This Week In Pennsylvania Archaeology

Adams County

2012-01-27T16:16:00.013-05:00

This week we begin our blog series on the examination of the archaeology of Pennsylvania by reviewing outstanding or interesting highlights of each county. Arranging the counties alphabetically, the first county is Adams. This county contains some of the most interesting and significant sites in the state. It contains a high density of archaeological sites and is seventh in the state for sites per square mile, with 320 sites recorded in the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files. A high frequency of historic sites, (40%) have been identified in Adams county, due in part to the location of the Gettysburg Civil War battlefield. In addition, over 100 sites are located on the federally owned Gettysburg National Military Park and have been assigned PASS site numbers. For security reasons, their locations and cultural data have not been incorporated into our cultural resource geographic information system (CRGIS).

The influence of the Gettysburg campaign is obviously reflected in the archaeology of this county. Many interesting sites dating to the mid-19^th century have been archaeologically tested including farmsteads, taverns, urban domestic sites and battle related sites. One of the most interesting but elusive sites is Camp Letterman. Located approximately 1.5 miles east of Gettysburg along the York Road, this was the largest Civil War battle hospital. It was named for the Medical Director of the Army of the Potomac, Jonathan Letterman. The site was occupied for about six months and treated over 20,000 wounded soldiers from both the Union and Confederate armies. Normally, after large battles from this era, field hospitals were established at the nearest farm house or barn closest to the greatest number of wounded soldiers. Initially that was the case at Gettysburg but due to the extreme number of casualties, Letterman wanted to centralize the treatment of wounded. The hospital was established by the end of July 1863. It was situated along the main railroad line so that supplies from Washington DC could be easily brought to the site. However, it was soon realized that the best treatment for the wounded was to put them on trains and get them to better hospitals surrounding the Washington DC area. This process was so successful that in all subsequent battles, the wounded were placed on trains and sent to the major hospitals in the region.

Camp Letterman with drainage ditches to the right

Although this site has long been considered significant by the National Park Service, its exact location was uncertain. What was thought to be its general location was surrounded by commercial development and covered by a trailer park. Therefore, it was not purchased or even recommend for acquisition which resulted in further development impacts. In the 1990s, several construction projects were planned and the appropriate archaeological compliance investigations were conducted. Although, these did not produce many Civil war period artifacts, one produced a linear feature that may have been the remains of one of the drainage ditches surrounding the hospital tents. This feature contained a medicine bottle and a period button. Unfortunately, later investigations did not reveal any additional period features or artifacts. It would seem that some of the site is preserved, but additional survey is required to determine the sites overall integrity. Camp Letterman is a very significant site in American history. It represents a change in the way the wounded were treated during the Civil War. The archaeology of this site would be greatly enhanced by increasing our understanding of medical practices and life at a field hospital during this era through additional archaeological investigations.

excavation trench at South Mountain rhyolite quarry

In terms of prehistoric sites, several have been archaeologically tested including two rockshelters, many plowzone sites and, of course, the rhyolite quarries. More accurately termed metarhyolite, this is a volcanic material deposited 800 million years ago and metamorphosed (folded) about 300 million years ago. Geologically, much of South Mountain is identified as metarhyolite but it varies considerably in terms of its flaking quality. It was extensively used prehistorically, especially during the Transitional period and 84% of the sites have produced metarhyolite artifacts. It does not have the silica content found in chert or jasper but it flakes well and it is available in very large quantities and in very large blocks. At least five quarry sites (link to Jan 28, 2011 and July 22, 2011 blogs) have been identified on a remote ridge top along with numerous secondary workshop sites. One of these, the Carbaugh Run site is a very large workshop site adjacent to the quarries that is listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

rhyolite digging implements

rhyolite hammerstones

Testing at one of the quarry sites revealed a series of extraction pits that were usually less than two meters deep but filled with mostly early stage chipping debris. The most intensive use of metarhyolite occurred during the Transitional period but radiocarbon dates place one of these pits between 7000 and 8000 years old. Unfortunately, the quarry sites are being systematically looted. The sites are owned by the Bureau of State Forests but their remote locations preclude effective protection. To be sure, looting is a crime against all citizens. Every archaeological site is like a small window into the past. Removing artifacts is like stealing pieces from a puzzle. Eventually there are so few pieces that it is impossible to interpret the picture.

The number of sites recorded in Adams county does not preclude the discovery and recording of additional archaeological sites as development spreads and additional investigations are conducted. We encourage every citizen to take an active role in preserving our archaeological heritage and ask that you respect these sites and Preserve our Past for the Future.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

An Overview of PASS and the CRGIS

2012-01-20T15:22:00.003-05:00

For the past year or so, we have blogged on significant topics in Pennsylvania archaeology presenting them in alphabetical order. Beginning next week we are going to blog on the archaeology of each of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Proceeding through the counties in alphabetical order, we will blog on the highlights of each county such as the number of historic and prehistoric sites, the most significant site or sites, the important sites that have been excavated or even famous archeologists from the county. To put archaeological sites and archaeological survey in perspective we are going to begin with an overview of our Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files and our Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (CRGIS). This will be presented by our CRGIS staff of Noel Strattan (supervisor), Tom Held and Dave Maher.

An Overview of PASS and the CRGIS

Tom Held, Noel Strattan and Dave Maher

Since its inception, the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (P.A.S.S.) has recorded nearly 22,000 archaeological sites spread throughout Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. People from all walks of life, professional and non-professional archaeologists, concerned citizens, school groups and other youth based organizations, have all submitted information for the recordation of sites. Pennsylvania has been occupied by people for 16,000 thousand years. Because of this, recorded sites range in date anywhere from Paleoindian times to the 20th century. Site types vary from overnight campsites to agricultural villages to industrial complexes. Each year, at the annual meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc., the CRGIS staff produces a summary report of the recorded archaeological sites. The report details the number of newly recorded sites by county, the total number of recorded sites and the densities per square mile. If you are interested in researching or learning more about Pennsylvania’s known archaeological sites, you should spend some time searching through the CRGIS database at crgis.state.pa.us .

The CRGIS is a web based map and data searching tool that provides a way for the public to view information on the known sites of Pennsylvania. The data that we collect and make available for public viewing consists of site name, site type, artifacts that were collected, nearest water sources, and environmental data to name a few. The environmental data consists of information such as if the site is located in the saddle of a ridge or if it is in the flood plain, soil types, bedrock geology, and others. Even though we do not make the site locations available to the public through the map portion of the site, we do make all of the data available through an AskReGIS search. AskReGIS is a text based query tool that allows the user to search by county, municipality, drainage, or physiographic zone. The search can then be modified to more specific criteria by clicking the “When” or “What Else?” buttons. In the “When” you can specify the time period you are interested in. In the “What Else?” you can search by Site Name, Site Type, Topographic Setting, National Register Status, type of artifacts found, type of lithic material found, and more. The last step is to click the “Search Now” button to see the results.

Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Density Survey

The information we have within the database is only as good as what we have received. If you have more information on a Pennsylvania site or know of one that is not yet recorded, please fill out a PASS form and send it to our office.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Archaeology Exhibit at the Farmshow

2012-01-13T16:21:00.002-05:00

We were assisted in staffing of our exhibt by twenty-two volunteers! We could'nt have done it without them.

“WOW!” “That’s Huge!” “Is this real?” “Does it float?” “How old is this?” “What kind of wood is this?”
(some of the remarks and questions we received this week from our 25,000 + visitors.)

This has been a very busy week for us at the 96^th Annual Pennsylvania Farm Show. The official website of the Farm Show indicates that attendance is up 40% over last year and that there are record crowds learning about Pennsylvania’s rich agricultural heritage!

The exhibit has been well received and we’ve spoken with about 25,000 visitors from young to old so far this week. We have shared our message of the value of archaeology with everyone that passed through and had some rewarding exchanges with the public. The replica dugout canoe is once again our big hit and children of all ages love climbing in and pretending they are in another place in time for just a few minutes.

Young and old alike enjoy the dugout!

Bob Winters continues to intrigue the crowd with his flint knapping skills and colorful 18^th century Native American regalia.

Flint knappers Bob Winters and Brad Miller answering visitors questions.

Our exhibit on Native American Foodways presents the tools used by our earliest peoples 16,000 years ago through the Woodland period roughly five-hundred years ago. Many of our visitors are amazed that we have such a long history of peoples in Pennsylvania and that Native Americans played such an important role in the development of agriculture.

One of two exhibit cases of artifacts from The State Museum of Pennsylvania in our display.

Noel Strattan answers questions for our young visitors.

Looking at the huge gasoline powered tractors of today and comparing this to the digging stick of the Woodland period, one has to marvel at the change in technology. The evolution of foodways has seen us progress from the hunters and gatherers of the ice age when populations were very low, to a more structured society where labor is divided and food production increases. Much of this increase in food production is the result of increased farming activities by Native peoples by developing cultigens, many of which are important food sources today.

The official theme designated by the Department of Agriculture for the Farm Show this year is from Farm Gate to Dinner Plate which parallels our theme and takes visitors from the family farm to the table.

Cornucopia of vegetables illustrating the abundance of produce grown in Pennsylvania.

Whether you are growing food for your own home or are one of the major growers of produce in Pennsylvania, the pattern of producing crops to sustain our society is fundamental to our survival. Local farm stands supply many of us with the fruits and vegetables we enjoy, mushrooms, apples, corn, grapes, and the list goes on for these foods which not only contribute to our diet but also to the economy of Pennsylvania.

Prize winning squash & pumpkin

Apples are one of the crops that provide an important contribution to Pennsylvania's economy.

We hope you have enjoyed the blogs over the past month documenting our journey through the development of Native American Foodways in Pennsylvania and ultimately the development of agriculture. If you haven’t checked out our exhibit at the Farm Show, we are still there through Saturday, January 14^th, at 6:00 pm. Come out and celebrate what farming and agriculture has contributed to your heritage.

Below are additional photographs of the fun our visitors had enjoying our replica of a Native American dugout.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Pennsylvania’s Agricultural Heritage

2012-01-06T21:02:00.000-05:00

Image depicts Native American use of a rockshelter from the gallery of The State Museum

For the past month we have been writing about the development of Native American Foodways in Pennsylvania over the past 16,000 years. From our earliest hunters and gatherers to the development of cultivating crops, Native peoples played an integral role in the development of many of the foods we enjoy today. Early settlers benefited from the cultivating of corn, beans and squash by Native Americans who shared both the crops and their methods of farming.

Sunflowers were cultivated by Native Americans, and later introduced in Europe.

Archaeologists have examined faunal remains recovered from wells and privies of the earliest settlers and analyzed this dietary waste to interpret what colonists were eating. Shellfish, oysters, mussels, clams were an important part of their diet as well as wild and domesticated animals. Settlers hunted many of the same mammals that Native peoples did and analyses of these remains have yielded evidence of turkey and goose, deer, bear and fox. Maple sugar, sweet potatoes, walnuts and berries were woven into their diet and supplemented the other food sources. The introduction of potatoes, corn, sunflowers and squash from North America to Europe was an important contribution to their available food sources. In exchange, European settlers introduced new crops to the colonies including wheat, oats and rye grasses. European grasses grew well in the soils of Pennsylvania and contributed to the designation as “breadbasket of America” in the 1800’s. These grasses were also fed to domesticated animals brought to North America by the colonists. Sheep were an early import from Europe and the wool produced from them was an important commodity for colonists. The introduction of better domesticated cattle from Europe to North America was also a significant event in the development of foodways for the colonists of Pennsylvania.

Historical archaeologists have examined farmsteads of the 18th and 19th century researching patterns in structure design and layout. They have looked at the goods consumed on family farms, which of these were locally made and which were imported as indicators of social standing and wealth. Excavations of barn and house foundations have produced personal affects and yielded information regarding structure size and placement. By examining these early farmsteads we are able to paint a picture of some of Pennsylvania’s early heritage and the influences that culture had on agriculture. The hardy settlers of this state, the Germans, Scotch-Irish, English, Dutch and Swedes all contributed to the development of Pennsylvania as a leader in food production.

The 18th and 19th century mark a period of transition from viewing food procurement as necessary for sustainability to one of agriculture and farming as a marketable commodity capable of providing food for multiple families. As populations in colonial America grew, the demand for foods increased and Pennsylvania led the colonies in food production. The industrial revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries transformed farming from small family farms into a highly specialized and mechanized industry. Popular journals and newspapers provided information on new equipment and improved methods of farm management. Food production continued to grow and as roads and canals developed the ability to transport goods to larger markets aided in the growth of farming. Agriculture changed from small plots to sustain a village or band of Native peoples to larger tracts of land capable of sustaining large settlements, sometimes many miles from the farm.

Gas powered tractors and equipment further increased farm production.

Today there are 2,300 food-processing companies in Pennsylvania which is the leading producer in the United States of mushrooms. Food products include canned fruit, vegetables, chocolate, potato chips, and pretzels. Heinz ketchup, Mrs. T’s Pierogies, Hershey’s Chocolate, Troyer Farms Chips, Utz Pretzels and the list goes on have all contributed to the designation as “Snack Food Capital of the World.” The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture states that these industries generate more than $5.1 billion in sales annually! Don’t forget dairy production in Pennsylvania- ice cream, butter and cheese are also fast growing sectors of agriculture. Many of these foods are distinctly Pennsylvanian and reflect the cultural heritage of our state; shoo-fly-pie, pierogies, Lebanon bologna, and soft pretzels are regional favorites which many from south Central PA can proudly identify.

2007 Butter Sculpture at the Pennsylvania Farm Show

There is no better place to experience all that Pennsylvania agriculture has to offer than the Pennsylvania Farm Show. Tomorrow the 96th Pennsylvania Farm Show opens and we will be there. Our exhibit is installed and is sure to interest all of the visitors interested in archaeology and the development of Native Foodways. Artifacts from the Paleoindian period through the Woodland period are on display. Our newest brochure on Foodways is available and of course- the dugout canoe is waiting for a stream of steady visitors. Come on out, enjoy a milk shake, baked potato, fried mushrooms, maple sugar candy or any of the other delicious foods prepared from foods raised on Pennsylvania farms and celebrate the heritage of farming in our state.

Two visitors at the Farm Show try out our dugout canoe.

We are located in the Family Living Section not far from the carousel and the butter sculpture- Hope to see you there!
January 7th - 14th Pennsylvania Farm Show, 9-9 Saturday to Friday.
9-6 on Saturday 1/14th

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Plant Foods of the Middle and Late Woodland

2011-12-30T14:47:00.002-05:00

Following the path of our blog series on the “Evolution of Foodways” we now move on to the later Woodland periods. However, before we discuss the kinds of plant foods that were used by indigenous groups of this period let’s take a look at how the environment changed human adaptation after the Transitional Period and feature some of the hallmark artifacts of the time.

Around 2000 years ago the climate of Pennsylvania was generally cool and moist and the forests were dominated by dense growths of Quercus spp.(Oak), Tsuga spp.(Hemlock) and Castanea spp.(Chestnut) that supported a plethora of birds and animals. Valley bottoms grew in size because of the amplified alluviation of the floodplains that, often, flooded their banks thereby enriching the soils for plant growth. By about 1500 years ago there appears to have been a trend to a slightly warmer yet moist climate that continued to support the healthy growth of hardwoods and great hemlocks . The valleys began to stabilize with fewer seasonal floodings occurring. At the beginning of the Late Woodland period around 900-1000 AD., the climate returned to cooler and drier conditions giving rise to conifer growth, namely Picea spp. (spruce) and Pinus spp. (pine) with a return to more frequent flooding of the river valleys. A dramatic change occurred around 1300-1350 AD., with the onset of the Neo-Boreal or what climatologists called the“Little Ice Age” when conditions for crop failures rose dramatically throughout the world. This was in complete contrast from the earlier Medieval Maximum period at the Middle to Late Woodland period transition when crops and the climate were much kinder to humans and their environment. The “Little Ice Age” lasted well into the Historic Period - ending around 1850 AD. when the United States was rapidly expanding westward.

Each succeeding cultural period had its definitive stone point style. The trend seems to have been from fluted points in the Paleoindian period to atlatl spear points and knives in the Archaic /Transitional/ and Early Woodland periods to generally smaller Middle Woodland and Late Woodland forms. It was during the Middle to Late Woodland transition circa. 700/850-900 AD. when the bow and arrow seems to arrive on the scene. Indeed, this was a technological break in the cultural record that was hallmarked by small corner notched and triangular-shaped points.

Ishi with bow and arrow

Triangular Points

Now, on with the foods. Many nut species are present at archaeological sites of this general period. Common were Carya spp. (hickory), Juglans spp. (butternut), Castanea spp. (chestnut) and a host of other species. Although starchy foods such as arrowroot and wild artichoke tubers would have been available for human consumption along with a host of other fleshy foods the archaeological evidence is rare. Strides being made through the analysis of starch grains may well be the tool that unlocks many of the hidden secrets associated with certain prehistoric plant use. Beginning with the Middle Woodland period and extending into the Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric period, Pennsylvania’s indigenous Indian populations were propagating some native plant foods of the Eastern Agricultural Complex. Although there are no direct correlations with radiocarbon dates for the Middle Woodland the plant foods of the period include Cucurbita pepo (squash/gourd); Chenopodium spp. (goosefoot); Polygonum spp. (knotweed or smartweed); Hordeum pusillum (little barley); Phalaris caroliniana (maygrass); Iva annua (sumpweed). Most of these plant foods are well represented at archaeological sites of the following Late Woodland/Late prehistoric period with the inclusion of Helianthus annuus (sunflower).

Squash

Sunflower

Many of the plants that Native Americans cultivated as a source for food arrived in northeast North America from Mexico long ago. The paleobotanical record shows that these foods began to spread far back in time and the vast Mississippi River valley that drains much of the central plains region of the United States was the principal route by which people and their ideas spread into the remote interior of North America.

About two thousand years ago, beginning with the Early/Middle Woodland period transition several of these plant foods became extremely important to prehistoric Native Americans living in the Mississippi Valley and its wide spread tributary regions. Corn’s ancestor, teosinte, a plant of the grass family having hard triangular-shaped kernels, whose origin was Central America has around a 9,000 years old history! Through plant husbandry and selective growing , one of its descendents, Zea mays (corn) evolved from a number of popcorn varieties. Following these were the “southern dents” and the “northern flints”, the varieties that essentially comprise the corns that are grown and consumed today.

Teosinte and Modern Corn

Although the antiquity of beans in the Eastern Hemisphere has the equivalent antiquity of corn in the Western Hemisphere, cultivated beans (Phaseolus) apparently did not appear until much later in our part of the world. As the evidence is now viewed, the earliest beans were recovered from the buried dusty soil deposits of a dry Peruvian site called Guitarrero Cave. Beans from that site are about 4000 years old.

Beginning with the 1960’s investigations of archaeological sites, an archaeological recovery technique called flotation was developed that broadened our knowledge regarding plant foods and their implications for use among prehistoric societies. As previous TWIPA blogs have shown, many prehistoric sites where this method of archaeological recovery was employed, reveals a diverse assemblage of plant utilization from Paleoindian to the Late Woodland periods.

