Information to Users

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Information to Users INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 9505895 Prehistoric economies during the Late Woodland period of the Potomac Valley: An examination of animal resource utilization Moore, Elizabeth Ann, Ph.D. The American University, 1994 Copyright ©1994 by Moore, Elizabeth Aim. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. ZeebRd. Ann Aibor, MI 48106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREHISTORIC ECONOMIES DURING THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY: AN EXAMINATION OF ANIMAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION by Elizabeth A. Moore submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology Signatures of Committee: Chair: <4 <aaAsL, fas-rfsisvoJ . l^ r Jean of'the College Date 1994 The American University Washington, D.C. 20016 THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT by ELIZABETH A. MOORE 1994 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To my Mother Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PREHISTORIC ECONOMIES DURING THE LATE WOODLAND PERIOD OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY: AN EXAMINATION OF ANIMAL RESOURCE UTILIZATION BY Elizabeth A. Moore ABSTRACT This research describes differences in the prehistoric economies of two Late Woodland archaeological cultures, the Montgomery Complex and the Luray Focus, and examines the relationship between these differences and other sociocultural factors. Zooarchaeological data used to perform this examination were collected from six sites. The relative completeness and research utility of all assemblages was determined. Other artifact classes and site features were described to provide a more complete view of these sites. The zooarchaeological data was used to define four key aspects of hunting strategies - the diversity of vertebrate taxa exploited, the habitats which were exploited to acquire those taxa, the exploitation of seasonally available resources, and the techniques used to hunt deer. At the sites from the Montgomery Complex, a wide variety of taxa were hunted or collected from all of the surrounding habitats. Deer were hunted with a specific strategy at the ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Rosenstock site, a strategy that resulted in the killing of the age groups that were of maximum meat-yielding age and size. Seasonally abundant resources were targeted for exploitation as they became available. As an overall pattern, the occupants of the Montgomery Complex sites appear to have been maximizing the exploitation of many of the animal resources found in the area. The hunting strategies at sites from the Luray Focus contrast to those from the Montgomery Complex in several ways. First, only a limited number of animal taxa were being hunted or collected. These taxa were probably found in the gardens or garden borders. Second, the seasonally available resources in the area were not targeted for maximum exploitation. The presence of seasonally available resources in the assemblages is marginal and their collection was probably opportune and not necessarily part of a deliberate strategy to exploit those particular taxa. Several sociocultural factors that may be related to these differences in hunting strategies are examined. These factors include a possible increase in the dependence upon cultivars, an increase in the use of defensive fortifications, and differences in stalking techniques for deer hunting. Finally, the implications of the relationship between these factors and the differences in the overall economies as reflected in the hunting strategies are discussed. in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project has benefitted from the input of numerous individuals. Professors, colleagues, friends, and family all provided the support without which this work could not have been possible. Any errors in this work have occurred in spite of their assistance. First, I would like to thank my committee members. My advisor Richard J. Dent not only provided the faunal material from the Hughes site but also critiqued the results of my work. Charles W. McNett, Jr. shared a great deal of his time and knowledge as well as a good portion of his library. June Evans has been an inspiration to me both personally and professionally. I especially appreciate her steady reminders to take time away from work and writing to enjoy my family. Last, but certainly not least, I owe a special debt to Melinda A. Zeder. She introduced me to zooarchaeology and provided invaluable training and support through this entire process. In particular, her critical (and sometimes humorous) comments on this research contributed greatly to the final product. I thank several individuals at the Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology. Tyler Bastian, Dennis Curry, and Maureen Kavanagh generously provided me with the opportunity to analyze the faunal material from the Rosenstock site. Their comments and input during my all-too-short visits to the iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. site and my assorted trips to the Trust gave me much encouragement. I thank the Archaeological Society of Maryland for all of the work that they performed in the field at the Rosenstock site and in the lab after the excavations ended. Without their continued labor and the assemblage that resulted from that work, this research would not have been possible. Bruce D. Smith has