DOCSLIB.ORG

A Cultural Resource Survep of the College Creek Area Annapolis, Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Cultural Resource Survep of the College Creek Area Annapolis, Maryland A Cultural Resource Survep of the College Creek Area Annapolis, Maryland Eileen Williams Julie H. Ernstein Paul A. Shackel Paul A. Shackel, Ph.D. Principal Investigator November 1. 1987 Prepared for the Naval Academy Athletic Association Annapolis, Maryland "Archaeology in Annapolis," A Cooperative Project Between Historic Annapolis, Inc. and The University of Maryland, College Park ABSTRXT The following reprt describes a phase I survey of the College Creek area. In this area, a tatal of 177 shovel tests mecqletd. The survey revealed a shell midden, tentatively identified as &longing to the Woodlad phase. In addition, disturbances caused by a railroad and comete factory menot&. Further excavation is needed to ascertain the cmnplete nature of the College Cceek site, 18 AP 46. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract .... ........................................... Introduction ........................................... Literature Search ...................................... Prehistory ............................................. Historical Background ................................. Environmental Setting ................................. Sensitivity Estimate ................................... Previous Investigations ............................... Research Questions .... F ............................... Methodology ........................................... Field Investigation ................................... Results ............................................... Recommendations ........................................ References Cited.,. .................................... Maps Cited ............................................ Photographs Cited ..................................... Appendix I Site Form .............................. Appendix I1 Shovel Test Summary .................... Appendix 111 Deeds .................................. Appendix IV Maps and Photographs ................... Appendix V Vitas .................................... List of Figures Figure Council for Maryland Archaeology Map ............... 2 Figure Annapolis, MDU.S.G.S. Quad Map. Scale 1:24,000 ..... 3 Figure College Creek, College Creek Partnership Developers.. 4 Figure Area 3n-veyed at College Creek ................................. 5 Fiqme Parel,I, 11, and 111. The 1954 Sanborn Insur-Map .......... 15 Figure The Area Surveyed at College Creek. Outlined Area Indicates the Known Extent of the Shell Midden ........................... 32 Figure The Surveyed Area at college Creek. Area Disturbed by Filling for the Railroad ....................................... 40 Figure The Survey Area ak College Creek. mtof Concrete Fill ..... 41 Figure The Survey Area at College Creek. Extent of Shell Midden ...... 42 Figue A ~oijecturdProfile of the Shell Mound at 18hP46. ... .. .. .. .. .. 43 Figure Amland Projectile Point ...................................... 44 List of Tables Table . .. 1. A Qlart of all the Kn- prehistoric Sites Within a 4 Mile Radius of the College Creek Site ................................ 20 DJTRCOUCTION The following is a report of a survey performed by "At-chaeology in Annapolis," a cwpzrative project betwen Histnric Annaplis, Inc. and the' University of Mwylard, College Park. The survey enconpssed approxi- mately 240 square meters of:l.land owned by the United States Naval Academy and the State of Maqlad. The Naval Academy plans to deed the property tn the Naval Wademy Athletic Assxiation, and in turn they seek M de- velop on this lard a Marriott Hotel. Tkis project is subject to review urder the Federal Historic P,re-tion legislation, thus the Maryland Historic Trust deaned a survey necessxy to identify md evaluate