preliminary report of the 2011 excavation at seaview ...€¦ · bhep seaview excavation report...

Preliminary Report of the 2011 Excavation at Seaview, Barbuda, Antigua/Barbuda.

Aaron Kendall (1), Norie Manigault (1), Garðar Guðmundsson (2), Branka Djuknic (1), Amanda Schreiner (1), Santmukh Khalsa (3),

Lucretia Williams (3), Lauren Witter (3), Rebecca Riggle (3), Jeanette Plummer (3), Grissel Olavarria (3), Rachel Adkins (3)

1 - The Graduate Center of the City University of New York 2 – Institute of Archaeology, Iceland 3 – Research Experience for Undergraduate students, CUNY

BARC Report 2011-4 May 2011 Contact: [email protected] This is a product of the Human Ecodynamics Research Center (HERC) and the Global Human Ecodynamics Alliance.

BHEP Seaview Excavation Report Barbuda 2011

2

Summary In January 2011 the CUNY Barbuda Historical Ecology Project carried out a large open‐area excavation at the Seaview site (BAA016) near Two Foot Bay in eastern Barbuda WI. The excavation work was one component of the broader 2011 effort, and was aimed at retrieval of prehistoric cultural remains and student training. Field School students under the supervision of Dr. Sophia Perdikaris continued work begun in 2008 at Seaview, aimed at further exploration of cultural features surrounding a possible early Saladoid plaza. The excavation was conducted via a 68m2 trench connecting one of the 2008 test trenches (TRB5), which produced a large posthole, and a larger open area extending down the slope. The team also carried out two coring and shovel test pit transects along the southeast and northeast edges of the trench to determine the extent of cultural material in the area. Based on the C14 dates from this exacavation, and supported by dates obtained in 2008 and 2009, it appears certain that the inland test trenches and subsequent excavations this year represent an earlier phase of Saladoid settlement on Barbuda relative to the midden excavations along the erosion face. The excavation was successful in finding further evidence of a Saladoid settlement situated around a plaza. The finds included artifacts and ecofacts, numerous sunken features including postholes, cooking pits, and dumping pits.

Objectives

Our objectives for the 2011 January season were

Pursue a large open‐area excavation to explore the possibility of a Saladoid settlement

Connect this season’s excavation with the TRB5 test trench from 2008

Relate the findings from this season’s excavation to the erosion face middens explored in 2008

Provide hands on instruction in archaeological field methods to students participating in the CUNY Barbuda Field School.

Seaview


3

Background

Barbuda is a low, dry limestone island approximately 30 miles northeast of Antigua in the Lesser Antilles of the Caribbean. The island has a rich history and prehistory, dating back as far as 5,000 B.P. and has been successively colonized by Archaic‐age hunter foragers and S. American agriculturalists bearing the Saladoid ceramic tradition. After 1493, the island was caught up in the complex contact between New and Old Worlds, eventually becoming colonized by English settlers in 1628.

The name “Saladoid” comes from the site of Saladero in Venezuela, the origin of migrations into the Caribbean (Rouse 1992). There are several competing theories to explain the earliest Saladoid settlement strategy. Whether it was a strategy of exploration with intermittent and small‐scale sites scattered about the northern Lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico and bypassing the more southern islands or a small‐scale steady migration northward, one thing is clear, the infiltration of Saladoid culture into the Lesser Antilles represents a marked change from the earlier Archaic inhabitants. The later Saladoid occupants of the Lesser and Greater Antilles lived in permanent villages, grew crops, and made elaborate ceramics (Wilson 2007). The ceramics consisted of a diverse range of styles, most notably white‐on‐red (WOR) and zone‐incised‐crosshatched (ZIC). Early villages were often organized around a central ceremonial plaza and cemetery, surrounded by small circular houses and mounded middens (Siegel 1992).

Details of the Saladoid migration north are still little understood, but the current paradigm suggests Saladoid people arrived in Antigua, and presumably Barbuda, approximately A.D. 500 as part of a later and more permanent component of the northward migration across the Lesser Antilles (Wilson 2007). Significantly earlier Saladoid sites have been recorded on St. Martin and Montserrat, dating to about 400 B.C., but this early evidence for Saladoid occupation in the northern Lesser Antilles has been restricted to only a few isolated places (Hoogland 1999; Peterson et al. 1995). However, previous excavations on Barbuda, at Seaview in 2008, have produced similarly early radiocarbon dates, c. 15 – 250 B.C. These dates were further substantiated typologically by early Saladoid pottery also recovered from the 2008 middens.

