Have We Found the Fort at Fort Hunter?

Another season of excavation at Fort Hunter is finished, but this turned out to be quite an exciting year! Thousands of 18th century artifacts have been found over the last decade of work at the site, but this year brought the first evidence of a possible structural feature relating to the fort or even to a period associated with the first European inhabitants of this area.

Excavation was renewed in three test units opened in 2018 near the porch at the northwest corner of the mansion. Many 18th century artifacts were recovered from this area last year and we found an unusual, thick layer of charcoal that we called Feature 172. (A feature is evidence of a human activity that is left in the ground, such as a garbage pit or fire hearth.) A second feature, Feature 173, was a dark stain that had been found in Unit N60 W45 in 2018. This feature also produced primarily 18th century artifacts and was thought to have been completely excavated in 2018. At the beginning of the 2019 season, the goal was to complete excavation of the remaining prehistoric soils (called the B-horizon) in these units and to move on to another part of the site in a continued search for the fort.

Overhead view of excavations near the porch at the northwest corner of the mansion house (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

2019 Opening photo, showing the B-horizon (orange-tan), sewer pipe trench, and top of Feature 173 (dark stain to left and right of the exposed sewer pipe) (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

The archaeologists began removing the B-horizon in levels; however, it soon became obvious that these levels, which should only have produced prehistoric Indian artifacts, were instead producing a mixture of prehistoric and historic artifacts. A reassessment of the situation led to the conclusion that this soil had been disturbed, and it was renamed Feature 192. Although it was thought that Feature 173 had been completely excavated last year from along the east wall, removal of the Feature 192 soils revealed that Feature 173 was still visible and even appeared to be growing larger and spreading west along the floor of the unit. Large rocks, bone fragments, chunks of charcoal, and historic ceramics began to emerge.

Top of Feature 173 exposed in N60 W45. Note bone fragments and ceramics (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

Many interesting historic artifacts were uncovered in Feature 173, including mid-18th century ceramics, musket balls, cut animal bones, a horseshoe, copper fragments, straight pins, and a clasp knife. Tiny fish bones, flakes of spalled-off ceramic glaze, and a number of white seed beads (of the type that would have been traded with the Indians) were recovered straight off the feature floor. These objects were so small they would have fallen through the screening material and been lost before anyone knew they were there. Two dozen beads were eventually recovered from the feature.

Three white seed beads on the floor of Feature 173 (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

In another part of the feature, a swipe of the trowel cut across the top of what at first appeared to be a small mound of pebbles lying in the dirt. Closer inspection revealed that the pebbles were actually a pile of small caliber lead shot! From their position lying in a pile, it is likely they were once enclosed by a leather bag or shot pouch, which would have rotted away and left the lead contents intact.

Pile of lead shot lying in the floor of the feature (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

At this point, the time allotted for our field work was up. However, due to the excitement over our finds we decided to stick it out another week and attempt to complete the excavation of Feature 173 in Unit N60 W45. By this time, the feature had resolved itself into a square shape with a possible corner in the northeast corner of the unit. Three additional layers of rock and soil were removed from the unit and Feature 173 was beginning to appear in Unit N60 W50, just to the west of N60 W45. Very large pieces of charcoal were found throughout the feature, some of which were collected as samples, and two large pieces of furnace slag from metalsmithing were recovered.

Unit N60 W45 showing Feature 173 possible structure corner (darker soil in floor) (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

The most interesting finds of the season were made that last week (at least according to this archaeologist!). A large fragment of a Delft bowl base was recovered from the second level of the feature, as well as a strike-a-lite, more trade beads, a thimble with pins, and a beautiful pair of pewter and green glass cuff buttons. I must admit that my mind screamed "Emeralds!" when I first caught sight of them. But just as amazing is that they are still connected by a tiny brass loop after 250 years in the ground.

Pewter and green glass cuff buttons (Photo: The State Museum of Pennsylvania)

Unfortunately, due to time restraints we had to pack up and leave the site before getting to the bottom of Feature 173. It is still unclear exactly what this feature represents since we did not get it completely finished. One theory is that it may be part of the defensive ditch that was described as encircling the blockhouse. Another more likely possibility is that it is a cellar of a structure, either related to the fort or to an earlier period.

