Welcome to Spring: Indigenous Methods of Tracking Time

March 20^th officially heralded in the beginning of spring with the spring equinox, and we have been granted our first glimpses of warmer weather. The equinox is the point at which the earth’s axis tilts neither towards or away from the sun, it is the midpoint between summer and winter and the date when the day and night occupy equal amounts of time. Around the world, cultures have long marked this occasion as the end of winter and a sign that warmer weather is on its way. It is a time for celebration as the scarcity of winter fades into the welcome warmth and abundance of warmer months. The indigenous people who lived in this area before the arrival of Europeans were no different, marking the seasonal round by the movement of the sun, the phases of the moon, the constellations in the night sky and by observing the changes in their environment.

In order to track the movement of the sun, ancient people built structures and utilized natural features which, either through imaging or sighting, tracked the movement of the sun from winter solstice to equinox to summer solstice and back again as the rising sun moves across the horizon from north to south. Sighting calendars use alignments of natural or man-made features to indicate the direction of the rising or setting sun, while imaging calendars create specific shadows or rays of light at certain times of the year. For a people who were far more connected to their environment than we are today, the movement of the sun and the accompanying changes were part of the rhythm of life, dictating when to hunt, gather plants or sow fields. Today we use dates on a calendar, but these ancient solar calendars are, in many cases, functioning just as they have for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

An example of an imaging calendar, a rectilinear area adjacent to this circular motif on Little Indian Rock in the Lower Susquehanna fills with light as the sun crests over another section of the rock on the equinoxes. The light first fills one portion of the box, bisected by a natural crack, before expanding to fill the remainder of the shape. Serpent motifs elsewhere on this rock sight to the rising sun on the equinoxes. (photo by Melanie Mayhew)

With the passing of time, the indigenous cultures of this area celebrated their respective festivals and ceremonies, although often it was not the sun’s position that was used for the timing of these rites. The Iroquois and Delaware relied upon other events such as environmental changes, phases of the moon and constellations present in the night sky to determine the correct time for their ceremonies.

The Delaware, as recorded by Frank Speck, use the position of the stars and the moon to inform them of the proper time to gather medicinal herbs, plant crops in the spring, and the time at which animals breed and fish move up stream. The gathering of materials for basket-making was also tied to the seasons, and in order to produce durable hides, animals must be killed at the right time of year. This determination of activities based on the seasonal round is pervasive and is an integral part of the indigenous lifeway. Star-lore was used to inform tribal members of environmental changes and the proper times for such activities as leaving for or returning from a hunt.

 This watercolor painting by John White titled “A Festival Dance” depicts inhabitants of coastal North Carolina participating in the green corn or harvest ritual and was painted between 1585 and 1593. (Photo: C Trustees of the British Museum)

A feature of Iroquois, Delaware and other indigenous cultures is the naming of each lunar cycle based on environmental changes occurring at that time. The moon names may change by group and location and reflect cultural and regional variation in indigenous culture. The lunar names give a clue as to the activity that occupies the central role for that time of the year.

The names of the moons as described in the book Travels in New France. Moon names varied by region and cultural group.

The cyclical nature of time and observances of the sun’s position have been recorded in the Middle Atlantic in ethnographic records, and to a lesser extent in village patterning and recovered artifacts. Whatever the season, there was always some significance to the time of the year as we travel around the sun and through the seasons, once again arriving at spring.

References:

Snow, Dean

1996     The Iroquois. Blackwell Publishers, Malden.

Speck, Frank G.

1931     A Study of the Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony, Vol II. The Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

Stevens, Sylvester K. et al (Eds.)

1941     Travels in New France by J.C.B. Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

          

Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.)

1978       Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

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

TWIPA turns 10!

This week marks a major milestone for TWIPA – it has been a full 10 years since we began blogging about all things archaeology in Pennsylvania. After nearly 400 posts covering all manner of archaeological interests, it can be difficult to keep the creative inspiration flowing, and we feel like this is quite an accomplishment. 

We’ve shared with our readers a comprehensive overview of the archaeology of each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, and posted about topics for literally (and yes, we mean literally) every letter of the alphabet.

We’ve highlighted Cultural Resource Management projects that have been curated at the State Museum of Pennsylvania, as well as several artifact collections generously donated to the museum from a number of avid avocational archaeologists. 