Throughout the Upper Ohio Valley, Susquehanna Valley and the Delaware Valley corn and beans were without question the principal plant crops grown and eaten by prehistoric groups. As well, some of the plant byproducts from corn made useful objects such as sandals, mats, salt bottles, ceremonial masks, etc. Many of these unique items have survived the ages for us to see in museums throughout the world.

The earliest corn in Pennsylvania is dated to 2300 years ago. It is a small 16 row popcorn cob from Meadowcroft Rockshelter located in the Cross Creek drainage of the Upper Ohio Valley. Corn from later occupations within the rockshelter contained 10, 12 and 14 row cobs thereby stratigraphically demonstrating their younger age. Corn recovered from the Sheep Rock Shelter, a site flooded by the Raystown Reservoir has not been radiocarbon dated so its antiquity cannot be ascertained at this time. Dated corn specimens reported from Pennsylvania, bracket the terminal Middle to Late Woodland transition and later Late Prehistoric periods. The earliest corn dates are around AD 950, and are associated with the Clemson Island/Owasco occupations of the Susquehanna Valley. Strontium analysis of bone from this period clearly show that the consumption of corn exceeded 50% of the indigenous diet at this time. By the 13th century when village life became more settled the dominant variety is the 12 row Flint corn.

Common Bean

The common bean Phaseolus vulgaris does not arrive in Pennsylvania until sometime in the 13th century where carbonized specimens show up in archaeological site contexts of the Susquehanna Valley. By then, village life became more structured with planned fortified settlements being the norm. One must remember that the introduction and propagation of crops such as corn and beans, supported larger populations. This situation reduced the size of buffer zones between competing social groups (ie. hunting and fishing territories, firewood and new land to replace old fields depleted of nutrients). This was probably at least part of the explanation for increased warfare during the Late Woodland period.

By comparison, the Delaware valley seems to have experienced a different set of circumstances in terms of the paleobotanical subsistence record and site usage during these later periods of prehistory. Planned villages appear to be non-existent! Although corn and beans occur in good archaeological contexts at these sites their contexts suggest seasonal usage at floodplain locations adjacent to fishing grounds. Few structural remains such as houses and no palisades have been found that typify some level of permanency as regards to land usage during the later Woodland periods. Sites normally show a predilection for short term use by virtue of trash filled pits containing much of the assemblage normally representative of site use. Yet the carbonized corn and bean remains that suggest agricultural use are present in the refilled trash pits. Whatever the case, we do know that the people living the Delaware Valley at this time were consuming corn and beans as well as many wild plant foods.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Native American Foodways- The Transitional Period 4,300 – 2,700 years ago

2011-12-23T12:30:00.018-05:00

The Transitional period is characterized by the use of multifunctional broadspear and fishtail biface types, steatite bowls, the earliest ceramic pottery, enormous fire-cracked-rock (FCR) features and the trade of jasper and metarhyolite over large regions. The beginning of this period corresponds with the warm and dry Sub-Boreal climatic episode. These conditions were different from the warm and wet Late Archaic period and led to periodic food shortages. The climate of the Transitional period ended with a return of generally warm and wet conditions (the Sub-Atlantic climatic episode) that encouraged the spread of chestnut trees in the Pennsylvania forest. Based on artifacts, site locations and preserved food remains, people of the Transitional period ate the same variety of foods that were consumed during Archaic times. Deer, elk, a variety of small mammals, fish, shell fish, birds, hickory nuts, walnuts, acorns and a variety of seeds, roots and berries were all being used; seemingly everything edible in the forest was being exploited. However, there were two major differences from the Late Archaic period.

Broadspears and Fishtail projectile points

During the Transitional period, food was cooked or processed differently than previous times. There were two significant changes. The major innovation and a hallmark of this period was the use of carved stone bowls made from steatite or soapstone. These appeared approximately 3900 years ago. Steatite bowls were found in a variety of sizes, holding from less than a pint to several gallons. Some exhibit evidence of heating in the form of smoke stains on the outside and some do not seem to have been used for cooking. Their function has been debated but the largest bowls clearly represent cooking containers. They were the first portable cooking containers to appear in the archaeological record. Baskets lined with animal hide may have been used during earlier times but these are also rarely preserved in the archaeological record. The ability to boil foods had several nutritional advantages such as retaining calories and removing toxins. Generally, the use of steatite bowls in cooking represented an increase in the efficiency of processing foods that was a necessary response to periodic food shortages.

A second change in the way foods were processed is indicated by the increase in the frequency of fire-cracked-rock (FCR) features (the end result of heating stone in cooking fires – link to blog of April 15, 2011) in the archaeological record. Floodplain sites typically contain large quantities of FCR in the form of dense concentrations and/or large, diffused scatters. Late Archaic sites contain rock hearths but Transitional period sites contain more hearths and much larger quantities of FCR. During the Transitional period, FCR features are commonly over ten feet in diameter and six inches thick. Archaeologists have long thought that since these sites were usually along major rivers, these features represent large fish drying racks. More recently, archaeologists have posited other explanations for FCR concentrations by experimenting with different cooking techniques and using a variety of foods. Based on this research, these features could have been used to dry or roast other meats, shellfish, or nuts. The considerable quantities of FCR seem to represent the processing of foods that were available in large quantities such as would have occurred during annual fish and waterfowl migrations or the seasonal harvesting of nuts and seeds.

Large fire-cracked-rock feature of the Transitional period

However, countering the roasting interpretation is the observation that FCR features rarely contain fishbone (or any other type of bone) and frequently, very little charcoal. An alternative to the roasting/drying hypothesis is that FCR resulted from a process called “stone boiling.” This method began by digging a hole in the ground the hole would that would be lined with animal hide in order to seal it, which is than filled with water. In a near-by fire, rocks would be heated and added to the water using tongs made from saplings the heated rocks would be added to the water. Within half an hour, a soup of hickory nuts, seeds, and fish could be brought to a boil. It is also possible that rather than digging a hole in the ground, native people simply lined a large basket with animal hide. Another method involved filling the pit with heated rock and green leaves to construct an earth oven for steaming. As with boiling, steaming preserves more calories over foods that are roasted on an open fire. The FCR produced from boiling/steaming appears as either dense clusters or piles of FCR as if it were dumped from a container or the FCR is scattered over large areas of the living floors.

Image of native peoples boiling foods.

These features represent a more efficient cooking method that resulted in more calories being extracted from these foods. The use of steatite bowls for cooking and the widespread appearance of FCR features are an indication that Native American groups were intensifying their exploitation of the environment This technological change allowed for an increase in the carrying capacity of the environment to support native populations during times of periodic shortages.

Steatitie bowls mark a significant change in food processing during the Transitional Period.

The second major difference in subsistence patterns of the Transitional period is probably more significant and has come to light as the result of improved archaeological methods. The preservation of organic materials and the reconstruction of prehistoric diets has long been a problem for archaeologists because food remains are rarely preserved at archaeological sites. However, beginning in the late 1990s, archaeology experienced a transformation in collecting techniques called the “paleoethnobotanical revolution”. The regular use of flotation methods has resulted in the recovery of many small artifacts, especially food remains such as seeds and nut parts. In addition, improvements in scientific analysis have allowed archaeologists to now analyze the charred residue found on the inside of steatite bowls and pottery. They are even able to identify plant residues on grinding stones.

Floatation is an essential tool in analyzing the diet of Native peoples.

The consistent use of these methods has revealed a more detailed list and extensive use of plant foods than previously realized. Several new foods have been identified including little barley and chenopodium (both seed producing plants). In the Mississippi Valley these plants are part of what is known as the Eastern Agricultural Complex and they were domesticated (i.e. seeds were planted, plants were cultivated and the best seeds were selected for growing next year’s crop). It is debated as to whether they were domesticated in Pennsylvania during Transitional times or simply collected wild. Squash (pumpkin) has also been found at one Transitional period site in Pennsylvania. This plant is not native to Pennsylvania and was domesticated in in the southwestern United States over 5000 years ago. Squash not only served as a food source but its hard shell was used as a container. The remains from Pennsylvania could be the result of trade but the more common recovery of little barley and chenopodium suggests that it was planted by local peoples. Although a small start, it would seem that Transitional people were working small garden plots to satisfy the needs of the
community during food shortages.

Image from exhibit in The State Museum of Pennsylvania Anthropology & Archaeology Gallery

As in the Archaic, Transitional period people were using a diversity of foods as but they were processing them more efficiently. In addition, they seem to have intensified the use of seed plants and they were probably cultivating some plants. Indeed, maintaining a garden required more work than simply collecting wild seeds and nuts. In addition, some foods, such as acorns from red oaks (as compared to white oaks) contain more tannin that requires processing to remove the bitter tasting and acidic compounds. Transitional period people began the process of horticulture, thereby producing more food but at the same time were spending more hours at recovering calories from their environment. It is assumed by many archaeologists that the extra work was necessary to support larger populations.

Finally, during the Transitional period there is extensive evidence for trade with other groups and there are indications that families were organized differently to more efficiently exploit a variety of resources. Band size continued to change based on seasonally available foods but the spring fishing camp or the fall hickory nut collecting camp likely contained ten to twelve families (over 50 men, women, and children). Clay pottery was introduced at the end of the Transitional period and suggests that families were becoming more sedentary. Near the end of this period, it is believed that native peoples were increasingly cultivating plants in small gardens that included squash, little barley, knotweed and lambs quarter. This was the beginning of farming in Pennsylvania and a more sedentary life that had a profound affect on family social organization (although the details are not known). The climate improves near the end of the Transitional period, broadspears and fishtail bifaces disappear, however ceramic pottery replaces steatite bowls over a period of several hundred years. The exploitation of domesticated plants continued into the Early and Middle Woodland times but whatever was being processed with FCR generally ceases. The need for this intensive processing is possibly offset by a focus on seed plants, some of which were cultivated. The cultivation of these plants was facilitated by the warm and wet conditions of the Sub-Atlantic climatic episode.

Our decorated Perkiomen Broadspear

Best Wishes for the Holidays!
The Staff of The Section of Archaeology
The State Museum of Pennsylvania

See you at The Pennsylvania Farm Show January 7th-14th, 2012!

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

The Evolution of the Archaic Period Diet

2011-12-16T17:02:00.000-05:00

This week we will continue with our presentation on the evolution of “foodways” in Pennsylvania by describing subsistence patterns during the Archaic period. This period dates from 10,000 to4,300 years ago and is divided into the Early, Middle and Late stages.

Climatically it begins at the end of the Ice Age and the onset of the modern climate or the Holocene epic. It is characterized by temperatures and precipitation that quickly rose to near modern conditions with the spruce parkland of the Ice Age being replaced by a spruce/pine forest. Deciduous trees, such as oak, were mainly found on terraces along the larger rivers and streams. Otherwise, the land that would become Pennsylvania was covered by a dense, coniferous forest. Food resources were limited and concentrated in river valleys, upland swamps and bogs.

The major technological change defining the Early Archaic was found in the shape of spear points. Fluted and lanceolate shapes or forms changed to mainly corner-notched forms such as Kirk, Palmer and Charleston types.

As is true for the Paleoindian period, very few food remains are preserved at Early Archaic sites and subsistence is inferred from tool types and the potential foods available in the Holocene environment. Population size did not significantly increase over Paleoindian times and bands consisted of less than five families (20 – 25 men, women and children). It is assumed that people of the Early Archaic period were generalized foragers i.e hunters and gatherers. In many ways the subsistence patterns of the Early Archaic were not much different than those of the Paleoindian period. Bands moved over large territories to the location of concentrated and easily collected foods. Native Americans no longer exploited migratory game as was probably done during earlier Clovis times but the hunting of elk, deer and small game was common. Hunting animals and fishing probably continued as the main source of food contributing 50% of the caloric intake of each person. The remainder of their diet consisted of seeds, nuts, roots and berries. However, there is little evidence that stone tools were used to prepare these foods although the processing aspect was probably accomplished with wood, bone or antler tools that are not normally preserved in the archaeological record of prehistoric Pennsylvania.

By approximately 9,000 years ago, the beginning of the Middle Archaic period, broad leafed trees were filling the forests. A wide variety of nut bearing trees (walnut, hickory, butternut, oaks with acorns) seed producing grasses, edible roots and berries became available for consumption. Along with a greater variety of mammals (deer, beaver, bear, rabbit), birds (turkey, ducks) and fish (Atlantic sturgeon, shad, Atlantic salmon), there was a huge increase in the quantity of foods available to humans. Tools to exploit the hardwood forest such as axes and adzes became common and the atlatl (spear thrower) was used in hunting. Although the available data base is limited, charred acorns and walnut shells began to appear in the archaeological record. Grinding stones for processing seeds and nuts begin to appear, as do and netweights for fishing. These tools suggest that plant foods and fishing were becoming more important and were being processed in larger numbers. Generally, it is simply easier to collect large quantities of seeds or nuts, than it is to kill and process a deer for example. In addition, plant foods usually preserve longer than animal foods. Based on the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey files, there is a 150% increase in the number of sites from this time period compared to the Early Archaic and it is believed that this represents a significant increase in human populations. Bands continue to follow a regular seasonal pattern of movements but their territories become smaller than during the Early Archaic period. Band size does not seem to have increased but there appears to be many more bands in an overall larger population. However, food resources in this environment were so plentiful that there was little need to develop special tools to intensify their exploitation of the environment.

The Late Archaic period is an intensification of trends developed during the Middle Archaic period. Human populations continue to increase in size and band size increased to six to eight families (25 – 35 men, women and children). Grinding stones and netweights become very common. Nets may also have been used to bring down nesting and migratory birds. By the Late Archaic, band size increased to the point where these foods needed to be more efficiently processed and in larger quantities to increase the caloric intake of the band. Large roasting hearths appear and seem to represent large scale food processing. These features are frequently found on floodplain sites and were initially thought to represent large fish drying platforms. However, more recent data suggests that they were used to process nuts or tubers (roots). As during previous times, the bands changed in size depending on the foods being exploited but they are now larger and seem to have occupied the sites for longer periods of time. During spring fish migrations and fall nut harvests, these groups may have grown to 50 or more people. In winter, they broke into smaller groups to harvest deer and small game in upland camps. Finally, by the end of the Late Archaic there is good evidence in the form of charred nut shells and preserved plant residues that show a greater variety of plant foods, especially seeds, were being exploited. In addition, there are indications that Native Americans began to focus more of their time collecting and growing seed plants. Squash, grown in small gardens were likely the first cultigens supplementing the Archaic diet.

The Archaic period is an interesting time of population growth in a relatively bountiful environment. During the Early Archaic period, human populations remained small, the environment did not contain large amount of food resources and the types of tools were not much different than during Paleoindian times. Beginning in the Middle Archaic period, human populations had grown significantly but food resources also increased. There was little need to develop stone tools to maximize the processing of these foods because of their abundance. By Late Archaic times, human populations continued to increase and food processing tools such as grinding stones and net sinkers became common and necessary to support the large population. Throughout this time period, Native Americans practiced a regular pattern of seasonal movements to exploit food resources; the group moved to settings where food resources were concentrated and easily processed. There are no indicators of significant changes in social organization or trade.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Paleoindian Diet

2011-12-09T17:07:00.001-05:00

During this holiday season, many of us will eat too much but promise ourselves that we will diet as soon as the feasting is over. As if to acknowledge this schizophrenic behavior, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission has chosen Pennsylvania Foodways as its theme for 2012. The first major presentation of this theme will be at the Pennsylvania Farm Show from 1/7/12 – 1/14/12. The goal of the PHMC is to celebrate and commemorate the history of agriculture and the famous foods (the oldest brewery and the most snack foods) of the Commonwealth. In keeping with this theme, our blog until the end of the Farm Show, will cover the evolution of subsistence patterns in Pennsylvania or people’s diet over the past 16,000 years. We will begin with Native American subsistence patterns and end with subsistence patterns of the colonial period. This week, we begin with the Paleoindian period.

The Paleoindian period dates between 16,000 and 10,000 years ago. It generally corresponds to the end of the Ice Age. The land that eventually became Pennsylvania was not the lush forest Native Americans enjoyed at the time of European contact. Instead it was an open spruce forest with only a few broad leafed trees such as oaks along the major streams and rivers. This environment did not contain nearly the food resources that were available to Native Americans during later time periods.

A major problem with determining the Paleoindian diet is the very poor preservation of organic remains such as animal bones or plant parts in the eastern United States. Unless they are partially burned, these are hardly ever preserved in the archaeological record. Much of the early speculation on the diet of Paleoindians was based on archaeology conducted in the western United States. Based on archaeological sites excavated in the west that contained the remains of mammoth, mastodon and extinct bison, archaeologists believed for a long time that Paleoindians in Pennsylvania were highly mobile, big-game hunters. In Florida, there is a growing body of data indicating mammoth steaks were part of the Paleoindian subsistence pattern. It was assumed that Paleoindians also hunted a variety of smaller animals and ate a wide variety of plant foods, but a significant part of their diet was based on now extinct Ice Age animals. However, in the Northeast, there is no association of extinct animals with Paleoindian artifacts. In fact, the East (north of Florida) does not contain much data to address the issue of diet. Therefore, answering the question of what Paleoindians ate has been a major obstacle to understanding their adaptation.

The Shoop site (36Da20) was one of the first Paleoindian sites reported in the East and it seemed to support the “big game hunting” hypothesis. This site is located in upper Dauphin County, nine miles east of the Susquehanna River. It is the largest Paleoindian site in Pennsylvania and one of the largest in the eastern United States. It was first analyzed by John Witthoft, in 1952, who was then Pennsylvania’s State Archaeologist. The site has produced over one thousand tools, including hundreds of scrapers (probably used to clean animal hides) and approximately ninety fluted spear points.

Shoop Site (36Da20) fluted projectile points

The stone used to make 98% of these tools is Onondaga chert and its nearest source is western New York, 250 miles to the north. There are at least eleven concentrations of artifacts at the Shoop site. One theory is that each concentration represents a separate visit between western New York and central Pennsylvania. No food remains have been found, but it is hard to attribute the high numbers of spear points and possible hide scraping tools on a ridge top setting to anything other than hunting. Archaeologists have long speculated that this site was probably situated on a caribou or elk migration route and was visited on an annual basis to hunt these animals.

Caribou hunting

The majority of Paleoindian sites in Pennsylvania are small and only contain one or two fluted spear points and a few other stone tools. Food remains in the form of partially burned bone, nuts or seeds are hardly ever found. One of the few sites in the East to produce actual dietary remains is the Shawnee-Minisink (36Mr43) site in the Upper Delaware Valley. This site has changed the theory that portrayed the Paleoindians as the big-game hunters in the East. Shawnee-Minisink is one of the few deeply buried Paleoindian sites in the East. The site was discovered by Don Kline and first excavated by Dr. Charles McNett from American University. More recently, additional excavations have been completed under the direction of Joseph Gingerich of the University of Wyoming. The site contains many tools, including over one hundred scrapers but only two fluted points. Based on radiocarbon dating, the Paleoindian occupation dates to 10,950 years ago.

fluted projectile points from Shawnee Minisink Site (36Mr43)

Several cooking hearths yielded a variety of carbonized seeds including hawthorn plum, hickory, and fish bone. Unfortunately, the fish bone could not be identified to genus or species. The occupants of this site seem to be generalized foragers rather than big game hunters. Compared to the Shoop site, there is no evidence in the form of large numbers of stone spear points for extensive hunting at Shawnee-Minisink. Further, 95% of the stone for making tools was a locally quarried chert probably collected within two miles of the site. The remaining toolstone originated less than 100 miles from its source which suggests a territory much smaller than the Shoop site.

