« Previous Welcome (1/9)What's Natural (2/9)Geophysics Conditions: Weather (3/9)Geophysics Conditions: Landscapes and Land Use (4/9)Equipment and Methods (5/9)Anomaly 1 (6/9)Anomaly 2 (7/9)Sources (8/9)Citation (9/9)View All Next »

Page :« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALL»

Welcome

Welcome

Annually NCPTT hosts “Prospection in Depth,” an integrated, holistic professional development workshop fusing GIS, GPS, and geophysical prospection. What is unique about the course is that it emphasizes the testing of select remotely-sensed phenomena within a robust interpretive context. The latter is possible through annual partnerships with ongoing, long-term research projects. This arrangement creates three unique benefits for workshop participants, in that they:

• see what archaeological and natural realities structure geophysical data;
• contribute directly to the interpretation of the site; and therefore
• interact on a level playing field as researchers, rather than passive student learners.

The webpages you see here add another dimension to the course. Here you can continue to explore the relationship between subsurface remains and the geophysical signals they represent [Figure Intro 5].

The Premise

Understanding how archaeological and natural features structure geophysical, digital data permits more focused fieldwork. This in turn equates to excavation strategies that are:

• less destructive;
• more productive intellectually;
• more productive intellectually;
• more responsible fiscally.

Sometimes fieldwork is not even necessary.

Prospection in Depth 2006 and 2007

In 2006 and 2007 Prospection in Depth partnered with a long-term, ongoing research project jointly sponsored by Northwestern State University of Louisiana (NSU) and University College London (UCL)1.

In 2006 the first workshop participants conducted geophysical reconnaissance across six grids (Grids 1-6) at a late 1700s plantation (for more information on the site, see below) [Figure Intro 1]. These grids generally were 20x20m in size, although sometimes they were modified to accommodate thick brush [Figure Intro 2].

In 2007 the second class [Figure Intro 4] carried out additional reconnaissance in an additional six grids (Grids 6-12).

In each year’s course the geophysical survey was followed by formal excavation by both class participants and the academic research project’s personnel [Figure Intro 3].

Site Background

In 1786 an enslaved woman of African descent named Marie-Thérèse Coincoin received her freedom from a Frenchman named Metoyer, her owner with whom she had maintained a roughly decade-long liaison. Metoyer presented her with 68-acres of property astride what was then the Red River, where she lived until circa 1816. She created a successful plantation on this property with the help of at least 16 slaves and her own children. Her descendents eventually formed one of the wealthiest lineages of free people of color in the antebellum Southeast, and today many in the Cane River Creole community trace their ancestry to Coincoin [Figure Intro 7].

A Spanish survey map of the property drawn in 1794 shows a rough rectangle identified as the maison de marie Therese negresse libre (“house of Marie-Thérèse free negress”) [Figure Intro 6]. The few acres surrounding this approximate location have been designated by the State of Louisiana as site 16NA241 [Figure Intro 8]. Its formal name is the Whittington site. Not surprisingly it’s referred to informally as the Coincoin plantation.

Artifacts found during preliminary archaeological research in 2002 suggested that the maison shown in the Spanish 1794 survey map was somewhere in the vicinity of Grids 1-4 [Figure Intro 9 and Figure Intro 2]. There was little indication of cultural material in Grids 5-12. A large-scale excavation program was initiated in 2005 with the digging of a long slot trench (A) across Grids 1 and 2, punctuated by a few additional units (B) on a line perpendicular to the trench. [Figure Intro 10] The units produced a wealth of domestic refuse dating to the Coincoin occupation (1786-1820), as well as evidence of possible earthen architectural features, post holes, and a large trash pit [Figure Intro 11].

Ready to begin excavations on a larger scale, NSU and UCL partnered with NCPTT to showcase the preservation and research potential of combining geophysics, GIS, and GPS technologies.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

What’s Natural

What’s Natural

When it comes to interpreting geophysics, it is as important to understand what you should expect from non-archaeological phenomena as it is to understand the nature of the archaeological features you seek to identify. This means understanding the interpretive medium—sediment—and understanding data collection conditions.

The site sits partly on the crest of a natural levee of what was an active channel of Red River [Figure Natural 1]. The USDA Soil Conservation Service characterizes the vicinity as a well-drained very fine sandy loam that was deposited as alluvium (USDA 1990:55-57, 109). Roots penetrate it easily, water and air move through it at a moderate rate, water runs off the surface slowly, and it is not particularly subject to shrink-swell effects.

