FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA SYNTHESIS: THE UPPER JUNIATA RIVER SUB-BASIN 11 (WATERSHEDS A-D)
WALTER INDUSTRIAL PARK: MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION GREENFIELD TOWNSHIP, BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ER 00-2888-013
Prepared for KELLER ENGINEERS, INC. 418-420 ALLEGHENY ST. HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA 16648
Submitted by GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146-1300
GAI PROJECT NO. 2002-236-10
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
Back of Cover
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA SYNTHESIS: THE UPPER JUNIATA RIVER SUB-BASIN 11 (WATERSHEDS A-D)
WALTER INDUSTRIAL PARK: MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION GREENFIELD TOWNSHIP, BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ER 00-2888-013
Prepared for KELLER ENGINEERS, INC. 418-420 ALLEGHENY ST. HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA 16648
Written by Douglas H. MacDonald, Ph.D., RPA Lead Archaeologist
With contributions by Kenneth W. Mohney, Ph.D., Senior Archaeologist II Lisa Dugas, Archaeologist II
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC. 570 Beatty Road Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146-1300
GAI PROJECT NO. 2002-236-10
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... I
LIST OF FIGURES ...... II
LIST OF FIGURES ...... II
LIST OF TABLES ...... IV
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS...... VI
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY ...... 1
CHAPTER II. PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 7
CHAPTER III. BACKGROUND AND KEY PROJECTS ...... 29
CHAPTER IV. PALEOINDIAN PERIOD...... 45
CHAPTER V. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD...... 53
CHAPTER VI. MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD ...... 63
CHAPTER VII. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD...... 73
CHAPTER VIII. TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC PERIOD ...... 97
CHAPTER IX. EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD ...... 115
CHAPTER X. MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD...... 127
CHAPTER XI. LATE WOODLAND PERIOD ...... 133
CHAPTER XIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 167
REFERENCES...... 177
APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL RESUMES
APPENDIX B: REFERENCES DATA
APPENDIX C: COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS DATA
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis i Penns/juniata/juniata_report
ii Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 2
Figure 2. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Field-Confirmed Locations of Toolstone...... 16
Figure 3. Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub- Basin...... 32
Figure 4. Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Artifacts...... 54
Figure 5. Late Archaic Diagnostic Projectile Points...... 74
Figure 6. Burial No. 5, Sheep Rock Shelter, Late Archaic...... 86
Figure 7. Transitional Period Artifacts...... 98
Figure 8. Early Woodland Artifacts...... 118
Figure 9. Middle Woodland Artifacts...... 128
Figure 10. Planview of the Gnagey Site. Compare with Figure 12, the Planview of the Bedford Village Site (from George 1983:6)...... 138
Figure 11. Late Woodland Artifacts...... 142
Figure 12. Circular House Structure adjacent to Trench and Stockade, Bedford Village Site (36Bd90; from Catton 1994)...... 148
Figure 13. Planview of Structure 1, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67)...... 150
Figure 14. Planview of Workman Site (36Bd36) Structures (from Michels and Huner 1968:160)...... 152
Figure 15. Late Woodland Artifacts from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1)...... 154
Figure 16. Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; from Burns and Raber 1998:8) ...... 157
Figure 17. Archaeological Site Components by Time Period, as reflected in PASS Files and Research Report Coverage...... 167
Figure 18. Archaeological Components by Period, adjusted by Duration of Period (Sites/Decades per period; cf. Fiedel 2001)...... 168
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis iii Penns/juniata/juniata_report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 15
Table 2. Comparison of Raw PASS File Data with Checked PASS File Data Utilized in this Study...... 29
Table 3. Paleoindian Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 48
Table 4. Paleoindian Site Data, Upper Juniata (PASS files)...... 48
Table 5. Paleoindian Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS files)...... 49
Table 6. Paleoindian Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 50
Table 7. Early Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 57
Table 8. Early Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 57
Table 9. Early Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting...... 58
Table 10. Early Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 58
Table 11. Early Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files)...... 59
Table 12. Early Archaic Points/Raw Materials: the Workman Site (36Bd36)...... 61
Table 13. Middle Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 65
Table 14. Middle Archaic: Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata...... 66
Table 15. Middle Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 67
Table 16. Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tabulation of Material by Watershed for Middle Archaic Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 68
Table 17. Middle Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata...... 70
Table 18. Late Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files) ...... 78
Table 19. Late Archaic: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting (PASS Files)...... 80
Table 20. Late Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 81
Table 21. Late Archaic Site Locations Relative to Stream Confluences: Cross-tab of Site Location relative to Stream Flow and Confluence Direction...... 83
Table 22. Late Archaic Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 84
Table 23. Late Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files)...... 91
Table 24. Late Archaic Collections Analysis Results...... 94
Table 25. Transitional Period Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 103
iv Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 26. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting...... 104
Table 27. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 104
Table 28. Transitional Period Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 106
Table 29. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files)...... 110
Table 30. Transitional/Terminal Archaic period Collections Analysis Results...... 112
Table 31. Early Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 121
Table 32. Early Woodland Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 121
Table 33. Early Woodland Artifacts, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 122
Table 34. Early Woodland Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 122
Table 35. Middle Woodland Sites (PASS Files)...... 129
Table 36. Middle Woodland Site Location Data (PASS Files)...... 130
Table 37. Middle Woodland Research Reports...... 130
Table 38. Late Woodland Research Reports and Key Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...... 146
Table 39. Late Woodland Camp Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Research Reports (see Table 38 for Citations)...... 158
Table 40. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Watershed, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 159
Table 41. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata Sub- Basin (PASS Files)...... 159
Table 42. Late Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 160
Table 43. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Lithic Raw Material Type (PASS Files)...... 162
Table 44. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Stone Type by Watershed (PASS Files)...... 163
Table 45. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Results of GAI’s Collections Analysis...... 164
Table 46. Cross-Tabulation of Archaeological Components by Period and Watershed (PASS Files)...... 168
Table 47. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files Data)...... 170
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis v Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 48. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Collections Analysis (Typed Points)...... 170
Table 49. Lithic Raw Material Use by Watershed in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 172
Table 50. Site Placement Relative to Water over Time, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)...... 173
Table 51. Changes in Subsistence over Time at Sheep Rock Shelter. Data from Michels and Dutt (1968) and Michels and Smith (1967)...... 174
vi Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1. View East toward the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Watershed C from the Lookout along S.R. 30 on the Allegheny Front. Willis Mountain and Shawnee Lake are in the Background...... 7 Photograph 2. The Frankstown Branch Juniata River, east of Hollidaysburg, in Watershed A...... 8 Photograph 3. View of the Allegheny Front from Chestnut Ridge and New Paris, near Bedford. View West...... 9 Photograph 4. View of the Raystown River Valley from Tussey Mountain. View East. Raystown Lake is Cloaked in Fog...... 10 Photograph 5. The Raystown Branch Juniata River near Saxton and Stonerstown, Southern Edge of Raystown Lake. View North...... 10 Photograph 6. Mines Chert Cobbles on the Raystown River Edge, S.R. 2019, East of Bedford...... 17 Photograph 7. Shriver Chert along Business Route 220 near Hyndman, Pennsylvania...... 21 Photograph 8. A Cruise Ship at the Inundated Sheep Rock Shelter on Raystown Lake (Huntingdon County Visitors Bureau 2002:9)...... 28 Photograph 9. Feature Excavation at the Sheep Rock Shelter Site (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)...... 39 Photograph 10. Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)...... 39 Photograph 11. Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). Photograph provided by Paul Raber...... 41 Photograph 12. Hearth Excavation at the Sunny Side Site, 36Bd267, near the Confluence of Yellow Creek and the Raystown Branch...... 42 Photograph 13. Transitional Period Hearth, the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267) along Yellow Creek near its confluence with the Raystown Branch...... 107 Photograph 14. Clemson Island Pottery, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)...... 153 Photograph 15. Late Woodland Bark Container, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)...... 155 Photograph 16. View of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). North Profile (see Figure 16). Provided by Paul Raber, Heberling Associates, Inc...... 156
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis vii Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION This document is a prehistoric archaeological data synthesis for the Upper Juniata River sub- basin 11 (Figure 1), prepared by GAI Consultants, Inc. (GAI) for Keller Engineers (Keller). The data synthesis represents an alternative mitigation for the Walter Industrial Park project in Greenfield Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. The alternative mitigation was coordinated by Keller and the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC) Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP). The goal of the project is to synthesize Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files data, as well as research report information, to summarize the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin in south-central Pennsylvania. This report provides a broad prehistoric context and research goals for future archaeological research in the region. Ultimately, the report should provide valuable information for archaeologists or laypersons interested in the prehistory of Pennsylvania.
B. PROJECT SETTING The Upper Juniata River sub-basin encompasses nearly 2,000 square miles of total drainage area and includes several mid-order drainages that have dissected the ridge and valley landscape (Figure 1). The project area is bounded to the west by the imposing Allegheny Front, on the north by Bald Eagle Mountain, on the east by the Upper Raystown Branch, and on the south by the lower Raystown Branch and a series of ridges that lead to the Upper Potomac Valley. Four watersheds comprise the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Juniata Rivers (Watershed A), Standing Stone and Clover Creeks (Watershed B), the upper Raystown Branch Juniata River and Dunning Creek (Watershed C), and the lower Raystown Branch Juniata River (Watershed D). Several southwest-northeast-trending ridges and mountains are present within the Upper Juniata sub- basin, including (from west to east) Blue Knob, Dunning Mountain, Evitts Mountain, Brush Mountain, Lock Mountain, Tussey Mountain, Broad Top, and Terrace Mountain. The largest municipalities in the sub-basin include Altoona, Bedford, Everett, Huntingdon, and Hollidaysburg, with most of the landscape utilized for agriculture and other rural industry, such as mining.
C. PREHISTORY OF THE UPPER JUNIATA SUB-BASIN: AN INTRODUCTION For at least the last 12,000 years, Native Americans have occupied the rugged landscape of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Native Americans hunted, fished, and gathered the vast array of natural resources to subsist and flourish in this region of long valleys, rivers, and ridges. Prehistoric occupation was initiated during the Paleoindian period, more than 12,000 years ago, when small groups of families migrated into the previously uninhabited region. These initial inhabitants utilized beautifully-crafted fluted spear points and atlatls (spear throwers) and traveled over a wide area. Evidence from Sheep Rock Shelter, now under Raystown Lake south of Huntingdon (Figure 1), indicates that Early Archaic foragers (ca. 9,500 years ago) utilized notched and stemmed spear points with finely-serrated blades and subsisted largely on the collection of wild plants and the hunting of game.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 1 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Upper Juniata Figure 1. Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
River Sub-Basin 11 Bald Eagle Mountain
Pennsylvania
Bald Eagle Creek B A1 - Spruce Creek C -- 10 - Petersburg 30 miles to
236 Bridge
- Susquehanna Altoona Little Juniata River Standing Stone Creek
Sinking Run
A Huntingdon
Hollidaysburg Crooked Creek
Sheep Rock Juniata River Piney Creek Shelter Blue Mountain
Clover Creek
Bobs Creek Roaring Spring Mykut Frankstown Branch Juniata River Rockshelter D Workman Yellow Creek
C Sunny Side Site Raystown Branch Juniata River Tuscarora Mountain Dunning Creek Allegheny Front, Allegheny Mountains, Appalachian Plateau
Broadtop Mountain Bedford Sideling Hill Village Chestnut Ridge Bedford Sub-Basin 11 Watersheds DRA W N DHM APPR OVED j c l DA TE 7 /18/02 D WG . NO 20 02 Raystown Branch Juniata River Everett A: Watershed A--Frankstown Branch-Little Juniata River
Cove Creek B: Watershed B--Crooked and
Shaffer Creek Standing Stone Creeks C: Watershed C --Dunning C0NSULTANTS, INC. Scale Creek Key Archaeological Sites D: Watershed D--Raystown gai 0 6 12 miles Major Cities Branch-Juniata River Tuscarora Mountain
Figure 1 Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
2 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
This mobile forager lifestyle continued through the end of the Early Archaic period until approximately 8,800 or so years ago. At this time, during the Middle Archaic period, Native American populations steadily increased and there was a change in subsistence and settlement pattern. In contrast to the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, Native Americans of the Middle Archaic (ca. 8,000 years ago) occasionally lived in base camps on terraces of rivers for a few months of the year. From these base camps, Native Americans traveled to uplands and low-mid-order tributaries to collect seasonally-available resources. Travel to the south and east is indicated by the increasing use of rhyolite from sources near Chambersburg at South Mountain. The change in subsistence pattern led to a dramatic population increase during the initial portion of the Late Archaic period, approximately 5,200 years ago. However, the population increase was short-lived and, for some reason, the archaeological record shows that populations decreased dramatically in the latter portion of the Late Archaic, by approximately 4,200 years ago.
At this time, during the Transitional or Terminal Archaic period, evidence from Sheep Rock Shelter and the Sunny Side Site (see Figure 1), both on the Raystown Branch, indicates that Native Americans used cooking vessels made of steatite and pottery. During the latter portion of the Transitional period and the Early Woodland period (ca. 3,500 to 2,500 years ago), Native Americans at Sheep Rock Shelter first incorporated small amounts of domesticated foods into their diets, including corn, beans, squash, and sunflower, as well as a variety of other wild seed crops. Ceremonial goods increased in abundance across the region, as reflected by the recovery of a cache of Adena blades made of Flint Ridge chert from a site in Bedford County. Sheep Rock Shelter also yielded burials, red ocher, and quartz crystals, evidence of increasing ritual use of the landscape at this time.
By approximately 800 A.D. (1,200 years ago), Late Woodland populations increased even more dramatically than during the Late Archaic, as represented at important sites such as Petersburg Bridge, Workman, Mykut Rockshelter, and Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 1). The population increase was likely prompted by the increased availability of resources due to agriculture and the increasing use of semi-sedentary villages. While comparatively little in- depth excavation has occurred in the sub-basin, there is little evidence in the Upper Juniata sub-basin to indicate that Late Woodland Native Americans relied extensively on agriculture and sedentism. Native Americans used domesticated crops at Sheep Rock Shelter, where dense layers of corn kernels and stalks, among other crops, were recovered; however, abundant wild resources were recovered as well, including fish, mollusk shell, animal bones, and wild plants. No other site in the Upper Juniata has yielded corn and only one Late Woodland village has been excavated in the entire sub-basin. This site—Bedford Village—is located near Bedford (see Figure 1) and was occupied for approximately 50 years by Native Americans of unknown ethnicity. Cultural influences include Monongahela cultures to the west, Clemson Island cultures to the east, and Potomac Valley cultures to the south. Whoever occupied the site built it to last and for protection, incorporating a stockaded wall with bastions, a protected entrance, and an interior trench. Features within the site suggest that the deer hunting was the main means of subsistence for village occupants.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 3 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Thus, while areas to east, south, and west experienced an increase in agricultural lifeways and village life, there is little evidence that this lifestyle was popular in the Upper Juniata sub- basin. While few in-depth archaeological studies have been conducted in the sub-basin, the available data support the hypothesis that Late Woodland Native Americans in this region subsisted largely on hunted and gathered resources, as they had for the prior 11,000 years. By the end of the Late Woodland period, proto-historic Susquehannock populations increased their reliance on inter-ethnic trade, utilizing the Upper Juniata sub-basin as a procurement area to gather trade goods, such as hides, stone, among other valuable resources.
While there have been few in-depth studies in the sub-basin (compared to nearby regions, such as the Susquehanna Valley), the last 12,000 years of prehistory were dominated by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Only during the last 2,000 years or so did a few Native Americans begin to settle down and live in villages to grow crops at a small number of locations in the region. By the time of European contact some 400 years ago, many Native Americans lived in villages and grew crops for much of their subsistence; however, this initial picture of Native American lifeways, as sedentary farmers, was a largely recent phenomenon and did not reflect the reality of the last 12,000 years of Native American life in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub- basin and is organized into 13 chapters, including four background/summary chapters and nine chapters that summarize prehistory by time period. Chapter II describes the project setting and provides information on the landscape and resources available to prehistoric Native Americans. A comprehensive overview of paleoenvironments and lithic raw materials is also provided in Chapter II. Chapter III provides an overview of methods utilized during the collection of data for the report and summarizes the key archaeological projects that have been conducted in the sub-basin. Chapters IV through XI provide overviews of the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional/Terminal Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods. The final chapter provides a summary overview of major cultural and demographic trends over time in the sub-basin.
The ultimate goal of this report is to provide a context for future research in the region. By using the information gathered in this report, future archaeologists will hopefully be able to better understand the important research issues and cultural historical milestones of the last 12,000 years of Native American lifeways in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jonathan C. Lothrop, Ph.D., RPA, was project manager, while Douglas H. MacDonald, Ph.D., RPA, was principal investigator and author of the technical report. Kenneth W. Mohney, A.B.D. (Transitional Period chapter) and Lisa M. Dugas (soils/land-use and flora/fauna sections) contributed to the final report as well. Lisa Dugas also conducted background research and coordinated collections analysis at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Mohney conducted the collections analysis at the State Museum. Brian R. Fritz coordinated the lithic raw material analysis and provided samples of cherts from the Upper Juniata River
4 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
region. Without Brian’s help, the collections and raw materials analyses would have been impossible.
GAI would like to express its gratitude to the following individuals in Harrisburg who facilitated completion of the project in one way or another: D. Noël Strattan (PHMC-BHP); Pete Van Rossum (PHMC-BHP); Kurt Carr (PHMC-BHP); and Janet Johnson (State Museum). Each of these individuals went out of their way to provide assistance during the course of this project. In addition, Phillip Neusius, Beverly Chiarulli (both, Indiana University of Pennsylvania), Paul Raber (Heberling Associates, Inc.), Rick Duncan, and Tom East (both, Skelly and Loy, Inc.) all provided research reports and other materials to facilitate completion of the project. I am indebted to each of them for their assistance.
This study was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; 36CFR771, as amended; the guidelines developed by the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation published November 26, 1980; the amended Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties as set forth in 36CFR800; and the Pennsylvania History Code.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 5 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
6 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER II. PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Upper Juniata River (Sub-Basin 11) and its four watersheds encompass nearly 2,000 miles of total drainage area within the much larger basin of the Susquehanna River (see Figure 1). As defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2002), Sub-Basin 11 is comprised of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Juniata Rivers (Watershed A), Standing Stone and Clover Creeks (Watershed B), the upper Raystown Branch Juniata River and Dunning Creek (Watershed C; Photograph 1), and the lower Raystown Branch Juniata River (Watershed D).
This chapter provides an overview of the natural environment of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including descriptions of the region’s physiography, drainage, soils, bedrock, floral and faunal resources, as well as past and present environments. In addition, this chapter includes a detailed overview of lithic raw materials available to prehistoric Native Americans in the sub- basin. Analysis of the variety of cherts and other stones used by Native Americans provides insight into prehistoric use of the landscape.
Photograph 1. View East toward the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Watershed C from the Lookout along S.R. 30 on the Allegheny Front. Willis Mountain and Shawnee Lake are in the Background.
A. PHYSIOGRAPHY, DRAINAGE, AND WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS
Physiography The Upper Juniata River, Sub-Basin 11 (see Figure 1; Photograph 1), lies predominantly within the Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province (Fenneman 1938; Thornbury 1965; Way 1999). The western edge of the sub-basin also includes the Allegheny Front in the Allegheny Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateau province. The Ridge and Valley province dominates the sub-basin and traverses central Pennsylvania in a series of broad southwest-northeast-oriented upland ridges and lowland river and stream valleys. As Way (1999:357) states:
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 7 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
With the exception of the major trunk-stream valleys, the regional drainage pattern can be characterized as comprising long, straight stretches parallel to the [ridges] and short stretches at right angles to them. This trellis pattern shows conspicuously, even in the road network, and occurs as a result of the alternating resistant and nonresistant folded strata within the section.
The province is bounded to the west by the Allegheny Front, a southeastern-facing escarpment that marks the eastern boundary of the Allegheny Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateau.
The sub-basin is bounded on the east by a series of ridges, including Tuscarora Mountain, Sideling Hill, and Jacks Mountain (Faill and Nickelsen 271; Fenneman 1938; Thornbury 1965). On the north, Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains separate the sub-basin from North Bald Eagle Creek and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. On the south, several ridges divide the Upper Juniata from the Upper Potomac River basin. Elevations in the sub- basin range from a low of 610 ft. above mean sea level (amsl) in Huntingdon (northeast corner of the project area) to a high of 3,146 ft. amsl at Blue Knob in the far western portion of the project area. Relief between valleys and ridges is typically between 800 and 1,500 ft. in 1-3 miles.
Watersheds The Upper Juniata River sub-basin encompasses a total drainage area of 1,943 sq. miles (see Figure 1), including all of Blair County, most of Bedford and Huntingdon Counties, and small portions of Fulton, Cambria, Somerset, and Centre Counties. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2002), the sub-basin includes four watersheds (A-D): A) the Frankstown Branch Juniata River and Little Juniata River; B) Crooked Creek and Standing Stone Creek; C) Dunning Creek and the upper Raystown Branch Juniata River; and D) the lower Raystown Branch Juniata River.
Watershed A encompasses approximately 738 sq. miles in the northwest portion of the sub-basin. The Frankstown Branch Juniata River (Photograph 2) and the Little Juniata River are the major streams within the watershed.
Photograph 2. The Frankstown Branch Juniata River, east of Hollidaysburg, in Watershed A.
The Little Juniata River flows
8 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
northwesterly, past Altoona, with southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek, Sinking Run, and Spruce Creek as its major tributaries. The Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River passes the towns of Roaring Spring and Hollidaysburg, with Piney Creek and Clover Creek as its major feeder streams. The Little Juniata River joins the Frankstown Branch Juniata River approximately six miles northwest of Huntingdon. The Frankstown Branch flows for more than 31 miles with a fall of 340 ft., or 10.8 ft. per mile (Butts 1945:2).
The town of Huntingdon lies within the center of Watershed B, encompassing an area of approximately 241 sq. miles in the northeastern portion of the sub-basin. The north-flowing Crooked Creek and south-flowing Standing Stone Creek (the two major streams of the watershed) have their confluence with the Little Juniata River in Huntingdon. A series of northeasterly-trending ridges, including Stone and Broad Mountains, mark the eastern boundary of Watershed B in the northern portion of sub-basin 11.
Watershed C encompasses the southern 548 sq. miles of the sub-basin, including Dunning Creek and the upper portion of the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River (Raystown Branch). Dunning Creek flows southeasterly off the slopes of the Allegheny Mountains to its confluence with the Raystown Branch at the city of Bedford. Chestnut Ridge is a prominent feature of the landscape north of Bedford between Dunning Creek and the Allegheny Front (Photograph 3). The Raystown Branch is the largest stream within the watershed, flowing east-northeasterly through Bedford and eventually through a gap in Tussey Mountain, an imposing southwest-northeast- oriented ridge that traverses nearly the entire sub-basin (Photograph 4). Photograph 3. View of the Allegheny Front from Chestnut Ridge and New Paris, near Bedford. View West.
Approximately one mile east of Tussey Mountain at Everett, the Raystown Branch veers northward into Watershed D (see Photograph 4 and Photograph 5). Watershed D encompasses approximately 416 sq. miles of the sub-basin. The Raystown Branch is “remarkable for its meandering course” (Butts 1945:2) and flows for nearly 35 miles, falling a total of 160 ft., or 4.6 ft. per mile. Several Appalachian mountains, including (from south to north) Sideling Hill, Broadtop, and Jacks Mountain, provide an eastern barrier for the Raystown Branch, while Tussey Mountain is an imposing barrier to the west (see Photograph 4).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 9 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Photograph 4. View of the Raystown River Valley from Tussey Mountain. View East. Raystown Lake is Cloaked in Fog.
The Raystown Branch flows northward through a wide valley between these mountains (Photograph 5) to its confluence with the main branch of the Juniata River, east of Huntingdon.
Photograph 5. The Raystown Branch Juniata River near Saxton and Stonerstown, Southern Edge of Raystown Lake. View North.
Major feeder streams within Watershed D include the southeasterly flowing Yellow Creek, which joins the Raystown Branch at the communities of Sunnyside and Hopewell. Several miles north of Hopewell is Raystown Lake (see Photograph 4; also see Photograph 8 at the end of this chapter), created by the construction of the Raystown Dam in 1961, approximately three miles south of the confluence of the Raystown Branch Juniata River and the main branch of the Juniata River.
Beyond the sub-basin, the Juniata River flows easterly for approximately six miles where it flows to the north of Blue Mountain. The Juniata then follows the arc of the Ridge and Valley east-northeasterly for approximately 30 miles, passing to the north of Tuscarora Mountain prior to its confluence with the Susquehanna River, approximately 12 miles north of Harrisburg.
10 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
B. CONTEMPORARY LAND-USE AND SOILS (BY LISA M. DUGAS) A variety of residual, colluvial, and alluvial soils are present in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The soils are largely formed by the differential erosion of bedrock and alluviation along major valleys. The following is an overview of soils and current land-use within each watershed.
Watershed A Soils Exposed bedrock in the ridges and valleys of Watershed A—the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Rivers—ranges from the Lower Cambrian-age Waynesboro formation to the Pennsylvanian Conemaugh formation (Lohman 1974). The slopes and ridges of Watershed A are comprised of Ordovician and Silurian quartzite, sandstone, conglomerates and shale. The dominate soil association (24% of the sub-basin) is Laidig–Hazleton– Buchanan. This soil association consists of channery silt loam and gravelly silt loam in sloping to very steep settings. The soils are formed from acid sandstone, quartzite and shale and range from well-drained to somewhat poorly-drained (Merkel 1978). These soils occur in mostly wooded spans of State Game Land and farmland across the project area.
Bedrock in the western portion of Watershed A (Appalachian Plateau) ranges from Pennsylvanian to Mississippian, including a variety of shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone and coal (Merkel 1978). The dominant soil association is Laidig-Hazleton-Clymer, including channery and sandy loams that can be very stony. These soils are well drained and are formed from acid sandstone, quartzite, and conglomerate. This soil is found in nearly 16% of Watershed A and occurs in landscapes that are sloping to very steep and on broad mountaintops. Much of the area is wooded with expansive game lands, although some areas have been strip mined for coal (Merkel 1978).
The limestone valleys of Watershed A, including the Nittany Valley, Sinking Valley, Canoe Valley and Morrisons Cove, are comprised of Cambrian and Ordovician limestone and dolomite (Lohman 1974). The dominant soil in this area consists of Hublersburg (cherty silt loam)-Murrill (gravely silt loam)–Opequon (silt clay loam) association. This association overlays approximately 14% of Watershed A and occurs in a landscape consisting of gently sloping hills to very steep foot slopes in upland valleys that are marked by sinkholes and drainageways. These well-drained soils range in depth and weather from limestone and sandstone and are primarily utilized for agriculture.
The Nittany Valley, stretching from Tyrone to Hollidaysburg, is underlain with Silurian limestone and Devonian shale (Lohman 1974). The Berks (channery silt loam)–Brinkerton (silt loam)-Weikert (channery silt loam) association overlays most of this area, supporting woodlands on ridges, foot slopes and drainageways. The soils vary in depth and drainage and formed from weathered acid shale. The steep slopes, low available water and high water table prevent viable agriculture. Although the towns of Altoona and Tyrone are located within the expanse of this soil association, the potential for urban development also tends to be limited by these factors (Merkel 1981). The Basher-Monongahela-Purdy association occurs along sections of the Little Juniata River and the Frankstown branch of the Juniata River. The Basher soil is loam silt-loam and fine
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 11 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
sandy-loam, while the Monongahela and Purdy are silt-loam. These soils are found in floodplains and terraces with a nearly level or gently sloping landscape. Formed in alluvium from shale and sandstone, these soils are deep and range from moderately well drained to poorly drained. Most of the area where this soil occurs is used for urban development, such as the town of Hollidaysburg, while other sections are farmed or wooded (Merkel 1981).
The sandy loam Morrison association is dominant over the limestone and occurs on upland valley slopes. The soil is well drained and weathered from calcareous sandstone and dolomitic limestone. Most of the land where this soil association occurs is wooded with little development due to slope; however, some areas with less rocky surfaces are used for dairy farms or orchards. Clay and sand are extracted from areas where Vanderslip soil is prominent (Merkel 1978).
Watershed B Soils The bedrock of Watershed B (Standing Stone and Crooked Creeks) ranges in age from Middle Cambrian to Pennsylvanian, with more recent Pleistocene fluvial deposits along the Juniata River and its tributaries (Lohman 1974). The soils that dominate Watershed B are the Berks-Weiker-Ernest Association, which develops from weathered acid shale (Merkel 1978). The landscape consists of rolling hills with steep sided narrow valleys and ridges in intermountain valley areas. The channery silt-loam Berks-Weikert soil is well drained. The Berks soil tends to be deep while the Weikert soil is shallow. Colluvial Ernest silt loam develops at the bases of steep slopes and tends to be deep and well drained (Merkel 1978). The Berks-Weikert-Ernest association overlays most of Watershed B, spanning from the East Branch of Standing Stone Creek to the southwest near the terminus of Crooked Creek.
The Opequon (clay loam)-Edom (clay loam)-Weikert (silt loam) association occurs in the valley of Shavers Creek, in the Raystown valley east of Tussey Mountain, and in the valley south of the Little Juniata River. This association occurs in a sloping to moderately steep valley regions. The soils range from shallow to deep and are well drained. This soil association is derived from shaley limestone and a variety of shale (Merkel 1978). The town of Huntingdon is located in the center of Watershed B.
Watershed C Soils Watershed C—Dunning Creek and the Upper Raystown Branch—is predominantly located in the Ridge and Valley province, but includes a portion of the Appalachian Plateau in the west. Bedrock ranges from the Upper Cambrian Warrior Limestone to the Pennsylvanian Conemaugh Formations (Lohman 1974). The main ridges contain quartzite and sandstone; the lower ridges are comprised of siltstone and shale, while valleys are limestone. The Berks- Weikert-Blairton is a channery silt loam association that is prominent in this watershed. This soil association occurs in a landscape where rolling hills and narrow ridges are dissected by tributaries with restricted floodplains and valleys. These soils are formed in acid shale, siltstone, and sandstone. The Calvin-Klinesville-Leck Kill association is also prominent in Watershed C. This channery silt loam association occurs in landscapes with hills and low ridges that are deeply dissected by streams with narrow to moderately wide floodplains. The Harerstown (siclo)-Clarksburg (silo)-Opequon association occurs in the undulating hilly
12 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
landscape of the limestone valleys and coves where the uplands are broad and the bottoms are moderately wide. The soil is a very rocky silt clay loam that is formed in residuum and colluvium of limestone, shale, and sandstone over shallow bedrock (Knight 1998).
The towns of Bedford, Everett, and Breezewood are located along the Raystown Branch of the Upper Juniata River in Watershed C. near Bedford. Shawnee State Park includes Shawnee Lake, the dammed portion of the Shawnee Branch of the Juniata River, a key tourist attraction in the area.
Watershed D Soils Watershed D—including the north-flowing, lower portion of the Raystown Branch—has geologic bedrock formations and soils similar to Watersheds B and C, with the addition of the Hazleton-Clymer-Dystrochrepts association. These sandy loamy soils occur on broad ridges and mountaintops with smooth side slopes and ridges and undulating plateaus. Areas are dissected by small to medium streams. The soil is very deep to moderately deep, well- drained and derived form acid sandstone, conglomerate, and siltstone and shale (Knight 1998).
The land in this association is mostly wooded and well suited to recreation. Farmland is located in the areas where the Clymer soil is present. Strip mining also occurs in this area. Due to the slope, stony nature of the soil and seasonally high ground water, development is limited to recreation. Raystown Lake and Rothrock State Forest are the main tourist attractions of Watershed D.
C. BEDROCK GEOLOGY AND LITHIC RAW MATERIALS
Bedrock Geology and Setting The Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley province includes 33 geologic formations in Bedford County alone, most of which consist of pre-Pennsylvanian-age sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite formations (Butts et al. 1939; Butts 1945; Faill and Nickelsen 1999; Wood 1980). The seemingly endless, rolling Appalachians stretch 1,200 miles from Alabama to New York, including approximately 230 miles within Pennsylvania. The section varies from 40 miles to 70 miles wide in central Pennsylvania (Way 1999:355).
H.D. Rogers (1858), Pennsylvania’s first state geologist, painted an excellent picture of the topographic setting of the Appalachian Mountain section. Rogers (cited in Way 1999:355) remarked at the “extraordinary length, slenderness, evenness of summit and parallelism of [the] multitudinous crests or ridges” of the mountain chain. As Way (1999:355) summarizes:
In general, mountains are long, narrow, and even-crested. Intervening valleys are highly variable in width and elevation, and a trellis drainage pattern is well-developed throughout the section. As folds plunge beneath the surface, resistant units converge upon themselves, resulting in fishtail, canoe-shaped, and zigzag topographic configurations.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 13 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
The ridges and valleys of the province formed by differential erosion of the various rock systems, with coarse Silurian Tuscarora Formation quartz and Ordovician Juniata and Bald Eagle Formation sandstone forming the major ridgetops (see Photograph 4). Less-resistant Cambrian and Ordovician carbonates, Silurian mudstones and limestones, and Devonian mudstones form valley floors of major streams (Way 1999:356).
Two of the most noteworthy geologic features of the Appalachian Mountain section occur in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the Broad Top synclinorium and the Nittany Valley. The Broad Top synclinorium lies within the central portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, but extends for 250 miles into southern Virginia. The Broad Top is a “high, dissected tableland of low relief” (Way 1999:358), which resembles a large mesa with an undulating top and elevations that range from 900 to 2,400 ft. amsl. Erosion of the higher knobs, including Dunning and Tussey Mountains, has left large sandstone ridges surrounded by a dendritic stream network.
In addition to Broad Top, another significant geologic feature of the sub-basin is the Nittany Valley. The smaller, southern portion of the Nittany Valley occurs in the far northwestern portion of sub-basin 11, as the southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek flows southwesterly to join the Little Juniata River at the town of Tyrone. Less than 1 mile (2 km) to the northeast of the headwaters of the southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek (beyond sub-basin 11), the north branch of Bald Eagle Creek comprises the bulk of the Nittany Valley, flowing northeasterly to its confluence with the West Branch of the Susquehanna River at Lock Haven. Within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Nittany Valley contains a fairly broad stream valley bounded by hills ranging in elevation from 800 to 1,500 ft. amsl. Dolomites, including beds of chert, jasper, and quartz, underlie the uplands of the Valley.
To the southeast, Morrison Cove is a somewhat offset continuation of the Nittany Valley. Morrison Cove is a broad lowland in the central portion of the sub-basin, between Lock and Dunning Mountains in the west and Tussey Mountain in the east. Elevations within the cove range from 1,200 to 1,400 ft. amsl. Clover, Piney, Plum and Yellow Creeks are all mid-order tributaries that flow through Morrison Cove (see Figure 1).
Lithic Raw Materials The geologic landscape of the Upper Juniata River sub-basin provided several lithic raw materials for use by Native Americans in stone tool production, including numerous cherts, jaspers, and quartzites (Table 1). Figure 2 is a map of known locations of chert and other stone outcrops within the Upper Juniata sub-basin and vicinity. Each location is further discussed below. Among the most widely known lithic raw materials include Mines oolitic chert, Nittany chert, Bald Eagle jasper, and Shriver chert, among others. Several other lithic raw materials, including rhyolite (east), steatite (south), and Flint Ridge chert (west), were transported into the region within the toolkits of Native Americans and mark the boundaries of trading systems and settlement patterns. In consultation with Brian Fritz, GAI conducted a fieldview of lithic raw material sources in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Cherts and quartzites were collected at several sources and were compared with artifacts from eight sites within the
14 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
sub-basin (see Chapters IV-XI). The wide variety of cherts available to Native Americans is discussed below.
Table 1. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
LITHIC RAW AGE GENERAL DESCRIPTION REFERENCE MATERIAL Mines Chert Ordovician Black oolites in white matrix; fossils Butts 1945:3; Butts et al. 1939 :12 Nittany Chert Ordovician Black-gray; some oolites; no fossils Butts 1945:3-4 Bald Eagle Jasper Ordovician Nittany formation; yellow-red East et al. 1999 Bellefonte Chert Ordovician Dark gray to pale brown Knowles 1966:15 Bellefonte Quartz Ordovician White quartz Knowles 1966:15 Tonoloway Chert Silurian Black-dk. Gray; some pink/yellow-bn Knowles 1966 Keyser Chert Silurian Dark gray Knowles 1966:33 Tipton Chert Silurian Lt. Gray to brown ; Red-yellow UV East and Beckman 1992 Tuscarora Quartzite Silurian White-Pale Red; mod-fine grain Butts 1945:5 Shriver Chert Devonian Black-gray; weathers yellow Butts 1945:9; Butts et al. 1939 :59 Corriganville Chert Devonian Moderate translucent ; creamy white --
Local Sources: Ordovician Cherts Mines Chert Light gray, oolitic Mines chert is located in foot-thick beds within the Ordovician-age Mines Dolomite Formation (Beckerman 1980: 25; Butts 1945:3; Butts et al. 1939:12). Mines chert is comprised of large “oolitic grains…commonly black and set in a white matrix” (Butts 1945:4). According to Butts (1945), the Mines chert is “very rough or scoriaceous,” with many pieces containing cryptozoan fossils of 1 in. to 1 ft. in diameter.
Several outcrops of Mines chert are known within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the valleys of southern Bald Eagle Creek (Fogelman 1983: 11; Hay 1980: 73), the Frankstown Branch, and the Raystown Branch (Photograph 6). Along the Frankstown Branch Juniata River near Williamsburg, Butts (1945:3) notes a Mines chert outcrop approximately halfway between its confluences with Piney and Clover Creeks. With Brian Fritz, GAI collected Mines chert from the Frankstown Branch stream bed and associated road cut along Fox Run Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of Williamsburg. Butts (1945:3) states that a good outcrop of the chert is located approximately 5 miles south of Williamsburg, near the small town of Oreminea/Mines (Butts 1945:3). Butts et al. (1939:12) also state that Mines Dolomite is exposed on a bluff south of the Little Juniata River opposite Schoenberger Station.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 15 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
10
Figure 2. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Field-Confirmed Locations of Toolstone.
9 B S. Bald Eagle Creek A2 - C -- 10 - Upper Juniata 8 236
- River Basin Altoona Little Juniata River
Pennsylvania A Huntingdon Hollidaysburg 7 6
Branch MAP KEY Roaring Keyser, Shriver, and
DA TE 7 /18/02 D WG . NO 20 02 1 Frankstown Spring Corriganville cherts j cl Keyser, Shriver, 2 Tonoloway, and Branch JuniataD River Corriganville cherts Yellow Creek C 3 Tuscarora Quartzite Raystown Allegheny Front, Allegheny Mountains Keyser, Mines, 4 Tonoloway 1 5 Bellefonte quartz/chert, Chestnut Ridge 5 Mines, Nittany Branch DRA W N DHM APPR OVED Raystown Bedford 3 Everett 6 Mines, Nittany 4
7 Keyser 2 8 Tipton, Mines C0NSULTANTS, INC. Scale 9 Mines, Nittany gai 0 6 12 miles 10 Bald Eagle Jasper
Figure 2 Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Field-Confirmed Locations of Toolstone
16 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Guided by Brian Fritz, GAI collected Mines chert from the Snake Spring Valley, one mile south of the intersection of U.S. Route 30 on S.R. 2019. In this location, chert cobbles were strewn along the Raystown Branch Juniata River bottom and river edge (Photograph 6), east of Bedford, just north of the small town of Lutzville.
Photograph 6. Mines Chert Cobbles on the Raystown River Edge, S.R. 2019, East of Bedford
Nittany Chert The Nittany Dolomite Formation contains small amounts of black and gray Nittany chert. The Nittany Formation directly overlies the Mines Formation across much of the region and also is within the Ordovician-age Beekmantown Group (Beckerman 1980:25; Butts 1945:3- 4). In contrast to the Mines chert, Nittany chert is less oolitic, with white cryptocrystalline grains in a black matrix, whereas Mines chert has black oolites within a white matrix. Fossils are rare in Nittany chert, another contrast to the fossil-rich Mines chert. In bedrock, Nittany chert is black, but weathers to gray upon exposure. Schindler et al. (1982:541-542) note that black chert was the preferred raw material at all sites in the Nittany Valley during the Late Woodland.
The Nittany Formation is found within a broad, zigzag belt running from the Nittany Valley in the north to approximately 1 mile north of Williamsburg on the Frankstown Branch. Surficial outcrops in the Upper Juniata sub-basin occur within Sinking Valley, west of Tyrone and Bellwood in Watershed A. Overall, surface outcrops of Nittany chert are rare; however, Butts (1945:4) states that the broad flat spur 1 mile southwest of Clover Creek contains surficial outcrops of eight inch diameter chert nodules. Also, East et al. (1999) note surface exposures of poor-quality Nittany chert at several sources in the general vicinity of Half-Moon Creek, a low-order tributary of Spruce Creek to the northeast of Sinking Valley. According to Butts (1945:4), the best exposure of Nittany dolomite/chert is on the south bank of the Frankstown Branch, one mile north of Williamsburg:
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 17 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
[Here] much dense residual chert in pieces, the largest 6 feet in diameter, is scattered over the surface underlaid by the Nittany Formation. Chert full of rhombohedral cavities from which crystals of calcite or dolomite have been dissolved are common.
Bald Eagle Jasper While previous research suggested that Bald Eagle jasper (or Houserville jasper) was found within the Ordovician-age Bald Eagle Formation (Beckerman 1980:2; Fogelman 1983:10), it has been recently shown to be actually associated with the Ordovician-age Nittany Formation (East et al. 1999: 3-9, 7-73) in the northwestern portion of the project area (Watershed A). Bald Eagle Jasper is yellow in its natural state and turns a bright red when heated (Schindler et. al 1982:528). Macroscopically, Bald Eagle jasper looks similar to the well-known Vera Cruz Jasper of eastern Pennsylvania, though the Bald Eagle jasper lacks the sheen or luster of the Vera Cruz (Fogelman 1983: 10).
During their background research for the U.S. Route 220 project, which follows the Nittany Valley, East et al. (1999:3-9 to 3-12) conducted a lithic resources study with thin section and x-ray diffraction analyses of jasper from Nittany Valley sources. They concluded that “Bald Eagle jasper, and material of varying quality that may be part of the Bald Eagle jasper facies, seems to be located on the Ordovician Nittany Formation in association with other iron and silica rich formations, and fault zones” (East et al. 1999:3-9). Their study identified low- quality Bald Eagle Jasper and cherts at outcrops within the Nittany Formation along Half- Moon Creek and vicinity, a few miles south of Port Matilda.
Previous studies (Schindler et. al. 1982: 540-542) suggest that Bald Eagle jasper was not widely used in the region except during the Early to Middle Archaic; however, recent studies in the Nittany Valley (East et al. 1999; MacDonald and Mohney 2001) suggest active use during the Late Archaic as well.
Bellefonte Chert and Quartz The Bellefonte Formation is also of Ordovician-age and contains dark-gray Bellefonte chert and Bellefonte quartz. The Bellefonte Formation directly overlies limestones within the Nittany Formation (see above). Knowles (1966:15) states that “there is a thick cherty zone which on weathering produces blocks up to 3 feet across of dark-gray chert which is vesicular in aspect.” In cross-section, “the chert is a pale-brown-colored mosaic of micro-crystalline quartz in which inclusions of small (up to 0.08 mm) brownish-colored, rhomb-shaped ghosts of carbonate grains may be seen” (Knowles 1966:16). Given their close proximity, their similar outcrop locations, and their similar macroscopic characteristics, cherts from the Bellefonte and Nittany Formations are visually indistinguishable.
The Bellefonte Formation and associated chert outcrops are located on the west slope of Tussey Mountain within the Snake Spring Valley west of Everett in Bedford County (Knowles 1966:15). With Brian Fritz, GAI confirmed the locations of these outcrops in a farm field just north of S.R. 30, approximately two miles west of Everett. Fairly large (hand- sized) nodules of Bellefonte chert was strewn throughout the field. Hand-sized, prismatic cobbles of Bellefonte quartz were recovered in the field, as well. GAI was unable to locate
18 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
knappable Bellefonte chert or quartz during its search of Bellefonte Formation outcrops in roadcuts along the west slope of Tussey Mountain west of Williamsburg.
Local Sources: Silurian Cherts and Quartzite Tonoloway Chert The Tonoloway and Keyser Limestones and cherts occur in the Silurian-age Cayuga Group, stratigraphically above the Ordovician limestones and cherts (see above), but below Devonian limestones and cherts (see below). Tonoloway chert (Butts 1945; Hay 1980: 73; Knowles 1966:34-35) is variously described as black, dark gray, light gray, pinkish and yellowish-brown with trace fossils. Butts (1945:7) states that “thin layers of black chert occur in the top 10 feet of the [Tonoloway Limestone formation].” Butts et al. (1939:52-53) note “thin lenses of chert” in an exposure of Tonoloway limestone in Tyrone along a small stream near Lincoln and 15th streets.
Keyser/Tipton Chert Keyser chert derives from the Silurian-age Keyser Formation and stratigraphically overlies the Tonoloway Limestone. According to Knowles (1966:33), the Keyser Formation outcrops “as a narrow, continuous, northeastward-trending band along the eastern side of Tussey Mountain and Warrior Ridge.” The Keyser is composed of three members, with only the upper member yielding dark-gray chert. Given their similar ages and outcrops, as well as their similar macroscopic traits, the Keyser and Tonoloway cherts are virtually indistinguishable. Further, the chert-bearing Devonian-age Old Port Formation (see below) overlies the Keyser Formation. Cherts from the Old Port include Shriver, which is variably gray, dark gray and dull black, similar to Keyser.
Keyser chert was collected by GAI and Brian Fritz at two locations within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. First, just east of Hollidaysburg, a vein of Keyser chert was present in a road cut north of S.R. 22; no natural outcrops were observed near this location. The second exposure of Keyser was a natural outcrop on Chestnut Ridge north of Bedford near the small town of New Paris. In this location, Keyser chert co-occurs with Shriver chert within agricultural fields on the sideslopes of Chestnut Ridge. While this source was likely used by prehistoric Native Americans, it is difficult to distinguish the two cherts, since modern plowing has strewn chert cobbles of both Shriver and Keyser across the fields (see George 1983:50-52).
Tipton chert occurs in the Silurian-age Keyser Formation as well. This light gray to brown, moderately-translucent chert has been identified in large quantities at archaeological sites near the town of Tipton, south of Altoona (East and Beckman 1992; Hay et al. 1984). Brian Fritz has also collected samples in Bellwood, approximately 5 miles north of Altoona. Ultraviolet (UV) light characteristics of unpatinated to moderately patinated Tipton chert are unique for cherts in the region. The long-wave UV response is reddish-yellow (5YR7/6), while the short-wave UV response is light greenish-gray (5G8/1) to pinkish-white (5YR8/2), depending on the amount of cortex and patination. The reddish-yellow response under long- wave UV for fresh break surfaces was more consistent in Brian Fritz’s collected samples than the short-wave response; thus, the long wave UV response is considered to be fairly diagnostic of Tipton chert. Colors may vary more widely if patinated or cortex laden. Most
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 19 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
other cherts in the region have no response to UV light or respond with non-diagnostic shades of purple.
Tuscarora Quartzite The Silurian-age Tuscarora quartzite is also found within the project area. High quality Tuscarora quartzite was collected by the authors and Brian Fritz just east of Bedford on S.R. 30. Large, boulder-sized cobbles were abundant and of high quality. Colors ranged from white (10R8/1) to pale red (10R6/3). Sourcing of Tuscarora quartzite artifacts presents a major problem, however, as there are numerous outcrops across the Ridge and Valley province and Upper Juniata sub-basin. Tuscarora typically is found on or near the tops of high ridges in the region.
