Introduction

This Highlighted Case Study provides you with the opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills you have learned to determine how you would interpret some archeological resources at Manassas National Battlefield Park in Manassas, Virginia.

Although you may never actually interpret the archeological resources at Manassas National Battlefield Park, you can use this Highlighted Case Study to practice using what you have learned about archeology through this guide. The main questions addressed here apply to any archeological site, whether it is historic or prehistoric, in the west or in the east. They are questions that many visitors will ask. Gaining experience with these questions and assessing how they are answered in this case study will help you interpret archeological data you find in any form-from a site report to an ongoing excavation.

There are no answers offered to the questions found in each Use What You Know box. These are offered simply to help you think about how you might address issues that concern archeologists, visitors and yourself. You can ask many of these questions of any archeological site. You are encouraged to think of other issues and questions that you may address as you interpret your park's archeological resources with visitors.

This Highlighted Case Study is an opportunity for you to practice helping visitors to:

USE WHAT YOU KNOW Green boxes like this one are located throughout this case study. They contain tips to help you as you plan your interpretive program. You may need to consult historical documents, ethnographic studies and other park-specific materials to help you build your program.

All detailed information about the archeology comprising this case study is taken from:

Reeves, Matthew (editor)
2000 Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigation and Site Examination of Proposed Intersection Improvements at Routes 29 and 234, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. National Park Service, National Capital Region, Washington, DC.

Project background

During the summer of 1999 archeologists from the University of Maryland, working under a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service, conducted a Phase I reconnaissance survey and a Phase II site examination at the intersection of Routes 29 and 234 in Manassas, Virginia-in the heart of Manassas National Battlefield Park. The work was done in advance of intersection improvements to be carried out by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and fulfilled the legal mandate of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.

Archeologists found three sites. At the first site, artifacts were too scattered and fragmented to allow archeologists to associate them with a specific household. The second site did not contain enough potential information to merit further research. But the third site, named the Hooe (pronounced who) Dependency after the family who owned the land during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, has high research potential and may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

YOUR INTERPRETIVE TASK

This Highlighted Case Study takes you through the process that archeologists experienced as they worked with the Hooe Dependency Site. Questions addressed are:

— Why should we even care about this site?

— What does the law have to do with this project?

— Why did archeologists decide to dig THERE?

— What did the archeologists actually do?

— What do broken dishes, rusty nails and oyster shells really tell us about the people who lived at this site?

— What happens next?

USE WHAT YOU KNOW Your task is to Use What You Know and decide how you would interpret the Hooe Dependency Site with the public.

Why should we even care about this site?

Archeological resources are the physical evidences of past human activity, including evidences of the effect of that activity on the environment. Archeological resources represent both prehistoric and historic time periods and may contain a wide array of material culture. Archeology can tell us a great deal about people and sites we already know a lot about. It plays an even greater role in helping us understand the lives of people who may not show up in the historical record-people like children, women, servants, minority groups, and free and enslaved African Americans. Archeology enables us to understand how people have lived on and affected the landscape over time and interacted with one another.

Established in 1940, Manassas National Battlefield Park memorializes those soldiers who lost their lives in the First and Second Battles of Manassas during the Civil War. The park provides an opportunity to study these military activities as well as the social history of the community in whose midst the battles were fought. Archeological excavations have revealed a diversity of cultures and social classes that lived there before and after the Civil War.

Today visitors see open fields and wooded areas when they visit the park. But a closer study of the park's landscape reveals the marks that prehistoric people, farmers and plantation owners and their families, enslaved and free African Americans, soldiers, tavern keepers, and entrepreneurs have left on the landscape. In many cases archeology has offered the only evidence of these people's lives. Such evidence leads us to ask more questions as we try to understand the people who generated the park's prehistory and history.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The What is Archeology? section of this guide introduces you to archeology, material culture, stewardship, and reasons why the NPS interprets archeology. The What are Issues of Sensitivity? section emphasizes the importance of respecting and interpreting cultural traditions. Questions you may consider as you plan to address the importance of the Hooe Dependency Site are: — What kinds of things (obvious and not so obvious) are considered archeological resources? — How can you correct some of the common public misconceptions about archeology? — What can archeology tell us about people who don't appear in the written historical record? — Why should this site be preserved and interpreted at a park that focuses on the American Civil War? — What message or messages about the importance of archeological resources do you want visitors to take away with them?

