PENNSYLT~ANIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOURTH SERIES BULLETIN C 39
EEL-IG OUNTY ENNSY.LVANIA
GEOLOGYAND GEOGRAPHY
BY BENJAMIN LEROY MILLER Professor of Geology, Lehigh Universitl/
with chapters on PRE-CAMBRIAN GEOLOGY BY DONAI;D MCCOY FRASER Associate Professor of Geolog2/, Lehigh University
JACKSONBURG FORMATION BY RALPH LEROY MILLER Instructor in Geology, Columbia University
MARTINSBURG FORMATION BY BRADFORD WILLARD Professor of Geology, Lehigh University
TRIASSIC ROCKS BY EDCAR T. WHERRY s Associate Professor of Botany, University of Pennsylvania
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFA1R.S WILLIAM S. LIVENGOOD, JE., Secretary TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SURVEY GEORGE H. ASHLEY, State Geologist ” Harrisburg, Pa. c 1941
TABLF A OF COKTFVTSi* 'age Forewor(l, by B. L. Miller ...... vii Introduction, by B. L. Mille’r ...... 1 ;;;;Free of geologi’cal history ...... 1 ...... 2 Use ...... 2 Population ...... 3 Hi,ghways ...... 3 Railroads, trolleys and canals ...... 5 Early histo&al development, by B. L. Miller ...... 6 Pre-Indian occupation ...... 6 Indian ,occupat.ion ...... 7 Indi,an jasper quarries ...... a ...... 11 Eary white settlers ...... 19 Bibliography ...... 20 Devel.opment of knowled,ge of the geography and geology, by B. L. Miller ...... 23 Bibliography and 8c,artography ...... 24 T,oponymy, by B. L. Miller ...... 63 Place names .. ..- ...... 67 Weather sand climate, by B. 1,. Miller ...... 84 Temperature ...... 86 Precipitation ...... 90 Snowfall ...... 92 Humidity ...... 94 Gener.al character ‘of weather ...... 94 Winds ...... 95 Storms ...... 104 Phyaiography, by B. L. Miller . ;...... 106 Topographic features ...... 107 Ori,gin of physiographic features ...... 112 Peneplanes ...... 116 Streams ...... 117 Floods ...... 123 Water gaps and wind gaps ...... 1826 ‘Caves, sinks and und’erground drainage system ...... 132 Other physiographic features ...... 135 Stratigraphy, by B. L. Miller ...... 138 Stratigraphy and petrography of the pre-Cambrian rocks, by D. M. Fraser ...... 142 Formation derxription ...... 143 Franklin formation ...... 144 Mo8ravian Heights formation ...... 146 P’ochuck ‘gneiss ...... 149 Metadiabase ...... 154 Byram granite gneiss ...... 155 Pegm,atitic material ...... 159 General description of the Paleozoi’c, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks, by B. L. Miller ...... 161 Paleozoic era ...... 161 Cambrian system ...... 162 Ordovician system ...... 163 Silurian system ...... 163 Mesozoic er’a ...... 163 Tri.assic system ...... 164 Cenozoic era ...... 164 Pleistocene pe’riod, Glacial ,epoch ...... 164 Recent ‘era ...... 164 C’ambrian system ...... 165 Har’dyst,on formation, by B. L. Miller and P. B. Myers ...... 165 T.omst80wn formation, by B. L. Miller ...... 180 Allentown formation, by B. ‘L. Miller ...... 186 Ordovician system ...... 193 Beekmantown f.ormation, by B, L. Miller ...... 193 ... 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued Page Jacksonburg formation, by Ralph L. Miller ...... 202 ’ Martinsburg formation, by Bradford Willard 213 Silurian system, by B. L. Miller ...... 229 Tuecarora formation ...... 229 Triassic system, by Edgar T. Wherry ...... 231 Brunswick formation ...... 231 Quaternary system, by B. L. Miller ...... 236 Glacial deposits ...... 236 Wisconsin ice sheet ...... 238 Illinoian ice sheet ...... 239 Pre-Illinoian (Jerseyan) ice sheet ...... 2’44 Alluvial deposits ...... 245 Colluvial depositIs ...... 245 Residual deposits ...... 245 Structure, by B. L. Miller ...... 245 Mineral resources, by B. L. Miller ...... 251 Iron ore ...... 252 History of operations ...... 252 Limonite ores ...... 258 Descriptions of individual mmes, by Albert J. Getz ...... 272 Magnetite ores ...... 316 Hematite ores ...... 324 Iron carbonate (siderite) ores ...... 326 Zinc ...... 326 Manganese ...... 354 Lead, copper, gold ...... 357 Pyrite ...... 358 ,, Ocher ...... 361 Limestones ...... 367 Cement ...... 374 Building stone ...... 3,92 Clay and shale ...... 395 Slate, by B. L. Miller and C. H. Behre, Jr...... 4Ql Sand and gravel ...... 416 Graphite ...... 419 Minor products ...... 421 Ground water resources ...... 421 Soils ...... 435 Agriculture ...... 442 Mineralogy, by B. L. Miller ...... 443 Geologic history, by B. L. Miller .. ... 470 Pre-Cambrian history, by D. M. Fraser...... 470 Index ...... 479
iv IL&%TRATIONS
PLATE 1. Geologic map of Lehigh County ...... In pocket 2. Map of Lehigh County showing location of mines and quarries ...... In pocket 3. Muhlenberg Collepe on a limestone hill ...... Frontispiece 4. A, Kern’s saw mill on Trout Creek, Slatington; B, Snyder’s grist mill on Switzer Creek east of Lynnville ...... 120 5. A, Wehr’s dam and mill on Jordan Creek; B, Broken dam on Indian Creek, Upper Milford Township ...... 120 6. Lehigh River at Allentown, Tilghman Street bridge; B, Meander in Lehigh River between Rockdale and Laurys ...... 120’ 7. A,%FIsia6d ‘Lehigh River, Allentown ; B, Broken mill dam near GLrmansville ...... 120’ 8. A, Jordan Creek, log dam; B, Jordan Creek, silt deposits. 120 9. A, Lvon Creek at Lyon Valley at site of mill dam; B, Joidan Creek, site of former dam ...... 120 10. Flood at Allentown Aug. 24, 1933. A, Little Lehigh Creek near mouth ; B, Lehigh Valley R. R. station ...... 120 11. A, Lehigh Gap from south; B, Lehigh Gap from north. . 121 12. A. The Devil’s Pulpit, west side of Lehigh Gap; B, Bake Oven Knob, crest of Kittatinny Mountam ...... 136 13. A. Bear Rocks, summit of Kittatinny Mountain; B, Bauer Rock or Big Rock, top of South Mountain, near Allen- town ...... 137 14. Photomicrographs of thin sections of rocks. A, Pochuck gneiss ; B, Gradational material between Pochuck and Byram gneisses; C, Moravian Heights formation; D, Byram gneiss; E, Metabasalt ; F, Hardyston quartzite. 168 15. A, Jasper cliff west of Mountainville; B, Large Sc~Zithz~~ 168 16. A, Common form of Scolithus linearis; B, Irregular form of Scolithus; C, Coarse oolite in Tomstown hmestone, East Allentown ...... 168 17. A, Thin shaly and thick dolomitic limestones of the Toms- town formation, West Bethlehem; B, Layer of dolomite between two low-magnesian beds squeezed into a strmg of nodular-like masses. Beekmantown formation . . . . 169 18. A, Typical dolomitic limestones of the Allentown for- mation showing alternating light and dark beds; B, Close view of alternating light and dark beds of the Allentown formation ...... 2’0,O 19. A, Top of large heads of Cr&oxoa in the Allentown for- mation; B, Cross section of large heads of Cr@oxoa . . 200 20. A. Martinsburg shales unconformably overlying Allentown dolomitic limestones, Limeport quarry; B, Contact of Martinsburg shales and Jacksonburg limestone north of Fogelsville ...... 20’0 21. A, Contact of Beekmantown and Jacksonburg hmestones in quarry near Trexlertown; B, Coarse limestone con- glomerate or breccia in the Beekmantown hmestone, Friedensville ...... 201 22. A, Complicated thrust faulting and folding of Tomstown thin-bedded and massive dolomitic limestones, East Allentown ; B, Complicated folds of Beekmantown strata in abandoned quarry near Ormrod ...... 250 23. A, Overturned dolomitic limestones of the Allentown for- mation below Fullerton; B, Bed of folded competent dolomite between low-magnesian limestones, Beekman- town formation, East Catasauqua ...... 250