Butts (1945:5) acknowledges outcrops of this quartzite on the west side of Tussey Mountain, the east side of the Lock-Dunning Mountain ridge, and on Point View Knob, overlooking the Frankstown Branch west of Williamsburg. Based on Watts’ (1945) and Knowles (1966) description, the overall quality of the quartzite is unclear, but is likely fine-grained enough for stone tool production. According to Knowles (1967:27), “thin-section examination of the Tuscarora shows that it is…orthoquartzite, containing 90 percent detrital quartz [and] 6 to 7 percent silica cement,” among other trace elements.
Local Sources: Devonian Cherts In addition to the cherts from Ordovician (Mines, Nittany, and Bellefonte) and Silurian (Tonoloway and Keyser) Systems, at least two other cherts—Shriver and Corriganville— derive from the Devonian System. As described by Knowles (1967:37), “the [Devonian-age] Old Port Formation occurs as a narrow, continuous, northeastward-trending band” across Watershed C in the current project area. The Old Port directly crosses the Raystown and Shawnee Branches, approximately at the location of Shawnee Lake and Shawnee State Park (Hoskins 1981). This formation also is exposed south of Everett, as well as along Chestnut Ridge, northeast of Shawnee Lake. PASS forms recorded prior to the establishment of Shawnee State Park state an abundance of lithic debitage and cores from the reduction of local chert blocks scattered along the Shawnee Branch of the Juniata River, suggesting the presence of local outcrops of Devonian cherts.
Shriver Chert The Shriver Limestone, within the Oriskany Group (Old Port Formation) of the Devonian System, contains highly siliceous limestones and Shriver chert (Butts 1945; Butts et al. 1939). The Shriver Limestone directly overlies the Helderberg limestone and their outcrops are difficult to differentiate; as such, cherts from these limestones are sometimes referred to as Helderberg-Shriver chert or even Old Port chert. As Butts (1945:9) states, "sandy pieces are exceedingly fine-grained and some pieces have a cherty aspect on fresh fracture." Freshly exposed Shriver chert is dark and impure, but weathers yellow, with abundant fossils. Beckerman (1980:12) and Butts (1945:8) note that gray Helderberg, or Shriver, chert is associated with the Devonian-age Helderberg Limestone.
20 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Shriver is named after Shriver Ridge, an outcrop in Cumberland, Maryland (Butts et al. 1939:59). Outcrops of Shriver chert are present “along the northeast flank of Warrior Ridge and in the gorge of the Juniata River through that elevation….Its presence may be detected by the abundance of small, yellow chips or blocks which strew the surface” (Butts et al. 1939:60). As noted above, outcrops of the Old Port Formation, possibly including Helderberg and/or Shriver cherts, also occur near Everett, Shawnee Lake, and Chestnut Ridge in Watershed C. Shriver chert also outcrops in ridges and valleys of the Susquehanna River Valley and vicinity, where it is sometimes referred to as “Penn’s Creek” chert.
Along with Brian Fritz, GAI collected Shriver chert at two locations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin: south of Bedford near Hyndman (Photograph 7) and along Chestnut Ridge, both in Watershed C. Also of note, Fritz notes that knappable Shriver chert is not found in the Shriver Limestone in two outcrops west of Williamsburg and east of Hollidaysburg, both on S.R. 22, well north of Bedford. Apparently, the quality and quantity of the Shriver chert decreases on a northward trend away from Bedford within the sub-basin. The two high quality sources visited by the authors include a sideslope southwest of Bedford near Hyndman on Business Route 220 in the Cumberland Valley (see Photograph 7) and a plowed field sideslope in New Paris on Chestnut Ridge northwest of Bedford (see Photograph 3). These outcrops produced fairly high quality, large (bigger than hand-sized) cobbles. As noted above, these Shriver chert outcrops occur near outcrops of Keyser and Tonoloway cherts and are sometimes difficult to distinguish from one another; however, the Shriver chert is typically of a higher quality, more abundant, and more readily available than either the Keyser or Tonoloway cherts. For those reasons, prehistoric Native Americans apparently used it fairly frequently, as it accounts for a majority of lithic assemblages at most sites in the Upper Juniata sub- basin and beyond.
Photograph 7. Shriver Chert along Business Route 220 near Hyndman, Pennsylvania.
Corriganville chert is found within the Corriganville Formation of the Devonian System. This chert is opaque to slightly translucent, creamy white, and typically outcrops near Shriver chert. Brian Fritz collected Corriganville chert at several locations in the Upper Juniata sub- basin. The quality of the chert is low-moderate, with infrequent higher quality nodules. Corriganville chert was collected at both the Hyndman and the Chestnut Ridge locations described above for the Shriver chert. The stone is fairly unique due to its white color and, thus, is also fairly easy to recognize in archaeological collections.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 21 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Local Chert Summary As reviewed above, a wide variety of cherts were available for prehistoric use throughout the Upper Juniata sub-basin. This review also confirms that several varieties of gray and black cherts are present across the project area (Hay 1980:75). Cherts from the Ordovician (Mines, Nittany, and Bellefonte), Silurian (Tonoloway and Keyser), and Devonian (Shriver and Corriganville) Systems are all found within the sub-basin, several of which are described as being gray, dark gray, dull black and/or black. Several characteristics can be used to differentiate a these cherts. The Mines chert is easily distinguishable by its oolitic matrix, while the brownish Tipton variety of Keyser chert has a unique long-wave ultraviolet light response (reddish yellow). Most other cherts in the region have no response or a mild dark purple UV response. Corriganville chert is unique due to its whitish-gray color, while the Tuscarora quartzite is also unique, as it is the only high-grade orthoquartzite in the sub-basin; however, it outcrops at several ridgetops across the sub-basin and sourcing prehistoric quartzite artifacts to specific sources would be difficult.
Among the black cherts, Shriver is the most common in archaeological assemblages due to its comparatively high quality and its abundance. The other black and gray cherts, including Tonoloway, Keyser, Nittany and Bellefonte, are all of generally lower quality and less availability in this region; however, each of these stones was used during prehistory and should be considered possible sources for artifacts in prehistoric site assemblages.
Non-Local Sources Rhyolite Rhyolite, found within Precambrian metavolcanic formations (Potter 1999: 346), was a popular raw material for stone tool production in the adjacent Great Valley section of the Ridge and Valley Province. The nearest sources of rhyolite occur greater than 100 km (60 miles) to the southeast at South Mountain near Chambersburg. South Mountain is the most well-known primary source of rhyolite and metarhyolite. Stewart (1987) notes that boulders of rhyolite are present in a wide area surrounding South Mountain, likely distributed by various erosion and weathering processes.
Numerous archaeological sites, especially in Watersheds C and D in the Upper Juniata sub- basin, contain small numbers of artifacts produced from rhyolite. Studies within the nearby Aughwick Creek Valley (directly west of the current project area in the Juniata River sub- basin) suggest that this stream valley was used as a travel corridor to collect rhyolite (Raber 1995).
Several historic Native American paths—including the Raystown Path—traversed gaps in the north-south ridge system to connect the Great Valley to the east with the Raystown Branch and the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143). The Raystown Path passed within 10 km of South Mountain near Chambersburg and continued westward along the current route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through Watershed C.
22 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Steatite The most proximate known sources of steatite, or soapstone, are along the Upper Potomac River, approximately 50 km (30 miles) south of the current project area (pers. comm., W. Johnson, Michael Baker, Inc.). The Raystown River corridor would have provided an ideal corridor for travel to and from the Potomac River Valley to collect steatite. Steatite is a soft, easily shaped stone that was used during the Terminal Archaic period to produce cooking vessels. Later, steatite was used as temper in the earliest-known pottery types.
Flint Ridge Chert Flint Ridge chert occurs within the Vanport Formation of the Middle Pennsylvanian System of east-central Ohio, approximately 250 km (150 miles) west of the Upper Juniata River sub- basin. Flint Ridge is variably homogenous, mottled, laminated, or brecciated and often has small veins of chalcedony or quartz crystals. Color ranges from white to dark-gray, with yellow, pink, red, and blue not uncommon. This stone was widely distributed during prehistory and occurs at sites within sub-basin 11, greater than 200 kilometers (124 miles) distant (Tankersley 1989:269).
Onondaga Chert Onondaga chert is a high-quality chert of dark to bluish-gray with microfossil striations of lighter colors (Vento and Donahue 1982). The stone has a medium texture, a shiny luster, and is moderately translucent. Primary outcrops of Onondaga chert occur within the Lower- Middle Devonian Onondaga Formation across the glaciated region of New York, and discontinuously in the Ridge and Valley of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia (Luedtke 1992:129). Secondary cobbles of Onondaga chert are distributed much more widely, occurring across northwest and central Pennsylvania within the boundaries of the terminal Pleistocene glaciation, and was locally available as occasional stream cobbles within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Holland 1999).
D. MODERN AND PAST CLIMATES The modern climate of Bedford County is classified as humid continental with a mean annual temperature of 49º F. Winters are relatively cold and dry, while summers are warm and humid. Annual precipitation is heaviest between May and August and averages 37-39 inches in the Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley. Variation in precipitation is due largely to elevation, with the upper elevation ridges and mountains receiving more rain and snow than the valleys (Braker 1981; Trewartha 1967).
Results of paleoenvironmental and faunal studies at several sites in central Pennsylvania, including Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967), Buckles Bog (Larabee 1986), Big Pond, Crider’s Pond (Watts 1979), and New Paris #4 (Guilday et al. 1964), provide a window into the region’s paleoenvironment over the last 12,000 years. Several other studies have been conducted elsewhere in Appalachia and Pennsylvania that provide additional insights into regional environmental changes of the Holocene (Carr 1998b; Gaudreau 1988; Guilday et al. 1977; Joyce 1988; Maxwell and Davis 1972; Stingelin 1965; Whitehead 1973).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 23 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Between 21,000 and 17,000 B.P., the Laurentide ice sheets reached their maximum extent in eastern North America, with the Kent Moraine of the Erie Lobe extending as far south as central Ohio and northern Pennsylvania (Crowl and Sevon 1999:226). The southern boundary of the 304-meter- (1,000-foot-) thick ice sheets was approximately 15 km (9 miles) south and 45 km (28 miles) east of New Castle in northwestern Pennsylvania. By 14,000 B.P., with global warming, the ice retreated to northern areas of New England and Canada, depositing stratified sequences of glacial till across northwestern Pennsylvania (Gates 1993; Gaudreau 1988:218; Watts 1979).
During the late Glacial period, tundra was widespread at areas adjacent to glaciers and at higher elevations in Appalachia. At the base of the Cranberry Glades pollen profile (Pocahontas County, West Virginia) (circa 12,185 B.P.), sedge, pine, spruce, and grass pollen were dominant. Another site in the Appalachian Plateau, Big Run Bog in Tucker County, West Virginia (Larabee 1986) yielded a tundra pollen spectrum dominated by sedges and grasses in levels dated to between 17,040 B.P. and 13,860 B.P.. Similar late Glacial tundra pollen assemblages have been noted for other upland locations in Appalachia as well (Maxwell and Davis 1972:506; Whitehead 1973:625).
Northeastern North America experienced relatively rapid warming between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Gates 1993:84; Stingelin 1965). The retreat of the glaciers, as well as a steady succession of vegetative types in Greater Appalachia, reflects this dynamic transition. By 12,000 B.P., paleoenvironmental sites in southern Pennsylvania revealed pollen assemblages suggesting widespread boreal forest of spruce and pine. Data from New Paris No. 4, Bedford County, Pennsylvania (Guilday et al. 1964) and Hartstown Bog, Crawford County, Pennsylvania (Walker and Hartman 1960), suggest ameliorating boreal forest conditions at approximately 11,000 B.P. Mt. Davis Marsh, near Meyersdale in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, was also dominated by spruce, pine, and fir (Stingelin 1965:50).
By 11,500 B.P., in southwestern Pennsylvania, Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Washington County) vertebrate remains (Adovasio et al. 1998:11) revealed a temperate “Carolinian” fauna, as well as oak, hickory, and pine, suggesting the initial emergence of the Mixed Mesophytic forest. Subsequently, white ash invaded the area, along with beech and chestnut (Castanea) (Watts 1979:452). Upland sites in north-central Pennsylvania, such as Tannersville Bog (Monroe County) and Longswamp (Berks County) also revealed deciduous forest by 10,000 B.P. (Davis 1984:172).
Pollen analysis of samples from Sheep Rock Shelter also identifies a decrease in pine and a corresponding increase in oak over the 9,000 year occupation of the cave. In addition, Guilday and Parmalee (1965:48) state that “all species recovered…are typical of the area as it is under present climatic conditions.” These data suggest that the Upper Juniata River basin and vicinity likely supported a Mixed Mesophytic forest suite for at least the last 9,000 to 10,000 years.
24 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
As climates ameliorated during the hypsithermal interval, between 10,000 and 5000 B.P., cool-adapted boreal forest species (e.g., spruce and Jack pine) declined in importance in uplands of the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley, including such sites as Cranberry Glades, Mt. Davis Marsh, Tannersville Bog, and Potts Mountain Pond (Davis 1984:173,178; Joyce 1988:197). Many of the species of flora and fauna of central Appalachia spread rapidly up in elevation and northward to colonize once-glaciated terrain (Davis 1984:173; Gates 1989; Gaudreau 1988:218; Watts 1979).
Approximately 5,000 years ago, climates began to cool slightly across eastern North America (Gajewski 1988:259), resulting in an increase in red spruce at upland sites such as Tannersville Bog and Cranberry Glades. This transition marked the end of the middle Holocene hypsithermal warm episode (Davis 1984:178). However, data from Sheep Rock Shelter clearly show no change in the types of pollen (Cutler and Blake 1967) and faunal remains (Guilday and Parmalee 1965) during the hypsithermal, suggesting that lowland sites (such as the Raystown Branch and vicinity) were not directly affected by this mid-Holocene warming trend.
Increases in charcoal are noted in pollen diagrams across eastern North America during the late Holocene (Davis 1984; Fredlund 1989). In pollen Zone C-2 (4000-2200 B.P.) at Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River in Mason County, West Virginia, increased charcoal flecking is likely due to increased fire disturbance related to human modification of the landscape for horticulture. In Zone C-3 (2200 to 0 B.P.), the dominating pollen type is Ambrosia, or ragweed, associated with the fluorescence of regional agricultural practices. Pollen from corn and other domesticates also begins to appear in the paleoenvironmental record.
Sheep Rock Shelter (Cutler and Blake 1967:125-168) yielded a diverse suite of corn, beans, and squash remains, confirming the increased use of domesticates during the last 2,000 years or so. Other regional sites also show dramatic increases in grasses with the rise in Native American horticulture and Euroamerican agriculture over the last few centuries (Davis 1984:178).
E. FLORA AND FAUNA (BY LISA M. DUGAS) Upper Juniata River Sub-basin 11 falls within two forest regions--the beech-basswood-oak- hemlock Mixed Mesophytic forest along the Appalachian Plateau, and the Appalachian Oak forest (Kuchler 1964) of the Ridge and Valley Province, formerly referred to as the Oak- Chestnut forest (Braun 1950). The Mixed Mesophytic forest is located in the western third of Watershed A and in the northwest portion of Watershed C. Remaining areas of Watersheds A, B, C and D are covered by the Appalachian Oak forest. Secondary growth resulting from timbering and blight (Oak-Chestnut forest) adds to the diversity of both forest regions. Prehistoric faunal assemblages in sub-basin 11 revealed a rich and diverse fauna for forager exploitation. The white-tailed deer was the most commonly exploited mammal. Avian and aquatic resources were also exploited. Except for the extinction of certain large animals elk (Cervus elaphus), wolf (Canis lupus), and cougar (Felis concolor) (Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002) and the increases in other species populations, such as white-tailed
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 25 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
deer, turkey, and woodchuck, the faunal composition of the area is little changed from early historic times (Shelford 1963).
Dominant canopy arbors in the Mixed Mesophytic forest are beech (Fagus grandifolia), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), basswood (Tilia heterophulla, T. heterophulla var. Michauxii, T. floridana, T. neglecta), sugar maple (Acer saccharum, A. saccharum var. nigrum, A. saccharum var. Rugellii), chestnut (Castanea dentatat), sweet buckeye, (Aesculus octandra), red oak (Quercus baorealis var. maxina), white oak (Q. alba), and hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) (Braun 1950:40). The undercover of this forest consists of dogwood (Cornus florida), magnolias (Magnolia tripetala, M. marconphylls, M. Fasseri), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), striped maple (Acer pensylanicum) redbud (Cercis canadensis), ironwood or blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana) (Braun 1950:43). During the spring summer and fall months, the herbaceous component of the forest floor consists of a diverse community of vegetation dominated by wildflowers and ferns. Vernal flora, such as Trillium grandiflorum, Erythronium americanum, and a variety of wild flowers (Sanguinaraia canadensis, Stylophorum diphyllum, Delphinium tricorne) are prevalent until summer, when ferns become more abundant (Dryopteris Goldinana, Phegopteris hexagonopters, Adiantum pedatum, etc.) (Braun 1950:46). Mesophytic asters (Aster cordifolius, A. divaricatus) and goldenrods (Solidago caesia, S. latifolia) prevail during the fall (Bruan 1950:46).
The Allegheny Front marks the boundary between the Mixed Mesophytic and the former Oak-Chestnut forests (Braun 1950:39 and 194). However, this boundary is more appropriately defined as a transitional area where vegetation traits of the Mixed Mesophytic forest overlap the ridges and valleys of the Oak-Chestnut forest (Braun 1950:40). Features of the Mixed Mesophytic forest occasionally occur in scattered coves and valleys in the Oak- Chestnut forest (Braun 1950:192). The typical Oak-Chestnut forest spanned over most mountain slopes and rolling uplands of the sub-basin. Chestnut (Castanea), red oak (Q. baorealis var. maxina), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), white oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q. velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera) (Braun 1950:199, 575-577) dominated the canopy layer of Oak-Chestnut forest. Common shrubbery includes a variety of Rhododendron and Azalea, Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia), berry baring Vaccinium, Leucothoe, and Menziesia pilosa (Braun 1950:199, 569, 571, 582). A fungus disease during the early 20th century killed most of the chestnut trees in the Pennsylvania (Braun 1950:233). Currently dominated by red oak (Quercus baorealis var. maxina), white oak (Q. alba), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), black oak (Q. velutina), and chestnut oak (Q. montana), the former Oak-Chestnut forest is defined as the Appalachian Oak forest, (East et al. 1999:3-15; Braun 1950:233, 575-577). Pines (Pinus), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), hickories (Carya), and maples (Acer) occur within the forest as sub-dominant species in the community (East et al. 1999: 3-15; Braun 1950:374, 568, 571).
As noted above, the wildlife exploited by indigenous people has changed little in historic times. Modern wildlife species that inhabit sub-basin 11 are white-tailed deer, black bear, gray squirrel, red and gray fox, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, and wild turkey (Merkel 1981:63). During its lithic raw material study for this project, GAI observed a black bear within uplands above the Raystown Branch, approximately 10 miles
26 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
south of Huntingdon. Other mammals including muskrat, raccoon, beaver and rodents are also plentiful. Additionally, various water foul, songbirds, reptiles and amphibians (Merkel 1981:63) populate the area.
The frequency and distribution of wildlife is reflected by habitat. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) occur throughout the sub-basin, but tend to frequent wooded or partially wooded areas (Merkel 1981:63; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). The black bear (Ursus americanus) prefer secluded woods with a plentiful water supply (Merkel 1981:63; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) (Alsop 2001) inhabit timbered areas or the edges of fields. Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) tend to inhabit mature woods where oak and hickory nuts are abundant (Merkel 1981:63; Alsop 2001; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) woodcock (Scolopax minor), thrush (Catharus ustulatus, C. guttatus), and woodpecker (Picoides pubescens, P. villosus) also prefer woodland areas (Knight 1998:91).
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), woodchuck (Marmota monax), cottontail rabbits (Lepus americanus, Sylvilagus floridanus, S. obscurus), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), bobwhite quail (Callipepla squamata), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) inhabit open pastures and meadows (Knight 1998:91; Alsop 2001; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002).
Beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) make their homes in wetlands along steams and ponds (Knight 1998:91; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). Wood duck (Aix spona), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensia), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (Alsop 2001) co-inhabit wetland areas of sub-basin 11. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Knight 1998:91; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002) populate the entire area of sub-basin 11.
F. SUMMARY Subsequent to the end of the Pleistocene (ca. 11,000-10,000 years ago), the landscape and forest environment of the Upper Juniata region remained largely unchanged for over 9,000 years during the Holocene. Native Americans utilized the wide variety of lithic raw materials to produce tools by which to exploit the vast array of flora and fauna available within the oak forests of the region. As will be discussed below, Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files contain site forms for well over 400 prehistoric archaeological sites in sub-basin 11. These sites attest to the constant and unrelenting use of the region by Native Americans during prehistory.
Only in the last 50 years or so has the environment been significantly altered, as so eloquently described in this passage written by John Witthoft (Michels and Smith 1967:21), as he sat within Sheep Rock Shelter (Photograph 8), now under more than 100 m of water in Raystown Lake:
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 27 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Each year I have seen twice as many cottages, twice as many motorboats as the previous year [on the Raystown Branch]. The Raystown is but a small lake and it has more horsepower per square mile than any other water in the United States. As I worked at [Sheep Rock Shelter], camped on the lake shores, cruised the river at night and at dawn, explored the forest, and climbed rock ledges, I saw many aspects of nature that were still in full vigor and that I could see reflected in the archaeology of the site. Many of these wonderful things are gone now, and I suppose the rest have a limited life expectancy.
Photograph 8. A Cruise Ship at the Inundated Sheep Rock Shelter on Raystown Lake (Huntingdon County Visitors Bureau 2002:9).
28 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER III. BACKGROUND AND KEY PROJECTS
GAI reviewed archaeological and historical reports and publications, as well as PASS files data on recorded sites to develop overviews of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These summaries provide an archaeological and historical context for assessing potential site significance and for predicting the locations and types of archaeological sites that might be present in the sub-basin. GAI also conducted an analysis of lithic artifacts from eight archaeological sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and collected lithic raw materials at sources in the sub-basin to facilitate an understanding of stone availability during prehistory. These studies were intended to reveal trends in lithic raw material use over time in the region. This chapter provides an overview of the methods used in collecting data for the study and also provides a brief summary of key archaeological projects that have been conducted in the sub-basin.
A. PASS FILES DATA On May 6, 2002, PASS files data were kindly provided to GAI by the Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP) for all previously-recorded archaeological sites in the Upper Juniata sub- basin (n=378). The 378 recorded sites included information regarding 964 prehistoric site components (Table 2). PASS forms were submitted by a variety of individuals, including local artifact collectors, universities, and cultural resource management firms. Prior to utilizing the data, each site form was compared to raw data that were organized within a Microsoft Access data base. GAI screened these data carefully by comparing site forms with computerized data; any errors (e.g., site location, projectile point type, site type, etc…) were corrected and data from all forms were entered into the data base, including information on site type, location, age, lithic raw materials, and artifacts.
Table 2. Comparison of Raw PASS File Data with Checked PASS File Data Utilized in this Study.
COMPONENTS: COMPONENTS: PERIOD RAW PASS DATA1 CHECKED PASS DATA2 Paleoindian 12 12 Early Archaic 16 12 Middle Archaic 40 35 Late Archaic 146 87 General Archaic 195 -- Transitional 48 35 Early Woodland 38 19 Middle Woodland 37 11 Late Woodland 101 77 General Prehistoric 331 -- Total Components 964 288 Total Sites 378 202 1=raw unchecked data as presented in PAS Chronol table within BHP PASS files; 2=PASS data checked for diagnostic artifacts
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 29 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
After screening the PASS data base, GAI identified 288 site components from 202 recorded sites as useful for the study (see Table 2). The other 176 sites and 676 components were eliminated from use in the study due to a lack of specific diagnostic artifact information. Typically, these eliminated sites listed a period of occupation for a given site, but failed to include a picture or a description of a specific diagnostic artifact. Without these diagnostic artifacts, GAI was unable to confirm the period of occupation; thus, those sites were not included in the study. While considerably smaller than the original, unchecked PASS data, the refined PASS files data proved invaluable in understanding the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. What the data lacked in specificity (e.g., use of terms like “chert/flint,” rather than specific chert types), they made up for in revealing general trends over time in prehistoric site locations, demography, and tool use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
B. COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS To supplement the general information from PASS files, GAI conducted an analysis of projectile points (n=177) from eight archaeological site collections from the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Appendix C includes complete results of the analysis. Projectile points from six of the analyzed collections were assessed as to their cultural historical type and their lithic raw material type. Two of the analyzed sites did not include projectile points that were typeable either to cultural historical period or raw material type. The archaeological site collections used in the analysis included four sites in Watershed D (36Bd36, 36Bd190, 36Hu50, and 36Hu106). Site 36Bd36 is the Workman Site that contained the bulk of the artifacts (n=129 of 177) evaluated in the study. One artifact collection each from Watershed A (36Bl38) and Watershed C (36Bd161) was also examined by GAI. Selection of the collections was based on the total number of points available in each collection, as well as their age, and site location.
Of the 177 points, GAI determined a cultural historical type (e.g., Lamoka point or Kirk point) and a relative age for 134 points. Of these 134 points, GAI identified lithic raw material type for 122 points. These 122 points were then utilized to assess changes in lithic raw material use over time in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Since the data were slightly biased toward sites in the upper Raystown Branch (Watershed D), the observed trends pertain mostly to this area. The 134 points that were identifiable to type include nine Early Archaic, two Middle Archaic, 41 Late Archaic, eight Transitional/Terminal Archaic, one Early Woodland, one Middle Woodland, and 62 Late Woodland points. This chronological distribution largely mimics site file data, especially for sites in Watershed D, in which the majority of sites date to the Late Archaic and/or the Late Woodland periods.
GAI collected geologic samples at sources to facilitate stone type identification (see Chapter II). This comparative collection included approximately 15 stone types, largely collected by Brian Fritz and GAI directly from sources in the sub-basin (see Chapter 2 for more details). Of the 177 points studied in the analysis, 155 were typed to specific lithic raw materials. For many of the stones, there are multiple outcrops across the sub-basin, thus, precise provenance for the stones used in projectile point manufacture was uncertain; however, for the purposes of this study, the most proximate known exposure to the respective sites were assumed to be the sources for cherts in the collections.
30 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
The 155 points were produced from 12 different known types, including Shriver chert (n=61 points), rhyolite (n=25), Corriganville chert (n=20), Bellefonte chert (n=13), Keyser chert (n=12), jasper (n=11), Tipton chert (n=4), Nittany chert (n=4), Tonoloway chert (n=3), and one each of Mines chert and white quartzite. Thus, of the 155 points, all but the 25 rhyolite points were produced from lithic raw materials available within the sub-basin itself. As reflected in this report, this emphasis on use of local lithic raw materials was a pervasive pattern during most of the prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Each of the following chapters provides detailed results of the collections analysis for points that pertain to the respective periods. These data supplement lithic raw material data provided in PASS files and research reports.
C. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORTS To supplement PASS files data and collections analysis, GAI reviewed pertinent archaeological reports to better evaluate the types of sites found in the project area. Two large, regional-scale studies were conducted during the last forty years, including the Raystown Reservoir Archaeological Salvage and Survey (Smith 1966; Michels and Smith 1967), and the Bald Eagle Archaeological Research Program (Hatch 1980). Each of these surveys was conducted within similar settings and provided important information regarding prehistoric site types that may occur within the project area. More importantly, however, over 100 cultural resource management reports and academic projects have been completed within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Appendix B provides a complete list of sources used in this study, including those surveys where no sites were identified. Each of these reports is also cited in the bibliography, so that the full range of referenced documents is available for researchers.
D. KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED A: LITTLE JUNIATA-FRANKSTOWN BRANCH With the exception of Watershed B (which lacks major projects), the major studies within each watershed are introduced below to provide a context for more detailed discussion of them in subsequent chapters. Figure 3 is a map of the approximate locations of key archaeological sites and projects discussed in this section.
Gromiller Cave In the early 1960s, the Sheep Rock Chapter of the SPA (Stackhouse 1965) excavated this small cave approximately five miles east of Hollidaysburg. The cave lies in the side of Lock Mountain, approximately a third of a mile south of the Frankstown Branch. While some stratification was present, many of the levels were mixed into a palimpsest “midden zone, “ which yielded the majority of prehistoric artifacts. Nineteen projectile points were found in the midden, including 15 sidenotched and one stemmed point, suggestive of a substantial Late Archaic occupation. Hearths identified below the midden are assumed to date to the Archaic occupations, although no radiocarbon dating was conducted. Three triangle points and two shell-tempered pottery sherds suggest a Late Woodland site occupation as well. Stackhouse (1965) interprets the site as a seasonal hunting camp.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 31 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
12
Figure 3. Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
1 B S. Bald Eagle Creek A3 - C -- 2 10 - Upper Juniata 3 Petersburg
236 Bridge
- River Basin Altoona Little Juniata River
Pennsylvania A Huntingdon
Hollidaysburg 4 11
Sheep Rock Shelter Branch
Roaring
DA TE 7 /18/02 D WG . NO 20 02 Mykut Frankstown Spring 5 Rockshelter j cl
Yellow Creek Workman Branch JuniataD River 6
C Sunny Side 10 Site Raystown 7 Projects Key Allegheny Front, Allegheny Mountains See Chapter 3 for Project Descriptions 1 S.R. 220 2 S.R. 6220
8&9 Bedford 3 TIPTON IND. PARK Chestnut Ridge Village 4 GROMILLER CAVE Branch DRA W N DHM APPROVED Raystown Bedford 5 RAYSTOWN SURVEY Everett 6 S.R. 26 7 LOYSBURG HIGHWAY 8/9 BEDFORD AIRPORT/ BEDFORD DIST. CENTER 10 CHESTNUT RIDGE 11 AUGHWICK CREEK
C0NSULTANTS, INC. 12 BALD EAGLE Scale Map Key Key Archaeological Sites (locations are approximate) gai 0 6 12 miles 1 Key Archaeological Projects (locations are approximate) Major Cities
Figure 3 Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
32 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
State Route 220 Project The State Route (S.R.) 220 project was a major archaeological investigation of both the southern and northern Bald Eagle Creek Valleys conducted by Skelly and Loy in the mid to late 1990s (East et al. 1999). Ten sites were investigated at the Phase II level, while one was a data recovery project at the Wiser Site on north Bald Eagle Creek (a few miles north of the current project area). Alignments for proposed road right-of-ways tended to follow steep or less desirable areas for habitation near south Bald Eagle Creek and floodplain and other likely loci for prehistoric habitation along north Bald Eagle Creek. As a result, a only one prehistoric site was identified on south Bald Eagle Creek, Fisher #1 (36BL90). This site consists of eight prehistoric flakes found in a single shovel test. The shovel test is located near the northern boundary of the project area; the site likely continues to the north, outside of the study area.
Results of the north Bald Eagle Creek survey documented a general low density, short-term use of the area. A single exception occurred at the Wiser Site (36CE442), where excavations documented Late Archaic features as well as a Late Archaic stone bead manufacturing area.
S.R. 6220 Project The S.R. 6220 project, conducted by Skelly and Loy (East and Beckman 1992), consisted of shovel test and test unit excavation along terraces, floodplains, and footslopes of the Little Juniata River in Blair County, as part of a wetlands replacement project. This project was the southern portion of the S.R. 220 project described above. In all, five of the seven tested areas produced prehistoric sites along S.R. 6220. All of the sites were small, temporary camps consisting of low to moderate densities of lithic debris; no features were identified. Regarding site function, all were likely loci for the early to late stage reduction of local chert as well as the resharpening/rejuvenation of cherts from extra-local sources.
Site36BL52 (Replacement Site 2) The site is located in an area of well-drained soil amid a landscape of poorly-drained soils. Biface thinning using locally available Tipton Chert was the major activity at the site. No diagnostic artifacts were recovered.
Site 36BL53 (Replacement Site 3) Although located on a floodplain, this site was contained entirely within near surface deposits. Investigations recovered a single Kirk Stemmed point of Onondaga chert indicating an Early Archaic occupation. Because Onondaga chert is not found naturally in the area, this point was likely manufactured elsewhere and imported to the site. In addition to the projectile point, analysis also identified flake debris, dominated by Tipton and dull-gray chert.
Site 36BL54 (Replacement Site 4) Site 36BL54 is a multi-component site located on the floodplain of the Little Juniata River; cultural components include Middle and Late Archaic and Late Middle to Late Woodland. All components were defined on the basis of diagnostic projectile points, excavations
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 33 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
encountered neither pottery nor dateable features. Debitage and tool classes were dominated by biface thinning debitage of Tipton chert; because there were no concentrations of diagnostic artifacts, non-diagnostic tool and debitage cannot be associated with any particular occupation. The site appears to represent a series of overlapping, small temporary camps occupied sporadically over several thousand years.
Site 36BL55 (Replacement Site 5) This site is a moderate density lithic scatter occupying a floodplain setting on the Little Juniata River. Artifacts include four non-diagnostic bifaces and debitage; artifact classes are dominated by locally occurring Tipton Chert. The site likely represents a small, temporary camp.
Site 36BL56 (Replacement Site 10) The site is a low-moderate density lithic scatter located on a Pleistocene terrace overlooking the Little Juniata River. Analysis identified a single Brewerton point, indicating a Late Archaic occupation. Tipton chert reduction dominates the flaked stone assemblage at the site. Because the location was not chosen for wetland replacement, no units were excavated, hindering interpretation.
In all, investigations detailed the numerous small encampments found on the margins of the Little Juniata River. Although located in floodplain environs, buried soils were conspicuous by their absence. Most prehistoric occupation at the sites appears to consist of short-term campsites focused on Tipton chert reduction and, likely, a variety of resource processing activities.
Tipton Industrial Park Project The Tipton Industrial Park Project, conducted by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. in 1984 (Hay et al. 1984), consisted of shovel test and test unit excavations along the Little Juniata River and adjacent tributaries. The study identified four sites—Sites 36Bl38, 36Bl41and 36Bl43—each interpreted to be a Late Archaic camp by Hay et al. Three of the sites are along levee remnants and floodplain of the Little Juniata River and one is along a small unnamed tributary of the Little Juniata. Tipton Chert, a locally occurring raw material, comprises the majority of the raw materials found at these four sites.
Site #1 (36Bl38) Site #1 consists of a dense scatter of Tipton chert debitage and Late Archaic projectile points on a levee of the Little Juniata River. Lithic analysis and topographic setting suggests that the site functioned as a general purpose camp, occupied seasonally by family sized groups for a variety of domestic tasks.
Site #3 (36Bl40) Site #3 consists of a large moderate density lithic scatter of Tipton chert, Bald Eagle Jasper, chalky gray chert and a variety of other raw materials. Topographically, the site is located immediately adjacent to the Little Juniata River making it an attractive locus for prehistoric
34 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
occupation. Most major temporal periods are represented at the site; the multi-component nature of the site serves to hinder interpretations regarding specific components.
According to the authors of the report (Hay et al. 1984), an absence of features suggests that all occupations at the site were temporary, perhaps the remains of short-term seasonal subsistence camps. The presence of Bald Eagle Jasper and brown chert suggest a series of minor encampments during the Early and Middle Archaic. Denser quantities of Tipton Chert suggest more frequent Later Archaic occupations. The reduction sequence for Tipton Chert is identical to Site # 1. The similar topographic setting, absence of features, and similarities in reduction sequences all suggest that Site #3 had the same function as Site #1; perhaps the decision of which encampment to use was based on micro-variation in resources at each site for any given visit.
Site #4 (36Bl41) Site #4 consists of a moderate scatter of Tipton Chert debitage associated with five prehistoric features on a levee of the Little Juniata River. Features consist of four firepits and a single postmold. Late Archaic projectile points dominate the diagnostic tool assemblage, suggesting that the features may also date to this occupation. Localized concentrations of brown chert and Bald Eagle Jasper were located within the larger Tipton Chert scatter. The authors suggest that the occupation of Site #4 were similar to those at Sites #1 and #3, with the exception of preserved features. The presence of features may indicate a longer-term occupation and/or may reflect cooking and processing of foods at the site. No feature radiocarbon dates were reported within the project report (Hay et al. 1984).
Site #6 (36Bl43) Like the other three sites, Site #6 exhibits a large amount of Tipton Chert debitage, which the authors interpret to be indicative of a Late Archaic occupation. Unlike the other sites, however, Site #6 is small in size and located on a minor tributary of the Little Juniata River, suggesting it was used even more briefly than the other three sites.
Minor use of the area for temporary hunting or gathering camps occurs during the Early or Middle Archaic. These occupations are marked by a focus on Bald Eagle Jasper and brown chert reduction; most of these occupations occur as isolated concentrations of artifacts within a larger concentration of materials from later time periods.
In all, excavations at these four sites suggest that the heaviest use of floodplain environs on the Little Juniata River occurred during the Late Archaic, based on the presence of numerous temporary encampments. Lithic reduction during this period focused on the reduction of Tipton Chert, a relatively important raw material to inhabitants of the local area, though only minor amounts of this raw material occur at sites in the greater region. Features, where present, suggest the use of deep cooking pits to process game.
Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) The Petersburg Bridge Site was located on a terrace overlooking the confluence of the Little Juniata River and the Frankstown Branch (GAI 1983). Investigations revealed an intense Late
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 35 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Woodland Clemson Island occupation, including four house structures and 477 cultural features. In addition, a poorly defined Late Archaic occupation was also identified at the site. Radiocarbon dates obtained from the site places the occupation at 955±70 A.D. and 1070±50 A.D. Excavated structures averaged 2.0-2.5 meters in diameter and several included associated hearths and other features (see Late Woodland chapter). In addition to structures, three other feature concentrations were marked by concentrations of postholes and pit features.
Diagnostic projectile points include Middle to Late Woodland types (Levanna and Jack’s Reef), as well as several Late Archaic types (Brewerton Eared Triangle, Poplar Island and other contracting stem types). Lithic raw materials are dominated by cherts, although specific types were not recorded. In addition, lesser amounts of Jasper, quartz, quartzite, limestone and rhyolite were identified. Ceramic sherds are diagnostic of Clemson Island occupations and consist primarily of cord-marked or fabric-impressed grit-tempered sherds.
E. KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED C: DUNNING CREEK AND UPPER RAYSTOWN BRANCH
Bedford Village (36Bd90) First identified in 1938, the Bedford Village site is the only excavated Late Woodland village site in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Excavated initially by Juniata College in 1977 (under direction of Dr. Paul Heberling), the site was more fully excavated in early 1980s by Dr. James Hatch (1979) and a field school from Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). Two Master’s Theses were produced from this research, including a site report by D.K. Catton (1994) and a faunal analysis study by W.C.J. Boyko (1987). GAI obtained copies of the theses directly from the secretary of the Department of Anthropology at Penn State.
The Bedford Village site (36Bd90) encompasses several acres of floodplain/terrace along the Raystown Branch just north of Bedford. The village layout, including circular houses, a circular stockade and trench with attached bastions and protected entrance, yielded a mixed assemblage of Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac Valley pottery. Faunal materials indicate that the hunting and processing of deer was the main focus of site occupants during the period of site occupation between ca. 900-1000 A.D.
Bedford County Airport Project During the late-1980s and early-1990s, Phase I-III excavations were conducted at the Bedford County Airport, four miles north of Bedford. The project was predominantly within upland hillside and hilltop settings overlooking Dunning Creek. Phase I and II studies were conducted by Heberling Associates (Heberling et al. 1990), while a data recovery excavation at two of the sites (the Ickes I and II sites) was conducted by Indiana University of Pennsylvania (Baker and Baker 1990; Chiarulli and Walker 1998). Analysis and reporting of data recovery results are pending (pers. comm., 2002, P.Neusius, IUP).
Of Heberling’s 16 Phase I sites, 15 were located in upland settings, while one was in a creek floodplain. Eight of the sites contained Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts, with only minor
36 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
amounts of materials from other time periods. Twelve of the prehistoric sites continued to Phase II testing. Results of Phase II studies indicated heavy use of the uplands above Dunning Creek during the Late Archaic for seasonal subsistence, with limited use during other time periods. As Heberling et al. (1990:173) state: “the consistent character of these sites suggests a picture of repeated use of the area during the Late Archaic period.” Each of the sites also yielded lithic artifacts produced largely from local Shriver chert, but with small amounts of rhyolite as well, suggesting ties to Native Americans in the Great Valley, some 100 km east.
Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project The Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project occurred in three stages over the source of four years, 1996 to 2000 (Raber and Heberling 1996, 1999, 2000a). This project identified 24 prehistoric sites on terraces and small tributaries of Dunning Creek, a major tributary to the Raystown Branch Juniata River. Most sites were located in the uppermost levels of stream terraces; due to the relatively stable nature of Dunning Creek, relatively little overbank deposition was noted during the Holocene, accounting for the lack of deeply stratified sites. Only a single site, 36Bd260 exhibited any evidence of possible stratification; because the site was avoided, confirmation of multiple, stratified occupations was not confirmed. Because it was a sewerline with a relatively narrow impact zone, project planners were able to move the alignment to avoid sites, thus intensive site specific excavations were not conducted during this study.
Four sites were classified as probable base camps, 13 as small camps, and three as quarry related camps; site type is unknown for two. Base camps were locales with a generally moderate to lengthy occupation, occupied by all members of a social group, where a number of domestic activities were thought to occur. Small camps may be overnight bivouacs used by an entire social group for a brief stay or, more likely, may be resource processing loci where a task group worked or maintained itself when away from the main basecamp habitation. Quarry related camps are sites where recently acquired toolstone underwent initial reduction and shaping; these locales are likely to be marked by accumulation of early-reduction debitage, cores, and roughly shaped bifaces.
Late Archaic projectile points were recovered from three sites (36Bd197, 36Bd198, 36Bd200), all basecamps. The preferred raw material at all sites was chert followed by varying amounts of jasper (both yellow and red), rhyolite, quartzite, and other minority types. Investigations identified a single Late Woodland site based on the presence of pottery (possibly Monongahela Cordmarked); this site (36Bd260) also exhibited evidence of another (undefined) occupation stratigraphically below the Late Woodland occupation.
The author (Raber 2000a) believes that base camps located on broad terraces along major streams characterize the settlement pattern in the Dunning Creek and nearby valleys. Smaller resource processing loci are located on tributaries of these larger streams, near springheads in uplands, and along narrow portions of terrace along the larger streams.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 37 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
F. KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED D: RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA RIVER
Raystown Reservoir Survey and Sheep Rock Shelter Raystown Survey In the Raystown Reservoir Survey, conducted in the late-1960s by Pennsylvania State University (Michels and Smith 1967), 37 prehistoric archaeological sites were identified within the area of the present Raystown Lake (see Photograph 4) along the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River. The majority of the sites occurred within the river valley proper, with only 7 sites located on ridgetops, most of which overlooked the confluence of two streams. Many of the sites, including the Workman Site (36Bd36; Michels and Huner 1968), were located on point bars. The major exception to this rule was rockshelter sites, including Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1), one of the most important archaeological sites in central Pennsylvania (Guilday and Parmalee 1965; Michels 1968, 1994; Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968). Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter were the only well-excavated and well-dated sites of the Raystown Survey. Thirty-five other sites were identified, but information regarding them is limited and the ages of the sites are uncertain (see Michels and Huner 1968).
Based on the results of excavations at these various sites, Michels and Smith (1967:810) proposed two main site types over the course of the Holocene in central Pennsylvania: 1) during the Archaic, Native Americans utilized the area for mobile foraging and deposited a variety of lithic, bone, wood, and antler artifacts consistent with a nomadic lifestyle; and 2) during the Woodland, Native Americans incorporated the use of sedentary hamlets, or small villages, into their settlement pattern, with increasing use of pottery and domesticated crops.
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (36HU1) in the 1960s (Photograph 9 and 10) provided the most detailed evidence of prehistoric occupation in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The site is one of the most important in the region, due to its deeply-stratified deposits and fine preservation of organic materials. Sheep Rock Shelter contained lithic, ceramic, wood, faunal, and human osteological artifacts from nine stratified components dating to the Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, early-Late Woodland, and late-Late Woodland/Proto-historic periods (Guilday and Parmalee 1965; Michels 1968, 1994; Michels and Dutt 1968; Michels and Smith 1967). The Sheep Rock Shelter reports were preliminary and consist of three volumes, two published in 1967 by Michels and Smith and one in 1968 by Michels and Dutt. Each of the volumes was obtained at the Pennsylvania State University library and is an absolutely essential tool in understanding the prehistory of this region.
During the Early Archaic (Kirk points; stone tools), Middle Archaic (stone tools; middens; hearths), and Late Archaic (Laurentian/Brewerton points; burials; stone tools), mobile hunter- gatherers camped in Sheep Rock Shelter with increasing frequency over time. This increasing frequency is interpreted to be due to a corresponding increase in population density over time.
38 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
According to Michels and Smith (1967), the change to the sedentary hamlet settlement pattern of the Woodland was initiated during the Transitional Late Archaic at Sheep Rock Shelter, in which more than 70 steatite vessel fragments were recovered along with net sinkers and four varieties of Broadspear points. These artifacts suggest an increasing reliance on the storage of foods and the increased use of a wide variety of foods, such as fish. During the Early Woodland (as discussed in Chapter III), Native Americans began to use pottery, as exemplified by the recovery of Vinette I, Half Moon Cordmarked and Fayette Thick ceramic sherds at Sheep Rock Shelter. Settlement patterns were restricted to local drainages, as few “exotic” lithic raw materials were used in stone tool production. During the Middle Woodland at Sheep Rock Shelter, the “virtual isolation” (Michels and Smith 1967:819) of site occupants is again evidenced by the lack of exotic lithic raw materials and pottery.
Photograph 9. Feature Excavation at the Sheep Rock Shelter Site (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster).
Photograph 10. Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 39 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Increasing artifact density suggests rapid population growth during the Late Woodland at Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967). Pottery influences from the Owasco (northern Susquehanna River Valley) and Clemson Island (southern/central Pennsylvania) indicate a re- established regional trade network, increasing sedentism, and increasing reliance on maize agriculture. Pottery in the late-Late Woodland component is of the Shenk’s Ferry type, similar to that found to the north and east in the Susquehanna River Valley. Protohistoric artifacts from the site also suggest that the Susquehannock Indians established a hamlet at Sheep Rock Shelter, as evidenced by the recovery of diagnostic Shultz Incised pottery.
Sheep Rock Shelter yielded an incredible suite of subsistence remains, suggesting that Native Americans procured a diverse suite of foods. Faunal remains (Guilday and Parmalee 1965:37) were dominated by deer, but also included nearly every other mammal, bird, and fish that inhabited the area. Wild plants, such as hickory nut, chestnut, and wild fruits, as well as domesticated plants, such as corn, beans, squash, and sunflower, were all recovered from the excavations.
The Workman Site (36Bd36) While Sheep Rock Shelter is commonly thought of as the most important archaeological site in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Workman Site (36Bd36) also revealed artifacts dating back 9,000 years (Michels and Huner 1968). While not as well known as Sheep Rock Shelter, the Workman Site was also identified during the Raystown Reservoir survey near the towns of Saxton and Stonerstown (see Photograph 5). The site is located on a point bar on the east floodplain/terrace of the Raystown Branch near Saxton, the far southern end of Raystown Lake. While excavations were limited to the upper foot of deposits, they revealed hundreds of lithic, ceramic and groundstone tools ranging in age from the Early Archaic to the Late Woodland period. Two human burials were also excavated that likely date to the Late Woodland site occupation. The Late Woodland component is the most significant and likely represents the remains of small hamlet with structures.
