PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY - Records Collections

2y ago
28 Views
2 Downloads
3.02 MB
56 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Matteo Vollmer
Transcription

/p.Tybouts Comer LandfillNew Canlo County, Delivnr*.Project No,'323.HH.28PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYPnpiradby; .Cultural Heritaga (Uuveh Services, Me.-. ;"North Wales, Pennsylvania. ;' .RR002502

iPhase I Archaeological SurreyTybouts Corner LandfillNew C«stle County, D«liw«reProject No. 323.HH.28Ronald BergeKaren MethenyandKenneth J. Basal ikCultural Heritage Research iVnnw, Inc.North Wales, PennsylvaniaAugust 1991AR002503

ABSTRACTThis report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to theTybouts Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware. This survey was performed byCultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPIConsultants of Wilmington, Delaware. Tybouts Corner is located at the intersection of RedLion Road (Route 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13). The project area lies 1800 to 2700feet southwest of the intersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The projectarea is irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feetfronting Route 13.Prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential for the area is low. The project areais far removed from topographic, environmental, or geological features which would have beenattractive to prehistoric populations. Potential prehistoric sites in the study area would, ifpresent, be expected to consist of small, light density, lithic scatters.Historic maps of the study region show two structures in the vicinity of the project areaduring the nineteenth century. The location of these structures was carefully scaled. If themaps are precise, these structures would have been located outside the project boundaries.Historic archaeological deposits, if present, would be expected to consist primarily of smalltrash deposits which were removed from the house area.The potential resources which might be present were anticipated to be ephemeral andcould not be correlated with any extant surface features. A systematic approach to subsurfacetesting was undertaken. A small section of the study area, Section B, could not be tested astrespass permission could not be obtained from the owner.A total of eighty-one shovel test pits were completed within Section A of the study area inan effort to ensure that no intact historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits were present.Phase I testing indicated that no significant structures or artifacts are present within the boundaries of the Section A of the study area. No further archaeological work is recommended inthis area.Although no subsurface testing was performed in Section B of the study area, it seemsunlikely that significant archaeological deposits would be found in this area. No structures orbuildings are known to have stood in or adjacent to this portion of the study area. Excavationsadjacent to this area have shown disturbed soil profiles. Given the extremely low potential forintact prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within Section B, no additional archaeological work is recommended in this area./T-.(., i' /"vT!'i o9R00250I

IIfJCONTENTSPageABSTRACTiTABLE OF CONTENTSiiLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONSiiiINTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND ELD DATA133511IntroductionField DataANALYSISArtifactsInterpretations2931SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS35REFERENCES CITED36APPENDICESAppendix A: Artifact InventoryAppendix B: Qualifications of ResearchersAppendix C: Shovel Test Profiles4243443334toAR002505

ILLUSTRATIONSFigures12345678Table 123PageProject LocationProject Area-1777Project Area -1849Project Area -1868'Project Area-1881Project Area -1893Project Area -1980Shovel Test Locations Section AA Comparison of the PaleoenvironmentalCultural SequencesPrehistoric Site Probability and Data QualityHistoric Context Elements.22223242526303161028flR002506

INTRODUCTION This report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the TyboutsCorner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware (Figure 1). This survey was performed byCultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPLConsultants of Wilmington, Delaware, Located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route.-.71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13), the project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of theintersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The project area was irregularlyshaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13.The Tybouts Corner Landfill is a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation and Liability Act) listed site. Remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) for thesite is being performed under the review of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (EPA). The remedial strategy selected by the EPA includes preventinggroundwater from coming into contact with the landfill materials; collecting waste liquidsleaching from the landfill, and collecting, treating and preventing contaminated groundwaterfrom leaving the site, These goals will be accomplished by installing a cap on the landfill,strategically locating interceptor wells and trenches, and by installing groundwater facilities,The lands located adjacent to the northeastern side of the Tybouts Comer Landfill site may beused for construction access and staging, and may have to be regraded, The purpose of thearchaeological review is an evaluation of potential archaeological resources, which might beaffected by the possible use of this land during remedial construction.The Archaeological research for this project was undertaken between January 23 andFebruary 14 1991. Kenneth J, Basalik served as the project's Principal Investigator. RonaldBerge acted as project archaeologist, and Karen Metheny functioned as historian. Graphicmaterials were prepared by Randolph Kuppless of the staff of CHRS. .'")The purpose of the archaeological study was to locate archaeological resources which maybe affected by the proposed action, and to develop a plan of assessing the significance of theseresources. This work was performed pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. Significance was based upon the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places as published in Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations.Significant sites were those which were listed, or were eligible for listing, on the NationalRegister of Historic Places, Criteria for the National Register of Historic Places are includedin Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of the Interior established the following criteria for evaluating and determining the eligibility of properties to belisted in the National Register of Historic Places:,The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, andobjects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:\A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution tothe broad patterns of our history; orB, that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; orC. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method ofconstruction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artisticvalues, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose compo( 'jnents may lack individual distinction; orflR002507

