Archaeology...Under Quarantine

Welcome to the Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania under quarantine. 

Just like many of you during these strange times we too are struggling, trying to figure out the conundrums of working from home.  We thought some of our followers might be interested to see what we’ve been up to; and how we are staying productive promoting Pennsylvania archaeology and the State Museum.

Staying “in touch” is difficult when under quarantine, but thanks to modern technology like Skype and Zoom, it is possible to meet and coordinate activities.

Archaeology Zoom Meeting

Individual projects continuing for the section staff include:

Andrea Carr:

Andrea Carr

The Archaeology Lab was processing Veigh Collection artifacts from Washington County archaeological sites when our offices closed in March. Andrea Carr, one of our lab assistants, has continued to partner with the PA State Historic Preservation Office (PA SHPO) to update Pennsylvania Archaeology Site Survey (PASS) reports through their online platform, Cultural Resource Geographic Information System (CRGIS).  

This year so far, the lab has processed, added and updated (45) PASS site records from Washington County representing a total of (32,872) artifacts in the collection. Andrea is now entering a backlog of Veigh-related PASS updates from previously processed sites, spanning 15 counties in Central and Western Pennsylvania. Many of these sites have been featured in past blog posts due to their archaeological significance—Nash (36Cn17), Snaggy Ridge 2 Quarry Pits (36Ad153), and Bonnie Brook (36Bt43) to name a few.  When this telework project is finished over the next few weeks, an additional 79 PASS recorded sites will have updated artifact information in a public and searchable online platform. 

 Callista Holmes:

Station data from the 2019 Fort Hunter field season

Calli has been working on using the total station data from the 2019 Fort Hunter field season to add and update features to the field maps. She is also working on updating the artifact distribution maps in hopes of finding high concentrations of 18^th century artifacts to help us better understand and interpret the historical landscape at Fort Hunter. This information is important as we proceed with our excavations in planning which areas to investigate next.

Melanie Mayhew:

Melanie has been taking partial leave due to childcare, therefore working reduced hours. Among the many things occupying her time, she is working on the Archaeology Month Poster. She is also typing artifact inventories that until now have only existed in paper form; and preparing records for entry into Argus.

In addition to work she has also been spending time foraging for wild plant foods, gardening, and making cloth face masks (She made over 80). “I know the second part isn't work related, but I've raised nearly $300 for the Central PA Food Bank and have donated masks for the homeless. One of the best ways I've found to manage the stress of this situation is through generosity”.

Kim Sebestyen:

Kim has been doing research on blacksmithing/gunsmithing in the 18^th century in primary documents and reading through archaeological reports on excavations that have been completed at many of the French and Indian War forts. Since most of the larger forts would have had a blacksmith to repair guns and other equipment and to make bullets, some of these forts should have evidence of this activity. 

She has also been completing data entry for various old projects, including the Memorial Park site in Clinton County. This was a very large and important prehistoric Indian site in Lock Haven and by updating the artifact inventory into a searchable format, this information can now be used by researchers and staff. 

David Burke:

State Museum of Pennsylvania

Fortunately, Dave’s proximity to the museum allows him to keep a literal eye on it.  He has also been doing data entry, digitizing older collections like F.E. Walter Dam and Memorial Park in Lock Haven.  Digitizing the inventories of these older collections, that were submitted long before the increased use of technology in archaeology, makes them searchable for both staff and researchers. Researchers typically are looking for specific artifact types and this process of converting our old data into searchable databases is a great aid in assisting with locating these artifact types.  The collections number in excess of approximately 8 million artifacts and without location data, our task of locating artifacts would be impossible.

Elizabeth Wagner:

One of Liz’s responsibilities is maintaining the small research library in the Section of Archaeology.  Over the past few years the section has received several large book collections, donated by friends of the Section.  She has been spending her time cleaning, organizing, assigning catalog numbers, and updating the various databases used to keep track of library materials, in order to incorporate them into our library.  She has also been working on Argus entries.  Argus is the software system used to maintain museum collections and to provide some of that information to the public online.  As you can see, her new manager closely monitors her progress.