What does the law have to do with this project?

When visitors see archeologists working in a national park, few may understand the legal implications of that work. Laws enacted to protect archeological resources define conditions under which archeological investigations may be required and prohibit unauthorized digging on federal lands. Every legal aspect of archeology involves the public and encourages public participation and interest.

Archeologists discovered the Hooe Dependency Site when they were conducting a survey of an intersection in Manassas National Battlefield Park. The Virginia Department of Transportation is widening this intersection. Because the construction is taking place on federal land, the National Park Service is legally mandated to "take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties" (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended). Thus, the National Park Service is responsible for conducting archeological surveys to identify all properties that may be impacted.

All archeological resources located on federal land are protected by the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). Without required permits any excavations-whether conducted by a professionally trained archeologist or a visitor-would be illegal and the perpetrator would face prosecution and rigid fines. Visitors who innocently pick up artifacts are subject to the law, as are "relic hunters" who deliberately bring metal detectors and shovels into a park.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The Cultural Resource Management (CRM) section of this guide introduces you to key laws, regulations and NPS policies related to archeology. Questions you may consider as you plan to interpret how the law impacts archeological resources at Manassas National Battlefield Park are: — Why should visitors know about Section 106 compliance and archeology? — Why should visitors know about the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)? — What message or messages about archeology and the law do you want visitors to take away with them?

Why did archeologists decide to dig there?

Archeologists worked in the intersection because VDOT is adding turn lanes on both roads, constructing a foot bridge over a nearby creek, and placing existing utilities underground to improve the intersection, ease traffic delays, and increase safety. The archeologists' work fulfilled the legal mandate of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended.

While archeologists knew a good deal about the project area's history through archival research, they did find some surprises-like the Hooe Dependency Site!

The Hooe Dependency Site does not exist in historical records. Archeologists encountered the site while digging shovel test pits (STPs) under aerial utility lines scheduled to be buried during intersection improvements. Although specific information about the site was absent from historical records, archival materials provided much information about past land use and occupants. This information allowed the archeologists to place evidence from the Hooe Dependency site in historical context, determine when the site was occupied, and identify its most likely occupants.

As part of their research design, archeologists consulted a variety of resources as they investigated the project area's history. Archival resources used included deed books and personal property, will, inventory, and census records from Prince William County, Virginia. Other archival records consulted were Works Project's Administration (WPA) publications, United States Bureau of the Census records, and miscellaneous photograph, document, and map collections. Archeological reports describing work at other sites within the park and other secondary sources provided additional information about the region's history.

Historical research reveals that the Hooe Dependency site is located on land originally owned by Robert "King" Carter in the eighteenth century. In the late eighteenth century the land passed to Bernard Hooe, whose family occupied the land until the mid 1830s. Hooe established Hazel Plain, one of the largest plantation complexes in the area. The complex consisted of a main house and several associated outbuildings-also referred to as dependencies. Apparently, the Hooe Dependency was one such outbuilding, although it was not mentioned specifically in historical documents.

The Hazel Plain community included a large number of enslaved African Americans living at various locations across the property. Quarters for enslaved field hands appear to have been located in cultivated areas at the far edges of the property. Although historical records do not indicate how many enslaved field hands occupied these field quarters throughout the Hooe family's tenure, they indicate that the Hooes retained over fifty enslaved individuals between 1810 and 1822-a large number for a Piedmont plantation.