ni,.i. I --U-,.wiiMworow i.i MI, . , . 'jj. «r«rc «i»o ; MI. /PROJECTP,eemttoCHRS.Inc.03,000'SOURCE- U.S.G.3. SAINT GEORGES,DEL. 1965PROJECT LOCATIONTYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY2.g!»!FIGUI.o

D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. BACKGROUND RESEARCHIntroduction"* The background literature search included consultation with the Bureau of Archaeologyand Historic Preservation; the Delaware Department of Transportation, Division of Highways;the Delaware State Archives; the United States Department of Agriculture Soil ConservationService; the Delaware Historical Society; the Morris Library, University of Delaware; andindividuals knowledgeable in the history and prehistory of the region, Much data had alreadybeen compiled by recent studies of the surrounding and project area (Custer 1986; Custer andBachman 1984; Rappleye 1983a). These studies, which were heavily drawn upon in thecompilation of this report, provided up-to-date, detailed and distilled cultural histories directlyapplicable to the study comdor.Environmental data assisted in the development of a survey testing strategy by whichcultural resources were located. Factors such as underlying lilhology, topographical configuration, soil types, and/or hydrologic factors, were responsible for the creation and maintenanceof established vegetational communities in accordance with prevailing climactical conditions,The floral composition in turn effected the fauna! distributions over a given landscape. Proxim-ity of previously resource rich locales where food, lithic, or other resources would have beenabundant in conjunction with well drained, level or gently sloping soils served as a factor indetermining high potential areas for prehistoric occupation. Social and cultural traits of aborig-i, .w,(inal groups also served as factors to prehistoric site location. High site probability areas forhistoric sites generally fell into two categories. Early historic sites were expected to occur in asimilar relation to factors described for prehistoric sites. Later historic site areas were antici-) pated to occur in the vicinity of extant or formerly extant historic buildings or areas of activity'" which can be identified through documentary research.EnvironmentThe Modem Climate. The present climate of the project corridor is of the humid, conti-nental type, modified by the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean and of the Delaware and Chesapeake bays (Mathews and Lavoie 1970). The average annual temperature is 54 degrees Fahrenheit, and the average annual rainfall is 45 inches. Floral assemblages in the corridor includedeciduous species adapted to very poor drainage, such as tulip, poplar and gum, as well as oakand hickory, which are accustomed to drier conditions. Some stands of pine inhabit loggedareas, while mixed coniferous and deciduous stands border some of the watercourses,The project corridor is located just north of the Red Lion river drainage, which lies in theUpper Coastal Plain province between the fall line of the Piedmont and the Lower CoastalPlain. The land is nearly level to gently sloping (Mathews and Lavoie 1970)\ Fluvial sediments belonging to the Potomac formation, a Pleistocene deposit, lie over crystalline basementrock formed 65 million years ago.Lithic resources, available to prehistoric and historic populations, consisted of primaryoutcrops and secondary, cobble sources, Aboriginal populations used locally available, secondary sources of jasper, chert, quartz, quartzite, and chalcedony. These resources were laiddown as bed deposits by the Susquehanna River as it migrated between its present location andthe lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. High-quality, primary lithic resources were available atthe headwaters of the Christina River drainage. Newark Jasper and Cecil Black Flint werei found in the Newark Gabbro formation in the western portion of northern Delaware and south-flR002509