S.R. 26 Intersection Improvement Two phases of work were conducted for this project at the intersection of S.R. 26 and S.R. 913 on the west side of the Raystown Branch near Stonerstown. The site lies on the opposite side of the river from the Workman Site, described above. Phase I work was conducted by CHRS (Gross et al. 1995) with subsequent Phase II work by Lewis et al. (1996). Excavations at the site yielded a several Late Archaic points, including Brewerton and Steubenville types. No features were identified and all artifacts were recovered in the plowzone. The site is likely the remains of a Late Archaic lithic reduction episode.
Little Valley (SR 3001) Project and Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143) Heberling Associates, Inc. (Heberling) conducted Phase I-III excavations at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; Photograph 11) and Phase I-II studies at 36Hu129 and 36Hu147 for road widening along SR 3001, Little Valley Road (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000; Raber and Burns 1999). The sites are located within Little Valley, the first small valley to the east of the Raystown Branch and between Terrace and Bunns Mountains.
40 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
The two Phase II sites—36Hu129 and 36Hu147—were the remains of small open encampments, with 36Hu129 dating to the Middle-Late Archaic (Burns and Raber 1998). Mykut Rockshelter—Site 36Hu143 (see Photograph 11)—yielded a dense deposit of cultural debris in multiple components within a rockshelter (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000). The site overlooks Tatman Run, a small tributary of the Raystown Branch that would have provided an easy travel route to and from the river. Artifacts from the site include lithics, pottery, faunal remains, and shell, with the most intensive occupation dating to the Late Woodland. The site was also occupied on a short-term basis during the Terminal Archaic and Early Woodland.
Photograph 11. Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). Photograph provided by Paul Raber.
The Sunny Side Site (36Bd267) GAI conducted a Phase I survey prior to construction of a proposed wastewater collection system in Hopewell Township, Bedford County (MacDonald 2001). During the survey, GAI identified Site 36Bd267, the Sunny Side Site, on the floodplain/terrace of Yellow Creek near its confluence with the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River. The Sunny Side Site consists of a 70-cm-wide hearth (Photograph 12) with associated Selden Island steatite-tempered pottery and lithic debris at a depth of 94 cm below ground surface in a buried Ab horizon.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 41 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
A hickory wood charcoal sample from the hearth at the Sunny Side Site (Photograph 11) was dated to 3500±100 B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090 and BC 2050 to 1540; Beta-158705). With the associated pottery, the site represents one of only two well-dated Transtional/Terminal Archaic period sites in the entire sub-basin (see Chapter VIII).
Photograph 12. Hearth Excavation at the Sunny Side Site, 36Bd267, near the Confluence of Yellow Creek and the Raystown Branch.
Loysburg Highway Demonstration Project Heberling (Heberling and Heberling 1989) conducted Phase I and II studies for the Loysburg Highway project in South Woodbury Township, Bedford County in 1989. Four sites (36Bd158, 36Bd159, 36Bd160, and 36Bd177) were identified on the Yellow Creek floodplain, each of which represents the remains of one or more short-term encampments. Site 36Bd158 contained multiple occupations during the Late Archaic, Early or Middle Woodland and Late Woodland. Sites 36Bd159 and 36Bd177 contained Late Archaic occupations, while 36Bd160 may also contain an Archaic occupation. Lithic procurement of local cherts was the main goal of site occupants at each site.
G. PERTINENT STUDIES IN PERIPHERAL AREAS
Bald Eagle Archaeological Research Program Extensive archaeological investigations also occurred between 1970 and 2000 throughout much of the Bald Eagle Creek Valley. While the southern portion of this valley—including south Bald Eagle Creek and vicinity—is within the current project area, the majority of Pennsylvania State University’s archaeological research program was focused approximately 15 km (9 miles) to the northwest in the vicinity of Milesburg, along north Bald Eagle Creek. The northern branch of Bald Eagle Creek flows along the junction of the Appalachian Plateaus Province and the Ridge and Valley Province and has its confluence with the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Lock Haven. The Bald Eagle research program was spearheaded by James Hatch of the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). During the late 1970s, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) and PSU initiated a long-term study of archaeological resources in the Bald Eagle Valley and vicinity (Hatch 1980; Hay 1981). A significant result of the study was the creation of a predictive model of
42 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
prehistoric site locations for this area. Subsequently, archaeological surveys were conducted to identify sites in the valley.
Because of the PHMC/PSU study, as well as several others in the Bald Eagle Creek area (Hay 1981; Hay and Graetzer 1985; Houck 1989; Webster et al. 1977), more than 30 archaeological sites were identified within the northern Nittany Valley. The 24 sites studied in detail include 8 with Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts, 12 with Late Woodland diagnostics, and 1 each with Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts. Each of the prehistoric sites is on a floodplain or terrace of Bald Eagle Creek or a feeder stream and, thus, occurs in similar settings to those found in the current project area.
The Milesburg Site (36Ce38; Webster et al. 1977) and the Fisher Farm Site (36Ce35; Hatch 1980, 1983) are two of the most intensively studied sites in the Bald Eagle study area. The Milesburg Site is located on the southern floodplain/terrace of Bald Eagle Creek in Milesburg. This site yielded Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Woodland projectile points and pottery. Further downstream, the Fisher Farm Site is a Late Woodland farming village occupied approximately 1,000 years ago. Extensive excavations were conducted by PSU at the site, resulting in the identification of several hearth (fire pit) and human burial features between 0 and 30 cm below the ground surface underlying the plowzone.
West Branch of the Susquehanna River Survey In the late-1960s, William Turnbaugh (1977) conducted a survey of amateur artifact collections of sites along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Lycoming and Clinton Counties. Turnbaugh’s study identified nearly 200 sites, most of which were found along well-drained, high terraces of the Susquehanna River. Small camp sites were located in uplands and along small streams.
Aughwick Creek Valley Survey Cultural resource management projects within the Aughwick Creek Valley have yielded significant data on the settlement patterns of Native Americans in south-central Pennsylvania (Raber 1995). Aughwick Creek empties into the Juniata River approximately 10 miles east of the confluence of the Raystown Branch with the Juniata River. Archaeological investigations for highway improvements along S.R. 522 resulted in the identification of Sites 36Hu44 and 36Hu73. These and other sites in the Aughwick Creek Valley suggest that settlement patterns consisted of localized movements for subsistence and long-distance movement to collect resources outside of the local area. The prevalence of rhyolite at the sites suggests ties to the Great Valley, some 80-90 km to the southeast during the entire Holocene.
H. SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION TO PREHISTORY CHAPTERS The numerous research projects discussed above provide a wealth of information by which to evaluate the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Appendix B for a list of projects). These studies, among others discussed in the following chapters, highlight a great disparity in the ages and locations of researched sites. None of the projects discussed above identified Paleoindian components and there was only limited study of Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Early Woodland and Middle Woodland sites. The focus, thus, was on the Late Archaic and
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 43 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Late Woodland periods, similar to adjacent regions (Custer 1996; Hay et al. 1987; Hatch 1980; GAI 1995). Another limitation is the near lack (six Phase I survey reports) of information regarding the prehistory of Watershed B in the northeastern portion of the project area.
The following chapters provide an overview of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, utilizing research reports, PASS files data, and the results of GAI’s collections analysis. The chapters are organized by time period: Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional/Terminal Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland. The review encompasses the last 12,000 years of Native American use of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, comparing and contrasting data from different periods to better understand changes in subsistence, demography, settlement patterns, site types, stone tool manufacture, and lithic raw material use.
44 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER IV. PALEOINDIAN PERIOD 12,500 to 10,000 B.P.
A. PALEOINDIAN OVERVIEW The earliest occupation of North America occurred during the Paleoindian period prior to 12,000 years ago (B.P.). While the exact date of human entry into the New World remains a point of debate, it is generally agreed that it was from Asia via the Bering land bridge, exposed as a result of Pleistocene glaciation. Until recently, the Clovis culture, with its famous fluted spear points, was thought to be the oldest Native American culture of the Americas at ca. 11,000 B.P. (Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1991). However, recent excavations at sites throughout the Americas have challenged the well-established “Clovis-first” paradigm and stimulated extensive debate regarding the nature of the original founding population of the Americas (cf. Clark et al. 2002). Excavations at Monte Verde, Chile (Dillehay 1997) indicate that Native Americans occupied coastal South America at least 12,000 years ago (Meltzer 1998), suggesting the occupation of North America several hundred years prior. Recent excavations at sites along the California coast (Jones et al. 2002:215) suggest that Paleoindian populations were coastally-adapted, suggesting a coastal migration with subsequent migrations to the interior and to eastern North America (Fladmark 1983).
Early Paleoindian sites along the eastern seaboard—including Meadowcroft (Adovasio et al. 1978; Carr and Adovasio 2002a), Cactus Hill (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997), and a handful of others (see Carr and Adovasio 2002b)—support the likelihood of a pre-Clovis population in North America. Given the early dates from Monte Verde and these east coast sites, as well as the generally slow nature of human population migrations (MacDonald 2002a), the founding population of North America may have been present as early as 14,000 to 16,000 years ago, with populations reaching the eastern seaboard and central Pennsylvania soon thereafter (Carr and Adovasio 2002a).
B. PALEOINDIAN MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY
Pre-Clovis The earliest well-documented occupation of Pennsylvania comes from Meadowcroft Rockshelter in the Cross Creek drainage of Washington County at between 11,300 and 12,800 B.P. (Adovasio et al. 1978). Meadowcroft Rockshelter yielded a Miller lanceolate point and prismatic blades from the earliest cultural levels, while Cactus Hill in Virginia also yielded blades. Both Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill lack fluted points. No pre-Clovis early Paleoindian sites have been identified in south-central Pennsylvania.
The flaked stone inventory from Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Carr and Adovasio 2002:7-9) was produced from local Monongahela chert and non-local stones, including Flint Ridge chert from central Ohio and jasper from central Pennsylvania. The prismatic blades from the site are small and were produced from prepared cores. The Meadowcroft toolkit also includes the Miller projectile point. The point is small and lanceolate, with its maximum width toward
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 45 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
the tip. This Meadowcroft toolkit has an “Eurasiatic, Upper Paleolithic” flavor, according to Carr and Adovasio (2002:8).
The similarities between the stone tools from these sites and those of Upper Paleolithic Europe, as well as caucasoid traits in early Paleoindian human skeletal remains (Chatters 2000) in western North America, have spurred some to suggest a possible pan-Atlantic migration from Upper Paleolithic northern Europe to eastern North America with subsequent travel westward (Collins 1999). However, Straus (2000) provides an excellent argument against such a migration, with the lack of viable land along the north Atlantic coast (and no evidence of a maritime Paleoindian culture) being the major stumbling block of the argument. Also, the same data used to support a European migration—an Upper Paleolithic toolkit and caucasoid skeletal features—also support a northeast Asian origin. Upper Paleolithic populations of Hokkaido (northern Japan) and Kamchatka (southeast of Siberia) were ancestors of the present-day caucasoid Ainu. Upper Paleolithic sites in these areas date to greater than 14,000 years ago, indicate a maritime culture, and yield stemmed and lanceolate projectile points and blades (Dikov 1996; West 1996:548). This area of northeast Asia, thus, represents a likely origin point for Paleoindian populations.
Clovis Subsequent to the pre-Clovis occupations, such as at Meadowcroft, Native American hunters utilized a variety of fluted points, including Clovis, Gainey, and Parkhill in the east and midwest. The Clovis culture was widely spread across the Americas, including Pennsylvania, while Gainey and Parkhill were focused in the Great Lakes (Shott 1993). The Clovis tool kit is characterized by fluted spear points, largely produced from exotic cherts indicative of long- distance mobility.
According to Howard (1991:257), Clovis points are comparatively large lanceolate points with lenticular to oval cross-sections. The points have “slightly convex edges, gradually tapering tips, and their greatest width is at or near…midpoint. Moderate sharpening and reshaping” is common, often resulting in the blunting of the tip. The flutes are the most characteristic trait of the Clovis point, but they are not as visually impressive as Folsom points from western North America. In contrast to the Folsom point, which entailed the removal of one broad, long flute, Clovis points include the removal of multiple channel flakes from the base (Mounier et al. 1993), presumably a strategy to reduce the chances of point breakage during final fluting (Ellis and Payne 1995).
Fluted-point sites typically yield a variety of other lithic tools as well, including finely-shaped endscrapers, sidescrapers, spokeshaves, limaces, blades, piece esquillees (wedges), and an assortment of other cutting tools (Custer 1996:104). This tool kit suggests a subsistence pattern largely oriented toward the hunting of game. In formerly-glaciated regions, including areas north of the headwaters of the Delaware River (Wyoming, Susquehanna, and Bradford Counties in eastern Pennsylvania), subsistence was likely oriented toward the hunting of caribou (Meltzer 1986:15), while in unglaciated areas (including the entire project area), a wider variety of game were likely procured, including woodland caribou, deer, bear, and other smaller game.
46 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Fluted-point Paleoindian sites in the region include the Shoop Site in northern Dauphin County (Witthoft 1952; Carr 1989) and Shawnee-Minisink on the Upper Delaware River (McNett 1985). At Shoop, numerous fluted points, blade tools, and scrapers were surface- collected from a circa 20-acre parcel only a few miles northeast of the confluence of the Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers. Shawnee-Minisink (Dent 2002; McNett 1985) on the Upper Delaware River in eastern Pennsylvania yielded the only radiocarbon-dated fluted point in the state (10,940±90 B.P.; Dent 2002:56).
Based on lithic raw materials from Paleoindian sites, several authors (Gardner 1989; Meltzer 1986; Carr and Adovasio 2002) suggest two disparate settlement patterns for eastern Paleoindian populations. Populations in areas affected by glaciation were more mobile and exploited a larger territory, as exemplified by the presence of lithic raw materials from a variety of local and non-local sources at archaeological sites. This mobility was largely driven by their reliance on migratory caribou, according to Meltzer (1986). In contrast, Paleoindians in areas unaffected by glaciation relied on a more diverse resource base (as outlined above) and apparently traveled locally within comparatively constricted territories, as exemplified by the exploitation of largely local lithic raw materials.
The contrasting pattern is also expected due to the likely variation in population densities in the two areas. With the colder, harsher climates of once-glaciated terrain, populations were likely reduced (Kelly 1995) and individuals would have been required to travel longer distances to maintain social contacts. Such population contacts were likely maintained even in the lowest population densities; in these cases, individuals simply traveled further to maintain social contacts, trade, and to find mates (MacDonald 1998, 2002; MacDonald and Hewlett 2001). The lower density of resources also would have required wider travel realms to ensure subsistence success and minimize the risks of starvation failure. Such travel would result in use of a wider range of lithic raw materials, including fair amounts of materials from long-distance locales.
In contrast, Paleoindian populations in areas not affected by glaciation may have been slightly more densely packed and established, and likely operated in more constricted territories. Especially in areas with abundant lithic raw materials and a higher biomass, such as most of central Pennsylvania (including the Upper Juniata sub-basin), Paleoindians would not have needed to travel extensively to obtain lithics or foods, as these resources were likely abundant within their home ranges. The higher population densities, if present, also would have required shorter travel distances to maintain social networks.
In support of this model, artifacts at the Shoop Site were predominantly produced from non- local Onondaga chert from western New York, as well as smaller amounts of Flint Ridge chert from central Ohio (Carr 1989; Lothrop 1989). These data generally support the model presented above, suggesting that Paleoindians in areas affected by glaciation, such as the upper Susquehanna River Valley, utilized extensive mobility in their settlement and subsistence patterns.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 47 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
C. PALEOINDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files indicate the presence of 12 previously- recorded Paleoindian sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 3). Each of these sites is characterized by the presence of surface-collected fluted points or unfluted lanceolate points. None of the sites have been studied by professional archaeologists Table 3. Paleoindian Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME PERIOD ARTIFACTS MATERIAL 36BD0039 Jack Rhodes Farm Paleoindian - Late Late Paleo (Plano) Chert/Flint 36BD0059 Shale Cliff Paleoindian - Late Late Paleo (Plano) -- 36BD0074 Rt. 31 Covered Bridge Site Paleoindian - mid Mid-Paleo (Folsom) -- 36BD0083 -- Paleoindian Late Paleo (Plano) -- 36BD0103 Bob Egolf #1 Paleoindian - early Clovis Chalcedony 36BD0132 New Baltimore #1 Paleoindian Clovis Jasper 36BD0155 Snider Farm Paleoindian Clovis Chert/Flint 36BL0029 Leighty's Market Paleoindian Clovis -- 36BL0064 Nearhoof Paleoindian - Late Late Paleo (Plano) -- 36HU0025 Baker Site #2 Paleoindian Paleoindian -- 36HU0026 Baker Site #1 Paleoindian Paleoindian -- 36HU0065 Fluted Point Paleoindian Clovis --
The locations and types of Paleoindian sites indicate that Paleoindian populations traveled frequently within river and stream corridors (Table 4 and Table 5). Of the 12 sites that have yielded Paleoindian projectile points in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 11 are located on floodplains or benches of streams/rivers, while one is located on the toe of a ridge (see Table 4).
Table 4. Paleoindian Site Data, Upper Juniata (PASS files).
W SITE NO. SITE NAME SITE TYPE SETTING ELEV. NEAREST RIVER SHED 36BD0039 Jack Rhodes Farm Open Floodplain D 800 Raystown 36BD0059 Shale Cliff Open Ridge/Toe C 1160 Raystown 36BD0074 Rt. 31 Covered Bridge Open Floodplain C 1160 Raystown 36BD0083 -- Open Floodplain C 1180 Raystown 36BD0103 Bob Egolf #1 Open Floodplain C 1140 Raystown 36BD0132 New Baltimore #1 Open Floodplain C 1330 Raystown 36BD0155 Snider Farm Open Floodplain D 1130 Raystown 36BL0029 Leighty's Market Open Floodplain A 1015 Frankstown 36BL0064 Nearhoof Lithic Reduction Terrace A 1100 Bald Eagle 36HU0025 Baker Site #2 Open Floodplain D 740 Raystown 36HU0026 Baker Site #1 Prehistoric Floodplain D 760 Raystown 36HU0065 Fluted Point Isolated Flute Point Bench A 990 Frankstown
48 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Of the 12 Paleoindian sites, two are on the Frankstown Branch and one is on south Bald Eagle Creek in Watershed A; five are in Watershed C along the Upper Raystown Branch or Dunning Creek; and four are in Watershed D along the lower Raystown Branch. The lack of Paleoindian sites in Watershed B is likely due to sample bias, as comparatively little research has been conducted in that area. All 12 Paleoindian sites are identified in the PASS files as open habitation or isolated fluted point find locations, suggestive of short-term camp occupations. The types of sites suggest that camps were inhabited briefly with frequent population movement.
The presence of sites in uplands away from major river valleys—especially such well-known sites as Meadowcroft and Shoop—also suggests use of uplands for seasonal subsistence, despite the paucity of such sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Shoop and Meadowcroft were likely camping locations for populations exploiting uplands on the peripheries of their territories. Only one upland site in the Upper Juniata sub-basin—36Bd59, the Shale Cliff Site (in Bedford County near the Raystown Branch)—yielded Paleoindian artifacts, suggesting limited Paleoindian use of uplands. Table 5. Paleoindian Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS files).
DIST. TO DIRECTION OF ORDER OF DIST. TO CONFLUENCE DIRECTION OF CONFLUENCE ORDER OF SITE NO. STREAM STREAM STREAM (M) (M) CONFLUENCE 36BD0039 60 East 5 240 Southeast 5 36BD0059 0 -- -- 0 -- -- 36BD0074 80 South 4 140 Southwest 4 36BD0083 10 East 4 320 Northeast 4 36BD0103 310 Southeast 4 620 Southeast 5 36BD0132 80 South 3 100 South 3 36BD0155 5 North 4 60 Northeast 5 36BL0029 40 Northeast 2 210 East 2 36BL0064 ------10 -- -- 36HU0025 30 Northeast 5 800 Southwest 5 36HU0026 100 South 5 640 Southwest 5 36HU0065 0 On-site 1 300 Southeast 3
Access to water was a key factor for Paleoindian site placement in lowlands and uplands, as exemplified by the Shoop Site. Even though it is located on a sloping upland hillside, Shoop is near several water sources, including three springs and three low-order streams. The site appears to be the remains of several lithic tool production areas spread thinly across the hillside, indicating short-term use by itinerant foragers.
Data from PASS files also suggest that access to water was a key factor for Paleoindian site placement in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Table 5). All ten of the Paleoindian sites with data on proximity to water are within 100 meters of a water source, with eight of those sites in the floodplains or terraces of major streams and two adjacent to low-order streams.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 49 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Proximity to the confluences of streams also was important to site placement, as 11 of the 12 Paleoindian sites are within 800 meters of a confluence. For seven of those sites, the stream confluence was south, southeast or southwest of the site location. This preference may be related to hunting strategies, with individuals establishing camps downwind from potential hunting locations. Prevailing storm patterns and winds are southwest to northeast in the sub- basin; thus, camps established north of confluences would generally be downwind, except in unusual weather conditions. While based on a small sample, these data indicate that the establishment of camps in proximity to stream confluences was associated with game procurement strategies and prevailing wind patterns. Data from PASS files do not indicate any Paleoindian site location trend within specific soil types or geologic formations.
D. PALEOINDIAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE Based on the data presented above, Paleoindian populations likely subsisted in highly mobile bands of hunters and gatherers who inhabited major river valleys and used uplands for seasonal subsistence. The Ridge and Valley province likely served as a corridor for the migration of Pleistocene flora and fauna, which likewise attracted Native Americans (Turnbaugh 1977). As during other time periods, the wide flat valleys of the Upper Juniata sub-basin—including the Raystown Branch Juniata River—provided excellent travel routes and abundant natural resources for populations moving among the Upper Potomac River, the Ohio River, and the Susquehanna River.
Table 6. Paleoindian Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
QUART SAND FLINT SITE NO. NOT RECORDED ZITE JASPER STONE QUARTZ RHYOLITE CHERT/FLINT SHALE RIDGE TOTAL 36BD0039 ------1 -- -- 1 36BD0059 1 ------1 36BD0074 ------1 -- 1 36BD0083 1 ------1 -- -- 2 36BD0103 ------1 -- 1 2 36BD0132 -- -- 1 -- 1 1 1 -- -- 4 36BD0155 -- -- 1 -- -- 1 1 -- -- 3 36BL0029 -- 1 1 1 -- 1 1 -- -- 5 36BL0064 -- -- 1 ------1 -- -- 2 36HU0025 1 ------1 36HU0026 1 ------1 36HU0065 1 ------1 Total 5 1 4 1 1 3 7 1 1 24
While generally limited to broadly-characterized lithic raw material types (e.g., chert, jasper), data from PASS files also indicate use of a range of lithic materials. Of the eight Paleoindian sites in the PASS files with data on lithic raw materials, seven list chert/flint as the main lithic raw material type, as would be expected (Goodyear 1989). Other common raw materials include jasper (n=4 sites) and rhyolite (n=3), while shale, quartz, and quartzite were each recovered at one site. Flint Ridge chert was used to produce a Clovis point recovered at
50 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Site 36Bd103, located on the floodplain of a low-order tributary of Dunning Creek (Watershed C) in King Township, Bedford County. Details regarding other types of lithic artifacts at the respective sites were not provided by PASS forms.
E. PALEOINDIAN SUBSISTENCE Paleoindians have traditionally been viewed as being primarily dependent on the hunting of Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodon and caribou; however, evaluations of the archaeological evidence for Paleoindian subsistence suggest that early eastern Native Americans may have practiced a more generalized hunting and gathering economy, including collection of a variety of wild plants and nuts and the hunting of a variety of game (Dent and Kauffman 1985; Dent 1991; Lepper 1983; Meltzer 1988). Research at sites near Shawnee- Minisink in the Upper Delaware River Valley suggests that large megafauna, including mastodons, were likely extinct for at least a millennium before the first Native Americans entered the region (Dent 2002:69).
In unglaciated portions of Pennsylvania, including the current project area, late Pleistocene environments (see Chapter II) likely were comprised of mixed hardwood forests in lowlands and mixed conifer-spruce-hardwood forests in higher elevation uplands (see Chapter II). These wooded settings favored a wide diet breadth, such as that used by contemporary Native Americans in deciduous and boreal forest settings (Steegman 1983).
F. RESEARCH ISSUES This summary of data regarding Paleoindian sites in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. At least nine main research questions are of concern within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. This list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. When did Native Americans first occupy the Upper Juniata River sub-basin? 2. What types of tools were produced and utilized by Paleoindians in the sub-basin and what do they indicate about a region of origin? 3. What types of features were utilized by Paleoindians? 4. What types of foods were exploited by Paleoindians? 5. What types of lithic raw materials were used by Paleoindians? 6. What do lithic raw materials tell us about Paleoindian travel and trade patterns? 7. Did Paleoindian settlement patterns differ in the glaciated portions of the state and the unglaciated portions of the state, as suggested by Carr and Adovasio (2002a)? 8. Did Paleoindians travel within bounded territories, or were population densities so low as to not limit human movements across the landscape?
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 51 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
9. Does the low density and ephemeral nature of Paleoindian sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin indicate that populations were only passing through the area or that populations simply traveled frequently within the area? If the former, where were Paleoindians going and coming from? If the latter, what were the prevalent routes of travel and preferred habitation settings?
52 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER V. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD 10,000 to 8800 B.P.
A. EARLY ARCHAIC MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY The beginning of the Archaic period in eastern North America is generally associated with the onset of the Holocene, which directly followed the end of Pleistocene glaciation. Carr (1998a) suggests significant environmental changes, from a spruce-dominant forest to the Mixed Mesophytic forest, which are largely supported by paleoclimatic data presented in Chapter II. Cultural changes followed the environmental changes, as groups began to schedule their activities and specialize in methods of seasonal resource extraction in response to the existence of a more diversified resource base. Although archaeological research on the Early Archaic period in the region has been limited, it is likely that patterns characterizing the Northeast in general were also typical of central Pennsylvania (Carr 1998a). Groups were highly mobile and Carr (1998a:49, 60) and Stewart and Katzer (1989) suggest that the region sustained a slight population increase during the early Holocene.
Early Archaic Material Culture A technological change in stone points was characterized by a switch from Paleoindian fluted and lanceolate points to Early Archaic notched and stemmed points with deep lateral edge serrations (Figure 4). This transition in point types in all likelihood reflects changes in associated hafting technologies that may reflect a change in prey species from conifer forest- adapted Pleistocene fauna to Mixed Mesophytic forest-adapted Holocene fauna. Early Archaic projectile point types include Kirk, Palmer, Kessel, Thebes, and Charleston corner- notched and stemmed points (Figure 4). Each of the 12 Early Archaic sites in the sub-basin was identified as such due to the presence of a Kirk corner-notched or stemmed point (see Table 7). While other point types may have been used in the region during the Early Archaic, none have been recognized at sites in the PASS files.
Kirk corner-notched points have medium-large, serrated triangular blades with straight to concave bases with corner notches. Flaking patterns are largely random, while edges were thinned by removal of long, narrow pressure flakes resulting in a flat face lacking a medial ridge. Edges have deep serrations, measuring 2-mm-wide and 3-mm-deep on average. Bases of Kirk corner-notch points were thinned via pressure flaking, while tangs on notches are predominantly rounded (Broyles 1971:65).
Kirk stemmed points are medium sized with slightly expanding stems. The blades are long, narrow and, as with Kirk corner-notched points, have very deep and pronounced serrations. Stems expand toward the base, which ranges from flat to slightly concave. Sides to the stem are straight to slightly concave, with bases thinned by pressure flaking.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 53 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 4. Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Artifacts.
actual size A4 - C -- 10 - Early Archaic Kirk Corner-Notched Points 236 - Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:683)
Early Archaic Kirk Stemmed Point Site 36Bl53 (SR 6220 project) (East and Beckman 1992:46) actual size
2 cm 1 inch
Middle Archaic LeCroy Point
DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02 Middle Archaic LeCroy Points Wall Site Memorial Park Site (Davis n.d.:73) (Custer et al. 1996:31) C0NSULTANTS, INC. gai Middle Archaic Neville/Stanly Points Memorial Park Site (Custer et al. 1996:31) actual size
Middle Archaic Untyped Bifurcate Point Figure 4 Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:685) Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Projectile Points
54 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Recently, bifurcate points (see Figure 4) have also been dated to as early as 9,400 B.P. (Bergman et al. 1998:72-73) from the Sandts Eddy Site on the upper Delaware River. These points typically date to circa 8000 B.P. throughout the east (Justice 1987:82-99). Bifurcate points appear to date to the latter portion of the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic and may suggest technological continuity between the two periods (Bergman et al. 1998:70; Stewart and Cavallo 1991). However, others (Carr 1998a:60-64, 1998b:79; Gardner 1987) dispute the cultural continuity between the Early and Middle Archaic, as there appears to be a significant increase in population that corresponds to the switch to bifurcate points. These changes may reflect additional cultural transitions, including subsistence and settlement pattern shifts. Carr (1998a:61) indicates that population growth was slow between the Paleoindian and Early Archaic, but rapid between the Early and Middle Archaic, as represented by archaeological site densities in Pennsylvania. PASS files data include 12 previously-identified Early Archaic sites in the sub-basin, an equal number to the Paleoindian period. As discussed more in the subsequent chapter, there was a significant increase in the quantities of sites with bifurcate points, suggestive of a population increase during the Middle Archaic.
The dearth of Early Archaic sites in areas on the periphery of the Upper Juniata sub-basin confirms the generally low density of Early Archaic populations in central Pennsylvania (Carr 1998a). Three Early Archaic sites of note are located within 30 miles of the current project area: the Milesburg Site (36Ce38) in Centre County, approximately 50 km (30 miles) northwest of the project area (Webster et al. 1977); the West Water Street Site in Lock Haven on the floodplain of the West Branch Susquehanna River (Custer et al. 1996); and the Herndon Site on the lower central Susquehanna River, approximately 50 km (30 miles) northwest of Huntingdon (MacDonald 2002). At the Herndon Site, a Kirk/Palmer corner- notched projectile point was identified at a depth of 2.3 meters below ground surface (mbgs), approximately one meter below a well-dated Late Archaic level.
Early Archaic Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates Carr (1998a:62) and Gardner (1987) suggest that the Early Archaic persisted between approximately 10,000 and 8800 years B.P. in the northeast. Broyles (1971) identified Kirk corner-notched points in Early Archaic levels at the St. Albans Site in West Virginia with bracketing radiocarbon dates of between approximately 9850 and 8750 B.P. (6800 B.C.; Kinsey 1972), while Carr (1998a) reported a date of 9250 B.P. at the Fifty Site in Virginia. The West Water Street Site on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River—within 20 miles of the current project area—yielded Kirk/Palmer corner-notched points within levels dated to approximately 9400 B.P. (Custer et al. 1996).
Sheep Rock Shelter is the only site with radiocarbon dates from an Early Archaic component in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Two radiocarbon dates were attained from Sheep Rock Shelter, which bracket the Early-Middle Archaic component at the site (Michels and Dutt 1968:58, 323). However, both dates were taken from “decayed organic matter” (~tree roots) and therefore post-date the actual site occupation. The two dates are:
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 55 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
6920±320 B.C. (9190 to 8550 B.P.) from Sample M-1909, decayed organic matter (not charcoal); Excavation Level 8. 5100±250 B.C. (7300 to 6800 B.P.) from Sample M-1908, decayed organic matter (not charcoal); Excavation Level 8.
Michels and Dutt (1968:58) use the two radiocarbon dates to bracket excavation Level 8—the “Early Archaic deposit”—which dates from approximately 8000 to 5000 B.C. or approximately 10,000 to 7000 B.P. Since the publication of the Sheep Rock Shelter report, chronologies and point types have been refined; thus, excavation Level 8 more realistically represents a joint Early and early-Middle Archaic component. The recovery of a LeCroy point along with two serrated Kirk points within the same level suggests multiple occupations of the shelter during the Early Archaic and beginning of the Middle Archaic periods.
While bifurcate points have been dated to before 8,800 years ago (see discussion above; Bergman et al. 1998), for the purposes of this report, we assume that bifurcate points mark the transition to the Middle Archaic period, as per Carr (1998a). The main reason for this decision is based on the organization of PASS files data, which link bifurcate points with the Middle Archaic. For the purposes of this report and for the sake of consistency with other papers reliant on PASS files data (Carr 1998a, 1998b), the Early Archaic is assumed, thus, to date to the period between approximately 10,000 and 8,800 years ago.
B. EARLY ARCHAIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS Based on the site data provided in PASS files (Table 7), as well as that from pertinent professional studies at Early Archaic sites (see discussion later in this section), Early Archaic site types and placement generally resemble those of the Paleoindian period. As noted above, sites are placed within the Early Archaic period if they yielded variants of the Kirk/Palmer corner-notched point or the Kirk Stemmed point, among other Early Archaic points described above. Archaeological sites with bifurcate points are discussed in the Middle Archaic chapter.
Early Archaic Site Types: PASS Files Data According the PASS files, 16 sites are attributed Early Archaic site components; however, of these 16, Early Archaic diagnostic artifacts have been identified at only 12; these 12 sites are discussed in this section (Table 7). Table 7 and Table 8 provide detailed site location data on the 12 sites, while Table 9 is a summary of site location data. Kirk corner-notched and stemmed points were the predominant diagnostic artifacts. As these tables show, a majority of sites (n=10) are within fairly level (<5% slope) floodplains or terraces of creeks or rivers, with only two sites located on upland hilltops or sideslopes. Eleven of the sites are open camps or lithic reduction locations, with the lone other site being Sheep Rock Shelter.
In contrast to the Paleoindian site data, there was no preference for locating sites to the north of stream confluences; however, six of the 12 sites were located upstream of confluences, while only two were located downstream. Sites were located near both low- and high-order
56 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
streams, but, if they were located near small streams, a confluence with a higher-order stream was typically within 600 meters of the site (Table 8).
Table 7. Early Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
WATERSH SITE # NAME ED STREAM SETTING ELEV. TYPE 36BD0036 Workman D Raystown Floodplain 820 Open 36BD0079 -- C Raystown Floodplain 1130 Open 36BD0137 Smith #2 C Raystown Floodplain 1120 Open 36BD0171 Stahl #2 C Raystown Hilltop 1180 Open 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 A Frankstown Floodplain 1010 Open 36BL0040 T I P 3 A Little Juniata Floodplain 980 Open 36BL0043 T I P 6 A Little Juniata Floodplain 980 Open 36BL0053 Replacement Site 3 A Little Juniata Floodplain 1120 Open 36BL0060 Canoe Creek East A Frankstown Floodplain 920 Open 36BL0062 Canoe Creek East 2 A Frankstown Terrace 905 Open 36BL0064 Nearhoof Site A Bald Eagle Terrace 1100 Open 36HU0001 Sheep Rock D Raystown Hillslope 640 Rockshelter
Interestingly, each of the four Early Archaic sites in Bedford County (along Dunning Creek or the Raystown Branch) are located north or northeast of a stream, while each of the seven sites in Blair County (along the Frankstown Branch, Little Juniata River, or Bald Eagle Creek) is located south of a stream (Table 8). While this relationship may be coincidental (given the small sample size), another hypothesis is that foragers traveled predominantly in the area between these major streams within the geographic center of the Upper Juniata sub- basin (see Figure 1) and located their sites on the respective shores within that area.
Table 8. Early Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
Site Slope Dist to Direction Order of Dist. To Direct. Of Flow of Order of Stream Of Str. Stream Conflu. Conflu. Confluence Conf. 36BD0036 0 80 Northeast 5 600 Northeast none 5 36BD0079 0 10 North 4 100 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0137 0 40 Northwest 1 180 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0171 5 200 West 1 400 North Downstream 5 36BL0028 2 20 North 2 100 East Upstream 2 36BL0040 5 60 Southeast 3 420 East downstream 3 36BL0043 0 30 West 1 290 South upstream 3 36BL0053 0 53 East 5 220 Southeast Upstream 5 36BL0060 5 140 South 4 120 South upstream 5 36BL0062 ------0 36BL0064 ------10 -- -- 0 36HU0001 0 40 South 5 600 Southwest upstream 5
In summary, Early Archaic site placement apparently was oriented around access to major water courses. Sites were either placed on terraces of major streams themselves or on
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 57 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
tributaries near confluences with larger streams. This pattern resembles that of the Paleoindian period, as access to water apparently was key to site placement, as would be expected of mobile foragers (Kelly 1995; Steward 1936). Table 9. Early Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting.
SITE TYPE FLOODPLAIN TERRACE HILLTOP HILLSLOPE TOTAL Open, Large -- -- 1 -- 1 Open, size unknown 7 2 -- -- 9 Rockshelter/Cave ------1 1 Lithic Reduction -- 1 -- -- 1 Total 7 3 1 1 12
Early Archaic Site Types: Research Report Data Of the 12 Early Archaic sites in the sub-basin, five were identified by professional archaeologists, as represented in Table 10. In additional to Sheep Rock Shelter, the professionally-studied sites include the Workman Site (36Bd36; Michels and Huner 1968), the Tipton 4 Site (36Bl40; Hay et al. 1984), Site 36Bl53 (East and Beckman 1992), and Site 36Bd171 (Stahl #2 Site) at the Bedford Airport (Heberling et al. 1990). Each of the projects was conducted under the auspices of cultural resource investigations prior to construction of a major public works project. Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman were both excavated prior to the raising of Raystown Lake in the late 1960s. Sites 36Bd171 and 36Bl40 were each associated with municipal works projects, including a regional airport and an industrial park, respectively. Finally, Site 36Bl53 was excavated prior to the widening of S.R. 6220 near Altoona. Of the five projects, two were near Altoona in Watershed A, two were near Huntingdon in Watershed D, and one was near Bedford in Watershed C. Of the five projects, two (Site 36Bl40 and Site 36Bl53) were excavated at the Phase I level; one was excavated at the Phase II level (Site 36Bd171); and two were excavated at the Phase III level (Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman).
Table 10. Early Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
WATER SITE # AUTHOR YEAR PROJECT LOCATION SHED PHASE 36BD0171 Heberling 1990 Bedford Airport Bedford C II 36BL0040 Hay et al. 1984 Tipton Ind.Pk. Tipton A I 36HU0001 Michels/Dutt 1968 Raystown Lk. Raystown Lake D III 36BD0036 Michels/Huner 1968 Raystown Lk. Raystown Lake D III 36BL0053 East/Beckman 1992 SR 6220 Altoona A I
Unfortunately, only Sheep Rock Shelter contained well-dated Early Archaic artifacts, while only Site 36Bl53 was a single component Early Archaic site without mixing with artifacts from other components. The other sites in the sub-basin yielded Kirk and/or other Early Archaic projectile points, but from mixed (typically plowzone) contexts with diagnostic artifacts from multiple periods of occupation.
58 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
As with PASS files data, each of the Early Archaic sites in the CRM reports is located on or near a mid-high order stream. Site 36Bd171 (Stahl #2) is located on a hilltop overlooking Brush Run (a tributary of Dunning Creek north of Bedford), while Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter are located on the Raystown Branch. Two additional sites—36Bl40 and 36Bl53—are located near the Little Juniata River near Altoona/Tipton in Watershed A. With the exception of Sheep Rock Shelter, each of the sites identified in these CRM projects is an open camp.
C. EARLY ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE Lithic raw materials at Early Archaic sites provide insight into regional travel and trade networks between 10,000 and 8,800 years ago. PASS files provide general information regarding raw material types and the five cultural resource management projects with Early Archaic artifacts provide additional information. To supplement this data, GAI conducted an analysis of eight artifact collections at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg. Of these eight sites, only the Workman Site (36Bd36) yielded nine Early Archaic projectile points, each of which was examined for this project.
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: PASS Files As shown in Table 11, categories of lithic raw materials are generalized in the PASS files; however, broad patterns of lithic raw material use can be assessed based on the data. Chert/flint artifacts (n=9 sites) dominate the assemblages, followed closely by Jasper (n=6 sites), and rhyolite (n=3 sites). One site each yielded artifacts produced from quartzite and chalcedony. Jasper use was concentrated in Watershed A, nearest the local sources of Bald Eagle jasper near Bald Eagle Creek. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic lithic raw material data are similar, suggesting continuity in settlement patterns and raw material use between the two periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. During both the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, emphasis was on local lithic raw material; however, rhyolite use indicates southward-oriented trade and travel realms and use of jasper indicates the presence of unknown local jasper sources (likely) or travel to the Bald Eagle Creek Valley near Watershed A. Table 11. Early Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
CHERT/ CHALCEDON SITE # FLINT JASPER RHYOLITE NO RECORD QUARTZITE Y TOTAL 36BD0036 1 ------1 36BD0079 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 2 36BD0137 ------1 -- -- 1 36BD0171 1 1 -- -- 1 1 4 36BL0028 1 ------1 36BL0041 1 1 1 ------3 36BL0043 1 1 1 ------3 36BL0053 1 ------1 36BL0060 -- 1 ------1 36BL0062 1 1 1 ------3 36BL0064 1 1 ------2 36HU0001 ------1 -- -- 1 Total 9 6 3 3 1 1 23 Note: a “1” indicates presence of a material, not quantity of the material, at the site.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 59 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: CRM Reports As noted above, five CRM projects have been conducted in the sub-basin that yielded Early Archaic artifacts. Kirk corner-notched points (see Figure 4) dominate the assemblages, but Kirk Stemmed points (see Figure 4) and Kessel points (Site 36Bd171; Heberling and Heberling 1990:207) were also found as well. Of the five sites, only Site 36Bl53 yielded an apparently unmixed Early Archaic component with data regarding lithic raw material use. While Sheep Rock Shelter contained a well-dated Early Archaic component, Middle Archaic bifurcate points were found in the similar stratigraphic position and only general statements regarding chert use are presented in the reports (Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968).
As observed in the PASS files, lithic reduction of locally-available cherts was the main emphasis for site occupants at each of these reported sites. Locally-available Tipton chert was procured nearby and reduced at Sites 36Bl40 and B6Bl53 near Altoona. At 36Bd171 (Stahl #2) near Bedford, reduction of local Shriver (or “Bedford”) chert was the main task of site occupants (Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling et al. 1990).
For Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:614), a total of 2,907 lithic debitage were collected, the only material for which lithic raw materials were identified. Here, flint/chert categories account for 43.2% of the total, followed by chalcedony (31.8%), jasper (13.7%), and rhyolite (7.0%). However, these data are for the entire lithic assemblage, including all periods of occupation; thus, it is unclear as to lithic raw material use during only the Early Archaic occupations.
In addition to projectile points and debitage, the lone celt from Sheep Rock Shelter was recovered in excavation level 8 and likely dates to the Early Archaic occupation. This celt was prepared on a bifacially-retouched “irregular thick flake blank” (Michels and Dutt 1968:368) of coarse-grained black chert. This chert description could correspond to any one of the variety of black cherts in the region, including Shriver, Nittany, Bellefonte, or Keyser cherts, all of which were available in the greater Raystown Branch area. The medial and distal-bit portions of the tool were abraded, while the distal bit also heavily damaged from use.
Lithic raw material data were not available for the Workman Site; however, the report suggests a “heterogeneity” of lithic materials, suggestive of local chert use (Michels and Huner 1968:201; see below for an analysis of projectile points from the site).
As noted above, Site 36Bl53, located along the Little Juniata River in Watershed A (East and Beckman 1992), was the only Early Archaic occupation with detailed lithic raw material data. Here, excavations revealed an Onondaga chert Early Archaic Kirk Stemmed point (see Figure 4) and 68 other lithic artifacts, including 66 flakes, a biface, and one uniface. Locally- procured Tipton chert (53%) dominates the assemblage, but dull-gray chert (unknown source) also was well-represented (43%). East and Beckman (1992:6) note that outcrops of the Shriver (Old Port), Keyser and Tonoloway geologic formations are present at or near the site; thus, the gray chert could derive from any of these geologic strata. Among other lithic raw
60 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
materials, two rhyolite artifacts were recovered, as was one artifact of Bald Eagle jasper and Onondaga chert (the Kirk stemmed projectile point).
These lithic raw material data from research reports are consistent with information provided in the PASS files; namely, that Early Archaic foragers mainly utilized local lithic raw materials, with limited use of non-local materials.
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: the Workman Site (36Bd36) In addition to the cultural resource management and PASS file data discussed above, GAI conducted lithic raw material analysis of the Workman Site (36Bd36) projectile point assemblage. Results of these investigations provide additional insights into lithic raw material use during the Early Archaic in the sub-basin. The entire Workman Site point assemblage was assessed as to point type and lithic raw material type. Lithic raw materials from each of the major sources discussed in Chapter II were provided by Brian Fritz and supplemented by materials collected during field visits to rock outcrops.
During this analysis, nine Early Archaic points were analyzed from the Workman Site assemblage (Table 12). These points include four Kirk corner-notched points, four Kirk stemmed points, and two untyped serrated point blade fragments. Of the points, three were produced from Shriver chert, three from jasper, and one each from Keyser chert, Tonoloway chert, and white Corriganville chert. Each of these raw materials has sources within 20 miles of the Workman site and, thus, was locally available. Table 12. Early Archaic Points/Raw Materials: the Workman Site (36Bd36).
CATALOG NUMBER POINT TYPE MATERIAL A69.2.2861 Kirk CN Tonoloway A67.2.2064 Kirk CN Shriver (weathered) A67/2/768 Kirk CN Shriver (weathered) A67.2.2760 Serrated Blade Shriver (weathered) A67.2.1344 Kirk Stemmed Jasper A67.2.1927 Kirk Stemmed Jasper A67.2? Kirk Stemmed Jasper A67.21714 Kirk Stemmed Keyser chert A66.2.319 Serrated Blade Corriganville chert
D. EARLY ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Early Archaic Summary Data from PASS files, research reports, and analysis of the Workman Site artifacts suggest demographic continuity between Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as has been posited for Pennsylvania as a whole (Carr 1998a). The total number of Early Archaic sites (n=12) is identical to that of the Paleoindian period, suggesting population stasis between the periods. During both periods, sites are predominantly open camps in stream and river floodplain/terrace settings. While Paleoindians apparently preferred placement of sites to the north of stream confluences (possibly as a hunting strategy), this pattern does not emerge during the Early Archaic. During both periods, however, access to high order streams likely facilitated mobility in the region.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 61 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
In contrast to Paleoindians, who utilized comparatively more exotic cherts in tool production, Early Archaic Native Americans apparently increased their use of local cherts. Lithic raw material data the Workman Site assemblage indicate use of local Shriver, Keyser, Corriganville, and Tonoloway cherts in lithic production. The wide availability of local cherts and the array of natural resources suggest that populations, while of generally low density, remained within localized territories during the Early Archaic. The ridge and valley terrain likely facilitated this local-territory establishment, as human travel was likely oriented in southwest-northeast trajectories following the course of ridges and valleys, as has been suggested elsewhere (Heberling et al. 1990; Raber 1995).
According to PASS files data, rhyolite was the only significant non-local lithic raw material used in stone tool production (jasper was likely procured at fairly local sources). This suggests contacts with groups in the Great Valley to the southeast, with travel perhaps oriented along the known Native American trail, the Raystown Path (Wallace 1971:142-143). This path passed followed the Raystown River to within only a few miles of South Mountain, the most well-known source of rhyolite in the Great Valley (Stewart 1987).