V ILLUSTRATIONS-Continued Page 24. -4, Overturned fold at Ormrod. Jacksonburg strata dip under older Beekmantown; B, Complicated fold of Beekmantown strata, Coplay ...... 250 25. a, Recent view of the ruins of the Lehigh Furnace west of Slatedale; B, Old view of Crane Iron Company’s fur- naces at Catasauqua ; C, Limonite mines at Ironton. 251 26. Map showing magnetic surveys in the vicinity of Vera Cruz 316 27. Recent view of Ueberroth zinc mine, Friedensville ...... 348 28. A, Old Hartman mine, Friedensville; B, Limestone breccia in Old Hartman mine, Friedensville ...... 348 29. A, Ueberroth mine, Friedensville, while in operation about 1877 ; B, Recent view of Ueberroth mine ...... 348 30. Ueberroth mill and open cut, Friedensville, in 1877 ...... 349 31. A, Old mill of the Coplay Cement Manufacturing Company ; B; Close view of the upright kilns of the Coplay Cement Manufacturing Company . . . _ ...... 396 32. Fogelsville plant of the Lehigh Portland Cement Co. . . . . 396 33. A, Illinoian glacial till in clay pit, South allentown; B, Surface stripped of clay for brick plant, same pit as above .._...... _...... 396 34. A, View southwest from Kern quarries, Slatedale ; B, Anti- cline of Eureka quarry, Slatedale ...... 396 35. Structure sections at Slatington and Slatedale ...... 413 36. A, West part of Slatington with slate quarries; B, View of typical slate quarry ...... 396 37. Slate quarry operations. A, Quarrymen pry a slab loose; B, Hoisted to the surface, the slab is loaded on a truck; C, Cutting a slab of slate by circular saw ...... 396 38. Slate quarry operations. A, Splitting the slate.; B, Trim- ming the slate to shingles; C, Punching narl holes m shingles ...... 396 39. A, Sand and gravel pit at East Allentown; B, Typical Hardyston sandstone quarry ...... 397
FIGURE 3. Section of jasper pit showing refuse layers, fire sites . . . 18 2. Wind diagrams for January to June ...... 102 3. Wind diagrams for July to December ...... 103 4. Physiographic subdivisions of Pennsylvania ...... 106 5. Cross section of Jordan Creek valley showing alluvial fill 121 6. Sketches showing drainage changes in the vicinity of Le- *. 1 n~-~ n1e.n tel,TJ ...... --...... 131 7. Columnar &&ion of rocks in Lehigh County ...... 141 8. Cross section of pre-Cambrian belt of Lehigh County . . . 153 9. Map showing the distribution of the Jacksonburg lime- stone in Lehigh County ...... 202 10. Diagrams explaining the structural relations of the Jack- sonburg limestone ...... 212 11. Sketch map showing distribution of the Martinsburg and other elastic sediments...... 214 12. Sections across the Martinsburg formation by Behre, Stose and Willard . , ...... 223 13. Map of Friedensville zinc mines ...... 351 14. Section across Hughes quarry to show inferred structure 407 15. Sharp anticline with northward overturning, in Lehigh Gap quarry ...... ~..‘...... 40’8 16. Typical folding of the slate beds, near Slatmgton, in Eureka quarry ...... 411 17. Fold in wall of Manhattan quarry near Slatedale . . . . 415 vi FOREWORD
Since September 1907, the senior author has held the position of Professor of Geology in Lehigh University. During this time his out-of-door lsbomtory has been the Lehigh Valley, particularly Lehigh and R’orthamptan Counties. Alone, with his colleagues in the department, and with his students, all sections of these two counties have been visitwl and revisited. In addition many geographic and geologic problems and many bits of information have been brought to his attention by representatives of the various indus- trial organizations of the region. These hsve dealt particularly with problems concerning supplies of underground wster, the utilization of the rocks af the area such as limestones for portland rement and lime, slntea, sandstones, gneiss, sand and clay for structural purposes, weather and climatic conditions, and behavior of streams. As & result & greet body of information has acoumulnied thitt supplements previously published data. The author belieres t&t an obligation exists io put the important part of this material into permanent form and to publish it in order that it may be arailable to n larger number of people. In fulfillment of this implied obligation, the present volume has been prepared. In it,s prepsra- tion, the writer has held in mind the interests of the general reader and of the students of the Lehigh Valley colleges.* So far as possible, kchniesl terms hsne been svoided. The employment of technical nomenclature, such as every science has developed, pmmits shorter and more concentrated discussions, but tends to confuse those readers who are not primsrily con- cerned with the particular science. The material ineluded in this volume msg have some interest to persons outside this region and unfamiliar with the local background but it is espwially written for the residents of the Lehiffh Valley and only incidentally for others. The topics treated by no means constitute all the subjects that might be considered under the head ,of geography. A complete geography of the county should include many additional subjects, such as the plant and animal life, and the industrial development. It is profoundly hoped that pemons competent to deal with other geographic factors may eventuaIQ likewise make availnble their accumulated information. Monastic learning and r~sesrch in the natural seienc~s may afford much personal satisfaction to the investigator, but the results mule available to the public may give much plraaure to a larger body of thinking people similsrl~- inclined. It must be recognized that much of this volume is the work of other inue?&gators. As shown in the somewhat elaborate bibliography, scores of other persons have studied and reported on various phasrs of this work. For more than 200 years information has been accumulating. Some of these contributions 51-e of little merit but mmy arc otherwise snd have been freely used. This work therefore represents the investigations of the past and present generations. To all these, hut particularly to the writer’s colleagues and former students. thanks are given. Since the writer’s studies have extended over a period of ‘one-third .of a century, it is obviously viii FOREWORD impossible 60 rw:all and give credit to these individual contributions, much as ho should like to da so. Far assistance in the field, the writer particulnrly aesirw to thank his former students, J. O&born Fuller, Philip B. Myers, Albert J. Reti, and by the o&ids of the Lehigh 6or&md Cm& Co., the Coplay Cement kb,nufncturing Co., the Giant Portlsnd Cement Go.. the Whilchsll Cement Manufacturing Co., and ths Xew Jersey Zinc Co. in supplying data Concern- ing their operntions and properties. Mr. M. B. Fiery has kindly furnished rmords of many wells. The proprietors of the Call-Chronicle newspapers have supplied & number of exceW.%nt photographs far illustration. Thme and many others hare made it possible to prepsre this ~~dnrne. The eallcetion of aat& and the preparation for publication has afforded much pleasurc to the writer. If this report proms to be of interest or value to those for dmm it is written, the rmiter will fed well repaid for hia eiTori*. BENb*MdTN L. Yn.lim Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, April 18, 1941. LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
INTRODUCTION I33 IIENJABII~ I,. MmmE L,ehigh C’ounty is in the castcrn part of Pcnasylvania. It is bordered on the norlh and east by Northampt’on County, on the southeast by R,tcks County, on the southwest by Berks and Montgomery counties, and #on the north and west by Schnylkill and Carbon counties. It lies between parallels 40”25’ and 40”47’ north latitude and meridians 75’720’ and 75”53/ west longitude, is irregular in shape, and has an a~e:reaof 344 square miles. It includes portions ‘of the following 15’ quadrangles of the U. S. Geological Survey: Allentown, Allentown West, Mauch Chunk, Hambor,, ‘I* Boy&can itnd Qnakertown. The connty pcss~cs~~ much af historical, industrial, and geological interest. Geologically its record goes back more than a billion ye&~; in terms of human history it embodies probably a thousand years. In neither case can the time be given in ‘exact figures. The geological reoord includes so many great earth changw that many of the phases or periods must be interpreted from imperfect data. Similarly, the story of the earliest human inhabitants in the region is vngne, owing to the fact that the Indians preserved no written records. Even the activities of the carlicst white inhabitants, who entered the region a little more than 200 ycsr8 ago, are poorly known. Both human and geological ~eoords become increasingly more fragmentary and mere difficult to drcipher the farther back we go. Nevertheless, enough data nernain for the specially traill’od individuals to unraavel much of the au&& records.