Typically the upper 15 cm of this type of levee alluvium is a yellowish-red very fine sandy loam with a neutral pH [Figure Natural 2]. Below it to a depth of about 1.07 m the sediment acidity changes to a neutral silt loam and a moderately alkaline very fine sandy loam. Even deeper, to a depth of 1.68 m, the sediment remains mildly alkaline, but it changes color and sediment size, becoming a dark brown silt loam and a strong brown fine sandy loam. In places within these three typical strata the soil is calcareous.

The Soil Conservation Service’s summary of this Roxana soil series is a generalization for levee sediments across an entire parish. Excavations at the site have produced a far more detailed look at the local stratigraphic profile. [Figures Natural 3 and Natural 4] To summarize, a typical excavation at the Whittington site exposes a roughly 5 cm thick humic layer of brown silt loam at the ground surface. Below it to a depth of roughly 35 cm are one to three strata of brown silt loam, the upper 20-30 cm of which often exhibit plow scars. Deeper deposits of brown silt loam reside below the plow scars. Archaeological material is usually restricted to these upper strata.

Somewhat deeper than 35 cm, however, one encounters either alternating bands of light brown silt loam and dark brown clay loam, or a yellowish-red silt loam deposit. Both are alluvial in nature, but the alternating bands of alluvium with the finer sediment (clay) probably represent a river flood regime that pre-dates the Coincoin occupation.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Geophysics Conditions: Weather

Geophysics Conditions: Weather

The seasonal high water table occurs usually some 1.22 m to 1.83 m below the ground surface from December to April, usually well below the depth of the plantation’s archaeological features. During the 2006 Prospection in Depth course the weather was dry, but during the 2007 course it rained most afternoons [Figure Natural 5], leaving remote sensing teams to contend with puddles and presumably an unseasonably high water table. The damp soils were beneficial to electrically-based geophysics techniques, but they posed special challenges to interpreting radar data.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Geophysics Conditions: Landscapes and Land Use

Geophysics Conditions: Landscapes and Land Use

It also bears mentioning that a prominent landscape feature dominates the remains of the former plantation [Figure Natural 8]. A line of trees and dense shrubs cuts southwest-northeast across the breadth of the historic property in a line parallel to the river [Figure Natural 6]. At the south end of the property, in Grid 1, the line of foliage curves south, where it ends. At the center of the feature are the remnants of a barbed wire fence [Figure Natural 7]. Some of it is standing, still clinging to poorly preserved cedar posts, and some of it is buried beneath leaf cover. The fence and associated brush line date to at least the mid-1960s, when the current owners purchased the property, although they suspect it is of 1940s vintage.

This fenceline is significant both in terms of conditions affecting geophysical survey and in terms of understanding the impact of land use patterns on archaeological preservation. Relative to geophysics, the most obvious consideration for geophysics is the influence of significant quantities of iron on magnetism-based techniques. Relative to preservation, several aspects of the fenceline and its history suggest it may have protected shallow archaeological features:

1. The ground elevation is higher in its vicinity, either because the vegetation has captured soil (flood or farming turn row deposits) or because it has escaped mechanized plowing, which did not arrive in this region until the 1960s.
2. The fence in the 1960s separated cultivated fields on its southeastern side from the pasturage on its northwestern side. When the current owners purchased the property they converted the pasturage to hay production, which means the field northwest of the fence probably was never impacted by mechanical farming techniques.
3. The extent of the vegetation, especially along the southern end of the fence, has expanded and contracted over the years, which may have reduced the amount of plowing impact on the areas at the treeline’s edges.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Equipment and Methods

Geoscan FM36 fluxgate gradiometer. [Figure Gear 1, Figure Gear 11] Used for the magnetic survey, this instrument has a 0.05nT resolution with 0.1 nT absolute accuracy. The magnetic survey was designed to collect eight samples per meter along one-meter traverses or eight data values per square meter. The data were collected in a zig zag fashion with the surveyor alternating direction of travel for each traverse across the grid. A total of 3,200 data measurements were collected for each complete 20x20m grid square.

