Excavation Report

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Excavation Report T H A M E S V A L L E Y ARCHAEOLOGICAL S E R V I C E S Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire Archaeological Excavation by Pierre-Damien Manisse Site Code: OWH19/62 (SU 4881 8915 ) Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Excavation For Heritage Plan by Pierre-Damien Manisse Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd Site Code OWH 19/62 November 2019 Summary Site name: Land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire Grid reference: SU 4881 8915 Site activity: Archaeological Excavation Date and duration of project: 15th July to 2nd August 2019 Project coordinator: Tim Dawson Site supervisor: Pierre-Damien Manisse Site code: OWH 19/62 Area of site: 2300 sq. m. Summary of results: A number of cut features (ditch, gullies, pit) were revealed spanning Late Iron Age/Early Roman to Later Roman times. They included a refuse pit, possible well or water hole, parts of enclosures, several parallel gullies that could be traces of land exploitation and two other perpendicular gullies that might have defined a pathway. A cremation unurned but contained within a container of perishable material, such as a casket, had been highly decorated with nails. Location and reference of archive: The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, Reading and will be deposited at Oxfordshire Museum Service in due course. This report may be copied for bona fide research or planning purposes without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. All TVAS unpublished fieldwork reports are available on our website: www.tvas.co.uk/reports/reports.asp. Report edited/checked by: Steve Ford 24.11.19 Steve Preston 21.11.19 i Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, 47–49 De Beauvoir Road, Reading RG1 5NR Tel. (0118) 926 0552; email [email protected]; website: www.tvas.co.uk Roman occupation on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire An Archaeological Excavation by Pierre-Damien Manisse Report 19/62 Introduction This report documents the results of an archaeological excavation carried out on land off Orchard Way, Harwell, Oxfordshire (centred on NGR SU 4881 8915) (Fig. 1). The work was commissioned by Ms Sam Driscoll, of Heritage Plan Ltd, 53 Marshfield Road, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JS on behalf of Feltham Properties Ltd, 42 London Road, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 1LA. Planning permission (P14/V2286/O) has been granted by the Vale of White Horse District Council for a residential development on the site. The consent was subject to two conditions (9, 10) relating to archaeology which required the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in advance of the development. This is in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) and the District’s policies on archaeology. The field investigation was carried out to a specification approved by Mr Hugh Coddington, Archaeology Team Leader with Oxfordshire County Council and adviser to the District on matters relating to archaeology. The fieldwork was undertaken by Pierre- Damien Manisse, assisted by Richard Dewhurst and Anne-Michelle Huvig, between 15th July and 2nd August 2019. The site code is OWH 19/62. The archive is presently held at Thames Valley Archaeological Services, 47-49 de Beauvoir Road, Reading, RG1 5NR and will be deposited at Oxfordshire Museum Service in due course. Location, topography and geology The site is located off Orchard Way on the western edge of Harwell, Oxfordshire (Fig. 1). It is accessed through a narrow path, between residential properties. It is bordered to the south and north by the back gardens of those houses and to the west by a meadow (Fig. 2). At the time of the excavation it was a derelict garden which had been cleared of vegetation prior to the beginning of the excavation. It is a flat plot of land, roughly 50m square, lying at a height of approximately 83m aOD (above Ordnance Datum). The underlying geology is Upper Greensand formation (BGS 1971. Head deposits were recorded on the site. 1 Archaeological background The archaeological potential of the site was addressed in a desk-based assessment (CgMs 2014) and confirmed in an evaluation (JMHS 2014). Stray finds and sites of the Iron Age, Roman and Saxon periods are known in the vicinity. Some 250m to the north-east, an extensive Iron Age occupation had been discovered at Grove Road (Thompson 2018), where the excavation also revealed some Roman and Saxon presence. Further east two nearby excavations unearthed a similar chronological range of finds and features (Taylor 2017; Taylor and Preston 2017). The evaluation of the site itself in 2014 consisted of two trenches, which revealed that the site held traces of Roman activity interpreted as an extension of the Grove Road settlement (JMHS 