EFTA00595330.pdf

REVISED MANAGEMENT SUMMARY FOR PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL. TESTING AND EVALUATION PERFORMED FOR GREAT ST. JAMES HISTORIC VILLAGE SITE GREAT ST JAMES, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS Prepared for: Marin Box 10829 St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801 Prepared by: Soltisipternational Inc. M. Box 267011 Weston, Florida 33326 _ 1_ 2001 EFTA00595330 „egererfied, I N. • ••••-••1 %••••••••.• ' IV.... If 4n •••• ••flet....• now* as/ In•f•An• I ' h aat .40,•• 71..eens %I I .0 SolICC Iloilo I Int: I Solite) Ii,s compicivel the field work for the PlInc, Arehtletdogleal "'lig "nil ‘'atitnil (ShIlly) for the (Oval SI. James thstont in It alle Site Ir nt I ). th e performed on behalf of Mr. KeN;111 I) ' Amour. 11$ AtrorrIcY r .”" 111e o wners 01 Great Si. James Island, as pan or thy P"an" reqUireineitiS it)t . the proposed subdivision and development of the Island. One of the primary all the planning and d(cikisciviiii‘Xti‘i)ef Ihis study t‘tvert‘l isel‘clipoibn t:riT saci::117:sIterrisiePtattirt .ne data tot W1.1:1111 she intent or avoiding and/or lll i ll i lll izing adverse effects to significant cultural resources. November I 7, 2006. I lie study was perlbrmed or to the Research Ilan approved by your office on I IOW nitre N. • 41•04 I de ore 1: USGS Quadrangle: Eastern St. Thomas depicting the location of Styli a EFTA00595331 hm"v+w".w„-- La NAtti/NOUNI) A Phil" i ArChaallinainil SinVeY Wet M r ilItIlldld kir the Island ad /west et hens in Mara by M. Iiihralyth Righter of Areheolink the Arehetettek sWilly lessened te Om uhnionominn nf a vomplint of Mohave ruins and booted on the northern pone of ithstot. boo" roottoo to to ow ',sums CHUM M howl Village llte tats Arroollith study also inenitheg • well, day laid einnsicrnet wells. to urciletiMintiete tmninidi in. James %/Maga. and what they describe grave she, loomed oft chin motion" but outbids la Ms (neat i /,,. ri twiny objective of the current Phase II Argliaqui III Tooting VIIIttithtkr3 W. or ,„ r.,1 I lc, .fridii I ffff III 4110 Chao l o assitti in the develop ,nt of sits albs,owls 10,0,6 . II/e •Ill‘ el "C tellP4ICIS IQ gielline•IIII Co Itorol r4gt,orocii. To occompt hal the s? (guy, I I % l . a li• '".; i Ili i$ kt :IS (ICHlulled In tAlitlet dfilii conecrolog du following: IIIIIIIII . Tho horizontal and vertical limits of the Great St. James Village f"le• , The contextual integrity of the archaeological deposits • The existing et "lion • The potential s of c 'stone architectural resources the cultural resource to meet criteria f I listorie Places (Nk !IP) eligibility to the National Regis raiwar. • NMI nn... r. 4104014,0 3.0 FIELD WORK The field work 11w the Phase ll Archaeological Testing and !:valuation was oetforme4 between December I anti December 2I, 200.6. The field work was accomplished through the implementation of the seven tasks enumerated below: 1. Site Reconnaissance 2. Site Clearing .3. Site mapping and establishment of a site grid 4. Recordation of constructed features .5. Controlled Surface Collection (CSC) 6. Excavation of Shovel Tests 7. Excavation of one by one meter test units 3.1 Site Reconnaissance Thc first task performed tau, a reconnaissance of the site area to familiarize the team wit MIL' area and its immediate environs. The reconnaissance also served to assist in t planning and ac heduling of the other tasks. EFTA00595332 sai management SlonmarE /TIhr Aatkiesi ceral Rev SI James thgtors Village Stir. SI Thooriai. (Mu ult 'Hi re 'sift Ershadhm 3.2 Site Clearing The site area was found to.be heavily vegetated and required the cutting of lurge LIMOIMIN 01 brushy and thorny species prior to or during the estublishinent of survey trunsects and co expose constructed features. 1 3 Mapping and Site Grid tchruien I. qui? 814" Prolect Nu nlw4 Brian Moseley and Associates established the site grid b constructed features. in:clines and mapped the 3.4 Recordation of constructed features The constructed features were photographed and measured sketches of the plan of each building made, examples are provided in later section's of this document. 3.5 Controlled Surface Collection (CSC) A controlled surface collection (CSC) of the site area was made using collection units that measured 1.75 meters square and were established at 10 meter intervals. Figure 2: Controlled surface collection activities in progress 3.6 Excavation of Shovel Tests Shovel testing was performed at l0 meter intervals to define the horizontal and vertical limits of the site. Each test measured 30 by 30 centimeters and was excavated mesh to artilactually sterile depths; all excavated soils were screened through v, inch hardware. 