OUTLINE OF GEOLOGICAL HISTORY It i8 an interesting speculation to consider the happeniugs of the past billi’cn years as designed to prepare the region fcr Man. Whether such an egctntiaal point of viev is acwpted or not,, it is nevertheless *rue that tbc present human inhabitants are utilizing, and, in some CB%S,wasting the products of Sature t&t have been in process of fOrmalion for many millions of years, long before the appeuarance of Man ,011the earth. The oldest rocks occur on South Mountain and the other irregular hills that constitute such prominent topographic features in the south- pm part of the county. They tell of a time when h’ot molten rocks forced their wray to or new the surface from deep-seated reservoirs of magmas with prevailin’g t.emperatures above the melting points of ordinary rocks. These molten masses c~ocled and solidified as they proceed,& cPnrard, forming granites and other types ‘of igneou,s rocks. I&er, Jirld perhaps several times, t.hcse first crystalline rocks mere t&ms,elws invadd by other asc,ending masses of molten rock. These successive innsions and subsequent earth compressire and uplifting movements have modified the ancient rocks of the regi'on untti they are SO ccm- Plcx ~3 to make the deciphering of their history extremely difficult. Prcg=~ has be’en made but many problems are unsolved. 1
POPULATION 3
The more level portions ,of ‘the country are m.ost thickly settled. The popul,ation is naturally densest in the limesi,one valleys. Here are the principal tmo,wnsand practically every foot ‘of th:e are,a is capable of cultivation. The slate region, with st’eeper ‘hills, has several small villjage8s clustered ab’out th,e :slate qtrarries. S.ome ‘of th’e h&ides are to(o stleep f’or cultivation, but’ furnish past,urage ‘or are covered with tr,etes. The rough’er portio’ns (of the county are more thinly populat#ed, but there i:s paactic~ally no’ wa’ste land. H,ere and there are residenceIs on the slopes and tops’ ‘of the steep hills and mountains, some of which are ‘oc,cupied ,during the entire year and others ‘only during the sum- mer. E3om.ef’airly steep slopes h,ave been cultivated by the rsemoval ‘of th’e larger no&s of the hillside talus. With the exception Highways.-Lehigh County is well provided with highways, thus rendering all parts readily accessible. In the early days there were several privately-owned turnpikes with toll houses ,and toll bridges. The turnpikes land most of the bridges have now been tlaken ‘over by the State aor local communities and freed. The improvement ‘of the highways has been very rapid since the appearance of the automobile. Now a fine network of hard-surfaced roads, both c,oncrete and mac- adam, penetrates all portions of the county. Many of the dirt roads have also been improved. The main highways are kept open durinw the winter by snow.plow,s and there is little interference even aftehr the worst snow-storms. Sleighs, once used extensively, have almost completely dislappeared. In that portian (of the county underlain by limestones the roads run in everv direction and in most cases belar little relati’on to the stirelams and their vaiieys. In contrast, in the slate regions where the irraegu- larities of topography are mmoreaccentuated and ihe valleys narrow LEHIGH COUNTY I - - I - I/ I. - - -I I I - - - -I I TRANSP’ORTATION SYSTEMS 5 and st,eep-,sid,ed, *the rotads are along the stretams an’d +OLLthe stream divides. As the drainage here is along north-south lines, th,e PO&S ar,e prevailingly in the same direction. The roa,ds in the southern part of thle county, where thle crystalline rocks ar,e pred,ominant and the hills are #of irreguhar shape, havfe a less pronouncemd patt’ern, ‘although they ten’d to follow the vall,eys. F,ew roadIs cross Kittatinny (Blue) Mountain ,on the northern boun,d,ary. Lehigh ‘Gap affords easy passage, b’ut th’e only highway there i;s #on the Northamptson C,ounty side. &&oads, trolleys a?zd canals.-Th,e county h’as ‘an ad’equate rail- road system connecting all parts. Th,e Reading Railway System has s,ever,aI lines, the behigh Valley Railroad, and the Central Railroad of New Jersey foll,ow th,e Lehigh River from Bethlehem t’o the Lehigh Gap and beyond. The ‘extensive railroiad system of th’e county i,s llargely due to the important slate and cement ‘deposits and tso the location of the region _ with reference t’o Philadelphia and Nlew Ytork in o,ne ‘directio’n and to lthe anthracite fields, western. New York ‘and a’entral and western Pennsylvania in the ‘other direction. In ,turn, it meay be said that the industrial d~evel~opme,nt*of the ‘county is largely due tlo th’e fine trans- portation facilities. Until recently ther.e w’erle several int.erurban trolley lines be,tween the principal towns By BENJAMIN L. MILLER The human history jof almost every region, las one foll,ows it back- wards through time, passes into vague and indefinite trails where facts and legends intermingle in inextricable confusion. It is the pur- pose of the historian to pick his way through this maze of endless contradictions and sift the chaff firtom the grain. Even where written records are (available their fragmentary character often prevents posi- tive conclusi’ons. When the historical research concerns peoples who have left no written records, only some Iof their handiwork, the dif- ficulty increases. The early history of Lehigh County embodies many - such probl’ems. A discussion of the histo,ry of any region in Pennsylvlania must be concerned with both the early Indi’an’inhabitants and their successors, the white men. The writer is inclined to introduce the question of still earlier habit;ation as this has long been in his mind, and particu- larly so since there opportunely comes to his desk, as he now writes, a publication * pertinent to this topic. Pm-Indian Occupation A vast literature deals with early Man, and almost every European museum contains extensive collections of artifacts left by earlier civili- zations. Various classifications have been proposed folr the different stages in Man’s devel,opment as evidenced by these dilscoveries. Gen- erally three major divisions have been m,ade-Eolithic, Paleolithic, and Neolithic-but with numerous minor subdivisions. The question has frequently been asked, especially by European geologilstls and anthropologists, as to why similar evidence ‘of early Man has not been obtained in North America. Was the North Amelrican Indian the first man to occupy this continent f This question hlas been deblated for almost a century and at times so heatedly that one prtominent geologist is reported to heave giv,en the advice to hits subordinate work- ers to destroy pr,omptly any artifact they might find that did not present definite indication of “Its relatively recent origin, and thus av’oid unseemly and prolonged controversy. Nevertheless, the evi- dences of Man having lived in North America previous to or during the Ice Ape have accumulated by finds in many States. These artifacts have been found in association with the remains Indian Occupation The regi,on now Iembraced in Lehigh C,ounty, when first visit,ed by white men, was sparsely #occupied by the Lenni-Lenape (usually shortened to Lenape) ‘or Dehaware Indians, a branch of the Algon- kians. According to their traditions they came from the west. This idea is in accord with the prevailin g belief th,at the American Indian is of Mongolian ancestry and entered the continent by way of Bering Strait. From thence over a lmongperiod of years they spread through- ‘out North, Central, and South America. The Lenape Indians were divided into three tribes, two of which shared this area, with the limits of their respective claims indlefinite. The southern division, the Unami, whose totem was the turtle and accordingly known as the Turtle Tribe, claimed the terribory from what is now northern Dielaware to the Lehigh River, or according to other beliefs to Kittatinny (Blue) Mountain. The Minsi tribe, witsh the wolf Ias their totem, occupied the headwaters of the Delaware and Leh6gh rivers. * Berlin, A. F., Lehigh Island and Its Relics: The Archaeologist, vol. 1, PP. 13-16, January 1893, Waterloo, Indiana. (Library of Historical Society of Pennsylvania.) 