These two sites present very different pictures of Paleoindian subsistence patterns and the Paleoindian lifestyle. However, when we begin to examine Paleoindian sites to the north in New England and Canada or to the south in Virginia and the Carolinas, a pattern begins to emerge. There are several sites in New England that are similar to Shoop with large numbers of spear points and hide scrapers made in stone that was transported hundreds of miles. At several of these sites fragments of burned caribou bone has been recovered verifying the exploitation of this animal. To the south, Paleoindian habitation sites are small, containing small numbers of finished spear points, a variety of tool types and these are frequently made in stone from sources less than 100 miles away. These two types of sites seem to represent different subsistence patterns; one exploiting a variety of plants, animals and fish and the other utilizing at least some of their time exploiting migratory game such as caribou, elk, or migratory birds.

Pennsylvania is on the border of these two adaptations. During the Paleoindian period in both regions people moved their camps in a seasonal pattern or “round” to the locations of predictable food resources, such as along the migration routes of caribou, water fowl, or anadromous (spawning) fish. The seasonal round also included a number of plant-food collecting sites although we do not know much about these. Compared to later groups, their seasonal round was very large covering over 100 miles. In the northern part of the state there is evidence for the hunting of migratory caribou. In the southern part of state, general foraging in the form of gathering seeds, nuts, berries, roots and fishing was more common. Their subsistence strategy involved collecting the most concentrated foods and those that did not require any special processing. Their adaptation involved traveling long distances to more easily exploitable resources. The Ice Age was a harsh time, but human populations were very low and there was little competition among bands over the easily exploitable foods. Although, the overall quantity of food in this environment was low, the human population was also small permitting their choice of foods that were the easiest to collect. Although hunting probably dominated Paleoindian subsistence in Pennsylvania, they were not primarily big game hunters and approximately 40% of their diet was from seeds, nuts, berries and roots. This is in contrast to the Archaic period when plant foods dominated the diet.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Dyottville Glassworks

2011-12-02T14:56:00.000-05:00

Dyottville Glass Works (36Ph37) excavation, facing South

Welcome back! We trust all our readers have recovered from their tryptophan induced stupors of last week’s annual tribute to gastronomic excess. To burn off those extra helpings of stuffing we all enjoyed, some of the staff from The State Museum of PA's Section of Archaeology and the Bureau for Historic Preservation participated Monday in a field visit to an archaeological site along the Philadelphia waterfront, currently underway as part of a PennDoT project to improve a portion of Interstate 95.

View of Dyottville Glass Works (36Ph37) facing Northwest, I-95 in background

Down by the river (please excuse the Chris Farley reference) and a stone’s throw away from whizzing interstate traffic, a team of archaeologists from URS Corporation, lead by Doug Mooney, have uncovered the remains of an important part of our nation’s emerging industrial might of the 19th Century, the Dyottville Glass manufacturing complex along the Delaware River.

sample of glass bottle fragments and other glass objects recovered during excavation

“Dr. Thomas Dyott arrived in Philadelphia from England in the 1790s. Starting out as a manufacturer of patent medicines, he eventually acquired a glass factory near Kensington.” (Cotter, Roberts and Parrington pg. 451). While the glassworks would continue production throughout the 19th century, Dr. Dyotts involvement was comparatively short-lived. “The factory was closed down in 1839 when its proprietor was found guilty of fraudulent insolvency and jailed. It reopened under new management three years later.” (Cotter, Roberts and Parrington pg. 452).

fragments of glass walking canes from Dyottville

Not surprisingly due to its proximity to the Delaware River, prehistoric artifacts such as triangular projectile points and fragments of native-made pottery dating to the Late Woodland period were discovered at the site underneath the multiple layers of historic occupation.

During the visit, it was noted that with a great deal of attention being focused on archaeological investigations that have taken place near Center City (in association with Independence Hall, the National Constitution Center, and President Washington’s house, etc.), residents of the somewhat removed Kensington and Fishtown neighborhoods of the city have taken a measure of pride in a piece of their own heritage discovered just a few blocks from their doorsteps. Yo!

Click here for an article that Hayden Mitman wrote for the Northeast Times about an artifact exhibit at the Kensington CAPA High School, and here for a more in-depth overview of Dyottville by Ian Charlton of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania for Philaplace.org.

Thanks go to Doug Mooney, George Cress and Stephen Tull of URS Corp. and Cathy Spohn, PennDoT District 6 Archaeologist, for coordinating what proved to be an interesting and informative visit to an archaeological site in a dense urban-industrial setting on an unusually balmy late November afternoon.

Reference:

(1992) Cotter, John L.; Daniel G. Roberts; Michael Parrington

The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. University Press, Philadelphia

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Analyzing Dietary Remains of the Past

2011-11-23T15:23:00.002-05:00

With the theme of Thanksgiving in mind our thoughts this week turn to diets. Nothing to do with dieting, rather we’d like to look at what people have eaten for the past few thousands of years. Most people immediately think about deer, elk or bear for meat, some may think of corn or grains. The diet of native peoples was very diverse and complex and changed over time in conjunction with changes in the environment. You might wonder how archaeologists are able to recreate a picture of the foods consumed by native peoples thousands of years ago.

Paleoethnobotany is the science which looks at the relationship between humans and plants. How humans impact the development of plants and the level of labor required to process these plants and seeds. What is preserved? How do we recover these remains of the past? With assistance this week from a guest blogger Roger Moeller, PhD, we will learn about the floatation process.

The flotation process is very simple. The best flotation tub is a square, galvanized, handled, wash tub (12 gal Dovertm) with the bottom replaced by 1/16” hardware cloth. Standing in flowing water with the tub submerged to within 3" of the rim, slowly pour soil into the tub while agitating the tub in a circular pattern. When the all the fine-grained soil has passed through the screen, skim the floating materials with a tea strainer and place them onto a drying pan. When all the floating material has been skimmed, lift the tub out of the water and pour the heavy portion onto the same or separate drying pan. When the materials have dried, sort them into seeds, bones, lithics, charcoal, and other categories. Each different item is identified and quantified. This sounds very simple, but it is not.

flotation in progress using local water source

Unfortunately all of these good intentions and hard work are more than likely to produce at best inconsistent truisms if the samples are too small, not intensively or systematically collected, or culturally biased. The keys to the flotation trap are that random samples produce random results, small samples produce small results, and culturally biased samples produce meaningless results. Stratigraphy must be followed, and holistic studies are the only way to create a complete data set. Flotation is of undeniable importance in determining the qualitative nature of data present. Without it, data interpretation is severely handicapped or, even worse, misleading.

Excavations at one site prior to the use of flotation recovered only a small quantity of bone. The assumption was made that the acidic soil had long since destroyed all but the large, heavy bones. Flotation showed a variety of small mammals, fish, birds, amphibians, and a much wider distribution of mussels which had only been inferred previously. Even though they may represent only a small fraction of the total bone recovered by weight, the species they represent played a role in aboriginal subsistence and must be taken into account.

sorting float material back at the lab

There is also the smaller debitage (byproducts of stone tool manufacture) which is indicative of close retouch or reworking of artifacts. Missing these data would distort the range of manufacturing and maintenance tasks undertaken. The identification of seed remains provides the necessary data for determining diet, seasonality, eco-niches exploited, reasons for the encampments, and possible techniques for food preparation and preservation. Without flotation very few seeds would ever be recovered during excavation.

The discarded soil matrix as well as control samples from seemingly non-cultural zones should be analyzed as closely as the cultural samples. What seems intuitively obvious in the field when the context was positive should be quantified and described for those contexts of unknown integrity. What is not found can be as important as what is found. The recent contaminants (background noise) can yield data crucial to interpreting the occupation. One's interpretation can be biased by the nature of the flotation sampling regime. To understand what should be done, one must start by defining a meaningful cultural context, proceed with the appropriate equipment, conduct an intensive analysis of all materials found in the dried flotation samples, and interpret everything within a holistic framework.

Everything present means something in relation to everything else. Flotation sampling should be thought of in the same light as soil coring. There must be a precise level by level record of the soil strata which can be examined for color, texture, nature of inclusions, and cultural materials. Many samples are taken since there is no reason to assume that the strata or contexts are identical everywhere on the site. The precise location of the sample is mapped to facilitate its correlation with other observations, artifacts, and ecofacts to aid in the analysis and interpretation of the site.

flotation material sorted and bagged by artifact type

Flotation is by far the most economical and efficient technique yet devised for the large scale recovery of small scale remains from archaeological deposits. At one site all the thousands of carbonized seeds, most of the identifiable bones, and a small percentage of the thousands of artifacts examined, counted, and classified were the result of flotation.

Dr. Moeller has addressed some of the key issues in the floatation process. As he points out paramount to the success of this type of analysis is the need for controlled collection and floatation from every level of a site and across a broad scope. This level of analysis is time consuming and often costly, but the benefits have far outweighed the costs in terms of identifying the food sources of Native peoples. Archaeologists are enhancing this data set every time an excavation is conducted utilizing floatation. We often have written about “painting a picture of our past” this is the type of data that strengthens our analysis and interpretation.

Paleoethnobotanists have identified the presence of squash much earlier in the archaeological record than previously thought. This evidence needs to be tested against other data to ensure its accuracy, but archaeologists are excited by this increased interest in floatation and the merits of research. As we sit down to our Thanksgiving meal, let’s take a moment to reflect on the role of prehistory on the development of the plants, nuts and seeds we enjoy today.

Keep checking back with us over the next few weeks as we continue to develop our Farm Show exhibit on Native American foodways in Pennsylvania, and mark your calendars for the week of January 7th to visit the exhibit at thePennsylvania Farm Show Building.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

The Future of the Past is Now: 3D artifact scanning

2011-11-18T15:41:00.002-05:00

Guest blogger Dr. Bernard Means

Our guest blogger is Dr. Bernard K. Means, of Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Means is a repeat "guest blogger" and we welcome his overview of new technology available for research and preservation of archaeological collections.

Figure 1
Clinton King of Virginia Commonwealth University

On November 4, 2011, the Virtual Curation Unit for Recording Archaeology Materials Systematically (V.C.U.-R.A.M.S.) arrived at The State Museum of Pennsylvania to create 3D topological models of artifacts in the museum’s collections. The team consisted of myself as project director and Clinton King, our digital curator (Figure 1). Clinton is also an undergraduate student in anthropology at Virginia Commonwealth University. We had with us our NextEngine 3D object scanner. The V.C.U.-R.A.M.S. project is currently funded by the Department of Defense’s Legacy Program and was developed in cooperation with John Haynes, archaeologist for Marine Corps Base Quantico. The Legacy Program’s overall goal is to test innovative approaches and technologies to foster preservation of cultural resources on their bases across the world. Our specific task with our virtual archaeology curation project is to test the possibilities and limitations of 3D artifact scanning as a way to preserve critical cultural resources and make the digital models we create accessible to a larger audience of scholars and the interested public.

We selected The State Museum of Pennsylvania as a place to test our 3D artifact scanner because we knew that the archaeology division holds a vast array of archaeological objects, some of which are over 10,000 years old. From my own experience, I also know that archaeology division personnel really know their collection well, are very open to having research conducted on these collections, and are very helpful in providing access. My thanks to Janet, Kurt, Dave, and Liz for their help with getting the materials we needed for scanning.

figure 2

Scanning of archaeological objects is a time-consuming process, so we selected a wide range of items to test the scanning process. We selected four items to scan: a snake skeleton still (largely) in its original soil matrix; a Monongahela pot; a Paleoindian point; and, a decorated sherd. The snake skeleton in soil matrix was recovered in 1941 from the Martin site, a Monongahela village once located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania—and now under the waters of the Youghiogheny Reservoir (Figure 2). The skeleton was recovered from above a burial. The skeleton was chosen for scanning because it represented a unique object—both bone and soil—and because it will eventually begin to break down. In fact, some vertebrae have fallen out of the soil matrix. One of the potential strengths of 3D scanning is the ability to preserve objects that are or eventually will decay. We also scanned a Monongahela pot from the Martin site which had been mended in 1941—and the mend is beginning to separate today.

figure 3

The Paleoindian point is from a site in Perry County, Pennsylvania. This point is important because it was recovered from between two radiocarbon-dated layers at the Wallis Site (36Pe16), part of the 11 & 15 Highway Project (Figure 3). Scanning of this point will allow scholars throughout the world study the object, without having to come to The State Museum to do so. With this and other objects, we can also potentially create resin models that could be used for study or educational purposes.

figure 4

Finally, we also scanned a sherd recovered from the Sugar Run Village site, located in Warren County, Pennsylvania (Figure 4). This sherd is associated with the Hopewell occupation of the site and was recovered by Seneca Indians in 1941, laboring as relief workers for the Civilian Conservation Corps. Clinton was able to process this sherd’s digital model, as well as the other three objects Friday night, and we were able to set up two laptops that allowed attendees at the Workshops in Archaeology at The State Museum on November 5 to manipulate these artifact digital models in multiple dimensions and see all facets of the objects—without having to endanger the real objects themselves (Figure 5). 3D digital scanning certainly is another great tool for making precious and fragile artifacts accessible to all citizens of Pennsylvania.

figure 5

More details about our project can be found at: http://vcuarchaeology3d.wordpress.com/

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Recap of Archaeology Workshops 2011

2011-11-10T18:42:00.000-05:00

We are delighted to report on the success of the return of our Workshops in Archaeology program. This past Saturday we hosted just over a hundred people from all avenues who just want to learn more about archaeology. Members of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Pennsylvania Heritage Society members, students, and the general public turned out to learn more at about the Prehistory of Pennsylvania.

Profile of Calver Island from Susquehanna Turnpike Bridge Replacement Project

Presenters for the program included Pat Miller, PhD. sharing information relative to The Late Archaic/Transitional Period. During this period hunter-gatherers adapted to environmental change and increasing population density by developing new technological, social, and economic strategies. Recently there have been several major contributions from sites excavated along the Ohio River and along the Susquehanna River including the Turnpike bridge replacement project. Dr. Miller was involved in these archaeological investigations and their subsequent analyses.

Steve Nissly discusses the products of his flint knapping demonstation with Workshop participants

Workshop participants selected four sessions from a total of eight presentations. A behind the scenes tour of the Section of Archaeology which includes the processing laboratory was also offered. Steve Nissly provided an excellent demonstration on flint knapping that was very popular. Numerous individuals brought in their artifact collections for identification by Doug McLearen and Steve Warfel. This was an excellent opportunity for avocationals to share their site information and associated collections with Noel Strattan and Tom Held from the Bureau for Historic Preservation. Noel and Tom assisted participants in recording site information in the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey and the Cultural Resources Geographic Information System (CRGIS). Dr. Bernard Means demonstrated three-dimensional scanning of artifacts from both the collections at The State Museum and from the Consol Site (36Wm100). Bernard will share the results of this technology in a future blog

Noel Strattan demonstrates the CRGIS program to Workshop participants.

Tom Held shares site recording information

The closing comments delivered by Dr. Dean Snow, Professor of Anthropology, Penn State University were an opportunity for reflection of our understanding of past cultural behavior and the direction for archaeological research in the future. Presenters and participants engaged in discussions of the day in an informal reception held in the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology.

Dr. Dean Snow delivers the closing comments for the day.

This is one of many public outreach programs that our department provides for the general populist. They are always well received and incredibly rewarding venues, but they require a lot of planning and assistance. We would be remiss in not recognizing the many contributors to the success of our program. The dedicated volunteers of The Section of Archaeology provided assistance with mailing registration forms, preparing registration packets, registering participants, organizing and furnishing the refreshments for breaks, and numerous tasks that could not be done without them. Andi, Toni, Sheila, Harmony, Melanie, Ande, Cassie and all did a terrific job! Many thanks to the following businesses Navarro & Wright, URS and TEC,Inc. for their donations which provided printing and refreshments for the Workshops. Thanks to the Pennsylvania Archaeological Council, Mark McConaughy, for his assistance in organizing the funding for this program. Staff of The State Museum provided facilities support and our wonderful security staff patiently waited for us to clear out after a long day on Saturday.

Reception following the programs in the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology

We are making lists and taking notes for Archaeology Workshops 2012 and are already planning speakers and presentations for next year. If you couldn’t join us this year, please keep watch on our blog for this program in November 2012.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Workshops in Archaeology

2011-11-04T16:12:00.000-04:00

The Archaeology Section of the State Museum of Pennsylvania invites you to attend the newly revived Annual Workshops in Archaeology tomorrow Saturday, November 5th.

Designed for avocational archaeologists and the public at large, this year’s program features a review of Native American Archaeology in the Commonwealth. Recent excavations have contributed to the archaeological community’s understanding of Native peoples in Pennsylvania from our earliest inhabitants 16,000 years ago to European colonization during the Contact Period.

Presentations will include highlights from investigations along the Susquehanna River such as the Routes 11 and 15 project around Liverpool, the Susquehanna Turnpike Bridge project, and the Leymone Susquehannock village site. There will also be a flint knapping demonstration and an artifact identification session.

Closing comments by Dean Snow, PhD., professor of Anthropology, Penn State University on the value of archaeology and the contribution of archaeology to everyday life in Pennsylvania will be followed by a reception in the Anthropology and Archaeology Gallery of the State Museum.

Click here for the program brochure including a detailed description of class sessions. Registration: $25.00 at the door.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Archaeological Evidence of Witchcraft in PA?

2011-10-28T16:37:00.000-04:00

Just in time for Halloween, this week’s blog is going to discuss one of the more spooktacular items in our collection, a probable 18th century “witch bottle”, uncovered at Governor Printz State Park, Essington, PA by M.J. Becker in 1976. Witch bottles are ceramic or glass bottles containing a variety of ritual objects. They are created and used as protective charms to counter afflictions thought to be the product of a witch’s curse or to ward off evil spirits from a house and its inhabitants (Merrifield 1955).

Belarmine Stoneware Jug on display in The State Museum of PA's Archaeology Gallery

Belief in the supernatural and the connection between everyday human struggles and the cosmic war between God and the Devil were part of the common lexicon in England and the British Colonies in America during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Historians cite the proliferation of Church decrees, sermons, and published essays on the topic of witchcraft, the increased prevalence of legal complaints involving allegations of sorcery, and anti-witchcraft legislation as documentary proof of these commonly held beliefs (Merrifield 1955, 1987; Becker, 1980, 2005; Demos, 2008- podcast). The production and ritual deposition of Witch bottles are part of the material culture of this period. They provide evidence of popular folk beliefs and customary use of “white magic” to safeguard persons and their property from the metaphysical ill intent of others.