Previous work carried out on Barbuda consists of the pioneering work of Dr. Watters in the late 1970’s‐early 1980’s (Watters 1976) and more recent survey work by Mr. Calvin Gore for the Barbuda Council.

Methods

As in 2008 and 2009 we made use of a slightly modified version of the successful FSI/NABO field recording system (based on a single context approach and ultimately modeled upon the Museum of the City of London, FSI manual available as download via www.nabohome.org). All photography was digital at 12 effective megapixels. Additional aerial photographs were taken using a kite and Canon S90 camera. All finds and samples are centrally registered using a system designed in collaboration with Dr. Reg Murphy of the Antigua and Barbuda Parks Department. Vertical & horizontal control was maintained with a Trimble differential GPS (+/‐ 2 mm accuracy) and a Lietz/Sokkisha transit level. All excavated deposits were dry sieved through 3 mm mesh sieves. All shell was retained for later analysis, fire cracked stones were


4

recorded per context and discarded. Whole soil samples for insect, charcoal, and phytolith analysis were collected (2 lt/context) from all cultural contexts.

Seaview Excavation

The 2011 season at Seaview began January 4 and closed March 4. It was led by Aaron Kendall (CUNY) with help from Norie Manigault (CUNY), Lilja Palsdottir (FSI), Elise‐Audree Guay (Laval), Gardar Gudmonsson (FSI), and Anne‐Marie Faucher (Laval). Amanda Schreiner (CUNY), Branka Djuknic (CUNY), Megan Hicks (CUNY), Frank Feeley (CUNY), Seth Brewington (CUNY), and Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) NSF fellows Rachel Adkins, Cristine Bailey‐Lagares, Kimberly Kearns, Sant Hmuk Khalsa, Manuel Lagares, Grissel Olavarria, Reaksha Persaud, Jeannette Plummer, Rebecca Riggle, Jessica Vobornik, Lucretia Williams, and Lauren Witter, all participated in the excavation. The 2011 season also benefitted from the active participation of the team from Laval University (charcoal and archaeobotany led by Allison Baine).

Site Layout and Coring

Upon the initial visit to Seaview in 2011 it was apparent the unusually large amount of precipitation being experienced on the island. The area was completely overgrown with vegetation and required two days of clearing before the site could be laid out for excavation (see Figures 1 and 2). A 5x10 m trench was placed just downhill from the TRB5 test trench of 2008, which produced a posthole, and extends across the slope from SE to NW (Perdikaris et al. 2008). A 3x6 m extension was then added running uphill and partially including TRB5. We did not have the exact location of TRB5, so we had to rely on the memory of those who were at Seaview in 2008. With a bit of luck we were in fact able to encompass approximately half of TRB5 within our trench. And most fortuitously, this half of TRB5 included the section with the partially preserved pit that was discovered in 2008. This area was designated Area C.

Figure 1 ‐ Seaview Area C prior to clearing of vegetation (facing N)

Figure 2 ‐ Seaview Area C after clearing of vegetation (facing N)


5

Figure 3 ‐ Aerial photo of Seaview taken from a kite and stitched into Google Earth. Oblique view to the north

showing relation to the Atlantic coast. Satellite image of Barbuda (inset).


6

The grid for Area C was laid out using a Trimble differential GPS and tied to fixed points at Codrington Harbor, Highland House, and three newly created points in the limestone bedrock immediately to the west of Seaview. The “site north” used for orienting the grid and planning was 300deg from magnetic N. From this grid the SW‐most corner of Area C is located at coordinates 500/500 (E/N). All levels were measured from the back sight, a fixed point approximately seven meters west of the trench. See Appendix A for all coordinate information.

Before excavation began in earnest, a series of cores were taken along two transects, one running N‐S and offset 1 m from the west edge of the trench and the other running E‐W and offset 1 m from the south edge of the trench, with each core spaced 2 m apart. A total of 14 cores were taken along these transects. Although the cores themselves did not demonstrate the presence of archaeology, we followed up the coring with shovel test pits at each of the coring locations. Of the 14 shovel test pits, 11 produced archaeology, including prehistoric pottery and shell. This exercise led us to the conclusion that the entire face of the hill likely contained cultural material, and secondly that traditional coring is not particularly useful in this sandy environment.

Excavation

The uppermost contexts ([100] thru [109], [111], [113] thru [117], [120] thru [123], [125] thru [126]) removed from the trench were comprised of windblown sand and modern debris including glass, metal, plastic, and evidence of recent fires. Considering the close proximity of a camping area used by the locals, the burning is most likely a result of bonfires made by

campers. As the sand was highly mixed and indistinguishable, these uppermost contexts were removed in arbitrary increments ranging from 5 to 20cm.

