phases to offset the synchronic system of foci put forth by Griffin became a major theme in Fort Ancient research
(Drooker 1997:72).
To create a diachronic phase system, several projects aimed to develop chronological sequences based on museum collections, regional surveys, stratigraphically controlled excavations, radiocarbon dating, and seriation of horizon marker artifacts and feature attributes
(Church 1987; Cowan 1986; Drooker 1996; Essenpreis 1982; Graybill 1981; Henderson [ed.]
1992; Henderson and Turnbow 1987; Riggs 1986). These research projects identified several sub-regional Fort Ancient traditions that developed in situ during the Early and Middle Fort
Ancient Periods (A.D. 1000-1450), eventually merging into a Late Fort Ancient regional tradition designated the Madisonville Horizon (A.D. 1450-1670) (Drooker 1997:66). Ceramics continued to be important as they were pivotal in making distinctions between phases where diverse styles and a variety of tempering materials differentiate Early-Middle Fort Ancient sub- regions, whereas Madisonville Series jars with strap handles, undecorated necks, and unthickened everted rims are most common at Late Fort Ancient sites (Drooker 2000:239).
After the development of a tripartite Fort Ancient chronology that emphasized regional diachronic phases, archaeologists began to focus on Fort Ancient subsistence practices, health, settlement patterns, socioeconomic organization, and exchange networks. Only by the latter part of the 1980s had enough data from stratigraphic excavations, radiocarbon assays, and comprehensive mapping of site features been accumulated to allow for “diachronic treatment of all aspects of material culture” (Drooker 1997:72). Since then several projects have focused on defining sub-regional development patterns from the Early through Late Fort Ancient Periods in
6 southeastern Ohio (Carskadden and Morten 2000), the upper Ohio Valley (Nass and Hart 2000), northern and central Kentucky (Henderson et al. 1992; Pollack and Henderson 1992, 2000) and southwestern Ohio (Cowan et al. 1990; Drooker 2000; Essenpreis 1988; Riggs 1998).
Recent Fort Ancient research has focused on creating finer resolution data on interaction patterns, exchange networks, and European contact and trade. Penelope Drooker (1996; 1997;
2000) has compiled an extensive information base regarding Fort Ancient interaction from the perspective of the Madisonville Site in the lower Little Miami River Valley. Drooker’s research has drawn heavily from museum collections and has greatly increased our understanding of Fort
Ancient interaction networks with European, Mississippian, Oneota, Iroquoian, and Northern
Ohio peoples. Robert Cook (2007, 2008) and others (Essenpreis 1978; Nass and Yerkes 1998;
Pollack et. al 2002) have focused on Fort Ancient social complexity as well as Mississippian and
Fort Ancient interactions. Other areas of recent Fort Ancient research have included studies related to architecture (Cook and Genheimer 2014; Cowan et al. 1990), subsistence (Genheimer and Hedeen 2014; Grooms 1999; Ramsey-Styer 1995; Shane 1987; Wagner 1986; 1987; 1996), social organization (Heilman 1988), demographic and biological affinities (Cook and Schurr
2009; Geisen 1992), lithic technology (Bradbury et al. 2011; Cook and Comstock 2014; Nass
1992), pit formation processes (Genheimer 2013), as well as regional variation in the adoption of crushed mussel shell as a tempering medium in Kentucky (Pollack et al. 2008), and southwestern
Ohio (Cook and Fargher 2008; Genheimer 2014).
Fort Ancient Development
The emergence of Fort Ancient societies during the eleventh century is marked by archaeological evidence that indicates the adoption of crushed mussel shell as a ceramic temper, a greater dependence on maize agriculture, population nucleation, and an increase in sedentism
7
(Drooker 2000; Pollack et al. 2008:241). Due to the location of Fort Ancient territory near several important trails and water transportation routes, there is little question that the spark that instigated these transformations traveled up the Ohio River from Mississippian societies in southwestern Indiana and central Kentucky (Cook 2008; Pollack et al. 2002). However, it is also generally accepted that there was significant population continuity between the Late Woodland and Fort Ancient Periods that gradually changed cultural behavior reflecting regional variation and the escalating importance of maize and agricultural subsistence (Griffin 1978:551).
Evidence for population continuity between Woodland and Fort Ancient cultural traditions can be found at several Early and Middle Fort Ancient settlements where burial mounds are not uncommon as well as in ceramic technology where blending of Late Woodland and Fort Ancient ceramic characteristics has been observed throughout the middle Ohio Valley
(Church 1987; Griffin 1943; 1967; 1978; Essenpreis 1982; Pollack et al. 2008; Riggs 1986).
Earthwork construction had been entrenched within the ideology of the prehistoric cultures of the
Eastern Woodlands for centuries, but in contrast to the Woodland Period, mound-building activities had ceased by the Madisonville Horizon around A.D. 1450 (Sharp 1996:182).
Likewise, ceramic traditions had been present in the Ohio River Valley since at least the Early
Woodland Period; however, shell temper became the predominant tempering medium with the development of the Fort Ancient tradition, which offset the use of rock temper (Lewis 1996).
General Fort Ancient Characteristics
In each region of the Fort Ancient culture area, similar developmental patterns are reflected in three broad stages: (1), the appearance of small, sometimes planned villages during the eleventh and twelfth centuries; (2), the emergence of large, planned villages by the thirteenth century; and (3), the disintegration of planned villages and the depopulation of the Ohio River
8
Valley during the latter half of the seventeenth century (Cowan 1986, 1998:287; Graybill 1981).
Fort Ancient communities in all stages consisted of permanent settlements that were located primarily along the Ohio River and its tributaries. The inhabitants of these villages practiced floodplain agriculture and supplemented agricultural produce by hunting and gathering (Wagner
1986, 1987, 1996). At least by the Middle Fort Ancient Period, collected and agricultural resources were stored in deep subterranean storage pits and large ceramic vessels to mitigate seasonal fluctuations in wild food resource availability and agricultural production (e.g., Cowan
1987:20-21; Nass 1987:150-152; Wagner 1987, 1996). In contrast to antecedent Woodland cultures, an egalitarian social structure is reflected in the mortuary patterns of most Fort Ancient societies as differences in Fort Ancient mortuary treatment appear to reflect personal achievements, individual age, and sex (Griffin 1992; Henderson et al. 1992; Sharp 1996).
Anderson Phase. In southwestern Ohio, the Anderson Phase is synonymous with the
Middle Fort Ancient Period. Middle Fort Ancient villages were composed of a number of single- family households with nuclear families representing the basic social building block (Cowan
1987:16; 1998; Henderson et al. 1992). During the Anderson Phase, ceramic types, referred to as
Anderson Series occurred in the Great and Little Miami River Valleys (Essenpreis 1982:5).
Although shell versus non-shell temper was one of Griffin’s (1943:117, 192, 344) primary distinctions between Anderson and Madisonville Series ceramics, Essenpreis (1982:197) and
Riggs (1986; 1998) have shown that shell-tempered Anderson Series ceramics are present at Fort
Ancient sites throughout southwestern Ohio and occur earlier at sites closer to the Ohio River.
Importantly, the Anderson Series ceramic type blends several Woodland elements with those “apparently derived from the Middle Mississippi ceramic complex, reflecting the addition of Mississippian elements to a distinct, Woodland-based cultural tradition” (Essenpreis 1982:5).
9
Morphologically, Anderson Series ceramics resemble Late Woodland examples in size, wall thickness and form as well as indicate the widespread adoption of shell temper (Essenpreis
1982:197; Riggs 1986). Furthermore, Anderson Series ceramics have thickened rims and incised neck decorations that included interconnecting lines, referred to as guilloche, and followed by triangle motifs in distinct sub-regional styles (Drooker 2000). Over time, rim folds became more prevalent and appendages changed from loop handles to strap handles (Pollack et al. 2008:243).
Madisonville Horizon. Increasing homogeneity is most evident after A.D. 1450 during the Madisonville Horizon, which is characterized not only “by less widespread settlement locations and a possible increase in external exchange, but also by increased interregional similarity in ceramic styles” (Drooker 1997:48). After the Madisonville Horizon, floor plans of
Fort Ancient houses became larger, suggesting that multi-family dwellings were a more common form of housing during the Late Fort Ancient Period (Cowan 1987:17; Henderson et al.
1992:275). Hence, after the Madisonville Horizon, when population densities across the middle
Ohio Valley increased and became more nucleated, extended families or kin-related groups may have constituted a typical Late Fort Ancient household (Henderson et al. 1992:272). These generalizations suggest that Fort Ancient social organization transitioned from autonomous villages into a larger tribal entity during the Madisonville Horizon when population influx and material culture similarities increased within the Fort Ancient region as a whole (Drooker 1996).
After A.D. 1450, shell was the only temper in use by most Fort Ancient societies and smooth or cordmarked vessels with undecorated necks and thin strap handles spread across the
Fort Ancient region (Drooker 1997:48). Bowls, a previously minor vessel form also became more prevalent, and a new ceramic vessel form—pans—appeared in the middle Ohio Valley
(Sharp 1996:171). These ceramic developments, as well as changes lithic technology (Bradbury
10 et al. 20011; Cook and Comstock 2014; Railey 1992), settlement patterns (Drooker 1997;
Pollack and Henderson 1992), and mortuary practices “reflect increased interaction among [Late]
Fort Ancient groups; and between Fort Ancient and Mississippian groups to the southeast”
(Pollack et al. 2008:244). Simply put, the Madisonville Horizon marks widespread trends in the
Ohio River Valley in the final centuries before sustained European contact (Sharp 1996:170).
Thesis Outline
Chapter 1 has served to introduce the research problem of this thesis—sources of ceramic variability and Fort Ancient pit-filling histories at the Hahn’s Field Site—and has outlined some of the salient characteristics of Fort Ancient cultural development and the trajectory of Fort
Ancient archaeological research. The following chapter will provide background information about formation and discard processes, while also offering a review of the ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence for pit formation and usage. Chapter 3 will introduce the case study and outline the sampling and analysis methodology used in this research. Location, setting, geography, climate, and excavation history at the Hahn’s Field Site will be addressed while an outline of the sampling and analytical procedures employed in this thesis will also be provided.
Chapter 4 will present the results of the compiled data analysis by discussing the frequency and descriptive statistics of the 25% ceramic subsample analyzed for this study as well as the identifiable patterns in the data. Chapter 5 will provide interpretations for the filling histories of
Features 37, 38, and 146 and will conclude the study by contextualizing the results within the current body of Fort Ancient archaeological data by presenting inferences about the discard of ceramics during the Middle and Late Fort Ancient Periods at the Hahn’s Field Site.
11
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND
This chapter provides background information and outlines the theoretical framework for this thesis by introducing important concepts about formation and discard processes. In addition, a brief review of the ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence for pit formation and usage will also be offered. Through an examination of the ceramic assemblages recovered from the Upper and Lower Zones of three pit features that were functionally and morphologically dissimilar, this research seeks to better understand Fort Ancient ceramic discard practices and pit formation processes at the Hahn’s Field Site without a dependence on observational accounts.
Formation Processes
Formation processes—which are typically distinguished on the basis of the agents involved in manipulating archaeological deposits—are core concepts in contemporary archaeology that are especially important in generating well-supported inferences about past human behavior (Schiffer 1983, 1987). That is, variability is introduced into the archaeological record through human activities as well as through natural processes. Consequently, an appreciation of sources of variability is essential to determining the appropriateness of certain kinds of archaeological phenomena for particular research questions (Sullivan and Dibble 2014).
An understanding of formation theory, the integrated corpus of concepts designed to portray how information comes to be represented by items and surfaces (Shott 1998; 2006), therefore functions to reduce distortions or biases and enhance the image of past behavior contained within archaeological deposits. Understandably, an accurate conception of the processes that form and modify archaeological deposits is critical to correctly interpreting archaeological variability.
12
The Nature of Archaeological Evidence
The objects that survive from the past to be examined by archaeologists exist in the archaeological record. The archaeological record is a contemporary phenomenon that exhibits inconstant content, extent, as well as exposures and is ambiguous with respect to its origins
(Sullivan 2008a). The events and processes that affect the characteristics of the archaeological record are known as formation processes (Schiffer 1972). Formation processes are of two basic types: anthropogenic formation processes (AFP, also known as “cultural” formation processes), which register modifications to surfaces and matter caused by human activity, and environmental formation processes (EFP, also known as “natural” formation processes), which manipulate anthropogenic arrangements of matter or surfaces through the actions of earth dynamics, vegetation growth patterns, and animal behavior (Schiffer 1987; Sullivan and Dibble
2014:6688). In effect, formation processes generate anomalies in natural ecosystems, which create and modify the physical properties of artifacts and sites. These modifications register the interactions and subsequent alterations resulting from AFP and EFP, which furnish evidence for the past societies and environments that archaeologists wish to study (Sullivan and Dibble 2014).
The archaeological record is not equivalent to the behavioral system that acted to produce it due to a variety of variables that affect the structure of material remains, and by extension, the nature of the sample that archaeologists manipulate in order to generate data (Schiffer 2010). In fact, as a contemporary phenomenon, the archaeological record can be considered as the current expression of the cumulative effects of AFP and EFP (Sullivan 2008a). As a result, it is useful to distinguish between archaeological context and systemic context. Systemic context refers to artifacts that are participating in a behavioral system, whereas archaeological context refers to artifacts that interact only with the natural environment (Schiffer 1972).
13
A variety of processes are constantly affecting the structure of archaeological deposits as they are being formed and before they are encountered by an archaeologist. Evidence for these processes come to be “mapped onto” artifacts and sites as specific modifications to their physical properties—known as traces—which are related to procurement, manufacture, transport, use- stages, and depositional history (Sullivan 1978:194-195). Coupled with the trace concept is the idea of trace production context, or any “situation where there is potential for traces to be mapped onto items and surfaces” (Sullivan 1978:195). Importantly, trace production is context- dependent, which means that it is expected that only certain kinds of traces will be produced in a given context (Krause and Thorne 1971). Indeed, a consideration of traces and trace production contexts enables the study of the archaeological record because archaeologists are interested in conceptualizing the factors that contribute to contemporary archaeological variability.
Since the occurrence of certain formation processes is determined by specific causative variables, an accurate knowledge of formation processes assists in elucidating biases, which investigators seek as evidence so that specific biases can be taken into account to allow for more efficient data collection and interpretation (Reid 1985). As discussed by Sullivan (1978:191), the
“preeminent problem in archaeological methodology” is how the properties of material remains are to be separated according to the factors surrounding their production. The concern rests in the uncertainty between inferences that are offered and the evidence, or lack thereof, which is used to support or generate inferences. Hence, well-supported conclusions about past phenomena are requisites for explanation where archaeologists should be concerned with linking inferences to the agencies and forces involved in the formation of archaeological deposits (Lucas 2012).
Today it is generally accepted that an understanding of formation processes is necessary to furnish strong evidence for inferences about prehistoric behavior and site formation. Certainly,
14 several research strategies have been devised, including ethnoarchaeology (Binford 1978;
Longacre 1991), behavioral archaeology (Schiffer 1976; 2010), geoarchaeology (Butzer 1982;
Goldberg and Macphail 2006), and vertebrate taphonomy (Shipman 1981) to postulate new principles and methods in order to understand the formation of archaeological deposits. In fact, due to advances in ethnoarchaeology, experimental archaeology, and largely geoarchaeology, phenomena that were once seen as obstacles to interpretation are now seen as research opportunities to explain why, for example, artifacts have the properties they do (Weiner 2010).
Properties of Artifacts
Formation processes influence several properties of artifacts, including size, density, shape, orientation and dip, use life factors, damage, vertical and horizontal distribution, as well as artifact diversity (Schiffer 1983). Following is a brief review regarding the effects of formation processes on two important artifact properties: size and damage.
Size. Alterations in artifact size come about because formation processes can reduce the size of artifacts or sort artifact deposits by size (Schiffer 1983). Modifications to an artifact’s size can originate due to a variety of anthropogenic and environmental disturbances, including wind, water, carnivore damage, plowing, reuse, and trampling by people, animals, or machines
(Behrensmeyer 1978; Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985; Navazo and Diez 2008). In addition, artifact size sorting can originate as a result of AFP, such as clean-up activities (Schiffer 1976), plowing
(Odell and Cowan 1987), trampling (Stockton 1973), and refuse disposal in regularly maintained areas (McKeller 1983), as well as EFP related to wind, water, freeze-thaw cycles, vegetation, and animals (Butzer 1982). However, artifact properties like size present problems of equifinality because size distortions can come about due to a myriad of formation processes (Sullivan 1992).
15
Damage. Damage is perhaps the most common artifact property resulting from exposure to formation processes. Indeed, many formation processes leave behind recognizable damage patterns (e.g., Goodyear 1971). On one hand, damage can be produced by EFP, such as wind and water transportation, exposure to particles transported through fluvial and aeolian processes, or as a result of freeze-thaw cycles, vegetation growth patterns, or animal behavior (Dibble 2008;
Schiffer and Skibo 1989). On the other hand, ethnoarchaeological and experimental studies have shown that variability is also introduced through AFP, including trampling and cooking, as well as anomalies resulting from stages of artifact production and reuse (Schiffer 1990; 2010).
Trampling is a form of damage that is common at areas inhabited for long periods of time—such as Hahn’s Field—and is important to recognize because it reflects the depositional history of a site (Reitz and Wing 2010:138-139). The effects of trampling are dependent on (1) the occurrence of materials on the ground; (2) the intensity and duration of trampling; and (3) the nature of the surface sediments (Schiffer 1987:126). Certainly, trampling can leave many traces, some of which may indicate or obscure specific formation processes (e.g., Tringham et al. 1974).
General Formation Process Principles
A few general principles can be formulated about formation processes. First, formation processes are most often distinguished—as related to causes and consequences—on the basis of the agents involved in producing traces, including both anthropogenic and environmental catalysts (Sullivan and Dibble 2014). Second, the archaeological record is endlessly transformed as AFP and EFP manipulate matter and modify surfaces through time (Lucas 2005). Third, a large number of specific formation processes, or numerous combinations of different processes, can contribute to the formation of any archaeological deposit (Reid 1985). Fourth, some formation processes are highly predictable and can be identified through their effects, or traces,
16 which are themselves regular and predictable (Schiffer 1983). Fifth, the differentiation of some formation processes can be complicated by problems of equifinality where similar traces can be produced by different processes (Sullivan 1992). Sixth, formation processes act to modify four dimensions of variability in artifacts: formal, spatial, quantitative, and relational, which illustrates the diverse traces that AFP and EFP can “map onto” cultural materials (Schiffer 1987).
Discard Processes
The abandoned anthropogenic landscapes and material culture of past societies are the primary components of the archaeological record and what makes the study of past cultures possible. Indeed, it is a cultural universal that all human societies contribute various aspects of material culture into the natural ecosystems that they occupy. In effect, abandonment and discard are the processes by which artifacts are incorporated into the archaeological record (Shott 1989).
Refuse Disposal
Refuse disposal is an activity that consists of many different processes that can collectively act to generate diverse and variable deposits. Furthermore, refuse disposal modes can vary considerably from site to site (e.g., Ward 1985). For example, after discard processes are initiated, refuse can be subjected to various human activities, including storage, compacting, burning, child’s play, trampling, maintenance, and reuse which collectively or singularly can manipulate cultural deposits while they are being created and before they are encountered by an archaeologist (Schiffer 1987). This leads us to the logical question: what items are discarded?
In American archaeology, artifacts that were often discarded include items from general household activities such as broken tools, pottery, and the waste products from food processing or tool manufacturing efforts, such as animal bones, charcoal, shell, FCR, and lithic debitage
17
(Dickens 1985). Regardless, surfaces and items were most often discarded when they were no longer capable of serving specific functions or as a result of abandonment. Hence, discard was usually a result of loss or change in a surface or artifact’s form—during or after production—that results in a reduction in its utility. Moreover, several major types of discard processes have been identified: (1) breakage in production, (2) abandonment during or after production, (3) loss or breakage in use, (4) recycling, (5) abandonment in use, and (6) depletion (Shott 1989:17-19).
Excessive wear or breakage are the most common properties necessitating discard. On one hand, wear can be considered as a “universal process that gradually reduces the ability of artifacts or their parts to perform techno-functions,” on the other hand, breakage is “an abrupt mechanical failure of an artifact or one of its parts” (Schiffer 1987:48). Wear can be subdivided based on the removal or addition of material. Accretion (sometimes called residue) denotes instances where a substance accumulates on an artifact’s surface (Schiffer 1983:684), while attrition refers to the removal of part of an artifact’s surface (Skibo 2012:119). Accretion and attrition can develop due to use-wear, or wear that results in modifications to a tool’s physical properties do to usage (Andrefsky 2005:143). Simply put, the more times that an artifact spends in use, the more damage related to use-wear the artifact will experience and the greater the probability of breakage. Similarly, the more times that artifacts are moved, the more breakage or wear that an assemblage is expected to have experienced prior to recovery (Rosenwig 2009:15).
Primary, Secondary, and De Facto Refuse
Archaeologically, the location of discard is of great interest and a distinction can also be made for different types of deposition. Primary refuse includes artifacts that were discarded at their place of use, whereas secondary refuse is any artifact that was discarded away from its activity-related location (Schiffer 2010:34). De facto refuse on the other hand refers to cultural
18 materials that have been abandoned but are still usable (Schiffer 2010:34). It is uncommon for archaeologists to encounter large amounts of primary refuse in habitation areas because repeatedly used activity areas, such as roads, plazas, courtyards, and structures are often cleaned and maintained so that the accumulation of discarded items related to the activity being performed would not eventually interfere with the activity performance (Schiffer 1987).
As would be expected then, archaeologists more often encounter large accumulations of secondary refuse because it tends to accumulate in predictable localities, often concentrating in patterned ways at areas occupied for long periods of time (Schiffer 1976:30). Consequently, it is anticipated that an increase in sedentism or population density, will result in an increase in the ratio between secondary and primary refuse (Schiffer 1972). That is, settlements with long occupation spans are expected to generate more secondary refuse than settlements with short occupation spans. Similarly, settlements with intense occupations consisting of numerous individuals or focused on labor-intensive activities such as resource procurement, processing or craft production, for example, are expected to generate more secondary refuse than settlements with moderate populations or minimal activity intensity. Furthermore, in situations where secondary deposits accumulate over extended periods of time, their composition can also reflect the number of people living at a site (Rosenwig 2009:2). Regardless, natural depressions, empty structures and pits, as well as borrow areas for clay or other resources are attractive localities for incidental and purposeful refuse accumulation at most sites (e.g., Cameron 1990; Dickens 1985).
Maintenance Processes and Waste Streams
It is also useful to distinguish between different types of maintenance. Regular maintenance is carried out at scheduled intervals, while ad hoc maintenance is unscheduled, usually arising with the completion of an activity or in response to a breakage or spillage event
19
(Schiffer 1987:64-65). Many variables determine the frequency of regular maintenance, but
“rates of refuse generation, frequency of activity area use, and variety of activities performed” are the primary factors explaining variability in regular maintenance behavior (Schiffer 1987:65).
Regular maintenance can also be ritually prescribed, such as in the renewal ceremonies practiced in the American Southeast where participants ritually cleaned living spaces and discarded old and worn out possessions, some of which were probably serviceable items (Hodge 1907).
Regular and ad hoc maintenance processes form the basis for waste streams or flows of refuse, which can combine in various ways, often involve provisional refuse areas, and terminate in secondary refuse areas (Schiffer 1987:66). The primary concern for waste stream analysis is to understand how activity areas have contributed to the formation of various secondary refuse deposits through time at a particular settlement. Indeed, waste streams often lead to refuse concentrations—a phenomenon known as the Arlo Guthrie trash-magnet effect—where people tend to discard refuse in areas where others have previously done so (Wilk and Schiffer 1979).
Hence, knowledge of the specific waste streams in a settlement is critical for identifying patterns of artifact distribution and association in secondary refuse (Schiffer 1987:67). For instance,
Hayden and Cannon (1983) concluded that secondary refuse disposal is conditioned by three major areas of concern in the Maya Highlands: disposal effort, potential refuse value, and refuse hindrance potential. Knowledge of these types of behavioral tendencies is vital to understanding variability in refuse disposal and the formation of secondary refuse deposits.
Following is a brief review of the ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence for pit formation and usage. It is important to keep the principles of formation and discard processes in mind as an emphasis will be placed on the limitations of ethnohistoric correlates as applied to the interpretation of phenomena deposited by cultures that lack substantial ethnohistoric accounts.
20
Such is the case for the societies of the Fort Ancient tradition, as the middle Ohio Valley was one of the last areas of Eastern North America to be explored by Europeans (Sharp 1996:181).
Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Evidence for Pit Features
Ethnohistoric and archaeological literature is rich with references for pit usage in both the
Old World and New World. The most significant research involving pits has been focused toward food and seed storage (Bendremer et. al 1991; Bowen and Wood 1967; DeBoer 1988;
Grooms 1999; Martinek 1998; Reynolds 1967, 1969, 1974; Smyth 1989; Wescott 2008; Wesson
1999; Wills 1988), cooking and food processing strategies (Greenhouse et al. 1981; Thoms 2008;
Wandsnider 1997), hide tanning (Binford 1967; Skibo et al. 2006), discard patterns (Deal 1985;
Hayden and Cannon 1983; Hutson and Stanton 2007; Rosenwig 2009; Wilson Jr. 1985; Vickery et al. 2000), feature seasonality (Cook 2007; Dickens 1985; Ramsey-Styer 1995), consumption patterns (LeeDecker 1994), ritual feasting and artifact caching (Greber 1996; Turner 2011;
Yerkes 2005), site abandonment (Cameron 1990), sociopolitical organization (Barrier 2011;
Heilman 1988; Ward 1985; Wymer 1997), as well as the subsistence economies of extant and prehistoric populations (Cowan 1978; Genheimer and Hedeen 2014; King and McMilan 1975;
Smith 1985, 1989; Wagner 1986, 1987, 1996; Watson 1988; Wilk 1983; Wills 1988).