2014). Objectives and methodology Based on the evaluation results the site was to be excavated in order to investigate the nature of the Roman occupation. The purpose of the excavation was to: record and, if necessary, excavate and record all archaeological deposits and features within the areas threatened by the proposed development; produce relative and absolute dating and phasing for deposits and features recorded on the site; establish the character of these deposits in attempt to define functional areas on the site such as industrial, domestic, etc.; and to produce information on the economy and local environment and compare and contrast this with the results of other excavations in the region. Specific research objectives were to attempt to answer the following questions: When was the site first utilised and when was it abandoned? Is the Roman use of the site simply part of a wider enclosed landscape or is it near the centre of a settlement complex? How do the deposits here relate to other Roman settlement recorded further to the north? What is the palaeoenvironmental setting of the area? Due to the limited space available for spoil, given that the entire site area was to be excavated, the project was divided into two phases, each half of the site in turn serving for topsoil and subsoil (kept separate) storage while the other was stripped and excavated. Topsoil was to be removed under continuous archaeological supervision by a digger fitted with a toothless bucket to expose the uppermost surface of archaeological deposits. Where appropriate and necessary, hand cleaning of the stripped surface would then take place. All archaeological features were to be planned and sectioned as a minimum objective, with full excavation or sampling of features according to an agreed sampling strategy depending on the nature and significance of the feature(s). 2 Results The excavation was carried out as planned. A 360o tracked excavator, equipped with a toothless grading bucket, 1.84m wide, was used throughout the project. A metal detector (Fischer F70) was used to enhance metal finds recovery, both on site and on subsoil, but with meagre results. A small area of grass was left preserved along the site’s western edge but otherwise the entire site was stripped as close as possible to the edges (Fig. 2). Some geotechnical test pits had previously been dug (location marked in grey on Figs 2 and 3): nothing of archaeological interest was visible in these. The stratigraphy across the site was topsoil (50), a dark grey silt, 0.25-0.35m in thickness, overlying a 0.25- 0.35m thick subsoil, (51), best described as a pale brown-grey silt with scarce small sub-angular limestones (0.01-0.10m). The lower deposit encountered, (52), was a very light greenish grey silty clay, with nodular limestones in places. A moderate amount of archaeological features (ditch, gullies, pits) (Fig. 3), were directly cut into the natural geology, with no palaeo-horizon being preserved. Roman features Except for two pits, most of the other dated features presented a mixed assemblage of pottery, with dates spanning from the Late Iron Age to the Late Roman period. Although some individual sherds could be dated to either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd/4th centuries, feature assemblages were so tiny, and often so mixed, that no strong reliance could be placed on such fine-grained chronology. The Late Iron Age sherds in particular were almost always associated with late Roman wares. The pottery evidence rather suggested a long period of use for all features, or the filling of features only after long periods of middening. As a consequence it seems preferable not to attempt to phase periods of occupation more precisely than broadly Roman, although features are discussed below in an approximate chronological order. Gully 118 and waterhole 42 were dated by stratigraphic means. Gully 122 was undated but its similarity to other gullies and shape in plan makes it likely to be contemporary with them. Towards the south-west corner was isolated oval pit 6 (Fig. 4; Pl. 2). It measured 1.70m x 1.52m and was 0.43m deep. It had irregular steep slopes and a flattish base. Fill 58 was a firm mid to pale brown grey clayey silt with rare limestone lumps, up to 0.20m. A large quantity of disarticulated animal bones from at least two cows were found within as well as two Late Iron Age (LIA) to early Roman (ER) pottery sherds. On this modest dating evidence, this appears to be the earliest feature on site. 3 A small oval pit (1) (Fig. 4; Pl. 1) located just outside the west corner of enclosure 111, contained a charcoal-rich deposit. It represents an unurned cremation burial as just over 300g of burnt human bones were collected. The bones were accompanied by numerous handmade iron nails of various sizes which suggest that the human remains had been buried in a perishable container.
