The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pliestocene Terrace

Loading...
University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses

Graduate School

5-2012

The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pliestocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38AL23) Megan King [email protected]

Recommended Citation King, Megan, "The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pliestocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38AL23). " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1174

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]

To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Megan King entitled "The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pliestocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38AL23)." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology. Dr. David G. Anderson, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Dr. Boyce N. Driskell, Dr. Kandace Hollenbach Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.)

To the Graduate Council, I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Megan M. King entitled “The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pleistocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38Al23)” I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Anthropology.

____________________ Dr. David G. Anderson

We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

____________________ Dr. Boyce N. Driskell

____________________ Dr. Kandace Hollenbach

Acceptance for the Council

_______________________ Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

(Original signatures are on file with the official student records.)

The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pleistocene Terrace at the Topper Site: An Evaluation of a Possible Pre-Clovis Occupation (38AL23)

A Thesis Presented for the Masters of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Megan M. King May 2012

Copyright © 2012 by Megan King All rights reserved.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have to thank my husband, Brian, for his never ending patience and understanding, and for following me everywhere this journey has taken us. He encourages, pushes, and challenges me in the very best ways. I would not be where I am without him. I also have to thank my family for their continual support and encouragement, and for understanding that my absence from home and their lives is in the pursuit of a lifelong dream. And of course mom, the strongest and most courageous woman I know, for always letting me know that anything is possible. Dr. David Anderson was a continual source of encouragement and support during this process. He was always willing to listen to me and answer any questions I had. I appreciate the time and effort he put in to helping me complete this project, as well as the continual words of encouragement. He has helped me grow as a student and scholar,; I could not have asked for a better graduate advisor and mentor. Dr. Boyce Driskell and Dr. Kandace Hollenbach for providing me with the space and equipment to study the Topper lithics, and for taking time out of their schedules to discuss and edit my thesis. I also truly appreciated the opportunity to work at the Archaeological Research Laboratory. The staff at the ARL was not only incredibly welcoming, but they were continual sources of information and knowledge. Dr. Al Goodyear and Tom Pertierria introduced me to the study of lithic technology and helped to ignite a passion for studying stone tools. They provided me with the opportunity to research the pre-Clovis component at the Topper Site, an undertaking many believed to be too controversial. The volunteers at the Topper Site carefully excavated several of the test units used in this study, and took the time on rainy days to help sort archaeological material. I appreciate all of their help. Thad Bissett took time out his schedule on multiple occasions to help me make sense of my data and to run several statistical analyses. I truly appreciate the time and effort he put into helping me complete this project. Dr. Lisa Marie Anselmi guided and challenged me during my undergraduate career at Buffalo State College. She helped to spark my interest in First American Studies, and encouraged me to pursue a career in archaeology. She was an amazing advisor and became a true mentor when I needed one the most.

iii

ABSTRACT

The lithic debitage excavated from units where pre-Clovis material was found were analyzed using mass analysis as well as individual flake analysis. Statistical analyses were performed to test whether or not the assemblages associated with known occupation were similar to those associated with pre-Clovis levels. No significant difference was observed between the physical attributes of the lithic debitage found within strata associated with known prehistoric populations and the lithics found within pre-Clovis aged deposits. Two alternate explanations for these patterns exist: one which argues for the presence of a legitimate pre-Clovis occupation at the Topper Site and the other citing downward movement and/or fluvial processes to account for the presence of debitage below Clovis strata. Future research will be needed to resolve which of these best explains the cultural materials found in pre-Clovis aged deposits at the site.

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 The Antiquity of Humanity in the Americas ............................................................................... 2 The American Paleolithic: (Scientific Inquiry and Fiery Debates) ........................................ 3 Clovis-First Debate ................................................................................................................. 8 Pre-Clovis in the Americas ................................................................................................... 11 The Topper Site (38AL23) ........................................................................................................ 14 Site Setting and Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................... 17 Dating the Topper Site .............................................................................................................. 26 Excavation History and the Topper Assemblage ...................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................... 41 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 41 Research Goals .......................................................................................................................... 42 Research Sample ................................................................................................................... 43 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 46 Assessing Stone Tool Properties ........................................................................................... 46 Mass Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 51 Attribute Analysis ................................................................................................................. 53 Post-Depositional Processes Considered for this Study............................................................ 54 Erosion and Stream Deposition ............................................................................................ 56 Thermal Stress ...................................................................................................................... 58 Trampling .............................................................................................................................. 59 Assessing Stratigraphic Integrity .............................................................................................. 62 CHAPTER 3: Materials and Methods .......................................................................................... 65 SAMPLE ................................................................................................................................... 65 v

Sample Location ................................................................................................................... 65 Sample Size........................................................................................................................... 67 APPLYING MASS AND ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS.............................................................. 70 Application of Mass Analysis ............................................................................................... 70 Applying Attribute Analysis ................................................................................................. 76 Variables Considered in the Attribute Analysis............................................................................ 84 Flake Portion ............................................................................................................................. 84 Flake Termination ................................................................................................................. 85 Flake Size .............................................................................................................................. 87 Flake Weight ......................................................................................................................... 89 Cortex.................................................................................................................................... 89 Platform Attributes................................................................................................................ 90 Bulb of Percussion ................................................................................................................ 90 Thermal Alteration ................................................................................................................ 91 Other Considerations ................................................................................................................. 93 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS OF THE CHIPPED STONE ANALYSIS ........................................ 95 Attribute Frequencies per Unit and Group ................................................................................ 95 Flake Portion ......................................................................................................................... 96 Flake Termination ................................................................................................................. 98 Platform Attributes (Non-measurable Attributes) ................................................................ 99 Thermal Alteration .............................................................................................................. 100 Dorsal Cortex ...................................................................................................................... 101 Bulbar Presence .................................................................................................................. 102 Platform Width, Flake Weight and Size ............................................................................. 103 Results of Mass Analysis: Vertical Distribution of Debitage ................................................. 104 Complete Flakes.................................................................................................................. 105 Flake Fragments .................................................................................................................. 109 Small debitage ..................................................................................................................... 113 Pebbles and Cortical Debris ................................................................................................ 116 Results of Attribute Analysis .................................................................................................. 120 vi

Flake Portion ....................................................................................................................... 121 Flake Termination ............................................................................................................... 123 Platform Attributes (Non-Measurable) ............................................................................... 124 Thermal Alteration .............................................................................................................. 125 Bulbar Presence .................................................................................................................. 126 Dorsal Cortex ...................................................................................................................... 127 Interpreting the Vertical Distribution of Debitage .................................................................. 128 Characterizing the Debitage Assemblages.......................................................................... 128 Chapter V: Interpretation and Conclusion .................................................................................. 130 Evaluating the Pre-Clovis Occupation at Topper .................................................................... 130 Hypothesis 1........................................................................................................................ 131 Hypothesis II ....................................................................................................................... 134 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 136 References Cited ......................................................................................................................... 140 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 155 Vita.............................................................................................................................................. 219

vii

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Figure 1. Late Glacial Maximum, North America, showing the general locations of several possible pre-Clovis sites ............................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2. Map of South Carolina showing the location of the Topper and Big Pine Tree sites ... 16 Figure 3. USGS Topographic map with location of the Topper Site............................................ 18 Figure 4. Allendale chert............................................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. Map of the Topper site showing the location of excavated areas and trenches ............ 20 Figure 6. Cross-section of the Late Quaternary stratigraphy of the Topper site.......................... 20 Figure 7. Detailed cross section showing the stratigraphy and dates ........................................... 21 Figure 8. Generalized stratigraphy of the Topper ......................................................................... 22 Figure 9. Stratigraphic profile of zxcavation unit at Topper Site ................................................. 23 Figure 10. Characteristic chert artifacts recovered at the Topper Site.. ........................................ 32 Figure 11. Characteristic bend-break found at the Topper Site .................................................... 33 Figure 12. Possible bifacially worked artifact .............................................................................. 35 Figure 13. Apparent chopper-like tool. ......................................................................................... 38 Figure 14. Probable modified flaker. ............................................................................................ 39 Figure 15. Probable artifact shows magnification of edge damage or possible use-wear. ........... 40 Figure 16. Topographic map of Topper Site showing the location of the pre-Clovis excavation block.............................................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 17. Plan view of pre-Clovis excavation block, showing excavated units. ........................ 45 Figure 18. Conchoidal flake showing common elements and terminology. ................................. 48 viii

Figure 19. The damage caused by agitation of a flake in water with sand, stones, etc. ............... 51 Figure 20. Close up view of the Pleistocene Terrace excavation block at the Topper Site .......... 66 Figure 21. Vertical profile of test unit .......................................................................................... 68 Figure 22. Technological attribute key used by Sullivan and Rozen ........................................... 74 Figure 23. Modified version of Sullivan and Rozen’s Interpretation Free Model........................ 75 Figure 24. Shattered flake illustrating proximal, medial, and distal fragments. ........................... 85 Figure 25. Flake terminations. ...................................................................................................... 86 Figure 26. Complete flake measurement of maximum flake length, flake width, and flake thickness. ....................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 27. Fragmented bifaces illustrating the difference in color between thermally altered and non-altered Allendale chert. .......................................................................................................... 93 Figure 28. Results of nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test ........................................................... 104 Figure 29. Vertical distribution of complete flakes showing major cultural strata. ................... 106 Figure 30. Vertical distribution of flake fragments within each major stratum.......................... 110 Figure 31. Vertical distribution of small debitage within each major stratum. .......................... 113 Figure 32. Distribution, by weight, of river pebbles and cortical debris. ................................... 117 Figure 33. Illustrates the distribution of pebbles and lithics ....................................................... 119

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table Table 1. Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dates from Topper Site ........................................ 29 Table 2. AMS Dates from Humic Acids and Organic Remains at the Topper Site. .................... 30 Table 3. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from LTN246E136-NE quad. ................................................................................................................ 78 Table 4. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for Flakes and Flake Fragments from PTN248E140 NW Quad ...................................................................................................................................... 79 Table 5. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from LTN246E138 NW Quad ............................................................................................................... 80 Table 6. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from PTN246E140 NE Quad................................................................................................................. 81 Table 7. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from LTN246E138 NE Quad. ............................................................................................................... 82 Table 8. Counts, Morphologies and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from PTN248E140 SW Quad. ............................................................................................................... 83 Table 9. Frequency of Flake Portions. .......................................................................................... 97 Table 10. Frequency of Flake Terminations ................................................................................. 99 Table 11. Striking Platform Attributes........................................................................................ 100 Table 12. Frequency of Thermal Alteration ............................................................................... 101 Table 13. Frequency of Dorsal Cortex ........................................................................................ 101 Table 14. Frequency of Bulbar Presence. ................................................................................... 102 Table 15. Average Platform Width, Flake Width, Flake Length, and Flake Thickness. ............ 103 x

Table 16. Vertical Distribution of Complete Flakes ................................................................... 107 Table 17. Proportion of Complete Flakes from Each of the Major Cultural Components Within the Pre-Clovis Excavation Block at the Topper site. .................................................................. 109 Table 18. Vertical Distribution of Debitage Indicating the Exact Counts and Proportions of Flake Fragments Present Within each Level. ....................................................................................... 111 Table 19. Proportion of Flake Fragments Within Each Major Cultural Occupation for Each of the 3 Size Classes.............................................................................................................................. 112 Table 20. Proportion Small Debitage per 10cm Level ............................................................... 114 Table 21. Proportion of Small Debitage Within Each Cultural Occupation and Size Grade ..... 114 Table 22. Total Lithic Counts ..................................................................................................... 116 Table 23. Correlation Analysis of the Holocene Lithics, Pebbles, and Cortical Debris. ............ 118 Table 24. Correlation Analysis of Pleistocene Sands Lithics, Pebbles, and Cortical Debris. .... 120

xi

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION The Topper Site, a prehistoric chert quarry located along the Savannah River in Allendale County South Carolina, has been utilized and exploited by prehistoric peoples for thousands of years. The site provided an ideal location for prehistoric peoples to camp while procuring large amounts of chert for the production of stone tools.

Evidence for the manufacture and

maintenance of stone tools has been recovered from within all occupations at the site in the form of lithic debitage. Lithic debitage is not only found within all known cultural occupations, but is also found within strata below Clovis occupations, the last stratum currently accepted as representing the earliest widespread cultural occupation in the Americas. Given that each of the populations occupying the Topper Site presumably utilized the same reduction technology and tool stone, it is hypothesized here that the physical characteristics and overall proportion of lithic debitage should be distributed similarly within each of the cultural occupations. If the patterns continue within the pre-Clovis aged sediments, then it is hypothesized that the artifacts found within these levels, barring relocation, are part of a legitimate pre-Clovis assemblage. The lithic debitage excavated from units where pre-Clovis material was found were analyzed using mass analysis as well as individual flake analysis. Debitage was characterized by form as well as by specific technological attributes. The occurrence of each debitage category, as well as the occurrence of specific attributes within each of the sample units, was recorded for nearly 4000 individual pieces of debitage. It was assumed that debitage located within each specific cultural stratum was part of a lithic debitage assemblage. It was possible, therefore, to compare the assemblages one to another; this also included all debitage located below the Clovis 1

horizon. Statistical analyses were performed to test whether or not the assemblages associated with known occupations were similar to those associated with pre-Clovis levels. Based on this analysis, it was determined that there is no significant difference between the physical attributes of the lithic debitage found within strata associated with known prehistoric populations and the lithics found within pre-Clovis aged deposits. This analysis alone, however, is not enough to definitively state that the debitage located below Clovis was produced by people living at the site prior to arrival of this basal population. Based on this study two competing hypotheses emerged; one which argues for the presence of a legitimate pre-Clovis occupation at the Topper Site and the other citing downward movement and/or fluvial processes to account for the presence of debitage below Clovis strata. Future research will be needed to resolve which of these best explains the cultural materials found in pre-Clovis aged deposits at the site. THE ANTIQUITY OF HUMANITY IN THE AMERICAS

The peopling of the Americas is as exciting as it is a controversial area of study. Like any other scientific endeavor, theories regarding the colonization of the New World are susceptible to change and re-evaluation as new data and research objectives are explored. Complicating our understanding of this initial colonization process is the discovery of archaeological sites in both North and South America of pre-Clovis age whose existence renders ambiguous when and ultimately who, the first Americans were that colonized what is now the United States. Such sites have the potential to rewrite the history of the colonization of the New World, while also providing further insight into lives, motivations, cultures, and adaptations of prehistoric peoples. It is important, therefore, to understand the significance of such sites, 2

specifically how their existence change our current models and theories regarding the colonization of the New World. An examination of the pre-Clovis materials from the Topper Site has the potential to add a new perspective to the on-going search for the First Americans.

The American Paleolithic: (Scientific Inquiry and Fiery Debates)

The antiquity of humanity in the Americas has been of great interest from the time Christopher Columbus unintentionally arrived on a small Caribbean island in October of 1492. This voyage, as well as all subsequent voyages embarked upon by European explorers, led to the second greatest colonization event in the New World. The discovery of multiple thriving populations in the Americas enticed European thinkers, scientists, philosophers, and theologians to speculate about the origins of these peoples. Including Native Americans into their world view required Europeans to reference one of their most trusted historical sources, the Bible (Meltzer 1994). The Bible provided one source from with which Europeans could base a series of theories regarding the ancestral roots of American Indians. One of the most common and presumably oldest theories to be developed by Europeans speculated that Native Americans were among the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel (Hallowell 1960:4). Observations of native customs and practices encouraged this theory, as there appeared to be “corroboration in the customs and traditions of the Indians” with those of the ancient Israelites (Haven 1856 as cited in Meltzer 1994:8). Meltzer (1994:8) notes that identifying Native Americans as “long-wandering Israelites had two undeniable virtues: it explained why those tribes had become lost, and it provided a ready explanation for the Native Americans”.

3

This origin theory persisted among Europeans for nearly 300 years before falling into disfavor (Meltzer 1994:8). In 1590 Fray Francis de Acosta provided one of the first plausible and rational explanations as to how Old World peoples accessed the American continents. This new theory argued that the ancestral populations of Native Americans came to the New World in an “overland migration” somewhere within the northern reaches of the continent where the Old World and the New World were within close proximity to one another (de Acosta 1590, summarized by Meltzer 1994:8). Although de Acosta could not provide concrete evidence for his theory, it essentially provided Europeans with a framework from which they could build a more substantial argument. It would not, however, be until much later in the nineteenth century that serious scientific inquiry and exploration resulted in significant insight into the true origins of the first Americans. It has been noted by Meltzer (1994) that prior to the mid-19th century it was more important to determine who the Native Americans were than when exactly they had arrived in the New World. It was believed, for example, that their antiquity could be no greater than 6000 years. Once again evidence was derived from Biblical references (Haven 1856:153). The controversy regarding the antiquity of Native American populations only originated after the 1859 European discovery of human remains in direct association with extinct Pleistocene animals (Meltzer 1994:10). This discovery encouraged a vigorous search for an American Paleolithic which resulted in the discovery of archaeological sites yielding artifacts similar to those discovered in Europe. After numerous New World discoveries produced lithic material in ambiguous association with extinct species of animals, or of presumed age, several archaeologists and geologists working at the time (Abbot 1881; McGee 1893; Wright 1889; 4

Dawkins 1883; Powell 1895) became convinced that there was indeed an Ice Age occupation in the Americas. Nearly fifty years of intense debate between and within American archaeology and physical anthropology occurred before this question was resolved in the 1920’s. Disputes over the American Paleolithic centered around the true age of the “rude” implements that were being identified as artifacts, and the general appearance of the physical remains which were being identified as Paleolithic peoples. Ales Hrdlička, a physical anthropologist with the Smithsonian Institution, was responsible for rejecting many of the skeletal remains found within Pleistocene contexts. Hrdlička argued that skeletal material recovered from within Pleistocene-aged deposits should resemble those of Neanderthals or other pre-modern humans of Eurasia (Boldurian and Cotter 1999:2). Those remains which bore a striking resemblance to modern native populations were argued to be recent in age, regardless of what the geological evidence suggested (Meltzer 1989). Hrdlička and his contemporary William Henry Holmes argued instead that “one should assume these purportedly ancient remains were younger skeletons re-deposited into older strata” (Holmes 1918; Hrdlička 1907 as cited in Meltzer 1989). Compounding this were disagreements about the source and age of the deposits with which archaeological remains were found. It was not until 1927 that the debate would finally be put to rest. In August of 1927, after two seasons of field investigations at a site located near Folsom, New Mexico, J.D Figgins, Director of the Denver Museum of Natural History, discovered projectile points embedded within the skeletal remains of extinct, late Pleistocene species of bison, Bison antiquus ( Haynes 2002; Meltzer 1989; Figgins 1927). Upon the advice of Hrdlička, the artifacts where left in the ground to be viewed by visiting scientists. Those visiting professionals included Barnum Brown, 5

paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural History, Frank Roberts, representative of the Smithsonian Institute, A.V. Kidder, archaeologist with the Peabody Museum and his colleague, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution Alexander Westmore (Meltzer, 1989, 1994). After viewing the artifacts in situ the scientists agreed that the “remarkably fashioned fluted projectile points found embedded in the ribs of the extinct species had entered the formation ‘at the same time the bones did’” (Roberts to Fewkes, September 13, 1927 in Meltzer 1989:25). The discovery at Folsom finally provided indisputable proof that the New World had been colonized during the Ice Age, although a calendar age for the site, and other sites containing the same stylized projectile point, would not be known until the 1940’s. “At the time of the Folsom discovery it was not possible to estimate the age of the find any more precisely than to say that the association with Bison antiquus meant that man was present in America near the end of Ice Age” (Haynes 1969:709). The introduction of radiocarbon dating by Willard Libby provided a means to accurately date archaeological assemblages. Dating deposits was previously based upon stratigraphic depth, an association with extinct animals and cross dating of artifacts and seriation (Taylor 1985). Today it is known that the projectile points found at the site, now commonly referred to as Folsom, characterize a Paleoindian culture complex which existed between 10,900 and 10,600 14C yr. BP (Powell 2005). Although not the oldest of the American Paleolithic cultures, the Folsom discovery represents an important turning point in American archaeology. First, it served as evidence that Ice Age Americans systematically crafted projectile points that required considerable forethought, precision, and skill. Second, it provided irrevocable proof that humans were contemporaneous with Ice Age animals. It was one of the 6

first archaeological sites in the New World to command the attention of a select group of elite scientists, “whose opinion mattered in gaining resolution, and who could work out the paleontology, geology, and stratigraphy for themselves, and used that information to date the bison remains and the site” (Meltzer 1991:34). Further proof of early man in the Americas came six years later at the Blackwater Draw site near Clovis, New Mexico. It was here that a projectile point form, which came to be known as Clovis, was found stratigraphically below the Folsom horizon (Stanford 1991). Led by Edgar Howard, and sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, systematic excavations proceeded at the site between 1933 and 1937 (Boldurian and Cotter 1999). Excavations successfully established the presence of Paleolithic peoples with extinct species of mammoth during the terminal Pleistocene, and also defined a stratigraphic distinction between mammoth hunters and later bison hunting populations (Boldurian and Cotter 1999). The distinctive Clovis fluted points associated with Pleistocene mammoth hunting have since been discovered at hundreds of sites across North America (Anderson et al. 2010). Today, “wherever they may be found, these distinctive implements are named Clovis, after their initial, fully reported place of discovery” (Boldurian and Cotter 1999:18). Radiocarbon dating eventually confirmed that the Clovis complex existed between 11,200 and 10,900 radiocarbon years before present, or 14C yr BP (Haynes 2002; Waters and Stafford 2007). It also identified the Clovis culture as the oldest known populations to have existed in the New World, and led to the establishment of the Clovis-First Hypothesis (Haynes 1969).

7

This model has been referred to as “an elegant articulation of a series of propositions that have both explanatory and predictive power”; and “specifies where earliest colonists came from, the route taken as well as the rate of colonization, what archaeologists should expect to find in the most basal level of the American archaeological record, and the earliest possible age for human occupation” (Bonnichsen and Lepper 2005:9). The Clovis-First model is essentially based on three fundamental premises (Bonnichsen 2005:12); (1) The first hypothesizes that around 11,500 14C yr BP a group of skilled hunters, carrying a very distinctive ‘fluted’ point, travelled through the ice free corridor and quickly made their way across the vast American landscape sustaining themselves on the herds of large game which they had followed (Haynes 1964). (2) The second premise hypothesizes that the Clovis culture disappeared with, and most likely caused, the extinction of large megafauna about 10,800 14C yr BP. (3) The third and final premise is that Clovis represents the basal culture that gave rise to all other archaeological traditions in the Americas (Bonnichsen 2005:12). The initial colonization was further believed to have been followed by a rapid population explosion and the expansion of said populations into most parts of the Americas by the beginning of the Holocene, 11,500 calendar years ago (Meltzer 1993). By 1965 the Clovis-first hypothesis was a widely accepted theory for the initial colonization of the New World, and in the decades following, research into the peopling of North America markedly expanded the late Pleistocene archaeological record (Grayson and Meltzer 2003:588).

Clovis-First Debate

8

For the next few decades the Clovis-First model remained the strongest, and most widely accepted, candidate for explaining the initial colonization of the Americas. However, by the 1980’s archaeologists began to discover sites in both North and South America that appeared to date well before the recognized 11,500 14C yr BP entry date. The discovery of such sites, now termed pre-Clovis, led scholars to question the legitimacy of Clovis as the first inhabitants of the New World. Bonnichsen and Lepper (2005) have, for example, challenged the three underlying premises of the Clovis-First model. They argue instead that (1) Clovis does not represent the first group of people to have entered the New World; that in fact the Americas were peopled several times by different groups; (2) regional diversification exists among Clovis populations as a result of responses to global environmental change; and (3) several North American archaeological co-traditions are as old, if not older than Clovis; thus Clovis is not ancestral to all North and South American populations (Bonnichsen and Lepper 2005:12). While these challenges are intriguing and certainly controversial, we must wait until more evidence is available to fully evaluate them. Despite the number of sites with possible evidence for pre-Clovis populations in the Americas, there is rarely widespread agreement pertaining to the legitimacy of pre-Clovis sites. In the last three decades, for example, more than a dozen sites have been discovered that have yielded dates that make them older than Clovis, but few have much credence in the scientific community (Wheat 2012). One of the challenges consistently faced is that many do not adhere to the specific set of criteria that were established to legitimize early archaeological sites. These criteria maintain that a site must include (1) undeniable artifacts or human remains; (2) an indisputable context, such as direct stratigraphic association with extinct Pleistocene animal 9

remains; and (3) a valid and reliable control over chronology – or undisturbed stratigraphy (Haynes 1969:714). Any site yielding potential evidence for a pre-Clovis occupation in the New World was carefully evaluated to determine whether it had (1) genuine artifacts or human skeletal remains in (2) unmixed geologic deposits accompanied by (3) reliable pre-Clovis age radiometric ages (Haynes 1969; Grayson and Meltzer 2003:542). Very few, if any of the earliest recorded pre-Clovis sites, were accepted as legitimate (Dincauze 1984). While pre-Clovis sites continue to be reported throughout the New World, one of the standards long demanded by advocates of the Clovis-First model is that more than one unequivocal site of pre-Clovis age needs to be found in an area in order to prove the existence of these early populations (Bonnichsen and Lepper 2005:12). It is believed that if humans reside in a region, there should be multiple archaeological signatures of their existence. Thus, multiple sites with similar ages and artifact assemblages would provide the best possible evidence to support the presence of pre-Clovis populations in the Americas (Bonnichsen and Lepper 2005:12). An additional standard often cited as a means to qualify sites as pre-Clovis is the presence of diagnostic artifacts found in undisturbed Pleistocene contexts (Meltzer 1989:480). This standard is based on the assumption that, technologically speaking, characteristics found within pre-Clovis lithic assemblages must logically lead to Clovis. That is, pre-Clovis lithic assemblages should contain characteristics similar to, but not necessarily identical to Clovis technology. Such characteristics might include some aspect of bifacial thinning, channel fluting, and blade technology (Collins 2002). Meltzer (1989:479) has argued in fact, that it is wrong to dismiss archaeological evidence because it does not fit chronological or diagnostic expectations. 10

He has proposed that there may have been multiple migrations into the New World, many of which may not have been successful. “Unsuccessful or failed migrations would be those that penetrated the continent but subsequently disappeared without issue or without detectable mixture with indigenous groups” (Meltzer 1989:480). It is reasonable to hypothesize then, that each migratory population could have brought with them distinctly different technologies making it virtually impossible for archaeologists to predict what an assemblage would look like for each individual population that entered the New World. Bryan (2004) argues further that archaeologists should abandon their reliance on finding diagnostic tools when searching for early sites. One of the questions to frequently arise, however, is how then do we determine whether an assemblage is legitimately pre-Clovis in age if we have nothing to compare it to? At this point, there is no simple answer to this question. As stated earlier, of the possible pre-Clovis sites that have been reported in the last three decades (see Figure 1), only a handful have been considered legitimate in the public and academic realms; although no one pre-Clovis site has been universally accepted by Paleo-Indian scholars (Wheat 2012). A large majority of the other sites have been dismissed by many researchers because they have either failed to provide any substantial evidence that meet the aforementioned criteria (Haynes 1969), or information regarding these sites have yet to be fully published and are therefore relatively unknown.

Pre-Clovis in the Americas

The first site to convince most archaeologists that there was an occupation in the Americas prior to arrival of Clovis populations was discovered at Monte Verde, Chili in the late 11

1970’s (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). Located in South America, Monte Verde has been dated to 12,500 14C yr BP, making it one of the earliest known human occupations in South America. There is, in addition, a second possible occupation at Monte Verde which was dated much earlier to ~ 33,000 14C yr BP (Meltzer et al. 1997:659). Excavated by Dillehay and Pino starting in 1976, the site has yielded an abundance of information regarding the lifeways of its earliest occupants. The site has provided, for example, hundreds of artifacts including several different kinds of stone tools, preserved wooden implements interpreted as digging sticks and spears, 42 different species of edible plant, evidence of at least 12 timber and earthen structures, imported trade goods, and a preserved human footprint (Dillehay 1989, 1997). While providing a plethora of information regarding its inhabitants, Monte Verde has also stimulated many

12

2 1 1 Old Crow 2 Bluefish Caves 3 Manis 4 McMinnville 5 Fort Rock Cave 6 Wilson Butte Cave 7 Pendejo Cave 8 Sand Creek 9 Lamb Springs 10 Selby 11 Big Eddy 12 Shaefer 13 Fenske 14 Lovewell 15 Meadowcroft Rock Shelter 16 Saltville 17 Cactus Hill 18 Little Salt Springs 19 Coats-Hines 20 Topper

3 4 5

6

12 9

10

14

15 13 16 20

17

20

7

8

11

20 20

18 19

Figure 1. Late Glacial Maximum, North America, showing the general locations of several possible pre-Clovis sites. Image courtesy of PIDBA and Steven J. Yerka and Dyke et al. 2003.

questions regarding its occupation. Kelly (2002:136) for example, asks “how do we explain the presence of people in South America at the same time or prior to their appearance in North

13

America?” Archaeologists are thus beginning to rethink not only when populations began to arrive in the New World, but also how they got here. In addition to Monte Verde there are several other pre-Clovis sites that have peaked the interest of Paleoindian archaeologists. In Eastern North America these sites include Meadowcroft Rockshelter, Pennsylvania; Cactus Hill, Virginia; Saltville, Virginia; and Topper, South Carolina (Bonnichsen and Lepper 2005:13, Anderson 2005; Goodyear 2005a). There are also a series of sites located within the area of land once referred to as Beringia – the region today includes Alaska, the Yukon Territory, northeast Siberia, and the now submerged Bering Sea platform. These sites include Old Crow and Bluefish Caves. Other potential pre-Clovis sites, referred to as the Nenana Complex, are located within the Nenana Valley of Alaska and include Owl Ridge, Dry Ridge, and Walker Road. More recent discoveries of pre-Clovis in the New World come from the Debra L. Friedkin site located in central Texas (Waters et al. 2011). While some skepticism is still attached to many of the sites mentioned, Saltville and Topper in particular, there is for the most part, a general consensus that people did arrive in the New World prior to Clovis populations (Wheat 2012). The questions that remains however, is when? As such it is increasingly important to continue excavations at each of the sites to demonstrate their legitimacy.

THE TOPPER SITE (38AL23)

The Topper site, (38AL23), is a prehistoric chert quarry and quarry-related habitation area located on a Pleistocene terrace of the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina 14

(Figure 2). The location was discovered in the mid 1970’s by local resident David Topper, who later shared his discovery with a group of interested archaeologists. One of the archaeologists was Dr. Albert Goodyear, a researcher at the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, current director of the Allendale Paleoindian Expedition and principal investigator of the Topper Site investigations (Goodyear and Steffy 2003). Testing at the site began in the early 1980’s as part of a larger survey designed to map a suite of chert quarries in Allendale County (Goodyear and Charles 1984). Additional testing at Topper in 1984, 1985, and 1986 set out to document the stratigraphy and history of the site. This process revealed an extensive occupational history spanning from Clovis to the Late Prehistoric (Goodyear 2000; Waters et al. 2009:1300). From 1998 to the present, the Topper site has been excavated annually for six weeks each summer by a team of from 40 to as many as 100 researchers, students and volunteers. Prior to 1998 no units were taken deeper than the Clovis age level since the project director thought it was the oldest possible occupation (Goodyear 2003:23). However the 1997 reporting on the discoveries at Monte Verde in South America and discoveries at Cactus Hill, Virginia in 1998 prompted Goodyear and his research team to excavate below what was known to be Clovis age sediments. These excavations resulted in the discovery of an unusual lithic assemblage located as much as two meters below the Clovis level in sands and an old terrace associated with what is now known as the Pleistocene floodplain and terrace (Goodyear

15

Figure 2. Map of Allendale study area, South Carolina showing the location of the Topper and Big Pine Tree sites. Image courtesy of Waters et al. 2009.

16

2003:23). Subsequent excavations have continued to produce lithic material from below the Clovis horizon. The primary question and controversy regarding Topper deals first with the question of whether the lithic materials found below the Clovis deposit are products of human manufacture or the product of natural processes, and second, if they are humanly manufactured are they in primary stratigraphic context?

SITE SETTING AND STRATIGRAPHY

Topper (38AL23) is part of a larger quarry complex which includes the Big Pine Tree site (38AL143), a terrestrial chert outcrop, and a related quarry (38AL139); all of which are located on floodplains and terraces that flank the Savannah River (Figures 2,3). The first terrace lies almost 99m above mean sea level (amsl) and within this sandy alluvium fill is the Big Pine Tree Site. The second terrace, and the one examined for this study, is located 101.5 m amsl and colluvium covers most of the first terrace (Waters et al. 2009:1300). The archaeological components at Topper are buried within the fill of this terrace and in the overlying colluvium (Waters et al. 2009:1300). Much of what we see at the site today is the result of processes that began about 14,000 years ago, soon after the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). This dramatic shift in temperature and precipitation resulted in major hydraulic changes in the Savannah River which dropped river elevation at Topper to its present level (Goodyear and Steffy 2003). It is assumed that by the time Clovis populations arrived in the area around Topper, the waters had receded enough in the Savannah River to expose the chert cobbles and iron stained quartz cobbles that were subsequently exploited by Paleoindian and Archaic 17

Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map with location of the Topper site (38AL23). (Martin Quadrangle. Published in 1989 ) Image from Miller 2007.

peoples (Goodyear 2000). Clovis populations would have had almost unlimited access to high quality chert; material that could have been retrieved on land as well as from the river bottom. The cobbles recovered from the river contain a distinctive butterscotch colored cortical surface, unlike those recovered from terrestrial sources (Figure 4). The difference is inferred to have

18

been caused by continual polishing and water action which effectively erodes off the limey cortex revealing the glossy outer rind (Goodyear 2006:14).

River Chert

Terrestrial Allendale Chert

A

B

Figure 4. Allendale Chert. Figure A represents the smooth butterscotch colored river chert and Figure B represents the light colored terrestrial Allendale Chert with a chalky white cortex .

Although several geological studies were conducted at the Topper site (see Goodyear and Foss; 1993; Goodyear, 1999) an additional study was undertaken by Waters et al. (2009) in 1999 that sought not only to define the stratigraphy at the Topper site but also to try to date the possible Pre-Clovis component at the site using radiocarbon and luminescence techniques (Waters et al. 2009:1301). A series of backhoe trenches were excavated to expose the alluvial and colluvial stratigraphy (Figure 5). Stratigraphic profiles were recovered for a number of these trenches as well as from excavation areas at the north end of the site (Figure 6). Waters et al. (2009) identified a series of stratigraphic units that they correlated with the sites’ archaeology. Samples for radiocarbon and luminescence dating were collected from these profiles to provide the age estimates of the geological deposits (Waters et al. 2009:1302). 19

Figure 5. Map of the Topper site showing the location of excavated areas and trenches. Letters A-J designates the location of specific profile cross-sections as shown in Figs. 6 and 7. Image courtesy of Waters et al. 2009.

Figure 6. Cross-section of the Late Quaternary stratigraphy of the Topper site ( locations at depicted in Figure 5) Image courtesy of Waters et al. 2009:1303.

20

Figure 7. Detailed cross section showing the stratigraphy and dates obtained at specific locations along the cross-section line A-G (Fig. 5) and two other localities. a. Area C (Figure 5 and 6); b. Area J (Figure 5); c. Area D (Figures 5 and 6); d. Area I. Image courtesy of Waters et al. 2009.

At Topper late Quaternary deposits were found to include both alluvial and colluvial sediments, all of which rest unconformably against an eroded scarp of Tertiary-age bedrock (Waters et al. 2009:1303). Alluvial deposits generally consist of loose, unconsolidated soil or sediments which have been deposited and shaped by some non-marine water action (Hills 1946). This lower bedrock consists of a weathered, red colored deposit of sand, silt, and clay which has 21

been proposed to be part of the Miocene Altamaha Formation. It is capped by Quaternary eolian sands and colluvium that were found to contain artifacts from Clovis populations (Waters et al. 2009:1303). These eolian and colluvial sediments can be divided into three major unitsdesignated by Waters et al. (2009) as 1 through 3, from oldest to youngest. The units were further subdivided into smaller subunits, designated with lower case letters a b, and c (see Figures 6, 7 and 8).

Holocene Terrace Pleistocene Sands (PS) Pleistocene Terrace (PT)

Figure 8. Generalized stratigraphy of the Topper Site showing the position of Clovis and Archaic strata. Image courtesy of Waters et al. 2009:1304.