8 LEHIGH C’OUXTY It selem,sfairly certain that the Iroquois Indians pushed into Penn- sylvania bef’ore the tenth century and gradually supplanted the au- thority of the Algonkians over much of that terr.itory. When the European settlers appeared in eastern Pennsylvama t!e Lenape. or Delawares had come under the domination of the Iroqnols, spme tribes of which had banded together to constitute the Five Natlons. The Iroquois applied the title of Women to the Lenape, a terrfl which. in time became very ,obnoxious, as indicating welakness and mfer?orlty. The territory now comprising Lehigh C,ounty probably was used by the Indians almost exclusively as hunting and fishing grounds, although for these purposes less valuable than the regions north of Kittatinny (Blue) Mountain. The entire area was covered with sev- enal varieties Iof oak, maple and other deciduous trees, with few conifers. Large trees were rare and grew only along the streams, a condition probably brlought about by the occasional forest fires set by the Indians to drive the game through the gaps in Kittati’nny (Blue) Mountain for slaughter by the hunters stationed there in ambush. Lehigh County is fbortunate in hlavin, v had several able inve,stigators of Indian life and lore as residents of the county or nearby counties. From their writings one can obtain a fairly comprehensive view. A list of the more important is included in the bibliography at the cl,ose of this chapter. The best account ‘of the Indians of this section is that by Alfred Franklin Berlin (Chapter III, pp. 18-40, History of Le- high C,ounty by Roberts, St’oudt, Krick and Dietnch, 1914). Mr. Berlin has * furnished fine descriptions of many of the artifacts found in this district-pottery, net-sinkers, hammers, lgrooved and un- grooved axes, adzes, knives, scrapers, gorgets, ceremonial weapons, pestles, spear-heads, drills, a$nd arrow-heads. It seems that there were no permanent Indkan villages in what is nlow Lehigh County. One Indian chief, Kolapechn,a (from whose name Coplay has been derived), lived for s,everal years along what is now Coplay Creek near the present location ‘of Neffs. From the great number of artifacts and jasper chips found on Jeter Island and on the flat l.and on the south side of Lehigh River within the broad curve of that stream between Allentown and Bethlehem (clommonly knowIn as the Geissinger Farm) it would seem as though groups lived in those places repeatedly, if not continuously. Trout Crteek near its j?ction with the Lehigh River was another favorite place for thle In&ans to tarry. Temporary villages also probably existed ia the vicinity of the jasper quarries described on later pages. Various places in Weislen- berg Upper Milford, and Upper Saucon townships have been thought to bk the sites ‘of Indian settlements blecause of the abundance of arti8acts. A settlement ‘of converted Indians under the supervision of the Moravians was maintained on the outskirts of Bethlehem between 1’758 and 1763. The village was named Nain by Count Zinzendorf m 1742 when the idea of a Christian Indian village was first considered. The village was in Hanover Tjownship a short distance north of Union Boulevard West Bethlehem. When the Government moved the Indians 60’ Philadelphia all the houses were destroyed but one, which * Berlin, A. F., op. cit. HISTORY 9 was m’oved and now stands on Heekewelder Street, Bethlehem, a short. distance from the Central Moravian Church. Th’e Indiam ranged all through the county and their arrow-point,s and other stone articles have been picked up everywhere. They hunted in the forests, fishmedin the streams and ppolxbly locally cultivated some of the ground. They were never nu.merous and appear to have moved about frequently. The best hunting grounds lay to the north of Blue Mountain and sorae of their more permanent settlements were farther south in what is now Bucks C’ounty. The Delaware Indians were generally friendly, but became incensed when the infamous Walking Purchase fraud deprived them of a large part of the land which they had l’ong claimed. Since the whole of Hanover Township and, by implication, considerably more of Lehigh County was taken from the Indi’ans by this tramaction, a brief sketch of the transaction is given. William Penn on his arrival in this country took the position that the land did not belong to him, regardless of the fact that he had been given a charter by Charles II on March 4, 1681, to a large tract of land “lying north of Maryland ; on the east bmnd’ed by Delaware river; on the west limited as Maryland; and northward, to extend as far as plantable.” He, therefore, from the first purchased from the Indians the lands which he desired and by so doing won and retained their friendship. This policy w&s continued by his successors, al- though his son Thomas, who, with his brother John succeeded to the titles of the American h’oldings on the death of their father, was not highly mgarded. His h’onesty was questioned in different transactions and especially when a few years before 1737, the Pmprietaries’ agents produced a document bearing the endorsement “Copy of the last Indian purchase. ” This was ~claimed to be a true oopy of a deed made August 30, 1686, and signed by three Delaware Indian chiefs by which William Penn was given a tract of land north of the “Neshaminy Purchase” extending from its northern boundary a.~ far as a man can walk in a day and a half and theme eastward to the D~elaware River. This was shown to the Indians in 1737 and re- luctantly accepted by them as genuine, although they had no previous knowledge ‘of its existence and all the signatories were dead. The common belief is that the entire instrument was a forgery or an altered copy. At sum% on the morning of September 19, 1737, three trained walkers started from a place near Wright&own, Bucks County. They walked until sundown and resumed the next morning. At noon they had walked ab’out sixty-seven miles, to a point a few miles east of Lehighton. A line later surveyed t’o the Delaware River gave the Proprietaries a large part of Carbon, Monroe, and Lehigh counties, m well as all of Northampton Gounty. The walkers probably spent the night near &n Indian village on Hokendauqua Creek just east of the present borough of Northampton, although some claim that they p,assed Blue Mountain before the end of the first day and slept in the woods near an Indian village called Meniolagomeka in the mlleg of Aquashicola Creek. The route is also in doubt, but it seema that they mossed th’e Lehigh River just below the present site of Bethlehem and proceeded n’orthwest awoss Monocaey Creek, passing near the 16 LEHIGH COUNTY sit’es of North,ampton ;and Walnutport. most writers state that the walkers passed th,rough L’ehigh Gap, but others claim that the trail followed pas’sed ‘over Blue Mountain through Smi,th Gap. Alth,ough the records dis,agree, the writer is c.onvinced that th’e route was thr.ough the L’ehigh Gap. Regardless of whether the purported de’ed ,of 1686 was genuine or not, the Indians felt that t.hey h,ad been che,ated in th,at the area c,ov- ered -in the walk was excess,ive and far greater than int’ended. One India’n ,expreissed his indignation by s’ayinlg th,at th.e walkers “no sit daown to sm,oke, no sh’oot ,a squirrel, b’ut lun, lun, lun all day long.” Accordingly, the Indians r’esented ,the amount ‘of territory c’overed and r’efused t’o vacate the regifon. R,owever, by 1742 all ,of th’e Indians with the exception of a few i,ndividuals, wh.o were granted the privi- lege to remain, had r.emoved from the confine#s ‘of the 8rea claimed. This w,as ace’ompli’shed with th’e assistance (of th’e Ir’oquois Indians, who lived to the north land wh,o ,had l,ong assumed an oppres,sive d,om- inance ,over the Dfel;awares. The Indian,s deprived of their lands found their new hatitatitons gradually encr’oach’ed upon. A h,arb’oring resentment fin’ally ‘broke when the invincibility ‘of the white’s was &own n,o’ l’onger t’o exist by the ldefe#at of Bradd’ock’Ns army in 1755 by the In,dians and some Fr.ench. The Indi,ans had continued t.o w,ander back #and fjorth thr’ough th,e regi,on,s they had .onc’e possessed and now seemed to conceive the idea that th.ey c’ould redre#ss the wr’ongs they h,ad suffered and r.eclaim the Isost territory. F’or #several ye’ars the isolated settlers in th’e n,orth- em portison ‘of th’e county w.ere haras,se’d by ,occ,asional rai,ds. Several persons were murder’ed and scalped ‘and property destroyed. This called for the erection the Frlontier Forts, Henry M. M. Richards made a careful investiga- tion and decided that this fort was l’ocated along Trout Creek at what was known as Trucker’s or Kern’s Mill (Plate 4A) “come 175 feet north of the #bridge at Main St.,” Slatington. The place seems to have been fortified and at times as many as 12 soldiers were stationed there. It has alao been called Kern’s Fort and Dry Fort. Deshler’s Port.