Legacy- December 2018
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
How Strong Was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle
CHAPTER 26 How Strong was Strong Mountain? Preliminary Remarks on the Possible Location of the Mamluk Siege Position at Montfort Castle Rafael Lewis During a topographic and landscape archaeology sur- logical site to the broader landscape, including every vey, thoughts on Montfort Castle’s topographical infe- archaeological feature in it. The field methods used riority led to some preliminary1 ideas on the manner in Landscape Archaeology and the Archaeology of in which the Teutonic Order dealt with this crucial Conflicts includes the equal examination of all man- weakness, and what would have been the best loca- made features, not excluding modern elements which tion for the Mamluks to position their siege machinery are documented and studied. The underlying concept and camps during the two assaults of the castle in May of this approach is that in order to understand the 1266 and June 1271.2 meaning of a single find or feature, we need to under- Montfort Castle is isolated from main roads, com- stand the environment in which they were found and mercial centres and major settlements. The problem how they relate to it. The manner in which objects of its isolated location has been raised in the past.3 In are scattered in the landscape is examined strati- order to better understand the castle in its setting, I graphically, but also according to their focal, discrete or decided to go beyond the well-secured boundaries of expanded nature. A path, for example, can usually be the castle’s walls, to raise my head (methodologically) described as a discrete or expanded feature, but a road from the trenches, bulks and archaeological artefacts, junction where a few such features meet, is usually of and look at this specific topic of inquiry from a wide a focal nature. -
Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL
Inside... DIRECTOR’S NOTE VOL. 24, NO. 2, DECEMBER 2020 Battlefield Archaeology Book––Francis Marion and the Snow’s Island Community RESEARCH Small Arms Evidence from Star Fort Numismatic History of Charlesfort/Santa Elena: Plantation Era New Mound at Mulberry Archaeology in South Carolina Book MARITIME RESEARCH MRD Features in National Geographic TV Channel Drain the Oceans Season 3 A Mystery Object from Mississippi SAVANNAH RIVER By Chester B. DePratter, Director of Research ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH In 1976, I first became interested in colleagues, Charles Hudson and Marvin PROGRAM Hernando de Soto and the expedition he Smith, and I have published papers on Public Outreach in Time of Covid led through the Southeast when I was the 1539-1543 route that Soto and his men SCIAA ANNUAL REPORT just beginning work on my Ph.D. at the took from their landing in Tampa Bay, A New Feature in Legacy University of Georgia. In the 44 years that Florida, to the departure of the expedition have passed since then, my friends and survivors down the Mississippi River HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY A New Feature in Legacy MYSTERY ARTIFACT, See Page 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TRUST (ART) AND SCIAA DONORS ENDOWMENT OPPORTUNITIES Stanley South Student Archaeological Research Endowment Fund Thank you for your generous support of the Archaeological Research Trust (ART) Endowment Fund and the printing of Legacy. Please send donations in the enclosed envelope to Nena Powell Rice USC/SCIAA, 1321 Pendleton Street, Columbia, SC 29208, indicating whether you want to continue receiving Legacy and include your email address. All contributions are appreciated. Please visit our website at: http://www. -
Indiana Archaeology
INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 6 Number 1 2011 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) James A. Glass, Ph.D., Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff James R. Jones III, Ph.D., State Archaeologist Amy L. Johnson, Senior Archaeologist and Archaeology Outreach Coordinator Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Records Check Coordinator Editors James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Amy L. Johnson Cathy A. Carson Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams Publication Layout: Amy L. Johnson Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknow- ledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from several of the individual articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service‘s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. In addition, the projects discussed in several of the articles received federal financial assistance from the Historic Preservation Fund Program for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana. -
Salary Survey 2013