22

Holocene Terrace Middle Archaic Late Archaic

Pleistocene Sands

Pleistocene Terrace Figure 9. Stratigraphic Profile of Excavation Unit at Topper Site.

Unit 1 is represented by a sequence of sediments that were deposited by a “meandering prehistoric Savannah River” (Waters et al. 2009:1303). Unit 1a, then, has been identified by the 23

authors as representing deposition within the channel and point bar of the Savannah River, while unit 1b reflects deposition by overbank processes on the river flood plain (2009:1303). It was noted by Waters et al. (2009) that the upper portion of unit 1 has been altered by pedogenic processes that created a weak Bt which was extremely susceptible to erosional processes. Within these sediments, Goodyear (2005a) has recovered chert pieces that have been identified as possible pre-Clovis artifacts as well as a concentration of charcoal that had the appearance of a possible hearth (Waters et al. 2009:1303). Unit 2 (see Figure 8) consists of sediments that have been deposited by both colluvial and fluvial processes. Unit 2a has been identified as being a product of colluvial processes, consisting mainly of gravels and sands that accumulated along the edge of the erosional scarp. Groups of isolated gravels occur on the eroded scarp and as identified by the authors, there is one case where gravels have accumulated at the base of the scarp as weathered chert pebbles and cobbles that most likely rolled down the side of the slope that formed the edge of the channel (Waters et al. 2009:1303). Unit 2b, also known as the Pleistocene Sands, overlies the eroded surface of Tertiary bedrock, a dark colored overbank unit, also referred to as the gray silty clay terrace and otherwise referred to by Goodyear as the Pleistocene Terrace. Found within unit 2b are small gravel filled channels (50-140 cm wide; 5-30 cm deep) and in some places, large chute channels (3-5 m wide; 0.5-0.8 m deep). Chute channels were encountered within the test units excavated for this thesis. Within these channels were dense concentrations of fairly small, round and semi angular pebbles, cortical debris, and what appeared to be flaking debris. Further discussion of these is contained Chapter 4. The sediments which encompass unit 2b are interpreted as having been deposited in a fluvial environment that had multiple shallow channels 24

which may have been part of a braided fluvial system (Waters et al. 2009:1304). The authors found that the north-south orientation of the channel boundaries indicates paleo-river flow parallel to the present Savannah River (2009:1304). This unit, which has produced some of the potential pre-Clovis artifacts in the past and the majority of those discussed in this thesis, has been designated by Goodyear as the Pleistocene Sands (PS) (Figures 8 and 9). Overlying the sandy alluvium of unit 2b is unit 2c, which is composed of gray sandy silty clay that forms discontinuous masses that range from 1 to 2 m long and 0.5 m thick (Waters et al. 2009:1304). These sediment bodies have been identified as either overbank flood deposits or isolated pockets of fine-grained sediments that accumulated in channels and depressions that existed on the surface (Waters et al. 2009:1304). A micromorphological examination of this unit indicated that the upper 30 cm had been altered by a period of relative stability occurred over at least 2000 years of pedogenesis. This created weak structures with clay bridging occurring between the sand grains. Unit 2c (Figures 7 and 8) represents the last time that fluvial deposition occurred at the Topper site. Luminescence dating suggests that this deposition most likely ceased around 15,000 14C yr BP, after which the river downcut and abandoned the floodplain, effectively creating Terrace 2 (Waters et al. 2009:1308). Unit 3 formed through colluvial processes and is composed on sediments that were shed from the adjacent hillslope onto the abandoned terrace. This unit has been further divided into two subunits. The oldest of these units, 3a, disconformably overlies the sands of unit 2b and is a brown silty sand that shows evidence of soil development indicated by a 70 cm thick, brown soil horizon that has weak structure (Water et al. 2009:1304). Overlying this layer is unit 3b which was found to be ubiquitous across the site. This unit consists of silty sand with intermittent 25

gravels that become more and more abundant toward to the slope. In some places within this unit, those that are closer the slope, the gravels become quite thick and grade downslope into a stone line (Waters et al. 2009:1304). Pedogenic processes also occur within this unit, particularly within the upper 60 cm, creating a weak Bw horizon (Waters et al. 2009:1308). Clovis artifacts have been found within unit 3b near the base of the strata (Figures 6,7). Diagnostic artifacts above this horizon indicate a cultural sequence that ranges from Early, Middle, and Late Archaic to Woodland near the top (Goodyear, 2001). Unit 3 has been designated by Goodyear as the Lower Terrace, however for the purpose of this study it will be referred to as the Holocene Terrace (Figures 7, 8, and 9).

DATING THE TOPPER SITE

Organic remains such as wood, bone, or charcoal are rare at the Topper site as acidic sands have destroyed much of the organic materials (Goodyear 2000). Where wood and plant macrofossils are found it is likely that they have been introduced by plant bioturbation into older sediments, or were “in situ lignified plant remains that were preserved in rare reducing environments that escaped oxidation by the vertically fluctuating water table” (Waters et al. 2009:1304). Those samples that were processed for radiocarbon dating were taken from humic acids within flood basin sediments and paleosols of unit 1, and charcoal and humics from unit 3b, while all other dates obtained from units 2 and 3 were obtained using luminescence dating (Figure 7). Samples of humic acids taken from unit 1a, the deepest and oldest of the strata (see Figure 7), yielded dates of 44,300 ± 1700

14

C yr BP , 45,500 ± 1000 14C yr BP, and 49,900 ± 26

1300 14C yr BP (Waters et al. 2009:1305). All of these dates, (Tables 1, 2) however, likely represent minimum ages because they are at the maximum limits of the radiocarbon method (Waters et al. 2009:1305). Six samples of wood, nutshell, and humic acids were also dated from unit 1a. These dates provide a minimum age for unit 1a and indicate that it dates in excess of 50,000 14C yr BP (Waters et al. 2009:1305). Lithic material has been recovered within units 1a and 1b, and are therefore associated with dates of >50,000 14C yr BP. Sediment samples were also collected from multiple locations at the Topper Site for Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating (Table 1). The principle of OSL dating is similar to thermoluminescence dating, which was originally developed in the 1960’s to date pottery and other fired archaeological materials (Forman 2003:13). “When mineral grains are exposed to sunlight for a brief period of time, their inherited luminescence is reduced to a low definable level. Because solar energy rapidly resets the luminescence signals by OSL, the methods can be used to date eolian deposits as well as various deposits of colluvial and fluvial origins, where sediment is either rapidly deposited or exposed to restricted wavelengths and low intensities of light” (Forman 2003:13).

OSL was noted to have worked well to date both the fine and coarse sediments from colluvial and fluvial deposits at the Topper site because these particular sediments contain small amounts of radioactive elements such as uranium, thorium, and potassium which bombard surrounding sediments with electrons as they decay (Waters et al 2009). Some of these electrons become trapped in quartz crystals – the amount of trapped energy is thus used as a measurement of how long the material has been buried (Goodyear 2001:12). Luminescence dating at the Topper site, therefore concentrated on the colluvial-fluvial units 2 and 3, where sediments received an

27

adequate amount of sunlight to reset grain luminescence during deposition (Waters et al. 2009:1306). Eighteen luminescence ages were obtained from sediment samples collected in stratigraphic order from units 2b and 3b in areas D and I, as well as from three additional samples collected from other portions of the site (Table 2). Within area D two finite ages 14,000 ± 1200 cal yr BP and 14,800 ± 1500 cal yr BP (Figure 7) were obtained from the uppermost portion of unit 2. Two additional OSL ages, 14,400±1200 cal yr BP and 15,200 ±1500 cal yr BP were obtained from sediments at the top of unit 2b. More proposed pre-Clovis lithics and an unusual rock feature occur within unit 2b, meaning that this material could be at least 15,000 years old (Goodyear 2000). Two finite ages were also produced and these ranged from 13,200 ± 1300 yr BP to 7300 ± 800 yr BP. Those dates taken from sediments in area I (see Figures 5, 7) were found to be older than the associated diagnostic artifacts. Waters et al. (2009) believe that this indicates that the sediments had been mixed by bioturbation, which was not evident when the samples were taken (Waters et al. 2009:1308). Accordingly, the samples from this specific area do not accurately date the site. Other dates taken from different locations at the site were found, however, to match archaeological interpretations.

28

Table 1. Optically Stimulated Luminescence Dates from Topper Site, South Carolina. From Waters et al. 2009.

29

Table 2. AMS dates from Humic Acids and Organic Remains at the Topper Site. From Waters et al. 2009.

EXCAVATION HISTORY AND THE TOPPER ASSEMBLAGE

The archaeological investigations at the Topper site have recovered artifacts ranging from Mississippian to Clovis and perhaps even pre-Clovis in age. Goodyear (2005:108) argues that the time sensitive artifacts are in order by depth, indicating that there was likely a gentle burial of the Holocene record with minimal human and natural disturbances. Clovis artifacts have been recovered in every area at the Topper site, including the terrace, hillside, hilltop, and even in the Savannah River where chert was readily available (Steffy and Goodyear 2006:147) Included 30

among the Clovis tool assemblages are numerous small utilized chert flakes, unifacially retouched flakes, burins, burin spalls, and microblades (Goodyear 2000:19; also see Miller 2007). OSL (see Table 2) dates at the base of the colluviums in unit 3b produced a date of 13,500 ± 100 14C yr BP, which is very close to the accepted date of Clovis in the New World (Waters and Stafford 2007). The pre-Clovis artifacts, on the other hand, have only been recovered from the pre-Clovis excavation block, an area of the site also referred to as the lower Pleistocene terrace (and herein, the Pleistocene Sands and Pleistocene Terrace). Some ideas as to why this occurred will be discussed in a later chapter. While there is an extensive Clovis occupation at Topper, the controversy surrounding the site has to do with the presumed cultural materials coming from below the fluted point horizon. It is more relevant to this discussion to focus attention on the pre-Clovis assemblage rather than the Clovis, as the Clovis occupation at Topper is unequivocal. However, it is crucial to this study to have an understanding of all lithic material recovered from the Topper site. Relevant to this discussion is the apparent difference in chert utilized by Clovis people and the chert found below the Clovis horizon. While this chert does fall within the range of what is traditionally described as Allendale chert, there are obvious differences in color and texture between the cherts recovered from within the Holocene Sands versus those found within the Pleistocene Sands and Pleistocene Terrace (Goodyear 2000:19) (Figure 10). As mentioned earlier, cherts originating within the Savannah River have a distinctive glossy rind, while terrestrial sources have a thick chalky cortex. Cherts with the distinctive glossy rind have yet to be found below Clovis sediments. However, the majority of the material recovered from within pre-Clovis sediments has been severely degraded and is therefore more difficult to accurately identify. This 31

material has been described as being poorly silicified with good cryptocrystalline material present only in minor portions (Goodyear 2000:20). It has not yet been confirmed whether or not the differences between the so-called ‘river’ and hillside’ cherts at Topper are due to the degree of weathering or age (Figure 4).

A

B

Figure 10. Characteristic chert artifacts recovered at the Topper Site. Figure A represents an interior flake with good cryptocrystalline structure, while Figure B also represents an interior flake but it is poorly silicified.

Chert exposed to, or submerged under water for significant periods of time, however, can become desilicified over time. It is possible that the material found below the Clovis horizon was once of a higher quality, but long exposure to water and other elements has altered its appearance and internal structure. Goodyear has proposed, on the other hand, that perhaps the high quality river cherts did not become exposed until about the time those Clovis toolmakers arrived at the site (Goodyear 2001:13). If denied the high quality material that was readily available to Clovis knappers, pre-Clovis tools would have been manufactured out of what was available, such as the weathered cobbles found traditionally on the hillside (Goodyear 2001:13). However, evaluating the nature of this problem involves factors such as the sites geomorphological history as well as the weathering properties of Allendale chert. 32

Most of what has been recovered within the pre-Clovis aged sediments, besides what appears to be lithic debitage, are materials that have been described by Goodyear as being microlithic ‘artifacts’ and burin-like ‘tools’ made by a technique called bend-break (Figure 11). It has been described by Goodyear (2001) as a “simpler technology than the sophisticated method used by Clovis knappers” (2001:12). Lithic experts often distinguish between three intentional types of fracture associated with the production of stone tools. These include hertzian, wedging, and bending initiations (Andrefsky 2004; Figure 11. Characteristic bend-break found at the Topper Site.

Cotterall and Kamminga 1987; Crabtree 1972; Odell 2004).

A bend fracture, like those characteristic of the Topper “bend-breaks” are created when force is applied to the center point of a flake, with no opposing force directly under the point of impact. This force will cause the flake to snap transversely, and with no propagation phase, the force travels straight down through the impact point essentially creating a ninety degree fracture angle (Jennings 2011; Crabtree 1972). “Bend-manufacturing yields trihedral and quadrahedal spalls that mimic burin spalls. These spalls do not have striking platforms or bulbs of force created by burinating a flake” (Goodyear 2005a:111). The thick edges that are created by these breaks are often utilized for scraping and engraving tasks and are known to be expedient in nature. They have also been documented in Holocene-age assemblages as well as in Clovis and Folsom age assemblages in North America 33

(Bergman et al. 1987; Frison and Bradley 1980; Waters el al. 2011). It is not known however, whether these breaks were intentionally created by prehistoric knappers for use as tools as Goodyear would suggest. An experimental study conducted by Jennings (2011) compared bend and radial fractures produced by intentional flake percussion to those produced by incidental breakage during biface reduction and flake trampling damage. Because both breaks can occur with high frequencies intentionally, as well as accidentally through trampling, he cautions that “evidence of invasive resharpening along breaks and use-wear analysis may be the only means for conclusively demonstrating that these breaks were an important toolkit component” (Jennings 2011:7). So far hundreds of these specimens identified by Goodyear as bend-breaks have been recovered from previous excavations within pre-Clovis sediments. What has not been found within pre-Clovis levels, however, is substantial evidence for the production of bifacial or unifacial chipped stone tools, although apparent flakes or flake fragments have been found in some incidences, as documented in subsequent sections of this thesis . One artifact discovered during the 2009 summer excavation from within the Pleistocene terrace, does appear to have been bifacially worked (Figure 12). This artifact, although considerably weathered, also appears to have been subjected to thermal alteration; note the pink discoloration on the surface. The location of this specimen and its similarity to objects recovered from within the Middle Archaic Late Archaic (MALA) levels, where thermal alteration was commonly employed, leads me to believe that this artifact may have originated from one of the MALA layers. But, because the artifact appears to have been subjected to episodes of weathering and degradation, it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty where and hence the piece originated. 34

Figure 12. Probable bifacially worked artifact recovered from within the hard-clay Pleistocene terrace.

In addition to the bend-break type artifacts, other finds from previous years of excavation include a large boulder which is hypothesized to have been used by pre-Clovis people as an anvil (Goodyear 2005a). Evidence for this interpretation comes from several scars on the upper surface of the boulder which is hypothesized by Goodyear as having been the result of smashing. Recovered next to this boulder were two chert pieces identified as spalls. Other chert cobbles recovered among pre-Clovis sediments were found to exhibit lines of force in multiple directions, potential flake scars which seem to exhibit hard terminations that often result in hinges. The presence of small flakes with striking platforms and bulbs within pre-Clovis sediments may also be indicative of human manufacturing processes as small flakes may represent by-products of retouch or stone tool manufacture. Other materials previously 35

recovered among pre-Clovis aged horizons at Topper include possible blades, endscrapers, and sidescrapers (Goodyear 2005a:8). Dr. Marvin Kay, a microscopic use-wear specialist known for having analyzed material from the Monte Verde site (Dillehay 1997), examined a number of preClovis artifacts from Topper. These use wear studies remain unpublished. All excavations prior to the 2004 field season stopped at the hard contact of the clay Pleistocene terrace, or unit 2b as previously identified by Waters et al. (2009). Lithic materials, like those mentioned above, were recovered above this point in the white Pleistocene alluvial sands that overlie this hard terrace. It was believed that no further human occupations could have existed below this point. In 2004, however, it was decided that excavations would continue into the terrace to test the hypothesis that pre-Clovis artifacts could in fact be deeper in the terrace and not just bioturbated into the upper few centimeters of the deposit. The upper 50 centimeters of the Pleistocene Terrace was systematically removed using shovels and trowels with the fill screened in a number of 1x1m units, using 1/8th inch mesh screens. Chert debris was found, including possible artifacts. As a result, additional one meter units were opened into the Pleistocene Terrace by hand using trowels, leaving as many potential artifacts in place as possible for photography and piece plotting. During excavations deep into this terrace, about a meter below the upper boundary, a basin shaped charcoal stain was discovered, that was designated feature 91. Because the stain was hypothesized to be a hearth, a number of specialists were consulted. The specialists included Dr. Sarah Sherwood, geoarchaeologist from the University of Tennessee, Dr. Larry West of the Department of Soils and Crop Science of the University of Georgia, and Dr. Mike Waters, the primary geoarchaeologist on the project. 36

Dr. Stafford, a radiocarbon dating specialist, also examined the hearth-like feature and collected charcoal samples, obtaining ages of > 50,300 14C yr BP and > 51,700 14C yr BP (Table 1). It has not yet been determined whether or not this feature is a hearth (Goodyear 2005). However, the dates recovered from the area have stimulated a lot of interest and speculation, as probable chipped stone artifacts have also been recovered in sediments as deep as this feature (Goodyear 2005a). These lithics include more of the proposed bend-break tools, a possible modified chert core, simple unifaces, as well as a graver spur. The graver spur is the only unquestionable artifact of human manufacture recovered in horizons below Clovis (Goodyear 2009), although whether it was made and deposited in pre-Clovis time, or is the result of bioturbation from above has not been determined. Excavated material from within these controversial units was not available to me for analysis. I therefore did not have the opportunity to analyze any of the probable lithic artifacts. The 2009 summer excavations at Topper produced the materials examined for this study. which came from a total of six 1x1m units opened into the Pleistocene sands and Pleistocene terrace deposits in the pre-Clovis excavation block at Topper, as described in more detail in Chapter 3. Several potential artifacts were recovered from within the pre-Clovis horizons. These include a possible chopper tool (Figure 13), a flake with possible evidence of use wear or edge damage (Figure 14), and several other large flakes which appear to have differing degrees of edge damage (Figure 15). Only those artifacts excavated during the 2009 summer field season were analyzed and included in the following project. Further information regarding this assemblage and its location within the Topper site will be detailed in Chapter 3.

37

Figure 13. Apparent chopper-like tool recovered during the 2009 excavations.

38

Figure 14. Probable modified flake recovered from within the pre-Clovis Pleistocene sands. Picture to the right showing magnified edge damage or use-wear.

Despite the amount of lithic material that has been recovered from within pre-Clovis aged deposits at the Topper site, very few have been systematically examined. This is an essential step in demonstrating whether they are of human origin or not. The technology has been characterized by its non-bifacial character and its emphasis on microlithic artifacts, specifically those identified as bend-breaks or burin-like tools (Goodyear 2005a:111). Demonstrating whether the material recovered from the 2009 excavations was of human origin was the primary goal of this analysis. Another was to evaluate whether the materials could have been bioturbated from an overlying horizon, introduced through stream flow, or created by natural agencies. The analysis herein were directed to providing a basic description of a sample of the assemblage from the site, and examining its context.

39

Figure 15. Probable artifact recovered from the pre-Clovis Pleistocene sand sediments. Picture to the right shows magnification of edge damage or possible use-wear.

Reactions to this assemblage and the OSL and radiocarbon dates at Topper have ranged from enthusiasm to extreme skepticism. Many question the fact that the assemblage is improbably consistent over a long span of time, from between > 50,000 and 15,000 yr B.P. (Waters et al. 2009:1310). Others are more accepting (Wheat 2012), although even these comprise only a small minority among the scholars exploring the question of the peopling of the Americas. Continued excavations and research are needed in order to authenticate the pre-Clovis occupations at Topper. More specifically, these studies must take into account and test the stratigraphic integrity of the units in question, and must also consider those site formational and post-depositional processes which may have contributed to the deposition and degradation of the assemblages. This thesis is directed at resolving at least some of the questions regarding the nature of the pre-Clovis lithic assemblage at Topper.

40

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN INTRODUCTION

Archaeological investigations throughout history are often at a disadvantage; as one must base a majority of the inferences and assumptions about a culture on a limited amount of data. The most frequently recovered material in the archaeological record used to infer past human activity has been stone tools and associated debitage. Given the ubiquitous distribution of these remains and the amount of information that must be gained from them, it is important for archaeologists to be trained in lithic analyses. The more detailed and problem focused the analysis one can conduct with the lithics, the better insight one will get into the lifeways of the peoples living and working at that particular archaeological site (Kooyman 2000:1). The archaeological materials excavated from the Topper site (38AL23) are no different; nearly all of the material recovered from the pre-Clovis Excavation Block and associated hillside units consists of stone tools and the debitage associated with their production. The analysis of lithic debris has become an invaluable tool for deciphering components of archaeological sites. The application of mass and attribute analysis are thus the primary analytical tools utilized in the examination of the lithic from the Topper site. This chapter provides a description of the projects research design and the archaeological sample examined. I first outline the goals of the project based on the material recovered during the 2009 excavations. In the second section the analytical methods and procedures used in the analysis are presented, with reference to supporting technical writings. The final section of this chapter discusses the possible post-depositional processes affecting the sample. 41

The research conducted for this project attempted to utilize non-subjective and replicable methods of data analysis. Counts and weights were systematically recorded over a range of categories, and attribute data were collected on lithic debitage using electronic equipment, such as digital calipers. Visual observations were taken following a strict set of guidelines described later in this chapter to ensure the replicability of the analysis. RESEARCH GOALS

Excavations conducted at Topper have demonstrated that the multi-component site was occupied intermittently over a span of thousands of years from modern times back to the Clovis era and possibly much earlier. From the Clovis period to the present, each group of inhabitants left behind clear archaeological signatures of their presence. Within those known cultural horizons there is direct evidence for humans manufacturing stone tools from locally available Allendale chert. It would be reasonable to assume then, that earlier populations, those that may have been in the New World prior to Clovis, would have taken advantage of the available chert resources and utilized the area for this, and perhaps other, natural resources Each of the documented archaeological components at the Topper site, including the hypothetical pre-Clovis occupation, utilized Allendale chert for tool stone. Recognized components from late prehistoric to Clovis utilized similar technologies to produce tools. It is hypothesized here that the distribution of lithic debitage, produced from similar materials utilizing similar technologies, should be similar for each of these documented components. If true, these patterns of debitage should be replicated in any pre-Clovis lithic components at the site that were made from Allendale chert if similar technologies were employed. Where critical patterns of debitage are overwhelmingly shared between undisputed temporal/cultural 42

assemblages and potential pre-Clovis assemblages, the probability is very low that the preClovis assemblage results from dislocation since dislocation of artifacts rarely results in replication of original assemblage patterns of size, shape, and other artifact attributes. On the other hand, if the patterning of debitage is dissimilar, there is a greater probability that the lithic material was either displaced or created using differing technologies. Critical to such an analysis is an understanding of stone tool manufacture, use, and discard, site formation processes, and the kinds of those post-depositional processes that can affect an archaeological lithic assemblage.

Research Sample

The analysis reported here was conducted on a suite of lithics and lithic debris recovered from six 1x1 meter test units located within the pre-Clovis Excavation Block of the Topper Site (Figures 16 and 17). While many units had been excavated in the pre-Clovis Excavation Block and were potentially available for analysis, only those which had been opened from the surface of the A horizon down into the Pleistocene Terrace in consistent 1 x 1 m units were used. It was crucial for this particular analysis to have units that represented complete stratigraphic profiles; specifically those units which accurately represent deposition from the Holocene Sands down into the older pre-Clovis Pleistocene Sands and Pleistocene Terrace deposits. A complete profile is necessary to show the vertical distribution of debitage and is especially important for evaluating the stratigraphic integrity of a unit. Given the quantity of material present, which was formidable given that the site was a quarry, the sample units were more than sufficient to examine the vertical distribution and characteristics of the material.

43

Lower Terrace/ pre-Clovis Excavation Block

Figure 16. Topographic map of Topper Site showing the location of the pre-Clovis excavation block. Image adapted from Miller 2007.

44

Figure 17. Plan view of pre-Clovis excavation block, showing excavated units.

45

LITERATURE REVIEW

The objective of any study of archaeological remains is to reconstruct and understand past human culture. Most archaeologists want to understand in what environment(s) past people lived, how they exploited these environment(s), and how they adapted to the possibilities and limits of that environment (Kooyman 2000:2). Human culture is, after all, the human response to these challenges. But in order to be able to make these kinds of conclusions, archaeologists must study the material recovered in the archaeological record since significant aspects of the interaction of humans with their environment is visible through their use and manufacture of technology (Kooyman 2000:2). Assessing Stone Tool Properties

The research that was conducted with materials from the Topper site involved the examination of the properties of the stone tools and debitage, and the different aspects of the lithic-tool manufacturing and maintenance process represented in the excavation sample. How local Allendale chert was worked and what sorts of byproducts were left behind formed the subject of this analysis. Because stone tool manufacture and use are both reductive processes, there is usually lithic material left behind within the archaeological record. This lithic waste, also referred to as debitage, is a relatively durable byproduct of tool manufacturing and maintenance activities and, moreover, provides a seemingly direct link to discrete episodes of prior human behavior (Ahler 1989:85-86). Debitage analysis has been defined by Fish (1981:374) as the systematic study of chipped stone artifacts that are not cores or tools. Studies of lithic debitage have become increasingly 46

fundamental for archaeologists to interpret prehistoric behavior, as they provide essential information for reconstructing prehistoric technology and patterns of behavior (Fish 1981:374). As a waste product from past human activities, flaking debris is likely to have been deposited at or very near its locus of origin within past cultural systems. Thus flaking debris is recognized as holding special potential for unraveling the spatial structure of many past cultural systems” (Binford and Quimby 1963).

It is has been demonstrated that it is not always a straightforward matter distinguishing tools from flaking debris or naturally fractured lithic material (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987:675). When examining flakes and flake tools like the materials found at Topper, it is critical to employ attributes which can be used in the identification of humanly produced flakes versus those produced by natural agencies. To do this Patterson (1983) has suggested one follow four steps: 1) identify all typical man-made lithic attributes that nature is least likely to simulate; 2) analyze the lithic collection in question for the presence or absence of these attributes; 3) identify the attributes that are present in quantitatively significant amounts; and 4) demonstrate the likelihood of human manufacture by examining combinations of attributes. The latter is increasingly important, as studies emphasizing only a single attribute are likely to be unconvincing, while studies where multiple lines of evidence point to a conclusion are more believable (Patterson 1983: 299). An initial examination of the pre-Clovis assemblage from Topper revealed that the vast majority of this lithic material is flakes of various shapes and sizes, cortical debris, and cortical and chert shatter. It is important to establish definitions for all of the material being examined so the study can be replicated accurately in the future. Flakes are defined as any object detached from larger stone masses; this treatment, however, includes natural as well as human fracture (Shott 47

1994:70). By definition, shatter differs from flakes in that it includes all cubical and irregularly shaped chunks that lack bulbs of force, systematic alignment of fracture scars on faces, striking platforms, and points of flake initiations (Root 2004:73).

Platform Eraillure Flake

Bulb of Force

Proximal End

Ripple Marks Distal End Ventral Side

Dorsal Side

Figure 18. Conchoidal flake showing common elements and terminology.

When distinguishing a naturally produced flake, from one that has been intentionally detached, it is crucial to look for certain attributes (Figure 18). These distinctive features include prepared, crushed, or faceted striking platforms, prominent bulbs of percussion, bulbar scars and negative dorsal bulb, evidence of previous flake removals on the dorsal surface, ripple and radial 48

lines, differential weathering of flakes, cortex on the striking platform and dorsal surface, and patterned edge removals or edge damage (Patterson 1983). These attributes often result from percussion- type fractures produced primarily by humans during stone tool manufacturing processes (Patterson 1983:299). It should be noted that not all humanly modified flakes will exhibit all of the above attributes, however it is hoped that they will exhibit enough that a definitive answer can be made as to whether or not they were naturally or humanly made. Moreover, concentrations of specimens showing these typical man-made attributes in discrete spatial areas is further evidence demonstrating the likelihood of human activity (Patterson 1983:299). Patterson (1983) has suggested that the aforementioned characteristics be used to determine the nature of lithic debris. It has been demonstrated, however, that natural forces also have the potential to produce most of these attributes to at least some degree. Peacock (1991), for example, examined the attributes proposed by Patterson (1983) (prepared, crushed, or faceted striking platforms, prominent bulbs of percussion, bulbar scars and negative dorsal bulb, evidence of previous flake removals on the dorsal surface, ripple and radial lines, differential weathering of flakes, cortex on the striking platform and dorsal surface, and patterned edge removals or edge damage) and determined that statistically not all of them are reliable indicators of human production. It was found, for example, that only six of these attributes successfully separated known artifacts from known naturally produced lithic materials. Three of these variables are related to percussion flaking, which is presumed to be how most flakes were struck in early stone tool industries: (1) prominent bulbs of percussion, (2) radial lines, and (3) bulbar scars. The other three variables are known to be related to repeated percussion: (4) amount of 49

cortex, (5) number of flake scars on dorsal surface, as well as (6) the presence of a negative dorsal bulb (Peacock 1991:354). The remaining variables were shown to be produced just as readily by natural agencies. An additional attribute, patterned edge damage or edge removals, and also has the potential to distinguish made-made lithics from those produced under natural conditions. It is far more complicated, however, to distinguish natural damage from damage produced by human production, use, and discard. The distinguishing characteristic here is evidence for patterned edge removal; it is thought that nature is random and therefore it is not likely for natural forces to remove many consecutive flakes on a core or modified flake (Patterson 1983:320). In addition, strictly unifacial, in addition to intentional bifacial flaking, is also identified as an indicator of human manufacture. Patterson (1983) has argued that completely unifacial tools would be one of the most difficult items for nature to reproduce by random forces; it would be difficult for fortuitous forces to create the long, uniform, parallel flake scars characteristic of purposefully retouched unifacial tools (Patterson 1983:303). Those removals which are the result of natural processes are often short, uneven, and steeply transverse, and occur on flakes with amorphous shapes. The most frequently cited situation where nature has been known to create edge damage is when material is carried unidirectionally in streams and agitated by sand or stones (Figure 19), or when material is transported down hill (Patterson 1983:304). When examined, these materials exhibit edge damage which is confined to abrasion and short, steep, transverse flake scars (Patterson 1983:304). It does often prove difficult, however, to distinguish between edge modification that is the result of nature and that which was

50

removed purposefully by a knapper during use or trampled, as per the discussion at the end of this chapter. It is increasingly important, then, for archaeologists to be aware of the nature of a site and the processes that could have affected the assemblages deposited there. Because the Topper site has not only been intensely occupied, but has also been affected by fluvial and colluvial processes, the ability to distinguish between material that was intentionally flaked and material that was modified through natural agencies is a complex and challenging task.

Figure 19. The damage caused by agitation of a flake in water with sand, stones, etc.

Mass Analysis

One of the most popular types of debitage analysis, and one that was conducted with materials from the Topper excavation sample (Andrefsky 2001:3), is what has been referred to as 51

aggregate or mass analysis. Shott (1994) has defined aggregate analysis as a method that analyzes an entire collection using non-technological criteria to subdivide the assemblage before considering the technology that was used to create it (Shott 1994). The characteristic most often studied in aggregate analysis is the general size distribution of the debitage sample. However, other variables such as mean size and mean weight for the sample as a whole or for some subset of the sample may be of interest (Ahler 1989:86). Mass analysis is most frequently applied to lithic assemblages, given that it is a quick and easy way to generate data from large debitage samples. When utilizing this technique, all lithic material from an excavation, or in this case a series of 1x1 units, is sieved through a series of progressively smaller screens. Traditional mass analysis employs graduated screens ranging from 1.0 inch to 5.613mm. For this project a U.S.A. Standard Testing Sieve set was employed; it included six screen sizes: 9.5mm, 7.925mm, 5.613mm, 3.962mm, 2.794, and 2.0mm. The number of pieces, total weight, and the number of cortex-covered pieces (flakes, flake fragments, and shatter) are commonly recorded for each screen size (Kooyman 2000:62). Ahler has noted that size grading, moreover, provides a potentially more efficient method for rapidly measuring both the upper size limit in a flake sample and information about the overall and average size distribution in that sample (Ahler 1989:90). The general size distribution of a flake sample can be effectively documented by recording relative counts of flakes across size grades. After the initial subdivision of an assemblage, statistical methods are then employed to characterize the lithic material (Larson 2004:8). This specific type of analysis has proven useful as a method for differentiating site type and manufacture trajectories of lithic debris (Odell 52

2004:130), and is generally advocated for three reasons: replicability, effectiveness in examining large assemblages, and the reductive nature of stone tool manufacture (Carr and Bradbury 2004:21).

