Part 2 Government Garden Cp Archaeological (original) (raw)
Related papers
Current Queensland Archaeological Research
QAR, 1988
The Department of Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology has continued i t s e x t e n s i v e and i n k e n s i v e i n v o l v e m e n t i n r e s e a r c h , some o f which c o n c e r n s m a t e r i a l from Queensland. Graham Connah has published a major s y n t h e s i s of t h e Archaeology of ~u s t r a l i a ' s History (Of t h e Hut Builded, Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Sydney 1988). Some o f h i s e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a e r i a l photography t o A u s t r a l i a n A r c h a e o l o g y (A e r i a 1 A r c h a e o l o s v 9) included photographs of Queensland sites. Iain D a v i d s o n r e c e i v e d ARC f u n d i n g t o c o n t i n u e h i s work i n t h e Selwyn Ranges, s o u t h o f C l o n c u r r y , p r e v i o u s l y f u n d e d by the H e r i t a g e Commission t h r o u g h t h e DCSEA. T h i s work i s b e i n g u n d e r t a k e n j o i n t l y with S t e v e Sutton, who i s i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e p r e h i s t o r y of t h e r e g i o n f o r h i s Ph.D. A n v i l Creek 1. Funding h a s a l s o been r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e AIAS Rock A r t Conservation Program f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n problems of a r t i n t h e s e g r a n i t e r o c k s h e l t e r s. The ARC work w i l l c o n t i n u e f o r t h r e e years from 1989. H i k e Xorwood h a s g a i n e d a n ARC g r a n t f o r r e s e a r c h o n t h e a r c h a e o l o g y of A b o r i g i n a l a r t i n S.E. Cape York. R e c o n n a i s s a n c e f i e l d w o r k and n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t i e s a t L a u r a a n d H o p e v a l e h a s been u n d e r t a k e n , a n d two a r e a s i n t h e L a u r a a n d Cooktown r e g i o n s h a v e been s e l e c t e d f o r more d e t a i l e d work. O v e r t h e n e x t 3 years t h i s w i l l i n v o l v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e g i o n a l Aboriginal land-use p a t t e r n s on t h e b a s i s of environmental and ethnographic d a t a , d e t a i l e d assessment of t h e resource s t r u c t u r e i n s e l e c t e d a r e a s , and e x c a v a t i o n s a t a r a n g e o f sites. T h i s work f o l l o w s on from Morwood's r e s e a r c h i n t h e upper F l i n d e r s River catchment. T h i s y e a r a f i n a l series of s u r v e y s c o m p l e t e d t h i s l o n g-t e r m p r o j e c t o n t h e a r c h a e o l o g y o f t h e N o r t h Queensland Highlande. The r e s e a r c h has i n v o l v e d e x c a v a t i o n s a t a number of open and r o c k s h e l t e r s i t e s n o r t h o f Hughenden (e.g-Mickey S p r i n g s 34, Quippenburra Cave), a s w e l l as site and resource s u r v e y s i n s e l e c t e d a r e a s by r e s e a r c h e r s from a number of d i s c i p l i n e s-Changes i n reeource-use, stone a r t e f a c t technology and rock a r t o v e r t h e l a s t 10,000 y e a r s h a v e been d e f i n e d. Morwood h a s a l s o c o n t i n u e d h i s f i e l d work i n b o t h S.E. Queensland (P r o c e e d i n a s o f t h e P r e h i s t o r i c S o c i e t y 53) a n d the North Queensland Highlands. H e is a l s o completing a g e n e r a l s y n t h e s i s on t h e archaeology of rock art.