Early Archaic Research Questions This summary of Early Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Ten Early Archaic research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. When was the Early Archaic? 2. How does the Early Archaic differ from the preceding Paleoindian period? 3. What types of foods were procured during the Early Archaic? 4. What types of tools were produced and utilized by Early Archaic Native Americans? 5. Was the change in projectile point technology precipitated by a change in prey species and/or hunting strategies or are the changes stylistic? 6. Were bifurcate points produced during the Early Archaic? 7. What types of lithic raw materials were used during the Early Archaic? 8. What do lithic raw materials tell us about Early Archaic travel and trade patterns? How do they compare to the Paleoindian and Middle Archaic? 9. Did Early Archaic foragers travel within established territories; if so, were the boundaries socially and/or ecologically defined, or both? 10. Does the low density and ephemeral nature of Early Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin indicate low population densities and/or does it reflect low intensity of occupations by itinerant populations?
62 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER VI. MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD 8800 to 5300 BP
A. MIDDLE ARCHAIC OVERVIEW Compared to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, there is a three-fold increase in the number of recorded archaeological sites for the Middle Archaic period in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These data support Carr’s (1998a:17) and Gardner’s (1987) hypothesis of a significant population increase between the Early and Middle Archaic periods. Carr (1998b:88) provides the most complete overviews of the Middle Archaic in central Pennsylvania and notes a “significant increase in population” during the Middle Archaic. Sites like Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman continued to be occupied during the Middle Archaic, but many other locations were being used by Middle Archaic foragers as well. These population increases may correspond to a wider availability of food resources and a corresponding shift toward a more logistically-organized subsistence/settlement pattern, as occurred elsewhere in North America at this time (Brown and Vierra 1983). Cowin (1991:48) characterizes the Middle Archaic settlement system as consisting of base camps positioned on Holocene-age river terraces, smaller resource procurement stations for seasonal plant and animal exploitation in upland settings, and lithic-reduction stations near bedrock outcrops of stone exploited for tool manufacture.
The Middle Archaic shift in subsistence pattern may have corresponded with increasing territoriality and reduced mobility, resulting in increased duration of site occupation. In turn, this pattern of land-use resulted in increasing Middle Archaic site visibility compared to sites of the prior Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Apparently, steps were being taken during the Middle Archaic—such as increasing populations and diversification of resource base— that eventually led to the increased sedentism of the Late Archaic, Transitional Archaic, and Woodland periods.
B. MIDDLE ARCHAIC MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY
Middle Archaic Material Culture As described in the preceding chapter, bifurcate point production is the major technological change between the Early and Middle Archaic periods. Middle Archaic point forms (see Figure 4) in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are predominantly Neville/Stanly and LeCroy, with fewer examples of MacCorkle, St. Albans, and Kanawha stemmed points (Kuhn 1985). While some place Morrow Mountain contracting stem points (Custer et al. 1996:28) and Otter Creek points in the Middle Archaic (East and Beckman 1992:69-70; East et al. 1999:4- 6), others (PASS files; Carr 1998a, 1998b; Kinsey 1972) discuss them in the context of the Late Archaic. For the sake of consistency with PASS files data, this report discusses these two point types within the contexts of the Late Archaic period.
LeCroy bifurcate points are the most common projectile points at Middle Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and vicinity (see Figure 3). According to Broyles (1971:69), LeCroy points are fairly small with trianguloid blades with straight edges. Blades are serrated on most
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 63 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
points (but not all) and the bases are deeply notched by the removal of a large central flake with surrounding pressure flakes. Stems are straight to slightly flared with no basal grinding.
Neville points are also found at Middle Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These points are similar to Stanly Stemmed points (Coe 1964) and the two types are often lumped together as one type, the Neville/Stanly point. Neville/Stanly points were produced from small bifaces and large, bifacially-modified flakes. Cross-sections are lenticular, with flakes meeting at the midline (Dincauze 1976). Pressure retouch was likely used to finalize shaping of the stem and shoulder. Bases are concave and occasionally have a shallow notch, resembling bifurcation. After basal shaping, blade edges were finalized by pressure retouch, with regularity of the outline more important than edge sharpness.
In addition to projectile points, lithic assemblages from Middle Archaic sites, such as West Water Street (Custer et al. 1996), include a variety of hafted drills, knives, endscrapers, and sidescrapers, as well as cores and utilized flake tools. Sites typically have high proportions of bifaces in various stages of reduction, depending on proximity to stone sources.
Middle Archaic Chronology Carr (1998b:79) cites radiocarbon dates of 8900 and 8888 B.P. for bifurcate point levels from the Fifty (Virginia) and St. Albans (West Virginia) sites, respectively, while LeCroy levels at the St. Albans Site dated to approximately 8300 B.P. An extensive Middle Archaic component at the West Water Street Site on the West Branch Susquehanna (only 20 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin) yielded a date of ca. 7400 B.P. (Custer et al. 1996:33), associated with Neville/Stanly and LeCroy points (see Figure 4). West Water Street also yielded a previously-unidentified triangle point type in its Middle Archaic levels. Finally, the Memorial Park Site (36Cn164) in Lock Haven, approximately 35 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, yielded a small, but well-dated, Middle Archaic component (GAI 1995). Neville points were found in association with features dated to between ca. 7000 and 6700 B.P.
Middle Archaic radiocarbon dates for the Upper Juniata sub-basin are limited to the 6800 B.P. date from Sheep Rock Shelter (see Early Archaic above). The date marks the upper boundary of excavation level 8, which contained two Early Archaic points and a LeCroy bifurcate point (see Figure 4); thus, the deposit contains a mix of Early and Middle Archaic artifacts. In the 1967 preliminary report from Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:812-814), the authors state that the Middle Archaic levels are highlighted by “a six-foot thick deposit consisting of midden soils, zones of charcoal and ash [and]…two burials.” However, the deposits are associated with “Laurentian” projectile point styles (Michels 1968:70), which date to approximately 4500 to 5300 B.P. (Kinsey 1972:402-408; see next chapter). Based on this point association and the fact that these levels are stratigraphically above the Early and Middle Archaic level 8, the two burials and the associated midden contents likely date to the Late Archaic site occupation and will be discussed in the next chapter. For the purposes of this report and for the sake of consistency with PASS files (which also place the Laurentian points in the Late Archaic period), sites with Laurentian
64 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
point types are associated with the Late Archaic. The date of 5300 B.P. is used as the approximate terminus of the Middle Archaic and the beginning of the Late Archaic.
C. MIDDLE ARCHAIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS As with the preceding two chapters, only sites with diagnostic point types are included in the discussion of PASS files data. Some 40 sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are listed as having Middle Archaic components in the PASS files, with 35 of these sites yielding bifurcate points (Table 13). This site total represents a three-fold increase over the preceding Paleoindian (n=12 sites) and Early Archaic (n=12 sites) periods. Of the 35 sites, 24 are in Watershed C, six are in Watershed D, four are in Watershed A, and one site is in Watershed B. The prevalence of sites in Watershed C suggests that the Middle Archaic population density increase was mainly focused in the southern portion of the sub-basin, along Dunning Creek and the Raystown Branch.
Table 13. Middle Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME TYPE SETTING ELEV. WATERSHED MAJ. DRAINAGE 36BD0004 Reynoldsdale Fish H. Lithic Red. Bench 0 C Raystown 36BD0005 Reynoldsdale Open Terrace 1100 C Raystown 36BD0010 Bob Diehl site Open Floodplain 1240 C Raystown 36BD0011 between Rt. 31 Open Bench 1260 C Raystown 36BD0046 Bridge Open Floodplain 1100 C Raystown 36BD0050 Lutz Open Ridge/Toe 1200 C Raystown 36BD0051 Stahl Open Floodplain 1080 C Raystown 36BD0079 -- Open Floodplain 1130 C Raystown 36BD0082 -- Open Floodplain 1180 C Raystown 36BD0083 -- Open Floodplain 1180 C Raystown 36BD0089 -- Open Floodplain 1140 C Raystown 36BD0092 -- Open Floodplain 1120 C Raystown 36BD0097 Hostetler's #2 Open Ridge/Toe 1160 C Raystown 36BD0111 Boat House #2 Open Floodplain 1120 C Raystown 36BD0113 Hoenstine #2 Open Terrace 1140 C Raystown 36BD0114 Hoenstine #3 Open Terrace 1140 C Raystown 36BD0119 Acker #2 Open Floodplain 1110 C Raystown 36BD0120 Ryot #5 Open Floodplain 1200 C Raystown 36BD0131 Helacky #1 Open Floodplain 1180 C Raystown 36BD0142 Shellbark #1 Open Floodplain 1140 C Raystown 36BD0155 Snider Farm Open Floodplain 1130 D Raystown 36BD0161 Claycomb Site #1 Open Hillslope 1150 C Raystown 36BD0170 Stahl #1 Open Hillslope 1140 C Raystown 36BD0182 Bedford Prison Open Terrace 1060 C Raystown 36BD0218 wall site Open Terrace 1090 C Raystown 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 Open Floodplain 1010 A Frankstown 36BL0035 B-1 Open Bench 1190 A Frankstown 36BL0062 Canoe Creek East 2 Open Terrace 905 A Juniata River 36BL0064 Nearhoof Lithic Red. Terrace 1100 A Bald Eagle 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Shelter Rock Shelter Hillslope 640 D Raystown 36HU0036 Hammon Open Floodplain 700 D Raystown
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 65 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
SITE NO. SITE NAME TYPE SETTING ELEV. WATERSHED MAJ. DRAINAGE 36HU0050 Rockshelter Rockshelter Hillslope 700 D Raystown 36HU0128 Miller-B Lithic Red. Floodplain 650 B Raystown 36HU0180 Raystown Resort Lithic Red. Bench 860 D Raystown 36BD0036 Workman Open Floodplain 820 D Raystown
As shown in Table 13 and Table 14, PASS files data indicate that Middle Archaic site location and setting generally resemble that of the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Sites are predominantly open camps or lithic-reduction stations located on the floodplains, terraces, or benches of streams and rivers. Sheep Rock Shelter and 36Hu50 (the Rockshelter Site) are the lone Middle Archaic sites not listed as open camps or lithic- reduction locations. Also, along with only three other sites (36Bd50, 36Bd97, and 36bd161), the rockshelters are the only sites not located on a stream terrace, bench or floodplain. Both rockshelter sites are on hillslopes, while the other three sites are located on ridgetops or sideslopes overlooking water courses. All of the sites are, thus, located in the vicinity of a water source, with 15 sites located near a high-order stream (grade 4 or 5) and another 16 near low-mid-order (grade 1-3) streams. These data suggest that water access, and not necessarily the size of the water source, was the key to site placement.
Table 14. Middle Archaic: Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata.
ROCK LITHIC SETTING OPEN SHELTER REDUCTION TOTAL Floodplain 17 -- 1 18 Terrace 5 -- 2 7 4 Bench 2 -- 2 Ridgetop 2 -- -- 2 Hillslope 1 1 -- 2 Total 27 1 5 33
Access to two or more water sources was also important for determination of camp locations during the Middle Archaic. Of the 35 Middle Archaic sites, all but five are located near (within 1,500 m) a stream confluence (see Table 14); however, no patterning emerged regarding the directionality of site location relative to the confluence. Of the 30 sites near confluences, 14 are located north or east of a confluence, while 16 are located south or west. Twenty-two of the Middle Archaic sites are near the confluences of high-order (grade 4 or 5) rivers, while eight are near the confluences of low-mid-order (grades 1-3) streams. Finally, there was some correlation between site placement and stream flow, as 18 of the sites are located upstream from a confluence and eight are located downstream. Thus, the major factor in Middle Archaic site placement was access to water, with an additional preference for locations upstream of river confluences.
66 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 15. Middle Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
DIST. TO ORDER OF DIST TO DIRECT TO LOC. OF ORDER OF SITE NO. SLOPE º STREAM STREAM CONFLUENCE CONFLUENCE CONFLUENCE CONFLUENCE 36BD0004 -- 5 2 5 North Upstream -- 36BD0005 00 130 4 160 North Upstream 5 36BD0010 00 20 3 1150 West Downstream 3 36BD0011 00 20 1 1100 Southwest Upstream 3 36BD0046 00 80 4 500 South Upstream 4 36BD0050 00 20 1 2000 Southeast no conf. 4 36BD0051 00 100 1 480 Southeast Downstream 4 36BD0079 00 10 4 100 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0082 00 10 4 100 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0083 00 10 4 320 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0089 00 40 4 1100 Southeast no conf. 5 36BD0092 00 40 3 260 Southwest Upstream 3 36BD0097 00 80 4 120 North Downstream 4 36BD0111 00 140 4 760 Southeast Upstream 4 36BD0113 00 360 3 740 Southwest Upstream 4 36BD0114 00 100 3 580 South Upstream 3 36BD0119 00 0 1 120 Southwest Upstream 4 36BD0120 00 0 1 880 South Upstream 3 36BD0131 00 30 1 220 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0142 00 20 4 1020 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0155 3 5 4 60 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0161 5 140 2 600 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0170 5 150 1 200 North Downstream 5 36BD0182 5 150 1 230 Northwest Upstream 5 36BD0218 ------0 36BL0028 2 20 2 100 East Upstream 2 36BL0035 1 0 1 1100 Southeast no conf. 3 36BL0062 ------0 36BL0064 ------10 -- -- 0 36HU0001 00 40 5 600 Southwest Upstream 5 36HU0036 00 30 1 1300 Northwest Downstream 5 36HU0050 50 40 5 740 Northeast Upstream 6 36HU0128 5 20 -- 1000 South no conf. 2 36HU0180 ------0 36BD0036 00 80 5 600 Northeast no conf. 5
D. MIDDLE ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE Lithic raw materials at Middle Archaic sites provide information regarding travel and trade patterns. PASS files and cultural resource management reports provide general information regarding raw material types. To supplement these data, GAI conducted an analysis of eight artifact collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Of these eight sites, two yielded Middle Archaic bifurcate points, Sites 36Bd161 and Site 36Hu50.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 67 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: PASS Files Data Similar to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, chert/flint was the dominant material used during the Middle Archaic (Table 16). The widespread availability of chert likely explains its extensive use during these periods. As during both the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, jasper and rhyolite were the next most popular raw materials for Middle Archaic Native Americans; however, during the Middle Archaic, rhyolite use increased compared to jasper. Of the 35 sites, 12 (32%) contained rhyolite artifacts, compared to eight for jasper. This marks a change from the Early Archaic, when jasper was the preferred non-chert/flint material.
Of the 12 sites with rhyolite artifacts, nine of them are in Watershed C, the southernmost portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Only two sites in Watershed A and one site in Watershed D contained rhyolite artifacts. Watershed C is conveniently located to the most proximate rhyolite sources on South Mountain, some 30 miles to the southeast. Several historic Native American paths—including the Raystown Path—traversed gaps in the north- south ridge system to connect the Great Valley to the east with the Raystown Branch and the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143). The Raystown Path passed within 10 km of South Mountain near Chambersburg and continued westward along the current route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through Watershed C. The two Middle Archaic sites in the sub-basin with steatite artifacts are in Watershed C, the most proximate portion of the sub- basin to the Potomac River (and steatite sources).
As will be discussed in the next chapter, rhyolite and steatite use continued to increase during the subsequent Late and Transitional Archaic periods. Apparently, the cultural connections and travel realms of Late Archaic foragers were originally established during the Middle Archaic, as reflected by the increasing use of rhyolite and steatite in the southern portions of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Table 16. Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tabulation of Material by Watershed for Middle Archaic Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
LITHIC MATERIAL WATERSHED A WATERSHED B WATERSHED C WATERSHED D TOTAL Not Identified -- -- 14 2 16 Quartzite -- -- 1 1 2 Jasper 3 -- 3 2 8 Quartz -- -- 2 2 Rhyolite 2 -- 8 1 11 Chert/Flint 4 1 16* 4 25 Chalcedony -- -- 1 -- 1 Shale -- -- 3 -- 3 Onondaga Chert -- -- 1 -- 1 Steatite -- -- 2 -- 2 Flint Ridge -- -- 1 -- 1 Total 9 1 52 10 72 *For example,16 sites in Watershed C yielded chert/flint artifacts
68 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Middle Archaic Lithics and Settlement: CRM Reports Six cultural resource management projects have identified Middle Archaic site components or projectile points within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including three in Watershed C, two in Watershed D, and one in Watershed A (). Three of the sites are located in the vicinity of Bedford along the Raystown Branch or Dunning Creek, while two of the sites (Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter) are located near Raystown Lake, south of Huntingdon. The final site— 36Bl35—was identified near Altoona in Blair County. Three of the projects were highway related, two were related to Raystown Lake construction, and two were municipal projects, including one conducted under the auspices of Act 70 (Chiarulli and Walker 1998).
While three of the projects were Phase III data recoveries, little data regarding lithic raw material use was collected for any of the projects. Davis et al. (n.d.) conducted a data recovery investigation at the Wall Site (36Bd218) north of Bedford along Dunning Creek. The site yielded a single LeCroy bifurcate projectile point (see Figure 2) from a multicomponent plowzone deposit. While “local” lithic raw materials dominated the assemblage, no specific chert types were identified, nor was there any apparent spatial segregation of the multiple occupations of the site.
At Site 36Bd46, also located north of Bedford along Dunning Creek, Chiarulli and Walker (1998:51) recovered multiple types of diagnostic artifacts, including bifurcate points, from the site surface. As with the Wall Site, the limited sample size and the lack of spatial segregation of site occupations precluded a discussion of Middle Archaic lithic raw material use.
Site 36Bd82 (Baker 1994), west of Chestnut Ridge in Watershed C, also yielded a variety of points (including Middle Archaic) in a plowzone. Lithic raw materials from this site include “Nittany” chert (~Shriver?), rhyolite, and oolitic chert (probable Mines), among others. No specific data regarding the Middle Archaic projectile points were provided in the report.
Site 36Hu129 yielded a possible Neville/Stanly point within uplands west of Raystown Lake. The non-diagnostic character of the point precludes the site’s inclusion in the Middle Archaic database; however, it is worthy of note that the possible Middle Archaic site yielded high percentages of jasper artifacts. Raber and Burns (1999) suggest that a local jasper source is likely nearby.
Near Altoona, excavations prior to highway expansion (L.R. 1061) yielded a LeCroy Middle Archaic bifurcate point from Site B-1 (36Bl35; Hay et al. 1983). The point was recovered within mixed contexts with multiple Late Archaic points. Finally, neither the Workman Site (36Bd36) or Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) reports contained information regarding lithic raw material use during the Middle Archaic site occupations. Thus, while six cultural resource management projects in the Upper Juniata sub-basin yielded Middle Archaic diagnostic projectile points (Table 17), none provide detailed information regarding lithic raw material use or stone tool production during the Middle Archaic period.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 69 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 17. Middle Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata.
SITE NO W.Shed Author Year Project Name Phase Location 36BD0046 C Chiarulli 1998 Act 70 Site 36Bd46 II East St. Clair 36BD0082 C P.Baker 1994 Ryot Covered Bridge I West St. Clair 36BD0218 C C.Davis n.d. Bedford Dist. Center III Bedford 36BL0035 A Hay et al. 1983 LR 1061 Alignments II LR 1061 36HU0001 D See text 1967 Sheep Rock Shelter III Raystown Lake 36BD0036 D See text 1968 Workman Site III Raystown Lake
Middle Archaic Lithics and Settlement: Collections Analysis As noted above, only two Middle Archaic projectile points were studied within the collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Single bifurcate point fragments from Site 36Bd161—the Claycomb Site #1—and Site 36Hu50—the Rockshelter Site—were examined by GAI. The Workman Site also yielded at least five bifurcate points (Michels and Huner 1968:Plate 1); however, these points were not among those available to GAI during the analysis of Workman Site lithic assemblage. The bifurcate point from 36Bd161 is a St. Albans point likely produced from local Bellefonte chert, while the point from 36Hu50 is an untyped bifurcate likely produced from Shriver chert. Both Bellefonte and Shriver cherts are locally available, although the precise bedrock sources for the artifacts are unknown (see Chapter II for discussion of lithic raw material types and their sources).
E. MIDDLE ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Middle Archaic Summary Data collected from PASS files provided the bulk of useable information for understanding Middle Archaic site types, stone tool production and lithic raw material use. Cultural resource management research reports and collections analysis also provided minor supplementary data. One major change of the Middle Archaic was the three-fold increase in the numbers of recorded sites, compared to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Despite this site increase, however, data within PASS files are still relatively scant and most likely do not represent a valid sample of Middle Archaic settlement patterns.
Nevertheless, these data corroborate that of Carr (1998a, 1998b) who observed a similar population increase in greater Pennsylvania. In the Upper Juniata sub-basin, this population increase was concentrated in the Watershed C, along the upper Raystown Branch and Dunning Creek. The southern focus of this population increase suggests possible movement of Middle Archaic populations from the south, perhaps along the Upper Potomac basin, or from the east near rhyolite sources in the Great Valley. The population focus within the Raystown Branch Valley also may reflect a settlement pattern preference for wide valleys; the Raystown Branch is the broadest valley in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
While population increase, preference for wide valleys, and/or the introduction of new populations from the south or east are possible explanations for the increase in site counts, another explanation is an increase in site visibility compared to earlier periods. Middle
70 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Archaic subsistence models suggest the increased use of base camps compared to preceding periods. Base camps entail longer-term occupations than itinerant camps of mobile foragers, the predominant site type during the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Nevertheless, the lack of clear Middle Archaic base camp sites does not support the site visibility hypothesis.
Similar to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, access to water was the key to Middle Archaic site placement. Each Middle Archaic site was accessible to a water source and most of the sites were also near stream confluences. No correlations were observed between site placement, directionality of water flow, or direction of confluences for the Middle Archaic sites, although there appeared to be a slight preference for placement of sites upstream of confluences.
The lack of adequate research at Middle Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin precludes a discussion of Cowin’s (1991) Middle Archaic site type model. As stated earlier, she suggests that Middle Archaic Native Americans used lowland river terraces for base camp placement, with small groups then moving outward to collect seasonally-available resources and lithic materials. While most Middle Archaic sites are located in lowlands along rivers and streams, the lack of extensive archaeological work at those sites precludes a discussion of site types. Thus, it is uncertain if the sites do in fact represent base camps or whether there are also other types of sites in those areas.
During the Middle Archaic, chert and flint continued to be popular in stone tool production. However, rhyolite increased in popularity, as it was recovered at nearly one third of the Middle Archaic sites in the sub-basin. The increase in use of rhyolite corroborates the earlier hypothesis that populations moved into the Upper Juniata sub-basin from areas to the south (the Upper Potomac drainage) and/or the east (the Great Valley). During the Middle Archaic, these populations appear to have focused their settlement along the Raystown Branch and Dunning Creek in the southern portion of the sub-basin. Jasper use within the sub-basin also suggests stone acquisition at sources near Bald Eagle Creek in Watershed A.
Based on a review of these data, the Middle Archaic does apparently represent a break from the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as hypothesized elsewhere (Carr 1998a, 1998b). While the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods apparently represent periods of stasis, two major patterns emerge that distinguish the Middle Archaic: an increase in population (in the southern portion of the sub-basin) and increase in rhyolite use, suggesting increasing cultural ties to the south and east. These two patterns escalate during the Late and Transitional Archaic periods, suggesting that the Middle Archaic period witnessed the onset of demographic and social changes that became more firmly entrenched during subsequent periods (see Chapters VII and VIII).
Middle Archaic Research Questions This summary of Middle Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Eleven Middle Archaic research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 71 Penns/juniata/juniata_report generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. How does the Middle Archaic differ from the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods? 2. Does the increase in Middle Archaic sites reflect an increase in population density? 3. Was the increase in Middle Archaic population focused in Watershed C or is this a result of sample bias? 4. Was there a settlement pattern preference for wide river valleys during the Middle Archaic? 5. Where are the Middle Archaic base camps, if present, and what are there archaeological signatures? 6. What types of foods were procured during the Middle Archaic? 7. What types of tools were produced and utilized by Middle Archaic Native Americans? 8. Are any other types of stone tools diagnostic of Middle Archaic occupations? 9. Was the change in projectile point technology between the Early and Middle Archaic—from notched and stemmed points to bifurcate points—precipitated by a change in prey species and/or hunting strategies or are the changes simply stylistic? 10. Were bifurcate points produced strictly during the Middle Archaic? 11. What other projectile point types (e.g., Archaic triangles) were produced during the Middle Archaic? 12. What types of lithic raw materials were used during the Middle Archaic? 13. What do lithic raw materials tell us about Middle Archaic travel and trade? 14. What does the presence of rhyolite and jasper indicate regarding trade and travel patterns during the Middle Archaic? 15. How does lithic raw material use compare to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods and the subsequent Late and Transitional Archaic periods?
72 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER VII. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD 5300 to 3800 B.P.
A. LATE ARCHAIC OVERVIEW The Late Archaic period witnessed several dynamic changes in population, culture and environment in eastern North America. Population increases are noted across the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1988) and Pennsylvania (Raber et al. 1998). The continued rise in sea levels due to environmental warming apparently increased available biomass (Turnbaugh 1977), including estuarine resources. According to Custer (1988; Custer and Wallace 1982) and Turnbaugh (1977), the increased availability of resources: 1) stimulated population growth; 2) increased use of logistic subsistence/settlement patterns; and 3) led to the widespread establishment of regional exchange networks. Late Archaic Native Americans developed a well-defined schedule of resource exploitation (Cowin 1991; Raber 1995, 1999, 2000) with the possible exploitation of riverine resources at sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967). The following chapter examines these Late Archaic issues within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as reflected in PASS files data and regional research reports.
B. LATE ARCHAIC TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Late Archaic Technology Within central and eastern Pennsylvania, diagnostic artifacts of the Late Archaic period (Figure 5) include Laurentian point types (Kinsey 1972:403-408; Ritchie 1965), such as Otter Creek, Vosburg, and Brewerton, as well as Piedmont point types (Kinsey 1972:418-417), including Poplar Island, Lackawaxen, Normanskill, and Lamoka (see Figure 5). Laurentian points are generally side- or corner-notched, while Piedmont points generally have straight to contracting stems. Detailed descriptions of these points are provided in Kinsey (1972), Ritchie (1965), and Custer (2001), among others (East et al. 1999; Justice 1987; Kent 1996; Michels and Dutt 1968). While the Laurentian tradition, as it was originally defined for sites in New York (Ritchie 1965), includes such artifacts as gouges, plummets, semilunar knives, slate points, and copper implements, the Laurentian tradition in the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity generally is restricted to the diagnostic projectile points, although some of the other artifacts may be recovered at sites as well.
Additional technological changes of the Late Archaic include increased use of groundstone tools, such as manos, metates and pitted cobbles, for food processing (Hart 1995b; Kinsey 1972). These objects are often referred to as site furniture (Schiffer 1983), meaning that they were produced and used at a residence for an extended period or were curated at that location for future use. In consort with site furniture, large storage pits and food processing features, such as hearths and smudge pits, are also used more frequently during the Late Archaic. These artifacts and features, if recovered at archaeological sites, imply extended stays at one location by entire family groups. Sites with these features and artifacts are often interpreted as base camps from which Native Americans made daily forays for resource procurement, a typical characteristic of a logistic settlement pattern, as defined by Binford (1980).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 73 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 5. Late Archaic Diagnostic Projectile Points. Late Archaic Brewerton Projectile Point (Wall Site) (Davis n.d.:73)
A5 - C
-- 2 cm 10 - Brewerton Points 236 - Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:687) Actual size
Actual size
Late Archaic Brewerton Projectile Point (36Bl54) (East and Beckman 1992:70)
Lamoka Point Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:693) DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02
Actual size
Actual size C0NSULTANTS, INC. gai Bare Island Point Genesee Point Sheep Rock Shelter Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:691) (Michels and Smith 1967:695)
Otter Creek Point 36Bl54 Figure 5 (East and Beckman 1992:70) Late Archaic Projectile Points
74 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Numerous researchers (Cowin 1991; Custer 1988; Raber 1995, 1999) propose generally similar Late Archaic models of settlement that entail an increase in logistic subsistence patterns within Pennsylvania and the greater Mid-Atlantic region. Rather than being foragers, thus, in which families moved frequently to obtain resources (as was the pattern during the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods), Native Americans were collectors, in which families were seasonally sedentary at one location (base camps) for extended periods. From these base camps (typically thought to be located along major waterways), individuals procured resources (plants, animals, lithics, etc…) during short trips to uplands and to low- mid-order tributaries.
Late Archaic Chronology While numerous cultural research management projects have been conducted at Late Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see discussion below), Late Archaic radiocarbon dates have only been obtained at two sites: Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1; Michels and Dutt 1968:58) and Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; Raber 2000), both located in the Raystown Branch Valley south of Huntingdon (see Figure 1 for general site locations). The nature of most Late Archaic sites—lithic scatters in plowed or mixed contexts—in the Upper Juniata sub-basin unfortunately precludes feature identification and radiocarbon dating.
At Sheep Rock Shelter, excavation level six is the Late Archaic site component, measuring between 12-36 inches thick across the entire shelter. This level lay stratigraphically above the Early and Middle Archaic levels and below the Transitional levels. Two radiocarbon dates were attained from the Late Archaic component (Michels and Dutt 1968:58):
2350±50 B.C. or 4250 to 4350 B.P. This date was taken from charcoal within a hearth on the Brewerton living floor (level 6) and is considered the most accurate measure of the site occupation.
1850±180 B.C. or 3980 to 3620 B.P. This date was taken from “charcoal sweepings from the same floor” as the other date; however, it is thought to have been contaminated by “carbonaceous material [e.g., wood, roots] derived from a later context.”
Based on the two dates, this Sheep Rock Shelter living floor was occupied between approximately 5,000 and 4,000 years ago. Projectile points associated with the Late Archaic living floor at Sheep Rock Shelter are predominantly Laurentian, including multiple varieties of Brewerton side-, eared- and corner-notched points, as well as smaller numbers of Genesee and Bare Island points (see Figure 5).
Excavations by Heberling Associates Inc. (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000) at Mykut Rockshelter provided the only other radiocarbon dates for a Late Archaic component in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Sixteen radiocarbon dates were assayed from the rockshelter, which is located on a small drainage overlooking Raystown Lake. Two of the dates—4510±60 B.P. (Beta-139447; Feature 22) and 4230±60 B.P. (Beta; Feature 9)—established a small Late Archaic site occupation. The dates were from hearth charcoal and were associated with a
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 75 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
lithic reduction area within the rock overhang. No Late Archaic diagnostic projectile points were recovered in association with the feature.
In confirmation of these radiocarbon dates from Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter, several other sites in central Pennsylvania have similarly dated Late Archaic components. The Wiser Site (36Ce442) was excavated during expansion of S.R. 220 along north Bald Eagle Creek, approximately 20 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. This site yielded an extensive Late Archaic occupation with Brewerton and other Late Archaic points. Eight radiocarbon dates ranged between ca. 5200 and 3900 B.P. (East et al. 1999:7-44). One of the dates—5220±70 (Beta-86174)—was directly associated with a Brewerton side-notched point.
The Memorial Park Site (36Cn164) in Lock Haven, approximately 35 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, yielded a variety of Late Archaic points from well-dated contexts (GAI 1995:191-202). Twenty features, including hearths and smudge pits, yielded radiocarbon dates of between ca. 5200 and 4900 B.P. for its late Laurentian component. The recovery of large numbers of groundstone tools confirmed that the site likely functioned as a base camp with a fairly permanent population. Thirteen Piedmont features were also identified, yielding radiocarbon dates of between 4410 and 4050 B.P., as well as evidence of acorn processing.
Excavations at the Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bressler 1989), approximately 15 miles downriver from Memorial Park on the West Branch, yielded an extensive Late Archaic component dated to ca. 5100 B.P. Thirteen Brewerton points were recovered, as were features containing butternut and hickory nut shells. In addition, 12 netsinkers suggest that fishing was important to Late Archaic site occupants.
The Skvarket Site (36Lu132; Miller 1998) on the North Branch Susquehanna River north of Sunbury yielded a date of 4,160±70 B.P. associated with Lackawaxen and triangle projectile points. Miller (1998:107,115-116) suggests that triangle points, while generally considered a Late Woodland point type, also occur within occupations of other time periods, as was noted earlier for the Middle Archaic at the West Water Street Site.
Approximately 12 miles south of Sunbury on the east shore of the Susquehanna River, the Herndon Site (36Nb180; MacDonald 2002) yielded a 2-sigma calibrated date of between 4,250 and 3,860 (Beta-168784) for a hearth and an associated Piedmont-type contracting- stem point (~Poplar Island/Lackawaxen).
Further afield, the Faucett Site in the Delaware Valley yielded a Brewerton component with dates of between 5380 and 4980 B.P. In the Upper Susquehanna Valley, Lamoka components generally date to between 5150 and 4350 B.P. (East et al. 1999:4-7), while Lamoka points date to approximately 4300 and 4020 B.P. at sites in New England and New York. Wall (2000:12) also identified a buried Lamoka component on the West Branch Susquehanna with radiocarbon dates of ca. 3800-4000 B.P. Kinsey (1972:341) cites dates of 4380-4060 B.P. for Otter Creek points.
76 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Based on these radiocarbon dates and associated projectile points from sites in central Pennsylvania, Laurentian/Brewerton site components date to the earlier portion of the Late Archaic, between ca. 5300 and 4500 B.P. Other Late Archaic projectile points, including Otter Creek, Lamoka, and various contracting stem varieties (e.g., Lackawaxen and Poplar Island) appear to date to the latter portion of the Late Archaic between approximately 4400 and 3800 B.P. In nearby regions, Brewerton points persist to the end of the Late Archaic (Gleach 1985:190) and may do so within the Upper Juniata sub-basin as well.
C. LATE ARCHAIC SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS Of the 146 sites in PASS files with “Late Archaic” components, 87 yielded diagnostic Laurentian and/or Piedmont diagnostic projectile points. Because of the lack of specificity regarding diagnostic points, the other 59 sites listed as having Late Archaic components are not discussed. Nevertheless, the 87 sites with diagnostic Late Archaic artifacts more than doubles the total of the Middle Archaic period (n=35) and is a more than seven-fold increase over the Paleoindian (n=12 sites) and Early Archaic (n=12 sites) periods. Twenty-one research reports include Late Archaic data for the Upper Juniata sub-basin as well.
As noted above, Raber (1995, 1996, 1999, 2000) has proposed a model of Late Archaic settlement within the Raystown Branch Valley and vicinity of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. In Raber’s Chestnut Ridge/Aughwick Creek model, base camps are situated on broad terraces along major streams, were occupied by all members of a social group for an extended period. The social group was likely comprised of single and/or extended families. Small camps may be overnight bivouacs used by an entire social group for a brief stay or, more likely, may be resource processing loci where someone spent the night or conducted tasks when away from the main basecamp. These camps were located on tributaries of the larger streams, near springheads in uplands, and along narrow portions of terrace along the larger streams. Quarry-related camps are sites where recently acquired toolstone underwent initial reduction and shaping; these locales are marked by accumulation of early-reduction debitage, cores, and roughly-shaped bifaces.
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: PASS Files Of the 87 sites with Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 70 contained Laurentian Brewerton points. Sixteen sites possessed artifacts only identified as Late Archaic, while only seven sites yielded Piedmont-type points, such as Lamoka or contracting stem varieties. Seven of the 87 sites yielded both Laurentian and Piedmont points. If the chronology of the Late Archaic, as presented above, is accurate, then, given the dominance of Brewerton points across the project area, the population increase in the Upper Juniata was largely restricted to the first half of the Late Archaic period, between approximately 5,300 and 4,500 years ago. The low number of sites with Piedmont type points suggests a fairly rapid population decline during the latter portion of the Late Archaic. Alternatively, the low numbers of Piedmont-type points is due to bias in point typology, in which the Piedmont types are not as recognizable as the Brewerton forms. Also, in all likelihood, the chronology of the Late Archaic is not well-defined and, as occurs in nearby regions (Gleach 1985), Brewerton forms may actually date to the entire Late Archaic.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 77 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Regardless of the cause, Brewerton points clearly dominate the lithic assemblages of Late Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Not only was the population increase apparently limited to the first half of the Late Archaic period, but PASS files data also show that the largest increase in Late Archaic sites was along the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and its tributaries in Watersheds C (n=49 sites) and D (n=13 sites). Twenty-two sites were also identified in the northwest portion of the sub- basin, along the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Rivers, while the remainder (n=3) were identified in Watershed B in the northeast portion of the sub-basin. The majority of the sites (n=62 of 87), thus, were recorded along the Raystown Branch and its tributaries, suggesting that this region sustained a disproportionate share of the population increase during the Late Archaic. Table 18. Late Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)
SITE NO. NAME ARTIFACTS TYPE SETTING ELEV W.SHED 36BD0002 -- Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1240 C 36BD0017 opposite the ball field Laurentian Open Terrace -- C 36BD0018 D.Plummer Bregle Farm Laurentian Open Terrace -- C 36BD0023 Dew Drop Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1200 C 36BD0036 Workman Site Laurentian Open Floodplain 820 D 36BD0048 Smith Laurentian Open Terrace 1100 C 36BD0073 -- Laurentian Open Floodplain 1160 C 36BD0089 -- Piedmont Open Floodplain 1140 C 36BD0094 -- Laurentian Open Terrace 1140 C 36BD0108 Bob's Creek #1 Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1140 C 36BD0109 Fish Hatchery #2 Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1110 C 36BD0111 Boat House #2 Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1120 C 36BD0112 Steinbach Laurentian Prehistoric Floodplain 1120 C 36BD0113 Hoenstine #2-Walnut Tree Laurentian Prehistoric Terrace 1140 C 36BD0115 Bob Egolf #3 Laurentian Open Terrace 1180 C 36BD0118 Acker #1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1110 C 36BD0121 Ryot #3 Laurentian Open Terrace 1220 C 36BD0123 Ryot #4 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1200 C 36BD0124 Ryot #6 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1200 C 36BD0125 Ryot #7 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1200 C 36BD0129 Dew Drop #2 Late Archaic Open Floodplain 1180 C 36BD0130 Helacky #2 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1180 C 36BD0131 Helacky #1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1180 C 36BD0132 New Baltimore #1 Piedmont Open Floodplain 1330 C 36BD0133 New Baltimore #3 Piedmont Open Floodplain 1300 C 36BD0137 Smith #2 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1120 C 36BD0138 Smith #4 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1140 C 36BD0142 Shellbark #1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1140 C 36BD0143 New Baltimore #2 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1340 C 36BD0145 Acker-Rhodes Pied/Laur. Open Floodplain 1120 C 36BD0147 Georges Creek Laurentian Open Bench 1230 C 36BD0155 Snider Farm Pied/Laur. Open Floodplain 1130 D 36BD0158 Site Locus E-16 Laurentian Open Bench 1100 D 36BD0159 Site Locus W-16 Late Archaic Open Bench 1100 D 36BD0161 Claycomb Site #1 Laurentian Open Slopes 1150 C 36BD0162 Claycomb #2 Laurentian Open Slopes 1160 C
78 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
36BD0164 Claycomb #4 Laurentian Open Hillslope 1140 C 36BD0167 Sellers #1 Laurentian Open Ridge/Toe 1160 C 36BD0168 Sellers #2 Laurentian Open Ridge/Toe 1160 C 36BD0169 Sellers #3 Laurentian Open Ridge/Toe 1160 C 36BD0171 Stahl #2 Laurentian Open Hilltop 1180 C 36BD0172 Stahl #3 Laurentian Open Hillslope 1140 C 36BD0173 Ickes Site #1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1080 C 36BD0174 Ickes Site #2 Laurentian Open Bench 1080 C 36BD0177 Wakefield Laurentian Open Hillslope 1140 D 36BD0182 Bedford Prison Laurentian Open Terrace 1060 C 36BD0190 Rhodes Site Laurentian Open Terrace 829 D 36BD0197 CR-4 Laurentian Open Terrace 1140 C 36BD0199 CR-6 Late Archaic Open -- 1115 C 36BD0218 wall site Laurentian Open Terrace 1090 C 36BD0222 JLG Laurentian Village Terrace 1060 C 36BD0243 Ford 2 Laurentian Open Slopes 1020 C 36BD0247 Georges Creek Site #2 Laurentian Open Terrace 1200 C 36BD0248 cr-13 Laurentian Open Terrace 1260 C 36BD0265 Slagle Laurentian Open Ridgetop 1160 C 36BL0001 Gromiller Cave Laurentian Open Hillslope 960 A 36BL0011 Bottomsfield Laurentian Open Ridge/Toe 960 A 36BL0016 Canoe Creek II Laurentian Open Floodplain 880 A 36BL0027 -- Laurentian Open Floodplain 1020 A 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 1010 A 36BL0029 Leighty's Market Piedmont Open Floodplain 1015 A 36BL0035 B-1 Laurentian Open Bench 1190 A 36BL0036 D-1 Laurentian Prehistoric Bench 1240 A 36BL0038 T I P 1 Laurentian Open Floodplain 960 A 36BL0040 T I P 3 Laurentian Open Floodplain 960 A 36BL0041 T I P 4 Laurentian Open Floodplain 980 A 36BL0046 -- Laurentian Open Bench 1080 A 36BL0054 -- Laurentian Open Floodplain 960 A 36BL0056 Replacement 10 Laurentian Open Floodplain 950 A 36BL0064 Nearhoof Laurentian Lithic Red. Terrace 1100 A 36BL0071 Starck Laurentian Lithic Red. Bench 1090 A 36BL0072 Sharer site #2 Laurentian Lithic Red. Floodplain 1055 A 36CE0269 Kepler Laurentian Open Bench 1260 A 36CE0283 -- Laurentian Open Bench 1170 A 36CE0284 Deibler Pasture Laurentian Open Bench 1160 A 36CE0285 Rockspring Cave Laurentian Rock Sh. Bench 1160 A 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Shelter Pied/Laur. Rock Sh. Hillslope 640 D 36HU0033 James Grove Laurentian Open Floodplain 760 D 36HU0050 Rockshelter Laurentian Rock Sh. Hillslope 700 D 36HU0067 -- Laurentian Open Floodplain 680 A 36HU0106 Carbaugh Lower Field Late Archaic Open Floodplain 820 D 36HU0107 -- Late Archaic Open Floodplain 840 D 36HU0109 -- Late Archaic Open Floodplain 880 D 36HU0114 Cunningham Bridge Laurentian Open Floodplain 720 B 36HU0122 Kyper-B Late Archaic Open Floodplain 670 B 36HU0127 Miller-A Late Archaic Open Floodplain 637 B 36HU0143 Mykut Rockshelter Laurentian Rock Sh. Ridge/Toe 1060 D
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 79 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
While research bias in Watershed C is another possible explanation for the high density of Late Archaic sites, data collected for this project suggests that research was fairly evenly distributed across the sub-basin, if slightly biased away from Watershed C. Of the 21 research projects in the sub-basin (see discussion below; Table 23), six each were in Watersheds C and A, while nine were in Watershed D. With the exception of Watershed B, which has experienced very minimal work of any kind, these data suggest that research bias is not a factor in the distribution of Late Archaic sites in the sub-basin.
Based on the discussion above, Late Archaic populations increased predominantly in the first half of the period, between approximately 5300 and 4500 years ago. This population increase is reflected by the predominance of Brewerton projectile points (see Table 17). Late Archaic populations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin focused their settlement in Watersheds C and D, along the Raystown Branch, Dunning Creek, Yellow Creek and vicinity, and, to a lesser extent, along the Frankstown Branch and Little Juniata Rivers of Watershed A. The location of population increase mirrors that of the preceding Middle Archaic, which also experienced significant increases in sites along the Raystown Branch, compared to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. As with the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Middle Archaic periods, however, the predominant site type and placement pattern continued to be open camps and lithic reduction sites along the floodplains and terraces of streams and rivers (Table 19).
Table 19. Late Archaic: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting (PASS Files)
SETTING LITHIC RED. OPEN ROCK SH. BASE TOTAL Bench 1 10 1 -- 12 Floodplain 1 41 -- 1 43 Terrace 1 13 -- 1 15 Alluvial Setting Totals 3 64 1 2 70 Hillslope -- 4 2 -- 6 Hilltop -- 1 -- -- 1 Ridge/Toe -- 4 1 -- 5 Ridgetop -- 1 -- -- 1 Slopes -- 3 -- -- 3 Uplands/Slopes Total -- 13 3 -- 16 No data -- 1 -- -- 1 Total 3 78 4 2 87
PASS files identify two possible base camp sites during the Late Archaic (Table 18), supporting Raber’s model for increasing use of logistic subsistence patterns. In this model, as reviewed above, base camps are established in river valleys from which subsistence forays are conducted. Another major change during the Late Archaic is a substantial increase in sites within uplands and hill slopes, including ridgetop sites (n=6) and rockshelters (n=4; see Table 19). Increased use of uplands and rockshelters also supports Raber’s model, as these types of sites likely represent instances of “task-specific extraction activities like hunting, fishing, and gathering,” as would be expected within a collector subsistence strategy (Burns and Raber 1998:3).