Attribute Analysis

An alternative to mass analysis is the examination of individual flakes for key attributes, like the six previously identified by Patterson (1983). It is a method commonly referred to as attribute analysis or individual flake analysis, and it too was conducted with materials from the excavation sample at Topper. In this method, emphasis is shifted to individual flakes which are either classified by some typology or by those key attributes which can be measured, tabulated, and recorded (Knudson 1973, Henry and Odell 1989, Fish 1979, Patterson and Sollberger 1987, Magne 1985). It is a technique most often used to examine stage and reduction questions, but also has the potential to provide information regarding manufacturing techniques. It can, for example, help distinguish between hard and soft hammer percussion and percussive versus pressure flaking. It is often successful because each flake essentially contains significant data on discrete behavioral episodes that can be observed through the identification of key attributes. Debitage attribute analysis essentially begins with the selection and recording of certain debitage characteristics. However, unlike mass analysis; debitage typological analysis examines attributes on individual specimens (Andrefsky 2001:9). This type of analysis is not dependent upon size classes; however, the specimens should be large enough to be able to accurately record attributes. Those attributes most commonly recorded include striking platform characteristics, amount of dorsal cortex, dorsal facet counts, and the type of flake termination. In addition to 53

these attributes, the length, width, thickness, and weight of the individual flakes is often examined and recorded. These attributes are often analyzed by researchers searching for trends within a population, issues of production sequence, and reduction techniques (Andrefsky 2001:9). POST-DEPOSITIONAL PROCESSES CONSIDERED FOR THIS STUDY

A great deal can happen to an archaeological assemblage and related debitage subsequent to its deposition. A number of non-cultural processes are known to alter or disturb flakes, stone tools and debitage. These processes include trampling, plow damage, episodes of degradation as a result of fluvial, colluvial, and alluvial processes, impacts from cave-roof fall and sediment compaction, thermal damage, as well as wind or waterborne sediment abrasion and displacement (Rasic 2004:112). The effect that these and other processes have on artifacts has been referred to as taphonomy. Taphonomy is traditionally defined as the study of the processes involved in the transformation of organic remains into fossils. In recent years however, it has been applied by archaeologists in a more general sense that refers to the changes not only to organic materials such as bone and shell undergo following deposition, but also to stone tools and lithic debitage (Hiscock 1985,2000). Rasic (2004:114) has noted that “materials such as lithics undergo an analogous process of transformation during their use, discard, burial, and recovery”. Archaeologists must not assume that the preservation they encounter in an assemblage is representative of the actual prehistoric patterns of activity and use, as the landscape is not static, but rather is dynamic and constantly changing (Waters and Kuehn 1996:484). A taphonomic perspective on debitage is thus a useful one because it focuses attention on observable changes imparted to flakes and flake assemblages between the time they were 54

created and the point at which they are studied by archaeologists (Rasic 2004:114). “It prompts archaeologists to consider how differential fragmentation, attrition, and alteration of flakes are likely to have affected archaeological patterning” (Rasic 2004:114). These changes, likewise, affect those attributes that are routinely measured in debitage analysis. These include flake size and weight, item counts within various analytical classes, flake completeness, cortical coverage, and raw material appearance and texture (Hiscock 1985, 1990, 2002, Prentiss and Romanski 1989). The vertical and horizontal distribution of debitage can also be examined as different taphonomic processes not only affect flake attributes but can also disperse debitage (Rasic 2004:113). Tani (1995) has noted that “taphonomic changes can be seen either as noise that obscures the ‘true’ behavioral patterning that is the goal of research or as important sources of information in their own right because they supply clues about past cultural and environmental processes” (1995:101). Breakage for example, whether the results of trampling or stream flow, both increases the number of artifacts and reduces their mean size, potentially creating more noise within the archaeological record (Pryor 1988). It would be unwise to make any conclusions regarding any assemblage before investigating all of the agents that could potentially be responsible for its presence and condition in the archaeological record. Waters and Kuehn (1996) note that degradation events also have the ability to diminish the completeness of the geologic and archaeological records, thus leaving archaeologists with an incomplete record of the history and nature of a site. They note that, “the greater the number, duration, and intensity of erosion events, the greater the destruction” (1996:484). Moreover, destructive or erosional events in the archaeological record are not always represented or 55

definable. When analyzing any archaeological assemblage, it is therefore essential to address several questions: What post-depositional processes could have altered the debitage or the assemblage, and how did these processes operate? How might flake attributes and assemblage characteristics be altered? What is the relative degree of impact that different taphonomic agents have on flake assemblages? And lastly, what kinds of positive contributions can knowledge of taphonomic processes tell us about issues such as site occupation history and site structure (Rasic 2004: 113)? As stated earlier, there are several processes that can alter or displace lithic material prior to their excavation. The processes considered here include episodes of weathering and stream deposition, thermal stress, and trampling. Each of these processes has the potential to significantly alter material in the archaeological record making it potentially difficult to interpret the archaeological record correctly. Erosion and Stream Deposition

Natural processes, such as weathering and erosion, can destroy or change culturally created patterns of artifact distribution and taphonomy (Rick 1998). Erosion is, in fact, one of the most common forces acting on artifacts after their deposition in the archaeological record. Because landscapes are not static, but rather are dynamic and continually changing, one must assume that archaeological sites once part of a prehistoric cultural system are essentially destroyed over time, “thus fragmenting the record of human settlement and activity for any time period” (Waters and Kuehn 1996). Those natural processes acting upon an assemblage or site have the ability to alter, disperse, or completely wipe out evidence pertinent to an archaeological

56

investigation. Archaeologists must discern whether or not the patterns of preservation at sites are actually representative of the prehistoric patterns of activity. It has been demonstrated that, during the Pleistocene, worldwide weather patterns fluctuated considerably. Intermittent warming and cooling cycles in particular are known to have affected river and stream volumes. In some cases, for example, stream and river volumes would have been subjected to larger than usual annual elevation variations due to increases in precipitation or meltwater (Shackley 1978). This could have resulted in episodes of flooding, ultimately resulting in cycles of deposition and erosion on the landscape. For sites like Topper, located in a floodplain/terrace setting, the archaeological assemblage would have been subjected to processes associated with fluvial action as well as colluvial deposition from the nearby hillside. Fluvial action can, for example, preserve archaeological material through deposition, redeposit a part or the entirety of a site, or can in fact completely destroy archaeological sites by processes of erosion and/or degradation (Waters 1988:213). Petraglia and Potts (1994) have noted that water flow is one of the most important post-depositional site formation processes that can significantly alter the integrity of a site. The overall completeness of the archaeological record located within a fluvial environment is directly dependent upon the extent of aggradational and degradational episodes, as well as upon the stability of the landscape (Waters 1988:213). Those sites located within higher velocity floodplains have greater chances of becoming dispersed or destroyed. Isaac (1967) found that under both hard and sandy bed conditions, flakes and small implements may be removed from as assemblage, as long as the critical flow velocity is sustained. In a fluvial environment, for example, the movement or displacement of artifacts is dependent upon their size, velocity of water flow, the space between 57

the artifacts and particles, and the texture of the ground on which the water is flowing (Shackley 1978:56). Thermal Stress

The characteristics that are likely to influence the susceptibility of lithic raw material to thermal fracture include the size and shape of the specimens, the thermal conductivity, and homogeneity of the materials. The larger the specimen, the more susceptible it is to thermal stress because greater temperature differentials develop and portions of the mass heat or cool before other portions (Rasic 2004:118). Flakes, then, are usually expected to heat and cool uniformly because they are generally small compared to chunks of bedrock, cores, or other formed artifacts (Rasic 2004:118). When thermal stress does result in failure, the attributes most often described include frost pitting, potlid fractures, crazing, the detachment of angular debris, and scaling (Rasic 2004:118). Rasic (2004) notes further that in the cases where thermal stress results in the detachment of angular debris, this material is found to lack points of applied force. Three mechanisms likely to cause thermal fracture in the archaeological record have been identified as insolation, wildfire, and human controlled fire features. Insolation, heat originating as solar radiation, is also conditioned by slope and aspect, changing cloud cover, wind, and other microclimatic variables (Rasic 2004:119). It is the rate of the temperature change that has been found to cause fracture in rock masses. Rasic (2004:119) has noted that “geologists now recognize insolation weathering as an important rock mechanism, particularly in cold regions where temperature differentials between cold air and sun-warmed rock can be high and therefore it is worth considering as a potential agent in flake alteration”. In colder regions lithic (and other) material has the potential to undergo freeze-thaw cycles. Frost action, also known as 58

gelification, frost wedging, freeze-thaw weathering, and frost shattering, has been defined as the mechanical disintegration, splitting, or break-up of rock by the pressure of freezing water in cracks, pores, joints, or bedding planes in that rock (Hilton 2003). Because frost action is considered a potential mechanism for the fracture of rocks, it has been argued by some (Rasic 2004; Hilton 2003) that rock fracture or artifact attrition as the result of freeze-thaw actions is actually a rare occurrence in archaeological contexts; and further when operable is unlikely to have significant effects on lithic artifacts (Rasic 2004:120). A majority of the damage observed in freeze-thaw experiments were found to be the result of thermal stress rather than actual frost action. True frost damage is documented to occur only after thermal fatigue had produced cracks which allowed for water to permeate, freeze, and further fragment the sample (Rasic 2004:122). Rasic (2004:122) has noted that many of the experimental weathering tests often exaggerate the frost susceptibility of rocks by widely exceeding parameters that would be experienced by rocks under natural conditions. Trampling

Of the post-depositional processes discussed thus far, trampling is another serious agent affecting lithic and debitage assemblages (Rasic 2004:127). Not only can trampling cause significant damage to the artifacts themselves, but it has also been shown to cause the vertical displacement of materials. The factors that influence the effects of trampling damage and artifact movement include substrate characteristics, raw material characteristics, artifact and flake size and shape, as well as the duration of trampling exposure. Of the variables mentioned, substrate hardness has been shown to be one of the most important. The other variable that conditions resistance to trampling is the shape of the artifacts or flakes, particularly the thickness. 59

It has been found, for example, that flakes that are thin relative to their maximum dimension such as blades, or bifacial thinning flakes are more sensitive to breakage than those that are thicker. Fragmentation and breakage as a result of trampling can thus alter the way an assemblage is interpreted and even change the way a whole archaeological site is interpreted. It has been recognized that trampling or treadage can result in edge damage or artifact modification. When assessing any lithic artifact, specifically those of flake-based industries, one cannot simply assume that ultimate tool form was the direct result of raw material type, production technique, or retouching episodes. It has been demonstrated that post-depositional processes, such as trampling, affect artifact distribution, but it can also affect artifact preservation and condition. Among artifacts that have been trampled “the artifact damage consists of irregular, abrupt or alternate edge modification, the blows often directed at nearly right angles to the edge, rather than delivered oblique to the edge as in normal retouch” (McBearty et al. 1998:109). Bordes (1961) calls these “pseudo-tools”, as they are often misidentified as Paleolithic formal tools. Because trampling can produce damage that resembles intentional retouch, experiments have been conducted in an effort to clarify its effects. Experiments performed by McBrearty et al. (1998) were intended to replicate conditions that artifacts might be subjected to after discard, and before complete burial. They also examined the relative contributions of differences in raw material, substrate, and artifact density to the degree of edge damage (McBrearty et al. 1998:111). A similar experiment conducted by Tringham et al. (1974) concluded that edge damage produced by trampling can be distinguished from edge wear produced by use on the basis of three criteria: (1) the location and orientation of damage scars along the flake perimeter 60

are random; (2) trampling scars are more elongate than those produced by use; and (3) the scars produced by trampling occur on one flake surface only, that is, the surface opposite that which faced the treader (Tringham et al. 1974:192). The experiment conducted by McBrearty et al. (1998) was similar to that of GiffordGonzalez et al. (1985) in that assemblages were tested on two separate substrates, a loamy substrate and a sandy substrate and trampled on by two individuals at a time walking at a normal pace and wearing rubber-soled shoes. All of the experiments conducted by McBrearty et al. (1998) produced broken pieces, edge-damaged pieces, and pseudo-tools. Experiments conducted within the loamy substrate, however, produced more damaged artifacts, many with substantial edge modification that mimic deliberate retouch and places them in the pseudo-tool category. Many of the pseudo-tools created by the experiments so closely resembled Paleolithic formal tools that they were classified according to the standard typology of Bordes (1961) which was devised for artifacts of the European Middle Paleolithic. McBrearty et al.’s (1998) experiment effectively demonstrated that trampling can result in mechanical damage (crushing, polishing, or striations) that resembles intentional edge modification or use. Several artifacts were found to resemble formals tools, specifically those artifacts that were trampled on loam, a fine-grained, relatively impenetrable substrate (McBrearty et al. 1998:123). In addition, the experiment also concluded that higher artifact densities also increase the likelihood of damage as they are more likely to come in contact with one another during treadage. More importantly, the experiment found that lithic material that has sustained damage as the result of treadage is often mistaken for formal tools.

61

ASSESSING STRATIGRAPHIC INTEGRITY

Besides causing fragmentation and edge damage, trampling has also been demonstrated to cause material to be vertically displaced. Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985) have noted that archaeologists traditionally conceived causes of vertical displacement to be post-depositional, disturbance phenomena, either biological or geological (1985:804). Such processes which have been documented to cause the vertical displacement of artifacts are cycles of wetting and drying in sandy deposits (Cahen and Moeyersons 1977), solification, cryoturbation, groundwater penetration, differential compaction, plant growth, and soil fauna (McBearty et al. 1998:109). These actions can effect vertical movement of artifacts, some without creating any discernible traces of movement (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985:804). Villa (1982) has gone as far as stating that “without evidence to the contrary, layers and soils should be considered as fluid, deformable bodies…through which archaeological items float, sink, or glide” (Villa 1982:287). Given the sandy nature of the Topper site, then, it was a distinct possibility that the assemblage of lithic material located within pre-Clovis aged sediments could have been derived from an overlying cultural stratum. Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985) experimented with human trampling on loose substrate in an effort to demonstrate the extent to which material can move and also to test whether or not trampled assemblages exhibit any distinctive hallmarks such as size-sorting (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985:805). The experiment demonstrated that treadage by humans can cause substantial downward migration of objects in loose, sandy substrate, and that no clear correlations exited between sizes attributes of pieces and their depth below surface. In addition, the authors concluded that there was a difference between the vertical displacement of assemblages trod 62

upon from an initial position on the surface versus those trampled after sediments have covered the scatter (Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985:817). While this experiment was successful in showing that artifacts trampled in sandy substrates have the potential to migrate vertically, one should not forget to take into account other processes that account for the vertical movement of artifacts. Bioturbation or wetting and drying cycles, as previously noted, can also cause artifacts to move between substrates. In addition, one should take into account site structure and overall stratigraphy before concluding that trampling caused the vertical displacement of artifacts. It is important, then, to be able to effectively determine if material has been displaced vertically. Such a task, however, is not straightforward or easy. Rowlett and Robbins (1982) have suggested that one way to estimate the original content of an assemblage subject to postdepositional movement is through the process of refitting (Rowlett and Robbins 1982:78). They developed an additional method of assessing assemblage content which includes the following set of assumptions: (1) 90 percent of all artifacts originally deposited in a stratum will remain in that stratum; (2) 7 percent of all artifacts will migrate from their original stratum to the next stratum above; (3) 3 percent of all artifacts will migrate from their original stratum to the stratum below; (4) all artifacts deposited originally in the top stratum, which after post-depositional migration reach the soil surface, will be recovered as members of their original stratum; and (5) all artifacts deposited originally in the lowest stratum, which would move into bedrock, are recovered as members of their original stratum. The method, which is based on the vertical movement of coin molds from an Iron Age hillfort site in southwestern Luxembourg, consists of a series of calculations and equations which assess the proportion of original material deposited in each stratum. This specific method has not been tested on lithic materials; however, it may 63

prove to be just as applicable on lithic materials in the archaeological record. The authors do note that, “assumptions (1-5), on which this procedure is based, are obviously provisional, pending more accurate and precise specifications of post-depositional migration trajectories (properly constrained by soil type, artifact mass, climate conditions, length of burial, etc.)” (Rowlett and Robbins 1982:81). Material that has been subjected to taphonomic processes such as stream flow; trampling or thermal stress has the potential to contribute substantial “noise” to any typological analysis. In fact, the attributes most commonly associated with flake debris can be altered so significantly that interpretations about tool production, maintenance behaviors, as well as occupational histories can be completely misinterpreted. In order to reliably interpret any archaeological assemblage, like the pre-Clovis materials found at Topper, one must take into account site setting, stratigraphy, and the taphonomic processes most likely to have occurred. Although these taphonomic agents can complicate interpretations about stone tools and maintenance behaviors, their consideration must, as done in the chapter that follows, be integrated into the lithic analysis (Rasic 2004:132).

64

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS SAMPLE Sample Location

The units used for this analysis were excavated from within the pre-Clovis Excavation Block at the Topper site, at the base of the hillside where chert boulders outcrop (Figures 16 and 17). Material recovered and analyzed was excavated from a total of six 1x1 meter test units (Figure 18). Three of these particular units were chosen because they had been systematically excavated from the surface down nearly two meters to the top of the hard silty clay Pleistocene Terrace and therefore represented a complete stratigraphic profile (Figure 20). Two of these test units include the NE and NW quads of a 2x2 meter unit N246E138 while the third excavation unit consists of material excavated from the NE quad of unit N246E136. These three test units contain material spanning from the Mississippian to possible pre-Clovis aged assemblages in the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands; however, they did not contain any material from within the Pleistocene Terrace (hereafter, PT). Their location within the pre-Clovis Excavation Block was arbitrary. As mentioned in the previous chapter, dates recovered from within the PT exceed 20,000 radiocarbon years, and evaluation of the pre-Clovis assemblage mandated consideration of excavated material from this deposit. Because no test units from the 2009 excavations were excavated continuously from the surface into the PT, it was necessary to include three additional test units which began at the surface of the Pleistocene Terrace and continued into this older material. These three units, the SE quad of PTN246E140, the NE quad of PTN246E140, and the SW quad PTN246E142 therefore contain only material from within this hard terrace sediment. 65

Given the time constraints of the short summer field season the PT units consist of only two to

Units Excavated into the Pleistocene Terrace (PTN246E140 SE Quad, PTN246E140 NE Quad, PTN246E142 SW Quad)

Units excavated from ground surface to the top of the Pleistocene Terrace (N246E136 NE quad, N246E138 NW Quad, N246E138 NE Quad).

Figure 20. Close up view of the Pleistocene Terrace excavation block at the Topper Site.

three levels each excavated in 5cm increments. At the time this study was conducted no other materials from the PT were available analysis.

66

Instead of presenting analyses each individual test unit, one complete stratigraphic profile was prepared which incorporates the data from each of the aforementioned units. The combined column sample was subdivided by major geological strata as well as by the presumed cultural affiliation of the associated materials (Figure 21). Those levels associated with the Holocene Terrace (HT) date after ca. 13,500 cal yr BP and contain deposits with known cultural occupations ranging from late prehistoric through Paleoindian/Clovis times. Deposits associated with the loose unconsolidated Pleistocene Sands (PS) include only pre-Clovis aged material. This level, assumed to date between 13,500 and 15,000 to 20,000 year ago, terminates at the hard silty clay surface of the Pleistocene Terrace. Materials recovered from within the Pleistocene Terrace (PT) are deposits dated between 20,000 and 50,000 14C yr BP.

Sample Size

The Holocene Terrace sediments were systematically removed in 10cm levels by both shovel skimming and toweling. Removed sediments were then systematically screened though 1/8inch mess screens. When the Pleistocene Sands interface was identified, levels were excavated in 5cm increments and everything was screened using ¼ and 1/8 inch mesh screens.

67

98.85m

“TERMINAL PLEISTOCENE/HOLOCENE TERRACE” Encompasses known prehistoric occupations from Mississippian through Clovis. Generally conforms to the top 100cm of the deposit.

97.85 mm

PLEISTOCENE SANDS The deposit is assumed to be strictly pre-Clovis in age and was recovered from within the loose unconsolidated Pleistocene sands.

97.05m PLEISTOCENE TERRACE The deposit is strictly pre-Clovis in age and was recovered from within the hard silty clay terrace deposit. 96.90 m Figure 21. Vertical profile of test unit showing the cultural components and brief description of how the units are vertically identified.

68

The three test units (N246E136-NE, N246E138-NE, and N246E138-NW) associated with the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands consist of nearly 2 cubic meters each of excavated material. Each unit produced thousands of pieces of lithic debitage, cortical debris, and several pockets of river pebbles (see Appendix A, Tables 3-8). The units also produced several stone tool artifacts, some of which consisted of crude pre-forms, broken bifaces, and nearly complete bifaces. All of the material recovered from the screening process was included within the following study. The only exception comes from two levels within unit N246E136; these levels consisted of several thousand pieces of lithic debitage. To create a more manageable sample these levels were reduced using a Humboldt Riffle-Type Sample Splitter. Such a device is used to divide or halve dry materials such as cement, gravel, powdered ores, sand, soils, etc. Material poured into the hopper is divided into two equal portions by a series of chutes that discharge the material alternately in opposite directions into separate pans. The sample splitter effectively creates two representative samples of the original. As mentioned above, excavations within the silty clay Pleistocene Terrace were also excavated in 5cm levels. The hard consolidated matrix of the PT mandated excavators to saturate the surface with water prior to removal with trowels. All of the material removed within the PT was water screened using 1/8 inch mesh screens. The sample provided by the three aforementioned units (PTN246E140 NE, PTN246E140 SE, and PTN246E142 SW) includes only 2 levels, or 10cm, of excavated PT material. Implications of this small sample size will be discussed in the following chapter.

69

APPLYING MASS AND ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS

It is generally advocated that multiple methods of analysis, as well as a reliance on other sources of information both inside and outside chipped stone studies, be used to examine a lithic assemblage (Andrefsky 2004; Carr and Bradbury 2004; Larson 2004; Shott 2004). The use of multiple methods of analysis enables the researcher to better understand what is represented in an archaeological assemblage and further enhances the types of information that can be gained from analyzing an assemblage in more than one way. For these reasons the Topper sample underwent mass analysis as well as individual flake analysis. Application of Mass Analysis

The analysis began by sorting material in each of the individual levels from each of the sample test units. The initial step to sorting this material began by separating out lithic cultural material from debris. Lithic cultural material was defined as flakes ― complete or fragmentary, cortical and chert shatter ― and any tools or probable tools. Debris consisted of cortical chunks and pebbles. The next step consisted of running the pebbles and cortical debris through nested U.S.A. Standard Testing Sieves, using six screen sizes: 9.5mm, 7.925mm, 5.613mm, 3.962mm, 2.794, and 2.0mm. The screens were shaken for twenty seconds before processing the material, which consisted of sorting and then weighing the pebbles and cortex separately from each of the six screen sizes. This process was designed to show the distribution of pebbles and cortical debris throughout each of the levels within the designated units. Excavations within the Lower Terrace 70

excavation block at Topper have shown that flooding from the Savannah River created several chute channels which run directly through some of the excavated units, depositing pebbles and debris in the area of the pre-Clovis Excavation Block. The amount of pebbles and debris within each of the excavated levels, and their location, may provide clues to the nature of these deposits. Excessive amounts of river pebbles, for example, may represent an episode of flooding and fluvial deposition. Any lithic material found within those units may have been subjected to stream transport, erosion, degradation and displacement. During the initial sorting process small flakes were recovered from the within three smallest screens. These flakes, although counted and weighed, were not included within the interpretation-free and individual flake analyses described below, since their size limited the ability to recognize all of the necessary attributes. These small flakes, typically falling between 4.00mm and 2.00mm, are described here as small debitage, and their weights were included in the vertical distributional analysis reported in Chapter 4. The presence or absence of small debitage also has the potential to provide clues to the nature of an archaeological deposit. Small, light flakes, for example, are more susceptible to stream transport and displacement than large, heavier flakes. Once the debris was sorted out of the assemblage, the cultural material was analyzed and sorted into appropriate categories. This component of the project followed Sullivan and Rozen’s interpretation-free model (Sullivan and Rozen 1985). This method of debitage analysis does not depend on making technological inferences at the artifact level. Sullivan and Rozen (1985) argue instead that the interpretation of debitage variability is “enhanced by typologies and analytic categories that describe distinctive assemblages rather than presumably distinctive artifacts” 71

(1985:755). Such an approach is argued to facilitate reliability within analyses and comparability between them. Traditional debitage analyses are thus based on the premise that the technological origins of individual artifacts, in this case debitage, can be inferred directly from combinations of key attributes (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:756). It has already been indicated that the individual flake attributes are vital to this analysis; however there was no attempt at this time to associate these attributes with specific chipped stone technologies. Instead these attributes or key variables in conjunction with Sullivan and Rozen’s interpretation-free categories (Figure 21) were used to categorize debitage for the application of mass analysis (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:756). The alternative approach implemented and developed by Sullivan and Rozen (1985:756) was developed based on the premise that debitage analyses should be conducted with interpretation-free categories to enhance objectivity and replicability. One useful way to derive interpretation-free categories is by means of a hierarchical key. The hierarchical key has three dimensions of variability, each with two naturally dichotomous attributes, as described below. The key variables identified as “dimensions of variability” are used to identify their debitage categories. Many of these dimensions of variability are essentially the key attributes outline by Patterson (1983). Based on these variables, Sullivan and Rozen (1985) were able to identify their debitage categories. The first dimension of variability observed by Sullivan and Rozen in their interpretationfree approach is the presence of a single interior surface. Speth (1972:35) notes that a single interior surface is indicated by positive percussion features such as ripple marks, force lines, or a bulb of percussion. If these features cannot be reliably determined, or if there are multiple 72

occurrences of them, it should be concluded that a single interior surface cannot be discerned (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:758). The second dimension of variability is a point of applied force. On debitage with intact striking platforms, a point of applied force occurs where the bulb of percussion intersects the striking platform. In those instances where only a fragmentary striking platform remains, a point of applied force would be considered absent. This dimension would not apply to any debitage where a single interior surface was not discernible (Sullivan and Rozen: 1985:758). The third dimension of variability is the presence or absence of intact margins. Crabtree (1972:63) defines intact margins as those in which the distal end exhibits a hinge or feather termination. Based on these dimensions of variability, Sullivan and Rozen (1985:759) defined four mutually exclusive debitage categories: complete flakes, broken flakes, flake fragments, and debris. A complete flake is identified as one in which all three dimensions of variability are discernible. A broken flake is a flake in which a single interior surface and a point of applied force are discernible; these however do not have intact margins. Flake fragments have a single interior surface, but there are no striking platforms or intact margins. Everything else, shatter as well as cortical debris, are placed within the debris category. The aforementioned categories are considered interpretation-free because they are not linked to a method of technological production nor do they imply a particular reduction sequence (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:759).

73

Figure 22. Technological attribute key used by Sullivan and Rozen to define four debitage categories: complete flakes, broken flakes, flake fragments, and debris. Image adapted from Sullivan and Rozen 1985:759.

74

Sullivan and Rozen’s Interpretation-free model essentially provided a guideline for applying both mass and attribute analysis to the Topper assemblage. While I followed this model very closely, it was necessary to modify the categories somewhat (Figure 22). The four mutually exclusive categories utilized for this project included: complete flakes, flake fragments, small debitage, and debris (see Figure 23). A complete flake is the same as those previously identified by Sullivan and Rozen as being one which exhibits a single interior surface, a DEBITAGE

≥ 4.00mm

Discernible

Single Interior Surface

Point of Applied Force

Intact Margins

≤ 4.0mm

Present

Intact

Complete Flake

Not Discernible

Absent

Not Intact

Flake Fragment

Debris

Small Debitage

Figure 23. Modified version of Sullivan and Rozen’s Interpretation Free Model.

complete or partial striking platform and complete margins with a clear point of termination. Flake fragments included both broken flakes and flake fragments as defined by Sullivan and Rozen (1985). Small debitage included all small sized debitage greater than 2.0mm but smaller

75

than 4.0mm. In this case it was all of the material which was recovered within the three smallest screens (3.962mm, 2.794 and 2.0mm). Everything else was considered shatter or debris. Mass analysis was conducted on all of the lithic material, as well as the cortical debris and pebbles, recovered from the six aforementioned test units. The purpose was to document the size and incidence of debitage, debris, and pebbles present, for subsequent use in examining their nature and vertical distribution in the sample. Mass analysis allows lithic analysts to process large amounts of material in a relatively short period of time. The application of the Sullivan and Rozen’s interpretation-free model also provided an essential guide to identify and segregate debitage. Once the mass analysis was complete, the debitage had been, sorted, size graded, and weighed within their appropriate categories (Table 3 – 8). A total of 3,960 pieces of lithic debitage were analyzed using mass analysis.

Applying Attribute Analysis

Individual flake, or attribute, analysis was conducted on all complete flakes and flake fragments (as defined above) which fell within the first size grade (>9.5mm) for each of the six test units identified; these were flakes that were ca. ½ inch and larger in size (Appendix A). This selection was made because it was necessary to use only those specimens that were large enough to adequately measure key attributes identified by Patterson (1983) and Peacock (1991) as most likely the result of chipped stone manufacturing processes; these also encompass those dimensions of variability previously mentioned. A total of 1,610 complete flakes were examined using individual flake analysis (Appendix A).

76

For individual flake analysis, those measured complete flakes were individually examined for the following attributes: the presence or absence of a striking platform, the presence or absence of a bulb of percussion, the presence or absence of dorsal cortex, whether or not the specimen was thermally altered, and what type of termination was present. In addition to these attributes, flake dimensions were also recorded on each individual specimen. These dimensions included platform thickness, flake length, flake width, and flake thickness. As mentioned above, all complete flakes measuring ca. ½ inch and greater were examined during attribute analysis from the six test units with exception to two large samples sizes associated with levels five and six within test unit N246E136-NE quad. In that instance, the sample was split into a smaller portion (see Tables 3-8, Appendix A)

77

Table 3. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit LTN246E136-NE Quad.

Level NE-01 NE-02 NE-03 NE-04 **NE-05 **NE-06 NE-07 NE-08 NE-09 NE-10 Total NE-12 NE-13 NE-14 NE-15 NE-16 NE-17 NE-18 NE-29 NE-20 NE-21 NE-22 NE-23 NE-24 NE-25 NE-26 NE-26 NE-28 NE-29 Total

Whole 6 17 115 264 183 371 45 14 3 1 1019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3

Proximal 0 2 0 50 10 23 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 9

Flake Morphology Distal 2 11 57 157 93 178 17 3 0 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medial 5 6 29 127 51 141 16 5 0 0 380 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 9 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 27

Hinge Step 2 2 7 7 17 20 98 67 69 58 96 143 9 21 2 8 2 0 1 0 303 326 PLEISTOCENE SANDS (PS) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flake Termination Outrepasse 2 0 3 0 76 2 99 0 54 2 132 0 15 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 386 4

Feather

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

T.A 4 15 86 311 177 327 37 8 0 0 965 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Avg. Weight(g) 1.17 3 1.9 1.77 3.31 2.21 1.14 2.76 1.23 0.86 1.93 0 0 2.29 0.47 1.05 0 0.69 5.96 3.61 3.12 2.51 1.52 3.08 36.12 0 8.81 9.68 6.43 5.33

**Represents units reduced with sample splitter

78

Table 4. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit PTN248E140 SE Quad.

Level SE 01 SE 02 SE 03 SE 04 SE 05 SE 06 SE 07 SE 08 SE 09 SE 10 SE 11 SE 12 Total

Whole 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flake Morphology Proximal Distal Medial 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 11

Hinge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Step 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Flake Termination Feather Outrepasse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total T.A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2

Avg. Weight (g) 1.53 0.68 0 0 27.7 0.8 1.88 4.05 4.76 3.28 3.22 3.76 4.305

79

Table 5. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit LTN246E138 NW Quad.

Level NW-01 NW-02 NW-03 **NW-04 NW-05 NW-06 NW-07 NW-08 NW-09 NW-10 NW-11 NW-12 NW-13 NW-14 Total NW-15 NW-16 NW-17 NW-18 NW-19 NW-20 NW-21 NW-22 NW-23 NW-24 NW-25 NW-26 NW-27 NW-28 NW-29 NW-30 Total

Whole 5 21 49 189 165 210 23 8 14 5 3 4 1 3 700

Proximal 0 0 0 13 1 28 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 44

6 3 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

1 2 5 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 25

Flake Morphology Distal Medial 3 0 3 1 16 8 52 55 40 58 83 108 10 15 0 0 3 4 1 3 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 1 211 259 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 7

1 1 4 3 5 11 6 0 4 3 2 1 0 2 1 0 44

Hinge Step 2 3 4 8 10 24 54 80 44 59 52 87 4 11 0 4 5 5 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 177 287 PLEISTONCE SANDS (PS) 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10

Flake Termination Outrepasse 0 9 0 15 0 55 0 62 0 71 0 8 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 236 0

Feather

2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total T.A 3 8 27 119 120 196 22 4 5 4 3 2 1 1 515 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11

Avg. Weight (g) 2 2.44 1.37 2.61 2.44 2.26 1.79 1.08 5.11 4.1 6.05 0.86 0.89 0.45 2.30 1 0.56 0.42 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.67 0 0.61 0.87 3.36 1.6 1.81 2.58 0.76 0 1.00

80

Table 6. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit PTN246E140 NE Quad.

Level NE-01 NE-02 NE-03 NE-04 NE-05 NE-06 NE-07 Total

Whole 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3

Flake Morphology Proximal Distal Medial 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 6 8

Hinge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Step 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2

Flake Termination Feather Outrepasse 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Total T.A 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3

Avg. Weight(g) 2.89 0 2.79 1.13 0.47 0.43 0.19 1.13

81

Table 7. Counts, Morphologies, and Weights for all Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit LTN246E138 NE Quad. Level NE-01 NE-02 NE-03 NE-04 NE-05 NE-06 NE-07 NE-08 NE-09 NE-10 NE-11 NE-12 NE-13 NE-14 Total

Whole 10 24 16 60 81 36 5 4 5 1 5 3 2 2 254

Proximal 1 5 1 5 6 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 24

NE-15 NE-16 NE-17 NE-18 NE-19 NE-20 NE-21 NE-22 NE-23 NE-24 NE-25 NE-26 NE-27 NE-28 NE-29 NE-30 TOTAL

0 2 2 1 3 3 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

4 1 0 1 2 2 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

Flake Morphology Distal 5 7 8 17 17 12 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Medial 5 11 13 25 24 15 2 1 3 1 2 1 5 3 111 0 0 2 3 2 2 4 16 4 7 6 1 4 0 0 0 51

Hinge Step 1 8 6 10 2 12 17 31 21 44 12 10 0 4 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 1 1 65 129 PLEISTOCENE SANDS (PS) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 10

Feather 1 8 2 12 16 14 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 60 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Flake Termination Outrepasse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total T.A 7 9 9 36 39 23 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 133

Avg. Weight (g) 1.91 1.99 2.78 2.33 2.79 1.99 0.98 5.48 1.83 9.87 1.45 1.03 1.45 1.87 2.70

1 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 11

0.28 0.69 0.75 0.57 0.33 0.3 0.6 2.37 0.34 1.24 0.76 0.8 1.22 0 0 0 0.63

82

Table 8. Counts, Morphologies and Weights for Flakes and Flake Fragments from Unit PTN248E140 SW Quad.

Level SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5 SW-6 SW-7 SW-8 SW-9 SW-10 Total

Whole 2 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 7

Flake Morphology Proximal Distal Medial 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3

Hinge 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Step 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Flake Termination Feather Outrepasse 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1

Total T.A 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1

Avg. Weight (g) 1.23 0.42 0 1.38 0.86 5.43 0.37 0.21 0 0 0.99

83

VARIABLES CONSIDERED IN THE ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS FLAKE PORTION

Only those flakes which were ½ inch or greater were measured for their attributes. While only complete flakes were measured using digital calipers, it was important to also identify which specific portions of flake fragments were included among the debitage assemblage. Instead of measuring each individual flake fragment, however, they were macroscopically examined and classified as being a distal end, a proximal end, or a medial section of a flake (Figure 24 also see Appendix A). A distal fragment contained a discernible point of termination but lacked a bulb of percussion or a striking platform. A proximal flake fragment contained a bulb of percussion and a discernible striking platform, but lacked any terminal characteristics. A medial flake fragment was a specimen which may exhibit concentric rings, but lacked a bulb of percussion and a striking platform (Andrefsky 2004:87-89). It was important to collect this information because flake condition is often a direct result of the post-depositional processes acting on an archaeological assemblage. It has already been established, for example, that trampling is one process that can break flakes into multiple fragments and can also cause flakes to become vertically and horizontally dispersed (Rasic 2004; McBrearty et al. 1998; Tringham 1974; Gifford-Gonzalez et al. 1985).

84

Proximal Fragment

Medial Fragment(s)

Distal Fragment

Figure 24. Shattered flake illustrating proximal, medial, and distal fragments.

Flake Termination

Each flake that was defined and identified as being complete (whole) was further classified as having a hinge, step, feather, or outrepassé termination (Figure 25) (Andrefsky 2004:21; Cotterall and Kamminga 1979:104-106). “These categories are often not mutually exclusive on individual flakes as more than one termination type may occur on an edge” (Odell 2004:57). Flake terminations essentially exhibit how force exited the nodule (Odell 2004:56). “Termination may be associated with the direction at which force was applied, qualities of the raw material, topographic irregularities on the outside of the core, and/or internal vugs or 85

fractures (Odell 2004:56-57). Determining the type of termination can, therefore, be somewhat subjective in nature.

Feather

Step

Hinge Outrepasse

Figure 25. Flake terminations (a) feather termination, (b) step termination, (c) hinge termination, (d) outrepassé termination.

86

It was determined that the most non-subjective means to determine flake termination, if it was not obvious, was visually, and by feel using a fingertip (Wasilik 2009). Hinge terminations were those in which the distal edge of the flake was considerably rounded (Andrefsky 2004:20; Crabtree 1972: 466; Kooyman 2000:18-19; Odell 2004:56). If the distal end was angular in shape, often times forming a ca. 90° angle, it was classified as having a step termination (Whittaker 1994:107-109). Those flakes which contained remnants of the bottom of a core were classified as an outrepassé termination (Odell 2004:58). The final category, feather termination, refers to a flake that thins out to a point and is relatively thin all around; it is also the type of outcome desired by a flintknapper (Odell 2004:57). The morphology of the distal end of a flake can vary depending on the production method utilized as well as the morphology of the core. The presence of certain termination types often helps archaeologists determine which technology was employed.

Flake Size Measurement on complete flakes which were ½ inch and greater included each flake’s maximum length, width and thickness (Figure 26). These measurements were obtained to a hundredth of a millimeter using a Mititoyo digital caliper. Flake length was measured as a straight line distance from the proximal to the distal end; this line is perpendicular to the wide axis of the striking platform. The wide axis of the striking platform has been defined by the locations on the proximal end of the flake where the striking platform intersects with the lateral

87

Length

margin on the proximal end (Andrefsky 2004:99). Flake width was also recorded as a straight

Thicknes s Width

Figure 26. Complete flake illustrating measurement of maximum flake length, flake width, and flake thickness.

line distance perpendicular to flake length. “When this straight line distance intersects the flake at its widest point, it is called the maximum flake width “Andrefsky 2004:99). The thickness of a flake is measured in the same manner as flake width. Flake thickness is the distance from the dorsal side to the ventral side of the flake, perpendicular to the flake length line (Andrefsky 2004:101). It is further noted that size characteristics of debitage can be a good indication of various tool production. Size characteristics can also be elemental when determining whether or not water flow affected the spatial distribution of artifacts (Isaac 1967:33).

