DOCSLIB.ORG

Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico Item Type Book; text Authors Lekson, Stephen H. Publisher University of Arizona Press (Tucson, AZ) Rights Copyright © Arizona Board of Regents Download date 05/10/2021 15:55:23 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/595471 Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico ANTHROPOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NUMBER 53 Mimbres Archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico Stephen H. Lekson THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS TUCSON 1990 About the Author Stephen H. Lekson began his archaeological career by help­ ing to layout grids at the Saige-McFarland Site. He con­ tinued to work in southwestern New Mexico, assisting in and eventually directing excavations at eight sites in the Cliff Valley and the Big Burro Mountains, and directing a survey of the Redrock Valley of the Gila River, which was the subject of his Master's thesis. His subsequent research in and around Chaco Canyon produced his doctoral dissertation (University of New Mexico, 1988), several monographs, and a number of journal articles on Chacoan architecture and settlement pattern. He returned to the Mimbres area with a University of New Mexico field school on the east slopes of the Black Range and later directed a survey of the Rio Grande in Sierra County, New Mexico. This work resulted in a monograph and several shorter papers. He has written an overview of the Mimbres for the National Park Service and an archaeological synthesis of southwestern New Mexico for the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. Lekson is a Research Associate at the Arizona State Mu­ seum, University of Arizona. Cover: Mimbres Transitional (Style II) Black-on-white bowl from Burial 2, Room 4A, Saige-McFarland Site (Vessel 28; rim diameter, 27 cm). Draw­ ing by Fel Brunett. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESS Copyright © 1990 The Arizona Board of Regents All Rights Reserved This book was set in Linotype CRTronic 10/ 121imes Roman i§ This book is printed on acid-free, archival-quality paper. Manufactured in the United States of America. 94 93 92 91 90 5 4 3 2 I Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lekson, Stephen H. Mimbres archaeology of the Upper Gila, New Mexico / Stephen H. Lekson. p. cm. - (Anthropological papers of the University of Arizona: no. 53) Includes bibliographic references. ISBN 0-8165-1164-0 (a1k. paper) I. Saige-McFarland Site (N.M.) 2. Mogollon culture-New Mexico. I. TItle. II. Series. E99.M76L43 1990 89-20538 978.9'692-dc20 CIP British Library Cataloguing in Publication data are available. Contents PREFACE IX Pit House 3 33 Acknowledgments IX Trenches N775 and N790 34 I. THE SAIGE-McFARLAND SITE AND 3. ARTIFACTS 35 MIMBRES ARCHAEOLOGY Ceramics 35 The Cliff Valley Ceramic Densities 36 The Saige-McFarland Site Typology 37 Geology 2 Analysis of Decorated Sherds 37 Archaeology 3 Typological Stratigraphy 38 Excavations, 1971-1972 5 Rim Sherds and Vessel Forms 42 Documentation 5 Vessel Assemblages 43 2. ARCHITECTURE AND STRATIGRAPHY 7 Lithics 60 Room Block A 7 Chipped-stone Artifacts 60 Room I IO Ground-stone Artifacts 65 Room 2 (A and B) IO Stone Slabs 70 Room 3 II Hammerstones 71 Room 4 (A and B) II Minerals and Odd Rocks 71 Room 5 12 Ornaments 72 Room 6 13 4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS OFTHE Room Block B 15 SAIGE-McFARLAND SITE 75 Room 8 19 Architecture 75 Room 9 20 Pit Structures 75 Room 10 20 Room Blocks 76 Room II 20 Artifact Deposition 78 Room 12 21 Vertical Distribution 79 Room 13 24 Chronology 80 Room 14 24 Tree-ring Date 80 Room 15 25 Carbon-14 Dates 80 Pit Structures Beneath Room Block B 26 Non-Mimbres Pottery Types 81 Room BlockC 27 Mimbres Series Pottery Types 81 Pit House I 29 Chronological Synthesis 82 [v] vi Contents 5. MIMBRES ARCHAEOLOGY OffHE UPPER GILA 84 APPENDIX B: CERAMIC SORTING CATEGORIES AND SHERD COUNTS 97 Ceramic Assemblages 85 Site Size 85 APPENDIX C: LITHIC DEFINITIONS AND ARTIFACT COUNTS 103 Surface Archaeology 86 REFERENCES III Regional Chronology 88 EPILOGUE: MIMBRES TAXONOMY 91 INDEX 115 APPENDIX A: BURIALS 93 ABSTRACT 117 FIGURES 1.1. Cliff Valley 2 3.7. Vessels from Room Block A, Room 4A, Burial 2 50 1.2. Plan of the Saige-McFarland Site 4 3.8. Profiles of vessels from Room Block A, 2.1. Room Block A 9 Burial 2 51 2.2. Room Block B, upper floors 14 3.9. Vessels from Room Block B, Room 12, 2.3. Room Block B, lower floors of Rooms 12 burials 52 and 15 15 3.10. Profiles of vessels from Room Block B, Room 12, burials 53 2.4. Pit structures below Room Block B 16 3.11. Vessels from Room Block B, fill and floor 2.5. North-south profiles of Room Block B 17 proveniences 54 2.6. East-west profiles of Room Block B 18 3.12. Profiles of vessels from Room Block B, fill 2.7. Room Block C 28 and floor proveniences 55 2.8. Pit House 1 28 3.13. Vessels from Room Block B, Room 