Some posts focused on the meat and potatoes of prehistoric projectile point and ceramic typologies, and still others have drawn attention to more recent, yet out of the ordinary archaeological finds, like a “Frozen Charlotte”, a mechanical toy beetle, and an 1852 U.S. three cent silver coin.

We’ve also kept our readers abreast of the happenings at regional archaeological conferences such as MAAC, ESAF, SPA, and of course the annual Workshops in Archaeology. Local high school classes conducting their own simulated archaeological excavations, or mock digs, have been showcased on TWIPA as well.

Posts about public outreach efforts undertaken by the Section of Archaeology such as our participation in the Kipona Native American Pow-wow and the Pennsylvania Farm Show appear like clockwork, year in and year out, like the changing of the seasons, as do detailed updates every Fall about our excavations at Fort Hunter.

Some posts are longer than others, some more data driven than others. Some rely on figures and photos more so than dense text. Once cobbled together, composed and formatted, the one thing they all have in common is the desire to share this information with you, our readers. You are the reason we put our fingers to the keyboard, and we hope you’ve found our posts interesting and enjoyable.

So, with all due respect to David Letterman and his famous “Top 10” lists, below you will find our 10 most viewed posts since we began way back in February 2009.

 #10

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/07/jacks-reef-pentagonal-and-jacks-reef.html

#9

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/09/excavation-continues-at-fort-hunter.html

#8

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-yards-and-under-porch-fort-hunter.html

#7

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/01/projectile-point-types-of-early-archaic.html

 #6

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2011/10/archaeological-evidence-of-witchcraft.html

#5

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/03/earliest-european-trade-goods-and.html

#4

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/08/2018-fort-hunter-excavations.html

#3

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2011/04/thoughts-on-g.html

#2

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-hunting-with.html

#1

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-petroglyphs-of-pennsylvania-rock.html

Take a moment and reflect on how your own life, indeed the world, has changed in the last 10 years, and what it might possibly look like in another 10.  What artifacts will future archaeologists unearth that will be unmistakable hallmarks of the second decade of the 21^st century?

Be sure to check back in two weeks when we'll debut a new look to our blog page!

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

103rd Pennsylvania FARM SHOW 2019

It’s January and the start of a new year for us at the State Museum of Pennsylvania and we are excited about all the great programs coming up this year. We start off every January with our trip to the largest indoor agricultural fair in the United States! Held each year right here in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. This event draws hundreds of thousands of visitors and our booth is visited by about 40,000 of those visitors! That’s a lot of interest in archaeology and our cultural heritage.

Our exhibit theme this year is “Discovering the Susquehannock Indians”.  The focus is on tracing the cultural evolution of the Susquehannocks of central Pennsylvania covering the period from just before European Contact, (AD 1500), through the period of Conestoga Town (AD 1763). The exhibit features four large panels and two cases of artifacts which provide an overview of the transition from Native made goods to a reliance on European trade goods. One exhibit case contains a sample of pre-European Contact artifacts and the other contains a sample of Susquehannock artifacts from the Contact period obtained from Europeans. The panels and supporting artifacts, demonstrate a culture in transition and the impact of European influences on their lifeways.

European contact significantly impacted the Susquehannocks and other Indian groups living in the region. The introduction of diseases, conflict with other Indian tribes competing for the fur trade with the European, and the invasion of the land by the English, Dutch and Swedes on their territories greatly reduced the populations of Susquehannocks and the other Indian tribes.  Up until about 1660, the Susquehannock’s controlled trade with the Europeans. However, disease and competition with other Indians forced them to seek refuge with the English in the Chesapeake Bay area. By 1680, they returned to their former homeland but this time as refugees. Their native lifeways were replaced by European traditions. At the end of the French and Indian War, they were massacred by a group of vigilantes from the Harrisburg area. Their story is one shared by many Indian tribes along the east coast.

                 The artifacts selected for this exhibit offer tangible evidence of the changes described above. Early Susquehannock clay pottery, bone and stone tools, smoking pipes and bone ornaments are later supplemented or replaced by trade goods such as brass kettles, glass beads, kaolin smoking pipes and stylized Susquehannock pottery. This change includes a transition from a traditional long house to a log cabin type structure.  This is a fascinating story of change and adaptation by Indian groups who encountered Europeans and how they dealt with this cultural impact on their lifeways.