The earliest steps of extending Area C included opening up a 2x3 m trench uphill, or to the NE. This separate trench was initially called “C2”. Once we were certain that C2 came down on top of a portion of TRB5, as mentioned above, we connected C2 to the main trench. The area connecting C2 and C was initially called “C3”. Once all areas were in phase, we reverted back to referring to the entire area as “Area C”. As most of the archaeology from this extension was not discovered until after it had come into phase with the rest of the trench, we will refer to all areas of the trench as “Area C”.

While practically all units were excavated by trowel, context [102] was a particularly thick arbitrary layer (approximately 20cm) that was removed with shovels. At the bottom of this context was the first evidence of prehistoric archaeology, represented by West Indian top shells

Figure 4 ‐ Area C before removal of context [110]


7

and pottery. At this point we were approximately 40cm below the ground surface, at the east section, and 25 cm at the west section. Beginning with context [110] we were able to begin excavating stratigraphically (See Figure 4). Context [110] was a dark and slightly compacted layer that extended over most of the trench, with the exception of two areas of very light colored sterile looking sand along the NE and SW edges of the trench. As [110] extended to the NW end of the trench it became increasingly more compacted. It was at this end of the trench where a more dense concentration of sunken features would be uncovered.

We continued single context excavation from this point down, removing similar layers of mid‐brown and gray sand, which produced varying amounts of Saladoid pottery and a variety of shell species as well as occasional artifacts of stone, pumice, and coral. The first sunken feature was discovered lying directly below [124], and appeared to be a shallow posthole [128] (See Figure 5). This would prove to be the first of many sunken features scattered across the site. All of them appeared to be dug into the natural substrate, sterile pink sand.

Figure 5 ‐ Posthole cut [128]


8

Sunken Features

All together there were 56 sunken features recorded from Area C. These features included post and stake holes, at least one cooking pit, and various other pits as yet to be determined. The features themselves were all very close in phase, appearing to be cut directly into the natural pink sand substrate. The 10 postholes varied in size and shape with the largest hole being approximately 80 cm in diameter. The 43 stake holes, upon a preliminary inspection, appear to be scattered randomly. One exception to the randomness is in the center of the trench where a series of post and stake holes appear to be forming a series of concentric arcs (See Figure 14). It is reasonable to deduce from this layout of features the presence of some type of structure.

There was one clear cooking pit [184] excavated (See Figure 6). It was used in at least two clear phases, with a large ceramic vessel associated with each phase. During the first phase of use a large ceramic pot sherd was used to shore up one side of the cooking pit. Within the pit itself was recovered a large amount of charcoal and small bits of broken pottery. Also associated with this cooking pit were two large broken griddles still lying in‐situ approximately 1m away (See Figure 6). In close proximity to the cooking pit was another large sunken feature, one that was initially interpreted as a cooking pit [157]. This pit also appeared to have two distinct phases of use. Upon closer inspection it is unlikely that this feature was used for cooking, it is much too deep (approx. 70cm) and does not contain any dense accumulations of charcoal. A more likely explanation may be that it was used to dump debris from the nearby cooking pit upon cleaning.

One final sunken feature that deserves mention is the largest excavated this season [148], measuring 90x140cm and approximately 1m deep (See Figure 8). This feature has been the most difficult to interpret. There was no clear evidence of it being a posthole, with the sides being quite tapered and irregular. The fill was mostly made up of mottled sand with occasional bits of charcoal and fragmented pottery. This could have been a storage pit or possibly another feature used for dumping material from other cooking pits.

Figure 6 ‐ Cooking pit [184] with first fill removed (left) and fully excavated (right)


9

Phasing

The evidence for prehistoric activity at Seaview, produced from Area C, appears to represent a relatively short occupation, approximately 2nd – 3rd c. B.C. These dates are from C14 dated material recovered in 2008, from the nearby midden. Radiocarbon dates from 2011 will be processed in the coming year. Considering the fine‐sand matrix excavated and the association of artifacts and features, the 30‐50 cm of cultural stratigraphy likely represents a few years of habitation. While the archaeological material from Area C represents a short duration of activity, the larger “plaza” most likely indicates a much more permanent settlement. Little can be said about the temporal nature of these occupants until further excavations are carried out across the plaza.

Figure 7 ‐ Lilja excavating with close‐up of griddle inset


10

Figure 9 ‐ Anne‐Marie and Norie excavating two sunken features in Area C.