eastern Pennsylvania, especially in the vicinity of Iron Hill. Broad Run chalcedony was located in the chert outcrops of eastern Maryland, northern Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylvania, pan of the Wissahickon Schist formation.The soils of the area, reflective of the underlying lithology, consist of slightly plastic. .-!iiyand clayey soils derived from Pleistocene fluvial deposits (Mathews and Lavoie 1970) Soilsin and/or adjacent to the study area belong to the Matapeake series, They have been c!,aiacterized as level to gently sloping, well drained, medium textured soils on uplands (Mathews and. Lavoie 1970).Paleoenvironmenial Reconstruction. Paleoenvironmental information for this region wasderived largely from pollen cores. Although the number available for the Middle Atlanticregion was quite small, it was possible to develop a general picture of environmental changethrough time. The following discussion was based largely on data supplied by Carbone 1976;Custer 1981, 1984,1986; Anderson et al. 1981; Rappleye 1983b; and, Cunningham et al.1980.The Late Glacial Climatic Episode: 15,000 lo 8.080 BC. During the Late Glacial period,the Middle Atlantic region was significantly influenced by the retreating Laurentide ice sheet.Although at the beginning of the period, tundra may have grown at the northern edge of thearea, fauna! evidence suggests that a mosaic of yegetational communities was more typical. Avariety of small mammals, currently found in different environments, were found together inLate Glacial deposits. Also, pine, birch, spruce and some grasses were found in the pollensequence.The Pre-Boreal/Boreal Climatic Episode: 8.080 lo 6.540 BC. The shift from the Pleistocene to the Holocene during this period was characterized by the spread of boreal woodlandsover previously open settings. The habitats of many animals were reduced, contributing to theextinction of the Pleistocene megafauna and resulting in a lower carrying capacity. Perennialand seasonal water sources, particularly poorly drained areas, served as foci for the distribution of fauna! resources. Sea level was rising.The Atlantic Climatic Episode; 6.540 to 3,110 BC. During this episode, the full Holocene epoch began in the Middle Atlantic region. Mesic forests were widely established; oakand hemlock were present in the pollen sequence. I'aunal assemblages were essentiallymodern in character, though not in distribution. Deer and turkey dominated, providing a richand dependable resource base. Until the end of the period, moisture and temperature generallyincreased and sea level continued to rise.The Sub-Boreal Climatic Episode; 3.110 lo 810 HC. Early in this episode conditionswere warm and dry; although, a gradual increase in moisture and an associated decrease intemperature followed. These changes affected both the distribution of floral and faunalcommunities and the effects of geomorphological processes on the landscape. Evidence indicates an increase in the distribution of hickory, probably leading to the growth of the wildturkey population. The extent of grasslands also increased, lowering the deer population.While carrying capacity does not appear to have decreased significantly, the Sub-Boreal wascharacterized by shifting resource distributions, Rising sea level caused the maximum inlandpenetration of anadromous fish species. Pine, oak and hickory were found in the pollen sequence.The Sub-Atlantic Climatic Episode; 810 BC to the Present. This episode was characterized by a wetter, cooler climate than that of the preceding Sub-Boreal episode, producingessentially modern conditions. No major floral discontinuities were noted for this period;however, a series of climatic shifts, such as the cooling trend known as the "Little Ice Age,"may have put stress on incipient agricultural communities, Oak, chestnut and hickory domi-flRQ025 0( ,;'' -

.'.nated the Coastal Plain, while deer and turkey were still important fauna! resources. Sea levelcontinued to rise, though more gradually, contributing to accumulations of estuarine resources,Postglacial climatic amelioration reduced grasslands and led to the extinction of late Pleistocene megafauna. Although prehistoric populations could no longer rely on these for subsistence, the expansion of deciduous forests provided favorable habitats for new resources, including various smaller, mammal and avion forms and diverse flora, Additional resource varietywas provided by the rising sea level, which enlarged swamps such as Churchman's Marsh,This richness and diversity of resources prevailed until historical land-clearing took place,PrehistoryThe general prehistoric chronology for the area was taken from Custer's (1984) division ofprehistory into periods or traditions. See Table 1 for a comparison of the paleoenvironmentalsequence with the prehistoric cultural sequence.The Paleo-Indian Tradition: 12,000 to 6.500 BC. The actual time of humankind's arrivalin the Americas is still debated. The most widely accepted dates indicate that people arrived bythe end of the last glacial episode, the Pleistocene, about 14,000 years ago or 12,000 BC.These early peoples were believed to have organized their society into small, nomadic bandsthat hunted large mammals and gathered wild foods. Their presence was recognized chiefly bytheir distinctive stone tools, typified by large, lanceolate, fluted points, blades, and scrapers.,»:; )'""'These diagnostic tools have been found in association with woolly mammoth, mastodon, andother extinct megafauna.It has been postulated that in the Middle Atlantic region, the settlement pattern revolvedaround a specific, high-quality lithic source that was periodically revisited for replenishing toolkits. This cyclical model included a quarry-related base camp and a number of less intensivelyoccupied hunting and gathering sites (Gardner 1974,1979). The latest model developed for theDelmarva Peninsula by Custer (1984) hypothesized either a cyclical or serial settlement patternduring the Paleo-Indian period. The cyclical model was similar to Gardner's model; however,in the serial model the quarry-related base camp was eliminated, and the tool kit was replen-ished as lithic sources were encountered in conjunction with other activities. In this model,new tools were added and old ones discarded at different or serial quarry sites (Custer1984:54-55).A number of Paleo-Indian sites have been found in the northern Delmarva Peninsula.One, in northeastern Cecil County, Maryland, was associated with the Delaware Chalcedonycomplex, a high-quality lithic source (Custer 1984:55-56), Paleo-Indian tools have beenrecovered adjacent to poorly drained areas presumed to represent hunting or procurement sites,The Hughes Early Man complex, in central Kent County, was located on low, well-drainedknolls adjacent to a large, freshwater swamp and several poorly drained areas/environmentallysimilar to that found near Churchman's Marsh (Custer 1984:58). Two other reported localesof Paleo-Indian sites on the Delmarva Peninsula were the mouths of the Chljptank and Nanticoke rivers, which, during the late Pleistocene, were headlands overlooking the ancestralSusquehanna River. Large cobble deposits suggested that these Paleo-Indian sites were quarries (Custer 1984:56-57).During the late glacial period, high-quality, secondary lithic sources and a game-attractiveenvironment were present in the north of the project area. Hunting and gathering or processingsites might be expected in the project region (Custer 1981,1986; Custer and Bachman 1984),