Recommended publications
  • 300 Series Two Man Hole Diggers Operator Manuals
    OPERATOR MANUAL Includes Safety, Service and Replacement Part Information 300 Series Hole Diggers Models: 330H, 343H, 357H Form: GOM12070702 Version 1.2 Do not discard this manual. Before operation, read and comprehend its contents. Keep it readily available for reference during operation or when performing any service related function. When ordering replacement parts, please supply the following information: model number, serial number and part number. For customer service assistance, telephone 800.533.0524, +507.451.5510. Our Customer Service Department telefax number is 877.344.4375 (DIGGER 5), +507.451.5511. There is no charge for customer service activities. Internet address: http://www.generalequip.com. E-Mail: [email protected]. The products covered by this manual comply with the mandatory requirements of 98/37/EC. Copyright 2009, General Equipment Company. Manufacturers of light construction equipment Congratulations on your decision to purchase a General light construction product. From our humble beginnings in 1955, it has been a continuing objective of General Equipment Company to manufacture equipment that delivers uncompromising value, service life and investment return. Because of this continuous commitment for excellence, many products bearing the General name actually set the standards by which competitive products are judged. When you purchased this product, you also gained access to a team of dedicated and knowledgeable support personnel that stand willing and ready to provide field support assistance. Our team of sales representatives and in house factory personnel are available to ensure that each General product delivers the intended performance, value and investment return. Our personnel can readily answer your concerns or questions regarding proper applications, service requirements and warranty related problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Modeling Study
    Draft Report Archaeological Modeling for Segment II/III of the Eastern Corridor Multimodal Projects (HAM-SR32-0.00, PID 22970; FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02) G R AY & PA P E , I N C. ARCHAEOLOGY HISTORY HISTORIC PRESERVATION January 14, 2009 Submitted for: ENTRAN 1848 Summit Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 Submitted by: Gray & Pape, Inc. 1318 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Gray & Pape Project No. 08-11401 Project No. 08-11401 Archaeological Modeling for Segment II/III of the Eastern Corridor Multimodal Projects (HAM-SR32-0.00, PID 22970; FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02) Submitted to: ENTRAN 1848 Summit Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45237 (513) 761-1700 Contact: Deb Osborne Submitted by: Michael Striker, M.A., RPA Gray & Pape, Inc. 1318 Main Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Tel: (513) 287-7700 __________________________ W. Kevin Pape Project Manager January 14, 2009 ABSTRACT Under contract to ENTRAN, Gray & Pape, Inc. has prepared recommendations concerning the archaeological potential of Segment II/III of the Eastern Corridor Multimodal Projects (HAM-SR32-0.00, PID 22970; FHWA-OH-EIS-04-02), located in Hamilton and Clermont Counties, Ohio. The recommendations are based on a model developed by Gray & Pape, Inc. using the results of previous work conducted for the project (Weed 2002), documentary research, interviews with landowners and other knowledgeable parties, and an informal reconnaissance of the project area. Gray & Pape, Inc. divided the project area into three zones: Zone 1 is the undeveloped floodplains and terraces of the Little Miami River. Zone 2 includes floodplains and terraces that have been developed in historical times, and Zone 3 includes the valley and uplands east of the Village of Newtown.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BULLETIN Number 84 Summer 1982
    THE BULLETIN Number 84 Summer 1982 CONTENTS The Tiger Lily Site, Long Island, New York: A Preliminary Report Stanley Wisniewski and Gretchen Gwynne 1 The Archaeology of Walter's Spit Donna Ottusch 18 The Sojourner's Rockshelter Paul Weinman and Thomas Weinman 29 Don't Miss AENA 10 30 An Important Exhibit 30 No. 84, Summer, 1982 1 THE TIGER LILY SITE, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK: A PRELIMINARY REPORT Stanley Wisniewski Metropolitan Chapter Gretchen Anderson Gwynne Gong Island Chapter INTRODUCTION On the north shore of Long Island, New Yo rk, sheltered from the North Atlantic by the fish-shaped body of the Island, lies Mount Sinai Harbor. a small, tidal basin of glacial origin ringed by low hills. The harbor is protected from the open waters of Long Island Sound by a sandy barrier bar (Cedar Beach), now channeled at the west end permitting the tidal exchange of salt water from the sound (see map). (The barrier bar has apparently existed since the time of first human occupation of the area. although the location of its opening into the sound has changed from time to time.) Tidal exchange from the sound is an important condition for shellfish growth at Mount Sinai Harbor and archaeological evidence has shown the harbor to have been the source of a variety of saltwater shellfish throughout its long, history of human occupation. In the prehistoric period, the now-dredged harbor was all extraordinarily rich marshland into which emptied at least three freshwater streams as well as numerous rivulets of fresh groundwater run-off. These fresh-water sources provided the marsh with the saline balance necessary for the proliferation of oysters and other shellfish.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • What Is Archaeology?
