Download e-book The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3) book. Happy reading The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Iron Man (Moran Graded Readers: Level 3) Pocket Guide.
The Iron Man Moran Graded Readers Level 3. Joe is presented with, and overcomes, a difficult challenge by giving the King a taste of his own medicine.
Table of contents

Historic materials constituted the majority of the collection, although there was also a sizeable prehistoric component. The general contents of the collection will be summarized below. A more detailed inventory has been included as Appendix 6 of this report, and additional discussion is provided in context of the artifact definitions in Appendix 3.

The 13, historic artifacts included a wide range of materials common to domestic sites which have been occupied for a long period. Historic ceramics sherds accounted for 41 percent of these, forming by far the largest subassemblage. Nails formed another large subassemblage nails , while the other artifact classes contained smaller percentages of materials, as detailed in Appendix 6. Further analysis of these artifacts will be offered in the interpretation section of this report.

The prehistoric materials included both lithic and ceramic artifacts. There were chipped stone artifacts and 5 ceramic sherds. These materials will also be further discussed in the interpretation section of this report. Collection Documentation : Various forms of documentation exist for the Accession 13 collection. These sources included original daily field notes, field plans and profiles, resistivity data, photographs, and Milner's original artifact inventory, all of which are listed in Table 1.

These materials probably represent the majority of the original documentation for Moran's excavation. The few instances of missing documentation included color photographs which were noted in the original field notes, and computer- generated resistivity maps discussed in both Moran's and Milner's reports. The field plans and profiles available did not represent all excavation units, and it may be that additional plans and profiles were missing.


  • Magnetic Resonance Angiography | SpringerLink;
  • Product details;
  • Magnetic Resonance Angiography!
  • Browsing alphabetically.
  • Sigmund Freud (Key Figures in Counselling and Psychotherapy series).

Alternatively, they may never have been created. It was also apparent that detailed excavation unit records were not maintained, and the daily field notes provided only fragmentary information on the progression and results of excavation.

Buy for others

The record of the excavation is thus incomplete, partially due to missing records and partially due to the lack of adequate record-keeping in the field. This problem seemed to have originated with inconsistent provenience designations on the original field bags, where the artifacts were placed as they were recovered and then stored until Milner's inventory.

The inconsistencies were further confused by the grid system used. Although the five sectors of the site were interconnected, the grid changed in direction and coordinates for each sector depending upon the location of subsidiary datum or transit points T. Milner was frustrated by an attempt to sort out these provenience problems: the subdivision of the site into five sectors.

There was not, for example, a close correlation between the excavation plan prepared in the field and that prepared on the basis of unit designations recorded on artifact bags. Likewise, the daily record of excavation notes contains occasional descriptions and observations which cannot be definitely assigned to a particular unit Milner In addition, another level of confusion was added by the discrepancies between Milner's site plan Figure 6 and the site plan which appeared in Moran's preliminary report Figure 7. The latter was drawn at a very small scale and thus the discrepancies were difficult to pinpoint.

There were many sources of provenience data and each differed to a certain degree from the others: Milner's site plan; Moran's site plan; two versions of a site plan in the original field records; a separate "corrected" map of the excavation units in the area of the possible waterway, stored with the original field records; a number of original excavation unit plans indicating locations and dimensions; proveniences noted in Moran's field notes; and proveniences represented in the artifact collection. It was apparent in comparing the sources that Milner attempted to add excavation units to the map when there were artifacts from such proveniences.

Milner noted the confusion over the map in Sectors 3, 4, and 5 as follows: Considerable confusion exists in the exact location of several of these units - field note designations, artifact bag designations, and the field plan do not agree one with the other. Unit locations within Sectors 4 and 5, especially, should be viewed. The ACMP attempted to refine the site plan see Map Construction section , but it was not possible to eliminate the provenience problems.

Units which were most questionable were noted on the site plan Figure 8 , and these should be regarded as problematic for site analysis.

Moran (E.A.) Publishers: Moran Publishers has released the 'Moran Graded Readers'

The units used by the ACMP for analysis purposes will be discussed later in this report. Missing Artifacts ; The ACMP compared the artifacts present at the time of our inventory to the artifact counts recorded on Milner's inventory. This resulted in a count of missing artifacts. Milner's inventory was an itemized listing of artifacts by provenience.

The artifact categories used were largely consistent from one provenience to the next, but counts were not always noted or were not recorded in direct correlation with the specific artifact categories. This sometimes frustrated a direct comparison with the artifacts present during the ACMP, and the number of missing artifacts could not always be determined. The collection was thus missing at least that number of artifacts, and possibly more. Table 2 presents the missing artifact data in summary form. A total of artifacts, or 7.


  • Much more than documents..
  • Vascular Technology: Practice Exam Questions and Answers;
  • Mystery of Rukodzi mountain!
  • Hells Gospel.
  • The Iron Man :Moran Graded Readers Level 3.;

Additional artifacts were noted but were not counted on the original inventory. Artifacts which may have been counted in the original inventory but for which we were missing the inventory sheets totalled items. Only 15 unprovenienced artifacts were found. The most surprising finding was that there were 2, extra provenienced artifacts at the time of the ACMP inventory.