Janet Johnson:

Just like in the office, Janet is busy working on multiple projects.  She has been keeping up with a myriad of correspondences including CRM inquiries, invoicing requests, general artifact questions from the public, and staff emails.  She has also participated in many meetings involving the State Museum’s Master Plan, Collections Committee, and Nature Lab Planning.  All while developing Argus templates for staff to assist in making our collections available to the public on the internet. Organizing work-flow files and our shared electronic folders to make this possible in a telework environment.  Also reviewing these processes and our various projects to identify potential for improving efficiency.  One of her many responsibilities in the Section is the maintenance of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) files which she has been reviewing and updating specific to the Delaware Nation.  Last, but certainly not least, she has been reviewing and editing the blog and providing valued technical support to staff.

Kurt Carr:

Kurt Carr

Kurt has also been busy with various meetings, including the State Museum’s Master Plan, Nature Lab planning and other senior staff meetings.  He too has been keeping up with information requests from the public and staff.  Kurt has also been working with Janet to implement the Argus work and reviewing our progress via work logs that we send to him at the end of each week.

Each of us has experienced changes in our work places and spaces, some of us are struggling with technology, some of us are trying to juggle family time with small children or school age children who have homework and their own technical challenges, and some of us are just dealing with isolation and a sense of loss for those around us and our previous lifestyle. Collectively we will continue to carry on and serve our community and the Commonwealth.

This would also be a good time to announce that the “millennium book” is an actual tangible thing!  The Archaeology of Native Americans in Pennsylvania, Volumes 1-3, has been published and is available at University of Pennsylvania Press.  This three-volume set is a comprehensive guide to the archaeology of Pennsylvania but encompasses much of the prehistory of the mid-Atlantic region. As some folks in the archaeology community know, this has been a long and arduous process and finally being able to hold it in our hands is extremely exciting.  Congratulations All!!

We hope you enjoyed this post about how we are coping with the new work environment. Archaeology and our training in anthropology is important in understanding cultures and people. This pandemic has been an opportunity for people to demonstrate humanity and humility, something that is repeatedly demonstrated in cultural survival. We look forward to our eventual return to the office and our public programming, but we can take with us lessons learned from this pandemic. We can compare and evaluate human and social behavior with past pandemic episodes to increase awareness of these events and how cultures adapted and changed. Our social practices will undoubtedly change, we will work together to create a “new normal”.  Please continue to practice social distancing and follow the CDC Guidelines so that we get through this as soon as possible.

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

Jefferson County Revisited

Back on the alphabetical trail this week through Pennsylvania Archaeology and we arrive at the letter “J”. With options like jasper and Jack’s Reef points discussed in earlier posts, “J” becomes a bit more difficult to find a match for.  Revisiting Jefferson County might not be the most creative solution but it does provide an opportunity to look at a recent cultural resources management project or CRM. Cultural Resource Management is a review process that aids in the protection and management of our cultural heritage under state and federal guidelines. This may include archaeological resources, but also addresses historic buildings. Cultural resources are finite and non-renewable resources that once destroyed cannot be returned to their original state.

Summerville Bridge project area, facing WNW

Jefferson County is home to Summerville, a small village situated along the northern and southern banks of Redbank Creek, a meandering tributary that forms the border between neighboring Clarion and Armstrong Counties and eventually meets the Allegheny River further west.

Historic aerial photo of Summerville, bridge is slightly below the center of photo, Redbank Creek flowing right to left

As seen in the historic aerial photo above, Summerville’s only bridge linking the northern and southern sections of town spans the creek at a perpendicular angle. PennDoT proposes to replace the bridge, “on a new alignment skewed across the creek . . . in order to improve the horizontal and vertical geometry and eliminate two 90 degree turns to the north of the existing bridge.”(Raber, Heberling and Vento 2012)

 Due to receiving federal funds, PennDoT undertakings are required, among other things, to make a good faith effort in identifying cultural resources, evaluating their significance, and if necessary, mitigate any adverse effects their projects may have on important archaeological sites. In 2011, Heberling Associates, Inc. was contracted by PennDoT to conduct a phase I archaeological survey of the bridge replacement project’s area of potential effect, or APE.

field crew huddles around the geomorphologist in a test unit, bridge visible in background

 Referencing the Bureau for Historic Preservation’s Cultural Resource Geographic Information System (CRGIS), no fewer than eight previously recorded archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of Summerville, suggesting a high probability of a site within the project area. Directly abutting the existing bridge a steep slope, recent erosional activity of Redbank Creek and modern demolition work eliminated the need for subsurface testing in three of the four quadrants of the project area. However, in the southeast quad geomorphological analysis indicated the potential for intact cultural remains in Holocene age soils.

west wall profile of test unit #2

Four 1 x 1 meter test units in the southeast quad of the project area were hand excavated to sterile soils. Thirteen pieces of Onondaga and Upper Mercer chert debitage were recovered from A horizon (topsoil) contexts across each of the four units, one of which exhibits slight utilization wear on opposite margins. No other prehistoric tools were found and none of the lithics could be assigned to a particular time period.