                As in years past, the dugout canoe will be at the Farm Show for the children to sit in and imagine paddling down the rivers of Pennsylvania in prehistoric times. The dugout canoe is our WOW artifact and it draws a lot of interested folks to our booth.  It is a replica of a dugout canoe that is on exhibit at the museum. The original canoe was found in Luzerne County and has been preserved to insure its longevity. It radio carbon dates to about 800 years ago, well before European contact. Our replica is a 20 ft. long, white pine canoe that has navigated the Susquehanna River and Gifford Pinchot Lake. Sitting in this massive canoe and imagining yourself on a river or lake is a unique experience- not one that you can do every day.

Our booth includes an opportunity to grind corn using a pestle and stone mortar, much the same as Indians would have done. The process is popular with young and old alike and gives you a sense of the labor involved in making cornbread. The Susquehannocks were drawn to the lower Susquehanna valley not only for its location on the river and Chesapeake Bay, but also for the rich fertile soils that supported agriculture during the Late Woodland period.

Visitors often ask what we do when we aren’t out digging at Fort Hunter. Here is your opportunity to win a Behind the Scenes Tour of our lab. A one hour guided tour of the lab and gallery with a curator is a rare chance to see our research, observe the artifact processing labs and chat with our archaeologists. Be sure to enter your name for this drawing while visiting our Farm Show exhibit.  The American Archaeology s and Pennsylvania Heritage magazines are popular and free to our visitors along with the archaeology brochures developed over the years in connection with our research and exhibits. In addition, visitors can purchase a few of our publications- including Native Americans in Contemporary Pennsylvania by Troy Richardson, The Tutelo Spirit Adoption Ceremony by Frank Speck, and Folk Medicine of the Delaware and Related Algonkian Indians by Gladys Tantaquidgeon  - $2.00 each or three for $5.00.

            Everyone loves the food court and the wonderful potato donuts, fresh cut fries, breaded mushrooms, maple syrup ice cream, beef sandwiches, chicken tenders, and the famous milk shakes. What the food court offers is a look at all of the great products our farmers grow in Pennsylvania. We are so fortunate to have a strong farming heritage and we need to support our farmers. The buy local initiative is important to their survival and farm land preservation provides countless benefits to the commonwealth.  This show offers visitors a tiny slice of the farming industry that employs nearly half a million people and contributes $185 billion to Pennsylvania’s economy every year. 

We hope you’ve enjoyed this review of our Farm Show exhibit and that you will visit our booth located along the McClay street side of the Farm Show building. The period of interaction between the first Europeans and native peoples was a complex time of cultural change and an important period in the development of our Commonwealth. If you’d like to learn more about the Susquehannocks we encourage you to refer to the references below and visit the Anthropology and Archaeology gallery of The State Museum of Pennsylvania. Visitors to our museum can view some of the spectacular trade objects referenced in this blog and gain a sense of the importance of preserving our past for the future.

Additional Reading

Kent, Barry C.

2001    Susquehanna’s Indians. Anthropology Series Number 6. Pennsylvania Historical and

Museum Commission. Harrisburg.

Kraft, Herbert C.

2001    The Lenape-Delaware Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Lenape Books

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

A report by our summer intern on her experience in the Section of Archaeology

This week’s blog comes to you from our college intern this past summer. Working two to three days a week, she processed a huge amount of data and gained practical experience in the analysis of lithic artifacts. She was a quick learner and we enjoyed her stay.

My name is Alaina Helm. I am a sophomore at Oberlin College, and planning to major in Archaeological Studies and Geology. Over the summer, I volunteered with the State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology. I have been fascinated with anthropology and archaeology for as long as I can remember, dragging my family through natural history museums whenever the opportunity arose. As the spring semester drew to a close, I wanted to do something productive and educational over the summer, so I contacted the museum, where I was welcomed and given the wonderful opportunity to learn about the cataloging, processing, and analysis of archaeological artifacts.

Alaina Helm and Dr. Kurt Carr examining lithic material from Kings Quarry (36Lh2)

Most of my time at the museum was spent analyzing stone or lithic artifacts systematically surface collected in three-meter squares from a jasper quarry site in Lehigh County called Kings Quarry (36Lh2). The artifacts were mainly the chips from the making of stone tools rather than the tools themselves. While at first glance the lithics may appear to be regular rocks, at closer inspection you can identify signs of production or how they were made. Evidence of reduction with differing types of percussion instruments such as hammerstones or antler batons reflect all stages of tool making – from the harvesting of raw material from the quarry to the retouching of edges on already formed tools.