During this peak period, Hazel Plain's enslaved population was involved in a wide variety of agricultural and craft tasks. In 1823 the Hooe family transferred a large number of enslaved African Americans from Hazel Plain to other properties. By 1826 only two domestic enslaved individuals remained at Hazel Plain, indicating that agricultural and craft activities at Hazel Plain had virtually ended. This is probably when the Hooe Dependency ceased to be occupied by an enslaved household. The Hooe estate and its associated enslaved laborers were sold in 1836. By the time the Battle of First Manassas was fought in 1861, the Hooe Dependency had been abandoned for at least twenty-five years.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The What do Archeologists Do? section of this guide introduces you to methods archeologists use to locate sites. Questions you may consider as you plan to interpret how archeologists located the Hooe Dependency Site at Manassas National Battlefield Park are: — Why don't archeologists just dig where they know they will find a site? — What sources may archeologists consult when they conduct research? — What is this site's social context? — What message or messages about archeology and historical research do you want visitors to take away with them?

What did the Archeologists actually do?

Archeologists worked at the Hooe Dependency Site for about three weeks. During initial subsurface testing, archeologists dug STPs at 25-foot intervals throughout the entire project area. When several STPs unexpectedly exposed artifacts, the archeologists dug additional STPs at closer intervals to confirm the extent of artifact deposits. When these STPs unearthed additional artifacts, the archeologists knew they had found a site. They named it the Hooe Dependency Site because, during its time of occupation, it was part of the plantation property owned by the Hooe family.

The archeologists then established a grid over the site. They placed excavation units across the site to define its boundaries and identify areas where artifacts or features were concentrated. They excavated eighteen 2.5-foot x 2.5-foot units to fulfill three goals:

— to determine the density and extent of midden deposits at the site

— to determine whether in-situ archeological and architectural features were present at the site, and

— to determine the impact of existing underground utility lines on the site.

When archeologists and qualified volunteers conducted a metal detector survey to better define the site's boundaries they identified three metal artifact clusters. The first cluster lay in the area where STPs and excavations were placed and contained artifacts most likely associated with the Hooe Dependency. The second cluster lay to the north and contained artifacts related to activities during the Civil War. The third cluster lay south of the Hooe Dependency Site and contained similar Civil War-period military artifacts.

Through STPs, excavation units, and metal detector "hits" archeologists recovered over 700 artifacts from the Hooe Dependency Site. The artifact assemblage included nails, glass fragments, ceramic sherds, animal bones, and oyster shells. In the field archeologists carefully placed artifacts in labeled bags. Later in the lab the archeologists cleaned, identified and catalogued the artifacts.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The What do Archeologists Do? section of this guide introduces you to archeological field methods. Questions you may consider as you plan to interpret the work that archeologists did at the Hooe Dependency Site are: — Why didn't the archeologists just start by digging excavation units? — Why is it important for archeologists to have research goals when they excavate a site? — Why do archeologists use different methods to locate artifacts (for example, STPs versus excavation versus metal detecting)? — What do archeologists do with the artifacts they recover in the field? — What message or messages about archeological field methods do you want visitors to take away with them?

What do broken dishes, rusty nails and oyster shells really tell us about the people who lived at this site?

Most people see artifacts displayed in museums or pictured in books. Visitors may not understand that the archeological process involves much more than just digging up old things. Archeology is really about understanding how past people lived and applying that knowledge to how we live today. But how do archeologists learn about past people from artifacts?

The archeology conducted at the Hooe Dependency Site and archival research done prior to excavation strongly support the possibility that it housed some of the Hooe family's enslaved field workers prior to the plantation's downsizing in the mid 1820s. The broken dishes, rusty nails, and oyster shells that archeologists recovered at the Hooe Dependency Site tell us about how its occupants lived. Archeologists studied several things as they analyzed these artifacts: artifact types, artifact distribution and household association.

Artifact types
One way archeologists analyzed the assemblage was by artifact type. Artifact types are idealized categories that archeologists create to organize and make sense of material culture. By organizing artifacts by type archeologists can compare the numbers of artifacts in each type and draw conclusions about the artifacts past people had access to, used, and discarded.