Geonics EM38 ground conductivity meter with an Omnidata DL-720 polycorder. This instrument is designed for electromagnetic induction surveys. Its specifications include apparent conductivity of the ground in millisiemens per meter (mS/m); measurement precision ±0.1% of full scale deflection; and 100 and 1000 mS/m conductivity ranges (4 digit digital meter). The conductivity survey was designed to collect in the continuous or automatic mode with readings collected every quarter of a second resulting in four samples per second. The data were collected in a parallel fashion or unidirectional mode with the surveyor conducting the data acquisition in the same the direction of travel for each traverse across the grid. The conductivity data were collected along one-meter traverse at a sampling density of four samples per meter or four samples per square meter. A total of 1,600 data measurements were collected in each complete 20 m by 20 meter grid unit.

Geoscan RM15 resistance meter system with a PA5 twin probe array. [Figure Gear 2, Figure Gear 3, Figure Gear 7, Figure Gear 10] This electrical resistance survey instrument has an 0.05 ohms resolution with 0.1 ohms absolute accuracy. Resistance surveys were designed to collect two samples per meter along one meter traverses or two data values per square meter. The data were collected in a zigzag fashion with the surveyor alternating the direction of travel for each traverse across the grid. Thus, a total of 800 data measurements were collected in a full 20-m by 20-m grid unit.

GSSI SIR 2000 ground penetrating radar with a 400 MHz antenna [Figure Gear 4, Figure Gear 5, Figure Gear 8, Figure Gear 9]. The Geophysical Survey Systems Incorporated (GSSI) SIR2000 system includes a control unit built from a laptop computer with 2.1 GB of storage and a battery. The components can be worn on a harness, mounted on a cart, or separated using a long cord. Vertical profiles are displayed in real time on the screen. An integrated survey wheel, which is used to determine the distance along the transect line, attaches to the antenna sled. Data were collected using north-south oriented transects spaced either .5 m or 1 m apart. Samples were collected at a 512 per scan and 32 scans were collected per meter. A standard time window of 60 ns was used. A radiometric resolution of 8 bits was used. The GPR data were downloaded to a laptop computer and processed using GPR Slice software, produced by the Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory. For each data set, twelve amplitude slice maps were created to a depth of approximately 110 cm. Because of the highly conductive soil, data below this depth were degraded and excluded from analysis. A hyperbola fit was performed on the data to allow the depth to be estimated. An overlay was constructed of all twelve slices to locate strong anomalies throughout the data. The raster data set was exported from GPR Slice to be included in a GIS, where anomalies were identified for multiple depth ranges.

Trimble ProXR global positioning system [Figure Gear 6] This is a 12 channel global positioning system (GPS) receiver produced by Trimble, Inc. The receiver includes a differential GPS receiver module and an automatic, dual-channel MSK beacon receiver module for obtaining differential GPS broadcasts. This allows for real-time sub-meter accuracy. No data were collected unless they were derived from four or more satellites. Data were considered unacceptable if the positional dilution of precision (PDOP) was above six, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) was lower than six, and if the angle of elevation of satellites above the horizon was less than 15 degrees. Data were post-processed and differentially corrected using Trimble Pathfinder software.

Supplementary Material

For additional information on equipment and methods, please see Bryan Haley’s Investigating the Whittington and Ailhaud St. Anne Sites with Ground Penetrating Radar, A Summary of Results from the 2006 and 2007 Field Seasons (PDF, 6.2MB).

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Anomaly 1

Anomaly 1

In 2002 a small crew systematically covered the areas represented by Grids 1-12, pin flagging all artifacts visible on the ground surface. This was easy and thorough south of the treeline, where the surface visibility was nearly 100 percent. To the north, however, the field was in head-high hay, with no visibility [Figure Anomaly 1-14]. The team compensated by digging shovel tests, but time restrictions forced the lines of shovel holes to be spaced widely apart (20 m). The crew found very little evidence for historic human activity northeast of Grid 5 and Grid 9.

