Discover the Monongahela Culture Archaeology of Southwestern, Pennsylvania

Monongahela, Youghiogheny and lower Allegheny valleys

Archaeologists began exploring prehistoric Native American sites in the Monongahela, Youghiogheny and lower Allegheny valleys as early as the late 1800’s when much of the emphasis was placed on mounds (cf. Hayden 1883; Thomas 1894; Carpenter 1951). Other sites were added by the Pennsylvania Indian Survey in 1928 under the direction of Dorothy Skinner. This was an expansion of the work begun in 1924 by Frances Dorrance, Director of the Wyoming Historical and Geological Society (Smith and Herbstritt 1977).

Francis Dorrance 

In addition to the interest in mound sites other information was published in the 1930”s (Cadzow 1933); Engberg (1931); George Fisher (1930) that broadened the distribution of sites known at that time for southwestern Pennsylvania, especially Late Prehistoric villages located in upland (hilltops and mountain ridges) and valley settings. 

Archaeological investigations in Somerset County during the late 1930’s identified a number of Native American villages. The work was done with government funding through the Works Progress Administration better known as the WPA. In a report to the Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Dr. Mary Butler (1939) linked these people to a mixed material culture having Algonquin and Iroquoian traits and so named it the “Monongahela Woodland Culture”.

Mary Buttler

Over time, archaeologists dropped “Woodland” from the name, and the “Monongahela Culture” was borne into the literature that presently describes the Late Prehistoric through Protohistoric period Native American occupations of southwestern Pennsylvania where their material traits are found (Mayer-Oakes 1955).

Clay Monongahela pottery vessels

The Carnegie Museum carried on its research interest into Monongahela archaeology after Mayer-Oakes field work was completed and published in the museum’s Anthropological Series No. 2 “Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Introductory Archaeological Study” (Mayer-Oakes 1955). Don Dragoo (1955) and later, Richard George (see for example 1974; 1978; 1983; 2011) who conducted field work and published extensively on the Monongahela Culture, began organizing the differences observed in the  artifact assemblages using the concept of “Phase” developed by Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips (1958) which with some modification remains in current use (Herbstritt 2003; Johnson and Means 2020). The following cultural phases/subtraditions for Monongahela are in current use.

Early Monongahela                  1050-1250 AD     Drew, Kiskiminetas, 
Somerset I subtradition
Early Middle Monongahela     1250-1450 AD     Campbell Farm, 
Somerset II subtradition
Late Middle Monongahela       1450-1580 AD     Scarem, Youghiogheny, Johnston, 
Terminal Somerset II subtradition
Protohistoric Monongahela      1580-1640 AD     Throckmorton (Early sub-phase), Foley Farm (Late sub-phase)

Triangular projectile points

Attempts have been made to link the cultural identity of Monongahela to different Native American language groups such as Siouan and Iroquoian based on linguistic (cf. George 1980, Johnson 2001; Sorg 2003; Swauger 1974), oral history and the cartographic/historical record (Hoffman 1964), research topics that have drawn critical review.

-->

Marginella shells, fish vertebrae and a carved shell ornament

Archaeologists recognize the disappearance of the Monongahela culture from the archaeological record in the mid-1600’s. The impact of European diseases is not certain. Iroquois warfare is more easily supported. Droughts played a significant role in reducing the population of Monongahela villages and impacted survival. Examination of the curated artifacts and site information for these villages, as well as more recent excavations has enabled archaeologists to gain a better understanding of this culture group.

Glass trade beads

To learn more about the Monongahela Culture please join us in Harrisburg on November 9^th 2019 when the State Museum of Pennsylvania will host its annual Workshops in Archaeology Program “Defining Monongahela: Western Pennsylvania’s Archaeological Mystery”.  This is a program for the general public interested in how Native Americans lived in the Upper Ohio Valley centuries ago.    Featured will be different topics on Monongahela Culture with eight presentations by archaeologists familiar with this unique Native American culture that disappeared in the early 17^th century. 

2019 Annual Workshops in Archaeology 

References

1939       Three Archaeological Sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical Commission. Cadzow, Donald A.

1933     Mr. George Fisher’s Discoveries in Western Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3(3): 3-5, 16-17. Harrisburg. Carpenter, Edmund S.