 Closely examining a piece of flaked jasper

Under the Direction of Dr. Kurt Carr, I learned to recognize types of percussion and predict the stage of production of a given artifact. After first sorting through a group of artifacts to sort out pieces showing signs of utilization or containing an intact striking platform, I would go through each artifact with an intact platform to determine if they were entire or proximal (broken). I could then determine what type of bulb of percussion was present, the angle of the platform, whether the platform had been ground or flaked, number of flake scars, amount of cortex material, and amount of thermal alteration. After recording each of those pieces of information, I would then make a judgement as to what stage of production likely created the piece and record that too. Sorting through over 7000 pieces, I was able to garner a comparison over different parts of the site to determine if certain types of production activities were occurring in specific areas.  I used an excel spread sheet to record all my data which enabled me to produce analytical graphs for each excavation unit.  These graphs allowed the areas to be compared to each other to determine the location of different types of reduction activities. One of our initial conclusions is that almost 90% of the tools and utilized flakes came two excavation units and these were correlated with a previously discovered fluted point. This suggests a Paleoindian occupation.

A pie chart showing each type of lithic material from Kings Quarry (36Lh2)

 I also spent some time helping to wash and process artifacts in the lab towards the beginning of the summer, a fundamental process for curation. Towards the end of the summer, I also worked on inventorying a collection of artifacts related to the Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) recently donated to the museum.

Alaina showing off a piece of flaked jasper she analyzed

Prior to working with the Section of Archaeology I had very little experience studying and identifying lithic materials. Working with the state museum staff, I learned to identify the different aspects of knapping and the tool making techniques. Sorting through what sometimes felt like mountains of jasper, I learned to identify reduction methods utilized by Pennsylvania natives long ago. Although the summer has ended, and the next semester will begin shortly, only a portion of the surface collection was analyzed. I hope that in the future, analysis of the collection can be completed, and if I get the chance whenever I am next home in Pennsylvania, I would enjoy resuming the project.

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

The Late Woodland Period Chesapeake Shell Trade

Marine shells were an important medium of exotic exchange among native societies of the Middle Atlantic and Upper Ohio Valley societies during the Late Woodland (1000 – 1550 AD). The recovery of shell from archaeological sites of this period is archaeologically traceable well into the Appalachian Mountains and other far flung regions of Pennsylvania’s interior. These areas are principally centered on the lower Upper Ohio Valley at sites in the Monongahela -Youghiogheny drainage of southwestern Pennsylvania -  the headwaters of the Potomac Valley that reach to the rugged mountains of Fayette and Somerset counties and; the waters of the Susquehanna above the Blue Mountain water gap located a few miles above Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Evidence of the Late Woodland shell trade in these various geographic regions of Pennsylvania becomes obvious by the locations of archaeological sites. Ornaments made from different species of marine shell are principally obtained from the Chesapeake’s intertidal and coastal environments. We should hasten to note that some later Woodland groups obtained fresh water shells from the shoals of large fresh water river systems for ornamental use. We will, however, save this topic for another time and focus on the marine species found at archaeological sites.

 Mercenaria mercenaria or “hard clam” shells collected from lower Chesapeake Bay in 2018.

There are five principal species of marine shell that made their way inland through trade from the Chesapeake region. These species are distinctive in morphology and used differentially as personal objects of adornment such as bracelets and necklaces. Among the more common, widely distributed forms, were the tiny disk-shaped beads fashioned from the thin sections of quahog a.k.a. hard clam shells Mercenaria mercenaria. Quahogs occur all along the Atlantic coast and constitute a valuable source of protein among sea food connoisseurs. Several different species of marginellas can be found from Cape Henlopen, Delaware (Lowery 2012) south to the West Indies. Both of these were popular among the lower Susquehanna Valley’s Shenks Ferry, Mason Island and Monongahela groups of the Piedmont and Allegheny Mountain/Lower Upper Ohio Valley regions of Pennsylvania (Heisey and Witmer 1964; Mayer-Oakes 1955).

Beads made from a variety of shells recovered from Late Woodland sites in Pennsylvania.

Another less common bead type found at some of their habitation sites was made from Olivella (sp?) a more southern variety of gastropod that occurs from North Carolina to Florida. These resemble the classic shape of an olive-shaped fruit, however, they are somewhat larger than marginella shells.