Archeologists classified artifacts from the Hooe Dependency Site into five main types: ceramics, glass, metals, faunal (animal remains), and lithic (stone; usually prehistoric tools).

What the ceramics reveal
There were 319 ceramic sherds recovered from the Hooe Dependency Site. These fall into two categories: tableware and utilitarian ceramics. Tableware sherds come from vessels used to serve food-plates, bowls, platters and mugs, for example. While most of the tableware sherds were too small to allow archeologists to identify the vessel's original form, some of those identified came from bowls and plates. The mean ceramic date (MCD) derived from these sherds is 1814. Mean ceramic dating is a technique used in historical archeology to date sites based on the average age of recovered ceramics. The actual amount of time that this site was occupied spans a longer period before and after 1814.

Archeologists excavated twenty-two sherds of Colono Ware. Colono Ware can reflect Native American or African pottery making traditions. These ceramics consist of shallow, wide-mouthed bowls, apparently made for food consumption. These bowls were manufactured locally, possibly by an enslaved or free African American or a Native American potter.

Cooking pots, jugs, and crocks are examples of utilitarian ceramics used to prepare or store food and other household items. Only one vessel form was identifiable among the utilitarian vessel fragments-the shoulder of a jug.

What the glass reveals
Sixty-nine glass artifacts were excavated from the Hooe Dependency Site. Most are fragments from bottle containers and drinking vessels. The bottles probably stored water and other liquids. The largest category of glass fragments is window glass. Based on its association with nails, this flat glass is probably from windowpanes of a structure that once stood on the site.

What the metals reveal
Archeologists recovered eighty-eight nails from the site. Fifty-one of these were machine-cut and twenty-five were hand wrought-these nail type frequencies helped the archeologists date the site prior to 1830. Because the soil at the site is acidic, many of the metal artifacts were too badly corroded to identify. Among those that could be identified are personal items including a button shank, wire, a brass straight pin, and a fork.

The high number of nails and the identifiable personal items reveal that this was a domestic site containing some type of structure. No military artifacts were recovered from the center of the Hooe Dependency Site (that's not to say that full data recovery would not expose some). However, metal detecting identified two scatters of Civil War related artifacts to the north and south of the site. These artifacts include 3-ring conical bullets, .69 caliber roundballs, shell fragments, a knapsack hook, and an U.S. issue candleholder. These artifacts recall the military events that took place on the site during the Civil War.

What the faunal remains reveal
Most of the faunal (animal) remains excavated are oyster and mussel shells (70%). Excavated bones are very fragmented and difficult to identify by species, but most likely came from mammals such as pigs or cattle. Typically, bones at nineteenth-century African American sites are fragmented and shattered. Bones were often shattered before being placed in stews so the marrow was released into the broth for both flavor and nutrition. Animals that roamed the yard further damaged discarded bones.

Based on the numbers of shell versus bone, one might conclude that the Hooe Dependency Site occupants ate mostly shellfish. However, this may not be true. Certain organic materials, including shell, survive better in acidic soils than others. Many bone fragments may have deteriorated in the soil after the site was abandoned. Further research on local enslaved African Americans' diets may enable archeologists to better interpret the faunal artifacts excavated from the Hooe Dependency Site.

What the lithics reveal
Recovered lithic (stone) artifacts indicate that prehistoric people somehow used this piece of land. Archeologists excavated a Late Archaic Halifax point that dates to ca. 3,500 BC and a Late Archaic Perkiomen point that dates to ca. 1,200 BC. Native Americans living in the Manassas area camped near rivers and made some tools-like the Halifax point-from local lithic materials such as quartz and quartzite. The Perkiomen point is made of banded rhyolite, a non-local material that Native Americans may have obtained by trading with groups living in North Carolina.

Other lithic materials recovered from the Hooe Dependency Site include quartz flakes, quartz chunks and other debitage, indicating perhaps that Native Americans made or modified stone tools at the site. Although Native Americans continued to camp in and travel through and live in the Manassas area, archeologists found no direct evidence of their occupation at the Hooe Dependency Site.