1951     Tumuli in Southwestern Pennsylvania. American Antiquity 16(4): 329-346. 

             Salt Lake City. Dragoo, Don W.

1955     Excavations at the Johnston Site, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 25(2): 85-141. Engberg, Robert M.

1931      Algonkian Sites of Westmoreland and Fayette Counties, Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 14: 143-190. Fisher, George S.

1930      Indian Sites and Excavations in Western Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 1(2): 8-9.

              George, Richard L.

1974      Monongahela Settlement Patterns and the Ryan Site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(1-2):1-22.

1978     The McJunkin Site, A Preliminary Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48(4): 33-47.

1980     Notes on the Possible Cultural Affiliation of Monongahela. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50(1-2): 45-50.

1983      The Gnagey Site and the Monongahela Occupation of the Somerset Plateau. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53(4): 1-97,

2011     The Wylie #3 Site (36WH283): Part I. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 81(1): 1-27. Hayden, Horace

1883      Antiquities of Southwestern Pennsylvania. Smithsonian Institution Annual Report for 1881, pp. 638-641. Washington. Herbstritt, James T.

2003       Foley Farm: The Importance of Architecture and the Demise of the Monongahelans. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 73(1): 8-54.  Hoffman, Bernard G.

1964      Observations on Certain Indian Tribes of the Northern Appalachian Province. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 191. Johnson, William C.

2001      The Protohistoric Monongahela and the Case of an Iroquois Connection. In Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodland Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, edited by David SBrose, C. Wesley Cowan and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr., pp.67-82. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Johnson, William C. and Bernard K. Means

2020    The Monongahela Tradition of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods, 11 - 17^th Centuries AD. In the Lower Upper Ohio Valley in The Archaeology of Native Americans in Pennsylvania. In press. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mayer-Oakes, William J.

1955    Prehistory of the Upper Ohio Valley: An Introductory Archaeological Study. Anthropological Series No. 2. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 34. Smith, Ira F. and James T. Herbstritt

1977     A Status Report on the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

             Sorg, David J.

             Linguistic Affiliations of the Massawomeck Confederacy. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 73(1): 1-7. Swauger, James L.

1974    Rock Art of the Upper Ohio Valley. Akademische Druck – u. Verlagsanstalt Graz/Austria  Willey, Gordon R. and Phillip Phillips

1958    Method and Theory in American Archaeology. 

           University of Chichago press, Chichago. Thomas, Cyrus

1894    Report on the Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology. 

          Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of  Ethnology, 1890-1891, pp. 494-503. Washington.

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

A Different View of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods in Southwestern Pennsylvania

Paul A. Raber

Heberling Associates, Inc.

Like the rest of us, archaeologists get set in their ways. They become used to looking at the same types of archaeological sites and doing so in the same ways. Sometimes it takes an outside force to pull them away from their pet subjects and ingrained habits. Cultural resource management (CRM) studies required by federal and state historic preservation laws and regulation have served this purpose in North American archaeology over the past half century. Archaeological field studies directed by the dictates of project design have come to dominate the practice of archaeology in the United States, with highway improvements and public works projects defining areas of required archaeological testing and study. Archaeologists may grumble about the limitations imposed on their interests by project boundaries and scopes—the really great site that we know is just outside the project area—but CRM studies have benefited the discipline of archaeology by directing the attention of archaeologists to settings and sites that we might otherwise have ignored.

Recent archaeological studies in connection with a highway project in southwestern Pennsylvania highlighted this phenomenon. Proposed federally-funded improvements to State Route 519 in North Strabane Township, Washington County required that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Engineering District 12-0 consider possible project effects to archaeological sites. Among the precontact archaeological sites discovered during preliminary surveys was a small site overlooking a tributary to Chartiers Creek. Initial testing and subsequent large-scale excavation of site 36WH1729 revealed the remains of numerous brief encampments there, almost all of which dated to the Early and Middle Woodland periods, roughly spanning the period 1000 BC to 1000 AD (Raber 2018). This was a time of profound change in the Native cultures of eastern North America, witnessing the first sustained experimentation with plant crops, new technologies like pottery, and connections with regional ceremonial complexes like Adena and Hopewell based in the Middle Ohio River valley to the west (see previous posts here and here, for example).