Figure 8 ‐ Large pit feature [148]


11

Figure 12 ‐ Picture taken

at the far east end of Area

C. The test trench TRB5

from 2008 is here emptied

and the remains of the pit

discovered that year is

now partially removed.

Figure 11 ‐ Remains of TRB5 shown in the profile of the

easternmost section of Area C at the end of excavation

Figure 10 ‐ Posthole in west section of Area C with

"ghost pole" visible in the profile


12

Figure 13 ‐ Sunken features excavated across Area C. The largest feature, in the foreground, is assumed to have

been a storage pit. The others are postholes.

Figure 14 ‐ Area C nearing end of excavation. Note the earlier excavated features have become filled in naturally

with wind‐blown sand.


13

Figure 15 ‐ North profile of Area C showing very homogenous layers of sand. It is difficult to distinguish the

layers in the profile. Here one can see only a few of the dozens of contexts that were excavated. Left in the

section was a large paving stone.


14

Summary of Artifacts

Numerous non‐ceramic artifacts were recorded from Seaview Area C in 2011. See Appendix D for a comprehensive list of all the artifacts. Here, the term artifact is used synonymously with ‘small find’ and refers to an individual object, or in some cases groups of object types found together. Due to the overwhelming quantity of ceramics recovered, that material will be addressed specifically in a separate report. As mentioned above, a program of sieving all contexts was implemented to maximize the information available from the site. Presented here is a preliminary assessment of the material recovered.

I have not addressed the modern material in this brief summary. Although it was collected and recorded, and is included in Appendix D, it was all deemed to be very recent and clearly disconnected from the rest of the assemblage, which represents a Saladoid presence. The assemblage of artifacts was dominated by worked flint and shell, with additional material of limestone, quartz, and coral, also recorded. The most abundant of the diagnostic types was worked flint flakes, with a total of 382. Much of the flint was classified as debitage and simply grouped by context. The more clearly identifiable flakes were given unique numbers and recorded accordingly. The total above only includes flint flakes and cores that had clear indications of being worked. In the following table is presented a preliminary breakdown of the diagnostic types.

Beads Stone 13

Shell 11

Preforms 5

Spoons 2

Burnishing stones 3

Smoothing stones 3

Hooks 1

Sling stones 2

Worked flint 382 Figure 16 ‐ Saladoid diagnostic artifacts from Seaview 2011

The spoons were both made of shell and highly polished from being handled (See Figures 22 & 24). Considered along with the cooking pit, griddles, and numerous other cooking vessels, it appears that food preparation was one of the activities being carried out. The beads recovered were all made of either stone or shell, and represent different stages of manufacture (See Figures 17 – 20). This could be indicative of bead making activities taking place on or very near this location. Burnishing stones for smoothing pottery and smoothing stones for working other materials, are also represented in the assemblage (See Figures 25 & 26). The large volume of worked flint indicates that stone tool technology was still relatively important to these Saladoid occupants. See the figures below for images of these lithic tools and other artifacts from the site.


15

Figure 17 ‐ Shell and stone beads (Artifact no. 54)

Figure 19 ‐ Stone beads (Artifact no. 108) Figure 20 ‐ Stone bead (Artifact no. 39)

Figure 18 ‐ Stone bead (Artifact no. 114)

Figure 21 ‐ Possible sling stones (Artifact no. 116)


16

Figure 24 ‐ Shell spoon (Artifact no. 24)

Figure 22 ‐ Shell spoon (Artifact no. 117)

Figure 23 ‐ Stone fishing hook (Artifact no. 112)

Figure 25 ‐ Burnishing stone (Artifact no. 134) Figure 26 ‐ Smoothing stone (Artifact

no. 144)


17

Figure 27 ‐ Flint flake (Artifact no. 119) Figure 28 ‐ Flint flakes (Artifact no. 125)

Figure 29 ‐ Miscellaneous stone from context [133]


18

Results and Recommendations

The 2011 BHEP excavation at Seaview was the first large scale open‐area excavation carried out in Barbuda. The excavation was successful in further substantiating the hypothesis built after the 2008 test pit excavations, that the Seaview area represents a large permanent Saladoid settlement. The excavated area produced multiple sunken features including post and stake holes, cooking pit(s), and other multi‐use storage pits. The artifacts collected suggest a range of domestic activities including cooking and food preparation, stone tool making, storage, and possibly bead making.

