Phase I Archaeological Survey Rr002502
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
/p. Tybouts Comer Landfill New Canlo County, Delivnr* . Project No,'323.HH.28 PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY Pnpiradby ; . Cultural Heritaga (Uuveh Services, Me.-. ;" North Wales, Pennsylvania .. ;' . RR002502 i Phase I Archaeological Surrey Tybouts Corner Landfill New C«stle County, D«liw«re Project No. 323.HH.28 Ronald Berge Karen Metheny and Kenneth J. Basal ik Cultural Heritage Research iVnnw, Inc. North Wales, Pennsylvania August 1991 AR002503 ABSTRACT /T-. This report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the (., i Tybouts Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware. This survey was performed by '•<• Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPI Consultants of Wilmington, Delaware. Tybouts Corner is located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13). The project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of the intersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The project area is irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13. Prehistoric and historic archaeological site potential for the area is low. The project area is far removed from topographic, environmental, or geological features which would have been attractive to prehistoric populations. Potential prehistoric sites in the study area would, if present, be expected to consist of small, light density, lithic scatters. Historic maps of the study region show two structures in the vicinity of the project area during the nineteenth century. The location of these structures was carefully scaled. If the maps are precise, these structures would have been located outside the project boundaries. Historic archaeological deposits, if present, would be expected to consist primarily of small trash deposits which were removed from the house area. The potential resources which might be present were anticipated to be ephemeral and could not be correlated with any extant surface features. A systematic approach to subsurface testing was undertaken. A small section of the study area, Section B, could not be tested as trespass permission could not be obtained from the owner. A total of eighty-one shovel test pits were completed within Section A of the study area in i/"vT!' an effort to ensure that no intact historic or prehistoric archaeological deposits were present. ^ Phase I testing indicated that no significant structures or artifacts are present within the bound- aries of the Section A of the study area. No further archaeological work is recommended in this area. Although no subsurface testing was performed in Section B of the study area, it seems unlikely that significant archaeological deposits would be found in this area. No structures or buildings are known to have stood in or adjacent to this portion of the study area. Excavations adjacent to this area have shown disturbed soil profiles. Given the extremely low potential for intact prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within Section B, no additional archaeo- logical work is recommended in this area. o 9R00250I| I _ CONTENTS IfJ Page ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS iii INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Introduction 3 Environment 3 Prehistory 5 History 11 FIELD DATA Introduction 29 Field Data 31 ANALYSIS Artifacts 33 Interpretations 34 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 35 REFERENCES CITED 36 APPENDICES Appendix A: Artifact Inventory 42 Appendix B: Qualifications of Researchers 43 Appendix C: Shovel Test Profiles 44 to AR002505 ILLUSTRATIONS Figures Page 1 Project Location 2 2 Project Area-1777 22 3 Project Area -1849 23 4 Project Area -1868 ' 24 5 Project Area-1881 25 6 Project Area -1893 26 7 Project Area -1980 30 8 Shovel Test Locations • Section A 31 Table • 1 A Comparison of the Paleoenvironmental 6 Cultural Sequences 2 Prehistoric Site Probability and Data Quality 10 3 Historic Context Elements 28 ... flR002506 INTRODUCTION ^ This report documents a Phase I Archaeological Survey conducted adjacent to the Tybouts Corner landfill, in New Castle County, Delaware (Figure 1). This survey was performed by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. (CHRS) of North Wales, Pennsylvania for DPL Consultants of Wilmington, Delaware, Located at the intersection of Red Lion Road (Route .-. 71) and DuPont Parkway (Route 13), the project area lies 1800 to 2700 feet southwest of the intersection, within the "V" formed by the converging roads. The project area was irregularly shaped, with one hundred feet bordering Route 71 and two hundred feet fronting Route 13. The Tybouts Corner Landfill is a CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) listed site. Remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) for the site is being performed under the review of the United States Environmental Protection Agen- cy, Region III (EPA). The remedial strategy selected by the EPA includes preventing groundwater from coming into contact with the landfill materials; collecting waste liquids leaching from the landfill, and collecting, treating and preventing contaminated groundwater from leaving the site, These goals will be accomplished by installing a cap on the landfill, strategically locating interceptor wells and trenches, and by installing groundwater facilities, The lands located adjacent to the northeastern side of the Tybouts Comer Landfill site may be used for construction access and staging, and may have to be regraded, The purpose of the archaeological review is an evaluation of potential archaeological resources, which might be affected by the possible use of this land during remedial construction. The Archaeological research for this project was undertaken between January 23 and February 14 1991. Kenneth J, Basalik served as the project's Principal Investigator. Ronald Berge acted as project archaeologist, and Karen Metheny functioned as historian. Graphic materials were prepared by Randolph Kuppless of the staff of CHRS. | .'") The purpose of the archaeological study was to locate archaeological resources which may be affected by the proposed action, and to develop a plan of assessing the significance of these resources. This work was performed pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preserva- tion Act of 1966, as amended. Significance was based upon the criteria of the National Regis- ter of Historic Places as published in Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Significant sites were those which were listed, or were eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places, Criteria for the National Register of Historic Places are included in Title 36, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department of the Interior estab- lished the following criteria for evaluating and determining the eligibility of properties to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places: ,- The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workman- ship, feeling and association, and: \ A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B, that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose compo- ( ' j nents may lack individual distinction; or flR002507 •ni ,.i .. wiiMworow i.i MI, . ... I •--U - , . , ... 'jj._____«r«rc «i»o ; MI. / PROJECT 0 3,000' P,eemttoCHRS.Inc. SOURCE- U.S.G.3. SAINT GEORGES,DEL. 1965 ___ . PROJECT LOCATION o TYBOUTS CORNER LANDFILL SURVEY FIGUIg!»! 2. D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehis- tory or history. ^ BACKGROUND RESEARCH Introduction "*• The background literature search included consultation with the Bureau of Archaeology and Historic Preservation; the Delaware Department of Transportation, Division of Highways; the Delaware State Archives; the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service; the Delaware Historical Society; the Morris Library, University of Delaware; and individuals knowledgeable in the history and prehistory of the region, Much data had already been compiled by recent studies of the surrounding and project area (Custer 1986; Custer and Bachman 1984; Rappleye 1983a). These studies, which were heavily drawn upon in the compilation of this report, provided up-to-date, detailed and distilled cultural histories directly applicable to the study comdor. Environmental data assisted in the development of a survey testing strategy by which cultural resources were located. Factors such as underlying lilhology, topographical configura- tion, soil types, and/or hydrologic factors, were responsible for the creation and maintenance of established vegetational communities in accordance with prevailing climactical conditions, The floral composition in turn effected the fauna! distributions over a given landscape. Proxim- ity of previously resource rich locales where food, lithic, or other resources would have been abundant in conjunction with well drained, level or gently sloping soils served as a factor in determining high potential areas for prehistoric occupation. Social and cultural traits of aborig- inal groups