3 EFTA00595333 4 uwwwrowifi Aiw•MPFM frk 0 kfrolow. ,el um, t.tulwalim, tang Now" ttioN, mar Nis 771.01.4N. INfootion I INIO Rohl Aw Mem 104 Figure 3: Photograph of shovel testing activities In progress 3,7 Excavation of one by one meter test units Five one by one meter units were excavated to test select areas of the site. The areas selected included thick midden deposits (Figure 4), general site contexts, discrete concentrations of artifacts and one area in the central part of the site that appeared to be devoid of materials. In addition to the test units, large areas were cleared of vegetation. rubble and colluviutn to expose and record architectural features (Figure 6). Figure 4: Surface of Test Unit 1. Note shell and artifacts 4 EFTA00595334 Reign!avamcvnint siffigniity for sloe Phase II .Ire loginifew. g anal t raluatton fiv•Ifes (item St Immo Iltalterit. Pillage Sof,xr. rer,,,„m• O8:1 4,0 LAIIORATort v The material recovered from the Phan ii Archaeological Testing and Evaluation are being processed. We are scheduled to complete analysis by the end of January. 2001. ruined* I. 2007 !toilet I•rujng Vo 0511414N 5.0 REPORTING The report of the investiy,ations will be submitted to the VISIIPO for review on or before March 9. 2007 6.0 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS 61 VI I [AGE PLAN 'Mc Phase It Archaeological Testing and Evaluation performed for the Great St. James Historic Village resulted in the identification of 17 structures of varying forms and likely function within the historic village. We note that this number of structures is six less than reported by Righter in 2005. The village proper exhibits a symmetrical plan that is rectilinear iri (aim (Figure 7) with what are likely to be small domestic Structures and ascociatod te;ituret; aligned along, the north edge of the saddle. The larger structures are located im the west side of the s Wage and gerierady trend along a north to south axis. 1 \No I structures are located to the west of the village core area (P and Q); these two structures may represent earlier construction or perhaps specific function buildings separated from the core village area. Additional possible associated features include a number of cart paths, a well at Christmas Cove to the west of the village, and const-rnettd features to the northeast of the village, including one that was considered by Righter (20(15) to represent a grave, EFTA00595335 ReVlied Management Summary. for t SP he hase Archaeological Testing and Eval ti uaon Great Si James Historic Village Sa Thom11 s. USV1 February t. 2007 Sant Protest No 050414.4 Figure 7: Map depicting the location of the Great St. James h istoric illage Structures 6.1.1 Village Architectural Remains The remains of seventeen readily definable structures were located and recorded by measured drawings and photography, examples of the level of documentation is shown in Figures 8-10. We note that 23 structures were recorded by Righter; the discrepancy between our findings and Righter's may be in part attributable to the level of exposure made for each structure; we suspect that because of the thick vegetation and considerable disarticulation of building materials, some structures may have been considered by Righter to represent more than one structure. The domestic and store buildings are represented by rubble masonry foundation walls that supported timber superstructures. An exception to this pattern is a small building (M) that contained a full elevation of stone. Interestingly, no evidence for the use of wattle and lime plaster was noted at the site. Significant amount of the recycling of building materials appears to have been made in the late 19th-century as evidenced by ground level foundation walls, an absence of surrounding rubble and artifact scatters in the building's interiors. Other structures include a large rectangular cistern with a vaulted roof and catchment basin ( Figure 10), other cisterns, bathhouse and a water trough. EFTA00595336 on/ t summary Sae, A Phase I/ Art.hugyaltv•ili TrAimx E‘aluala ai Jame, /horn*. Alle. nuimas. (No he buildings arc generally poorly to moderately well onion) numerous diagonal fissures or disarticulated wall readily discernable. Figure 8: Example of plan view for Structure A I Figure 9: Photograph of Structure NI FrAnsin I 2007 Suhn rnyn0 Vo 05041414 the surviving walls However, then plan EFTA00595337 toted `I g....a mews „ win. whom S. if IPtflaftit ffing tahn I Stat S.'"""" Phew II Irthotifri rytk,„, ion veto., ". &att. pn.fratsk olont• figure 10: Plan View of Structure 1, cistern and catchment basin 6.2 ARTIFACT BEARING MATRICES We had initially hypothesized in our research proposal that the artifact bearing matrices would be restricted to surface or very near-surface contexts. This proposition was largely refuted as artifact hearing matrices were found to extend to depths as much as 18 to 20 centimeters below surface (curbs). An exception to this general pattern is an area near the center of the site that appears to have been regularly swept, as evidenced by the absence of top soil and artifacts. The most extensive midden deposits are located along the edges of the settlement and largely down slope from the structures. 6.3 GRAVES Two graves were found present in between Structures A and B (Figure 7): both graves are defined by arrangements of rocks and conch shells. EFTA00595338 "NIENIPti Figure I I: Nan leSS of graves recorded !whs.:ell SI ructuves A and B T i eel P ^etre P. 0 iimigenorf Affinu711,1%).