The thickness and density of the cultural deposits, along with the quantity of material culture, suggests a relatively short occupation at this particular location. While the postholes are numerous, they are mostly shallow in depth, especially considering the loose sand into which they were dug. The site, as excavated so far, appears to represent a few years to a decade of occupation at most. However, it appears likely that this is but one small portion of a much larger settlement area, possibly a Saladoid plaza. The C14 dates from multiple charcoal samples (see Appendix B) bolster the early dates obtained from the 2008 midden excavations, lending support to this region representing an early Saladoid presence on Barbuda.

While the results of this excavation certainly provide evidence of a Saladoid settlement, more work is required before more definite conclusions can be drawn about its size, nature, and duration. Is this a classic Saladoid plaza, simply a large village, or something completely different? Only further archaeological research will help answer these questions.

The 2011 excavation team would thus recommend:

Further expansion of Area C to the northwest and northeast. These areas are deemed to be the most fruitful considering the location of sunken features in Area C.

Systematic shovel test transects across the entire potential settlement area along with 1x1m test trenches along the outer ridges, which appear to be formed by cultural deposits.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Mr. Calvin Gore and the Barbuda Council for continuing to host us in Barbuda and provide the project with logistical support. Additional thanks to Dr. Reg Murphy for advice and guidance throughout another long field season. We also owe many thanks to Mr. John Mussington for providing us space and resources at the high school that helped make this season a success. Special thanks to Louise, Dana, and Salome, for putting so much time and energy into preparing numerous dinners for dozens of hungry archaeologists.

This research has been supported in part by grant 0851727 "Islands of Change" to Dr. Sophia Perdikaris and grant 0732327 "NABO International Polar Year" to Dr. Thomas H McGovern from the US National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs Arctic Social Sciences Program. NSF support is gratefully acknowledged.


19

Bibliography

Hoogland, Menno L. 1999. “Methods and strategies.” Pp. 129‐147 in Archaeological

Investigations on St. Martin (Lesser Antilles). Leiden, Netherlands: Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.

Perdikaris, Sophia et al. 2008. Field Report Barbuda Historical Ecology Project 2008. City

University of New York. Petersen, James B., Robert N. Bartone, and David R. Watters. 1995. “Pyroclastic, storm surge,

and saladoid villager deposits: The archaeological and geological stratigraphy of the Trants site, Montserrat.” Pp. 40‐51 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology. Basse Terre: Conseil Regional de la Guadeloupe.

Rouse, Irving. 1993. The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale

University Press. Siegel, Peter E. 1992. “Ideology, Power, and Social Complexity in Prehistoric Puerto Rico.” Ph.D.

Dissertation, Binghamton: State University of New York. Watters, David R. 1976. “Caribbean prehistory: a century of researchers, models and trends.”

Unpublished Maters thesis, Reno: Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada. Wilson, Samuel M. 2007. The Archaeology of the Caribbean. Cambridge University Press.


20

Appendix A – Seaview Coordinate Data (Garðar Gudmunðsson)

Two points were established in at Sea View using the Highland House base station Ba12.

Name Description/Remarks E N Height SV1 Steel screw in bed rock

about 110m SSW of excavation area.

629,892.415 1,954,676.730 4.966

SV2 Steel screw in middle of concrete cistern just inside and about 25m east of entrance gate to church recreation area. Ca. 250m west of excavation area.

629,666.919 1,954,808.372 2.245

Further 5 points were measured in as reference points at Sea View using SV1 as baste station.

Points SV3‐4 are intended as back‐up points for SV1 and points SV5‐7 as reference points for

orientation of a total station at site.

Name Description/Remarks E N Height SV3 Steel bolt in bed rock N of

track and about 130m SE along it from entrance gate to church recreation area towards excavation area.

629,749.226 1,954,734.501 2.163

SV4 Steel screw in bed rock 5.05m NNW (330o true) from SV1.

629,889.821 1,954,681.095 4.903

SV5 Steel rod one of group of 3 S of excavation.

629,868.630 1,954,768.896 3.457


629,873.711 1,954,749.902 3.065


629,889.742 1,954,757.818 3.239


21

Extent of Excavation

The extent of the 2011 excavation area was measured in with SV1 as base point. The outline of

a test pit from 2008, believed to be the number 5 pit, discovered in the northern part of the

excavation area was also surveyed. Coordinates and height (3.549) for the backsight for the

2011 excavation were established.