Archaeologists have often drawn upon ethnohistoric accounts as potential correlates for interpreting archaeologically encountered pit features (e.g., Will and Hyde 1964). However, an overreliance on ethnohistoric accounts has been problematic because “a scientist does not justifiably employ analogies to ethnographic observations for the interpretation of archaeological data” due to the proclivity of projecting contemporary characteristics into the explanation of the past (Binford 1967:1). Hence, this section will relate ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence
21 for pit formation and usage from selected Old World and New World examples with particular attention focused toward the inadequacies of ethnographic accounts as correlates for interpreting archaeologically encountered pit features. It is important to recognize that, in most cases, ethnographic studies can only show us possibilities, and cannot give comprehensive, definitive answers about the majority of archaeological problems (Evans and O’ Connor 1999:181-188).
Ethnohistoric Evidence
In the ethnohistoric literature, many observational accounts suggest that pits primarily functioned to conceal or store important commodities. However, rarely do storage pits contain the initial stored contents when encountered archaeologically and many pits served alternative functions for hide tanning, resource procurement, cooking, or food processing (Binford 1978).
Regardless of such alternative functions, one commonality for all types of pits is that they were often reused to dispose of refuse after their primary function was exhausted. Indeed, it is probable that storage, cooking, structure and hide tanning pits, with large below-ground capacities and decreased opportunity for refuse dispersal, would have represented desirable localities for purposeful and incidental garbage accumulation (Dickens 1985).
In the Old World, ethnohistoric accounts validate caching presumptions by suggesting that pits were constructed to store agricultural resources as a buffer against warfare and seasonal fluctuations in food availability. Tacitus, for example, describes pit storage and caching among the Germans while also commenting on their effectiveness at concealing valuable commodities:
They are also accustomed to dig underground chambers and they cover them with a great deal of dung; these serve as … a storage area for crops… and, if ever an enemy comes, he lays waste the open places while the hidden and buried ones are unknown or escape attention for the very reason that they have to be searched for [Tacitus, in Bernario 1967:48].
22
The importance of this ethnohistoric account not only rests in the connection between subterranean storage and agricultural resources, but it also relates another benefit of pit storage: namely that of concealment and protection from enemies during times of persistent warfare or envious friends during periods of environmental stress or food shortage (see DeBoer 1988).
Parallels to this function existed in the New World as well. Frontenac, for example commented during the 1696 French campaign against the Onondaga, that it took two days of “digging up the caches, or hidden stores of food, and destroying their contents” (Parkman 1966:413). Hence, the same discrete qualities that allowed subterranean pits to function for commodity concealment were also ideal for the concealment of garbage (Dickens 1985:42-43). This should hardly be surprising as subterranean pits were a convenient locality to discretely dispose of hazardous or odorous materials such as lithic flakes, sharp bone fragments, and decomposing organic matter.
In the New World, the majority of ethnohistoric accounts relating pit usage are similar to the provided testimony from the Old World. That is, many Late Prehistoric and Early Historic
American Indian pits from the Atlantic to the Missouri River apparently served concealment or storage functions (DeBoer 1988). Using pits for concealment or caching suggests that the threat of theft and marauding during times of site abandonment or warfare were strong pressures that required contingency behaviors to insure the protection of important commodities, at least during and after Euro-American contact. Mathews’ observational account of the Hidatsa identifies concealment and storage behavior on the Great Plains while briefly commenting on pit recycling:
When these Indians harvested their crops, and before they start their winter-hunt, they dig caches, or clear out those dug in previous years… Reserving a small portion of corn, dried squash, etc., for winter use, they deposit the remainder in these subterranean stor-houses, along with household utensils, and other articles of value which they wish to leave behind. They then fill up the orifices with earth, which they trample down and rake over; thus obliterating every trace of the excavation [Mathews, in Bushnell 1922:150].
23
Geographically closer to the middle Ohio River Valley, Miami and Iroquois ethnohistoric evidence informing pit usage are of particular interest for comparison to Fort Ancient communities. Charlevoix, for instance, commented that the Miami “when they are obliged to be from home for any time, or when they apprehend some irruption of the enemy,… make great concealments underground” (Kinietz 1972:41). In addition and with greater detail, Morgan
(1995:311) describes Iroquoian pit storage while also commenting on construction methods, maize roasting pits, pit frequencies, and alternative storage capabilities aside from agricultural:
The Iroquois were accustomed to bury their surplus corn, and also their charred green corn, in caches, in which the former would preserve uninjured through the year, and the latter for a much longer period. They excavate a pit, made a bark bottom and sides, having deposited their corn within it, a bark roof, water tight, was constructed over it, and the whole covered up with earth. Pits of charred corn are still found near ancient settlements. Cured venison and other meats were buried in the same manner, except that the bark repository was lined with deer skins [Morgan 1995:311].
Other sources of ethnohistoric evidence, such as that from the Choctaw (Bushnell 1909),
Natchez (Swanton 1911), and Creek (Swanton 1946) suggest that small pits were also used in the tanning process of deerskins in the American Southeast (Binford 1967). Swanton (1946) for example notes that the Creek excavated pits, referred to as “smudge pits” by Lewis Binford
(1967), to tan animal hides with smoke from corncobs in the following passage:
They scooped a hole in the ground, built a fire in it, and put corncobs upon this so that a thick smoke was produced with little flame. The hide was fastened down over this pit with the other surface down and left until it was smoked yellow [Swanton 1946:445].
The importance of this observational account and others with close similarities (see
Bushnell 1909; Hilger 1952; Swanton 1911) is that they show that pit features containing corn
24 cobs within the pit fill, could have had alternative functions that differ from the agricultural storage interpretation favored by many archaeologists. Not only does the use of pits for hide tanning highlight alternative pit uses, but it also shows that the presence of corn within pit-fill is not necessarily indicative of storage or cooking functions. That is, Swanton’s (1946) observation indicates that the use of analogy for the interpretation of archaeological phenomena is not as obvious as the ethnohistoric literature may suggest, but may instead facilitate misinformation.
The above sample of ethnohistoric evidence is adequate to show that some of the primary uses for pits in both the Old and New Worlds were for storage, concealment, and tanning. These ethnohistoric accounts are potentially useful for informing possible pit feature functions in the present area of study—the middle Ohio Valley of the American Midwest—but should be utilized with caution, serving only as a “foundation of a series of deductively drawn hypotheses which, on testing, can refute or tend to confirm the postulate offered” (Binford 1967:1).
Much of the archaeological research involving pit features has been concerned with potential food storage capabilities and what insight about cultural development, sociopolitical organization, and subsistence practices can be acquired from understanding pit frequencies and distributions at large archaeological sites (Genheimer and Hedeen 2014; Heilman 1988;
Martinek 1999; Smyth 1989; Wagner 1987; Wesson 1999; Wills 1988). The majority of this literature has echoed the ethnohistoric evidence that pit features primarily served storage functions while overlooking the refuse-filled archaeological manifestation of pit features as important sources of information about discard behavior.
Unfortunately, much of the work involving pit deposits has disregarded pits that likely served functions related to food processing and cooking. Important exceptions exist in the ethnoarchaeological work regarding cholla-bud roasting pits in the American Southwest
25
(Greenhouse et al. 1981), as well as the work of Hayden and Cousins (2004), which addresses the social dimensions of archaic hunter-gatherer root and nut roasting pits on the plateau of
Northwestern North America. Thoms (2008:449) also presents convincing evidence for pit cooking variability in Western North America by explaining that the Kootenai were apt to use pits as a “closed earth oven for baking in a basin-shaped pit with rocks heated therein” as well as a “closed steaming pit” and “stone boiling pit” with rocks heated in a nearby hearth.
The cross-cultural study of Wandsnider (1997) shows the importance of pit cooking for processing large amounts of food and as a means of changing the composition and chemistry of food tissues to make them more edible, less toxic, or more durable for storage. Hence, the work of Greenhouse et al. (1981), Hayden and Cousins (2004), Thoms (2008), and Wandsnider (1997) indicate that roasting and food processing pits are an important source of social and economic behavioral information that, in many cases, has been underutilized by North American archaeologists. Overlooking pits used for food processing or cooking is unfortunate because activities related to food collection, preparation, and cooking are “fundamental elements of human lifeways [that] are indicative of the manner in which people use the landscape” (Thoms
2008:443). In addition, because roasting and cooking pits were sometimes recycled from storage or borrow pits, they can also inform reuse and discard processes as well (Dickens 1985).
It is important to reiterate that American Indian ethnohistoric observations are limited when evaluating pit features created by cultures for which there is little ethnographic reference
(e.g., Wobst 1978). For many American Indian cultures, observational accounts by westerners may actually be representative of altered behavior due to European contact and acculturation processes (McGuire 1992; Pavao-Zuckerman 2004; Thoms 2008). Early ethnographic accounts can also project biased perspectives due to subsistence, technological, militaristic, and worldview
26 differences as well as the fact that many early ethnographic accounts were of secondary concern to primary objectives that included land acquisition, military surveillance, religious conversion, and monetary gain (Ethridge 2003; Mann 2011; McGuire 1992; Oswalt 2009).
The veracity of many American Indian ethnographic accounts in relation to pre-contact customs and behavior is questionable. For example, as noted by Thoms (2008:452), if we rely too heavily on ethnohistoric accounts in the American Southwest, the majority of which were collected by Euro-Americans in the 17th-19th centuries who passed through sections earlier traversed by Cabeza de Vaca, “we would come away believing that root foods were of minor importance… and that bison were abundant.” We know this is incorrect due to evidence that suggests the depopulation of the region on the heels of colonization where conflict had curtailed indigenous agricultural practices (Thoms 2008:452).
Similarly, how can archaeologists assume that the storage and caching behaviors observed in the Eastern Woodlands and on the Great Plains (i.e., Hidatsa, Iroquois, Omaha, etc.) during the 18th and 19th centuries were the primary function for archaeologically observed pit features? Because these observations occurred well after contact with Euro-Americans, it is difficult to justify concealment or caching behavior as the primary function for all pre-contact pit features encountered archaeologically when pits are more likely to be filled with domestic refuse than stored or cached commodities. The introduction of European culture, technology, animals, and diseases were all catalysts that disrupted pre-contact behavior and instigated transformations that necessitated the development of new behavior and customs to cope with a changing cultural landscape that was characterized by chronic and persistent warfare (Mann 2011; Oswalt 2009).
Not only did European technologies have a large impact on indigenous behavior but the
European demand for deerskins and slaves also transformed indigenous lifeways by causing a
27 shift from traditional agricultural or hunter-gatherer economies to a new capitalist market system
(Ethridge 2003:23). Participation in a new capitalist market system “locked Southeastern Indians into the global economy and required most Indians to learn a new way of making a living”
(Ethridge 2003:9). Widespread pit usage for concealment or storage, though plausible pre- contact functions, cannot be excluded as behavioral adaptations that were altered or manifested in response to the demographic catastrophes, cultural disruptions, and social dislocations associated with European arrival and acculturation. Because indigenous behavior was most often documented by Euro-Americans subsequent to acculturation processes, ethnohistoric observational accounts cannot be assumed to be equivalent to pre-contact behavior.
Archaeological Evidence
Pit features are often encountered in archaeological investigations throughout the New
World and are an important data set that has not been adequately realized by the archaeological community. Pit feature analyses have not reached their full potential because of the unstandardized description of pit features, the variable nature of archaeological sites, excavation methods, and goals that drive research, but also because pit feature literature “is consumed, if not hopelessly deflected, by technical and methodological concerns” (DeBoer 1988:3).
Although many Late Prehistoric pit features may have been constructed for storage purposes, when encountered archaeologically little evidence remains for pit uses prior to their archaeological manifestation as refuse-filled features. That is, the initial stored contents as well as the bark or grass linings that were used to keep out moisture and retard mold growth in ethnohistorically documented storage pits are almost always absent. The absence of stored contents and pit linings should not be surprising as stored resources are expected to be retrieved and organic materials are not conducive to long term preservation unless carbonized as part of pit
28 reuse processes. In addition, subterranean features “are subject to post-use modification through slumping, plowing, and other agencies” such as pit recycling, refuse deposition, cleaning, or modification due to rodents, insects or excavation techniques (DeBoer 1988:4-5; Schiffer 1987).
For example, Cowan et al. (1990:18, 20) suggested that the bell-shaped form of one pit feature encountered at the Schomaker Site (33Ha400), originated partially as a result of pit cleaning.
The problem of archaeologically encountered pit features is that they “do not automatically identify themselves as storage devices, earth ovens, borrow pits, hide smoking or pot smudging facilities, root casts, refuse containers, latrines, or by any other conceivable label”, but must be ascribed a function based on the analysis of feature forms, volumes, depositional histories, chronologies, contents, frequencies, and relationships or orientations to architectural features (DeBoer 1988:3). To complicate matters, idiosyncratic characteristics that correspond with soil types, environmental conditions, and chronological periods, as well as the possibility of several episodes of pit reuse and site reoccupation create considerable challenges for accurate pit feature interpretation (Grooms 1999). Indeed, the many variables surrounding archaeologically encountered pit features truly illustrate the palimpsest nature of their deposits.
In the absence of stored food and pit linings, how do archaeologists attempt to identify subterranean storage facilities? Similarly, how are earth ovens differentiated from storage pits?
The informing characteristics of pit features suspected of serving storage functions in the absence of stored foodstuffs or linings are shape and volume, where it is important to realize that storage pits are likely to have shapes that maximize volume. Theoretically, a subterranean sphere is the most efficient shape for a storage pit in order to maximize space as well as to reduce access points for water, animals, and insects, which could compromise the integrity of the stored resource through infestation or spoilage (DeBoer 1988). Interestingly, DeBoer (1988:5) has
29 suggested that the bell-shaped and cylindrical form of many suspected storage pits in Eastern
North America may have originated due to the difficulty associated with digging a subterranean sphere. That is, the bell-shaped and cylindrical form of numerous pit features throughout Eastern
North America may have been a result of constructing facilities that maximized volume.
In order to express the extent that archaeological features conform to an ideal storage morphology, several archaeologists have devised quantitative methods that use volume, orifice diameter, or pit depth to differentiate storage pits (e.g., Hatch and Stevenson 1980; Schroedl
1980; Siegel 1982; Stewart 1975; Webb 1992). In each of these cases, pit features are interpreted as storage pits if they surpass a specific size threshold. For instance, Webb (1992:94) classified features as storage pits if they were at least 35 cm deep with an estimated volume of at least 50 cubic decimeters at the Petitt Site (11Ax253) in Illinois, while Schroedl (1980:33) suggests that pits used for bulk storage would be larger than 1.12 cubic meters with depth-to-diameter ratios exceeding 0.40 at the historic Cherokee settlements of Chota and Tanasee. Similarly, Siegel
(1982:35) discusses a “storageability index” that focuses on the ratio of pit orifice area to pit volume when identifying pit features suspected of serving storage functions.
The identification of earth ovens is more straightforward than storage pits due to the presence of characteristics associated with heat insulation, cooking, and burning. Such characteristics include thermally altered or fire-cracked rock (FCR), rock linings, and close- proximity to a habitation structure, carbonized food resources, and large interior areas that exhibit burning (Dickens 1985:41). Obviously, the presence of large interior burned areas and carbonized food resources are strong evidence for an earth oven, but in situ FCR is an especially strong indicator of pit cooking behavior. This is because earth ovens are more commonly found intact due to the nature of construction where cooking stones were often placed below
30 contemporary plowzones and the most active zone of pedoturbation (Thoms 2008). Hence, the byproducts of the original behavior associated with earth ovens often remain largely intact and can provide archaeologists with important socioeconomic and subsistence information.
Another indicator that a pit was used for cooking purposes is the presence of rock linings or packing materials, which were used to insulate the cooked resource for prolonged baking or steaming (Thoms 2008). This was an efficient cooking strategy because “the relative non- combustibility and high density of rocks enable them to capture and hold heat for longer periods of time than hot coals” allowing “cook stones [to] generate considerably more steam and vapor for longer periods of time… than would be possible with hot coals alone” (Thoms 2008:444-
445). Certainly, stone boiling is an efficient strategy that yields a greater proportion of potentially available nutrients from a food resource, especially when the boiling liquid is consumed (Wandsnider 1997). However, it is important to note that FCR is also a commonly discarded artifact found in refuse-filled features, so the presence of FCR alone is not necessarily indicative of an earth oven and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has outlined the theoretical framework and background information that informed this research on the interpretation of pit features, ceramic pit fill, and pit formation processes. Particular attention was focused toward formation and discard processes as well as the inadequacies of ethnohistoric observational accounts as applied to the interpretation of archaeological phenomena deposited by cultures that lack substantial ethnographic reference.
Following in Chapter 3, various characteristics of this case study as well as an outline of the sampling and analysis methodology used in this research will be provided.
31
CHAPTER 3: HAHN’S FIELD AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In the first half of this chapter, additional information will be provided to contextualize the Hahn’s Field Site, Cincinnati Museum Center (CMC) excavation methodology, and data recovery. The second half of this chapter outlines the methodological approach used in the data analysis, with particular attention focused to sampling and analytical procedures.
Hahn’s Field: An Introduction
Located on an elevated terrace within the floodplain of the Little Miami River Valley, the
Hahn’s Field Site (33Ha10) is a multicomponent settlement that was primarily occupied during the Middle and Late Fort Ancient Periods (ca. A.D. 1250-1670). Known since at least the early
1880s, Hahn’s Field is one of the first documented archaeological sites in the Cincinnati-area
(Griffin 1943; Metz 1881; Starr 1960:55). However, damage from intensive agricultural plowing and isolated looting, coupled with poor documentation during early investigations, has inhibited a clear understanding of site dynamics. Consequently, in order to place Hahn’s Field within a chronological sequence of Fort Ancient sites in the middle Ohio Valley, as well as to explore site size, village orientation, and morphology, the Hahn’s Field Site has been the focus of Cincinnati
Museum Center archaeological investigations since 2008.
Study Area
Situated on at least eight acres within Clear Creek Park, a recreational facility operated by the Anderson Township Park District, Hahn’s Field (Figure 3.1) lies roughly 7.4 kilometers upstream from the confluence of the Little Miami and Ohio Rivers (Cook and Genheimer 2014).
At this floodplain location, the Little Miami River Valley is approximately 1.9 kilometers in
32 width, but reaches widths nearly 3.0 kilometers in areas further south and west (Genheimer and
Hedeen 2014:38-39). This portion of the central Lowland Province is part of the “Outer
Bluegrass Ecoregion” and is characterized by large expansions of glacial till, moderately sloped lands as well as neutral and well-drained soils (Hedeen 2006:19; Wagner 1987:12, 15).
Prehistorically, the “Outer Bluegrass Ecoregion” was dominated by western mesophytic forests that received an average annual precipitation of at least 20 to 40 inches (Hedeen 2006:29-30;
Waldman 1985:25-32). Historically, the study area has been intensively cultivated, and due to local geologic history, an area targeted for large-scale graveling operations.
Hahn’s Field Site
Figure 3.1. Location of the Hahn’s Field Site in the lower Little Miami River Valley.
Glacial geology is of particular importance to Hahn’s Field and the surrounding vicinity because the Little Miami River served as a major outwash channel for both Illinoian and
Wisconsinan glaciations (Hedeen 2006:10-17). The Illinoian glaciation terminated roughly six kilometers to the southwest of Hahn’s Field, while the Wisconsinan glaciation terminated about
18 kilometers to the north (Genheimer 2010:2). The Little Miami River did not carve the broad,
33 flat-bottomed valley where it currently resides, but instead pirated this path after the Teays
River—the progenitor to the Ohio River—was blocked and rerouted by encroaching glaciations beginning earlier than 250,000 years ago (Durrell 1977; Hedeen 2006). As the ice melted, a new drainage pattern was established wherein the Ohio River and its tributaries appropriated former channels of the Teays River, depositing abundant glacial outwash and partially filling Deep
Stage Ohio River valleys so that these valleys are now flat-bottomed (Durrell 1977).
Perched on a broad and relatively level terrace composed of Huntington Series silt loam, a well-drained, agriculturally productive, and often flooded soil type that occurs primarily on the highest elevations of the Little Miami River floodplain, Hahn’s Field is elevated above areas to its south and west between 1.5 and 3.0 meters (Lerch et al. 1982:37, 104). Further, the Hahn’s
Field Site sits atop compacted sand and gravel deposits at depths between 1.0 and 1.5 meters below the ground surface (Genheimer and Hedeen 2014:39). A salient feature of this position for
Fort Ancient populations is that the village site escapes most seasonal and periodic flood-related calamities. In addition, alluvial substrate allowed for the construction of numerous pit features, with the compacted sand and gravel deposits acting as a barrier to deeper excavation, and limited the depths of storage pits and earth ovens (Genheimer 2013).
Previous Investigations at Hahn’s Field
The earliest mention of Hahn’s Field was in 1881 when Dr. Charles Metz (1881) discussed an “ancient village or camp” located on the elevated lands of Mr. Abner Hahn in his monograph of major prehistoric sites in Anderson Township (Metz 1881:299-300). Although busy with the excavation at the Madisonville site at the time (Drooker 1997:112), in October of
1881, Metz conducted a limited test excavation at Hahn’s Field that uncovered a skeleton “found horizontally interred” at a depth of three feet below the ground surface (Metz 1881:299-300).
34
Several years later, under the sponsorship of Harvard University, Metz returned to
Hahn’s Field to conduct further test excavations over a 45 day period in the spring of 1885
(Cook and Genheimer 2014). Metz’s test excavations focused on the northern periphery of the site in the area to the south and west of the Hahn house, but the precise boundaries of the 1885 excavation blocks remain unknown. As Metz had done previously at the Madisonville Site, he commenced excavation at Hahn’s Field with five irregular block units that measured between 28 and 61 feet on a side and exposed approximately 858 m2 (Genheimer 2010:4). Although Metz uncovered 72 “ash pits” and 31 skeletons, descriptions of these features were brief and their exact proveniences are uncertain, as feature locations were designated by a distance and crude azimuth from the center of each excavation block (Genheimer 2010:4). Harvard’s association with Hahn’s Field ended after the 1885 excavation in favor of the nearby Madisonville Site, where archaeologists from the Peabody Museum worked until 1911 (Drooker 2000: Figure 7:2).
Explorations at Hahn’s Field during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century are not as well documented as the Harvard excavation of 1885. However, it is known that the site was intensively surface collected and briefly excavated in 1943 by J. D. Conover, a local amateur who frequently mentioned Hahn’s Field in his detailed field journals (Genheimer
2010:5). In addition to the references made by Conover, artifact and catalog data at Cincinnati
Museum Center indicate that the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History (CMNH), probably working in conjunction with Glenn Black of Indiana University, conducted test excavation at the site in July and August of 1946 as well as May and June of 1947 (Genheimer 2010:5). Although the Glenn A. Black Laboratory catalog card (Acc. 910) relates the depth in which artifacts were recovered, no field notes from these test excavations have been located to identify the location of the 1946 and 1947 excavation units (Robert Genheimer, personal communication 2013).
35
The Hahn’s Field Site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1974
(NRHP 74001519); however, conversations with local amateur archaeologists and collectors indicate that the site remained a favored locality for surface collection and isolated looting throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. These activities were apparently confined to the northern periphery of the site near the tree line that borders the Clear Creek, a paleo-channel of the Little
Miami River. Systematic surface collection and looting ceased in 1994, when Hahn’s Field was acquired by the Anderson Township Park District, which removed the landform that the site occupies from cultivation to be used as a recreational field (Cook and Genheimer 2014).
Cincinnati Museum Center Investigations at Hahn’s Field
Cincinnati Museum Center (CMC) investigations at Hahn’s Field were initiated in 2008 to address questions of material culture, site size, layout, and chronology. Overseen by Robert
Genheimer, the George Rieveschl Curator of Archaeology, CMC investigations at Hahn’s Field have included coring, remote sensing, and field excavation. Several years of excavation have completely exposed a Middle Fort Ancient wall-trench structure (Structure 1) and numerous pit features throughout the village. A number of important site characteristics have also been identified through magnetic susceptibility and gradiometry surveys that were conducted by
Jarrod Burks over a 16-month period beginning in June 2009. Magnetic susceptibility surveys
(Figure 3.2), were conducted to determine the extent of midden deposits on the terrace that the site occupies, while gradiometry surveys (Figure 3.3), were conducted to produce finer resolution data on subsurface features across the elevated landform (Genheimer 2010).
36
Figure 3.2. Magnetic Susceptibility Survey of Hahn’s Field. Note the arc of increased magnetism and location of wall-trench excavation unit. Used with permission by Jarrod Burks.
Figure 3.3. Gradiometry Survey of Hahn’s Field. Blocks are 20-x-20 m. Note remnants of circular earthwork and concentrations of suspected pit features. Used with permission by Jarrod Burks.
