DOCSLIB.ORG

5 Event an Occurrence Or Happening. Excavate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5 Event an Occurrence Or Happening. Excavate event an occurrence or happening. Law of Superposition a geologic concept excavate to dig up the soil in a scientific that states that layers of soil deposited manner. first are below those deposited at a later feature structure; could be either man- date. The layers that are the oldest are made or naturally occurring. beneath those that are younger. final report after an excavation takes lithic referring to stone. place, all the information is gathered maize corn. by the archaeologists and written into a mano a hand-held rock used to grind final report that is released for peer grains, used in conjunction with a review prior to being published. metate. forage to gather food from land. metate a rock used as a base to hold granary a building used to store surplus grains for grinding, used in grains. conjunction with a mano. grid a checkerboard-like network of mission a community established by and uniform horizontal and vertical lines focused on the Catholic Church. Set up that provides guidelines for by Spaniards to colonize New Spain, archaeological excavations. the mission’s purpose was to convert hearth fireplace. North American natives to Christianity history recorded past events. and turn them into tax-paying Spanish Hohokam (means “all gone” or “all used citizens. up” in the O’odham language) the Mogollon refers to the culture found in culture that occupied the desert of the Mogollon Mountains. The south-central Arizona from about A.D. Mogollon Culture existed 300–1450. approximately A.D. 200–1200. huerta a private Mexican-owned garden ostracod water-dwelling crustacean. in Tucson in the 1800s, 25–30 feet paddle and anvil method a pottery square in size. technique used by Hohokam and hunter-gatherer culture people who O’odham people. First, coils of clay are hunt small game animals and gather stacked on top of one another. Once plants from the land to satisfy their the basic shape is decided, the potter diet. places his/her hand inside the pot irrigate to divert water from a river, while holding a smoothing rock (the stream, or lake to farmland usually anvil). The other hand gently pats the using ditches and canals. pot with a paddle to smooth out the laboratory analysis to decipher coils. information in a scientific laboratory Paleo-Indian migratory people who usually involving tests. crossed exposed land in the Bering Law of Original Horizontality Strait from Siberia and spread a geologic concept that states that soils throughout the Americas, following are deposited first horizontally. herds of mammoth, bison, and other big game, around 12,000–8,000 B.C. Vocabulary 5 Piman relating to a language from the research design a plan of action that Uto-Aztecan family. guides an archaeological excavation. pithouse a house built partially below riverine pertaining to an aquatic setting, the surface of the earth. Generally, the such as a river or stream. above surface part was made of sticks, sample grids specific grids chosen by desert brush, and mud. Pithouses archaeologists to excavate usually had a dome shape, no sedentary to remain in one place. windows, and one entrance. sediment material deposited by water, plaiting braiding. wind, or glaciers. pothunter one who illegally removes site a place or area that was used by evidence from an archaeological site. humans. potsherd piece of pottery or ceramic. staple crop a principal plant raised for prehistory the period of time occurring food or used for manufacturing. prior to written language. storage pit underground storage used for presidio a walled fort housing soldiers surplus food. and their families, built by the strata layers. Spaniards to help colonize Spanish- stratification different layers of soil piled claimed land in North America. on top of each other. Presidios were part of a two-pronged stratigraphy the study and approach, in conjunction with interpretation of soil or rock layers. missions, to settle the land. stylistic analysis determining the radiocarbon dating tests organic meaning of an artifact by comparing an materials such as charcoal, bone, or artwork style with that of other wood, to determine the quantity of a cultures. radioactive form called carbon 14 survey to examine a parcel of land to (usually written 14C). Living things ascertain location, condition, and ingest carbon 14, which decays at a extent of property. An archaeological steady known rate. By determining the survey examines land to identify and ratio between carbon 14 and regular record any cultural materials present. carbon in the object, it is possible to temper adding products, such as grass, discover an age range for the object. mica, or sand to clay, to strengthen the relative dating techniques scientific clay for firing measures that tell the age of an artifact, zanjero an elected water judge who site, or feature by relating the object to oversaw the fair and equitable another object. This technique can tell distribution of irrigated water. us whether an artifact is older than, younger than, or the same age as another. It cannot provide an exact calendar date for an artifact. 