Search

The transition to the Formative in the relatively high-altitude study region of Tlaxcala, Mexico is later than it was in choice regions for early agriculture elsewhere in Mesoamerica. From 900 BCE, however, population growth and sociopolitical development were rapid. A central claim in the research presented here is that a macroregional perspective is essential for understanding the local Formative sequence. In this volume, the data from excavations at three village sites (Amomoloc, Tetel, and Las Mesitas) and one modest regional center (La Laguna) are examined. The ceramic typology is described in detail. An innovative approach to the classification of figurines is presented, and a Formative chronology for the region is proposed based on seriation of refuse contexts and radiocarbon dates. The work concludes with a macroregional framework to be used in the analysis of subsistence, social relations, and political economy in Volumes 2 and 3, now in preparation.Series: Monumenta Archaeologica 33

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) has proposed to construct two new demolition ranges—Demolition Range “A” and Demolition Range “B”—at the Richardson Training Area (RTA), with new access roads proposed at each range. During the period of September 18-22, AECOM archaeologists, under the direct supervision of Principal Investigator Edmund Gaines, M.A., R.PA., performed a cultural resources survey of the project’s APEs. This work was conducted for the 673d Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Conservation Section, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under HTRW Contract No. W911KB-11-D-0001, Task Order 0008. The following report details project goals, site and setting, methodology, findings and management recommendations for the proposed RTA demolition ranges.

In 2009, the U.S. Army Garrison Fort Richardson (USAG FRA) initiated several projects that triggered Section 106 (NHPA) archaeological and cultural resource analyses and surveys of proposed project areas. This report details each undertaking for which archaeological fieldwork was completed at Fort Richardson (FRA). Survey and subsurface testing was conducted following procedures defined in USAG FWA’s and USAG FRA’s Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) (CEMML 2001). Where archaeological sites were identified within a project’s area of potential effect (APE), evaluative testing was conducted to determine eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, based on National Register Criteria detailed in 36 CFR 60.4, and pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800).

This report presents the results of excavations undertaken at the site of Girikihaciyan in southeastern Turkey during 1968 and 1970 by the Joint Prehistoric Project, Istanbul-Chicago under the overal direction of Professor Halet Cambel, University of Istanbul, and Professor Robert J. Braidwood, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.Series: Monographs 33

The purpose of this paper is to examine and explain cultural similarities and differences in east Texas through time by analyzing surface collections made by Gus E. Arnold, who was Research Archaeologist at University of Texas (UT) at Austin. Arnold collected large samples of artifacts in east Texas counties under the auspices of the UT-Works Progress Administration during 1939-40. Unfortunately, no detailed report of this work has been published. Survey notes and collections are on file at the Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, UT at Austin. According to Arnold's survey records, a total of 255 sites was found in the sixteen counties. The majority of the sites are located along major rivers such as the Angelina, Neches and Sabine and their tributaries, or near natural lakes. As indicated by the site distributional maps (Figs. 1 and 2), recorded archaeological localities are congregated in the certain areas. For convenience, the area under consideration has been divided into three arbitrarily defined blocks of counties which conform in part with geographical zones: (1) northern section (Cherokee, Gregg, Rusk, Nacogdoches, Houston, Angelina, San Augustine, and Sabine counties), (2) middle section (Polk, Newton, Jasper, and Tyler counties), and (3) southern section (Hardin, Orange, and Jefferson counties). According to Arnold's notes, the sizes of the sites vary, but, in general, village sites and burial sites are common in the first two sections, while shell mounds are numerous in the southern section. Artifacts found from 255 sites include potsherds, dart points, arrow points and a few miscellaneous clay and stone objects. There are limitations in the interpretation of Arnold's data. First, as his collection was made on the surface, the quantity of the data are no doubt much affected by the degree of erosion and amount of vegetation on the site. Second, as he collected mainly ceramics and worked stones, other kinds of specimens such as flint flakes and remains useful for ecological studies were disregarded. Third, sampling sites from the surface are by their very nature biased as they generally do not uncover most types of archaeological features. For these reasons, Arnold's finding cannot be expected to reflect completely the prehistory of east Texas. Accurate reconstruction of this prehistory ultimately depends upon further investigation in the future