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

H is for Historical Archaeology.


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

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

                          

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Faunal Analysis from Fort Hunter (36Da159)

This week's blog entry comes to us courtesy of Elizabeth Claire Dalton, a senior at F&M College, who has been working with a portion of the faunal collection from our excavations at Fort Hunter Park for an independent study. Thanks go to Claire for this week's TWIPA post.

Hello all!

My name is Elizabeth Claire Dalton, a senior double major in Biology and Anthropology at Franklin and Marshall College working on my Honors Independent Study in Anthropology. I have been doing research with the State Museum of Pennsylvania’s Fort Hunter Collection, specifically feature 2-06, which we speculate was a refuse pit that dates approximately to the French and Indian War period.

Ms. Dalton

Fort Hunter was one of three in a chain of Forts established by the British in the mid-1750s along the Susquehanna River in preparation for the French and Indian War (Carr et al. 2007:53). The largest of these three forts is Fort Augusta and the other fort, larger than Fort Hunter, was Fort Halifax (Carr et al. 2007:53). Fort Hunter served as a supply fort for Fort Augusta, shipping them supplies via boat several times a month (Carr et al. 2007:53).

Feature 2-06 was filled with faunal remains. The reason for the uncertainty surrounding the exact period of time during which this refuse pit was in use is the absence of datable artifacts. The vast majority of the bones have rodent gnaw marks, leading me to the preliminary conclusion that Feature 2-06 was a meat/animal remains refuse pit.

Feature 2-06

Thus far, I have found some bones with saw and cut marks in accordance with butcher marks (Lyman 1977:68-70). Mostly the bones that have marks consistent with butchering are cow bones. Even if butcher marks are not present, it does not exclude the possibility that the animal was eaten. For instance, the remains of the three-year old horse do not have cut or saw marks, but this does not eliminate the possibility of the horse being used for food. In this collection, there are some bones that have spiral fractures, which might indicate that the bone was broken in this manner to allow for access to the bone marrow for stock for soup.

faunal analysis in progress at the State Museum's Section of Archaeology

The goal of my research is to examine what the dietary life was like at Fort Hunter for the soldiers and how this shaped their daily lives. My research is currently in its preliminary stages, but thus far the faunal remains have been primarily identified as domesticated animals. I have identified bones belonging to horses, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer, which is in accordance with the historic colonial sites dietary patterning (Jolley 1983:70). I have found a fair amount of horse and cow bones, some pig bones, and a few deer bones. At this stage in my analysis, however, I have only identified one sheep bone. For this analysis, I am calculating the minimum number of individuals, assessing age, tabulating cut/saw/defleshing/rodent bite marks, and with enough data, biomass estimation or meat yield.

I would like to give special thanks to the Archaeology staff at the State Museum of Pennsylvania, Dr. Kurt Carr, Mrs. Janet Johnson, Mr. James Herbstritt, Mr. David Burke, and Mrs. Elizabeth Wagner for their help and support. I am also grateful to Zoology and Botany Curator Dr. Walter Meshaka for allowing me to borrow part of his skeletal collection and sharing his birthday cake with me.

I want to extend my thanks to Dr. Mary Ann Levine, Associate Professor of Anthropology at Franklin and Marshall College and my advisor, for all of her help guiding me through this research and sparking my interest in archaeology in the first place. I would not be where I am today without you, Dr. Levine. My sincere thanks go out to Dr. Teagan Schweitzer of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Kirk Miller D.F. Fackenthal, Jr. Professor of Biology, Franklin and Marshall College for allowing me to take pictures of their skeletal collections and my parents who, bless their souls, helped me amass and clean my comparative skeletal collection.

If you have any questions or information that you would like to pass on to me, please feel free to email me at edalton@fandm.edu.

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

Finally, before we go this week, we invite you to join us at the State Museum on Sunday the 27th for the much anticipated opening of the newly refurbished Paleontology gallery on the third floor, featuring the permanent installation of the Marshall's Creek Mastodon in its new surroundings. From Noon until 4 PM, curators and docents will be dispersed throughout the Museum's galleries to interact with and engage visitors for what promises to be an informative and enjoyable event.