The presence of furnace slag, metal objects, large amounts of charcoal, crucible fragments, and a whetstone also point toward the possibility of a blacksmithing operation somewhere in the area. Research indicates the presence of both a blacksmith and gunsmith on the property in the 18th century, but the location of the operation is not known. The small amount of burnt soil and slag and metal do not seem to indicate this is the primary location of a smithy, but who knows what next year will bring.

It's going to be very difficult to wait an entire 11 months to get back out to the site. Next year, we hope to uncover the entirety of Feature 173 in the surrounding units to determine its size and shape. Hopefully even more amazing finds will be made, and we can get an answer to the function and age of this feature. Meanwhile, there is still work to complete in the lab, including having the charcoal samples and slag analyzed and possibly x-raying of rusty iron items. This analysis may be able to give us more information on the types of wood being burnt and chemical composition of the slag, as well as letting us see the objects beneath the rust to aide in accurately identifying these artifacts.

For additional information on blacksmithing and early trade at Fort Hunter, please see our blog from May 11, 2018 ("To Be Ore Not To Be: Crucibles are the Answer") or November 20, 2015 ("New Perspectives on an Old Subject: Trade and Native American Relations at Fort Hunter").

The end of October and the end of our field season at Fort Hunter also marks the end of Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania. We hope you had an opportunity to visit an archaeology program in your community to learn about our rich heritage in Pennsylvania. If you didn't have an opportunity to do so, there is still time! The annual Workshops in Archaeology Program is Saturday at The State Museum of Pennsylvania. Registration is available at the door and our presenters are excited to share their knowledge and research of the Monongahela culture.  This series of lectures provides an overview of the Monongahela culture, highlighting changes that occurred over time and discussion of their disappearance from the archaeological record. We hope you can join us November 9th, 2019 - registration desk opens at 8:30 am.


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

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 .
-->
--> -->

Experimental Archaeology with Scrapers: Scrape, Scrape, Scrape

My Name is Alaina Helm, I interned with the Section of Archaeology during the summer of 2009, and I am a Junior at Oberlin College in Ohio. You may already have seen my other posts about previous projects I have worked on: lithic analysis of Kings Quarry (36Lh2) and refitting debitage from Eelskin Rockshelter (36Bu159). This post is about another project I completed this summer doing experimental archaeology on end scrapers under the direction of Dr. Kurt Carr, Senior Curator, The Section of Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania.

                Prehistoric peoples demonstrate a preference for different lithic material types during different time periods. Paleoindians (10,000 to 12,000 years before present) preferred jasper and chert for making stone tools, despite inhabiting areas in closer proximity to alternative materials such as argillite and metarhyolite. During the transitional period (2800-4300 years before present) argillite and metarhyolite were intensively used throughout the Mid-Atlantic region.  With this knowledge in mind, we wanted to perform an experiment regarding the lithic composition of end scrapers to determine if there is a reason for biases towards certain lithic materials in the archaeological record.  Prehistoric peoples demonstrated a preference towards jasper scrapers despite being in closer proximity to other sources of useable material such as argillite. To determine if there was a functional reason for obtaining different materials from farther afield, we made scrapers of several materials and underwent experimental scraping with them. The goal of the experiment was to observe variations in wear patterns and effectiveness in scraping pieces of wood by using different materials.

Scrapers made for our experiment from various materials. Each scraper was assigned an alphanumeric designation for tracking purposes.

                Before beginning our experiments, I researched the literature to see if anyone had performed and written about a similar experiment. Although numerous articles have been published about use wear on scrapers, none of the articles compared wear between various lithic materials.  Our experiment consisted of several scrapers of varying materials created for the experiment by expert flint knapper Steve Nissley. The materials used were argillite, metarhyolite, jasper, quartzite, Normanskill chert, and Onondaga chert. All scraping was done on soft wood because it is easier to acquire than hide and would more quickly produce wear because it is a harder material.

Before being used, the scraper was hafted by channel lock pliers.