TABLE 1A Comparison of the Paleoenvironmental and Cultural SequencesYears BC15,00014,000Paleoenvironmental SequenceLate Glacial13,00012,000Cultural oodland I5,0004,0003,1102,0001,000810Sub-Atlantic0 BC/AD1,000 AD1,500 ADRecentWoodland 11Historic Era(Custer 1984)flR002SI2

Th,e A"?Mc Tradition: 6,500 to 3.000 BC. By 6,500 BC the postglacial climate hadchanged sufficiently to allow the establishment of present-day flora and fauna. Diagnostic artifacts associated with these new environments, and adaptation to them, include bifurcated-baseprojectile points and a variety of stemmed points (Custer 1984:61-62). Increased utilization offorest resources changed the artifact assemblage of this period; as reflected by the addition ofvarious ground-stone tools including axes, gouges, grinding stones, and other implements forprocessing plant foods.Since few Archaic sites were known for Delaware and no intact sites have been excavated(Custer 1984:65), evidence from the Middle Atlantic region, in general, must be applied,Settlement and subsistence strategies seem to have been shifting from nomadism to morescheduled exploitation of seasonally available resources (Humphrey and Chambers 1977;Brown and Basalik 1984). The increased number of plant-processing tools indicated a greaterdependence on gathered foods. Exclusive use of high-grade lithic resources gave way to utilization of a wider variety of lithics, often derived from secondary, cobble sources and probablyprocured in serial fashion (Custer 1984:65). This willingness to use lower quality lithic material suggested a lessening importance of hunting in the Archaic economy. Another indicator ofchanging subsistence and settlement patterns during the Archaic was the exploitation of a widervariety of environmental settings (Custer 1984:66).Based on this increased variety of site locations, tools and lithics, indicating a diversifiedadaptation to an increased variety of resources based on seasonal rotation of activities, Custer(1984) has theorized that three types of sites might be expected to occur. The first was amacroband base camp located in an area of overlapping resources. This type of site could berecognized by a wide variety of tool types, and much artifactual debris typical of intensiveoccupation. The second was a microband base camp, also located in an area of overlappingresources. However, this site type had a lower carrying capacity and displayed less debris.The third was a procurement site where limited or specific activities occurred. This type wasexemplified by less tool variety and still less artifactual debris (Custer 1984:67).On the coastal plain of Delaware, areas of overlapping environments were found nearinterior, fresh water marshes. Archaic sites have been located on the terraces adjacent toChurchman's Marsh, northeast of the study area, and along the Red Lion and White Claycreeks. Small procurement sites were possible but unlikely within the study area.The Woodland 1 Tradition: 3.000 to 1.000 BC. Cusier (1984) documented the beginningof this period chiefly by the reduced variety of site locations, the result of a drier climate.This environmental shift not only affected resource distribution, but also increased the importance of surface water in settlement location (Custer 1984:94-95), Base camps were establishedat the mouths of streams and rivers or in areas of marshy bays, and processing camps were inthe uplands. The shift continued from primary 10 secondary lithic sources, or from quarriedstones to stream cobbles. Quartzite became the most commonly used stqne (Potter 1980:17),Woodland I material culture included ground-stone axes, hammerstones, atlatl weights, variouscutting tools, drill points, and other stone and bone implements.\There was a gradual but dramatic shift from seminomadic hunting and gathering of theprevious periods toward increasing sedentism during the Woodland I period. Other culturalchanges included population increase; the introduction of steatite vessels followed by potterymaking; the establishment of agriculture; the beginnings of elaborate mortuary practices reflecting the onset of social stratification; and the initiation of long-range trade (Humphrey andChambers 1977:17; Tirpak 1980; Custer 1984).AROQ25I3