88

Flake Weight

The weight for all analyzed flakes was recorded for each flake to the nearest hundredth of a gram using a digital scale. This includes whole flakes that were measured as well as those flake fragments which were characterized as being proximal, medial, and distal but were not measured. Flake weight, like many of the other attributes being recorded, is useful to study the effects of natural post-depositional processes on the spatial distribution of artifacts. Water flow, for example, has been known to transport material away from its original location. Small debitage, for example, is easily transported by low velocity stream currents (Shackley 1978:85). Larger objects, on the other hand, require much greater stream velocities to transport. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that the spacing of large particles is an important factor in the ability of a current to move them. “Thus a mass of implements in close juxtaposition is less easily transported by the stream than widely separated larger particles (Leopold and Wolman 1960)...if theory is correct, a single casually dropped implement is more likely to be transported by a stream than a conglomeration of material from an occupation site” (Shackley 1978:89).

Cortex

The presence or absence of cortex on each measured flake was also recorded. If the flake being measured contained any portion of cortex, or if any portion of the flake was chalky and non-siliceous, it was counted as having cortex present. The actual area of cortex was not recorded since that was not considered important to the kinds of research questions being addressed, namely, whether the site assemblages were humanly made and generally similar. In 89

some analyses, the amount of cortex is measured as a means to discern the actual production sequence during which the flake in question originated. Odell (2004:127) notes that the amount of cortex cover can vary throughout the reduction sequence and is, therefore, not always a reliable indicator of where in that sequence a flake belongs.

Platform Attributes

Traditionally when conducting flake attribute analysis, the platform of each platformbearing flake is classified. These classifications can include missing, cortical, flat, complex, and abraded (Andrefsky 2004:95). Striking platforms have “infinite variability”, and there are potentially an infinite number of striking platform types (Andrefsky 2004:94). Striking platforms have also been categorized to include lipped, ground, split, crushed, isolated, plain, and polyhedral (Andrefsky 2004:94-98; Wasilik 2009:23). It is believed that the morphology of the striking platform correlates to the different stages of bifacial production (Shott 1994:80). Because of the variability related to striking platforms and the amount of subjectivity it might entail, it was decided to only record the presence or absence of a point of percussion as well as whether or not the platform contained a lip. Any flake which exhibited any form of visible platform was classified as having that “attribute present”. Those flakes in which a platform could not be identified were classified as having an absent platform. Bulb of Percussion

It has been argued that the presence of a bulb of percussion is often an indicator of humanly manufactured stone tools (Andrefsky 2004). As such, the presence or absence of a bulb 90

of percussion was recorded on all measured flakes. The relative robustness of the bulb of force has been useful for lithic analysts when classifying flakes as derived from hard-hammer percussion, soft-hammer percussion, or pressure flaking (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987; 1990; Crabtree 1972). Those flakes, for example, which exhibit a diffuse bulb of force and a pronounced lip, have been called soft-hammer percussion flakes (Crabtree 1972:74). Bulbs of force can be measured, however for the purpose of this analysis; only the presence or absence of this attribute was recorded.

Thermal Alteration

It has been documented that many prehistoric and some recent societies that utilized stone tools, particularly those fine-grained siliceous rocks, often deliberately heat treated the stone in an effort to improve its flaking properties (Crabtree and Butler 1964; Domanski and Webb 1992:601). Some of the most notable advantages attributed to thermal alteration, or heat treatment, are improved flakeability, longer flake removals, fewer step and hinge terminations and the production of sharper edges (Crabtree & Butler, 1964; Domanski &Webb, 1992). “While the physical and chemical effects of alteration are well documented, its behavioral implications – the circumstances under which intentional thermal alteration is likely to occur – are not well understood” (Anderson 1979:221). It can be difficult to define both an accepted criterion for the identification of heat-treated material, and an objective measure of the changes in the quality of thermally altered rocks (Domanski and Webb 1992:601-602). The selection for intentional thermal alteration is believed best to be understood in terms of the properties of altered as opposed to unaltered cherts, and the advantages of employing the 91

process. Thermal alteration has been shown to cause a variety of visual changes in microcrystalline siliceous rocks. It is believed to occur with the melting of microscopic impurities in the intercrystalline spaces of chert. The melted impurities “act as a flux, fusing together the individual cryptocrystals of the chert mass” (Purdy and Brooks 1971:324). The most noticeable of the visible changes includes a darkening in color and an increased luster of flaked surfaces. In addition, heat damage can cause crazing and microfracturing (Domanski and Webb 1992; Rick and Chappell 1983). The most common color change is from yellow/brown to dark red; however the changes depend on the original color of the rock (Domanski and Webb 1992; Purdy and Brooks 1971). There are a number of advantages to thermal alteration. The first is the marked changes in appearance, including both the luster and texture of the chert. “Altered cherts exhibit (upon flaking) a much glossier surface than unaltered cherts, and are smoother and ‘waxier’ to the touch” (Anderson 1979:222). Other advantages are mechanical in nature, and are directly related to changes in structure. Thermally altered chert tends to be more homogeneous than unaltered material. Greater homogeneity of altered cherts enables them to fracture like glass; flakes are often removed easier with less shatter and waste. Thermally altered chert, being less internally flawed, also produces much sharper cutting edges than possible with certain unaltered cherts (Crabtree 1972, reported in Anderson 1979:223). In addition to considering why prehistoric peoples may have thermally altered their tool stone, it was also important to consider the kinds of sites where such processes should occur. Anderson (1979) suggests that heat treatment is likely to occur at the raw material source, if the raw material source was of a poorer quality. Allendale chert, a light colored highly siliceous 92

microcrystalline rock, has been described by Anderson (1979:235) as “occasionally of excellent quality”, but “the majority is both highly fractured and fossiliferous, a poor quality for knapping”. Experiments in which Allendale chert was thermally altered revealed pronounced color changes in this material (Figure 27). High incidences of thermal alteration are evident on diagnostic projectile points made of Allendale chert dating to the Archaic period in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina (Anderson 1979). At the Topper Site thermally altered chert is quite common in the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic occupations. Thermally altered debitage performs and broken bifaces were common in the sample examined from Archaic period levels in the current study. This attribute (evidence for thermal alteration) was recorded for its presence or absence.

Thermally Altered

Non-Altered

Figure 27. Fragmented bifaces illustrating the difference in color between thermally altered and nonaltered Allendale Chert.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

During the examination of attributes from the Topper sample it became obvious that there were several levels, located between 98.45 and 98.25 mbd, associated with Middle and Late Archaic occupational floors, where the measurable flakes numbered in the thousands. As 93

mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, only a percentage of individual flakes were examined (refer to Tables 3-8). While some levels had exceedingly large samples, there were also cases, specifically within the Pleistocene Sands and the Pleistocene Terrace, where there were only a limited number of flakes that had the potential to be analyzed. Because the material was originally processed through 1/8inch mesh screen, there was a reasonable amount of material recovered. Unfortunately most of the material recovered, as demonstrated in the analyses reported in the next chapter, failed to measure greater than a half an inch. In addition to not having a great number of flakes large enough to analyze, many of the flakes within the Pleistocene Sands were extremely degraded. That is, the cherts within these deeper sands have become desilicified over time. The removal of silica has made these particular samples more like the chalky cortical rind found on terrestrial Allendale chert. As such, it was difficult or impossible to identify some or all of the key attributes described above. It should be noted, however, that not all flakes recovered within the Pleistocene Sands were weathered and degraded, although such flakes were extremely rare. The presence of such well-preserved flakes in situ with severely degraded material is explored in the next chapter.

94

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS OF THE CHIPPED STONE ANALYSIS In this chapter the results of the analysis conducted on the lithic debitage sample recovered from the Topper site Pre-Clovis Excavation Block are presented. The chapter is composed of two major sections. The first section consists of a description of the attribute frequencies as they were recorded on individual flakes. The second section consists of a description of the vertical distribution of the debitage, river pebbles and cortical debris. ATTRIBUTE FREQUENCIES PER UNIT AND GROUP

The frequency of flake attributes was recorded for those flakes which measured a half an inch or greater. Each of the data tables illustrated below is divided into three distinct groups. The first group contains information on debitage recovered from within material dated to known cultural horizons. These levels are associated with the Holocene Terrace (HT) and include lithic material dated from the Mississippian to Clovis occupations. The second group consists of material recovered from within the soft, unconsolidated Pleistocene Sands (PS). This material has been dated between 13,000 and 20,000 14C yr BP. The final group consists of data collected on debitage recovered from within the Pleistocene Terrace (PT). This hard consolidated silty clay has been dated between 20,000 and ≥50,000 years’ 14C yr BP. This particular sample ended up being smaller than originally anticipated, thus restricting these analyses primarily to the upper two proveniences. As stated in Chapter Two, each of the documented archaeological components at the Topper site, including the hypothetical pre-Clovis occupation, utilized Allendale chert for tool stone. Recognized components from late prehistoric to Clovis also utilized similar technologies 95

to produce stone tools. It is hypothesized here that the distribution of lithic debitage, produced from similar materials utilizing similar technologies, should be similar for each of these documented components, regardless of population density, duration of occupation, or rate of sediment deposition. If true, these patterns of debitage should be replicated in any pre-Clovis lithic components at the site that were made from Allendale chert if similar technologies were employed. Where critical patterns of debitage are overwhelmingly shared between undisputed temporal/cultural assemblages and potential pre-Clovis assemblages, the probability is very low that the pre-Clovis assemblage results from dislocation since dislocation of artifacts rarely results in replication of original assemblage patterns of size, shape, and other artifact attributes. On the other hand, if the patterning of debitage is dissimilar, there is a greater probability that the lithic material was displaced, created using differing technologies, or even created as the result of natural processes. Flake Portion

From the total of 3,960 pieces of lithic debitage (complete and broken flakes) analyzed, 2,025 (51.14%) are whole, 827 (20.88%) are distal fragments, 214 (5.40%) are proximal fragments, 894 (22.58%) are medial fragments (Table 9). Based on the following figures, approximately ca. 51.14 % of this material is whole, while the other ca. 48.86 % is fragmented.

96

Table 9. Frequency of Flake Portions.

Frequency of Flake Portions Flake Portion Whole Distal Proximal Medial

HT (Holocene Terrace) 1973 (53.64%) 802 (21.80%) 153 (4.15%) 750 (20.39%)

PS (Pleistocene Sands) 43 (18.37%) 15 (6.41%) 54 (23.07%) 122 (52.14%)

PT (Pleistocene Terrace) 9 (18.75%) 10 (20.83%) 7(14.58%) 22 (45.83%)

All 3 Cultural Layers 2025 (51.14%) 827 (20.88%) 214 (5.40%) 894 (22.58%)

TOTAL

3678

234

48

3690

Based on the tables above, one can see that the numbers of complete (whole) flakes and flake portions vary considerably between the strata associated with known cultural occupations and those associated with potential pre-Clovis occupations. One can see, for example, that the total number of measurable specimens decreased markedly in the lower levels associated with the Pleistocene sands and the Pleistocene Terrace. The dramatic decrease within those Pleistocene Terrace levels can, however, also be attributed to the fact that only a limited volume of these deposits was excavated, as well as the fact that much of this material was extremely degraded. Table 9 also shows that there are considerably more whole flakes present within the Holocene Terrace deposits than any other flake portions; in fact ca. 53.64% of this debitage assemblage was characterized as being complete in nature. Distal and medial fragments constitute ca. 43.46% of the population, with proximal fragments making up only ca. 5.4% of the entire assemblage. It is also evident that the number of proximal fragments does not correspond to the number of distal fragments represented. This proportion and frequency of debitage however, does not continue within the deeper levels associated with the Pleistocene Sands. Instead, the assemblage is characterized by flake fragments, of which medial fragments are the 97

most common, at ca. 49.0%. Whole flakes constitute ca. 26.5%, while proximal fragments make up ca. 16.8% of the population. Based on the proportion alone, it is clear that there are obvious differences between the debitage recovered from within those Holocene Terrace levels and the Pleistocene Sand levels. There are also obvious differences present within the Pleistocene Terrace sample, but the sample size makes it difficult to gage any sort of relationship. A Pearson Chi-Square, comparing whole flakes and flake fragments between the Holocene Terrace and the Pleistocene Sands, 2 (1, N=3912) = 23.792, p <0.001 also indicates a significant difference between the two tested populations.

Flake Termination

Of the total of 2025 whole flakes containing a distal end, 558 (27.50%) had a hinge termination, 767 (37.97%) had a step termination, 695 (34.32%) contained feather terminations, and 4 (.19%) were identified as outrepassé flakes (Tables 2). Step fractures appear to be the most common occurrence within each of the represented groups, making up ca. 37.6% of the flakes within the Holocene Terrace, and ca. 53.48% within the Pleistocene Sand levels, although the sample size is quite low in the latter deposits. Step fractures are followed closely in incidence by feather and hinge terminations. While the total number of specimens did differ considerably between the Holocene Terrace and the Pleistocene Sand deposits, the proportion of each category to one another is similar, with the greatest deviation observed among step fractures. Because of the limited number of specimens available from within the Pleistocene Terrace, this part of the sample was eliminated from consideration for statistical analysis. 98

Table 10. Frequency of Flake Terminations.

Flake Termination Hinge Step Feather Outrepassé Total

Frequency of Flake Terminations HT PS PT 545 (27.62%) 11(25.58%) 1 (11.11%) 742 (37.60%) 23 (53.48%) 4 (44.44%) 682 (34.56%) 9 (20.93%) 4 (44.44%) 4 (.20%) 0 0 1973 43 9

All 3 Cultural Layers 557 (27.50%) 769 (37.97%) 695 (34.32%) 4 (.19%) 2025

Based on the data in Table 10, one can clearly see some differences between the two tested assemblages of complete flakes. Pearson Chi-Square analyses, however, 2 (3, N=2016) =3.699, p= .296 demonstrates that there is not a significant difference between the two debitage assemblages based on flake terminations. Platform Attributes (Non-measurable Attributes)

Of the total of 1,620 complete flakes that were measured during the application of individual flake analysis, 162 (10.00%) had missing platforms, 1,458 (90.00%) had intact platforms (Table 11). The chart below shows that the percent of intact as well as missing platforms is similar among those Holocene Terrace and the Pleistocene Sand deposits. This relationship seems to continue for the presence of lipped platforms, which represent a subset of flakes with present platforms. Once again, comparison with flakes associated with the Pleistocene Terrace, illustrates substantially different proportions; again likely the result of the small sample size.

99

Table 11. Striking Platform Attributes.

Platform Type Present Missing Total

Frequency of Platform Presence HT PS PT 1415(90.47%) 37 (80.43%) 6 (60.00%) 149(9.52%) 9 (19.56%) 4 (40.00%) 1564 46 10

All 3 Cultural Layers 1458 (90.00%) 162 (10.00%) 1620

Based on the data in Table 11, the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands assemblages appear to be somewhat different regarding platform characteristics. A Pearson Chi-Square 2 (1, N=1610) =5.088, p= .024 confirms that there is a significant difference between the two debitage assemblages in regards to the presence/absence of a striking platform.

Thermal Alteration

From the total of 3960 complete flakes and flake fragments examined from the deposits, a total of 1,659 (41.88%) specimens show evidence of having been thermally altered, while the other 2301 (58.11%) showed no evidence of having been subjected to heat. The total here includes not only those specimens measured as part of the individual flake analysis, but also those flake fragments which were documented but not measured. For those specimens which were measured as part of the individual flake analysis, 738 (45.90%) showed evidence of having been thermally altered while 871 (54.09%) were not subjected to heat (Table 12). From the data, thermal alteration appears to be similar among both the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands debitage populations, despite the obvious difference in the amount of measured material. It is also evident that among those levels associated with the Pleistocene Terrace no thermally altered 100

flakes were recorded. One of the likely reasons for this, in addition to the small sample size from the strata, is that most of the material recovered from extremely degraded and could not be accurately identified as being thermally altered.

Table 12. Frequency of Thermal Alteration.

Frequency of Thermal Alteration (Complete Flakes) Thermal Alteration HT PS PT All 3 Cultural Layers Thermally Altered 723 (43.71%) 15(32.60%) 0 738 (45.90%) Non-Altered 840 (50.79%) 31 (67.39%) 0 871 (54.09%) Total 1563 46 0 1609 A Pearson Chi-Square, however, 2 (1, N=1609) =3.401, p= .183) indicates that there is not a significant difference between the two populations.

Dorsal Cortex

Of the total number of complete flakes analyzed and measured, 446 (27.70%) still contained remnants of the exterior cortex, while 1164 (72.29%) were completely free the original exterior cortical surface (Table 13). Table 13. Frequency of Dorsal Cortex

Frequency of Dorsal Cortex Cortex

HT

PS

PT

All 3 Cultural Layers

Cortical Non-Cortical

428 (27.35%) 1136 (72.63%)

18 (39.13%) 28 (60.86%)

6 (60.00%) 4 (40.00%)

452 (27.90%) 1168 (72.09%)

Total

1564

46

10

1620

101

Both assemblages consist mostly of debitage removed from the interior surface of a core. However, the proportion of this material does differ with non-cortical debris constituting nearly 73% of the debitage recovered from within the Holocene Terrace levels, and 60% within the levels associated with the Pleistocene Sands. A Pearson Chi-Square 2 (1, N=1610) =3.088, p = .079) showed that these differences were not statistically significant.

Bulbar Presence

From the total of 1,610 complete flakes measured, 1,134 (70.43%) exhibited a bulb of percussion (Table 14). Based on the data in Table 6 one can see that the total numbers of flakes with bulbs of percussion are similar between the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sand strata. Once again the sample size probably affected the percentages within the Pleistocene Terrace levels, and they were thus excluded from statistical analysis.

Table 14. Frequency of Bulbar Presence.

Bulbar Presence Present Missing Total

Frequency of Bulbar Presence HT PS PT 1101(70.41%) 33 (78.57%) 4 (40.00%) 463 (29.58%) 13 (21.43%) 6 (60.00%) 1564 46 10

All 3 Cultural Layers 1138 (70.44%) 482 (29.56%) 1620

Based on the table percentages alone, there appears to be no significant difference between the Holocene Terrace assemblage and the probable pre-Clovis assemblage recovered from the Pleistocene Sands. A Pearson Chi-Square 2 (1, N=1610) = .039, p =.844) corroborates this 102

assumption, indicating that there is no significant difference between the two debitage assemblages.

Platform Width, Flake Weight and Size

For each of the 1610 measured flakes the average flake length, width, and thickness as well as the average platform width were recorded for each of the sample strata (Table 15).

Table 15. Average Platform Width, Flake Width, Flake Length, and Flake Thickness.

Average Platform Width, Flake Weight, Width, Length, and Thickness Flake All 3 Cultural Characteristic HT PS PT Layers Platform Width (mm) Flake Length (mm) Flake Width (mm) Flake Thickness (mm)

9.21 25.83 23.94 5.28

8.27 20.87 17.11 4.38

9.32 21.28 17.62 4.92

8.93 22.66 19.56 4.86

While it appears that the average flake size is relatively consistent over all three of the major sampling strata, a Kruskal-Wallis Test indicated that only the Platform Width is the only attribute consistent throughout each of the lithic assemblages. The other attributes recorded are statistically different among each of the three assemblages (see Figure 28).

103

Figure 28. Results of Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis Test.

RESULTS OF MASS ANALYSIS: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEBITAGE

The vertical distribution of complete flakes, flake fragments, small debitage, cortical debris and river pebbles was also examined. The following figures are based on the counts and weights recorded during the initial application of the mass analysis, where all of the lithic debitage and debris was categorized into five distinct simplified categories; (complete flakes, flake fragments, small debitage, cortical debris and river pebbles). The purpose of this particular analysis was to illustrate the vertical distribution of debitage and other recovered material within the complete vertical column. Utilizing additional size grades further enhanced this picture by creating various classes of debitage based on size. Not only are we able to compare the types of 104

debitage recovered from within each of the levels, but we can also compare the distribution of this material based on three distinct size classes (9.5mm, 7.925mm, and 5.613mm). The previous analysis was restricted to only those complete flakes measuring a ½ an inch and greater, thus creating a much smaller sample size. The first three graphs below illustrate the amount, by count, of each type of lithic debitage (complete flakes, flake fragments, small debitage) that was recovered from within every 10cm level; while also illustrating, to some degree, the various size classes of this material. Three sizes classes, 9.5mm, 7.925mm, and 5.613mm, are represented by separate horizontal bars. The purpose is to illustrate potential patterns between each of the major cultural strata. The fourth category discusses the distribution of cortical debris and pebbles recovered from within each 10cm level. It should be noted here that the initial excavation of each of the test units was conducted in 10cm increments until the Clovis occupation, after which excavations preceded in 5cm increments. In order to ensure a level of consistency within this evaluation, all levels were reported in 10cm increments; which means that the levels within the Clovis strata have been combined.

Complete Flakes

The distribution of complete flakes as they appear within the sample is presented in Figure 29 and Table 16. The previous section demonstrated that despite the marked differences in the amount of debitage recovered from the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands, the two flake assemblages were not significantly different in terms of their physical attributes. Figure 29 indicates that were significantly more complete flakes present within the Holocene Terrace 105

strata. In fact, the presence of complete flakes decreases gradually within each 10cm level, seemingly leveling off between 98.05 – 97.75mbd. The amount of complete flakes does seem to increase again slightly between 97.65 -97.4 mbd, before disappearing all together.

Vertical Distribution of Complete Flakes 98.85-98.75

Holocene Terrace

98.75-98.65 98.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98.35-98.25 98.25-98.15 98.15-98.05

Level (cm)

98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 97.85-97.75

9.5

97.75-97.65

7.925

97.65-97.55

5.613

Pleistocene Sands

97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05 97.05-96.95 97.00-96.90

Pleistocene Terrace

96.90-96.80 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Count Figure 29. Vertical distribution of complete flakes showing major cultural strata.

106

Table 16. Vertical Distribution of Complete Flakes Indicating the Exact Counts and Proportions Present Within Each Level.

Complete Flakes 9.5mm

98.85-98.75 98.75-98.65 68.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98-35-98.25 98-.2598.15 98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 Totals

7.925mm

Holocene Terrace 35 (38.46%) 17 (18.68%) 61 (43.57%) 30 (21.42%) 179 (46.73%) 83 (21.67%) 507 (47.25%) 216 (20.13%) 1612 (56.92%) 522 (18.43%) 1017 (49.39%) 371 (18.02%) 85 (37.44%) 67 (29.51%) 39 (59.09%) 6 (9.09%) 15 (41.66%) 8 (22.22%) 9 (26.47%) 9 (26.47%) 3558 1329 (51.28%) (19.13%)

5.613mm

39 (42.85%) 49 (35.00%) 121 (31.59%) 350 (32.61%) 698 (24.64%) 671 (32.58%) 75 (33.03%) 21 (31.81%) 13 (36.11%) 16 (47.05%) 2053 (29.59%)

Pleistocene Sands 97.85-97.75

13 (46.42%)

5 (17.85%)

10 (35.71%)

97-75-97.65

4 (12.50%)

10 (31.25%)

18 (56.25%)

97.65-97.55

24 (26.08%)

29 (31.52%)

39 (42.39%)

97.55-97.45

36 (30.50%)

22 (18.64%)

60 (50.84%)

97.45-97.35

6 (26.08%)

5 (21.73%)

12 (84.61%)

97.35-97.25

2 (15.38%)

0

11 (52.17%)

97.25-97.15

2 (28.57%)

0

5 (71.42%)

97.15-97.05

1 (50.00%)

0

1 (50.00%)

Totals

88 (27.94%)

71 (22.53%)

156 (49.52%)

Pleistocene Terrace 97.05-96.95

0

0

0

96.95-96.85

0

0

0

Totals

0

0

0

Grand Total

3646

1400

2209

107

An examination of the data in Table 16 provides more information regarding the distribution of complete flakes. It was found, for example, that within the Holocene Terrace strata larger flakes are more common. In fact, ca. 51.28% of the complete flakes recovered from within the Holocene Terrace measured 9.5mm and greater. Those flakes falling within the second largest screen, 7.925mm, made up ca. 19.14% of the flakes, with the remaining 29.58% consisting of complete flakes recovered from the screen measuring >5.613mm. The Pleistocene Sands, on the other hand, were dominated by debitage recovered from within the smallest of the three size grades. Within this pre-Clovis aged sand, ca.49.52% of the complete flakes were recovered from within the 5.613mm size screen. Of the remaining flakes, ca. 27.94% measured 9.5mm and greater, and ca. 22.54% consisted of complete flakes recovered from within the screen measuring 7.925mm. A Pearson Chi-Square analysis was done to evaluate the degree of difference between the distribution of complete flakes within the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands. The results, 2 (2, N=7255) = .73.788, p <0.001), confirm that there is a significant difference between the size distribution of complete flakes between the two populations. It has been established that the complete flakes recovered from within the Pleistocene Sands are proportionately smaller than those recovered from within the Holocene Terrace. The data provided within Table 16 also makes it possible to explore the distribution of debitage within the specific cultural proveniences located within the Holocene Terrace with those from the Pleistocene Sands. From the surface, 98.85mbd to 98.55 there is a cultural occupation within the Pre-Clovis excavation block at Topper which includes Mississippian and Middle Woodland components. From 98.55mbd to 98.15mbd there is a dense cultural occupation which has 108

previously been identified as Middle Archaic, Late Archaic (MALA). Below the MALA occupation, between 98.15mbd and 97.85mbd exists a Clovis occupation. Table 17 provides the distribution of complete flakes within each cultural occupation for each of the three size classes.

Table 17. Proportion of Complete Flakes from Each of the Major Cultural Components within the Pre-Clovis Excavation Block at the Topper site.

Cultural Occupation Mississippian/Woodland MALA Clovis Pre-Clovis TOTALS

Complete Flakes 9.55mm 7.925mm 275 (44.78%) 130 (21.17%) 3221 (52.03%) 1176 (18.99%) 63 (46.32%) 23 (16.91%) 88 (27.94%) 71 (22.54%) 3647 1400

5.613mm 209 (34.04%) 1794 (28.98%) 50 (36.76%) 156 (49.52%) 2209

Totals 614 6191 136 315 7256

This table illustrates only slight differences in the proportion and distribution of complete flakes within each the major cultural occupations with the Holocene Terrace. Within the Pleistocene Sands we can see again a predominant amount of smaller flakes.

Flake Fragments

The distribution of flake fragments within the vertical column sample looks quite similar to that of the complete flakes represented above (Figure 30). However, upon closer examination there are some differences in the proportion and distribution of the two categories of debitage. It was found, for example, that within the Holocene Terrace strata, smaller flake fragments become 109

a common occurrence. In fact, ca. 54.63% of the flake fragments recovered from within the Holocene terrace were recovered from the screen measuring 5.613mm. Of the remaining fragments ca. 27.52% measured 9.5m or larger and ca. 17.85% fell within the size grade

Distribution of Flake Fragments 98.85-98.75

Holocene Terrace

98.75-98.65 98.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98.35-98.25 98.25-98.15 98.15-98.05

Level (cm)

98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 9.5

97.85-97.75

Pleistocene Sands

97.75-97.65

7.925 5.613

97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05 97.05-96.95

Pleistocene Terrace

97.00-96.90 96.90-96.80 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Count

Figure 30. Vertical distribution of flake fragments within each major stratum.

110

Table 18. Vertical Distribution of Debitage Indicating the Exact Counts and Proportions of Flake Fragments Present Within Each Level.

98.85-98.75 98.75-98.65 68.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98-35-98.25 98-.25-98.15 98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 Totals 97.85-97.75 97-75-97.65 97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05 Totals 97.05-96.95 96.95-96.85 Totals Grand Total

Flake Fragments 9.5mm 7.925mm Holocene Terrace 30 (24.79%) 29 (23.96%) 51 (26.25%) 34 (17.52%) 152 (25.20%) 143 (23.71%) 585 (30.24% 432 (22.33%) 1395 (29.19%) 775 (16.22%) 1110 (28.13%) 688 (17.43%) 77 (11.59%) 88 (13.25%) 27 (14.83%) 25 (13.73%) 10 (17.05%) 10 (17.85%) 9 (19.56%) 11 (23.91%) 3446 (27.52%) 2235 (17.84%) Pleistocene Sands 16 (21.91%) 18 (24.65%) 29 (19.72%) 26 (17.68%) 6 (18.75%) 8 (25.00%) 26 (26.53%) 35 (35.71%) 29 (7.94%) 116 (31.70%) 45 (16.60%) 65 (23.98%) 28 (21.21%) 28 (21.21%) 28 (30.76%) 10 (10.98%) 207 (17.12%) 306 (25.31%) Pleistocene Terrace 7 (10.14%) 13 (18.84%) 0 4 (40.00%) 7 (9.58%) 17 (21.79%) 3660 2558

5.613mm 62 (51.23%) 109 (56.18%) 308 (51.07%) 917 (47.41%) 2608 (54.58%) 2147 (54.42%) 499 (75.15%) 130 (71.42%) 36 (64.28%) 26 (56.52%) 6842 (54.64%) 39 (53.42%) 92 (62.58%) 18 (56.25%) 37 (37.75%) 220 (60.27%) 161 (59.40%) 76 (57.57%) 53 (71.01%) 696 (57.56%) 49 (58.24%) 0 49 (62.82%) 7587

111

measuring 7.925mm. The distribution of flake fragments from the Pleistocene Sands also changes, however somewhat less, between this category of debitage and the complete flake category. The assemblage of flake fragments is still dominated by smaller fragments; ca. 57.57% of the fragments fell within the 5.613mm screen. Of the remaining flake fragments, ca. 17.12% measured 9.5mm and larger and the other 25.31% fell within the size grade measuring 7.925mm. Both assemblages of flake fragments are dominated by smaller size debitage, but a Pearson Chi Square 2 (2, N=13,732) = 79.919, p <0.001) indicates that there is a significant difference between the size and proportion of flake fragments between the two assemblages. As with the complete flakes, it was also possible to illustrate the proportion of flake fragments within each of the major cultural occupations (Table 19). This table illustrates that Table 19. Proportion of Flake Fragments Within Each Major Cultural Occupation for Each of the 3 Size Classes.

Cultural Occupation Mississippian/Woodland MALA Clovis Pre-Clovis TOTALS

Flake Fragment 9.55mm 7.925mm 233 (25.38%) 206 (22.44%) 3167 (27.97%) 1983 (17.51%) 46 (16.20%) 46 (16.20%) 207 (17.12%) 306 (25.31%) 3653 2541

5.613mm 479 (52.18%) 6171 (54.51%) 192 (67.60%) 696 (57.57%) 7538

Totals 918 11321 284 1209 13732

there are similar proportions of debitage from the known cultural occupations within the Holocene Terrace, at least with the Mississippian/Woodland and MALA components. There is some deviation within the Clovis occupation; the Clovis component does contain a higher proportion of smaller fragments and a lower proportion of large flakes than the two overlying strata. The overall distribution of the fragments does seem to vary between each cultural 112

occupation and between each of the three size grades more so than it did with the distribution of complete flakes. Small debitage

A category of debitage that was not analyzed in the previous section was that of small debitage. Small debitage includes all of the lithic material that remained within the three

Distribution of Small debitage 98.87-98.75

Holocene Terrace

98.75-98.65 98.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98.35-98.25 98.25-98.15

Level (cm)

98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 3.962

97.95-97.85

2.794

97.85-97.75

Pleistocene Sands

97.75-97.65

2

97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05

Pleistocene Terrace

97.05-96.95 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Count Figure 31. Vertical distribution of small debitage within each major stratum.

113

Table 20. Proportion Small Debitage per 10cm level and Within 3 Size Grades.

98.85-98.75 98.75-98.65 68.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98-35-98.25 98-.25-98.15 98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 Totals 97.85-97.75 97-75-97.65 97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05 Totals 97.05-96.95 96.95-96.85 Totals Grand Total

Small Debitage 3.962mm 2.794mm Holocene Terrace 127 (51.62%) 106 (43.08%) 206 (48.81%) 202 (47.86%) 286 (42.43%) 352 (52.22%) 1691 (35.42%) 2841 (59.52%) 3362 (46.58%) 3612 (50.04%) 3859 (43.69%) 4552 (51.53%) 1024 (39.03%) 1448 (55.20%) 222 (35.92%) 357 (57.76%) 104 (40.78%) 139 (54.50%) 70 (55.11%) 55 (43.30%) 10951 (42.47%) 13664 (52.98%) Pleistocene Sands 92 (55.42%) 65 (39.15%) 148 (42.04%) 198 (56.25%) 536 (54.74%) 412 (42.08%) 580 (46.36%) 642 (51.31) 287 (51.71%) 230 (41.44%) 200 (53.76%) 155 (41.66%) 219 (51.89%) 189 (44.78%) 108 (34.39%) 172 (54.77%) 2170 (49.46%) 2063 (47.03%) Pleistocene Terrace 37 (35.92%) 57 (55.33%) 0 0 37 (35.92%) 57 (55.33%) 13158 15784

2.0mm 13 (5.28%) 14 (3.31%) 36 (5.34%) 241 (5.04%) 243 (3.36%) 421 (4.76%) 151 (5.75%) 39 (6.31%) 12 (4.70%) 2 (1.57%) 1172 (4.55%) 9 (5.425) 6 (1.70%) 31 (3.16%0 29 (2.31%) 38 (6.84%) 17 (4.56%) 14 (3.31%) 10 (10.82%) 154 (3.51%) 9 (8.73%) 0 9 (8.73%) 1335

Table 21. Proportion of Small Debitage Within Each Cultural Occupation and Size Grade.

Cultural Occupation Mississippian/Woodland MALA Clovis Pre-Clovis TOTALS

Small debitage 9.55mm 7.925mm 619 (46.13%) 660 (49.18%) 9936 (51.36%) 8353 (43.18%) 396 (39.60) 551 (55.10%) 2170 (49.46%) 2063 (47.03%) 12502 11627

5.613mm Totals 63 (4.69%) 1342 1056 (5.46%) 19345 53 (5.30%) 1000 154 (3.51%) 4387 1326 26074 114

smallest nested screens (3.962mm, 2.794mm, and 2.0mm). The vertical distribution of small debitage does not differ much from that of the complete flakes and flake fragments (Figure 31). It occurs within all of the major cultural occupations in higher densities, and is also present in higher densities with the Pleistocene Sands. Although the distribution of small debitage appears to be more similar for the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands, a Pearson Chi Square 2 (2, N=30,174) = 79.919, p <0.001) indicates a significant difference between the two populations of debitage. This may be representative a site disturbance or bioturbation. The proportion of small debitage within each of the cultural occupations is similar to one another, with a slight deviation existing within of the Clovis occupation (Table 21). This similarity also continues within the Pleistocene Sands strata. The total overall distribution of lithic material from the Holocene Terrace, Pleistocene Sands, and Pleistocene Terrace demonstrates further the difference between the two debitage assemblages (Table 22).

115

Table 22. Total Lithic Counts for Complete Flakes, Flake Fragments, and Small Debitage.

98.85-98.75 98.75-98.65 68.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98-35-98.25 98-.25-98.15 98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85 Totals 97.85-97.75 97-75-97.65 97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05 Totals 97.05-96.95 96.95-96.85 Totals Grand Total

Total Debitage Complete Flake Flake Fragments Holocene Terrace 91 121 140 194 383 603 1073 1934 2832 4778 2059 3945 227 664 66 182 36 56 34 46 6941 (15.34%) 12523 (27.67%) Pleistocene Sands 28 73 32 147 92 32 118 98 23 365 13 271 7 132 2 91 315 (5.82%) 1209 (22.34%) Pleistocene Terrace 0 69 0 4 0 73 7256 13,805

Small Debitage 246 422 674 4,773 7,217 8,832 2,623 618 255 127 25787 (56.99%) 166 352 979 1,251 55 372 422 290 3887 (71.84%) 103 0 103 29,777

Pebbles and Cortical Debris

The distribution of pebbles and cortical debris was also examined within a complete stratigraphic profile. Figure 32 illustrates the amount, by weight, of stream pebbles and cortical debris that was recovered amongst the debitage. It is obvious that the profile of distribution has noticeably changed; in fact the profile represented for pebbles and cortical debris is now inverted

116

Distribution of Pebbles and Cortical Debris 98.85-98.75

Holocene Terrace

98.75-98.65 98.65-98.55 98.55-98.45 98.45-98.35 98.35-98.25 98.25-98.15

Level )cm)

98.15-98.05 98.05-97.95 97.95-97.85

Cortex

97.85-97.75

Pebbles

Pleistocene Sands

97.75-97.65 97.65-97.55 97.55-97.45 97.45-97.35 97.35-97.25 97.25-97.15 97.15-97.05

Pliestocene Terrace

97.05-96.95 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Weight (g)

Figure 32. Distribution, by weight, of river pebbles and cortical debris.

from the ones presented previously showing debitage. In the Holocene Terrace levels pebbles and cortical debris are extremely sparse. In contrast, many of the levels associated with the 117

Pleistocene Sands have considerable quantities of pebbles and cortical debris. It is reasonable to assume that the increased presence of non-cultural material may be due to stream flow and fluvial deposition. If this is the case, one would have to consider the implications for the cultural material that was found incorporated within this matrix (i.e., it may be reworked or brought in from elsewhere?). A correlation analysis was conducted to see if there was any relationship between the amount of lithic debitage and the co-occurrence of pebbles and cortical. The results (Figures 32, 33 and Table 23) indicate that during the Holocene occupations at the Topper Site there is an inverse correlation between the co-occurrence of lithics and pebbles and cortical debris. This relationship confirms that the lithic materials recovered from the Holocene-aged strata were in fact deposited through the manufacturing of stone tools, and were not coincident with, produced by, or carried in through, stream deposition.