                The experiment was performed by hafting an end scraper using pliers padded with softened rawhide. The tools were then used in increments of 500 scrapes with a stroke length of thirty-two centimeters. The number of scrapes were carefully counted, and stroke length and strength was kept as uniform as possible to ensure consistency. Two sets of scrapers were used; one set was used by a variety of people including museum staff and volunteers, and the other set was used by only me. Having scrapers used by several people allowed more scraping to be performed faster without limitations caused by fatigue. Because several thousand scrapes needed to be performed for the experiment, having a separate set used by only one person allowed for a controlled comparison. The scrapers were photographed from multiple angles and at multiple magnifications using a Dino-Lite digital microscope with the highest resolution images at around 200x magnification. The scrapers were also measured using digital calipers at designated reference marks drawn on the scraper for consistency. All measurements and photographs were taken before the scrapers were used and at regular intervals of scraping to ensure a consistent record of wear on each scraper.

Alaina takes measurements and photographs of the experimental scrapers.

                The high-resolution images revealed that Argillite and Metarhyolite seemed to wear down faster with more visibly rounded edges than the Normanskill and Onondaga cherts, quartzite, and jasper. The chert scrapers showed a higher level of effectiveness than the jasper and the quartzite scrapers. Effectiveness was gauged by measuring the depth of the gouge each scraper created after the same number of scrapes. The argillite and metarhyolite scrapers shallower gouges than the jasper and chert scrapers, and the jasper scraper was slightly less effective than the chert scraper. These results suggest that the reason cherts and jaspers were the preferred materials for scrapers was due to their increased effectiveness in comparison with materials that may have been easier to obtain.

 

Argillite scraper with no wear (top) and after 500 scrapes (bottom).

This experiment was an interesting way to learn about lithic wear and get hands on experience with experimental archaeology. It allowed me to experience the nuances of designing an experiment and the difficulties in separating wear in differing lithic types. I learned a lot about aspects of experimental archaeology that are often not fully appreciated without the experience to back it up. This will help inform the way I approach any similar projects in the future. For example, on paper, scraping something 1000 times does not seem to be much until you realize that the individual scraping will need breaks. It is nice to occasionally switch up activities as well to make such experiments endurable.  I hope that my time with the Section of Archaeology at the State Museum of Pennsylvania will provide me with insight and experience during the planning and preparation of future research and will help to form a foundation on which I can further add to the results of our research.

Upcoming Pennsylvania archaeology events:

September 14, 2019 - Delaware County Archaeology Day at Newlin Grist Mill in Glen Mills, PA

This festival features a full day of hands-on activities. Visitors will be able to work with professional archaeologists and assist with three different excavations. An archaeologist from The State Museum of Pennsylvania will be on hand to answer questions.

September 15, 2019 - Fort Hunter Day at Fort Hunter Mansion and Park in Harrisburg, PA

Archaeologists from The State Museum of Pennsylvania will be conducting excavations in the mansion’s back yard during the park’s annual fall festival celebrating the old-time ways of life. Since 2006 archaeologists have been documenting archaeological evidence from the past occupations at this site dating from approximately 9000 years ago to the present day.

November 9, 2019 – 2019 Workshops in Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg, PA

Don’t miss your opportunity to learn about the prehistoric people of western Pennsylvania that we call the Monongahela Indians. This theme will be featured at the 2019 Workshops in Archaeology hosted by the Archaeology Section at The State Museum of Pennsylvania. The program will take place on Saturday, November 9, 2019 at the museum.

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

Journey to the Petroglyphs: Rock Art in Pennsylvania’s Lower Susquehanna River Valley

A previous blog identified the Lower Susquehanna River as containing one of the largest concentrations of prehistoric petroglyphs, or rock carvings, in the Northeast. Out of the multitude of these sites which were once accessible in the area, only a small handful remain intact. Although several publications discuss the images found on these petroglyphs, fewer accounts convey the beauty and natural wonder of their surroundings.

The golden hour on the Susquehanna. In the background, you can see people standing on Little Indian Rock, the most well-known of the petroglyph sites in the Lower Susquehanna.