-Adam Deshler lived close to Goplay Creek be- tween Egypt and Goplay. His home has been called a Sort and was probably a place of refuge in times of danger, althou,gh there seems to be no record of soldiers ever having been stationed there. A wooden structure erected nearby may have quartered s’oldiers for a time dur- ing the Indian uprising in 1763. The most seri,ous Indian disturbances ‘occurred in 1755, 1756, 1757 and in 1763. After that the Indians moved farther away and the white inhabitants of Lehigh County were left free to develop the region. Indian Jasper Quarries in Lehigh County The Indi,ans built no permanent structur’eis .and they made ‘only mi(nor use of the soil. Their chief ,oceupations ‘of hunting and fishing did not m,odify the c’ountry. They did, h,owever, discover what to th’em were v,aluable deposit,s of jasper ‘on the slopes of th,e high hills in the southern part (of the e,ounty, and the’se they worked ‘extensively. The chief investigati’ons of the ol,d workings th’ere were made by Henry C. Mercer in 1891 and 1892. In view of the Igeneral interest in the sub- ject, his principal contribution, nlot readily ,accessible stmomost persons, i,s reproduced in its entir’ety. In part it concerns tsorne pl,aces beyond the confines ,of L’ehigh C,ounty and in some respect,s his geologic8al in- terpretations have since been modified, yet it still remains ‘the most important diseus8sion ‘of th,e utilizatison o’f the j.asper ,of the regi’on by the Indi’ans. Be,side,s jasper t’he Indians und,oubtedly picked up pieces ,of black flint, chalce’d,ony, and quartz from which they ma,de arrow-he.a’ds, k’nives, axes, *and ornaments. These minerals are 680wid’e:spread th.at one ,cannot id.entify their source. The jasper, h,owever, is s’o dis- tinctive th.at it can fairly reliably be ,attri.buted t,o the quasri’es of this region, even though the ‘objects made from it ‘are found in distant Pl,ac,e’s. Th’e abundavlc’e .of jasper chips f,ound ‘on Jeter Island, on th,e Geissi,nger Farm (the low ground in the bend of the Lehigh River between Allent,own ,and Bethleh.em), an’d elsewh.er’e plainly indicate that in gener.al ‘only the rough trimming was done at the quarries and the fini’shin’g was don’e in the c’amp.s along the riv’er. k INDIAN JASPER MINES IN THE LEHIGH HILLS” By H. C. MERCER Expeditions ,sent out by t,he University ‘of Pennsylvania in the summers of 1891 and 1892 discovered or ,explored nihe ancient jasper quarries in Bucks, Lehigh, and Berk,s counties, Pennsylv.ania. The outcrops of the well-known Indian bla#de material occurred generally in connection with * The American Anthropologist, vol. VII, 1894, pp. 80-92. 12 LEHIGH C’OIJNTY veins of hematite and followed the trend of the Lehigh hills from the Delaware almost to the Schuylkill. Messrs. Charles Laubach and J. A. Ruth, of Riegelsville, had known the nine flake-strewn pits on Rattlesnake hill, about a mile from the Delaware, for several years, and the former called our attention to them in 1891. The twenty pits at Saucon creek (Wieder farm, two miles west of Lime- port, Lehigh county, Pennsylvania) were discovered by Mr: Laubach and myself in 1891, on following the clue of a farmer who descrrbed the dump- beaus as “Indian mounds .” I discovered the ten diaainas on the Mast farm, a mile and a half south of Limeport, in 1891. They e&stenoe of the sixty hollows at Vera Cruz, Lehigh county, Pennsvlvania. had been suspected by Mr. A. F. Berlin, of Allentown, and his sugiestion led me to them in 1892, to the one hundred and thirty-eight at and about the C. C. Miller farm, at Macungie (Lehigh county, Pennsylvania), on September 20, 1892, and to the five at Feuersteinberg (near Bowers station, Berks county, Pennsylvama) shortly after. I discovered the two pits at Coopersburg (Bucks county, Pennsylvania) and the twenty at Leinbach’s mills (Berks county, Pennsyl- vania) in 1892. All the diggings, except those at Saucon creek, Coopersburg, and Long Swamp, are at ill-watered and rather uninhabitable sites. The prts, save the larger ones at Vera Cruz and Macungie, are small in comparison with the Flint Ridge (Ohio) workings, while the ohips, where cultivation reveals them, are coarse and the material comparatively intractable. “Turtlebacks” are very rare in comparison with the numbers found at Flint ridge and at Piney branch (District of Columbia). At Saucon creek some arrow-head workshops and a small mound in a neighboring swamp yet remain to be fully explored, but Macungie, explored in September and October, 1892, with its 108 pits and its half-wooded area of about six acres, will serve as a type of all the quarries. The Possibility of Xink-holes Where there is jasper there is limestone, and where limestone, sink-holes. We were on the north slope of the Lehigh hills and hence overlooking the valley which, margined west by the Alleghenies and east by highlands variously named, stretches from New Y’ork to Alabama. Rain-water, with its carbonic acid trickling through the jasper-bearing, clay-bedded magnesian limestone under our feet, had made caves, and their roofs had fallen in, so there were sink-holes in the neighborhood. Four small depressions of the surface, like large woodchuck holes among the tree roots, at the southwest corner of the quarries, lacking dump-heaps, lo,oked like sink-holes, so that there seemed a chance that men had not dug the 108 holes outright, but had scratched upon the slopes of natural funnels against already-denuded jasper layers. But eight shafts sunk here and there in the pit margins through disturbed soil, charcoal, and refuse, sometimes reaching the undisturbed stratum of forest mould (as at shafts 4, 6, 10, and 11) ; and sometimes not getting below the disturbance (as at 7, 5, 13, and 9), satisfied us that the margins were not level as at the sink- holes but artificially piled-up heaps. The shallowest dumps are at shafts 6 (3 feet) and 10 (2 feet 4 inches). Then comes 11 (4 feet-3 inches) and 4 (6 feet 4 ‘inches), while at 15 there is no bottom at 8 feet 4 inches; none at 7 at 6 feet 4 inches: none at 3, at 7 feet: at 8, at 4 feet 4 inches, or at 9 at 5 feet. The small trenches 41/‘. and S$, at distances of 60 and 30 feet from the pit margins showing no disturbance prove that the dumps did not extend so far. Moreover, a glance at the sectional drawings, t’aken from shaft.11 to shaft 5 demonstrates that in tw.o c,ases, which fairly represent the measured instances, the cubic contents of the dumps equalesd that of the holets; and we had done enough to prove that if we could have planed down the dumps to the original surface line the pits would have been about level. The depressions were therefore not sink-holes, but had been dug by men. JASPiR QUARRIES 13 An Unsuspected Excavation But as observe,d before, there were four small re’al sinkings, and the only Gay to explain them, and Mr. Miller’s statement that they had caved down in the last ten years, and that plow-horses had become entangled in similar ones in the next field, was to follow down the deepest of them, 2 feet in diameter, 3 feet deep, and extending sidewise under t-he -roots. Our shaft 12 showed that for 14 feet down .at this sink, and contlnumg 11 feet below its bottom, the yellow soil containing charcosal and chips has been disturbed. At 8 feet we encountered a limestone ledge and followed the traces of ancient work downward over its edge until at 14 feet these seemed to slope away diagonally ‘out of reach of our shaft. If ye are to believe James Garr, who stated th.at he sunk a pit in another sink about 30 feet farther t’o the west and found traces of disturbance to a depth of 40 feet when he struck the limest,one ledge above mentioned, we had worked into aA Indian digging about 40 feet in depth and probably 100 feet In diameter that had been completely filled up by the ancient workmen. But without using Garr’s testimony and refraining from speculation as to the) real size of the pit, it is certain that the sink had fallen and we had worked through level ground already dug to an unknown depth, and whether the sink testified to a cave somewhere in the limestone below or a cavity left by the Indians as they piled in the transported earth, it told us certainly more than we bargained for and detracted nothmg from the magnitude of the ancient