Remote sensing data (Figure 3.4) acquired from magnetic susceptibility and gradiometry surveys show several interesting characteristics of Hahn’s Field that were recently summarized by Genheimer (2010:6-12). First, the terrace that the site occupies exhibits increased magnetism, with the highest levels of magnetic susceptibility extending in an arc surrounding the most elevated and level portions of the landform. Second, an irregular area measuring approximately
100 to 120 meters in diameter near the center of the elevated landform and surrounded by the
37 previously mentioned arc, consistently exhibits low magnetic susceptibility and few magnetic anomalies identified through gradiometry. Third, probable pit features observed within gradiometry data tend to be located within areas exhibiting high magnetic susceptibility— forming a ring around the area exhibiting low magnetic susceptibility. Fourth, midden deposits extending along the northeastern portion of the village have experienced a significant amount of erosion. Fifth, remnants of previous occupations—most likely from the Woodland Period—are evident in the remains of a circular magnetic anomaly (e.g., Burks and Cook 2011).
Magnetic susceptibility and gradiometry data from Hahn’s Field are consistent with what is known about the orientations of other Middle Fort Ancient settlements in the middle Ohio
Valley, where a circular to oval village is frequently oriented around a cleared central plaza
(Drooker 1997; Henderson et. al 1992; Sharp 1996). As such, remote sensing data, coupled with the location of the wall-trench structure, suggest that the Hahn’s Field Site was planned in a similar manner to the Anderson (Essenpreis 1982), Sunwatch (Cook 2008), and Schomaker sites
(Cowan et al. 1990), with a cleared central plaza surrounded by at least one ring of houses, activity areas, pit features, and burials (Genheimer and Hedeen 2014).
Figure 3.4. Processed remote sensing data of Hahn’s Field. Note the association between gradiometry anomalies and areas exhibiting increased magnetism. Used with permission by Jarrod Burks.
38
The majority of excavation units explored by CMC were chosen on the basis of gradiometry data. The only excavation units not informed by gradiometry were the three excavation units (2-x-2-m) where Structure 1 was first discovered in 2008. Feature 37 is the only feature analyzed in this thesis that was not identified in the gradiometry study, as this feature truncated the northeastern corner of Structure 1 and was encountered during the excavation of the northern and eastern wall-trenches. The other two examined pit features (Features 38 and
146) were chosen for excavation due to their anomalous magnetic signatures. However, a word of caution is in order: through extensive ground-truthing by excavation, it is apparent that not all pit features are elucidated in gradiometry data, which suggests that feature density is greater than indicated by the gradiometry study (Genheimer 2010:11).
Cincinnati Museum Center Excavation Methodology
To date, 48 units and 147 features have been excavated by CMC at Hahn’s Field
(Genheimer and Hedeen 2014:41). Nearly all of the excavation units were 2-x-2-m units; however, a few 1-x-2-m and 1-x-1-m units, as well as a 1-x-10-m trench were also excavated.
All features were hand excavated by trowel and screened through 0.25-inch mesh. In addition,
10-liter flotation samples were collected from every level of all features for botanical analysis.
Excavation units were initiated by the removal of the plowzone, which typically averaged
20-30 cm in depth (Robert Genheimer, personal communication 2013). A portion of plowzone was screened for all excavation units, while 100% was screened for many units. Due to the depth of plowzone, most pit features could not be defined at less than 35 cm below ground surface. If features were not observed after the plowzone was removed, an Oakfield solid core sampling tool was used to core in 25 cm increments from the base of plowzone to identify the origin of the anomaly observed in gradiometry data. After the unit was cored, an additional level would be
39 removed. Additional levels were either 5 or 10 centimeters, depending on the depth of the plowzone and core results, and were excavated until features were identified. All additional levels beyond plowzone were screened in their entirety with 0.25-inch mesh.
When a feature was identified, a plan map of the unit floor was created to reflect the origin. Depending on size, pit features were typically bisected with one half excavated in arbitrary 10 cm levels and the other half excavated by cultural stratigraphy. However, some of the pit features encountered during CMC investigations were too narrow to bisect, or were not bisected due to varying criteria. If a feature was bisected, a profile map of the feature was created to reflect stratigraphy and to indicate the size and morphology of the feature. If a feature was not bisected, a cross-section map was created of the excavation unit to express feature morphology.
Cincinnati Museum Center Laboratory and Curation Procedures
All artifacts were processed at the Geier Collections and Research Center where recovered materials were water screened through 0.25-inch mesh, then cleaned by hand. Special attention was given to the cleaning of ceramics for temper identification. Each context was first cleaned and sorted by volunteers and students, then checked by Robert Genheimer. Ceramics were cataloged based on vessel form, sherd location, temper composition, surface treatment, and decoration. After artifacts were cleaned, sorted, and checked, they were counted and weighed for storage, as well as assigned accession numbers and entered into a collection database.
Cultural affiliations were assigned on the basis of temporally diagnostic criteria as well as limited radiocarbon dating of annual botanicals and wood charcoal. In the absence of datable material, diagnostic artifact types served as a rough temporal indicator. For ceramics,
Madisonville affiliations were assigned for features containing partial vessels that were shell- tempered, with broad, thin strap handles, and/or lip notches above the strap handles (Genheimer
40
2013). Anderson affiliations were assigned for features containing partial vessels with thick to
intermediate strap and loop handles, as well as incised necks, and thickened/folded rims (e.g.,
Vickery et al. 2000). For ceramics, Woodland cultural affiliations were assigned based on the
presence of rock temper and angular “Newtown” shoulders (e.g., Tankersley and Haines 2010).
Sampling Procedures
Three refuse-filled pit features were chosen for this analysis to better understand sources
of ceramic variability, Fort Ancient discard practices, and pit formation processes at Hahn’s
Field. The three pit features—Features 37, 38, and 146—were chosen based on (1) ceramic
assemblage size (i.e., small, medium, and large); (2) feature form (i.e., bell-shaped, basin-shaped,
and steep-walled); and (3) previously acquired radiocarbon dates from Hahn’s Field. Table 3.1
displays all of the radiocarbon dates obtained from CMC excavations prior to this research.
Table 3.1. Radiocarbon dates from the Hahn’s Field Site obtained from CMC excavations prior to this research, courtesy of Robert Cook. Radiocarbon dates were calibrated using Calib7.0 and IntCal 13 (Reimer et al. 2013). Calibrated Age Dated Time Period Time Span Context 14C YBP Feature Type at 2σ (95.4%) Material Maize Kernel FEA 37 612 ± 38 BP A.D. 1292-1406 Refuse-filled pit Middle Fort Ancient 81-91 cm
Interior postmold: Grass stem FEA 87 641 ± 38 BP A.D. 1336-1398 “Anderson Phase” Structure 1 94-104 cm A.D. 1250-1400 Wood (Essenpreis 1982) Postmold 590 ± 40 BP A.D. 1296-1415 Structure 1 Charcoal Bean 50-60 FEA 146 620 ± 35 BP A.D. 1290-1402 Refuse-filled basin cm Unit 35
Maize Kernel FEA 38 386 ± 38 BP A.D. 1439-1528 Earth oven Late Fort Ancient 100-110 cm “Madisonville Maize Kernel A.D. 1450-1670 FEA 121 350 ± 38 BP A.D. 1457-1637 Refuse-filled pit Phase” 130-140 cm Maize Kernel (Drooker 1997) FEA 142 405 ± 43 BP A.D. 1427-1527 Refuse-filled pit 80-90 cm Walnut shell FEA 143 403 ± 39 BP A.D. 1432-1524 Refuse-filled pit East Half
41
Feature 37, a steep-walled pit, and Feature 38, a bell-shaped combustion feature, were chosen for this analysis along with two 2-x-2-m units (Units 27 and 35) from Feature 146, a very large basin-shaped pit. Two units, one from the center of Feature 146 (Unit 35) and one from the margin of Feature 146 (Unit 27), were selected rather than analyzing the entire ceramic assemblage due to the huge quantity of ceramics recovered. By subsampling a marginal and central context from Feature 146 it was possible to provide a more accurate representation of the recovered parent ceramic assemblage. The dimensions, estimated volumes, and ceramic assemblages of the three pit features are presented in Table 3.2. Each pit feature is also outlined below to provide contextual information.
Table 3.2. Dimensions, estimated volumes, and ceramic assemblages of Features 37, 38 and 146. Original data from Genheimer 2010. Ceramic Combined Est. Feature Diameter Depth Artifact Ceramic Volume Count Weight 37 1.37 m 0.94 m 0.76 m3 2184 8372 g 38 0.92 m 1.2 m 0.66 m3 488 1498.2 g 146 10-x-6-m 1.08 m 6.8 m3 12,847 38,040.1 g
Feature 146
Measuring approximately 10-x-6-m, with a maximum depth of 108 cm below ground surface and an estimated volume of 6.8 m3, Feature 146 is the largest feature excavated by CMC to date. Discovered as a large magnetic anomaly during gradiometry surveys and containing a massive quantity of domestic refuse, Feature 146 was a basin-shaped depression that was located near a circular magnetic anomaly (Feature 136), the probable remnants of a Woodland Period earthwork (e.g., Burks and Cook 2011). Close-proximity to the remnant earthwork may suggest that the construction of the earthwork is tied to the formation of Feature 146. Hence, Feature 146 was chosen for this research due to its close association with Feature 136, its large ceramic
42 assemblage, and the possibility that it was subsequently filled with Fort Ancient domestic refuse after its initial formation in the construction or maintenance of Feature 136.
Feature 37
Feature 37 was a refuse-filled pit that was found to contain numerous Late Fort Ancient diagnostics, but yielded a Middle Fort Ancient radiocarbon age (Table 3.1). The association of
Late Fort Ancient diagnostics with Middle Fort Ancient material may suggest that the
Madisonville Horizon is earlier than its traditional placement. Alternatively, the dated maize kernel may have been initially associated with Structure 1 and subsequently incorporated into
Feature 37 during construction or filling. Other salient criteria that weighed heavily on the selection of Feature 37 as a comparative feature to Feature 146 were the presence of four distinct cultural horizons and its medium-sized ceramic assemblage. In addition, its morphology and size suggest that Feature 37 was initially utilized as a subterranean storage facility that was later recycled to dispose of domestic refuse (Genheimer and Hedeen 2014).
Feature 38
Feature 38 is the only bell-shaped feature selected for this study, and with a maximum depth of 1.2 meters below the ground surface and an estimated volume of approximately 0.66 m3, Feature 38 is a rather large earth oven (Table 3.2). Feature 38 was chosen as a comparative feature due to both its probable use as an earth oven and subsequent use for refuse disposal, and its bell-shaped form. Because earth ovens were also repurposed to dispose of refuse, Feature 38 may indicate different ceramic discard patterns from Features 37 and 146. Further, because of its likely use as an earth oven, it is possible that some of the recovered ceramic refuse may reflect primary rather than secondary deposition, as may have been the case for Features 37 and 146.
43
Creation of the Analyzed Ceramic Subsample
Due to the large quantity of ceramics recovered from Features 37, 38, and 146 it was necessary to subsample their ceramic assemblages to make the data analysis more manageable.
Ceramics were analyzed because they are commonly used to measure site occupation span due to their ubiquitous presence in most sedentary societies (e.g., Rice 1987; Sullivan 1989; Varien and
Ortman 2005) and their assumed constant rate of deposition (Rosenwig 2009; Sullivan 2008b).
Stratified 25% ceramic subsamples by quantity and weight were selected from the ceramic populations of each subgroup (temper combinations) from every level and cultural horizon of
Features 37 and 38, as well as Unit 27 and 35 of Feature 146. Subsampling was based on subgroups, defined by temper combinations, because this research was interested in understanding ceramic variability and the potential for fluctuations in subgroups to indicate functional, temporal, discard, or depositional differences among the three pit features. The temper combination groups used are shell, grit, limestone, shell/grit, shell/limestone, shell/grit/limestone, shell/flint, and limestone/grit. Shell/flint- and shell/limestone-tempered ceramics are outliers that are occasionally excluded from the data analysis. A stratified subsample was employed because “stratified sampling can offer a more precise estimate for an entire population than simply sampling the entire population” because of a reduced error range
(Drennan 2009:236-237).
Tables 3.3-3.6 outline the 25% ceramic subsampling strategy by quantities and weights for the three analyzed pit features1. In some instances, it was not possible to select exactly 25%
1 All counts were rounded to the nearest whole number and all weights were rounded to the nearest decimal. Asterisks denote instances when exactly 25% could not be subsampled due to a paucity or sherds bearing a specific temper composition.
44 by weight due either to a paucity of sherds bearing a specific temper composition, or the presence of large outlier sherds that skewed the 25% subsample. Temper combinations bearing only one sherd in a feature or level were also included to make the 25% subsamples more reflective of the parent ceramic populations recovered from Features 37, 38, and 146.
Table 3.3. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37. Shell/Grit/ Limestone/ Shell/ Shell/ Level Shell Grit Limestone Shell/Grit Total Limestone Grit Flint Limestone L-1 (21-31 cm) 37/113.5 g 3/2.6 g 1/1.5 g - 6/30.8 g 1/3.1 g - - 48/151.5 g L-2 (31-41 cm) 30/59.4 g 1/0.6 g - - 3/4.9 g *1/5.7 g - - 35/70.6 g L-3 (41-51 cm) 26/129.4 g 2/1.7 g *1/1.2 g *1/6.7 g 2/6 g *1/0.4 g - 1/2.0g 34/147.4 g L-4 (51-61 cm) 40/152.9 g 1/4.7 g *1/0.8 g - 2/8.3 g - - - 43/165.9 g L-5 (61-71 cm) 43/221.9 g 1/2.1 g *1/0.1 g *1/0.6 g 2/6.6 g - - - 48/231.3 g L-6 (71-81 cm) 9/25.8 g 1/0.8 g *1/0.6 g - 1/1.5 g 1/0.2 g - - 13/28.9 g L-7 (81-91 cm) 14/93.7 g 2/1 g *1/0.3 g - 2/9.1 g 1/0.2 g 1/2.3 g - 21/106.6 g L-8 (91-94 cm) 7/7 g 1/0.1 g *1/1.9 g - 1/2.9 g *1/0.4 g - - 11/12.3 g Horizon A 14/46.5 g 1/1.1 g *1/1 g - 1/2.9 g - - - 17/51.5 g Horizon B 57/272.9 g 3/1.9 g 1/0.3 g - 4/12.4 g 2/2.9 g - - 67/290.4 g Horizon C 150/641.1 g 1/1.9 g 1/2.4 g - 5/23.8 g 2/2.8 g - - 159/672 g Horizon D 49/156.2 g 5/2.1 g 1/1.1 g - 7/14.3 g 2/2.5 g - - 64/174.1 g 560/2102.5 g
Table 3.4. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38. Shell/Grit/ Shell/ Limestone/ Level Shell Grit Total Limestone Grit Grit L-1 (30-40 cm) 29/88.4 g 1/.8 g - 2/5.1 g 1/1 g 33/95.3 g L-2 (40-50 cm) 20/37.8 g 1/0.3 g - 2/7.2 g 1/1.8 g 24/47.1 g L-3 (50-60 cm) 10/12.8 g 1/0.3 g - 1/5.9 g *1/3.6 g 13/22.6 g L-4 (60-70 cm) 9/18.2 g *1/1.2 g - *1/1.3 g *1/0.8 g 12/21.5 g L-5 (70-80 cm) 22/83.9 g *1/0.9 g - *2/8.2 g 1/1.2 g 26/94.2 g L-6 (80-90 cm) *8/62.7 g - *1/3.3 g 1/7 g - 10/73 g L-7 (90-100 cm) 5/15.7 g *1/2 g - 1/1.2 g *1/2.1 g 8/21 g L-8 (100-110 cm) 2/4 g *1/1.7 g - *1/0.6 g - 4/6.3 g L-9 (110-120 cm) - - - *2/13.3 g - 2/13.3 g 132/394.3 g
45
Table 3.5. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 27 of Feature 146. Shell/Grit/ Limestone/ Level Shell Grit Limestone Shell/Grit Total Limestone Grit L-1 (30-40 cm) 79/321.7 g 9/9.3 g - 4/20.4 g 106/462 g 13/31.9 g 211/845.3 g L-2 (40-50 cm) 8/12.7 g 2/0.9 g 1/4 g 6/23.1 g 30/131.3 g 9/15.4 g 56/187.4 g L-3 (50-60 cm) 1/0.5 g 3/2.3 g - 9/41.6 g 19/82.3 g 4/7.9 g 36/134.6 g L-4 (60-70 cm) - 1/1.4 g - 2/23.2 g 3/2.9 g 1/4.2 g 7/31.7 g L-5 (70-80 cm) - - - - 2/23 g - 2/23 g 312/1222 g
Table 3.6. Stratified 25% ceramic subsample from Unit 35 of Feature 146. Shell/Grit/ Limestone/ Shell/ Level Shell Grit Limestone Shell/ Grit Total Limestone Grit Limestone L-1 (30-40 cm) 147/322.9 g 5/5.1 g - 4/10.1 g 39/81.2 g 8/16.3 g - 203/435.6 g L-2 (40-50 cm) 270/559.4 g 7/6.7 g *1/0.7g 5/3.4 g 46/155.1 g 8/14.8 g *1/0.7 g 338/740.6 g L-3 (50-60 cm) 208/705.5 g 6/7.8 g - 4/11.2 g 67/260.9 g 12/22.3 g *1/1.4 g 298/1009.1 g L-4 (60-70 cm) 81/244.6 g 19/12.9 g - 5/23.2 g 75/237.4 g 19/45.7 g - 199/563.8 g L-5 (70-80 cm) 17/34.5 g 6/10.9 g - 4/15.6 g 21/55.1 g 7/13.8 g - 55/129.9 g L-6 (80-90 cm) *1/120.5 g 5/10.9 g - *1/16 g 2/2.5 g 2/6.1 g - 11/156 g L-7 (90-100 cm) - 5/7 g - *1/.06 g - *1/0.4 g - 7/7.5 g L-8 (100-108 cm) - *1/0.7 g - - - - - 1/0.7 g 1112/3043.2 g
Data Analysis: Procedures and Goals
The goal of this analysis was to quantify ceramic variability by focusing on the frequency and descriptive statistics of six variables—weight, maximum thickness, sherd type, temper composition, and both interior- and exterior-surface damage. To facilitate data analysis and pattern recognition, observations of these variables were recorded into a database created using
SPSS and Microsoft Excel to disaggregate the 25% ceramic subsamples by weight. To conduct analysis of the six variables, each ceramic artifact was (1) weighed; (2) measured for maximum thickness; and (3) visually inspected for damage on both the interior- and exterior-surfaces.
Interior- and exterior-surface damage categories are normal, burned, exfoliated, rounded edges, and exfoliated with rounded edges. Ceramics were placed into these categories if the interior- or 46 exterior-surface was at least 50% burned, exfoliated, or abraded. Normal ceramics were fragmented, but otherwise undamaged. Each feature was also divided into Upper and Lower
Zones to establish a common unit of analysis for inter-feature comparisons. To identify patterning in the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square analyses were conducted for temper compositions and interior- and exterior-surface damage. Upper and Lower Zones were determined based on excavation levels, cultural stratigraphy and ceramic distributions.
Feature 37 was divided into an Upper Zone of roughly 40 cm and a Lower Zone of about
33 cm (Figure 3.5). These divisions were based on both cultural stratigraphy and 10 cm excavation levels because Feature 37 was bisected during excavation (the northern half was excavated in four cultural horizons [A-D] while the southern half was excavated in eight arbitrary 10 cm levels). The Upper Zone of Feature 37 includes levels 1-4 (21-61 cm) and
Horizons A and B (21-55 cm), while the Lower Zone of Feature 37 includes levels 5-8 (61-94 cm) and Horizons C and D (55-94 cm). Feature 37 was divided this way to make the Upper and
Lower Zones adhere as close as possible to the identified cultural horizons.
Figure 3.5. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37.
47
The Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38 were clearly separated by an in situ horizon of
FCR (Figure 3.6) that was encountered at the base of level 5 (80 cm below surface). The FCR horizon was included in the Lower Zone and effectively divided Feature 38 into an Upper Zone of approximately 50 cm, including levels 1-5 (30-80 cm) and a Lower Zone of approximately 40 cm, including levels 6-9 (80-120 cm).
Figure 3.6. Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38.
Feature 146 was divided into Upper and Lower Zones based on the distribution of ceramics in the central (Unit 35) and marginal (Unit 27) units. Unit 35 of Feature 146 (Figure
3.7) exhibited a sharp decline in ceramic density after level 4 (70 cm below surface). Hence, the
Upper Zone of Feature 146 in Unit 35 is 40 cm, and includes levels 1-4 (30-70 cm), while the
Lower Zone of Feature 146 in Unit 35 is 38 cm and includes levels 5-8 (70-108 cm). In Unit 27 of Feature 146 (Figure 3.8), there was a clear decline in ceramic density at the base of level 2 (50 cm below surface). As a result, the Upper Zone of Feature 146 in Unit 27 is 20 cm and includes levels 1 and 2 (30-50 cm), while the Lower Zone of Feature 146 in Unit 27 is 30 cm and includes levels 3-5 (50-80 cm). The Upper and Lower Zones of Units 27 and 35 in Feature 146 were then consolidated to create a cohesive Feature 146 unit of analysis.
48
Figure 3.7. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 35 of Feature 146.
Figure 3.8. Upper and Lower Zones of Unit 27 of Feature 146.
Radiocarbon Dating
To provide finer resolution temporal data regarding pit-filling histories and cultural stratigraphy, carbonized botanical material from each of the three pit features was dated using
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) and conventional radiocarbon methods. In total, five new radiocarbon dates (three AMS dates and two conventional) were obtained for this thesis. These supplement the AMS dates previously acquired from Features 37, 38, and 146. Table 3.7 presents all of the radiocarbon determinations that have been obtained for the three analyzed pit features to date.2
2 The five radiocarbon dates obtained for this research are distinguished by Beta lab codes. 49
Table 3.7. Radiocarbon dates from Features 37, 38, and 146. Calibrated Age Dated Feature Context 14C YBP Lab Code at 2σ (95.4%) Material 37 41-51 cm 240 ± 30 BP A.D. 1632-1681 Maize Kernel Beta-370996 37 Horizon C 150 ± 30 BP A.D. 1670-1780 Wood Charcoal Beta-370995 37 81-91 cm 612 ± 38 BP A.D. 1292-1406 Maize Kernel AA98051 38 50-60 cm 280 ± 30 BP A.D. 1513-1600 Wood Charcoal Beta-370997 38 100-110 cm 386 ± 38 BP A.D. 1439-1528 Maize Kernel AA98055 146 Unit 35 40-50 cm 520 ± 30 BP A.D. 1393-1443 Nut Hull Beta-370998 146 Unit 35 50-60 cm 620 ± 35 BP A.D. 1290-1402 Bean AA98054 146 Unit 35 100-108 cm 1250 ± 30 BP A.D. 677-779 Apiaceae sp. Seed Beta-374929
Feature 37
Three radiocarbon dates are available for Feature 37. The Lower region of Feature 37 was previously dated (AA98051) to the Middle Fort Ancient Period. Two additional dates, one
AMS and one conventional, were obtained from the Upper and Middle regions of Feature 37.
The AMS date of cal. A.D. 1632-1681 was acquired from a maize kernel from Level 3 (41-51 cm) while the conventional date of cal. A.D. 1670-1780 came from wood charcoal in Horizon C.
These three dates provide temporal data for the Upper (Level 3), Middle (Horizon C), and Lower
(Level 7) regions of Feature 37.
Feature 38
Two radiocarbon dates exist for Feature 38, one from the Upper Zone (Level 3) and one from the Lower Zone (Level 8). One Late Fort Ancient AMS date (AA98055) has previously been obtained from Level 8 (100-110 cm), part of the Lower Zone of Feature 38. For this thesis, a new conventional radiocarbon date of cal. A.D. 1513-1600 was acquired from wood charcoal recovered in Level 3 (50-60 cm). Together, these dates provide strong evidence for the history of
Feature 38 as the date from the Lower Zone provides information for the initial usage, while the date from the Upper Zone will indicate when Feature 38 was filled with refuse.
50
Feature 146
Because Level 3 (50-60 cm) of Unit 35 had already been dated (AA98054) to the Middle
Fort Ancient Period, two additional AMS dates were obtained from annual botanicals recovered from Unit 35, the central unit of Feature 146. The two new AMS dates came from nut hull fragments from Level 2 (40-50 cm)—cal. A.D. 1393-1443—and carbonized Apiaceae sp. seeds recovered from Level 8 (100-108 cm)—cal. A.D. 677-779. These levels were chosen for dating because they will complement the AMS date already obtained from Level 3 by providing three dates from the central unit (Unit 35) of Feature 146. The three radiocarbon dates will provide evidence for the filling history of Feature 146 because they will convey temporal data for the
Upper (Level 2), Middle (Level 3) and Lower (Level 7) regions of Feature 146.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has introduced the case study and has outlined the methodological approach utilized in this thesis. An emphasis was placed on explaining the geology, climate, and excavation history of the study area and outlining the sampling and analytical procedures used in this research. This information was presented because an understanding of the factors that influenced my decision-making will be critical for the data analysis that will be presented in the following chapter.
51
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter will present the frequency and descriptive statistics for the 25% ceramic subsample selected from Features 37, 38, and 146 (Figure 4.1). General patterns of variability as well as the frequency and descriptive statistics of the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample will be discussed. Each feature will also be addressed separately in order to appreciate patterns of ceramic variability within and between each feature as well as to contextualize the radiocarbon dates obtained as part of this research.