 Despite the looming presence of Safe Harbor Dam and the alarms which signal dam releases at frequent intervals, the water just down river remains relatively calm. It is important to remember that the river landscape of today is drastically different from what existed before the construction of several hydroelectric dams along the river. This section of the Susquehanna was once described by Donald Cadzow as having numerous rapids only navigable by canoe, quite a difference from the glassy waters that are found here today. From the confluence of the Conestoga and Susquehanna Rivers, a paddler can make their way past numerous rocky outcrops (some containing petroglyphs) and islands blanketed with thick vegetation. It’s not difficult to imagine why this was a place of significance to the prehistoric people who visited and lived here for thousands of years. Wildlife, resources, and natural beauty abound.

The petroglyph sites in this area of the Susquehanna were first documented in 1863 by professor T. C. Porter of the Linnaean Society of Lancaster County. Since then there has been periodic interest in the sites, which for many years were thought to have been lost behind Safe Harbor Dam. Unlike the abstract glyphs documented on Walnut Island, now submerged behind Safe Harbor Dam, those found on Little Indian Rock are more naturalistic and represent identifiable animals such as birds, humans, snakes, and quadrupeds.

A composite photograph showing numerous glyphs on the northern face of Little Indian Rock at sunrise.

 At first glance, it is apparent that Little Indian Rock has numerous carvings on its surface, but it isn’t until closely examining the site under optimal light that the sheer number of glyphs on this rock become apparent. No doubt that an immense amount of time was spent creating them. Although no definitive age has been established for the creation of these sites, they are thought to have been made no more recently than around 500 years ago but are possibly much older. It is agreed upon that they are of Algonkian origin as they bear similarities to other petroglyph sites and motifs of the expansive culture group that once inhabited this area.

Big Indian Rock at sunrise.

The other prominent petroglyph site in the Lower Susquehanna, Big Indian Rock, exists just downstream of Little Indian Rock. This location contains numerous, but less distinct glyphs and more widely spaced images than Little Indian Rock. Many of the glyphs on Big Indian Rock are nearly impossible to see without ideal lighting. This site is unique, not only for the motifs which adorn it, but also for its prominence in the river. It is the tallest and largest of the rocky outcrops in this section of the Susquehanna. From atop Big Indian Rock, individuals experience a breathtaking vista that stretches for miles.

The modification of these petroglyph sites extends beyond their most prominent petroglyph panels. Understandably, maps have failed to capture the full scope of the ways in which humans have modified these sites. The preservation of these sites has largely been attributed to their remote location in the three-quarters of a mile-wide Susquehanna River. As with any significant historic or prehistoric site, vandalism is always a concern. When visiting petroglyph sites care should be taken to avoid impact. With proper respect and conservation, these awe-inspiring sites will exist long into the future.

The following guidelines for visiting petroglyph sites are adopted from the National Park Service:

-          Do not touch the petroglyphs, even small amounts of oils from your hands can darken and destroy the carved images

-          Photograph and sketch the images but avoid taking rubbings which can hasten the deterioration of the petroglyphs. The best time of day for viewing petroglyphs is early morning or evening, when the Sun is low on the horizon.

-          Do not introduce any foreign substance to the rock surface such as paint or chalk, these actions can damage the image.

-          Do not repeck, recarve or deface the images in any way, these actions destroy the original image. Many rock art sites have been destroyed by the addition of historic graffiti.

Thank you for visiting our blog, we encourage everyone to learn about the archaeological resources in your community. We ask you to join us in ensuring that our archaeological heritage is preserved by supporting public programs and preservation laws so that we can protect the past for future generations. 

Additional Resources:

Cadzow, Donald A. Petroglyphs Rock Carvings in the Susquehanna River Near Safe Harbor. Pennsylvania... Vol. 3. No. 1. Pennsylvania Historical Commission, 1934.

Carr, Kurt W. and Nevin, Paul A., Advanced Technology Rubs Ancient Past. Pennsylvania Heritage, Vol. XXXIV, No. 4, Fall 2008 (http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/pa-heritage/advanced-technology-rubs-ancient-past.html)

Diaz-Granados, Carol, and James R. Duncan, eds. The rock-art of eastern North America: Capturing Images and Insight. Vol. 45879. University of Alabama Press, 2004.

Lenik, Edward J. Making pictures in stone: American Indian rock art of the Northeast. University of Alabama Press, 2009.