Whether it is 17th century eastern England or 20th century Newfoundland, Canada, the general superstition associated with Witch bottles as a form of counter-curse are as follow (Merrifield, 1955; Reiti, 1997). If a person believes his or her current misfortune is the result of an evil spell, the act of “bottling a witch” can serve to identify the witch and turn the curse back on the alleged attacker. Bottling a witch is a form of sympathetic magic; it was believed that the victim has somehow been tainted by a witch’s blood in the form of a curse (Merrifield, 1955). Bottles are filled with symbolic items—pins, nails, and other representational objects of the victim’s physical ailment or financial misfortune—and, in most cases, bodily fluids, typically the victim’s urine. The logic follows that the victim’s fluid also contains the blood of the witch, by trapping this in a bottle with items representing the painful symptoms of the affliction (pins, nails, etc.), and performing ritualized actions with this bottle, the victim can redirect suffering back on the witch. After sealing and often heating the contents to a boil, the victim would choose to bury, toss the bottle into a stream, or heat the bottle until it explodes. Burying or casting the sealed bottle into a stream will give the witch a slow and painful affliction (usually some form of urinary blockage). However, this counter-affliction can be lifted if the bottle is somehow unsealed. On the other hand, exploding the bottle in a fire will create more immediate, violent and irrevocable results.

Merrfield (1955) traces the first recorded documentation of the “witch bottle” to eastern England in the late 1600s. This coincides with the production and widespread export of Bellarmine jugs from Germany to London and throughout the English countryside from the mid-1500s to the early 1700s. Bellarmine bottles, decorated with the severe face of a bearded man were the apparent bottles of choice to perform “white magic” rituals of counter-curse or to create charms to ward off malicious spirits. Of the 200 documented witch bottles found in England, 130 are Bellamine jugs (Merrifield, 1987). Examples of glass bottles including Pershore phials, wine flasks, such as the Essington witch bottle, and others have also been discovered.

Essington witch bottle from Printz Park (36De3)

Few historical examples of witch bottles were recovered as a result of systematic archaeological investigations. However, Merrifield (1955, 1987) has compiled documented discoveries of cached witch bottles throughout England and Scotland and surmises that most bottles found in their original contexts are placed upside-down under thresholds, hearthstones, or inside walls. Merrifield contends that entrances, exits and fireplaces are vulnerable locations in a house to the spiritual world. Witch bottles placed in these contexts were more likely used for protective, rather than counter-cursing properties. Numerous witch bottles have also been recovered from secondary contexts in London along the Thames and its tributaries.

contents and associated artifacts found with the Essington witch bottle

The Essington bottle, the first potential witch bottle identified from an archaeological excavation in North America, was discovered upside-down in a cache pit on Tinicum Island, just outside the foundation of a structure that Becker believes may have been the Printzhof, the home of the New Sweden Colonial Governor, Johan Printz (1643-1653). The bottle, pictured here, is a dark green squat bottle, with a date of production between 1730 and 1740 (Becker, 2005). Based on this date, Becker associates the cache with British Colonial Era in Pennsylvanian, when Tinicum Island was owned and conferred between members of the Taylor family. He conjectures that the transfer of ownership in 1748 from Israel Taylor Jr., who was bequest the land on his father’s death in 1725, to his cousin, John Taylor and his wife, may indicate that the couple, moved into the dwelling at this time. Further, that a member of their household is most likely responsible for the ritual deposit of the bottle on the premise. The bottle contains six straight pins and was sealed with a whittled wooden plug. Also found in the small pit was a redware ceramic sherd and a medium-sized bird bone. (Becker 1977, 1980, 2005).

In a recent publication (2005), Becker argues for the recognition of five additional witch bottles found throughout the northeastern United States from archaeological endeavors. Finding cached witch bottles in datable contexts provides evidence of the persistence and spread of supernatural folk beliefs and customs in colonial North America and potentially into the 19th century. Perhaps even into the 21st century… So be careful who you trick this Halloween…. Or there may be a bottle with your name on it!

Don't forget! Just one week to go until the Workshops in Archaeology at The State Museum of PA. Click here for program details and registration form.

Works Cited, Further Reading and Suggested Podcasts:

Marshall J. Becker

1977. A witch-bottle excavated in Chester County, Pennsylvania: archaeological evidence for witchcraft in the mid-eighteenth century. Manuscript on file at The State Museum of Pennsylvania

1980. An American Witch Bottle. Archaeology Vol. 33:2:18-23.

Available online: www.archaeology.org/online/features/.../witch_bottle.html

2005. An update on colonial witch bottles. Pennsylvania Archaeologist. Vol. 75:2:12-23.

Ralph Merrifield

1955. Witch Bottles and Magical Jugs. Folklore Vol. 66:1:195-207.

1987. The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic. Batsford, London.

Barbara Reiti

1997. Riddling the Witch: Violence against Women in Newfoundland Witch Tradition. In Undisciplined women: tradition and culture in Canada. Ed. Greenhill & Tye. 77-86.

http://www.apotropaios.co.uk/witch_bottles.htm

John Demos

September 7, 2008. Religion and Witchcraft in Colonial History. Gilder Lehrman Institute Podcast. http://www.gilderlehrman.org/historians/podcasts/podcast.php?podcast_id=508

2008. The Enemy within: 2,000 Years of Witch-Hunting in the Western World.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Three Dimensional Mapping of Artifacts

2011-10-21T16:20:00.002-04:00

Mapping in the 1970s, dig it man.

This week we return to the ABC’s of archaeology. We are down to the last three letters - X, Y and Z and we are going to use them all at once. Archaeology is all about mapping and X, Y, and Z represent the grid and datum coordinates used in mapping. These coordinates represent the three dimensional location of an artifact also known as provenience.

State Museum Section of Archeology volunteer Melanie mapping an FCR cluster at Fort Hunter (36Da159)

Archaeology is the scientific study of past cultural behavior through the systematic recovery and analysis of artifacts and features. The basic assumption is that artifacts and features are not randomly distributed. Their distribution or patterning is affected by a variety of cultural and natural factors. These patterns can only be revealed and understood through mapping – specifically three dimensional mapping or piece plotting. This type of excavation utilizing mapping and spatial analysis is a powerful tool in the identification of artifact patterns and their relationship to past cultural behavior.

In most upland sites, situated on residual soils, the artifact patterns have been altered through modern farming practices. Piece plotting in a plowzone is of little value. However, in alluvial settings, where artifacts are stratified, there has frequently been little post-depositional movement and artifacts are very near their original location. This is where piece plotting is important. However, mapping takes time. In today’s world dominated by compliance archaeology (for which I am a strong supporter) where time is money, many prefer to excavate in meter or half meter units using shovels, only mapping tools or very large artifacts (if they don’t end up in the screen). Some argue that post-depositional movement of artifacts is always a significant factor and piece plotting is a waste of time.

I would like to present two examples that demonstrate the contribution of three dimensional mapping of artifacts. One of the earliest cases in Eastern North America of piece plotting was conducted at the Thunderbird site in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. This is a stratified Paleoindian through Early Archaic site associated with a jasper quarry. The site was first tested in 1971 using three inch arbitrary levels within natural levels and ten foot squares. Initially, these were shovel skimmed. These units were producing between 800 and 1200 flakes and tools per arbitrary level. This was not surprising considering the site’s proximity to the quarry. It was assumed that these flakes represented a variety of tool making activities although the specifics were unknown. The damage to flakes due to shovel skimming or even digging with trowels was extensive and early in the first season, there was a switch to piece plotting. The use of this method was unprecedented at the time.

Hand drawn map of chipping feature at Thunderbird site (44Wr11)

By the end of the season, several patterns were revealed that clearly document the significance and the contribution of this method. They were able to identify the types of tools that were being made, the specific flint knapping techniques being used and, in some cases, the number of flint knappers involved. Although the number of artifacts between squares did not vary greatly, piece plotting revealed that the artifacts occurred in concentrations or chipping features. Several types of chipping features were identified that were significant in understanding community patterning and stone tool manufacture. In addition, by piece plotting the artifacts, it was discovered that flakes could be refitted – cores and tools could be put back together like three dimensional jigsaw puzzles.

The most interesting feature type consisted of approximately 1500 flakes or less. These were organized into a large concentration two to three feet in diameter and a smaller pile separated by several inches of open space. The space between the two clusters represents the individual flint knappers leg print while they were sitting on the ground. The identification of chipping clusters representing one individual making a single tool (in this case a fluted projectile point) allowed archaeologists to analyze how fluted points were made and the nature of stone tool manufacture during the Paleoindian period. The piece plotting of artifacts enabled archaeologists to identify cultural patterns in the apparent chaos of thousands of flakes.

Map of Feature 75: Thunderbird site (44Wr44)

The second example of the importance of three dimensional piece plotting comes from research conducted at the Abbott Farm Complex, near Trento New Jersey. Here, fire crack-rock (FCR) was found in large quantities and mapped in great detail. The prevailing interpretation at the time was based on research conducted by Fred Kinsey in the Upper Delaware River Valley. He hypothesized that FCR was the result of large cooking hearths or fish drying racks and it was most frequently associated with the Transitional period. Again, three dimensional piece plotting demonstrated that the explanation was not that simple. There were several different patterns to the horizontal distribution of FCR. Some were tightly packed, similar to Kinsey’s scenario but others were more widely spread out. As in the chipping feature example, the mass of FCR could be divided into a series of separate events. Experimental archaeology was demonstrating that different cooking techniques produced different types of FCR. For example, stone boiling (placing heated rocks in a skin lined hole in the ground to boil water) produced a smaller more rounded FCR than roasting hearths. Also, FCR resulting from stone boiling is usually more mixed and dispersed horizontally than FCR used in cooking hearths. Again, archaeologists were able to identify separate events and different types of activities on a living floor that otherwise appeared to be a mass of artifacts.

10cm grid over FCR cluster at the City Island site (36Da12)

My point with this week’s blog is that recording the X, Y, and Z coordinates of individual artifacts can be a very useful tool in the analysis of living floors. Archaeologists have been collecting flakes and making approximate counts of FCR for over 100 years but other than their presence, not much was known about the activities they represent. To better understand these activities, their spatial arrangement and the social implications, we must apply different field and laboratory methods . If we keep collecting data in the same old way, we are not going to learning anything new. Piece plotting may require more time in the field (although the use of a total station greatly reduces that time) but the benefits far outweigh the time element in adding to our understanding of past cultural behavior.

FCR cluster resulting from hearth feature: 2011 field season Fort Hunter (36Da159)

Don't forget, just to weeks to go until the Workshops in Archaeology at the State Museum of Pennsylvania! Click here for the program and registration form and join us for a fun and informative event Saturday, November 5th.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Fort Hunter 2011 Excavations Come to a Close

2011-10-14T18:30:00.001-04:00

Rain filled our plastic tarps which cover the excavation area too many times to count this year.

We are starting to sound like a broken record with this rain, but once again we had a wet week of excavations at Fort Hunter. Today was our last day at the site, but mother nature took control and we were rained out this afternoon. What do you expect when Harrisburg broke the record for the wettest year on record? The good news is that we were able to speak with a lot of visitors, further investigate the well and re-visit the cobble feature on the east side of the mansion.

One of the many visitors at Fort Hunter this week.

Last week we had removed the rocks at grade with the ice house and were looking to remove another layer from the well structure to aid in determining if the ice house and well were built at the same time or if one predates the other. We removed another course and further exposed the corner of the ice house.

Steve Warfel and Kurt Carr examine the foundation of the ice house.

Several visitors viewed the well construction this week including an architectural historian from the PHMC, Joe Lauver. The general consensus was that the well was constructed prior to the ice house. The small rocks that appear to be slumping are interpreted as fill put in after the pebble layer eroded out of the builders trench. The puzzling question is why the ice house was built so close to the well? Additional research of historic documents this winter may provide some of the answers to this question.

View of the well and rocks which intrude into the builders trench of well.

The well shaft was augured to a depth of fourteen feet before we encountered either rock or compacted shell. Unfortunately this test produced mostly ash and shell. Further investigations next year will hopefully provide tangible evidence which will aid in dating the well to one of the site occupants.

Augering the well shaft to 14 feet.

Mapping of the fire-cracked rock in the northwest corner of our unit was completed this week- yipee! This feature produced over 250 pieces of fcr representing a prehistoric hearth about three thousand years old. We have had a tremendous amount of fcr over the past few years from this area and are sure to encounter more as the excavations continue.

Andrea and Melanie mapping the fire cracked rock feature.

The ditch or trench discovered last year was reopened this week and the cobble floor exposed. The expanded trench adjacent to this feature produced a similar cobble layer which would create an area wider than expected for a road. We are anticipating a geomorphologist, Dr. Frank Vento, to visit the site on Monday and assist in the interpretation of this feature.

The dugout canoe made another journey this weekend to Gifford Pinchot State Park. Our faithful followers may recall our blog last year which included video of the dugout on the lake. If you missed it just do a search of our archived posts and you can view it from this website. The heritage canoeists love the dugout and welcomed Kurt Carr and his presentation on the construction of dugout canoes by Native Americans.

Remember that this is Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania and there are multiple programs around the state for those of you interested in learning more about the importance of archaeology in our lives.
We will be at the State Capitol on Wednesday, October 26th for Archaeology Day and don’t forget to register for the Archaeology Workshops on Saturday, November 5th. Workshops brochure link

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Did you find gold yet?

2011-10-07T19:18:00.000-04:00

Enthusiastic visitors at Fort Hunter excavation.

Sorry folks, we have not found gold at Fort Hunter, nor do we expect to find any. We have had a steady stream of visitors to the site this week and we love it. Archaeologists get excited when we can share with the public and excite them about archaeology and our new discoveries. We have repeat visitors that come out every year and faithfully encourage us, enthused to hear what we’ve discovered this year. They have patiently observed the process of excavating the well and the surrounding prehistoric levels. Yes, some have raised the question about the discovery of gold, but most know that we are in this for reasons much more important than gold.

What is more important than discovering gold? Gathering archaeological evidence from the soils, identifying the artifacts, analyzing these artifacts and piecing together the picture of the daily activities of a frontier fort or a colonial homestead is far more important and interesting! Take this a step further and think about the prehistoric period. Prehistory means before the written record, so basically anything before about 1550 in Pennsylvania. The lifeways of Native peoples has been gleaned almost entirely from the archaeological record. From the hearth features with fire-cracked rock and flakes we can paint a picture of peoples cooking and processing animals and plants. Sitting around these fires they likely sharpened some of their points, leaving small flakes as evidence of this activity. Some of the larger flakes we’ve recovered may have been used to cut meat or scrape a hide. Archaeologists are able to provide a window to the past through excavation and analysis, creating a picture of the daily life of Native peoples to modern man.

View of the top of the well at grade with ice house.

Our more recent occupants of Fort Hunter have been written about in historical documents, but the details of daily activities are missing. Letters and journals don’t describe the method of construction employed for the well. Documentation doesn’t even tell us when the well was built. The only way for us to answer the questions of “how old is the well?” and “who built the well?” is to carefully remove the stone layers of the well and excavate the surrounding soils. This week we made great progress on the well and hopefully next week we will have some answers as to when and by whom the well was constructed. We all agree that whoever built the well was skilled and strong. Some of the rocks have been as much as eight inches thick and 18 to 24 inches across. The artifacts recovered have consisted of animal bone, window glass and a few redware sherds. Nothing that we found is considered a useful tool for dating the period of construction. Rocks on the corner of the ice house appear to intrude into the well, but they also seem to be intentionally laid as part of the ice house construction- or could be part of a sagging wall- but we just don’t know. Further investigations next week will hopefully reveal the answer.

Stone slump at corner of ice house wall.

View looking down on corner of ice house.

A mix of artifacts continues to come out of the trench on the side of the house. This area is clearly fill, but sorting out the time period of the fill through analysis of the artifacts will be an activity for the winter months. We have one more week to examine this unit further and determine if our cobble feature from last year is a road bed or not. Part of the motivation for archaeologists is the anticipation of learning something new with the next layer of evidence or the discovery of an artifact that dates to one of the various site occupants.

Trench excavation in side yard. Changes in soils clearly indicate a fill episode in this area.

We are scheduled to finish at Fort Hunter on October 14th, one more week. If you’ve been thinking you wanted to come see what an archaeological site looks like, or you are just curious about the site- don’t wait. We will be on site from October 11th-14th, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

This wet week in Pennsylvania Archaeology

2011-09-30T16:57:00.000-04:00

Fort Hunter Tavern, September 12, 2011

This seems to be a repeated theme for us these days, but with record rainfall amounts in Harrisburg it is difficult to complete our excavation plans. So the word for the week is RAIN, depsite this we had some terrific events at the The State Museum of Pennsylvania.

Our exhibit cases were finished by our master craftsmen in the shop and we installed about 175 artifacts in beautiful new cases. The Fort Hunter exhibit opened in our gallery at The State Museum just in time for our annual Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania which begins tomorrow October 1st. This exhibit provides the visitor with an opportunity to view artifacts from the past five years of excavations at the fort. We also have on display a bucket recovered from the well at Fort Loudoun, another French & Indian War period site located near Chambersburg, PA.

Fort Loudoun bucket prior to conservation.

    After conservation treatment.

Many of the visitors to our excavations at Fort Hunter want to know what we have found and this exhibit provides an opportunity to learn about what we have ascertained from our findings. The exhibit text follows the methods employed to identify the site, the actual excavations and then the analysis which is conducted after we return to the lab. Preliminary analysis of faunal remains provided a glimpse of the diet of soldiers stationed at Fort Hunter and an opportunity to compare daily life there with other French & Indian War period forts.

Visitors enjoying the new Fort Hunter exhibit.

Our first visitors to the exhibit were students attending Homeschool Day at the museum. This annual event provides educational programming throughout the museum for students and teachers, and has become a popular event. Some of the programs included were planetarium shows, guided tours of the galleries, and mini-lessons from State Museum Curators. Janet Johnson conducted sessions on archaeological techniques and how archaeologists apply these methods in excavating Pennsylvania sites.

   Home School Day participants gather near the statue of William Penn.

Excavations are continuing at Fort Hunter and while progress keeps getting interrupted by torrential downpours, we are managing to continue with our project. The ditch area in the front yard continues to puzzle us. The deep fill deposit continues to produce historic and prehistoric artifacts, but since their provenience is disturbed they provide little information in our attempt to understand the activities of the site.

A large fire-cracked rock area adjacent to the well is being mapped and recorded so that we can begin to remove the soils surrounding the well. We don’t want to destroy this large feature when we start excavating further on the well next week. We are counting on the forecast of a dry week and hopefully we will have better weather for the weeks to come.