Our understanding of this period and the ties of local peoples to the Adena and Hopewell complexes, however, has been heavily influenced by the traditional focus on the sometimes spectacular remains found at mound sites like McKees Rock Mound and dozens of other burial mounds in southwestern Pennsylvania and adjacent regions of the upper Ohio Valley, or those uncovered at semi-permanent hamlet or village sites like those at the Fairchance Mound and Village site in nearby West Virginia. Available archaeological information is heavily biased towards those site types.

The work at 36WH1729 joins several other recent studies in drawing attention to the distinctive set of activities and the use of local resources that occurred at small, briefly occupied campsites in the Ohio Valley and elsewhere in Pennsylvania (see Nass and Henshaw 2017; Raber 2017a, 2017b). Such studies have contributed detailed information on what happened at these small sites and how the sites were related to seasonal occupations at larger base camps and other specialized sites through large-scale exposures and intensive post-excavation studies of artifacts and features.

The excavations at 36WH1729 exposed roughly 26% of the core site area, recovering more than 6400 stone artifacts and pottery fragments and 178 kg of fire-cracked rock. The exposure of 93 m² revealed twelve confirmed or likely pre-Contact cultural features, all of which seem to have been hearth or hearth remnants, as would be expected at small, briefly occupied camps, where the family or task group present would have gathered around a hearth to cook, socialize and conduct most of the varied activities documented in the excavated remains. We defined the dates of occupation with 15 radiocarbon dates on charcoal taken from features and other contexts.

The results of excavation and post-excavation analyses provide a detailed picture of life at a  small upland camp used repeatedly during the Early and Middle Woodland periods. Studies of microscopic wear on stone tools allowed us to characterize some of the activities that occurred at successive camps at 36WH1729, while analyses of pollen and residues on both stone tools and pottery expanded our knowledge of the local environment, activities, and the materials obtained and used at the site. Small groups—probably nuclear families—camped here for short periods during the fall, hunted white-tailed deer and other game, and collected nuts and other wild plants available in the cleared areas around the site. Much of the activity seems to have focused on the collection and processing of black walnuts, the butchering of deer carcasses for meat, and the working of hides, bone, and antler. Most of the meat, hides, and nuts were processed and preserved to be later used or consumed at seasonal camps.

These tasks were accomplished using flaked stone tools of local Uniontown chert that was obtained within a short distance of the site. Some 97% of the toolstone used at 36WH1729 was Uniontown chert obtained from nearby—but currently undefined—sources. The site was occupied for perhaps a few days or a week during the fall, when the nut crop and game could be harvested in the vicinity of the camps. The inhabitants returned to base camps or hamlets along the larger streams’ drainage for the winter season. They must also have used nearby Early and Middle Woodland period burial mounds, but there is no evidence to indicate that they visited the mounds while camped at the site.

The studies at 36WH1729 provided a new perspective on life during the Early and Middle Woodland periods in the upper Ohio Valley, one very different from that derived from the traditional focus on burial mounds and villages. The daily lives of families and small bands, and their intimate knowledge of the changing local environment evident in the use of resources like Uniontown chert, deer and wild plants, are all delineated in the material remains from small sites like 36WH1729. As the body of our knowledge of small sites accumulates, we can ask new and more detailed and relevant questions about how the past inhabitants of the region lived and adapted to changing conditions.

Our ability to ask such questions, however, depends on paying attention to the small sites that were critical parts of past settlement systems. Giving such small sites their due reflects the major impact CRM archaeology has had on the study of the past.

References:

Nass, John P, Jr. and Marc Henshaw

2017    The Value of Small Sites for the Study of Late Woodland Subsistence: An Example from Southwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 33:27-48.

Raber, Paul A.

2017a  The Significance of Small Sites in the Upper Ohio River Drainage: Investigations at 36WH1619. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 87(1):1-28.