- ibo MUM* ArChemehigletil oplfiS arid gloChltiliv4 .1 re,s Iiistitic Villag e $09, SI, ?tom ti 6.4 OTHER CONSTRUCTED FEAR RES Sohec P FBI' roierca. OJ . OS 11: 7 4 Other constructed features that are likely associated with the Great St. James Historic Village were reported by Righter (2005) are located quite some distance from the village proper, to the west on Christmas Cove and to the northeast of the village. These features were visited by us during the course of our presence on Great St. James and were recorded by photography. 6.4.1 The Features at Christmas Cove The well at Christmas Cove contains a dry laid rubble casing that is well preserved. me well was constructed at a location where it intercepts a small gut descending from the slopes above the well. EFTA00595339 Figure 12: Well at Christmas Cove Sunman /or the Phan . 11 AN hue" I "Inc ; toe . anh., 14,,tort, I Maw Sae. Si Thontai I.:yri 6 -al " Sidlt. 6.4.2 Features to the northeast of the Village The features to the northeast of the village are in, or in close proximity to, the large salt pond located on the extreme north pan of the island. These features include a dry laid rubble wall constructed with rock and coral was identified by Righter in 2005. The purpose of this wall remains undetermined. Similar additional walls are reported by Righter in this same general area. Figure 13: Dry laid coral and rock wall EFTA00595340 He"' 1-all age • Ott nuinoto, !i%1'1 ttfanaventen, s„mntary IT the pauyr 4., itureslosesnal Trjuati; mu/ ..... O,e." A causeway of loose rock and coral crosses the eastern end of a salt pond on the northern or the island. The rock alignment (in the tone of a stone lined ties on the slows pan to a location that mop-wins undetermined. above. path) continues tr.,. tn. • • gilt' ~Oigt P • plc, t vc. f, I Figure 14: Photograph of causeway Figure 15: Stone lined path (continuation of causeway ) EFTA00595341 stn .,/ Jewirseihereera /or Me " woe 6 „.. Si a Mart refer Silk kryta,,:ititranar re ay! 844., 44.04)Ovir The pine ant defused by niosaa as aionimeng n 499n„,n, comoucted feature that has brae partiagy issanica asgains then mi.. ge faceted coral and slant blocks are knead scaliared Savages meters in diameter and along the edges of a large. rev* twat delwesa 0 Figure Grave pfatifirtri vicntaied in Righter (2005:44) a lter (2005:43 and 44) suggests that the disaniculated coral and stone represents the remains oral/tenor-nem that was set on top of the grave and the depression to be a robbed izsve. We are not entire!), convinced that this is a grave site, as the amount of worked rock. and coral appears w be far greater than necessary for a monument (s). and the depression is far larger than necessary to rob a grave. Additionally, neither Righter nor our team reports seeing loose skeletal remains that are characteristic of robbed grave contexts (although we did not screen the sods). We did however. note an additional constructed leanife w the south r)f the grave platform described by Righter (Figure 17). Additionally, a number of le-Med areas and the features described above (dry laid walls. causeway. stone linvi path) were noted by Righter and us in close proximity to the putative grave. EFTA00595342 figure 17: Photograph showing relationship of grave platform and additional constructed feature (north arrow sits on top of additional constructed feature) wooer ihs /'brae ..lerl,tiwtolowleol &wok. (ow 0 01 hton ,,,,,, v. ri,cri ormiNivion 7.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 7.1 The Great St. James Historic Village The Phase II Archaeological Testing and Evaluation perefonnt nhed for the Great St. James Historic Village resulted in the identification of a settlement of having been occupied in the late 18th-century; howevert atht contains some evidence e preponderan he artifacts appear to date to the 19th-Century with some minor 'amounts dating to the 20 ce of tth- century. The settlement contains the remains of 17 rubble masonry structures in varying states of preservation. The artifact bearing matrices appear well preserved with contextual integrity. Faunal remains in the form of large amounts of whelk and moderate amounts of conch predominate; additionally, the remains of fish, birds, large and small mammals were also recovered, The Great St. James Historic Village is considered to meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D which is defined as having yielded or may he likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. EFTA00595343 ¶.. an fee tit rever4e •*; 111488aerimtal /law Sue a `11‘. • ~VI 'r at' 'stun- ro t° HI Oar •C • ‘. and hoer rebrben I. 20n, the phase Study provides a sufficient amount of Sober Prelect 030414.4 pop from ures and archaeological contexts to assist in the plantriesine:tfuoi:ltibeasdteovtehloepinoct:nttioinn dus Pfined to or strict of the island. A proposed avoid impacts to historic strue Fi mad on the western side of the village has been P eCc"azi redesirrnad alignment (highlighted in deep blue). gure 17 shows the location of the 73,2 Christmas Cove Features itowisuras cove features of concern include a well and a trough which appears to be etier eclustrisctIon• The well is most likely associated with the hininic settlement and Righter suggests, possibly also provided mariners with a water supply. Features to the northeast of village The. walls, cause ay, rock pathway, potential "grave site", and leveled areas, all within dose, proXimtly to each other strongly indicate this area to have been the locus for activities a as yet undetermined nature, most likely related to the village settlement, but ,..vise possibly, independent of it. 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Soltec recommends that the village structures he avoided and preserved in snu within a deer spaced area. We recommend that consideration he afforded to developing the village aria as an interpreted culturally sensitive park like setting. The proposed road alignment to the west of the core of the ruins complex (Figure 18) will cut through midden deposits. Soltec will make specific recommendations for mitigating adverse impacts in the final report of investigations. 8.1 Christmas Cove Features The well and trough located on Christmas Cove should be preserved in sift and incorporated into the overall landscape design for the development. We recommend that the location of the Christmas Cove features be mapped by a Virgin Islands licensed Surveyor. Additionally, we recommend that a grate be placed over the well opening as a safety measure. EFTA00595344 r• t. rye 44. rva t it III c, .11( c c c eViii,c ILr foul 148 lhr /Aran t PIAPAcrit. lay, t nrtimisalticirc November 20. 20015 Memorandum To: From: Victor Somme, Director. CZ.M M D. JacksgtC Director M- 1'.•11 1 1 10, Liam 1 'Ir. , Subject: VISHPO Review and Comments regarding Technical Proposal to Perform a Phase I/ Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Study for an Historical Archaeological Site Located on the Island of Great St. James, U.S. Virgin Islands by Soiree International Inc. (11/15/06) for Major CZM Application No. CZT-12-06 / Christian Klatt- VISHPO has received the technical proposal referenced above and our comments are as follows: • Pursuant to the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey investigations carried out by Ms. Holly Righter of Archaeolink in 2004, which resulted in the Report of a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of Great St. James Island, St. Thomas, IJSVI, several significant cultural resources were identified. • The significant cultural resources identified by Ms. Righter included the remains of at least 23 structures, refuse middens, a well, a grave, cart paths, and other landscape features. • As a result of the identification of these significant cultural resources, and in light of the proposed development by Great St. James Properties for residential housing, further Phase II Testing and Evaluation Study is required to determine boundaries, depth, documentation, and level of significance for a determination eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places for the resources identified The sites are already considered significant for inclusion onto the local Virgin Islands Registry of Historic Buildings, Sites, and Places. EFTA00595345 • 17 rem .7•••••2"...1....-- n iVritigUllOn Nfudics. ivin. t nocil ed k.tri,::,. , 41:::;:r;Clitt erat s. ' :::1% 1 1 11.11VA nlitikih: WM\ cvn int Pb),. %VI proposed devetopmem plain '' i tt g. • Based on the review of the Phase II Technical Proposal submitted by soltec, it appears that it meets the recommendations necessary to as and evaluate the identified cultural resources as per VISHPO requirements. OP The VISHPO also notes that "as a preliminary concept, the culturally significant site area will be developed as an interpreted, culturally sensitive, passive park-like setting that maintains the site's inherent archaeological character", and it is our wish that this concept is supported throughout the planning process; at the same time, we applaud the developer for this foresight and sensitivity. • Our only further concern regarding the Phase II Testing and Evaluation is that the historic well, which is outside the described "culturally significant site area" be documented and preserved, with any mitigative testing to be discussed with the VISHPO prior to disturbance, and the grave site, already identified, be preserved in place, restored as a marked place of burial, and fenced in, with access allowed. If either of these alternatives is not conducive to planning and development, the VISI-IPO is to be contacted and consulted prior to any measures that may impact the site. • As discussed in the proposal (Reporting, p. 5) a Management Summary report will be prepared for submittal to the VISHPO within three days of the conclusion of field activities, and as a result this document will be sufficient to issue a conditioned finding for the purposes of the CZM permitting process. Should further work be necessary, once agreed-upon and signed, a Memorandum of Agreement can be put in place to allow the permitting to proceed. c: Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., Commissioner and Virgin Islands State Historic Preservation Officer Manny C. Ramos, CZM Environmental Engineer EFTA00595346 EFTA00595347