Busycon or whelk shell objects found in the Northeast and Middle Atlantic areas are generally considered rare objects of the Late Woodland period. Busycon contrarium or lightning whelk and Busycon canaliculatus a.k.a. canaliculatum or channel whelk are the most common and occur from the Outer Banks of North Carolina to Cape Cod, Massachusetts to St. Augustine, Florida, respectively - a very wide distribution, indeed.

Engraved shell gorget associated with the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Weeping Eye motif). 

            Busycon shells were made into drinking cups and tube-shaped beads of various lengths. West and south of the Middle Atlantic region anthropomorphic/zoomorphic engraved gorgets were worn around the neck. Carved from the large dorsal cup-shaped part of the Busycon shell, these impressive shell objects are principally found in Fort Ancient and Mississippian contexts that date to the circa 1000 – 1600 AD period. The engraved Busycon shells are a principal artifact type of the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex (Waring and Holder 1945).

Section of a wampum belt illustrating the variety of color design combinations.

            Wampum shell beads, characterized by their short cylindrical shape, appears to be most common after the close of the Late Woodland period around 1550 AD.  Suffice is to say that the English called this type of shell bead peag, a shorter version of the Massachusetts Algonquian word wampumpeag. White, purple and, rarely black, are the principal colors of wampum with slight gradations within these colors. The Dutch and French referred to wampum as zeewant and porcelaine, respectively (Bradley 2011). These colorful beads were typically fashioned out of quahog or hard clam and whelk shells.

            The Chesapeake Bay and its inter- connected river systems was the main corridor for the spread of marine shell onto the Pennsylvania landscape during the Late Woodland period. Although adjacent states can document a longer period of use (Lowery 2012), and this probably applies to Pennsylvania as well, currently the evidence of marine shell use in Pennsylvania is limited to the Late Woodland period. Preservation of these objects is largely determined by the site’s environmental context. Unfortunately, marine shell is a material that is rarely preserved in most situations leaving few records.

            We hope that you have enjoyed reading about the different kinds of marine shells, their distribution through trade and how they were used by the Indians who once lived in Pennsylvania centuries ago. Please join us another time as we present another interesting topic relating to Pennsylvania and its archaeology.  

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

Upcoming Archaeology Programs in the Nature Lab

After a long school year, for many, summertime conjures up images of long sunny afternoons spent basking by the pool, perhaps taking a leisurely hike through the woods, or, of course the quintessential road trip to the beach.

However, with each passing day, for students and parents alike, thoughts of classrooms and homework (and unfortunately some of the lessons learned throughout the year) begin to fade from memory.

But the beginning of Summer doesn’t have to mean the end of learning! Let the State Museum of Pennsylvania help you and your family flex your gray matter to combat the effects of “summer brain drain”, with the 3^rd annual series of educational programs, “Meet the Experts”, in our Nature Lab.

Beginning at 11:30 A.M. next Thursday, the 28^th, the Section of Archaeology staff will be offering hour-long, fun and informative presentations in a relaxed, informal setting. Topics to be covered include a flint-knapping demonstration, a review of archaeological collections recently submitted to the museum from development projects in Pennsylvania, children’s toys found on archaeological sites, and more.These programs are included with the price of general admission to the museum.

It’s important to note that many other programs, such as Lunch N’ Learn Fridays and Wildlife Wednesdays, are also scheduled throughout the summer, so be sure to check out the museum’s calendar of events web page for the complete list to choose from, and have a great Summer!

Flint Knapping -  6/28

Which one doesn’t belong? Join Sr. Curator Kurt Carr and Curator Janet Johnson to learn about what materials Native Americans used for flint knapping of projectile points and making of stone tools.

Native American Bone Tools -  7/12

Which one doesn’t belong? Join Janet Johnson, Curator of Archaeology and Callista Holmes, Archaeology Lab Manager, to discover the many ways animal bones were used everyday by Native Americans.

Who’s diggin’ PA? -  7/19

Join David Burke and Elizabeth Wagner, Curators of Archaeology, to explore new collections coming to the State Museum’s Archaeology Section from state and federal projects.

Toys through Time – 7/26

Children’s toys are often recovered at archaeological sites.  Join Elizabeth Wagner and Kim Sebestyen, Curators of Archaeology, to explore how these children’s artifacts are helping to tell the stories of those often left out of the history books. (You can also check out an archived blog post about toys found on archaeological sites by clicking the link here.)

Preserving our Past Archaeology Lab-  8/9

Join Andrea Carr and Callista Holmes, Archaeology Lab Managers, to explore how museums curate archaeological specimens to preserve for research and interpretation.