Landes-Nagar A. 2023. Kh. Bet Telem, Survey: A ruin, Springs and a British Mandate Water System
Hadashot Arkheologiyot 135
, a survey was conducted at Horbat Bet Telem and its surroundings (Permit No. A-5302; map ref. 216360-429/634636-716; Fig. 1), as part of development works by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA). The survey, on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, was directed by A. Landes-Nagar (field photography), with the assistance of A. Hajian and M. Kipnis (surveying and drafting), O. Zakaim (plans), D. Levy (GPS), the Griffin company (aerial photography), D. Amit (guidance), M. Avissar (pottery), N. Ze'evi and Y. Barschak (photographic archive), A. Rochman-Halperin (IAA archive) and workers of the INPA. The surveyed area (c. 75 dunams) comprises a ruin and springs. It extends over the flank of a spur sloping southeast to the Arazim Valley and Nahal Soreq. At the bottom of the spur, where Nahal Luz and Nahal Soreq converge, are three springs ('Enot Telem) comprising three rock-cut tunnels and rock-cut and built water systems. The majority of the ruin's structures are located on the upper parts of the spur, about 120 m southwest of the springs. The slope is covered in farming terraces that integrate ancient wall segments and ancient building stones in secondary use. The site and its surroundings were surveyed in the past (Archive of the Department of
2016
The presented Case Study Improvement for the World Heritage Site Component North Saqqara – Approaches and Recommendations under the Aspects of Management, Visitation, Interpretation, Conservation and Community Involvement focuses on the problems that affect the archaeological heritage site nowadays and proposes approaches and recommendations how to overcome these. The suggestions especially aim at how to make the site attractive for Egyptian visitors and at the same time ensure the site is best protected from human-induced and natural harm. The methodology comprises observations carried out on 14th January 2016 during an excursion organised as part of the module Case Study. Additionally, primary and secondary literature research covering archaeology related sources, international frameworks and guidelines and similar heritage precedents were consulted in order to develop individually designed suggestions for improvement. Furthermore, a situation analysis (SWOT) is provided in the following chapter. This analysis serves as a base to the approaches and recommendations created in this study. They derive from the attempt to overcome the site’s threats and weaknesses as well as to develop existing strengths and potentiate opportunities. In addition to the situation analysis, the first chapter covers a brief introduction to Saqqara introducing location, area definition and significance. The second chapter UNESCO – Mothership Aid identifies the relationship between the World Heritage Site and the superordinate scientific institution UNESCO. Activities conducted since inscription in 1979 are specified and evaluated therein. Following, suggestions on how to acquire funds and international aid as well as how to raise awareness are presented. Visitor Convenience (chapter three) introduces features which an architectural intervention framework to certain modern structures within the site is presented in the subsequent and fourth section. It shall focus on the uninterpreted layers of history of archaeology. The concepts are based on the principles of the ICOMOS International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) and The Burra Charter – The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. The fifth chapter reviews the Imhotep Museum on the Saqqara archaeological site. This museum is evaluated upon certain criteria which are interpretation, collection care and conservation. Section six introduces new on-site activities for the young generation (4-12 years old) in terms of community involvement and benefit. The final and last chapter presents the conclusion, limitations to the work and a future outlook.
Archaeological research, site recording and management, Archaeology Branch, Department of Community Services, Brisbane, Australian Archaeology, 23:105-114., 1986
For the profession in general, and the world a t large, the Congress Secretariat has prepared a bulletin recording the events a t the centre of the storm which has stripped our discipline of its fancied innocence. Whatever the outcome, world archaeology will never be quite the same after Southampton as it was before.
Journal of Heritage, Archaeology & Management(JHAM) Volume 1 Issue II Dec 2021
2021
e are happy to present the 2 nd issue of the first volume of our Journal of Heritage, Archaeology and Management (JHAM) to the scholars and researchers. Those who have been directly connected with the studies of India's Heritage and Culture, and have devoted years after years for the preservation of the culture, they have extreme responsibility to highlight time to time some of the unknown history, tradition, cultural remains and newly discovered artifacts of our land. No doubt, these are the most serious and tremendous tasks which have been carried out in various ways by our esteem members and scholars. Among many ways, reporting of the cultural heritage of a particular region or locality is very significant. The members from all branches of our academic wings have shared their knowledge and valuable information. So, each and every issue of our journal is research oriented and thoughtful. In this volume we have nine articles based on heritage building restoration and adaptive reuse, protection and conservation of monuments of Ekamra Kshetra in post-independence period, recent discoveries of some unknown monument in Nuh, Haryana, the site of Sanauli and its Harappan connection, terracotta temple of Antpur, late medieval temples in the Hooghly district of West Bengal, Jain temples of Murshidabad, the legends of a lost civilization of Prachi Valley and the wonder of the Kakatiya art of Ramappa temple. At the end of this volume we have included a review of the book entitled "Debalgarh Anulia Pratnakkhtra (Harano Ek RajdhanIr Sondhane)" by Dr. Biswajit Ray. Our journal regularly publishes some unknown or lesser-known archaeological sites of India. We hope that this issue will bring value addition to the information base of the young scholars and archaeologists for updating their knowledge. We appreciate the contributions of our extremely enthusiastic scholars.