Table 23. Correlation Analysis of the Holocene Lithics, Pebbles, and Cortical Debris.

Correlations Pebbles_g

Cortex_g

Small

Whole Flake

Debitage Pebbles_g

Pearson Correlation

1

Fragment *

.064

.018

.034

.028

10

10

10

10

10

Pearson Correlation

.605

1

-.157

-.148

-.139

Sig. (2-tailed)

.064

.665

.682

.701

10

10

10

1

**

N Small

Pearson Correlation

Debitage

Sig. (2-tailed) N

Whole

Pearson Correlation

Flakes

Sig. (2-tailed) N

10

10

*

-.157

.018

.665

10

-.723

.930

**

.000 10

10

10

10

-.148

**

1

.034

.682

.000

10

10

10

.930

.958

.000

*

-.670

-.687

*

-.723

N

-.670

*

.605

Sig. (2-tailed)

Cortex_g

Flake

.996

**

.000 10

10

118

Flake

Pearson Correlation

Fragment s

Sig. (2-tailed)

*

-.139

.028

.701

.000

.000

10

10

10

10

-.687

N

.958

**

.996

**

1

10

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

During the Pleistocene, however, there is a direct correlation between the co-occurrence of lithics with pebbles and cortical debris (Table 24 and Figure 33). This relationship does not confirm or reject the hypothesis that the lithics found within pre-Clovis aged sediment were the result of human manufacturing processes. It does indicate, however, that the cultural and noncultural material was likely deposited at the same time. Whether or not this deposition took place as the result of stone tool production or fluvial deposition cannot be discerned at this time.

Correlation Analysis 30.00 25.00 20.00

Holocene Terrace

Pleistocene Sands Pebbles, Percentage

15.00

Lithics, Percentage 10.00 5.00 0.00 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Figure 33. Illustrates the distribution of pebbles and lithics and supports the results of the correlations analysis.

119

Table 24. Correlation Analysis of the Pleistocene Sands Lithics, Pebbles, and Cortical Debris. Correlations Pebbles_g Pebbles_g

Pearson Correlation

Cortex_g

1

Sig. (2-tailed) N Cortex_g

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Lithics

.974

Whole

.964

**

Frag

.908

**

.053

.000

.001

.892

9

9

9

9

9

9

**

1

**

.005

.900

.001 9

Pearson Correlation

**

**

.974

.924

.924

**

.870

.002

.991

9

9

9

9

1

**

**

.150

.000

.003

.700

9

9

9

1

**

-.087

.000

.824

N

9

9

9

Pearson Correlation

**

**

**

.927

**

.000

.000

.964

.927

.000

.000

.971

.971

.859

.925

.000

.000

.000

N

9

9

9

9

9

9

Pearson Correlation

**

**

**

**

1

-.290

Sig. (2-tailed)

.908

.870

.859

.925

.001

.002

.003

.000

9

9

9

9

9

9

Pearson Correlation

.053

.005

.150

-.087

-.290

1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.892

.991

.700

.824

.449

9

9

9

9

9

N Frag

Micro **

.000

9

Sig. (2-tailed)

Whole

Lithics

.001

N

Sig. (2-tailed)

Micro

.900

**

N

.449

9

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

RESULTS OF ATTRIBUTE ANALYSIS

Flaking debris has been identified as a waste product from past human activities that is likely to have been deposited at or very near its locus of origin within past cultural systems (Binford and Quimby 1963). In Chapter 2, however, it was demonstrated that it is not always easy to distinguish flaking debris from naturally fractured lithic material. In order to demonstrate that the lithic debris recovered from below Clovis-aged deposits at Topper is of 120

cultural origin, it was necessary to evaluate this material for evidence that it was produced intentionally by human agency. To do this, all of the debitage recovered from known cultural levels, and that found in the pre-Clovis aged deposits, were analyzed for attributes associated with stone tool production. Examining debitage for attributes associated with stone tool manufacturing was essential to document that the material found below Clovis humanly was produced. Furthermore it was designed to demonstrate that they were part a legitimate lithic assemblage. The result of the attribute analysis reported above, confirmed that these attributes do occur just as frequently in both populations and that the pre-Clovis assemblage may in fact be representative of a humanly produced lithic assemblage, or alternatively, materials from a more recent occupation transported to these levels.

Flake Portion

While only complete flakes were measured during the attribute analysis, it was important to identify and quantify all flake portions that were present among the debitage assemblages. Based on the results of attribute analysis there are considerably more whole flakes present within the Holocene Terrace levels; in fact over 50% of this debitage assemblage was characterized as being complete. This proportion and frequency of complete flakes however, did not continue within the deeper levels associated with the Pleistocene Sands. Instead, in those levels almost three quarters of the debitage were flake fragments. Medial fragments in particular make up nearly 50% of this debitage population; whole flakes constitute 26%, while proximal fragments and distal fragments comprise the remaining 24%. A Chi-Square analysis (Table 9) based on the 121

completeness of the flakes indicated that these two populations are statistically different and potentially unrelated. This does not mean, however, that the debitage associated with the preClovis aged deposits is not part of a humanly produced lithic assemblage; they are just different. In the samples examined, lithic debris associated with known cultural occupations has a much higher incidence of complete flakes, while much (>75%) of the material associated with the preClovis Pleistocene Sands is fragmented. The condition of flakes, as noted in Chapter 3, is often a direct result of the postdepositional processes acting upon an archaeological assemblage. A population of debitage that is mostly fragmented, therefore, may be indicative of an assemblage that has been subjected to post-depositional processes. It has already been established, for example, that fluvial processes such as stream flow and episodes of flooding and deposition can create significant disturbances within a lithic assemblage. Fluvial action can also preserve archaeological material through deposition, redeposit a part or the entirety of site, or can in fact completely destroy archaeological sites by processes of erosion and/or degradation (Waters 1988:213). Petraglia and Potts (1994), as recounted in Chapter 3, have argued that water flow is one of the most important post-depositional processes altering the integrity of archaeological sites. The overall completeness of the archaeological record located within a fluvial environment is directly dependent upon the extent of aggradational and degradational episodes, as well as upon the stability of the landscape (Waters 1988:213). It is also evident, based on the results in Table 1 that there is significantly less lithic debris present within the levels associated with the Pleistocene Sands. While this can be attributed to differing degrees of occupational intensity, it can also be hypothesized that the 122

debitage population located within pre-Clovis aged sands has been removed, transported, or destroyed as the result of fluvial action, thus accounting for the quantity, quality, and condition of material present below the Clovis horizon. The poor condition of the material located within the pre-Clovis aged sands, as well as evidence provided by Waters et al. (2009) suggests, perhaps, that at some point during the Pleistocene this lithic material was subjected to episodes of fluvial processes. These episodes thus may be responsible for the poor condition of the flakes, the fragmented nature of the debitage, and the quantity of material recovered. Flake Termination

Each flake that was defined and identified as being complete (whole) was further classified as having a hinge, step, feather, or outrepassé termination (Figure 23) (Andrefsky 2004:21; Cotterall and Kamminga 1979:104-106). Flake terminations, as noted in Chapter 3, essentially exhibits how force exited the nodule and have also been associated with the direction at which the force was applied (Odell 2004:56-57). While the total number of complete flakes did differ considerably between those occupations associated with the Holocene Terrace and those materials in the pre-Clovis Pleistocene Sands, the proportions of flake terminations was quite similar. Statistically, it was shown that there was no significant difference between the two debitage assemblages in terms of flake terminations; this despite of the fact that there was a significant difference between the completeness of flakes between the two strata. The fact that there was no apparent significant differences between the two assemblages in terms of the proportional occurrence of flake terminations may indicate that the lithic debitage found below the Clovis-aged horizon is part of a legitimate (i.e., humanly produced) pre-Clovis assemblage. 123

Given that flake termination is often attributed to the type of technology utilized, and that there is no significant difference between the two tested assemblages, it is reasonable to presume that the lithic debris associated with pre-Clovis levels was manufactured using the same technology as the debitage recovered from within the site’s known cultural occupations. Alternatively, because there was no significant difference between the flake terminations in the Holocene Terrace assemblage and the Pleistocene Sands lithic assemblage, it could also be inferred that these assemblage are one in the same, that is, they derive from the same source, the overlying Holocene Terrace deposits. Because of the loose unconsolidated nature of the sands in which these two assemblages are found, it is quite possible the debitage found within the Pleistocene Sands was derived from overlying strata. If this were the case, the two assemblages would be statistically related based on their technological characteristics.

Platform Attributes (Non-Measurable)

It is accepted by some archaeologists that the morphology of the striking platform on a detached flake has the potential to correlate debitage to the different stages of stone tool production, determine the type of hammer used, the type of objective piece being modified, as well as determining the size of the detached pieces (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987). However, it was demonstrated in Chapter 3 that there is much variability and subjectivity related to striking platform morphology. Striking platforms are often prepared or made by manipulation of the objective piece. They are “created for impact by tool makers who understand the relationship between striking platform characteristics and the size and shape of the detached piece desired”

124

(Andrefsky 2004:94). In an effort to reduce subjectivity only the presence or absence of a striking platform was recorded. Just over 90% of the debitage assemblage recovered from within known cultural levels in the Topper sample had striking platforms, while somewhat less, ca.80% of the debitage recovered from within pre-Clovis aged levels also had discernible striking platforms (Table 11). Statistically, the occurrence of striking platforms between the two debitage assemblages was significantly different. This difference could potentially be the result of the weathered condition of the Pleistocene Sands lithics as well as the sample size, but it could also indicate an alternative technique for producing stone tools. It does not, however, indicate whether or not these flakes were the result of human action or natural processes. Thermal Alteration

It has been documented that many prehistoric and some recent societies often deliberately heat treated tool stone in an effort to improve their flaking properties (Domanski and Webb 1992:601). The notable advantages attributed to thermal alteration include better flakeability, longer flake removals, fewer step and hinge terminations and the production of sharper edges (Crabtree & Butler, 1964; Domanski &Webb, 1992). The most noticeable of the visible changes includes a darkening in color and an increased luster of flaked surfaces. In the case of Allendale chert, a light colored highly siliceous microcrystalline rock; it was not difficult to identify those flakes which had been subjected to thermal alteration. Documenting incidences of intentional thermal alteration within the debitage assemblages is relevant because of the propensity to heat tool stone changes through prehistory in the study area and across the larger region. In fact, the majority of occurrences of intentional 125

thermal alteration reported in the literature from the Southeast and from the Allendale area, has been attributed to post-Paleoindian occupations Anderson 1979; Sassaman et al. 1990). There is still some speculation, however, regarding the specific cultural affiliation of heat treated tool stone. There are some (Broster 1996) who believe, for example, that Paleoindian populations residing in the Tennessee River Valley were heat treating their tool stone during the same approximate time the Topper site was occupied; therefore recovering thermally altered lithics below Archaic occupations would not be unexpected (although it is currently assumed to be with Allendale chert). Whether or not pre-Clovis populations would have been heat treating their chert is unknown, as very few legitimate pre-Clovis occupations yielding large quantities of lithic material have been recovered in the New World. The results presented above indicate that there is no significant difference between the proportion of thermally altered debitage within known cultural occupations in the Holocene Terrace and the debitage associated with the preClovis Pleistocene Sands. Once again this may indicate there was a legitimate human occupation at Topper prior to the arrival of Clovis populations and that these populations were subjecting their chert to heat in order to improve its flaking properties. Alternatively, it is possible that this debitage was derived from overlying stratum and migrated down into the Pleistocene Sands over time, or that it was deposited as the result of stream flow and deposition. Bulbar Presence

A bulb of percussion has been identified specifically by Patterson (1983) and Peacock (1991) as a flake attribute likely created during the production of stone tools. The relative robustness, for example, of the bulb of force has proven useful for lithic analysts when classifying flakes as derived from either hard-hammer percussion, soft-hammer percussion, or 126

pressure flaking (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987; 1990; Crabtree 1972). Identifying characteristics such as a bulb of force helps to illustrate that the debitage being examined was produced as the result of human manufacturing activities. The results of the individual flake analysis indicated that within both the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands debitage assemblages more than 75% of each population contained flakes with discernible bulbs of percussion (Table 14). A Pearson Chi-Square further indicated that there was no significant difference between those whole flakes recovered from known cultural occupations and those recovered from the pre-Clovis aged Pleistocene Sands. Dorsal Cortex

In the analysis of lithic debitage the amount of cortex is often measured as a means to discern the point in the production sequence when the flake in question originated. As mentioned in Chapter 3, only the presence or absence of dorsal cortex was recorded. Table 13 indicated that within those levels associated with the Holocene Terrace only 27.35% of all flakes analyzed contained remnants of dorsal cortex, while the other 72.65% was free of cortex. This pattern did not continue within the Pleistocene Sand; in fact within the pre-Clovis levels nearly 45% of the flakes contained at least some cortex on the dorsal surface, while the other 55% was cortex free. A Pearson Chi-Square indicated that the differences between the two assemblages were statistically significant. While the presence of dorsal cortex is one of the attributes cited as being related to percussion flaking, it does not necessarily tell us anything else about the debitage assemblage. This attribute alone is not enough to determine whether or not the pre-Clovis debitage is part of a discrete occupation, or if it was part of an assemblage that migrated

127

downward or was deposited during stream flow. However, the greater incidence of cortex in the lower levels could reflect greater initial reduction activity by the first peoples to visit the quarry.

INTERPRETING THE VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEBITAGE

Characterizing the Debitage Assemblages

The vertical distributions of complete flakes, flake fragments, and small debitage were examined over10cm level and by size class. The intention was to expose potential patterns between each of the major known cultural strata and those levels associated with pre-Clovis aged stratum. The vertical distribution of cortical debris and river pebbles were also examined, by weight, from each 10cm level. The proportion of each category of debitage, as well as the distribution of this material by size was demonstrated to be significantly different between the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands lithic assemblages. The debitage recovered from within the Holocene Terrace is characterized by a larger size, a greater quantity of complete flakes, and larger flake fragments. Within the Holocene Terrace, for example, the lithic debitage consists of ca. 15.34% (Tables 16 and 22) complete flakes, ca. 51.28% of which measured greater than 9.5mm. Ca. 27.67% of the Holocene Terrace debitage consisted of flake fragments, ca. 54.64% of which fell within the second largest screen, 7.925mm. Small debitage was also prominent among the Holocene Terrace debitage, making up ca. 56.99% of the assemblage. The debitage recovered from within the Pleistocene Sands, on the other hand, is dominated by a much smaller, more fragmented debitage assemblage. In fact ca.71.48% of the entire PS assemblage consists of small 128

debitage (Tables 18 and 22). Flake fragments made up ca. 22.34% of the assemblage. And complete flakes make up the smallest class of debitage, making up only ca. 5.82% of the assemblage. These two assemblages are significantly different in term of their size and level of fragmentation, but are not different in regards to many of their physical attributes. The most obvious difference between Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands assemblages, however, was not within the debitage itself, but within the cortical debris and river pebbles that were recovered amongst the debitage (Figures 32 and 33). Within the upper meter of the Holocene Terrace cortical debris and river pebbles are sparse, increasing slightly within the Clovis deposit. Correlation analysis determined that there an inverse relationship between the presence of lithic materials, and pebbles and cortical debris (Tables 23, 24). This relationship indicated the lithics within the Holocene Terrace were humanly manufactured and were not the result of natural processes. Within the Pleistocene Sands stratum, on the other hand, this noncultural material increases reaching its greatest concentration between 97.55 to 97.45mbd, before steadily declining again. Correlation analysis (Table 24) determined that within the Pleistocene Sands there is a direct relationship between the presence of lithic material and pebbles and cortical debris, suggesting that these materials were deposited at the same time. The deposition of the pebbles and cortical debris likely represents an episode of fluvial deposition, while the pebbles and cortex are remnants of chute channels created by a prehistoric meandering river.

129

CHAPTER V: INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION Archaeological investigations at Topper have revealed a site characterized by intense episodes of stone tool production and maintenance. The site, located within an extensive chert quarry on a major river drainage, provided an ideal location for early hunter-gatherers. Excavations at Topper have uncovered a series of occupations spanning from the Mississippian to the Clovis eras and perhaps much earlier. Based on the abundance of lithic material recovered from within the pre-Clovis strata, it has been hypothesized that the Topper site was occupied prior to arrival of Clovis populations. Because these lithics and the associated debitage consisted of the same high quality Allendale chert, analyses were directed to determining whether the preClovis materials were created using the same technological methods of production used by the peoples who created the deposits in the Holocene Terrace, or Clovis age and after. EVALUATING THE PRE-CLOVIS OCCUPATION AT TOPPER

The majority of the presumed pre-Clovis artifacts and associated debitage examined in this study were came from within what Waters et al. (2009) identified as unit 2b, the Pleistocene Sands, a loose unconsolidated deposit identified as having been formed by both colluvial and fluvial processes (Figure 8). In their investigation of the stratigraphy of the Topper site, Waters et al. identified evidence for discrete episodes of fluvial deposition in this strata; episodes which resulted in the creation of gravel filled chute channels hypothesized as having once been part of a prehistoric braided stream system. As demonstrated herein, archaeological (i.e., likely humanly modified) materials, most small incomplete flakes and small debitage came from these deposits. Based on the distribution of pebbles and cortical debris within the Pleistocene Sands, it is 130

reasonable to hypothesis that such chute channels were present in the columns used in the current analysis, and are in fact likely represented between 97.55 and 97.35 MBD (Figure 30). Waters et al. (2009:205) have noted that significant site disturbances can often be identified in the alluvial record as erosional unconformities or as channel fill. This is extremely significant when evaluating the pre-Clovis occupation from the Topper site because it may indicate considerable disturbance in the Pleistocene archaeological record. Based on this observation, as well as the information and data presented above, I have developed two contrasting hypotheses regarding the pre-Clovis at the Topper Site. It is, however, premature to make a definitive conclusion as to which hypothesis is correct. Additional research will be needed to provide the evidence necessary to make such an evaluation.

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis is that it there was no occupation at the Topper Site prior to the arrival of Clovis populations. If this hypothesis is correct, it would mean that the materials recovered from within the older Pleistocene Sands and Pleistocene Terrace sediments are likely the result of different taphonomic processes. The most likely natural processes include bioturbation, freeze thaw action, or erosion and deposition from stream flow. Given the evidence for a fluvial environment during the time the Pleistocene Sands were exposed, and the extremely weathered and fragmented nature of many of the lithics, it seems possible that the lithic material below the Clovis levels was deposited as a result of stream flow, overbank deposition, or episodes of flooding from the adjacent Savannah River. It is possible that episodes of stream flow and deposition contributed to flake breakage within the Pleistocene 131

Sands, and also reduced their mean size (Pryor 1988). The pre-Clovis lithics have been characterized as being highly fragmented and much smaller than those from overlying strata. Waters et al. (2009) have already speculated that those units where pre-Clovis lithic material was recovered were subjected to fluvial processes. Episodes of erosion, deposition, and degradation can severely alter a landscape and transport material considerable distances. They can also be severe and violent enough to produce flake-like debris and edge damage on lithic material which mirrors manufacturing debitage. In addition to the evidence for fluvial deposition and erosion, there was only a limited amount of recognizable debitage available within the Pleistocene Sands; thus shedding more doubt on the legitimacy of this material as being part of an actual pre-Clovis lithic assemblage. When examining known cultural occupations in the Holocene Terrace deposits, like the MALA component, for example, one can clearly see that there is a great deal of debitage present as well as undeniable stone tools. Even though there was significantly less Clovis material present, there were similar patterns of debitage distribution as well as similar distributions of flake attributes for these two distinct cultural occupations. These patterns do, however, continue within the Pleistocene Sands. As stated in Chapter 4, the continuation of these patterns does not necessarily indicate the presence of a legitimate pre-Clovis assemblage. Instead, it may be indicative of the downward migration of lithic material from overlying strata. If there were no pre-Clovis occupation at Topper, the presence of artifacts in the deeper deposits could have become vertically displaced from the known cultural occupations in the Holocene deposits, and have bioturbated into the Pleistocene Sands and Pleistocene Terrace deposits. Such occurrences can be the result of tree roots and vegetation as well as animal 132

burrowing. It is also important to recall Villa, who stated that “ layers and soils should be considered as fluid, deformable bodies…through which archaeological items float, sink, and glide” (1982:232). Seeing that the Topper matrix consists of loose, sandy, unconsolidated sands, it is likely that some material was able to move downward over time. The data presented in Chapter 4 could also suggest that the pre-Clovis lithics migrated downward from the Holocene Terrace. Evidence to support this comes from the fact that material located within the Pleistocene Sands is physically, or technologically, no different than the debitage from above. It exhibited characteristics of debitage created during stone tool manufacturing. But, on average, the debitage within the Pleistocene Sands was considerably smaller. Smaller fragments are more likely to move fluidly through a matrix than larger pieces of debitage; thus further supporting this hypothesis. An additional argument for the downward movement of artifacts is evidence of differential weathering, or erosion. Amongst the Pleistocene Sands and Terrace deposits there were, for example, flakes which exhibited considerable evidence of weathering. However recovered in situ with this degraded material were flakes which exhibit very little, if any, evidence of weathering or erosion. Some material recovered also exhibited evidence of weathering, but had relatively recent fractures which revealed chert surfaces that were unweathered and still in possession of good cryptocrystalline characteristics. Why is it that debitage within the lithic assemblage exhibit differential degrees of weathering and erosion? One hypothesis is that the desilicified material was subjected to, or exposed to, an erosional environment for a longer period of time, while the chert which is still of good cryptocrystalline structure has only recently bioturbated down into older pre-Clovis 133

Pleistocene Sands and Terrace. The Pleistocene Terrace, where some of the pre-Clovis material was recovered, exhibits much more moisture than the unconsolidated Pleistocene Sands and Holocene levels higher up. It is possible that chert within the drier Pleistocene Sands matrix over thousands of years began to slowly lose those properties which made it knappable, and the process has just not gone as far in the Holocene Levels, which is why the artifacts higher in the deposits appear less weathered. An alternative explanation, however, is that the lower moisture levels in the Pleistocene Terrace better preserved the chert, some of which is still of a superb quality, and that the material which is weathered and eroded is the material which has become vertically displaced from the levels higher up at some point. Both theories are plausible, and both still presume that some materials recovered from below the Clovis levels did not necessarily originate there.

Hypothesis II

The data presented in Chapter 4 also supports an alternative hypothesis. It is quite possible that there was a legitimate pre-Clovis occupation or occupations present at or nearby the Topper Site, but episodes of stream deposition and transport have created an incomplete record of their occupation. Such episodes could be responsible for the severely fragmented and weathered nature of the pre-Clovis lithics. The Topper Site was prone to episodes of flooding and stream deposition from the nearby Savannah River during the time the Pleistocene Sands was formed and maybe when the Pleistocene Terrace formed as well, although that could not be determined in the present analysis. Such episodes may have transported the pre-Clovis assemblage away from the site, or alternatively could have introduced this lithic material from a 134

different location along the Savannah River; suggesting perhaps an alternative location for a preClovis aged archaeological deposit. Waters and Kuehn (1996) have noted that “such episodes of fluvial deposition can be so disruptive that they fragment the record of human settlement and activity for any time period” (Waters and Kuehn 1996:123). If this were the case, the debitage assemblage would be not only being incomplete, but it would have been subjected to several taphonomic changes. Such changes to the assemblage would include breakage and weathering; two characteristics which dominate the Pleistocene Sands lithics. If the assemblage located within the Pleistocene Sands and perhaps within the Pleistocene Terrace at Topper was transported or erased by episodes of stream flow or overbank flooding, it would explain the small samples that were recovered. Episodes of stream flow and deposition could also account for the fragmented nature of the Pleistocene Sands lithic assemblage. As mentioned above, the debitage assemblage recovered from within the Pleistocene Sands consisted mainly of fragmented flakes, most of which were smaller than the debitage from the Holocene Terrace. However, this pre-Clovis debitage, while being smaller, did possess the same physical characteristics as the debitage from the Holocene Terrace. This would suggest that they were produced during stone tool production, by human agency and not by natural possesses. The distribution of cortical debris and river pebbles (Figure 32) also suggest that there was at least one episode of fluvial deposition during the time the Pleistocene Sands were exposed. Waters et al. (2009) identified several chute channels in these deposits which they interpreted as part a prehistoric meandering river (Figures 7 and 9). The presence and distribution of river pebbles and cortical debris within the Pleistocene Sands supports their theory that the area of the pre-Clovis Excavation Block was subjected to a fluvial environment 135

during the Pleistocene. The proximity of the excavations to the Savannah River also lends credence to this hypothesis. Episodes of fluvial deposition and erosion most likely also accounts for the degraded nature of lithic debris located within the Pleistocene Sands. If the lithics within the pre-Clovis aged Pleistocene sands were exposed to fluctuating water levels, they might also have been prone to erosional processes that stripped the chert of silica and rendered it chalky. An additional argument is that the patterns of debitage distribution are different for the some of the Pleistocene Sands levels because the pre-Clovis occupants were using a different manufacturing technique, thus leaving behind a different assortment of debitage. Goodyear (2005a) has argued, in fact, that the pre-Clovis assemblage was created using bipolar technology, not the bifacial technology which was utilized by Archaic and Paleoindian populations. Bipolar technology would have left behind a different archaeological signature, which is perhaps what we are seeing. Bryan (2004), if we recall, argued that archaeologists should abandon their reliance on finding diagnostic tools when searching for early sites. Perhaps, then, it is reasonable that we should also not rely on finding similar distributions of debitage for pre-Clovis assemblages. If the debitage assemblage located within the Pleistocene Sands is part of a legitimate pre-Clovis assemblage it ultimately means that humans were in the Americas prior to the arrival of Clovis populations. While evidence for a pre-Clovis occupation in the Americas has been found within other parts of the Americas, it has been limited in the Southeast. This type of evidence may provide clues to colonization rates, patterns, and migration routes of the first New World populations. CONCLUSION 136

The distribution and characteristics of debitage from known cultural levels within the Holocene Terrace and those associated with pre-Clovis aged Pleistocene Sands in the sample obtained from Topper and examined here was quite similar. Both assemblages contained materials which exhibited technological traits of debitage created during stone tool production. While the data supports the notion that the pre-Clovis debitage was manmade, it does not necessarily indicate that this material was deposited by a pre-Clovis population. As such, it was necessary to propose two contrasting hypotheses. One assumes that the lithic debris recovered from within the Pleistocene Sands was the product of downward migration or fluvial deposition, and therefore does not represent at pre-Clovis occupation. The alternative hypothesis suggests that there was a legitimate pre-Clovis occupation(s) at the Topper Site, but that the deposits were subjected to a fluvial environment, hence their dissimilarity with the overlying assemblages. Episodes of stream flow, deposition, and erosion may have not only transported and fragmented this assemblage; it may also have changed the chemical composition of the chert. At this time it is nearly impossible to choose between these two hypotheses. To some degree, the data supports each of them. It is clear that continued research and excavation must be done at the Topper site to determine the legitimacy of the pre-Clovis lithic assemblage. Future work should include debitage from within deeper stratum within the Pleistocene Terrace in order to determine the nature of this material and how it compares to the debitage from the Holocene Terrace and Pleistocene Sands. Continued excavations within the pre-Clovis Excavation Block at the Topper Site mean that there is great potential for future research. Investigating the nature of lithic material within the Pleistocene Sands is crucial when attempting to understand the occupational and depositional 137

history of the site. In order to further assess the legitimacy of the “pre-Clovis assemblage” future researchers should attempt to address several key issues briefly touched upon in this paper. These include the differential preservation of chert within the Pleistocene Sands and Terrace, the possibility of the downward migration of artifacts, the fragmented nature of the pre-Clovis lithic assemblage, and the possibility that there may be additional archaeological sites located upstream from the Topper Site. Future research should also include larger samples from multiple locations at the Topper Site. Continued examination of lithic debitage from pre-Clovis aged deposits is also necessary if we are to understand the nature of these assemblages. Refitting is technique often practiced by lithic analysts which incorporates both debitage and lithic nodules. It is a productive method for assessing lithic artifact data into individual episodes of production, use, and maintenance by refitting flakes onto tools or cores (Andrefsky 2009). This process attempts to reconstruct an original nodule or flake blank. It has the potential, however, to moreover reveal postdepositional site disturbances and to assess the integrity of occupational surfaces (Jodry 1992). Andrefsky (2009) notes that “refitting can help investigators understand three primary aspects of site assemblages: (1) lithic technological practices that have occurred at a location, (2) taphonomic process at work (site integrity), and (3) spatial associations (2009:84). This practice can be very tedious and time consuming; however it would be extremely useful within the pre-Clovis Excavation Block at the Topper Site. Future research should also include the detailed examination of the potential tools recovered from with pre-Clovis aged strata. Use-wear analysis, as well at detailed microscopic investigations of flake removals or edge damage, could provide evidence of postdepositional 138

processes, periods of stream flow, or episodes of human trampling. Each of these processes, as discussed in Chapter 2, has the potential to produce pseudo-tools from non-cultural lithic material. Experimenting with local Allendale chert is an additional avenue researchers should consider in the future. Such experiments should be directed toward replicating artifacts, assemblage characteristics, and frequent types of breakage seen within pre-Clovis lithics at the site. Potential experiments could include trampling and freeze thaw experiments, but should also include experiments directed toward replicating artifacts with different types of core reduction techniques. Experimenting with bipolar vs. bifacial technology might help account for the differences in assemblage size and characteristics. The implications of these types of analyses could provide insight into the peopling of the Americas and the colonization of the Southeast. This analysis has provided some initial insights into the pre-Clovis assemblage found at Topper, but as we have seen, there is still much we wish to know.

139

REFERENCES CITED Abbot, C.C. 1892

Paleolithic Man in America. Science 37:293-315.

Adovasio, J.M and Jake Page 2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. Library of Congress, New York. Ahler, Stan 1989 Mass Analysis of Flaking Debris: Studying the Forest Rather Than the Tree. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by D. Henry and G. Odell, pp. 85–118. Archeological Papers, no. 1. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. Anderson, David G. 1979 Prehistoric Selection for Intentional Thermal Alteration: Test of a Model Employing Southeastern Archaeological Materials. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4(2):221254. Anderson, David G., Shane D. Miller, Stephen J. Yerka, and Michael K. Faught 2005 Paleoindian Database of the Americas: 2005 Status Report. Current Research in the Pleistocene 22:91-92. Anderson, D.G., Stephen Yerka, and J. Christopher Gillam 2010 Employing High-Resolution Bathymetric Data to Infer Possible Migration Routes of Pleistocene Populations. Current Research in the Pleistocene 27:60-64. Andrefsky, William Jr. 2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Content, Form, Meaning, edited by William Andrefsky Jr., pp. 2-20. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Andrefsky, William Jr. 2004 Partitioning the Aggregate: Mass Analysis and Debitage Assemblages. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 201210. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

Andrefsky, William Jr. 140

2009 The Analysis of Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Maintenance. Journal of Archaeological Research 17:65-103. Bergman, C.A., Barton, R.N.E., Collcutt, S.M., Morris, G. 1987 Intentional breakage in a Late Upper Paleolithic assemblage from southern England. In The Human Uses of Flint and Chert, edited by Sieve-king, G.DE.G., Newcomer, M.H., pp. 21-32. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Binford, Lewis and Quimby 1963 Indian Sites and Chipped Stone Materials in the Northern Lake Michigan Area. Fieldiana – Anthropology 36: 277- 307.

Boldurian, Anthony and John L. Cotter 1999 Clovis Revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico. University Museum Monograph, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Bonnichsen, Robson 2005 Introduction to Paleoamerican Origins. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters, pp 1-8. Center for the Study of First Americans, College Station, TX. Bonnichsen, Robson and Bradley Lepper 2005 “Changing Perspectives of Paleoamerican Prehistory”. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 9-20. Center for the Study of First Americans, College Station, TX. Bordes, F. 1961 Mousterian Cultures in France. Science 134: 803-810. Broster, John B., and Mark R. Norton 1996 Recent Paleoindian Research in Tennessee. In Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth Sassaman, pp. 288-297. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Bryan, Alan L. 141

2004 The Search for the First Americans: Perspectives and Prospects. In New Perspectives on the First Americans, edited by Bradley T. Lepper and Robson Bonnichsen, pp.215-222. Center for the Study of First Americans, Texas A&M University. Cahen, D and Moeyersons 1977 Subsurface Movements of Stone Artefacts and Their Implications for the Prehistory of Central Africa. Nature 266:812-815. Carr, Phillip J. and Andrew P. Bradburry 2004 Exploring Mass Analysis, Screens, and Attributes. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 21-45. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. Clark, Peter, Richard B. Alley, and David Pollard 1999 Northern Hemisphere Ice-Sheet Influences on Global Climate Change. Science 286:1104-1111. Collins, Michael B. 2002 The Gault Site, Texas and Clovis research. Athena Review 3:31-41. Cotterell, B, and Kamminga, J. 1987 The Formation of Flakes. American Antiquity 52:675-708. Crabtree, Donald 1972 An Introduction to flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, Number 28, Pocatello: Idaho State University Museum. 1973 The Obtuse Angles as a Functional Edge. Tebiwa, the Journal of the Idaho State University Museum, Pocatello, Idaho. Crabtree, Donald, and B.R. Butler 1964 Notes on Experiments in Flintknapping. 1: Heat Treatment of Silica Minerals. Tebiwa 7:1-6. Dawkins, William Boyd 1883 Early Man in America. North American Review 137:338-349. Dibble, H.L., Chase, P.G., McPherron, S.P. & Tuffreau, A. 142

1997 Testing the Reality of a “Living Floor” with Archaeological Data. American Antiquity 62:629-651. Dillehay, T.D. 1989 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol., Paleoenvironment and Site Context. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Dillehay, T.D. 1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile, Vol. 2, The Archaeological Context and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Dincauze, Dina 1984 An Archaeo-Logical Evaluation of the Case for Pre-Clovis Occupations. Advances in World Archaeology 3: 275-323. Domanski, M. and J. Webb 1992 Effect of Heat Treatment on Siliceous Rocks Used in Prehistoric Lithic Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:601-614. Dyke, A, A. Moore, and L. Roberston 2003 Deglaciation of North America. Geological Survey of Canada. Open File 1574. Available online at http://www.mcgill.ca/library/library-findinfo/maps/deglaciation/. Fagan, Brian 2003 The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. Thames and Hudson, Ltd. London. Fiedel, Stuart J. 2000 The Peopling of the New World: Present Evidence, New Theories, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(1): 39-103. Figgins, Jesse 1927 The Antiquity of Man in America. Natural History 27:229-239. Fish, Paul R. 1979 The Interpretive Potential of Mousterian Debitage. Anthropological Research Paper No. 15. Arizona State University, Tempe. Fish, Paul R. 1981 Beyond Tools: Middle Paleolithic Debitage Analysis and Cultural Inference. Journal of Anthropological Research 37:374-386. 143

Forman, Steve 2003 Luminescence Dating of Quaternary Sediments: New Methods for Dating Archaeological Components. Mammoth Trumpet, June 2003: 13-16. Newsletter of the Center for the Study of First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. Frison, George and B.A. Bradley 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site. Academic Press, New York. Gifford-Gonzalez, Diane P, David B. Damrosch, Debra R. Damrosch, John Pryor, and Robert L. Thunen 1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersion. American Antiquity 40:803-818. Goodyear, Albert 1999 The Early Holocene Occupation of the Southeastern United States: a Geoarchaeological Summary. In Ice Age Peoples of North America: Environments, Origins, and Adaptations of the First Americans, edited by R. Bonnichsen, K.L. Turnmire, pp. 432-481, College Station TX. 2000 The Topper Site 2000: Results of the 2000 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 5 (2): 18-25. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2001 The Topper Site: Beyond Clovis at Allendale. Mammoth Trumpet 16 (4): 10-15. Newsletter of the Center for the Study of First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. 2003 Backhoes, BBQ’s, and B Horizons: the 2002 Allendale Paleoindian Expedition. Legacy 7 (2):22-31. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2005a “Evidence for Pre-Clovis Sites in the Eastern North United States”. In Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 103-112. Center for the Study of First Americans, Texas A&M University.