80 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
During the preceding periods, specific site location data suggested patterns of site placement relative to streams and stream confluences. As shown in Table 20 below, specific site data was available regarding 74 of the 87 Late Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. As with other time periods, access to water was the key to site placement, as 63 of the sites are located within 150 m of a water source. Given the Late Archaic settlement pattern model, it is expected that more sites would be located along small streams, as they would have been used frequently for subsistence; fewer, but larger, sites are expected in valleys of larger rivers. Size of stream varied, as expected, with 50 sites near low-mid order streams (grade 1-3) and 21 sites being near high order (grade 4-5) streams. Given that most sites were listed as open camps (and only two as villages or base camps), there were no PASS data available to evaluate the possible correlation between site type, site size, and stream order. Research reports, discussed below, provide more insight into this issue. Table 20. Late Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
DISTANCE TO ORDER OF DISTANCE DIRECTION FLOW ORDER SITE NO. SLOPE STREAM STREAM TO CONF. OF CONF. OF CONF. OF CONF. 36BD0002 00 10 3 1600 Northeast Upstream 3 36BD0023 00 120 1 360 South No conf. 4 36BD0036 00 80 5 600 Northeast No conf. 5 36BD0048 00 200 1 760 Northwest No conf. 4 36BD0073 00 100 4 100 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0089 00 40 4 1100 Southeast No conf. 5 36BD0094 00 340 3 620 Southwest No conf. 3 36BD0108 00 10 4 1380 Southeast Upstream 5 36BD0109 00 160 4 240 North Upstream 4 36BD0111 00 140 4 760 Southeast Upstream 4 36BD0112 00 10 1 720 East Upstream 4 36BD0113 00 360 3 740 Southwest Upstream 4 36BD0115 00 10 1 1480 Northwest Upstream 3 36BD0118 00 20 4 40 Northwest Downstream 4 36BD0121 00 260 2 460 Southeast No conf. 3 36BD0123 00 10 2 360 Southeast Upstream 3 36BD0124 00 60 1 140 Northeast Upstream 3 36BD0125 00 60 2 200 Northeast Upstream 3 36BD0129 00 40 1 60 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0130 00 120 1 380 Northeast No conf. 4 36BD0131 00 30 1 220 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0132 00 80 3 100 South No conf. 3 36BD0133 00 10 1 280 East Upstream 3 36BD0137 00 40 1 180 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0138 00 10 4 840 East Downstream 4 36BD0142 00 20 4 1020 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0143 00 140 2 400 Southeast Upstream 3 36BD0145 00 50 4 580 Northwest Upstream 4 36BD0145 00 50 4 580 Northwest Upstream 4 36BD0147 00 60 3 400 Northwest Upstream 3 36BD0155 3 5 4 60 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0158 0 1 460 Northwest No conf. 5 36BD0159 0 1 500 Northwest No conf. 5
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 81 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
DISTANCE TO ORDER OF DISTANCE DIRECTION FLOW ORDER SITE NO. SLOPE STREAM STREAM TO CONF. OF CONF. OF CONF. OF CONF. 36BD0161 5 140 2 600 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0162 5 240 2 620 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0164 5 120 1 680 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0167 5 200 1 680 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0168 11 280 1 850 East Downstream 5 36BD0169 11 300 1 780 East Upstream 5 36BD0171 5 200 1 400 North Downstream 5 36BD0172 5 120 1 520 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0173 00 40 2 450 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0174 00 70 2 450 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0177 5 130 5 210 Northeast Upstream 5 36BD0182 5 150 1 230 Northwest Upstream 5 36BL0001 20 100 5 220 West Downstream 5 36BL0011 5 300 4 280 Northeast Upstream 4 36BL0016 00 0 2 60 Southeast Upstream 2 36BL0027 1 540 2 500 East Upstream 3 36BL0028 2 20 2 100 East Upstream 2 36BL0029 2 40 2 210 East Upstream 2 36BL0035 1 0 1 1100 Southeast No conf. 3 36BL0036 5 0 1 860 Northwest No conf. 3 36BL0038 00 70 3 450 West Upstream 3 36BL0040 00 60 3 240 West Upstream 3 36BL0041 5 60 3 420 East Downstream 3 36BL0046 00 0 2 480 Northeast No conf. 2 36BL0054 1 380 5 640 Southeast Upstream 5 36BL0056 5 140 5 760 Northeast No conf. 5 36CE0269 3 30 1 4040 Northeast Upstream 2 36CE0283 2 80 1 2200 West Downstream 2 36CE0284 2 50 1 2420 West Downstream 2 36CE0285 2 20 1 2520 West Downstream 2 36HU0001 00 40 5 600 Southwest Upstream 5 36HU0033 00 30 2 300 Southeast No conf. 3 36HU0050 50 40 5 740 Northeast Upstream 6 36HU0067 00 40 4 360 Southeast Upstream 5 36HU0106 -- 10 2 40 South Upstream 3 36HU0107 -- 20 2 100 South Upstream 3 36HU0109 -- 120 2 280 South Upstream 3 36HU0114 0 10 4 10 Northeast Upstream 4 36HU0114 0 10 4 10 Northeast Upstream 4 36HU0122 0 0 4 50 East Upstream 2 36HU0127 -- 30 -- 560 East No conf. 2
The location of sites relative to stream confluences was important during preceding periods and was also important during the Late Archaic (Table 21). All but 10 of the Late Archaic sites were located within 1,500 m of a stream confluence, with the remainder within 2,200 m of a confluence (see Table 20). As shown in Table 21, the Late Archaic pattern of site
82 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
placement relative to confluences mirrors that of the preceding Middle Archaic. The majority of sites (n=38 of 56 sites with data) are located upstream from a confluence and a minority (n=15 sites) are located downstream. As during the Middle Archaic, there was apparently no preference for site locations in specific directions relative to stream confluences, as 33 sites were placed north of confluences and 22 sites were placed south of confluences, with several to the east (n=11) and west (n=6) as well. Finally, the size of the confluence varied, with 41 sites being located near a high-order (grade 4-6) confluence and 31 sites being located near a low-mid order (grade 1-3) stream confluence.
Table 21. Late Archaic Site Locations Relative to Stream Confluences: Cross-tab of Site Location relative to Stream Flow and Confluence Direction.
NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH LOCATION OF CONFLUENCE EAST NORTH SOUTH WEST TOTAL EAST WEST EAST WEST No flow data 1 -- 4 4 2 4 1 -- 16 Confluence Downstream 3 1 3 1 -- -- 3 4 15 Upstream, Between Conf. 2 1 8 4 3 4 1 -- 23 Upstream, Not Between 5 -- 7 -- 3 1 2 18 Total 11 2 22 9 5 11 6 6 72
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: Research Reports While PASS files data provide a general picture of Late Archaic site types, 21 research reports provide more specific data regarding Late Archaic occupation of the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 22). The 21 reports cover 15 cultural resource management projects that identified 36 sites with Late Archaic projectile points. Most (n=27 sites) of the sites were identified during Phase I surveys and/or experienced only minimal Phase II testing; thus, site type is uncertain for these sites due to the low level of effort, although they likely represent camp locations. Only two sites (Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter) contained intact stratified Late Archaic components, while four others (Workman, Wall and Ickes I and Ickes II) were Phase III plowzone sites that yielded mixed deposits with large quantities of Late Archaic artifacts.
Regardless of the generally minimal level of effort conducted at the sites, this body of literature provides important data, especially regarding site types, placement, and technology (see next section), to evaluate Raber’s Late Archaic settlement pattern model in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While evidence of base camps is generally lacking during the Middle Archaic, cultural resource management reports suggest that a few of the Late Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin may have served as base camps, including Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman, among others described below.
The overview below covers Late Archaic sites across the sub-basin, beginning in the Upper Raystown Branch near Huntingdon and progressing clockwise down the Raystown Branch and, finally, to Watershed A and up to the Frankstown Branch/Little Juniata River area.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis 83 Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 22. Late Archaic Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE NO. SITE NAME PHASE PT. TYPE AUTHOR YR. PROJECT LOCATION WSHED COUNTY 36Bd0036 Workman Site III Laurentian Michels/Huner 1968 Workman Site Rays. Lake D Huntingdon 36BD0115 Bob Egolf #3 I Laurentian Raber 2000 Chestnut Ridge E. St. Clair C Bedford Bd155,158,159, 177 Multiple I, II L, P Heberling 1989 Loysburg Hwy. S. Woodbury D Bedford Multiple1 Multiple II Laurentian Heberling 1990 Bedford Air. Bedford C Bedford Bd 173, 174 Ickes I and II II, III L, P Baker/Baker 1990 Bedford Air. Bedford C Bedford 36bd0190 Rhodes I Laurentian Gross et al. 1995 SR 26 Liberty Twp. D Bedford Bd197,199, 200 Multiple I Laurentian Raber 1996 Chestnut Ridge East St. Clair C Bedford 36bd0218 Wall Site III Laurentian C.Davis nd Bedford Dist. Bedford C Bedford 36bd0248 CR-13 I Laurentian Raber 1999 Chestnut Ridge East St. Clair C Bedford 36Bl0001 Gromiller Cave I Laurentian Stackhouse 1965 Gromiller Cave Hollidays. A Blair BL27, 35, 36 Multiple II Laurentian Hay et al. 1983 LR 1061 LR 1061 A Blair Bl38, 40, 41 TIP 1, 3 & 4 I Laurentian Hay/Stevenson 1984 Tipton Ind. Tipton A Blair 36BL0046 -- I Laurentian Lazenby/Heb. 1987 US 220/LR 1061 Tyrone A Blair Bl54, 56 Wetland 4, 6 II Laurentian East/Becman 1992 SR 6220 Bellwood A Blair 36hu0001 Sheep Rock III L, P Michels/Smith 1967 Sheep Rock Rays. Lake D Huntingdon 36hu0001 Sheep Rock III L, P Michels/Dutt 1968 Sheep Rock Rays. Lake D Huntingdon 36hu0067 Petersburg Br. II Laurentian Mitchem 1983 Petersburg Br. Alexandria A Huntingdon 36hu0143 Mykut Rock. II Laurentian Raber/Burns 1999 SR 3001 Carbon Twp D Huntingdon 36hu0143 Mykut Rock. III Laurentian Raber 2000 SR 3001 Carbon Twp D Huntingdon 36hu0143 Mykut Rock. II Laurentian Burns/Raber 1999 SR 3001 Carbon Twp D Huntingdon 36Hu157 -- I,II Laurentian Raber et al. 1994 S.R. 3019 Cass Twp. D Huntingdon
84 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1): Late Archaic Component Sheep Rock Shelter is the best example of a possible Late Archaic base camp in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as it contains a thick (12-36 inch) midden with evidence of a variety of work tasks, suggesting the presence of whole families or bands. Several burn and storage features were identified in the Late Archaic levels, along with human burials. Among the burials is “Sheep Rock Woman” (Saul 1968:208), as well as two other mature individuals (one possible male and one possible female). Sheep Rock Woman was typed as an Amerind and was placed within the Middle Archaic excavation levels; however, as noted earlier, point types associated with the skull are Laurentian, suggesting a Late Archaic age. Approximately 52 grams of red ocher were recovered in association with the skull. While not discussed in detail in the site report, an infant skeleton was apparently found nearby, suggesting that both may have died during childbirth (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
At approximately the same depth in another portion of the shelter, two Brewerton side- notched points were recovered in association with a second Late Archaic burial in excavation level 6 (Figure 6). Prior to burial, the skeleton was covered by two “artificially-placed layers of…very large flat stones” (Michels and Smith 1967:245). A third layer of smaller stones directly overlaid the skeleton, which was placed in a shallow trench. The original orientation of the burial was likely extended, as shown in Figure 6 (Michels and Smith 1967:246). The skeleton was nearly complete, except for a missing skull (only two front teeth were recovered) and long-bone fragments. Saul (1967:247) interprets the skeleton to be a “Late Archaic extended, probably male burial…it is possible that the peoples of this time period practiced a form of bundle re-burial, waiting until the skeleton had partially deteriorated before removing the skull and long bones to another site.”
In addition to the burials, several cooking features and domestic tools, including six varieties of endscrapers (Michels and Dutt 1968:418), drills, sidescrapers, and groundstone tools, suggest use of Sheep Rock Shelter by entire families conducting a variety of tasks. The organization of the preliminary site reports unfortunately precludes an in-depth discussion on Late Archaic features, as it was difficult to interpret the locations of features relative to excavation levels and strata.
Sheep Rock Shelter also yielded an abundant variety of faunal remains and shell that provide information regarding Late Archaic subsistence in the Raystown Branch Valley. While not differentiated by site component (Guilday and Parmalee 1965; Michels and Dutt 1968), faunal remains at the site were mostly deer (~50%), with an array of other mammals as well. Evidence of fishing is present, as 180 fish scales were recovered in the Late Archaic excavation levels. Only nine fish scales were recovered in the level above and only five were recovered in the level below, suggesting that the scales were introduced into the level via cultural processes. Most of the fish scales are Type A, which most commonly derive from Alosa sapidissima, or American Shad (Michels and Dutt 1968:125), suggesting the procurement of this anadromous fish during the spring.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 85 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 6. Burial No. 5, Sheep Rock Shelter, Late Archaic.
A6 - C -- 10 - 236 - Interpretation Of Burial
Foot Scale
0 6” 1 ft. DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02 C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Figure 6 gai Late Archaic Burial No. 5 from Sheep Rock Shelter (from Michels and Smith 1967: 246)
86 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Nearly 700 grams of mollusk shell and over 13,000 grams of untyped bone were recovered in the level as well, indicating extensive hunting and processing of a variety of aquatic and forest prey. No botanical remains were identified in the Late Archaic excavation levels at Sheep Rock Shelter.
Based on the types of artifacts, burials, features, and subsistence remains, entire families were clearly present at Sheep Rock Shelter. These data support the notion that Late Archaic Native Americans used the shelter as a base camp from which they conducted subsistence forays, including hunting, gathering, and fishing. The location of the site within a major river valley conforms to Raber’s model of base camp placement.
The Workman Site: Late Archaic Occupation The high density of Late Archaic materials at the Workman Site, including at least 49 Brewerton points (eared-, corner-and side-notched varieties), suggests that it also served as a base camp for Late Archaic Native Americans operating within the Raystown Branch Valley. Unfortunately, excavations at the Workman Site in the floodplain/terrace of the Raystown Valley removed only the plowzone to expose the subsoil for Woodland feature identification. Thus, excavations did not extend below 1-2 ft. of the ground surface (Michels and Huner 1968:21-22); as such, only the later Woodland site occupations were fully exposed. Deep excavations might have revealed additional stratified site occupations. Regardless, the sheer quantity of Late Archaic artifacts suggests extended stays or multiple visits to the site. As with Sheep Rock Shelter, the location of the site in the Raystown Valley fits Raber’s predictive model of a base camp location. GAI analyzed the majority of the Late Archaic points at the State Museum, with results presented below.
Mykut Rockshelter: Late Archaic Occupation Mykut Rockshelter—Site 36Hu143—yielded a small Late Archaic component within a stratified rock overhang deposit (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000; see Photograph 11). The site overlooks Tatman Run, a small tributary of the Raystown Branch that would have provided an easy travel route to and from the river (now Raystown Lake). Data regarding the Late Archaic occupation was restricted to two radiocarbon dates of ca. 4200 to 4500 B.P. (see above) from hearths and associated lithic debris. If Sheep Rock Shelter was a Late Archaic base camp within the Raystown Branch Valley, Mykut Rockshelter would have provided an excellent camp location during short subsistence forays into nearby uplands east of the river.
S.R. 26/S.R. 913 Phase I survey and Phase II testing were conducted at the intersection of S.R. 26 and S.R. 913 on the west side of the Raystown Branch near Stonerstown. Excavations identified site 36Bd190 (the Rhodes Site) on the opposite side of the river from the Workman Site, described above. Phase I work was conducted by CHRS (Gross et al. 1995) with subsequent Phase II work by Lewis et al. (1996). Excavations at the site yielded several Late Archaic points, including Brewerton and other stemmed types. No features were identified and all artifacts were recovered in the plowzone. The site is likely the remains of a Late Archaic lithic reduction episode or camp.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 87 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
S.R. 3019 Phase I and II studies were conducted by Heberling (Raber et al. 1994) at the Late Archaic Site 36Hu157. Located in the valley of Great Trough Creek in uplands above Raystown Lake, the site yielded 316 lithic artifacts, including Laurentian, Piedmont, and Transitional projectile points. No features were identified and the site likely represents the remains of a small resource procurement camp. The high percentage of rhyolite in the assemblage suggests travel/trade to the southeast. Rhyolite was the predominant lithic raw material used at the site, accounting for 46 percent of the entire lithic assemblage. Chert (42%), jasper (5.7%), oolitic chert (n=2 artifacts), quartzite (n=5 artifacts), and quartz (n=1 artifact) also were used at the site.
Loysburg Highway Project Heberling (Heberling and Heberling 1989) conducted Phase I and II studies for the Loysburg Highway project in South Woodbury Township, Bedford County in 1989. Three Late Archaic sites were identified on the floodplain/terrace of Yellow Creek, a mid-order tributary of the Upper Raystown Branch. Site 36Bd158 contained Late Archaic multiple occupations, while Sites 36Bd159 and 36Bd177 apparently contained the remains of single Late Archaic occupations. Lithic reduction of local cherts was the main goal of site occupants at each site.
Bedford County Airport and Bedford Industrial Park During the late-1980s, Phase I-III excavations were conducted at the Bedford County Airport, approximately ten miles north of Bedford (Heberling et al. 1990; Baker and Baker 1990. The project was predominantly within upland hillside and hilltop settings overlooking Brush Run, a small tributary of Dunning Creek, east of Chestnut Ridge. Of Heberling’s 16 Phase I sites, 15 were located in upland settings, while one was in a creek floodplain. Results of Phase II studies indicated heavy use of the uplands above Dunning Creek during the Late Archaic for seasonal subsistence, with limited use during other time periods. Of the 16 Phase II sites, eight yielded Late Archaic artifacts, predominantly consisting of Brewerton points within lithic debitage scatters. Many of the remaining sites were interpreted to be Late Archaic as well, based on their similarity to the Late Archaic site assemblages. As Heberling et al. (1990:173) state: “the consistent character of these sites suggests a picture of repeated use of the area during the Late Archaic period.” These Late Archaic sites likely represent Shriver and other local chert lithic-reduction stations and camps used for seasonal subsistence procurement.
Subsequent Phase III excavations at two of the Bedford County airport sites—the Ickes 1 and Ickes 2 Sites (36Bd173 and 36Bd174)—by Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP; Baker and Baker 1990) also yielded a high density of local chert artifacts within a low-order stream- terrace setting. While Phase I survey identified the Ickes 1 and 2 Sites as two different site areas, subsequent Phase II and III work revealed that they represent one large, continuous scatter of artifacts. Diagnostic projectile points included 14 Brewerton points from Ickes 2 and two Piedmont-type (Poplar Island and untyped stemmed) points from Ickes 1. Eight radiocarbon assays were conducted of features at the Ickes 1 and 2 Sites during Phase II and
88 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Phase III work, none of which yielded Late Archaic dates, however. The dates ranged from Early-Middle Woodland to Late Woodland. The problematic association between the Woodland feature dates and the predominantly Late Archaic artifact assemblage is explained as a case of “reverse stratigraphy” (Long 1996), in which Late Archaic artifacts washed from further upslope onto the former ground surface exposed during the Woodland. This resulted in a mixed assemblage of Woodland and Late Archaic artifacts within the buried Woodland- age soil. Regardless of the problematic stratigraphy, the moderate-high artifact density of these sites, as well as their locations on hilltops and terraces of Brush Run, suggest that they were camps used for lithic reduction of locally-collected cherts during the Late Archaic (see more discussion of lithic raw material use below).
Nearby the Bedford County Airport sites, Phase II and III excavations were conducted at the Wall Site in winter, 1995 (36Bd218; Davis et al. n.d.) at the location the proposed Bedford County industrial park. The Wall site yielded several Brewerton points (see Figure 5) from mixed plowzone contexts within the floodplain of a small tributary of Dunning Creek. The site assemblage was comprised exclusively of “Bedford” (~Shriver) chert and the report suggests that the site represents a resource-extraction site.
Chestnut Ridge Project The Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project (Raber 1999, 2000; Raber and Heberling 1996) identified three Late Archaic sites (36Bd197, 199, 200) on terraces and small tributaries of Dunning Creek, itself a tributary of the upper Raystown Branch northwest of Bedford. Two of the sites—36Bd197 and 36Bd198—were interpreted to be base camps because of the “size and variety of the assemblage, as well as the setting” of the sites within a low-order stream tributary of Bob’s Creek (Raber and Heberling 1996:66-71). Many of the 11 other sites identified during the Chestnut Ridge survey were interpreted to be Late Archaic camps, although diagnostic artifacts were lacking from many of the sites. Raber’s model of Late Archaic settlement was in part based on the results of the Chestnut Ridge survey.
Tipton Industrial Park The Tipton Industrial Park Project (Hay et al. 1984) identified a series of small Late Archaic camps along the Little Juniata River and adjacent tributaries in Watershed A south of Altoona. Of four identified prehistoric sites, Sites 36Bl38, 36Bl41and 36Bl43 yielded Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts and moderate quantities of locally-procured Tipton chert (see Chapter II). Based on their location, Raber’s model might characterize these sites as base camps, as they are located along one of the main water courses—the Little Juniata River—in Watershed A. However, the limited research conducted at the sites precludes a determination of site function. The moderate density of artifacts and the lack of site furniture (e.g., large groundstone tools) suggest that the sites may actually represent camp or lithic reduction locations, rather than base camps.
S.R. 6220 Project The S.R. 6220 project (East and Beckman 1992) also identified two Late Archaic sites— 36Bl54 and 36Bl56—along the Little Juniata River in Blair County near Altoona. The sites
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 89 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
are small, temporary camps consisting of low to moderate densities of lithic debris with no features. An Otter Creek projectile point was recovered from Site 36Bl54 (see Figure 5). The sites were interpreted to be Tipton chert lithic reduction locales, similar to the sites identified at the nearby Tipton Industrial Park (see above). Along with the Tipton Industrial Park sites, these low-density, Late Archaic occupations suggest that major waterways also were used as camping locations, rather than strictly as base camps.
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: Summary Overall, PASS file data and research reports suggest that the trends in site placement and population density that began during the Middle Archaic escalated during the Late Archaic in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. During both periods, there were significant population increases within the southern and eastern portions of the sub-basin, mainly (but not exclusively) within the Raystown Branch and vicinity. As with preceding periods, the emergent factor of Late Archaic site placement appears to have been access to water, with a secondary preference for access to stream confluences. Late Archaic sites were also more often placed upstream of confluences, but, as during the Middle Archaic, there was no preference for locating sites in any specific cardinal direction relative to a confluence. Ultimately, data support the contention that there was significant demographic continuity between the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
In support of the PASS file data, research reports provide specific data by which to better evaluate Raber’s settlement pattern model in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The only variation from the model appears to be the use of larger river valleys, such as the Raystown Branch, the Little Juniata River, and Dunning Creek, for resource extraction and lithic reduction camp locations. In addition, smaller tributaries, such as Bob’s Creek in Watershed C, also provided viable locations for more permanent base camps, as indicated by sites identified during the Chestnut Ridge survey (Raber and Heberling 1996). While sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, among others, support the contention that larger river valleys were likely locations of base camps, these valleys, as well as smaller, mid-order tributaries, apparently were also used for a wide variety of purposes, including resource procurement (e.g., hunting, fishing, gathering, lithic). The site placement pattern, thus, appears to have been one of base and temporary camps on mid-high-order streams and rivers and additional small camps on low- order tributaries and uplands. Late Archaic Native Americans appear to have utilized the entire landscape to support their growing population.
D. LATE ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE As briefly introduced in the previous section, Late Archaic Native Americans predominantly used locally-available lithic raw materials, such as Shriver chert, Nittany chert, Bald Eagle jasper, and Tuscarora quartzite. However, non-local lithic raw materials were also recovered at many of the sites. These non-local cherts indicate travel and trade patterns of Native Americans during the Late Archaic. In this section, data from PASS files, research reports and GAI’s collections analysis provide a means to evaluate Late Archaic settlement patterns and lithic raw material use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These data, in consort with that provided above for site types and placement, provide a cohesive picture of Late Archaic
90 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
settlement within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as well as trade and travel patterns beyond the sub-basin.
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: PASS Files Two main trends emerge regarding the Late Archaic PASS lithic artifact data: 1) the predominance of Brewerton (Laurentian) points compared to Piedmont points; and 2) the dominance of chert, jasper, and rhyolite in the lithic assemblages (Table 23). As noted above, 70 sites yielded Laurentian artifacts, while only seven sites yielded Piedmont-type points. The remainder of the sites was identified only as yielding Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts.
PASS data for the 87 Late Archaic sites confirm the widespread use of local cherts and flints for stone tool production within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. PASS forms for 67 of the 87 Late Archaic sites (77%) noted the presence of chert/flint artifacts, compared to 33 each for jasper and rhyolite (see Table 23). The predominance of local cherts is expected, as several chert sources are available throughout the sub-basin. The source of the jasper artifacts is uncertain, but the nearest known sources are within the Bald Eagle Creek Valley and vicinity (East et al. 1999; see Chapter II and Figure 2). More proximate sources may be present, but as yet remain unidentified. The high percentage of rhyolite artifacts (~38% of sites) is common in Late Archaic assemblages, a trend of toolstone-use that was initiated during the preceding Middle Archaic period. These data support the contention of widespread cultural contact with cultures to the south and southeast, especially along the Potomac River and the lower Susquehanna and vicinity.
Table 23. Late Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
TOTAL LITHIC LATE ARCHAIC PIEDMONT LAURENTIAN TOTAL % OF SITES CHERT/FLINT 13 5 49 67 77.0 JASPER 4 4 25 33 37.9 RHYOLITE 7 3 23 33 37.9 NOT IDENTIFIED 3 3 20 26 30.0 QUARTZITE 2 1 5 8 9.2 QUARTZ 1 2 5 8 9.2 SHALE 1 1 4 6 6..9 ONONDAGA CHERT 2 -- 4 6 6.9 CHALCEDONY 1 -- 4 5 5.8 SILTSTONE 1 -- 3 4 4.6 SANDSTONE 1 1 1 3 3.5 ARGILLITE -- -- 2 2 2.3 STEATITE 1 -- 1 2 2.3 FLINT RIDGE -- -- 2 2 2.3 LIMESTONE -- -- 1 1 1.2 HEMATITE 1 -- -- 1 1.2 METASANDSTONE -- -- 1 1 1.2 SLATE 1 -- -- 1 1.2
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 91 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Research Reports While PASS files data include general information regarding toolstone use in the sub-basin, cultural resource management reports provide more specific data that can facilitate a more complete picture of Late Archaic settlement patterns. Data from these reports confirm the widespread use of local cherts, as well as jasper and rhyolite at Late Archaic sites. As with the previous section, the projects are discussed in a clockwise fashion within the sub-basin, beginning in the Upper Raystown Branch near Huntingdon.
Excavations at the Rhodes Site (36Bd190; Lewis et al. 1996) on the west bank of the Raystown Branch (opposite the Workman Site), yielded nearly 2,000 lithic artifacts produced from chert (60%), jasper (33%), and rhyolite (7%). While specific data regarding chert types was not available, it is likely that most of the cherts were locally obtained. The high percentage of jasper suggests a nearby source of Bald Eagle jasper; although no known outcrops exist, the Nittany Formation outcrops across the sub-basin and a local source is probably present, as suggested elsewhere (Raber and Burns 1999:17).
North of the Rhodes Site on uplands overlooking Raystown Lake, Heberling conducted data recovery excavations at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). While data regarding the brief Late Archaic occupation is limited (a data recovery report is pending), the overall lithic assemblage suggests an emphasis on use of local cherts. Nearby Mykut Rockshelter, Site 36Hu129 yielded a possible Neville/Stanly or, alternatively, a Late Archaic stemmed point, within uplands west of Raystown Lake. The non-diagnostic character of the point precludes extensive discussion; however, it is worthy of note that the site yielded high percentages of jasper artifacts, similar to the Late Archaic Rhodes Site, located only a few miles downstream (Raber and Burns 1999).
Another Late Archaic site in uplands west of Raystown Lake, Site 36Hu157 (Raber et al. 1994) was identified in the valley of Great Trough Creek in uplands above Raystown Lake. The site yielded 316 lithic artifacts, including high percentages of rhyolite (46%), suggesting travel/trade to the southeast. Local lithic raw materials, including chert (42%), jasper (5.7%), oolitic chert (n=2 artifacts), quartzite (n=5 artifacts), and quartz (n=1 artifact) also were used at the site.
Approximately 30 miles southwest of Raystown Lake (Watershed D), Phase I-II excavations at several Late Archaic sites along Yellow Creek in Morrison Cove (east of Tussey Mountain) revealed extensive use of local gray and white cherts in stone tool production. The gray chert, called “Bedford County” chert in the Loysburg Highway report (Heberling and Heberling 1989), could be any of the variety of dark gray and black cherts available in Morrison Cove. Shriver chert is the most likely candidate, given its widespread distribution and comparatively high quality. Dark gray chert accounted for ca. 70% of the lithic artifacts from Site 36Bd158, while ca. 12% were gray and white cherts. The presence of white chert at Site 36Bd158 is fairly unique and represents one of the few instances in which creamy white Corriganville chert was used in stone tool production. Corriganville chert outcrops with Shriver chert along Chestnut Ridge to the west (see Figure 2). Only a few artifacts from Site 36Bd158 possessed cortex, suggesting that the mid-late-stages of biface reduction were a
92 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
focus at the site (Heberling and Heberling 1989:56). Nearby, Site 36Bd177 also yielded Brewerton points along with high densities of the local gray and white cherts.
While of a considerably lower artifact density, Site 36Bd159 yielded a contracting-stem Poplar Island point, as well as numerous artifacts produced from gray and white cherts, similar to 36Bd158 and 36Bd177. These three sites support the idea that low-mid-order tributaries—such as Yellow Creek in this instance—were used for primarily for lithic and other resource procurement during the Late Archaic. The sites also provide data to suggest that this pattern continued through the entire Late Archaic period, as represented by points of both the Laurentian and Piedmont type, respectively.
Along Brush Run, a small tributary of Dunning Creek near Bedford, results of Phase I-III excavations at the Bedford County Airport confirm the widespread use of local Shriver and other cherts. Each of the Bedford Airport sites yielded significant percentages of artifacts produced from local chert (76% at Ickes 1; 90.3% at Ickes 2). Baker and Baker (1990:16-18) interpreted the variety of dark gray, black, and olive chert artifacts as Nittany chert. While Nittany chert outcrops in the area (see Chapter II), several other lithic raw materials of similar color and quality also have sources within 10-20 miles of the Bedford Airport sites. The most abundantly available and highest quality of these materials is Shriver chert, with known outcrops along Chestnut Ridge. Keyser and Tonoloway cherts also occur in the area. In all likelihood, thus, several varieties of local cherts were reduced at the Bedford Airport sites, rather than exclusively Nittany chert.
At the Ickes I and Ickes II Sites (Bedford Airport), small amounts of non-local cherts were also recovered, including Flint Ridge (2.5 and 0.2%, respectively), Upper Mercer (1.7 and 0.3%), Onondaga (0.3 and 0.8%), and rhyolite (2.8 and 2.3%). Rhyolite was the most abundant of the non-local cherts, confirming the Late Archaic connection to the Great Valley to the east (Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling et al. 1990). Several flakes of oolitic chert were also recovered at Ickes 2. While the authors (Baker and Baker 1990:18) were uncertain as to the source of this material, it is probably Mines oolitic chert (see Chapter II), which outcrops locally along the Raystown Branch, a few miles southeast of Bedford. Quartzite artifacts were also given a non-local source designation; however, as reflected in Chapter II, fairly high quality outcrops of Tuscarora quartzite outcrops are present within the city limits of Bedford, only a few miles from the Bedford Airport. As noted above, excavations at the Wall Site in the Bedford County Industrial Park (near the Bedford County Airport sites) confirmed the nearly exclusive use of local cherts (~Shriver) by Late Archaic foragers within the Dunning Creek Valley and vicinity as well (Davis et al. n.d.).
Along Chestnut Ridge (Raber 2000), northwest of Bedford, Late Archaic sites yielded predominantly Shriver chert artifacts as well as varying amounts of jasper (both yellow and red), rhyolite, and quartzite. The presence of Shriver and other cherts in these assemblages is expected, given the presence of known outcrops on Chestnut Ridge (see Chapter II).
Finally, in the northwest portion of the sub-basin, Tipton chert, a locally occurring raw material near Altoona, comprises the majority of the raw materials found at local Late
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 93 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Archaic sites. These sites include the three Tipton Industrial Park sites (Hay et al. 1984) and the two S.R. 6220 (East and Beckman 1992) sites (36Bl54 and 36Bl56), described in more detail above. Each of these sites along the Little Juniata River in Watershed A was apparently used for the early-to-late-stage reduction of Tipton chert, as well as the resharpening/rejuvination of stone from non-local sources, including rhyolite.
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Collections Analysis Of the eight collections examined at the State Museum, all of them yielded Late Archaic projectile points (Table 24). Analysis of these points provides an excellent data base by which to evaluate lithic raw material use across the sub-basin during the Late Archaic period. While lithic raw material use was discussed in several of the research reports, as described above, few of them provide data regarding specific lithic raw material types. Information from PASS files also lacks these specific data. GAI’s collections analysis of Late Archaic points at the State Museum, thus, provides supplementary information regarding Late Archaic settlement and tool production within the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Within the eight collections, a total of 51 Late Archaic points were examined by GAI. Of the 51 points, 43 possessed identifiable lithic raw materials, including 23 Brewerton, 6 Lamoka, two each of Snook Kill, Bare Island, and Otter Creek, as well as one Wading River point (see Table 24). As reflected in Table 24, Shriver chert dominates the projectile point assemblages, accounting for half (n=18 of 36) of the points. Rhyolite (n=10) and Corriganville chert (n=6) were also used in significant numbers, while jasper, Keyser chert, Mines chert, Nittany chert, Bellefonte chert, and white quartzite were used infrequently in Late Archaic point production at these sites. Of the 43 points in the sample, thus, 34 were in all likelihood produced from locally-available materials, with only the 10 rhyolite points being non-local. While the emphasis was clearly on use of Shriver chert, these data also show that a wide variety of other local cherts were utilized by Native Americans in the sub-basin. The use of rhyolite at these sites also confirms that Late Archaic travel and trade routes were primarily to the south and east.
Table 24. Late Archaic Collections Analysis Results.
BELLE CORRIGAN SHRIV WHITE POINT TYPE JASPER KEYSER MINES NITTANY RHYOLITE FONTE VILLE ER QUARTZITE TOTAL Untyped ------1 -- -- 4 1 1 7 Snook kill ------2 -- -- 2 Brewerton 1 5 -- 1 1 1 2 13 -- 23 Bare island ------2 -- 2 Lamoka -- 1 2 -- -- 1 1 1 -- 6 Otter creek ------1 ------1 -- 2 Wading river ------1 -- -- 1 Total 1 6 2 3 1 2 10 18 1 43
94 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
E. LATE ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Late Archaic Overview One of the major implications of these data is the demographic and cultural continuity between the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While the increase in population was more significant during the Late Archaic, the pattern emerged during the preceding Middle Archaic. During both periods, population increases mainly occurred along the Raystown Branch and vicinity and most sites were placed with access to water and upstream of a stream confluence.
While these data suggest some continuity between the Middle and Late Archaic, some changes occurred between the two periods that likely reflect a change in settlement pattern. One of the main differences between the Middle and Late Archaic is the increase in sites on small streams, uplands, and rockshelters, suggesting a wider use of the landscape during the Late Archaic compared to the Middle Archaic. In consort with this, the increase in use of base camps in mid-high order drainages supports the notion that Late Archaic Native Americans increased their use of a logistic subsistence strategy, with resource procurement being conducted on a daily basis from semi-permanent base camps. As reflected in the research report data, these base camps were placed on mid- and high-order streams, while short-term camps were located in all settings, most likely in relation to the locations of seasonally-available resources.
The sheer abundance of data collected from PASS files, research reports, and collections analysis, support Raber’s (1995, 1999, 2000; Raber and Heberling 1996) model of Late Archaic settlement in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While the model was mainly intended to apply to sites in the Raystown Branch, Dunning Creek, and Aughwick Creek areas, data presented here suggest that the settlement pattern likely encompassed the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin.
These settlement and demographic patterns initially emerged during the Middle Archaic and escalated during the Late Archaic. The next few chapters provide data to suggest, however, that these trends reached a stasis and may have ultimately reversed during the Transitional, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods. For reasons that will be discussed, site counts decrease within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (and elsewhere) beginning approximately 4,200 years ago and don’t rebound again for nearly 3,000 years.
Late Archaic Research Questions This summary of Late Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Nine Late Archaic research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 95 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
1. Does the Late Archaic represent a continuation of the Middle Archaic? 2. Does the increase in recorded sites imply an increase in populations? 3. Does the predominance of Brewerton points indicate that the population increase was focused within the early portion of the Late Archaic? 4. Why was the population increase focused in the Raystown Branch and vicinity? 5. Does the fairly low density of sites with Piedmont point types indicate that populations decreased toward the end of the Late Archaic? 6. If so, does the population decrease continue into the subsequent Transitional/Terminal Archaic period. 7. If populations decreased in the Upper Juniata, where did they go and why? 8. If there was a population decrease in the Upper Juniata at the end of the Late Archaic and Transitional Archaic periods, it coincided with increasing sedentism and agriculture. Doesn’t this contradict the traditional pattern, in which agriculture and populations grow in consort with each other? How can we explain the population decline in the face of the subsistence and settlement pattern changes? 9. What was the nature of social interaction between Late Archaic populations in the Great Valley and in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as indicated by the increasing densities of rhyolite at Late Archaic sites?
96 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER VIII. TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC PERIOD 3800 to 3000 B.P. by Kenneth W. Mohney, A.B.D.
A. TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC OVERVIEW The Terminal Archaic or Transitional period witnessed several dynamic changes in settlement and subsistence. Population reductions initiated during the end of the Late Archaic period persisted into the Transitional/Terminal Archaic. Regional exchange networks were likely responsible for the movement of increasingly larger amounts of jasper and rhyolite to locations far from their original sources (Stewart 1987). In addition, a number of technological innovations, particularly in cooking technology and food processing, occurred during the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period. The beginnings of the period saw intensive use of steatite vessels, while the end of this period witnessed the introduction of pottery to the region (see Figure 5). Diagnostic projectile point styles (Figure 7) include both broad blade or “broadspear” types during the early portion of the Terminal Archaic followed by fishtail points during the latter portion (Custer 2001).
In Pennsylvania and the Middle Atlantic region, riverine adaptations escalated during the Terminal Archaic (Kinsey 1972, Turnbaugh 1977). Terminal Archaic settlements in nearby regions (Custer 1996; Raber 1995) also indicate the increased use of base camps for logistic subsistence, a continuation of the subsistence and settlement pattern developed during the Middle and Late Archaic periods. While subsistence remains are sparse within the boundary of the study area, data from adjoining regions provides some clue as to potential food resources. In the nearby north Bald Eagle Creek drainage, East et al. (1999) report a possible domestic squash blossom and a wild sumpweed seed in a level dated ca. 4100 B.P. from the Wiser Site. Hart (1995b) reports a squash rind fragment from Late Archaic/Transitional levels (ca. 3500 to 4500 B.P.) at the Memorial Park Site in Lock Haven. These data suggest that Native Americans made occasional use of squash and perhaps other domesticates during the Transitional period.
Regarding wild plant foods, excavations at Memorial Park (GAI 1995:516) also report the presence of hickory, bitternut, hazelnut, butternut, walnut, acorn, grape and elderberry. Faunal remains at sites in adjoining regions suggest the frequent use of fish and other aquatic resources. At Canfield Island in Williamsport, on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River, over 400 netsinkers were found in Terminal Archaic levels (Bressler 1989:46). Several caches of 16-30 netsinkers suggest the use of fairly large nets for large-scale fish collection. Large platform hearth and rock pavements may be associated with the smoking, roasting, or drying of fish (Bressler 1989:72; Custer 1995; Wall et al. 1996).
The following chapter evaluates the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including overviews of material culture, chronology, site types, and settlement patterns. Data from the Upper Juniata are interpreted in light of patterns observed within adjacent regions, as introduced above.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 97 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
All Projectile Points Figure 7. Transitional Period Artifacts. Actual Size A7 - C -- 10 - Perkiomen Broadspear Points Workman Site (36Bd36) 236 - Michels and Huner 1968:227, Plate 3
Orient Fishtail Point Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967: 699 DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02 C0NSULTANTS, INC. Selden Island Pottery, Body Sherds Left: Eroded; Right, Cordmarked
gai Sunny Side Site (36Bd267)
Transitional Broadspear Point Figure 7 Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:691 Transitional Period Artifacts
98 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
TERMINAL ARCHAIC TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Terminal Archaic Technology Projectile Points The most distinguishing characteristics of this time period are the large, wide, and thin projectile points, or “broadspears” (Witthoft 1971; see Figure 7). Broadspear types include Lehigh/Snook Kill, Perkiomen, and Susquehanna styles. Most broadspear points post-date the Late Archaic Savannah River point, a form with antecedents in the southeastern United States that gradually was adopted by groups living to the north (Turnbaugh 1975). Broadspears are usually very well-made, exhibiting superior workmanship on both good and decidedly poor- quality raw materials.
Generally, two trajectories are recognized for broadspear manufacture. Cresson (1990) provides an excellent review of broadspear manufacturing techniques. Large broadspears were made from blanks derived directly from quarry contexts. Their surfaces usually exhibit several large, well-controlled percussion-flake scars; these flake scars allowed the biface to be rapidly thinned while maintaining its width. Small broadspears could be made from recycled large variants, but most commonly were made from smaller flake blanks derived from large bifaces or cores.
Initially, broadspears were viewed as cutting implements, points, or perhaps, fishspears (Ritchie 1969). Subsequent experimental use and the examination of a number of archaeological assemblages have led some researchers to question the viability of the broad blade types as projectiles. Though conceived as a study in fracture patterns, Truncer’s (1990) experiments with Perkiomen broadpoints indicated that they tended to “bounce” off a deer carcass rather than penetrate its hide. Some authors, thus, hypothesize that the high edge angles and width of these points were unsuited for use as a spear or dart tip. Custer (1996) believes that broadspears represent special function tools, likely for the processing of game animals, while Wall et al. (1996) suggest that broadspear preforms served a variety of purposes including use as cores, knives, and scrapers.
Cresson’s (1990) comprehensive study of broadspears from the New Jersey region suggest these tools functioned primarily as cutting tools with secondary use as projectiles and perforators. His research is part of a growing body of literature that suggests that Broadspears served as cutting tools, while other bifacial implements served as projectile points (Cresson 1990, Custer 1995, Miller 1998). In Cresson’s view, narrow bladed/ stemmed points such as Bare Island and Lackawaxen points were much more suitable for hunting. Points with narrow blades are much more likely to penetrate the hide of an animal than are broader bladed forms. Studies suggest that the tip of a point must begin penetrating an animal hide immediately upon impact or it will tend to “bounce” off the target. The wide tip of many broadspears is unsuitable for the quick penetration needed for use as projectile tips, although a minority were used a projectiles. Often, the “small” variants of the broadspear form exhibit impact damage indicative of use as projectile points (Cresson 1990).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 99 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
In addition to their use as points or as multipurpose cutting tools, broadspears frequently show evidence of extreme resharpening. Successive episodes of use and resharpening often reduce the original width of the biface by as much as 90 percent. Many of these heavily resharpened tools are then used as drills. The form of the drill is unmistakable; an extremely narrow blade and a base with extremely broad shoulders that represent the original unresharpened width of the blade.
While broadspears dominated the early portion of the Terminal Archaic, Drybrook and the more common Orient Fishtail points (see Figure 7) are associated with the end of the Terminal Archaic. These distinctive points exhibit a concave base with markedly flaring basal ears reminiscent of a fish’s tail hence the derivation of the name.
A final point type sometimes associated with the Terminal Archaic of the greater region is the Steubenville/Fox Creek stemmed and lanceolate point types. First defined by Mayer-Oakes (1955) in the Upper Ohio Valley, these distinctive point types date to ca. 4,200-3,400 BP in the Ohio Valley (East et al. 1999; Lothrop n.d.). Steubenville points have not been identified in good contexts in the Susquehanna/Juniata drainages. However a morphologically similar point style, the Fox Creek type, dating to the Woodland period, has been identified in regional assemblages (Custer 2001:32; Funk 1968). For the purposes of this report, given the lack of data regarding their time of use, Steubenville/Fox Creek points are not included in analysis of site types for any period.
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Steatite and Ceramics In addition to broadspear points, a second hallmark of the period is the use of soapstone or steatite bowls (Turnbaugh 1977). These bowls are believed to be an innovation in cooking technology, allowing for the first time the placement of a container directly into a fire (Wall et al. 1996). Alternatively, these bowls may have served as storage containers, although their overall modest size would severely limit the amount of stored food. Steatite, or soapstone, is found scattered throughout eastern Pennsylvania and portions of Maryland, with the most proximate sources to the south along the Potomac River (see Chapter II; Custer 1996).
Most steatite bowls are relatively small, measuring 12-15 inches long and 2-3 inches high with round, or flat bottoms (Wall et al. 1996). In addition, much smaller steatite bowls are encountered occasionally; these bowls frequently contain soot or carbonized material on their interior while the bottom of the bowl is uncharred. Some researchers (Wall et al. 1996) believe that these containers served as lamps that utilized fish oil or moss as fuel.
Ceramics generally function as cultural horizon markers for archaeologists who study the subsequent Woodland period, but the earliest ceramics in the Middle Atlantic region were introduced during the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period (Reid 1984). Steatite-tempered wares, including Marcey Creek and Selden Island (see Figure 7), were the earliest varieties in the Middle Atlantic (Dent 1995: 224-227). The Bull Run Site (36LY119) on the Susquehanna River in Lycoming County yielded steatite-tempered Marcey Creek Plain pottery in association with Terminal Archaic Orient Fishtail Points (Berger 2001:16). The Miller Field Site on the Upper Delaware River, New Jersey, also yielded Marcey Creek Plain steatite-
100 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
tempered pottery in an Orient component radiocarbon dated to 3170±120 years B.P. (Kinsey 1972:451-453; Custer 1996: 219-221; Dent 1995:226). The Accokeek Creek Site on the Potomac River yielded Marcey Creek pottery stratigraphically below an Early Woodland Pope’s Creek component with Vinette I pottery (Stephenson et al. 1963).
While Marcey Creek pottery was plain, flat-bottomed, and was molded from clay slabs, Selden Island and Bare Island Cordmarked pottery were the earliest pottery types produced using the coiling technique. These vessels were conoidal with the earliest types still incorporating steatite as the temper. Selden Island was first defined at the Selden Island Site in Montgomery County, Maryland, by Slattery (1946).
Recent excavations at the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267), near the confluence of the Raystown Branch and Yellow Creek in Bedford County (MacDonald 2001), identified Selden Island Cordmarked steatite-tempered ceramics within a small rock-lined hearth dated to 3500±100 years B.P (see Figure 5). The earliest previously-known date—2955±90 B.P.—on Selden Island pottery is from Clyde Farm in Delaware (Dent 1995:226).
Terminal Archaic Chronology In Pennsylvania, the Terminal Archaic is thought to begin roughly at 3800 B.P. with the introduction of broadspear points into the region. This period is comparatively short lived, with a terminal date of approximately 3000-2800 B.P. The end of the period is marked by the demise of the fishtail-type points and the increasingly widespread use of pottery.
In Sub-Basin 11, two well-dated Terminal Archaic/Transitional components have been identified, both in Watershed D:
At Sheep Rock Shelter, Level 5, the Transitional component, produced a date of 1270±160 B.C. or 3380-3060 B.P. (M2085). Diagnostic artifacts from this level included broadspears and steatite; however, no steatite-tempered pottery was recovered from the site.
A date of 3500 B.P. ±100 B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090 and BC 2050 to 1540; Beta 158705) was obtained from a hearth with associated Selden Island pottery at the Sunny Side Site (MacDonald 2001). This site is located along Yellow Creek, near its confluence with the Raystown Branch. This date is the earliest known for Selden Island pottery.
These are the only two radiocarbon dates available for the Terminal Archaic in the study area; however, dates are available for adjacent regions. Survey in the Aughwick Creek Valley, just to the west of the current project area, produced dates of ca. 3180 B.P. at Site 36Hu73 and ca. 3210 B.P. at Site 36Hu44 (Raber 1995). Artifacts associated with these dates include broadspear points and small stemmed and notched bifaces. The stemmed and notched bifaces may represent non-broadspear occupations; alternatively, these points may have been in use at the same time as the broadspears, possibly representing functional variants.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 101 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
In the Susquehanna Valley, Susquehanna Broadspears range in age from 3595-3290 B.P., while Perkiomen Broadspears range from 3720-3640 B.P. (East et al. 1999). At the Memorial Park site on the West Branch of the Susquehanna, Canfield Island/Susquehanna components date to ca. 3000, to 3500 B.P. with steatite. Orient fishtail projectile points date from approximately 3200-2800 B.P. at sites in the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1995), while at Memorial Park, the Orient Phase dates to ca. 3100 to 2900 B.P. (GAI 1995).
Some researchers believe that narrow stemmed points, such as Bare Island or Lackawaxen types, were in use at the same time as the broadspears (see Late Archaic Technology, Chapter VII). Just north of the project area, Bare Island points were the most numerous point type at the Wiser Site (36Ce442; East et al. 1999), which dates from 4000-3400 B.P., suggesting that there may be some cross-over in use of Late Archaic Piedmont stemmed points (e.g., Bare Island, Poplar Island, and Lackawaxen) and Transitional period broadspears.
C. TERMINAL ARCHAIC SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS Of the 48 sites listed in PASS files with Terminal Archaic components, only 35 list associated diagnostic projectile points; thus, only these sites are discussed here. The trend in decreasing site counts continued from the end of the Late Archaic period. While this could indicate that fewer people used the area during the end of the Late Archaic and Terminal Archaic periods, an alternative view is that increasing occupational duration or reuse of sites may characterize this period (Custer 1996). Thus, the decrease in the number of recorded sites may signal increasing duration of settlement occupation rather than a population decrease during the Terminal Archaic. If this is the case, sites should yield increased densities of artifacts and features.