Archaeological Excavations at Qassiarsuk 2005 - 2006 Field report (Data Structure Report)
2007
Unit 1. Surface. 5-10 cm deep topsoil. Unit 2. Infill of Nørlunds trench. This deposit consisted mostly of rocks with earth in between. Unit 3. The cut for Nørlunds trench. The cut was only recorded on the south side as any attempt of locating it elsewhere was abandoned. Unit 4. Stone rubble under unit [2] probably the same kind of material. Unit 7. Same as unit [2]. Unit 9. Mixed material and is possibly an undisturbed midden deposit. Unit 12. Based black midden deposit. Unit 14. Midden deposit in sw corner of the trench. Unit 18. Mixed turf and midden deposit in the northwestern end of the trench. Possibly a redeposit layer. Unit 26. Black midden deposit. Unit 27. Isolated turf material. Unit 32. Same as [2]. Unit 34. Midden mixed with turf deposit. Unit 35. Gravel subsoil. Undisturbed deposit. Unit 37. Turf wall, made of strengur turf in south end of Nørlunds trench. Unit 38. Structural collapse from some structure west of the trench possibly part of the collapse from a well recorded by Nørlund and Stenberger. Unit 39. Mixed turf material in N-trench, redeposit material and is same as [2]. Unit 40. Mixed material, redeposit and is same as [39] and [2]. Unit 41. Midden material/turf. Visible in s-section, under [38]. Unit 42. Midden material in South section, under 41. Unit 43. Old excavation trench. Same as [3]. After removal of topsoil [1] it became clear that there had been a lot of activity since 1932 and the latest probably caused damage to the midden. Earth and stones formed the infill [2], [4], [7], [32], [39], [40] of the old 1932 excavation. The deposits consisted mostly of large boulders which had given water easy access to the undisturbed midden underneath. Frost action had also caused these boulders to move which created a grinding effect further damaging the midden. Trench 3 This trench was located approximately 4 meters to the west of trench 1 (Plan 3). Unit 19. Rubble overburden same as [2], under [1]. Unit 20. Mixed dark brown silt with some turf/midden, under [19]. Inclusions are charcoal fragments, burned bone but preservation for unburned bones is bad. Unit 22. Turf deposit under [20]. Slumped turf blocks, not a structure in situ but probably collapse or dump from somewhere around the trench. Unit 23. Mixed dark brown silt with some charcoal under [22]. Inclusions are charcoal and burned bones. Unburned bones are badly preserved. Unit 25. Possible burning patch defined by edge set slab, under [22]. This deposit was in lenses, light grey to black in color. Unit 36. Turf line under [19] overlying [20]. Black organic silt forming a distinct horizon between [19] and [20]. 10 After removal of topsoil [1] similar mixed material [19] was recorded which is the result of the renovation of the site. Underneath was a deposit [20] mixed with turf and midden. When [20] had been removed a deposit of slumped turf [22] was recorded that was not a wall feature but probably a collapse or a dump from some structure in the vicinity. Underneath were mixed deposits [23], [25] containing both turf and midden and are probably midden dumps. A Turf deposit [36] formed a clear horizon between [19] and [20] and is probably an interface between these two deposits. Trench 4. Unit 8. Possible midden deposit with turf layer, under [10]. Mixed color, grey/light grey/brown, mixed with limited midden material. With charcoal and turf inclusions, few wood remains and bad bone preservation (Plan 3). Unit 10. Redeposit rubble over [8], under [1]. Grey/brown organic silt containing large stones, with occasional flecks of charcoal. Unit 11. Grey to reddish brown turf under [8]. Very distinct layer, largely organic. Unit 13. Organic black/brown midden with bone/plant material, under [11]. Numerous uncarbonized wood specimen and bones both in a bad and good state of preservation. The bones are from domestic animals and therefore this is probably a Norse midden dump. Unit 16. Brown/grey deposit, under [13]. Inclusions are gravel, some bone and wood remains. Unit 17. Dark brown/black soil with some wood and bone under [16]. Unit 28. Grey clay subsoil under [17]. Unit 29. Gravel layer under [28]. The same kind of deposit [10] was recorded after the removal of topsoil [1] as in all trenches. Underneath 5 deposits of midden were recorded [8], [11], [13], [16], [17] all were rich in organic material. Underneath were two undisturbed deposits, clayish [17] and a gravel deposit [28]. Trench 5. This trench was located approximately 5 meters to the southwest of trench 1, about 5 meters north of the churchyard wall (Plan 3). Unit 33. Topsoil/rubble layer in top of tr. 5. As with trench 2 the excavation quickly hit large sets of stones which made it impossible to continue the excavation and therefore any further work in this trench was abandoned. Trench 6. The trench was the largest of the test trenches, approximately 2 x 4 meters. It extended from the south edge of trench 1 to the southwest (Plan 3). Unit 5. Redeposit rubble of earth under topsoil [1]. Unit 6. Dark grey compact silt with some bones. Interface on top of midden. Silt/sandy deposit. Unit 1. Topsoil. Unit 2. Archaeological trench by the south gable, 8, 50 x 1 meters and turning towards the south. Unit 3. Archaeological trench on the northwestern side, 3 x 0, 80 meters. Unit 4. Archaeological trench cutting across the ruin, 9 x 1 meters. Unit 5. Archaeological trench in the south end, 3 x 1 meters. Unit 6. Archaeological trench in the south end, 3, 50 x 1 meters. About 20 centimeters south of unit 5. Unit 7. Large excavation trench by the southwestern gable end and continues towards the west. Unit 8. Archaeological trench by the southeastern gable end, 4,40 x 1 meters. Unit 9. Mixed deposit. Turf, earth and stones. Structural collapse from walls and probably a roof. Burned.