Remote sensing technologies told another tale. The gradiometer displayed a series of magnetic signatures strung linearly southwest to northeast across Grids 5-8 and Grid 11, i.e., through the hay field north of the fence [Figure Anomaly 1-13]. The cause of the strongest anomalies in the south was obvious: the fence. Elsewhere, many of the anomalies seemed to consist of paired strongly positive and negative readings indicative of individual iron specimens. Grid 6, however, showed a different reading: a line of magnetic anomalies whose field strengths were intermediate [Figure Anomaly 1-12]. The anomaly seemed to cover a roughly 1x5m swath [Figure Anomaly 1-11]. Anomalous radar returns visible in the same area also spoke to the presence of possible archaeological features below ground [Figure Anomaly 1-15]. The radar, moreover, suggested that whatever was causing the signals was present at a shallow depth. Perhaps, the participants hypothesized, this was a path, remnants of the old ‘river road’, or a portion of the wall of a structure.

To test the anomaly Prospection in Depth participants and the research team in 2006 positioned 22 contiguous 1x1m units over the anomaly [Figure Anomaly 1-10, Figure Anomaly 1-2, Figure Anomaly 1-3, Figure Anomaly 1-4]. What the Prospection students and research team exposed was a relatively thin layer of brick rubble concentrated over a 1.25×7 m area and buried just below the topsoil. [Figure Anomaly 1-7, Figure Anomaly 1-6; Figure Anomaly 1-1] Mixed among the bricks and in adjacent units were Coincoin period nails and sparse domestic debris, including olive-green glass, creamware, colonoware, and pearlware pottery sherds, all of which lead to the conclusion that this feature was associated with Coincoin’s plantation. A stratigraphic control trench dug along the grid-east profile of G5 indicates the brick was deposited across a former ground surface, probably in one depositional episode. [Figure Anomaly 1-8]

What, speculated the surveyors and excavators, might be the nature of that episode? The quantity of brick is greatest and most concentrated to the grid-east, and it expands slightly to the grid-west in an elongated “V” shape, with an area of sparse brick in the middle. This shape, plus the thickness of the debris, suggests a possible collapsed brick chimney. This hypothesis was supported by tiny fragments of charcoal distributed throughout the soil matrix in which the bricks were found, as well as by the presence of dense soot on the surfaces of some bricks. Few whole bricks were present, which may indicate that the rubble pile was robbed for usable material before it ultimately was buried by alluvium and overgrown by turf.

If it was a fallen chimney, then logically it would be connected in some fashion to a structure, probably either in the middle or at one of the ends. Since there was no sign of architectural features in the G Block units surrounding the bricks to the north and south, and since the brick density tapered off to the west, researchers ended the 2006 season with the working hypothesis that excavation to the grid-east would uncover the remains of the associated structure. Specifically, the units grid-east of the G block should expose the remains of some sort of hearth.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Anomaly 2

Anomaly 2

Prospection in Depth 2007 participants tested the hypothesis generated by the investigation of Anomaly 1. The radar survey of Grid 7, especially slices 1-3 (ground surface to ca. 40 cm below), showed promise. [Figure Anomaly 2-1, Figure Anomaly 2-2, Figure Anomaly 2-3] A strong radar signature linked with the brick path identified and excavated the season before. Furthermore, it was larger than the path’s signature, as one might expect for a hearth. The gradiometer results, however, were puzzling, as they showed no significant magnetic signatures at all. [Figure Anomaly 2-4]

The preponderance of evidence suggested we might find a fireplace base or hearth grid-east of our G block excavations the year before. But the hypothesis did not stand. Excavation of another 1×1 m unit (GX13), flanked by five shovel tests at 1m intervals, failed to produce ash, charcoal, significant quantities of brick or fired clay, or any other sign of a chimney or structure. [Figure Anomaly 2-5, Figure Anomaly 2-6] For instance, excavators dug to a depth 35 cm below the ground surface and recovered 203 artifacts, most of which are tiny brick fragments (n=177, or 150.5 g), but the latter would fit in two hands and the quantity is typical of all excavation units in the vicinity of the brick feature [refer to table below].

Artifacts Recovered from Unit GX13
Material	No.	Weight (g)	Comment
brick	177	150.48	fragments
fired clay	9	5.64
glass	7	–	bottle fragments
wire nail	1	–	Type 11/12
barbed wire	1	–
UID ferrous metal	6	–	fragment
gun flint	1	–	fragment
ceramic	1	–	honey colored

To shed further light on the causes of the anomaly, researchers took core samples from three places on the floor of the excavation unit using a 1” diameter bore probe. The probe drew cores down to a depth of 88 cm below ground surface, and revealed only continuous, homogenous matrices of yellowish red silt loam. This is the same matrix as the sterile sediment exposed at the base of Unit G5.

Three additional 1x1m units near or adjacent to the G block to the grid-west also were unproductive. [Figure Anomaly 2-5, Figure Anomaly 2-6] In short, the thin scatter of brick sits in isolation in the field. The researchers currently interpret the feature as a scatter of brick used to fill in ruts in the road in the rainy season. The bricks were probably associated with a Coincoin period structure, hence the associated domestic debris, but whoever filled in the ruts scooped up the bricks from elsewhere on site and dumped them in the field.

Relative to geophysics, a series of primary questions emerges from the findings:

• Why was the source of the strong radar signal in Grid 7 not brick, as expected?
• Why did the adjacent Grid 6 produce a similar radar signal that equated to brick, when it did not do the same in a location only 2 m away?
• What was the real cause of the strongly reflected radar signal recorded in Grid 7?
• Prospection in Depth participants noted specifically where they encountered standing water in Grid 7, and there was none in the vicinity of the strong radar return. Could the sediment have retained moisture at a higher rate than surrounding sediments, causing the anomaly?

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Sources

Sources

Locke, William W.

2007 “Understanding Katrina.” Digital Library for Earth System Education Community Services Center, Montana State University. Teaching with Hurricane Katrina module. Accessed 8/16/07. Last update unknown. Available on the World Wide Web at http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/katrina/understanding.html.

Mills, Gary B.

1977 The Forgotten People: Cane River’s Creoles of Color. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service

1990 Soil Survey of Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, and Louisiana Soil and Water Conservation Committee.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

Citation

Citation

Partial List of Publications, Reports, and Presentations Emerging from the Cane River African Diaspora Archaeology Project 2001-2007

Publications

MacDonald, Kevin C. and F.J.L. Handley

2002     The Cane River African Diaspora Project: Introduction and Archival Research. In Archaeology, Interpretation, and Management in Cane River National Heritage Area: Symposium Proceedings, 35th Annual Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, January 8-12, 2002, edited by N. I. M. Morgan and J. Shatwell, pp. 45-54. Cane River National Heritage Area Commission, Natchitoches.

MacDonald, Kevin C. and David W. Morgan

2002     Results of a Geophysical Survey of the Marie Thérèze Coin-Coin Plantation, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. In Archaeology, Interpretation, and Management in Cane River National Heritage Area: Symposium Proceedings, 35th Annual Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, January 8-12, 2002, edited by N. I. M. Morgan and J. Shatwell, pp. 68-80. Cane River National Heritage Area Commission, Natchitoches.

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan, R. Grant Gilmore, Jason Lott and Fiona J. L. Handley

2002     Melrose Plantation: The Archaeological Geophysics Survey of 2001. In Archaeology, Interpretation, and Management in Cane River National Heritage Area: Symposium Proceedings, 35th Annual Conference of the Society for Historical Archaeology, January 8-12, 2002, edited by N. I. M. Morgan and J. Shatwell, pp. 55-67. Cane River National Heritage Area Commission, Natchitoches.

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan and Fiona J. L. Handley

2002/2003     Cane River: The Archaeology of “Free People of Color” in Colonial Louisiana. Archaeology International 6:52-55.

2006     The Cane River African Diaspora Archaeological Project: Prospectus and Initial Results. In African Re-Genesis: Confronting Social Issues in the Diaspora, edited by J. B. Haviser and K. C. MacDonald, pp. 123-144. UCL Press, London.

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan, Fiona J.L. Handley, Emma Morley and Aubra Lee

2006     The Archaeology of Local Myths and Heritage Tourism: The Case of Cane River’s Melrose Plantation. In A Future for Archaeology: The Past in the Present, edited by R. Layton, S. Shennan and P. Stone, pp. 127-142. UCL Press, London.

Morgan, David W. and Kevin C. MacDonald

in press     Colonoware in Western Colonial Louisiana: Makers and Meaning. In The Historical Archaeology of French America: Louisiana and the Caribbean, edited by K. Kelly and M. Hardy. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Morgan, David W., Kevin C. MacDonald and Fiona J. L. Handley

2006     Economics and Authenticity: A Collision of Interpretations in Cane River National Heritage Area, Louisiana. The George Wright Forum 23(1):44-61.

Reports

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan and Fiona J. L. Handley

2002     La Maison de Marie Thérèze Coin Coin: Results of a Geophysical Survey of the Metoyer, Roge, and Bouser Properties (Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana). Final report submitted to the Cane River National Heritage Area, National Park Service, Louisiana Division of Archaeology, and the Metoyer, Roge, and Bouser Families. On file at the Cultural Resource Office, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge. On file at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London and the Cultural Resource Office, Northwestern State University.

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan, Fiona J. L. Handley, R. Grant Gilmore and Jason Lott

2002     Melrose Plantation: The Archaeological Geophysics Survey of 2001. Final report submitted to the Cane River National Heritage Area and the National Park Service, Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches, and the Melrose Pecan Plantation, Inc. On file at the Cultural Resource Office, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Baton Rouge.

Morgan, David W.

2006     Interim Performance Report for “Creole Identity Formation on the Colonial and Early American Frontiers.” Submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities in partial fulfillment of Collaborative Research Grant RZ-50466, September 29, 2006.

in prep     Final Performance Report for “Creole Identity Formation on the Colonial and Early American Frontiers.” Submitted to the National Endowment for the Humanities in partial fulfillment of Collaborative Research Grant RZ-50466, due December 2007.

Morgan, David W., Kevin C. MacDonald and Fiona J.L. Handley

in prep     Final Report of Archaeological Excavations at the Whittington (a.k.a. Coincoin Plantation) Site (16NA241), Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana. Cultural Resource Office of Northwestern State University of Louisiana and the Institute of Archaeology of University College London.

Morgan, David W., Kevin C. MacDonald, Aubra Lee and Fiona J. L. Handley

2003     Preliminary Report of Archaeological Excavations at Yucca House, Melrose Plantation (16NA591), Louisiana. Submitted to the Cane River National Heritage Area and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology. Report on file with the Cultural Resource Office, Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Natchitoches.

Morgan, David W., Kevin C. MacDonald, Emma Morley, Aubra Lee and Fiona J. L. Handley

in prep     Excavations in 2002 at Yucca House, Melrose Plantation (16NA591). Final report for submission to the Association for the Preservation of Historic Natchitoches, the Cane River National Heritage Area, and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology.

Presentations

Arntzen, Katherine and David W. Morgan

2007     ”Prospection in Depth: The Educational Benefits of Fusing Geophysical Prospection Training with Mature Research Projects.” Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Handley, Fiona J.L., David W. Morgan, and Kevin C. MacDonald

2006     ”Things and Words–Bringing Together the Material and Historical Records of the Isle Brevelle, Cane River, Natchitoches, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the annual Contemporary and Historical Archaeology in Theory conference, Bristol, United Kingdom.

MacDonald, Kevin C., and David W. Morgan

2007     ”The Coincoin Plantation and African Architecture in Louisiana.” Paper presented at the Abolition 2007: Archaeology and Heritage of Africans in the New World colloquium, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, United Kingdom.

MacDonald, Kevin C., David W. Morgan, R. Grant Gilmore, Jason Lott and Fiona J. L. Handley

2002     ”Melrose Plantation: The Archaeological Geophysics Survey of 2001.” Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology, 35th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Mobile, Alabama.

Morgan, David W. and Kevin C. MacDonald

2001     ”Geophysical Archaeology: Searching for Structures at the Marie Thereze Coin Coin Plantation, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the annual Louisiana Archaeology Week meeting, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2002     ”Results of a Geophysical Survey of the Marie Thérèze Coin-Coin Plantation, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the annual Louisiana Archaeological Society meeting, Leesville.

2002     ”Results of a Geophysical Survey of the Marie Thérèze Coin-Coin Plantation, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the Delta Chapter meeting of the Louisiana Archaeological Society, University of New Orleans.

2002     ”Results of a Geophysical Survey of the Marie Thérèze Coin-Coin Plantation, Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology, 35th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Mobile, Alabama.

2002     ”An Archaeological Mystery on Cane River: The Whittington Site.” Paper presented at the monthly meeting of the Lesche Club, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2002     ”Cane River Plantations: Combining Geophysics with Excavation in an Attempt to Locate Vanished Structures.” Paper presented at the annual Louisiana Archaeology Week meeting, Minden, Louisiana.

2003     ”Recent Work with Cultural Resources in the Park and Cane River National Heritage Area.” Lecture presented at the National Park Service’s Interpretive Training Workshop, Cane River Creole National Historical Park, Oakland Plantation Unit, Natchez Louisiana.

2003     ”Recent Archaeological Investigations within the Cane River National Heritage Area.” Paper presented at the annual Louisiana Archaeology Week meeting, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2003     ”Refining Our View of the Creole Landscape: Using Archaeology to Locate the House of Marie-Thérèse Coincoin.” Paper presented at the Creole Studies Conference, New Orleans.

2004     ”Colonoware in Western Colonial Louisiana: Makers and Meaning.” Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

2004     ”Colonoware in Western Colonial Louisiana: Makers and Meaning.” Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

2004     ”The Origins of Melrose Plantation: Archaeological Research Meets Oral Tradition.” Paper presented at the annual Northwestern State University of Louisiana Research Day, Natchitoches.

2005     ”Economics and Authenticity: A Collision of Interpretations in Cane River National Heritage Area, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Heritage Development Conference, Nashville, Tennessee.

2005     ”Melrose Plantation and Its Colonial and Nineteenth-Century Historical Contexts.” Paper presented at the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training Summer Institute: Engineering for Older and Historic Buildings, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2006     ”Multicultural Interpretation and Stakeholder Involvement: The Case of the Coincoin Plantation in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana.” Paper presented at the Northwestern State University, Guest Lecture, Heritage Resource Management, HR 5010, “Exploring Heritage Resources,” Natchitoches.

2007     ”Plantation Pottery along the Cane River: Colonoware and Ethnicity.” Paper presented at the Abolition 2007: Archaeology and Heritage of Africans in the New World colloquium, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, United Kingdom.

2007     ”The Architecture of Myth-Building: An Archaeological Perspective on Two National Register Properties Competing for the Same Historical Narrative.” Paper presented at the Tulane School of Architecture, Tour Group, National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Natchitoches.

2007     ”Contemporary Myths: Deconstructing the Late Colonial/Early American Creole Landscape at the Coincoin Plantation.” Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Williamsburg, Virginia.

2007     ”Contemporary Myths: Deconstructing the Late Colonial/Early American Creole Landscape at the Coincoin Plantation.” Paper presented at the Lion’s Club lunch lecture series, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

2007     ”Archaeology: Creoles of Color and the Rediscovery of Marie-ThérèseCoincoin.” Paper presented at the Louisiana Preservation Conference and Honor Awards, Monroe, Louisiana.

2007     ”Contemporary Myths: Deconstructing the Late Colonial/Early American Creole Landscape at the Coincoin Plantation.” Paper presented at the Cane River Creole National Historical Park Symposium, “From Slavery to Freedom: Africans in the Americas,” Natchitoches Events Center, Natchitoches.

2007     ”Colonoware on Cane River, Louisiana: A View of Ethnicity from the Whittington Site.” Paper presented at the Caddo Conference, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia.

Morgan, David W., Kevin C. MacDonald and Fiona J.L. Handley

2006     ”Relocating the Architectural Roots of a Dynasty: 2005 Fieldwork at the Plantation Home of Marie-ThérèseCoincoin.” Paper presented at the annual Louisiana Archaeological Society meeting, Monroe.

2006     ”Relocating the Architectural Roots of a Dynasty: 2005 Fieldwork at the Plantation Home of Marie-ThérèseCoincoin.” Paper presented at the lunch lecture presentation to the staff of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, Cane River National Heritage Area, Cane River Creole National Historical Park, and the Cultural Resource Office of Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Natchitoches.

2007     ”An ICOMOS Ename Charter Perspective on Interpreting the History of the Cane River, Louisiana Region.” Paper presented at the George Wright Society Biennial Conference on Parks, Protected Areas & Cultural Sites, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Funding for the research project from 2002-2007 was generously provided by the U.K. Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, the Cane River National Heritage Area, the National Park Service’s Delta Initiative, and the Institute of Archaeology at University College London.

« Previous Welcome (1/9)What's Natural (2/9)Geophysics Conditions: Weather (3/9)Geophysics Conditions: Landscapes and Land Use (4/9)Equipment and Methods (5/9)Anomaly 1 (6/9)Anomaly 2 (7/9)Sources (8/9)Citation (9/9)View All Next »

Page :« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALL»

pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9