History of Digging Fort Hunter -  8/16

(photo credit: Don Giles)

Join Jim Herbstritt and Kim Sebestyen, Curators of Archaeology, to hear about their discoveries from excavations at Fort Hunter Mansion & Park. Learn how artifacts recovered at Fort Hunter help to tell the story of daily activities of Native Americans 9,000 years ago, through the colonial period to present day.

One final note – this weekend the Haldeman Mansion is celebrating the 300^th anniversary of Conoytown, an early colonial trading post along the Susquehanna River. Dr. Kurt Carr will be on hand to answer questions about the archaeology of the region and the State Museum of Pennsylvania’s replica dugout canoe will also be on display. Click here for a link to Dan Robrish’s article in the E-town Advocate for more details on this special event.

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

A recent submission to the Section of Archaeology

W.P.A. excavations during Winter at the Peck Site (36So1)

Winter in Pennsylvania is not typically a time of year that is well suited for archaeological fieldwork. That is not to say fieldwork in February does not happen. Indeed, it has and does, but it would be difficult to persuade anyone that conditions like the ones seen above are anything approaching optimal.  When the days are short, cold winds bitter, and the ground is well, frozen, archaeologists often take to the lab to process (that is to sort, clean, catalog, inventory, label and archivally package for curation) artifact collections from the previous season’s excavations.

Here at the museum, artifact collections that are the product of cultural resource management projects arrive year-round, although there does seem to be an uptick in submissions this time of year. Being centrally located as the State Museum is in Harrisburg, from time to time criticism bubbles to the surface that our efforts and attention can focus disproportionately on sites in the Susquehanna River Valley region. Given the diverse topography and size of the state, wide ranging archaeological research interests, and our own limited resources, this criticism is not without some merit. This week’s post attempts to kill two birds with one stone in that it highlights an artifact collection submitted for curation just two weeks ago (a “fresh” collection so to speak), and that also happens to come from Westmoreland County – a nod to our cohorts over the hills in the southwestern part of the state.

project overview photo with phase one shovel test in foreground (photo credit: McCormick Taylor, Inc.)

In 2016, McCormick Taylor Inc. conducted an archaeological survey and evaluation for PennDoT’s proposed improvements to the highway interchange of state routes 70 and 31 in South Huntingdon Twp., Westmoreland County. As a recipient of federal highway tax dollars PennDoT is obligated to make a good faith effort in identifying and evaluating cultural resources, and, if necessary, mitigating any adverse effects their undertakings may have on important historic and prehistoric sites.

modern disturbance and steep sloped portions of the project area not tested (photo credit: McCormick Taylor, Inc.)

After eliminating areas of the project determined to have low archaeological potential due to modern disturbances or steep terrain, a total of 228 shovel test pits and two 1m x 1m test units were excavated across 12 ½ acres of ground. As a result of their work, seven new archaeological sites were recorded (36Wm1113 – 1119). Four of these sites consist of just 2 to 16 pieces of debitage each of local or regionally sourced cherts.  The very low artifact density, and the lack of diagnostic artifacts or cultural features were cited as justification to recommend these sites as ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places, and no further work was performed.

representative sample of lithic debitage from the Davis site (36Wm1119)

The Tignanelli site, 36Wm1113, comprised of mostly early 20^th Century kitchen wares, bottle glass and architectural material such as brick, window glass and iron hardware, also contained about a dozen flake fragments of local chert. This site too, was recommended ineligible to the NRHP, primarily due to a lack of integrity and significance. There was one artifact in the assemblage however, that did stand out amongst the 1200 more mundane bits that is unique and worthy of a moment in the spotlight.

1937 Radio Orphan Annie decoder pin from the Tignanelli site (36Wm1113)

"mint" condition example

The 1937 Radio Orphan Annie decoder pin is a wonderful object of popular culture that harkens back to the days before television, when radio was king. It is easy to imagine that this, for a time, was probably a child’s most prized possession, and of course it conjures up images of the classic movie A Christmas Story, with Ralphie feverishly cracking the code only to be rewarded with a reminder to drink more Ovaltine. Not the type of thing to stop a transportation project in its tracks, but a charming artifact all the same.

phase two excavation unit of the Davis site (photo credit: McCormick Taylor)

After the phase I survey, the final two sites, 36Wm1116 and 36Wm1119, were recommended to proceed to phase II, to determine their eligibility to the National Register. As is the case with most cultural resource management efforts, excavations were limited to the project’s area of potential effects, or APE.  For the Davis site, 36Wm1119, this meant a limited view at what McCormick Taylor acknowledges in their report as a site that in all likelihood extends beyond the project boundaries. The four phase two 1m x 1m test units yielded 48 chert flakes in addition to the 25 pieces recovered from the two phase one test units. Similar to the other sites identified for the project, no features or datable diagnostic artifacts were found at 36Wm1119, and consequently the portion of the site in the project area was deemed ineligible to the Register.