Archaeological surveys immediately south of the study area found that prehistoric sitelocations conformed to interpretations of interior procurement sites for the Woodland I period(Hodny, Bachman, and Ouster 1989:84). Woodland I settlement focused on major waterways.From the base camps on the major drainages, forays were made to resource settings for theprocurement of specific resources (producing discrete archaeological sites). Generalized, lesswell focused forays were undertaken for various purposes, and produced less discrete archaeological sites, If such sites from this time period occurred within the study area, deposits wouldconsist of defuse lithic scatters.The Woodland II Tradition; 1,000 BC to AD 1600. Several changes in effect by AD1,000 were recognized as indicators of a new era. These indicators included the breakdown ofthe widespread exchange network, alteration of the settlement pattern, development of sedentism and varying degrees of agricultural activity (Custer 1984:146). Although plant domestication occurred prior to 1,000 AD, its economic effect was minimal at that time. Gathered foodcontinued to be the major source of sustenance throughout Woodland II. Intensified foodprocurement by both methods produced surpluses, which increased the use of storage facilitiesand allowed permanent villages and increased population. Estuarine locations were abandonedin favor of floodplains (Custer 1984:148), Settlements, located at stream confluences and nearstream terraces, were typically large. Ossuary burial was practiced in the area by AD 1,000(Potter 1980). Tbwnsend and Minguannan were diagnostic pottery types of this period. Otheritems of material culture included triangular points, bone and antler implements, stone celts,clay pipes, and shell beads (Brown and Basalik 1984).There was no evidence of an increase in population from Woodland I in Delaware. Exploitation of sites with Woodland I components continued during Woodland II, as did the system ofmacroband, microband, and procurement sites (Custer 1984:156).The Contact Period. The Contact period covered the initial contact of native Americancultures with newly arriving Europeans. The Amerinds living in Delaware at the time ofcontact were Algonquin-spealdng peoples. Those in the northern part of Delaware referred tothemselves as the Lenni Lenape (or Lenapi), meaning 'original' or 'real men,' According toLenape oral history, they first arrived in the east during Late Prehistoric times from the westor northwest, beyond the Mississippi River. They divided and settled in eastern Pennsylvania,northern Delaware, and New Jersey (Weslager 1968:154-155), It wasn't until after 1610 andthe naming of the bay and river in honor of Lord De La Warr, English governor of Virginia,that the Lenape became known as the "Delaware" Indians (Weslager 1968:154; Williams1985:18).Lenni Lenape territory encompassed both sides of the Delaware River north of BombayHook, and extended northward to its headwaters. Because they lived in small, self-governingvillages with no apparent central authority, the Lenni Lenape were often exploited by the morepowerful Susquehannock Indians to the north. The Susquehannock were referred to as the'Minguas' by the Lenape (Williams 1985:12-13), This distinction between the Lenape of thecoast and the Minguas of the interior was recognized by early Swedish and Dutch settlers, whooften made trading expeditions into "the Minguas Country" located some fifty to one hundredand fifty miles inland (Hoffecker 1973:7).Aboriginal settlement of northern Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania was document-ed during early European colonization of these areas. Large village sites were visited anddescribed by Dutch, Swedish, and English explorers and settlers. Journals by European visitorsto the Delaware region at the beginning of the seventeenth century recorded that the Lenapepopulation was concentrated on the western shore of the Delaware River near Philadelphia.South of Philadelphia were the villages of Minquannan, on White Clay Creek near the OldLondon Tract Church, and Queominising, on the great bend of the Brandywine River, partly inPennsylvania and partly in Delaware (Weslager 1968:156-157). Another small unnamed vil-A'R0025 l»x ' !!-