Vastokas, Joan M., and Romas K. Vastokas. Sacred art of the Algonkians: A study of the Peterborough Petroglyphs. Mansard Press, 1973.

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

I wish there had been a census taken during prehistoric times

While many of you are completing the 2010 Census form, I am wondering how many Indians lived in Pennsylvania prior to European contact and how many lived here 10,000 years ago. Our blog this week touches on why determining population density during prehistoric times is important and how methods are used to achieve this objective.

As we all know, the goal of archaeology is to understand past cultural behavior – how people lived, how they organized themselves, their religious beliefs – and why their culture changed. We all agree that the environment can cause culture change and that it has affected cultural development. Obviously, climate (only one aspect of the environment) will affect the foods people eat and the types of food they can grow. Long term changes in climate, the end of the Ice Age, for example, had significant affects on the development of culture.

Technology and invention, such as the use and control of fire, the invention of the wheel, agriculture, or metal tools also had a significant affect on the lives of ancient people. Neighboring cultures also had their effects on others. For example, in the Upper Ohio Valley of western Pennsylvania, maize was being used nearly a thousand years prior to its use in the Delaware Valley. This is a complex issue, but part of the reason is that the cultures in the Upper Ohio were closely tied to the Mississippi Valley where the use of maize dates to at least 3000 years ago.
Population density is a fourth factor that some archaeologists consider to be very important in affecting the development of culture. But, unlike the environment, technology and the diffusion of ideas from other cultures, it is very difficult to trace. Some archaeologists argue that population density has had a very significant bearing on cultural developments and I would state that growing population density was the single most significant factor in affecting prehistoric cultures in Pennsylvania over the past 5000 years. On the other hand, many would argue that a combination of environmental and technological factors were of equal or greater importance. For example, the adoption of agriculture by the Indians of the Susquehanna Valley resulted in large settled villages, a tribal social organization and widespread warfare. I would say that an increasing population before the introduction of agriculture required Indians to adopt farming to feed their families. Over time, hunting and gathering simply could not support large numbers of people. There is good evidence that shows farming requires more labor intensive effort than hunting and gathering of wild foods. Assuming that people are basically lazy, they are not going to take on a new technology unless it is in some way, advantageous to do so.

To prove that population growth is a prime cause in cultural development, we must be able to demonstrate that population density is increasing to a critical point prior to technological development . And herein lies the problem. How do we determine absolute population size or even relative population density prior to written records?
Within a hundred years of their arrival Europeans were describing Indian villages and estimating the numbers of people they contained. Archaeologists have taken these numbers and applied them to prehistoric villages, specifically to the number of people per household which allows for hypothesizing population estimates for the period of time just prior to European contact. But what do we do for the period before the time people lived in relatively permanent hamlets and villages? How do we determine the number of people living in a nomadic hunting and gathering camp? In Pennsylvania 2000 years ago, there are very few examples of houses that have survived the ravages of time so it is impossible to extend this method very far into the distant past.

Another method that archaeologists use to reconstruct prehistoric demographics is to count the number of archaeological sites per time period. Sites can be roughly dated in time based on projectile point types and pottery types. Below is a graph using this method.




This graph illustrates an initial sharp population increase about 9000 years ago as the deciduous forest moves into Pennsylvania, followed by 4000 years of steady growth. At this time the rate begins to advance more rapidly. Between 1000 and 2000 years ago there seems to be a sharp population decline, however, most archaeologists believe this is not real. There are not many distinctive projectile point or pottery types for this time period (the Middle Woodland) so these numbers are artificially low. After this time, however, there is a very sharp rise in population during the Late Woodland Period when agriculture was developing across much of Pennsylvania. The graph needs to be broken into finer time periods but clearly there is evidence for a population increase prior to the adoption of agriculture.