Name Description/Remarks E N Height 511/501 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,892.252 1,954,776.005 5.155 511/504 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,889.598 1,954,777.298 5.214 505/504 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,887.168 1,954,771.962 4.486 505/510 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,881.636 1,954,774.348 4.454 500/510 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,879.594 1,954,769.838 3.919 500/500 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,888.675 1,954,765.714 4.041 505/500 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,890.719 1,954,770.242 4.573 505/501 Extent of 2011 Excavation 629,889.888 1,954,770.741 4.548 TP5.08-1 Extent of '08 Test Pit 5 629,890.241 1,954,776.918 4.959 TP5.08-2 Extent of '08 Test Pit 5 629,889.800 1,954,776.827 4.007 TP5.08-3 Extent of '08 Test Pit 5 629,889.880 1,954,775.591 3.986 BS11 Backsight 629,867.846 1,954,765.818 3.549 Note that height is irrelevant for extent of excavation and test pits, but all important for the

backsight

Other Survey Points at Sea View

So called Shovel Test Pits, 12 in all, around the excavation area were surveyed in.

Name Description/Remarks E N Height STP1 BAR11-22 629,880.790 1,954,767.793 3.664 STP2 BAR11-22 629,884.482 1,954,765.834 3.720 STP3 BAR11-22 629,886.216 1,954,765.301 3.792 STP4 BAR11-22 629,888.004 1,954,764.540 3.812 STP5 BAR11-22 629,887.297 1,954,759.798 3.283 STP6 BAR11-22 629,888.169 1,954,761.579 3.602 STP7 BAR11-22 629,888.944 1,954,763.413 3.802 STP8 BAR11-22 629,889.918 1,954,765.141 3.982 STP9 BAR11-22 629,890.544 1,954,767.068 4.185 STP10 BAR11-22 629,891.177 1,954,768.981 4.338 STP11 BAR11-22 629,892.106 1,954,771.203 4.461 STP12 BAR11-21 629,892.797 1,954,772.737 4.645

Further two locations were surveyed. One an alleged looters trench and a test trench located

by Tom McGovern.

Name Description/Remarks E N Height LT1 Looter's trench 629,883.554 1,954,721.711 3.283 RTT3 Test trench from 2008 629,898.060 1,954,724.267 3.660


22


23


24

Appendix B – Calibrated C14 dates from Seaview 2011 relative to other dates from Barbuda

[189] 1975 +/‐ 35 BP

[154] 1565 +/‐ 35 BP

[256] 1900 +/‐ 35 BP


25

Appendix C – Context List

No. Area Description

100 C Wind blown sand ‐ covers evtire trench ‐ 100% sieved

101 C Wind blown sand ‐ more compact ‐ under [100]; whole trench ‐ 50% sieved

102 C Wind blown sand ‐ more compact ‐ under [101], not sieved

103 C2 Wind blown sand ‐ top soil ‐ 3.5cm ‐ loose beige sand

104 C2 Wind blown sand ‐ slightly darker, slightly more compact ‐ arbitrary 15cm



107 C Wind blown sand w/ artifacts and shell ‐ 100% sieved

108 C Wind blown sand deposit w/ pottery and shells

109 C2 Wind blown sand ‐ mottled compact darker w/ looser light sand ‐ arbitrary 10cm

110 C Dark gray mottled sand w/ pottery and shells

111 C3 Wind blown sand btwn C and C2 ‐ same as [100] ‐ topsoil ‐ 50% sieved, 6mm

112 C Below [110] ‐ dark compacted sand at NW 2/3 of trench

113 C3 Wind blown sand btwn C and C2 ‐ same as [101] ‐ arbitrary 5cm ‐ 0% sieved

114 C3 Wind blown sand btwen C and C2 ‐ same as [102] ‐ arbitrary 5cm ‐ 0% sieved

115 C3 Wind blown sand btwn C and C2 ‐ same as [102] ‐ arbitrary 3cm ‐ 0% sieved

116 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C and C2 ‐ more compact & darker ‐ same as [107] ‐ 50% sieved

117 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C and C2 ‐ more compact and grayish brown ‐ same as [108] ‐ 50% sieved

118 C Light brown grayish sand

119 C Light brown grayish sand

120 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C and C2 ‐ less compact ‐ med. Brown ‐ arbitrary 5cm ‐ 50% sieved

121 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C & C2 ‐ less compact ‐ med brown ‐ arbitrary 5cm ‐ 50% sieved

122 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C & C2 ‐ less compact ‐ med brown ‐ arbitrary 10cm

123 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C & C2 (same as [121] & [122]) ‐ arbitrary 10cm ‐ 50% sieved

124 C Dark sandy midden deposit at NW end of trench ‐ 50% sieved

125 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C & C2 (same as [123]) ‐ arbitrary 10cm