6 Vocabulary Archaeological Techniques: Documenting Evidence In this lesson, students will practice data recording and observation skills. Students will learn the importance of detailed and accurate data recording by mapping a designated area, recording and reevaluating data, and comparing final product with the original source. Getting Started Objectives Materials • to introduce students to the scientific • graph paper method, archaeological procedures, and • pencils vocabulary terms • rulers • to enable students to perform an • classroom, playground, or gymnasium archaeological survey using scientific methods • tape, clothesline, or chalk • compass Standards Addressed Grades 4–5 1SC-E3 (PO1, PO2), 2SC-E4 Time (PO1) 1–2 class periods Grades 6–8 1SC-E3 (PO1, PO2), 2SC-E4 (PO1), 2SC-E5 (PO3) Key Words archaeology artifacts ceramics context data interpretation excavate features grid lithics research design site survey 7 teacher’s corner Archaeology is the study of human for evidence of human activity, such as behavior by examining the artifacts, or broken pottery, stone chips, broken material objects people have made or glass bottles, or mounds of earth. Earth used. Among these pieces of evidence are mounds could indicate a buried ceramics (pottery), lithics (stone tools), structure or garbage dump. and features (structures). A location that Archaeologists make detailed maps people used (blacksmith shop, school, showing the location of everything animal carcass preparation area) or a they find. Photographs may also be location in which they lived (pithouse taken to record what the site looked community, presidio, boarding house) is like. called a site. Once archaeologists excavate Q. How are archaeological excavations a site and recover the artifacts, they must planned? piece together the story that the objects A. Before archaeologists excavate a site, tell, just like a detective pieces together they prepare a research design. This is a the clues at a crime scene to determine plan of action that addresses the Who, what happened. How do archaeologists do What, When, Where, How, and Why what they do? Archaeologists do their job questions. Some research design in stages: questions might be: a. Survey and records check 1. What kinds of crops were grown b.Testing here? 2. b. Research design Who lived at this site? 3. d. Excavation When did the people use the area? 4. e. Laboratory analysis Where did the people get food? 5. f. Data interpretation Why was the site abandoned? 6. g. Final report How old are the artifacts? The research design summarizes what is Q. What is the first step for an already known about the site and other archaeologist? sites in nearby locations. It identifies A. Archaeologists are often asked to the best excavation methods and the examine an area before development experts who will analyze the artifacts. and construction take place. The first Q. Why do archaeologists try to preserve step is to do a records check and some sites without digging them? survey. Archaeologists read public A. Archaeologists develop new techniques records to discover if the area or all the time. Radiocarbon dating, for surrounding areas have been examined example, first became available in the before and whether any archaeological early 1950s; techniques for “floating” sites are present. Archaeologists will the burned wood and seeds to recover then walk across the surface of the them from soils were not widely project in transects, or lines spaced at practiced until the 1970s. These new regular intervals. Archaeologists search techniques have provided a great deal 8 Lesson 1 Archaeological Techniques: Documenting Evidence of fresh information and have A. If artifacts are large and easily visible, improved archaeologists’ abilities to archaeologists carefully remove them understand the past. Many more new and pack them for shipment to the lab. techniques may become available in the Screening is the most efficient way to next 50 or 100 years that will help recover small items that may be hidden answer questions that are mysteries in dirt clumps or piles. Excavators today. This is one very important shovel dirt onto screens, which are reason for preserving archaeological shaken so that dirt falls through, sites. leaving behind gravel and artifacts. The Another reason for preservation is artifacts are collected, sorted by material that many archaeological sites contain (pottery, stone, animal bone, shell, cemeteries, places, or artifacts that are metal, glass, etc.), and placed in labeled important to Native Americans and bags. The artifacts are taken to the other descendants of people who lived laboratory, where most items are here in the past. Although specific washed and dried. procedures for carrying out Q. What happens during the analysis excavations—even human burials— phase? have been developed, most groups A. Artifacts and samples are sent to experts prefer to see these sites remain for identification and interpretation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Archaeological Research Services Ltd RECORDING PROCEDURES