While some breakage is expected to occur through time, this figure was a little high to be explained solely by breakage. Certain artifact classes had particularly high counts of extra artifacts Table 2. For example, both red and white earthenwares had large numbers of extra artifacts, as did bone and shell. Glass and nails also had high "extra" counts, though these might be explained by breakage and corrosion. These artifacts did not account for missing artifacts, as they were from separate proveniences.

The high count of extra artifacts may indicate that, in addition to breakage and corrosion, some errors were made in the original inventory counts. For the most part, the missing artifacts were small numbers of items from a variety of artifact classes, which seemed to indicate random loss. ACMP revised site plan, identifying questionable excavation units.

Other 87 72 26 1, 98 1, 9 78 1 37 2, 4 2 21 4 8 53 59 1, 16 8 5 1 21 9. The percentages for each class are noted in Table 2. A particularly striking case was the prehistoric lithics category, which was missing artifacts Three of these the iron pot, the bone-handled knife, and the obsidian flake had been noted as stored or bagged separately on Milner's inventory sheets.

Presumably these were somehow separated from the rest of the collection and were not returned to the Park. The ACMP made notes concerning the missing artifacts on a xerox of the inventory, identifying the specific instances of loss. These will be retained as part of the ACMP documentation. In addition to the missing artifacts noted above, all of the artifacts recovered during Moran's initial auger survey were missing. These artifacts were never inventoried by Milner, but were plotted on a map by Moran Moran a This map was redrafted and reproduced in Milner's report Figure Daniel Roberts of Milner Associates did not recall that they had ever seen these artifacts, and noted that they had probably just transferred the artifact data from Moran's map to theirs.

No 30 auger hole artifacts could be located during a search through Milner's files Daniel Roberts, personal communication These artifacts were probably missing by the time of Milner's inventory. A third form of loss was discovered while comparing the artifacts to Milner's inventory. Apparently a decision was made during the Milner inventory to discard certain artifact classes from the collection.

This did not seem to have been a systematic discard, for at times a sample was retained but other times the entire class was discarded. The most common materials discarded were brick, mortar, slag and other iron refuse, and some shell, bone, and unidentified metal objects abbreviated by Milner as UMOs.

These discards are enumerated in Table 4.

We process your unlock

The combination of the above forms of loss missing artifacts from the auger survey, random 7. Certain artifact classes essentially retain their original integrity, while others are no longer intact for research purposes. Researchers should be especially cautioned against using brick, mortar, or slag for any kind of quantitative analysis.

Vendor Information

The analysis of other artifact classes should be done in perspective of the missing artifact data presented in this section. Artifact Recovery Techniques : It should also be noted that the Accession 13 collection may not contain all of the artifacts which were actually excavated. Moran's report did not discuss the specifics of field methodology. However, one former crew member noted that because the focus of the excavation was on locating Iron Works period features, prehistoric remains were not systematically collected Leonard Loparto, personal communication This further biases the collection for purposes of quantitative analysis.

Nonetheless, other types of analysis are certainly possible. Recommendations regarding the specific research potential of the collection will be presented later in this report. Artifact Classification Differences i There were a number of differences between the artifact categories used during Milner's original inventory and those used during the ACMP. The most common differences, although usually minor, occurred in the classification of historic ceramics. In some cases, the ACMP used more specific categories, such as the identification of creamware, pearlware, and whiteware, which Milner typically lumped into a single white earthenware category.

The more specific ACMP classifications should provide researchers with a more consistent and quantifiable data base, and with additional chronologically diagnostic information. The most pronounced difference between ACMP and Milner classification systems was in the identification of lithic raw material types.

Fake Beggar

Milner consulted with a geologist at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania for assistance in raw material identification Milner The resulting classification did not always correspond to the classification systems used by most New England archeologists. The ACMP therefore reclassified these materials using categories which are more commonly used for New England raw material types.

The primary difference was in the classification of felsites, which Milner variously identified as basalt, porphyritic basalt, rhyolite, or chert. Quartzite and Saugus Jasper were also sometimes identified as chert.

Computers & Software

The discussion of lithic material types will therefore differ in this report from that presented in Milner , as will the total counts for each category. This list enumerated the collection contents and thus served as an original inventory. Of the artifacts which were listed, only six were missing. The artifacts were recovered during the enlarging and deepening of the crawlspace under the Iron Works House ell addition. This was performed by members of the NARO preservation team.

No further provenience information was available. The areas excavated were delineated in a figure which was included in the project Completion Report Carroll Figure 9 , thus providing general horizontal provenience for the artifacts. The vertical provenience data remains unknown. Accession 43 contained a total of artifacts and For more information on the content of the collection, reference may be made to the artifact inventory included as Appendix 6 of this report.

These objects could be used for certain research purposes, such as a study of the disposal of artifacts in crawlspaces, an activity that has been noted at other historic sites in New England. V 27' 30' 66' 32" Areas excavated under the Iron Works House ell during renovations from Carroll Comparison with this list showed that only one object, an iron fragment, was missing from the collection.

There was a total of 18 items in the collection. These included an iron pot leg, a pair of iron pliers, and a variety of other artifacts Appendix 6.