any ar- chaeological resources which muld k inpacted by the prop& dwel-t. The project area is located within the Anna~liscity limits on the west bank of College Creek, mrtheast of Fme Boulevard and southeast of the present i%ryland State Archives (Figures 1,2 and 3). Construction will '" impact bth Nad kadw and state owned land on the banks of College Creek, except for a 30.48 m (100 ft) buffer zone around the mter' s edge (Figure 4) . The suxvey for the pimp& area of *t was prformed by a crew of three, between May 13, 1987 and May 20, 1987. The crew consisted of tm field assistants, Eileen Williams and Michael Burrey,d was SuqErVised by Dr. Paul Shackel. LITERNURE SEARCH A literature search for bth prehistoric aid historic information ms mductd for the CollegeCreek project. Dr. Sean Fbslsso performed the historic research at the Maylard Hall of Rerords. The prehistoric research was wductd at tke Maryland Historic Trust Library, which mn- tains site and survey rqrts for the i%ryland area. From these resources, a sensitivity model was generated for the area to be archaeologically survey€d. PREKISTDRY Paleoaian Perid The Paleoirdian Stage (13000-7000 B.C.) is rot we11 domted in the mrtheastern United Skates, tlwuqh evidence from the region suggest ashave lived here for 10,000-20,000 years. In the west, the mst wide- spread complex is the Llano or Clovis, typified by fluted ~ints,scrapers, and blades. These artifacts are often in association with extinct mga- fam of the Pleis~cene,suggestjng a way of life centering on big game hunting (Humphrey ad Qlambers 1977:7-9). In the east however, fh3s .slmwing wideme for Pdeoirdians are usually isolated fluted pixits (Stepnaitis 1980:63). There are however, several sites in the east which reveal evidme for Paleoindian occupation of the region. 'Em hprtant surface sites are the Williamson site in Dinwiddie County, Virginia an3 the.Shmp site in Iancaster County, Pennsylvania. The artifacts remvered include flu+& points, blades, scrapers a.rd wedges, which are similar behem the b sites and similar to the CLovis complw in the hest. 'I'm deeply stratified sites imlude the Shawnee Minisink site in the Del-e Water Gap and the ThU17desbird site in the SMoahValley. Both these sites yielded radio carhn dates that were contmpraneous with the Clovis complex in the west (Hmphrey and Chmters 1977:8-9) . Stepomitis (1983:63-64) notes that while the eastern Pal- complex is similar to the western Clovis mmp1exes, eastern artifacts have never been . fourd in direct as~iationwith Pleistxene mega fauna. , Wmphrey ad Chambers (1977: 9) state that eastern evidence is ".. .aomplicaW by signi- ficent variation mng arkifacts both in minor detail an3 major form." Thus, the lifeways of the big gam hunters of the west cannot be transfemed to the east. Instead, evidence suggests that the Palm'lndians of east had a much mediversified subsistence stratesy. This is kecause of several factors, identified by both Steponaitis (1983) 4 Hmpkey and Chamkrs (1977) . As manpreys and Chmkers (1977: 9) note: While big gmhunters in the Great Plains and Southwest meranging over thousads of square miles of essentially open grassland, their eastern cousins were faced with the great variety of ecological niches in the first conif~ms, then decidious forest which covered the land...human groups living in the forest rmst have depended increashgly on lmally availilable plants, dlgame, reptiles ad shell fish...This regional and seasonal variation in fdand resources muld understandably result in considerable variation in cultural adaptive strawies and air ma- terial manifestations. Steponaitis notes that Paleoindian base camps identified by diverse arkifact asdlages, non-random distribution of lithic debris, activity areas and pstholes and nwlds, are foud in riverhe environments. Further, that quarry sites identified by a lack of WLs, and the presence