labor. The Diggi+%gs the Work of Incliam Having settled that the pits are artificial; that notwithstanding the limestone in the neighborho’od it is not reasonable to sunnose that any of them could have been in part or wholly sink-holes (since every depreesion has its dump and the dumps are about sufficient to level the whole area) ; that inferably all of the pits had been more or less filled in with excavated earth bv the quarrymen; that an area now level had been worked to a depth of 14 fee? at least, and that finally it may be safe to say that double the work has been done suggested by the appearance of the surface, it remains to ask when and hoG were the pits dug and who dug them? An old stump with 195 rings, on the side of a pit at Vera Cruz, and a tree nearly four feet in diameter cut down by Mr. C. C. Miller at Macungie tn the bottom of a depression, would put back the abandonment of work In these two shafts to about 1680-‘90 : and that all are the work of Indians is proved by’ (a) two fragments of polished celts and one perfect and three broken arrowheads found bv me on the edges of the dlggmgs:- (b). , several small thinned-down blades round near the pits; (c) an arrowhead factory, where I found two fragments of finished arrowheads in the refuse, srtuated near a brook about three-eighths of a mile from the jasper outcrop: and lastly (d) by the fact that the material found and worked in the pits is jasper, a stone in continual use by early Indians, and worked fragments of which strew every village site in the Delaware valley. The Method of Excavation Admitting, then, that no mysterious or unknown race made the pits, vast as the work is, but the Indian, once supposed incapable of sustained labor, the Red man of the grooved stone axe, polished celt, banner stone, and gorget, as encountered by Campanius and Kalm, the next question is, how was the labor accomplished? This can be answered to some extent, but not fully, by a study pf shsaft 2, sunk down to the undisturbed bottom of one of the pits (see Fig. 1). Lying on the unworked clay, at a depth of lSl/e feet, was a large disc+shaped implement of chipped limestone a foot in diameter and well worn #on its cutting edge.* At the fourteenth foot, among the refuse, a * I i-egret that I have been unable to publish illustrations of this and the other interest- ing stone spec?mens found in shaft 2; also drawings of the oven there discovered, and of the arrangement of layers in shaft 12. 14 LEHIGH COUKTY smaller tool, similarly worn, of quartzite and a rude point (of limestone) were found. While at the bottom again two cavities in the clay produced, on running in plaster of paris, the facsimiles of two sharpened wooden billets (long since rotted away and leaving only their moulds), one about 6 inches in diameter and of unknown length, as the upper part was de- stroyed in digging, the other with a diameter of about 2 inches and 21/, to 3 feet long. It is needless to go into details as to bark, twigs, slight charring at the ends, etc. The unique specimens now at the University of Pennsylvania’s museum of American archeology speak for themselves. Granted that the Indian quarryman used copper tools not yet found, or pick-axes of deer antlers like the ancient flint-workers of Brandon, in England, can we suppose that he did not employ poles of various sizes charred, and sharp- ened like these with stone tools, both to scratch and delve the ground and pry up the bowlders? And so, whatever we say of the quartzite imple- ment at the fourteenth foot, shall we doubt that the ponderous chipped disc, showing unmistakable marks of usage, wals handled as a digging tool in the fine yellow clay on which we found it? The ocherous clay, or decomposed diorite interbedded with the limestone, at Macungie, is often highly tinted with yellow, that at Vera Cruz is some- times red, pink, and bluish. M,anganese is abundant at both places, besides a talcose slate that cuts easily, when freshly dug, into pipes and amulets; but as yet we have no proof that the excavations were made or altered for any of these substances. Thus far the study of the quarries proves that jasper was the material sought, and the questions remain: In what state did the Indian find it? How did he take it from the earth, and how reduce it to his desired shape? A shaft of the Durham Iron Company encountered a solid vein of red jasper under the Indian jasper quarries, at Battlesnake Hill, at a depth of about 100 feet, and at Macungie Mr. James Garr says that he reached a solid yellow ledge of it in his shaft, sunk for curiosity, in one of the pits at 30 feet beneath the surface. But our shaft, since it did not reach the undisturbed edges of the old hole, did not determine that no ledge existed, though it did prove that nodules were frequent. These are found on the surface, varying in diameter from 2 inches to 4 feet, at all the diggings; and one, with its thick, silicious coat, about 3 inches in diameter, was excavated at a depth of 19 feet from the undisturbed clay at the bottom of our largest shaft. Sometimes partly chipped, sometimes untouched, these nodules are found scattered everywhere in the dumps. Yet as they, and the chips and splinters that accompany them, here bear only a proportion of about 10 per cent to the clay and are pretty evenly distributed through the mass, it is evident that the pits were to no great extent worked out of a solid ledge. If they had been, the constitution of the dumps would have betrayed it. We should have found more stone than clay in them. But we always found less, and very much less. The evidence thus far indicates that after rolling away the surface nodules those lying deeper were pried up one by one with sharpened poles and the surrounding clay scraped away until the pits were made. Traces of Fire Scattered fragments of ‘ch,ar’c.oal were scarce in shaft. 12 below t’he ninth foot, but all the other diggings and dumps were sprinkled thick with bits of charcoal. About 20 per ‘cent of the chips and 10 per cent of the large bl’ocks were reddene’d ,as if by fire, while reddened fragments were abun- d.ant in all t.he fire-places. Nothing was surer than that fire had played a great part in the quarrying process; but while four fire-places examined showed no trace of cooking, they also gave no sure clue t.o their purpose, and there would have remained a doubt whether the fires had not been built f’or warmth had not a fifth hearth discovered in shaft 2, at a depth JASPER QUARRIES 15 of 15 feet, seemed to Isettle the question. It was an oven regularly built, of blo’cks of jasper and contained a mass of charcoal and ashes (see PI. 1). The fact that the sides of the blocks were reddened, and sever.al had already split. through the middle, while the int.erstices were filled with fine splinters, offered oonclusive evidence that the quarrymen had built the fire to fracture the blocks, which measured 2 feet, 11/2 feet, 6 and 7 inches, respectively, in diameter. My ,experiments proved (,a) that if a large block of 2 feet in diameter is thoroughly heated on ,a wood fire it br’eaks into numerous pieces at a moder.ate blow; (b) that only the frsgments near the fire are reddened; (‘c) that the fragments lose their original gloss by the process. Th’e luster, however, seemed to be regained by long burial in damp clay, as was mdi- cated by the high-polished fra’cture ‘of some of the redden’ed chips found on the fire-places. Moreover, many ,of the worked forms gathered on the surface had been probably fire-reddened, and it is not unlikely that the Indian could have so heated the blocks as to reach their purer parts without spoiling the whole, while many of the large and coarse blocks might have been fire-fracture.d t’o get them out of the way. The Transport of Jasper from the Quarry Lastly, what was done to the jasper after excavation? This brings US to the chips and refuse found in the shafts and on the surface. (1) In the large shaft 2, two leaf-shaped forms of jasper (“turtlebacks”) were found at the eleventh and two were found at the sixteenth foot, none of them showing signs of use on their cutting edges. In shaft 5 and 7 I found hammer&ones at the first foot, in shaft 12 another at the fourteenth foot, and in the fields close to the pits 253 leaf-shaped forms and 55 hammer- stones. Certainly 70 per cent of the hammer-stones were broken, a very few were made of sandstone, about 10 per cent were of jasper, but most consisted of quartzite, or its