    Archaeology Alive! What is Archaeology? This slideshow developed by archaeologist Dr. Alexander Smith and staff from the Academic Programs Department of the Memorial Art Gallery (MAG) of the University of Rochester Note to Teachers: The information in this script is provided for your background and context; please feel free to tailor the information according to your students’ needs. SLIDE 1 What is archaeology? What do you think of when you hear “archaeologist” or “archaeology?” [Possible answers include references to digging, dinosaurs, fossils, old stuff, Indiana Jones, etc.] Archaeology is a science of history, and archaeologists are scientists who study past cultures and human history through physical remains – through the “stuff” left by humans. Many human beings who lived on this planet didn’t write things down for us – we don’t have any kind of written documents or books from early humans. So how can we know anything about these human beings: how they lived, where they lived, what kind of work they did, what kinds of objects they made and used? We can study the answers to these kinds of questions by using the physical remains and objects that these people left behind. Human-created objects such as tools, weapons, and works of art are known as artifacts, which archaeologists dig up and study along with the remains of ancient buildings and dwellings. They investigate and search for clues – much like detectives – to tell us: how people in the past lived, what kind of tools they had, where they lived, what kind of religious beliefs they had, what their lives were like, where they died, what kind of objects they made, how they were buried, what they ate, and more! This slideshow will give you a chance to learn about how archaeologists actually go about studying the human past through objects.
    [Show full text]
  • Churchyard Archaeology.Pdf
    Churchyard Archaeology: Archaeological Investigations at the First Baptist Church in America Edited by Zachary Nelson and Katherine Marino Report of Field Investigations at the First Baptist Church in America, Providence, Rhode Island, undertaken August-December, 2006 Churchyard Archaeology: Archaeological Investigations at the First Baptist Church in America. Edited by Zachary Nelson and Katherine Marino Copyright 2007 Report of Field Investigations at the First Baptist Church in America, Providence, Rhode Island undertaken August-December, 2006. Zachary Nelson, Principal Investigator Table of Contents List of Figures .......................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ........................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... ix Section I: The Church and its Archaeology Chapter 1. Churchyard Archaeology and Picnics Zachary Nelson and Zöe Agoos........................................................ 2 Chapter 2. A Brief History of the First Baptist Church in America Katherine Marino............................................................................. 7 Standing Artifacts: New England Church Architecture Cody Campanie................................................................................. 16 Map and Pictoral History of the First Baptist Church Tina Lee Charest..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology: the Key Concepts Is the Ideal Reference Guide for Students, Teachers and Anyone with an Interest in Archaeology
    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE KEY CONCEPTS This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: ● Thinking about landscape ● Cultural evolution ● Social archaeology ● Gender archaeology ● Experimental archaeology ● Archaeology of cult and religion ● Concepts of time ● The Antiquity of Man ● Feminist archaeology ● Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology. Colin Renfrew is Emeritus Disney Professor of Archaeology and Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Paul Bahn is a freelance writer, translator and broadcaster on archaeology. YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING ROUTLEDGE STUDENT REFERENCE TITLES: Archaeology: The Basics Clive Gamble Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches Neville Morley Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in the Greek World John Hazel Who’s Who in the Roman World John Hazel ARCHAEOLOGY The Key Concepts Edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
    [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]
  • 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 x Historical Period Table 6 4. Post-Excavation Fields 8 5. Relationship Fields 9 x Stratigraphic Relationship 9 x Brief Principles of Matrices 9 x 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 x ROMFA Skeleton Sheet 45 x Human Skeletal Remains Identification Diagram 50 11. Masonry Sheets 53 12. Timber Sheets 57 x Types of Timber Joints 61 x 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 x On Site Finds Packaging 75 17. Photographic Recording on Archaeological Sites 78 x Photographic Sheets 83 18. Archaeological Site Drawings 85 x Essential Site Drawing Conventions and Procedures 89 x Practical Guidelines for Section Drawings 98 x Planning Methods 101 x Taking Levels 107 ROMFA RECORDING SYSTEM - V1 2011 THE QROMFAR CONTEXT RECORDING SYSTEM Introduction The process of archaeological excavation is inherently destructive; therefore the creation of a detailed archaeological record is vital to preserve as much information as is possible from a site.
