This table was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
6.2 Metal Detector Survey Methods
The metal detector survey was conducted under the guidance of Bruce Sterling (Hartgen Archaeological Associates) with members of the Public Archaeology Facility and Cornell University serving as field crews. The first stage of metal detector survey occurred from July 6-16, 2011 [text deleted] A second stage of metal detector survey occurred from November 14-22, 2011 [text deleted]
The metal detector survey included two main methods. The first consisted of a survey following transects across a survey area with a main surveyor running along mapped transect lines marking hits, while support teams followed and verified the hits by excavating marked areas. Transects were placed at 8 m (26 ft) intervals. The lead surveyor walked along both sides of the transect line with a sweeping coverage of approximately 2 m (6.6 ft) in width on each side of the transect line for a total sweep coverage of 4 m (13 ft). This allowed a gap of 4 m (13 ft) between intervals. The second method consisted of teams of surveyors walking along parallel transects marking and verifying their own hits. Intervals in the second method were not mapped in, rather they were paced in at an interval similar to the first method of primary transects spaced at 8 m (26 ft) intervals with surveyors covering both sides of the survey transect to account for a total sweep width of 4 m (13 ft).
The difference in methods was based on training and detail of survey. The first method allowed Bruce Sterling to train field crews in identifying and recovering materials identified by the metal detectors. The first method's use of mapped in transect lines rather than paced transects allowed a more detailed coverage of an area with a high probability of the presence of battle related materials, such as the British Ambuscade/Defensive line. The second method allowed for more widespread coverage of a survey area in less time as teams were not restricted to following one main surveyor as in the first method. In both methods the survey teams used the same types of metal detectors: 1-Minelab Explorer SE Pro and 3 -White's Spectrum XLT detectors. Field teams using the White's metal detectors were spatially separated to avoid interference.
The first round of metal detector survey was conducted during a long stretch of consistent hot and humid weather. During the course of the first ten-day field session, temperatures ranged in the 80s to mid-90s Fahrenheit. Although there were threats of thunderstorms on many afternoons, the storms brought no discernible amounts of rain during the survey. Consequently, the soils throughout the survey areas were very dry. The best conditions for metal detecting include damp soils which aid the detector signal to penetrate deeper below the ground surface. Aside from the dry soils, the conditions were relatively good for the metal detector survey. Generally, the relatively level fields across the project area contained low ground cover, allowing for a free swing of the metal detector loop close to the ground.
[text deleted]
The following pages/maps were intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
[text deleted]
In summary, general conditions for metal detecting at Newtown battlefield were considered to be relatively good, except for the presence of dry soil, and the preponderance of 19th- and 20th-century [text deleted]
Photo 1. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 2. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 3. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 4. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 5. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 6. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 7. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Photo 8. This photograph was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
6.3 ***
This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
Figure 13. This page/map was intentionally deleted per the requirements of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 470hh) and its implementing regulations (49 FR 1027, Jan. 6, 1984).
6.4 Mapping Methods
Mapping of the archeological testing, both metal detector and unit excavation, included both the recording of locations with GPS receivers and a SOKKIA Total Station. The use of both types of instruments allowed for a various scales of measurements. Spatial information gathered with the GPS receiver allowed for an accuracy level to position metal detector hits and link spatial location information with UTM coordinates. The total station allowed for sub-meter accuracy required for the recording of the point provenience of artifacts recovered in units and the positioning of test units and transects.
[text deleted]
Other testing areas, primarily related to the metal detector survey were mapped using a GPS receiver. The survey team logged the boundaries of the metal detector survey areas and hits using a Trimble Geo Wm 2008 series global positioning system (GPS) running Windows Mobile and ArcPad 7. The data dictionary used was the one developed by the National Park Service for the Revolutionary War/War of 1812 documentation project. Not all items in the data dictionary were relevant to this study. The team used this dictionary in order to be consistent with the previously collected NPS data. The GPS system parameters were set to those used in previous studies: PDOP Mask: 6.0; SNR Mask: 6.0; Elevation Mask: 15: Minimum satellites: 4 (NPS 2001).
6.5 General Laboratory Methods
Following fieldwork, all artifacts were processed and analyzed in the laboratories of PAF. Processing included washing (or dry-brushing fragile materials), along with checking and retagging the artifact bags. Fired musket/rifle balls were not washed and minimally handled to allow for future analyses, such as blood residue.
Historic artifacts were catalogued according to a PAF system based on South's classification (South 1976). Each piece was classified as to general functional groups (e.g., food-related, faunal remains, clothing related, architectural remains, etc.) and then according to specific types, forms and patterns (e.g., blue transfer print cup, sun-purpled bottle glass, cut nail, animal bone, etc.). Where possible, time ranges for these artifacts were assigned.
The resulting artifact catalogues were entered into a relational database management program (Paradox) to facilitate subsequent analysis, and are included in Appendix II. All of the artifacts, notes, and other documentation of the archeology survey and excavations are curated according to federal (36 CFR Part 79) and state (NYAC 2004) guidelines in the facilities of the Department of Anthropology at Binghamton University.