Upper Mercer and Onondaga chert flake and flake fragments from the Summerville Bridge site (36Je178)

utilized flake from 36Je178, showing minor use wear on left and right margins

 Several dozen historic artifacts were also recovered including earthenware and stoneware ceramics, vessel glass, a kaolin pipe stem fragment, and miscellaneous architectural materials. Two heavily corroded U.S. one cent pieces were found in stratum 2 of Unit 3. Although the obverse of both are so worn the dates are obliterated, enough of the reverse remains to identify one as a “wheat” penny, produced from 1909-1958, and the other as an “Indian Head” penny, minted from 1858-1909 (Yeoman 2001).

architectural materials: (top, left to right) brick, window glass, well preserved cut nail (bottom) heavily corroded cut nails

top, left to right: kaolin pipe stem fragment, aqua colored bottle glass fragments, glass button with iron eye, US wheat penny, US "Indian Head" penny. bottom, left to right: glazed red earthenware, stoneware crock rim and body sherds, hand-painted white earthenware ceramics

The cultural review process requires resources to meet certain criteria http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm  in order to meet eligibility standards.  The light density and non-diagnostic nature of the prehistoric finds, and the historic artifacts’ lack of spacial integrity or association to important people or events, renders the Summerville Bridge site (36Je178) not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places, and no additional archaeological testing has been recommended prior to the construction of the new bridge.

Summerville Bridge, looking North

While not an exceptional archaeological site yielding new, interesting finds that will turn Pennsylvania Archaeology on its head, the Summerville bridge replacement project serves as an example of the numerous transportation projects throughout the state where PennDoT has (after the artifacts and associated documentation have been submitted to the State Museum of Pennsylvania, of course!) done its due diligence in helping to preserve the past for the future. These cultural resource management projects have provided archaeologists with an opportunity to look at archaeological resources all across the Commonwealth. Well documented and carefully prepared reports have provided us with a much improved picture of our archaeological heritage thanks to these investigations.
 

References:

Raber, Paul A.; Scott D. Heberling; Frank J. Vento
(2012) Phase I Archaeological Survey S.R. 3007 Section 550; Summerville Bridge Replacement Summerville Borough, Jefferson County, Pennsylvania

Yeoman, R.S.
(2001) A Guide Book of United States Coins, 54th Ed. St. Martin's Press, New York

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

“Like a box of chocolates” – a new and more eclectic blog theme

In late January, we celebrated the fifth anniversary of our blog site This week in Pennsylvania Archaeology. As is often the case, anniversaries bring on thoughts of reflection and review in preparation of the next marker. Now that we have finished our tour of Pennsylvania archaeology by county we are going to begin a new theme, one more eclectic in nature. It will include artifacts, collections curated at the State Museum, significant sites and important archaeological concepts. 

Our primary goal, as always, is to share the breadth and depth of Pennsylvania archaeology with our readers. A secondary goal is to increase awareness among  students and researchers of the resources and collections that are available for scholarly research at the State Museum.

We think the county report served an important function but now we are going to return to a less structured approach, similar to the ABC’s of Pennsylvania archaeology that we covered three years ago. In the coming months expect to see brief reports on unique artifacts, special collections available for research, artifact types and important sites in Pennsylvania archaeology.

 We are always interested in your input, so if there is something special you would like to read or see, let us know. In order to have more time to focus on museum renovations and public programming, we are going to switch to a biweekly presentation – a new posting every other Friday. We will be off next week (3/7) and begin our new series on 3/14.

This week, we are going to post the annual report from the Cultural Resources Geographic Information System. We included the map of site densities by county last week and this week we are including the sites per square mile organized alphabetically and listings of the top ten counties with the highest densities and the top ten with the lowest densities. This valuable resource aids immensely in our understanding of Pennsylvania’s history and prehistory with a comprehensive database that reflects upon the settlement and development of our Commonwealth.

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

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 

By

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 .