Raber’s (1995) study of site type trends in the Aughwick Creek Valley just west of the present study area suggests that three types characterize the Late-Terminal Archaic settlement pattern. As discussed in the Late Archaic chapter, the site types include macroband base camps located on terraces overlooking major river valleys, with smaller resource procurement and trailside camps in smaller stream valleys or in upland settings. Custer (1996) believes that riverine resources and sites were increasingly important during the Terminal Archaic and led to the repeated use and reuse of base camps at favored floodplain locations along major rivers. In the greater region, Wall et al. (1996) suggest that Terminal Archaic Native Americans became increasingly adapted to riverine resources with a high redundancy in occupation of large base camps along major river systems.
Terminal Archaic Sites Types and Locations: PASS Files Table 25 shows that Terminal Archaic sites are not evenly distributed in the study area. Watersheds C and D contain 19 and seven sites respectively, while Watershed A contains a further nine sites. As during other time periods, little archaeological research has been conducted in Watershed B and no Terminal Archaic sites have been identified in that watershed. As during the Late Archaic, the majority of Terminal Archaic sites are focused along the Raystown Branch and its tributaries, suggesting that it was a hub of travel and settlement during the period.
102 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 25. Transitional Period Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME WSHED MAJ.STREAM SETTING ELEV. SITE TYPE 36BD0002 -- C Raystown Floodplain 1240 Open 36BD0018 D.Plummer Farm C Raystown Terrace 0 Open 36BD0038 -- D Raystown Floodplain 800 Open 36BD0046 Bridge C Raystown Floodplain 1100 Open 36BD0096 Hostetler's #8 & #14 C Raystown Floodplain 1120 Open 36BD0112 Steinbach C Raystown Floodplain 1120 Open 36BD0114 Hoenstine #3 C Raystown Terrace 1140 Open 36BD0116 Hull #5 C Raystown Terrace 1140 Open 36BD0123 Ryot #4 C Raystown Floodplain 1200 Open 36BD0128 Beckner C Raystown Floodplain 1190 Open 36BD0142 Shellbark #1 C Raystown Floodplain 1140 Open 36BD0150 Ferra C Raystown Floodplain 1160 Open 36BD0155 Snider Farm D Raystown Floodplain 1130 Open 36BD0157 Hostetler's #8 & #14 C Raystown Floodplain 1140 Open 36BD0158 Site Locus E-16 D Raystown Bench 1100 Open 36BD0182 Bedford Prison C Raystown Terrace 1060 Open 36BD0219 Mart Site C Raystown Terrace 1070 Open 36BD0223 historic C Raystown -- Open 36BD0243 ford 2 C Raystown Slopes 1020 Open 36BL0018 Miller A Frankstown Hillslope 1960 Open 36BL0027 -- A Frankstown Floodplain 1020 Open 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 A Frankstown Floodplain 1010 Open 36BL0041 T I P 4 A Frankstown Floodplain 980 Open 36BL0043 T I P 6 A Frankstown Floodplain 980 Open 36BL0064 Nearhoof Site A Bald Eagle Terrace 1100 Lithic Red. 36CE0285 Rockspring Cave A Frankstown Bench 1160 Rock Shelter 36HU0101 Graysville Cave A Frankstown Hillslope 1080 Rock Shelter 36HU0106 Carbaugh Low. Fld D Juniata River Floodplain 820 Open 36HU0112 -- D Raystown Slopes 1000 Rock Shelter 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Shelter D Raystown Hillslope 640 Rock Shelter 36BD0036 Workman Site D Raystown Floodplain 820 Open 36BD0171 Stahl #2 C Raystown Hilltop 1180 Open 36BD0172 Stahl #3 C Raystown Hillslope 1140 Open 36HU0067 -- A Frankstown Floodplain 680 Open 36bD0198 CR-5 C Raystown Terrace 1135 Open
PASS files data indicate that the vast majority of Terminal Archaic sites in the study area are open sites (n=31), including camps and lithic reduction stations, while the remainder of sites are rockshelters (Table 26). The presence of large numbers of open sites located on floodplains or terraces of the Juniata River system offers tentative support for the models of Raber (1995) and Custer (1996), which suggest increased use of riverine resources during this time period. Some 88.2 percent of all Terminal Archaic sites in PASS files occur in alluvial settings, while the preceding Late Archaic period yielded 81.4 percent of sites in alluvial
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 103 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report settings. However, mean distance to water was similar between the Late Archaic (88.1 m) and Transitional Archaic periods (90.8 m), respectively, and both of these numbers represent increases of a mean of 30 m compared to the Middle Archaic (60.97 m). PASS files also do not provide sufficient site type information to characterize the riverine Terminal Archaic/Transitional sites as “base camps,” as would be predicted by Raber’s model. Research reports may provide additional insights into the size and type of these riverine sites.
Table 26. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting
SITE TYPE NA FLDPLN TERRACE BENCH SLOPES HILLTOP TOTAL Open 1 18 6 1 3 1 30 Lithic Red. -- -- 1 ------1 Rock Shelter ------1 3 -- 4 Total 1 18 7 2 6 1 35
As during preceding periods, distance to nearest water was an important determinate for Terminal Archaic site locations (Table 27). Of the 35 Terminal Archaic sites, 30 are located within 150 meters of a stream. Twenty-two are located near low-order (grade 1-3 streams), while 13 are located near high order (grade 4-5) streams. These data are generally consistent with the hypothesis that Terminal Archaic settlement occurred along streams or rivers with more ephemeral use of uplands.
Table 27. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
DIST. TO DIRECT. TO ORDER OF DIST. TO ORDER OF SITE NO. SLOPE DIREC. TO CONF. FLOW OF CONF. STREAM STREAM STREAM CONF. CONF. 36BD0002 00 10 South 3 1600 Northeast Upstream 3 36BD0018 -- 0 -- -- 0 ------36BD0036 00 80 Northeast 5 600 Northeast No conf. 5 36BD0038 00 100 Southwest 5 480 Northwest Upstream 5 36BD0046 00 80 West 4 500 South Upstream 4 36BD0096 00 0 On-site 3 0 On-site No conf. 3 36BD0096 00 0 On-site 3 0 On-site No conf. 3 36BD0112 00 10 Southeast 1 720 East Upstream 4 36BD0114 00 100 West 3 580 South Upstream 3 36BD0116 00 20 West 4 440 Northwest Upstream 4 36BD0116 00 20 West 4 440 Northwest Upstream 4 36BD0123 00 10 North 2 360 Southeast Upstream 3 36BD0128 00 40 South 4 320 Southeast Downstream 4 36BD0142 00 20 South 4 1020 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0142 00 20 South 4 1020 Southwest Downstream 4 36BD0150 00 20 East 1 80 Northeast Upstream 4 36BD0155 3 5 North 4 60 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0155 3 5 North 4 60 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0157 -- 10 Southwest 5 300 West Downstream 5
104 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
DIST. TO DIRECT. TO ORDER OF DIST. TO ORDER OF SITE NO. SLOPE DIREC. TO CONF. FLOW OF CONF. STREAM STREAM STREAM CONF. CONF. 36BD0158 -- 0 On-site 1 460 Northwest No conf. 5 36BD0171 5 200 West 1 400 North Downstream 5 36BD0172 5 120 South 1 520 Northeast Downstream 5 36BD0182 5 150 North 1 230 Northwest Upstream 5 36BD0198 ------0 36BD0219 ------0 36BD0223 ------0 36BD0243 ------0 36BL0018 50 460 South 2 2650 Southeast Upstream 2 36BL0018 50 460 South 2 2650 Southeast Upstream 2 36BL0027 1 540 South 2 500 East Upstream 3 36BL0027 1 540 South 2 500 East Upstream 3 36BL0028 2 20 North 2 100 East Upstream 2 36BL0041 5 60 Southeast 3 420 East Downstream 3 36BL0043 00 30 West 1 290 South Upstream 3 36BL0064 ------10 -- -- 0 36CE0285 2 20 Northwest 1 2520 West Downstream 2 36HU0001 00 40 South 5 600 Southwest Upstream 5 36HU0067 00 40 Northeast 4 360 Southeast Upstream 5 36HU0101 50 20 East 2 760 Northeast Downstream 2 36HU0106 10 East 2 40 South Upstream 3 36HU0112 20 10 West 1 1000 North Upstream 4
Distance to stream confluence was also an important determinate of Terminal Archaic site location. Thirty-three Terminal Archaic sites (89.2 percent) are located within 1,500 meters of a steam confluence, while 8 of these sites are located less than 100 meters from a stream confluence. However, this pattern is similar to the Late Archaic, as are the mean distances to confluences for Late Archaic (568.7 m) and Transitional (610.5 m) sites. These are two of the highest mean distances to confluences of any time period, suggesting, if anything, that access to water and stream confluences was actually less important for Transitional sites than during preceding periods. Like the preceding Late Archaic period, the majority (n=20) of sites are located upstream of the confluence, while a minority (n=11) are located downstream of a confluence. As in preceding time periods, little preference could be discerned for locating a site relative to specific cardinal directions around the stream confluence, with 14 north, 12 south, five east and two west of stream confluences; this site breakdown is similar to that of the Late Archaic, suggesting that Late Archaic and Transitional Archaic Native Americans used similar criteria in selecting site locations.
Terminal Archaic Site Types and Location: Research Reports Eleven cultural resource studies in the Upper Juniata sub-basin have recovered Terminal Archaic/Transitional period artifacts (Table 28). Most of these projects entailed limited Phase I archaeological surveys with very small data sets, including two projects in Watershed A near Altoona (Hay et al. 1983; Hay et al. 1984) and three in Watershed C near Bedford
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 105 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
(Heberling and Heberling 1989; Heberling et al. 1990; Raber and Heberling 1996). Several other projects involved Phase II and III excavations, but generally recovered Terminal Archaic material in mixed, plowzone contexts, including three projects in Watershed C (Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling 1990; Davis n.d.) and one in Watershed D (Michels and Huner 1968). Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967) and the Sunny Side Site (MacDonald 2001) represent the only stratified Transitional period components in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin. A few of the more important Transitional period projects are discussed below.
Table 28. Transitional Period Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE AUTHOR PROJECT NAME YEAR LOCATION WSHED PHASE 36Bd0036 Michels and Huner Workman Site 1968 Raystown Lk. D III 36BD0046 Chiarulli Act 70 Site 36Bd46 1998 East St. Clair C II Bd155,158 Heberling/Heb. Loysburg Highway 1989 South Wood D I,II Bd171,172 Heberling et al. Bedford Airport 1990 Bedford C II 36bd0198 Raber Chestnut Ridge 1996 East St. Clair C I 36bd0219 C.Davis Bedford Dist. C. n.d. Bedford C III 36Bd267 MacDonald Hopewell Waste. 2001 Hopewell D I 36BL0027 Hay et al. LR 1061 1983 LR 1061 A II 36Bl41, 43 Hay et al. Tipton Ind.Pk. 1984 Tipton A I 36hu0001 See text Sheep Rock 67,68 Raystown Lake D III 36hu0067 Mitchem/Houston Petersburg Bridge 1983 Alexandria A II
Sheep Rock Shelter Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1; Michels 1968; Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968) contained a large and varied Terminal Archaic assemblage and provides the most detailed window on Terminal Archaic life in the sub-basin. Despite this large assemblage, only a relatively small area of the shelter was occupied during the Transitional period, suggesting an ephemeral camp occupation (Michels 1968:73).
Along with a variety of Transitional period diagnostic artifacts, including broadspears, steatite netsinkers (n=2), and Orient fishtail points, the site provides the only direct evidence of Terminal Archaic subsistence in sub-basin 11. Level 5, the Transitional component, yielded nine fish scales, 72.5 g of mollusk shells, and 7,900 grams of untyped faunal materials (mostly deer; Guilday and Parmalee 1965). The two steatite net sinkers were found in general association with the fish scales in the rock shelter, suggesting that the cave was utilized during the Transitional period by Native American fishermen (Michels and Dutt 1968:356). However, the comparatively high density of faunal materials also suggests extensive hunting by site occupants.
In addition to faunal remains, which document the importance of hunting at the site, ethnobotanical remains included walnut, hickory, butternut, and hackberry, indicating a varied diet for Terminal Archaic Native Americans in the Raystown Branch Valley. Although cultigens are known from the surrounding region (see earlier discussion), corn, beans (likely intrusive; Yarnell 1993:13), squash, and sunflower were only recovered in the upper portion
106 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
of level 5 and likely date to the Early Woodland component (see discussion in the next chapter). These data indicate that Sheep Rock Shelter likely functioned as a specialized subsistence camp during the Terminal Archaic period. In contrast to the Late Archaic site occupation, which likely was a base camp, the Terminal Archaic/Transitional occupation of Sheep Rock Shelter was comparatively brief, with the comparatively low density of archaeological materials suggestive of an overnight camp occupation by a small family.
Workman Site The excavations at the Workman Site produced 14 Terminal Archaic projectile points and five steatite sherds, all mixed with the more common Late Woodland remains. Because of the “noise” produced by its location in a Late Woodland site, the nature of the Terminal Archaic occupations is difficult to reconstruct; however, as during the Late Archaic, the site location on a terrace overlooking the Raystown Branch Valley likely provided direct access to a variety of both floodplain and upland resources. The low density of Terminal Archaic diagnostics, however, suggests fairly ephemeral use compared to the Late Archaic occupation. As at Sheep Rock Shelter, thus, Terminal Archaic occupations at the Workman Site likely consisted of fairly brief occupations by small families conducting daily subsistence tasks within the Raystown Branch Valley.
Site 36BD267 Site 36BD267, the Sunny Side Site, is located on the floodplain/terrace of the lower reaches of Yellow Creek, immediately upstream of its confluence with the Raystown Branch near the communities of Hopewell and Sunny Side (MacDonald 2001). Prehistoric lithic and ceramic artifacts and a small hearth (Photograph 13) were identified within a buried soil (Ab’ horizon, visible in Photograph 13). The 70-cm-wide circular hearth was comprised of 31 fire- cracked sandstone and quartzite river cobbles. Large pieces of hickory wood charcoal were packed between the FCR.
Photograph 13. Transitional Period Hearth, the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267) along Yellow Creek near its confluence with the Raystown Branch.
A sample of hickory wood charcoal from the hearth (Beta-158705) was dated to 3,500±100 B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090 and BC 2050 to 1540). The site represents a Terminal Archaic occupation, with perhaps the earliest-known pottery in the region. The ceramic
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 107 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
assemblage from the Sunny Side Site consists of 13 pieces, including 5 body sherds and eight crumbs. Seven sherds contained identifiable steatite temper, while temper type was indeterminate on the remainder (see Figure 7). Exterior markings are cordmarked/smoothed on two body sherds, while the remainder is eroded.
Based on these general characteristics and on a brief examination by William Johnson of Michael Baker Inc., the steatite-tempered pottery sherds from the Sunny Side Site were identified as Selden Island cordmarked. The previous earliest dates for Woodland Selden Island steatite-tempered pottery are ca. 2900 B.P. from the Clyde Farm Site in Delaware (Dent 1995). As such, pottery from the Sunny Side Site is perhaps the earliest in the Middle Atlantic region.
The Sunny Side Site is the most likely candidate for base camp designation of any Transitional period site in PASS files. Because the site was avoided during construction of Hopewell Township’s wastewater facilities, GAI’s (MacDonald 2001) Phase I survey did not fully document site boundaries; however, it is likely that the site encompasses several acres of the Yellow Creek terrace. If so, the site may be a Transitional period base camp, from which subsistence forays were conducted up Yellow Creek, the Raystown Branch, and nearby uplands.
Site 36Bd98 Site 36Bd198 was identified during the Chestnut Ridge (Raber and Heberling 1996; Raber 1999) wastewater survey north of Bedford in Watershed C on a small stream terrace. This site contained a very high density of lithic artifacts of a variety of different types. The number and variety of tools led excavators to postulate that the site represents a microband sized base camp. The location of the site on a terrace fits the model of Terminal Archaic settlement, as suggested by Raber (1995).
Petersburg Bridge Excavations at the Petersburg Bridge site (GAI 1983) near the confluence of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch yielded only limited evidence of Terminal Archaic occupation, including a few stemmed projectile points from mixed contexts. The location of the site on a terrace near the confluence of the two major streams fits the pattern of site placement defined above.
Terminal Archaic Site Types and Locations: Summary In general, PASS files and research reports indicate that Terminal Archaic settlement was focused in stream valleys with ephemeral use of uplands. Unlike the preceding Middle and Late Archaic, in which site numbers increased over time, the number of sites in the Terminal Archaic decreases, suggesting either a dispersal of populations away from the sub-basin or, alternatively, a concentration of the population into fewer, but larger numbers of base-camp sites. This site count pattern persists even when the duration of the respective periods is taken into account (see discussion in Chapter XIII). When site counts are divided by the number of decades in the respective time periods, the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period contains 0.44 sites per decade, compared to 0.58 for the Late Archaic.
108 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
While some favor the scenario of population stasis and nucleation (Custer 1996), there is at present little in the PASS files and research report data to support this scenario in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. If this model is accurate, site files should contain records of traditional base camp sites with high densities of artifacts, features, and site furniture, such as steatite, pottery, and groundstone tools. However, as reviewed above, while most sites identified to date are in alluvial settings, they appear to be fairly small, short-term camps. Only the Sunny Side Site represents what may be a true base camp; however, the limited amount of excavation at that site (two 1x1-meter units; MacDonald 2001) precludes a definite site type interpretation.
Overall, Transitional/Terminal Archaic period human populations were concentrated in the Raytown and Frankstown Branch Valleys, as would be predicted by Raber’s (1995) settlement pattern model. Like the preceding Late Archaic, the data indicate that distance to water was a strong factor influencing settlement, as was proximity to stream confluences, even the mean distance to both streams and stream confluences increased compared to the Late Archaic. Also, the reduction of sites initiated during the end of the Late Archaic continued into the Terminal Archaic. Overall, thus, there is general continuity in site types and demography between the Late and Terminal Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub- basin.
D. TERMINAL ARCHAIC/TRANSITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS Terminal Archaic Native Americans predominantly used locally-available jasper and cherts, including Corriganville, Tipton, and Shriver. In addition, the general trend is for the increased use of non-local rhyolite as a raw material. In this section, data from PASS files, research reports, and GAI’s collections analysis are used to evaluate trends in Terminal Archaic settlement patterning and raw material use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as well as to provide insights into trade and travel patterns outside of the sub-basin.
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: PASS Files Two trends are apparent when examining Table 29: 1) broadspear points, dating to the initial portions of the Terminal Archaic, are much more prevalent than Orient points, which date to the end of this period; and 2) jasper and rhyolite use increases compared to chert/flint. The predominance of broadspear points suggest that the Upper Juniata Valley was utilized more intensively during the early portion of the Terminal Archaic, with less use over time. This trend continues the population decline observed during the latter portion of the Late Archaic. As will be seen, the trend continues into the Early and Middle Woodland periods as well.
The second trend regards the increasing importance of rhyolite and jasper in stone tool manufacture. In the preceding Late Archaic period, Native Americans utilized the combined categories of jasper/rhyolite about the same amount as they used chert/flint. During the Terminal Archaic period, jasper/rhyolite use becomes more common than chert/flint. The large bifaces and points manufactured during this period required homogeneous raw material with highly predictable fracture properties. Jasper and rhyolite both meet these criteria. Sources of rhyolite are located well to the southeast of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, while
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 109 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
jasper was available nearby in the Bald Eagle Valley and possibly in previously-unidentified sources within the sub-basin itself.
Table 29. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
BROAD LEHIGH/ KOENS/ RAW MATERIAL TRANSITIONAL ORIENT SPEARS SNOOK SAVANNA TOTAL Chert/Flint 15 9 2 2 1 27 Jasper 11 5 2 2 1 21 Rhyolite 9 5 2 2 -- 18 Not Identified 5 1 1 -- 1 8 Quartzite -- 3 1 -- -- 4 Shale 1 -- 1 1 1 4 Quartz 2 1 ------3 Steatite 2 ------1 3 Chalcedony -- 2 ------2 Onondaga Chert 1 1 -- -- 2 Siltstone -- 2 ------2 Hematite 1 ------1 Greenstone ------1 1 Slate 1 ------1 Total 47 29 10 7 6 97
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Research Reports Cultural resource management projects have produced a limited data base regarding Terminal Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Of the 11 reports that discuss Terminal Archaic artifacts (see Table 28), most describe excavations either limited in scope or where the recovery of Terminal Archaic artifacts was tangential to the main occupations during another period. The data gathered from several of the more important excavations are discussed below.
Sheep Rock Shelter Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) contained a large and varied Terminal Archaic assemblage, including two steatite net sinkers and an adze produced from a coarse-grained black chert (~Shriver?) (Michels and Dutt 1968:356). The adze has a plano-convex longitudinal section and a biconvex transverse section. The distal bit end is sub-convex with rounded edges. All flake scars have been smoothed through use and hafting, as was the proximal/haft end. A similar artifact was recovered in a Transitional occupation at the O’Neil Site in New York. Dates from that site (ca. 3200 B.P.) and Sheep Rock Shelter (ca. 3220 B.P.) are nearly identical (Michels and Dutt 1968:367).
Workman Site (36Bd36) The excavations at the Workman Site produced Terminal Archaic artifacts from mixed, predominantly Late Woodland contexts. Excavations recovered 14 Terminal Archaic points including Susquehanna Broadspears (n=4), Perkiomen Broadspears (n=2), and Orient
110 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Fishtails (n=8). A variety of raw materials were used to produce the points, including argillite, chalcedony, gray chert, jasper, quartzite, and rhyolite (see discussion below). The sources of rhyolite occur well east of the site at South Mountain, while the argillite may derive from the Delaware River Valley.
36Bd98 36Bd198, identified during the Chestnut Ridge wastewater survey (Raber and Heberling 1996) was located on a low rise on a terrace near Dunning Creek. This site contained a very high density of lithic artifacts manufactured from local cherts. Despite very limited investigations, two projectile points, two preforms, seven scrapers, and 38 unifacial tools were recovered along with 275 flake stone debitage. Local cherts were used to produce 97 percent of the artifacts, while rhyolite and jasper comprise the remainder. The low percentages of rhyolite/jasper are somewhat at odds with other sites in the sub-basin; however, Chestnut Ridge is on the far western border of the sub-basin and may mark the edge of a rhyolite distribution area.
Site 36Bd267 As described above, Site 36Bd267 (the Sunny Side Site) yielded steatite-tempered Selden Island pottery and a handful of untyped/unsourced chert debitage, associated with a small hearth dated to ca. 3,500 B.P. While the sources for the chert artifacts are unknown, the most proximate known sources of steatite are along the Upper Potomac River, approximately 50 km (30 miles) south of the current project area (pers. comm., W. Johnson, Michael Baker, Inc.). If the steatite used at the site derived from this area, it suggests south-oriented cultural ties via migration or trade. The Raystown Branch River corridor would have provided an ideal corridor for the cultural diffusion of pottery-production techniques in the region. The recovery of steatite-tempered pottery from sites along the Delaware River (Custer 1996; Dent 1995), also suggests use of south-north-trending river corridors by Native Americans during the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period.
Petersburg Bridge Excavations at this site produced limited evidence of Terminal Archaic occupation, including four stemmed projectile points that possibly date to the Terminal Archaic. The low number of projectile points limits the interpretive potential of this site; however, the raw material suite does include local quartzite, chalcedony, and jasper. No Transitional period rhyolite artifacts were recovered at the site.
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Collections Analysis Four of the eight collections examined at the State Museum yielded Terminal Archaic artifacts. Because GAI performed a comprehensive review of chert sources in the study area, our comparative collection allows for a more detailed examination of raw material sources. Eight Terminal Archaic points were examined from four of the collections (Table 30). The eight artifacts consisted of four broadspears and four fishtails; the proportion of points types (four of each) is somewhat unexpected as PASS files indicate that broadspears far outnumber fishtails in the greater study area. In addition, five of seven points (raw material is
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 111 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report indeterminate for one point) are manufactured from chert; this differs from the PASS file data in which Terminal Archaic jasper/ rhyolite outnumber points manufactured from chert. Perhaps these sites, due to the small sample and their concentration in the Raystown Valley, represent a biased view of Terminal Archaic raw material use in the region.
Table 30. Transitional/Terminal Archaic period Collections Analysis Results.
SITE CATALOG NUMBER POINT TYPE RAW MATERIAL 36BD36 67-2-2064 fishtail corriganville 36BD36 A67-2-2700 fishtail jasper 36BD36 JC68-781 fishtail rhyolite 36BL38 13 broadspear tipton 36BL38 5 broadspear unknown 36BL38 5 broadspear tipton 36BD190 19.6 broadspear shriver 36BD161 90 fishtail shriver
Regardless, the use of local jasper and cherts, including Tipton, Shriver, and Corriganville, suggest that locally available raw material sources were important in the Terminal Archaic, in addition to the non-local rhyolite. While jasper/rhyolite may have been preferred for point manufacture, the abundance and local availability of cherts likely inspired their frequent use by Terminal Archaic hunter-gatherers (cf. Andrefsky 1994; MacDonald 1995).
E. TERMINAL ARCHAIC CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Overview PASS files and research report data indicate that the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period represents a continuation of trends initiated toward the end of the preceding Late Archaic period. These trends include decreasing site densities, increasing proportions of sites in alluvial settings, and continued placement of sites near stream confluences. Custer (1996) believes that changes in the environment and resource structure increased habitat productivity. Similarities in artifact assemblages include the continued use of significant percentages of rhyolite, jasper, and local cherts in tool production. Most sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin occur near streams, especially near stream confluences. Raber’s (1995) study of prehistoric settlement patterns in the Aughwick Creek Valley just outside of the present study area suggests localized movements of people for subsistence and long-distance movement to collect resources outside of the local area. Site types consist of macroband base camps located on terraces overlooking major river valleys with smaller resource procurement or transient camps in smaller stream valleys or in upland settings.
Regarding non-local lithic raw materials, Stewart (1987) notes a dramatic increase in the amount of jasper, rhyolite, and other resources traded over long distances in central and eastern Pennsylvania. Data from PASS files support a healthy reliance on jasper and rhyolite for point manufacture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, although site reports and the collections analysis recorded fewer points of non-local rhyolite than expected.
112 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
While data from the Upper Juniata sub-basin is limited to subsistence remains from Sheep Rock Shelter, data from surrounding regions confirms a heavy reliance on aquatic resources in addition to use of nuts, seeds, and possibly, early domesticates such as squash. Because of a lack of preserved faunal remains, most of the evidence for use of fish and other resources comes indirectly from the presence of numerous netsinkers, cooking features, and a variety of rock platform features (Bressler 1989; Wall et al. 1996).
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Research Questions Intensive work at a variety of sites is needed to fill in the many gaps in the Terminal Archaic knowledge base for the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While a number of excavations have encountered Terminal Archaic materials, few are in good context, with many being mixed with material from earlier or later time periods. Additional excavations at sites like 36Bd267—the Sunny Side Site (MacDonald 2001)—would provide much-needed answers to the research issues presented below:
1. What are the reasons for the apparent lack of use of the Watershed B? 2. What are the functional and chronological relationships between broad blade forms and narrow point forms? Are any of the styles contemporaneous? 3. What, if any relationships exist between Steubenville and Fox Creek points? Can these points be separated in statigraphically mixed contexts? 4. What are the associations between pottery types and projectile point horizons? 5. Is there any evidence for early cultigens? 6. What faunal resources were exploited by Terminal Archaic groups? 7. Is there support for widespread changes in resource structure that may have lead to the changes in settlement patterns observed in the sub-basin? 8. What does the continued reduction in site counts tell us about Terminal Archaic/Transitional populations? If populations were reduced, where were Native Americans going and why? 9. How can we reconcile the decrease in populations with the changing subsistence pattern, including increasing use of agriculture and sedentism? 10. What role did the Sub-Boreal climate play in population fluctuations during the Transitional period?
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 113 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
114 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER IX. EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD 3000 to 2100 BP
A. EARLY WOODLAND OVERVIEW The Early Woodland period witnessed the continuation of trends that emerged during the preceding Transitional and Late Archaic periods, including the increased use of ceramic vessels and the introduction of horticulture (Smith 1987). Although the subsistence base continued to be based on hunted and gathered resources, horticulture gradually assumed greater importance. Early Woodland sites in the greater Susquehanna Valley, including the Memorial Park Site on the West Branch in Lock Haven (Hart 1995b), reveal the first evidence of early domestication of squash, chenopod, maygrass, sumpweed, and sunflower. Ethnobotanical remains from various Early Woodland sites suggest that, while domesticates were introduced, they were dominated by the use of widely available wild plant foods (Adovasio and Johnson 1981; Ballweber 1989; Ritchie 1980). The emergence of the Adena cultural complex in the central Ohio Valley influenced groups as far east as New York and New Jersey, and directly involved populations within the Susquehanna River watershed and vicinity (Raber 1985).
Beginning in the latter portion of the Early Woodland, Native Americans of the Adena and Meadowood cultures built burial mounds and other ceremonial facilities along the Ohio River and mid-Atlantic coast (Adena), as well as along the upper portion of the Susquehanna Valley in New York (Meadowood). Structure and size of these ceremonial complexes was highly variable, as exemplified by Cotiga Mound on the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River in southwest West Virginia (Frankenberg and Henning 1994:441-443). This mound dates to 2100 B.P. and contained the remains of between 7 and 18 individuals. The mound also contained ethnobotanical evidence in the form of sweetgum, pine, seeds and walnut shells (Frankenberg and Henning 1994). These data confirm similar data from the Susquehanna Valley of New York that suggest a diet of predominantly wild foods during the Early Woodland (Ritchie 1980:181). Other important mounds include Grave Creek Mound on the Ohio River (Hemmings 1977) and Gore Mound on the Kanawha River (Fowler et al. 1976). In uplands above major drainages, Adena peoples occupied small camps and engaged in short-term extractive activities, such as lithic and food processing (Schweikart 1998:17). This site distribution pattern of mounds in floodplains and camps in uplands resembles that used by Adena cultures in the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1996:242) and Meadowood cultures in southern New York along the Susquehanna River Valley and vicinity (Ritchie 1980:180-200; Snow 1980:267).
Diagnostic artifacts for this period in the greater Susquehanna Valley region include Cresap stemmed (2950 to 2400 B.P.), Adena stemmed (2750-2250 B.P.), Meadowood points (2500- 2790 B.P.; Ritchie 1980:181), and Robbins stemmed points (2400 B.P. to 1750 B.P.) (Justice 1987:191-196). Pottery, comprised mainly of grit-tempered plain wares (e.g., Armstrong Plain), was also introduced during the Early Woodland. Other artifacts associated with the Adena are tubular open-ended and block-ended pipes, rolled copper beads and bracelets, cut mica, and groundstone gorgets and celts (Hart et al. 1994:23). McMichael (1971) and Clay
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 115 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
(1991) suggest that “sacred circle” earthworks with interior ditches and double posted circular houses also characterize Adena sites along the Upper Ohio Valley, such as Cresap Mound (Clay 1991; Dragoo 1963).
Another trend initiated during the Transitional period, decreasing site counts, also continued into the Early Woodland. The number of recorded sites decreased dramatically during the Early Woodland (see discussion below), suggesting a continuation of population reductions/nucleation begun during the end of the Late Archaic period. Alternatively, populations utilized fewer sites by concentrating populations in one location (nucleation) for extended periods (Custer 1996:234-235). In this scenario, populations did not decline, but rather remained stable and were grouped within more nucleated base camps or villages. These villages were likely comprised of bands, or groups of related families who worked together to achieve subsistence success. Custer (1996:235) states that these village sites increased in density during the Early Woodland in the Susquehanna and Delaware River Valleys. These sites reveal houses, large cooking and food processing features, and other data to indicate occupation by multiple families for extended periods (Dent 1995:229-230). According to these studies, thus, sedentism, incipient horticulture, and increasing use of villages are the hallmarks of the Early Woodland in the greater Susquehanna River Valley. This chapter evaluates whether similar trends were utilized by Early Woodland Native Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
B. EARLY WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Early Woodland Pottery Along with projectile points, ceramics generally function as cultural horizon markers for archaeologists who study the Woodland period. Subsequent to the steatite-tempered wares of the Terminal Archaic, Native Americans introduced several grit-tempered varieties of ceramics during the Early Woodland. Detailed descriptions of these various ceramic wares can be found in Custer (1996:218-227), Schuldenrein et al. (1991:52-55), and Kinsey (1972:453-475). Within the Juniata sub-basin, discussion of Early Woodland pottery types is limited to the Sheep Rock Shelter reports (Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968).
The general trend of Early Woodland pottery in central Pennsylvania and the greater Susquehanna River Valley was toward the production of coarse, grit-tempered, and thick- walled conoidal vessels with cordmarked surface treatment (see Figure 6). There were two significant differences between Early Woodland vessels and Transitional period Marcey Creek and Selden Island vessels. First, Early Woodland potters replaced steatite temper with various forms of grit or crushed rock, including quartz, chert, and other minerals. Second, Early Woodland potters replaced flat-bottomed vessels with conoidal-shaped ones.
Another significant difference between Transitional and Early Woodland pottery was the mode of production from use of clay slabs during the Transitional to the use of the coiling technique during the Early Woodland. These technological innovations allowed the production of thinner vessels over time with fewer and smaller-tempered grains. The coiling
116 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
technique was so innovative that it persisted throughout the Woodland and remained the primary means of pottery production for millennia (Custer 1996:223).
Vinette I pottery (see Figure 8) is often the earliest grit-tempered ware at Early Woodland sites and is typically found in association with Meadowood points in the Middle Atlantic and Susquehanna Valley regions. Vinette I pottery is coarse, thick, and densely packed with large grit temper, such as quartz and flint. Vessel forms are straight sided with conoidal bases (Kinsey 1972:453).
Vinette I sherds were found in association with two other Early Woodland Exterior Corded/Interior smoothed pottery varieties at Sheep Rock Shelter—Juniata Thick and Sheep Rock Corded (Michels and Smith 1967:469-471), both considered to be local variants of Vinette I (see Figure 8). Within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, Sheep Rock Shelter is the lone site to yield Early Woodland pottery from a stratified deposit. While Sheep Rock Shelter lacks associated radiocarbon dates in the Early Woodland component (see below), the Early Woodland level is bracketed by well-dated Transitional and Middle Woodland components. While several additional Upper Juniata sites have yielded these Early Woodland pottery types (see discussion below), sherds are typically recovered in mixed plowzone contexts and the densities at the sites are low, suggesting ephemeral occupations or low-intensity pottery production.
Vinette I sherds were recovered from features with radiocarbon dates of 3,180±70, 2,870±90, and 2,460±90 B.P. at the Girty’s Notch Site (36PE45) on the upper Susquehanna River (Berger 2001:17). Abbot Farm near Trenton, New Jersey, also yielded Vinette I sherds (Kinsey 1972:454). The Accokeek Creek Site on the Potomac River yielded an Early Woodland Pope’s Creek component with Vinette I pottery stratigraphically above a Terminal Late Archaic Marcey Creek strata (Stephenson et al. 1963).
Additional Early Woodland ceramic types found in the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity include Brodhead Net-Marked vessels that were tempered with various forms of grit. Interiors of the pots are imprinted with net/fabric, while the exteriors are smooth (Schuldenrein et al. 1991:53). Sherds of this type were associated with radiocarbon dates of ca. 2400 to 2100 B.P. at the Lower Black’s Eddy Site on the Delaware River. At the Miller Field Site in the Upper Delaware Valley, Brodhead Net-Marked sherds were dated to ca. 2400 B.P. (480±80 B.C.; Kinsey 1972:455-456).
Early Woodland Projectile Points Various forms of stemmed and notched projectile points were also produced during the Early Woodland period. Meadowood points, often found in association with Vinette I pottery, are deeply side-notched with a trianguloid blade shape (see Figure 8; Justice 1987:170). Both were recovered at the Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bressler 1989) in Williamsport on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River and at the Faucett Site (36PI13a) on the Delaware River.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 117 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Meadowood Point Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:695
A8 - C -- Figure 8. Early Woodland Artifacts. 10 - Adena Stemmed Point Rossville Point Workman Site (36Bd36)
236 Sheep Rock Shelter - Michels and Huner 1968:227, Plate 3 Michels and Smith 1967:691 DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02 .
C0NSULTANTS, INC Juniata Thick (~Vinette I) Pottery Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:489 gai
All Artifacts Actual Size Figure 8 Early Woodland Artifacts
118 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
In addition to Meadowood points, Early Woodland diagnostic projectile points include Adena Stemmed, Lagoon, Rossville, among others (see Figure 8). Kinsey (1972:433-436), Custer (1996:227-232), and Schuldenrein et al. (1991:43) all provide descriptions of Early Woodland point styles in central and eastern Pennsylvania. In the Hudson and Delaware Valleys, researchers place Steubenville/Fox Creek lanceolate and stemmed points within the Early-Middle Woodland period (Funk 1968; Kinsey 1972; Schuldenrein 1991:43). However, within western Pennsylvania and the West Virginia Panhandle, these points date to the Late Archaic (Mayer-Oakes 1955). PASS files data interpret these points as Early Woodland; however, given the lack of radiocarbon dates associated with the points in the sub-basin, their age remains uncertain in the current project area. Until these points are found in well-dated contexts within central Pennsylvania, thus, we do not consider Steubenville/Fox Creek points within any time period.
As during the Transitional period, a variety of other artifact types are also typical of Early Woodland sites. Domestic sites typically yield groundstone tools, such as mortars, pestles, metates, manos, and pitted cobbles, while mortuary sites may contain ground slate objects, such as pendants, gorgets, effigy pipes, as well as jewelry, projectile points, and blade/biface caches produced from exotic lithic raw materials (see below).
Early Woodland Chronology The radiocarbon sequence for the Early Woodland period is based largely on areas outside of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Within the sub-basin itself, only three Early Woodland radiocarbon dates are available, while Sheep Rock Shelter constitutes the lone stratified Early Woodland site component.
Sheep Rock Shelter yielded Vinette I pottery as well as local sub-types (~Juniata thick and Sheep Rock corded) with Meadowood points in excavation level 4, the Early Woodland component of the site. This level is bracketed by a Transitional occupation dated to ca. 3200 B.P. (level 5) and a Middle Woodland occupation dated to 2000-1700 B.P. (50 A.D.-320 A.D., level 3).
The Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) at Bedford County Airport (see below) yielded a radiocarbon date of 2490±100 B.P. or 540 B.C. (Beta-35145) from a storage pit that also yielded several charred nut hulls. No diagnostic Early Woodland artifacts were recovered from the feature, which was partially truncated during backhoe work at the site (Baker and Baker 1990:9). The authors speculate that the date may be incorrect, as associated diagnostic artifacts suggest a Late Archaic date of occupation.
Also, Mykut Rockshelter yielded a radiocarbon date of 2280±50 B.P. or 410-200 B.C. (Beta) from Feature 18. No Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts were recovered in association with the date, suggesting a fairly ephemeral occupation. This site, as noted elsewhere in this report, contained multiple occupations from different time periods, suggesting repeated use of this rock overhang.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 119 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Site 36Bl58, excavated for the Hollidaysburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (Raber et al. 1993), yielded an Early Woodland component represented by Vinette I pottery and an associated broad-stemmed biface. While no radiocarbon dates were associated with the Early Woodland component, wood from an overlying culturally-sterile level yielded a Middle Woodland date of ca. 160 A.D. (1790±130 B.P.), confirming the Early Woodland age of the underlying deposits.
Approximately 30 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Canfield Island Site (36Ly37) yielded a dense artifact concentration with Meadowood points and Vinette I pottery. An associated date of ca. 270 A.D. was deemed too recent due to contamination. Meadowood points at the site were produced from Shriver (“Helderburg”) chert and rhyolite. (Bressler 1989:31).
Further afield, within the Delaware River Valley of eastern Pennsylvania, the Lower Black’s Eddy Site (36Bu23) yielded radiocarbon dates of 2450±150 B.P. (Beta-19322) and 2540±70 B.P. (Beta-26602), among others, for an Early Woodland component. Features at the site include hearths, storage pits, and other thermal features in association with Lagoon and Rossville points and Brodhead Net-Marked pottery sherds.
C. EARLY WOODLAND SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS PASS files data provide insight into Early Woodland settlement and site type patterns in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The most noticeable Early Woodland trends are the reduction in numbers of sites and the increase in diversity and quantity of artifacts at the sites. These two trends suggest either population reduction and/or population nucleation with increased ceremonialism.
Early Woodland Site Types: PASS Files Nineteen sites with Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts were recorded in PASS Files, a decrease of 16 from the Transitional and 68 from the Late Archaic. As with previous periods, open camp and lithic-reduction sites in floodplain/terrace/bench settings (n=15) predominate during the Early Woodland period (Table 31 and Table 32). However, upland ridgetop and rockshelter sites are also present in small numbers (n=4), suggesting a continuation of the logistic subsistence pattern. While artifact assemblages are not discussed in great detail in the PASS files, the presence of a variety of flaked stone, groundstone, and ceramic artifacts at a few of the sites (Table 33) may indicate the increased use of base camps during the Early Woodland.
Of the 19 Early Woodland sites, only 14 contained information on specific site locations relative to streams and stream confluences (Table 32). Of those 14 sites, six were located south of a stream, four were north of a stream, and three were west of a stream (one site lacked data). Of the 14 sites, seven each were located adjacent to a low-mid-order streams and high-order streams, respectively. Fourteen of the 19 sites were located on or near a tributary of the Raystown Branch (14 in Watershed C, 4 in Watershed D), while four sites were on the Frankstown Branch and one was on south Bald Eagle Creek (Watershed A; see Table 31). This pattern mirrors that of the preceding Middle, Late, and Transitional Archaic
120 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
periods, with populations concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the sub-basin. No Early Woodland sites are currently recorded in Watershed B in the northeast portion of the sub-basin.
Table 31. Early Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME WSHED STREAM Munic. SETTING ELEV. SITE TYPE 36BD0011 between route 31 C Raystown Juniata T. Stream Bench 1260 Open 36BD0017 opposite the ball field C Raystown -- Terrace 0 Open 36BD0036 Workman Site D Raystown Liberty T. Floodplain 820 Open 36BD0052 Coon Rock Shelter D Raystown W. Prov. T. Hillslope 960 Rock Shelter 36BD0096 Hostetler's #8 & #14 C Raystown E.St.Clair Floodplain 1120 Open 36BD0104 Watson-Fetter Cache C Raystown E. St. Clair Terrace 1160 Cache 36BD0146 Covered Bridge C Raystown E. St. Clair Floodplain 1120 Open 36BD0157 Hostetler's #8 & #14 C Raystown E.St. Clair Floodplain 1140 Open 36BD0164 Claycomb #4 C Raystown Bedford T. Hillslope 1140 Open 36BD0171 Stahl #2 C Raystown Bedford T. Hilltop 1180 Open 36BD0190 Rhodes Site D Raystown -- Terrace 829 Open 36BD0217 Chestnut ridge market C Raystown -- Terrace 1140 Village 36BD0243 ford 2 C Raystown -- Slopes 1020 Open 36BL0004 Loop A Frankstown Frnkstwn T. Floodplain 940 Open 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 A Frankstown Freedom T. Floodplain 1010 Open 36BL0058 Holidaysburg Sewage A Frankstown Frnkstwn T. Terrace 920 Open 36BL0064 Nearhoof Site A Bald Eagle -- Terrace 1100 Lithic Red. 36CE0285 Rockspring Cave A Frankstown Fergeson T. Bench 1160 Rock Shelter 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Shelter D Raystown Penn Twp. Hillslope 640 Rock Shelter
Table 32. Early Woodland Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
DIRECTION ORDER OF DISTANCE DIRECTION ORDER OF FLOW OF SITE NO. SLOPE OF STREAM STREAM TO CONF. TO CONF. CONF. CONF. 36BD0011 00 Southwest 1 1100 Southwest 3 Upstream 36BD0036 00 Northeast 5 600 Northeast 5 No Conf. 36BD0052 00 South 5 1000 Southeast 5 Upstream 36BD0096 00 -- 3 0 On-site 3 No conf. 36BD0104 00 Southwest 1 600 East 4 Downstream 36BD0146 00 North 4 100 Northwest 4 Downstream 36BD0157 Southwest 5 300 West 5 Downstream 36BD0164 5 Southeast 1 680 Northeast 5 Downstream 36BD0171 5 West 1 400 North 5 Downstream 36BL0004 00 West 4 280 Northeast 4 Upstream 36BL0028 2 North 2 100 East 2 Upstream 36BL0058 00 West 5 240 Northeast 5 Upstream 36CE0285 2 Northwest 1 2520 West 2 Downstream 36HU0001 00 South 5 600 Southwest 5 Upstream
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 121 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Table 33. Early Woodland Artifacts, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME ARTIFACTS MATERIALS 36BD0011 between route 31 Adena pts, celts, gorgets, pestles, stea. Chert, quartz, rhyolite, steatite 36BD0017 opposite the ball field Adena pts, pestles, pitted cob, stea. Chert, jasper, quartz, rhyolite 36BD0036 Workman Site Chert 36BD0052 Coon Rock Shelter Ceramics, stone tools -- 36BD0096 Hostetler's #8 & #14 Meadowood pts. Chert, jasper, rhyolite 36BD0104 Watson-Fetter Cache Stone tools Flint ridge 36BD0146 Covered Bridge Adena pts, ceramics, steatite Chert, quartz, rhyolite, shale, steatite 36BD0157 Hostetler's #8 & #14 Stone tools Chert, jasper, rhyolite 36BD0164 Claycomb #4 Adena pts. -- 36BD0171 Stahl #2 Meadowood pts. Chert, chalcedony, jasper, quartzite 36BD0190 Rhodes Site Chert, jasper 36BD0217 chestnut ridge market Grit temp/flat bott. Ceramics Argillite, chert 36BD0243 ford 2 Grit temp/flat bott. Ceramics Chert, jasper, onond., quartzite, rhyo. 36BL0004 Loop Steatite 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 Meadowood pts. Chert 36BL0058 Holidaysburg Sewer Vinette I, lithics 36BL0064 Nearhoof Site Adena pts Chert, jasper 36CE0285 Rockspring Cave Ceramics, bone, stone Chert, jasper 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Shelter Meadowood pts., ceramics, grndstn --
Early Woodland Site Types: Research Reports Only five cultural resource management reports discuss sites with Early Woodland period components in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 34). The significance of this dearth reflects the decrease in the total number of sites during the Early Woodland period in the region compared to the preceding Late and Transitional Archaic periods. Whether this reduction in sites is a reflection of declining populations and/or increasing use of nucleated settlements (and, thus, fewer sites with greater numbers of artifacts) is unclear.
Table 34. Early Woodland Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE # SITE NAME PHASE AUTHOR YEAR PROJECT NAME LOCATION Bd164, 171 -- II Heberling 1990 Bedford County Air. Bedford 36Bd0036 Workman Site III Michels/Huner 1968 Workman Site Raystown Lake 36Bd104 Fetter Cache -- Smith 1978 Watson-Fetter East St.Cl. 36Bd0190 Rhodes I,II Gross et al. 1995 SR 26 intersection Liberty Twp. 36Bl0058 Holidaysburg I, II Raber et al. 1993 Holidaysburg Waste. Frnkstwn Twp. 36Hu0001 Sheep Rock III See text 67/68 Sheep Rock Shelter Raystown Lake
122 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Sheep Rock Shelter: Early Woodland Component As discussed above, Sheep Rock Shelter is the most significant Early Woodland site in the sub-basin. The Early Woodland deposit (level 4) ranges from 0-30 inches thick across the shelter (Michels and Dutt 1968:57). Diagnostic artifacts from level 4 of the site include Meadowood projectile points, as well as Vinette I pottery and its two local variants, Juniata Thick and Sheep Rock corded (see Figure 8). The Juniata Thick and Sheep Rock corded are similar to Vinette I and are considered variants of the same type (Michels and Dutt 1968:57).