Figure 4.1. Location of Features 37, 38, and 146 at the Hahn’s Field Site.
Frequency and Descriptive Statistics of the 25% Ceramic Subsample
Table 4.1 shows that each feature contained ceramic assemblages that varied significantly with respect to assemblage size and the distribution of ceramics in the Upper and Lower Zones.
The imbalanced ceramic distributions and frequencies indicate that Features 37, 38, and 146 experienced variable fill intensities, probably as a result of seasonality, functionality, size, reuse potential, and time period, as well as the number of individuals discarding refuse into each pit. 52
Table 4.1. 25% ceramic subsample from Features 37, 38 and 146 by Upper and Lower Zones.
Sherd Types and Temper Composition Variability
Table 4.2 shows the frequencies for the five sherd types represented in the aggregated
25% ceramic subsample. Cordmarked body sherds were the most common sherd type
subsampled from the three pit features and outnumbered plain body sherds by more than 2.4 to 1.
Body sherd types—cordmarked body, plain body, eroded body, and incised body sherds—
accounted for 99.6% of the ceramics subsampled from Features 37, 38, and 146. Conversely, rim
sherds (n=10) were the second least frequent sherd type and accounted for only 0.4%.
Table 4.2. Frequencies for Features 37, 38 and 146 by sherd type.
Table 4.3 and Figure 4.2 show the frequencies for the identified temper compositions.
Like most Middle and Late Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages from the lower Little Miami River
Valley (e.g., Drooker 1996, 2000; Genheimer 2010, 2013; Griffin 1943; Riggs 1986, 1998), shell
temper was most common in all three pit features, followed by shell-tempered with grit additives
(shell/grit). Ceramics tempered with shell or with shell and rock additives (i.e., shell/grit,
53 shell/limestone, shell/grit/limestone, and shell/flint) accounted for 90% of the subsample.
Table 4.3. Frequencies for Features 37, 38, and 146 by temper composition.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Conspicuously, in all three pit features rock-tempered ceramics had much lower frequencies than shell-tempered ceramics. In fact, exclusively rock-tempered ceramics (i.e., grit, limestone, and limestone/grit) accounted for only 10% of the analyzed ceramic subsample.
Because limestone- and grit-tempered ceramics are primarily associated with societies of the
Woodland Period in the middle Ohio Valley (Prufer 1968; Purtill 2008; Tankersley and Haines
2010), it is likely that a portion—perhaps the majority—of exclusively rock-tempered ceramics from the Hahn’s Field Site originated during occupations that preceded the Fort Ancient Period.
54
Figure 4.2. Cluster chart showing the frequencies for the 25% ceramic subsamples from Features 37, 38, and 146 by temper composition.
The high frequency of ceramics that contain shell temper was anticipated because the use of shell temper increases dramatically during the Fort Ancient Period with the intensification of maize agriculture (Cook 2008; Wagner 1987). Offering improved mechanical properties
(Feathers 1989, 2006; Tankersley and Meinhart 1982), the introduction of shell temper curtailed the use of rock tempers and fostered the construction of more durable vessels (Griffin 1943;
Turnbow and Henderson 1992). However, it is important to note that the adoption of shell temper transpired gradually and varied from region to region due to variability in interaction networks and accessibility to shell resources (Pollack et al. 2008). As a result, shell was often used in conjunction with the rock tempers that characterized the Woodland Period, before nearly completely replacing rock temper between A.D. 1300 and 1500 (Cook and Fargher 2008).
Ceramic Artifact Weight Variability
Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of ceramic artifact weights and the descriptive weight statistics for the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample. Notably, the overwhelming majority—
95.9%—of the analyzed sherds weigh less than 10 g. In addition, the mean sherd weight of 3.2 g,
55 and the standard deviation of 6.1 g indicates that sherd weights are widely dispersed over a large range (120.4) with a minimum value of 0.1 g and a maximum value of 120.5 g.
Figure 4.3. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for the 25% ceramic subsample.
Figure 4.4 shows that Feature 37 has the heaviest mean sherd weight, followed in turn by
Features 146 and 38. Because the ceramics from Feature 37 tend to be heavier than those from
Features 38 and 146, it is possible that the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37 has had less exposure to AFP and EFP.
Figure 4.4. Mean sherd weight values for Features 37, 38, and 146.
56 Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146. Figure 4.5 reveals that ceramics tempered with shell or with shell and rock additives have heavier mean sherd weight values than rock-tempered ceramics. With the outliers removed
(S/F and S/L), ceramics with multiple tempers are usually heavier than ceramics with one temper—especially if shell is the primary temper. Although occurring in low frequencies, ceramics with three tempers (n=47) have the heaviest mean sherd weight value of the eight temper compositions. Hence, temper composition influences sherd weight where ceramics tempered with any amount of shell are typically heavier than ceramics that are rock-tempered.
Figure 4.5. Mean sherd weight values by temper composition.
The light meanTable sherd 4.3: weight Distribution values forand rockfrequency-tempered of each ceramic sherd types is notfrom surprising Feature 37, as 38, and 146. limestone- and/or grit-tempered pottery is usually older than shell-tempered pottery (e.g., Prufer
1968; Riggs 1986, 1998; Tankersley and Haines 2010). Because rock-tempered ceramics are generally older, they may have been damaged by AFP and EFP over a longer time span, which could affect weight due to size reductions related to fragmentation, exfoliation, abrasion, or erosion. Indeed, ceramics recovered from Woodland contexts are often heavily eroded and
57 fragmented, and limestone as a carbonate has frequently leached from sherds, leaving large, angular concavities (e.g., Braun 1983; Hoard et al. 2003; Purtill 2008).
Ceramic Artifact Maximum Thickness Variability
Figure 4.6 displays the distribution and descriptive maximum thickness statistics for the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample. An examination of Figure 4.5 demonstrates that the vast majority of the analyzed ceramics have a maximum thickness between 4 mm and 7 mm, with a mean of 5.5 mm. Moreover, the maximum thickness distribution has a range (11.52) that is much smaller than the range for sherd weights, with a minimum value of 1.22 mm and a maximum value of 12.74 mm. Likewise, the standard deviation of 1.5 mm shows that there is low dispersion around the mean and that the maximum thickness values for the subsampled ceramics are much more closely clustered than ceramic artifact weights.
Figure 4.6. Distribution of maximum thickness for the 25% ceramic subsample.
TableFigure 4.3: Distribution 4.7 shows andthat frequency the mean of maximum each sherd thickness type from values Feature for 37, Features 38, and 146. 37, 38, and 146 are more similar than the mean sherd weight values. Although the difference is small, Feature 37
58 has the greatest mean maximum thickness value, followed in turn by Features 146 and 38, respectively. As such, Feature 37 has the heaviest and greatest mean sherd weight and mean maximum thickness values. Features 38 and 146 are therefore distinguished from Feature 37, and may have experienced longer or greater exposure to AFP and EFP.
Figure 4.7. Mean maximum thickness values for Features 37, 38, and 146.
Outliers aside (S/FTable and 4.3: S/L) Distribution, Figure 4. and8 shows frequency that oftemper each sherd composition type from influences Feature 37, 38, and 146. maximum thickness by demonstrating that ceramics with the greatest mean maximum thickness values contain limestone temper—often with grit and/or shell additives. Figure 4.7 also shows that ceramics with multiple temper types usually have greater mean maximum thickness values than ceramics with one temper type. In fact, ceramics with three temper types are among the thickest ceramics while shell- and grit-tempered ceramics are the thinnest. Hence, Figure 4.7 shows that multiple tempers equates to thicker sherds, especially if crushed rock is present.
59
Figure 4.8. Mean maximum thickness values by temper composition.
Interior-Surface Variability Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, Figure 4.and9 shows 146. the frequencies for the five interior-surface damage categories. In total,
55.9% of the analyzed ceramics exhibit interior-surfaces with no damage, while 44.1% express interior-surface damage in the form of burning, exfoliation, and/or abrasion that resulted in rounded edges. Although the interior-surface damage frequencies are similar, it is intriguing that burning is the most common form of interior-surface damage because it seems intuitive that cooking vessels would be more likely to exhibit burning on the exterior-surfaces. However, burned interior-surfaces could have originated as sherds were repurposed, or after discard as sherds came in direct contact with flames, hot ash, or coals (Sullivan 1989; Sullivan et al. 1991).
Exfoliation and abrasion damage can be ideal traces for attribution to specific AFP and
EFP, but can also be enigmatic due to variability in temper composition, surface treatment, and firing (Schiffer and Skibo 1989; Schiffer 1990; Vaz Pinto et. al 1987). Abrasion and exfoliation damage can be expressed through many combinations of AFP and EFP, including repetitive usage (Skibo 2012:120-121), trampling (Schiffer 1983), temperature oscillations (Reid 1984), fluvial and aeolian processes (Skibo and Schiffer 1987), as well as salt erosion (O’ Brien 1990).
Differentiating specific AFP and EFP can be complicated by problems of equifinality where
60 similar traces can be produced by different processes (Sullivan 1992). Indeed, the palimpsest nature of formation process studies is indicated by the fact that numerous combinations of AFP and EFP can contribute to any artifact’s properties prior to recovery (Reid 1985; Schiffer 1987).
Figure 4.9. Interior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample.
Exterior-Surface Variability Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Figure 4.10 shows the frequencies for the five exterior-surface damage categories. In total, 58.9% of the analyzed ceramics exhibit exterior-surfaces with no damage, while 41.1% express exterior-surface damage in the form of burning, exfoliation, and/or abrasion that resulted in rounded edges. The aggregated frequencies for ceramics with exterior-surface damage are not as equally distributed as ceramics with interior-surface damage. Burning is the most common type of exterior-surface damage, followed by rounded edges, exfoliation damage and rounded edges, or only exfoliation damage.
61
Figure 4.10. Exterior-surface damage categories for the 25% ceramic subsample.
Conspicuously,Table 4.3: Distribution there are and fewer frequency ceramics of each with sherd exfoliation type from damage Feature on 37, the 38, exterior and 146.-surfac es
(n=141) than on the interior-surfaces (n=419). The low frequency of ceramics with exfoliated exterior-surfaces may be related to exterior-surface treatment or firing temperature. For example,
Skibo (2012:119) notes that raising the firing temperature or applying a slip, polish, or rough texture to surfaces can increase the durability of ceramic vessels. Since Fort Ancient ceramics were fired at bisque temperatures less than 850C (Tankersley and Meinhart 1982:228-229), and none of the analyzed sherds have exterior-surfaces that are polished or treated with a slip, the low frequency of exfoliated exterior-surfaces seems to be correlated to surface treatment. That is, the low frequency of ceramics with exfoliated exterior-surfaces may be related to the high frequency of ceramics with cordmarked exterior-surfaces (see Table 4.2). Alternatively, the low frequency of exfoliated exterior-surfaces may be related to temper composition. In particular,
90% of the analyzed ceramics contain shell temper (see Table 4.3), which, due to its platy nature, offers mechanical characteristics that can increase strength and resistance to cracking or breakage (Feathers 1989, 2006; Tankersley and Meinhart 1982).
62
Feature 37 Patterns of Ceramic Variability
Sherd Type and Temper Composition Variability
Table 4.4 shows the frequencies for the five sherd types (plain body, cordmarked body, eroded body, rim, and incised body) represented in the 25% ceramic subsample selected from of
Feature 37. Surprisingly, plain body sherds are the most common sherd type and outnumbered cordmarked body sherds by more than 2.1 to 1. As such, the frequencies for plain and cordmarked body sherds subsampled from Feature 37 contradict the aggregated sherd type frequencies, where cordmarked body sherds are by far the most prevalent sherd type (see Table
4.1). Following plain and cordmarked body sherds, eroded body sherds, rim sherds, and incised body sherds are next in abundance. These results show that Feature 37 has the most diverse array of sherd types of the three pit features and accounted for 60% of the rim sherds and 100% of the incised body sherds represented in the study.
Table 4.4. Upper and Lower Zone variability in Feature 37 by sherd type.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Table 4.5 shows the frequencies for the eight temper compositions represented in Feature
37. Interestingly, 92% of the ceramics contain shell temper, while only 8% are exclusively rock- tempered. Although some ceramics were certainly incorporated into Feature 37 as orphan sherds during discard, construction, or other refuse reclamation processes (Schiffer 1987:111-114,
Table 10.1:300), it has the most diverse set of temper compositions of the three pit features
63 studied. Feature 37 was dominated by ceramics that are shell-tempered with no grit additives
(84.8%). Hence, the temper composition frequencies for Feature 37 are consistent with Late Fort
Ancient ceramic assemblages documented in the lower Little Miami River Valley (e.g., Drooker
1996, 1997; Genheimer 2013; Griffin 1943; Riggs 1998). To determine if there were differences in the distribution of temper compositions for the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square tests were conducted. Based on the eight identified temper categories, there is no association between temper composition and context in Feature 37 (χ2 =3.22, df = 7, p = 14.067 > .05). To test this conclusion, three combined temper categories were also examined (i.e., shell-, shell/rock-, and rock-tempered ceramics) using chi-square tests. Once again, no association between temper composition and context can be demonstrated in Feature 37 (χ2 =0.87, df = 2, p = 5.991 > .05).
The lack of association between temper composition and context suggests that Feature 37 was probably filled quickly during four intervals (Horizons A-D).
Table 4.5. Upper and Lower Zone variability in Feature 37 by temper composition.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Ceramic Artifact Weight and Maximum Thickness Variability
Figure 4.11 shows that 79.3% of the ceramics subsampled from Feature 37 weigh 4 g or less. Furthermore, the standard deviation of 8.6 g is the largest of the three pit features and shows
64 that Feature 37 ceramic artifact weights are dispersed over a large range (104.7), with a minimum value of 0.2 g and a maximum value of 104.9 g.
Figure 4.11. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 37.
Figure 4.12Table displays 4.3: Distributionthe distribution and frequency and descriptive of each maximumsherd type fromthickness Feature statistics 37, 38, andfor 146.
Feature 37. With a minimum value of 1.7 mm, and a maximum value of 12.12 mm, the range
(10.42 mm) for Feature 37 differs from the range of the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample by only 1.1 mm. Moreover, the majority—69.7%—of the ceramics subsampled from Feature 37 have a maximum thickness between 4 mm and 7 mm with a mean of 5.6 mm. Further, with a standard deviation of 1.4 mm there is minimal deviation from the mean in the ceramic subsample selected from Feature 37.
65
Figure 4.12. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 37.
Interior- and ExteriorTable-Surface 4.3: Distribution Damage Variability and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Table 4.6 presents the frequencies for ceramics with interior- and exterior-surface damage in the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37. Burning is the most frequent form of interior- and exterior-surface damage in the Upper and the Lower Zones of Feature 37, and is followed by ceramics with rounded edges, ceramics that are both exfoliated and have rounded edges, and ceramics that are only exfoliated. Ceramics from the Lower Zone of Feature 37 more often show traces of surface damage than ceramics from the Upper Zone, which may suggest that some ceramics were damaged as Feature 37 truncated Structure 1 deposits. Alternatively, the discrepancies in surface damage may also be related to the high frequency of plain body sherds as roughening exterior-surfaces can increase vessel strength (Skibo 2012).
To see if there was an association between the distribution of ceramics with interior- and exterior-surface damage for the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square tests were conducted. Based on the five surface categories, there is an association between interior (χ2 =29.27, df = 4, p =
9.488 < .05) and exterior (χ2 =45.239, df = 4, p = 9.488 < .05) surface damage with respect to context in Feature 37. Further chi-square analysis based on three combined surface categories
66
(i.e., ceramics that are undamaged, burned, or show attrition) also show that there is an association between interior- (χ2 =23.66, df = 2, p =5.991 < .05) and exterior- (χ2 =7.03, df =2, p
= 5.991 < .05) surface damage with respect to context in Feature 37. The results of these tests indicate that the distribution of ceramics with traces of interior- and exterior-surface damage are not distributed evenly for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37. Hence, surface damage frequencies coupled with the chi-square tests indicate that refuse was not discarded randomly into Feature 37, but is linked to context.
Table 4.6. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 37.
Radiocarbon Dating of Feature 37
Figure 4.13 shows the location and calibrated ranges (2) of the three radiocarbon dates that have been obtained from Feature 37. One AMS date was acquired for the Upper Zone and one conventional and one AMS date were acquired for the Lower Zone.
The three radiocarbon dates indicate that Feature 37 was filled with refuse from both the
Middle and Late Fort Ancient Periods. As was suspected based on the temper composition
67 frequencies presented in Table 4.9, Feature 37 was filled during the Late Fort Ancient Period (ca.
A.D. 1450-1670). Because Feature 37 had similar ceramic frequencies in the Upper and Lower
Zones and because the radiocarbon dates from 41-51 cm and Horizon C overlap at the calibrated
2 ranges, it is probable that these contexts were filled at the same time.
Although the AMS date from 81-91 cm is much earlier—cal. A.D. 1292-1406—it is likely that the Lower Zone of Feature 37 was filled around the same time as the Upper Zone, but included material from Structure 1 that was incorporated into Feature 37 during the construction or maintenance of the storage facility. Further support for this conclusion is provided by the fact that the calibrated AMS date from 81-91 cm overlaps with the two calibrated AMS dates taken from postmolds of Structure 1 (cal. A.D. 1336-1398 and cal. A.D. 1296-1415) (see Table 3.1).
Figure 4.13. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 37.
Table 4.3: DistributionFeature 38and Patterns frequency of of Ceramic each sherd Variability type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Sherd Type and Temper Composition Variability
Table 4.7 shows the frequencies for the four sherd types (cordmarked body, plain body, eroded body, and rim) represented in the 25% ceramic subsample from of Feature 38.
68
Conspicuously, cordmarked body sherds are the most common sherd type and outnumbered plain body sherds by 11.3 to 1. The ratio of cordmarked to plain body sherds in Feature 38 is very dissimilar to that of Feature 37 and is much greater than that for the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample (see Table 4.2). The abundance of cordmarked ceramics may indicate that sherds from cooking vessels were discarded into Feature 38 as rough exterior-surfaces can improve heat transfer during cooking (Rice 1987:138). After cordmarked and plain body sherds are eroded body sherds and rim sherds, which occur at a much lower frequency.
Table 4.7. Upper and Lower Zone variability in Feature 38 by sherd type.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Table 4.8 shows the frequencies for the five temper compositions represented in Feature
38. Feature 38 has the least diverse array of temper compositions, and at 90.1% of the subsample, was dominated by ceramics that contain shell temper. Hence, the temper composition frequencies for Feature 38 also suggest a Late Fort Ancient origin. Moreover, because the temper composition frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38 are dissimilar, it is likely that Feature 38 was filled in two separate intervals—perhaps as cooking and discard events within a few days. Chi-square tests were conducted to determine if there were differences in the distribution of temper compositions for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38. Based on the five temper categories, there is a modest association between temper composition and context in
Feature 38 (χ2 =9.591, df = 4, p = 9.488 < .05). Chi-square test was also conducted for three
69 combined temper categories (i.e., shell-, shell-rock-, and rock-tempered ceramics). The combined temper categories also indicate a clear association between temper composition and context (χ2 =6.13, df = 2, p = 5.991 < .05).
Table 4.8. Upper and Lower Zone variability in Feature 38 by temper composition.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Ceramic Artifact Weight and Maximum Thickness Variability
Figure 4.14 shows the distribution of ceramic artifact weights as well as the descriptive weight statistics for the 25% ceramic subsample selected from Feature 38. Figure 4.13 demonstrates that the majority—56.5%—of the ceramics subsampled from Feature 38 weigh less than 2 g and that the distribution of maximum thickness differs dramatically from Features 37 and 146 as well as the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample. The range for Feature 38 is only 11.9 g, with a minimum value of 0.2 g and a maximum value 12.1 g, which is by far the smallest maximum thickness range of the three analyzed pit features. The mean sherd weight is also only
2.6 g, more than 1 g less than that of Feature 37. In addition, the standard deviation of 2.4 g shows that there is a mild amount of deviation from the mean in Feature 38. The ceramic subsample from Feature 38 has therefore been reduced to small sherds, probably as a result of exposure to discard and formation process, such as trampling and the construction and use of the earth oven.
70
Figure 4.14. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 38.
Figure 4.15 displays theTable distribution 4.3: Distribution and maximum and frequency thickness of each descriptive sherd type statistics from Feature for 37, 38, and 146.
Feature 38. Similar to the other pit features as well as the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample, in this feature the majority—76.6 %—of the ceramics have a maximum thickness between 4 mm and 7 mm. However, with a minimum value of 1.93 mm, and a maximum value of 10.31 mm, the range (8.39 mm) for the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38 is the smallest of the three pit features. The standard deviation of 1.4 mm also shows that there is little deviation from the mean maximum thickness (5.4 mm), which is very similar to Features 37 and 146 as well as the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample. This suggests that mean maximum thickness remains relatively constant regardless of feature, while mean sherd weight is much more variable.
71
Figure 4.15. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 38.
Interior- and Exterior-Surface Damage Variability Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Table 4.9 shows the frequency statistics for ceramics with traces of interior- and exterior- surface damage in the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38. Burning is the most frequent form of interior- and exterior-surface damage in the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38. The next most frequent type of surface damage is exfoliation with or without rounded edges. Notably, abrasion and exfoliation damage occur rarely in the Lower Zone, whereas burning damage is much more prevalent in the Lower Zone than in the Upper Zone. In fact, 66.7% of Lower Zone ceramics have burned interior-surfaces, while 83.3% have burned exterior-surfaces. In contrast, interior- and exterior-surface damage frequencies for the Upper Zone are more equally represented and burning damage, at 3.7% for the interior-surfaces of Upper Zone ceramics and
16.7% for the exterior-surfaces of Upper Zone ceramics, occurs much less frequently. This suggests a strong association between context and surface damage as well as two different episodes of deposition.
To determine if the distribution of ceramics with interior- and exterior-surface damage was linked to the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square tests were conducted. Based on the five
72 surface categories, there is a strong association between interior- (χ2 =117.7, df = 4, p = 9.488 <
.05) and exterior- (χ2 =31.04, df = 4, p = 9.488 < .05) surface damage and context in Feature 38.
Further chi-square analyses based on three combined surface categories (i.e., ceramics that are undamaged, burned, or show attrition) verify that there is a significant association between ceramics with interior- (χ2 =70.7, df =2, p = 5.991 < .05) and exterior- (χ2 =47.8, df = 2, p =5.991
< .05) surface damage with respect to context in Feature 38. Hence, the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38 have ceramics that exhibit interior- and exterior-surface damage that, although not randomly distributed, are associated with context.
Table 4.9. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38.
Radiocarbon Dating of Feature 38
Figure 4.16 shows the location and calibrated ranges (2) of the two-radiocarbon dates that have been obtained from Feature 38. One conventional radiocarbon date was acquired for the Upper Zone and one AMS date was acquired for the Lower Zone.
73
The two radiocarbon dates indicate that Feature 38 was filled during the Late Fort
Ancient Period. The radiocarbon dates from 50-60 cm and 100-110 cm also overlap at the calibrated 2 ranges, so it is possible that the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 38 were filled at around the same time. However, the dichotomous ceramic distribution for the Upper and
Lower Zones as well as the chi-square tests suggest that Feature 38 was filled in two separate deposition episodes. Accordingly, the filling history of Feature 38 was probably a product of two discrete activities that filled the Upper and Lower Zones through different mechanisms.
Figure 4.16. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Feature 38.
Feature 146 Patterns of Ceramic Variability Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Sherd Type and Temper Composition Variability
Table 4.10 shows the frequencies for the four sherd types (cordmarked body, plain body, eroded body, and rim) represented in the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 146. Cordmarked body sherds are the most common sherd type and outnumbered plain body sherds by more than
4.6 to 1. Hence, the ratio between cordmarked and plain body sherds subsampled from Feature
146 differs dramatically from Feature 37 (Table 4.4), and is more similar to Feature 38 (Table
74
4.7). Moreover, the ratio of cordmarked to plain body sherds in Feature 146 is greater than that for the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample (Table 4.2). Although Feature 146 has the largest
25% ceramic subsample, Feature 146 accounted for only 0.1% of the analyzed rim sherds and zero of the incised body sherds.
Table 4.10. Upper and Lower Zone variability in Feature 146 by sherd type.
Table 4.11 shows the frequencies for the seven temper compositions represented in
Feature 146. Although Feature 146 has the second most diverse array of temper compositions,
Feature 146 has many more ceramics that are rock-tempered or shell/rock-tempered than
Features 37 and 38, respectively. Hence, the temper composition frequencies for the Upper and
Lower Zones of Feature 146 are more consistent with Middle Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages than Late Fort Ancient ceramic assemblages (e.g., Essenpreis 1982; Griffin 1943; Riggs 1998;
Turnbow and Henderson 1992). Furthermore, exclusively rock-tempered ceramics make up a greater proportion of the Lower Zone than the Upper Zone. In fact, 30.2% of Lower Zone ceramics are rock-tempered, while only 9% of Upper Zone ceramics are rock-tempered. Hence, the higher frequency of rock-tempered ceramics, coupled with the close-proximity to Feature
136 and the Late Woodland AMS date from the Lower Zone (see Table 3.7), suggest that the rock-tempered ceramics from the Lower Zone of Feature 146 may have Woodland origins.