126 C3 Aeolian sand btwn C & C2 (same as [123]) ‐ arbitrary 10cm ‐ 50% sieved

127 C Dark sandy crunchy deposit at NW end of trench ‐ 100% sieved

128 C Cut for [129]

129 C Very light fine sand deposit

130 C2 & C3 Aeolian sand, compact, med brown

131 C2 Fill of TRB5 trench from 2008

132 C Med gray sand at SE end of trench, slightly compacted

133 C Darkish sand deposit w/ shells and pottery

134 C2 Cut for [131] from 2008

135 C Med brown w/ charcoal, more compacted than lighter sand ‐ same as [133]?

136 C Med brown w/ charcoal, more compacted than lighter sand ‐ same as [133]?


26

137 C Group number for pit [136]

138 C Fill in [137] (lighter tan sand w/ charcoal)

139 C Dark gray/brown partially filling [135] pit

140 C Cut for fills [136], [138]. Group number [137]

141 C Dark brown deposit filling a sunken feature ; below [133]



144 C Cut for fill [141]


146 C Dark grayish deposit trampled in NW corner of trench

147 C Med brown greasy deposit of roots



150 C Gray brown patch on top of light sand (Group no. for 151 ‐ 154)

151 C Fill of pit

152 C Fill of pit

153 C Fill of pit

154 C Fill of pit

155 C Cut of fill [152]

156 C 2nd fill from top in pit [157]

157 C Group no. for fills in pit [151,156,159,161,162,165,166,167,etc.]


159 C 3rd fill from top in [157]


161 C 4th fill from top in [157], windblown soil

162 C 5th fill from top in [157]

163 C Medium brown mottled deposit

164 C Medium brown mottled deposit

165 C 6th fill from top in pit [157]

166 C 7th fill from top in pit [157], possibly windblown

167 C Cut for fill [165] within pit [157]

168 C 8th fill from top in pit [157]

169 C3 Arbitrary 5cm of windblown sand below [130]

170 C Re‐cut of pit [157] for fills [168] etc.

171 C 9th fill in pit [157]

172 C3 Arbitrary 5cm of windblown sand below [169], half

173 C 10th fill in pit [157]




177 C Cut for [157]


27

178 C3 Windblown sand below [175], equals [179]

179 C3 Windblown sand below [176], equals [178]

180 C3 Med brown and gray compacted sand

181 C3 Dark gray patch of sand in south corner

182 C3 Gritty compacted sand w/ shell and pottery

183 C3 Deposit underneath [181]

184 C3 Cut for fills [181] and [183]

185 C3 Lt. gray compacted sand; filling pit exposed by TRB5

186 C Light tan ‐ mid tan sand deposit with shell and pottery

187 C3 Fill in pit

188 C3 Fill in pit under [187] ‐ crunchy w/ charcoal

189 C3 Fill in pit under [188] ‐ fine sand w/ charcoal

190 C3 Mid‐brown tan deposit

191 C3 Cut for fill [189]

192 C3 Cut for [196]

193 C3 Fill in posthole




197 C3 Cut for [194]

198 C3 Cut for [193]

199 C3 Cut for [195]

200 C3 Group number for four postholes

201 C3 Fill in stakehole (next to [194])

202 C3 Cut for [201]

203 C3 Fill in posthole, but by [197]

204 C3 Group no. for cooking pit [181,183,184]

205 C Group number for depressions, possible postholes

206 C Part of Group [205], possible posthole

207 C3 Stakehole

208 C3 Cut for [207]

209 C3 Stakehole

210 C3 Cut for [209]

211 C3 Stakehole

212 C3 Cut for [211]

213 C Stakehole

214 C Cut for [213]

215 C Stakehole

216 C Cut for [215]

217 C Stakehole

218 C Cut for [217]


28

219 C Stakehole

220 C Cut for [219]

221 C Stakehole ‐ very shallow (no profile info)


223 C Stakehole

224 C Cut for [223]

225 C Cut for [206]




229 C Stakehole

230 C Cut for [229]

231 C Stakehole (recut)

232 C Cut for [231]

233 C Stakehole (orig. cut)

234 C Cut for [233]

235 C Stakehole

236 C Cut for [235]

237 C Stakehole

238 C Cut for [237]

239 C Stakehole

240 C Cut for [239]

241 C Crunchy organic deposit

242 C Stakehole

243 C Stakehole

244 C Stakehole

245 C Cut for fill [244] (PH)

246 C Stakehole

