The Louis Berger Group, Inc., has completed archaeological monitoring of Survey Areas 4, 5, and 7 for the Minnesota Trunk Highway 55 project in southeastern Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The work was performed under contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT Agreement No. 79688; S.P. No. 2725-53). The monitoring was done to ensure (a) that no pre-contact occupation or burial archaeological deposits were present in the construction corridor in Survey Areas 4 and 5, (b) that no archaeological deposits associated with the U.S. Army bivouac Camp Coldwater (1820-1821), the civilian Camp Coldwater Settlement (1821-1840), or Dakota use of the area as a burial area were present in Survey Areas 4 and 5, and (c) that no historic burials were present in Survey Area 7, on land reserved for a Protestant cemetery prior to 1886. The work determined that substantial ground disturbance from construction and demolition of buildings for the Veteran's Administration (1925-1988) had destroyed the native soils in much of Survey Area 4 and confirmed that a wetland was present in the area of the four oak trees identified by the Mendota Mdewakanton Group as the site of Dakota interments. Although intact native soil was present in much of Survey Area 5, no archaeological features and only a few artifacts were found that relate to the Camp Coldwater bivouac or civilian settlement. No evidence of a cemetery was identified in Survey Area 7. Intact soils were present on the slope of Morgan's Mound, but the area to the east was almost entirely disturbed by excavation and filling, probably for construction of current Minnesota C.S.A.H. 62.
Survey and evaluation of a wooded area at the east side of Survey Area 5 resulted in the recovery of many artifacts that date to the Camp Coldwater Settlement period and may be associated with either the Antoine Pepin or the Le Rage household. However, this site (designated Site 21HE309) did not include any structural features and the site area is significantly disturbed by logging, borrowing, and erosion. The site, which measures 42 meters north to south by 21 meters east to west, lacks the archaeological integrity necessary to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
This User’s Guide is written for non-statisticians and presents workflow procedures and R Scripts for MnModel Phase 4 archaeological predictive modeling (Hobbs 2019b). Procedures for developing the MnModel Phase 4 Historic Vegetation Model are documented separately (Landrum and Hobbs 2019). Appendix A of this Guide provides higher-level instructions for download and installation of R and RStudio. These are the steps that are performed once per computer. Appendix B of the Guide covers preparation of archaeological data for sampling and implementing ArcGIS Python sampling tools. Appendix C of the Guide catalogs the tools developed for this project and describes their use. The main sections of this document cover executing statistical modeling and predictions in RStudio, exporting the results to ArcGIS, and classifying and evaluating the models. These steps are repeated for each modeling region.
Archaeological predictive modeling assumes a relationship between archeological site locations and a suite of environmental ‘predictor’ variables. These variables are chosen subjectively by the modelers because they are assumed to have some bearing on why prehistoric peoples chose to live or spend time in specific locations. The choice of variables is limited by available environmental data.
This document defines and evaluates the environmental variables used as predictors for the MnModel Phase 4 archaeological site and survey locational models. Specific instructions for deriving these variables are documented in the MnModel Phase 4 Tools Handbook (Brown et al. 2019).