A wide variety of subsistence remains were recovered from excavation level 4, including several types of wild and domesticated plants, animal bones, fish scales and mollusk shells. The array of foods suggests that the entire suite of available foods was exploited by Native Americans at Sheep Rock Shelter. The introduction of cultivated crops also supports the assertion that the site was a base camp from which people traveled to obtain foods. Corn, beans (intrusive?) and squash plant remains were identified in the upper portion of excavation level 5 (Transitional/Early Woodland), suggesting that small plots were planted in nearby river terraces and subsequently transported for processing and consumption to the rock shelter.
While no evidence of cultivated crops was recovered in excavation level 4, several corn, beans, squash, and sunflower plant fragments were recovered in the upper levels of level 5, which dates to the end of the Transitional and beginning of the Early Woodland. In total, three 8-row corn cobs, five untyped cobs, and nine corn kernels were recovered in level 5 (Michels and Smith 1967:165). Other evidence of crop domestication in level 5 included two gourd fragments, six Pepo (squash) seeds, three bean pods, and two sunflower fragments. Evidence of wild plant utilization in level 4 includes two acorn fragments, one hickory nut, and two hackberry seeds.
One of the most significant findings in excavation levels 3 and 4 was the high number of fish scales and mollusk shells, suggesting that Early-Middle Woodland site occupants spent much of their time fishing and collecting shells from the Raystown Branch. Nearly 800 fish scales (n=796; Michels and Dutt 1968:128), the second most of any level at the site, were recovered in levels 3 and 4, the Early-Middle Woodland period. Unfortunately, fish remains from Sheep Rock Shelter were discussed collectively as levels 3 and 4 in the preliminary report (Michels and Dutt 1968). Only the Late Woodland deposit yielded more fish scales (n=1,018) than the Early-Middle Woodland levels. Most of the fish scales are Type A scales, which suggest the procurement of Alosa sapidissima, or American Shad (Michels and Dutt 1968:125), an anadromous fish that migrates up the major river valleys in spring from the Atlantic seaboard.
Large quantities of mollusk shells—more than 2,200 grams—were also recovered in levels 3 and 4 of Sheep Rock Shelter, further evidence that use of the river and its resources were important for site occupants during the Early and Middle Woodland periods. Most of the mollusk shell at Sheep Rock was unburned and the authors (Michels and Dutt 1968:152) interpret this to mean that the shell was boiled or steamed prior to use at the shelter.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 123 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Other Early Woodland Sites Four other research reports provide information regarding Early Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Table 34). The Workman Site (36Bd36), downriver from Sheep Rock Shelter, yielded Early Woodland diagnostic projectile points; however, the assemblage was comprised of only six points from mixed plowzone contexts. No Early Woodland pottery was identified at the site, suggesting that it did not serve as a base camp, as it likely did during the Late Archaic period. Early Woodland points included four Meadowood points and two Adena points (Michels and Huner 1968:227-228). The chert used to produce the Adena points is described as being pinkish-white and gray-buff flint. Given the lack of local cherts that fit this description and the fact that the artifacts are Adena points, Flint Ridge chert is the most likely stone used for production of the two artifacts. The small number of Early Woodland points at Workman supports the contention that this site was not a base camp during the Early Woodland.
Across the river from the Workman Site, Phase II excavations at the Rhodes Site (36Bd190) also yielded an Early Woodland Lagoon projectile point from a mixed plowzone context. The limited assemblage suggests an ephemeral occupation during the Early Woodland (Gross et al. 1993).
The Watson-Fetter Cache (36Bd104) is a collection of 67 Flint Ridge blades found by a local resident of East St. Clair Township, Bedford County in the 1950s (Smith 1978:72). The cache was identified near a rock overhang along a small tributary of the Raystown Branch. These types of Adena-related ceremonial sites are extremely rare in central and eastern Pennsylvania, suggesting that the region was a hinterland of the Adena social sphere during the Early-Middle Woodland period. GAI intended to analyze the blade cache, but was unable to locate its owner. Also, the photograph accompanying Smith’s (1978:72) description of the cache is actually of the Sutter Cache from Crawford County, not the Watson-Fetter Cache.
Sites 36Bd164 and 36Bd171 at the Bedford County Airport also yielded Early Woodland Adena projectile points from mixed plowzone contexts (Heberling et al. 1990:72), while data recovery excavations at the Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) yielded an Early Woodland radiocarbon date from a storage pit with charred nut hulls (Baker and Baker 1990:9). No associated Early Woodland artifacts were identified at the site and the upper portion of the feature was plow- disturbed, suggesting that the date is problematic. The low artifact densities of these sites suggest ephemeral occupations (if any) during the Early Woodland.
Finally, in the northwest portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin in Hollidaysburg, Raber et al. (1993) excavated an intact Early Woodland component from Site 36Bl58. The site yielded Vinette I pottery and a broad-stemmed biface stratigraphically below wood dated to the Middle Woodland (see discussion above), placing it within good stratigraphic context. The small size of the assemblage (n=41 artifacts) suggests that the site functioned as a camp for Early Woodland foragers within the Frankstown Branch.
124 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
D. EARLY WOODLAND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE Limited information is available regarding Early Woodland lithic raw material use and lithic technology. As reflected in Table 33, Adena and Meadowood points are the most common projectile point types at Early Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Along with these points, a variety of ceramics and groundstone tools are also commonly recovered. Groundstone tools include manos, metates, gorgets, pestles, celts, and pitted cobbles. Sheep rock shelter also yielded an adze produced from “hard, compact shale-like siltstone” (Michels and Dutt 1968:370).
PASS files data suggest continued use of local cherts (n=13 sites) during the Early Woodland, followed by jasper (n=9), rhyolite (n=6), steatite (n=3) and quartz (n=3). Shale, Onondaga chert, Flint Ridge chert, chalcedony and argillite were each identified at one site. As during the preceding periods, rhyolite and steatite were the dominant non-local stones used in tool production, suggesting continued travel and trade to the south and east.
The low number of sites with Flint Ridge chert is unexpected, given the presence of the Watson Fetter cache site near Bedford. The presence of such Adena cache sites, such as Watson Fetter, along with other “ceremonial” artifacts (e.g., pendants and jewelry) at Sheep Rock Shelter, suggests contact between Early Woodland Native Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and the Adena and/or Meadowood cultures. Given the marginal role of the Upper Juniata in the interaction sphere, the influence of the Adena/Meadowood was minimal and was largely restricted to a few items likely obtained via down-the-line trade. Sites like the Watson Fetter Cache represent unique sites, however, which suggest occasional excursions by Early Woodland Native Americans between the Upper Juniata and central Ohio, the source of the Flint Ridge used to produce the Adena blades in the cache.
Only one of the projectile points analyzed at the State Museum was an Early Woodland type. This Rossville point was recovered from Site 36Bd36, the Workman Site, and was produced from locally-available Shriver chert.
E. EARLY WOODLAND: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Early Woodland Overview The Early Woodland PASS files and research report data indicate a decline in identified sites dating to the Early Woodland period. This site decline may be a result of continued population reductions in the Upper Juniata sub-basin; alternatively, the decreased site sample may be indicate a lack of adequate archaeological survey in settings preferred by Early Woodland Native Americans. While the first evidence of crop domestication is present at Sheep Rock Shelter, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that populations became nucleated during the Early Woodland. No Early Woodland base camps, with the possible exception of Sheep Rock Shelter, have been identified in the sub-basin. Most sites are small camps with low artifact/feature densities, rather than larger base camps, as would be expected if populations were settling down into nucleated communities. However, the overall reduced numbers of Early Woodland sites may also be a result of biased archaeological survey in lowland river terrace settings. Other trends, such as increasing use of rhyolite and jasper,
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 125 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
continue into the Early Woodland period. These raw material data suggest continued social ties to areas to the south and west, as during preceding periods.
Ultimately, the Early Woodland period witnessed the continuation of trends initiated during the end of the Late Archaic and Terminal Archaic/Transitional periods. As will be seen in the next chapter, these population trends reached a low point during the Middle Woodland, prior to a dramatic turnaround during the Late Woodland period.
Early Woodland Research Questions This summary of Early Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub- basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Seven Early Woodland research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. How does the Early Woodland differ from the preceding Transitional and Late Archaic periods? 2. What was the influence of the Adena culture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin? 3. How extensive was agriculture during the Early Woodland? 4. Which topographic settings have the largest numbers of frost-free days to support agriculture? Have these identified settings been adequately sampled by archaeological survey? 5. Does the reduction in site numbers reflect decreasing populations? 6. Was there an increase or decrease in the use of semi-sedentary base camps during the Early Woodland? 7. How can we reconcile decreasing populations with the rise of agriculture and sedentism? Was hunting and gathering the predominant subsistence method? 8. If populations declined, where did Native Americans go and why? 9. Has bias in archaeological survey locations resulted in the apparent site decline and lack of base camps during the Early Woodland? 10. If so, where are the Early Woodland base camp sites?
126 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER X. MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD 2100 to 1200 B.P. (150 B.C. to A.D. 800)
A. MIDDLE WOODLAND OVERVIEW In the Middle Atlantic and eastern Pennsylvania, the Middle Woodland period is characterized by an elaboration in burial ceremonialism, widespread interregional exchange, and the increased importance of indigenous cultigens and maize (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1972; Smith 1987). Within the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity, including the Upper Juniata River sub-basin, the Middle Woodland period is not well represented. This may be due to the decreasing populations in the sub-basin, initiated during the Transitional period. Alternatively, increasing sedentism led to a reduction in the total numbers of sites utilized during the period, thus, decreasing site counts compared to other periods. In this argument, populations remained stable or decreased only slightly (Custer 1996) compared to earlier periods.
B. MIDDLE WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Middle Woodland Technology Middle Woodland technology represents a continuation of styles utilized during the Early Woodland period. Ceramics of the Middle Woodland increase in diversity, decorations become more common, and vessel thickness generally decreases with increasing technological sophistication. Projectile point types, such as Rossville and Lagoon points that were initially used during the Early Woodland, persist into the early portion of the Middle Woodland. Additional types include Hopewellian artifacts, such as Snyders and Raccoon corner-notched points (Figure 9). Groundstone tools, including manos, metates, pitted cobbles, adzes, and tool sharpeners (Figure 9), are recovered at sites as well.
While some researchers (Custer 1996) place Jack’s Reef corner-notched points within the Middle Woodland period, we discuss them in the Late Woodland, largely due to the association of a Jack’s Reef point with a Clemson Island (Late Woodland) feature at Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1968:345). Most researchers agree (Custer 1996, 2001; Kinsey 1972; Justice 1987) that the point type overlaps with both the latter portion of the Middle Woodland and the early portion of the Late Woodland periods, however.
Middle Woodland Chronology A total of six Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates are available for sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The dates of 320±140 A.D. (M-2082) and 60±140 A.D. (M-2083) were taken from excavation level 3 of Sheep Rock Shelter and were associated with a variety of subsistence goods, including fish scales, mollusk shell, and the most bone of any level at the shelter.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 127 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Snyders-like Point Figure 9. Middle Woodland Artifacts. Raccoon Notched Point Sheep Rock Shelter Workman Site Michels and Smith 1967:697 Michels and Huner 1968:232,
A9 - C -- 10 - 236
- Raccoon Notched Point
2 Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:695
Obverse Reverse Honing Stone/Abrader Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:733 DRAWN DHM CHECKED APPROVED JCL DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 0
Quartz Crystals C0NSULTANTS, INC. Sheep Rock Shelter Michels and Smith 1967:737 gai
All Artifacts Actual Size Figure 9 Middle Woodland Artifacts
128 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Four other Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates have been assayed at sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, none of which are associated with a substantial occupation. The Ickes 1 (36Bd173) and Ickes 2 Sites (36Bd174) yielded three Middle Woodland dates from features at the Bedford County Airport project:
ca. 40 B.C. (1990±90 B.P.; Beta-35141; Baker and Baker 1990:11) ca. 260 A.D. (1690±140 B.P; Beta-7060; Baker and Baker 1990:7) ca. 370 A.D. (1580±100 B.P.; Beta-35143; Heberling et al. 1990:139)
Each of the Middle Woodland features also yielded charred nuts and likely served as storage pits or hearths. Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts were not recovered at either site, with most diagnostic artifacts being Late Archaic. The authors suggest contamination of the charcoal samples or ephemeral Middle Woodland occupations.
Finally, excavations for the Hollidaysburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (Raber et al. 1993:60) identified Site 36Bl158, which also yielded a Middle Woodland date of ca. 160 A.D. (1790±130 B.P.); however, the date was from wood in a culturally-sterile level above an Early Woodland component (discussed above).
C. MIDDLE WOODLAND SITE TYPES, LOCATIONS, AND SETTLEMENT The reduction in recorded sites that was initiated during the end of the Late Archaic continued into the Middle Woodland, as only 11 Middle Woodland sites are listed in the PASS files compared to 19 Early Woodland sites. As revealed by PASS file data (Table 35), small camp sites are the exclusive site type for the Middle Woodland in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Sites are equally distributed across the sub-basin, with four sites in Watershed C and three sites each in Watersheds A and D. As typical, Watershed B is not well represented in the site files. Of the 11 sites, eight listed the Raystown Branch as the nearest major stream, while the Little Juniata, Bald Eagle Creek, and the Frankstown Branch were each listed once. As is typical, sites are predominantly located on floodplains, terraces, and stream benches (n=7), with a minority on hillslopes (n=4). All but two of the sites, both rockshelters, are in open settings.
Table 35. Middle Woodland Sites (PASS Files).
SITE NO. SITE NAME WATERSHED MAJ. RIVER SETTING SITE TYPE ELEV. 36BD0052 Coon Rock Shelter D Raystown Hillslope Rock Shelter 960 36BD0079 -- C Raystown Floodplain Open 1130 36BD0092 -- C Raystown Floodplain Open 1120 36BD0118 Acker #1 C Raystown Floodplain Open 1110 36BD0158 Site Locus E-16 D Raystown Bench Open 1100 36BL0092 Bellwood Bridge A Juniata Terrace Lithic red. 1060 36CE0360 Hort. Farm #1 A Bald Eagle Slopes Open 1230 36HU0101 Graysville Cave A Frankstown Hillslope Rock Shelter 1080 36HU0122 Kyper-B B Raystown Floodplain Open 670 36BD0036 Workman D Raystown Floodplain Open 820 36BD0161 Claycomb #1 C Raystown Slopes Open 1150
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 129 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Specific data on site locations suggest that proximity to water was the key factor in Middle Woodland site placement, as each site was less than 150 m from a water source (Table 36). Order of stream was not an important factor in determining site location, nor was direction of the stream relative to the site location. Proximity to a stream confluence was also an important criterion for site placement, as nine of the 11 sites were located near (less than 1,500 m) a confluence. Most sites were located north of the nearest stream confluence, while several were also located upstream of confluences.
Table 36. Middle Woodland Site Location Data (PASS Files).
Site No. Slope Distance Direction Order Con.Dist Con.Direct Con.Order Con.Flow 36BD0052 00 40 South 5 1000 Southeast 5 Upstream 36BD0079 00 10 North 4 100 Northeast 4 Upstream 36BD0092 00 40 West 3 260 Southwest 3 Upstream 36BD0118 00 20 West 4 40 Northwest 4 Downstream 36BD0158 -- 0 On-site 1 460 Northwest 5 No Conf. 36BL0092 ------36CE0360 0 100 West 2160 West 2 No Conf. 36HU0101 50 20 East 2 760 Northeast 2 Downstream 36HU0122 0 0 On-site 4 50 East 2 Upstream 36BD0036 00 80 Northeast 5 600 Northeast 5 No Conf. 36BD0161 5 140 Southeast 2 600 Northeast 5 Upstream
Research report data contribute little to the discussion of Middle Woodland site types, as only five reports indicate the presence of Middle Woodland artifacts. Four of the reports (Table 37) contained only an ephemeral Middle Woodland component, represented by a few diagnostic artifacts from mixed plowzone contexts. With the exception of Sheep Rock Shelter, no sites contain a stratified Middle Woodland component.
Table 37. Middle Woodland Research Reports.
SITE # PHASE WATERSHED AUTHOR YEAR PROJECT NAME LOCATION 36BD0158 I,II D Heberling/Heberling 1989 Loysburg Hwy South Woodbury Twp. 36BL0092 II A East 1998 Bellwood Br. Bellwood 36BD0036 III D Michels and Huner 1968 Workman Raystown Lake 36BD0161 II C Heberling/Heberling 1990 Bedford Air. Bedford 36HU1 III D Michels et al. 67,68 Sheep Rock Raystown Lake
Evidence from Sheep Rock Shelter indicates an increasing reliance on agricultural goods during the Middle Woodland along the Raystown Branch. The site yielded 84 fragments of corn, including 1 six-row, 73 8-row, 8 10-row, 1 12-row, and 1 16-row cob fragment. Other domesticates from Middle Woodland level 3 included 223 squash (Pepo) fragments/seeds/stems, 50 bean pods/seeds, and four sunflower seeds. Middle Woodland site occupants also exploited wild plant foods as well, including acorn (n=9), black walnut (n=15), chestnuts (n=1), butternuts (n=8), hickory nuts (n=8), hackberry seeds (n=16), and a
130 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
peach pit. The Middle Woodland level 3 also yielded the most bone (22,567 g) of any level at the site, suggesting better preservation compared to earlier periods, or, alternatively, increased dependency on hunting. Fish scales (n=796, combined level 3/4 data) and mollusk shell (2,261 g, combined level 3/4 data) were also recovered in the Middle Woodland levels of Sheep Rock Shelter.
Several unique artifact types were also recovered in the Middle Woodland levels of Sheep Rock, including a “honing stone” (see Figure 9). The artifact had “numerous deeply scoured grooves on both faces and probably used for the sharpening of bone implements such as awls. A small hole has been worn through the center of the specimen. The item is made of green siltstone” (Michels and Dutt 1968:365). In addition, level 3 yielded the most red ocher of any level, 55% (161 g) of the total from the site (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
While no burials were recovered in the Middle Woodland levels, the presence of ocher and three multifaceted clear and translucent, white and rose quartz crystals (see Figure 9) suggest that Middle Woodland Native Americans conducted rituals and perhaps burials within the shelter (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
Unfortunately, the dearth of data from Middle Woodland site occupations precludes an in- depth discussion of settlement patterns and lithic raw material use in the sub-basin. Additional studies of Middle Woodland sites in the sub-basin should make an effort to better understand the organization of lithic technology and the use of lithic raw materials.
D. MIDDLE WOODLAND: OVERVIEW AND RESEARCH ISSUES
Middle Woodland Overview The Middle Woodland period stands out in the Upper Juniata sub-basin due to the general lack of information compared to all other time periods. The low number of sites (n=11) listed in PASS files indicates a continuation of population reductions in the sub-basin that began during the end of the Late Archaic period. The lack of Middle Woodland village sites in the sub-basin refutes an argument for increased sedentism and nucleation resulting in a decreased site count. The evidence fully supports the hypothesis that populations decreased between the Late Archaic and Middle Woodland periods.
Sheep Rock Shelter provides virtually the only window into Middle Woodland lifeways in the region. Evidence from that site clearly shows an increasing reliance on domesticates, including corn, beans, squash, and sunflower. However, Middle Woodland Native Americans also continued their use of hunted and gathered foods, including a variety of nuts, berries, fish, shells, and game animals. Evidence of ceremonialism was also present in the Middle Woodland levels at Sheep Rock Shelter, suggesting a continuation of ritual traditions initiated during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland occupations.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 131 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Middle Woodland Research Questions This summary of Middle Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub- basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Eight Middle Woodland research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. How does the Middle Woodland differ from the preceding Early Woodland and subsequent Late Woodland? 2. Why did populations continue to decline during the Middle Woodland period? 3. What was the influence of Adena/Hopewell cultures on Middle Woodland Native Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin? 4. Did pottery use increase during the Middle Woodland? 5. Did populations become nucleated during the Middle Woodland? If so, where are the base camp/village sites? 6. What role did agriculture play during the Middle Woodland period? 7. How did settlement patterns change, as reflected in lithic raw material use at Middle Woodland sites? 8. Was there an increase in ceremonial/ritual activity in the Upper Juniata sub-basin during the Middle Woodland? 9. Which topographic settings have the largest numbers of frost-free days to support agriculture? Have these identified settings been adequately sampled by archaeological survey?
132 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER XI. LATE WOODLAND PERIOD 1100 to 400 B.P. (AD 800-1600)
A. LATE WOODLAND CULTURES, TECHNOLOGY, AND CHRONOLOGY During the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, Native Americans experienced dynamic culture changes, including increasing population densities and widespread cultural contacts. While Native American use of the Upper Juniata sub-basin had steadily declined between the end of the Late Archaic and the Middle Woodland period, the Late Woodland witnessed an apparent population explosion, resulting in a seven-fold increase in recorded sites compared to the Middle Woodland period. With the increasing populations came expanded trade and social networks. Monongahela groups from the west, Susquehanna Valley populations from the east (e.g., Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry), as well as Potomac Valley groups from the south and Owasco groups from the north, all affected cultural change in the sub-basin during the Late Woodland period. Increasing sedentism and agriculture spurred population growth; however, hunting and gathering persisted, as evidenced by the PASS files and research report data presented in this chapter. While the Upper Ohio Valley and vicinity to the west, the Susquehanna Valley to the east/north, and Upper Potomac Valley to the south witnessed the rise of unique Late Woodland culture groups, the Upper Juniata was somewhat of a hinterland. PASS files data only one true sedentary village in the sub- basin, only two possible agricultural hamlets, but a proliferation of resource procurement camps.
As this chapter will describe, the main Late Woodland cultural influences in the sub-basin were clearly from the Susquehanna River to the east. The vast majority of sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are a result of Clemson Island occupations during the early portion of the Late Woodland and Shenks Ferry occupations toward the end of the Late Woodland period. Nevertheless, Monongahela houses and ceramics, Owasco ceramics, and Potomac Valley- type house forms and ceramics have all been identified at sites in the sub-basin. Sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, Petersburg Bridge, and Bedford Village indicate a variety of cultural influences, suggesting the movement of several different cultures through the sub- basin. As during previous periods, the Raystown Branch Valley provided an excellent corridor for travel between the Upper Ohio Valley to the west and the Susquehanna and Potomac Valleys to the north, east and south. Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata sub-basin reflect the intermingling of cultures via trade, marriage, and other social means, as well as the possible presence of multiple different ethnic groups in one region.
The following section provides brief overviews of Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Ohio Valley, Potomac Valley, and Susquehanna Valleys to provide a background for the subsequent analysis of site types and land-use of Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 133 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Upper Ohio Valley Late Woodland Cultures To the west of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Monongahela culture was dominant during the Late Woodland, focusing their settlement on the Monongahela, Youghiogheney, and Upper Ohio River Valleys of southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia. Monongahela sites east of the Allegheny Front are rare, but cultural influences are reflected in similarities in house types, pottery styles, and other cultural traits, especially in the western portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Monongahela sites occur in a variety of settings, including the floodplains and benches of major rivers, but were generally concentrated within upland saddles and flats (George 1974, 1983; Cowin 1985; Nass and Hart 2000). Site types include villages in river bottomlands, as well as along trail networks on upland hilltops and saddles near drainage divides (Johnson et al. 1989). Smaller camps are generally restricted to uplands and terraces of smaller streams and rivers.
The Monongahela constructed large, multiseasonal, palisaded villages of one to five acres in size and probably contained from 100 to 150 inhabitants. These villages were generally circular and were often fortified with a round or oval stockade. Circular houses around a central circular plaza were abutted by large circular storage pits (Bennett and Porter 1986:17; Nass and Hart 2000). Monongahela ceramics are typically shell-tempered and cordmarked and were produced via the coiling method (Herbstritt 1981). Chesser notched, Jack's Reef Corner Notched, Levanna and Madison Triangular (Justice 1987), as well as Backstrum Side- notched (George 1992), are all diagnostic projectile points found at Late Woodland Monongahela sites.
Monongahela ceramic types have been identified in small numbers at both the Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter Sites in the Raystown Branch (Watershed D). The Bedford Village site (Catton 1994) in Bedford may be the eastern-most Monongahela village and is the only true Late Woodland village in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin. In Somerset County, just to the west of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Monongahela-culture Gnagey Site yielded several Clemson Island pottery sherds, confirmation of contact between the two cultures, likely via intermarriage and/or trade (George 1983; Stewart 1990:91).
Potomac Valley Late Woodland Cultures The Upper Potomac River Valley is less than 30 miles south of the Raystown Branch. The close proximity of the two river corridors likely resulted in trade, intermarriage, and socializing between cultures in both areas; however, the rugged nature of the terrain separating the two areas was apparently enough to divide them into two distinct culture areas. In the Potomac River Valley of Maryland and Virginia, the Montgomery Focus includes Shepard and Page ceramics. These types have “Owascoid, cord-wrapped stick decorations” (Stewart 1990:90-91) similar to earlier Jacks Reef Corded. Both the Workman Site and Sheep Rock Shelter along the Raystown Branch contained small percentages of Shepard and Page ceramic types, while the Workman Site also contained house forms that generally resemble some within the Upper Potomac Valley (see discussion below). Pottery from the Bedford Village site is reminiscent of that produced within the Upper Potomac Valley, especially in the use of a predominant final S twist in cordage production (Catton 1994; Johnson 2001).
134 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Susquehanna Valley Late Woodland Cultures As discussed in this chapter, Clemson Island cultures exerted the most cultural influence within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The Late Woodland is typically divided into three sub- phases within the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity: Clemson Island (A.D. 750/900-1250); Stewart (Shenks Ferry) (A.D. 1250-1350); and McFate-Quiggle (A.D. 1350-1600), although recent studies have called into question the value of such sub-phases (Espenshade 2001).
Clemson Island Clemson Island has been intensively studied during recent years, including major overviews by Graybill (1995), Hay et al. (1987), Hatch (1980) and Stewart (1990). Clemson Island is an early-Late Woodland sub-phase based largely on the presence of punctated “Clemson Island” pottery at archaeological sites in Centre, Clinton, Dauphin, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lycoming, Mifflin, Northumberland, Perry, Snyder, and Union Counties (Graybill 1995; Stewart 1990). This pottery is characterized by an increase in finely-made cordmarkings and punctations on vessel exteriors; an increase in decorated lips; and in increase in finely-crushed quartz, chert, or other grit temper (although shell has been noted in later Clemson Island assemblages as well). Detailed type descriptions of Clemson Island pottery are presented below. Ground stone tools increase in quantity as well, due to the need for plant-processing equipment (Graybill 1995).
Clemson Island stone tool technology was expedient, meaning that there was an emphasis on the production of short-use life tools for daily tasks and a decrease in biface production. Projectile points are restricted largely to Levanna and Madison triangles and some Jack’s Reef Corner Notched. Jack’s Reef and triangle points were recovered in association with Clemson Island pottery and hearths at Sheep Rock Shelter and Petersburg Bridge in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see below; Michels and Dutt 1968:345). Small amounts of Clemson Island pottery were also recovered at the Bedford Village and Gnagey sites, both considered to be predominantly Monongahela villages.
Shenks Ferry and McFate-Quiggle The Fisher Farm Site (Hatch 1980, 1983), as described below, contained a large Shenks Ferry (A.D. 1250-1350) village occupation. Sites typically yield Shenks Ferry plain and cordmarked pottery wares, triangular projectile points, clay smoking pipes, and increasing numbers of ground stone tools. Finally, the McFate-Quiggle phase (A.D. 1350-1600) is infrequent in the upper reaches of the Susquehanna, but is characterized by the increasing use of Susquehannock-type, high-collared, shell-tempered pottery (Hatch 1980).
Key Late Woodland Sites near the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin Numerous Late Woodland sites have been excavated in areas surrounding the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including: Book Mound (36Ju1) in Juniata County (Jones 1931; Stewart 1990); Canfield Island (36Ly37; Bressler 1989) in Lycoming County; Memorial Park (36Cn164; GAI 1995) in Clinton County; and Fisher Farm (36Ce35; Hatch 1980) along Bald Eagle Creek in Centre County (Hatch 1980). The Gnagey Site (36So55; George 1983) is also relevant, as it is one of the eastern-most Monongahela villages and yielded small quantities of
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 135 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
well-dated Clemson Island pottery. Each of these five sites is located within approximately 15-30 miles of the Upper Juniata sub-basin and provides context for subsequent discussion of sites within the sub-basin.
Book Mound (36Ju1) Book Mound (36Ju1) is one of the earliest known Clemson Island village sites excavated in central Pennsylvania (Jones 1931; Stewart 1990). The site is located on a terrace of the Juniata River, approximately 20 miles east of its confluence with the Raystown Branch in Huntingdon. The site possessed a ceremonial mound in association with a large Clemson Island village occupation, the closest such site to the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Canfield Island (36Ly37) The Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bresser 1989) is located on Canfield Island within the city limits of Williamsport on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. Two Late Woodland components dating to the McFate-Quiggle and Clemson Island phases were identified at the site. Madison triangle points and shell-tempered pottery dominate the McFate-Quiggle component, which also yielded several cobble tools and associated food processing features with evidence of turtle processing. The Clemson Island component was dated to ca. 1000 A.D. and yielded Levanna triangle points, pitted cobbles, celts, knives, net sinkers, and scrapers, largely produced from local Shriver chert. Bone fish hooks and barbed bone harpoon heads were also recovered, suggesting that fishing was an important subsistence task. Clemson Island Levanna Cord-on-Cord pottery (see description below; Figure 11) is the dominant pottery type. Numerous post molds were identified and corn and weed seeds were recovered from features, suggesting that the site likely was a seasonal food processing hamlet, as per Memorial Park below.
Memorial Park (36Cn164) Located in the city of Lock Haven, GAI (1995) conducted extensive data recovery excavations at this site prior to the construction of a levee along the West Branch in the early 1990s. The site yielded four Late Woodland components, including three Clemson Island occupations and one Stewart (Shenks Ferry) occupation. The site possessed 80 features, several houses, and thousands of lithic and ceramic artifacts. The three Clemson Island occupations dated to ca. 800 A.D., 900 A.D., and 1050 A.D., respectively, while the Stewart occupation dated to ca. 1350 A.D. Jacks Reef projectile points were recovered from the two earliest site occupations, but not from the final Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry occupations. Triangle points were recovered in each of the Late Woodland occupations and were largely produced from locally-available cherts. Pottery styles generally conform to the Clemson Island typology presented below (see Hart 1995a:520).
Clemson Island components at Memorial Park also yielded significant data regarding subsistence, including maize kernel and cob fragments, two types of domesticated Chenopodium, as well as a tobacco seed and a sunflower kernel. Wild foods used at the site include hickory, chestnut, hazelnut, walnut, butternut, black walnut, acorn, wild rice, and a variety of mammals, fish, and birds. The highest density of houses and large storage features
136 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
were built during the Clemson Island occupations, suggesting a fairly sedentary, agricultural community. However, Hart (1995b:525), based on the overall small number of houses and their distribution, does not interpret the site as a village, instead suggesting that the site likely represents a seasonal hamlet, or a “small habitation site for agricultural production.” If this is the case, Memorial Park may have been a hamlet associated with the West Water Street Site (36Cn175), a Clemson Island village with a stockade located approximately two miles upstream from Memorial Park on the West Branch in Lock Haven (Custer et al. 1996).
Fisher Farm (36Ce35) Within close proximity (~15 miles north) of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Fisher Farm Site (36Ce35; Hatch 1980, 1983) is located on the west bank of north Bald Eagle Creek, which flows northward to its confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River in Lock Haven. Eleven radiocarbon dates from the village site identified occupations dating to the early-Late Woodland Clemson Island phase (705±70 A.D., UGa 2683; 960±90 A.D., UGa 2485), and the late-Late Woodland Shenks Ferry phase (see below; 1350±105 A.D., UGa 22276). Clemson Island pottery at Fisher Farm was cordmarked or fabric impressed with grit temper and punctations on the rim, while Shenks Ferry pottery was highly decorated, cordmarked, rim incised, and grit tempered. The Clemson Island component yielded Jack’s Reef and triangle points, while the Shenks Ferry occupation yielded triangle points. A small Susquehannock occupation is also denoted at Fisher Farm by the presence of a few shell- tempered pottery sherds and small Susquehannock triangle points. Each of the Late Woodland occupations was dominated by the use of local black chert.
The Gnagey Site (36So55) Located in Somerset County, the Gnagey Site (36So55) is the easternmost Monongahela village in the region (George 1983). While the Bedford Village site (36Bd90) near Bedford maintains a Monongahela-type village layout, including circular houses and a circular stockade, cordage-twist directions suggest affiliation with cultures from the Upper Potomac Valley. George’s (1983) excavations at the Gnagey Site, thus, provide the best data on the eastern-most influences of the Monongahela culture, as well as the western-most influences of the Clemson Island culture.
Gnagey maintains a typical Monongahela-style village layout, including circular houses within a circular stockade (Figure 10). The Gnagey Site yielded significant quantities of Monongahela pottery, as well as limited quantities of Clemson Island sherds (associated with radiocarbon dates of 920±80 A.D., 1030±80 A.D., 1085±80 A.D., and 1190±65 A.D.). An additional link between the Upper Juniata sub-basin and the Gnagey Site was in the lithic raw materials used in stone tool production. Most chert utilized at the Gnagey Site were procured in Bedford County, including types discussed in Chapter 2, such as Shriver, Bellefonte, Nittany, and Mines (George 1983:50). The Gnagey Site also provided the earliest known dates for corn—ca. 900-1000 A.D.—at any Monongahela site in the region (Nass and Hart 2000:144).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 137 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
gaiC0NSULTANTS,Figure INC. DRAWN 10. PlanviewDHM DATE of the7/18/ Gnagey02 DWG. Site. NO Compare20 02-236 with-10 --C-A10
Upper Juniata Sub-Basin B
The Gnagey Site (36So55) A Site Location
Figure 12, the Planview of the Bedford Village Site (from George 1983:6).D
Meter Scale C 0 5 10 m
Early Trench
Later Trench
Early House
Stockade Posts
Later House
Early Village
Later Village
Figure 10 Planview of the Gnagey Site. Compare with Figure 10, Planview of the Bedford Village Site Adapted From George 1983:6
138 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
This brief review of important Clemson Island, Monongahela, and Shenks Ferry sites on the periphery of the Upper Juniata sub-basin provides a basis for discussion of sites within the sub-basin itself. The following section provides an overview of Late Woodland chronology and technology, as reflected by sites in the sub-basin.
B. LATE WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY IN THE UPPER JUNIATA SUB-BASIN A variety of pottery types and stone tools were utilized by Late Woodland Native Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. As will be seen, most of the types are affiliated with Susquehanna Valley cultures, with lesser influences from Monongahela, Upper Potomac, and Owasco (New York) groups. The following section provides a list of radiocarbon dates for occupations within the study area, as well as an overview of the main types of technologies used in the sub-basin. Subsequent sections discuss site types and settlement patterns during the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata.
Late Woodland Chronology Several radiocarbon dates are available for Late Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub- basin. Diagnostic artifacts are associated with some of these radiocarbon dates, providing a well-dated Late Woodland chronology. Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) and Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143) yielded five and six Late Woodland/Protohistoric radiocarbon dates, respectively. Also, the Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) yielded three dates, while the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) and Bedford Village (36Bd90) each yielded two dates. Thus, a total of 17 radiocarbon dates document Late Woodland occupations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Sheep Rock Shelter Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates Five radiocarbon dates were assayed for the Late Woodland/Protohistoric level 2 at Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1):
1450±100 A.D. (M-2086) 1460±100 A.D. (M-1904) 1490±100 A.D. (M-2084) 1600±100 A.D. (M-1905) 1690±100 A.D. (M-1903)
Each date documents Clemson Island or Shenks Ferry occupations during the latter portion of the Late Woodland period; however, the presence of Jack’s Reef projectile points, as well as early types of Clemson Island pottery, suggests that the site was occupied during the early Late Woodland as well. Clemson Island, Shenks Ferry, and Monongahela ceramics were recovered in this level, as were abundant corn, beans, squash, and wild food remains. The level also yielded two infant burials with associated Late Woodland pottery sherds. Detailed results of excavations in the Late Woodland levels of Sheep Rock Shelter are presented below.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 139 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Mykut Rockshelter Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. (Raber 2000; Burns and Raber 1998; pers. Comm., Paul Raber, 2002) at Mykut Rockshelter near Raystown Lake yielded 16 radiocarbon dates, six of which indicate substantial occupation during the entire Late Woodland period between ca. 800-1650 A.D.
650-890 A.D. or 1270±60 B.P. (Beta-165451); charcoal from Feature 12 1170-1300 A.D. or 770±60 B.P. (Beta-166211); charcoal from Feature 5 1180-1310 A.D. or 750±60 B.P. (Beta-166213); charcoal from Feature 10 1270-1420 A.D. or 650±60 B.P. (Beta-166212); charcoal from Feature 7 1435-1635 A.D. or 380±60 B.P. (Beta-125341); charcoal from Feature 13 1470-1650 A.D. or 320±70 B.P. (Beta-132312); charcoal from Feature 5
Clemson Island sherds document an early Late Woodland occupation, while Shenks Ferry and Quiggle pottery sherds indicate additional late-Late Woodland occupations at Mykut Rockshelter. As will be discussed below, subsistence remains included animal bone, mollusk shell, and turtle shell, but no domesticates.
Petersburg Bridge Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates Two radiocarbon dates were assayed from Clemson Island features at the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67; GAI 1983) near the confluence of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Rivers northwest of Huntingdon.
955±70 A.D. (Beta-7060); charcoal from hearth (Feature 1) 1070±50 A.D. (Beta-7059); charcoal from hearth (Feature 2)
Four structures, multiple pit features and hearths, as well as Clemson Island pottery and Jacks Reef and triangle projectile points, were recovered in association with these dates (see below).
Bedford Village Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates Two radiocarbon dates were analyzed from the Bedford Village Site (36Bd90; Catton 1994), the lone Late Woodland village in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin. One date marks the period during which the stockade was in use, while the second date marks the date of final occupation of the site, after the stockade had ceased operation:
990-1120 A.D. or 895±65 B.P.(Uga-185); charcoal from stockade trench 950-1070 A.D. or 940±60 B.P.(Uga-185); charcoal from feature that post-dates stockade trench
Ickes 1 Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates Two Late Woodland radiocarbon dates were assayed on a buried soil at the Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) at the Bedford County Airport project (Baker and Baker 1990:9-10), while
140 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
another date was assayed on charcoal from a storage pit or large post mold at the same site (Feature 6). No associated Late Woodland artifacts were recovered at the sites, suggesting possible contamination (as with Early and Middle Woodland dates from the same sites) or ephemeral Woodland occupations.
790 A.D. or 1160±90 B.P. (Beta-35144); charcoal, Feature 6 post/storage pit 1010 A.D. or 940±70 B.P. (Beta-35138); bulk soil sample, buried A horizon 1220 A.D. or 730±90 B.P. (Beta-35139); bulk soil sample, buried A horizon
Late Woodland Technology Pottery Extensive discussions of Late Woodland pottery types are available in several volumes, including Stewart (1990), Hatch (1980, 1983), Hay et al. (1987), and Hart (1995a). This section provides a brief overview of pottery types recovered at sites in the Upper Juniata sub- basin (see Figure 9) and is based entirely on information within the above referenced sources, especially Stewart (1990:86-87) and Hay et al. (1987:19-57). Descriptions of Monongahela pottery types are derived from Mayer-Oakes (1955), as well as the Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967) and Workman (Michels and Huner 1968) site reports.
In general, the variety of Clemson Island pottery types are characterized by cordmarkings or fabric impressions on vessel exteriors, grit (chert or quartz) temper, and distinctively deep punctations along the rim. The punctations are typically arranged in one-four rows, with one being most common and four being rare. Although there are minor discrepancies in the typology of Clemson Island ceramics, both Stewart (1990) and Hay et al. (1987) divide the ceramics into early and late groups, based on the association of pottery types with radiocarbon dates at sites in the Susquehanna Valley. The following is a list of Clemson Island pottery types identified at sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The list is approximately chronological (from early to late), although the evolution of types was a continuum with many types present in single components at respective sites.
Clemson Island: Levanna Cord-on-Cord Heavy cord marking on exterior and lip. No punctations, internal decorations, or rim preparation are present. This type is considered the most basic and earliest of the Clemson Island types (Figure 11).
Clemson Island Cord-on-Cord Similar to Levanna cord-on-cord, except for the use of punctates, some lip and vertical cordmarking on the exterior (see Figure 11). This type was the most common Clemson Island type of pottery at the Monongahela Gnagey Site in Somerset County (see above). The type was also most common at the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67; GAI 1983) near the confluence of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch rivers. The Workman Site (36Bd36; Michels and Huner 1968) also yielded 20 sherds of a local variant of this type called Clemson Island Punctate.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 141 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 11. Late Woodland Artifacts.
1 inch Levanna Cord-on Cord (Hay et al. 1987:27) A11 - C -- 10 - 236
- Clemson Island Horizontal Complicated
2 (Hay et al. 1987:32) 1 inch
Clemson Island Cord-on-Cord (Hay et al. 1987:27)
Shenks Ferry Incised (Sheep Rock Shelter) Clemson Island Platted Horizontal (Michels and Smith 1967:517) (Hay et al. 1987:27) 1 inch
Jack’s Reef Pentagonal Points Memorial Park Site (36Cn164) Jack’s Reef Corner-Notched Point (GAI 1995:286) (Justice 1987:218)
Actual size 1 inch
DRAWN DHM CHECKED APPROVED JCL DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 0 Triangle Projectile Points Sheep Rock Shelter . (Michels and Smith 1967:699)
C0NSULTANTS, INC Actual size gai
Figure 11 Late Woodland Diagnostic Artifacts
142 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
A complete vessel of this possible type was discovered from an unknown provenience in Bedford County (George 1986:35-38). The vessel measures 15.2 cm high, 14 cm wide, with an interior opening of 10.3 cm. The rim measures 5 mm thick and has a single row of punctates, as well as cordmarking. The body of the vessel has plain-weave, S-twist fabric impressions that resemble cordmarkings, while the interior is plain. Temper is small angular fragments of black shale.
Clemson Island Platted Horizontal This type is defined by rim sherd decorations, produced via “oblique cord wrapped stick impressions arranged in horizontal plats” (Stewart 1990:86; see Figure 11). Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman both yielded small numbers of sherds of this type.
Clemson Island Horizontal Complicated Similar to Owasco Corded Horizontal, this type (see Figure 11) is a variant of Clemson Island corded horizontal. Vessel necks have irregular incised lines. Sheep Rock Shelter yielded three sherds of a similar type called Clemson’s Island Incised (Michels and Smith 1967:473-474).
Clemson Island Platted Oblique Similar to the Clemson Island Platted type defined at Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter. As defined at the Workman Site (Michels and Huner 1968:90), this type has a single line of deep punctates parallel to the lip. The interior rim is stamped with a cordwrapped stick or paddle and the necks sometimes also exhibit diagonal stamping.
Clemson Island Flared Rim Characterized by a flare rim, with all other diagnostic traits of Clemson Island pottery. The Gnagey Site yielded sherds of this type, as did Sheep Rock Shelter, where they were called Clemson Island Overhanging Rim.
Levanna Corded Collar/Page Cordmarked This type is essentially the same as the Impressed Rim variety of Page Cordmarked at the Workman Site (Stewart 1990:87; Michels and Huner 1968:98-100). Similar types have been found in the Great Valley section of the Ridge and Valley and along the Upper Potomac Valley. At Workman, the type is coiled and tempered with coarse limestone. The exterior is cordmarked, while the neck has smoothed cordmarkings and the interior is smoothed.
Shenks Ferry Incised/Banded, Simple, and Complex Three variants of Shenks Ferry pottery were recovered at Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 11). Each type was produced via coiling and malleating with a cordwrapped paddle and anvil; temper is typically coarse chert; exteriors are cordmarked and interiors are smoothed. The banded variety has three incised lines adjacent to the lip, while the neck is decorated with incised lines in a herringbone pattern. The simple variety has decorations of vertical or diagonal incised lines on exterior, while the interior of the rim has diagonal incised lines. Finally, the complex variety is decorated with “complex incised line groups that form geometric platts that are usually triangular” (Michels and Smith 1967:483).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 143 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Watson Plain and Watson Cordmarked The Workman Site yielded 26 sherd fragments of Watson Plain and 14 sherds of Watson cordmarked. These types are tempered with limestone, coiled, and subsequently malleated with a paddle and anvil. Temper is coarse limestone, with both interior and exteriors smoothed on the Plain variety and exteriors cordmarked on the other variety. Lips are square to rounded with straight to slightly outflaring rims. These traits fit the description of Watson Plain and Cordmarked, as defined by Mayer-Oakes (1955:194-196). These types were common at the Gnagey Site in eastern Somerset County, accounting for approximately 10 percent of the typed sherds.
Monongahela Cordmarked As defined by Mayer-Oakes (1955:197-198) and, subsequently, by Michels and Smith (1967:529) at Sheep Rock Shelter, this type is typically limestone-tempered (but can be shell- tempered), coiled, and malleated with paddle and anvil. Exteriors are cordmarked with some smoothing and interiors are smoothed. Some sherds have possible “fingernail impressions” (Michels and Smith 1967:529) on rims. Six Monongahela cordmarked sherds were recovered at Sheep Rock Shelter. This type was the most common at the Gnagey Site in eastern Somerset County, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the typed sherds (George 1983:28).
Local Pottery Types Several apparently local Late Woodland pottery types were identified at the Workman Site, none of which have been identified elsewhere in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the Late Woodland component of Sheep Rock Shelter. The types include Saxton Impressed, Saxton Incised, Stonerstown Incised, Workman Cordmarked (with several variants), Warriors Path Smoothed (with several variants), and Warriors Path Cordmarked (with several variants), each of which is described in detail in Michels and Huner (1968:102-118). The importance of these local types is that none of them were found at Sheep Rock Shelter, located only 40 miles to the north of Workman. Michels and Huner (1968:120) interpret these differences between the sites as evidence of two different cultural groups inhabiting the Raystown Branch during the Late Woodland. Based on the variety of pottery types described above, a variety of cultures were influential in the sub-basin; thus, these local types likely represent unique variations of regional types due to cultural contacts via marriage, trade, or other socialization.
Late Woodland Lithic Technology Generally, Late Woodland lithic technology in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and elsewhere (Hart 1995b:522; Hatch 1980; Stewart 1990) is characterized by the production of expedient tools for daily tasks using locally-available cherts. Clemson Island sites yield both Jacks Reef corner-notched points and a variety of triangle points, including Levanna and Madison varieties (see Figure 11). Shenks Ferry sites typically yield only triangle points, which generally decrease in size over time. As in the Bald Eagle Creek drainage (Hatch 1980), the use of local black cherts is prevalent during the Late Woodland, as will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. Site furniture, in the form of groundstone tools (e.g., metates, manos, pitted cobbles, etc…), is also common at Late Woodland villages and specialized camp sites.
