 |
||
 |
 |
|
|
MA/PhD Theses Abstracts of Current Students & Alumni |
 |
|
Rom, Lance W., June 1981 - A PHASE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SURVEY OF THE DELTONA CORPORATION'S TAMPA PALMS DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Abstract: During the summer of 1979, an archaeological survey was conducted of the Deltona Corporation's Tampa Palms Development in northern Hillsborough County, Florida. This area lies within the Zephyrhills Gap physiographic zone and is bounded by Cypress Creek, Trout Creek, and the Hillsborough River on the western, eastern, and southern borders, respectively. A total of nine archaeological sites were located within the 5600 acre survey area. The survey methodology consisted of subsurface sampling with both .5 meter squares and posthole tests of varying frequency depending on the area's potential for containing archaeological sites. The potential or an area for archaeological sites was determined by employing an environmentally based site location predictive model developed during the Phase 1 background study or the area by Drs. Grange, Fryman, and Williams (1979). A hypothesized site functional model developed by Wharter (1979) and based upon prior studies by Binford (1966), Hemmings (1976), and House (1975) was utilized to determine site function in the absence of extensive site testing. A lithic flake analysis was carried out to try to correlate debitage patterns within and across cultural periods in the Central Gulf Coast Region. There were not enough data available to make definitive correlations, but recommendations were made for future analyses along the same lines. Seven of the nine sites located during the Survey were determined to be either significant or possibly significant and recommendations were made for future mitigation projects to more fully evaluate the significance of the sites and to recover data which will be lost due to project construction. Archaeological resource management areas were defined using the site significance data. The project area was divided into archaeologically sensitive and non-sensitive units. Project construction could then proceed within the non-sensitive areas because no adverse effects would be caused to cultural materials. It was recommended that litigative measures be carried out in the archaeologically sensitive areas before construction began. During the field survey, records were kept of the amount or time spend excavating and recording test units. These data were collected in order to provide future survey planners with person-hour estimates for the different types of survey techniques which were used during this survey. Finally, it was recommended that the Phase 3 mitigative excavations be carried out in such a way as to maximize the return of data due to the inevitable destruction of most of the archaeological materials within the area. If possible, data should be collected regarding the areas carrying capacity, its settlement and subsistence patterns, prehistoric climatic variation, lithic resource exploitation, and changes in lithic technology through time.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|