Fort Hunter is open on Sunday, October 2nd for Indian Festival Day. This annual event is popular with young and old alike and features Native American foods, and lifeways. Our staff will be there, including Kurt Carr who will demonstrate the atlatl. This is a an opportunity for you to try your hand at this early hunting method. So come on out and enjoy the day! For more information visit the link here for Indian Days

Registration is open for the Workshops in Archaeology and the forms are starting to flow in, don't wait to register as some sessions will fill up fast. Here is the link for the registration form.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Fort Hunter Excavation Update

2011-09-23T16:41:00.000-04:00

Despite a dreary week of fieldwork marked by spotty rain showers nearly every day, progress continued at the Fort Hunter excavation this week. Fortunately, the weather cooperated for Fort Hunter Day, this past Sunday. Hundreds of visitors had the opportunity to view the excavation in progress.

In the main block behind the mansion, units surrounding the well feature were taken down and a persistent FCR (fire cracked rock) cluster was mapped including elevation readings for each piece.

FCR cluster in main excavation block

Meanwhile, in the front yard of the mansion a trench excavation was begun to further expose a large feature discovered last year that may hold clues to the perimeter of the fort and its overall dimensions and orientation on the property. In this trench it is apparent that the landscape has been heavily modified. A fill layer directly underneath the modern “A” horizon has yielded a hodgepodge of artifacts from the archaic period (and possibly earlier) right through the late 18th century. Seen below is a sample of the objects recovered from the fill layer in the trench in the front yard. Unfortunately these artifacts were not found in context.

The oldest artifact from the trench, a limace, can be seen below. A limace is a thick side scraper thought to be used in scraping hard materials such as wood, bone or antler. They are found on Early and Middle period Paleoindian (11,200 – 10,400) sites, especially in new England and the Great Lakes but rarely are they common on any one site.

dorsal side of limace

ventral side of limace

archaic period projectile points

Horseshoe and stirrup

brass gilt button and scratch blue salt glazed stoneware rim sherd

Just a reminder, for those interested the State Museum of PA will be hosting Workshops in Archaeology Saturday, November 5th. This all day program will feature guest speakers lecturing on a variety of topics of prehistoric archaeology in Pennsylvania. A link to the registration form can be found here.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Excavation begins at Fort Hunter

2011-09-16T12:47:00.000-04:00

Clean-up has begun at the Fort Hunter excavation site, as it has most places in the midstate following last week’s historic flooding up and down the Susquehanna River. After re-establishing the site grid and outlining the perimeter of the excavation block, the next order of business was to remove the overburden, or backfill, covering the site. This was accomplished with the help of a front end loader skillfully operated by Dauphin County Parks maintenance man Doug Killian. Thanks to Doug for making quick work of the first two feet or so of heavily compacted backfill on top of our site.

The heavy machinery was then traded for spade shovels and smaller hand tools to carefully remove the remaining overburden, revealing the layer of plastic that had been laid down marking the extent of last season’s excavation. As this process continues the excavation block walls will be cut and trimmed to be as vertical as possible, and the floor will be “clean troweled” or lightly scraped with a masons trowels to remove any residual accumulation of debris.

Once the excavation block has been made orderly and presentable, the actual archaeology can resume. This will begin with filling out an excavation record or “square sheet” for each 5’x5’ unit within the block. Accurate record keeping and consistent note taking are the essential activities that separate professional archaeology from the casual arrowhead collecting or relic hunting.

Information to be recorded on the square sheets includes: the site name and number, the northing and easting coordinates of the unit, the beginning elevation or depth as measured from the ground surface or a designated datum point, soil color and texture, the natural soil layer or stratigraphy, the arbitrary level (in our case 3” increments) within the natural soil layer, a notation of any features or artifacts present within the unit, and of course the date of excavation and the initials of the excavator(s).

Taking the time to record this information ensures that the context in which artifacts are discovered is retained, and this in turn allows the archaeologist to analyze their spatial relationship to one another after they have been removed from the ground. Beyond the objects themselves, the science of archaeology concerns itself with where things are found, and what inferences can be drawn from their distribution. Without accurate record keeping this type of analysis is impossible.

Another rain day has slowed our progress opening the excavation block for the 2011 season, however this Sunday, September 18th is Fort Hunter Day at Fort Hunter Mansion and Park, and the Section of Archaeology staff and volunteers will be on hand to answer questions about the archaeology conducted at Fort Hunter to date and to begin this season’s excavation in earnest. Stop by and enjoy a fun and informative day at Fort Hunter this Sunday.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Water, Water, Everywhere!

2011-09-09T13:00:00.001-04:00

W is for Well, Workshops, Water, and WEATHER!

Well at Fort Hunter at the end of field season.

We resume the alphabet this week with the letter W and our focus is on the well at Fort Hunter. We intend to continue excavating the well that was discovered during excavations in 2009. We will be bisecting the well and removing the west side, the goal is to remove another six feet. Last season we removed the top six feet of the well which was primarily ash and coal cinder. We are hoping that this fill represents a later occupation and fill event than the fort. We are optimistic that we will find military artifacts dating to the forts occupants. Excavations at other French & Indian War Period sites have revealed a pattern of construction that includes a well within the walls of the fort. If we are able to date the well to the fort time period, it will help solidify the location of the fort.

                 Excavation map of Fort Loudoun, near Chambersburg. Note the well in lower left
                        corner, inside the stockade line.

The soils surrounding the well date back 3,000 to 4,000 years, based on pottery and prehistoric projectile points. The presence of fire cracked rock suggests there was a Native presence and that the rocks were heated. Research of similar hearth features points to their use for cooking and processing of foods. Additional testing and research is required to fully analyze this feature.

Fire Cracked rock feature near the well.

We are also investigating a feature on the side yard of Fort Hunter Mansion and Park which we are interpreting as a possible road.  Excavations in this area will be expanded to aid in this interpretation, but the grooved rocks and tracks pictured in the image below are a good indicators of this activity. Do we dare say Wagon Wheels in keeping with our W theme?

      Possible path or road feature, note the water standing in grooved "tracks".

All of these plans are on hold until the weather cooperates. This brings us back to another W word- Weather… Due to the extreme precipitation and flooding, our excavations at Fort Hunter are delayed. We’re ready for the rain to stop so we can roll up our sleeves, break out the shovels and trowels, and go to work!

Finally, W is for Workshops. On Saturday November 5, 2011, The State Museum will be holding its Annual Workshops in Archaeology Program. This year the topic is Native American Archaeology in the Commonwealth. There are nine different classes being offered as well as a PowerPoint on Forensic Archaeology and a Flint Knapping Demonstration. Participants may select to attend four classes from an available eight sessions. Topics include the Paleoindian Period, Archaic, Woodland and finally the Contact Period. The day will begin at 8:30 for late registration, followed by opening remarks. Bring in your artifacts for identification by archaeologists and don’t miss an opportunity for a behind the scenes tour of the State Museum Archaeology Laboratory.

The Workshops will wind down with closing comments by Dr. Dean Snow entitled “The Contribution of Pennsylvania Archaeology to Our Understanding of Past Cultural Behavior and Directions for the 21st Century.” A wine and cheese reception will close out the day and provide an opportunity for reflection and discussion of the presentations.

Look for a link to the brochure and registration information next week- but mark your calendars today for November 5th, 2011.

Thanks to our intern from Elizabethtown College, Maggie Keefer for helping to write the blog this week! Look for more information on Maggie and intenships in a future blog.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Kipona Pow Wow on City Island

2011-09-02T11:12:00.000-04:00

This weekend our staff along with a few volunteers will be participating in the 15th annual Native American Pow-Wow at Kipona 2011. We will be bringing the ever popular recreated dugout canoe, informational brochures on State Museum programs with coupons for reduced admission, passes to the State Museum's planetarium, children's activity worksheets, the hot off the press 2011 Archaeology Month poster, and an exhibit of select artifacts from City Island excavations.

We view public outreach as an important responsibility of The State Museum's Section of Archaeology. As a state agency, it is our obligation to get information on Pennsylvania archaeology to the public. We do this through book publications, brochures, exhibits, our web site and this blog. In addition, we do presentations at schools, to civic groups, tours of our Anthropology and Archaeology gallery in The State Museum and exhibits at large public events.

For example, partnering with the Society for Pennsylvania, Inc, in mid August, we set up an exhibit using our dugout canoe and a demonstration of our geographic information system at Cabela’s in Berks County. We spoke to roughly 3500 people that weekend. We hope to greet and share our enthusiasm for archaeology with more visitors this weekend at Kipona Fest. Kipona Fest is a huge attraction for South-central Pennsylvania and we are pleased to be able to participate.

The purpose of our presence at the pow-wow is to raise awareness of all things archaeological. Archaeology is the only science that can reveal the past prior to writing. Evidence of native peoples discovered through archaeology has yielded important information regarding the lifeways of these groups. Archaeological sites are important non-renewable resources. Once these sites, both historic and prehistoric, are destroyed the link to our heritage which they may yield is lost.

Further public outreach programs include the upcoming public archaeology program at Fort Hunter Park. October is Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania, watch for programs in your area, we will post any that we are involved in or aware of on our blog. We will participate in Archaeology Day at the State Capitol in October to recognize the significance of archaeology in our daily lives. We encourage visitation to The State Museum and our websites for additional information on archaeology in Pennsylvania .

Come out and enjoy the unofficial end of summer this weekend at the Pow-Wow on City Island!

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

The Value of Volunteers

2011-08-26T17:03:00.000-04:00

Volunteers at Fort Hunter Mansion & Park

V is for village, Vinette, Venango, value and volunteer. Volunteers and value go together when you refer to the incredible crew of volunteers in the Section of Archaeology at The State Museum. Our dedicated crew ranges in age from sixteen to sixty plus and bring a wide array of skills with them. We currently have fifteen volunteers that assist us in the lab area of the Section and an additional twenty some volunteers for our field excavations and public programs.

Charlie helping with our public archaeology program at Fort Hunter

Volunteers contributed just less than nine-hundred and fifty hours to the Section for the period of January thru June 30th of this year. Put that in terms of a 7.5 hour day and you have 127 days of labor. We have a very small staff here and this contribution to our program is amazing. Volunteers help with recording site bags/tags, sorting artifacts, washing artifacts, labeling, data entry, mapping and the list goes on and on.

Clydene and Merikay, two of our expert labelers

They help us organize the file documentation for archaeological projects, scan slides and photographs into digital formats, rehouse collections into archivally stable materials, organize the many manuscripts and reports generated with archaeological investigations and generally help in whatever task we need. These are all projects that occur in the lab, we still have the volunteers that help us with programming and field work.

Lindsey in the lab carefully labeling artifacts

In the field our volunteers have shown us the merits of shop vac’s on cleaning up units for photographs, provided survey skills, taken photographs, skillfully drawn and recorded profiles and features. Our volunteers bring such enthusiasm to the shaker screens that we are assured that every artifact will be scoped out and recovered.

Some of our enthusiastic screeners

Brad's smile says it all

They are careful and thorough at excavating archaeological sites and often offer a different perspective when we are attempting to identify artifacts. Their wide array of skill sets come from their diverse life experiences. We can count retired school teachers, engineering technicians, office managers, secretaries, and students in our circle of volunteers.

Charlie with a rehousing project

Andi lending a hand in the field

Sheila mapping our excavation at Fort Hunter in CAD

We often encounter folks that say they always wanted to be an archaeologist, but never had the opportunity. We encourage them to come visit us at our public excavation at Fort Hunter or come into our lab and spend some time with us. This is how many of our volunteers have come to us. Many folks that thought they would like archaeology found out that they didn’t like the tedious, less glamorous tasks that come with the profession. We have been fortunate to have a core group of dedicated volunteers that have seen us through a building move, multiple personnel changes, and several computer upgrades. Our newest volunteer has just been with us a few weeks and our longest term is sixteen years. Pretty impressive! Please join us this week in recognizing and celebrating the letter V and our Valuable Volunteers.

Thanks to all of our Volunteers!

The following is a partial list of our many dedicated volunteers

Merikay Lindsey Dana Barry Jake

         Andi                 Ande                Jerry              Joel                Kathy

        Toni                  Sid                   Kim               Shellie              Taylor

        Clydene            Melanie            Parker            Becky            William

       Stephanie          Jeanne              Steve             Marlee            Dave

        Brad              Harmony          Addison         Mary Pat          Phil

Charlie Greg Aaron Les Robert

Sheila Wes Michelle Scott Elizabeth

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

U is for Underwater Archaeology

2011-08-19T12:32:00.000-04:00

U is for Underwater Archaeology, because frankly Underground Archaeology is just a little too redundant, kind of like wet water, or hot fire. Underwater archaeology poses a unique set of challenges to an archaeologist. Changing conditions on the water, delicate precision instruments, and a specialized skill set necessary to use them, make underwater archaeology not only a costly proposition but a potentially hazardous one as well. Not surprisingly, it’s not very often underwater archaeology is conducted in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, there are a few notable examples where it has taken place.

One artifact collection recently submitted to the State Museum of PA involved an underwater survey of a small portion the Delaware River in anticipation of a runway expansion at the Philadelphia International Airport. Ground penetrating radar and sonar surveys were used to identify areas of interest or “targets” that were later visually inspected with the aid of SCUBA gear. Seen below is a sample of artifacts recovered from the underwater excavation.

earthenware ceramic sherds, dark green glass wine bottle fragment, iron spike, and stoneware bottle c. mid 19th C.

In his manuscript A Preliminary Survey to Analyze the Potential Presence of Submerged Cultural Resources in the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers J. Lee Cox Jr. lists over 100 shipwrecks on the Delaware River between 1757 and 1946. Schooners, sloops, tugs and steamers, with names like Mosquito, Yankee Doodle and Sturdy Beggar, succumb to watery graves from collisions with other vessels, boiler explosions, deck fires and crushing winter ice.

1777 Map of Delaware River

One spectacular artifact recovered from the Delaware River in 2007 can be traced back to the Revolutionary War. A cheval de frise, intentionally submerged to obstruct British naval forces from advancing up river, was found in remarkable condition and can be seen at the Independence Seaport Museum, in Philadelphia. The map above illustrates the position of the defensive cheval de frise in the Delaware in 1777.

Moving to the opposite corner of the State, this Snead shallow water diving helmet was recovered off of Presque Isle in Lake Erie, and was donated to the State Museum of PA by John Cutter in 2005. Cast iron in construction, weighing around 60 lbs it dates between 1900 and 1940 and is truly a one of a kind object in the collections of the Section of Archaeology. Not known to be associated with any shipwreck, the helmet is currently on loan to the Erie Maritime Museum.

Snead shallow water diving helmet 1900 - 1940

While the notion of searching for sunken treasure has a certain appeal to the adventurer and the romantic alike, it is important to note that that objects recovered from waterways within the state are subject to the State History Code and in fact the property of the Commonwealth.

Reference:

Cox, Jr., J. Lee
A Preliminary Survey to Analyze the Potential Presence of Submerged Cultural Resources in the Delaware and Susquehanna Rivers (1984)
unpublished manuscript on file State Museum of PA, Section of Archaeology

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Toys through Time

2011-08-12T16:50:00.005-04:00

This week the letter T takes its turn in the alphabet cycle and we’re going to take a trip through time with Toys. Toys come in many forms and their function is often thought of as purely entertainment, but in reality toys are an important tool in the development of our cultures. Social skills develop from interaction with others while playing games such as dominoes or marbles. Toys which aid in teaching a skill or lesson are educational, and yet other toys serve to stimulate creativity and independent thought.

Toys in the archaeological record generally represent a group that is often left out of the historic record, and barely evidenced in prehistory. Children constitute this silent group. This week we are going to examine a few of the toys in our collection and look at how those toys aid and influence childhood development.

As previously stated the presence of children in the prehistoric record is often difficult to identify. Early cultures were likely very nurturing of their children due to high infant mortality rates, but anthropologists believe that children who survived infancy were assigned chores at an early age. Our first example is a small clay pinch pot made by a child, possibly a girl learning to make clay pottery. Archaeologists often refer to these as “toy pots” because of their crude construction and childlike qualities. Women were likely responsible for making clay pots for cooking and storage, as men assumed the role of hunters who would travel seasonally large distances from the village. If women were making pottery and caring for young children, it is likely that involvement in the task of making pottery developed at an early age. While this could be considered an educational toy, it also lends itself to creative thought.

pinch pots / toy pots 36La3 Strickler Site

Our next example is a toy, but also a skill builder. The cup and pin game taught patience and hand-eye coordination. Accuracy and mental alertness were important skills for hunting and fishing and the social interaction was important in building trust, all necessary tools for survival. The elements of this game are simple and were readily available on prehistoric sites. Animal bones, usually deer or caribou toe bones were hollowed out and strung on cordage with a bone or wood pin at the other end. A piece of leather or fur at the other end of the cordage provided weight. Holding the pin the player would swing the bones up and try to insert the pin through the center of the hollowed bones. Points were scored based on which bone was caught on the pin. This traditional game is still played in various forms by Native peoples today.

pin and cup game - ethnographic collection State Museum of PA

Marbles are another example of a simple element which requires accuracy, practice and skill. While our previous blog traced the changes over time in the marble form, our focus here is on the social play and skill developed from the game. Marbles did not require an organized team with uniforms and special playing fields. It was a “pick-up” game something easily transported and readily played amongst a group on any flat surface. To state that it is a simple game might not be accurate if you are a gamer, proficient in the lingo and spot on with a shooter. The nature of the game allowed for play at an early age, but did not limit itself to youth as archaeologically marbles have been found in concentrations in industrial settings as well. Marbles have evolved from merely a social game into marble collecting and of course, to a modern hand held version for your iphone.

Late 19th/20th Century marbles from 36Er241, Fuhrman House Site excavated for the Lake View Landfill Project by Wilbur Smith Associates.

Some toys are often identified as gender specific, an example of this is a doll. Anthropologists have studied the social interaction of children with toys for decades and the debate lingers as to what is learned behavior based on influences from society and what is actually biological choice in what a child plays with. The maternal or paternal instinct that is derived from playing with dolls is an example of a toy that is also a teaching tool. Our society often taboos boys playing with dolls as child rearing is traditionally viewed as a role performed by women. However, our society is changing. As more women enter the workplace and more men either by choice or necessity are responsible for child care, the doll has evolved from a fairly simple toy for learning nurturing skills to a learning tool for anything from infant CPR to a pregnancy prevention tool.

Realworks baby doll

Dolls are also a form of creative play and children play with dressing dolls in various clothes or fashioning the doll’s hair in new styles. The clothes that dolls are dressed in are a reflection of the culture surrounding them. Children are often presented with dolls in native costumes representing various foreign countries. This is often a child’s first exposure to foreign cultures. These cornhusk dolls are dressed in traditional native dress and are examples of dolls dressed to represent various cultures. Obviously the doll is a learning tool, but instead of its focus on nurturing, it is now functioning to make society more accepting of diversity.

Seneca Corn husk dolls in traditional post-contact dress

Children’s dishes and toy tableware are often recovered on archaeological sites. During the Victorian Era manufactured toys are more prevalent and toys become more finished and reformed, often losing some of the creative play elements necessary with early toys. This was especially true of fancy table wares produced in miniature for children to replicate adult tableware of the era. Wealthy families could purchase these elaborate table wares for their children, while the poorer children of this era played with wooden blocks and cloth dolls. It is during the late 19th and 20th centuries that elaborate table settings are manufactured and the etiquette of table manners develops. So while these children’s sets were for enjoyment, they were subtly teaching table manners and etiquette to children.

