Newsletter Society
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
<Insert Month, Day and Year>
APPENDIX A Project Personnel Qualifications Brad Comeau Archaeologist Brad Comeau is an archaeologist with over 9 years’ experience EDUCATION as a field director, archaeological monitor, and laboratory University of Sheffield technician. He has conducted numerous surveys, evaluation MS, Experimental Archaeology, 2012 excavations, and data recoveries, primarily in Southern University of Massachusetts, Amherst California. He has extensive experience in San Diego County, BA, Anthropology, 2004 with additional experience in Riverside County, the Mojave BA, Italian Studies, 2004 Desert, San Joaquin Valley, and Imperial County, as well as CERTIFICATIONS Massachusetts, Arizona, and England. His research interests Occupational Health and Safety include the role of experimentation in archaeology, copper Administration Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response production techniques, and lithic production. 40-hour Course, 2011 City of San Diego, Certified Archaeological Project Experience Monitor, 2009 Development PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for American Archaeology, 2012 St. John Garabed Church Project, San Diego County, Bath and Camerton Archaeological California. As field director, conducted site examinations and Society, 2012 limited shovel test pit excavation for an Extended Phase 1 survey; Society for California Archaeology, 2008 directed a crew of two people; prepared a letter report of findings. Rhodes Crossing Update, Rhodes Properties, San Diego, California. As field director, led a crew of two people for a Class III pedestrian survey of 88 acres; coordinated Native American monitor participation; assisted with preparation of Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR). Gregory Canyon Landfill Environmental Impact Statement PHI Assessments, PCR Services Corporation, Pala, San Diego, California. As field director, conducted pedestrian survey of proposed landfill; relocated and verified previously recorded sites; led a crew of four people; coordinated with Native American monitors; prepared site forms and site descriptions for ARMR report. -
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Proposed Land
DRECP Proposed LUPA and Final EIS CHAPTER III.8. CULTURAL RESOURCES III.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES This chapter presents the Affected Environment for the Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) Decision Area and the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) area for cultural resources. These areas overlap, and in the following programmatic discussion are referred to broadly as the “California Desert Region.” More than 32,000 cultural resources are known in the DRECP area in every existing environmental context ⎼ from mountain crests to dry lake beds ⎼ and include both surface and subsurface deposits. Cultural resources are categorized as buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts (including cultural landscapes and Traditional Cultural Properties) under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Historic properties are cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), maintained by the Secretary of the Interior (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.4). See Section III.8.1.1 for more information on federal regulations and historic properties. This chapter discusses three types of cultural resources classified by their origins: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic. Prehistoric cultural resources are associated with the human occupation of California prior to prolonged European contact. These resources may include sites and deposits, structures, artifacts, rock art, trails, and other traces of Native American human behavior. In California, the prehistoric period began over 12,000 years ago and extended through the eighteenth century until 1769, when the first Europeans settled in California. Ethnographic resources represent the heritage of a particular ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, Latino, or Asian immigrants. -
Archeology Inventory Table of Contents
National Historic Landmarks--Archaeology Inventory Theresa E. Solury, 1999 Updated and Revised, 2003 Caridad de la Vega National Historic Landmarks-Archeology Inventory Table of Contents Review Methods and Processes Property Name ..........................................................1 Cultural Affiliation .......................................................1 Time Period .......................................................... 1-2 Property Type ...........................................................2 Significance .......................................................... 2-3 Theme ................................................................3 Restricted Address .......................................................3 Format Explanation .................................................... 3-4 Key to the Data Table ........................................................ 4-6 Data Set Alabama ...............................................................7 Alaska .............................................................. 7-9 Arizona ............................................................. 9-10 Arkansas ..............................................................10 California .............................................................11 Colorado ..............................................................11 Connecticut ........................................................ 11-12 District of Columbia ....................................................12 Florida ........................................................... -
<Insert Month, Day and Year>
Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory Report for the East Highline Reservoir Project in El Centro, Imperial County, California Prepared for: Imperial Irrigation District 333 East Barioni Boulevard Imperial, California 92251-0937 Contact: Jessica Lovecchio Prepared by: Matthew DeCarlo, MA; Sarah Siren, MSc; Samantha Murray, MA; and Micah J. Hale, PhD, RPA 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 OCTOBER 2018 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory Report for the East Highline Reservoir Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... V NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE INFORMATION ..................................VII MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................. IX 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ..............................................................1 1.1 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.... 2 1.1.2 Bureau of Reclamation Cultural Resources Management Policy ............. 12 1.1.3 California Register of Historical Resources (California Public Resources Code, Section 5020 et seq.) ..................................................... 14 1.1.4 Native American Historic Cultural Sites (California Public Resources Code, Section -
NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION CARRIZO PLAIN ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Page 1 1. NAME of PROPERTY Historic Name: CARRI
NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev 8-86) OMB No 1024-0018 CARRIZO PLAIN ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. NAME OF PROPERTY Historic Name: CARRIZO PLAIN ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Other Name/Site Number: See Table 1 for Site Numbers 2. LOCATION Street & Number: N/A Not for publication: X City/Town: California Valley Vicinity: X State: California County: San Luis Obispo Code: 079 Zip Code: N/A 3. CLASSIFICATION Ownership of Property Category of Property Private: Building(s): ___ Public-Local: District: _X_ Public-State: _X_ Site: ___ Public-Federal: X_ Structure: ___ Object: ___ Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing buildings 100 8 sites structures objects 100 8 Total Number of Contributing Resources Previously Listed in the National Register: 24 Name of Related Multiple Property Listing: N/A NPS Form 10-900 USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form (Rev 8-86) OMB No 1024-0018 CARRIZO PLAIN ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Page 3 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 6. FUNCTION OR USE Historic: RELIGION Sub: ceremonial site RECREATION AND CULTURE work of art DOMESTIC camp, village AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE processing site INDUSTRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION processing site Current: LANDSCAPE Sub: unoccupied land RECREATION AND CULTURE outdoor recreation AGRICULTURE/SUBSISTENCE storage INDUSRY/PROCESSING/EXTRACTION -
Jay Von Werlhof and Owens Valley Rock Art
Jay von Werlhof and Owens Valley Rock Art Mark A. Giambastiani and Mark E. Basgall Abstract between Owens Valley and other California culture areas based on perceived similarities in rock art styles In 1965 Jay von Werlhof published an overview of Owens Valley and motifs. Steward also gave terms for two major rock art for the University of California Archaeological Survey based on fieldwork he conducted in the summer of 1959. Although design forms of the basic abstract petroglyph style, this work has been largely overlooked by subsequent rock art formally identified by Heizer and Baumhoff (1962) as research in eastern California, which has centered primarily on “Great Basin Curvilinear” and “Great Basin Recti- the Coso region, a careful read of the volume reveals the genesis of the many unique insights Jay developed in his lifelong study linear,” which were used by von Werlhof (1965) and of prehistoric art. In retrospect, Jay’s work in Owens Valley has Grant et al. (1968) and are still in regular use today. had important implications for both archaeological and rock art research in eastern California and provides a different perspective from which to view contemporary opinions about the function and Following Steward’s effort, rock art studies in Owens meaning of prehistoric imagery on stone. Valley slowed for a time. In the early 1950s Clement Meighan (1955) visited and recorded archaeological Owens Valley Rock Art in Historical Context sites in southern Mono County, including a few sites with rock art at Chidago Canyon on the Volcanic Ta- The documentation of rock art in Owens Valley began bleland, but he made little mention of any petroglyphs in the late nineteenth century with observations by in his published notes. -
February Program
http://coloradorockart.org/ February 2020 Volume 11 Issue 2 Inside This Issue 1, 3 Webinar information February Program 2 Contacts, CRAA Board News 2, 12-14 Upcoming Events Your Guess Is as Good as Any: 4-11 Rock Art Blog Authority, Ownership, and 11 Spring PAAC schedule Ethics in the Public Interpretation of Rock Art Zoom link http://zoom.us/j/6136944443 Date & Time: Thursday, February 27, 6:55 – 8:00 pm MST Need webinar help? Location: Click on http://zoom.us/j/6136944443 any time after 6:45 see page 3 pm. Program will start at 7 pm. Upcoming CRAA webinar: Presenter: Dr. Richard Rogers, Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Faculty in Women’s and Gender Studies, Northern March 24—Nicole Lohman, Arizona University BLM presents "The Spark that Lit a Fire: Impacts of a Rock Art Description: Interpretive signs at rock art sites, pamphlets available Organization on a Young at trailheads, and displays in visitor centers and museums have sub- Professional." stantial potential to shape people’s understandings of rock art and indigenous peoples. The U.S. rock art literature, however, offers little in the way of systematic analysis or guidelines for “best practices” in the public interpretation of rock art. The public wants to know, above all, what it means. However, sometimes that knowledge does not exist, sometimes the public dissemination of that knowledge is constrained, sometimes meanings may be funda- mentally contested, and sometimes “meaning” is not the only or most relevant information to share. The public interpretation of rock art involves issues of representation, ownership, and authority that complicate any simple sense of interpretation as “Here’s what we know. -
Coso Rock Art Compiled by Leigh Marymor 02/04/16 (92 Citations)
Rock Art Studies: A Bibliographic Database Page 1 North America_United States_California_ Coso Rock Art Compiled by Leigh Marymor 02/04/16 (92 Citations) Allen, Mark W. SOUTHWEST MUSEUM LIBRARY. FILE MS# 781 CONSISTS OF 21 PAGES OF SITE AND MOTIF 2006 DRAWINGS. COMPANION TO MS# 1036. "In the Footsteps of Malcolm Rogers: UCBARF, BSABSR, RANMAB. SWMBRL (FILE # MS 1036 Archaeological Site Recordation at Indian contains original manuscript). LMRAA (PHOTO COPY). Spring, South Range, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station" in A Festschrift Honoring the Contributions of California Archaeologist Jay Bock, Frank von Werlhof, Russell L. Kaldenberg, ed. 1983 Maturango Museum Publications, (20):33-40, "The Great Galleries of the Coso Range: Maturango Museum, Ridgecrest, California. California's Most Extensive Rock Art Site" in Ancient Images on Stone. Rock Art of the Indian Spring (M-99, aka CA-Sbr-723 and CA-Sbr-724), Californias, :66-74, UCLA Institute of South Range, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Coso Archaeology, Los Angeles, California. Mountain Range, Ridgecrest, California. United States. North America. Rock feature: Geoglyphs. NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER, INYO COUNTY, COSO LMRAA. RANGE. CALIFORNIA. GREAT BASIN. BIG PETROGLYPH CANYON. LITTLE PETROGLYPH CANYON. United States. North America. Arnolds, Caroline INTRODUCTORY REGIONAL OVERVIEW. 1996 LMRAA. Stories in Stone. Rock Art Pictures by Early Americans, :48 pgs, Clarion Books, New York, New York. Bock, Frank and A.J. 1972 (Apr) COSO MOUNTAINS, CHINA LAKE NAVAL AIR "The Signs that Man was Here" in The WEAPONS STATION, RIDGECREST, CALIFORNIA. Masterkey, Vol. 46(2):47-60, Southwest MOJAVE DESERT. United States. North America. Museum, Los Angeles, California. -
Lower Pecos Canyonlands Archeological District
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK PROGRAMS WARNING THIS FILE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS RESTRICTED FROM PUBLIC ACCESS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 54 U.S.C. 307107 (formerly Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended). THIS DOCUMENTATION OR AND PROVISIONS THEREOF MAY BE VIEWED OR REPRODUCED ONLY WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR ACTING THROUGH THE KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OR HIS/HER AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE. FILE (PROPERTY) Name: LOWER PECOS CANYONLANDS ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Location – State: TEXAS Location – County/Parish: VAL VERDE __________ NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK NOMINATION NPS Form 10-934 (Rev. 12-2015) OMB Control No. 1024-0276 (Exp. 01/31/2019) LOWER PECOS CANYONLANDS ARCHEOLOGICAL DISTRICT Page 1 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service National Historic Landmarks Nomination Form 1. NAME AND LOCATION OF PROPERTY Historic Name: Lower Pecos Canyonlands Archeological District Other Name/Site Number: (see Table 1) Street and Number (if applicable): N/A City/Town: Vicinity of Del Rio, Lower Pecos Region of Texas County: Val Verde State: Texas 2. SIGNIFICANCE DATA NHL Criteria: Criteria 5 and 6 NHL Criteria Exceptions: N/A NHL Theme(s): I. Peopling Places 3. migration from outside and within 4. community and neighborhood III. Expressing Cultural Values 2. visual and performing arts Period(s) of Significance: 4200 BP–1000 BP Significant Person(s) (only Criterion 2): N/A Cultural Affiliation (only Criterion 6): Middle Archaic (San Felipe Subperiod); Late Archaic (Cibola Subperiod, Flanders Subperiod, Blue Hills Subperiod) Designer/Creator/Architect/Builder: N/A Historic Contexts: I. Cultural Developments: Indigenous American Populations A. -
Linguistic Archaeology: Prehistoric Population Movements and Cultural Identity in the Southwest Great Basin and Far Southern Sierra Nevada
Linguistic Archaeology: Prehistoric Population Movements and Cultural Identity in the Southwest Great Basin and Far Southern Sierra Nevada By ALAN PHILIP GOLD B.A. (California State University, Northridge) 1974 M.A. (University of California, Davis) 1977 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Prehistoric Forager Ecology in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: ____________________________________ Conrad J. Bahre, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Michael G. Barbour, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Michael J. Moratto, Ph.D. Committee in Charge 2005 i Copyright © by Alan Philip Gold 2005 ii For my wife, Leanne, and my children, Jason, Max, and Hannah and my friends Richard Blalock, Dr. Donna Kono, and Julia Schley. Thank you for keeping the dream alive and for your support throughout the completion of that vision. iii Linguistic Archaeology: Population Movement and Cultural Identity in the Southwest Great Basin and Far Southern Sierra Nevada Abstract Scholars posit contrasting models of the ethnic identity and language / population movements of prehistoric peoples in the southwestern Great Basin and far southern Sierra Nevada. These models favor either in situ cultural development or population replacement and expansion. Archaeological data from these areas are used in this dissertation to examine past movements of peoples speaking Numic and Tubatulabalic languages and, thereby, to evaluate the models. Seven -
National Register of Historic Places 2001 Weekly Lists
National Register of Historic Places 2001 Weekly Lists WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 12/26/00 THROUGH 12/29/00 .................................... 3 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/02/01 THROUGH 1/05/01 ........................................ 7 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/08/01 THROUGH 1/12/01 ...................................... 12 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/16/01 THROUGH 1/19/01 ...................................... 15 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/22/01 THROUGH 1/26/01 ...................................... 19 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 1/29/01 THROUGH 2/02/01 ...................................... 24 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/05/01 THROUGH 2/09/01 ...................................... 27 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/12/01 THROUGH 2/16/01 ...................................... 31 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/19/01 THROUGH 2/23/01 ...................................... 34 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 2/26/01 THROUGH 3/02/01 ...................................... 36 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/05/01 THROUGH 3/09/01 ...................................... 40 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/12/01 THROUGH 3/16/01 ...................................... 43 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/19/01 THROUGH 3/23/01 ...................................... 47 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 3/26/01 THROUGH 3/30/01 ...................................... 49 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/02/01 THROUGH 4/06/01 ...................................... 53 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/09/01 THROUGH 4/13/01 ...................................... 55 WEEKLY LIST OF ACTIONS TAKEN ON PROPERTIES: 4/16/01 THROUGH 4/20/01 ..................................... -
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Recurring Actions in Arizona, California, and Nevada December 2014
Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment Recurring Actions in Arizona, California, and Nevada December 2014 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1. Section 1 ONE Introduction ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Disaster Programs .................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Regulatory Background ........................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Purpose of This Document....................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Activities Not Covered by This Programmatic Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................... 1-4 1.5.1 Statutory Exclusions .................................................................... 1-4 1.5.2 Categorical Exclusions................................................................. 1-4 1.5.3 Activities Requiring a Stand-Alone Environmental Assessment Instead of a Programmatic Environmental Assessment ................................................................................... 1-5 1.5.4 Activities Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement .......... 1-5 1.6 Activities Covered by the Programmatic Environmental Assessment ..............................................................................................