Artifact distribution
Analyzing where artifacts are found is just as important as identifying them. It is through studying artifacts' social and archeological context that archeologists learn the most about past people and how they used a site. An analysis of artifact distributions at the Hooe Dependency Site reveals three areas of potentially distinct activities: architectural (presence of a structure), food preparation, and food consumption.

Architectural activity area (indicated as "architectural debris" on map)

The architectural debris at the Hooe Dependency Site consists of window glass and nails. The architectural debris, concentrated in the southern portion of the site, offers important clues to the location of a structure.

Machine-cut and hand-wrought nails are evenly distributed across the southern part of the site. The window glass fragment distribution is somewhat concentrated, perhaps relating to the proximity of a window in this general area. This portion of the site also contained a sparse number of brick and mortar fragments.

These artifacts represent a structure that stood at the Hooe Dependency Site at least until it was abandoned. Once abandoned, the structure as most likely dismantled and the wood used for construction elsewhere. Had the structure been left intact it would have decomposed, leaving a greater diversity and number of artifacts than the archeologists actually recovered.

Food preparation activity area (indicated as "storage vessel debris" on map )

The food preparation area is defined by storage vessel debris. Storage vessels include glass bottles and utilitarian ceramic vessels, such as crocks, cooking pots and jugs. The Hooe Dependency Site occupants likely used these vessels to store water or other liquids, cook, and prepare foods. Similar to the scatter of refined earthenware and Colono Ware, the storage debris is likely part of a sheet midden. However, the storage vessel debris is centered in a different area, suggesting that these vessels were used in a different area of the site.

During the nineteenth century glass bottles were often resold to bottle merchants, used for refills at local shops, or reused for other purposes. Olive-green bottles usually stored alcoholic beverages. Aqua- tinted bottles often stored medicines or other non-alcoholic liquids. Because of their heavy use, bottles were usually discarded only due to breakage or loss.

One interesting aspect of the artifact distribution in the food preparation activity area has to do with glass type and color. The olive-green glass is concentrated in the food preparation activity area (indicated as "storage vessel debris" on the above map). This phenomenon is logical since olive-green bottles were generally used to store liquids. However, what is surprising is the complete absence of olive-green glass in the center of the food consumption activity area-an area yielding table-related materials. This absence might mean that the Hooe Dependency occupants used olive-green bottles in situations not related to food consumption, or that they were precious and were not broken and discarded.

Food consumption activity area (indicated as "food consumption debris" on map )

Food consumption debris was concentrated in the central portion of the Hooe Dependency Site. This debris consists of ceramics, oyster shells and animal bone fragments. The site's occupants probably scattered this debris across the area, creating a sheet midden. On early nineteenth-century sites, the location of sheet middens is extremely informative for locating activity areas since they are often close to the most heavily used portions of the yard.

Ceramics make up the majority of artifacts in the food consumption area. Most of the ceramics represent tableware that was produced in England and imported into America (for example, refined earthenwares such as creamware, pearlware, whiteware, and refined red-bodied earthenware). During the nineteenth century such ceramics served as vessels for food consumption. A smaller number of Colono Ware ceramics are distributed in the same area. The similarity of these two distributions suggests that the two classes of ceramics were being disposed of in the same manner, and were potentially used and broken in the same region of the yard. Therefore, the archeologists believe that the Hooe Dependency Site occupants used both their refined earthenware and Colono Ware ceramics to consume food.

Faunal materials (animal bone fragments and oyster shells) are concentrated in the same area as the ceramics, as were other table-related artifacts such as glass stemware, tumbler fragments and a fork. While the presence of these items in this portion of the yard does not necessarily mean they were used in this area, it does reflect the disposal of table-related items in this area of the site. If archeologists knew more definitely where the structure was located, they could better interpret the meaning of this cluster of artifacts.