75
To determine if there was a relationship between the distribution of temper compositions and Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146, chi-square tests were conducted. Based on the seven identified temper compositions, there is an association between temper composition and context in Feature 146 (χ2 =155.22, df = 6, p =12.592 < .05). A chi-square test was also conducted for three combined temper categories (i.e., shell-, shell-rock-, and rock-tempered ceramics). The combined temper categories also show that there is a strong association between temper composition and context in Feature 146 (χ2 =102.7; df = 2; p =5.991 < .05). Aspects of ceramic technology, temper selection through time, discard behavior and pit-filling processes may be indicated by the strong association between temper composition and context in Feature 146.
Table 4.11. Upper and Lower Zone variability from Feature 146 by temper composition.
Table 4.3: Distribution and frequency of each sherd type from Feature 37, 38, and 146.
Ceramic Artifact Weight and Maximum Thickness Variability Figure 4.17 shows the distribution of ceramic artifact weights as well as the descriptive weight statistics for the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 146. Importantly, Figure 4.17 demonstrates that the majority—75.8%—of the ceramics subsampled from Feature 146 weigh less than 3.3 g. Moreover, the distribution of Feature 146 ceramic artifact weights differs considerably from Feature 38 and, due to the large size of the subsample, is very similar to the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample (see Figure 4.2). For instance, with a minimum value of 0.1 g and a maximum value 120.5 g, the range for ceramic artifact weight in Feature 146 is 120.4 g,
76 which is identical to that of the aggregated 25% subsample and is the largest range of the three analyzed pit features. Further, the mean sherd weight of Feature 146 is 3.0 g, which is less than
0.2 g from the mean sherd weight of the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample (Figure 4.3). In addition, the standard deviation of 5.1 g indicates that there is considerable deviation from the mean (3.0 g) in Feature 146, although not quite as much as Feature 37 or the aggregated 25% subsample.
Figure 4.17. Distribution of ceramic artifact weights for Feature 146.
Figure 4.18 displays Tablethe distribution 4.3: Distribution and maximum and frequency thickness of each descriptive sherd type statisticsfrom Feature for 37, 38, and 146.
Feature 146. Although the 25% ceramic subsample is much larger, the maximum thickness distribution for Feature 146 is similar to Features 37 and 38 where the majority—68.5%—of the subsampled ceramics from Feature 146 have a maximum thickness between 4 mm and 7 mm.
With a minimum value of 1.22 mm and a maximum value of 12.74 mm, the range (11.52 mm) for the analyzed ceramic subsample from Feature 146 is greater than that of Feature 37 and especially Feature 38, and is in fact equivalent to the aggregated 25% ceramic subsample (Figure
4.5). Therefore, the ranges for ceramic artifact weights and maximum thickness for the 25%
77 ceramic subsample analyzed for this thesis have been heavily influenced by the very large ceramic assemblage recovered from Feature 146. Regardless, the standard deviation of 1.6 mm shows that there is slightly more deviation from the mean in Feature 146 than in Features 37 and
38, while the mean maximum thickness values are quite similar for each of the three pit features
(see Figures 4.12, 4.15, and 4.18). Accordingly, there is much less variability in maximum thickness than there is in ceramic artifact weights regardless of the pit feature.
Figure 4.18. Distribution of maximum thickness for Feature 146.
Interior- and Exterior-Surface Damage Variability
Table 4.12 shows the frequency statistics for ceramics with traces of interior- and exterior-surface damage in the 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 146. Unlike Features 37 and 38, however, rounded edges is the most frequent form of interior- and exterior-surface damage in the Upper and the Lower Zones of Feature 146. Hence, abrasion damage is a much more prevalent form of interior- and exterior-surface damage in Feature 146 than in Features 37 and 38, where burning damage was the most common type of interior- and exterior-surface damage. It is interestingly that there is a greater percentage of Lower Zone ceramics that have
78 interior- and exterior-surface damage than Upper Zone ceramics. For instance, 52.1% of Lower
Zone ceramics have damaged interior-surfaces, while 47.1% have damaged exterior-surfaces. In contrast, 43.2% of Upper Zone ceramics have interior-surface damage, while 35.4% have exterior-surface damage. The differences in frequencies for ceramics with interior- and exterior- surface damage suggests that ceramics from the Lower Zone of Feature 146 may have experienced longer exposure to AFP and EFP than ceramics from the Upper Zone.
To see if there was an association between the distribution of ceramics with interior- and exterior-surface damage and the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square tests were conducted.
Based on the five surface categories, there is a significant association between interior- (χ2 =20.2, df = 4 p = 9.488 < .05) and exterior- (χ2 =362.2, df =4, p = 9.488 < .05) surface damage traces with respect to context in Feature 146. Further chi-square analyses based on three combined surface categories (i.e., ceramics that are undamaged, burned, or show attrition) verify that there is an association between interior- (χ2 =7.08, df = 2, p = 5.991 < .05) and exterior- (χ2 =15.13, df
=2, p = 5.991 < .05) surface damage and context in Feature 146. Feature 146 therefore has Upper and Lower Zones that harbored ceramics with traces of interior- and exterior-surface damage that were associated with context. That is, not only was Feature 146 filled by multiple waste streams, but the interior- and exterior-surface damage frequencies coupled with the chi-square results demonstrate that the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146 contained ceramics that were not deposited randomly but we probably deposited by virtue of both environmental and anthropogenic processes over an extended time span.
79
Table 4.12. Surface damage frequencies for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146.
Radiocarbon Dating of Feature 146
Figure 4.19 shows the location and calibrated ranges (2) of the three-radiocarbon dates that have been obtained from Unit 35 of Feature 146. Two AMS dates were acquired for the
Upper Zone of Unit 35 and one AMS date was acquired for the Lower Zone of Unit 35.
The three AMS dates show that Feature 146 was filled slowly over an approximately seven-century time span that began during the Late Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 500-1000) and ended during the Middle Fort Ancient Period (ca. A.D. 1250-1450). The Late Woodland filling of Feature 146 is represented by the AMS date from 100-108 cm—cal. A.D. 677-779—and suggests that Feature 146 could have been associated with Feature 136, the remnants of an undated circular earthwork that was probably constructed by the Adena or Hopewell traditions between 400 B.C. and A.D. 400 (e.g., Burks and Cook 2011:667).
As was suspected based on the temper composition frequencies presented in Table 4.15, the primary filling of Feature 146—the Upper Zone—occurred during the Middle Fort Ancient
Period. Furthermore, because the AMS dates from 40-50 cm and 50-60 cm overlap at the
80 calibrated 2 ranges, it is likely that the Upper Zone of Feature 146 was filled relatively quickly as a result of large-scale intentional discard activities. In contrast, the Late Woodland radiocarbon date (Beta-374929), coupled with the paucity of Lower Zone ceramics and the prevalence of abrasion damage suggests that the Lower Zone of Feature 146 was filled slower than the Upper Zone and perhaps had a filling history that was aided by EFP.
Figure 4.19. Location of 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates from Unit 35 of Feature 146.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has addressed several important patterns of ceramic variability and has contextualized the radiocarbon dates obtained as part of this research. Chapter 5 will provide an interpretation for the formation of the ceramic assemblages recovered in Features 37, 38, and 146 based on the patterns identified in the data. In addition, Chapter 5 will conclude the study by contextualizing the results of the compiled data analysis within the current body of Fort Ancient archaeological data by presenting inferences about the discard of ceramics during the Middle and
Late Fort Ancient Periods at the Hahn’s Field Site.
81
CHAPTER 5: INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter, the filling histories of Features 37, 38, and 146 will be interpreted. The events, processes, and behaviors that are inferred for each pit feature are framed within the broader context of what is currently known about pit formation processes, ceramic technology, and discard practices in the middle Ohio Valley. The study will be concluded by discussing the implications of expanding formation process research in Midwestern archaeology.
Feature 37
Radiocarbon assays, temper composition frequencies, and close-proximity to Structure 1 indicate that Feature 37 contained Middle and Late Fort Ancient refuse. Although radiocarbon dating has shown that some of the fill from Feature 37 had Middle Fort Ancient origins, the high frequency of shell-tempered ceramics and the two newly acquired radiocarbon dates demonstrate that the bulk of the fill from Feature 37 had Late Fort Ancient origins. In addition, because the radiocarbon dates obtained for this research overlap at the calibrated 2 ranges (see Table 3.7), it is probable that Feature 37 was filled rather quickly. Moreover, the initial filling of Feature 37—
Horizon D—likely transpired during the construction of the storage facility, and included Middle
Fort Ancient refuse that was originally associated with Structure 1.
Interpretation of the 25% Ceramic Subsample from Feature 37
The 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 37 provides information about discard and storage pit reuse processes during the Late Fort Ancient Period. For example, as at other Fort
Ancient villages (Genheimer [ed.] 2000; Henderson [ed.] 1992), empty storage pits at Hahn’s
Field were favored localities for refuse disposal. Indeed, villages with long occupation spans
82 often exhibit refuse that is concentrated into discrete locations, whereas refuse is usually scattered more indiscriminately at villages with short occupation spans (Schiffer 1976:163). The presence of eroded sherds and the dearth of certain temper compositions also show that some ceramics were deposited as orphan sherds that may have experienced varying amounts of surface exposure prior to being discarded into Feature 37. Despite problems of equifinality, damage traces associated with surface exposure are usually attritional and include breakage, exfoliation, and abrasion (Reid 1984; Schiffer 1983; Schiffer and Skibo 1989; Skibo 1987). All of the analyzed ceramics are fragmented, while 25.8% of the ceramics selected from Feature 37 have interior-surfaces that are exfoliated and/or have rounded edges, and 22.1% have exterior-surfaces that are exfoliated and/or have rounded edges.
Granting that all ceramics were fragmentary when deposited into Feature 37, the high frequency of shell-tempered plain body sherds demonstrates that sherds from at least one plain shell-tempered vessel were discarded into Feature 37. To test if there was an association between temper composition and context, chi-square tests were conducted for the Upper and Lower Zones based on the eight identified temper compositions and, to be conservative, three combined temper categories (see Chapter 4). The chi-square tests reveal that there is no association between temper and context in Feature 37, which suggests a relatively fast filling history.
Feature 37 also offers insight into assemblage formation processes at multicomponent sites. For instance, the data collected on surface damage, as well as the high aggregated mean sherd weight and mean maximum thickness values, reveal that multiple waste streams combined to form a heterogeneous secondary refuse deposit that experienced varying amounts of exposure to AFP and EFP, certainly including cooking, use-wear, trampling and transportation, as well as several disturbance processes (e.g., Schiffer and Skibo 1989; Skibo 2012; Wood and Johnson
83
1978). In addition, Lower Zone ceramics more often exhibit surface damage than Upper Zone ceramics. Hence, several Lower Zone ceramics could have been damaged as Feature 37 intercepted Structure 1 deposits. Indeed, it has been shown that residents will provisionally discard damaged ceramic vessels near residences for future reuse (e.g., Deal 1985; Hayden and
Cannon 1983:156; Hutson and Stanton 2007:136; Sullivan 1989). Likewise, large ceramic middens with diverse traces of AFP and EFP develop around structures in communities that are occupied for long periods of time (e.g., Beck 2006).
To see if there was an association between the distribution of ceramics with interior- and exterior- surface damage and the Upper and Lower Zones, chi-square tests were conducted for the five surface categories as well as three combined categories (see Chapter 4). The chi-square tests show that there is an association between surface damage and context. That is, the distribution of ceramics with surface damage suggests that some ceramics were damaged and incorporated into the Lower Zone as the storage pit intercepted Middle Fort Ancient midden deposits or provisional refuse. Because their greater antiquity is conducive to longer exposure to
AFP and EFP (Schiffer 1983), ceramics from the intercepted Middle Fort Ancient deposits would, in general, be more likely to show damage traces than Late Fort Ancient ceramics.
Finally, it is surprising that Feature 37 has such a high percentage of ceramics with interior- and exterior-surface damage considering that Feature 37 has the heaviest aggregated mean sherd weight and thickest aggregated mean maximum thickness value. The high rate of surface damage, especially exterior, may be related not only to the fact that Feature 37 truncated
Structure 1, or that ceramics from a variety of domestic contexts were discarded in Feature 37, but may also be connected to the high percentage of ceramics with plain exterior-surfaces (see
Table 4.4). Certainly, roughening surfaces can increase vessel durability and resistance to
84 attrition (Skibo 2012:119); hence, it is feasible that plain exterior-surfaces are more likely to show damage than cordmarked exterior-surfaces. Several sherds from cooking vessels may have also been discarded into Feature 37, as burning is the most frequent form of surface damage. In any case, Feature 37 was constructed and filled with refuse from multiple waste streams after the
Madisonville Horizon. Moreover, some of the Lower Zone fill was concomitant with Structure 1 and was deposited into Feature 37 due to discard, disturbance, and refuse reclamation processes.
Feature 38
Extensive burning, copious amounts of wood charcoal, and an in situ horizon of FCR show that Feature 38 was an earth oven. Like Feature 37, radiocarbon assays and temper composition frequencies suggest a Late Fort Ancient origin. A quick filling history is also apparent from both the low diversity of temper compositions, and the overlapping radiocarbon dates from the Upper and Lower Zones at the calibrated 2 ranges (see Table 3.7). However, the
Upper and Lower Zones were functionally discrete, as they were clearly separated by the in situ horizon of FCR. Therefore, the Upper and Lower Zones represent sequential stages of Feature 38 as an earth oven and a refuse disposal facility.
Interpretation of the 25% Ceramic Subsample from Feature 38
The 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38 provides information regarding pit and assemblage formation processes during the Late Fort Ancient Period. For example, minimal variability within temper compositions indicates that Feature 38 contained a very homogenous secondary refuse deposit that accumulated in two separate intervals. That is, the Upper and
Lower Zones of Feature 38 were certainly deposited under different circumstances as evidenced in the in situ horizon of FCR, ceramic distribution, as well as interior- and exterior-surface
85 damage frequencies. It is plausible that the Upper Zone was filled with domestic refuse after
Feature 38 was no longer functional as an earth oven, while the Lower Zone was filled earlier, perhaps during the initial usage. In fact, the abundance of wood charcoal and the high percentage of ceramics with burning damage suggest that Lower Zone ceramics were deposited into Feature
38 at around the same time as the lowest level of fuel, prior to the deposition of the in situ horizon of FCR. To see if there was an association between the Upper and Lower Zones with respect to interior- and exterior-surface damage, chi-square tests were conducted for the five surface categories as well as three combined categories (see Chapter 4). Both chi-square tests reveal that there is an association between surface damage and context in Feature 38. Hence, chi- square tests confirm that the distribution of ceramics with burning is not random but is associated with context, where Lower Zone ceramics could have been burned with the lowest level of fuel.
The 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 38 also provides evidence for Late Fort
Ancient ceramic discard practices and small-scale domestic cleaning behavior. The wealth of shell-tempered cordmarked body sherds shows that sherds from at least one cordmarked shell- tempered vessel were discarded into the Upper Zone. To determine if there was an association between the Upper and Lower Zones with respect to temper composition, chi-square tests were conducted for the five identified temper compositions and three combined temper categories (see
Chapter 4). Each chi-square test shows that there is an association between temper composition and context. Regardless, the low aggregated mean sherd weight and mean maximum thickness values indicate that the ceramics subsampled from Feature 38 were fragmentary when deposited and were perhaps reduced to small sherds due to AFP, such as compacting, trampling, cooking, and use-wear as well as fragmentation during the construction of other pit features or as cook stones were deposited into the earth oven (e.g., O’ Brien 1990; Schiffer 1987; Skibo 2012;
86
Thoms 2008). Indeed, the more times that ceramics are moved the more damage an assemblage is expected to have experienced (Rosenwig 2009:15). In any case, the collected data indicate that
Feature 38 was filled quickly in two intervals during the Late Fort Ancient Period as a result of
AFP, including the construction and use of the earth oven and small-scale domestic discard activities.
Feature 146
Radiocarbon assays and temper composition variability indicate that Feature 146 was filled over a seven-century time span that bridged the Late Woodland and Middle Fort Ancient
Periods. The large size of Feature 146, its close-proximity to Feature 136—the probable remains of a Middle Woodland earthwork—and the Late Woodland AMS radiocarbon date from the lowest level of fill, suggest that Features 136 and 146 could have been associated. Furthermore, ceramic distributions and interior- and exterior-surface damage traces indicate that the Lower
Zone of Feature 146 was filled slowly by a combination of EFP and AFP, while the Upper Zone was filled much more rapidly by large-scale intentional discard activities.
Interpretation of the 25% Ceramic Subsample from Feature 146
The 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 146 provides insight into the occupation history of Hahn’s Field and assemblage formation processes at multicomponent sites. For example, Feature 146 contained a very large heterogeneous secondary refuse deposit that accumulated over an extended period of time. Due to its large size, Feature 146 has both the largest 25% ceramic subsample and the second most diverse array of temper compositions.
Certainly, as occupation span increases, a greater variety of artifacts can be anticipated for any discard inventory—a phenomenon known as the “Clarke Effect” (Rathje and Schiffer 1982:119).
87
Feature 146 also contained significantly more rock-tempered ceramics and shell–tempered ceramics with rock additives than Features 37 and 38 (see Table 4.3). Feature 146 ceramic diversity therefore reflects temporal variation in the ceramics used in the Woodland through
Middle Fort Ancient occupations at Hahn’s Field.
The 25% ceramic subsample from Units 27 and 35 provides evidence for Fort Ancient ceramic technology and the transition from rock temper to shell temper. That is, the presence, distribution, and frequency of rock-tempered ceramics, shell-tempered ceramics with rock additives, and shell-tempered ceramics suggest that the use of shell temper increased during the filling history of Feature 146. To test if the there was an association between temper composition and context, chi-square tests were conducted for the Upper and Lower Zones based on the seven identified temper compositions as well as three combined temper categories (see Chapter 4).
Both chi-square tests reveal that there is an association between temper composition and context.
Temper differences in the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146 not only verify a prolonged filling history, but also provide information about temper selection through time at Hahn’s Field.
Further support for the hypothesis that temper differences between the Upper and Lower
Zones supply evidence about the evolution of tempering materials at Hahn’s Field is provided by the adjusted chi-square residual values presented in Table 5.1. The adjusted residual values demonstrate that more shell-tempered ceramics were recovered from the Upper Zone of Feature
146 than was expected, while fewer ceramics that are shell-tempered with rock additives or rock- tempered were recovered. Conversely, in the Lower Zone of Feature 146 much fewer shell- tempered ceramics were recovered then was anticipated, while there were many more shell- tempered ceramics with rock additives and rock-tempered ceramics. Hence, there are considerable differences in the distribution of shell-, shell/rock-, and rock-tempered ceramics.
88
The use of rock additives with shell temper has been linked to a tentative adoption of shell temper because crushed rock had been the primary temper medium throughout the middle Ohio
Valley since at least 1000 B.C. (Cook and Fargher 2008; Pollack at al. 2008). Ceramics from the
Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146 may therefore suggest that the adoption of shell temper occurred gradually at Hahn’s Field, and although not immediately embraced, was regularly used with rock additives before nearly replacing rock temper by A.D. 1450 (Sharp 1996:170).
Table 5.1. Adjusted chi-square residual values for the Upper and Lower Zones of Feature 146 by combined temper categories. Temper Chi-square Adjusted Context Observed Expected Composition values Residuals Upper Zone Shell 793 744.1 3.63 9.04 Shell/Rock 394 419.7 1.57 -5.23 Rock 118 141.1 3.78 -7.08
Lower Zone Shell 19 67.8 35.12 -9.47 Shell/Rock 64 38.3 17.24 5.27 Rock 36 12.9 41.36 7.12 χ2 =102.7 2 χ .05 [2] =5.991
The 25% ceramic subsample from Feature 146 also provides evidence for Middle Fort
Ancient discard practices because the huge volume of refuse demonstrates that the Upper Zone was filled by large-scale intentional discard activities. Ceramics from numerous domestic waste streams, including houses, various activity areas, and shared communal contexts were discarded into the Upper Zone of Feature 146. Certainly, activity areas, such as plazas, courtyards, and structures are periodically cleaned or maintained so that the accumulation of refuse does not interfere with activity performance (Schiffer 1983). Correspondingly, the enormous quantity of domestic refuse indicates that the Upper Zone of Feature 146 was filled by large-scale discard activities that were probably organized and performed to level a large depression. Indeed, at
89 many prehistoric sites it is not uncommon for refuse to be used for filling in empty pits or leveling grades (Schiffer 1987:113).
Although the relationship between Features 136 and 146 is not entirely understood, it is probable that Feature 146 originated as a borrow pit, or an area where material was excavated for construction at another location (Benson 2012:1). As Feature 136 was constructed, which likely occurred over several building episodes (Milner 2004), a large volume of soil could have been systematically excavated from nearby to create Feature 146. Borrow pits are common near earthworks as construction required large amounts of soil (e.g., Benson 2012; Burks and Cook
2011). Once Feature 136 was completed, the borrow area—Feature 146—began to fill in slowly as a result of EFP, such as fluvial and aeolian erosion as well as a suite of disturbance processes
(Skibo and Schiffer 1987; Wood and Johnson 1978). To see if there was an association between the Upper and Lower Zones with respect to interior- and exterior-surface damage, chi-square tests were conducted based on the five surface damage categories as well as three combined categories (see Chapter 4). Like Features 37 and 38, both chi-square tests reveal that there is an association between surface damage and context in Feature 146. That is, chi-square analyses confirm that Lower Zone ceramics exhibit attrition damage, chiefly abrasion, at a greater rate than would be expected randomly and therefore could have been deposited by virtue of EFP.
It is important to note that only the deepest levels (80-108 cm) from the Lower Zone in
Unit 35 could have been filled by EFP during the Late Woodland Period as ceramic frequencies escalate for the remainder of the Lower Zone (70-80 cm) and throughout the Upper Zone. For example, the 25% ceramic subsample from 70-80 cm—the uppermost level of the Lower Zone in
Unit 35—includes 55 sherds, while there were only 19 sherds subsampled from the three levels from 80-108 cm (see Appendix C). In addition, the frequency of ceramics with interior- and
90 exterior-surfaces that exhibit rounded edges and/or exfoliation damage decreases from 70-80 cm while ceramics that are undamaged or burned become more prevalent (see Appendix C). Thus, the upper level (70-80 cm) of the Lower Zone in Unit 35 may have contained ceramics that were intentionally discarded, although not in large quantities, rather than deposited solely by EFP.
The two deepest levels (60-80 cm) from the Lower Zone of Unit 27 may have also been filled partially as a result of EFP. Support for this conclusion is provided by the chi-square results as well as the dearth of ceramics subsampled from 60-80 cm in Unit 27 and the high percentage—66.7%—of ceramics with interior- and exterior-surfaces that are exfoliated and/or have rounded edges (see Appendix C). In contrast, ceramic frequencies increase for the rest of the Lower Zone in Unit 27. For example, the 25% ceramic subsample from 50-60 cm—the uppermost level of the Lower Zone in Unit 27—includes 30 sherds, only 13.3% of which have interior- and exterior-surfaces with rounded edges and/or exfoliation damage (see Appendix C).
Unlike Unit 35, however, the temper compositions from the Lower Zone of Unit 27 suggest a
Middle Fort Ancient origin rather than a Late Woodland origin as 77.8% of the ceramics are shell-tempered with rock additives, 20% are rock-tempered, and 2.2% are shell-tempered.
Simply put, during the Late Woodland Period ceramics were gradually transported by erosion from the edge of the borrow pit to Unit 35, the central and deepest context of Feature
146. Later during the Early and Middle Fort Ancient Periods, erosion continued to fill Feature
146, which incorporated shell-tempered ceramics with rock additives as well as shell-tempered ceramics into the Lower Zone of Unit 27 and perhaps 70-80 cm in the Lower Zone of Unit 35.
The AFP and EFP that combined to fill Feature 146 may be related to the rapidly increasing population densities at Hahn’s Field during the Late Woodland through Middle Fort Ancient
Periods as the environmental impacts of human activity are concentrated in and around living
91 areas, where devegetation, soil loosening, and construction often lead to extensive soil erosion
(Butzer 1982:123-132). Feature 146, therefore, most likely originated as a borrow pit for Feature
136 and was filled by a combination of EFP and AFP over an extended time span.
Comparing the Filling Histories of Features 37, 38, and 146
The ceramic data from Features 37, 38, and 146 presented here provide important insight into the occupation history at Hahn’s Field as well as pit and assemblage formation processes at multicomponent sites. This analysis also generated data about the intensity of discard activities in specific temporal and functional contexts due to the spatial, chronological, and functional diversity of Features 37, 38, and 146. Aside from the prolonged filling history and hypothesized evolution of tempering materials for ceramics subsampled from Feature 146, it is evident that empty pits at Hahn’s Field were usually filled with refuse soon after their utility was compromised. That is, combustion features, storage pits, and depressions appear to have been used equally to discretely dispose of refuse during the Fort Ancient occupations at Hahn’s Field.
Ceramics with the most ubiquitous temper—shell—were recovered from each feature in varying quantities. To speculate, the selection of shell temper at Hahn’s Field beginning in the
Middle Fort Ancient Period likely arose out of the need to construct vessels that were both more portable and more resistant to mechanical attrition and thermal shock (Feathers 2006; Tankersley and Meinhart 1982). In this respect, the introduction of shell temper is tied to regional interaction networks and the escalating need to cook, store, and transport agricultural commodities. An increasing dependence on shell temper during the Middle and Late Fort
Ancient Periods is also perhaps an indication of the necessity to produce adequate amounts of
92 food for large sedentary populations and the growing need to mitigate unpredictable environmental fluctuations through the storage of agricultural resources.