    Archaeological Research Services Ltd RECORDING PROCEDURES Contents The Single Context Planning System…………... 1 The Context Recording System…………………. 2 The Burial Recording System………………….... 7 Plans, Sections and Sketches…………………... 10 Environmental Sampling…………………………. 12 Finds……………………………………………….. 14 Photography……………………………………….. 18 ©Archaeological Research Services Ltd. Recording Procedures The Single Context Planning System The key to understanding remains in the archaeological record is through the stratigraphic sequence. The stratigraphic sequence is the accumulated layers of occupation which represent actions in the past. Each ‘context’ is derived from an action of deposition or removal. Within any sequence such as this, the earlier deposits will always be cut or sealed by the later giving the stratigraphic sequence a relative chronology. It is important to note that the only relevant relationship between two contexts is that which lies immediately before or after any given context. All contexts within a site should be given equal consideration when considering the stratigraphic sequence, including physical artefacts such as coffins or walls, along side the more common types of context such as cuts and deposits. The stratigraphic sequence can be represented by a Harris Matrix showing the full interconnectivity of all contexts on a site. Each context is given its own unique context number and is recorded in isolation after the removal of all contexts above. In this way plans can be overlaid to compile and then check the site matrix. 1 ©Archaeological Research Services Ltd. Recording Procedures The Context Recording System (see also Context Recording Sheet) Site Code: Unique site identifier, usually consisting of a three or four letter code denoting the site and a two digit code denoting the year of the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
    AT THE ROAD’S EDGE: FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WILSON FARM TENANCY SITE Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms Artifact -Any object shaped or modified by man, or as a result of human activity. Archaeology -The study of the people of the past through the systematic recovery and analysis of the artifacts/material evidence they left behind. Archival Research – research conducted in places where public or historical records, charters, and documents are stored and preserved. Assemblage – Collection of persons or things: in archaeological contexts, the collection of artifacts from a particular site, from a stratigraphic level, or cultural component within the site, or a particular artifact class, such as lithics or ceramics. Census, U.S. – An official count of the nation’s population taken every 10 years, often including a collection of demographic information. Culture – A uniquely human system of behavioral patterns, beliefs, habits, and customs, used to interact with other people and with the environment, acquired by people through a nonbiological, uninherited, learned process. Datum – A point, line, or surface used as a reference, as in surveying. Diagnostic - An artifact that can clearly be dated and/or identified as to maker, date, place of origin, etc. Feature -Any soil disturbance or discoloration that reflects human activity. Also, an artifact too large to remove from a site; for example, house foundations, storage pits, etc. Flotation – The process of sifting soil samples through a fine screen while running a steady stream of water over the sample; residual materials such as tiny artifacts, seeds, and bones are separated out into light and heavy fractions for analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent
    Wessex Archaeology Kingsborough Manor Phase 2 Stage 1 Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Ref: 57170.01 October 2005 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT Assessment of Archaeological Excavation Results Prepared on behalf of Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd 3 White Oak Square Swanley Kent BR8 7AG by Wessex Archaeology Portway House Old Sarum Park Salisbury SP4 6EB Report reference: 57170.01 October 2005 © Wessex Archaeology Limited 2005 all rights reserved Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No. 287786 KINGSBOROUGH MANOR PHASE 2 STAGE 1 EASTCHURCH, ISLE OF SHEPPEY, KENT SUMMARY Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Jones Homes (Southern) Ltd to conduct archaeological excavations on land associated with Phase 2 Stage 1 of an ongoing, low- density housing development. The Phase 2 Stage 1 site was located north east of Kingsborough Farm, Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, and to the north west of Kingsborough Manor housing development Phase 1 (Fig. 1). Work was undertaken between July and September 2004 and was carried out as a condition of planning permission for the development granted by Swale District Council and pursuant to a specification issued by the Heritage Conservation Group of Kent County Council. This report provides a brief summary of the excavation results. The Site (NGR 597725 172394) comprised an area of land totalling approximately 15,759m² and was located to the north of Kingsborough Farm, 2km south-east of Minster and c. 1.25km to the north-west of the village of Eastchurch, Isle of Sheppey. It occupies an elevated position on the Isle of Sheppey, close to the north eastern edge of a ridge extending east-west along the island, with commanding views to the north and east over the Thames and the Essex coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont
    GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING ARCHAEOLOGY IN VERMONT 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Amending the Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont (Guidelines) was a team effort, headed by State Archaeologist, Jess Robinson, under the direction of State Historic Preservation Officer, Laura V. Trieschmann, with insight and assistance from Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP) archaeologists Scott Dillon and Yvonne Benney Basque. These Guidelines update and supersede the previous version developed by the previous State Archaeologist, Giovanna Peebles, and Scott Dillon. An advisory committee consisting of State government, academic and non-profit archaeologists discussed many ideas and topics leading to the development of a preliminary list of priority research questions important to understanding the precontact and post-contact history of Vermont. The advisory committee also commented on an earlier draft of the Guidelines. VDHP would like to thank all of the Vermont archaeologists whose excavations, publications, and knowledge contributed to the reasoning behind these guidelines. Advisory Committee Yvonne Benney Basque John Crock, PhD Jacob Clay R. Scott Dillon Brennan Gauthier Dave Lacy Jeannine Russell John Vetter, PhD Tim Watkins ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Recording Practices Guidelines for Archaeological Excavation and Recording Techniques
    Archaeological Recording Practices Guidelines for archaeological excavation and recording techniques www.northumberlandnationalpark.org.uk Contents This field training pack aims to support you with archaeological recording processes. These will include: Excavating a Feature 3 Recording Introduction 4 Recording Using Photography 6 Drawing Conventions 9 Drawing Sections 10 Drawing Plans 12 Levelling and Coordinates 14 Recording Cuts 16 Recording Deposits 17 Recording Interpretation 20 General Discussion 22 The Harris Matrix 23 Finds 26 Environmental Samples 27 Human Remains 29 Health and Safety 30 Glossary of Terms 31 2 Gemma Stewart 2013 Excavating a Feature Archaeological excavation is the primary means in which we gather information. It is critical that it is carried out carefully and in a logical manner. The flow chart below has been provided to show the steps required for fully excavating and recording a feature. Identify feature Clean area to find the extent of the feature Consider if pre-excavation photos and plan are required Select appropriate equipment Use nails and string to mark out section for excavation Excavate the feature/deposit carefully removing the latest context first If finds are present bag finds from each context separately Take environmental samples if necessary Remove any loose spoil and tidy feature ready for recording Take out numbers (context, section and plan) Photograph the feature/section Draw the section Draw the plan Measure levels Complete context sheets File paperwork 3 Recording Introduction Excavation results in the destruction of contexts, therefore, a detailed and correct record of the archaeology discovered is required in order to produce and maintain a permanent archive.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Digital Recording System
    VULCI 3000 CRIB SHEET Guidelines for the Digital Recording System 0. Introduction The Vulci 3000 Project uses the single context method recording system: it means that each excavated stratigraphic unit (context) is given a unique ID number and it is recorded by: • Unit Sheet • Photos • Plan and/or section drawings; height above sea level The finds from each unit are bagged and labeled with their unit number for later cross reference work carried out in the post excavation. Samples of deposits from contexts are sometimes also taken for later environmental analysis or scientific dating. At Vulci, the conventional documentation integrates digital 3D data recorded by photogrammetric techniques or by laser scanning. In general, photogrammetry is systematically used in micro-scale (layers) and 3D laser scanning in macro-scale (large-scale survey). 1. The Unit List As soon as the unit is recognized, you have to choose a unique ID number from the master unit list, available on the tablet. Before recording, check the list and assign to your unit the first untaken number on the list. Avoid duplicate numbers because they cause endless problems and result in loss of information. Two different units cannot have the same number so verify and record the number of the unit in the Master Unit List. Specifically, the Master Unit List consists of: Number: enter the first untaken number of the list; that will be the ID number of your unit Definition: o Enter the type of the unit, positive (layer or fill) or negative (cut) o Provide a more specific interpretation of the unit: .