Pearlware teapot from Metropolitan Detention Center Excavations, Philadelphia

Increased productivity in manufacturing allowed for more children to play with these miniature sets of table ware, but also decreased the size and quality of the toy.

enamel toy pitcher from Leetsdale excavations 36Al 480

minature porcelain pitcher from Furhman House 36Er241

Moving thru the 21st century in our journey thru toys brings the introduction of a new material for manufactured toys- plastic. With the development of plastic, toy manufacturing explodes and a multi-billion dollar industry is born. Toys evolve from simple forms often hand crafted from available products, to massively produced toys attainable in any number of ways. Toys become inserts in cereal and Cracker Jack boxes, treats at the dentist for good oral hygiene and give-a-ways at bank and shopping center promotions.

"offical" Jack Webb Dragnet police whistle from Eckley Miners' Village 36Lu298

Books and comics based on fictionalized characters provided manufacturers yet another avenue of marketing for toys. Movies based on these characters added to the demand for whistles, glasses, toy guns, cars, planes and the list goes on. This mass distribution of toys allows for a greater influence on society by toy manufacturers and a broader populous. Secondary to this mass production is the desire to collect toys for monetary or sentimental reasons. The popularity of mass produced toys amongst adults and children will make our jobs more difficult in the future as archaeologists search for evidence of children in the archaeological record of a site. We hope you’ve enjoyed this trip through toy time and just maybe for a fleeting moment we've stirred a favorite childhood memory of your very own.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Some Shell Objects of the Late Woodland

2011-08-05T15:45:00.000-04:00

Adorning the human body with ornaments has a long history throughout the world. Here in Pennsylvania, however, shell objects generally appear in archaeological contexts of the Late Woodland and Contact eras. While shells represent a plethora of different types their common use appears to have been in the manufacture of pendants, necklaces, bracelets, or less frequently as patterned designs attached to clothing.

Beginning around AD.1050 people of the Monongahela, Shenks Ferry and Susquehannock cultures of the Upper Ohio and Lower Susquehanna valleys used variously shaped shell objects as personal items of adornment. Typically, marine shells from the eastern seaboard, and others possibly from the Gulf of Mexico, were traded into southern Pennsylvania and other regions of the Northeast and Middle Atlantic where these Native American groups once lived. Listing the species of marine shells traded were Busycon (various species) commonly referred to as “conch shell”, Littorina spp. (Periwinkle), Mercenaria mercenaria (Hard- Shell Clam, Quahog), Crassostrea verginica (Eastern Oyster), Marginella spp., (marginella shells), Olivella spp., olive shells, among others.

assorted shell beads and pendants

Freshwater shells found in most of the rivers and larger streams of Pennsylvania were collected and made into tiny disc-shaped beads that were worn around the necks and wrists of individuals. Pieces of the freshwater shell Elliptio spp. were fashioned into oval-shaped pendants and suspended, singularly or in groups, around the neck and waist sometimes accompanying small wafer thin disk- shaped beads no larger than a half centimeter (roughly 3/8 inch) in diameter.

replica of the Penn Treaty belt

Wampum-peag or seewan was the main material of barter among many American Indian groups. The small barrel shaped pieces of wampum were difficult to manufacture using native made tools, however, the task became much less burdensome with the arrival of European iron tools. Peace belts and small strings of wampum were used on special occasions such as the Requickening Address, one of two of the morning rituals performed during the Condolence ceremony. To this day the ritual is performed after a person’s death, by Iroquoian groups in New York and on the Grand River reservation in Canada.

The colors of wampum include white, gray, purple and black. The purples and blacks were more desirable depending on the individual’s preference. Variously colored wampum was incorporated into designs commemorating specific events such as Penn’s Treaty with the Indians.

shell tempered Monongahela pot from Foley Farm (36Gr52)

Shell was also an important material as a temper medium to make Monongahela and Susquehannock pottery. Throughout the Monongahela and Susquehannock continua shell tempered pottery was the main ware used for the daily preparation of cooked foods. We know this by the presence of organic residues remaining on the insides of pots where the food was exposed to high heat. Analyses of charred pot residues from sites in New York show that corn was one of the foods boiled and consumed by prehistoric Native Americans. The more massive size pots were typically used for storing dried foods while the insides of smaller size vessels were sealed with animal fat or other appropriate materials and used to carry water.

serrated shell from Foley Farm (36Gr52)

Unmodified shells collected directly from their watery environments made excellent hand-held digging tools that the Indians used during the late spring planting season. There were other occasions when shells became useful materials in tool making. such as when the Monongahela Indians modified freshwater shells (Unio family) into saw toothed cutting tools for rendering and processing plant and meat foods. Such tools were also used to press a dentate-like design onto the rims of pottery and smoking pipes to give them an artful appearance.

So, when you find a shell at the beach this summer or when simply spending some leisure time hiking along the river’s edge, remember how they might have been utilized by, and how important they were to, the Late Woodland Indians.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Give me an R for Redware!

2011-07-29T16:02:00.005-04:00

We’re making our way down the alphabet trail and this week the letter R takes its turn. Radiocarbon dating, Raccon notched points, repatriation, Rockingham and Rhenish ceramics all fit the bill, and of course rhyolite came to mind, but our recent blogs on quarries seem to cover this subject, so the spotlight turns to the most humble of historic ceramics this week, redware.

Redware is often referred to as red earthenware because of the color of the material from which it is produced, literally red or reddish-orange clay, and is often dug locally by the potter. The vessels made from this clay were fired at a lower temperature, as compared to stoneware, and often painted with a clear lead or brown manganese glaze. Because they were fired at low temperatures and the clay was locally available, they were relatively inexpensive to produce and replace, as they are also easily broken.

Stahl pottery kiln, Powder Valley, Pennsylvania

Throughout the early colonies including Pennsylvania, evidence of redware production in America dates to the seventeenth century. Redware was predominately produced by German immigrants settling in the southeastern areas of the state who had a long tradition as potters in Europe. Produced as a utilitarian ware the forms vary widely from table wares like as bowls, cups and plates up to large multi-gallon storage crocks. Still more unusual forms such as this roach trap recovered from excavations in Philadelphia were made from this common, locally sourced red clay.

A redware roach trap excavated from Market St., Philadelphia.

This two handled colander is another example of a red earthenware utility piece.

Redware production continues today, and has no end production date. Normally there is a beginning date of production and conversely an end date for the various forms of pottery. Ceramics recovered from archaeological sites are utilized by archaeologists as a tool for dating sites. Because redware does not have this end production date, its use as a dating tool for archaeologists is limited. Ongoing research on the variation in form and decoration has compiled a comparative data set that allows archaeologists to denote subtle patterns in redware production which can aid in relative dating. While not as precise a dating tool as some other ceramic types, some general observations can be made concerning the cultural groups that were producing these utilitarian wares.

Researchers believe that the details in this decoration can be attributed to the Moravian Potters from the Bethlehem area who relocated to North Carolina in the 1750s.

Reconstructed pottery from Ephrata Cloister exhibit the variety of table wares produced locally by Pennsylvania Germans.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Q is for Quarry

2011-07-22T17:24:00.000-04:00

King's Quarry

Not many words begin with the letter “Q”. Luckily, one word that does, “Quarry”, is very significant in Pennsylvania archaeology. As we all know the use of stone tools was central to many groups of prehistoric humans and it is thus very useful for archaeologists to know where and how these resources were obtained. Like other types of archaeological sites, quarries are integral to the complete picture of how Native Americans lived and worked. They provide crucial details regarding prehistoric technology. Furthermore, they give us insight into where lithic resources were originally procured. The ability to link stone tools to their provenance adds specificity and credence to our models of the movements of people and goods in prehistoric times.

Prehistoric quarry sites are the locations where lithic materials are obtained for use in the manufacture of stone tools (including ground stone artifacts such as steatite vessels, celts, adzes, and grooved axes). Pennsylvania has naturally occurring sources of a variety of lithic materials that were used extensively in prehistoric times, including quartz, quartzite, rhyolite, argillite, chert, jasper, chalcedony, and steatite. Quarries can be located at either primary (original provenance) or secondary (cobble) sources and materials can be naturally exposed or uncovered through excavations. Excavations in Pennsylvania appear to consist of open pits, some of which were quite large. At King’s Quarry in Lehigh County, for example, a prehistoric pit was found to have been dug to 23 feet below the surface. As lithic technologies were prevalent in Pennsylvania from the Paleoindian period until European contact, individual quarries often remained a valuable resource for thousands of years. The reuse of quarries over such long periods of time resulted in large amounts of soil disturbance at many sites. At the Vera Cruz Jasper Quarry in Lehigh County archaeologists discovered that new pits were often dug into previously disturbed soil, and researchers project that every part of the 130m x 400m ridgetop at Vera Cruz was probably excavated at some point in time (Hatch and Miller 1985:222). A more in depth account of the variety found in various Pennsylvania quarries can be found in a previous blog (January 28, 2011) dealing with this subject.

from Prehistoric Cultures, Custer 1996

Artifacts and features associated with prehistoric human habitation are almost never found at quarry sites; quarries are almost always used exclusively for lithic procurement. The most common artifacts on chipped stone quarry sites are debitage (debitage is the excess stone removed from a tool as it is being made- the byproduct of flint knapping). Interestingly, archaeological evidence identified by analysis of this debitage demonstrates that Native Americans would test pieces of stone for flaws and impurities and sometimes very roughly start the process of shaping a tool, but rarely would they complete the fine detailed work necessary in finishing a tool at the quarry itself. Discarded materials occur on quarry sites as chunky or blocky pieces of unknappable material sometimes only very roughly flaked on one or more surfaces. Often near to the quarry is a work area or “quarry reduction station” where materials are taken for further reduction (Custer 1996:107-108). According to Ward and Custer (1988:34-35), however, these secondary reduction sites are absent in steatite bowl production. Instead reduction was begun in the central quarry area in order to verify the quality of the material and reduce the weight for easier transportation before it was taken to the habitation sites where the vessel was then finished.

from Ward and Custer 1988 Penna Archaeologist vol.58 No.2

One of the most important aspects of quarry sites is their ability to provide invaluable information on the movement of goods. Comparing stone tools to the material found on any archaeological site to the material available at known quarry sites can identify the artifact’s origin. This can have important implication on our understanding of the movement of people and networks of exchange. Metarhyolite from the Catoctin Formation on South Mountain in the Blue Ridge Province of Pennsylvania and Maryland, for example, was widely used throughout the Piedmont and Great Valley regions of the Middle Atlantic. During the Middle Archaic this source accounts for over half of the diagnostic points in those regions (Stewart 1987). This highlights the high mobility lifestyles of these people and helps us to understand their migratory routes.

knapping metarhyolite block

Using various techniques of geochemical analysis (including X-ray florescence spectrometry, electron microprobe analysis, instrumental neutron activation analysis, and inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy, among others) the elemental composition of lithic materials can be determined. While the major elements of a material are essentially the same no matter where it is found, elements present in very small amounts (called trace elements) are often unique to materials of a certain location. The elemental composition of stone tools found on any archaeological site can be compared with that of material from known quarry sites in order to determine their origins. This technology has still not been widely used in Pennsylvania, but it is starting to play a very prominent role in our understanding of the utilization of specific materials and aforementioned implications of lithic sourcing. It is central to the substantiation of archaeologists’ models of migration patterns and social networks of trade and exchange. As it is applied more and more in the future geochemical analysis will greatly increase the information quarry sites provide on the prehistory of Pennsylvania.

The Wasicki Cache, found in Indiana County, provides an interesting example of current research using geochemical analysis. Much of this collection consists of early stage metarhyolite “quarry blanks and preforms” (Burkett and Kaufman 2001:2). All artifacts are of the previously mentioned metarhyolite from the Catoctin Formation, roughly 100 miles away. Geologist Dr. Robert Smith used a combination of visual observations and various geochemical analyses on one of the Wasicki Cache artifacts and was able to pinpoint the specific quarry from which the artifact originated. The technique of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) proved the most useful method for identification, leading to the discovery of the traces of Titania (TiO2) in both the source material and the tool. Dr. Smith is currently analyzing several other metarhyolite artifacts in the same manner.

Prehistoric quarries can provide us a lot of very important information. They give us a direct example of how prehistoric people spent their time, and are invaluable to our understanding of prehistoric technology, economy and mobility. For a good example of a specific quarry site follow this link to an account of investigations at the King’s Quarry Site in Lehigh County: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/phmc_archaeology/2094/kings_quarry/410726

Burkett, Kenneth, Edward Kaufman
2001. The Wasicki Cache. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 71(2):1-15.

Custer, Jay F.
1996. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series Number 7, Harrisburg.

Hatch, James W., Patricia E. Miller
1985. Procurement, Tool Production, and Sourcing Research at the Vera Cruz Jasper Quarry in Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:219-230.

Stewart, R. Michael.
1987. Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:47-57.

Ward, H. Henry, Jay F. Custer
1988. Steatite Quarries of Northeastern Maryland and Southeastern Pennsylvania: An Analysis of Quarry Technology. Pennsylvania Archaeologist. 58(2):33-49.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

P is for PaleoIndian

2011-07-15T15:51:00.000-04:00

The letter “P” is for pestles, pipes, Pleistocene, pollen analysis, pottery, prehistory, projectile points and this week’s blog will summarize the highlights of the Paleoindian Period in Pennsylvana, the first time period of human settlement in the New World. It dates from 10,000 to at least 16,500 years ago and began with the first people moving into the New World during the Pleistocene or Ice Age. The period ends with changes in the environment and cultural adaptations to a more forested setting.

The Period is subdivided into the Pre-Clovis (between 16,500 and 11,200 years ago), and the Paleoindian (between 11,200 and 10,100 years ago). Although there is mounting evidence for people arriving several thousand years prior to Clovis, the Pre-Clovis Period is very controversial and some archaeologists do not believe that humans were here prior to 11,200 years ago. After Pre-Clovis, the Paleoindian Period is divided into Early, Middle, and Late periods, and these sub-periods are based on styles of spear points. The Paleoindians were highly mobile and generally lived in small groups. In the western United States, they were hunting now extinct animals such as mastodon, mammoth (forms of woolly elephants), bison, and horse, but there is little evidence for the hunting of extinct megafauna east of the Mississippi River and none in the northeastern United States.

There are several very significant archaeological sites from this period in Pennsylvania, representing some of the oldest, largest, and best-dated Paleoindian sites in the eastern United States. Meadowcroft Rockshelter, the oldest site in the state, dates to at least 16,250 years ago. Because the Pre-Clovis technology was not very distinctive, and human population density was very low, sites from this time period are difficult to identify and are very rare. First excavated in the 1970s, Meadowcroft was nearly alone as a Pre-Clovis site in the New World for several decades. However, in the past 15 years, Cactus Hill in Virginia (16,200 BP), Topper in South Carolina (16,000 BP), Debra L. Friedkin in Texas, (15,500 BP.) and Monte Verde in Chile (12,500 BP) have been added to the list of Pre-Clovis sites. Most archaeologists now agree that humans were in North American thousands of years prior to Clovis times.

Meadowcroft Rockshelter

Somewhere in North America around 11,200 years ago, associated with a variety of small distinctive scraping tools and knife-like cutting tools, a new and distinctive spear point was invented. The fluted point, the hallmark tool of the period, is called fluted because of the channel or groove down the length of both sides of the spear point. The groove likely facilitated the hafting of the spear point to the spear shaft.

Fluted points are very interesting for a variety of reasons. First, they are unique to the New World. Humans have been making stone spear points for at least 20,000 years, nowhere else are they fluted. Further, they are relatively difficult to make, and approximately 10% were broken in production. Why would these early visitors to the New World choose such a difficult and unique spear point form? Maybe just for that reason: it was unique and a distinguishing symbol of this culture.

The earliest fluted point style is called Clovis after a town in New Mexico where these were first discovered associated with mammoth bones. Clovis seems to be the most widespread style of fluted point extending throughout the West, the Southeast and as far north as the Shawnee Minisink site in Pennsylvania. A recent review of radiocarbon dates places it rather precisely between 11,100 BP. and 10,800 BP(uncorrected).

Artifacts from one of the largest Paleoindian sites in the Eastern United States, the Shoop site (in upper Dauphin County), were first analyzed by John Witthoft in 1952, then Pennsylvania’s state archaeologist. Over one thousand tools, including hundreds of scrapers and approximately ninety fluted spear points were made from a stone called Onondaga chert, quarried 250 miles to the north in western New York. The site is approximately 40 acres in size with at least eleven concentrations of artifacts. Each concentration may represent a separate visit by Paleoindians between western New York and central Pennsylvania. Some archaeologists have speculated that this site was probably situated on a caribou or elk migration route, visited on an annual basis to hunt these animals.

Shoop projectile points

One of the few known deeply buried Paleoindian sites in the East, Shawnee-Minisink in Monroe County is also one of the best dated Paleoindian sites in the Eastern United States. It contains many tools, including over one hundred scrapers but only two fluted points. Radiocarbon dates from hearths date these tools to 10,950 years ago, a relatively early date for fluted spear points in the Northeast. The two fluted points appear to fit the Clovis style and the dates certainly place the site within the Clovis time frame. Several cooking hearths have been found containing the bones of fish and a variety of carbonized seeds including hawthorn plum, ground cherry, pokeweed, goosefoot (lambs quarter), hackberry, pigweed, grape, blackberry.

Shawnee-Minisink point

It would seem that Shoop and Shawnee-Minisink sites represent different adaptations. Compared to the Shoop site, there is no evidence in the form of large numbers of stone spear points that supports extensive hunting took place at Shawnee-Minisink. Further, 95% of the stone for making tools was a locally quarried chert probably collected within two miles of the site. The remaining toolstone originated less than 100 miles from the source. This suggests a territory much smaller than the Shoop site. This has caused some serious discussion among archaeologists, however, when this issue is examined on a regional basis, these two sites seem to fit a pattern. The Shoop site is similar to sites in New England and the northern Great Lakes. In these regions, there are several sites where charred caribou bone was found, along with a similar ratio of tools to points of toolstone transported up to 300 miles from its source. It appears these sites represent highly mobile hunting groups. In contrast, the Shawnee-Minisink site is similar to sites to the south containing only a few spear points made from locally available toolstone. These southern groups occupied a territory of 75 to 150 miles and exploited a variety of plants and animals. Contrary to the image of Shoop’s big game hunters, Shawnee-Minisink Paleoindians they were essentially hunters and gathers.

The Paleoindian Period ends with the emergence of a climatic warming trend and a change in the forest type, requiring humans to develop new strategies for acquiring food. New types of artifacts develop as a result, and are identified by Archaeologists as being part of the Archaic Period (10,100 to 4100 before present)). This does not mean that new people replaced Paleoindians. Logically, in the Middle Atlantic region, at least during the Early Archaic period, the Paleoindians were the genetic ancestors of these people.

