Compliance Archaeology

We’re busy folks here at TWIPA and we’d like to think we do it all, but we know that’s not the case. With our field season at Fort Hunter finalized and all the pomp and circumstance of Archaeology Month celebrations dispensed and comfortably in the rear view mirror, the staff of the State Museum Section of Archaeology can return to the business of managing and curating the archaeological collection of the Commonwealth for its citizens, now approaching 5 million individual artifacts. What are these artifacts, where did they come from, why are they sent to the State Museum of PA?


These are some of the typical questions we hear from people not familiar with the state of archaeology as its practiced today in Pennsylvania and across the nation. It is a difficult task to fully explain the context in which the majority of archaeology these days takes place in the span of a 700 word or so blog post, but it is important stuff so we’re taking a stab at it anyway. We’ve touched on this topic in several previous posts so if you have the time we encourage you to do a little “digging” through the TWIPA archives.

Most archaeology today is conducted prior to some type of development; roads, bridges, housing subdivisions, dams, prisons, railroads, post offices, courthouses, pipelines – you get the idea. All of these projects have the potential to disturb or destroy archaeological sites. Fortunately, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 created a framework as part of any federal undertaking by which sites can be identified, evaluated, and if warranted, destructive activities mitigated. In a nutshell NHPA acknowledges that it is in the best interest and to the benefit of the American people (current and future generations) that significant cultural resources, historic and prehistoric, be documented and preserved where possible. It also recognizes that federal agencies have a responsibility to take into account adverse effects their development projects may have on these significant cultural resources. If this is beginning to sound like contorted legal mumbo jumbo, we apologize, but that’s what it is.


While the artifacts themselves are the property of the landowner on whose land the site was excavated, in Section 106 projects the information recovered, the data (the field forms and notes, artifact inventories, photo documentation and reports) is owned by all of us, as we the taxpayers are ultimately footing the bill for not only the development but also the preservation efforts.


More often than not, the landowner understands the artifacts have more scientific value than they do monetarily, and generously donates them to the State Museum where they are incorporated into a comprehensive database and made available to researchers the world over for a wide variety of scholarly studies, as loans to local historical societies, and of course permanent and temporary exhibits both large and small in the Anthropology and Archaeology Gallery of the State Museum, as well as other historic sites administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.


One common criticism directed towards archaeologists is that results from these excavations are not shared with the public often enough or in a timely manner. Doing our bit to dispel this shortcoming, we’ve contacted some good people at PennDoT, and they were all too happy to pass along a link to popular publications here , resulting from transportation projects. The page is a little buried, then click "kids page" and then click "highways to archaelogy".


This week we’re highlighting a few of the unsung heroes of Cultural Resource Management (or CRM for those readers who don’t have enough acronyms in their life) the archaeological foot soldiers in the trenches, literally, doing battle with deadlines on compressed time tables, emaciated budgets and inclement weather – just to name a few typical obstacles. While we can’t claim these woes, or any others for that matter, are bedeviling this particular project, its recent appearance in the news seemed to make it a timely and appropriate example of Pennsylvania CRM archaeology. Currently underway is a road re-alignment near the borough of Macungie in Lehigh County, and people are curious and asking questions, and that makes it the perfect opportunity for the archaeology community to engage the public and hammer home the message that archaeology is good for them.



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

Carley Brook Bridge Replacement Project

Our blogger this week is Wes Stauffer an intern for the Cultural Resources Section of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Wes worked for a day in the Section of Archaeology observing our processes and auditing a Cultural Resource Management collection for compliance to our Curation Guidelines.

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, federal projects require planning and cooperation, in addition to hard work. This proved true when the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation determined that the Bates Road/Weidner Road Bridge over Carley Brook, near Honesdale in Wayne County, needed to be replaced. Built in 1916, it had fallen into a state of disrepair over time. To insure that no important cultural sites were destroyed by the construction of a new bridge, a site survey preceded any site work.

Ideally, background research as well as on-site surveys will locate any important historic and archaeological sites in the area of probable effect (or the area to be impacted by the footprint of a new construction project). Such surveys prove especially important along waterways. Waterways provide food and transportation routes today just as they did for our predecessors. Relatively level, well-drained soils adjacent to water travel routes, as well as the fertile soil in adjoining floodplains, provided prime locations for Native American camps and settlements.

At the Carley Brook site, research and archaeological investigation uncovered a portion of the former Staengle property. Leonard Staengle built a house on the property around 1889, as well as a barn and a butcher shop. Staengle cleared the land and established a small farming operation to supplement his butchering business. Various occupants utilized the property through to present day.

Archaeologists excavated no prehistoric artifacts from the area of probable effect. Approximately 85% of the 302 historic artifacts unearthed reflect kitchen or architectural usage. Research determined that the artifacts reveal an occupation period between the 1890s-1920s, however they were uncovered in a mixed or disturbed context. Furthermore, no building foundations were located. Archaeologists concluded that a former refuse dump lies within the area to be impacted by the construction of a new bridge.

With their research completed and archaeological evidence analyzed, archaeologists felt confident that construction of the new bridge over Carley Brook could proceed without negatively impacting any important cultural resources. All artifacts, donated to the Bureau of the State Museum of Pennsylvania, have been inventoried and archived where future researchers can study them and other artifacts like them.

Cultural resources management, integral to projects such as the Bridge Replacement project over Carley Brook in Wayne County, preserves our heritage and gives residents of Pennsylvania a better understanding of our state’s past communities as well as those individuals who lived and worked within them.

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

1908 License Plate

The vast majority of archaeology conducted in the United States today is a direct result of the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). This law requires Federal agencies and development projects receiving federal funds or permits to make a “good faith effort” in identifying and preserving historic resources that may be impacted by construction activities. Once identified, historic resources are evaluated for significance, in terms of their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places.

Often, archaeological sites are identified in the survey phase of a project only to fall short of the threshold of significance in the evaluation phase. Typically, an archaeological site is deemed eligible only if it has contributed or is considered to have the potential to contribute new information about the about the past. Artifacts and the associated records for sites determined not to be eligible to the National Register are still curated at the State Museum of PA to document that the project sponsor has fulfilled it’s obligations as required under Section 106 of the NHPA.

The 1908 Pennsylvania license plate pictured here is one artifact recovered from the survey phase of archaeological excavations conducted prior to improvements to Route 219 in Johnstown, Cambria County, PA. Due to the disturbed nature of the soil deposits in the project area, this site lacked integrity and no further work was recommended by the consultant, Heberling Assoc., Inc., and the State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding.

Significance might seem like a fairly subjective term. What one person considers significant another person might not. In fact the NHPA outlines four criteria for eligibility to the National Register to standardize the definition of “significant”. While it has been determined to be historically insignificant, one could argue this object still has value as an artifact with the powerful ability to visually connect us with over a century of automobile history in Pennsylvania and can act as a platform for a wide range of related inquiry.

For more information on Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and see:
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/
www.achp.gov/NHPA.pdf
For a searchable database of National Register sites see:
http://www.nr.nps.gov/

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