Deep, Dirty Secrets: 2014 Archaeological Excavations at the Isaiah Davenport House, Savannah, Georgia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Deep, Dirty Secrets: 2014 Archaeological Excavations at the Isaiah Davenport House, Savannah, Georgia Volume 2 Davenport House Report Volume 2 (See Volume 1 for Archaeology Report) Appendix A: Ground Penetrating Radar Report Appendix B: Macrobotanical Report Appendix C: Pollen, Phytolith, Starches, & Parasites Report Appendix D: Faunal Report Appendix E: Artifact Inventory Davenport House Report Volume 2 Appendix A Ground Penetrating Radar Daniel T. Elliott LAMAR Institute museum and a showcase of Savannah’s Introduction wonderful historic heritage. Field researchers conducted this This report details the LAMAR archeological project in December 2013. Institute’s Ground Penetrating Radar The GPR survey explored portions of the Survey (GPR) of a sample portion of the Davenport yard, the Davenport house Isaiah Davenport House Museum basement, and two exterior brick walls property in Savannah, Georgia (Figure of the Davenport house. The GPR report 1). This undertaking was commissioned represents supporting research for a by the Historic Savannah Foundation broader archaeological report authored who operate the Isaiah Davenport House by Rita Folse Elliott and Daniel T. Museum. The Davenport has an Elliott (2014). That report contains a important history beyond its obvious detailed historical background and nineteenth century role. The pending context for the GPR study and for destruction of this dwelling and its last- subsequent excavations and analyses. minute salvation marked a major The background, research methods, milestone in the beginning of the historic findings and interpretations of the GPR preservation movement in Savannah. survey are detailed in this report. The property was saved and placed and it continues to operate as a historic house Figure 1. Project Location, Isaiah Davenport House Museum, Savannah, Georgia. 1 effective in mapping historic cemeteries. Methods The technology uses high frequency electromagnetic waves (microwaves) to The LAMAR Institute conducted its acquire subsurface data. The device uses GPR survey at the Isaiah Davenport a transmitter antenna and closely spaced House Museum in December 2013. The receiver antenna to detect changes in survey team consisted of Daniel T. electromagnetic properties beneath them. Elliott and Rita F. Elliott. Post- The antennas are suspended just above processing of the GPR data was done by the ground surface and are shielded to Mr. Elliott during and immediately eliminate interference from sources other following the fieldwork. than directly beneath the device. The transmitting antenna emits a series of The equipment used by the LAMAR electromagnetic microwaves, which are Institute for the GPR survey at the distorted by differences in soil Davenport House consisted of a conductivity, dielectric permitivity, and RAMAC/X3M Integrated Radar Control magnetic permeability. The receiving Unit, mounted on a wheeled-cart and antenna records the reflected waves for a linked to a RAMAC XV11 Monitor specified length of time (in nanoseconds, (Firmware, Version 3.2.36). Both 500 or ns). The approximate depth of an and 800 megahertz (MHz) shielded object can be estimated with GPR, by antenna were used for the data gathering. adjusting for electromagnetic MALÅ GeoScience’s Ground Vision propagation conditions. software (Version 1.4.6) was used to acquire and record the radar data The GPR samples in this study area were (MALÅ GeoScience USA 2006). The composed of a series of parallel radar information was displayed as a transects, or traverses, which yielded a series of radargrams. Output from the two-dimensional cross-section or profile survey was first viewed using of the radar data. These samples are GroundVision. This provided immediate termed radargrams. This two- feedback about the suitability of GPR dimensional image is constructed from a survey in the area and the effective sequence of thousands of individual operation of the equipment. GPR-Slice radar traces. A succession of radar traces software (Version 7.0) was used in post- bouncing off a large buried object will processing the data. The same RAMAC produce a hyperbola, when viewed X3M GPR system as that used in the graphically in profile. Multiple large present study has been used successfully objects that are in close proximity may by the LAMAR Institute on dozens of produce multiple, overlapping other archaeological sites in the hyperbolas, which are more difficult to southeastern United States. The methods interpret. employed for the GPR survey were consistent with previous LAMAR The GPR signals that are captured by the Institute projects. receiving antenna are recorded as an array of numerals, which can be Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is an converted to gray scale (or color) pixel important remote-sensing tool used by values. The radargrams are essentially a archaeologists (Conyers and Goodman vertical map of