The presence of shell-tempered ceramics that contain rock additives in each of the three pit features suggests that the adoption of shell temper did not occur immediately at Hahn’s Field, but was instead incorporated gradually into existing ceramic traditions. A gradual adoption of shell temper during the Middle Fort Ancient Period is logical due to increasing interaction with
Mississippian communities to the southwest, where shell-tempered ceramics appear earlier than in the middle Ohio Valley (Cook 2008; Cook and Fargher 2008; Pollack et al. 2008; Pollack et al. 2002). However, because Hahn’s Field was occupied during the Woodland Period, ceramics from earlier occupations, including rock-tempered ceramics and shell-tempered ceramics with rock additives, were routinely deposited into Middle and Late Fort Ancient pit features as a result of discard, disturbance, and refuse reclamation processes. In effect, the construction, use, and filling of pit features not only averages synchronic domestic activities, but also homogenizes diachronic aspects of site occupation span through the incorporation of items of material culture that were deposited during earlier occupations. Hence, at sedentary sites with long occupation spans, such as Hahn’s Field, spatial and temporal continuity is therefore reflected in ceramic manufacturing strategies.
Although varying amounts of shell-, shell/rock-, and rock-tempered ceramics were recovered from Features 37, 38, and 146, interesting differences were identified in the ranges, means, and standard deviations for ceramic artifact weights and maximum thickness. That is, the data collected for sherd weight and maximum thickness indicate differences between the three pit features that reflect variability in ceramic technology, discard practices, and formation process exposure history. For instance, the low mean sherd weight of Feature 38 shows that
93 many ceramics were fragmented prior to and during the use of the earth oven, while the higher mean sherd weight values for Features 37 and 146 show that some ceramics may have been discarded while fairly intact. However, the mean maximum thickness values for all three features were similar, with the majority of the subsampled ceramics having a maximum thickness between 4 mm and 7 mm. While there were widespread fluctuations in ceramic artifact weights, maximum thickness remains relatively constant regardless of temper composition or feature.
Although temper particle size undoubtedly is related to sherd thickness and weight (i.e., coarser temper particles should be associated with thicker and heavier vessels), these relationships were not examined directly in this thesis.
The data collected on interior- and exterior-surface damage show several patterns of AFP and EFP that are consistent with the provided interpretations for the formation and filling of
Features 37, 38 and 146. The presence of eroded and fragmented ceramics in each pit feature suggests that broken ceramics were often left on the ground surface prior to collection and deposition into an empty pit. Clearly, appreciating sources of ceramic variability, such as damage traces associated with surface exposure, enables archaeologists to generate well-supported inferences about prehistoric behavior, including discard, maintenance, and manufacturing practices, as well as functional and pit-filling diversity. Even though archaeologists are forced to explain the past based on imperfect and limited data, quantifying variability provides a means to generate interpretations that are logically coherent and statistically supported.
Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research
The data analyzed here align with the local and regional models of Fort Ancient ceramic technology and discard practices (e.g., Cowan 1986; Essenpreis 1982; Henderston and Turnbow
94
1992), while also providing additional data regarding pit and assemblage formation processes with which more geographically and temporally specific models can be developed. Riggs (1998) describes the most comprehensive model about ceramic technology in the lower Little Miami
River Valley. The data collected here regarding temper composition align generally with his Late
Woodland and Fort Ancient study segments and clearly shows the decreasing use of rock temper through time. However, due to the long occupation span at Hahn’s Field as well as the propensity for refuse reclamation processes, there was a slightly smaller proportion of shell- and shell/grit- tempered ceramics in the two Late Fort Ancient pit features analyzed for this study—Features 37 and 38—than was documented in the Late Fort Ancient assemblages analyzed by Riggs (1998).
Similarly, in the Upper Zone of Feature 146 there were more shell/grit-tempered ceramics but fewer shell-tempered ceramics than was documented in the Middle Fort Ancient assemblages analyzed by Riggs (1998). Regardless, because Riggs (1998) did not examine ceramics from the
Hahn’s Field Site, the ceramic data collected from Features 37, 38, and 146 can be used to refine
Rigg’s (1998) model. In addition, more spatially intensive sampling of pit features at Hahn’s
Field and other nearby Fort Ancient sites would expand the dataset with which such models can be developed.
However, to fully contextualize models of lower Little Miami River Valley ceramic technology and pit formation processes, other lines of archaeological evidence must be integrated. For example, discard practices, pit formation processes, and ceramic technology are linked to population nucleation and density. In addition, data about craft production, archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, and economic organization can influence aspects of technology and formation processes at any settlement. Hence, several lines of evidence must be assimilated to provide well-supported multivariate inferences. Formation process studies clearly show that
95 the history of archaeological deposits and the EFP and AFP acting on the artifacts that they contain must be understood before making cultural interpretations based on patterns identified in artifact assemblages (e.g., Rosenwig 2009). In order to more accurately model Fort Ancient discard practices, ceramic technology, and pit formation processes in the middle Ohio Valley, variability must be quantified and substantiated statistically to avoid ethnohistoric or subjective biases, which can convolute our conception of the prehistoric past.
96
REFERENCES CITED
Andrefsky, William 2005 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Barrior, Casey R. 2011 Storage and Relative Surplus at the Mississippian Site of Moundville. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:206-219.
Beck, Margaret E. 2006 Midden Ceramic Assemblage Formation: A Case Study from the Kalinga, Philippines. American Antiquity 71:27-51.
Behrensmeyer, Anna K. 1978 Taphonomic and Ecological Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology 4:150- 162.
Bendremer, Jeffrey C., Elizabeth A. Kellog, and Tonya B. Largy 1991 A Grass-Lined Maize Storage Pit and Early Maize Horticulture in Central Connecticut. North American Archaeologist 42:36-41. Benson, Elizabeth B. 2012 Geophysical Investigations of the Mound City Borrow Pits, Ross County, Ohio. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Bernario, Herbert W. (translator) 1967 Tacitus. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28:217-225.
1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32:1-12.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York City.
Binford, Lewis R., and J. B. Bertram 1977 Bone Frequencies and Attritional Processes. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by L. R. Binford, pp. 77-153. Academic Press, New York City.
Bowen, H. C., and P. D. Wood 1967 Experimental Storage of Corn Underground and Its Implications for Iron Age Settlement. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London 7:1-14.
97
Bradbury, Andrew P., D. Randall Cooper, and Richard L. Herndon 2011 Kentucky’s Small Triangular Subtypes: Old Theories and New Data. Journal of Kentucky Archaeology 1:2-24.
Braun, David P. 1982 Radiographic Analysis of Temper in Ceramic Vessels: Goals and Initial Methods. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:183-192.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A. More and A. S. Keene, pp. 107-134. Academic Press, New York City.
1987 Coevolution of Sedentism, Pottery Technology, and Horticulture in the Central Midwest, 200 B.C.—A.D. 600. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W.F. Keegan, pp. 153-181. Occasional Paper 7. Southern Illinois University, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Carbondale.
Burks, Jarrod, and Robert A. Cook 2011 Beyond Squier and Davis: Rediscovering Ohio’s Earthworks Using Geophysical Remote Sensing. American Antiquity 76:667-689.
Bushnell, David I., Jr. 1909 The Choctaw of Bayou Lacomb, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 38, Washington D.C.
1922 Villages of the Algonquian, Siouan, and Caddoan Tribes West of the Mississippi. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 77, Washington D.C.
Butzer, Karl W. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Cameron, Catherine M. 1990 Pit Structure Abandonment in the Four Corners Region of the American Southwest: Late Basketmaker III and Pueblo I Periods. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:27-37.
Carskadden, Jeff, and James Morten 2000 Fort Ancient in the Muskingum Valley of Eastern Ohio: A View from the Philo II Site. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by Robert A Genheimer, pp. 158-193. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Church, Flora 1987 An Inquiry into the Transition from Late Woodland to Late Prehistoric Cultures in the Central Scioto Valley, Ohio, circa A.D. 500- A.D. 1250. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
98
Cook, Robert A. 2007 Single Component Sites with Long Sequences of Radiocarbon Dates: The Sunwatch Site and Middle Fort Ancient Village Growth. American Antiquity 72:439-460.
2008 SunWatch: Fort Ancient Development in the Mississippian World. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Cook, Robert A., and Aaron Comstock 2014 Toward More Continuous and Practical Artifact Analysis: Defining and Learning From Key Dimensions of Fort Ancient Triangular Points in the Miami Valleys. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 39:222-250.
Cook, Robert A., and Lane F. Fargher 2008 The Incorporation of Mississippian Traditions into Fort Ancient Societies: A Preliminary View of the Shift to Shell-Tempered Pottery Use in the Middle Ohio Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 27:222-237.
Cook, Robert A., and Robert A. Genheimer 2014 Wall Trench Structures in Fort Ancient Villages of Southwest Ohio and Southeast Indiana: Temporal and Formal Considerations. In Building the Past: Prehistoric Wooden Post Architecture in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes, edited by Brian G. Redman and Robert A. Genheimer, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, in press.
Cook, Robert A., and Mark R. Schurr 2009 Eating Between the Lines: Mississippian Migration and Stable Carbon Isotope Variation in Fort Ancient Populations. American Anthropologist 111:344-359.
Cowan, Wesley C. 1978 The Prehistoric Use and Distribution of Maygrass in Eastern North America: Cultural and Phytogeographical Implications. In The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany, edited by Richard I. Ford, pp. 263-288. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
1986 Fort Ancient Chronology and Settlement Evaluation in the Great Miami Valley, Volume II: Excavations and Chronology. Manuscript on File, Ohio Historic Preservation Office.
1987 First Farmers of the Middle Ohio River Valley: Fort Ancient Societies, A.D. 1000- 1670. Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio.
1998 Fort Ancient. In Archaeology of Prehistoric North America: An Encyclopedia, edited by Guy Gibbon, pp. 287-289. Garland Publishing, New York City.
Cowan, Wesley C., Sandra Dunavan, John P. Nass Jr., and Susan Scott 1990 The Schomaker Site, a Middle Fort Ancient Town on the Great Miami River, Hamilton County, Ohio. West Virginia Archaeologist 42:11-35.
99
Deal, Michael 1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243-291.
DeBoer, Warren R. 1988 Subterranean Storage and the Organization of Surplus: The View from Eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7:1-20.
Dibble, Harold L. 2008 Non-anthropogenic Approaches to Understanding Lithic Artifact and Assemblage Variability. In Archaeological Concepts for the Study of the Cultural Past, edited by Alan P. Sullivan III, pp. 85-107. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Dickens, Roy S., Jr. 1985 The Form, Function, and Formation of Garbage-filled Pits on Southeastern Aboriginal Sites: An Archaeobotanical Analysis. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens, Jr., and H. T. Ward, pp. 34-59. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Drennan, Robert D. 2009 Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. 2nd edition. Springer Publishing, New York City.
Drooker, Penelope B. 1996 The View from Madisonville: Continuity and Change in Late Prehistoric- Protohistoric Western Fort Ancient Interactive Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, The University at Albany, State University of New York. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1997 The View from Madisonville: Prehistoric Western Fort Ancient Interaction Patterns. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 31. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
2000 Madisonville Focus Revisited: Re-excavating Southwestern Ohio Fort Ancient from Museum Collections. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by Robert A. Genheimer, pp. 228-270. The Ohio Archaeology Council, Columbus.
Dunnell, Robert C. 1982 Science, Social Science, and Common Sense: The Agonizing Dilemma of Modern Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Research 38:1-25.
Durrell, Richard H. 1977 A Recycled Landscape. Quarterly of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, edited by R.A. Davis, Cincinnati, Ohio.
100
Essenpreis, Patricia S. 1978 Fort Ancient Settlement: Differential Response at a Mississippian-Late Woodland Interface. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, edited by Bruce Smith, pp. 141- 167. Academic Press, New York City.
1982 The Anderson Village Site: Redefining the Anderson Phase of the Fort Ancient Tradition of the Middle Ohio Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1988 An Introduction to the Fort Ancient Cultural Complexes of the Middle Ohio Valley. In A History of 17 of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th Century Human Values and the Built Environment, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Turnbow, pp. 1-22. The Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
Ethridge, Robbie, F. 2003 Creek Country: The Creek Indians and Their World. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Evans, John G., and Terrence P. O’ Connor 1999 Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Methods. Sutton Publishing, Stroud, United Kingdom.
Feathers, James K. 1989 Effects of Temper on Strength of Ceramics: Response to Bronitsky and Hamer. American Antiquity 54:579-588.
2006 Explaining Shell-Tempered Pottery in Prehistoric Eastern North America. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:89-133.
Geisen, M. J. 1992 Late Prehistoric Populations in the Ohio Area: Biological Affinities and Stress Indicators. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Genheimer, Robert A. (editor) 2000 Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions. The Ohio Archaeology Council, Columbus.
Genheimer, Robert A. 2010 Deciphering Multiple Occupations: Middle and Late Fort Ancient Villages at the Hahn Site near Cincinnati, Ohio. Paper presented at the 67th annual Southeastern Archaeology Conference, Lexington, Kentucky.
2013 Pit Formation and Diversity/Homogeneity of Madisonville-age Trash-filled Storage Pits at the Hahn Site near Cincinnati, Ohio. Paper presented at the 56th annual Midwestern Archaeology Conference, Columbus, Ohio.
101
2014 Temper and the Big Pit: Evolution of Temper at the Late Woodland and Late Prehistoric Hahn Site near Cincinnati, Ohio. Paper presented at the 57th annual Midwestern Archaeology Conference, Champaign, Illinois.
Genheimer, Robert A., and Stanley E. Hedeen 2014 A Preliminary Examination of Freshwater Bivalves at the Late Prehistoric Hahn Site, near Cincinnati Ohio. Journal of Ohio Archaeology 3:38-52.
Gibbon, Guy E. 1998 Archaeology of Prehistoric North America: An Encyclopedia, edited by Guy Gibbon. Garland Publishing, New York City
2013 Critically Evaluating the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide. AltaMira Press, Lanham.
Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P., David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert L. Thunan 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal. American Antiquity 50:803-818.
Goldberg Paul, and Richard I. Macphail 2006 Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Massachusetts.
Goodyear, Frank H. 1971 Archaeological Site Science. American Elsevier, New York City.
Gould, Richard A., and Patty Jo Watson 1982 A Dialogue on the Meaning and Use of Analogy in Ethnoarchaeological Reasoning. Journals of Anthropological Archaeology 1:355-381.
Graybill, Jeffery R. 1981 The Eastern Periphery of Fort Ancient (A.D.1050-1650): A Diachronic Approach to Settlement Variability. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Greber, N’omi B. 1996 A Commentary on the Contexts and Contents of Large to Small Hopewell Deposits. In A View from the Core: A Synthesis of Ohio Hopewell Archaeology, edited by Paul Pacheco, pp. 150-173. The Ohio Archaeology Council, Columbus.
Greenhouse, Ruth, Robert E. Gasser, and Jannifer W. Gish 1981 Cholla Bud Roasting Pits: An Ethnoarchaeological Example. Kiva 46:227-242.
102
Griffin, James B. 1943 The Fort Ancient Aspect: Its Cultural and Chronological Position in Mississippi River Valley Archaeology. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 38. Ann Arbor.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191
1978 Late Prehistory of Ohio. In Northeast, edited by Bruce Trigger, pp. 547-559. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, William G. Sturevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1992 Fort Ancient Has No Class: The Absence of an Elite Group in Mississippian Societies of the Central Ohio Valley. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 3:53-59.
Grooms, Thomas C. 1999 What’s in a Pit? : An Imitative Experimental Study of Fort Ancient Storage. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Cincinnati.
Hatch, James W., and Christopher M. Stevenson 1980 A Functional Analysis of the Fischer Farm Features. In The Fisher Farm Site, edited by James W. Hatch, pp. 140-170. Occasional Papers 12. Department of Anthropology Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Hayden, Brian, and Audrey Cannon 1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163.
Hayden, Brian, and Sara M. Cousins 2004 The Social Dimensions of Roasting Pits in a Winter Village Site. In Complex Hunter Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America, edited by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 140- 154. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Hedeen, Stanley 2006 Natural History of the Cincinnati Region. Cincinnati Museum Center Scientific Contributions, Number 1.
Heilman, J. M. 1988 Ceramics as Indicators of Social Organization. In A History of 17 Years of Excavation and Reconstruction: A Chronicle of 12th Century Human Values and the Built Environment, edited by J. M. Heilman, M. C. Lileas, and C. A. Turnbow, pp. 242- 260. Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
103
Henderson, A. Gwynn (editor) 1992 Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Henderson, A. Gwynn, David Pollack, and Christopher A. Turnbow 1992 Chronology and Cultural Patterns. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 253-279. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Henderson, A. Gwynn, and Christopher A. Turnbow 1987 Fort Ancient Developments in Northeastern Kentucky. In Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky: Volume 1, edited by David Pollack, pp. 205-223. Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfurt.
1992 Previous Fort Ancient Chronologies. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 9-18. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Hilger, Sister M. Inez 1952 Arapahoe Child Life and its Cultural Background. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 148. Washington D.C.
Hoard, Robert J., Danielle Montague-Judd, and Elizabeth J. Miksa 2003 Ceramic Analysis. Plains Anthropologist 48:16-35.
Hodge, Frederick W. (editor) 1907 Busk. In Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, edited by F. W. Hodge, pp. 176-178. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 30, Washington D.C.
Hutson, Scott R., and Travis W. Stanton 2007 Cultural Logic and Practical Reason: The Structure of Discard in Ancient Maya Houselots. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17:123-144.
King, Francis B. and R. Bruce McMilan 1975 Plant Remains from a Woodland Storage Pit, Boney-Spring, Missouri. Plains Anthropologist 20:111-115.
Kinietz, Vernon W. 1972 The Indians of the Western Great Lakes, 1615-1760. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Krause, R. A., and R. M. Thorne 1971 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Things. Plains Anthropologist 16:246-257.
104
LeeDecker, Charles H. 1994 Discard Behavior on Domestic Historic Sites: Evaluation of Contexts for the Interpretation of Household Consumption Patterns. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4:345-575.
Lekson, Stephen H. 2002 War in the Southwest, War in the World. American Antiquity 67:607-624.
Lerch, N. K., W. F. Hale, and D. D. Lemaster 1982 Soil Survey of Hamilton County, Ohio. United states Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil, and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Columbus.
Lewis, Barry R. 1996 Kentucky Archaeology. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Longacre, William A. 1991 Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2000 Exploring Prehistoric Social and Political Organization in the American Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 56:287-300.
Lucus, Gavin 2005 The Archaeology of Time. Routledge, New York City.
2012 Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
McGuire, Randall H. 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. American Anthropologist 94:816-836.
Mann, Charles C. 2011 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created. Random House, New York City.
Marean, Curtis W., and Carol J. Frey 1997 Animal Bones from Caves to Cities: Reverse Utility Curves as Methodological Artifacts. American Antiquity 62:698-711.
Martinek, Dain 1998 Oneota Food Storage Technology: Experiment in Pit Storage of Maize. Manuscript on file at Murphy Library, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
105
McKellar, Judith A. 1983 Correlates and the Explanation of Distributions. Atlatl, Occasional Papers 4. Anthropology Club, University of Arizona, Tucson.
McKern, W. C. 1939 The Midwestern Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Culture Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.
Metz, Charles L. 1881 The Prehistoric Monuments of Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio. Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History 4:293-305.
Mills, William C. 1906 Explorations of the Baum Prehistoric Village Site. Ohio Archaeology and Historical Quarterly 15:45-13.
Milner, George R. 2004 The Moundbuilders: Ancient Peoples of Eastern North America. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.
Moore, John H. 1994 Putting Anthropology Back Together Again: The Ethnogenetic Critique of Cladistic Theory. American Anthropologist 96:925-948.
Morgan, Lewis H. 1995 [1851] The League of the Iroquois. JG Press, North Dighton, Massachusetts.
Nass, John P. 1987 Use-Wear Analysis and Household Archaeology: A Study of the Activity Structure of the Incinerator Site, an Anderson Phase Fort Ancient Community in Southwestern Ohio. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor
Nass, John P., and John P. Hart 2000 Subsistence-Settlement Change during the Late Prehistoric Period in the Upper Ohio River Valley: New Models and Old Constructs. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited By Robert A. Genheimer, pp. 124-155. The Ohio Archaeology Council, Columbus.
Nass, John P., and Richard Yerkes 1998 Social Differentiation in Mississippian and Fort Ancient Societies. In Mississippian Communities and Households, edited by Daniel Rodgers and Bruce Smith, pp. 58-80. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
106
Navazo, Marta, and Carlos Diez 2008 Redistribution of Archaeological Assemblages in Plowzones. Geoarchaeology 23:323-333.
O’ Brien, Patrick 1990 An Experimental Study on the Effects of Salt Erosion on Pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:393-401.
O’ Connor, Terry P. 2001 The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.
Odell, George H., and Frank Cowan 1987 Estimating Tillage Effects on Artifact Distributions. American Antiquity 52: 456- 484.
Oswalt, Wendell H. 2009 This Land Was Theirs: A Study of Native North Americans. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York City.
Parkman, Francis 1966 Count Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV. Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Pavao-Zuckerman, Barnet 2007 Deerskins and Domesticates: Creek Subsistence and Economic Strategies in the Historic Period. American Antiquity 72:5-33.
Pollack, David, and A. Gwynn Henderson 1992 Toward a Model of Fort Ancient Society. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 281-295. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
2000 Insights into Fort Ancient Culture Change: A View from South of the Ohio River. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited By Robert A. Genheimer, pp. 194-227. The Ohio Archaeology Council, Columbus.
Pollack, David, A. Gwynn Henderson, and Christopher Begley 2002 Fort Ancient/Mississippian Interaction on the Northeastern Periphery. Southeastern Archaeology 21:206-220.
Pollack, David, A. Gwynn Henderson, and Martin Raymer 2008 Regional Variation in Kentucky Fort Ancient Shell Temper Adoption. Southeastern Archaeology 27:238-252.
107
Prufer, Olaf H. 1968 Ohio Hopewellian Ceramics: An Analysis of Extant Collections. Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 33. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Purtill, Matthew P. 2008 Early-Woodland Plain-Surfaced Pottery from the Mid-Ohio Valley: Two Recently Excavated Assemblages from Ohio and Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 33:41-71.
Putnam, Frederick J. 1886 Report of the Curator. Peabody Museum Annual Report 18:401-19, 477-502.
Railey, Jimmy A. 1992 Chipped Stone Artifacts. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by Gwynn A. Henderson, pp. 137-168. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
1996 Woodland Cultivators. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by Barry Lewis, pp. 79-126. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Ramsey-Styer, Darwin-Tamar 1995 Seasonal Behavior at the Incinerator Site (33My57), an A.D. 1250 Fort Ancient Site in Southwestern Ohio. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Rathje, William L., and Michael B. Schiffer 1982 Archaeology. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York City.
Reid, Jefferson J. 1985 Formation Processes for the Practical Prehistorian. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by R. S. Dickens, Jr., pp. 11-33. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Reid, Kenneth C. 1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Fiber Tempered Pottery in the Middle-Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49:55- 76.
Reimer P. J., Bard E., Bayliss A., Beck J. W., Blackwell P. G., Bronk Ramsey C., Buck C. E. Cheng H., Edwards R. L., Friedrich M., Grootes P. M., Guilderson T. P., Haflidason H., Hajdas I., Hattà C., Heaton T. J., Hogg A. G., Hughen K. A., Kaiser K. F., Kromer B., Manning S. W., Niu M, Reimer R. W., Richards D. A., Scott E. M., Southon J. R, Turney C. S. M., and van der Plicht J. 2013 IntCal13 and MARINE13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0-50000 years calBP Radiocarbon 55:1869-1887.
108
Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing 2010 Zooarchaeology, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Reynolds, Peter J. 1967 Experiment in Iron Age Agriculture. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society 86: 60-73.
1969 Experiment in Iron Age Agricultures: Part Two. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society 86: 60-73.
1974 Experimental Iron Age Storage Pits: An Interim Report. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 40: 118-131.
Rice, Prudence M. 1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Riggs, Rodney E. 1986 New Stratigraphic Sequences from the Lower Little Miami River Valley. The West Virginia Archaeologist 38:1-21.
1998 Ceramics, Chronology and Culture Change in the Lower Little Miami River Valley, Southwestern Ohio, Circa 100 B.C to Circa A.D. 1650. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Robertson, James A. 1984 Chipped Stone and Functional Interpretations: A Fort Ancient Example. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 9:251-267.
Rosenwig, Robert M. 2009 Early Mesoamerican Garbage: Ceramic and Daub Discard Patterns from Cuauhtémoc, Soconusco, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16:1-32.
Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.
1975 Archaeology as Behavioral Science. American Anthropologist 77:836-848.
1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York City.
1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
109
1990 The Influence of Surface Treatment on Heating Effectiveness of Ceramic Vessels. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:373-381.
2010 Behavioral Archaeology: Principles and Practice. Equinox Publishing.
Schiffer, Michael B., and James M. Skibo 1989 A Provisional Theory of Ceramic Abrasion. American Anthropologist 91:101-115.
Schroedl, Gerald F. 1980 Structures and Village Patterns at the Historic Overhill Cherokee Towns of Chota and Tanasee. Paper presented at the 37th annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Shane, Orrin C., III 1987 An Interim Summary Report of the Vertebrate Faunal Remains from the Incinerator Site, 33MY57, Montgomery County, Ohio. Manuscript on file, Dayton Museum of Natural History, Dayton, Ohio.