144

2005b Summary of the Allendale Expedition – 2003 and 2004 Field Seasons. Legacy 9: 4-10. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2007 Research Division: Update on Research at the Topper Site. Legacy 13 (1): 12-15. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 2009 Update on Research at the Topper Site. Legacy 13 (1): 12-15. Newsletter of the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Goodyear, Albert and T. Charles 1984 An Archaeological Survey of Chert Quarries in Western Allendale Country, South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 195. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Goodyear, Albert and John Foss 1993 The stratigraphic significance of paleosols at Smiths Lake Creek, 38AL135, for the study of the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in the Savannah River Valley. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Pedo-Archaeology, edited by Foss, J.E., Timpson, M.E., Morris, M.W, pp. 27-40, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Goodyear, Albert and Ken Steffy 2003 Evidence for a Clovis Occupation at the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 20: 23-25. Grayson, Donald and David Meltzer 2003 A Requiem for North American Overkill. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:585-593. Hallowell, A. Irving 1960 The Beginnings of Anthropology in America. In Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist: 1888-1920, edited by Frederica de Laguna, pp. 1-90. Row, Peterson New York.

Haven, S. 1856 The Archaeology of the United States. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 8:1-168. 145

Haynes, C. Vance 1969 The Earliest Americans. Science 166:709–715. Haynes, Gary 2002 The Early Settlement of North America: The Clovis Era. Cambridge University Press. Hdlička, Ales 1907 Skeletal Remains Suggesting or Attributed to Early Man in North America. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 33. Hdlička, Ales 1925 The Origin and Antiquity of the American Indian. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1923:481-494. Healan, Dan M. 1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach. American Antiquity 60:689-699. Henry, Donald O. and George H. Odell (Eds.) 1989 Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1, The University of Tulsa. Hills, Sherbon E. 1946 Types of Alluvial Deposits. Geological Magazine 83(6):294-294. Hilton, Michael 2003 Quantifying Postdepositional Redistribution of the Archaeological Record Produced by Freeze-Thaw and Other Mechanisms: An Experimental Approach. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10:165-202. Hiscock, Peter 1985 The Need for a Taphonomic Perspective in Stone Artefact Analysis. Queensland Archaeological Research 2:82–95. 1990 A Study in Scarlet: Taphonomy of Inorganic Artefacts. In Problem Solving in Taphonomy: Studies Related to the Archaeology of Europe, African and Oceania, edited by S. Solomon, I. Davidson, and D. Watson, pp. 34-49, University of Queensland. 146

2000 Quantifying the Size of Artefact Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:251-258. Holmes, William Henry 1918 Handbook of Aboriginal American Antiquities. Part I. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 60. Isaac, G.L. 1967 Toward the Interpretation of Occupation Debris: Some Experiments and Observations. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 37:31-57. Jablonski, Nina (Editor) 2002 The First Americans: The Pleistocene Colonization of the New World. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, CA. Jennings, Tom 2011 Experimental production of bending and radial flake fractures and implications for lithic technologies. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2):1-8. Jodry, Margaret A. 1992 Fitting Together Folsom: Refitting Lithics and Site Formation Processes at Stewart’s Guard Site. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis, edited by J. Hofman and J. Enlos, pp. 119-138. Archaeological Papers No. 1, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Johnson, John R. 2006 How Do You Make a Successful Clovis Dig? Mammoth Trumpet 21 (4):1-20. Newsletter of the Center for the Study of First Americans, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station. Kelly, Robert 2002 Maybe We Do Know When People First Came to North America; and What Does It Mean If We Do? Quaternary International 109 (110): 133-145. Knudson, Ruthann 1973 Organizational Variability in Late Paleo-Indian Assemblages. Ph.D. diss., Washington State University, Pullman. 147

Kooyman, Brian 2000 Understanding Stone Tools and Archaeological Sites. University of Calgary Press, Alberta. Larson, Mary Lou 2004 Chipped Stone Aggregate Analysis in Archaeology. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 3-21. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. Leland, Patterson W., Louis V. Hoffman, Rose Marie Higginbotham, and Ruth D. Simpson 1987 Analysis of Lithic Flakes at the Calico Site, California. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:91-106. Leopold, Luna and M.G. Andrews 1960 River Meanders. Geological Society of America 71:769-974. Magne, Martin P.R. 1985 Lithics and Livelihood: Stone Tool Technologies of Central and Southern Interior British Columbia. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No.133, Ottawa National Museum of Man. McBearty, Sally, Laura Bishop, Thomas Plummer, Robert Dewar, and Nicholas Conard 1998 Tools Underfoot: Human Trampling as an Agent of Lithic Artifact Edge Modification. American Antiquity 63:108-129. McGee, W.J. 1893 Man and the Glacial Period. American Anthropologist 6:85-95. Meltzer, David J. 1989 Why don’t we know when the first people came to North America? American Antiquity 54 (3): 471-490. 1991 On ‘Paradigms’ and “Paradigm Bias’ in Controversies over Human Antiquity in America. In The First Americans: Search and Research, edited by T. Dillehay and D. Meltzer, pp.13-49. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 1993 Search for the first Americans. Smithsonian Books. Washington, D.C. 1994 The Discovery of Deep Time: A History of the Views on the Peopling of the Americas. In R. Bonnichsen and D.G. Steele (eds.), Method and Theory for Investigating the 148

Peopling of the Americas (pp.7-26). Center for the Study of the First Americans, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 1995 Clocking the first Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:157-69. 2000 Renewed Investigations at the Folsom Paleoindian Type Site. Antiquity 74:35-36. 2002 What Do You Do When No One’s Been There Before? Thoughts on the exploration and colonization of new lands. In The First Americans: the Pleistocene colonization of the New World, edited by Nina Jablonski, pp.25-56. Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences. 2005 The Seventy-year Itch: Controversies over Human Antiquity and Their Resolution. Journal of Anthropological Research 61(4):443-68. 2006 Folsom: New Investigations of a Classic Paleoindian Bison Kill. University of California Press, Berkeley. Meltzer, David J., James M. Adovasio, and Tom D. Dillehay 1994 On a Pleistocene Human Occupation at Pedra Furada, Brazil. Antiquity 68:695–714. Meltzer, David J., Donald K. Grayson, Gerardo Ardila, Alex W. Barker, Dena F. Dincauze, C. Vance Haynes, Francisco Mena, Lautaro Nunez, and Dennis J. Stanford 1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62(4):659–663. Miller, Shane 2010 Clovis Excavations at Topper 2005-2007: Examining Site Formation Processes in an Upland Paleoindian Site along the Middle Savannah River: Occasional Papers 1 Southeastern Paleoamerican Survey South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. Columbia. Odell, George H. 2004 Lithic Analysis in Archaeological Method, Theory, and Technique. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Production Data, New York, NY. Patterson, Leland 149

1983 Criteria for Determining the Attributes of Man-Made Lithics. Journal of Field Archaeology 30:297-307. Patterson, Leland and J.B. Sollberger 1987 Replication and Classification of Small Size Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 23:103-112. Peacock, Evan 1991 Distinguishing Between Artifacts and Geofacts: A Test Case from Eastern England. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:345-361. Petraglia, M.D., and R. Potts 1994 Water Flow and the Formation of Early Pleistocene Artifacts in Olduvia Gorge, Tanzania. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:228-54. Powell, John Wesley 1895 The Indians Are the Mound Builders. Science 5:267. Powell, J.F 2005 The First Americans: Race, Evolution, and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Prentiss, W. C., and E. J. Romanski 1989 Experimental Evaluation of Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Typology. In Experiments in Lithic Technology, edited by D. S. Amick and R. P. Mauldin, pp. 89-100. BAR International Series 528. Pryor, J.H. 1988 The Effects of Human Trampling Damage on Lithics: A Model of Crucial Variables. Lithic Technology 17:45-50. Purdy, B.A. and H.K. Brooks 1971 Thermal Alteration of Silica Materials: An Archaeological Approach. Science 173:322325. Rasic, Jeffery T. 2004 Debitage Taphonomy. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 112-135. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. 150

Reagan, Michael J., Ralph M. Rowlett, Wakefield Dort Jr. Vaughn M. Bryant and Chris Johannsen 1978 Flake Tools Stratified Below Paleo-Indian Artifacts. Science 200:1272-1275. Rick, J.W and S. Chappell 1983 Thermal Alteration of Silica Materials in Technological and Functional Perspective. Lithic Technology 12:70–80. Root, Mathew J. 2004 Technological Analysis of Flake Debris and the Limitations of Size-Grade Techniques. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 65-94. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. Rowlett, Ralph M., and Michael C. Robbins 1982 Estimating Original Assemblage Content to Adjust for Post-depositional Vertical Artifact Movement. World Archaeology 12:73-83. Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark Brooks, Glen Hanson, and David G. Anderson 1990 Native American History and Prehistory in the Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. Schneider, A. and R. Bonnichsen 2006 Where Are We Going? Public Policy and Science. In Paleoamerican origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by R. Bonnichsen, B. Lepper, D. Stanford, and M. Waters, pp. 297-312. Center for the Study of First Americans, College Station, TX. Shackley, M.L 1978 The Behavior of Artefacts as Sedimentary Particles in a Fluvial Environment. Archaeometry 20:191-207. Shott, Michael J. 2004 Aggregate Methods and the Future of Debris Analysis. In Aggregate Analysis in Chipped Stone, edited by Christopher T. Hall and Mary Lou Larson, pp. 211-228. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. Shott, Michael J. 151

1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:69-110.

Stanford, Dennis, Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, and D. Gentry Steele 2005 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In,Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis, edited by Robson Bonnichsen, Bradley T. Lepper, Dennis Stanford, and Michael R. Waters, pp. 313-354. Center for the Study of First Americans, College Station, TX. Steffy, Kenn and Albert Goodyear 2006 Clovis Macro Blades from the Topper Site, 38AL23, Allendale County, South Carolina. Current Research in the Pleistocene 23:147-149. Sullivan, Alan P and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755-779. Tani, Masakazu 1995 Beyond the Identification of Formation Processes: Behavioral Inference Based on Traces Left by Cultural Formation Processes. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2:231-252 Taylor, R.E 1985 The Beginnings of Radiocarbon Dating in American Antiquity: A Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 50:309-325. Tringham, Ruth, Glenn Cooper, George Odell, Barbara Voytek, Anne Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:171-196. Villa, P. 1982 Conjoinable Pieces and Site Formation Processes. American Antiquity 47(2):276290. Wasilik, Norman 2009 Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Helen Lookingbill Site: Implication for Site Structure and Integrity. Lambert Academic Publishing. Waters, Michael 152

1988 The Impact of Fluvial Processes and Landscape Evolution on Archaeological Sites and Settlement Patterns Along the San Xavier Reach of the Santa Cruz River, Arizona. Geoarchaeology 3(3):205-219. Waters, Michael and T.W. Stafford 2007 Redefining the Age of Clovis: Implications for the Peopling of the Americas. Science 315:1122-1126. Waters, Michael, S. L. Forman, T. W. Stafford, Jr., J. Foss 2009 Geoarchaeological Investigations at the Topper and Big Pine Tree sites, Allendale County, South Carolina. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:13001311. Waters, Michael and D.D. Kuehn 1996 The Geoarchaeology of Place: The Effect of Geological Processes on the and Interpretation of the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 61(3):483497. Waters, Michael, Steven L. Forman, Thomas A. Jennings, Lee C. Nordt, Steven G. Driese, Joshua M. Feinberg, Joshua L. Keene, Jessi Halligan, Anna Lindquist, James Pierson, Charles T. Hallmark, Michael B. Collins, James E. Wiederhold 2011 The Buttermilk Creek Complex and the Origins of Clovis at the Debra L. Friedkin Site, Texas Science 331:1599-1603. Wheat, Amber 2012 Survey of Professional Opinions Regarding the Peopling of the Americas. The Magazine of the Society for American Archaeology 12:10-15. Whittaker, John 1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas, Press. Wormington, H.M 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Denver Museum of Natural History, Popular Series 4. Peerless, Denver. Wright, George Frederick 1889 The Ice Age in North America and its Bearing Upon the Antiquity of Man. New York: D. Appleton. 153

Young, Donald and Douglas B. Bamforth 1990 On the Macroscopic Identification of Used Flakes. American Antiquity 55:403-409.

154

APPENDIX A

155

Table A. Attribute Analysis Data - Bulk samples.

FlakeID (NE 1) 1 (NE 1) 2 (NE 1) 3 (NE 1) 4 (NE 1) 5 (NE 1) 6 (NE 2) 7 (NE 2) 8 (NE 2) 9 (NE 2) 10 (NE 2) 11 (NE 2) 12 (NE 2) 13 (NE 2) 14 (NE 2) 15 (NE 2) 16 (NE 2) 17 (NE 2 18 (NE 2) 19 (NE 2) 20 (NE 2) 21 (NE 2) 22 (NE 2) 23 (NE 2) 24 (NE 2) 25

IDNum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Unit Location PlatWidth FlkLeng N246E136 LT 9.84 16.35 N246E136 LT 5.79 23.63 N246E136 LT 7.86 23.36 N246E136 LT 16.04 N246E136 LT 10.74 14.7 N246E136 LT 5.85 16.54 N246E136 LT 9.93 55.45 N246E136 LT 10.17 44.84 N246E136 LT 4.3 21.8 N246E136 LT 12.37 18.55 N246E136 LT 21.34 N246E136 LT 10.69 23.64 N246E136 LT 7.5 30.3 N246E136 LT 12.13 16.29 N246E136 LT 7.88 24.79 N246E136 LT 9.76 17.89 N246E136 LT 8.3 24.78 N246E136 LT 13.74 21.09 N246E136 LT 28.62 N246E136 LT 3.2 23.87 N246E136 LT 4.48 30.22 N246E136 LT 5.69 18.77 N246E136 LT 2.98 16.89 N246E136 LT 7.79 23.76 N246E136 LT 12.86 28.81

FlkWid 13.48 26.81 21.21 19.78 21.62 17.21 45.65 44.34 20.94 17.81 29.07 36.1 21.79 19.67 15.41 20.45 30.14 23.22 23.17 21.07 23.08 17.21 21.41 18.39 20.32

FlkThick PlatPres ThermAlt BulbPres CortPres 3.15 Yes No Yes Yes 5.13 Yes No No No 5.32 Yes No No Yes 4.08 No No No Yes 3.69 Yes No No Yes 3.99 Yes Yes Yes No 8.31 Yes No Yes No 9.4 Yes No Yes Yes 4.25 Yes No Yes No 3.09 Yes No No No 3.82 No Yes Yes No 4.58 Yes No Yes No 6.43 Yes Yes No Yes 4.5 Yes Yes No No 2.52 Yes No Yes No 4.04 Yes Yes Yes No 8.35 Yes Yes Yes No 5.92 Yes No Yes No 5.12 No No No No 3.12 Yes Yes Yes No 3.03 Yes No No No 2.34 Yes No Yes No 3.39 Yes No Yes No 4.42 Yes No No No 3.89 Yes Yes No No 156

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 03) 26 (NE 03) 27 (NE 03) 28 (NE 03) 29 (NE 03) 30 (NE 03) 31 (NE 03) 32 (NE 03) 33 (NE 03) 34 (NE 03) 35 (NE 03) 36 (NE 03) 37 (NE 03) 38 (NE 03) 39 (NE 03) 40 (NE 03) 41 (NE 03) 42 (NE 03) 43 (NE 03) 44 (NE 03) 45 (NE 03) 46 (NE 03) 47 (NE 03) 48 (NE 03) 49 (NE 03) 50

26

N246E136

LT

2.43

31.8

17.89

2.1

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.87 5.9

24.05 46.18 22.25 17.33 35.67 20.2 18.32 40.05 24.77 22.62 23.51 28.84 20.24 17.81 26.27 20.67 25.41 27.87 17.2 35.84 22.81 27.68 39.16 22.68

22.4 19.45 21.72 19.34 19.01 19.46 19.88 14.04 14.32 20.93 21.13 20.48 22.28 20.73 15.84 22.59 23.44 20.62 22.17 23.74 35.14 22.26 21.27 29.03

4.43 4.52 4.32 2.7 5.47 1.91 3.21 6.46 5.21 4.67 6.55 10.1 2.92 1.33 3.41 6.05 3.94 4.3 8.3 4.67 7.65 6.65 7.86 6.93

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No

No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

9.65 4.7 4.87 4.2 7.82 7.17 5.68 8.41 4.69 7.97 4.36 5.43 12.06 8.04 8.3 12.68 7.25 7.58 9.08 16.83

157

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 03) 51 (NE 03) 52 (NE 03) 53 (NE 03) 54 (NE 03) 55 (NE 03) 56 (NE 03) 57 (NE 03) 58 (NE 03) 59 (NE 03) 60 (NE 03) 61 (NE 03) 62 (NE 03) 63 (NE 03) 64 (NE 03) 65 (NE 03) 66 (NE 03) 67 (NE 03) 68 (NE 03) 69 (NE 03) 70 (NE 03) 71 (NE 03) 72 (NE 03) 73 (NE 03) 74 (NE 03) 75 (NE 03) 76

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.53 7.95 5.89 6.04 13.05 5.94 12.05 10.84 11.66 11.17 6.03 4.45 8.04 14.61 6.1 4.03 6.57 4.19 5.13

5.09 7.57

28.25 22.74 19.02 16.87 22.75 21.27 24.69 21.91 28.47 28.84 28.33 21.19 32.32 36.04 28.47 26.28 26.72 23.78 42.72 26.33 21.47 21.46 23.42 25.63 19.7 21.7

14.31 27.42 20.15 17.89 27.99 22.96 22.45 18.34 25.56 29.91 23.67 22.01 21.32 34.35 35.81 20.44 20.69 17.26 57.26 15.3 24.97 32.1 15.16 19.07 14.15 20.01

2.64 6.51 4.1 3.86 5.93 4.1 2.89 3.04 3.47 5.63 5.13 5.38 6.3 6.98 5.14 4.03 5.07 2.89 18.56 4.01 3.66 7.88 3.32 4.08 3.63 5.73

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No

No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No 158

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 03) 77 (NE 03) 78 (NE 03) 79 (NE 03) 80 (NE 03) 81 (NE 03) 82 (NE 03) 83 (NE 03)84 (NE 03) 85 (NE 03) 86 (NE 03) 87 (NE 03) 88 (NE 03) 89 (NE 03) 90 (NE 03) 91 (NE 03) 92 (NE 03) 93 (NE 03) 94 (NE 03) 95 (NE 03) 96 (NE 03) 97 (NE 03) 98 (NE 03) 99 (NE 03)100 (NE03)101

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

14.03 3.77 2.54 4.87 6.34 5.54 5.39 13.57 4.78 10.37 8.91 6.27 6.52 8.7 12.89

7.2 10.66 10.23 12.97

27.15 20.92 26.52 32.63 18.24 28.85 27.14 24.45 29.45 20.91 34.15 22.79 19.92 20.29 24.66 24.79 25.86 21.56 25.82 14.19 21.02 23.57 17.06

20.98 16.36 19.22 26.8 19.41 23.84 20.52 28.25 19.96 24.38 21 24.54 32.57 19.22 29.22 17.06 21.62 18.27 15.2 22.55 23.78 18.44 24.56

5.09 4.43 3.2 2.89 3.34 3.79 3.68 7.98 4.14 3.4 6.18 5.36 7.86 4.48 4.53 2.93 3.64 3 2.92 3.74 4.47 4.35 5.43

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No

100 101

N246E136 N246E136

LT LT

7.3 5.11

25.08 24.45

21.37 29.65

4.2 2.82

Yes Yes

Yes No

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

5.25

159

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE03)102 (NE03)103 (NE03)104 (NE03)105 (NE03)106 (NE03)107 (NE03)108 (NE03)109 (NE03)110 (NE03)111 (NE03)112 (NE03)113 (NE03)114 (NE03)115 (NE03)116 (NE03)117 (NE03)118 (NE03)119 (NE03)120 (NE03)121 (NE03)122 (NE03)123 (NE03)124 (NE03)125 (NE03)126 (NE03)127

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.43 4.13 5.65 5.69 5.46 4 7.66 11.66 12.24 15.38 6.61

5.97 7.37 7.43 4.65 6.76 4.41 4.71 5.96 7.85 6.97 15.66 11.37

19.6 17.78 15.76 23.75 13.77 16.42 23.69 19.02 17.65 19.04 26.29 24.96 27.8 19.31 15.36 19.1 17.24 18.65 26.21 16.86 24.24 19.95 20.47 13.9 20.05 27.37

34.38 20.82 26.29 13.3 18.97 16.48 16.5 19.95 23.38 15.89 25.05 19.23 22.93 14.79 21.93 13.32 16.09 15.76 31.83 16.42 20.02 24.78 16.15 21.91 15.66 18.76

4.38 4.52 4.25 3.54 2.44 2.54 5.04 2.85 3.31 4.52 9.81 2.81 2.2 2.11 4.01 3.56 3.63 2.92 4.95 2.02 4.6 3.45 2.77 2.83 6.1 3.78

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No

No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 160

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE03)128 (NE03)129 (NE03)130 (NE03)131 (NE03)132 (NE03)133 (NE03)134 (NE03)135

128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.1 11.3 2.83 3.88 4.84 4.5 4.18

29.24 23.59 19.76 17.74 16.89 27 23.47 25.81

16.41 15.87 19.4 21.11 16.65 15.69 14.83 17.09

3.61 3.83 2.34 1.32 3.14 1.74 3.04 3.53

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes No No No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

(NE 03)136

136

N246E136

LT

7.87

21.93

18.85

2.63

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(NE 03)137

137

N246E136

LT

6.78

18.81

17.66

2.51

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

(NE 03)138

138

N246E136

LT

8.61

13.13

16.17

2.5

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

(NE 4)139 (NE 4)140 (NE 4)141 (NE 4)142 (NE 4)143 (NE 4)144 (NE 4)145 (NE 4)146 (NE 4)147 (NE 4)148 (NE 4)149 (NE 4)150 (NE 4)151 (NE 4)152 (NE 4)153

139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

11.76 4.23 6.31 13 3.55 7.04 7.43 7.74 7.46 4.33 8.16 9.78 9.09 6.16

26.77 19.79 33.6 44.24 26.54 24.31 26.25 35.95 34.19 24.15 23.82 36.1 44.9 26.26 35.31

24.64 28.49 37.05 19.93 34.7 35.38 33.34 40.55 34.77 28.39 23.03 16.67 21.33 36.67 20.6

6.51 5.29 4.89 5.22 7.97 3.83 6.68 7.6 8.66 4.96 2.78 8.2 6.3 5.57 5.18

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No 161

Table A. 1 – Continued.

(NE 4)154 (NE 4)155 (NE 4)156 (NE 4)157 (NE 4)158 (NE 4)159 (NE 4)160 (NE 4)161 (NE 4)162 (NE 4)163 (NE 4)164 (NE 4)165 (NE 4)166 (NE 4)167 (NE 4)168 (NE 4)169 (NE 4)170 (NE 4)171 (NE 4)172 (NE 4)173 (NE 4)174 (NE 4)175 (NE 4)176 (NE 4)177 (NE 4)178 (NE 4)179

154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.58 10.17 6.44 10.47 6.45 4.62 10.5 4.51 4.32 7.38 1.95 7.84 8.17 7.99 16.17 10.94 10.91 7.76 4.92 6.66 12.92 7.91 4.32

29.4 34.65 35.66 31.29 28.05 25.5 33.71 26.56 31.69 46.87 33.36 27.36 29.34 22.1 20.15 31.65 25.4 27.57 35.22 25.15 30.88 25.51 48.68 27.53 21.59 24.52

22.92 24.85 30.59 39.35 28.93 18.55 19.2 27.29 24.57 26.36 19.45 23.34 15.33 22.88 16.66 18.9 22.99 22.61 28.25 16.36 32.07 19.91 23.29 26.39 26.44 28.19

4.56 6.56 5.73 2.8 6.94 3.94 2.91 6.33 6.27 8.45 3.19 6.63 3.05 4.7 3.92 6.65 4.31 4.43 4.96 4.29 6.59 3.78 10.25 5.41 2.78 2.87

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No 162

Table A. 1 – Continued.

(NE 4)180 (NE 4)181 (NE 4)182 (NE 4)183 (NE 4)184 (NE 4)185 (NE 4)186 (NE 4)187 (NE 4)188 (NE 4)189 (NE 4)190 (NE 4)191 (NE 4)192 (NE 4)193 (NE 4)194 (NE 4)195 (NE 4)196 (NE 4)197 (NE 4)198 (NE 4)199 (NE 4)200 (NE 4)201 (NE 4)202 (NE 4)203 (NE 4)204 (NE 4)205

180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.06 3.45 4.8 6.58 8.02 6.5 9.06 4.63 7.76 8.66 6.47 7.7 9.33 7.1 5.57 11.11

7.81 3.24 5.62 5.89 10.84 1038 9.35

24.73 25.01 39.28 34.95 28.72 32.74 27.08 29.73 30.91 27.28 33.84 34.52 26.24 30.88 32.51 19.94 19.88 25.6 30.22 2.57 48.48 22.23 19.25 27.38 34.32 34.9

17.9 38.01 25.92 35.24 24.31 28.54 27.49 15.65 19.44 30.76 28.16 22.24 19.51 27.11 18.71 24.21 21.41 22.2 22.27 23.35 22.69 26.48 25.56 20.05 22.83 15.6

3.46 5.37 4 7.43 4.89 5.86 2.89 2.49 3.52 4.84 4.23 5.01 3.31 5.18 4.54 5.93 2.79 5.9 3.44 2.21 5.34 3.39 4.06 7.88 5.45 3.98

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No 163

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 4)206 (NE 4)207 (NE 4)208 (NE 4)209 (NE 4)210 (NE 4)211 (NE 4)212 (NE 4)213 (NE 4)214 (NE 4)215 (NE 4)216 (NE 4)217 (NE 4)218 (NE 4)219 (NE 4)220 (NE 4)221 (NE 4)222 (NE 4)223 (NE 4)224 (NE 4)225 (NE 4)226 (NE 4)227 (NE 4)228 (NE 4)229 (NE 4)230 (NE 4)231

206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

15.58 5.82 7.99 9.05 5.3 8.61 7.77 5.33 11.33 6.88 5.68 9.51 5.17 9.37 15.5 8.52 4.76 3.83 5.73

28.08 21.35 27.08 29.07 26.29 41.1 41.58 31.43 19.79 24.66 29.41 20.03 19.12 36.64 21.32 15.02 24.52 25.8 22.83 22.65 18.41 30.12 19.95 24.3 17.2 23.51

25.91 17.34 18.4 33.89 15.91 23.03 14.11 20.75 16.32 24.55 23.63 19.22 25.79 14.27 23.22 16.13 15.43 17.72 16.37 13.84 18.15 19.39 16.8 20.18 20.74 16.55

4.87 2.63 4.11 4.33 3.32 4.51 3.25 3 4.32 3.62 3.64 4.42 4.23 4.1 4.5 4.01 2.31 5.79 5.4 3.77 2.29 3.47 3.45 2.6 4.27 2.92

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No 164

Table A. 1 – Continued.

(NE 4)232 (NE 4)233 (NE 4)234 (NE 4)235 (NE 4)236 (NE 4)237 (NE 4)238 (NE 4)239 (NE 4)240 (NE 4)241 (NE 4)242 (NE 4)243 (NE 4)244 (NE 4)245 (NE 4)246 (NE 4)247 (NE 4)248 (NE 4)249 (NE 4)250 (NE 4)251 (NE 4)252 (NE 4)253 (NE 4)254 (NE 5)255 (NE 5)256 (NE 5)257

232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.76 7.92 8.41 5.22 8.51 3.99 4.6 5.92 4.78 8.55 1.96 5.59 5.39 4.34 5.68 5.47 9.26 5.07 4.75 2.85 10.45 4.57 6.04 7.81 5.87

20.15 23.49 16.31 30.25 18.73 28.54 22.47 20.92 15.63 21.1 23.56 21.5 20.98 17.43 23.24 22.84 19.89 16.12 17 16.25 26.48 19.68 23.99 57.35 36.46 32.27

17.15 21.31 17.7 18.13 15.87 15.68 15.25 22.81 22.18 19.45 20.26 18.97 18.15 13.85 23.56 22.11 26.91 26.39 16.35 16.69 17.18 15.39 19.83 23.87 30.13 15.08

3.5 4.13 3.97 3.67 2.46 4.15 2.85 3.78 2.2 4.9 2.5 2.99 3.16 2.76 3.36 2.67 4.29 3.66 2.58 2.56 4.23 2.6 1.82 10.1 6.31 2.95

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No 165

Table A. 1 – Continued.

(NE 5)258 (NE 5)259 (NE 5)260 (NE 5)261 (NE 5)262 (NE 5)263 (NE 5)264 (NE 5)265 (NE 5)266 (NE 5)267 (NE 5)268 (NE 5)269 (NE 5)270 (NE 5)271 (NE 5)272 (NE 5) 273 (NE 5)274 (NE 5)275 (NE 5)276 (NE 5)277 (NE 5)278 (NE 5)279 (NE 5)280 (NE 5)281 (NE 5)282 (NE 5)283

258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

10.32 10.57 8.17 12.28 12.78 29.51 8.03 6.72 6.11 6.36 4.54 10.88 8.91 4.88 12.55 8.96 6.19 27.55 8.86 4.6 5.07 6.04 9.52 9.43 15.07

34.52 43.11 26.79 35 38.35 33.43 27.05 42.1 35 34.65 32.8 40.22 69.72 43.04 36.61 54.29 39.66 28.3 59.28 52.79 44.11 28.24 33.83 35.35 41.18 27.93

34.27 37.26 27.84 29.23 37.91 29.57 32.68 25.07 41.05 21.365 42.93 36.69 64.58 20.05 35.35 49.34 52.32 38.89 58.34 43.02 25.65 21.93 30.63 39.43 38.97 30.49

4.66 8.03 6.3 5.46 11.2 4.08 8.67 9.01 10.93 4.94 6.17 7.08 23.38 6.15 4.32 11.34 7.25 8.69 10.56 8.35 6.55 5.39 3.97 11.57 6.97 9.46

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes 166

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)284 (NE 5)285 (NE 5)286 (NE 5)287 (NE 5)288 (NE 5)289 (NE 5)290 (NE 5)291 (NE 5)292 (NE 5)293 (NE 5)294 (NE 5)295 (NE 5)296 (NE 5)297 (NE 5)298 (NE 5)299 (NE 5)300 (NE 5)301 (NE 5)302 (NE 5)303 (NE 5)304 (NE 5)305 (NE 5)306 (NE 5)307 (NE 5)308 (NE 5)309

284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

27.36 18.56 8.9 33.66 8.14 10.76 9.3 4.59 13.85 8.66 15.46 12.23 11.39 6.39 21.88 11.48 18.52 9.68 8.29 16.88 8.81 9.54 8.64 8.74

39.66 56.32 53.34 43.71 47.96 42.22 26.52 31.26 31.26 31.51 27 47.14 36.14 29.55 43.27 31.88 39.75 36.33 35.14 37.06 42.51 34.9 29.54 34.15 43.95 40.49

23.75 53.3 58.11 40.95 58.11 40.95 34.24 21.05 31.82 39.71 42.55 35.73 21.82 23.99 23.03 22.37 30.36 36.57 39.5 34.22 33.74 29.05 30.54 26.44 19.75 17.95

4.95 10.71 13.72 8.7 12.72 7.8 7.95 5.81 12.71 6.44 9.26 4.92 4.45 4.43 4.44 9.37 7.34 6.64 9.48 5.59 4.49 7.56 6.11 4.22 5.17 4.36

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 167

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)310 (NE 5)311 (NE 5)312 (NE 5)313 (NE 5)314 (NE 5)315 (NE 5)316 (NE 5)317 (NE 5)318 (NE 5)319 (NE 5)320 (NE 5)321 (NE 5)322 (NE 5)323 (NE 5)324 (NE 5)325 (NE 5)326 (NE 5)327 (NE 5)328 (NE 5)329 (NE 5)330 (NE 5)331 (NE 5)332 (NE 5)333 (NE 5)334 (NE 5)335

310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.44 7.45 13.75 14.7 7.5 8.55 17.33 40.89 12.46 16.91 12.74 11.16 5.89 9.12 11.05 6.59 7.34 7.07 5.46 9.84 15.91 8.54 5.45 4.25 19.75 9.48

33.9 34.32 29.42 37.34 35.18 47.15 36.52 32.91 39.93 38.23 39.45 30.68 33.33 21.63 35.39 33.28 32.05 21.28 41.49 31.34 46.96 30.73 34.8 31.2 42.19 38.49

19.48 36.13 43.76 22.87 33.47 23.91 42.38 66.68 36.98 29.71 43.99 38.14 39.86 32.63 29.65 31.89 20.48 22.48 19.95 37.71 42.92 32.41 27.24 28.47 32.13 35.08

6.15 10.95 7.61 6.86 7.04 6.75 9.35 20.32 5.59 6.13 11.28 9.4 4.16 7.6 6.77 5.68 3.61 2.42 3.16 9.75 9.02 8.11 5.08 4.13 5.96 6.45

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No

No No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No 168

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)336 (NE 5)337 (NE 5)338 (NE 5)339 (NE 5)340 (NE 5)341 (NE 5)342 (NE 5)343 (NE 5)344 (NE 5)345 (NE 5)346 (NE 5)347 (NE 5)348 (NE 5)349 (NE 5)350 (NE 5)351 (NE 5)352 (NE 5)353 (NE 5)354 (NE 5)355 (NE 5)356 (NE 5)357 (NE 5)358 (NE 5)359 (NE 5)360 (NE 5)361

336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

11.02 8.09 10.22 6.34 8.2 7.66 16.53 8.4 5.55 7.08 9.92 6.87 14.91 15.67 7.32 7.57 7.07 9.22 6.88 15.75 10.85 9.24 5.79 5.32 8.7 13.52

37.76 47.64 33.36 38.28 31.61 41 32.47 33.18 30.37 37.42 33.35 28.51 37.08 32.37 28.46 30.73 32.29 26.41 27.61 38.46 31.84 26.46 28.01 30.88 30.45 15.21

41.66 14.12 24.89 23.57 21.83 2306 36.34 30.93 26 20.8 27.71 21.63 22.06 2.36 1.06 19.39 2.37 26.75 0.07 24.22 8.99 5.28 9.09 3.2 2.52 2.48

4.7 4.55 6.34 5.74 5.62 5.14 7.51 5.36 3.06 5.91 6.38 5.14 8.26 5.7 3.78 5.57 6.84 4.67 4.83 4.25 4.68 4.14 4.26 5.44 4.12 5.03

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No 169

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)362 (NE 5)363 (NE 5)364 (NE 5)365 (NE 5)366 (NE 5)367 (NE 5)368 (NE 5)369 (NE 5)370 (NE 5)371 (NE 5)372 (NE 5)373 (NE 5)374 (NE 5)375 (NE 5)376 (NE 5)377 (NE 5)378 (NE 5)379 (NE 5)380 (NE 5)381 (NE 5)382 (NE 5)383 (NE 5)384 (NE 5)385 (NE 5)386 (NE 5)387

362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

5.8 6.82 20.72 13.03 13.12 8.01 13.2 9.37 8.69 14.41 11.59 6.74 9.69 7.21 6.62 9.11 6.11 9.14 9.2 8.83 10.72 9.05 8.65 6.35 12.03

34.86 27.35 19.79 21.12 30.05 28.3 33.74 23.71 22 27.73 35.28 28.6 28.02 27.72 26.35 26.39 16.62 32.62 22.02 18.82 25.12 28.87 29.61 22.25 19.83 17.19

1 17.76 9.76 0.46 8.47 1.15 0.61 31.74 20.17 32 34.96 33.45 16.35 26.89 19.58 23.54 27.66 25.36 21.65 14.98 18.26 17.95 23.7 22.33 39.03 22.87