lage stood on the site of present-day Wilmington when the Swedes landed there in 1638(Hoffecker 1973:4). Because these aboriginal settlements were often destroyed by urban development, archaeological evidence of them is scarce (Thomas 1981: HI-4),In 1638, Lenape chiefs "sold" all the land on the west side of the Delaware River, fromDuck Creek on the south to the Schuylkill River on the north and continuing inland to the NewSweden Company, represented by Peter Minuit (Hoffecker 1973:4-5; Williams 1985:23-26).The Delaware Bay region was abundant with bear, elk, wolves, deer, beaver, and fish.European colonization of the area, begun because of interest in these resources, soon depletedthem. The Minguas saw the Lenape as rivals in lucrative European trade and increased theirvictimization of them (Williams 1985:13-18), This combination of resource depletion, Indianappetite and rivalry for European trade goods, rampant disease, and bewilderment concerningthe European view of land ownership caused the Amerind pultural suicide.In general, the Amerinds of the East Coast took the initial brunt of European arrival.During this period disease killed many, others had their lands taken, and several groups movedwestward. Amerinds, therefore, vanished from the area early in the Contact period (Weslager1968). After 1729, the last of the Delaware left their homelands on the headwaters of theBrandywine to join other Delaware Indian groups on the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania.During the French and Indian War the Delaware Indians joined other groups moving to Ohio.As the colonies expanded, the Delaware were forced onto Indian Territory; by 1868, mostsettled in Oklahoma and some in Canada. Today Delaware Indian descendants may be foundin Oklahoma and Ontario, Canada, as well as a few of mixed blood in Delaware. Most oftheir old customs and traditions have been lost, and only a few can speak the original language(Weslager 1947:29-30).State Plan. The Management Plan for Delaware's Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Custer1986) outlines the nature and variety of the prehistoric archaeological resources which mightbe present within the study region. The documents divides the state into management unitswhich are based upon physiographic, paleo

archaeological review is an evaluation of potential archaeological resources, which might be affected by the possible use of this land during remedial construction. The Archaeological research for this project was undertaken between January 23 and February 14 1991. Kenneth J, Basalik served as the project's Principal Investigator. Ronald

Related Documents:

Texts of Wow Rosh Hashana II 5780 - Congregation Shearith Israel, Atlanta Georgia Wow ׳ג ׳א:׳א תישארב (א) ׃ץרֶָֽאָּהָּ תאֵֵ֥וְּ םִימִַׁ֖שַָּה תאֵֵ֥ םיקִִ֑לֹאֱ ארָָּ֣ Îָּ תישִִׁ֖ארֵ Îְּ(ב) חַורְָּ֣ו ם

Cracknell, P Carlisle : Historic Building Survey and Archaeological Illustration (HBSAI), 2005, 21pp, colour pls, fi gs, refs Work undertaken by: Historic Building Survey and Archaeological Illustration (HBSAI) SMR primary record number: 1593 Archaeological periods represented: PM. Archaeological Investigations Project 2005 Building Survey North West (G.16.2118) {EC17F9C4-61F0-4672-B70D .

The Phase I Archaeological Survey examined approximately 0.19 hectares (0.48 acres). Of that, approximately 0.16 hectares (0.4 acres), or 83% of the APE was assessed through a geomorphological investigation as having a low potential for precontact archaeological deposits due to the presence of a wet or modern floodplain. This is the second

Phase IA Archaeological Documentary Study PS313 - 235th Street Pump Station Reconstruction Riverdale, Bronx County, New York September 2018 iii List of Tables 1. Recorded Prehistoric Archaeological Sites within One Mile of Project 2. Records identified in the Riverdale Vicinity Utilizing LPC’s Website List of Figures 1. Project Location 2.

Archaeological Survey of India, Aurangabad Circle Page 5 4. Earnest Money Deposit: The Hard Copy of original instruments in respect of cost of earnest money must be delivered to the Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Aurangabad Circle or Bid opening date/time as mentioned in critical date sheet.

Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 68: the manley collection of stone age tools. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. 930.1 AIY 020965 5. Aiyer, S. (Ed.). (1986). South Indian inscriptions, vol. 6: miscellaneous inscriptions in Tamil, Telugu and Kannada. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Archaeological Survey of India Aurangabad Circle Whole working jurisdiction of Aurangabad Circle 5. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India Bangalore Circle Whole working jurisdiction of Bangalore Circle and Hampi Mini-Circle 6. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India

3 P a g e www.ncerthelp.com (Visit for all ncert solutions in text and videos, CBSE syllabus, note and many more) (b) 1 pound 0.4537 kg (c) 1 amu 1.66 x10-23 kg 3 Volume