provided support and encouragement over the last several years and for that I am very grateful. In addition, his empathy and humor regarding the entire dissertation process helped me keep this experience in perspective. Susie Arter has been both a dear friend and a valued colleague. Her tenacity in identifying the most frustrating bone fragment was a great help in the lab. Justin Lev-Tov was another colleague who provided not only technical assistance but also friendship. Without his help, I might still be struggling with the fishes. I acknowledge several members of my family for their roles in this project. My mother encouraged me to do exactly what I wanted and I thank her for telling me not to go to law school. Leah Drown has quite persistently performed the task of "cracking the whip" and I thank her for not letting me procrastinate any more than I already did. Sarah Myler provided the loving support only a sister can. I have a most heartfelt thanks and acknowledgement for Varna G. Boyd. As a professional and colleague, the advice, the constructive criticism, the v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. editing comments, and the wealth of archaeological experience that she has shared with me has been invaluable. I thank her for being one of those truly special friends that few are lucky to find. Finally, I would like to thank my husband Tim Moore and my daughter Rebecca Joy Moore. Rebecca has provided the motivation for me to finish as quickly as possible so that I don't have to devote all of my spare time to my computer. I thank her for two very important things over the past three months - arriving after my defense and sleeping through the night. Tim has graciously suffered through the dissertation process and I thank him for his patience and his valued comments and advice. vi Reproduced with permission of the
Recommended publications
  • BULL RUN MOUNTAIN HOUSE, SITE 44FQ0313 Fauquier County, Virginia WSSI #22316.01
    BULL RUN MOUNTAIN HOUSE, SITE 44FQ0313 Fauquier County, Virginia WSSI #22316.01 Phase I Archeological Investigation (±0.65 acres) December, 2013 Prepared for: Fauquier County Department of Community Development 10 Hotel Street, 3rd Floor Warrenton, Virginia 20186 Prepared by: Boyd Sipe, M.A., RPA and Andrés E. Garzón-Oechsle 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: [email protected] www.wetlandstudies.com ABSTRACT A Phase I archeological investigation was conducted within a ±0.65 acre portion of the ±3.3 acre site 44FQ0313, the Bull Run Mountain House site located in Bull Run Mountains Natural Area Preserve in Fauquier County, Virginia. Additionally, a public outreach component was undertaken that included the excavation of two test units. Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia, conducted the studies for Fauquier County Planning Division of Warrenton, Virginia. The fieldwork was carried out in September and October of 2013. The historic artifact assemblage recovered from the site indicates that the intensive historic occupation of site 44FQ0313 may have dated from circa 1785 to circa 1825 during John Monday’s ownership of the property. The late historic finds, represented primarily by bottle glass dating to the late 19th century and early 20th century may be associated with the reported ephemeral use of the property as a hunting lodge or retreat during these periods. A previously unknown prehistoric component of the site that likely dates to the Archaic period (8000 B.C. – 1000 B.C.) was also discovered during the Phase I investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Report: South Pickett Street Properties
    South Pickett Street Properties (880/890 S. Pickett St. & 620 Burnside Place) City of Alexandria, Virginia WSSI #30318.0 Documentary1 Study & Geoarcheological Investigations May 2019 Revised July 2019 - Final Report Prepared for: Public Storage 701 Western Ave Glendale CA 91201 Prepared by: John P. Mullen, M.A., RPA, Anna Maas, MUEP, Penny Sandbeck, M.A. Daniel Baicy, M.A., RPA and Kathleen Jockel, B.A. 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, Virginia 20155 Tel: 703-679-5600 Email: [email protected] www.wetlandstudies.com ABSTRACT Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI) of Gainesville, Virginia, conducted a Documentary Study and a Geoarcheological Investigation of three parcels (880 South Pickett Street, 890 South Pickett Street, and 620 Burnside Place) totaling ±7 acres in Alexandria, Virginia. The documentary research was conducted in anticipation of the planned redevelopment of part of the study area. The goal was to provide a contextual study of the prehistory and history of the property, focusing on evaluating the potential for locating intact archeological resources on the property. The study area was continuously subdivided, consolidated with other properties, and subdivided further throughout its history. It appears to have remained completely undeveloped until the 1966 construction of the building that stands there today. The study area has low probability for historic resources, but a moderate to high probability of containing prehistoric cultural resources that could potentially provide information about the prehistoric habitation of the region. However, the demolition, grading, and construction of parking lots and buildings in the late 20th century likely disturbed the archeological context of 880 South Pickett Street, 890 South Pickett Street, and 620 Burnside Place, though the degree of disturbance is unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • National Park System Properties in the National Register of Historic Places