of large munts of debitage ard a crypto-crystalline rock source. (Steponaitis 1983:66). This indicates that eastern ~aleoindiansme not fol~o~ migrating animaLs but- occupying sites on a seasonal basis. Investigation of Paleoirdian sites is hindered as mysites are inun- da'cd with therisein waker level at the erd of the Pleistocene. With the 4 of the Pleis- several 0th~adaptation were also occurring, the period of cultural adaptation to the new environment is hwnas the Archaic Period (~umphreysad Chahi~~s1977:ll) . Archaic Period The end of the Pleisbene saw myemironrental changes, kluding the hmdation of - riverine environments, a change frm mixed coniferous forests to northern hardwoods, ard a mre -rate climate. The Archaic mjRd is one of cultural adaptation to these changes arfi is further divided intc &phases, known generally as Early Archaic, Middle Archaic ad Late Archaic. The Early Archaic (7.500-6000 B.C.) is characterized artifactually by artifact traditions, the C~rnerNotched tradition (7500-6800 B.C.) and the Bifrucate tradition (6800-6000 B.C.) . The Corner Nowtradition is based on the change from fluted pints to corner notched pints, re- flecting a different hafting technique and utilization. The general arti- fact assemblages of Pdeo and Archaic .cpeopLes are very similar, thusprorpt- ing - to infer that the differences bemen the tw peoples were what they hunted (Stepnaitis 1983: 69-70) . The Bifrucate tradition inw1.ved the scheduled use of a mnnbzc of sea- sonal available resources. Th_e Bifmcates were made frcm Rhyolite or Wtzin the Pppalachian ~untahs. Circa 6000 B.C. the weather changed from cool and dry to warm and wt. This mked the beginning of the Middle Archaic. Tkis period is represented by several traditions, with the Bifrucate tradition pssibly extending into this period. Marrow bbutain .. pints RIE part of a kcadition extending from 5000-4200 B.C. These pints -made of rhyolite and black chert, with associated assemblages of scrapers, large bifaces, choppers,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting
    CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Report, Phase II, Handwritten Draft
    Generally the site cJot _ /confined to the area above the 21.5 meter contour interval (Figure 5). The southwest , ^ corner of the site was not clearly defined^ since it was disturbed by a gravel road and lies outside the impact_area./" . _ _ _ _, . current | alignment of^Ro'ute 21 i| obscures the norther^Tb^n^ry. North of"' Route"2IU a "' !sewer line runs parallel to the road, and a steep slope rises immediatelyj" beyond that. - —l The distributions of various classes of cultural material from the . were plotted in order to determine the locations of clusters. First, ? maps depicting flakes and fire?jcracked rock4 (Figure •&) show two main activity areas, one on the northern edge of the site and another toward the southern' end. Flakes are dispersed across the entire site as well. Mapped by raw • material (quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, and chert), flake distributions do not differ from the overall pattern, and are thus not illustrated.' '^r ^d^t^^a^^L^/^Uv^^Jl <^^e^^t^A^ F'/^-^tiXi^J^yt ., £*£3t*^)--<t^-3£^J^<^^ .. V ' yf Ceramics from shovel test pits are scattered across the site (Figure w, with concentrations in the center and southern parts of the site. When l\euJ IJ plotted by ceramic type according to period (Figures - A•), most of the ceramic types are dispersed across the site,' with no noticeable clustering. The only exceptions are the Late Woodland types (Potomac Creek, Townsend, and Moyaone), which show a tendency to occur in the central and southern portions !HL of the site. 'h A comparison of the flake and ceramic distributions suggest a negative correlation between the two artifact classes except in the southern area, where there is a concentration of both.