2017b  Eight Thousand Years on the Banks of Aughwick Creek: archaeological Studies at 36HU224, The Pogue Bridge North Site. Byways to the Past Series. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

2018    The Early and Middle Woodland Periods at Small Site in the Upper Ohio Valley: The Evidence from 36WH1729. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 87(1):1-28. 

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

The Archaeology of Three Mile Island

With Three Mile Island once again in the headlines as of late, what better time could there be than now to share some additional information about the archaeology of the island that hosts the nation’s most infamous nuclear power plant.

Residents of central Pennsylvania (of a certain age) can recall exactly where they were and what they were doing when they received word about fears of a meltdown at the plant in late March of 1979. Truly a “where were you?" moment in history outdone only by the disasters at Chernobyl and, more recently, Fukushima. 

Avid followers of TWIPA will recall a previous post thoroughly reviewing the excavation and artifact analysis of the northern-most site on the island, 36Da50, and it can be found here. There have been, over the course of the last 50 years, eight additional archaeological sites registered on Three Mile Island.

First, enjoy a few newpaper clippings and the formal press release from that initial work conducted in 1967 that are now themselves as of this year technically, historic.

 “The Metropolitan Edison Company in developing and creating the Three Mile Island complex made every effort to cooperate with concerned environmental and historical groups. Long before the establishment of State Offices of Historic Preservation or the need for Environmental Impact Statements, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission requested and received from the electric company a grant to examine prehistoric remains on the island and to obtain a sample sufficient to be able to reconstruct its culture history” (Smith 1977)

“The types and relative quantities of lithic artifacts, as well as, the horizontal distribution of ceramic artifacts suggests that Three Mile Island was occupied intermittently by small groups of Early and Middle Woodland peoples utilizing a local fish or animal resource.”(Smith 1977)

The Middle Woodland cord-marked storage vessel seen below was excavated, and ultimately donated by Monroe Brown to the State Museum where it was then reconstructed in the early 1970s. Assigned to site 36Da52, the provenience information indicates it was discovered eroding out of a pit on the southern bank of the island. Generous contributions like Mr. Brown’s go a long way in enhancing our collective understanding of Pennsylvania prehistory.

Sites 36Da96 through 36Da99 were recorded with the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey in 1976 and are attributed to the work of Tom Grace and others. Mr. Grace worked at TMI as GPU Nuclear’s environmental licensing engineer, and for several years, as weather and time would permit, he would hunt for artifacts on undeveloped parcels of the island. His enthusiasm for archaeology and some of his discoveries were highlighted in the fall 1987 edition of GPU Nuclear Today, a periodical published for employees working at the plant and their families. His findings were consistent with earlier work and reinforced ideas about how long people had been occupying the island.

In the 1980s, another employee at TMI, Gary Prinkey, was also scouring the island for artifacts. On one excursion, he uncovered a fragment of a human skull eroding out of the bank of the island. Unsure whether the deceased was a victim of crime, Prinkey notified the State Police. State Museum of PA curator of archaeology Steve Warfel was contacted and investigated the grave site with Trooper John Brown in February of 1988.  The presence of wood fragments and cut nails indicated to Warfel the remnants of a coffin, dispelling any notion of nefarious deeds. Furthermore, vest buttons recovered from the site (36Da101) were identified as a particular type manufactured between 1850 and 1880. Likely an inhabitant farming TMI in the late19^th century, their remains were re-interred further inland on the island after analysis.  

In the mid-nineties archaeologists re-identified site 36Da51, the second of three sites originally recorded in 1967, during survey and evaluation work in connection with a proposed fish passage facility on the southeastern side of the island. Phase II work determined that what was initially considered a buried A horizon containing chipping debris, a few sherds of Early/Middle Woodland ceramics and FCR was actually the historic plow zone from 19^th century farming activities. The disturbed nature of the soils in the the project area precluded any additional archaeology. 

Finally, the most recent archaeological investigations on TMI were conducted in 2014 in anticipation of a “Nature-like Fishway” construction project on the southwest side of the island. At this site, 36Da100, archaeologists observed stratified and sealed deposits, the earliest of which contained a Thebes projectile point made of jasper. Thebes projectile points are classified as Early Archaic in age and date between 10200 and 11700 years before the present. Due to its potential to contain significant new information, this site has been determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. If construction plans cannot be designed to avoid the site, a data recovery effort may be necessary to mitigate adverse effects the project may have on this important cultural resource.