    National Park System Properties in the National Register of Historic Places Prepared by Leslie H. Blythe, Historian FTS (202) 343-8150 January, 1994 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources Park Historic Architecture Division United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 H30(422) MAR 3 11994 Memorandum To: Regional Directors and Superintendents r From: Associate Director, Cultural Resources Subject: MPS Properties in the National Register of Historic Places Attached for your information is an updated list of properties within the National Park System listed in the National Register of Historic Places. National Historic Landmark status, documentation status, dates, and the National Register database reference number are included. This list reflects changes within 1993. Information for the sections Properties Determined Eligible by Keeper and Properties Determined Eligible by NPS and SHPO is not totally available in the Washington office. Any additional information for these sections or additions, corrections, and questions concerning this listing should be referred to Leslie Blythe, Park Historic Architecture Division, 202-343-8150. Attachment SYMBOLS KEY: Documentation needed. Documentation may need to be revised or updated. (•) Signifies property not owned by NPS. Signifies property only partially owned by NPS (including easements). ( + ) Signifies National Historic Landmark designation. The date immediately following the symbol is the date that the property was designated an NHL (Potomac Canal Historic District (+ 12/17/82) (79003038). Some properties designated NHLs after being listed will have two records in the NR database: one for the property as an historical unit of the NPS, the other for the property as an NHL.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report on the 1990, 1991, and 1994 Excavations At
    J. Patterson Park & Museum Library Final Report on the • 1990,1991, and 1994 Excavations at the Hughes Site (18MO1) Excavations Conducted by the American University Potomac River Archaeology Survey Washington, D.C. under Antiquity Permits issued by the Maryland Historical Trust Office of Archaeology Report by Christine A. Jirikowic, Ph.D. November 1999 Richard J. Dent / American University Department of Anthropology Principal Investigator J. Patterson Park & Museum Library Final Report on the - 1990, 1991, and 1994 Excavations at the Hughes Site (18MO1) Excavations Conducted by the American University Potomac River Archaeology Survey Washington, D.C. under Antiquity Permits issued by the Maryland Historical Trust Office of Archaeology Report by Christine A. Jirikowic, Ph.D. November 1999 Richard J. Dent American University Department of Anthropology Principal Investigator TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword vi I. Introduction 1 n. The Potomac Piedmont and Hughes Site Environs 3 m. Paleoecology 8 IV. Culture History of the Project Area 12 The Paleoindian Period 12 The Archaic Period 14 The Early Woodland Period 18 The Middle Woodland 22 The Late Woodland 24 V. Excavations at the Hughes Site 36 Yinger's Excavations at the Hughes Site 37 The AU Excavations: 1990, 1991, and 1994 Field Seasons 46 VI. The Hughes Site: The Archaeological Data 52 The Structure of the Hughes Site 52 Artifacts from the Hughes Site 81 Subsistence Remains 102 Human Burials 103 Radiocarbon Dates 119 VII. Discussion: The Village Community at the Hughes Site. 121 The Hughes
    [Show full text]
  • Site Report: Potamac Ave and AX204
    -".-~underb~--"'­ Archeology ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTlGATlONS WITHIN A PORTION OF POTOMAC A VENUE AND ASSOCIATED EAST/WEST ROADS AND OF SITE 44AX0204 POTOMAC YARD PROPERTY, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA By Jolm P. Mu ll en, M.A., RPA and Wi lli am P. Barse, Ph .D. Jul y 2008 Revised FebruclIY 2009 Secolld Revisioll May 2009 Filial Revision December 2012 WSSI Project #2 1486.0 I Prepared for: Potomac Yard Development, L.L.C 2501 Jefferson Davis Hi ghway Alexandria, Virginia 2230 I Prepared by: Thunderbird Archeology Wetland Studies and So lutions, Inc. 5300 Wellington Branch Drive, Sui te 100 Gainesville, Vi rginia 20 155 ABSTRACT Archeological investigations were conducted within a portion of the Potomac Yard property located within the City of Alexandria, Virginia. The work was carried out in July and October of 2007 by Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc., of Gainesville, Virginia, for Potomac Yard Development of Alexandria, Virginia. Initial test boring, along a +2300 foot section of the proposed path of Potomac Avenue, resulted in the discovery of a buried ground surface along the southernmost section of the study area. Subsequent Phase I investigations of the buried ground surface in a 500 foot section of this road, resulted in the identification of one new multi- component archeological site, 44AX0204. The prehistoric component of the site likely represents temporary use of the terraces and upland settings above a small stream that eventually emptied into the Potomac River. The historic component dates to the 19th century and is suggestive of a nearby structure. Additional archeological work was necessitated in April of 2009 by the construction of a sanitary sewer through site 44AX0204.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Humanities Council History Matters!