    [Show full text]
  • Preservation and Partners: a History of Piscataway Park
    Preservation and Partners: A History of Piscataway Park Janet A. McDonnell, PhD December 2020 Resource Stewardship and Science, National Capital Area, National Park Service and Organization of American Historians EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the early republic period of American history, President George Washington was the most renowned resident of the Potomac River valley. His sprawling Mount Vernon estate sat on a hill directly across the Potomac River from the 17th century Marshall Hall estate in Maryland. There is ample evidence that Washington and his guests enjoyed and very much appreciated the stunning view. Many years later preserving this view would become the major impetus for establishing what we know today as Piscataway Park (PISC), a few miles south of Washington, DC. These lands along the Maryland shore of Potomac River were actively cultivated during George Washington’s time, and the existing park setting, which includes agricultural lands and open spaces interspersed with forests and wetlands, closely approximates that historic scene. The National Park Service’s (NPS) primary goal and responsibility in managing the park has been, and continues to be, preserving this historic scene of open fields and wooded areas and ensuring that it does not authorize any landscape alterations except those that would restore previously undisturbed sites, reduce visual intrusions, or maintain open fields. The NPS continues to take into account the slope and orientation of the terrain and the tree cover when considering the location of any new facilities. Piscataway Park and its associated lands are for the most part held under scenic easements and constitute a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district made up of nearly 5,000 acres of meadow, woodland, and wetland, along six miles of the Potomac River shoreline from the head of Piscataway Creek to the historic Marshall Hall in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Charles counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 This Blue Goose, Designed by J.N
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment September 2009 This blue goose, designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, has become the symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fi sh, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also operates 70 national fi sh hatcheries and 81 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to state wildlife agencies. Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for
    [Show full text]
  • Kentucky Archaeology and in Promoting Remember, the Weather Last Year Was a Disaster, Archaeology to the General Public
    Winter 2000 KENTUCKYARCHAEOLOGY The Newsletter of the Kentucky Organization of Professional Archaeologists Donald W. Linebaugh, Newsletter Editor, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, J020A Export St., Lexington, KY 40506 PRESIDENT'S CORNER Lexington. If the weather becomes a problem, this Nancy Ross-Stallings Board and Officers' meeting can be rescheduled fairly quickly. At this meeting, the Board will . It's the end of the year and KyOPA examine the vitae of prospective members, so that elections are upon us. Include with this issue of they can be_voted on by the membership at the the newsletter, is a ballot that I hope you will fill March meeting. An agenda for March will also be out and return as soon as possible. The fine-tuned at this meeting. If KyOPA members Nominations Committee, headed by Don Ball did have agenda items, they should pass them on to a good job of selecting people willing to pick up one of the Board Members or Officers before the 27th the reins and lead KyOPA over the next two to January meeting. three years. As many of you understand, everyone tends to be over-committed and several of the This will be my last President's Comer, as people who were asked to serve had to decline. I my term of office ends next month. I want to have confidence with the slate that has been thank the Vice President, Hank McKelway, for presented; KyOPA will be in good hands. carrying part of the responsibility of leading KyOPA through some eventful times, and to Steve At the KHC Bowling Green meetings Creasman for all of his hard work as earlier this year, the suggestion was made to hold Secretary/Treasurer.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary for the Lower Eastern Shore Heritage Area
    0DUFK /RZHU(DVWHUQ6KRUH+HULWDJH$UHD ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\ ([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\IRUWKH /RZHU(DVWHUQ6KRUH+HULWDJH$UHD0DQDJHPHQW3ODQ 7KHSXUSRVHRIWKLVSODQLVWRDVVLVWWKHWKUHHFRXQWLHVDQGPDQ\FRPPXQLWLHVRI0DU\ODQG¶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♦ 2ULHQWDWLRQ OLQNDJHV ♦ ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ HGXFDWLRQ ♦ +HULWDJHWRXULVP ♦ (FRQRPLFGHYHORSPHQW WDUJHWHGLQYHVWPHQW ♦ 6WHZDUGVKLSRIKHULWDJHUHVRXUFHV ♦ 0DQDJHPHQW +HULWDJH'HYHORSPHQWLQ0DU\ODQG 7KHXQGHUO\LQJFRQFHSWRIKHULWDJHGHYHORSPHQWLVWRHQULFKFRPPXQLWLHVE\HQKDQFLQJDQGSURPRWLQJ WKHHQMR\PHQWRIXQLTXHFXOWXUDODQGQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV+HULWDJHWRXULVPLVDNH\HOHPHQW$FURVVWKH QDWLRQ FLYLF OHDGHUV KDYH DGRSWHG KHULWDJH GHYHORSPHQW DV D WRROIRUSUHVHUYLQJWKHLUFRPPXQLWLHV¶ GLVWLQFWLYHTXDOLWLHV7KH/RZHU(DVWHUQ6KRUH+HULWDJH&RPPLWWHHLVRQHRIWKHQDWLRQ¶VSLRQHHUVLQWKLV