    [Show full text]
  • Density Standards for Field Compaction of Granular Bases and Subbases
    172 Vk ~ MAR 7 1977 DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS BRIDGE SECTION NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGt-IWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM REPORT 172 DENSITY STANDARDS FOR FIELD COMPACTION OF GRANULAR BASES AND SUBBASES TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 1976 Officers HAROLD L. MICHAEL, Chairman ROBERT N. HUNTER, Vice Chairman W. N. CAREY, JR., Executive Director Executive Committee HENRIK E. STAFSETH, Executive Director, American Assn. of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) NORBERT T. TIEMANN, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ROBERT E. PATRICELLI, Urban Mass Transportation Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ASAPH H. HALL, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.' Department of Transportation (ex officio) HARVEY BROOKS, Chairman, Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, National Research Council (ex officio) MILTON PIKARSKY, Chairman of the Board, Chicago Regional Transportation Authority (ex officio, Past Chairman 1975) WARREN E. ALBERTS, Vice President (Systems Operations Seivices), United Airlines GEORGE H. ANDREWS, Vice President (Transportation Marketing), Sverdrup and Parcel GRANT BASTIAN, State Highway Engineer, Nevada Department of Highst'ays KURT W. BAUER, Executive Director, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission LANGHORNE M. BOND, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation MANUEL CARBALLO, Secretary of Health and Social Services, State of Wisconsin L. S. CRANE, President, Southern Railway System JAMES M. DAVEY Consultant B. L. DEBERRY, Engineer-Director, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation LOUIS J. GAMBACCINI, Vice President and General Manager, Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation HOWARD L. GAUTHIER, Professor of Geography, Ohio State University FRANK C. HERRINGER, General Manager, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District ANN R. HULL, Delegate, Maryland General Assembly ROBERT N.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 METHODS of ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION
    Chapter 3 METHODS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION Archaeological evidence for Ayers Town was initially revealed in 2008 by Legacy Research archaeologists during survey along a 48-m (150-ft) corridor flanking the north side of the SC Highway 5 right-of-way (Legacy 2009:32–33). This survey consisted of surface reconnaissance and systematic subsurface testing along transects at 30-m intervals. Eight potsherds and an English kaolin pipe fragment associated with the historic Catawba occupation of Ayers Town were recovered from three adjacent shovel test pits (Transect 20, Shovel Tests 23–25). Eleven lithic artifacts attributable to earlier cultural components were recovered from three adjacent shovel test pits in Transects 20 (Shovel Test 24) and 21 (Shovel Tests 24 and 25), and from the exposed ground surface flanking the south edge of the site (Legacy 2009:65). Initial site discovery was followed up with a program of more intensive shovel testing to delimit the site and assess site content (Figure 3.1) (Legacy 2009:65). One hundred thirty-seven shovel test were excavated at five-meter intervals; of these, 62 yielded cultural material and defined a site area measuring approximately 60 m east-west by 65-m north-south. Almost three- fourths of the 219 total artifacts found (including those collected during initial site discovery) were fragments of Catawba-made coarse earthenware attributable to the historic occupation at Ayers Town. Other artifacts associated with this occupation included two fragments of English ceramics, a piece of a kaolin pipe, and five bottle glass fragments. The remaining artifacts were stone tool fragments and debitage associated with earlier site components.
    [Show full text]
  • C C Archaeology Guidelines R
    c c c Archaeology Guidelines r C Ohio Historic Preservation Office c r c c c c c Archaeology Guidelines Archaeology Guidelines Ohio Historic Preservation Office Ohio Historical Society Columbus, Ohio 1994 Copyright 1994 by the Ohio Hi storical Society, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Reprinted 20 I I The publication of Archaeology Guidelines has been made possible in part by the Sidney Frohman Fund of the Ohio Historical Society and by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service, administered by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. However, its contents do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Department of the Interior. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office receives federal assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Historic Preservation Fund. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe that you have been discriminated against, or for further information, write: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 Ohio Historic Preservation Office Ohio Histo2: Center 800 East 171 A venue Columbus, Ohio 43211-24 74 (6 14) 298-2000 www.ohpo.org [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements 7 Introduction 9 Purpose 9 Philosophy of Documenting Archaeological Resources 10 Human Remains & Associated Burial Objects II Section I 06 Review 12 Section One: The Review Process 15 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The ROMFA Archaeological Recording Manual