Sharp, William E. 1996 Fort Ancient Farmers. In Kentucky Archaeology, edited by Barry Lewis, pp. 161-182 The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Shipman, Pat 1981 Life History of a Fossil: An Introduction to Taphonomy and Paleoecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Shott, Michael J. 1989 On Tool-Class Use Lives and the Formation of Archaeological Assemblages. American Antiquity 54:9-30
1998 Status and Role of Formation Theory in Contemporary Archaeological Practice. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:299-329.
Shott, Michael J. (editor.) 2006 Formation Theory in Archaeology: Readings from American Antiquity and Latin American Antiquity. The Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.
Siegel, Peter E. 1982 A Feature Analysis of a Late Woodland Bluff-top Encampment Located in the Central Mississippi Valley. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghampton.
Skibo, James M. 1987 Fluvial Sherd Abrasion and the Interpretation of Surface Remains on Southwestern Bajadas. North American Archaeologist 8:125-141.
110
2012 Understanding Pottery Function. Springer, New York City.
Skibo, James M., and Michael B. Schiffer 1987 The Effects of Water on Processes of Ceramic Abrasion. Journal of Archaeological Science 14:83-96.
Skibo, James M., J. Franzen, and E. Drake 2006 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking Revisited: Terminal Woodland/Contact Period Occupation on the Lake Superior Shoreline. In Archaeology as Anthropology: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches, edited by J. M. Skibo, M. Graves, and M. Stark. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Smith, Bruce D. 1985 The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States. Southeastern Archaeology 4:51-72.
1989 Origins of Agriculture in the Eastern United States. Science 246:1566-1571.
Smyth, Michael P. 1989 Domestic Storage Behavior in Mesoamerica: An Ethnographical Approach. In Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 89-138. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Starr, S. Frederick 1960 The Archaeology of Hamilton County, Ohio. The Journal of the Cincinnati Museum of Natural History, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Stewart, Marilyn C. 1975 A Typology of Pits on the Engelbert Site. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghampton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Stockton, Eugene D. 1973 Shaw’s Creek Shelter: Human Displacement of Artifacts and Its Significance. Mankind 9:112-117.
Swanton, John R. 1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 43, Washington D.C.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 137, Washington, D.C.
111
Sullivan, Alan P., III. 1978 Inference and Evidence: A Discussion of the Conceptual Problems. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1, edited by M. B. Schiffer, pp. 183-222. Academic Press, New York City.
1989 The Technology of Ceramic Reuse: Formation Processes and Archaeological Evidence. World Archaeology 21:101-114.
1992 The Role of Theory in Solving Enduring Archaeological Problems. In Quandaries and Quests: Visions of Archaeology’s Future, edited by LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 239- 253. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
2007 Archaeological Anthropology and Strategies of Knowledge Formation in American Archaeology. In Archaeological Anthropology: Methodological and Theoretical Approaches, edited by James M. Skibo, Michael W. Graves, and Miriam L. Stark, pp. 40-56. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
2008a An Archaeological View of the Archaeological Record. In Archaeological Concepts for the Study of the Cultural Past, edited by Alan P. Sullivan III, pp. 7-23. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2008b Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Perspectives on Ceramic Vessels and Annual Accumulation Rates of Sherds. American Antiquity 73:121-135.
Sullivan, Alan P., III. (editor) 2008 Archaeological Concepts for the Study of the Cultural Past. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Sullivan, Alan P., III, and W. Flint Dibble 2014 Site Formation Processes. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, pp. 6687-6701. Springer Publishing, New York City.
Sullivan, Alan P., III, James M. Skibo, and Mary Van Buren 1991 Sherds as Tools: The roles of Vessel Fragments in Prehistoric Succulent Plant Processing. North American Archaeologist 12:243-255.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and John Meinhart 1982 Physical and Structural Properties of Ceramic Materials Utilized by a Fort Ancient Group. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 7:225-243.
Tankersley, Kenneth B., and Angela L. Haines 2010 Was Newtown a Fort Ancient Progenitor? North American Archaeologist 31:201- 220.
112
Thoms, Alston 2008 The Fire Stones Carry: Ethnographic Records and Archaeological Expectations for Hot-rock Cookery in West North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:443-460.
Trigger, Bruce G. 2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, and Ann Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-196.
Turnbow, Christopher A., and A. Gwynn Henderson 1992 Ceramic Analysis. In Fort Ancient Cultural Dynamics in the Middle Ohio Valley, edited by A. Gwynn Henderson, pp. 113-135. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 8. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Turner, Jocelyn C. 2011 Macrobotanical Analysis of Two Hopewell Mound Samples from the Mann Site (12 Po 2) in Indiana. Southeastern Archaeology 30:365-376.
Varian, Mark D., Scott G. Ortman 2005 Accumulations Research in the Southwest United States: Middle Range Theory for Big Picture Problems. World Archaeology 37:132-155.
Vaz Pinto, Inez, Michael B. Schiffer, and James M. Skibo 1987 Effects of Temper on Ceramic Abrasion Resistance: A Preliminary Investigation. Archaeomaterials 1:119-134.
Vickery, Kent D., Theodore S. Sunderhaus, and Robert A. Genheimer 2000 Preliminary Report in Excavations at the Fort Ancient State Line Site, 33 Ha 58, in the Central Ohio Valley. In Cultures Before Contact: The Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by Robert A Genheimer, pp. 272-328. Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Wandsnider, LuAnn 1997 The Roasted and the Boiled: Food Composition and Heat Treatment with Special Emphasis on Pit-Hearth Cooking. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:1-48.
Wagner, Gail E. 1986 The Corn and Cultivated Beans of the Fort Ancient Indians. The Missouri Archaeologist 47:107-135.
1987 Uses of Plants by the Fort Ancient Indians. Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
113
1996 Feast or Famine? Seasonal Diet of at a Fort Ancient Community. In Case Studies on Environmental Archaeology, edited by Elizabeth Reitz, Lee A. Newsome, and Sylvia J. Scudder, pp. 235-271. Plenum Press, New York.
Waguespack, Nicole M. 2002 Caribou Sharing and Storage: Refitting the Palangana Site. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:396-417.
Ward, H. Trawick 1985 Social Implications of Storage and Disposal Patterns. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy Dickens, Jr., pp. 34-59. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.
Waldman, Carl 1985 Atlas of the North American Indian. Facts on File, New York City.
Watson, Patty Jo 1988 Prehistoric Gardening and Agriculture in the Midwest and Midsouth. In Interpretations of Culture Change in the Eastern Woodlands During the Late Woodland Period, edited by Patrick Munson, David Braun, Patty Jo Watson, John O’Shea, and Richard Michael Gramly, pp. 39-67. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 3, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Webb, Paul A. (editor) 1992 The Petitt Site (11-Ax-253), Alexander County, Illinois. Research Papers No. 8, Southern Illinois University Center for Archaeological Investigation, Carbondale, Illinois.
Weiner, Stephen 2010 Microarchaeology: Beyond the Visible Archaeological Record. Cambridge University Press, New York City.
Wescott, Kim 2008 Riverfront Village and the Practice of Storage: A Subterranean Feature Analysis. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Georgia State University, Athens. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Wesson, Cameron B. 1999 Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World Archaeology, 31:145-164.
Wilk, Richard R. 1983 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in House Size among Modern Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:99-116.
114
Wilk, Richard R., and Michael B. Schiffer 1979 The Archaeology of Vacant Lots in Tucson, Arizona. American Antiquity 44:530- 536.
Will, George F., and George E. Hyde 1964 Corn Among the Indians of the Upper Missouri. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Wills, W. H. 1988 Early Prehistoric Agriculture in the American Southwest. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Wilson, Jack H., Jr. 1985 Feature Zones and Feature Fills: More than Trash. In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy Dickens, Jr., pp. 61-81. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Wobst, Martin 1978 The Archeo-Ethnology of Hunter-Gatherers or the Tyranny of the Ethnographic Record in Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:303-309.
Wood, W. Raymond, and Donald L. Johnson 1978 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 City.
Wymer, DeeAnn 1997 Paleoethnobotany in the Licking River Valley, Ohio: Implications for Understanding Ohio Hopewell. In Ohio Hopewell Community Organization, edited by William S. Dancey and Paul J. Pacheco, pp. 153-171, Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Yellen, John E. 1977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present: Models for Reconstructing the Past. Academic Press, New York City.
Yerkes, Richard W. 2005 Bone Chemistry, Body Parts, and Growth Marks: Evaluating Ohio Hopewell and Cahokia Mississippian Seasonality, Subsistence, Ritual, and Feasting. American Antiquity 70:241-265.
115
APPENDIX A: 25%CERAMIC SUBSAMPLE FROM FEATURE 37
Maximum Depth/ Weight Unit Feature Zone Sherd Type Temper Thickness Interior-Surface Exterior-Surface Horizon (g) (mm)
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body G 1.7 6.37 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body G 0.6 4.75 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body G 0.4 5.53 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body L/G 1.6 5.08 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body L 1.8 8.32 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S/G 0.8 5.1 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S/G 0.5 4.62 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.2 7.76 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S/G 19.1 7.36 Burned Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S/G 2.2 6.97 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S/G 1.3 8.08 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.6 3.34 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.6 4.29 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.8 5.9 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.4 2.49 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.4 3.88 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.6 4.03 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.4 4.34 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.6 3.69 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.3 4.2 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Eroded Body S 0.4 4.71 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 67.8 8.45 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 2 4.65 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.3 5.09 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 0.5 2.12 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.6 8.32 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 2.4 7.66 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.5 4.43 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.8 5.99 Rounded Edges Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 0.8 3.63 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 2.7 6.65 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.3 5.17 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 0.7 4.64 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 1.3 5.07 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Plain Body S 0.8 4.55 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 5.32 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
116
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6.37 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.61 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 5.57 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.16 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 3.67 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.38 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.49 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.94 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.97 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.96 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.21 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 21-31 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.86 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body G 0.5 5.74 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body L/G 0.9 8.06 Normal Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Rim S/G 2 5.49 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S/G 0.3 2.39 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S/G 2.6 7.13 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 1 4.66 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 1.1 7.19 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.3 3.85 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.2 2.51 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.4 5.59 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Cordmarked Body S 4.6 5.27 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Cordmarked Body S 4.2 6.93 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.97 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.92 Burned Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.29 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 9.1 8.42 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 8.8 6.76 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 4.9 8.29 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 4.8 5.42 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 2.4 7.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 1.3 6.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 1.3 2.82 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 1.2 3.84 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 1.9 6.31 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Plain Body S 1 4.34 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.9 7.53 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.9 4.36 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.7 5.65 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.5 3.47 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
117
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 1.3 4.96 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.8 5.22 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.3 3.13 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.7 6.28 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.7 5.79 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 31-41 Eroded Body S 0.3 2.98 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 41-51 Eroded Body G 0.6 4.79 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body G 1.2 7.77 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.2 6.52 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body L 3.8 7.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S/L 2 6.35 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S/G 2.4 5.56 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S/G 2.8 5.93 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 6.7 8.2 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 6.64 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 6.5 5.56 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 3.99 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.43 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 3.1 6.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.22 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 6.35 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.02 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 76.1 7.11 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.9 4.63 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2.8 4.87 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2.8 4.78 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2.9 6.44 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2.1 5.67 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.8 6.34 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1 4.46 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2 5.88 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.9 6.24 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.9 5.46 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2 5.8 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 2.7 6.13 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.5 5.53 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 1.1 3.51 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 0.5 2.99 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 41-51 Plain Body S 0.4 3.01 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body G 2.7 7.97 Burned Burned
118
4 37 Upper 51-61 Eroded Body L 0.8 6.21 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S/G 0.2 3.64 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S/G 10.7 12.12 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 4 4.77 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 4.6 6.31 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 6.2 5.13 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.4 5.05 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 2.4 6.29 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 2.3 4.76 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.7 8.03 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.7 3.89 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 2.1 6.64 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.3 4.96 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 2 4.92 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.2 8.02 Rounded Edges Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.7 6.99 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.3 5 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.9 4.96 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.2 5.66 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.9 4.39 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.5 3.15 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1 5.39 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 8.6 5.88 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 40.7 8.02 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 10.9 5.43 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.7 4.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 5.6 4.69 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.3 4.97 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 4.5 6.42 Exfoliated Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.6 6.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 2.8 5.32 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 3.6 7.04 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.6 4.37 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.4 5.08 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.1 5.15 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.5 4.16 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 1.3 5.97 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Plain Body S 0.7 4.48 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 6.26 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 6.18 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6 Exfoliated Burned
119
4 37 Upper 51-61 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 4.77 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper 51-61 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 6.07 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Cordmarked Body G 2.1 6.66 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S/G/L 0.6 3.53 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Cordmarked Body L 0.2 3.07 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.6 5.21 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.2 3.36 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Rim S 104.9 7.99 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 66.1 6.06 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 4.6 5.58 Burned Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 2.8 5.8 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 2.6 5.16 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 1.4 5.84 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 0.6 5.39 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 2.1 7.47 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 1.8 6.24 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 2 4.93 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 1.2 6.95 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 1.6 7.18 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 2.3 6.59 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 1.4 4.59 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 0.9 4.87 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 0.8 4.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 0.7 4.61 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Plain Body S 0.6 5.54 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 2.9 2.73 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1.5 6.53 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.9 4.81 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1.1 5.18 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1.2 6.06 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.7 5.96 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1.5 5.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.8 2.51 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.6 2.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1 3.71 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.9 5.36 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.8 2.87 Normal Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 1 5.67 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.6 4.9 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.5 3.04 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.4 3.62 Normal Exfoliated
120
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.6 5.02 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.5 4.64 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.6 5.14 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.5 2.5 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Eroded Body S 0.4 3.99 Exfoliated Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Rim S 2.1 6.62 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Rim S 1.4 7.78 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 61-71 Rim S 1 5.99 Exfoliated Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 61-71 Rim S 0.4 4.6 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 71-81 Eroded Body G 0.8 5.16 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body L 0.6 5.49 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 71-81 Eroded Body L/G 0.2 4.28 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 71-81 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.9 3.81 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 71-81 Eroded Body S 0.5 6.35 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 71-81 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 3.92 Normal Normal
Cordmarked 4 37 Lower 71-81 S 1.1 4.27 Normal Normal Underbody
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 11.6 5.12 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 2.8 5.23 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 1.7 4.82 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 2.1 4.91 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 3.4 5.61 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 71-81 Plain Body S 1.4 6.36 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body G 0.5 3.99 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body G 0.6 4.7 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body L 0.3 3.81 Exfoliated Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body L/G 0.4 5.46 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S/G 2.7 5.12 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 81-91 Plain Body S/G 6.7 7.99 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Incised Body S/F 2.3 7.61 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 85.3 8.91 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 4.33 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 5.34 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.12 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.84 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 2.61 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.4 3.68 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.5 3.08 Normal Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.3 3.52 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.7 3.72 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.3 2.02 Normal Exfoliated
121
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.2 1.7 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 81-91 Eroded Body S 0.3 2.03 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body G 0.2 3.2 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body L 2.1 6.14 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.6 3.81 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.3 6.39 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 91-94 Eroded Body S 0.9 4.68 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.08 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.14 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.59 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.72 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower 91-94 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.51 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body G 2.3 5.64 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body L 1 5.25 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S/G 2.3 3.87 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 7.3 6.02 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 10.8 7.16 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 13.1 5.44 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 2.1 2.83 Exfoliated Burned
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.75 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.25 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.87 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 0.6 1.84 Exfoliated Burned
4 37 Upper A Cordmarked Body S 0.8 2.6 Exfoliated Burned
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S 4.3 5.39 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S 2.6 6.83 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S 1.4 5.17 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S 1.3 5.35 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper A Plain Body S 0.7 4.8 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body G 0.9 7.14 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body G 0.7 4.69 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body G 0.7 5.19 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Eroded Body L 0.3 4.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body L/G 1.3 5.11 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body L/G 1.4 4.69 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
4 37 Upper B Incised Body S/G 3.8 7.25 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S/G 8.1 6.32 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S/G 0.4 2.77 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S/G 0.4 2.12 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 4.2 5.95 Normal Normal
122
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 14.4 5.94 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 2.6 4.81 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 30.3 6.21 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 3.6 5.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 5.5 3.72 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 1.7 6.04 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 1.6 4.53 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 5.7 8.72 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 4.2 5.05 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 1.5 4.98 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 16.5 6.61 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 1.8 6.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 11.9 4.95 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 2.9 6.75 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 24.3 8.11 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 3.6 5.23 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 3.7 4.8 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Plain Body S 1.9 5.64 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 36.4 10.44 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 6.1 5.29 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 10.3 5.84 Normal Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 9.2 5.74 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 7.9 8.21 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 6.1 4.95 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 8.1 5.09 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 3.5 4.83 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 5.6 4.48 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.6 8.16 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.82 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.74 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.02 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 2.5 8.18 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.9 6.27 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 3.3 6.8 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 4 7.47 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.4 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.71 Burned Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 2.4 5.67 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.08 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.94 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.59 Normal Normal
123
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.35 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.39 Burned Burned
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.5 6.28 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.32 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 1.8 6.91 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.34 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.78 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.2 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.04 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.64 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.23 Normal Normal
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.38 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.63 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Upper B Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Cordmarked Body G 2.6 5.45 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower C Plain Body L 3.4 8.47 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower C Cordmarked Body L/G 2.4 10.31 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower C Plain Body L/G 0.5 5.02 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower C Cordmarked Body S/G 6.2 6.31 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 5.67 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S/G 7.6 7.19 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S/G 6.1 7.25 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S/G 2 5.83 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 12.6 5.63 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 8.6 6.36 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.7 6.26 Burned Exfoliated
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 12.3 7.12 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 8.9 8.15 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.7 6.79 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 3.61 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.2 6.21 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.6 7.47 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.8 6.33 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 5.7 6.82 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.1 4.88 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.4 6.39 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 5.78 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 12.7 7.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.5 6.31 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.1 11.03 Normal Normal
124
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.7 7.32 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 5.88 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.1 4.82 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 19.7 5.26 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.8 7.4 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.9 5.46 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 5.5 6.59 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 8.4 6.91 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.3 5.47 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.8 4.82 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 5.89 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.1 5.38 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.4 5.13 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.2 6.63 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.9 5.05 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 6.15 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 7.03 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.1 5.15 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.2 5.98 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.1 6.12 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.4 7.97 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.8 8.91 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 5.3 6.31 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.3 5.16 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.4 5.31 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.7 5.99 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 5.22 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.1 7.88 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.14 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.6 6.55 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.2 4.9 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.5 6.33 Burned Exfoliated
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.9 7.52 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.8 7.04 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.2 6.35 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.4 5.81 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.2 5.94 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.5 4.4 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 0.8 6.46 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.2 5.14 Burned Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2 6.21 Normal Normal
125
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.5 4.93 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 4.54 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.8 5.47 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.6 8.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.7 7.29 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.6 4.9 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.1 7.83 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.7 6.01 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.2 6.06 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.36 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 4.95 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 4 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.4 6.18 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.5 6.43 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.2 6.07 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.6 5.91 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.7 7.64 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.4 7.44 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.1 6.77 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 6.12 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 5.1 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.5 5.32 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 6.9 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4 5.62 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.8 4.8 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.04 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.8 6.23 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.1 7.36 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 4.51 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.1 6.88 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.3 6.18 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.6 6.45 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 0.8 4.9 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.3 5.44 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 14.5 7.71 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 8.4 4.52 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.3 6.16 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.2 6.44 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.1 6.82 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.1 5.37 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.8 5.78 Normal Normal
126
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 5.44 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.1 4.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.3 4.44 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 5.69 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.8 7.31 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.1 7.23 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 38.4 5.78 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 15.2 7.77 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 8.1 6.93 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.7 5.68 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 5.1 5.07 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.9 5.79 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.6 5.98 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.4 6.18 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 5.61 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 36.6 6.05 Burned Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.8 6.19 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.8 5.59 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.7 4.41 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 16.1 7.35 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 9.7 8.58 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.1 5.35 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 15.8 5.27 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.3 5.71 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.6 5.96 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.1 6.43 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.8 5.31 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 4.74 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.19 Exfoliated Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 7.9 5.45 Burned Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.9 5.25 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.8 4.49 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 4.4 6.53 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.3 6.23 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.33 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.4 6.24 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.9 6.53 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 7.31 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.7 4.21 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.5 5.16 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.2 4.47 Burned Burned
127
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 6.1 6.54 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.3 6.94 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.2 6.78 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 3.5 6.23 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.6 4.76 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.9 5.71 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.2 4.46 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 2.6 5.69 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.1 4.08 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower C Plain Body S 1.3 6.01 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Eroded Body G 0.3 2.22 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Eroded Body G 1.3 5.46 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Eroded Body G 0.2 3.01 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Eroded Body G 0.3 3.52 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Eroded Body G 0.2 2.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Plain Body L 1.3 9.07 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Plain Body L/G 1.2 7.52 Normal Exfoliated
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body L/G 1.3 6.02 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S/G 3.1 6.57 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 5.46 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S/G 3.3 6.19 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S/G 5 5.41 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S/G 0.8 5.58 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S/G 0.3 4 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S/G 0.2 2.44 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 3.1 5.86 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.79 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.62 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.2 3.97 Normal Rounded Edges
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 16.5 6.89 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 4.7 4.74 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 7 6.84 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 4.8 6.43 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 3.7 6.13 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 10.7 7.53 Burned Exfoliated
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.3 6.41 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.4 6.2 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2 5.21 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.45 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.02 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 5.3 5.43 Normal Normal
128
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 7.7 6.52 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 3.9 3.58 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.2 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.75 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.58 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 3.5 4.78 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.4 5.67 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.7 4.6 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.3 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.51 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.6 5.53 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 9.1 7.13 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.79 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Cordmarked Body S 2.4 6.09 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.5 4.58 Normal Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 2.3 6.25 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 5.6 8.6 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 2.5 6.17 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.7 4.81 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.3 5.57 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 2.7 5.83 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 3 6.4 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.4 6.57 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 5.5 6.14 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.9 3.49 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 2.2 6.04 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 0.6 5.81 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.8 6.15 Burned Burned
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 2 6.98 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 0.7 3.88 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 1.6 4.95 Exfoliated Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 0.4 4.14 Normal Normal
4 37 Lower D Plain Body S 0.5 4.53 Normal Normal
129
APPENDIX B: 25% CERAMIC SUBSAMPLE FROM FEATURE 38
Maximum Weight Unit Feature Zone Depth Sherd Type Temper Thickness Interior-Surface Exterior-Surface (g) (mm)
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 0.7 4.15 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 1.1 6.13 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 4.3 5.96 Burned Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body S/G 0.8 2.58 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 4.27 Burned Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 5.08 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.7 6.59 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5 5.84 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.1 3.82 Burned Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.4 4.96 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 5.41 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.7 4.83 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 4.76 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.5 6.27 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 8.4 6.08 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.7 5.86 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.76 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.37 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.47 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.91 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 3.73 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 5.71 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.21 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 6.13 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 2.45 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.52 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.54 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.38 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.94 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.39 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.42 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.12 Normal Exfoliated
5 38 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 5.81 Normal Exfoliated
5 38 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body G 0.3 4.51 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 1.7 6.63 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.7 8.84 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
130
5 38 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 4.5 7.98 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.19 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.7 7.04 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.69 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 4.62 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 5.54 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 3.71 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 4.85 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 5.48 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.05 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.95 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.21 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.89 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.45 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.98 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.24 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.91 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.23 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.46 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.89 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body G 0.3 3.69 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 50-60 Rim L/G 3.6 6.11 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.4 5.72 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.56 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.89 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 7.26 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.82 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.09 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.89 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.29 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 1.93 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body S 0.4 5.02 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body S 0.3 3.19 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 60-70 Plain Body G 2.2 6.2 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
5 38 Upper 60-70 Plain Body L/G 0.3 6.46 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
5 38 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body S/G 1.3 6.62 Burned Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 10.4 8.14 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 4.82 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.98 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.42 Normal Normal
131
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.14 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.91 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.71 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.16 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.39 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 3.4 8.03 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.1 4.89 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 8.2 6.26 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Plain Body S/G 0.8 5.49 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 8.6 7.88 Normal Burned
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 11.1 7.92 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 12.1 7.04 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 8.9 8.79 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 4.87 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 6.3 6.27 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.06 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 4.2 6.27 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 6.72 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 5.92 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 6.07 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 6.88 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.1 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 2 4.93 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.71 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.98 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 6.41 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 5.28 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.46 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.84 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.48 Normal Normal
5 38 Upper 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.99 Normal Normal
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.3 10.31 Exfoliated Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Rim S/G/L 3.3 6.97 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Plain Body S 2.8 5.32 Burned Normal
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 3 3.74 Exfoliated Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.22 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 2.6 Exfoliated Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.97 Normal Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.76 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.05 Exfoliated Normal
5 38 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 6.83 Burned Burned
132
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 2.1 6.47 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.2 7.89 Exfoliated Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Plain Body S/G 1.2 3.85 Exfoliated Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body S 7.9 8.33 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 7.21 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 6.33 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.65 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.45 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 100-110 Cordmarked Body G 1.1 3.87 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 100-110 Eroded Body S/G 0.6 5.86 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
5 38 Lower 100-110 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 7.78 Burned Normal
5 38 Lower 100-110 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 7.5 Burned Burned
5 38 Lower 110-120 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.5 5.48 Burned Normal
5 38 Lower 110-120 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.8 6.31 Burned Burned
133
APPENDIX C: 25% CERAMIC SUBSAMPLE FROM FEATURE 146
Maximum Weight Unit Feature Zone Depth Sherd Type Temper Thickness Interior-Surface Exterior-Surface (g) (mm)
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 1.5 5.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 1.1 3.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 1.3 4.75 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 0.4 3.8 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 0.8 4.11 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G/L 5.7 6.85 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G/L 2.3 9.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G/L 1 6.06 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 1.1 5.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 6.3 8.5 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 1.8 6.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 0.5 4.86 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.9 6.08 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.4 3.94 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.1 5.15 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.3 3.06 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Rim L/G 5.1 9.65 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.9 5.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 5 5.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.9 7.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.2 9.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3 5.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 9.13 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.5 6.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 6.32 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.6 5.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 5.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.8 4.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.5 6.74 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.4 7.25 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 4.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.2 5.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.4 6.82 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.8 5.2 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 5.56 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 4.42 Normal Normal
134
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.5 3.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 5.74 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 4.6 5.85 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.4 6.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.4 7.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.1 7.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.4 6.17 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.2 7.75 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.1 5.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.6 4.85 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.7 5.8 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.9 7.02 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1 5.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.4 7.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1 4.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.5 5.21 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.4 3.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.5 5.93 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.4 3.93 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.5 5.35 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 12.4 5.98 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 19.5 6.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 24.3 7.9 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 9.7 6.69 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 13 7.37 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5 6.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 4.36 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 4.26 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 7.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 6.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.4 4.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.56 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.75 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.4 6.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 5.97 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.45 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 6.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.86 Burned Burned
135
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 3.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.23 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.3 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.08 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.44 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 5.99 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.28 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.14 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.63 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.9 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.99 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.75 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.24 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.47 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.22 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.24 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.24 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 8.6 8.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 9.5 6.95 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 7.9 6.19 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.3 6.33 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.2 5.9 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.5 7.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 7.42 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.76 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.13 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 3.46 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.54 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 8.7 6.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 5.45 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 7 9.23 Normal Normal
136
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 6.12 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 4.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 5.02 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.1 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 4.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 6.11 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 5.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.2 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.8 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 7.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 4.68 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6.2 6.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.32 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.4 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 6.44 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.76 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 4.37 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.71 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 6.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 5.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 4.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.48 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 3.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.87 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 4.83 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 6.42 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.73 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.75 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.24 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.55 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.56 Exfoliated Normal
137
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 5.68 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.17 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.52 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.32 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.97 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.36 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.73 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.88 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.46 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.41 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.95 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.79 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 2.99 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.72 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.45 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.18 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 5.92 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.41 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.17 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 2.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 1.87 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.87 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.39 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.47 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.16 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.73 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.05 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.79 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
138
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 4.23 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.75 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 1.22 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 0.9 4.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 1 5.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 1 3.37 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 1.2 3.43 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 0.9 2.87 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 1.1 3.17 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body G 0.6 4.48 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 1.4 6.32 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 0.7 5.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 0.8 5.64 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G/L 0.4 3.28 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body S/G/L 0.4 3.24 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 1.6 4.97 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 1.4 6.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 0.4 6.45 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body L/G 3.4 11.36 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.9 6.45 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 4.5 8.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 2.2 5.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 0.4 5.06 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body L 0.5 5.12 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body S/L 0.7 4.96 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 12.4 8.3 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 6.9 7.68 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3.2 6.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 0.9 6.08 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.8 4.99 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 0.4 4.97 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.2 6.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 5.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.2 10.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.8 4.53 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 5.65 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.1 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.1 8.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.5 6.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 6.44 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.8 4.36 Normal Normal
139