    [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]
  • 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]
  • An Ethnographic Study of Subsistence Fishing on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior National Capital Area, Region 1 Washington, DC CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY REPORT AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF SUBSISTENCE FISHING ON THE POTOMAC AND ANACOSTIA RIVERS JANUARY 2020 Prepared by Shirley J. Fiske, PhD, University of Maryland Don Callaway, PhD, Independent Researcher Resource Stewardship and Science National Capital Area Region 1 Ethnographic Resource Study Subsistence Fishing on the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers Prepared under a cooperative agreement between the University of Maryland, Department of Anthropology, the National Park Service, National Capital Region, Cultural Anthropology Program; in conjunction with the Chesapeake Watershed Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, #P11AC30805. Prepared By: Shirley J. Fiske, PhD, University of Maryland Don Callaway, PhD, Independent Researcher With assistance of: Noel Lopez, NPS Amber Cohen, University of Maryland Leslie Walker, NPS Jeremy Trombley, University of Maryland Katie Geddes, University of Maryland Davis Shoulders, American University University of Maryland College Park, Maryland January 30, 2020 Photos: Left; East Potomac Park, Hains Point. Credit: S.J. Fiske. Right; Anacostia Park. Credit: J. Trombley TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1 2.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................6 3.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Country Upper-Shore Interpretive Plan
    Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Interpretive Plan N The Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Alliance John Milner Associates, Inc. Summer 2004 Interpretive Plan C H E S A P E A K E C O U N T R Y N A T I O N A L S C E N I C B Y W A Y I n t e r p r e t i v e P l a n Prepared for The Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Alliance Cecil, Kent, and Queen Anne’s Counties, Maryland Prepared by John Milner Associates, Inc. West Chester, Pennsylvania June 2005 i CHESAPEAKE COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY ii Interpretive Plan PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Interpretive Plan Project Leader: Chesapeake Country National Scenic Byway Alliance Cecil County Office of Economic Development, Tourism and Agriculture Joanne Richart-Young Cecil County Office of Planning and Zoning Jocelyn Beland Kent County Office of Tourism Bernadette Van Pelt Kent County Department of Planning and Zoning Carla Martin Gail Owings Queen Anne’s County Office of Tourism Barbara Siegert Queen Anne’s County Department of Planning and Zoning Radhika Sakhamuri Scenic Byways Coordinator, State Highway Administration Terry Maxwell Citizen Members Don Anderson Robert Bernstine John Bunnell Betsy Durnham Patricia Garrett Joan Horsey Mary McArthy Cynthia Saunders iii CHESAPEAKE COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY Further Support Provided By: Terry Adams Bill Betts Nancy Cook Michael Bourne Bill Danneberg Ronald Fithian Jennifer Rufner Audrey Hawkins Madeline Hollis Bill Ingersoll Marty Keahny JIm Lancaster Amy Moore Kathleen Moore Kate O’Donnell Brian Quinn Marie Rameika A.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places <
    NFS Form 10-900-b QMB No. 1024-0018 (Jan. 1987) United States Department of the Interior r , National Park Service i , -- •— .. ^ .. -j i National Register of Historic Places < - Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is for use in documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms (National Register Bulletin 16). Complete each item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the requested information. For additional space use continuation sheets (Form 10-900-a). Type all entries. A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Prehistoric Human Adaptation to the Coastal Plain Environment of Anne Arundel County, Maryland B. Associated Historic Contexts The Paleolndian Stage in Anne Arundel County__________________________ The Archaic Stage in Anne Arundel County_____________________________ The Woodland Stage in Anne Arundel County_____________________________ C. Geographical Data Boundaries of Anne Arundel County, Maryland I I See continuation sheet D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Planning and Evaluation. ___ Signer of certifying official STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER Date / State or Federal agency and bureau I, hereby, certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [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]