The Paleoindian Period presents a fascinating opportunity for the anthropological study of very low-density populations over thousands of years, documenting how people occupied a new land and their development of enduring cultural traditions. We are beginning to understand Paleoindian technology and diet, but we have much to learn about their social and cosmological beliefs.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

The Orient Phase

2011-07-08T17:06:00.002-04:00

This week we will return to our alphabetical organization of archaeological topics.
“O” is for Old Copper Culture, Olduvai Gorge, Onondaga chert, Owasco, Ozette site and this week’s blog will highlight the Orient Phase. This phase dates between 2700 and 3200 years ago and is characterized by fishtail type points, large fire cracked rock features and steatite bowls. Trade and exchange in lithics such as metarhyolite, jasper and argillite and very early forms of pottery also appear in Pennsylvania. This artifact assemblage is found in Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, eastern New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The largest sites are frequently found along major rivers. Some of the most important sites in Pennsylvania are Faucett and Zimmerman in the Upper Delaware Valley, Sandts Eddy near Easton, Gerty’s Notch along the middle Susquehanna River and Bare Island in the lower Susquehanna Valley.

The Orient Phase was defined by William A. Ritchie (1965:164-178) based on a group of sites on Long Island, New York. These consisted of both habitation and at least four significant cemetery sites. Several of the sites were stratified and exhibited good faunal preservation. The habitation sites, such as the Stony Brook site, demonstrate a change in diet from the deeper Late Archaic occupations. The faunal remains of the earlier occupations were dominated by deer and turkey but the Orient occupations were dominated by shellfish such as oyster, bay scallop, and hard-shelled clam.

William Ritchie sitting next to a Orient Phase burial with grave offerings of steatite post at the Jamesport site, Long Island.

The diagnostic projectile point type was the Orient point. As defined by Ritchie (1961:39) this type can be characterized as a “slender, gracefully formed point, of medium size, with a characteristic narrow, lanceolate blade merging into a flaring "fishtail" stem. The artifact assemblage also included ovate knives, fishtail base drills, spear thrower weights, fully grooved axes, celts, adzes and rarely cord-marked, grit tempered pottery.

Orient points

Four cemeteries were excavated on Long Island, notably Orient No.1 and 2. These contained both single and communal cremation burials. At Orient No. 2, the burial pit was 20-30 feet across and five feet deep. The majority of the cremations were associated with caches of artifacts that included a fire-making kit, a number of projectile points, one or more stone bowls, a hammerstone and sometimes an adze or a celt. The stone bowls had lugs at each end and showed considerable variation in shape including oval, rectangular, and nearly circular. They were usually from five to eighteen inches long, and two to six inches deep. They frequently were smoke stained and grease-incrusted indicating that they had been used. The steatite bowls in the cemeteries were intentionally broken or “killed”, usually by knocking out a hole in the bottom.

steatie bowl from the Zimmerman site

In Pennsylvania, W. Fred Kinsey (1972:355-361) has provided the most detailed definition of this time period which he defines as the Fishtail Tradition. This includes many of the artifacts of the Orient Phase but Kinsey defines a second fishtail type, the Drybrook point. There are a very large number of sites along the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers where steatite bowl fragments and large fire-cracked rock features are very common, along with evidence of trade and exchange of lithics.

artifacts of the Fishtail tradition (Kinsey 1972)

This time period seems to represent a continuation of traditions that developed during the Late Archaic also known as the Transitional period. In some ways the Orient Phase and the Fishtail tradition represent a terminological conundrum. It is frequently noted that fishtail points seemed to have evolved from broadspear types, and they are frequently indistinguishable from re-sharpened Susquehanna broadspears. This would place them with Archaic cultures. However, this phase is also associated with early fired clay pottery. Since pottery is a diagnostic artifact of the Woodland period, this would place this phase in the Woodland Period.

This is the problem with defining broad time periods (i.e. PaleoIndian, Archaic, Woodland) by specific artifact types. Obviously, the people of the Archaic period did not suddenly adopt Woodland artifacts into their toolkits. This was a gradual process and archaeologists have recognized that these chronological terms are heuristic devices but we have yet to agree to alternative terminology.

Kinsey, W. Fred

1972 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Anthropological Series No. 2. Harrisburg.

Ritchie, William A

1961 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum and science Service, Bulletin Number 384. Albany, New York.

1969 Archaeology of New York State. Revised Edition, Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Happy Independence Day

2011-07-01T15:25:00.001-04:00

This week we are skipping the letter “O” in honor of our national holiday, Independence Day. Most of us refer to this holiday as merely the 4th of July or the July 4th holiday, advertisements rarely if ever include the words “Independence Day”. Our focus is on picnics and fireworks with little thought given to the sacrifices and events which occurred for us to enjoy our freedoms. Pennsylvania played a pivotal role in the events that led to the creation of the Declaration of Independence and continued to play a major role as the fight for independence evolved.

Pennsylvania was established by William Penn as a safe haven for Quakers fleeing religious oppression in England. The influx of Quakers and other passive religious groups to the colony attributed to the delay in Pennsylvania joining other colonies in revolting against the British Crown. Skirmishes in nearby colonies eventually forced Pennsylvanians to join in the revolution.

This premise of religious freedom was a factor in the establishment of Ephrata Cloister in Lancaster County. The Cloister was a religious commune settled in 1732 under the leadership of Conrad Beissel. This celibate community led a very simple lifestyle, sheltered from much of the turmoil surrounding them. But even the quiet community of the Cloister could not avoid the changes that occurred with the Revolutionary War during the winter of 1777-1778.

The Continental Army was quartered at Valley Forge under George Washington’s command with few provisions during harsh winter conditions. Disease rapidly spread thru the camp and included Typhus, typhoid, dysentery, and pneumonia. The sickened soldiers were sent from the camp to hospitals established in the surrounding countryside, Ephrata Cloister functioned as one of these hospitals.

Archaeology conducted at the Cloister by former Senior Curator Steve Warfel of the State Museum of Pennsylvania in 2002 & 2003 verified the historic accounts of a Revolutionary War hospital on the grounds. Excavations in search of the foundation of a 1739 Prayer-house on Zion’s Hill, yielded evidence of the occupation of this site by soldiers of the Continental Army. According to historic records, the Prayer-house was destroyed after its conversion into a hospital during the war.

Warfel described the military buttons recovered in his report of excavations Historical Archaeology at Ephrata Cloister; A Report on 2002 & 2003 Investigations. He identified a pewter button as particularly noteworthy, “for it is a regimental button of the Revolutionary War period. Marked “PSR,” the button was made for garments worn by members of the Pennsylvania State Regiment of Foot, an infantry unit (Bower 2000:2). The unit was activated on March 1, 1777 and “officially uniformed in a blue regimental coat with red lining and facing and pewter buttons inscribed PSR”(Gorecki 2003:1). Members of the infantry unit fought at the Battles of Brandywine and Germantown in the fall of 1777. The button implies that one or more members of the regiment were treated at the Continental Army hospital established on Mount Zion “.

The “PSR” button, far left, is one of three regimental buttons recovered from the ground on Mount Zion. A cast pewter button marked with the numeral “11” (above center) was linked to the Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment which formed on October 25, 1776 (Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment 2004:1). This unit participated in the Battles of Brandywine, Paoli, and Germantown. Thirty-six percent of its men were listed as “sick” by November 1, 1777 – only a month before the Ephrata hospital was opened (Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment 2004:1).”

The third pewter regimental button is marked with the numeral “4” and was recovered from the plow zone soil on the 1738 Brothers' dormitory site during a previous field season. The Fourth Continental Light Dragoons was a mounted unit, raised in January 1777 (Waldo 2003:2). “Most of the men hailed from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland” (Waldo 2003:2). Like the Pennsylvania State Regiment and the Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment, this unit also participated in the Battles of Brandywine and Germantown (Waldo 2003:3-4). These Revolutionary War period regimental buttons are considered rare finds and document the Continental Army’s presence on Zion Hill.

Lead musket balls and shot, English and French gunflints, gun lock parts, a bayonet, hundreds of free-blown glass medicine bottle pieces, regimental and plain buttons, and numerous strike-a-lite flints are byproducts of the Continental Army’s occupation on Zion’s Hill (Warfel 2003).

This iron brazier recovered from the excavations on Zion’s Hill likely served as a small camp stove for soldiers of the Continental Army. This is a unique artifact and the only example in our collections. Recent conservation treatment will help insure its preservation for future researchers.

The freedoms we enjoy today are the results of years of struggle in formation of a new government, a military force and a financial system. The signing on the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia was only one step towards building a new nation, years of conflict and sacrifice followed this momentous event. Pennsylvania is known as the “birthplace of liberty”, let us recognize and celebrate this on Independence Day 2011!

Reference:

2005
Warfel, Stephen G.
Historical Archaeology at Ephrata Cloister A Report on 2002 & 2003 Investigations Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Prehistoric Netting

2011-06-24T15:59:00.004-04:00

This week discussion of the letter N brought to mind nutting stones, needles, notched points and nets. It was quickly decided that nets and the important role they played in the daily lives of Native peoples would be an interesting topic for our followers.

carbonized netting

Preserved nets woven from plant fibers date to more than 20,000 years ago in the Old World and we assume they were brought to the New World when humans first arrived over 16,000 years ago. These probably had a variety of functions including carrying goods, hunting and fishing. Nets were reported in detail by early European explorers and a few examples exist in museum collections for the curious to view and appreciate. Prehistoric nets rarely survived the vestiges of time in Pennsylvania because our temperate climate is not conducive to their preservation. In most cases only secondary evidence remains for the prehistoric use of nets.

net sinkers

Notched net weights and net impressions on prehistoric pottery are two forms of artifacts that we can use to identify netting technology in a prehistoric context. Typically notched net weights were simple tools and of little consequence to the fisherman (or hunter) if lost in the water. They did not require much energy or skill to make and were easily replaced. Several caches of net weights have been discovered in Pennsylvania including a large cache of notched net weights discovered on a Susquehanna River island some years ago and reported in TWIPA on (see the earlier TWIPA blog we did on netsinkers for details).

net impressed pottery

One technique archaeologists employ in analyzing prehistoric pottery is to make a negative impression of the net-markings that are present on a pot’s exterior. Negative impressions of net on net-marked pottery provides a three dimensional image of the actual net’s composition. The surface of the pottery is carefully covered with latex rubber or some similar viscous casting material available at most craft outlets. The resulting cast, an exact copy of the net that the potter used in decorating the pot can then be measured, photographed and studied to obtain information on prehistoric netting technology (Hurley 1979).

latex cast of net impressed pottery

Prehistoric nets have been preserved in very dry settings such as in caves of the southwestern United States and when partially burned or charred. These examples demonstrate a surprising level of sophistication. There are two sites in Pennsylvania where nets and related remnants of the prehistoric perishable industry are reported in the archaeological record. The first and most famous site is the Sheep Rock Shelter (36HU1), a large cliff-like shelter located in central Pennsylvania. This site provided favorable conditions for the preservation of numerous perishable artifacts including Native made cordage and netting. Archaeology was conducted at this location prior to its inundation of waters for the Raystown Reservoir. Two specimens of preserved netting are reported, and in both cases the net’s cordage has a final Z-twist pattern with each net cell cross tied with square knots forming knot spacing approximately one inch apart (Willey 1974). There are no radiocarbon dates directly associated with these specimens.

netting on display in State Museum Archaeology Gallery

Another well preserved, though carbonized and very fragile, net fragment was excavated from the Late Prehistoric period McFate Site (36CW1) in northwestern Pennsylvania (Schoff n.d.). Unlike the net fragments from Sheep Rock Shelter, the McFate Site specimen is more complete and the knot spacing is slightly greater at one and one eighth inches with the net’s cordage twisted into a final S-twist foundation. Radiocarbon dates place the McFate Site’s Indian occupation around the mid-15th century.

Although very rare, perishable artifacts such as nets are tangible evidence of the sophistication of prehistoric societies not evident in the typical stone artifacts of the region.

References:

Hurley, William M.

1979 Prehistoric Cordage: Identification of Impressions on Pottery. Aldine Manuals on Archaeology. Taraxacum. Washington.

Schoff, Harry L.

n.d. McFate Site: Report on Archaeological Excavations Conducted in Northwestern Pennsylvania by the Works progress Administration. Ms. #2 on file, Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania.

Willey, Lorraine M.

1974 A Functional Analysis of Perishable Artifacts: During the Late Woodland Period in the Northeastern United States. M.A. Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Marvelous Marbles or, Dial "M" for Marbles

2011-06-17T16:20:00.000-04:00

After sharing with you Cedar Cliff High School’s archaeology program for last week’s post, we’re picking up again with the alphabetic theme, and find ourselves at the half-way point through our journey, the letter “M”. And a consensus was quickly formed that “M” is for marbles.

Kids today would probably look at you as if you were from Mars if you asked them to play a game of marbles. Indeed, there is an inverse relationship between the rise of the video game and the fall of marbles as a child’s game of choice. Chances are, if you grew up with a Nintendo controller in your hand, you never had a favorite “shooter” marble in your pocket.

Nevertheless, marbles do show up with some frequency on archaeological sites, both historic and prehistoric, and their presence speaks to not only the enduring popularity of this classic children’s past time game, but to the presence of children themselves, a social group that can easily escape archaeological analysis.

As an archaeological specimen, it is fair to say that the marble has largely been overlooked. “Few artifacts within the scope of historical archaeology have been so totally neglected as the marble. There is no valid justification for this neglect, for marbles have perhaps as much potential as chronologically significant artifacts as many other more-studied artifacts, and are much more durable than most” (Randal 1971).

Native American examples of marbles curated by the State Museum’s Section of Archaeology include those made from clay, such as the single clay ball from the Schultz Site, 36La7, seen above, and the stone marbles collected by John Witthoft from Qualla, North Carolina, seen below.

Another specimen, is this stone marble seen here, recovered from the Foley Farm site, 36Gr52.

Stretching the typology a bit, a relatively large stone ball, seen here, was recovered from the Wyoming Valley of northeastern Pennsylvania, although to be fair, it probably would not be considered a true marble due to its great size.

Marbles manufactured in historic times are represented at a number of sites, with an early example made of clay like this one seen here from the Metropolitan Detention Center site in Philadelphia, 36Ph91.

Later examples are made of glass in solid colors like these from Washington and Lancaster Counties, seen here.

Another example from York County displays a swirl of colbat blue and white opaque milk glass.

So when the mood strikes, and the kids are bored with their Playstation, pull out the bag of Grandpa’s marbles, that is if you haven't lost yours!

Reference:

1971

Early Marbles Randall, Mark E. in Historical Archaeology 1971 Vol. V, Armour, David A. editor. The Society for Historical Archaeology, Lansing MI

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

A Simulated Archaeology Project at Cedar Cliff High School, West Shore School district, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania

2011-06-10T15:37:00.001-04:00

Simulated archaeology at Cedar Cliff High School

Students can learn about archaeology and archaeological methods in a classroom setting but there is nothing like a hands- on experience. A simulated archaeological excavation can be defined as an experimental project organized by a classroom teacher that has an educational goal of reconstructing human behavior using archaeological techniques (Chiarulli et al. 2000). As part of Mr. Dan Reilly’s AP History class, 27 students at Cedar Cliff High School spent three weeks this May learning and doing archaeology at a simulated site aside the sports stadium. For these students, this experiential learning provides knowledge they can appreciate for a lifetime.

The project began in the early spring, when Mr. Reilly (assisted by several other teachers who were intrigued with the project) created an archaeological site by placing artifacts in the ground. He buried artifacts that represented two different time periods; one historic and one prehistoric. The historic site consisted of four concentrations of bricks aligned in a five meter square representing the four corners of a house and a fifth concentration of bricks representing a fire place. A scattering of broken dishes and small household items were arranged inside the house and a trash pit with larger historic artifacts was created outside the house. The prehistoric site was represented by a fire cracked rock hearth with charcoal and food remains situated next to a pile of flakes from the production of stone tools (the debris created by a modern flint knapping demonstration). In the corner of the site, three burials were placed; not actual human remains, but deer skeletons aligned in a human like fashion – thus creating the “deer people”!

Mr. Reilly has experience in compliance archaeology in the United States and he also spent time in Ireland working on a site dating to the medieval age. He was very excited about this project but it required a lot of time and effort on his part. Working with a limited budget for equipment, he received assistance from KCI Technologies, a local Cultural Resource Management Consulting Firm, and The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology for shovels, trowels, brushes, tapes and screens. He also had to manage a crew of 27 inexperienced students and luckily he received periodic help from Marcia Kodlick at KCI, Dr. Scott Smith at Franklin and Marshall College and Dr. Kurt Carr at The State Museum. Never the less, it was a huge amount of work on his part but one that he feels was well worth the effort in terms of benefit to the students.

Laying out one meter units

The students began with several days in the classroom where they were taught the difference between archaeology and paleontology; that archaeology is a subfield of anthropology – the study of human cultures; the nature and significance of stratigraphy; and the importance of archaeological context or the location of the site and the three dimensional location of the artifacts within it.

Screening

With anticipation, students started to "dig" on a hot day in the 3rd week of May. Field work began with a lesson using a transit to survey and lay out a mapping grid. Archaeology is all about mapping and identifying patterns in artifact distributions. Everything needs to be mapped. This was followed by the students conducting a controlled surface collection and placing flags where they found artifacts. Archaeology is not about the random search for treasure but the systematic recovery of data on how people behaved in the past. Based on the controlled surface collection, nine teams of three students each picked a one meter unit for excavation. Using the principles of the Pythagorean theory (A squared + B squared = C squared), the students placed stakes at the corner of their squares, connected them with string to define the boundaries and began digging. The plowzone was excavated with shovels and the soil was screened. The students had been taught that the artifacts in the plowzone were out of context and did not need to be mapped with the same precision. But, once in the subsoil, they began digging with trowels and brushes.

Excavating one meter square

Exposing the brick foundation

Field work lasted for over a week, eventually exposing two corners of the house foundation, the chipping cluster, half of the hearth, and two “deer people” burials. Field notes were taken to document the location of artifacts and features. In the lab, the artifacts were examined and a report was developed, documenting the methods and the findings. The students enjoyed finding stuff, but they also enjoyed weaving the story of how the artifacts got to this location.

Ornaments associated with the "deer people"

The State Museum has been assiting with Mary Pat Evans at Susquehanna High School for over five years on a forensics archaeology project and now another local high school is getting involved in archaeology as a way to enhance the educational experience. Archaeology is a multidisciplinary study and allows teachers to demonstrate basic principles of geology, biology, math, history and anthropology. Simulated archaeological projects can be entertaining to the students but they use archaeological data in multidisciplinary programs to develop students’ critical thinking skills. A simulated archaeological project can demonstrate a systematic approach to scientific discovery. It emphasizes the importance of archaeological context to the discovery of past human behavior over the mere appreciation of artifacts as collectible antiquities. An archaeological field experience for high school students allows teachers to answer the age old question often asked by students when taking science math, etc… – “Why do we have to know this stuff?” This experience leads students to see how other disciplines tie into creating the ‘big picture’ and allows them to understand why all learning is important.