    The ROMFA Archaeological Recording Manual The ROMFA Archaeology Recording System is comprised of a series of modules each covering an aspect of fieldwork. The primary function of the manual is to act as an efficient guide to the ROMFA context recording procedure; this manual also includes procedures that relate specifically to good recording practice The ROMFA acronym stands for Rare, Occasional, Moderate, Frequent and Abundant and is used to describe the relative frequency of inclusions within archaeological deposits. www.norvicarchaeology.com [email protected] THE ‘ROMFA’ CONTEXT RECORDING SYSTEM CONTENTS Introduction 1 1. Recording Sheets 2 2. Basic Recording Conventions 2 3. General Fields 4 ‚ Historical Period Table 6 4. Post-Excavation Fields 8 5. Relationship Fields 9 ‚ Stratigraphic Relationship 9 ‚ Brief Principles of Matrices 9 ‚ Physical Relationships 11 6. Cross Referencing Fields 13 7. Context Register Sheets 15 8. Deposit Sheets 16 9. Cut Sheets 31 10. Excavation and Recording of Human Burials 38 ‚ ROMFA Skeleton Sheet 45 ‚ Human Skeletal Remains Identification Diagram 50 11. Masonry Sheets 53 12. Timber Sheets 57 ‚ Types of Timber Joints 61 ‚ Examples of Timber Joints 62 13. Master Sheets 63 14. Samples and Sample Sheets 64 15. Trench Sheets 71 16. Standard Finds Recovery on Archaeological Sites 73 ‚ On Site Finds Packaging 75 17. Photographic Recording on Archaeological Sites 78 ‚ Photographic Sheets 83 18. Archaeological Site Drawings 85 ‚ Essential Site Drawing Conventions and Procedures 89 ‚ Practical Guidelines for Section Drawings 98 ‚ Planning Methods 101 ‚ Taking Levels 107 ROMFA RECORDING SYSTEM - V1 2011 ROMFA RECORDING SYSTEM - V1 2011 THE ‘ROMFA’ CONTEXT RECORDING SYSTEM 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoarchaeology Using Earth Sciences to Understand the Archaeological Record Summary
    Geoarchaeology Using Earth Sciences to Understand the Archaeological Record Summary This guidance document covers the use of geoarchaeology to assist in understanding the archaeological record. Geoarchaeological techniques may range in scale from landscape studies to microscopic analysis, and are carried out by practitioners with specialist knowledge about the physical environment in which archaeological stratigraphy is preserved, and excavations take place. The main aim is usually to understand site formation processes, but there may also be issues concerning site preservation, refining field interpretations of archaeological contexts and identifying changes in the physical landscape through time. Previous editions of this document were compiled in 2004 and 2007 by Gianna Ayala, Matthew Canti, Jen Heathcote, Raimonda Usai and Jane Siddell. This edition was revised in 2015 by Matthew Canti with help from Jane Corcoran. First published by English Heritage 2004 Revised and reprinted by English Heritage 2007 This edition published by Historic England December 2015 All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated HistoricEngland.org.uk/research/approaches/research-methods/archaeology/ geoarchaeology/ Front cover Section across the ditch of the south bailey at Norwich Castle. © Norwich Archaeological Unit Contents Introduction .........................................1 3 Project Organisation and Planning .............................43 1 Site Formation Processes 3.1 Planning and costs ....................................43 and Deposits
    [Show full text]
  • Sand and Gravel Resources Along the Ohio River Valley in Boone, Gallatin, and Carroll Counties, Kentucky Eugene J
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Kentucky Geological Survey Investigations 1994 Sand and Gravel Resources Along the Ohio River Valley in Boone, Gallatin, and Carroll Counties, Kentucky Eugene J. Amaral University of Kentucky Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kgs_ri Part of the Geology Commons Repository Citation Amaral, Eugene J., "Sand and Gravel Resources Along the Ohio River Valley in Boone, Gallatin, and Carroll Counties, Kentucky" (1994). Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Investigations. 48. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kgs_ri/48 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Geological Survey at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Geological Survey Report of Investigations by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. -.v o ooo • 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 o O • • • 0 0 0 0 • ISSN 0075-5591 • 0 0 0 0 0 • oo . • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 Kentucky Geological Survey o•o o • o . o Donald C. Haney, State Geologist and Director 00 0 • 0 0 0 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, LEXINGTON • 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 • • 0 0 0 0 o • o • ·a o • o o 0 0 0 0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 . 0 . 0 0 o. ·o o ·o o • 0 • 0 Sand and Gravel Resources Along the Ohio River Valley 0 0 0 0 0 • • 0 • 00 0 0 o • 0 • ·a • o 0 • 0 • 0 0 in Boone, 0 • • oOo o .• • 0 0 0 Gallatin, and 0 0 0 0 0 • o ' o , .o.o 0 Carroll Counties, O .
    [Show full text]