247 C Cut for [242]

248 C Stakehole

249 C Cut for [248]

250 C Stakehole

251 C Cut for [250]

252 C Cut for [243]

253 C Dark tan deposit

254 C Stakehole

255 C Cut for [254]

256 C Dark brown deposit

257 C Stakehole

258 C Cut for [257]

259 C Depression ‐ left from earlier context?


29

260 C Depression ‐ left from earlier context?

261 C Posthole ‐ Group [205]

262 C Stakehole ‐ Group [205]

263 C Post depression? Lilja's interpretation

264 C Posthole (maybe criteria has changed)

265 C Stakehole

266 C Posthole

267 C Posthole

268 C Posthole

269 C Depression

270 C Stakehole

271 C Depression

272 C Posthole

273 C Truncated depression

274 C Four small stakeholes? ‐ just the bottom remains

275 C Cut for [268]

276 C Posthole

277 C Sunken feature w/ bits of charcoal

278 C Posthole (in [256])

279 C Cut for [256]

280 C Cut for fill [147], under cut [ ]

281 C Mottled brown and tan deposit

282 C Cut for [281]


30

Appendix D – List of Artifacts

No. Context Area Qty Material Description

1 100 C 1 bag Stone Worked lithics?

2 100 C 1 bag Plastic Modern misc.

3 100 C Ceramic Sherd

4 100 C 2 bags Glass Shards of glass

5 100 C 1 bag Metal Modern

6 101 C Ceramic Sherds of pottery

7 101 C 1 bag Stone Flint/fragments

8 101 C 1 bag Glass Shards of different colors

9 101 C 1 bag Misc. Modern

10 101 C 1 bag Plastic Modern

11 101 C 1 bag Metal Modern

12 101 C 1 Metal Bullet

13 100 C 1 bag Glass Shards of green/brown

14 102 C Ceramic Small fragments of pottery

15 102 C 2 Stone Flint (pale), two fragments

16 103 C Ceramic Incised pottery sherd

17 Surface A1 Ceramic Sherds of pottery

18 107 C 21 Stone Stone fragments

19 107 C Ceramic Sherds of pottery

20 100 C 1 Shell Bead


22 107 C 20 Stone Fire cracked rock

23 107 C 24 Stone Flint/stone frags

24 107 C 1 bag Shell Worked shell





29 111 C 1 Stone Flint frag

30 111 C Ceramic Modern

31 111 C 1 Metal Bullet casing ‐ modern

32 111 C 1 Metal Coin (2002)


34 112 C 1 bag Shell Worked shell?

35 118 C 6 Stone Stone frags

36 119 C 1 Shell Shell bead?



39 124 C 2 bags Stone Stone bead


31

40 124 C 1 bag Shell Worked Shell

41 124 C 10 Stone Fire cracked rock


43 163 C Ceramic Pottery Frags









52 133 C 2 Ceramic Pottery Frags


54 133 C 6 Shell Bead (oty=6)


56 135 C 2 Stone Beads

57 175 C3 1 Stone Flint frag

58 174 C3 Ceramic Pottery Frags



61 173 C 1 Stone Stone frag

62 169 C3 3 Stone Flint frags

63 169 C3 3 Stone 2 Flint & 1 smooth stone















78 142 C 1 Stone Stone bead

79 143 C 1 Stone Bead Preform



32


82 141 C Stone Bead








90 138 C 1 Stone Bead


92 135 C 2 Stone Bead X2













105 127 C 1 bag Misc. Modern Material




109 133 C 2 Stone Bead prefrom

110 135 C 1 Stone Manuport

111 135 C 1 Stone Bead Preform

112 151 C 1 Stone Fishing Hook

113 178 C3 1 Bone Worked

114 179 C3 1 Stone Bead

115 179 C3 1 Shell Spoon : drilled shell

116 179 C3 2 Stone Slingstone?

117 178 C3 1 Shell Spoon

118 178 C3 10 Stone Lithic frags

119 179 C3 15 Stone Flint frags

120 179 C3 1 Stone Pumice

121 180 C3 1 Stone Lithic frag


33



124 187 C3 1 Stone Bead




128 194 3 Stone Flint frags

129 203 1 Stone Burnishing stone frag


131 256 C3 1 Stone Fire cracked

132 278 C 1 Stone Lithic frag


134 127 C 1 Stone Burnishing






140 Loose 1 Stone Bead

141 179 C3 1 Shell Bead

142 107 C 1 Stone Smoother

143 127 C 1 Stone Bead preform

144 127 C 1 Stone Burnishing stone

145 108 C 32 Stone Flint

146 169 C3 1 Stone Fragment

147 135 C 17 Stone Flint flakes


149 107 C 1 Stone Smoothing stone





preliminary report of the 2011 excavation at seaview ...€¦ · bhep seaview excavation report...

Documents