equivalent, metamorphosed Potsdam sand- stone, pebbles no doubt found in the beds of neighboring streams or where on hillsides marine forces had rolled them since Laurentian times. Many of them were well battered and many so seduced by successive blows following one plane of their circumference as to have the characteristic appearance of heavy discs, while it is important to note that none of them, with two or three doubtful exceptions, are pitted on the sides. The refuse may be divided into four classes: (a.) Chips and fragments of no inferable design. (b.) Rough leafshaped forms not betraying their artificiality in their fractures, but only in their comparatively great numbers. Had the Indian been pounding on argillite pebbles, the blows would have left their mark in a series of conchoidal fractures, and, as in the quartsite specimena from Piney branch, the marred pebble surface would have told the .tal.e. But here the cross-grained jagged edges often explain little, and It 1s only after we have visited other jasper outcrops where no such fragments as these exist and convinced ourselves that frost does not even account for the chips, much less for the hammer-stones, in a word, after we have gathered these specimens by the dozen, thrown them away and picked them up again, that we are finally convinced, in spite of the criticisms of friends, that nearly as many blows have been expended upon them as upon the ordinary “turtleback,” and that it is only the coarseness of the material that hides from us in these ruder instances the handiwork of man. (c.) The “turtlebacks.” About these there is no ‘doubt. We need no context to settle their artificiality; each, big or little, vouches for itself, as do the similar forms in argillite and sandstone from the Delaware or Smsquehanna beaches. Standing in a ratio of about 1 to 15 of the former class, they are not nearly as common as at Flint ridge and Piney branch. To gather the 153 that we found on six or seven occasions, varying from 1 to 5 inches in length, required careful, painstaking search; still they were there, and it is the question of their purpose that concerns us most. The Indian made them, either as finished or unfinished implements, for they 16 LE~BIGH COUNTY mav not be assigned to chance or svmbolic use. We cannot, however, here use the .argument that their mere presence proves their intentional aban- donment, for, being as scarce as arrow-heads in an “Indian field,” they might, like the latter, have been lost. All show design, all take the leaf- form, and all aim at a point and a cutting edge. That partly thinned blades occur among them proves here, as at the other quarries, that these jasper “turtlebacks” are inchoate Indian spears, knives, or *scrapers, un- finished, rejected, or lost; but which were “rejects,” and whmh were lost, which were too cross-grained to be thinned down, and which were not, we leave to the Indian now living, who forty years ago was-makmg St-one arrow-heads on the Sacramento, to tell us. The point is almost immaterial; the main fact remains that all obviouslv are steps in the process of Y fashioning. (d.) The thinned-down blade, still very rude but of recognizable Indian nattern. of which we found 29 snecimens, 7 were only fragments, 4 would have measured 5 inches in length and done for large spears, 14 would have worked into arrow-heads. There was nothing like a buried cache of blanks to prove exactly how far the chipping work was carried at any one time at the quarries or that it always stopped at the same degree of finish. Sometimes it may have been large or small thinned ill-worked blades that were bundled up and carried off; sometimes pressure-finished knives or spears ; sometimes back-breaking loads of “turtlebacks” themselves, heavy but still workable; while that the Indian sometimes carried away still heavier raw lumps is proved by a mass of native brown jasper weighing eight pounds found on the village site of upper Blacks’ Eddy, ten miles from the nearest (Durham) quarry, and a smaller fragment noticed at the Frys’ Run site, about five miles from the Durham diggings. On the other hand, two perfect arrow-heads of jasper and a curious notched jasper form (which I suggest was used instead of the notched bone in the finer chipping) found close to the pits seem to prove that the process was sometimes com- pleted there, while two broken quartzite arrow-heads, a third of argillite, and a fourth of quartz point to material found and work done elsewhere. But granting all this, the immensely greater proportion of rougher forms places it beyond a doubt that the rude preliminary work above described and little else characterized the immediate quarry sites. That the traces of thinned blades were so much rarer than the “turtle- backs” in the refuse was doubtless because they had reached a stage when they were more valuable to the maker, and when they would have been discarded far less often than the rough half-tested forms. That they repre- sented the later steps in the work of which the “turtlebacks” were the beginnings, there could be no doubt. A few blows of the pebble-hammer gave us the rough, leaf-shaped pro- file; others more careful and probably dealt with the smaller hammers . produced the unmistakable closer chippings all round; then, if the mass, ceasing to be tractable, were not thrown away, still finer work-possibly pressure, was applied until the “turtleback” was thinned down to the last- mentioned form-which already in some cases as well finished as the stone knives found in Arizona cliff dwellings, still lacked the final notching and finishing touches to specialize it into a completed spear. The Quarries as Places of Habitation Quarrymen dwelt at t~he diggings for prolonged intervals-must have done so. How can we doubt it when we consider the amount of work done, which, at Maoungie, may be roughly estimated at one million cubic feet of earth excavated and carried from pit to pit. On the bottom of one of the shallow pits at Durham I found the jaw and teeth of a deer mingled with charcoal and ashes, and, as the quarrymen must have eaten while they worked, similar fire sites must exist at Macungie. The three fragments of polished celts above mentioned found with the refuse, the four arrow-heads of foreign material and a fragment of unio shell found in shaft 18, attest habitation, and no doubt systematic search will discover pott’ery and all the other traces of regular Indian occupation near the pits. JASPER QUARRIES 17 Yet, admitting all this, when we consider -how scarce these relics are and realize the position of the quarries , sometimes on high slopes and frequently in exposed positions an.d removed from the spring, that de- sideratum of the Indian village, we see pl.ainly that they were rather mining camps than village sites. Resemblances of the Quarry Turtlebaclc But the study of these quarries brings us beyond the bounds of Indian archeology and the interest that clings to their flaked stones lies not in what these .are, but what they can tell us about the flaked stones of o.ther ages and peoples. The chief thing t’o be noticed about them is, and recent discussion has impressed the fact, that they resemble the so-called implements of alleged older peoples in the Age of Stone. They look like Trenton specimens, like cert,ain European neolithic quarry specimens (Spiennes and Cissbury), like certain among the Somme, Thames, Marne and Onse valley specimens, ,and when we have realized this we see that the important thing about quarries all ,over the world is not the “turtlebacks,” for they seem common to many and characteristic of none, but the resultant blade for which the “turtlebacks” were made. Fortunately we can find-if we look hard enough-arrow-heads (Flint Ridge, Saucon Creek, and Macun,gie) ; pitted hammerstones (Gaddis’ Run), pointed wooden billets (Macungie), polished celts (Macungie and Grimes’ Graves), pottery (Spiennes), and fossil bones (Abbeville), at such places to tell whether they are the workshops of North American Indians, of the Neolithic celt-makers of Belgium, or of the Drift Men of France and England, but outside of these culture and age tests we find a site marking difference of result aimed at in the different workshops named. At Spiennes the “turtleback” turned to a celt; at Abbeville, if it turned to anything, to a coup de poing; at the North American quarries to a cache-bl.ade spear or arrow-head, while if we could see the Mount Hope greenstone quarry