2012/2013 Entry-level Salary Information for Recent Graduates in Agriculture and Related Disciplines Each year, participating agricultural colleges across the nation provide data to summarize entry-level salaries of recent graduates of their programs. The information is useful to help illustrate industry trends and provide appropriate baselines for both students and employers. The summary, which is coordinated by Iowa State University, includes information collected by career services offi ces from December 2012 and May 2013 undergraduates. After the data are tabulated, the summary is fi nalized in August of each year and disseminated to contributing schools for appropriate use. This year, the participating universities were: Auburn University - College of Agriculture Clemson University – College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences Colorado State University – Warner College of Natural Resources and College of Agricultural Sciences Iowa State University – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Michigan State University – College of Agriculture and Natural Resources The Ohio State University – College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences Oklahoma State University – College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Purdue University – College of Agriculture Texas A&M University – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences University of Georgia – College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois – College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences University of Kentucky – College of -
Battlefield Archaeology: a Guide to the Archaeology of Conflict
BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY: A GUIDE TO THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CONFLICT Guide 8 BAJR Practical Guide Series Prepared By Tim Sutherland Department of Archaeological Sciences University of Bradford With Contributions On Human Remains By Malin Holst York Osteoarchaeology Ltd © held by authors TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 WHAT IS BATTLEFIELD ARCHAEOLOGY? 1 3.0 WHY IS THE ANALYSIS OF SITES OF CONFLICT IMPORTANT? 3 3.1 THE USE OF CONFLICTS FOR PROPAGANDA AND MISINFORMATION 4 3.2 BATTLEFIELDS AS MEMORIALS 5 3.3 BATTLEFIELD TOURISM 7 3.4 RE-ENACTMENT 8 3.5 FOCI FOR SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 8 3.6 VIEWS OF THE NATIONAL BODIES 9 3.6.1 The Battlefield Trust 9 3.6.2 English Heritage 9 3.7 BATTLEFIELDS AND THE MEDIA 10 4.0 A BRIEF BATTLEFIELD HISTORY 11 4.1 INTRODUCTION 11 4.2 CASE STUDIES 13 4.2.1 Pre-Twentieth Century Archaeological Investigations 13 5.0 WHY MIGHT A SITE OF CONFLICT BE DISTURBED 14 5.1 WHAT LEGISLATION IS THERE IN PLACE TO PROTECT HISTORIC 15 BATTLEFIELDS? 5.1.1 English Legislation 15 5.1.2 Scotland 18 5.1.3 Wales 18 5.1.4 Northern Ireland 18 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF SITES OF CONFLICT 18 6.1 EVIDENCE FOR CONFLICT 18 6.2 HOW LARGE MIGHT A BATTLEFIELD BE 19 6.3 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BATTLEFIELD SITES 19 7.0 METHODS OF EVALUATION 20 7.1 EARTHWORK SURVEYS 21 7.2 GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY 21 7.2.1 Metal Detector Survey 21 7.2.2 Fluxgate Gradiometer or Magnetometer 22 7.2.3 Electrical Earth Resistance Meter 23 7.2.4 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) 23 7.3 FIELD WALKING 23 7.4 DESK TOP ASSESSMENTS 23 8.0 ARTEFACT IDENTIFICATION -
An Historical Archaeological Examination of a Battlefield Landscape: an Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia
W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 2003 An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia Jameson Michael Harwood College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Harwood, Jameson Michael, "An historical archaeological examination of a battlefield landscape: An Example from the American Civil War Battle of Wilson's Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia" (2003). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626393. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-bkaa-yg82 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF A BATTLEFIELD LANDSCAPE: An Example From The American Civil War Battle Of Wilson’s Wharf, Charles City County, Virginia A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Jameson Michael Harwood 2003 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Jameson MichaefHarwood Approved, May 2003 t Norman Barka Dennis Blanton MarleyBrown, III DEDICATION To the soldiers who fought and died the Wilson’s Wharf battlefield landscape TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements v List of Tables vi List of Figures vii Abstract ix Introduction 2 Chapter I. -
George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero
George Rogers Clark ~ Archaeology of a Frontier Hero As often happens, when we learn about many important figures in American history it becomes apparent that they were multi-talented individuals, and multi-faceted. General George Rogers Clark, that great figure in the history of our state and nation, was just such a man. Well known are his heroic military skills and accomplishments, and how those dramatic accomplishments helped form our nation at a critical point in its early development. We might also be aware of his surveying, diplomatic, and inventing skills. But, perhaps not everyone knows that this man also had interests in archaeology, paleontology, geology, and natural history (Thomas and Conner 1967). Archaeology by, and related to, George Rogers Clark in Indiana can be separated into several locations to highlight. The first of these is Fort Sackville, the British outpost described as one “of several forts built by the French, British or Americans from 1732 to 1813 in this important frontier settlement [Vincennes, Indiana]” (National Park Service 2004). Lt. Col. Clark and his brave men in 1779 captured the fort from the British. In recognition of the importance of this military feat, and its significance in our country’s history, the country erected the impressive Beaux Arts monument which stands today in Vincennes. The monument and grounds are now part of the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park, administered by the National Park Service. Sadly, no professional archaeological investigations appear to have been conducted prior to when the site for the monument was cleared of other existing structures, and the excavation preparations for the monument were conducted in the 1930s. -
Volume 3 – FOC 2018
Page 1 of 112 Editors and Authors Page 2 of 112 Table of Contents Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas, Aistė Petrauskienė, Vykintas Vaitkevičius………………......................................................................4 The Methodology Used to Identify the Battle Site of Fulford Chas Jones………………………………………………………………………..19 The Battle of Alcalá La Vieja. Location and Understanding of a Medieval Battle. Mario Ramírez Galán, Rafael Montalvo Laguna and María Benítez Galán………………………………………………………...26 Initial Discussions on Military Archaeology Zhao Congcang…………………………………………………………………..44 The Battle of Cheriton: The Archaeology of an English Civil War Battlefield Kevin M. Claxton………………………………………………………………...50 American Revolutionary War “Running the Gauntlet: Locating the Battle of Parker’s Ferry, South Carolina” Steven D. Smith, James B. Legg, Brian C. Mabelitini…………………………..64 “In the Morning We Began to Strip and Bury the Dead:” A Context for Burial Practices During the American War for Independence Robert A. Selig &Wade P. Catts………………………………………………...78 Historical Narrative and Cultural Landscape Analysis: Revealing the American War of Independence Battle of Chelsea Creek Victor T. Mastone, Craig J. Brown, Christopher V. Maio.............................................................................................93 Page 3 of 112 Battlefield Studies Archaeology of Modern Conflict: The War after the War in Lithuania and Battle of Užpelkiai Forest, 1949 Gediminas Petrauskas1, Aistė Petrauskienė2, Vykintas Vaitkevičius3 1. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Archaeology, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 2. National Museum of Lithuania, Department of Modern History, Arsenalo St. 1, LT-01143 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] 3. Vilnius University, Faculty of Communication, Saulėtekio Av. -
Management Summary of an Archaeological Survey of the Callawassie Island Phase 1 Development, Spring Island, Beaufort County, South Carolina
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE CALLAWASSIE ISLAND PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT, SPRING ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 46 © 2001 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed In any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE CALLAWASSIE ISLAND PHASE l DEVELOPMENT, SPRING ISLAND, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared For: Mr. Glen Mccaskey Chernoff/Silver & Associates P.O. Box 6069 Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29938 Prepared By1 Michael Trinkley Chicora Research Contribution 46 Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 June 16, 1990 Introduction This investigation was conducted by Dr. Michael Trinkley of Chicora Foundation, Inc. for Mr. Glen Mccaskey, consultant to the developer of the approximately 850 acre Callawassie Island property (Callawassie Development Corporation). Callawassie Island is bordered to the north by the Chechessee Creek, to the east by a tributary of the Chechessee Creek and the Callawassie Creek, to the south and west by the Colleton River. The island is separated from neighboring Spring Island by the Callawassie Creek, which runs north-south. The Broad River lies to the east of Spring Island (Figure 1). Both Callawassie and Spring islands are currently owned and being developed by the same interest, the Callawassie Development Corporation. The current Phase 1 development on Callawassie Island, which is situated on the eastern shore of the island, will involve a series of nine fairways for the expansion of the existing 18 hole golf course on Callawassie. -
Archaeology of the Contemporary Past