3.95 5.06 3.17 7.24 6.83 0.1 6.1 0.33 5.4 8.27 5.32 4.07 0.12 4.55 4.22 7 4.66 3.6 2.94 3.11 3.98 5.08 5.78 2.64 6.62 3.91

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No 170

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)388 (NE 5)389 (NE 5) 390 (NE 5)391 (NE 5)392 (NE 5)393 (NE 5)394 (NE 5)395 (NE 5)396 (NE 5)397 (NE 5)398 (NE 5)399 (NE 5)400 (NE 5)401 (NE 5)402 (NE 5)403 (NE 5)404 (NE 5)405 (NE 5)406 (NE 5)407 (NE 5)408 (NE 5)409 (NE 5)410 (NE 5)411 (NE 5)412 (NE 5)413

388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.31 8.84 4.2 5.46 13.55 3.61 9.23 4.29 11.7 5.3 12.69 3.85 6.62 5.3 16.69 6.16 6.61 7.58 10.59 5.12 4.69 14.28 3.2 4.27 5.09

23.73 36.92 25.61 25.91 30.75 24.66 18.72 25.47 26.34 16.49 22.16 34.51 15.8 25.88 22.27 19.38 28.1 26.96 23.79 27.93 21.41 26.59 23.5 17.65 29.46 27.15

18 16.68 27.98 24.04 23.85 18.1 17.76 23.84 25.94 18.52 22.52 22.34 17.95 27.15 18.49 23.53 20.25 17.28 18.79 17.5 33.31 16.72 21.15 15.19 17.72 23.06

3.06 3.07 3.37 5.46 4.28 4.23 5.35 4.79 2.53 3.98 4.43 4.78 3.23 3.73 2.38 4.67 3.27 2.19 3.05 3.46 4.83 2.81 3.01 3.23 3.71 2.69

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No 171

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 5)414 (NE 5)415 (NE 5)416 (NE 5)417 (NE 5)418 (NE 5)419 (NE 5)420 (NE 5)421 (NE 5)422 (NE 5)423 (NE 5)424 (NE 5)425 (NE 5)426 (NE 5)427 (NE 5)428 (NE 5)429 (NE 5)430 (NE 5)431 (NE 5)432 (NE 5)433 (NE 5)434 (NE 5)435 (NE 5)436 (NE 6)437 (NE 6)438 (NE 6)439

414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

10.96 5.25

8.56 6.59 15.5 11.34 7.04 7.11 8.86 6.11 4.83 2.98 5.34 7.86 5.56 8.65 8.93 4.85 6.65 5.69 7.21 6.25 24.84

33.7 25.28 26 23.6 24.09 26.13 22.5 34.96 22.48 18.98 28.11 19.18 17.22 16.59 22.97 27.8 24.77 24.08 26.62 23.99 24.18 17.92 26.67 41.33 36.71 55.85

29.19 15.43 21.71 23.73 18.17 20.51 15.66 26.71 15.58 24.58 26.9 19.08 19.98 17.39 16.74 27.61 15.26 20.77 17.36 20.33 20.83 24.11 18.96 30.25 37.06 28.4

2.92 4.5 4.66 2.56 4.75 5.02 2.85 7.69 3.05 3.03 2.98 4.78 3.35 2.23 2.79 2.74 4.19 3.92 3.3 5.79 5 5.58 2.6 8.64 8.71 13.39

No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes

No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No 172

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 6)440 (NE 6)441 (NE 6)442 (NE 6)443 (NE 6)444 (NE 6)445 (NE 6)446 (NE 6)447 (NE 6)448 (NE 6)449 (NE 6)450 (NE 6)451 (NE 6)452 (NE 6)453 (NE 6)454 (NE 6)455 (NE 6)456 (NE 6)457 (NE 6)458 (NE 6)459 (NE 6)460 (NE 6)461 (NE 6)462 (NE 6)463 (NE 6)464 (NE 6)465

440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

5.99 7.4 6.01 11.13 5.16 8.27 7.28 9.36 6.44 11.21 12.08 10.8 8.02 4.18 8.1 12.05 11.63 10.32 6.61 9.68 18.75 7.63 11.23 9.07

39.43 31.07 28.75 25.63 35.12 31.05 37.06 35.81 40.49 29.95 22.66 34.82 49.87 31.27 28.43 33.28 55.44 39.98 32.84 29.92 32.43 35.53 35.56 31.51 34.51 32.86

25.28 29.66 26.68 44.15 36.97 27.78 29.49 27.68 22.49 24.7 28.55 22.09 31.93 26.68 31.53 27.69 33.54 32.07 73.75 38.75 22.68 15.85 37.91 21.87 36 31.37

7 5.13 3.43 5.64 12.95 4.53 7.58 5.36 6.73 4.6 5.07 3.57 11.94 3.54 6.09 6.88 8.12 10.92 11.66 6.61 4.75 7.06 6.79 5.31 7.19 5.46

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No

No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No 173

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 6)466 (NE 6)467 (NE 6)468 (NE 6)469 (NE 6)470 (NE 6)471 (NE 6)472 (NE 6)473 (NE 6)474 (NE 6)475 (NE 6)476 (NE 6)477 (NE 6)478 (NE 6)479 (NE 6)480 (NE 6)481 (NE 6)482 (NE 6)483 (NE 6)484 (NE 6)485 (NE 6)486 (NE 6)487 (NE 6)488 (NE 6)489 (NE 6)490 (NE 6)491

466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.94 14.96 5.27 10.72 12.77 10.17 5.57 6.46 4.92 5.36 6.92 4.49 11.02 7.12 9.11 7.98 13.08 9.02 5.92 5.9 10.3 14.73

30.93 44.25 34.56 33.44 35.87 43.74 35.55 39.93 34.8 38.04 27.06 24.54 28.42 24.63 37.21 35.13 35.97 25.03 37.05 34.47 38.22 32.66 17.67 28.56 35.39 31.85

26.08 23.63 26.94 22.55 55.07 22.6 20.79 24.19 19.55 18.18 23.43 27.16 33.97 20.88 23.3 25.8 27.9 40.6 25.25 15.51 24.07 20.52 31.11 18.37 17.91 30.55

5.89 8.36 5.28 6.78 10.25 6.56 4.47 4.48 5.69 4.42 5.88 4.25 6.7 4.44 4.18 7.07 4.44 9.1 8.61 4.49 4.99 4.4 4.98 3.74 6.24 4.95

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No 174

Table A. 1 - Continued

(NE 6)492 (NE 6)493 (NE 6)494 (NE 6)495 (NE 6)496 (NE 6)497 (NE 6)498 (NE 6)499 (NE 6)500 (NE 6)501 (NE 6)502 (NE 6)503 (NE 6)504 (NE 6)505 (NE 6)506 (NE 6)507 (NE 6)508 (NE 6)509 (NE 6)510 (NE 6)511 (NE 6)512 (NE 6)513 (NE 6)514 (NE 6)515 (NE 6)516 (NE 6)517

492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

11.81 9.3 5.69 7.15 5.27 13.43 9.09 9.11 16.31 7.35 6.06 10.11 12.52 7.89 4.49 16.25 7.35 8.37 5.73 9.57 6.49 4.21 6.29

25.5 31.6 42.2 34.57 20.09 30.43 22.79 34.89 26.08 31.92 28.34 27.73 24.46 29.14 54.05 24.62 21.18 37.97 28.31 31.83 33.39 28.77 30.48 19.17 25.89 21.46

29.75 31.88 21.84 17.36 32.68 27.54 24.46 24.9 20.14 29.06 18.94 23.76 30.49 33.48 19.9 30.66 30.84 20.66 20.75 22.28 24.51 18.89 18.97 30.49 20.96 22.44

8.78 6.3 3.38 3.19 3.36 6.05 5.18 5.05 4.89 5.35 3.74 4.22 7.43 5.39 5.85 5.29 4.66 4.54 5.17 4.78 4.35 4.6 4.93 5.53 6.76 4.83

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No 175

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 6)518 (NE 6)519 (NE 6)520 (NE 6)521 (NE 6)522 (NE 6)523 (NE 6)524 (NE 6)525 (NE 6)526 (NE 6)527 (NE 6)528 (NE 6)529 (NE 6)530 (NE 6)531 (NE 6)532 (NE 6)533 (NE 6)534 (NE 6)535 (NE 6)536 (NE 6)537 (NE 6)538 (NE 6)539 (NE 6)540 (NE 6)541 (NE 6)542 (NE 6)543

518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

10.08 4.75 8.64 5.26 8.04 10.88 9.43 11.31 9.13 8.31 6.75 6.62 7.62 5.07 5.3 8.06 5.48 7.25 7.47 6.06 12.09 5.55 13.34 9.52 6.81

26.93 21.45 21.31 26.06 29.65 28.7 27.34 27.67 18.29 31.52 20.91 23.16 17.66 30.2 19.31 21.65 23.94 26.77 23.14 23.28 24.94 21.01 25.64 23.31 34.46 26.97

27.42 26.53 29.78 27.13 38.55 25.08 28.94 17.64 27.98 19.93 18.4 23.95 29.95 21.44 23.82 24.94 23.51 20.32 20.25 15.05 18.87 20 19.79 22.65 15.66 22.87

4.77 7.46 4.35 3.68 5.65 6.41 5.5 4.51 4.12 3.74 3.81 3.6 6.51 3.21 4.58 3.02 5.46 6.56 4.11 4.66 4.31 4.13 4.74 5.02 3.57 6.09

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes 176

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 6)544 (NE 6)545 (NE 6)546 (NE 6)547 (NE 6)548 (NE 6)549 (NE 6)550 (NE 6)551 (NE 6)552 (NE 6)553 (NE 6)554 (NE 6)555 (NE 6)556 (NE 6)557 (NE 6)558 (NE 6)559 (NE 6)560 (NE 6)561 (NE 6)562 (NE 6)563 (NE 6)564 (NE 6)565 (NE 6)566 (NE 6)567 (NE 6)568 (NE 6)569

544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.39 13.03 10.18 11.77 6.8 6.38 6.31 5.29 4.83 7.45 8.15 6.88 7.58 9.36 10.05 13.5 15.23 13.63 6.07 6.77 6.87 11.71 8.91 4.02 7.69 5.96

25.8 19.49 31.82 30.35 23.97 28.22 24.25 21.96 20.33 18.36 22.67 21.7 22.54 13.86 26.13 31.38 32.61 15.14 17.54 24.24 20.7 20.14 20.83 23.78 25.16 13.91

24.17 23.33 17.69 24.89 26.39 26 18.46 18.24 21.96 25.69 28.26 18.24 17.36 18.17 22.75 20.23 28.35 17.56 26.35 26.4 23.57 15.59 16.95 20.85 24.1 20.23

3.01 3.22 5.58 3.42 2.52 4.82 2.2 3.36 2.79 3.88 7.24 4.05 2.75 3.65 3.91 4.84 5.11 3.82 4.97 3.91 3.04 4.47 4.62 3.01 3.51 2.47

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No 177

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 6)570 (NE 6)571 (NE 6)572 (NE 6)573 (NE 6)574 (NE 6)575 (NE 6)576 (NE 6)577 (NE 6)578 (NE 6)579 (NE 6)580 (NE 6)581 (NE 6)582 (NE 6)583 (NE 6)584 (NE 6)585 (NE 6)586 (NE 6)587 (NE 6)588 (NE 6)589 (NE 6)590 (NE 6)591 (NE 6)592 (NE 6)593 (NE 6)594 (NE 6)595

570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.14 12.28 5.81 8.04 6.2 8.35 9.42 3.36 5.68 5.01 7.15 3.49 8.61 3.56 8.37 4.2 8.01 3.86 6.04 7.09 5.95 9.32 7.92

19.27 21.81 25.62 61.95 17.08 36.72 42.58 22.56 22.45 25.53 15.98 22.74 22.66 31.17 18.8 21.31 27.72 20.89 19.5 14.43 23.02 22.94 23.28 18.26 24.18 18.84

20.69 19.17 13.95 24.43 19.55 20.54 25.54 24.84 19.69 26.78 17.97 18.16 30.25 19.45 19.09 17.57 15.54 17.94 22.98 16.96 20.04 20.89 18.12 29.83 19.75 23.88

4.75 4.33 3.86 4.24 5.38 9.69 3.91 2.89 6.53 3.06 2.47 4.2 7.74 4.64 3.21 3.78 3.08 7.51 3.3 1.4 4.71 3.52 4.24 7.45 3.68 3.9

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No 178

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 6)596 (NE 6)597 (NE 6)598 (NE 6)599 (NE 6)600 (NE 6)601 (NE 6)602 (NE 6)603 (NE 6)604 (NE 6)605 (NE 6)606 (NE 6)607 (NE 6)608 (NE 6)609 (NE 6)610 (NE 6)611 (NE 6)612 (NE 6)613 (NE 6)614 (NE 6)615 (NE 6)616 (NE 6)617 (NE 6)618 (NE 6)619 (NE 6)620 (NE 6)621

596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

3.58 3.64 4.52 5.2 16.66 5.11 7.36 2.9 6.48 6.56 10.55 11.16 9.2 8.15 10.46 10.47 6.59 9.17 7.27 6.97 6.45 4.74 6.9 7.43 2.66 9.96

16.61 23.96 17.44 19.67 13.97 31.21 26.34 18.79 16.57 15.32 24.62 23.6 20.06 20 30.63 14.65 12.32 17.24 21.79 13.28 23.35 26.99 21.7 16.67 19.26 24.22

19.3 17.94 15.93 18.03 21.64 17.2 15.62 21.62 17.26 17.64 22.07 16.27 19.58 20.75 16 17.9 22.56 19.46 20.36 17.16 15.57 20 21.47 16.36 20.1 15.18

6.27 4.76 3.5 3.29 4.33 3.83 3.56 4.95 2.13 3.35 6.37 4.65 2.77 4.47 3.27 4.43 8.51 4.53 2.9 3.13 1.85 3.28 3.36 4.29 3.15 3.06

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No

No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No 179

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 6)622 (NE 6)623 (NE 6)624 (NE 6)625 (NE 6)626 (NE 6)627 (NE 6)628 (NE 6)629 (NE 6)630 (NE 7)631 (NE 7)632 (NE 7)633 (NE 7)634 (NE 7)635 (NE 7)636 (NE 7)637 (NE 7)638 (NE 7)639 (NE 7)640 (NE 7)641 (NE 7)642 (NE 7)643 (NE 7)644 (NE 7)645 (NE 7)646 (NE 7)647

622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.84 9.17 7.34 7.79 8.81 5.31 9.4 5.49 10.83 10.13 5.38 7.86 8.45 5.15 5.05 10.34 10.67 10.62 8.43 6.47 8.87 4.23 8.5

17.66 12.58 20.51 21.11 26.33 19.66 20.98 22.81 15.39 27.07 26.15 22.22 48.12 23.87 32.5 34.19 27.5 18.2 20.16 18.68 23.35 23.91 26.54 35.67 24.44 22.97

23.15 17.01 14.63 19.23 18.57 22.75 21.85 23.91 22.7 14.98 36.21 15.74 19.26 33.62 25.34 17.22 17.35 33.37 26.92 18.54 24.7 17.22 18.89 20.85 16.44 22.93

4.16 4.5 4.07 2.73 4.02 3.59 2.49 3.16 2.55 2.91 7.12 3.86 4.92 6 9.03 5.68 3.97 5.26 2.95 4.61 2.9 3.27 3.19 4.86 5.12 5.7

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No 180

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 7)648 (NE 7)649 (NE 7)650 (NE 7)651 (NE 7)652 (NE 7)653 (NE 7)654 (NE 7)655 (NE 7)656 (NE 7)657 (NE 7)658 (NE 7)659 (NE 7)660 (NE 7)661 (NE 7)662 (NE 7)663 (NE 7)664 (NE 7)665 (NE 7)666 (NE 7)667 (NE 7)668 (NE 7)669 (NE 7)670 (NE 7)671 (NE 7)672 (NE 7)673

648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.98 8.27 7.25 9.3 5.44 4.11 5.02 6.63 3.8 7.21 11.06 7.79 6.34 4.9 63.8 9.29 15.2 13.13 8.55 9.75 11.83 4.54 4.25

22.54 24.92 29.25 21.68 31.71 21.84 21.21 19.7 25.63 27.43 17.47 19.74 14.78 28 18.37 23.09 13.58 17.25 18 17.87 19.08 16.38 16.96 24.01 17.85 15.25

15.22 19.74 23.52 24.35 25.33 15.52 22.87 24.57 18.32 14.45 18.44 17.29 19.89 16.37 15.53 15.4 13.67 21.88 16.19 15.15 16.54 21.64 19.81 14.19 15.59 21.53

3.37 3.74 5.31 3.64 4.05 3.28 4.56 2.81 3.61 2.6 2.16 2.93 4.44 2.91 3.15 3.43 3.55 2.13 4.65 2.8 1.89 2.13 3.26 3.37 2.13 3.11

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No

No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No 181

Table A.1 - Continued

(NE 7)674 (NE 7)675 (NE8)676 (NE8)677 (NE8)678 (NE8)679 (NE8)680 (NE8)681 (NE8)682 (NE8)683 (NE8)684 (NE8)685 (NE8)686 (NE8)687 (NE8)688 (NE8)689 (NE 9) 690 (NE 9) 691 (NE 9) 692 (NE10 693 (NE 20) 1 (NE 21) 2 NW 1 694 NW 1 695 NW 1 696 NW 1 697

674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 1 2 1 2 3 4

N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT PS PS LT LT LT LT

6.77 29.67 5.96 8.21 9.66 13.49 10.47 6.58 11.87 1.95 15.01 4.73 3.19 3.02 6.42 13.33 5.65 14.07 9.96 7.16 3.79 14.44 11.37

18.19 13.64 51.2 29.85 23.71 24.14 17.39 16 29.28 22.93 28.23 19.02 19.09 25.12 16.67 3.02 31.08 38.97 43.38 20.57 22.31 31.74 39.29 20.09 18.58 28.5

18.89 22.41 43.04 25.08 20.52 21.17 18.31 17.88 24.85 18.71 17.51 17.61 14.94 21.92 15.02 15.9 19.95 58.12 54.02 24.21 27.09 22.13 28.81 15.03 17.88 23.74

3.32 3.02 16.42 7.09 5.89 6.39 5.09 3.69 5.69 6.11 4.61 3.75 2.9 4.55 2.2 2.19 4.09 10.76 9.51 4.8 10.84 5.66 8.47 1.93 4.18 5

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No a No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes

No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No 182

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 1 698 NW 10 1297 NW 10 1298 NW 10 1299 NW 10 1300 NW 11 1301 NW 11 1302 NW 11 1303 NW 12 1304 NW 12 1305 NW 13 1306 NW 13 1307 NW 14 1308 NW 14 1309 NW 14 1310 NW 14 1311

NW 2 699 NW 2 700 NW 2 701 NW 2 702 NW 2 703 NW 2 704 NW 2 705 NW 2 706 NW 2 707 NW 2 708

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.69 18.61 6.45 7.21 8.87 8.95 3.1 6.55 4.91 7.76 8.51 10.1 4.16 5.54 6.76 8.08 5.83 12.78 12.95 8.93 4.1 11.64

21.96 75.9 24.17 29.36 18.44 39.85 22.36 24.89 16.32 14.63 24.39 26.69 15.21 20.56 18.61 12.92 30.52 33.09 38.83 17.98 23.71 33.84 20.26 32.79 29.42 21.57

16.89 27.84 17 25.59 11.71 47.11 19.7 15.52 20.11 14.3 23.91 18.61 14.28 15 19.04 11.01 19.19 18.36 25.52 22.73 20.64 46.48 24.26 28.04 22.89 24.21

4.03 13.31 2.94 4.15 2.86 27.91 3.86 4.15 2.76 2.27 5.74 4.72 2.79 2.36 2.65 2.59 8.65 5.4 7.64 5.47 4.31 12.28 4.24 14.19 6.57 7.92

Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes 183

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 2 709 NW 2 710 NW 2 711 NW 2 712 NW 2 713 NW 2 714 NW 2 715 NW 2 716 NW 2 717 NW 2 718 NW 2 719 NW 3 720 NW 3 721 NW 3 722 NW 3 723 NW 3 724 NW 3 725 NW 3 726 NW 3 727 NW 3 728 NW 3 729 NW 3 730 NW 3 731 NW 3 732 NW 3 733 NW 3 734

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

19.57 17.57 6.22 13.55 7.52 7.1 6.75 7.84 7.02 5.96 6.09 10.72 8.48 7.04 9.38 7.92 14.42 4.14 10.54 9.2 9.23 4.84 11.6

26.98 17.59 32.7 32.13 24.46 21.02 21.3 17.98 20.88 19.92 22.9 28.5 29.61 21.89 23.42 31.06 24.27 22.59 27 35.46 15.75 22.34 21.14 19.69 14.29 23.19

23.38 28.11 31.76 20.02 18.17 15.59 17.86 17.92 17.27 16.77 14.6 22.04 21.53 25.53 25.79 22.06 17.07 26.8 28.16 20.68 27.95 28.01 21.76 23.31 30.55 16.59

2.31 3.38 4.04 5.27 2.66 2.92 5.38 2.56 3.25 2.78 2.5 6.11 9.05 3.02 6.41 2.89 2.88 5.39 6.11 5.9 4.58 8.6 7.39 3.22 6.23 4.28

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No 184

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 3 735 NW 3 736 NW 3 737 NW 3 738 NW 3 739 NW 3 740 NW 3 741 NW 3 742 NW 3 743 NW 3 744 NW 3 745 NW 3 746 NW 3 747 NW 3 748 NW 3 749 NW 3 750 NW 3 751 NW 3 752 NW 3 753 NW 3 754 NW 3 755 NW 3 756 NW 3 757 NW 3 758 NW 3 759 NW 3 760

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.25 15.13 3.82 12.67 7.29 10.03

8.76 7.63 3.45 7.39 13.77 6.28 7.96 2.32 3.54 2.55 7.45 3.26 7.72 2.73 12.66 7.28 9.17

26.76 34.56 25.04 16.76 19.85 15.76 18.26 18.59 21.32 17.71 18.24 21.53 16.44 25.59 20.64 36.58 14.09 25.5 14.73 23.82 31.6 21.09 20.79 26.4 11.44 22.26

20.21 27.32 21.26 28.32 24.37 16.61 18.95 20.08 18.09 17.05 21.86 16.45 19.77 15.63 23.88 20.18 17.35 13.92 19.26 16.35 16.02 20.62 18.12 20.44 20.46 21.23

3.95 5.97 4.36 3.44 5.34 3.96 2.02 2.2 4.6 4.63 2.31 4.05 5.28 3.37 2.44 3.94 2.8 4.88 3.07 3.07 3.45 3.08 3.91 3.5 4.87 4.45

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes 185

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 3 761 NW 3 762 NW 3 763 NW 3 764 NW 3 765 NW 3 766 NW 3 767 NW 3 768 NW 4 769 NW 4 770 NW 4 771 NW 4 772 NW 4 773 NW 4 774 NW 4 775 NW 4 776 NW 4 777 NW 4 778 NW 4 779 NW 4 780 NW 4 781 NW 4 782 NW 4 783 NW 4 784 NW 4 785 NW 4 786

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

12.43 5.59 7.04 6 6.32 7.22 10.23 5.43 40.55 56.19 14.75 5.16 13.97 7.14 14.79 7.42 12.18 9.16 2.92 5.91 4.33 8.81 5.57 6.79

17.03 22.46 15.86 28.43 19.13 23.01 16.21 18.24 69.47 93 50.92 34.39 42.72 35.03 31.59 43.55 30.13 27.19 28.51 26.51 25.08 31.23 31.03 32.43 45.37 39.69

20.8 17.07 19.48 20.9 17.61 18.56 14.83 14.4 73.74 75.21 40 30.84 36.92 31.86 36.83 39.66 23.85 29.91 21.32 24.57 20.43 25.94 28.54 36.38 27.04 30.43

4.24 2.66 2.37 4.12 2.78 3.22 3.16 14.4 26.37 24.37 11.39 6.83 8.55 6.99 14.29 14.04 6.01 9.92 4.51 2.67 4.1 3.13 5.55 7.57 4.81 6.92

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes

No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No 186

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 4 787 NW 4 788 NW 4 789 NW 4 790 NW 4 791 NW 4 792 NW 4 793 NW 4 794 NW 4 795 NW 4 796 NW 4 797 NW 4 798 NW 4 799 NW 4 800 NW 4 801 NW 4 802 NW 4 803 NW 4 804 NW 4 805 NW 4 806 NW 4 807 NW 4 808 NW 4 809 NW 4 810 NW 4 811 NW 4 812

109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.52 7.17 17.71 17.22 6.28 14.09 6.64 10.06 12.97 15.92 8.29 13.66 12.3 10.45 18.11 3.7 8.5 7.92 7.29 13.96 17.81 7.43 14.3 9.52 7.47

26.5 37.37 25.52 24.34 32.78 26.48 24.04 27.2 15.42 22.56 25.29 37.98 26.67 22.95 26.04 28.27 49.89 22.14 23.35 21.75 30.12 24.98 29.7 28.76 39.34 22.62

28.79 21.68 38.43 26.27 27.98 25.51 40.04 30.58 25.37 34.27 33.24 19 23.52 41.54 20.59 18.21 21.54 27.63 27.01 29.5 22.85 24.78 32.08 29.34 14.79 28

5.92 4.2 6.67 4.6 5.31 5.93 5.9 6.14 5.7 7.1 7.95 3.98 5.87 5.85 6.34 4.92 5.16 7.65 4.49 7346 5.4 5.03 5.85 7.72 3.44 4.08

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No 187

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 4 813 NW 4 814 NW 4 815 NW 4 816 NW 4 817 NW 4 818 NW 4 819 NW 4 820 NW 4 821 NW 4 822 NW 4 823 NW 4 824 NW 4 825 NW 4 826 NW 4 827 NW 4 828 NW 4 829 NW 4 830 NW 4 831 NW 4 832 NW 4 833 NW 4 834 NW 4 835 NW 4 836 NW 4 837 NW 4 838

135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

14.85 18.02 12.12 2.8 6.25 3.36 5.89 11.55 5.85 5.08 8.12 6.16 9.63 10.26 5.83 16.4 14.21 8.97 11.35 14 3.38 15.41 8.51

30.13 20.9 33.76 20.95 18.77 35.75 20.59 20.8 30.88 26.09 27.91 14.24 15.82 23.93 21.12 25.49 25.28 18.08 34.61 30.91 26.86 27.13 26.07 17.71 17.71 22.32

34.94 18.33 27.36 32.78 26.9 16.94 19.46 18.31 21.15 34.82 17.69 17.04 25.57 21.43 21.03 22 28.93 33.4 24.11 24.47 28.24 25 18.35 21.4 27.57 20.9

8.02 8.04 3.74 4.66 4.89 4.37 2.97 2.55 4.45 6.97 4.31 5.05 4.33 6.08 6.36 4.13 4.62 3.84 6.38 4.37 4.82 5.23 6.35 5.33 3.37 5.44

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No 188

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 4 839 NW 4 840 NW 4 841 NW 4 842 NW 4 843 NW 4 844 NW 4 845 NW 4 846 NW 4 847 NW 4 848 NW 4 849 NW 4 850 NW 4 851 NW 4 852 NW 4 853 NW 4 854 NW 4 855 NW 4 856 NW 4 857 NW 4 858 NW 4 859 NW 4 860 NW 4 861 NW 4 862 NW 4 863 NW 4 864

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.67 5.97 15.44 6.89 4.25 7.29 7.75 12.05 7.61 15.18 10.22 5.82 9.91 7.92 7.83 11.31 4.73 8.84 6.54 5.29 6.78 8.84 18.16 6.2 4.36 8.73

18.89 19.51 18.3 24.42 20.4 12.74 32 20.27 26.22 16.77 29.87 22.93 20.5 14.73 22.54 32.11 22.4 27.29 16.5 19.54 16.31 13.04 16 15.58 17.81 20.35

28.24 19 24.03 17.18 15.39 19.43 31.31 20.5 25.82 16.19 31.2 18.13 20.97 18.37 17.18 14.34 13.01 19.64 20.93 18.51 17.57 19.82 14 20.34 19.59 28.11

2.82 3.59 4.96 2.91 1.7 2.86 8.47 3.62 3.37 4.94 7.62 4.28 3.97 2.84 4.85 4.97 5.52 4.02 3.76 3.77 3.68 2.92 1.87 3.33 2.77 6.18

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes 189

Table A.1 - Continued

NW 4 865 NW 4 866 NW 4 867 NW 4 868 NW 4 869 NW 4 870 NW 4 871 NW 4 872 NW 4 873 NW 4 874 NW 4 875 NW 4 876 NW 4 877 NW 4 878 NW 4 879 NW 4 880 NW 4 881 NW 4 882 NW 5 1000 NW 5 1001 NW 5 1002 NW 5 1003 NW 5 1004 NW 5 1005 NW 5 1006 NW 5 1007

187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.63 6.29 7.6 4.86 10.12 4.2 7.63 8.06 11.29 9.9 10.16 4.2 6.21 4.74 7.17 7.71 13.3 7.91 12.39 8.51 15.47 18.43 11.18 9.46

35.17 21.26 30.88 20.5 25.35 22.8 25.89 18.78 32.85 20.31 25.97 26.09 13.74 14.5 19.71 23.36 19.7 21 24.26 28.53 29.7 28.52 28.05 18.91 14.67 19.65

19.24 15.85 18.14 19.79 19.68 14.57 16.32 16.51 15.03 16.95 18.59 22.42 22.22 16.05 16.25 17.52 20.16 15.93 25.18 30.66 16.41 18.59 17.61 21.42 25.01 24.68

3 4.88 2.61 4.16 2.46 2.45 2.46 3.8 4.12 2.54 3.81 9.35 3.81 2.87 2.97 3.34 3.87 5.53 4.83 4.94 5.15 2.36 5.49 8.05 5.97 3.17

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No

Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No 190

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 1008 NW 5 1009 NW 5 1010 NW 5 1011 NW 5 1012 NW 5 1013 NW 5 1014 NW 5 1015 NW 5 1016 NW 5 1017 NW 5 1018 NW 5 1019 NW 5 1020 NW 5 1021 NW 5 1022 NW 5 1023 NW 5 1024 NW 5 1025 NW 5 1026 NW 5 1027 NW 5 1028 NW 5 1029 NW 5 1030 NW 5 1031 NW 5 1032 NW 5 1033

213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.49 7.47 9.45 6.12 4356 5.35 11.05 8.92 9.02 5.54 10.57 8.67 14.97 21.11 10.76 8.13 8.46 6.37 7.64 15.19 5.44 12.89 7.46

19.92 25.89 15.39 30.61 28.1 28.5 23.96 29.93 22.5 26.24 18.89 19.27 15.86 25.73 20.4 29.11 14.97 17.29 32.27 23.73 16.71 16.52 19.02 24.26 15.48 23.55

21.98 18.95 19.47 18.39 18.28 14.7 17.43 16.58 24.08 17.79 28.87 17.62 24.43 19.06 17.37 16.54 23.25 18.8 15.27 14.58 16.38 1803 23.33 23.45 22.17 18.44

3.55 3.66 5.32 3.17 3.14 2.37 2.93 7.14 4.67 3.33 3.71 3.6 5.58 2.33 2.73 2.65 4.85 4.6 3.69 2.58 2.05 2.71 5.1 2.69 6.12 5.3

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No

Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No Yes 191

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 1034 NW 5 1035 NW 5 1036 NW 5 1037 NW 5 1038 NW 5 1039 NW 5 1040 NW 5 1041 NW 5 1042 NW 5 1043 NW 5 883 NW 5 884 NW 5 885 NW 5 886 NW 5 887 NW 5 888 NW 5 889 NW 5 890 NW 5 891 NW 5 892 NW 5 893 NW 5 894 NW 5 895 NW 5 896 NW 5 897 NW 5 898

239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.42 9.41 6.32 9.84 6.07 3.32 4.6 3.91 5.55 24.42 9.85 6.12 9.65 26.78 9.08 3 5.16 7.69 9.04 6.43 23.56 6.36 10.97 8.91

17.56 16.29 22.08 18.87 18.72 23 20.1 15.42 16.32 21.74 44.32 31.02 39.81 33.07 40.93 26.67 37.83 41.24 28.11 30.2 32.85 31.03 26.78 30.82 30.29 37.76

22.33 13.81 17.22 20.34 28.41 14.18 14.97 20.86 17.64 15.41 49.8 27.13 25.01 22.23 33.9 28.36 22.51 23.77 20.37 21.48 48.84 21.65 27.21 24.6 24.03 28.5

4.82 5.65 1.95 4.66 3.49 3.66 2.71 3.44 4.53 2.3 18.78 5.66 7.17 4.92 8.25 4.14 6.29 3.13 3.7 2.93 6.1 4.49 6.64 5.25 6.14 7.35

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No 192

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 899 NW 5 900 NW 5 901 NW 5 902 NW 5 903 NW 5 904 NW 5 905 NW 5 906 NW 5 907 NW 5 908 NW 5 909 NW 5 910 NW 5 911 NW 5 912 NW 5 913 NW 5 914 NW 5 915 NW 5 916 NW 5 917 NW 5 918 NW 5 919 NW 5 920 NW 5 921 NW 5 922 NW 5 923 NW 5 924

265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.35 19.11 8.66 13.35 12.25 9.74 12.72 15.86 16.37 7.29 7.79 2.44 4.49 12.59 15.8 11.32 13.01 6.38 8.3 12.75 10.95 14.72 8.41 6.57

35.53 28.23 40.15 22.23 22.94 24.82 37.5 36.77 24.36 22.1 29.25 33.28 29.49 22.15 22.12 28.38 235.76 30.8 53.64 19.43 33.92 34.12 23.05 26.41 8.77 34.41

34.35 32.61 31.28 18.88 24.94 19.57 17.03 30.01 29.15 25.62 26.06 42.37 26.17 16.03 17.11 28.38 35.82 44.82 33.02 25.17 26.58 26.27 18.3 19.15 15.54 32.51

4.64 5.51 7.6 6.5 4.82 5.25 5.85 7.76 5.5 7.31 7.84 5.83 10.1 2.16 2.76 5.73 8.28 8.63 10.7 4.62 6.74 6.47 5.36 5.08 5.03 7.53

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No 193

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 925 NW 5 926 NW 5 927 NW 5 928 NW 5 929 NW 5 930 NW 5 931 NW 5 932 NW 5 933 NW 5 934 NW 5 935 NW 5 936 NW 5 937 NW 5 938 NW 5 939 NW 5 940 NW 5 941 NW 5 942 NW 5 943 NW 5 944 NW 5 945 NW 5 946 NW 5 947 NW 5 948 NW 5 949 NW 5 950

291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

12.69 4.66 7.21 15.34

4.07 6.69 26.56 17.46 7.88 9.54 12.88 16.87 7.86 6.69 6.19 8.05 10.07 5.69 6.32 9.5 12.9 6.76

31.26 30.82 26.69 19.63 29.9 27.02 27.83 28.36 23.53 26.29 32.08 31.72 14.95 22.26 22.19 32.68 19.95 26.04 28.11 29.51 25.26 25.45 16.63 27.17 14.57 24.58

26.17 29.86 27.45 29.45 18.39 28.82 15.87 17 27.42 29.02 15.5 44.88 24.61 29.39 25.56 22.56 23.22 15.27 18.24 33.18 18 27.57 18.42 15.45 18.45 13.9

3.94 5.51 7.12 6.08 4.36 4.29 3.03 4.19 7.25 6.73 4.06 7.44 2.98 7.18 6.82 6.02 3.98 2.52 6.17 5.95 2.8 4.94 2.88 5.06 2.36 5.66

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No

Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No 194

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 951 NW 5 952 NW 5 953 NW 5 954 NW 5 955 NW 5 956 NW 5 957 NW 5 958 NW 5 959 NW 5 960 NW 5 961 NW 5 962 NW 5 963 NW 5 964 NW 5 965 NW 5 966 NW 5 967 NW 5 968 NW 5 969 NW 5 970 NW 5 971 NW 5 972 NW 5 973 NW 5 974 NW 5 975 NW 5 976

317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.84 6.76 8.39 7.42 6.87 2.84 9.22 23.93 12.95 10.54 3.84 8.78 4.16 11.87 6.95 7.21 6.84 7.22 9.62 6.32 4.05 15.67 10.5 16.57 5.58 5.68