the radar reflection off 1997). The technology is particularly 2 objects and other soil anomalies. It is The time window that was selected not an actual map of the objects. The allowed data gathering to focus in the radargram is produced in real time and is soil the zone most likely to yield viewable on a computer monitor, archaeological deposits. Additional mounted on the GPR cart. filters were used to refine the radar information during post-processing. GPR has been successfully used for These include adjustments to the gain. archaeological and forensic These alterations to the data are anthropological applications to locate reversible, however, and do not affect relatively shallow features, although the the original data that was collected. technique also can probe deeply into the ground. The machine is adjusted to Upon arrival at the site the RAMAC probe to the depth of interest by the use X3M Radar Unit was set up for the of different frequency range antennas. operation and calibrated. Several trial Higher frequency antennas are more runs were made on parts of the site to useful at shallow depths, which is most test the machine’s effectiveness in the often the case in archaeology. Also, the site’s soils. Weather conditions at the longer the receiving antenna is set to time of the survey were dry. Some receive GPR signals (measured in precipitation had fallen in the area in the nanoseconds, or ns), the deeper the days prior to the survey so some residual search. The effectiveness of GPR in rainfall as shallow groundwater may various environments on the North have been present. American continent is widely variable and depends on solid conductivity, The GPR survey team collected radar metallic content, and other pedo- data from eight sample grids on the chemical factors. museum property. Each grid was given a letter designation (A through H). The GPR signals cannot penetrate large collection parameters for each survey metal objects and the signals are also grid is detailed in the following. significantly affected by the presence of salt water. Although radar does not Two GPR sample blocks (A and H) were penetrate metal objects, it does generate collected in the yard of the Davenport a distinctive signal that is usually house. Most of the area of Blocks A and recognizable, particularly for larger H was covered in high grass. Soils in metal objects, such as a cast iron cannon both GPR blocks are comprised of sandy or man-hole cover. The signal beneath loam and sand grading to sandy clay. these objects is often canceled out, GPR Block A was located north and which results in a pattern of horizontal west of the house. This irregular-shaped lines on the radargram. For smaller GPR block examined an area objects, such as a scatter of nails, the approximately 24 m East-West by 23 m signal may ricochet from the objects and North-South. Radargrams were collected produce a confusing signal. Rebar- from south to north and progressed from reinforced concrete, as another example, west to east. Figure 2 shows the generates an unmistakable radar pattern radargram plan for Block A. Equipment of rippled lines on the radargram. settings and other pertinent logistical 3 attributes for GPR Block A included the • Antenna Separation: 0.18 m following: • Trigger: 0.04 m • Radargram orientation: Block A-South • Time Window: 62.2 ns to North • Number of Stacks: 4 • Radargram progress: Block A-West to • Number of Samples: 512 East • Sampling Frequency: 7751.11 MHz • Radargram Spacing: 50 cm • Antenna: 500 MHz shielded • Total Radargrams: 69 Figure 2. Radargram Plan for GPR Block A (Grid North is Up). GPR Block B was located in the interior point for this sample was located at the of the Davenport house. It covered an southwest interior corner of Mr. Jeff irregularly-shaped area measuring Freeman’s office. Equipment settings approximately 12 m north-south m by and other pertinent logistical attributes 10.4 m east-west (Figure 3). The 0,0 grid for GPR Block B included the following: 4 • Trigger: 0.19 m • Time Window: 53.8 ns • Radargram orientation: Block B-South • Number of Stacks: 4 to North • Number of Samples: 512 • Radargram progress: Block B-West to • Sampling Frequency: 8954.56 MHz East • Antenna: 800 MHz shielded • Radargram Spacing: 20 cm • Antenna Separation: 0.14 m • Total Radargrams: 148 Figure 3. Radargram Plan of GPR Block B (Grid North is Up). GPR Block C mapped the lower portion measuring approximately 1.9 m vertical of the exterior western brick wall of the by 8 m north-south (Figure 4). Davenport house. It covered an area Equipment settings and other pertinent 5 logistical attributes for GPR Block C • Antenna Separation: 0.14 m included the following: • Trigger: 0.19 m • Radargram orientation: Block C-Bottom • Time Window: 32.4 ns to Top • Number of Stacks: 4 • Radargram progress: Block C-North to • Number of Samples: 320 South • Sampling Frequency: 8954.55 MHz • Radargram Spacing: 20 cm • Antenna: 800 MHz shielded • Total Radargrams: 19 Figure 4. Radargram Plan for GPR Block C (Grid North is to Left).