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.2 4.36 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.3 5.11 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 6 6.59 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.4 7.08 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.8 6.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.4 7.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.7 6.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 8.6 6.16 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.6 6.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.4 4.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.9 6.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 6.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.3 4.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 5.95 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.1 4.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.1 5.57 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.4 6.59 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.2 6.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.5 6.28 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 6.02 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.8 4.38 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 7.21 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.8 5.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.3 5.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.2 4.69 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 4.23 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.3 5.45 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.3 6.96 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 4.02 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 12.3 7.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 11.6 8.79 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 14.5 6.92 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 11 7.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.3 5.31 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.2 6.27 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 7.3 7.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.8 5.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4 4.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 7.22 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 8.7 7.46 Normal Exfoliated
140
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 4.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.2 5.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 6.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 9.1 6.89 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3 5.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.9 5.21 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 5.12 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 2.56 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 6.15 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.4 6.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6.63 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.12 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.18 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.75 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.95 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 6.49 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 7.12 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.84 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 6.81 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 3.86 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.4 6.06 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 5.69 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 4.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 3.66 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.37 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.15 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.12 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 3.85 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 5.21 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.81 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.47 Normal Normal
141
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.62 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.27 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 2.98 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.82 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.85 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.58 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.17 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.67 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.46 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.57 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 3.54 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 2.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.4 4.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 5.32 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 5.46 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 5.11 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3 7.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.31 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 6.12 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 6.12 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.87 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.46 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 2.88 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.54 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.66 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.86 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.3 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.47 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.32 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 3.51 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.59 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.35 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.1 6.71 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.6 6.03 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 7 5.18 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.9 7.47 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.7 5.94 Normal Normal
142
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.4 5.75 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.64 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.6 5.43 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.7 5.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.18 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.5 5.31 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.32 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.46 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6 5.94 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.25 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.81 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 5.77 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 5.83 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 6.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 7.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 7.04 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 6.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 4.17 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.6 5.16 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 4.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 4.51 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 3.94 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.08 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 6.13 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.88 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.03 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.05 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.92 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 5.88 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.48 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.06 Burned Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 4.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 5.88 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.82 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 5.3 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.1 5.33 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3 4.56 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.93 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
143
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 6.13 Normal Burned
9 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 5.08 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 6.56 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 3.69 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.26 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 7.98 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.98 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.08 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.32 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.58 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.98 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.41 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 6.46 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.95 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.78 Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.25 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 3.78 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.67 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.9 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 6.29 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.94 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.31 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 2.93 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.95 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.36 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.45 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.88 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.84 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 5.31 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.91 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.78 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 6.23 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.04 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 6.16 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.79 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.07 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 6.44 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.24 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.23 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.57 Burned Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
144
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 6.83 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.2 5.09 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.5 5.02 Burned Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.28 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.1 6.72 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 53.5 8.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 5.1 5.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 4.31 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.9 5.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 5.77 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.15 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.32 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.58 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.65 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.58 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.74 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.85 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.71 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.94 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.15 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 5.11 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.45 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.53 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.79 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.89 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.32 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.38 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.88 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 5.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.79 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.82 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.12 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.31 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.67 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.42 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.28 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
145
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.19 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.69 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.47 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.89 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.26 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.71 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.86 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 1.91 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.47 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.59 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.63 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.23 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.65 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 4.66 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.88 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 3.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 5.26 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.18 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.91 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.7 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 6.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.35 Normal Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.46 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.89 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.04 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.44 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.16 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.61 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.95 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.31 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.23 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.1 2.26 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5.61 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.31 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.92 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.88 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.67 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.67 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
146
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.52 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.38 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.43 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.04 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.91 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.34 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.59 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.89 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.77 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.44 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body G 2.3 7.65 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body G 0.8 4.23 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body G 2.3 5.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body G 1.4 5.38 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body G 1 3.42 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 8.5 8.31 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 0.8 6.36 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 0.9 5.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 1 3.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 3.3 7.92 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 3 8.51 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.3 5.99 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.4 7.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.4 8.48 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.7 9.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.6 5.79 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body L/G 1.4 6.26 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body L/G 0.8 7.76 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body L/G 0.9 6.29 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body L/G 0.9 6.88 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Eroded Body L/G 1.6 5.89 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/L 0.8 6.18 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 20.3 9.92 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.1 7.45 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 8.3 6.24 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.8 8.76 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.6 6.89 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 4.9 5.79 Burned Burned
147
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.6 5.65 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.7 7.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 4.4 8.37 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 6.8 5.86 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 5 8.26 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.8 7.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.9 6.54 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 4.3 8.37 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.8 9.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.8 5.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.2 7.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.7 5.14 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.3 5.86 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.6 8.32 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.7 6.41 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.5 6.91 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.4 7.94 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.9 7.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.1 5.21 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1 7.69 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.7 4.25 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.2 7.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.5 5.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.6 5.33 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.6 8.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.6 5.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.4 5.72 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 5.22 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 8.3 5.55 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 4.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.5 6.03 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.8 7.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.8 5.33 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.7 6.85 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.9 6.79 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 6.34 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.9 4.65 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.7 6.29 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.6 8.65 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.9 5.61 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.7 8.12 Normal Exfoliated
148
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.1 6.39 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.2 5.49 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.8 6.24 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 4.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.4 5.43 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 6.57 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 14.1 12.74 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.6 6.48 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.1 6.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.2 7.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 4.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.9 7.63 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.2 8.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.3 6.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.5 7.17 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.8 4.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 4.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 6.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.2 5.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.5 4.89 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 6.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 4.03 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 11.2 6.89 Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 7 7.77 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 6.53 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 7.1 4.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 4.59 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 10.7 4.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 9 6.67 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 7.9 9.02 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 8.6 4.72 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.9 5.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 5.38 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.4 4.89 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.65 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.83 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.83 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.31 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 3.82 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.94 Normal Normal
149
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 6.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6.12 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 9.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.32 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 8.2 5.21 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 6.79 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 4.66 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 6.01 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.1 4.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 6.31 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.7 5.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 6.1 6.46 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.1 5.57 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3 5.47 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 2.89 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.2 5.52 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.4 5.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 6.5 7.53 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.42 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.12 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 11.8 5.05 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 12 5.08 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.3 5.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.6 6.03 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 6.12 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.25 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.43 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 4.64 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 9.87 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.29 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.01 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 4.04 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 3.99 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.34 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.73 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 3.85 Normal Normal
150
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 4.09 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 6.64 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.66 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 6.99 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 6.46 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.31 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.96 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2 4.95 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 14.5 7.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 6.36 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.86 Exfoliated Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 5.78 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 5.23 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.03 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 9.5 5.31 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.25 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.3 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.47 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 4.05 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.4 4.62 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.69 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.7 5.29 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 4.83 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.24 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.21 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 5.12 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.44 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.51 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 12.5 7.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.93 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 7.74 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.56 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.72 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.2 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.26 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
151
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.36 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 3.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.95 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 4.63 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 19.2 6.81 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 20.6 4.98 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 15.6 5.69 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 16.3 5.92 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 9.4 5.89 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 9.2 6.84 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4 4.42 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 14.9 6.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 12.2 8.25 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 3.41 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 21.4 6.63 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 8.9 5.82 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 10.4 5.79 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 6.38 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.5 5.96 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.2 5.44 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 5.56 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 10.2 4.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.04 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.95 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.5 6.55 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2 3.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.74 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 6.3 8.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 9.3 6.64 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 5.46 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 14.8 6.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.29 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 5.6 5.55 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4 6.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.04 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 4.47 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 4.2 6.14 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3 4.18 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 6.3 7.5 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
152
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.55 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.93 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.28 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.82 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.04 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.06 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 5.19 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 6.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.99 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.06 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.71 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 3.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.71 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.82 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.38 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 5.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 3.94 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 3.82 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.57 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.85 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.07 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.04 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.42 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.41 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 5.27 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 6.33 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.61 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.08 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 5.62 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.55 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
153
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.88 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.48 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 4.79 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 4.2 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.04 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.27 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.06 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 5.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 3.62 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.67 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.09 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.44 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.87 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.11 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 4.72 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 4.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 4.11 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.55 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 50-60 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 3.69 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.2 2.18 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.4 5.02 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 1.8 5.08 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 1 7.39 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 1.2 5.48 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.9 5.57 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.4 3.41 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.7 4.72 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.5 4.32 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.3 4.52 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.5 3.35 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 1.3 8.26 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.4 4.64 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.8 5.32 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.3 4.48 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body G 0.6 4.97 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body G 1.1 5.12 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
154
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body G 0.3 4.12 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body G 0.5 5.22 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body L/G 12.3 9.51 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body L/G 2.4 7.86 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body L/G 0.8 4.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body L/G 0.6 5.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body L/G 0.2 5.46 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body L/G 0.5 4.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body L/G 0.4 4.19 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 11.6 7.05 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.6 8.15 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.7 7.21 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.8 7.99 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.1 4.05 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.9 5.76 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 3.9 6.87 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.4 7.61 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.7 6.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.4 7.66 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.7 5.29 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.4 5.24 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G/L 2 7.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 15.4 7.54 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 3.6 6.28 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body S/G/L 1.2 7.41 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Eroded Body S/G/L 0.9 7.03 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 2.5 6.84 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 3.2 8.65 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.6 6.87 Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.6 6.36 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.4 7.67 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.5 6.23 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.1 5.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.3 4.98 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.6 4.41 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.3 9.81 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.2 6.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 1.6 6.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.5 5.11 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.9 4.16 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.6 6.36 Normal Normal
155
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.4 6.37 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Plain Body S/G 0.3 3.09 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 12.4 4.04 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 13.2 5.95 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.5 6.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.7 7.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 5.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.4 8.57 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 8.6 7.22 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 10 6.29 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 8.9 7.58 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.6 7.01 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 11.1 8.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.1 7.28 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.3 8.86 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.1 7.89 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.7 7.16 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 6.16 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 6.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.8 4.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.3 10.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 7.12 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.3 8.3 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.8 6.16 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.5 5.58 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.8 4.71 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.2 10.86 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.1 5.14 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.7 3.99 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 5.25 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.5 5.73 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.4 7.27 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1 4.69 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.9 9.76 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3 6.46 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.9 6.69 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 6.14 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 4.75 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.8 4.81 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.2 5.9 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 5.84 Normal Normal
156
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.6 6.27 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.2 4.98 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.2 6.67 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 3.99 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.3 5.98 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 4.93 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.5 6.54 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.7 7.4 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.4 5.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 4.99 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.4 5.83 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 3.43 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.8 5.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 5.49 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 1 5.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 5.64 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.6 5.67 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.4 4.06 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 7.8 4.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 9.5 5.18 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 11.4 6.13 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 5.36 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 9.2 5.47 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 9.6 5.54 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 5.71 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 4.82 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 5.8 5.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.53 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.3 6.37 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.2 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 5.8 5.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 8 5.66 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 6.6 6.37 Normal Exfoliated
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.3 7.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 3.99 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 5.16 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 6.8 7.77 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.41 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 4.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.2 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
157
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 5.05 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.44 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 3.57 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.34 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 9.1 6.14 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 5.06 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.01 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.51 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 3.73 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.81 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 3.92 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 24.5 6.35 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 4.6 4.41 Burned Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 6.8 8.35 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 5.2 6.51 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 5.6 4.53 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 7.1 5.79 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.9 5.59 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 6.7 5.93 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 7.39 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 5.74 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.37 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1 5.34 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3.7 5.44 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 3.88 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 5 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 4.3 6.56 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 6.07 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 3 3.8 Exfoliated Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.8 5.82 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.93 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.22 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 2 5.04 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.73 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.3 Burned Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 5.15 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.77 Normal Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 2.97 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
158
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.96 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 7.82 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.65 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 5.33 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.55 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.07 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.47 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.32 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.77 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.38 Normal Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.63 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 4.7 Burned Burned
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.38 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 4.11 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.02 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 3.36 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Upper 60-70 Cordmarked Body S 0.2 2.57 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 6.8 11.23 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 0.9 5.56 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 1.3 4.49 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 0.6 5.55 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 1 4.21 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body G 0.3 2.78 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G/L 8.6 7.18 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G/L 2.3 6.21 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G/L 3.2 5.26 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G/L 1.3 5.15 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body L/G 1.5 6.46 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body L/G 0.3 4.79 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.6 11.28 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 2 8.6 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.9 5.29 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 1 6.15 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body L/G 5.5 7.57 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.3 5.24 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.4 6.25 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.8 4.77 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.3 6.09 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.7 4.42 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.6 6.06 Normal Normal
159
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.7 6.55 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.8 6.21 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 4.91 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 5.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.2 6.44 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 5.79 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 1 4.27 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 7.26 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.4 3.37 Normal Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.1 3.08 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.9 4.38 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.8 2.66 Exfoliated Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 4.55 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 2.61 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.5 3.39 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body S 2.1 7.63 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body S 0.4 2.55 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body S 1.2 6.36 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body S 0.6 2.92 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Eroded Body S 0.3 2.81 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 11.8 5.53 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 4.97 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 5 7.11 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 2.7 4.94 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 4.78 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 2.39 Exfoliated Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 4.63 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.29 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 1 4.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 2.12 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.36 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 70-80 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 4.39 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body G 2.4 9.63 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body G 2.1 5.68 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body G 1.4 6.47 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body G 2.4 5.24 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 80-90 Eroded Body G 1.9 6.15 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 80-90 Plain Body S/G/L 16 8.84 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.3 7.89 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body L/G 3.8 6.14 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 80-90 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 5.99 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
160
35 146 Lower 80-90 Plain Body S/G 0.5 4.26 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 80-90 Rim S 120.5 5.54 Normal Normal
35 146 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 0.3 2.81 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 0.2 2.89 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 2 4.84 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 2.4 4.5 Burned Burned
35 146 Lower 90-100 Cordmarked Body G 2.1 6.68 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 90-100 Eroded Body L/G 0.2 3.42 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 90-100 Eroded Body S/G 0.6 4.83 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
35 146 Lower 100-108 Cordmarked Body G 0.5 2.72 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body G 0.4 3.26 Exfoliated Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body G 0.5 5.6 Normal Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body G 0.4 3.76 Rounded Edges Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body G 0.4 3.97 Burned Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body G 1 5.83 Burned Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body G 0.3 4.16 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body G 0.2 4.24 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 5.2 6.36 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body G 0.9 7.3 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 9.4 5.22 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 4.4 7.77 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G/L 5 7.88 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G/L 1.6 8.57 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Eroded Body L/G 1.3 6.71 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.9 4.83 Burned Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.6 5.32 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.4 6.51 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.6 7.75 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body L/G 0.6 5.93 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 10.5 7.79 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 3.5 8.04 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 2.7 6.99 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 1.3 6.64 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 0.7 5.94 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 1.9 4.49 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body L/G 0.9 6.68 Burned Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 8.5 8.46 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 6.6 5.84 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 10.9 6.47 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 6.6 7.67 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.6 6.56 Normal Normal
161
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 4.7 6.62 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2 5.32 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 5.4 6.17 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.9 6.59 Normal Exfoliated
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3 5.6 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.1 7.86 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.1 6.12 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.2 6.83 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.5 6.35 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.8 5.76 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.9 6.11 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.7 3.99 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.7 6.12 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.4 4.23 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.8 5.79 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.9 5.78 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.5 5.26 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1 4.42 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.3 5.73 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.4 3.63 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.9 5.25 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.4 3.02 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.3 3.02 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.2 2.89 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 5.1 4.21 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 14.5 6.79 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 25.5 6.42 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 6.77 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.9 5.99 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.9 4.9 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.1 4.47 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 5.25 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.7 8.25 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3 7.23 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.7 5.5 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.3 6.97 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.8 6.22 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 4.4 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.5 4.41 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 3.33 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.9 3.73 Normal Normal
162
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.8 3.68 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.7 3.96 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1 4.66 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.4 4.62 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 4.33 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.4 2.98 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.2 2.28 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.2 1.92 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.3 3.83 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 39.8 11.7 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 8.2 10.46 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.6 5.71 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 4.7 7.02 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 6.6 6.92 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.7 7.99 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.6 8.66 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.9 7.34 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.5 9.04 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.3 7.74 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.7 7.41 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.3 7.3 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.8 6.45 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 8.9 5.09 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 12.2 11.95 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 3.4 9.53 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 6.8 5.55 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.9 5.61 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.8 6.65 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.5 3.8 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.7 6.79 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 4.1 10.17 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.6 8.24 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 2.7 7.03 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 1.3 5.71 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.6 2.91 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.7 4.5 Burned Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.5 4.97 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.8 4.27 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Plain Body S/G 0.4 3.95 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 55.9 9.23 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 12.8 7.16 Normal Normal
163
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.6 6.63 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 15.4 7.03 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.6 10.32 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 7.7 8.08 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 9.3 8.02 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 6.3 6.66 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 4.6 8.04 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.7 6.28 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 3.4 7.42 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 4.32 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.7 3.96 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.3 5.13 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.9 6.03 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2.5 5.9 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1.6 7.89 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 2 5.32 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 1 3.59 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.5 6.42 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S/G 0.7 3.72 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 18.8 6.15 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 10.8 5.92 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 8.6 4.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 14.5 8.16 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 11.2 4.29 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 15.6 5.99 Normal Exfoliated
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 7.1 5.54 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6.8 6.68 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 12.5 5.02 Normal Exfoliated
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 7.7 7.29 Normal Exfoliated
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 15.4 8.93 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.3 6.29 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 5.85 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 5.3 5.97 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6.6 7.8 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6.3 6.26 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 9.7 5.48 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 7.3 8.98 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 9.8 5.82 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 10 5.04 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 5.77 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.6 7.28 Normal Normal
164
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6 5.53 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.1 5.23 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.9 4.97 Normal Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.8 6.12 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 6.2 5.58 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.8 5.73 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3 6.81 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.4 4.61 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 6.91 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 4.79 Normal Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.6 4.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.2 4.25 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 4.4 4.51 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.8 6.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 5.85 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3.5 4.19 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.59 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.6 4.69 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 6.08 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 3 5.12 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 6.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2 3.51 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.2 5.87 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 5.98 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.5 6.15 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 4.87 Normal Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.05 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 4.94 Normal Burned
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 6.94 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.3 5.58 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 5.47 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.9 6.92 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 3.66 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 4.54 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.7 6.13 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 4.39 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 5.28 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 2.1 4.3 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 3.96 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 6.02 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.4 6.81 Exfoliated Normal
165
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.2 6.19 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 2.57 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.1 2.76 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.6 5.38 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1.5 3.78 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.7 4.91 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.01 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 1 3.88 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.9 5.23 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 2.62 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.6 3.43 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.8 4.71 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.13 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.71 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.5 3.69 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Normal
27 146 Upper 30-40 Cordmarked Body S 0.3 3.75 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body G 0.4 4.05 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body G 0.5 4.77 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body S/G/L 0.3 3.23 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body S/G/L 1 4.56 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 2.6 6.33 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G/L 14.7 7.82 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G/L 4.2 6.61 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G/L 0.3 4.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body L/G 1 4.35 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body L/G 0.6 5.5 Normal Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Eroded Body L/G 0.7 5.19 Normal Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 5 8.17 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 2.2 6.71 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 0.7 5.87 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 0.7 5.09 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 0.7 4.09 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body L/G 3.8 10.38 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body L 4 8.27 Normal Exfoliated
27 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 6.2 7.01 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 4.39 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Cordmarked Body S 0.4 2.18 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S 0.7 5.11 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S 2.6 5.17 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S 1.8 6.08 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S 0.4 5.89 Normal Normal
166
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S 0.2 2.63 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3.1 7.28 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3.2 5.91 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 6.9 5.78 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 5.4 7.57 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3.2 8.14 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 8.4 8.41 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.5 5.8 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.7 6.06 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.6 7.94 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.8 6.57 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.5 5.2 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.5 4.74 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.4 5.51 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.1 5.09 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 31.2 8.67 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 8 6.72 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 5.7 5.74 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 5.9 5.34 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 6.8 6.11 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.2 7.54 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3 6.45 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.5 7.16 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 7.8 10.49 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 4.1 6.46 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.7 6.63 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 3.3 5.82 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 2.5 5.24 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.3 5.33 Exfoliated Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 1.5 8.73 Normal Normal
27 146 Upper 40-50 Plain Body S/G 0.5 3.87 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Eroded Body G 0.7 7.46 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 50-60 Eroded Body G 0.3 3.87 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 50-60 Eroded Body G 1.3 5.67 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 10.7 8.51 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 2.1 5.16 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 1.2 4.35 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 0.4 5.31 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G/L 0.6 4.87 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 11.7 9.53 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 4 9.32 Normal Normal
167
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 2.1 9.16 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 8.8 7.62 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 3.2 7.25 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 2.2 5.27 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 1 5.28 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Cordmarked Body L/G 1.5 7.14 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 14.8 8.29 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 14.1 8.19 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 7.4 5.89 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 9 9.24 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 3.3 4.15 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 5.8 7.65 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 4 7.44 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 8.9 8.03 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.9 7.59 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.1 6.31 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2 6.58 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.1 6 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 2.1 5.63 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.3 4.57 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.9 5.81 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.7 5.79 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.5 4.75 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 1.7 6.37 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Plain Body S/G 0.7 5.52 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 50-60 Eroded Body S 0.5 6.7 Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 60-70 Cordmarked Body G 1.4 4.21 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 60-70 Eroded Body S/G/L 0.5 4.95 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 60-70 Cordmarked Body S/G/L 22.7 8.43 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 60-70 Cordmarked Body L/G 4.2 6.98 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 60-70 Eroded Body S/G 1.1 4.26 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 60-70 Eroded Body S/G 1.4 10.42 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 60-70 Eroded Body S/G 0.4 4.25 Rounded Edges Exfoliated/Rounded Edges
27 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G 22.1 7.08 Normal Normal
27 146 Lower 70-80 Plain Body S/G 0.9 4.06 Exfoliated/Rounded Edges Rounded Edges
168