For archaeologists, there’s just no such thing as TMI about TMI.

References:

Franz, D. (2015)
Phase I Archaeological Investigations for the proposed Nature-like Fishway at the York Haven Hydroelectric project. Brockington & Assoc.

Geidel, Richard (1998)
Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations 36Da51 East Channel Fish Passage Facility, Three Mile Island, Dauphin County, PA. KCI Technologies

Smith III, Ira F. (1977)
Early and Middle Woodland Campsites on Three Mile Island, Dauphin County, PA. PHMC

Warfel, Stephen G. (1988) A Report on the Discovery of a Human Skeleton at Three Mile Island, Dauphin County, PA. The State Museum of PA

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

Gorgeous Gorgets

This week the letter “G” represents a commonly, but most likely misused term in archaeology: ‘gorget’. The issue with using the term ‘gorget’ to describe these, “relatively flat, variously shaped, ground, and polished [stone] many times with one or two holes drilled through their breadth” is that we do not know how they were actually used (Curren 1977). As defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, ‘gorget’ suggests that these artifacts were some form of armor or an ornamental collar for the throat. However, there is not enough evidence to suggest the use of these artifacts as defined above, and consequently, the true function of gorgets proves to evade archaeologists to this day. In the following, a few ideas on the use of gorgets are discussed.


Typical artifacts of the Bushkill Complex, including at top left, gorgets.

In much of the Northeast, stone gorgets appear in the archaeological record during the Early to Middle Woodland period (2800 B.P. - A.D. 1000), specifically between 2800 B.P. and A.D. 0 (Custer 1996). For example, Kinsey (1972) reported gorgets from the stratified Faucett in Pike County, along the Delaware River. These were associated with the Early Woodland Meadowood Complex and the Middle Woodland Bushkill Complex. Also, appearing during the Early to Middle Woodland period are burial mounds, burial ceremonialism, fired clay pottery, tubular smoking pipes and widespread trade in Pennsylvania (Witthoft 1949, Custer 1996).

Various forms of stone gorgets in the collection of The State Museum of Pennsylvania (Photo taken by Don Giles)

An early idea on gorget use is that of archery armguards. Orville Peets (1965) lays out the idea that as armguards, some of the stone gorgets, those known as “spud-style gorgets” (1965:115) are similar in shape to modern armguards, and through some experimentation he was able to show that the stone gorgets did in fact work well for such use. On the other hand, a lack of wear in the holes of stone gorgets and the numerous forms and shapes of these artifacts suggests that some other use is also likely.

a. Slate gorget from Kentucky b. mass produced modern archery armguard, leather (Peets 1965)

Another theory on the use of gorgets is provided by Cailup Curren, Jr. (1977) who suggests that, since the introduction of stone gorgets correlates to the introduction of pottery, these artifacts were used as tools in pottery making. In justifing this hypothesis, Curren compares native stone gorgets to modern ceramic tools called ribs. The modern ribs are often constructed of wood and have a similar shape to the native stone gorgets, with beveled edges, various shapes, and drilled holes for a better grip for the potter when the clay is wet. Though native gorgets and modern ribs are in fact very similar in shape and form, Curren does not provide any other archaeological evidence indicating that the stone gorgets may have been used for this purpose, says William Starna (1979) in his article commenting on Curren’s hypothesis.


Image of wooden “ribs” (Curren 1977)

Starna points out that Curren has fallen into the common practice of identifying functionality of native artifacts based solely on the “morphological similarity” to modern devices with limited or no archaeological evidence (1979: 337).  In fact, he makes it a point to refer to William Ritchie’s (1969) writing that indicates, “In a large area of the Northeast, stone gorgets totally disappear, never to reappear… while ceramics continue unabated” (Starna 1979 and Ritchie 1969). Though he disagrees with Curren’s hypothesis, Starna does provide his own theories on the use of stone gorgets.