14, floor assemblage 56 2.9. Excavation units of Pit House I 30 3.14. Profiles of vessels from Room Block B, 2.10. Pit House 3 33 Room 14, floor assemblage 57 3.1. Tripolar graph of Mimbres I-II-III Black- 3.15. Vessels from pit houses and various on-white series, grouped proveniences 40 proveniences 58 3.2. Tripolar graph of Mimbres I-II-III Black- 3.16. Profiles of vessels from pit houses and on-white series, Room 12 40 various proveniences 59 3.3. Vessels from Room Block A, fill and floor 3.17. Selected projectile points 64 proveniences 46 3.18. Selected man os and metates 66 3.4. Profiles of vessels from Room Block A, 3.19. Stone axes 68 fill and floor proveniences 47 3.20. Stone palettes 69 3.5. Vessels from Room Block A, Room 4A, 3.21. Stone pipes Burial 2 48 69 3.22. Small stone mortars 69 3.6. Profiles of vessels from Room Block A, Burial 2 49 3.23. Stone turtle effigy vessel 70 Contents vii TABLES 1.1. Mimbres Valley chronological sequence 3 3.16. Frequency distribution of ornaments 73 2.1. List of features at the Saige-McFarland Site 8 3.17. Frequency distribution of shell bracelets 73 3.1. Contexts and dating of grouped 4.1. Density of artifacts per cubic foot of proveniences used in artifact analysis 35 excavated dirt 78 3.2. Volumes in cubic feet of excavated and 4.2. Density, in items per cubic foot, of various screened fill 36 artifact classes at Cliff Valley sites 79 3.3. Ceramic sorting categories 38 4.3. Artifact densities and vertical distribution of materials in rooms at the 3.4. Percentages of typable decorated pottery by Saige-McFarland Site 80 grouped proveniences 38 4.4. In.rusive pottery types grouped into 3.5. Style III vessel rim attributes by grouped temporal ranges 81 provenIences 41 4.5. Occurrence of dated intrusive ceramics 81 3.6. Vessel form-ware assemblage composition expressed as a percentage of all rims in 4.6. Synthesis of absolute and ceramic dates for the matrix 42 selected events at the Saige-McFariand Site 82 3.7. Vessel form-ware assemblages expressed as percentages of rims within each grouped 5.1. Ceramic assemblages and chronological provenience 43 periods 85 3.8. Provenience, classification, and rim 5.2. Survey room counts expressed as a diameters of whole and partial vessels 44 percentage of total rooms by chronological periods 86 3.9. Percentages of lithic materials by grouped proveniences 61 5.3. Absolute dates from the Upper Gila 89 3.10. Percentages of coarse and fine lithic A.1. Weight in grams of bone fragments materials by grouped proveniences 61 from three cremations 93 3.11. Percentages by archaeological period of A.2. Materials associated with burials 93 coarse materials in lithic assemblages B.1. Sherd counts 99 from the Mimbres Valley and the Gila Valley 61 B.2. Summary rim form-ware data 102 B.3. Non-Mimbres pottery types 3.12. Frequency distribution of core types 62 102 c.1. Data for chipped stone 105 3.13. Frequency distribution of projectile points 65 C.2. Numbered ground-stone artifacts 108 3.14. Frequency distribution of one-hand and two-hand manos 67 C.3. Data for manos 109 3.15. Frequency distribution of minerals 72 C.4. Data for metates 110 Preface The Saige-McFarland Site is a multicomponent Mimbres undertaken only when changes in typology over the last 15 site in the Cliff Valley of the Gila River, located less than a years made reanalysis necessary (as with ceramics) or to mile northeast of Cliff, in Grant County, New Mexico. complete unfinished projects (as with chipped stone). James E. Fitting excavated the site in 1971 and 1972. A Although a number of observations and conclusions are preliminary report was published for the first season's work offered in the course of the descriptions of architecture and (Fitting and others 1971), but a final report was never com­ artifacts, integration of one with the other remains incom­ pleted. I had an opportunity to study the records and artifacts plete. What may appear to be a lack of cohesiveness in this in the late 1980s, and this monograph represents a descrip­ regard results primarily from the nature of available docu­ tion of architecture and stratigraphy of the site and of the ar­ mentation. The limitations imposed by that fragmented rec­ tifact analyses completed in 1987.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SEAC Bulletin 58.Pdf
    SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18-21, 2015 NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE BULLETIN 58 SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFERENCE BULLETIN 58 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING NOVEMBER 18-21, 2015 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON DOWNTOWN NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE Organized by: Kevin E. Smith, Aaron Deter-Wolf, Phillip Hodge, Shannon Hodge, Sarah Levithol, Michael C. Moore, and Tanya M. Peres Hosted by: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Middle Tennessee State University Division of Archaeology, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Office of Social and Cultural Resources, Tennessee Department of Transportation iii Cover: Sellars Mississippian Ancestral Pair. Left: McClung Museum of Natural History and Culture; Right: John C. Waggoner, Jr. Photographs by David H. Dye Printing of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 58 – 2015 Funded by Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Authorization No. 327420, 750 copies. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $4.08 per copy. October 2015. Pursuant to the State of Tennessee’s Policy of non-discrimination, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or military service in its policies, or in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in its programs, services or activities. Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action inquiries or complaints should be directed to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, EEO/AA Coordinator, Office of General Counsel, 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd floor, William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, Nashville, TN 37243, 1-888-867-7455. ADA inquiries or complaints should be directed to the ADA Coordinator, Human Resources Division, 312 Rosa L.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Cook: Howe Mire, Inveresk | 143
    Proc Soc Antiq Scot, 134 (2004), 131–160 COOK: HOWE MIRE, INVERESK | 131 Howe Mire: excavations across the cropmark complex at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian Murray Cook* with contributions from A Heald, A Croom and C Wallace ABSTRACT Excavations across the complex of cropmarks at Inveresk, Musselburgh, East Lothian (NGR: NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123), revealed a palimpsest of features ranging in date from the late Mesolithic to the Early Historic period. The bulk of the features uncovered were previously known from cropmark evidence and are connected with either the extensive field system associated with the Antonine Fort at Inveresk or the series of Roman marching camps to the south-west of the field system. The excavation has identified a scattering of prehistoric activity, as well as Roman settlement within the field system, together with dating evidence for one of the marching camps and structures reusing dressed Roman stone. INTRODUCTION reports have been included in the site archive. A brief summary of these excavations has been An archaeological watching brief was previously published (Cook 2002a). conducted in advance of the construction of This report deals solely with the excavated 5km of new sewer pipeline from Wallyford to area within the scheduled areas which com- Portobello (NT 3210 7303 to NT 3579 7184). prised a 6m wide trench approximately 670m The construction works were conducted by M J long (illus 1) (NT 3540 7165 to NT 3475 7123). Gleeson Group plc on behalf of Stirling Water. The trench was located immediately to the The route of the pipeline ran through a series south of the Edinburgh to Dunbar railway line of cropmarks to the south of Inveresk (illus (which at this point is in a cutting) and crossed 1; NMRS numbers NT 37 SE 50, NT 37 SW both Crookston and Carberry Roads, Inveresk, 186, NT 37 SW 33, NT37 SW 68 and NT 37 Musselburgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Program of the 76Th Annual Meeting
    PROGRAM OF THE 76 TH ANNUAL MEETING March 30−April 3, 2011 Sacramento, California THE ANNUAL MEETING of the Society for American Archaeology provides a forum for the dissemination of knowledge and discussion. The views expressed at the sessions are solely those of the speakers and the Society does not endorse, approve, or censor them. Descriptions of events and titles are those of the organizers, not the Society. Program of the 76th Annual Meeting Published by the Society for American Archaeology 900 Second Street NE, Suite 12 Washington DC 20002-3560 USA Tel: +1 202/789-8200 Fax: +1 202/789-0284 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://www.saa.org Copyright © 2011 Society for American Archaeology. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted in any form or by any means without prior permission from the publisher. Program of the 76th Annual Meeting 3 Contents 4................ Awards Presentation & Annual Business Meeting Agenda 5………..….2011 Award Recipients 11.................Maps of the Hyatt Regency Sacramento, Sheraton Grand Sacramento, and the Sacramento Convention Center 17 ................Meeting Organizers, SAA Board of Directors, & SAA Staff 18 ............... General Information . 20. .............. Featured Sessions 22 ............... Summary Schedule 26 ............... A Word about the Sessions 28…………. Student Events 29………..…Sessions At A Glance (NEW!) 37................ Program 169................SAA Awards, Scholarships, & Fellowships 176................ Presidents of SAA . 176................ Annual Meeting Sites 178................ Exhibit Map 179................Exhibitor Directory 190................SAA Committees and Task Forces 194…….…….Index of Participants 4 Program of the 76th Annual Meeting Awards Presentation & Annual Business Meeting APRIL 1, 2011 5 PM Call to Order Call for Approval of Minutes of the 2010 Annual Business Meeting Remarks President Margaret W.