Finally, for the Markle site, 36Wm1116, PennDoT successfully modified the design of their project to avoid any potential impacts. In many situations, avoidance constitutes an agreeable solution for all parties involved, in that redesign is generally a less costly option for PennDoT as opposed to labor intensive data recovery undertakings, and, while no additional fieldwork is planned for, the site is nevertheless recorded and will (or, should) remain undisturbed, thereby serving the interests of the cultural resource community and ultimately the broader public.

Reference:

(2017) Brewer, Allison; Cristie Barry; Amanda Rassmusem

Phase IB/II Archaeological Identification and Evaluation Investigations for the S.R. 0070 Section K10, S.R. 70/S.R. 31 Interchange Improvement Project South Huntingdon Twp., Westmoreland County, PA

 

-report on file Section of Archaeology, 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 .

Projectile Point Types of the Early Archaic Period

            The Early Archaic period in Pennsylvania corresponds with the end of the Younger Dryas climatic episode and the beginning of the Holocene episode or the modern era at about 11,700 calendar years ago. This is a very interesting time because it witnessed the most significant environmental change of the past 40,000 years, although some argue that the current episode of global warming will turn out to be even more significant.  Additionally, we see radical changes in projectile points from the unique fluted points of the Paleoindian period to the more common notched points of the Archaic period. During the Younger Dryas, fluted points in the Northeast evolve from Clovis into points with longer flutes and a fishtail shape eventually leading to a decreased emphasis on fluting and finally to leaf shaped points with no fluting. Rather quickly, around 11,700 calendar years before present (BP), notched projectile points such as Thebes, Charleston, Palmer, and Kirk appear.

Environmentally, at 11,700 calendar years ago, this is a transition between the cold, harsh conditions of the Pleistocene to the warming of the Holocene. The temperatures rose rapidly to modern conditions, but it required approximately 1000 years for the open spruce pine forest of the ice age to evolve into the oak and pine forest of the early Holocene and 5000 more years to become the oak-hickory and hemlock forest of the later Holocene. For Paleoindians, the long winters and coniferous forest did not provide many plant food and probably 60% of their diet came from hunting small game, deer, bear, elk, caribou in northern Pennsylvania and fishing. The closed spruce pine forest of this transitioning period between 11,700 and 10,200 calendar years BP also did not provide many plant foods, although the winters were shorter and oak trees, with their supply of acorns were increasingly available for both human and animal consumption.

            The drastic change in projectile points has always perplexed archaeologists. The change from lanceolate forms to notched forms suggests radical changes in the way they were hafted to the shaft. Lanceolate points are found all over the world, but only in the Americas are they fluted. The mechanism for hafting fluted points is generally understood, but why the need for fluting is a mystery. Some archaeologists believe that the change in spearpoint shape was related to hunting with an atlatl in the dense coniferous forest of the Early Archaic period. However, others argue it is more difficult to throw with an atlatl in a forest, so the jury is still out on this issue. Hardaway and Hardaway-Dalton points are basially thinned and notched and considered by some to represent a transition between fluted points and Early Archaic notched points but these are very rare in Pennsylvania.

            Whatever, the reasons, the most common Early Archaic projectile point types found in Pennsylvania are: Palmer and Kirk, corner notched types; less common are Kirk side notched and Charleston corner notched types and lastly, the Thebes type has only been recovered from a few sites. Generally, they all have a ground base and are serrated. Like fluted points, most are made from chert or jasper, although metarhyolite and quartzite was also used.

Thebes Points (Justice 1987)

 

Based on stratigraphic associations, the oldest of these seems to be the Thebes type. This is a relatively large, side notched or diagonally notched point. The blade is generally triangular in shape and the overall thickness of the point is generally greater than other points of this era. A distinctive characteristic of this type is that one edge of the blade is usually beveled suggesting that it was also used as a scraper or knife. Some have argued that this was its primary function (Justice 1987). These have not been dated in the Middle Atlantic region, but at Graham Cave in Missouri, they were dated to 10,854+570 and 10,557+429 calendar years BP (Justice 1987).