As mentioned above the appearance of stone gorgets and burial ceremonialism also both occurred in the early to middle Woodland period. This idea is followed by Starna, suggesting that gorgets may have held importance for status or trade goods.  This hypothesis is supported by the finding of gorgets with a number of burials. Starna references the early late Woodland Riviere au Vase site in southeastern Michigan which, “… two burials exhibit a not atypical placement of stone gorgets with deceased individuals” (1979: 339). Also noted by Starna (1979), is that with the declining frequency of burial ceremonialism so does the appearance of stone gorgets and other grave ceremonial items decline. 

Archaeological investigations in the Ohio River Valley of Pennsylvania have produced sufficient quantities of gorgets to examine their placement, form and distribution. The pentagonal form is an elongated shape with a pentagonal end, often of fine grained banded slate, with a single hole placement at the upper end. This specific form is represented in much lower quantities when compared to other gorget forms, and to date are associated with mound sites. Its recovery, primarily in western Pennsylvania, has enhanced our understanding of this artifact as a symbol of social rank or status. Its distribution through Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York is also an indicator of the significance placed upon it within the trade network of the Hopewell Culture.

Gorgets from the Sugar Run Mound site (36Wa359), left- pentagonal gorget

One example in which gorgets, including the pentagonal form, have been found is the Sugar Run Mound site (36Wa0359) in Warren County Pennsylvania (McConaughy and Johnson 2003). This mound site includes more than forty burials, many of which include grave goods, and a few with rectanguloid and pentagonal gorgets. The burials containing gorgets tended to have a higher quantity and variety of grave goods than others without, suggesting a higher status or social rank of these individuals.

  

Gorget with incised design.



Gorgets in the mid-Atlantic region more commonly appear in stone as those mentioned above are, but also appear in lesser quantities in shell, copper and bone. The introduction of brass and silver gorgets by European traders to native peoples served as a replacement for the traditional form. Its role in demonstrating status may have continued as suggested by the number of historic prints depicting tribal leaders adorned with gorgets.


Chief Cornplanter

Here we have provided some thoughts and ideas on how gorgets were used. Now it is up to all of us to use what we know, find more archaeological evidence, and continue the research and hopefully one day we will more fully understand this artifact in our efforts to preserve and protect our past for the future.


References:

Curren, Cailup Jr.
1977
Potential Interpretations of “Stone Gorget” Function. Society for American Archaeology
72(1): 97-101.


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


Kinsey, W. Fred
1972
Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.


McConaughy, Mark A. and Janet R. Johnson
2003
Sugar Run Mound (36Wa359) and Village (36Wa2): Hopewell/Middle Woodland in Warren County, Pennsylvania. Foragers and Farmers of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods, edited by P. Raber and V. Cowin, pp. 101-116, Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology Number. 3, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Peets, Orville H.
1965
What, Really, Were Gorgets?. American Antiquity 31(1): 113-116.

Ritchie, William A.
1969
The Archaeology of New York State. Natural History Press, New York.


Starna, William A.
1979
A Comment on “Curren’s Potential Interpretations of ‘Stone Gorget’ Function”. American Antiquity 44(1): 337-341.

Witthoft, John
1949
An Outline of Pennsylvania Indian History. Pennsylvania History 16(3): 165-176.


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

Luzerne County stone artifacts

These stone artifacts, some with unusual incised decorations, were uncovered in a Native American cache (storage pit) by a contractor, who was "mining" topsoil along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne County. Artifacts in the image from top to bottom are 1) stone tubular pipe, 2) boatstone, which is a ground stone artifact whose name is derived from its boat-like shape and 3) bar celt or whetstone with incised lines on both surfaces. Celts were utilized by Native peoples for woodworking and whetstones were used for polishing and grinding other stone tools.

The contractor also noted dark stains in the soil and decided to contact a local professional archaeologist to further investigate. Mr. Al Pesotine of Pan Cultural Associates excavated the stains which yielded a storage pit utilized by Native peoples to store foods, similar to a cellar today. Carbonized wood recovered from the pit was radiocarbon dated to 570 +/- 50 B.C. (the Early Woodland Adena period). There are very few documented finds of the Adena Culture in the Upper Susquehanna Valley. The landowner kindly donated this unusual cache of artifacts to The State Museum of Pennsylvania in 1997.

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