17.07 31.05 20.01 31.9 21.74 28.46 16.03 23.9 26.62 30.96 27.72 29.55 30.9 54.23 37.01 33.54 26.65 20.89 24.1 20.52 19.55 30.51 27.33 28.93 34.08 37.72

24.66 26.54 23.13 25.02 21.52 24.46 22.11 43.1 23.21 17.4 25.48 19.53 20.7 31.07 27.83 25.3 24.02 28.73 26.34 21.16 22.37 42.3 38.95 25.95 22.85 23.81

2.6 6.6 3.9 10.12 3.68 3.38 5.39 7.76 4.85 4.25 4.84 4.35 2.62 9.31 6.48 4.66 5.31 5.77 3.58 5.17 1.58 9.11 6.14 5.13 5.03 4.88

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No

No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes 195

Table A.1 - Continued NW 5 977 NW 5 978 NW 5 979 NW 5 980 NW 5 981 NW 5 982 NW 5 983 NW 5 984 NW 5 985 NW 5 986 NW 5 987 NW 5 988 NW 5 989 NW 5 990 NW 5 991 NW 5 992 NW 5 993 NW 5 994 NW 5 995 NW 5 996 NW 5 997 NW 5 998 NW 5 999 NW 6 1044 NW 6 1045 NW 6 1046

343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.44 6.51 4.18 8.03 11.5 6.78 9.93 15.68 9.33 6.02 5.02 7.81 7.91 5.8 13.89 8.9 7.23 7.37 5.97 15.73 4.31 8.3 11.52 32.02 27.14

15.65 22.61 30.22 27.97 37.09 46.04 42.03 24.77 23.46 31.35 29.75 33.93 21.18 27.28 37.89 25.57 30.01 37.23 38.57 32.63 32.1 29.22 19.61 32.02 27.14 24.97

26.6 16.75 25.56 19 23.26 17.4 21.29 22.13 19.8 24.38 21.45 24.09 25.19 14.94 27.51 25.6 28.84 32.07 27.82 33.76 31.05 24.24 16.93 41.9 22.31 26.56

3.24 3.55 5.52 2.89 6.28 6.28 6.07 6.56 5.33 5.68 3.64 3.24 3.53 3.49 2.66 7.62 5.05 3.64 4.47 5.54 7.83 8.21 5.5 9.09 7.43 3.87

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No

Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No

No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes 196

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1047 NW 6 1048 NW 6 1049 NW 6 1050 NW 6 1051 NW 6 1052 NW 6 1053 NW 6 1054 NW 6 1055 NW 6 1056 NW 6 1057 NW 6 1058 NW 6 1059 NW 6 1060 NW 6 1061 NW 6 1062 NW 6 1063 NW 6 1064 NW 6 1065 NW 6 1066 NW 6 1067 NW 6 1068 NW 6 1069 NW 6 1070 NW 6 1071 NW 6 1072

369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

24.97 35.95 38.92 7.79 9.66 12.5 10.72 18.43 13.22 10.7 26.03 8.8 17.64 9.8 10.82 10.91 14.38 12.71 15.06 12.62 3.8 28.15 5.87 14.66 13.37 8.18

35.95 34.2 71.37 40 35.33 24.47 31.76 57.42 31.5 38.62 45.3 44.06 23.92 40.37 27.87 42.16 30.57 29.78 21.72 31.72 30.11 41.36 42.52 40.89 26.9 16.47

24.06 42.57 52.69 33 30.12 36.63 25.53 24.19 25.95 64.65 30 24.69 23.94 23.13 40.62 26.35 26.21 40.09 26.45 27.61 27.93 34.68 23.67 17.45 22.3 23.14

3.82 22.49 16.67 6.55 5.77 8.97 6.71 9.36 8.82 5.82 11.19 6.75 3.96 6.54 7.5 6.53 10.56 7.13 4.58 8.03 5.78 9.87 4.61 7.54 5.21 9.67

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No 197

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1073 NW 6 1074 NW 6 1075 NW 6 1076 NW 6 1077 NW 6 1078 NW 6 1079 NW 6 1080 NW 6 1081 NW 6 1082 NW 6 1083 NW 6 1084 NW 6 1085 NW 6 1086 NW 6 1087 NW 6 1088 NW 6 1089 NW 6 1090 NW 6 1091 NW 6 1092 NW 6 1093 NW 6 1094 NW 6 1095 NW 6 1096 NW 6 1097 NW 6 1098

395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

11.1 8.87 8.27 11.73 8.67 5.44 5.35 4.57 11.67 8.5 6.09 10.6 7.6 11.47 10.09 12.95 10.45 8.04 10.34 11.9 8.43 12.53 8.75 7.03 9.53

41.87 39.81 27.22 21.39 22.52 37.8 40.33 35.02 26.38 30.29 29.07 27.21 22 31.62 32.68 23.61 26.57 40.38 34.09 26.5 32.41 17.42 17.42 25.26 33.6 35.77

37.19 21.62 18.91 22.2 22.79 17.48 21.05 18.16 24 23.07 21.82 30.9 34.76 40.63 28.15 29.52 33.83 30.87 24.66 26.4 22.05 27.96 20.97 19.34 25.52 28.61

6.03 6.03 3.19 5.8 4.49 5.54 3.85 4.06 6.57 4.5 3.41 3.91 7.8 7.73 5.67 7.38 7.66 5.59 5.02 5.25 3.88 4.94 4.15 4.46 5.68 6.41

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes 198

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1099 NW 6 1100 NW 6 1101 NW 6 1102 NW 6 1103 NW 6 1104 NW 6 1105 NW 6 1106 NW 6 1107 NW 6 1108 NW 6 1109 NW 6 1110 NW 6 1111 NW 6 1112 NW 6 1113 NW 6 1114 NW 6 1115 NW 6 1116 NW 6 1117 NW 6 1118 NW 6 1119 NW 6 1120 NW 6 1121 NW 6 1122 NW 6 1123 NW 6 1124

421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.93 10.9 12.47 13.08 11.96 9.32 17.47 7.27 6.2 12.37 11.09 15.9 11.01 6.56 10.7 7 6.56 9.83 11.58 5.43 6.2 9.31 6.77

37.87 26.47 30.35 38.35 25.88 30.47 40.31 38.49 28.92 26.57 28.35 31.35 24.88 21.52 23.37 30.46 32.45 32.06 27.95 28.12 33.34 26.87 22.12 26.64 30.56 33.68

26.71 21.07 22.34 33.9 41.06 27.2 27.43 22.92 27.41 21.6 21.74 17.77 17.54 17.17 28.31 30.14 21.6 22.63 33.2 27.4 22.68 27.23 26.17 19.14 24.92 23.53

7.03 5.11 5.81 4.32 6.52 4.49 14.1 6.11 5.36 4.92 6.34 5.14 3.74 3.93 7.88 6.43 4.05 4.68 3.24 3.41 4.72 6.42 5.67 8.45 5.21 7.58

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No 199

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1125 NW 6 1126 NW 6 1127 NW 6 1128 NW 6 1129 NW 6 1130 NW 6 1131 NW 6 1132 NW 6 1133 NW 6 1134 NW 6 1135 NW 6 1136 NW 6 1137 NW 6 1138 NW 6 1139 NW 6 1140 NW 6 1141 NW 6 1142 NW 6 1143 NW 6 1144 NW 6 1145 NW 6 1146 NW 6 1147 NW 6 1148 NW 6 1149 NW 6 1150

447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

2.89 8.27 5.58 6.67 11.93 5.86 11.72 12.72 12.96 12.08 10.79 9.55 7.36 9.86 7.36 8.89 12.72 6.24 4.31 10.56 16.52 2.87 3.47 10.74

34.83 26.81 44.53 20.4 22.48 24.06 27.56 41.49 22.43 33.05 29.25 33.22 22.92 24.69 24.04 20.1 26.28 25.16 24.03 27.04 23.11 20.5 26.18 31.68 23.84 22.86

20.35 19.17 37.08 21.57 20.71 25.95 21.87 28.12 17.4 33.25 25.93 18.54 17.09 18.97 30.6 27.4 20.96 34.46 26.68 24.87 23.59 23.6 27.73 20.07 20.25 14.8

5.08 4.12 5.9 4.4 4.76 5.7 4.2 6.2 5.77 6.38 5.96 4.87 3.1 4.44 6.62 2.69 5.07 6.25 4.18 5.36 3.73 5.26 3.48 4.02 3.89 3.21

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes 200

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1151 NW 6 1152 NW 6 1153 NW 6 1154 NW 6 1155 NW 6 1156 NW 6 1157 NW 6 1158 NW 6 1159 NW 6 1160 NW 6 1161 NW 6 1162 NW 6 1163 NW 6 1164 NW 6 1165 NW 6 1166 NW 6 1167 NW 6 1168 NW 6 1169 NW 6 1170 NW 6 1171 NW 6 1172 NW 6 1173 NW 6 1174 NW 6 1175 NW 6 1176

473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.01 18.15 4.69 6.87 9.89 7.78 6.43 8.43 11.69 12.42 12.44 7.96 15.25 11.79 6.28 11.45 8.19 16.92 6.24 8.7 3.88 5.42 10.09 6.65 8.22 11.68

33.16 27.67 31.11 43.04 30.19 20.19 21.3 19.24 23.94 23.03 26.91 25.55 26.79 19.96 32.92 40.03 23.95 17.96 25.88 13.03 16.71 16.75 15.34 23.75 19.88 17.74

21.85 22.87 20.78 26.3 34.44 23.88 25 19.89 17.48 15.78 23.42 16.63 22.75 20.51 20.47 17.69 22.94 25.22 18.48 20.66 19.53 16.66 24.45 22.45 22.52 20.89

3.9 4.83 3 6.77 9.91 4.93 5.1 4.47 4.59 3.98 4.66 4.97 3.96 4.08 3.97 5.87 3.6 6 3.15 4.07 3.58 2.68 5.43 2.12 2.38 3.42

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No

No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes 201

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1177 NW 6 1178 NW 6 1179 NW 6 1180 NW 6 1181 NW 6 1182 NW 6 1183 NW 6 1184 NW 6 1185 NW 6 1186 NW 6 1187 NW 6 1188 NW 6 1189 NW 6 1190 NW 6 1191 NW 6 1192 NW 6 1193 NW 6 1194 NW 6 1195 NW 6 1196 NW 6 1197 NW 6 1198 NW 6 1199 NW 6 1200 NW 6 1201 NW 6 1202

499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

11.36 14.87

6.71 7.58 5.1 13.8 7.71 12.83 6.03 5.64 5.89 7.45 7.6 7.68 6.26 12.35 10.56 7.77 8.85 8.76 7.73 6.88

20.92 16.07 23.52 27.6 18.87 21.52 23.49 24.8 20.67 12.82 18.7 23.41 22.3 25.64 13.01 26.07 15.48 16.15 17.81 22.24 22.85 17.84 21.24 26.77 32.97 19.64

18.2 14.88 22.29 15.43 16.73 23.27 20 16.14 19.53 20.31 17.14 19.95 22.67 18.6 20.8 18.17 21.32 18.23 15.67 20.25 22.85 17.84 15.79 18.74 22.3 20.07

5.12 3.64 3.65 2.6 4.34 4.56 3.7 5.29 3.24 3.72 2.86 3.54 3.16 3.62 5.84 3.88 4.16 3.17 3.14 4 4.28 4.31 5.31 4.77 5.22 2.65

Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No 202

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1203 NW 6 1204 NW 6 1205 NW 6 1206 NW 6 1207 NW 6 1208 NW 6 1209 NW 6 1210 NW 6 1211 NW 6 1212 NW 6 1213 NW 6 1214 NW 6 1215 NW 6 1216 NW 6 1217 NW 6 1218 NW 6 1219 NW 6 1220 NW 6 1221 NW 6 1222 NW 6 1223 NW 6 1224 NW 6 1225 NW 6 1226 NW 6 1227 NW 6 1228

525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.32 9.61 12.32 14.39 11.87 8.41 7.1 5.74 6.11 8.5 10.38 3.87 6.27 12.86 5.95 10.31 20.14 6.57 7.29 7.8 5.06 6.67

21.79 37.4 25.71 17.88 20.24 25.19 27.31 21.86 30.22 22.17 19.72 15.33 26.16 22.37 20.52 22 29.83 24.69 18.9 20.92 17.17 28.18 21.38 17.13 24.67 18.3

17.32 21.77 20.42 21.85 24.13 18.81 17.66 21.6 14.07 17.29 22.25 18 18 17.04 18.47 17.14 16.32 14.67 20.19 20.03 15.4 15.92 14.96 20.28 17.45 19.51

3.26 5.71 4 2.24 3.34 3.57 2.7 3.49 4.17 2.59 2.49 3.32 2.27 3.88 2.5 4.61 3.04 4.93 5.1 3.89 3.35 2.21 4.25 3.02 2.71 3.97

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No 203

Table A.1 - Continued NW 6 1229 NW 6 1230 NW 6 1231 NW 6 1232 NW 6 1233 NW 6 1234 NW 6 1235 NW 6 1236 NW 6 1237 NW 6 1238 NW 6 1239 NW 6 1240 NW 6 1241 NW 6 1242 NW 6 1243 NW 6 1244 NW 6 1245 NW 6 1246 NW 6 1247 NW 6 1248 NW 6 1249 NW 6 1250 NW 6 1251 NW 7 1252 NW 7 1253 NW 7 1254

551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

9.9 12.71 5.57 7.24 4.36 5.01 7.67 7.82 4.89 5.29 10.53 11 8.56 6.76 6.89 6.09 5.06 8.78 8.46 4.76 4.78 7.73 9.4 26.74 11.24 8.72

21.3 19.7 19.06 22.88 22.9 17.84 19.04 18.39 16.55 14.91 20.46 19.82 15.77 18.68 13.52 17.96 18.31 16.78 12.9 14.74 14.78 18.15 15.42 48.61 37.13 33.98

17.38 15.18 19.57 14.54 13.8 17.78 15.11 21.53 17.39 18.89 15.73 15.39 23.33 15.11 17.68 21.52 21.01 17.08 16.97 15.95 16.97 18.26 17.35 55.45 29.51 29.97

6.09 2.56 2.71 3.14 2.45 3.68 4.73 5.08 2.48 4 2.83 3.21 4.55 2.94 4 4.22 1.95 2.59 2.88 2.12 2.7 4.15 4.18 11.12 5.25 6.34

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes 204

Table A.1 - Continued NW 7 1255 NW 7 1256 NW 7 1257 NW 7 1258 NW 7 1259 NW 7 1260 NW 7 1261 NW 7 1262 NW 7 1263 NW 7 1264 NW 7 1265 NW 7 1266 NW 7 1267 NW 7 1268 NW 7 1269 NW 7 1270 NW 7 1271 NW 7 1272 NW 7 1273 NW 7 1274 NW 8 1275 NW 8 1276 NW 8 1277 NW 8 1278 NW 8 1279 NW 8 1280

577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

19.64 5.62 11.24 4.14 7.15 8.83 3.71 4.03 6.33 3.76 3.82 5.83 7.83 8.73 6.35 11.07 9.46 12.09 7.68 11.98 6.94 11.46 4.47 14.44 3.35

32.47 35.1 26 30.71 18.7 18.78 21.18 23.34 34.09 25.75 30.25 28.87 22.33 14.84 14.83 15.61 15.33 14.59 15.25 17.93 24.39 31.34 22.49 13.61 23.06 25.54

31.17 31.01 23.41 21.36 21.96 16.86 15.63 18.03 20.1 21.1 15.73 15.14 17.18 19.45 17.27 14.5 15.42 18.63 13.87 13.76 29.96 16.18 17.24 19.43 15.55 16.14

5.33 10.12 3.36 4.43 4.36 7 2.74 6.14 4.5 3.14 2.29 3.47 2.62 2.94 3.15 2.41 3.36 4.14 4.12 3.22 4.62 3.3 5.49 2.79 4.07 3.85

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No 205

Table A.1 - Continued NW 8 1281 NW 8 1282 NW 9 1283 NW 9 1284 NW 9 1285 NW 9 1286 NW 9 1287 NW 9 1288 NW 9 1289 NW 9 1290 NW 9 1291 NW 9 1292 NW 9 1293 NW 9 1294 NW 9 1295 NW 9 1296

(NW 10) 13 (NW 10) 14 (NW 10) 15 (NW 11) 16 (NW 11) 17 (NW 11) 18 (NW 12) 19 (NW 15) 20 (NW 15) 21 (NW 6) 1

603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

4.61 9.03 14.44 7.94 16.2 5.51 10.53 3.4 32.62 11.01 6.77 7.36 13.78 9.23 6.1 11.95 6.33 9.6 12.09 3.89 7.01 8.61

23.15 12.76 57.17 38.9 38.34 31.05 34.79 21.72 22.93 37.97 46.38 23.35 25.86 17.7 20.54 13.69 11.3 23.75 13.18 15.68 13.69 15.79 12.07 13.04 11.49 28.98

16.08 16.64 26.3 35.33 33.85 39.27 21.8 22.1 28.1 27.63 100.11 37.71 18.25 15.78 11.8 16.2 9.36 12.61 18.02 15.36 17.94 15.77 9.95 12.12 14.33 23.87

2.46 3.04 6.5 6.73 8.03 7.5 5.84 4.03 4.01 4.72 13.8 9.79 3.11 3.96 2.92 3.51 2.49 2.71 3.74 5.8 3 4.19 1.91 5.27 2.47 5.58

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No 206

Table A.1 - Continued (NW 6) 2 (NW 6) 3 (NW 6) 4 (NW 6) 5 (NW 6) 6

(NW 7) 7 (NW 7) 8 (NW 7) 9 (NW 8) 10 (NW 9) 11 (NW 9) 12 (NE 1) 1 (NE 1) 10 (NE 1) 2 (NE 1) 3 (NE 1) 4 (NE 1) 5 (NE 1) 6 (NE 1) 7 (NE 1) 8 (NE 1) 9 (NE 10) 242 (NE 11) 243 (NE 11) 244 (NE 11) 245 (NE 11) 246

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.4 3 0 7.92 7.7 8.57 9.91 5.63 5.72 3.33 7.33 6.91 6.46 12.94 7.61 6.8 6.88 20.8 16.98 11.21 7.48 10.86

12.92 12.88 22.74 26.44 14.28 24.61 18.25 9.57 13.7 19.83 11.31 20.29 19.85 26.75 28.14 20.82 23.3 29.53 18.41 14.41 21.53 49.25 18.93 15.02 17.96 16.25

18.29 14.32 25.16 12.42 9.96 15.14 17.17 10.85 18.66 9.64 12.28 32.18 13.93 21.2 31.83 20.66 22.53 18.54 14.95 15.1 20.1 45.83 16.98 16.33 21.68 15.02

2.75 3.5 5.44 3.97 2.38 4.59 3.09 1.77 3.73 1.43 2.03 4.18 3.41 5.2 4.3 4.56 8.02 3.31 3.53 3.54 3.4 13.42 4.95 4.08 3.55 3.66

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

No No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 207

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 11) 247 (NE 12) 248 (NE 12) 249 (NE 12) 250 (NE 13) 251 (NE 13) 252 (NE 14) 253 (NE 14) 254 (NE 2) 11 (NE 2) 12 (NE 2) 13 (NE 2) 14 (NE 2) 15 (NE 2) 16 (NE 2) 17 (NE 2) 18 (NE 2) 19 (NE 2) 20 (NE 2) 21 (NE 2) 22 (NE 2) 23 (NE 2) 24 (NE 2) 25 (NE 2) 26 (NE 2) 27 (NE 2) 28

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.76 8.01 4.92 8.46 11.95 5.55 10.92 11.35 8.12 14.06 9.13 10.75 9.97 9.88 9.31 6.14 10.01 6.54 9.32 8.5 7.25 5.92

24.34 18.07 14.55 23.94 36.24 23.69 19.27 24.61 29.92 32.54 27.71 33.88 22.03 30.82 23.64 26.1 23.29 21.71 28.68 20.85 24.99 25.75 23.07 18.48 18.59 20.05

15.04 15.26 14.76 12 15.03 19.67 31.22 20.75 19.77 26.19 33.49 29.92 20.66 17 27.72 24.38 34.95 17.45 16.61 27.99 36.29 16.56 20.72 20.27 15.32 12.84

3.54 3.5 4.14 1.61 3.8 3.66 5.13 6.05 6.82 4.51 11.05 7.61 4.05 5.57 5.31 6.33 9.51 2.85 4.49 6.16 5.81 3.03 4.39 2.62 3.46 2.57

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No 208

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 2) 29 (NE 2) 30 (NE 2) 31 (NE 2) 32 (NE 2) 33 (NE 3) 34 (NE 3) 35 (NE 3) 36 (NE 3) 37 (NE 3) 38 (NE 3) 39 (NE 3) 40 (NE 3) 41 (NE 3) 42 (NE 3) 43 (NE 3) 44 (NE 3) 45 (NE 3) 46 (NE 3) 47 (NE 3) 48 (NE 3) 49 (NE 3) 50 (NE 3) 51 (NE 4) 100 (NE 4) 101 (NE 4) 102

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

3.84 10.04 10.25 6.33 2.82

11.69 5.26 14.08 9.55 3.28 11.46 5.68 15.39 3.1 6.43 9.68 8.33

7.05 6.52 15.38

26.53 25.52 14.26 16.07 14.41 63.05 48.93 33.01 28.31 24.4 27.61 20 19.97 18.54 25.24 19.09 19.11 21.19 20.54 17.98 16.98 20.29 14.64 14.86 14.78 15.22

13.22 19.77 22.78 17.41 16.69 42.56 39.9 41.82 24.37 21.52 25.64 24.01 22.48 16.86 19.53 25.26 27 14.43 22.91 15.19 19.32 23.88 20.21 19.01 20.28 17.44

3.64 3.94 1.77 2.79 2.39 14.12 8.63 4.5 6.64 4.01 5.96 3.71 4.2 4.27 2.44 3.74 4.03 3.59 3.16 3.32 3.96 3.56 3.94 5.49 2.88 4.51

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No

Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No 209

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 4) 103 (NE 4) 104 (NE 4) 105 (NE 4) 106 (NE 4) 107 (NE 4) 108 (NE 4) 109 (NE 4) 110 (NE 4) 111 (NE 4) 52 (NE 4) 53 (NE 4) 54 (NE 4) 55 (NE 4) 56 (NE 4) 57 (NE 4) 58 (NE 4) 59 (NE 4) 60 (NE 4) 61 (NE 4) 62 (NE 4) 63 (NE 4) 64 (NE 4) 65 (NE 4) 66 (NE 4) 67 (NE 4) 68

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

8.83 3.94 7.24 6.87 5.1 11

16.98 8.72 9.64 6.58 12.4 13.82 7.03 18.98 20.9 8.05 13.34 7.42 8.41 5.36

19.58 19.26 22.93 16.35 14.56 22.86 18.82 14.68 13.49 53.14 34.43 36.82 26.86 23.72 29.71 25.96 28.25 35.52 22.71 21.66 30.22 43.28 35.37 29.56 25.15 21.22

20.97 22.36 20.31 18.39 19.92 18.29 16.33 18.81 14.04 60.11 28.15 64.98 37.21 24.3 32.68 29.84 37.47 30.34 32.98 28.95 25.1 23.8 20.27 25.85 27.14 28.83

2.86 1.88 1.93 3.34 3.61 1.93 3.54 1.98 1.88 16.17 4.56 8.32 6.03 3.78 4.83 4.21 5.75 4.77 5.85 6.22 6.4 9.37 7.07 5.42 4.53 5.14

No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No

No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 210

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 4) 69 (NE 4) 70 (NE 4) 71 (NE 4) 72 (NE 4) 73 (NE 4) 74 (NE 4) 75 (NE 4) 76 (NE 4) 77 (NE 4) 78 (NE 4) 79 (NE 4) 80 (NE 4) 81 (NE 4) 82 (NE 4) 83 (NE 4) 84 (NE 4) 85 (NE 4) 86 (NE 4) 87 (NE 4) 88 (NE 4) 89 (NE 4) 90 (NE 4) 91 (NE 4) 92 (NE 4) 93 (NE 4) 94

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

4.97 5.45 11.23 4.68 9.95 11.39 13.17 13.1 11.54 8.51 11.76 8.73 6.44 7.29 7.12 2.75 11.62 7.37 8.14 8.29 10.83 4.25

29.71 32.68 23.09 24.03 21.63 18.44 33.56 25.9 20 19.91 21.87 19.19 23.7 20.05 31.32 27.75 21.77 21.93 22 23.8 20.78 26.34 19.14 24.08 27.66 17.35

13.32 15.76 19.82 23.62 23.27 17.22 28.58 17.31 18.36 30.67 19.71 22.73 22.47 24.59 24.13 22.49 24.73 18.63 18.7 17.55 17.07 26.33 28.46 19.86 17.78 20.47

5.5 3.86 5.13 5.84 3.35 2.2 7.35 4.74 2.52 4.57 4.89 7.09 4.46 4.96 6.23 3.52 4.34 4.85 5.18 3.97 2.58 4.06 4.75 3.39 3.13 3.69

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No 211

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 4) 95 (NE 4) 96 (NE 4) 97 (NE 4) 98 (NE 4) 99 (NE 5) 112 (NE 5) 113 (NE 5) 114 (NE 5) 115 (NE 5) 116 (NE 5) 117 (NE 5) 118 (NE 5) 119 (NE 5) 120 (NE 5) 121 (NE 5) 122 (NE 5) 123 (NE 5) 124 (NE 5) 125 (NE 5) 126 (NE 5) 127 (NE 5) 128 (NE 5) 129 (NE 5) 130 (NE 5) 131 (NE 5) 132

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

6.16 5.59 6.23 5.69 24.53 34.56

15.97 11.28 6.08 21.52 6.75 12.3 6 9.97 13.97 4.11 24.38 9.02 9.4 9 4.87

21.94 26.16 22.13 22.27 20.39 32.61 24.13 24.86 61.25 55.02 37.06 40.75 40.42 39.48 30.1 37.94 37.84 20.48 29.76 29.36 34.13 32.12 42.78 24.09 27.18 26.82

19.34 15.98 24.62 17.33 17.04 54.54 36.83 33.79 62.05 36.72 29.24 19.57 32.4 22.37 29.47 31.82 24 31.6 20.4 24.36 31.44 31.5 26.8 27.29 23.64 23.54

5.45 2.94 4.92 2.92 3.22 10.94 12.32 12.06 21.54 7.25 7.21 9.96 9.84 6 7.26 9.08 3.76 4.66 6.77 5.63 8.94 7.8 5.18 4.52 3.73 6.4

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 212

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 5) 133 (NE 5) 134 (NE 5) 135 (NE 5) 136 (NE 5) 137 (NE 5) 138 (NE 5) 139 (NE 5) 140 (NE 5) 141 (NE 5) 142 (NE 5) 143 (NE 5) 144 (NE 5) 145 (NE 5) 146 (NE 5) 147 (NE 5) 148 (NE 5) 149 (NE 5) 150 (NE 5) 151 (NE 5) 152 (NE 5) 153 (NE 5) 154 (NE 5) 155 (NE 5) 156 (NE 5) 157 (NE 5) 158

146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.53 4.08 7.88 6.88 10.05 14.15 12.64 8.01 12.32 7.26 12.09 9.64 11.28 11.73 7.65 5.08 11.77

7.04 10.46 12.14 13.69 4.82

26.19 28.34 21.79 23.61 25.54 26.93 18.4 35.87 30.84 22.68 28.46 21.62 26.47 22.68 30.45 21.51 24.13 25.71 17.69 30.75 17.15 24.67 21.93 18.42 18.06 17.22

23.88 23.47 17.7 29.11 24.83 28.44 28.54 30.48 18.94 21.62 16.89 24.34 18.67 23.44 23.42 18.47 22.36 20.41 26.92 22.82 23.04 17.7 13.7 17.12 17.07 19.21

4.74 5.09 4.21 5.36 3.29 7.72 7.2 7.65 4.32 5.33 3.58 4.14 4.15 3.37 5.36 2.65 5.08 4.34 2.55 3.92 3.13 3.94 4.05 6.78 3.62 2.85

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes

No Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes 213

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 5) 159 (NE 5) 160 (NE 5) 161 (NE 5) 162 (NE 5) 163 (NE 5) 164 (NE 5) 165 (NE 5) 166 (NE 5) 167 (NE 5) 168 (NE 5) 169 (NE 5) 170 (NE 5) 171 (NE 5) 172 (NE 5) 173 (NE 5) 174 (NE 5) 175 (NE 5) 176 (NE 5) 177 (NE 5) 178 (NE 5) 179 (NE 5) 180 (NE 5) 181 (NE 5) 182 (NE 5) 183 (NE 5) 184

172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

7.61 4.95 4.73 9.95 7.91 6.23 6.14 13.84 7.25 6.98 9.61 4.16 8.19 7.46 8.4 3.43 5.56 5.48 5.73 3.78 5.84 7.35 4.16 10.42 10.08

15.67 13.23 13.34 24.01 29.14 31.47 22.27 16.08 25.36 17.64 22.44 22.64 22.43 20.58 25.1 16.2 15.29 20.84 16.77 14.9 21.53 22.46 19.2 14.81 19.53 16.65

19.22 25.03 16.38 18.71 15.1 18.85 16 18.01 22.83 20.03 16.66 21.41 18.38 24.43 18.5 25.72 18.52 16.55 14.92 18.37 22.46 20.74 19.15 16.49 18.56 18.14

4.23 5.08 2.77 3.57 5 6.3 2.89 3.48 6.76 4.64 2.78 3.39 2.51 5.37 4 4.43 4.49 2.68 3.2 2.91 5.21 2.76 3.63 2.59 5.49 2.63

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No 214

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 5) 185 (NE 5) 186 (NE 5) 187 (NE 5) 188 (NE 5) 189 (NE 5) 190 (NE 6) 191 (NE 6) 192 (NE 6) 193 (NE 6) 194 (NE 6) 195 (NE 6) 196 (NE 6) 197 (NE 6) 198 (NE 6) 199 (NE 6) 200 (NE 6) 201 (NE 6) 202 (NE 6) 203 (NE 6) 204 (NE 6) 205 (NE 6) 206 (NE 6) 207 (NE 6) 208 (NE 6) 209 (NE 6) 210

198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

5.41 6.29 8.55 6.69 5.41 4.21 12.55 11.24 12.74 10.87 5.48 5.52 10.13 4.72 12.53 5.13 7.55 6.89 8.3 8.95 17.09 9.66 11.07 9.07 6.7 4.84

17.89 22.63 23.11 14.33 17.13 17.96 49.01 28.58 21.05 19.93 24.49 18.5 19.2 28.31 28.48 22.59 24.6 30.93 46.59 29.66 22.69 29.31 18.77 22.44 25.7 19.71

17.68 17.66 17.25 17.02 14.7 15.57 27.33 33.04 30.89 22.51 23.46 28.06 25.85 21.74 29.22 24.6 33.61 24.01 22.4 23.49 23.82 24.2 23.5 25.15 15.05 21.78

2.98 3.49 2.61 3.41 2.13 2.59 7.51 5.79 6.89 6.06 3.31 6.14 2.81 3.26 5.15 9.69 4.87 5.09 3.32 3.66 7.74 4.77 4 9.55 4.67 4.31

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes

No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes 215

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 6) 211 (NE 6) 212 (NE 6) 213 (NE 6) 214 (NE 6) 215 (NE 6) 216 (NE 6) 217 (NE 6) 218 (NE 6) 219 (NE 6) 220 (NE 6) 221 (NE 6) 222 (NE 6) 223 (NE 6) 224 (NE 6) 225 (NE 6) 226 (NE 6) 227 (NE 7) 228 (NE 7) 229 (NE 7) 230 (NE 7) 231 (NE 7) 232 (NE 8) 233 (NE 8) 234 (NE 8) 235 (NE 8) 236

224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

5.37 8.83 8.42 4.27 3.8

10.35 8.18 5.78 7.73 4.36 8.25 10.05 6.42 6.23 10.77 7.12 6.68 3.5 12.02 16.68 11.08 3.81

23.22 46.46 24.48 23.41 20.98 26.7 23.17 21.84 25.88 19.3 23.21 17.14 15.73 16.95 20.64 13.25 23.93 12.37 18.57 28.3 22.87 14.65 34.71 44.65 28.44 25.02

15.81 15.91 16.73 23.84 26.57 24.02 17.68 15.43 23.82 23.16 15.48 20 22.26 18.25 16.93 16.77 15.33 15.47 12.69 19.23 20.33 20.71 32.65 30.98 22.22 27.21

3.07 4.28 4.48 4.27 5.47 4.5 2.76 4.75 3.15 2.24 2.7 4.01 3.78 2.25 2.81 4.77 2.39 4.07 8.4 3.46 3.78 2.03 12.55 9.35 14.62 7.95

Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes

Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No 216

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 9) 237 (NE 9) 238 (NE 9) 239 (NE 9) 240 (NE 9) 241 (NE 11) 11 (NE 10) 6 (NE 10) 7 (NE 10) 8 (NE 11) 9 (NE 11) 10 (NE 13) 12 (NE 13) 13 (NE 13) 15 (NE 13) 16 (NE 13) 17 (NE 13) 18 (NE 13) 19 (NW 13) 1 (NW 14) 2 (NE 15) 3 (NE 16) 4 (NE 17) 5 (NE 7) 1 (NE 7) 2 (NE 8) 3

250 251 252 253 254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E136 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138 N246E138

LT LT LT LT LT PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS PS

24.66 5.91 9.2

8.56 4.12 9.27 4.08 6.28 25.21 10.46 5.71 7.67 6.7 8.57 4.58

8.52 14.51

54.11 31.03 22.48 24.51 16.95 14.12 18.63 12.52 21.71 11.36 10.91 29.31 31.93 18.34 22.44 11.91 12.47 10.67 17.85 12.6 10.06 13.34 12.55 20.17 15.74 16.71

24.6 13.15 17.21 21.3 15.96 9.12 12.43 14.93 10.21 15.69 6.91 42.28 22.35 28.51 13.1 13.98 12.27 15.67 29.36 11.17 13.3 20.17 15.28 15.84 9.17 15.18

8.9 4.7 4.35 2.35 2.76 3.1 2.31 3.29 2.05 1.42 2.21 24.79 9.65 10.54 6.86 1.78 4.4 1.43 5.21 3.16 1.79 9.29 2.42 6.15 5.4 4.6

Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No

No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes 217

Table A.1 - Continued (NE 8) 4 (NE 9) 5

22 23

N246E138 N246E138

PS PS

5.59 8.92

13.59 22.75

8.37 21.94

3.44 4.97

Yes Yes

No Yes

Yes No

Yes Yes

218

VITA Megan King was born June 10th, 1984 in Buffalo New York. She was raised in Hamburg, New York where she graduated from Frontier High School in 2002. From there she attended Buffalo State College where she received her B.A. in Anthropology in 2006. Megan pursued a Masters degree in Anthropology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville and graduated in 2012. She is currently pursuing her doctorate in Anthropology at the University of Tennessee.

219

Loading...

The Distribution of Paleoindian Debitage from the Pliestocene Terrace

University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2012 The Distribution of Paleo...

9MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

David G. Anderson - The Paleoindian Database of the Americas
Dec 16, 2009 - Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. August 2009 to pres

Weibull Distribution: Characteristics of the Weibull Distribution
The most general expression of the Weibull pdf is given by the three-parameter Weibull distribution expression, or: ...

the normal distribution - The University of Sydney
What is the Normal Curve? The normal curve is the beautiful bell shaped curve shown in Figure 1. ... represents the true

Sampling Distribution of the Mean
the standard error is .58. You could also compute the standard error for this distribution by actually computing the sta

The Binomial distribution
For example, if we consider throwing a coin 7 times what is the probability that exactly 4 Heads occur? This problem can

21 The Exponential Distribution
From Discrete-Time to Continuous-Time: In Chapter 6 of the text we will be considering Markov processes in con- tinuous

The Normal Distribution
The Normal Distribution. WEEKS FOUR and FIVE. This worksheet relates to chapter six of the text book. (Statistics for Ma

The Normal Distribution
So, a normal distribution is a distribution or spread of data where the data is evenly spread in a bell-shaped curve aro

TERRACE TREATMENT POLICY The general scope of this policy
(1) At the intersection of two (2) streets abutting a corner lot, the vision clearance area shall be all that area withi

R: The Poisson Distribution
require(graphics) -log(dpois(0:7, lambda = 1) * gamma(1+ 0:7)) # == 1 Ni