Many, if not most archaeologists, do not accept this method as a valid procedure for documenting population change. We know that some projectile point types cover a very broad time range and some types crosscut other time periods. An example of this typological crosscutting is the triangular projectile point type. It is typically associated with the Late Woodland Period where such objects were used as arrow points. However, triangular forms were also used during the Late Archaic Period as atlatl dart points and there does not seem to be any way to determine the difference between these and their latter counterparts. Therefore, the Late Archaic numbers are likely too low and the Late Woodland numbers are likely too high.
Population density is clearly an important variable in the equation of determining cultural change. However, until archaeologists develop better methods for determining prehistoric population size density, the affects of this variable will largely remain speculative.



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

Fort Hunter Excavation Wrap-Up

As this year’s excavation draws to a close, Fort Hunter retains its secrets and many questions remain unanswered. Addmittedly, this year has been frustrating. As in years past, fort period artifacts were recovered but no structural evidence was found that can be definitively attributed to the fort.

Our excavations in the main block revealed that the ice house foundation cuts into the well feature, suggesting an earlier date of construction, however the exact dates of these structures continue to be unknown.

Feature #24, a large shaft, was found in the unit directly west of the well structure. The four foot wide shaft feature contained an iron pipe running to or from the well at a depth of 6 ½ feet from the surface and appears to be a later modification to the well. The function of the iron pipe at this point is speculative. Prehistoric ceramic and Fire-cracked rock cluster

The prehistoric levels produced material in the form of a relatively dense FCR (fire cracked rock) cluster along with several dozen ceramic sherds. After washing and cataloging the collection in the lab, refits of both the ceramics and FCR seem to be likely. We are hoping to be able to reconstruct a portion of a large Middle Woodland pot.

In the exploratory trench in the front yard, a section of thickened A horizon was encountered. Probing north and south of the trench indicated the unidentified feature was approximately 15 feet wide and had an average depth of 15 to 28 inches. Artifacts contained within were a hodgepodge including ferrous metal objects, a glass wine bottle fragment and a Lamoka projectile point. This feature still holds the possibility of relating to the fort occupation.

Next year should see the in depth investigation of the well structure at the center of our main excavation block and continued exploratory trenching elsewhere on the property in search of the stockade.

While not all of our research goals were met this season, it remains a success in large part due to the time and effort of all our volunteers, and to the thousands visitors and hundreds students that participated the public archaeology program at Fort Hunter Park as part of the celebration of Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania.

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

Fort Hunter Excavation Update

As the search for the French and Indian War period Fort Hunter continues new discoveries are made daily. As is so often the case with archaeology, these new finds pose more questions than they answer. While no structural evidence that can be definitively identified as belonging to the fort has been found, fort period artifacts are being recovered, such as fragments of tin-glazed earthenware, Whieldon ware and plain salt-glazed stoneware.

By far the most exciting find to date this season is that of a George I halfpenny dated 1724, recovered from what is being interpreted as the builder’s trench of the west wall of the ice house in the back yard of the mansion. Historic documents reference an ice house being built in 1794, however, the dimensions cited do not agree with the current structure. The halfpenny and mid-eighteenth century ceramics suggest this structure may be earlier than previously thought.

Additionally, it appears that the builder’s trench for the well feature intrudes into the ice house’s builder’s trench, indicating a later date of construction. The possibility of the well feature relating to the fort still exists, depending of course on the construction date of the ice house which is currently in question.

Further complicating the interpretation of the site, prehistoric finds continue to be made in the main excavation block. Feature 29 in particular, with the exception of two cut nail fragments has produced exclusively prehistoric material such as scores of chert, jasper and rhyolite debitage, as well as a dozen small fragments of quartz tempered, cordmarked ceramic sherds.

The excavation will continue for the next two weeks as part of the celebration of October as Archaeology Month in Pennsylvania. Sunday October 4th marks Indian Festival Day at Fort Hunter Park, and among the many activities and exhibits, archaeologists will be on hand to answer questions about the ongoing excavation. The dig site is open to the public, Monday through Friday 9 AM to 4 PM, and volunteer sheets are available for those wishing to assist us in our search for the fort at Fort Hunter Park.

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

Summer 2009 Internship Section of Archaeology

My name is Thomas Wambach and I am an Anthropology/Archaeology major at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), about to enter my junior year. This summer, I participated in an internship with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC), Archaeology Section located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I received this internship via the Diversity Internship Program, whose goal is to increase staff cultural diversity in Pennsylvania’s museums and cultural organizations. As I am of Haitian American ancestry, I found the program to be captivating as well as a worthwhile experience. It certainly has increased my knowledge of archaeology outside the classroom by helping me learn in a professional environment, under a well qualified mentor in my field.

