EM 1110-2-2907
1 October 2003
data isolated a rectangular footprint, which corresponded with the location of the Wright
hangar. Later ground truth data collection and excavation works unearthed well-preserved
wall posts constructed of wood. This project exemplifies the technological methods cur-
rently being adopted by archeologists. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) practices are
now in wide use among archeologists, who take advantage of the utility of spatially related
data.
b. Description of Methods. This study had two objectives; the first was to locate the pre-
cise position of the Wright hangar. In archeological terms, the site and the history centering
on the Wright Brother's and their activities is well documented. The historical record con-
tains many photographs and aerial photographs that trace the approximate location of the
Wright buildings. In 1994 an architectural firm established the dimensions and structural
details of the Wright hangar with the use of these photographs. They determined that the
hangar was approximately 70 by 49 ft (21.3 by 14.9 m). Knowing the approximate dimen-
sions and location of the building would seemingly make the archeological work a simple
task. The second objective of the study was to determine if traditional and modern archeo-
logical work could add insightful information to the already well-documented site, and
thereby further detail the history of early American aviation.
(1) The authors describe the general area surrounding the Huffman Prairie Wright
Brothers field as being relatively undisturbed despite the growth and development of the
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base neighboring the site. The prairie had been subject to burn-
ing, but not plowing. The task in locating the hanger included fieldwork, near surface geo-
physical work, and aerial remote sensing. The initial excavation made it apparent that identi-
fying remains of the hangar would require either a significant amount of additional
excavation or the use of technologically sophisticated, noninvasive methods. Further exca-
vation was deemed too destructive for the site, leading to the decision to employ near-
surface and aerial remote sensing.
(2) The geophysical work included magnetic, electromagnetic, and ground penetrating
radar (GPR). Combining multiple geophysical techniques is a good practice, as one instru-
ment may easily pick up features not identified by another. Geophysical survey methods
typically involve data collection in a grid pattern across the study site. Anomalies in the sub-
surface potentially indicate natural phenomena or anthropogenic disturbances in the strata.
Some anomalies may then be excavated for ground-truth data collection. It is generally good
practice to conduct some ground-truth to verify the geophysical interpretations.
c. Field Work.
(1) Fieldwork, prior to collecting the remote sensing, began in 1990. The researchers
hoped to find underground building remnants or surface features, such as the hanger's foot-
ings or drip lines that paralleled the absent roofline. Long trenches were hand-excavated un-
earthing 60% industrial debris, 2% domestic articles; the remaining material consisted of
wood debris and other uncategorized items. Excavation did not identify any intact architec-
tural remains of the actual building, and did not locate the precise position of the hanger.
(2) Additional fieldwork verifying the geophysical results uncovered three features.
Feature 1 was a well-preserved, intact wood post--possibly one of the hangar's major wall
6-20
Previous Page