 

Caption: Early Archaic points from the Wallis (36Pe16) Treichlers Bridge (36Nm142) and Lewistown Narrows (36Ju104) sites. (upper left – Kirk corner notched; upper right – Palmer; lower left 3 – Charleston; lower right – Kirk;)
 

Again, based on stratigraphic associations, the Charleston corner notched type occurs with the Thebes type and below Kirk and Palmer types (Justice 1987). These are relatively broad points compared to other types of this era. The blade is also frequently asymmetrical again suggesting they were used as knives or scrapers. Two Charleston points were dated to 11,408+750 at the St. Albans site in West Virginia (Broyles 1971).

The Palmer corner notched type is a relatively small point with a straight base and frequently with more pronounced serrations (Coe 1964). The shape of the blade has been compared to a “Christmas tree”. They have not been well dated in Pennsylvania, but at the Thunderbird site in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, they were dated to 11,468+566 calendar years before present (Verrey 1986). At the Richmond Hill site in New York, three Palmer points associated with a hearth were dated to 10,595+180 calendar years before present (Justice 1987).

Caption: a metarhyolite Kirk corner notched point dated to 10,334+302 calendar years BP from the Central Builders site (36Nb117).

 

The Kirk corner notched type has a large, generally triangular blade with a straight or sometimes convex base. Compared to the Charleston type, the blade is less frequently asymmetrical. In addition, these points are thinned by flakes that extended across the mid-line of the point (Justice 1987). This type has been dated at several sites in Pennsylvania to between 10,730+412 and 10,209+30 calendar years BP (Carr 1992). Kirk side notched points are sometimes found above corner notched types in stratified alluvial settings and usually below bifurcate base points, but there are few if any dates on this type (Carr 1992). Kirk stemmed points have been found in the same levels as bifurcate points at several sites (Daniel 2011).

The Early Archaic sequence presented above – Thebes, Charleston, Palmer, and finally Kirk seems reasonable based on stratigraphic associations. Daniel (2011) published a re-analysis of Coe’s (1964) work that essentially supports the above chronological sequence for these types. However, the radiocarbon dates do not support a sequence of dates for these types, but rather suggest several types were contemporary and were being used at the same time. Part of the problem is there are a limited number of dates and most of them cover a wide range of time. Or these types, in fact, overlap in time and were used throughout this period by different bands or had different functions. Obviously, it is necessary for archaeologists to obtain more dates from stratified contexts and use the most refined dating system available (ie AMS dates) to further our understanding of this time period.

            In conclusion, it is clear that the Early Archaic projectile point types were part of the adaptive strategy for exploiting the post-Pleistocene environment that was transitioning to a more diverse deciduous forest at about 10,200 calendar years BP. Although there is a slight overlap with Kirk points, bifurcate base points were the main lithic projectile point used to exploit this initial phase of the evolution of the deciduous forest in the Middle Atlantic region.

            We hope you’ve been inspired during these cold days of winter to consider the harsh environments that prehistoric peoples encountered and their survival techniques. A better appreciation and understanding of our past, helps us to consider change and adaptation for the future.  If you’d like to learn more about the Early Archaic period, please check out other posts on this blog or the references provided below.

 

References:

 

Broyles, Bettye J.

1971    Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia, 1964-1968. Report of Archaeological Investigations No. 3, West Virginia Geological and Economic, Morgantown.

 

Carr, Kurt W.

 1992   A Distributional Analysis of Artifacts from the Fifty Site: A Flint Run Paleoindian Processing Station. Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America, Washington D.C.

 

1998    The Early Archaic in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 68:42-69.

 

Coe, Joffre L.

1964    The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 54, Part 5. 

 

Daniel, J. Randolph

2011    A New Look at an Old Sequence: Typology, and Intrusive Traditions in the Carolina Piedmont. In The Archaeology of North Carolina: Three Archaeological Symposia. North Carolina Archaeological Council Publication Number 30.

 

Justice, Noel D.

1987    Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

 

Verrey, Robert

1986    Paleoindian Stone Tool Manufacture at the Thunderbird Site (44WR11). Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology. Catholic University of America, Washington D.C.

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