    Maryland Humanities Council History Matters! Interpretive Plan for the Lower Susquehanna Heritage Greenway History Matters! A History of Maryland’s Lower Susquehanna Region The Lower Susquehanna region is the bold termination of the wide, powerful Susquehanna River and the gentle beginning of the great Chesapeake Bay. Water dominates and shapes the lives of the humans along the shores just as it dominates and shapes the contours of its land.1 The commanding river pulls people together; and at the same time, it divides them. Maryland’s Harford County to the south and Cecil County to the north, separated by the river, are pulled away from one another toward competing economic centers. Harford County easily connects with urban Baltimore, and Cecil County is lured away from Maryland’s influence by Philadelphia and Wilmington. The Lower Susquehanna is a borderland connected by the mighty waters that dominate its existence. When we began reviewing the history of the Lower Susquehanna region of Maryland, we read the existing volumes on Harford and Cecil Counties; and we talked to our heritage area partners in the region. What did they need? Excellent histories focusing on the important men and events of the region already exist.2 What could we add? We gathered together experts on Maryland’s history and culture to discuss how we might fill in what was missing in our existing knowledge of the state. We visited local historians in the Lower Susquehanna to learn what information they needed to better interpret their region. Most agreed that we needed to explore the lives of the everyday people who lived and worked and died near these great waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Investigation of the Heater's Island
    “WE HAVE BEEN WITH THE EMPEROR OF PISCATAWAY, AT HIS FORT:”1 ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE HEATER’S ISLAND SITE (18FR72) Dennis C. Curry Abstract Introduction In 1970, the Department of Anthropology at the University of Maryland–College Park (UMCP) ran a 10-week “Summer Field School in Historic Sites Archaeology” (ANTH 194 and 294) under the general direction of Robert L. Schuyler, then an assistant professor at the university. The field school examined two Contact period Piscataway Indian sites simultaneously (see below), one of which was the Heater’s Island site (18FR72) in Frederick County, Maryland. The day-to-day fieldwork was directed by J. Ivor Gross, then a graduate student in Anthropology at the university. For various reasons, the excavation results were never analyzed and reported, and Dr. Schuyler took the collection and records from the project with him to the University of Pennsylvania, University Museum, where he curated them for the next 30+ years. The present work is intended to put forward a report on the Heater’s Island site which includes: an occupational history of the Piscataway Indians during the historic period, showing how they came to settle on Heater’s Island, their last village established in Maryland (1699 to ca. 1712); summaries of other known investigations of the site; and the results of the 1970 UMCP excavations. Heater’s Island (also known as Conoy Island2) is located in the Potomac River just below Point of Rocks, Maryland (see Figure _1_). At the time of the UMCP field school, the island was owned by retired Navy Capt.