    [Show full text]
  • THE JAGUARS of ALTAR Q, Copan, HONDURAS: FAUNAL ANALYSIS, ARCHAEOLOGY, and ECOLOGY
    \\inl~r:!:OlIO THE JAGUARS OF ALTAR Q, COpAN, HONDURAS: FAUNAL ANALYSIS, ARCHAEOLOGY, AND ECOLOGY DIANE1\. BALUNGER Ofllll/~ \/,4" Nor/II 7i.'.\n:' /-Im/lfl Cn)"c 51/.~klll Dq!IJrllllcJlI nf P1Iy:>icnl Mt'dicilll' rllld 1~1'I/Illlilill/ti(l1l LIT 501l1/1'1'1'~/1"'" Ml'diml emll'l" Dallll:', TX JI::f-:FREY STOM l'ER ColIl'S" (~r Lllkl' COIIIII.ll Gmy.~ll/kc, II \lJ~TR,\CI.-.\n l'\(",1\,II;ll(l ,11 COp,1I1, H"ndm'b, ,I I ,lk Cl.h~ie \1.1~.1 ~itl" 1\'1'''II,'d Ill<' rjlll,11 (",ldll' "I b'111l·... III ,II 11.',1,.1 (,IUrlv"n bi;.: (",11,. ,1",,,"cj,lh'd with \Iloll" Q <;\'I\'r,11 uf IhL' l.lf).~,. r,ll:> "erl' idel1liik,d ,1'" j,I~U.tr. ('Jlllthem 1!ll"1. I'n'l imlll;lry ,In<1l~ ,.i:- "hUII"'d th,ll !h~ ,111 illl,ll,. \\'~r,· 111 ~{'od 11<',11111 ,Il thl' Ii m..· o( lill'ir d,·,nh,.. All b,1! "Ill' \\"'r,' ,ldult". T,lil t.ln,. ot ""\"'1',11 "I".',"i,·:- "I bird ... ,lll"'1Il1p"ni",j Ill,' fl,lill!.' bOil"", A ... "ori,lk'd I\'illl till'.:n pi of Ihl' fdilll·... \\"vr,· Ihl' ... m,ll kr to '111[' bllri"I... ,,( IW<1 111.1(.1\\',..1\1<1 "'1" TIll' ,1\1111\11'''' (Pllrllal,·th,,1 il i,. lllllikl'l~ Ih.lt "llllw j.l;':;II.H ... 11','1',' I'rOOlrl'd lI,e,llly b,·,·.II1,.'·1l1,·lwir"IlIll'·1l1.11 n'n..
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notice
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS ST 2833 NW 41 ST. UNIT 130 GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32606 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF June 1, 2018 Regulatory Division West Branch Tampa Permits Section Gainesville Field Office PUBLIC NOTICE Permit Application No. SAJ-2011-02369 (SP-JED) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Jacksonville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has received an application for a Department of the Army permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §403) as described below: APPLICANT: Florida Department of Environmental Protection Attn: Marshall W. Flake 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 WATERWAY AND LOCATION: The project would affect waters of the United States associated with the Gulf of Mexico. The project site is located at the .Honeymoon Island State Park, 1 Causeway Boulevard, in Sections 7, 8, 17, and 18, Township 28 South, Range 15 East, Dunedin, Pinellas County, Florida. Directions to the site are as follows: From the intersection of US-19 and SR-586 (Curlew Rd.) in Pinellas County, proceed west along Curlew to Dunedin Causeway. Follow the causeway to Honeymoon Island State Park. Once inside the park, continue to the south beach parking lot to access the dredge area, or the north beach parking lot to access the fill area. APPROXIMATE CENTRAL COORDINATES: Latitude 28.057553° Longitude -82.825009° PROJECT PURPOSE: Basic: The basic project purpose is shoreline stabilization. Overall: The overall project purpose is dredging to obtain suitable fill material to perform beach and dune renourishment to stabilize the of Honeymoon Island shoreline.
    [Show full text]