What do these artifact distributions really tell us?
The Hooe Dependency Site's occupants apparently discarded their garbage in a confined area. They seem to have discarded their storage vessel debris over a wider area. It is difficult to state how these distributions relate to where the occupants actually used the items. However, it is apparent that these items were disposed of from different areas of the site, perhaps representing two sets of activities.

Interpreting these two distribution patterns in light of the architectural debris provides some insight. Most of the architectural debris is located in the southern part of the site adjacent to the storage vessel debris. This would place the majority of the sheet midden on the north side of the house with food consumption debris located furthest from the structure. Since trash deposits are usually outside the yard, the site's occupants may have used the area north of the house as a trash zone. This would leave the level area to the south of the structure as the main yard area. Such an arrangement would make sense during winter when sunlight would be on the structure's south side.

When analyzed, the details of artifact distribution give archeologists a good idea of how people used a site. The artifact distribution at the Hooe Dependency Site indicated that its occupants had at least three general activity areas: one where a structure stood, one where they stored and prepared food, and another where they disposed of trash. Identifying these potential activity areas enables archeologists to better understand how the site's occupants used their living space. This data can be compared with that from other sites-whether they are other small farms, plantation homes, or structures that housed enslaved individuals-to help us define similarities and differences as we learn about how people lived and related to each other in the past.

Household association
The Hooe Dependency Site is believed to have been occupied by an enslaved African American household that likely served as field laborers for Hazel Plain. This is based on three lines of evidence: 1) the site's occupation date derived from ceramics and nails recovered during excavation, 2) the presence of Colono Ware ceramics at the site, and 3) the site's distance from the main house.

Ceramics, Nails and Historical Records
308 ceramic sherds (creamware, pearlware, and whiteware) were recovered from the site. The mean ceramic date of these sherds is 1814. The presence of cut nails at the site suggests that the latest occupation date would have been prior to the 1830s. During this time, the Bernard Hooe family owned Hazel Plain. Between 1810 and 1822, 50 to 70 enslaved African Americans also resided at Hazel Plain. The date ranges of artifacts found at the Hooe Dependency Site fall within this time period. Quite possibly the structure at the Hooe Dependency Site was built to accommodate the sharp rise of enslaved laborers on the estate in 1810. The Hooe Dependency Site was likely abandoned in 1823 when most of these laborers were transferred to Bradley Plantation, owned by Bernard Hooe's son.

Colono Ware
Archeologists recovered twenty-two sherds of Colono Ware from the Hooe Dependency Site. This ceramic has been found at four other sites at Manassas National Battlefield Park that were likely occupied by enslaved and free African Americans (Parker and Hernigle 1990; Galke 1992). In addition, Colono Ware has been recovered from many enslaved laborers' quarters excavated in Virginia and the American South. The combination of Colono Ware ceramics at the Hooe Dependency Site and the site location presents strong evidence for its association with enslaved and free African Americans.

Distance to Hazel Plain's main house
Given the site's potential association with Hazel Plain, the distance of the Hooe Dependency Site from the estate's main house presents clues as to the labor role of the site's inhabitants. In general, enslaved domestics and craftspeople resided near an estate's main complex, putting them close to the main house and workshops. Enslaved field hands, on the other hand, frequently lived closer to the fields in which they worked. This often placed their residences some distance away from the main house (Reeves: n.d.).

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The What do Archeologists Do? and How do Archeologists Figure Out How Old Things Are? sections of this guide introduce you to methods archeologists use to identify, analyze and interpret artifacts. Questions you may wish to consider as you plan to interpret archeological resources at Manassas National Battlefield Park are: — In what ways can archeologists organize artifacts for analysis? — How may artifacts indicate the types of activities that took place at a site? — How can artifacts contribute to or change what we know about the past occupants of an archeological site? — What message or messages about the meaning of artifacts do you want visitors to take away with them?

What happens next?

Examination of the Hooe Dependency Site concluded in August 1999. The archeologists backfilled all excavation units and completed paperwork and photography. They cataloged and analyzed all artifacts and prepared them for long-term storage. The collection is now housed at the NPS National Capital Region's Museum Resource Center in Landover, Maryland and is available to researchers.