    [Show full text]
  • Through the Great Valley and Into the Mountains Beyond
    THROUGH THE GREAT VALLEY AND INTO THE MOUNTAINS BEYOND ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK SANDY HOOK TO HANCOCK (MILE MARKERS 59 TO 123) Volume I PREPARED FOR: NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1100 OHIO DRIVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2445 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 Final Report January 2009 THROUGH THE GREAT VALLEY AND INTO THE MOUNTAINS BEYOND ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK SANDY HOOK TO HANCOCK (MILE MARKERS 59 TO 123) VOLUME I Final Report PREPARED FOR: National Park Service National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: John Bedell, Charles LeeDecker, Stuart Fiedel, Jason Shellenhamer THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2445 M Street NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 January 2009 FOREWORD This is the first of three volumes reporting the results of a three-year archeological survey of the central 64 miles of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (C&O Canal Park) carried out for the National Park Service (NPS), National Capital Region, from 2005 through 2007. Although more than a hundred archeological sites have been recorded in the C&O Canal Park, much of the park remains unexplored, and little is known about most of the recorded sites. Since the park borders the Potomac River, the archeological potential of its 13,000 acres is enormous. To learn more about the archeological resources of the park, and to assist the park in managing those resources, funds were devoted to implement the Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Algonquian Cultures of the Delaware and Susquehanna River Drainages: a Migration Model
    Algonquian Cultures of the Delaware and Susquehanna River Drainages: A Migration Model PREPARED FOR: Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, National Park Service PREPARED BY: William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research Cover: Artist rendering of the Owasco Migrant group’s first fortification at the Potomac Creek Site (44ST2) along the Potomac River, Stafford County, Virginia (painted by Shelley Pomerleau for WMCAR poster series, 1998). Algonquian Cultures of the Delaware and Susquehanna River Drainages: A Migration Model WMCAR Project No. 09–26 NRAP Project No. DEWA 2010 A PREPARED FOR: Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area National Park Service 1 River Road Bushkill, Pennsylvania 18324 (540) 869–3051 PREPARED BY: William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research The College of William and Mary P.O. Box 8795 Williamsburg, Virginia 23187‑8795 (757) 221‑2580 AUTHOR: Wayne E. Clark PROJECT DIRECTOR: Joe B. Jones PRINTED BY: Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 2019 This draft report was accomplished with assistance from the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other data in this report are soley those of the author and do not neccessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. CONTENTS Figures ........................................................................................................................................i Tables .......................................................................................................................................iii
    [Show full text]
  • Universi^ Microfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obt ain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
    Frederick County Register of Historic Places DESIGN GUIDELINES THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FREDERICK COUNTY REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DESIGN GUIDELINES Table of Contents 2021 EDITION Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 A. Background ...........................................................................................................................................1 B. Organization of Guidelines ...............................................................................................................2 C. Jurisdiction ...........................................................................................................................................2 D. Historic Districts ..................................................................................................................................2 E. Codes and Permitting ..........................................................................................................................3 F. Historic Preservation Tax Credits .....................................................................................................4 Chapter 2. Prehistory and Historical Overview of Frederick County ................................... 13 A. Prehistoric Overview .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cohongorooto: the Potomac Above the Falls
    COHONGOROOTO: THE POTOMAC ABOVE THE FALLS ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF C&O CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ROCK CREEK TO SANDY HOOK (MILE MARKERS 0 TO 59) Volume I PREPARED FOR: NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1100 OHIO DRIVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2300 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 December 2005 Final Report COHONGOROOTO: THE POTOMAC ABOVE THE FALLS ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ROCK CREEK TO SANDY HOOK (MILE MARKERS 0 TO 59) VOLUME I Final Report PREPARED FOR: National Capital Region National Park Service 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: Stuart Fiedel, John Bedell, Charles LeeDecker THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2300 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 December 2005 FOREWORD This is the first of three volumes reporting the results of a three-year archeological survey of the easternmost 59 miles of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (C&O Canal Park) for the National Park Service (NPS), National Capital Region, from 2003 through 2005. In recognition of the paucity of basic archeological data for the C&O Canal Park, and for other NPS properties in the National Capital Region, funds were devoted to implement the Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) in this area. The SAIP was developed to address the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (specifically Sections 106 and 110), Executive Order 11593, and the Archeological Resources Protection Act. The rationale for the archeological survey was based primarily on the NPS’s resource management needs under Section 110 rather than being driven by development or capital improvement projects within the park.
    [Show full text]