or the Gippsland River-bed workshops in Australia (R. Brough Smith% “Aborigines of Victoria,” p. 378), we should no doubt see it -again fading into the so-called “tomahawk.” While, then, in three epoch-denoting ‘classes of workshops-European drift. Euronean neolithic. and North Americ.an Indian-we have the 4‘turtle- back;” welmust allow that the fact that a thing is a “turtleback” is neither for or against its antiquity. Bereft of its fellow-specimens from the quarry or workshop, w.ant&g therefore .a clue as to the intent of its maker, without geological horizon or associated relic, it must remain dateless and unlabeled. Returning to the Lehigh Hills’ quarries, a study of the,ir topography makes us believe that the-Indian dwelt some time in the valley of the Delaware before he discovered and worked them, and meanwhile as an inhabitant ,of the larger. streams, chipped blade material in -the form of beach-exposed pebbles. The recent discovery of asgillite quarries at Gaddis Run, on the Delaware, in May 1893 (after the preceding pages were written, 2. e., in November, 1892), and the study of the neighboring river shores seemed to divide the large group of .argillite “turtlebacks” there found into two classes-those of the quarry and those of the riverside, distinguishing between quarry chipping places, where “turtlebacks” were m.ade at a late Period of Indian occupancy systematically and by skilled workmen from materi’al excavated inland, and riverside chipping places of an older time, where “turtlebacks” were made along the riverside from surface material there at hand. And these riverside workshops it was which, when we came to push investigation abroad and into earlier geological horizons, seemed analoRous to the specimen-bearing sites of the drift. T,EHIGH COUNTY Figure 1. Section of shaft sunk in Indian jasper Shows arrangement of refuse layers, firt billets, and jasper blades. > HISTORY 19 Early White Settlers The date ,of the earlie,st ,settlement ‘of Lehigh County i,s decidedly indefinite. We are t’old th.at white tr,aderls came into the L’ehigh Val- ley as early #as1701 to barter with the Indians, but it was consider’ably later that any permanent settlers arrived. German immigrants ar’e beli’eved to have l,oc,ated in L’ower Milford T’ownship .ab,out 1715. Some records indicate th,at as early as 1719 Peter Trexler settled along Spring Creek, where Trexlert,own is now. Certainly many farnil& , settled in the region before 1730. Practically ‘all the early arrivals were Germans wh’o had I,anded i,n Philadelphi*a and, seeking h’omes, pushed nlorthward beyond the already occupied portions of Penn- sylvania. Some w’ere persons wh’o had b0un.d themselve’s to work out their passage costs ‘after landin, w and were known as R,edemption- ers. The shipping companies sold the services ,of these pesopIe t’o farmer,s m,ainly f’or periods up to three years. At the expiratilon of their t’erms they were fre’e to loc,ate farms f,or themselves. These re- demptioners c.ame mainly between 1728 and 1751. Most of the immigrants came from the Palatin’ate. A variety of re’ason,s caused them to .emigrate, but principally reli,gimous persecu- tion and ,economic distress. They cam’e to Pennsylvania rather th,an eksewhere because agents ‘of Willi.am Penn circulating thr’ough their homelands of the Rhine region had spread the reports of “peace, lib- erty and fert,il’e s.oil” that they could secure and enjoy in Penn’s colony. The first ‘settlers ent’ered the region from the south, now Bucks, M’ontgomery, and Berks counties, and ,occupied Llower and Upper Milford and Upper Xaucon townships. But Boon they crossed South Mountain and loc,ated in the wide limestone valley, which w’as more to th’eir liking. One historian has expressed the idea that the German farmer wa,s especially desiaous ,of ‘obtaining limestone l.and. H,ow- ever, he f’ound few stre’ams in the limestone secti’ons, so many a com- pr,omise had to be m’ade. Later arrivals push’ed northward into the slate regi’ons, d’oubtless attracted by the numer.ous springs in the valleys. Ther,e seem to h.ave b’een few organized igroups ‘of c~ol~onistsam,ong the first settlers in Lehigh County. In the main they came as single families and settled themselves where they could. With few exceptions they were poor and of limited educationd and cultural backgr,ound, character&tics c’omm’on to first settlers in every new country. In gen- eral they posses’sed unusual initiative and courage .and were deeply religi’ous, industrisous, and ‘of hardy st.ock. Many ,of the present rest- dents have re,ason to be pr’oud ,of such an ,ancestry. They suffered unanticip,ated privations, but with fortitude of spirit ‘overcame ob- stacle’s and discouragement as they came along, and laid th’e f’ounda- ti’on ffor the ,prosperity and happiness e,nj,oyed :by their ‘descend,ants. The settlers in the northwest section Iof the c,ounty and ‘adjoining Portions ,of Berks C’ounty had crop failures at times so th,at that region received the name of A&Mange1 (lacking everything). They traveled eastward for food and other supplies and the region of succor was named Egypt, ,a name which still survives but with Alle-Mange1 not entirely obsolete. 20 LEHIGH COUNTY The only (organized gr,oup of the region was the band (of M’oravians that founded Bethlehem in 1741. They came with a flxed purpose to serve as missionaries to the Indians. Their history more properly be- lanes to Northampton County, althtough very early they extended their act&itiels beyond its borders. The Indian village of Nam,* built by them was in Lehigh Clounty, and a Moravian group ,settled early at Emmaus and gave.it its biblical name. Improvements of different kinds came rapidly, but the first com- munity need was for better transportation facilities. In 1735 the first road was laid out. By present locations it extended from about one- fourth mile northwest ,of Breinigsville, through Macungie, Shimers- ville Old and New Zionsville, Hosensack, and thence to. Nprth Wales in Montgomery County, where it connected with an exmtlng road to Philadelphia. Other roads quickly followed. The government of the region was a matter of early concern. When ’ the first settlers arrived the section was part of the original Bucks Cjounty one of the three ,original counties established by Wjlliam Penn iA 1682. The distance to the county seat and the travel d&icul- ties necesisitated smaller units as the settlements increased. On Ml;;; 11 1752 Northampton County was established and on March 6, a portiok was separated to constitute Lehigh Cqunty. Division inti townships also progressed during a period of years. The first *town- ship to be organized was Upper Milford m 1737. It later was.dlvlded into Upper and Lower Milford. Saucon Township was established in 1743 but at the time included bsoth Lower Saucon Township, North- ampion County, and Upper Saucon Township, Lehigh Co@y. The early erection of these two townships indicates the raprdlty with which the region was settled. The establishment of other townships by division and alteration continued over a long period. For many years after its settlement, German was the almost uni- versal language in Lehigh County. The Germa.n used was In the. be- ginning the dialect of the Palatinate, but in time many corruptions crept in until Pennsylvania German (erroneously frequently called “Pennsylvania Dutch”) gradually became essentially a distinct dia- lect and was carried far beyond the borders of Pennsytvania. Al- though still in common use, especially among the older residents, gen- erally the children of today are unable to speak it. The rapid de- crease in use of the dialect during the past few decades has been brought about by its ban in the publm schools, good roads and auto- m’obiles rural free mail delivery, the telephone, and the radio. The further history of Lehigh County is not pertinent to this re- port. Mills were erected alon, v the streams, taverns ,opened along the roads and gradually shops, factories, and villages came into exist- ence. ‘Starting as a purely agricultural re,@ion it has gradually passed into a highly industrial one. The population also *has become far more mixed as immigrants later came from more.var1e.d slourcf”. The development of the vari,ous industries ‘of the regton ~111 be discussed in later chapters. Bibliography Even though some repetition is involved, in that titles given belOW are also included in the general biblio, ,*raphy, a short selected list of