The 2011 Cedar Cliff Archaeological Field School

Reference:

Chiarulli, Beverly A., Ellen Dailey Bedell and Ceil Leeper Strudevant

2000 Simulated Excavations and Critical Thinking Skills. In The Archaeology Education Handbook, edited by Karolyn Smardz and Shelley J. Smith. pp.217-233, Altamira Press.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

L is for Leather

2011-06-03T19:07:00.009-04:00

L is for lithics, laurentian, Lenape, linguistics, and longhouse but this week it is for Leather.

The word leather conjures up many an image in most people’s minds. To a motorcyclist it could be a leather jacket and pants, a cowboy thinks leather saddle and chaps, a young woman might think of a designer leather purse. The leather objects most commonly possessed are the shoes or boots on our feet. Most of us give little thought to the process of obtaining these leather goods and are accustomed to a vast selection from which to choose. This was not always the case and the tools recovered in archaeological investigations aid archaeologists in understanding how prehistoric peoples processed animals for food and clothing. Ethno-archaeological studies as well as experimental archaeology have increased our understanding of the use of stone tools recovered during excavation. Additionally, specialized micro-wear analysis of edges on stone tools aids in our interpretation of these tools.

Hide processing tools recovered from Native American sites date to as early as the Paleo-Indian Period (11150 to 10000 years ago) and consist of several forms, including knives and scrapers. Some of these tools show evidence of hafting for use in a handle which provided leverage and allowed for easier handling. In our culture women have traditionally assumed the role of clothing the family. In prehistory, women were likely responsible for cleaning and processing hides for footwear and clothing.

Image from The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Anthropology & Archaeology Gallery

Processing the hide was a multi step progression that required sharp tools to cut the hide away from the carcass and remove the fleshy material attached. This allowed for the initial stretching of the hide and scraping. The subsequent stages of processing were labor intensive and involved stretching the hide, then scraping and pounding, soaking the hide in deer brain and washing and stretching again.

Scrapers from Shoop Site (36Da12)

The final step in the finishing process, smoking the hide, would toughen the soft leather and close the pores making it more durable.

Smoking pits are identified archaeologically as small, slightly oval basins, marked by an upper layer of gray loamy soil were utilized in the final step. Beneath this gray layer, are multiple levels of charred and carbonized plant and vegetable remains. Historic accounts from the 17^th and 18^th century confirm the use of smoke for tanning of hides.

Recent excavations in Tioga County uncovered features identified as smoking pits.

Our earliest examples of processed leathers were excavated from the Sheep Rock Shelter site (36Hu1)in Huntingdon County. These fragments have been pierced with a sharp tool, likely a bone awl. Bone awls are sharp fragments of splintered bone which were utilized for piercing the hides for sewing into moccasins, pipe bags or garments.

Bone awls for punching thru hides

The edge of this leather fragment has been pierced to allow a leather string to run thru it to form a bag. Native peoples utilized leather pouches for multiple purposes including the transporting of food and water. Leather strips recovered from Sheep Rock shelter support their use in creating these pouches.

Fragment of leather pouch with punched edge for tying with leather strips

Leather strips from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1)

This beaded pipe bag
from the 20th century
demonstrates this
continuing tradition
and bears a remarkable
likeness to the
fragment below.

Scalloped leather fragment from Sheep Rock Shelter

These fragments from Sheep Rock are identified as moccasins. The construction of moccasins as described in The League of the Iroquois, is one piece of deer-skin. A seam is stitched at the heel and in the front, no seam in the bottom. Plain moccasins rise above the ankle and are fastened with deer strings, then cuffed over the top.

Hide fragments from Sheep Rock Shelter identified as Mocassin

This moccasin is constructed in the same manner as the undecorated moccasin, but the front of the moccasin is decorated with beads. These moccasins were created as tourists trade items and are still popular today.

Leather and the tanning process continued to play an important role in the history of Pennsylvania. In 1870 there were 870 tanneries located in Pennsylvania. Tioga and Potter counties were part of an extensive region in northern and western Pennsylvania that by 1880 contained the world's largest concentration of leather tanning plants. This was attributed to their location close to the region's rich forest resources, since tanneries were normally dependent on ready supplies of bark, usually obtained from oak or hemlock trees. Because the stately hemlock produced inferior lumber, the wood was frequently left to rot after the tannin containing bark had been removed. These tanneries were primarily producing sole leather for shoes. The introduction of chemicals into the process meant the industry no longer needed an abundant supply of wood to complete the tanning process. Many of these factories closed but tanneries continued to employ several thousand workers into the 20th century.

Scene from inside early tannery From Pennsylvania and Its Manifold Activities, 1912

While the tools utilized and processes have changed and evolved since our earliest inhabitants, we continue to desire leather for its quality and durability. Demand for "vintage" leather is high, airfreshner for your car can be purchased to make it smell like new leather, and Forbes magazine reports that the market for luxury Givenchy handbags exceeded expected sales. While cotton may claim to be the "fabric of our lives", we trust leather to stand the test of time.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

K is for Knife

2011-05-27T16:45:00.001-04:00

Knife- a small tool with a big role

Reach in your pocket or look in your tool bag, more than likely you will find a knife. Knives have been an essential tool for humans for thousands of years; its shape and size has evolved and changed multiple times, but its role and function has remained the same.

A knife can be defined as a cutting instrument with one or more sharp-edged blades often pointed and set in a handle. Implements for cutting and slicing soft materials have been used by humans for hundreds of thousands of years. The early versions were made out of bone, antler, ivory and stone. In Pennsylvania, knives date to the Paleoindian period and were found at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter dating to 16,250 years ago. The jasper piece above was found in the Allentown area and its age is unknown. It is similar to Paleoindian artifacts that have been described as a meat processing tools. Stone knives such as these would have been placed in handles. The extra leverage provided by the handle vastly improved the cutting efficiency of these tools. Unfortunately the bone and wooden handles are rarely preserved in the archaeological record.

The artifact below was recovered from the Sheep Rock Shelter. It is a carved deer rib handle. The stone blade was found in an adjacent five foot square and fits perfectly in the slot hollowed out of the wide end. The handle is highly polished and engraved on both sides. The engraving was done with stone tools and the polishing resulted from use. The engraved images were probably very important to the owner but we do not know their meaning. It is interesting that these are a combination of dots and lines and not the traditional zoomorphic or anthropomorphic images associated with Native Americans. There is a hole drilled at one end and a leather strap was probably used to carry the tool. Unfortunately, the age of this piece is unknown.

The Sheep Rock Shelter knife essentially functioned as a pocket knife with a bone handle, which is a form similar to the one you likely possess. A 2008 market survey by the American Knife and Tool Institute (AKTI) reported that over 35 million households in the United States have pocket knives. Not unexpectedly, men possess sixty-eight percent of these knives. The traditional role of “man the hunter” has made this the essential tool for many men, long before they were old enough to assume the role as provider. A quick poll of staff found that most men had received their first pocket knife by the time they were seven and all fondly recall the experience. While men possess the greater percentage of knives, women have utilized knives for equally as long for food preparation and household chores.

We have often discussed the role of archaeology in examining past human behavior to understand patterns of change over time. The changes that we see in knife forms reflect changes in society as well. The standard clasp knife has evolved into the “Swiss army knife” or the “pocket multi-tool” a tool with a bottle opener, screw driver, vise grips, cork screw, and the list goes on. For archaeologists knives can function as a tool for dating the occupation of a site and the activities which occurred there. In our Native American knife examples the Paleoindian knife is a tool distinct to that period, where as the knife from Sheep Rock Shelter is a form that was used throughout multiple culture time periods. Their shape changed as their function evolved, in the same manner as blades and handles changed during the historic period.

These clasp knives recovered from Conoy Town, a village site of the Conoy Indians in Lancaster County which dates from 1718 to 1743, are examples of pistol grip handles. This shape was replaced in the 1800’s losing the curve pistol shaped handle for a straighter handle. The development of spring blade knives in the 18th century was a significant advancement in the industry and provided the creation of the multi-tool knife.

This little tool that you rely on for multiple tasks has served us well for thousands of years and will continue to evolve and change as our lifestyles change.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

"J" is for. . .

2011-05-20T16:39:00.003-04:00

“J” is for jar, Jack’s Reef, Jamestown and this week “J” is for jasper. Pennsylvania jasper has been used to make stone tools for at least 11,000 years and was used by early Native Americans all over the East Coast, from New Brunswick to North Carolina. Jasper can be defined as a yellow, red or brown, cryptocrystalline or microcrystalline chert given its color by iron and other mineral inclusions. It can also be found in black or green. Its geologic origins are debated but it is most likely a sedimentary rock formed by the replacement of carbonates (limestone) by silica (quartz). Several major outcrops are found at the boundary between the silica rocks of Precambrian Blue Ridge province and the Cambrian/Ordovician rocks of the Valley and Ridge province.

There are two major quarry formations in Pennsylvania. The Bald Eagle/Houserville quarries near State College and the Hardyston (Reading Prong) quarries south and west of Allentown. Major sources in adjacent states are the Iron Hill quarries in Delaware along the Pennsylvania line and the Flint Run quarries in the Shenandoah valley of northern Virginia.

Jasper was desirable as a toolstone because it is available in very large blocks (the package size), thus there are no restrictions on the size of artifacts that could be produced; it is available in very large quantities; thus it could be used in trade; and it has a fine (microcrystalline), glass-like structure; allowing for highly controlled (predictable) flaking techniques. The disadvantage is that it sometimes contains voids and impurities which require testing at the quarry to reduce the probability of bringing home a poor quality piece.

The Bald Eagle/Houserville quarries are concentrated in the State College area and the raw material seems to have been collected from the ground surface without much effort. However, much of this source is course in texture and it does not seem to have been used over an area outside of central Pennsylvania.

The Hardyston jasper quarries consist of a series of major outcrops that extend over an area of 25 miles. Henry Chapman Mercer mapped over twenty separate quarries in the 1890s. This formation is arguably the best quality lithic material in the Middle Atlantic region. Large pits were dug to extract it from the decaying bedrock. Mercer reported pits over 50 feet in depth. Excavations by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission documented depths of up to 24 feet and 80 feet across.

Jasper has been used throughout prehistory. Its widest distribution was during Paleoindian times when Pennsylvania jasper was carried to sites in Maine. It continued to be a preferred material during the Early Archaic period but during the Middle and Late Archaic it witnessed a decrease in use. Its most intensive use was during the Transitional period when it was traded throughout the Middle Atlantic region. It is strongly associated with Lehigh and Perkiomen broadspears and fishtail projectile points. During early Late Woodland times it was the preferred stone for the production of Jack’s Reef projectile points (see above, top center). These are finely made and very thin and may have been the first tips used with the bow and arrow.

Archaeologists trace the movements of prehistoric groups and patterns of trade and exchange by tracing how far lithics have moved from a given source. There are a variety of techniques such as chemical characterization as determined by neutron activation, atomic absorption and flame emission spectrophotometry, or X-ray fluorescence. Very simply stated, these methods determine the precise chemical composition of the different quarries (especially focusing on rare elements) and match artifacts to these chemical compositions. These methods have documented a Middle Archaic artifact found in central New Jersey as having originated in the Flint Run quarries in Virginia and a Paleoindian artifact from Maine originating in the Hardyston quarries. It has taken over 20 years to perfect these methods but they hold promise of making significant contributions to our understanding of past migrations and trading patterns.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Reference:

Stevenson, C. M., M. D. Glasscock, R. J. Speakman, and M. MacCarthy

2008 Expanding the Geochemical Database for Virginia Jasper Sources. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 24: 57-78.

"I" is for Incising as a Decorative Mode on Pottery

2011-05-12T10:54:00.000-04:00

Steatite vessel fragment with open triangle and raised ladder motif from the Zimmerman Site (36PI14). Transitional Period.

In the Susquehanna and Delaware valleys, the use of line incising for decorating containers can be traced back to the preceramic Transitional Period of circa 3800 years ago. Soapstone pots are the earliest portable cooking containers preserved in the archaeological record. Simple incised lines made with a stone tool are found on these bowls and they probably reflect painted designs on baskets and bark containers. Incising is rare, but when present, consists of parallel lines or open triangles placed on the upper portion of the vessel.

Vinette I- equivalent rimsherd section with narrow multiple oblique lines over horizontal line motif from a Susquehanna valley site (36La51). Early Woodland Period.

During the Early and Middle Woodland Periods, circa 2000-1200 years ago clay pots may have been incised with a bone or wood tool and these decorations were largely confined to the same areas of the pot. As time went on, however, potters extended their decorative markings to the shoulders of pots. Incised decorated pottery from these early periods of human prehistory are rare but provide yet another aspect of the prehistoric potter’s craft.

Net-marked rimsherd section with broad wide spaced multiple oblique line motif from a Susquehanna valley site (36La51). Middle Woodland Period.

After collars were added to pots in many regions of central and northeastern Pennsylvania elaborate and often quite complex incised decorations were introduced into their design repertoires. Often these designs were incorporated into panels of carefully executed motifs that became hallmarks of certain Native American societies. Beginning in the late 14th century the potter’s incised line patterns became so regionally distinct that archaeologists are now using them to answer questions relative to tribal territoriality, population movement and prehistoric trade and exchange of material resources.

Munsee Incised rimsherd section with hallmark effigy face motif and line panels from the Zimmerman Site (36PI14).

Decorating pottery with incised lines was by no means confined to prehistoric societies in our part of the world. Fine examples of different types of stoneware were being made in Europe and the white salt glazed stoneware (1744 to 1775) identified by its “scratch blue” incised decoration was a popular table ware of the period. Certain forms of this style are still being made today in Colonial Williamsburg and elsewhere.

“Scratch Blue” white salt glazed stoneware with flower motif from (36Ph5)

6 North Front Street, Philadelphia

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

H is for hoe, hasp, hatchet, hunters, hematite, helgramite points, Huron, Heritage and the list goes on, but this week...

2011-05-06T17:29:00.000-04:00

H is for Historical Archaeology.

Archaeology is the study of past human behavior through the systematic recovery and analysis of material remains or objects.

A basic division in the study of past human behavior is the difference between historic and prehistoric archaeology. Historical archaeologist study the remains of cultures for which a written record exists, while prehistoric archaeologists examine cultures for which we have no written record.

Archaeology is a scientific process of careful excavation and recovery of the archaeological record. This record may be represented in multiple ways to include, soil changes, structural remains, or material remains. These material remains or objects recovered are referred to as artifacts.

Redware pottery fragments recovered from Ephrata Cloister. Located in Lancaster County, this historic porperty was an 18th century religious communal society founded in 1735 by Conrad Beissel. Members were expected to take vows of celibacy, poverty, and obedience, and personal possessions were not permitted. These bottom of these redware vessels were scratched with initials, indicating individual possession was practiced by some members against communal rules.

The analysis of artifacts recovered from archaeological sites enable archaeologists to create a picture of every day life for cultures and peoples that history often ignores in the historic record. Frequently there is a difference between what is written and what people actually do in their daily lives. You might know who your great grandparents were, but do you know what they did with their garbage, how they planted their garden, what dishes they ate from, if they took in boarders or had servants, how they celebrated their culture and heritage? Perhaps you have a family history that identifies certain aspects of their lives, but often these documents are biased by the writers’ personal beliefs. Archaeology has the unique task of providing a more objective account of our past and providing a more complete picture of our cultural heritage.

Overview of excavation block prior to excavation of hearth feature at Fort Hunter

In our own excavations conducted at Fort Hunter the analysis of dietary waste from a hearth feature that we interpret as a bake oven has provided a clearer picture of the diet of soldiers at this provincial fort. Examination of the faunal remains reveals that the meats consumed were from cow, pig, sheep, horse, deer, turtle and fish. Beef represented the greatest percentage of consumed meats, while small game such as turkey or rabbit are absent from the record. Historic documents of the period list provisions for the troops, but it does not indicate how the meats were to be preserved or prepared for transport across the rough terrain. Analysis of the faunal remains from Fort Hunter indicated that the beef was likely salted and cured prior to transport, based on the low number of butchered bones recovered. It also indicates that soldiers were not hunting wild game in the woods surrounding the fort to supplement their meager rations. Bones demonstrated spiral fracturing commonly seen in bones cracked to extract the marrow. Marrow was likely consumed and the bones then boiled for soups. All of this paints a dismal picture of the diet of these soldiers and a more complete story of their daily life.

When we examine our past, we are looking at our cultural heritage. Our cultural heritage is important to most of us as it helps to define our values and identifies who we are. Recent archaeological investigations at historic sites have provided additional information on the heritage of pioneers, immigrants, slaves and Native Americans. Children who are not well represented in the historic record are now documented thru the artifacts recovered at these sites. All of these groups are underrepresented in the historic record and archaeology can provide a picture of everyday life for them.

Children are often not included in the historic record. These artifacts represent the cultural material from working class families at Eckley Miner's village in Luzerne County.

Clockwise from top;clay marbles, plastic game piece, ceramic doll parts, army jeep

We all benefit from examining our past and preserving our material culture for future generations. This focus on human behavior and artifacts is what differentiates archaeology from history. History examines the events, but it does not make the connection to a person or event through personal objects. By examining our cultural heritage, we can better understand changes in society and hopefully develop better plans for dealing with cultural change in the future. In closing, H is for historical archaeology but more importantly H is for heritage and the preservation of our culture.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Forensic Science at Susquehanna High School

2011-04-29T16:08:00.000-04:00

This week we're taking a break from the alphabetical archaeology theme to highlight efforts by one local high school to take archaeology out of the classroom and into the field for some hands on experience.

This Thursday and Friday, staff from the Section of Archaeology at the State Musuem of Pennsylvania assisted with a simulated forensic investigation being conducted by Mary Pat Evans, a science teacher at Susquehanna High School. This program offers Ms. Evans' students an opportunity to learn proper archaeological survey, excavation, and recording techniques that would be required for scientific evalutation of an archaeological or forensic site.

Ms. Evans and student at the "crime scene" excavation

The open excavation is 100 square meters in size, in an area of the athletic field just outside the high school building.The site, dubbed 36Da231, has been planted with artifacts such as animal bone, car parts, cell phone fragments, personal objects, and several bullet casings to simulate a crime scene. Approximately 100 high school 11th and 12th grade students worked together to establish an alpha numberic grid of 1x1 meter squares across the excavation site, and then selected units to excavate based on any artifacts visible on the ground surface.

Working in teams of two and three students, surface artifacts were mapped and placed in bags with the appropriate provienience information, and hand excavation of level one began using mason trowels. Soils were then collected in five gallon buckets and screened through 1/4" hardwear mesh to recover smaller artifacts initially missed during excavation. Back in the classroom, Ms. Evans will have her students compile all their mapped artifacts to see if any spacial patterns are present that may yield clues about the events that took place at the "crime scene".

Unfortunately, the recent stormy weather had left the site fairly waterlogged, but the students made the best of the situation, braved the very muddy conditions, and now have first hand knowledge that archaeology can be a dirty job indeed.

Thanks to all the students for their hard work, and good questions, and a very special thank you goes to Mary Pat for inviting us to take part in her "groundbreaking" program teaching high school students about the methods of archaeology.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .