DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase II Archaeological Evaluation Report For

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase II Archaeological Evaluation Report For RSI/PORTS 231 OVAI Contract Report #2012-43 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SIX HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SITES (33PK185, 33PK203, 33PK206, 33PK211, 33PK217, AND 33PK218) WITHIN THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT (PORTS), PIKE COUNTY, OHIO By Albert M. Pecora, Ph.D. and Jarrod Burks, Ph.D. July 3, 2012 This document has been approved for public release: Henry H. Thomas (Signature on File) 07/12/12 Classification & Information Control Officer Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. 4889 Sinclair Rd., Suite 210 Columbus, Ohio 43229 (614) 436-6926 www.ovacltd.com RSI/PORTS 231 OVAI Contract Report #2012-43 PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF SIX HISTORIC FARMSTEAD SITES (33PK185, 33PK203, 33PK206, 33PK211, 33PK217, AND 33PK218) WITHIN THE PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT (PORTS), PIKE COUNTY, OHIO Albert M. Pecora, Ph.D. and Jarrod Burks, Ph.D. Prepared by: Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc. 4889 Sinclair Road, Suite 210 Columbus, Ohio 43229 (614) 436-6926 Albert M. Pecora Ph.D., RPA Principal Investigator July 3, 2012 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite 200 Lexington, Kentucky 40513 Submitted by: Restoration Services, Inc. Portsmouth Environmental Technical Services Contractor Post Office Box 448 Waverly, Ohio 45690 Management Summary During the winter of 2010 and spring of 2011, Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., conducted Phase II archaeological assessment studies on six historic-era farmstead sites (33Pk185, 33Pk203, 33Pk206, 33Pk211, 33Pk217, and 33Pk218) within the U.S. DOE Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) facility. The 3,777-acre PORTS facility is located in the deeply dissected portion of the Appalachian Plateau of south-central Ohio, adjacent to the Scioto River floodplain and south of the Village of Piketon in Pike County. Historical maps and records demonstrate that the lands that currently make up PORTS were subdivided into numerous individual property parcels in the early part of the nineteenth century. Limited deed research and extensive archaeological excavation, however, show that some of the PORTS farmsteads were developed and occupied no earlier than the middle and later decades of the nineteenth century, whereas others came to be as late as the early twentieth century. The primary goal of the Phase II site assessment was to develop a comprehensive understanding of the character and contents of each farmstead site. The methodology used in this study was designed to: (1) reconstruct, as much as possible, the history, use, and layout of each farmstead; (2) delineate and document all above ground features and structure locations as they exist today; (3) identify subsurface features, especially buried foundations, cellars, and privies, using geophysical survey and hand excavation; (4) delineate and sample artifact concentrations using close-interval systematic shovel testing; (5) excavate and document selected subsurface features; and (6) analyze the resulting artifact assemblages. Despite the 1950s-era farmstead demolition, which removed the farmstead buildings, the six farmsteads examined in this study are in fairly good archaeological condition. All contain intact artifact deposits and foundation remains for the major buildings and outbuildings that stood in these locations prior to demolition. In several instances, the foundations for buildings that are not visible on the 1938/9 and 1951 aerials were also identified. The Phase II investigation was also successful with the identification of architectural features that are not visible on the surface, such as privy shafts, sub-floor pit cellars, wells, foundations, and landscaping features. Although all above ground features were identified and documented, all six farmsteads are likely to contain additional subsurface features that were not detected in this survey effort. All six farmsteads produced sizeable artifact assemblages dominated by architectural debris and kitchen refuse. It is likely the majority of the architectural items were deposited when the buildings were razed in the 1950s. Some, however, may have resulted from construction, remodeling, and building replacement during farmstead occupation. For the most part, the kitchen refuse and architectural debris was found to be concentrated together, usually near the house foundations. Smaller artifact concentrations were only rarely found around outbuilding locations. The co-location of both artifact groups suggests their deposition was primarily the result of a catastrophic event, such as farmstead abandonment and demolition, rather than as the result of a gradual accretion of refuse over a long period of occupation. Although most of the dateable artifacts appear to date to the early and middle part of the twentieth century, five of the six farmsteads produced middle to late nineteenth century mean ceramic dates and some of the sites had notable amounts of early-mid nineteenth century ceramics. Inferences regarding the earliest date of occupation from property deed records correspond well with the mean ceramic dates calculated from these assemblages. As isolated sites, none of the six farmsteads examined in this study is independently eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. However, as individual components of a mid-nineteenth to mid-twentieth century rural community, they, along with other historic-era sites that have been documented at PORTS, have the potential to yield locally important information about the history of farmsteads and rural people of Pike County, Ohio. While the physical preservation and protection of individual farmstead sites is not recommended, the existing archaeological information coupled with future historical document research should be used to develop a comprehensive analysis of the rural community. Consultation with the Ohio Historic Preservation Office and other consulting parties regarding such a research plan is recommended. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Phase II Archaeological Assessment of Six Farmstead Sites ...........................................................1 1.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Methods ............................................................................................................................................6 2.1. Phase II Assessment Methods ......................................................................................................6 2.1.1. Farmstead Reconstruction ...........................................................................................7 2.2. Field Methods ...............................................................................................................................9 2.2.1. Identification of Above-Ground Features ...................................................................9 2.2.2. Identification of Below-Ground Features: Geophysical Survey .................................9 2.2.3. Midden Sampling ........................................................................................................14 2.2.4. Hand Excavation .........................................................................................................15 2.3. Laboratory Methods .....................................................................................................................17 2.3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................17 2.3.2. Artifact Processing and Analysis ................................................................................18 Chapter 3. South Shyville Farmstead (33Pk185) ...............................................................................................24 3.1. Environmental Setting of the South Shyville Farmstead ..............................................................24 3.1.1. Location, Topography, Soils, and Vegetation .............................................................24 3.1.2. Post Occupational Surface Disturbance ......................................................................24 3.2. Historical Reconstruction of the South Shyville Farmstead .........................................................28 3.2.1. Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs.....................................................................28 3.2.2. Property Deed Records: History of Ownership ..........................................................31 3.3. Ground Penetrating Radar Survey Results ...................................................................................33 3.4. Architectural Features at the South Shyville Farmstead ...............................................................37 3.4.1. Structure #1 (House) ...................................................................................................38 3.4.2. Structure #2 (Dairy Barn) ............................................................................................41 3.4.3. Structure #3 (Barn/Outbuilding) .................................................................................42 3.4.4. Structure #4 (Outbuilding) ..........................................................................................42 3.4.5. Structure #5 (Root Cellar) ...........................................................................................43 3.4.6. Structure #s 6-9 (Four Outbuildings) ..........................................................................43 3.4.7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase II and Phase III Archeological Database and Inventory Site Number: 18ST704 Site Name: Pax River Goodwin Site 1 Prehistoric Other Name(S) Charles' Gift Historic
    Phase II and Phase III Archeological Database and Inventory Site Number: 18ST704 Site Name: Pax River Goodwin Site 1 Prehistoric Other name(s) Charles' Gift Historic Brief 17th-20th c. plantation, structures & artifact concentration, Late Woodland short-term camp, Unknown Description: lithic scatter Site Location and Environmental Data: Maryland Archeological Research Unit No. 9 SCS soil & sediment code Latitude 38.3069 Longitude -76.3963 Physiographic province Western Shore Coastal Terrestrial site Underwater site Elevation -6 m Site slope Ethnobotany profile available Maritime site Nearest Surface Water Site setting Topography Ownership Name (if any) Chesapeake Bay -Site Setting restricted Floodplain High terrace Private Saltwater Freshwater -Lat/Long accurate to within 1 sq. mile, user may Hilltop/bluff Rockshelter/ Federal Ocean Stream/river need to make slight adjustments in mapping to cave Interior flat State of MD account for sites near state/county lines or streams Estuary/tidal river Swamp Hillslope Upland flat Regional/ Unknown county/city Tidewater/marsh Lake or pond Ridgetop Other Unknown Spring Terrace Low terrace Minimum distance to water is 8 m Temporal & Ethnic Contextual Data: Contact period site ca. 1820 - 1860 Y Ethnic Associations (historic only) Paleoindian site Woodland site ca. 1630 - 1675 ca. 1860 - 1900 Y Native American Asian American Archaic site MD Adena ca. 1675 - 1720 Y ca. 1900 - 1930 Y African American Unknown Early archaic Early woodland ca. 1720 - 1780 Y Post 1930 Y Anglo-American Y Other MIddle archaic Mid. woodland ca. 1780 - 1820 Y Hispanic Late archaic Late woodland Y Unknown historic context Unknown prehistoric context Unknown context Y=Confirmed, P=Possible Site Function Contextual Data: Historic Furnace/forge Military Post-in-ground Urban/Rural? Rural Other Battlefield Frame-built Domestic Prehistoric Transportation Fortification Masonry Homestead Multi-component Misc.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase II and Phase III Archeological Database and Inventory Site Number: 18AN50 Site Name: Leon Prehistoric Other Name(S) Pig Point Historic
    Phase II and Phase III Archeological Database and Inventory Site Number: 18AN50 Site Name: Leon Prehistoric Other name(s) Pig Point Historic Brief Early-Late Archaic and Early, Middle & Late Woodland base camp or village; late 17th-early Unknown Description: 20th cen. Domestic Site Location and Environmental Data: Maryland Archeological Research Unit No. 8 SCS soil & sediment code DvC,CSF Latitude 38.7990 Longitude -76.7099 Physiographic province Western Shore Coastal Terrestrial site Underwater site Elevation m Site slope 5-10% Ethnobotany profile available Maritime site Nearest Surface Water Site setting Topography Ownership Name (if any) Patuxent River -Site Setting restricted Floodplain High terrace Private Saltwater Freshwater -Lat/Long accurate to within 1 sq. mile, user may Hilltop/bluff Rockshelter/ Federal Ocean Stream/river need to make slight adjustments in mapping to cave Interior flat State of MD account for sites near state/county lines or streams Estuary/tidal river Swamp Hillslope Upland flat Regional/ Unknown county/city Tidewater/marsh Lake or pond Ridgetop Other Unknown Spring Terrace Low terrace Minimum distance to water is 107 m Temporal & Ethnic Contextual Data: Contact period site ca. 1820 - 1860 Y Ethnic Associations (historic only) Paleoindian site Woodland site ca. 1630 - 1675 ca. 1860 - 1900 Y Native American Asian American Archaic site MD Adena Y ca. 1675 - 1720 Y ca. 1900 - 1930 Y African American Unknown Y Early archaic Y Early woodland Y ca. 1720 - 1780 Y Post 1930 Y Anglo-American Y Other MIddle archaic Y Mid. woodland Y ca. 1780 - 1820 Y Hispanic Late archaic Y Late woodland Y Unknown historic context Unknown prehistoric context Unknown context Y=Confirmed, P=Possible Site Function Contextual Data: Historic Furnace/forge Military Post-in-ground Urban/Rural? Rural Other Battlefield Frame-built Domestic Prehistoric Transportation Fortification Masonry Homestead Multi-component Misc.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Uncovering Site 7NC-F-94: Results of Phase III Fieldwork
    AT THE ROAD’S EDGE: FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WILSON FARM TENANCY SITE 6 Uncovering Site 7NC-F-94: Results of Phase III Fieldwork METHODS KSK undertook Phase III archaeological excavations at the Wilson Farm Tenancy Site during the period from March to May 2007, with a return visit in August of that year. These excavations were initiated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 800), and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (Federal Register 48(190): 44730-44734). Excavation methods followed the guidelines outlined in the DE SHPO’s Guidelines for Architectural and Archaeological Surveys in Delaware (1993). The Phase III archaeological investigations at Site 7NC-F-94 consisted of three principal fieldwork components: 1) an initial plowzone sampling strategy; 2) mechanical stripping of the site area; and 3) feature excavation. KSK initially excavated 28 test units (Test Units 6–31 and 34) to sample the plowzone and explore the brick foundation of Wilson Farm Tenant House III (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The excavations and mechanical stripping resulted in the identification of 104 features (Figure 6.3). Finally, three additional test units (Test Units 32, 35, and 36) were excavated to uncover a shaft feature (Feature 34) exposed near the southwestern corner of the foundation. Test units were designated per their coordinates (N70/E120, for example) and also assigned simple numerical designations (Test Unit 1, Test Unit 20, etc.) for ease of discussion.
    [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]
  • 07 Cunliffe 1686 13/11/09 13:48 Page 161
    07 Cunliffe 1686 13/11/09 13:48 Page 161 ALBERT RECKITT ARCHAEOLOGICAL LECTURE Continuity and Change in a Wessex Landscape BARRY CUNLIFFE Fellow of the Academy THE WESSEX LANDSCAPE with which we are concerned is an area of some 450 sq km of chalkland situated in the centre of the chalk uplands of southern Britain (Fig. 1). Its central position gives it a special character. It is, above all, a route node where the east–west ridgeways from the North Downs, the South Downs, Cranborne Chase and the Marlborough Downs converge with the north–south river routes, the Avon and the Test, which provide access, through the forests and heathlands of the Hampshire Basin, to the waters of the Solent beyond. But there is an ambivalence about the region. While open to influences from all direc- tions, this very openness endowed it with a strategic significance well understood by those who, in the past, wished to control the movements of peoples and commodities. As we will argue below, the region became a frontier zone for much of the latter part of the first millennium BC, dividing east from west. This block of downland was chosen for detailed study partly because of its commanding position in the landscape of central southern Britain but also because previous archaeological activity has provided an exten- sive database invaluable in developing a detailed research strategy. Most notable among the earlier work were the pre-war excavations of the Cunningtons and J. F. S. Stone focusing on Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements in eastern Wiltshire and the campaign of hillfort excavations Read at the Academy 23 October 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Management
    1 CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN PENNSYLVANIA: GUIDELINES FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS July 1991 (Reprinted January 2001) Bureau for Historic Preservation Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Commonwealth Keystone Building, 2nd Floor 400 North Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0093 (717) 783-8947 2 "This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240." 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: PHILOSOPHY AND PURPOSE 4 The Review Process 5 Recommended Action 7 Phase I 7 Phase II 8 Phase III 9 CHAPTER II GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES 11 Phase I Guidelines 12 Site Visit 12 Prehistoric Contexts 12 Historic Contexts 12 Urban Contexts 13 Submerged Contexts 13 Background Research 13 Prehistoric Contexts 13 Historic 15 Urban 16 Submerged 17 Field Testing 18 Prehistoric 19 Historic 21 Urban 21 Submerged 22 Analysis 23 Phase II Guidelines 23 Background Research 23 Prehistoric 23
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont
    GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING ARCHAEOLOGY IN VERMONT 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Amending the Guidelines for Conducting Archaeology in Vermont (Guidelines) was a team effort, headed by State Archaeologist, Jess Robinson, under the direction of State Historic Preservation Officer, Laura V. Trieschmann, with insight and assistance from Vermont Division for Historic Preservation (VDHP) archaeologists Scott Dillon and Yvonne Benney Basque. These Guidelines update and supersede the previous version developed by the previous State Archaeologist, Giovanna Peebles, and Scott Dillon. An advisory committee consisting of State government, academic and non-profit archaeologists discussed many ideas and topics leading to the development of a preliminary list of priority research questions important to understanding the precontact and post-contact history of Vermont. The advisory committee also commented on an earlier draft of the Guidelines. VDHP would like to thank all of the Vermont archaeologists whose excavations, publications, and knowledge contributed to the reasoning behind these guidelines. Advisory Committee Yvonne Benney Basque John Crock, PhD Jacob Clay R. Scott Dillon Brennan Gauthier Dave Lacy Jeannine Russell John Vetter, PhD Tim Watkins ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain
    JOHN CREIGHTON Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK www.cup.cam.ac.uk 40 West 20th Street, New York ny 10011–4211, USA www.cup.org 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarco´n 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain © John Creighton 2000 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press First published 2000 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeset in Plantin 10/12pt [vn] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library isbn 0 521 77207 9 hardback CONTENTS List of Wgures page viii List of tables x Preface xi Acknowledgements xii List of abbreviations xiii Note on translations used xiv Introduction 1 1 The Middle to Late Iron Age transition 4 2 Coin and the representation of individual authority 22 3 The Southern and Eastern kingdoms 55 4 Classical imagery and ideology in Britain 80 5 The location of Britain in the Roman world 126 6 Legends and language 146 7 Dynasties and identities 174 8 Conclusion and epilogue: from Britain to Britannia 216 Appendix: A brief introduction to Iron Age coinage in Britain 222 References 228 Index of coin types 238 General index 241 vii FIGURES Fig. 2.1 The development of coinage in northern Europe from the Phillipus to its regional successors page 27 Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Discrete Feature Contexts and Site Structure at the Ashe Ferry Site
    Chapter 4 Discrete Feature Contexts and Site Structure at the Ashe Ferry Site The 2010 investigations at 38YK533 designated 81 discrete archaeological features evident as soil disturbances intrusive into the subsoil horizon (Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3; Table 4:1; Appendix B). These intrusions were identified as potential cultural features on the basis of apparent morphology, soil matrices, or content evident upon removal of overlying plowzone or other overburden deposits. Excavation determined that 52 of these features were of cultural origin or contained deposits of cultural origin; 29 soil disturbances were determined to be probable natural tree root molds, stumpholes or disturbances from uprooted tree collapse. The 52 cultural features are attributable to multiple site occupations during the Late Archaic (n=1), the Middle Woodland (n=1), the Late Woodland (n=37), and Mississippian (n=9) periods, but comprise relatively few discrete formal and functional classes, including fire-cracked or burned rock concentrations (i.e., rock hearths) (n=13), large storage pits (n=8), shallow basins and small pits (n=16), postholes (n=9), graves (n=3), and caches (n=2). The unique depositional situation at 38YK533, with modern flood-deposited coarse sands that cap a shallow pre-1916 plowzone, protected the site from the effects of mechanized plowing, and resulted in preservation of discrete archaeological contexts normally obliterated on most sites in the region. Even slightly deeper plowing of the site matrix would have eliminated most of the discrete facilities, particularly the shallow rock-filled basins and other roasting facilities, thereby severely constraining interpretability of site structure and function.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Digital Recording System
    VULCI 3000 CRIB SHEET Guidelines for the Digital Recording System 0. Introduction The Vulci 3000 Project uses the single context method recording system: it means that each excavated stratigraphic unit (context) is given a unique ID number and it is recorded by: • Unit Sheet • Photos • Plan and/or section drawings; height above sea level The finds from each unit are bagged and labeled with their unit number for later cross reference work carried out in the post excavation. Samples of deposits from contexts are sometimes also taken for later environmental analysis or scientific dating. At Vulci, the conventional documentation integrates digital 3D data recorded by photogrammetric techniques or by laser scanning. In general, photogrammetry is systematically used in micro-scale (layers) and 3D laser scanning in macro-scale (large-scale survey). 1. The Unit List As soon as the unit is recognized, you have to choose a unique ID number from the master unit list, available on the tablet. Before recording, check the list and assign to your unit the first untaken number on the list. Avoid duplicate numbers because they cause endless problems and result in loss of information. Two different units cannot have the same number so verify and record the number of the unit in the Master Unit List. Specifically, the Master Unit List consists of: Number: enter the first untaken number of the list; that will be the ID number of your unit Definition: o Enter the type of the unit, positive (layer or fill) or negative (cut) o Provide a more specific interpretation of the unit: .
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 2 Archaeological Investigation
    Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of Site 21HE452 For the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project, Minneapolis, Minnesota (#13P026 Amendment #1) Prepared for Metropolitan Council Prepared by 10,000 Lakes Archaeology, Inc. Amanda Gronhovd, MS, RPA July 23, 2015 Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Project Overview .................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 4 Province .................................................................................................................................. 4 Section ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Subsection ............................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 3: Historic Context for the Holden-Royalston Site (21HE452) ........................................ 7 Statewide Context: ...................................................................................................................... 7 Urban Centers 1870-1940 ........................................................................................................... 7 Period of Significance: 1882-1929 ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • C C Archaeology Guidelines R
    c c c Archaeology Guidelines r C Ohio Historic Preservation Office c r c c c c c Archaeology Guidelines Archaeology Guidelines Ohio Historic Preservation Office Ohio Historical Society Columbus, Ohio 1994 Copyright 1994 by the Ohio Hi storical Society, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Reprinted 20 I I The publication of Archaeology Guidelines has been made possible in part by the Sidney Frohman Fund of the Ohio Historical Society and by a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service, administered by the Ohio Historic Preservation Office. However, its contents do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Department of the Interior. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office receives federal assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Historic Preservation Fund. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicap. If you believe that you have been discriminated against, or for further information, write: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240 Ohio Historic Preservation Office Ohio Histo2: Center 800 East 171 A venue Columbus, Ohio 43211-24 74 (6 14) 298-2000 www.ohpo.org [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements 7 Introduction 9 Purpose 9 Philosophy of Documenting Archaeological Resources 10 Human Remains & Associated Burial Objects II Section I 06 Review 12 Section One: The Review Process 15 A.
    [Show full text]