Archeological investigations suggest that the Hooe Dependency Site is potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This is based on five outstanding characteristics of the site:

— The probable association of the site with a particular ethnic/social group

— The quantity and diversity of materials recovered from the site

— The presence of intact features on the site

— The presence of locally-made, nineteenth-century earthenware vessels, and ¨

— The discrete nature of the site occupation that allows all material recovered to be associated with a single household.

The Hooe Dependency Site has high research potential. Further study of the site could shed light on the types of goods that were available to an enslaved field laborer household. Additional research could determine the quantity and forms of Colono Ware present at the site and how its distribution reflects its use. In addition, the comparison of this enslaved household's possessions would serve as a valuable comparison with other artifact assemblages from local slave sites. All such inquiries could contribute to our knowledge of how the site's occupants-who are often invisible in historical records-lived their daily lives.

Given the Hooe Dependency Site's potential eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, its treatment must involve either avoidance and in situ preservation-the preferred alternative-or a full data recovery program (often referred to as Phase III mitigation). Utility companies hold the right-of-ways to the underground utilities located within the Hooe Dependency Site's boundaries. One of these lines runs through the densest concentration of materials at the site. Any digging activities by the utility companies responsible for these lines could severely damage the site. With the current right-of-way and conditions of the easement, no restrictions are in place to prevent such an impact. Unless the current easement can be relocated outside the Hooe Dependency Site boundaries without ground disturbing activities, the only option is for archeologists to conduct a Phase III program to excavate and document the site before it is destroyed. Future cooperation between National Park Service managers, utility companies, and the public will determine how the Hooe Dependency Site will be recognized, preserved, and interpreted among Manassas National Battlefield Park's many archeological resources.

USE WHAT YOU KNOW The What do Archeologists Do? section of this guide introduces you to treatments available for archeological resources. The What are Issues of Sensitivity? section discusses the importance of interpreting African American cultural traditions. The Cultural Resource Management (CRM) section explores laws, regulations and NPS policies regarding archeological resources as well as the National Register of Historic Places. Questions you may wish to consider as you plan to interpret treatment of the Hooe Dependency Site at Manassas National Battlefield Park are: — What difference does it make if an archeological site is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places? — What treatment options are available for archeological resources? — What other questions might be answered if the Hooe Dependency Site is studied further? — Do visitors feel that archeological resources in the national parks are adequately treated, studied and preserved? — What message or messages about the treatment of archeological resources do you want visitors to take away with them?

Additional case studies

USE WHAT YOU KNOW: ASSESS YOUR KNOWLEDGE — Now that you know more about what archeology is and how archeologists work, how might you integrate what you've learned into a talk for adults, children, elderly, or other special audiences? — What questions do you have about archeology that this distance learning resource did not address? — How can archeological work within the NPS region of your park enhance interpretation at your park? — How can you integrate archeological information into your interpretive programs?

References

Sections of this chapter were taken from:

Galke, Laura (editor)
1992     Cultural Resources Survey and Inventory of a War-torn Landscape: The Stuart's Hill Tract, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia. Occasional Report #7, Regional Archeology Program, National Capital Region, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1970     A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Parker, Kathleen A. and Jacqueline L. Hernigle
1990     Portici: Portrait of a Middling Plantation in Piedmont, Virginia. Occasional Report #3, Regional Archeology Program, National Capital Region, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Reeves, Matthew B. (editor)
2000     Phase I and II Cultural Resource Investigation and Site Examination of Proposed Intersection Improvements at Routes 29 and 234, Manassas National Battlefield Park, Manassas, Virginia. National Park Service, National Capital Region, Washington, DC.

Reeves, Matthew B.
n.d.     Reinterpreting Manassas: The 19th-century African-American Community at Manassas National Battlefield Park. In Remembering Landscapes of Conflict, edited by Paul A. Shackel.