    [Show full text]
  • Museum of New Mexico
    MUSEUM OF NEW MEXICO OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MOGOLLON HIGHLANDS: SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS AND ADAPTATIONS edited by Yvonne R. Oakes and Dorothy A. Zamora VOLUME 6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS Yvonne R. Oakes Submitted by Timothy D. Maxwell Principal Investigator ARCHAEOLOGY NOTES 232 SANTA FE 1999 NEW MEXICO TABLE OF CONTENTS Figures............................................................................iii Tables............................................................................. iv VOLUME 6. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS ARCHITECTURAL VARIATION IN MOGOLLON STRUCTURES .......................... 1 Structural Variation through Time ................................................ 1 Communal Structures......................................................... 19 CHANGING SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE MOGOLLON HIGHLANDS ................ 27 Research Orientation .......................................................... 27 Methodology ................................................................ 27 Examination of Settlement Patterns .............................................. 29 Population Movements ........................................................ 35 Conclusions................................................................. 41 REGIONAL ABANDONMENT PROCESSES IN THE MOGOLLON HIGHLANDS ............ 43 Background for Studying Abandonment Processes .................................. 43 Causes of Regional Abandonment ............................................... 44 Abandonment Patterns in the Mogollon Highlands
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
    AT THE ROAD’S EDGE: FINAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THE WILSON FARM TENANCY SITE Appendix E: Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms Artifact -Any object shaped or modified by man, or as a result of human activity. Archaeology -The study of the people of the past through the systematic recovery and analysis of the artifacts/material evidence they left behind. Archival Research – research conducted in places where public or historical records, charters, and documents are stored and preserved. Assemblage – Collection of persons or things: in archaeological contexts, the collection of artifacts from a particular site, from a stratigraphic level, or cultural component within the site, or a particular artifact class, such as lithics or ceramics. Census, U.S. – An official count of the nation’s population taken every 10 years, often including a collection of demographic information. Culture – A uniquely human system of behavioral patterns, beliefs, habits, and customs, used to interact with other people and with the environment, acquired by people through a nonbiological, uninherited, learned process. Datum – A point, line, or surface used as a reference, as in surveying. Diagnostic - An artifact that can clearly be dated and/or identified as to maker, date, place of origin, etc. Feature -Any soil disturbance or discoloration that reflects human activity. Also, an artifact too large to remove from a site; for example, house foundations, storage pits, etc. Flotation – The process of sifting soil samples through a fine screen while running a steady stream of water over the sample; residual materials such as tiny artifacts, seeds, and bones are separated out into light and heavy fractions for analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavation Report
    Excavation Report Roman and Medieval Settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglia Water Pipeline Evaluation and Excavation Report January 2009 Client: Anglia Water OA East Report No: 990 OASIS No: oxfordar3-52223 NGR: TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation By Rob Atkins BSocSc Diparch With contributions by Barry Bishop MA; Peter Boardman BA; Paul Blinkhorn BTech; Alasdair Brooks BA MA DPhil; Steve Critchley BSc MSc; Nina Crummy BA FSA; Chris Fane MA MSc BABAO; Carole Fletcher HND BA AIFA; Rachel Fosberry HNC Cert Ed AEA; Alice Lyons BA MIFA and Paul Spoerry BTech PhD MIFA Editor: James Drummond-Murray BA PG Dip MIFA Illustrators: Crane Begg BSc, Gillian Greer BSc MAAIS and Caoimhín Ó Coileáin BA Plates: Andrew Corrigan BA Report Date: January 2009 © Oxford Archaeology East Page 1 of 90 Report Number 990 Report Number: 990 Site Name: Roman, Saxon and medieval settlement remains along the Stow Longa to Tilbrook Anglian Water Pipeline HER Event No: ECB 2780 (for test pits within Tilbrook and evaluation trenches from Tilbrook to Stow Longa. ECB 3507 was given for the two small excavation areas within Stow Longa village Date of Works: November 2007 to October 2008 Client Name: Anglian Water Client Ref: JUL059/07 Planning Ref: N/A Grid Ref: NGR TL 0800 6900 to 1100 7100 Site Code: MULSLT 07 Finance Code: MULSLT 07 Receiving Body: CCC Stores, Landbeach Accession No: Prepared by: Rob Atkins Position: Project Officer Date: December 2008 Checked by: James Drummond-Murray Position: Project Manager Date: December 2008 Signed: .................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
    Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 2 Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Robert Hosfield, Vanessa Straker and Paula Gardiner with contributions from Anthony Brown, Paul Davies, Ralph Fyfe, Julie Jones and Heather Tinsley 2.1 Introduction For the Palaeolithic periods the open-landscape archaeology is dominated by lithic scatters (predom- The South West contains a diverse variety of Palaeo- inantly of deeply buried artefacts, frequently in fluvial lithic and Mesolithic archaeology of differing degrees deposits, and particularly true in the Lower and of significance. This reflects the nature of the arch- Middle Palaeolithic), although occupation sites such as aeological material itself, the histories of research Hengistbury Head (Barton 1992) and Kent’s Cavern in different parts of the region and, with regard to (Campbell and Sampson 1971) are also present. the Palaeolithic period, the differential preservation For the Mesolithic, there are greater numbers of of Pleistocene landforms and deposits throughout the excavated sites (especially from Somerset), although region. One of the key features of the Palaeolithic surface or shallow sub-surface lithic scatters are still archaeology is the presence of a significant cave-based common, especially in the west. resource in south Devon and northern Somerset, which is unquestionably of national significance (see Overall, the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic archae- for example, Campbell and Sampson 1971; Tratman ology of this region is generally rather poorly known, et al. 1971; Bishop 1975; Harrison 1977; Straw 1995; reflecting an absence of robust geochronological 1996; Andrews et al. 1999). frameworks, the predominance of research into a handful of cave and open sites over the lithic scatter In terms of an open-landscape Palaeolithic record, resource (whether located on the surface or deeply there is an inevitable bias towards those areas with buried) and the absence of any major syntheses.
    [Show full text]
  • Stonehenge's Avenue and Bluestonehenge
    Stonehenge’s Avenue and Bluestonehenge Michael J. Allen1, Ben Chan2, Ros Cleal3, Charles French4, Peter Marshall5, Joshua Pollard6, Rebecca Pullen7, Colin Richards8, Clive Ruggles9, David Robinson10, Jim Rylatt11, Julian Thomas8, Kate Welham12 & Mike Parker Pearson13,* Stonehenge has long been known to form part of a larger prehistoric landscape (Figure 1). In particular, it is part of a composite monument that includes the Stonehenge Avenue, first mapped in 1719–1723 by William Stukeley (1740) who recorded that it ran from Stonehenge’s northeast entrance for over a kilometre towards the River Avon, bending southeast and crossing King Barrow Ridge before disappearing under ploughed ground. He also noted that its initial 500m-long stretch from Stonehenge was aligned towards the midsummer solstice sunrise. Archaeological excavations during the 20th century revealed that the Avenue consists of two parallel banks with external, V-profile ditches, about 22m apart. The dating, phasing and extent of the Avenue, however, remained uncertain. Its length could be traced no closer than 200m from the River Avon (Smith 1973), and the question of whether the Avenue’s construction constituted a single event had not been entirely resolved (Cleal et al. 1995: 327). Our investigations were part of a re-evaluation of Stonehenge and its relationship to the River Avon in 2008–2009, involving the re-opening and extension of trenches previously dug across the Avenue during the 20th century and digging new trenches at West Amesbury beyond the then-known limit of the Avenue. The result of this work was the discovery of a new henge at West Amesbury, situated at the hitherto undiscovered east end of the Avenue beside the River Avon.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Landfill Site- Old Bridge Township Middlesex County, New Jersey
    Cultural Resource Investigation Phase IA Report Global Landfill Site- Old Bridge Township Middlesex County, New Jersey Prepared For: TJRS Consultants. Inc. Mv/de Centre II Mack Centre Drive Paramus, New Jersej' Prepared by: Jay R. Cohen, Principal Investigator Carolyn A. Pierce, Co-Principal Investigator EnviroPlan Associate, Inc. P.O. Box 3470 Manchester Road Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 February 1994 Global Landfill Site PhaselA Cultural Resource Investigation Page l TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 3 II. PROJECT SETTING ........................... 5 III. PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW ........ ..8 IV. HISTORIC OVERVIEW ...... 11 V. SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT .......... 13 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ .............................. .. .19 VII. REFERENCES CITED ............... 20 RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL .................................................. APPENDIX A Global Landfill Site Phase JA Cultural Resource Investigation Page 2 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Project location; USGS South Amboy, NJ-NY, Quadrangle...................... 4 2. Site Plan ............................................................. 6 3. Map of the Settled Portions of East Jersey, ca. 1682 -------- -------- —.......... 12 4. 1850 Otley and Keily; Map of Middlesex County, N.J. ........ 15 5. 1861 F.H. Walling; Map of Middlesex County, N.J. ......................................... 16 6. 1876 Everts & Stewart; Map of Middlesex Co. Madison Township ................................................................................................-.VI
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Palaeolithic & Mesolithic Oxfordshire
    Oxfordshire in the Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic Gill Hey and Alison Roberts, March 2008 This document reviews knowledge of the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in Oxfordshire and is mainly based on the reports in the county Sites and Monuments Record and publications. It also includes some new observations on material in museum collections and reports by private individuals. It is clear that diagnostic material representative of most of the recognised phases of both the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods have been found in the county, although a major review of extant collections has not yet been undertaken. Upper Palaeolithic The Upper Palaeolithic in Britain is dated to c. 40,000 – c. 10,000 BP, or roughly from the latter part of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 to the start of the Holocene (MIS 1). People at this time would have been highly mobile hunter-gatherers living in mainly open landscapes. At present it appears that Britain was not continually occupied throughout the period and that a hiatus occurred during the extreme cold and aridity of the last glacial maximum (LGM). In Britain, the LGM traditionally divides the Upper Palaeolithic into an Early (c. 40,000 - c.22,000 BP; the later part of MIS 3) and Late (c. 13,000 – c. 10,000 BP) stage. It is possible that Neanderthals as well as modern humans were present in Britain during the Early Upper Palaeolithic, but only modern humans were present during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. No Upper Palaeolithic material of any variety was recorded for Oxfordshire in the Council for British Archaeology’s Gazetteer of Mesolithic and Upper Palaeolithic Sites (Wymer and Bonsall 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England
    The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England Volume 1 of 2 Edward Hillier Blinkhorn PhD University of York Archaeology January 2012 Abstract This thesis examines the situation of Mesolithic archaeology in the commercial sector as it was encountered under the aegis of PPG 16 in England, from 1990 to 2009. 1280 interventions make up the dataset, exclusively produced by developer-led investigations, and are derived from the grey literature. The large amount of fieldwork that is conducted in the commercial sector far outstrips that conducted by academics. Consequently, the large amount of reports that have been produced, and the nature of their archiving, has left academics and the public with little knowledge of the work that has been conducted. Therefore, this thesis represents a necessary and timely response to a neglected dataset. Three main themes are investigated. Firstly, the varied methodologies and the sequence of investigation are assessed for beneficial and detrimental aspects of fieldwork as it is conducted on projects incorporating solely Mesolithic archaeology and that of all periods. Secondly, communication between academia and the commercial sectors is assessed from the perspective of the grey literature, detailing strong points and shortcomings therein. Finally, the archaeological remains that have been reported on are examined, both to characterise the nature of Mesolithic archaeology from developer- funded projects and to examine the potential that it has to change interpretations of the period. 2 Table of Contents
    [Show full text]