Originally published as González‐Ruibal, A. 2014. Contemporary Past, Archaeology of the. In Claire Smith (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, New York: Springer, pp 1683-1694. Archaeology of the contemporary past Alfredo González-Ruibal Introduction The archaeology of the contemporary past is a new and interdisciplinary field of research that intersects with heritage studies, art, ethnography and modern history. This kind of archaeology, as it is practised today, was born in the late 1990s. However, its intellectual roots go further back (Harrison 2011: 144-149). While “archaeology” literally means the study of ancient things, archaeologists have always been concerned with the present, although in very different ways. During the nineteenth century, there was no clear-cut division between present and past, archaeology and anthropology, and prehistory books regularly included living societies (but always non-industrial). This perspective soon fell into disrepute, due to its inherent racism and simplistic evolutionism. From the late 1950s onwards, archaeologists renewed their interest in the contemporary world through a new method—ethnoarchaeology—and a new theory— processualism. As in the previous century, it was traditional groups that were targeted: other societies were not studied. This is because ethnoarchaeology was conducted for the sake of developing analogies to understand the past, not as an end in itself to understand the present. Historical Background Despite their lack of concern for contemporary communities, processual archaeologists, like Lewis Binford, paved the way for an archaeological study of the present. On the one hand, unlike culture-historical archaeologists, processualists were not concerned with particular periods and cultures, but with understanding human behavior and social processes in general—and this could include the present. -
2018 Indiana Archaeology Journal Vol. 13. No. 1
INDIANA ARCHAEOLOGY Volume 13 Number 1 2018 Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Indiana Department of Natural Resources Cameron F. Clark, Director and State Historic Preservation Officer Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology (DHPA) Beth K. McCord, Director and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DHPA Archaeology Staff Amy L. Johnson, State Archaeologist, Archaeology Outreach Coordinator, and Team Leader for Archaeology Cathy L. Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist Rachel A. Sharkey, Archaeologist Wade T. Tharp, Archaeologist Editor: Amy L. Johnson Guest Editor: James R. Jones III, Ph.D. Editorial Assistance: Cathy Draeger-Williams, Wade T. Tharp Additional acknowledgments: The editors wish to thank the authors of the submitted articles and report/feature, as well as all of those who participated in, and contributed to, the archaeological projects which are highlighted. The U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service is gratefully acknowledged for their support of Indiana archaeological research as well as this volume. Cover design: The images which are featured on the cover are from the articles included in this journal. This publication has been funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service’s Historic Preservation Fund administered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. Projects discussed in several of the articles also received federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the State of Indiana. However, the contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. -
Management Summary of an Archaeological Survey of the Spring Island Bridge, Spring and Callawassie Islands, Beaufort County, South Carolina
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SPRING ISLAND BRIDGE, SPRING AND CALLAWASSIE ISLANDS, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA . RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 37 © 2001 tiy Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this putilicatlon may tie reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcritied in any form or tiy any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otheiwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quota~ons used in reviews. Full credit must tie given to the authors, putilisher, and project sponsor. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE SPRING ISLAND BRIDGE, SPRING AND CALLAWASSIE ISLANDS, BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared For: Mr. Glen Mccaskey William R. Biggs/Gilmore Associates P.O. Box 6069 Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29938 Prepared By: Michael Trinkley Chicora Research Contribution 37 Chicora Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 8664 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 August 15, 1989 Introduction This investigation was conducted by Dr. Michael Trinkley of Chicora Foundation, Inc. for Mr. Glen Mccaskey, consultant to the developer of the Spring Island property (Callawassie Development Corporation). This survey tracts are located on the western shore of Spring Island and the eastern shore of Callawassie Island in Beaufort County. Spring and Callawassie islands are bordered to the north by the Chechessee River and Creek respectively and to the south by the Colleton River. The two islands are separated by the Callawassie Creek, which runs north-south. Callawassie Island is separated from the mainland by Chechessee Creek. The Broad River lies to the east of Spring Island. Both islands are currently owned and being developed by the same interest, the Callawassie Development Corporation.