As an intern in the Archaeology Section, I accomplished a number of personal and professional goals, and worked on a variety of different tasks and projects. My main project of focus during the internship was the processing of a collection of artifacts from an archaeological site in Clinton County, Pennsylvania known as the West Water Street Site (36 CN 175), located in Lock Haven, and excavated in 1992 by students from the University of Delaware. This was a stratified prehistoric site spanning nearly the entire time span of human occupation of the Susquehanna Valley. The artifacts I worked with dated to the Pre-Middle Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Late Woodland periods of human occupation in Pennsylvania. The first project task involved using printed records of the site’s artifacts, provided by the University of Delaware, to reenter data on artifacts spanning the first section of archaeological excavation at the West Water Street Site into an electronic database. An electronic database was unavailable from the University of Delaware for various reasons.

Once this section of the database was reentered and using a printed spreadsheet of the artifacts’ locations, I began to pull artifacts, by catalog number, from their original “pizza box” shaped cardboard boxes in one of the collection holding rooms occupied by the Section of Archaeology so that I could re-house these artifacts. That is to say, I pulled artifacts with catalog numbers 1200, 1400, 1500 etc, and re-housed them with their correct provenience information in larger acid free cardboard boxes. This encompassed a majority of the work I accomplished with the West Water Street Project, and represented a continuation of work performed by previous interns in the Section of Archaeology. The project was initially difficult, because many of the artifacts were scattered among a multitude of boxes in no particular order. Hence, finding the correct artifact was not only tedious, but also presented the possibility that certain artifacts might be missing from their original box. Overall, I estimate that more than four hundred bone, stone, ceramic, and FCR (fire cracked rock) artifacts were pulled and re-housed during my time here.


My time with the Section of Archaeology, however, was not simply limited to this activity. I also attended intern seminars held every Friday by Penn DOT’s Bureau of Design, Cultural Resources Section’s own Mr. Joe Baker. These seminars were organized and designed in a manner similar to a class lecture and discussion course to teach interns valuable lessons on historical preservation in Pennsylvania and the rest of the country, especially by introducing the rules and regulation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Other additional duties included the re-housing of artifacts outside my specific major project activity, and checking climate controls (temperature and humidity) in all artifact collection rooms. During the latter activity, I discovered that dehumidifiers are fickle little machines! I also briefly participated in field work at an archaeological site near Millersville, which was a good way for me to review the excavation and field training skills I’d learned during the summer of 2008 during IUP’s field school course. Moreover, from time to time, I assisted staff in maintaining the museum exhibits and galleries in the State Museum and Archives areas. This activity allowed me to visit the museum, that I had frequented as a child. I also attended an archaeology conference that took place in Harrisburg and I learned, first hand, how the museum receives new artifacts from public and private institutions, as well as donors from across the Commonwealth.

My summer internship also provided me the opportunity to show off my skills as an artist by drawing a reconstructed stone core artifact for one of my colleagues. I certainly hope the sketch proves useful in the future. I also took part in field trips to other museums in the state and to sites under protection by the National Register of Historic Places to evaluate their techniques of reaching the public as well as in artifact and site preservation, all the while comparing my observations with those services provided by the State Museum. In addition, I took part in a small public outreach activity by answering a letter sent by someone who had special interest in local archaeology. I provided the client with resourceful online and book sources so that his research could be completed. Despite the fact that the client was writing from prison, the effort demonstrates that archaeology is for everyone, and that we [archaeologists] are humble public servants.

Most importantly, I established contacts and friendships with the staff here in the PHMC, which I hope will help me in the future. My time here was very educational, fun, and an otherwise memorable experience that I will value greatly. I recommend contacting, interning, or communicating with the PHMC to anyone who is studying archaeology, like me, or to those who are interested in archaeology and/or prehistoric and historical preservation. It certainly proved to be an integral and priceless education and experience for me!
Thank you to all my friends and staff from the PHMC!

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