144 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
PASS files include data regarding 77 Late Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, with the majority of the sites yielding Clemson Island components. The Upper Juniata area is home to some important Late Woodland sites, including Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, Bedford Village, and Petersburg Bridge, among others described below. The following sections describe these sites and interpret them in light of Hatch’s (1980), Hay et al. (1987), and Stewart’s (1990) Late Woodland site types models, described below.
D. LATE WOODLAND SITE TYPES AND LOCATIONS: UPPER JUNIATA SUB-BASIN The increase in Late Woodland populations is reflected by a more than six-fold increase in recorded sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While only 12 Middle Woodland sites are recorded in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 77 Late Woodland sites are recorded in PASS files. In addition, a few of those Late Woodland sites are hamlets or special purpose agricultural camp sites, confirmation of the increasing role of agriculture and sedentism. Nevertheless, as reflected in research reports, site files clearly indicate the prevalence of small camps during the Late Woodland. Thus, while agriculture increased in importance, hunting and gathering remained the most significant means of food procurement. The increasing site density resulted in coverage of the Late Woodland period by 16 cultural resource management projects. The following section provides an overview of Late Woodland sites and site types in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Late Woodland Site Types in Central Pennsylvania Based on the results of excavations at Fisher Farm and elsewhere in the West Branch watershed, Hatch (1980:325) proposed a site type model for Late Woodland cultures that has been generally adopted in the region (Hay et al. 1987:57-67; Stewart 1990:93-101). We introduce the site type model here to provide a context for discussion of Late Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
During the Clemson Island phase, site types consisted of agricultural villages with burial mounds, farmsteads/hamlets on village peripheries (without mounds), and special purpose camps for subsistence. The villages were comprised of small oval or rectangular structures for small groups of nuclear and extended families. Associated features include large pits for the storage of subsistence goods, as well as occasional burial mounds (GAI 1995; Stewart 1990). Hamlets are similar to villages, but they generally contain fewer houses and storage pits and lack mounds and stockades. Hamlets were likely utilized on a short-term basis for agricultural or other subsistence production. This pattern changed during the Shenks Ferry phase, with the onset of village nucleation. House types changed from small, single-family residences to multi-family house groups surrounded by protective stockades, suggestive of increasing tribal hostilities at approximately 1200-1300 A.D. Hatch (1980:326) suggests that such sites as the Bull Run Site on the West Branch in Williamsport epitomize this change. The Shenks Ferry occupation at Bull Run yielded a date of 1230±100 A.D. from its stockade and associated Shenks Ferry ceramics. This is the earliest date in the West Branch for a protective feature. Interestingly, Monongahela sites in the Upper Ohio Valley also experienced a similar change at this time, as exemplified by excavations at the Gnagey Site in Somerset County (see above).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 145 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Using this model of Clemson Island site types, the following overview of key Late Woodland sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin reflects research reports and PASS files.
Late Woodland Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Research Reports Sixteen research reports and articles provide data regarding Late Woodland sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 38). As reflected in research reports and PASS data, only one pure village site (Bedford Village) and only two possible hamlets (Workman and Petersburg Bridge) have been excavated to date in the sub-basin. One hypothesis to explain the low density of Late Woodland villages and hamlets is that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was primarily used for resource procurement by Clemson Island groups and, to a lesser extent, Monongahela and Upper Potomac cultures. If this is the case, thus, the Upper Juniata region was an interaction zone of at least three different Late Woodland cultures. Sites in the region should reflect a blending of cultures, including a variety of archaeological materials used by multiple cultures at sites. The summary of sites below tests this hypothesis utilizing the PASS files and research report data.
In the description of sites below, a distinction is made between two types of “camps.” In this study, ephemeral lithic scatters with low artifact densities are defined as short-term camps, while those sites that represent intensive occupation episodes with dense artifact deposits are defined as “specialized resource procurement sites.” While most Late Woodland sites in the sub-basin are small short-term lithic scatters, Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter represent specialized resource procurement sites. Similarities and differences are compared between sites in the Upper Juniata and those described above from surrounding regions. Table 38. Late Woodland Research Reports and Key Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE # SITE NAME(S) SITE TYPE PHASE LOCATION SHED YEAR AUTHOR Bd36,Hu38 Workman Hamlet III Raystown Lake D 1968 Michels and Huner 36Bd0046 -- Camp II East St. Clair C 1998 Chiarulli and Walker 36Bd0082 -- Camp I West St. Clair C 1994 P.Baker 36Bd0090 Bedford Village Village III Bedford C 1994 Catton Bd171,173 -- Camp II Bedford C 1990 Heberling et al. 36Bd0218 Wall Camp III Bedford C n.d. C.Davis 36Bd0260 CR-23 Camp I East St. Clair C 2000 Raber 36Bl001 Gromiller Cave Camp I Holidaysburg A 1965 Stackhouse 36Bl0027 -- Camp II LR 1061 A 1983 Hay et al. Bl38, Bl40 TIP 1, TIP 3 Camp I Tipton A 1984 Hay et al. 36Bl0046 -- Camp I Tyrone/Altoona A 1987 Lazenby and Heberling 36Bl0058 -- Camp I,II Hollidaysburg A 1993 Raber 36Bl0098 Vail Ind. Park 2 Camp I Snyder Twp. A 2000 Duncan 36Hu0001 Sheep Rock Sh. Sp.Camp III Raystown Lake D -- See text 36Hu0067 Petersburg Brdg Hamlet II Alexandria A 1983 Mitchem and Houston 36Hu0143 Mykut R.Shelter Sp.Camp I-III Carbon Twp. D 1999 See text
Bedford Village (36Bd90) Only one excavated site in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin—Bedford Village (36Bd90)— can be considered a true Late Woodland village, as defined above (Catton 1994). Other
146 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
village sites may be present, but remain unexcavated or unidentified. As noted above, two radiocarbon dates place site occupation of Bedford Village between ca. 900 and 1000 A.D. The early date marks the period of village occupation, while the latter marks the final date of occupation of the village. As would be expected in the multi-ethnic Upper Juniata sub-basin, the village was likely a single occupation site for about 50 years by an unknown ethnic group with a combination of Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac influences.
The Bedford Village site contains the remains of several structures, including one well- defined circular Monongahela-type house arranged within a protective stockade with bastions (Figure 12). Bedford Village, thus, is the only site with protective features in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While not completely excavated, the enclosure was likely circular (Catton 1994). A trench lined the interior of the stockade and was filled with refuse discarded from nearby houses. The stockade, defined by 384 postmolds, measured approximately 82.2 m, with an interior living space of roughly 11,000 sq. meters (2.7 acres). Two bastions and a protected entranceway were also constructed adjacent to the stockade. As Catton (1994:93) states: “The extensive fortifications reinforce the idea of Bedford Village as a settlement on the periphery of a culture group.” The stockade’s probable circular shape, with an interior circular house, suggests affinities with Monongahela groups to the west.
The nearest site to Bedford Village with protective structures is the Monongahela Gnagey Site, 30 miles southwest across the Allegheny Front. Bedford Village and Gnagey share several similarities, including site layout and general ceramic types. Both sites possess circular stockades with trenches, bastions, and protected entranceways, with interior circular houses (compare Figure 10 and Figure 12). Nevertheless, while pottery types at Bedford Village are predominantly shell-tempered (as at Gnagey), cordage twist marks on Bedford Village pottery are final S twist, similar to those from the Upper Potomac Valley (cf. Johnson 2001), while pottery at Gnagey have predominantly final Z twist cordage marks.
Catton (1994:85) interprets these data to mean that Bedford Village site occupants “had a stronger association with groups of [the Upper Potomac Valley of] Maryland and Virginia than with the Monongahela groups of southwestern Pennsylvania [with]…some interaction with the eastern groups of the Susquehanna Basin” as well. The author cites the relative ease of access to the Upper Potomac Valley to the south (e.g., the current route of S.R. 220 from Bedford to Cumberland), compared to the difficulty in crossing the imposing Allegheny Front to Monongahela territory to the west, as support for her argument.
These conflicting data suggest that Bedford Village maintains uncertain cultural affiliation. While the village plan is certainly Monongahela, as are many of the pottery types, the cordage twist direction suggests ties to the Upper Potomac Valley. One explanation is that intermarriage between individuals from Monongahela and Upper Potomac groups resulted in a fairly mixed ethnic group at Bedford Village. Conceivably, the Bedford Village may represent a Monongahela outlier in which site occupants maintained contact with more accessible Upper Potomac groups to the south. Inter-ethnic marriage is a common means to solidify social and trade ties and may explain the apparently mixed ethnicity of Bedford Village populations.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 147 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
gaiC0NSULTANTS, INC. DRAWN DHM DATE 8/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236-10--C-12
B Bedford Village (36Bd90) Upper Juniata A Sub-Basin Site Location
Figure 12. Circular House Structure adjacent to Trench and Stockade, D Boundary of ExcavationsBedfor d Village Site (36Bd90; from Catton 1994).
C
F.89 F.87
F.88 0 1 2
Meter Scale TRENCH
S39N59 F.68
HOUSE OUTLINE (postmolds)
F.72
F.69 F.51
STOCKADE POSTMOLDS
Figure 12 Planview of Circular House in Relation to Stockade and Trench, Bedford Village Site (36Bd90) Adapted From Catton 1994:43
148 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Subsistence remains from Bedford Village suggest extensive hunting by site occupants (Boyko 1987), while the presence of hundreds of cooking features and roasting pits indicate the processing of large quantities of food as well. No ethnobotanical studies were conducted of feature contents, thus, the extent of wild versus domestic food production is uncertain. However, well-preserved bone refuse from the site shows that Late Woodland Native Americans placed a special emphasis on white-tailed deer procurement (Boyko 1987). Postmold arrangements around large pit features containing abundant deer bones suggest the use of drying racks in association with cooking pits at the site (Catton 1994). Deer bone was also used in bead production, as bead-manufacturing areas were identified with beads in various stages of production.
Late Woodland Hamlets (Research Reports) Only two sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin—Petersburg Bridge (36Hu67) and Workman (36Bd36)—are possible hamlet locations, both of which likely represent sites occupied by small groups of Clemson Island families. Both sites are within floodplains/terrace settings of major rivers (Little Juniata and Raystown Branch, respectively) and yielded Clemson Island pottery associated with a handful of houses and storage features, but no protective features. Neither site yielded domesticates, suggesting occupation of both sites in the spring or summer, prior to crop harvesting.
Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) The Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) is located on an alluvial terrace landform within a farm field east of the confluence of the Frankstown Branch and Little Juniata Rivers near Petersburg, approximately five miles northwest of Huntingdon. The site lies within a small basin formed by the streams and surrounded by Tussey Mountain to the west and Warrior Ridge to the east. GAI (1983) conducted Phase II excavations at the site, including controlled surface collection and stripping of the plowzone to identify sub-surface features (Figure 13). Artifact densities and types were similar to those revealed at Fisher Farm, a Clemson Island/Shenks Ferry hamlet on Bald Eagle Creek (described above).
Plowzone stripping identified 477 features, with the majority being postmolds of at least four small (~1.80x2.0 meter) oval structures, one of which is represented in Figure 13. Additional features include storage pits and hearths adjacent to the structures (see Figure 13). Radiocarbon dates from two of the pit features place occupation of the site between 950 and 1070 A.D. Clemson Island pottery types, along with triangle (n=9) and Jack’s Reef points (n=8), were associated with the features. The small size of the site, and the lack of corn or other domesticates from features, suggests that the Petersburg Bridge Site was a small hamlet occupied by a group of nuclear families during the spring or summer, prior to availability of crops in late summer-fall (GAI 1983:37).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 149 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 13. Planview of Structure 1, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67). gaiC0NSULTANTS, INC. DRAWN DHM APPROVED jlc DATE 8/16/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-13
Excavation of Feature 1, below Postmolds
Excavation Grid
Scale=100 cm
Feature 1 Profile A A A’
A
A’ STRUCTURE 1 Feature 1
A
Feature 2
Figure 13
150 Upper JuniataPlanview Data Synthesis of Structure 1, Petersburg Bridge Site Penns/juniata/juniata_report (36Hu67)
The Workman Site (36Bd36) Located on the Raystown Branch, approximately 30 miles south of Sheep Rock Shelter and 40 miles southeast of Petersburg Bridge, the Workman Site (36Bd36) yielded structures and features associated with another Clemson Island hamlet (Michels and Huner 1968). The site is in a floodplain/terrace setting on the east bank of the Raystown Branch, a typical setting for a Late Woodland hamlet site. As noted earlier, the upper 1-2 ft. of plowzone deposits were removed to identify features at the site. Numerous hearth and storage pit features were identified, as were six house structures (Figure 14). House shapes were oval and rectangular, suggestive of possible cultural contacts with groups to the south (Upper Potomac Valley) or north (Owasco). No radiocarbon dates were assayed at the site. While the authors suggest that the houses range in age from Late Archaic to Late Woodland, five of the six houses (Structures 1,2,4,5 and 6) clearly date to the Late Woodland, based on a TPQ (terminus post quem) method, which defines the structure’s age based on the most recent artifact within feature fill. The sixth house (Structure 3) contained two Late Archaic projectile points that are likely intrusive into feature fill; thus, all six houses are likely of Late Woodland age. Two burials were identified at the Workman Site, neither of which was clearly dateable; however, based on their locations near Late Woodland features and artifacts, they also likely date to the Late Woodland occupations.
Based on this interpretation of the houses, as well as the site’s alluvial terrace setting, the Workman Site likely represents a hamlet, or small agricultural settlement, similar to Petersburg Bridge. The dominant ceramics were Clemson Island and assorted local types (Michels and Huner 1968:81-120), with a minority of Monongahela, Owasco, and Upper Potomac types. The presence of these exotic pottery types, as well as a variety of house forms, suggests cultural influences via intermarriage, trade or other social means with Upper Potomac or Owasco cultures.
Late Woodland Specialized Camps (Research Reports) Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter represent special purpose Clemson Island/Shenks Ferry camps with dense deposits of artifacts, including lithics, ceramics, and subsistence remains. The sites likely represent the remains of multiple episodes of food processing and camping by Native Americans within the Raystown River corridor and associated uplands. As described below, PASS files identify several other rock shelter sites with Late Woodland artifacts, suggesting an increase in use of these sites during the Late Woodland.
Sheep Rock Shelter Level two of Sheep Rock Shelter contains the remains of the Late Woodland/protohistoric site occupations. Level two yielded five radiocarbon dates ranging from 1450 to 1600 A.D., suggesting occupation within the latter portion of the Late Woodland; however, Clemson Island pottery types (Photograph 14) dominate the artifact assemblage, with some Shenks Ferry, Monongahela, Upper Potomac Valley, and Owasco sherds as well. The presence of Jack’s Reef points at the site, along with triangle points, also confirms the presence of an earlier Clemson Island occupation. In all likelihood, the site was occupied during the entire course of the Late Woodland period.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 151 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
gaiC0NSULTANTS, INC. DRAWN DHM APPROVED jlc DATE 8/16/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-14 Figure 14. Planview of Workman Site (36Bd36) Structures (from Michels andFoot Huner Scale 1968:160). 0 10 20 feet A’
A
A A’
Figure 14 Planview of the Workman Site (36Bd36) 152 Upper JuniataStructures Data Synthesis (from Michels and Huner 1968:160) Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Photograph 14. Clemson Island Pottery, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster).
A wide range of subsistence remains were recovered within level 2 of Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:154-168), suggesting the consumption and processing of a wide variety of hunted, gathered, and domesticated foods. More fish scales (n=1018; mostly American shad) and mollusk shells (3,241 g) were recovered in level 2 than any other level at the site, suggesting the importance of fishing and shellfish procurement during the Late Woodland. Hunting was also conducted at the site, with nearly 7,000 g of untyped bone recovered in level 2. Wild foods include acorn, black walnuts, chestnuts, butternuts, hickory nuts, hazel nuts, cherry seeds, hackberry seeds, peach pits, and wild plum pits. This diverse range of foods suggests intensive use of the entire landscape for resource procurement.
Sheep Rock Shelter level two also provides the only known evidence of crop domestication in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. A diverse array of corn types, including 4-row (n=13), 6-row (n=30), 8-row (n=1046), 10-row (n=131), 12-row (n=6), and 14-row (n=2) were recovered in the shelter. Each of the varieties represents a “strain of Northern Flint [that]…was high in protein and starch and low in fiber” (Michels and Dutt 1968:471). In addition to these identifiable fragments, five corn stalks, three corn husks, and nearly 700 corn kernels were found as well. Additional domesticates include squash (n>1,000 fragments), beans (n>700 fragments), and sunflower (n=30). These crops suggest extensive farming at a nearby location, likely on a flat terrace near the rockshelter. Crops were apparently transported to the shelter for processing and consumption.
Along with the evidence of wild plants, domesticates and fish, two probable hoes, several netsinkers (Michels and Dutt 1968:355-357), and numerous wood, bone, and bark tools (Michels and Smith 1967:303-375), including this incised deer rib knife (Figure 15), were also recovered in level 2 of Sheep Rock Shelter.
A large variety of other lithic tools, including scrapers, drills, and groundstone tools, suggests a wide range of task-oriented activities at Sheep Rock, including food processing and textile, lithic, and non-lithic (e.g., bone, antler) tool manufacture. Textiles and cordage (n=292 fragments), all produced using variations of plain twined weaving, were also recovered from the Late Woodland level of Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 15).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 153 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Figure 15. Late Woodland Artifacts from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1). Turtle Shell Container Net Fragment (Michels and Smith 1967:421) (Michels and Smith 1967:285) A15 - C
-- 1 inch 236 - Net Sinker Net Sinker/other (Michels and Smith 1967:725) (Michels and Smith 1967:725) 1 inch
Adze (Michels and Smith 1967:721)
1 inch Actual size
Knife in Engraved Rib Handle (Michels and Smith 1967:417) DRAWN DHM CHECKED JCL DATE 8/15/02 DWG. NO 20 02 C0NSULTANTS, INC. 1 inch gai
Figure 15
1 inch Late Woodland Artifacts from
Obverse Reverse Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1)
154 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Analysis of twist types suggests variation in production technique depending on the fiber type, with 72.4 percent of soft-fiber cordage being S-twisted and 84 percent of hard-fiber cordage (Indian hemp, Apocynum) being Z-twisted. These data suggest variation in twist based on raw material, rather than ethnicity (cf. Johnson 2001). The most predominant knot was the granny, most of which “were tied in a manner peculiar to Sheep Rock” (Michels and Smith 1967:259).
Remains of textiles and cordage at Sheep Rock Shelter suggest intensive use of Indian hemp, elm bark, and corn husk strips for production of dishes, mats, baskets (Photograph 15), nets, and clothing fabrics. Net fragments from Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 11) were “formed from a small diameter cord woven into a net with a 4-cm mesh [that was likely]…used for the capture of very small animals or fish” (Michels and Smith 1967:285). The remarkable preservation suggests a variety of cordage production techniques (see Michels and Smith 1967:269-301 for details) depending on raw material.
Photograph 15. Late Woodland Bark Container, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster).
The Late Woodland level 2 also revealed evidence of occasional ceremonial use of the rockshelter. Artifacts such as a red sandstone gorget, several red ochre fragments, a quartz crystal, and two infant burials support the notion that ceremonies and burials were occasionally conducted at the shelter.
The extremely rich artifact assemblage from Sheep Rock Shelter provides unprecedented insights into Late Woodland lifeways in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The site reveals that Late Woodland Native Americans hunted, gathered, and domesticated foods and produced and maintained a wide variety of tools and textiles at the shelter. The site likely functioned as a special-purpose camp and part-time residence for families conducting seasonal subsistence tasks in the Raystown Valley. While no villages have been identified nearby, their presence is assured by the large quantities of agricultural foods found in the shelter. Agricultural fields and associated villages were most likely located within sight of the shelter on level terraces of the Raystown Branch, now submerged under Raystown Lake.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 155 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Mykut Rockshelter As described above, six radiocarbon dates and more than a dozen features document several Late Woodland occupations between ca. 800 and 1650 A.D. at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; Figure 16; Photograph 16; see Photograph 11). Clemson Island, Shenks Ferry, and Quiggle phase artifacts were all recovered in the rock overhang in uplands above the Raystown Branch. According to Raber (2000), the site is located in a “gap in Terrace Mountain that channels the movements of humans and game animals between…the Raystown Branch, and to other sites like Sheep Rock Shelter.” Raber (2000) reports the recovery of over 16,000 fragments of animal bone and teeth, as well as abundant mollusk shell. The dominant prey species for Late Woodland hunters was apparently deer, which accounts for nearly a third of the bone assemblage. Rabbit, turtle, and snake were also processed at the site. Drills at the site were likely used to produce clothing and/or non-lithic tools, such as bone and antler tools.
Raber (2000) suggests that Mykut Rockshelter was occupied by extended family groups during the fall and winter. The site, thus, likely represents a special purpose camp within Hatch’s (1980) model of Late Woodland site types, as defined above. Site occupants likely lived in hamlets and villages in the Raystown River during much of the year. The remarkable lack of domesticates at Mykut Rockshelter suggests “a basic continuity in [forager] adaptations from the Archaic period through the end of the prehistoric era” (Raber 2000:4-5) in the Raystown Valley.
Photograph 16. View of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). North Profile (see Figure 16). Provided by Paul Raber, Heberling Associates, Inc.
Thus, while agriculture and sedentary life had become part of the Late Woodland settlement pattern, sites like Mykut Rockshelter and Sheep Rock Shelter confirm the value of hunting and gathering in Late Woodland lifeways. Data from Mykut Rockshelter support the overall picture of Late Woodland life in the Upper Juniata sub-basin presented in this report, as one predominantly dependent on hunting and gathering, with seasonal use of domesticates to supplement an already rich forager diet.
156 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
gaiC0NSULTANTS, INC. DRAWN DHM APPROVED JCL DATE 8/15/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-16 Figure 16. Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; From Burns and Raber 1998:8) Upper Juniata
Sub-Basin B Rock Overhang A Mykut Rockshelter Site Location D C
~3.0 meters
Scale
0 50 100 cm Excavated portion of shelter Unexcavated Shelter Floor
Figure 16 Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143) Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 157 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report Adapted from Burns and Raber 1998:8
Late Woodland Camps (Research Reports) With the exception of the one village (Bedford Village), the two hamlets (Workman and Petersburg Bridge) and the two specialized camps (Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter) discussed above, each of the other Upper Juniata sub-basin Late Woodland sites discussed in research reports represent low-intensity lithic reduction areas or small camps (see Table 38). Artifact densities at each of the sites are fairly low and no houses or other substantial hearth or storage pit features were identified at the sites. Artifacts at the sites are typically restricted to Jack’s Reef and triangular projectile points, as well as small quantities of Clemson Island and/or Shenk’s Ferry ceramic sherds. The sites likely represent ephemeral camp occupations by Late Woodland Native American hunter-gatherers.
Table 39. Late Woodland Camp Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Research Reports (see Table 38 for Citations).
SITE # SITE NAME LOCATION SETTING NEAREST WATER ARTIFACTS Watershed A 36Bl27 -- ~Altoona Floodplain Frankstown B. Triangle pts, pottery; low density local chert 36Bl38 Site #1 Tipton Levee Little Juniata R. Triangle point; low density tipton chert flakes 36Bl40 Site #3 Tipton Floodplain Little Juniata R. Triangle points, gray chert/bald eagle jasper 36Bl46 -- Tipton Floodplain Trib.Little Juniata Triangle points; low density local lithics 36Bl58 Holidays.Sew. Holidaysburg Terrace Frankstown Br. Clemson Is. Pottery; low density local lithics 36Bl98 Vail Ind.Pk. #2 Snyder Twp. Floodplain Bald Eagle Cr. Madison pt.; low density Tipton, black chert Watershed C 36Bd46 Bridge E.St.Clair T. Terrace Dunning Cr. Triangle pts, low density local lithics 36Bd82 Catena W.St.Clair T. Terrace Dunning Cr. Triangle pts., low density local lithics 36Bd171 Stahl #2 Bedford Hilltop Brush Run/Dunn. Triangle point; local cherts 36Bd218 Wall Bedford Terrace Trib. Of Dunning Madison, Jacks Reef; Shriver 36Bd260 CR-23 E.St.Clair T. Terrace Dunning Cr. Possible Monongahela pottery, local cherts
The research report literature provides information on only one camp site in a cave setting. Gromiller Cave (36Bl1) is located approximately a third of a mile from the Frankstown Branch, east of Hollidaysburg (Stackhouse 1965). While the midden levels of the cave contained a variety of artifacts from multiple periods of occupation (including historic), Late Woodland artifacts included three triangular points and two shell-tempered pottery sherds, suggesting a Shenks Ferry occupation. A variety of other artifacts may be associated with the Late Woodland occupation, including two slate-tempered pottery sherds, a celt, and a hematite ball.
Except for Gromiller Cave, each of the Late Woodland camp sites is in an open setting adjacent to a stream/river floodplain/terrace in Watershed A or C. The sites typically yielded between 10 and 300 artifacts, including a few Late Woodland diagnostic projectile points or pottery sherds. Details regarding these various camp sites are summarized in Table 39.
158 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Late Woodland Site Types and Locations: PASS Files A total of 77 sites with Late Woodland diagnostic artifacts are identified in PASS files (Table 40 and Table 41). Open sites, including camps and perhaps some villages, dominate the Late Woodland PASS files data in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, especially in Watersheds A and C (see Table 40 and Table 41). Of 65 open sites, 53 are Watersheds A or C. In contrast, both rockshelters and open sites were equally popular locations for camp sites within Watershed D, along the Raystown Branch. PASS files data support models of settlement suggested elsewhere in the literature (Hay et al. 1987; Hatch 1980), as most of the open sites (including hamlets, camps, lithic reduction stations, and possibly villages) are located predominantly in stream floodplains or terraces (n=61 of 66 sites), while rock shelters were the only sites focused within hillslopes (n=6 of 10 sites). As discussed above, Bedford Village represents the lone excavated Late Woodland village within the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
As discussed elsewhere (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000), Late Woodland Native Americans intensified use of rockshelters along the lower Raystown Branch (Watershed D) during the Late Woodland period. Seven of the 10 Late Woodland rockshelter sites in the sub-basin are located along the Raystown Branch (see Table 40), while the other three are located along the Frankstown Branch, within 20 miles of Raystown Lake. The local geology in this area provided accessible shelters that are not present in other parts of the sub-basin (Burns and Raber 1998). Some of these rockshelters—as discussed above—were used as short-term ephemeral camp locations, while a few were used more intensively as specialized subsistence camps (e.g., Sheep Rock and Mykut).
Table 40. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Watershed, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE TYPE A B C D TOTAL Lithic Reduction 2 ------2 Open 17 5 36 7 65 Rockshelter 3 -- -- 7 10 Total 22 5 36 14 77
Table 41. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE TYPE FLOODPLAIN TERRACE STREAM BENCH HILL RIDGE/TOE HILLSLOPE HILLTOP MIDDLE SLOPES UPPER SLOPES TOTAL Lithic Red. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Open 39 14 7 3 1 1 0 0 65 Rock Sh. 0 0 1 1 6 0 1 1 10 Total 39 16 8 4 7 1 1 1 77
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 159 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Table 42. Late Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE # SITE NAME WSHED SITE TYPE MAJ. RIVER SETTING ELEV. 36BD0002 -- C Village(?) Raystown Floodplain 1240 36BD0005 Reynoldsdale C Open Raystown Terrace 1100 36BD0011 between route 31 C Open Raystown Bench 1260 36BD0012 dew drop inn C Open Raystown Terrace -- 36BD0013 Hildebrand Farm C Open Raystown Terrace -- 36BD0014 No. 2 Bridge Site C Open Raystown Terrace -- 36BD0015 Deihl Log Cabin C Open Raystown Terrace -- 36BD0023 Dew Drop C Open Raystown Floodplain 1200 36BD0035 Claycomb C Open Raystown Hill Ridge 1180 36BD0036 Workman Site D Open Raystown Floodplain 820 36BD0037 -- D Open Raystown Floodplain 820 36BD0038 -- D Open Raystown Floodplain 800 36BD0039 Rhodes Farm D Open Raystown Floodplain 800 36BD0046 Bridge C Open Raystown Floodplain 1100 36BD0052 Coon Rock Sh. D Rockshelter Raystown Hillslope 960 36BD0070 Erskine Farm C Open Raystown Terrace 1120 36BD0073 -- C Open Raystown Floodplain 1160 36BD0074 Rt. 31 Bridge Site C Open Raystown Floodplain 1160 36BD0076 -- C Open Raystown Floodplain 1070 36BD0082 -- C Open Raystown Floodplain 1180 36BD0090 Bedford Village C Village Raystown Terrace 1060 36BD0097 Hostetler's #2 C Open Raystown Hill Ridge 1160 36BD0109 Fish Hatchery #2 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1110 36BD0119 Acker #2 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1110 36BD0120 Ryot #5 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1200 36BD0126 Ryot #8 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1200 36BD0128 Beckner C Open Raystown Floodplain 1190 36BD0137 Smith #2 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1120 36BD0142 Shellbark #1 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1140 36BD0144 Kegg C Open Raystown Floodplain 1200 36BD0145 Acker-Rhodes C Open Raystown Floodplain 1120 36BD0146 Covered Bridge C Open Raystown Floodplain 1120 36BD0148 Hull #7 C Open Raystown Terrace 1160 36BD0149 Holler C Open Raystown Floodplain 1140 36BD0157 Hostetler's 8/14 C Open Raystown Floodplain 1140 36BD0171 Stahl #2 C Open Raystown Hilltop 1180 36BD0180 Snake Spring 3 C Open Raystown Terrace 1040 36BD0182 Bedford Prison C Open Raystown Terrace 1060 36BD0218 wall site C Open Raystown Terrace 1090 36BD0225 NBE C Open Raystown Floodplain 1040 36BD0260 cr-23 C Open Raystown Terrace 1150 36BL0001 Gromiller Cave A Rockshelter Frankstown Hillslope 960 36BL0009 Penn-Central A Open Frankstown Floodplain 960 36BL0012 Assunepachla A Open Frankstown Hillslope 1000 36BL0013 White Bridge A Open Frankstown Floodplain 920 36BL0014 Walters A Open Frankstown Floodplain 900 36BL0016 Canoe Creek II A Open Frankstown Floodplain 880
160 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
SITE # SITE NAME WSHED SITE TYPE MAJ. RIVER SETTING ELEV. 36BL0017 Kettle Nursery A Open Frankstown Bench 1810 36BL0019 Watts Farm A Open Frankstown Bench 1040 36BL0020 Woomer Farm A Quarry Frankstown Floodplain 1000 36BL0021 -- A Open Frankstown Bench 1040 36BL0027 -- A Open Frankstown Floodplain 1020 36BL0028 Hite-Locality 1 A Open Frankstown Floodplain 1010 36BL0029 Leighty's Market A Open Frankstown Floodplain 1015 36BL0038 T I P 1 A Open Frankstown Floodplain 960 36BL0040 T I P 3 A Open Frankstown Floodplain 960 36BL0046 A Open Frankstown Bench 1080 36BL0058 Holidayburg Sew A Sp. Camp Frankstown Floodplain 920 36BL0064 Nearhoof Site A Lithic Reduction Bald Eagle Terrace 1100 36BL0098 Vail Ind. Park #2 A Lithic Reduction Bald Eagle Terrace 1020 36CE0285 Rockspring Cave A Rockshelter Frankstown Bench 1160 36HU0001 Sheep Rock Sh D Rockshelter Raystown Hillslope 640 36HU0003 -- D Rockshelter Raystown Hillslope 700 36HU0009 Cunningham D Open Raystown Bench 730 36HU0035 Sweet Spring D Open Raystown Hill Ridge 780 36HU0038 Trough Creek RS D Open Raystown Bench 1080 36HU0050 Rockshelter D Rockshelter Raystown Hillslope 700 36HU0062 -- B Open Juniata River Floodplain 720 36HU0067 -- A Open Frankstown Floodplain 680 36HU0091 Sewage Plant B Open Juniata River Floodplain 600 36HU0101 Graysville Cave A Rockshelter Frankstown Hillslope 1080 36HU0111 -- D Rockshelter Raystown Slopes 1080 36HU0112 -- D Rockshelter Raystown Slopes 1000 36HU0122 Kyper-B B Open Raystown Floodplain 670 36HU0143 Mykut RS D Rockshelter Raystown Hill Ridge 1060 36HU0193 denton B Open Juniata River Terrace 800 36HU0194 parsonage B Open Raystown Terrace 760
Specific site location data from PASS files indicate a clear preference for locating sites near streams, as 75 of 77 sites were located less than 400 m from a stream. However, in contrast to other time periods, Late Woodland sites were not necessarily located near stream confluences, as only 25 sites were located less than 400 m from a confluence. While access to streams was the apparent key to site placement, there was no preference for locating sites in any preferred cardinal direction near the streams (n=20 north, 23 south, 10 west, and 6 east).
The overwhelming theme of these PASS files (and research report) data is the predominance of small camp sites in stream and river floodplain and terrace settings. The low density of villages and hamlets, as well as the high density of camps, may reflect a settlement pattern unique to the Upper Juniata sub-basin during the Late Woodland period. Alternatively, the low density of villages and hamlets is a result of sample bias, resulting from inadequate sampling of representative landforms.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 161 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
E. LATE WOODLAND LITHICS AND SETTLEMENT
Late Woodland Lithics: PASS Files As reflected in Table 43, the general category, chert/flint, dominates the lithic raw material types in PASS files. Of the 77 Late Woodland sites listed in the PASS files, 45 yielded chert artifacts, compared to 22 and 17 for rhyolite and jasper, respectively. As would be expected during the Late Woodland, the highest incidences of rhyolite use occurred in Watersheds C and D, which together accounted for 16 of the 22 sites with rhyolite artifacts in the sub-basin. Steatite artifacts were exclusively recovered in Watershed C as well. Watersheds C and D were the most proximate areas of the sub-basin to the rhyolite and steatite sources in the Great Valley and vicinity to the east. Jasper use was equally distributed between sites in Watersheds A and C, both areas of supposed local sources of the stone (see Chapter 2). Quartz and quartzite were almost exclusively recovered in Watershed C as well, where the stones are locally available. Exotic, non-local cherts are limited at the sites, with only one site in Watershed A yielding a Flint Ridge artifact and one site in Watershed C yielding an Onondaga chert artifact.
Use of steatite, and to a lesser extent, rhyolite, at sites may reflect Late Woodland settlement and trade patterns, or, alternatively, may represent mixing of components at sites. PASS files data often do not identify specific lithic raw materials used to produce diagnostic artifacts; thus, sites with multiple components may lump raw materials rather than differentiate them by site occupation. As such, PASS files data regarding lithic raw materials should be used with caution and only to generate hypotheses to be evaluated by collection of data from dateable sites.
Table 43. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Lithic Raw Material Type (PASS Files).
STONE TYPE OPEN RSHELTER QUARRY LITHIC RED VILLAGE? TOTAL Chert 35 5 1 2 2 45 Not Ident 28 4 ------32 Rhyolite 19 1 -- -- 2 22 Jasper 13 2 -- 1 1 17 Quartz 6 ------1 7 Shale 5 ------5 Steatite 4 ------1 5 Quartzite 4 ------4 Chalcedony 2 1 ------3 Limest. 1 -- 1 -- - 2 Sandst. 2 ------2 Flint Ridge 1 ------1 Hematite ------1 1 Onond. 1 ------1 Siltstone/slate 1 ------1 2
162 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Table 44. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Stone Type by Watershed (PASS Files).
STONE TYPE W.SHED A W.SHED B W.SHED C W.SHED D TOTAL Chert/Flint 13 2 24 6 45 Not Identified 9 2 15 6 32 Rhyolite 6 -- 13 3 22 Jasper 8 1 8 -- 17 Quartz -- -- 6 1 7 Shale -- -- 5 -- 5 Steatite -- -- 5 -- 5 Quartzite 1 -- 3 -- 4 Chalcedony -- -- 2 1 3 Lime/sandstone 4 ------4 Flint Ridge -- -- 1 -- 1 Hematite -- -- 1 -- 1 Onondaga Chert -- -- 1 -- 1 Siltstone/slate 1 -- 1 -- 2
Late Woodland Lithics: Research Reports Lithic raw material use is also documented in cultural resource management reports. The overwhelming theme of Late Woodland lithic tool production is the use of locally-available cherts, with little if any non-local stone use. In contrast to the earlier Archaic periods, in which rhyolite from the Great Valley was a favorite lithic raw material, Late Woodland sites typically yield only scant quantities of rhyolite and other non-local stones. While the PASS files data suggest that rhyolite was popular during the Late Woodland (22 of 77 Late Woodland sites yielded rhyolite artifacts), data from research reports suggest that rhyolite was present in very low densities at the sites. The overwhelming emphasis was on use of local cherts in the production of expedient tools and triangle points (cf. Parry and Kelly 1987).
Artifacts from each of the specialized camp sites and hamlets, as discussed above, were predominantly manufactured from local lithic raw materials. Both Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter yielded Jack’s Reef and triangle projectile points, predominantly manufactured from local cherts (although specific data regarding stone types was not available for either site). Late Woodland projectile points from the Workman Site (36Bd36) also include Jack’s Reef and triangle projectile points. More than 60 Late Woodland points were recovered at the site, second only to the Late Archaic (n>80). While not discussed in detail, local jasper and black and gray “cherts of poor quality” (Michels and Huner 1968:242) were commonly used in triangle point production, as reflected in GAI’s collections analysis results, below. Also, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) yielded Jack’s Reef and triangle projectile points produced from a variety of local lithic raw materials, including gray chert (~Shriver), gray chalcedony, tan chert (~Tipton?), oolitic chert (~Mines), and brown chert. While not defined as to specific lithic raw material types, these general types match descriptions of locally-available cherts (see Chapter 2).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 163 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
As reflected in Table 39 above, each of the low density camp sites in Watersheds A and C also yielded lithic artifacts produced nearly exclusively from local cherts, including Tipton chert in Watershed A and Shriver chert in Watershed C. Finally, as noted above, the Late Woodland Monongahela Gnagey Site—located on the Somerset Plateau to the west of the Upper Juniata sub-basin—also yielded stone artifacts produced largely from cherts in Bedford County, suggesting use of the area by Monongahela groups (George 1983).
Late Woodland Lithics: Collections Research GAI identified the lithic raw materials used to produce projectile points in eight artifact collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Of the 177 projectile points examined in the collections, 62 were diagnostic of Late Woodland occupations, including Madison (n=26), Levanna (n=15), untyped triangle (n=19), and Jack’s Reef (n=2) points. Of the 62 Late Woodland points, 53 were recovered at the Workman Site (36Bd36) along the Raystown Branch, while six points were found at 36Hu50, a rockshelter site also located along the Raystown Branch. Single Late Woodland artifacts were examined from three additional sites as well (36Bl38, 36Hu111, and 36Bd157). Because most of the points were recovered at the two Raystown Branch sites, results should be biased toward lithic raw materials used in that area.
Lithic raw material use confirms the widespread role of local cherts, including Shriver (n=22 points), Bellefonte (n=10), Corriganville (n=10), and Keyser (n=5). Rhyolite (n=4 points) and jasper (n=3), as previously indicated by the research reports data, were used comparatively infrequently during the Late Woodland in the Raystown Branch.
Table 45. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Results of GAI’s Collections Analysis.
RAW MATERIAL JACKS REEF LEVANNA MADISON TRIANGLE TOTAL Shriver 1 9 6 6 22 Bellefonte -- 1 4 5 10 Corriganville 1 2 5 2 10 Keyser -- 1 3 1 5 Untyped -- -- 3 1 4 Rhyolite -- 1 -- 3 4 Jasper -- 1 1 1 3 Translucent black chert -- -- 2 -- 2 Black chert -- -- 1 1 Tonoloway -- -- 1 -- 1 Total 2 15 26 19 62
F. LATE WOODLAND: SUMMARY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Late Woodland Overview Based on PASS files, research report, and collections analysis, the Late Woodland period in the Upper Juniata sub-basin is marked by several major trends, including: 1) Increasing populations; 2) Increasing inter-ethnic contact; 3) Increasing use of sedentism; 4) Increasing
164 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
reliance on agriculture at Sheep Rock Shelter; and 5) Continued reliance on hunting and gathering for major portions of the diet.
Sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, Petersburg Bridge, and Bedford Village indicate a variety of cultural influences, suggesting the movement of several different cultures through the Upper Juniata region. As during previous periods, the Raystown Branch Valley and its tributaries provided an excellent corridor for travel between the Upper Ohio Valley to the west and the Susquehanna and Potomac Valleys to the east and south, respectively. Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata sub-basin reflect the intermingling of cultures via trade, marriage, and other social means, as well as the possible presence of multiple different ethnic groups in one region.
Data collected for this report suggest that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was largely a multi- cultural interaction zone during the Late Woodland period. Clearly, the main Late Woodland cultural influences in the sub-basin were from the Susquehanna River to the north and east, especially in Watersheds A and D. The vast majority of sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are a result of Clemson Island occupations during the early portion of the Late Woodland and Shenks Ferry occupations toward the end of the Late Woodland period.
Nevertheless, influences from the Monongahela to the east and Upper Potomac Valley to the south are evident, especially at sites along the lower Raystown Branch in Watershed D. Bedford Village is the lone excavated village to date in the sub-basin and it was clearly built by Native Americans of Monongahela ethnicity; however, as noted above, while most pottery was of Monongahela type, cordage twist directions on pottery suggest cultural ties to the Upper Potomac Valley to the south, while other pottery sherds indicate social and/or trade ties to Clemson Island peoples to the east (as at the Monongahela Gnagey Site in the Somerset Plateau). In contrast, Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry pottery dominates the artifact assemblages from both Sheep Rock Shelter and the Workman Site. Both sites yielded small numbers of Monongahela and Upper Potomac ceramics as well. Clearly, inter-ethnic contact was common during the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
The boundary of culture areas was likely a non-demarcated zone through the middle of the Upper Juniata sub-basin; thus, the region most likely represented an area of interaction between Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac cultures. Each of these cultures likely occupied and used the Upper Juniata sub-basin as a resource procurement area, as attested by the prevalence of camp sites and the low density of excavated villages (n=1) and hamlets (n=2). Because of the comparatively unique interaction pattern, thus, the settlement pattern does not completely support Hatch’s (1980) and Hay et al.’s (1987) models, especially in the low density of villages and hamlets and the high density of camps.
One hypothesis to explain the Late Woodland data is that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was an interaction zone utilized by at least three major cultural groups. As such, the site type and settlement pattern is fairly unique due to the high density of camps and low density of villages and hamlets, a pattern that generally contrasts that of the Clemson Island and Monongahela cultures (Hay et al. 1987; Hatch 1980; Nass and Hart 2000).
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 165 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
An alternative hypothesis is that archaeological survey in the Upper Juniata sub-basin has not adequately sampled settings that may contain village and hamlet sites. The nature of archaeological survey, largely comprised of linear surveys for cultural resource management projects, may have resulted in an unrepresentative sample of site types. As such, additional Late Woodland villages and hamlets may be present, but remain unidentified in the archaeological record. Future research needs to evaluate both of the hypotheses to better explain Late Woodland settlement patterns in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Late Woodland Research Questions This summary of Late Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological work in the area. Seven Late Woodland research questions are listed below; this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1. How can we explain the apparent population explosion during the Late Woodland? 2. How prevalent was sedentism and agriculture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin? 3. Was the Upper Juniata sub-basin an interaction zone between cultures? 4. Given the presence of hamlets along the Raystown (the Workman Site) and Frankstown (Petersburg Bridge) Branches, as well as corn at Sheep Rock Shelter, where, if any, are the associated villages? 5. Have archaeological surveys in the basin adequately sampled known landforms for possible village locations? 6. Which topographic settings have the largest numbers of frost-free days to support agriculture? Have these identified settings been adequately sampled by archaeological survey? 7. How do we explain the blending of cultural elements at Gnagey, Bedford Village, Workman, and Sheep Rock Shelter (e.g., marriage, trade, other)? 8. Why did Late Woodland cultures begin to construct fortifications at sites like Bedford Village? Do the fortifications suggest inter-ethnic conflict and, if so, between whom? 9. If there was inter-ethnic conflict at Bedford Village, how do we reconcile it with the multiple cultural influences exhibited in pottery forms/production methods?
166 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
CHAPTER XIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This report has provided an overview of archaeological research in the Upper Juniata sub- basin, encompassing the last 12,000 years of prehistory. Native American populations have fluctuated during that time, with two major increases approximately 4,500 and 1,000 years ago, respectively, and a major decline between those two peaks. Settlement patterns, as witnessed by lithic raw material use, were focused within local territories until the Late Woodland period, with subsistence oriented toward the hunting, gathering, and fishing of wild resources. While crop domestication and sedentism were introduced approximately 2,000 years ago, foraging and hunting continued to be the most viable form of subsistence. While neighboring regions of the Upper Ohio, Potomac, and Susquehanna River Valleys experienced a real agricultural revolution during the Late Woodland, the Upper Juniata sub- basin was an ethnic interaction zone, utilized by cultures from each of these areas, but not completely settled by any one of them. Alternatively, the archaeological record in the sub- basin is biased by unrepresentative sampling of settings, resulting in the under-representation of village and hamlet sites. This chapter provides a summary of these major trends and points to some new directions for research.
A. DEMOGRAPHY PASS files and research reports provide data to assess population fluctuations over the last 12,000 years of prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Figure 17; Table 46). As shown in Figure 17, PASS files data indicate that the Upper Juniata experienced a fairly gradual population increase between the Paleoindian (n=12 components) and Late Archaic periods (n=87 components), or between 12,000 and 4,500 B.P. As discussed earlier, population densities peaked during the early portion of the Late Archaic and were focused within the Raystown Branch and vicinity in Watersheds C and D. Near the end of the Late Archaic period, approximately 4,000 years ago, there was a decrease in total site components that continued until the Late Woodland period (n=77 components), 1,000 years ago, when the trend reversed and populations increased dramatically.
0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure 17. Archaeological Site Paleo 12 Components by Time Period, as 0 PASS Sites reflected in PASS Files and EA 12 Research Report Coverage. 5 Research MA 35 6 Reports
LA 87 21 Trans 35 This trend persists if the 11 duration of a given period is EW 19 5 taken into account, by dividing MW 11 the number of components by 5 the number of decades in a LW 77 16 given time period, as in Figure 18 (cf. Fiedel 2001). These
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 167 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
trends are also reflected in cultural resource management reports (see Figure 16), with peaks in coverage of Late Archaic (n=21) and Late Woodland (n=16) sites, as well as in collections analysis results, which identified more Late Archaic (n=52) and Late Woodland (n=62) points than any other type.
Table 46. Cross-Tabulation of Archaeological Components by Period and Watershed (PASS Files).
PERIOD WSHED A WSHED B WSHED C WSHED D TOTAL TOTAL % Paleo 3 0 5 4 12 4.2 EA 7 0 3 2 12 4.2 MA 4 1 24 6 35 12.2 LA 22 3 49 13 87 30.2 Trans 9 0 19 7 35 12.2 EW 5 0 10 4 19 6.6 MW 3 1 4 3 11 3.8 LW 22 5 36 14 77 26.7 Total 75 10 150 53 288 100 Total % 26.0 3.5 52.1 18.4 100 --
Figure 18. Archaeological Sites/Decades in Period Components by Period, adjusted by 0 0.5 1 1.5 Duration of Period (Sites/Decades per period; cf. Fiedel 2001). Paleo 0.05
EA 0.1 MA 0.1 The variation in population densities occurs elsewhere in the LA 0.58 east and is not unique to the Trans. 0.44 Upper Juniata sub-basin (Custer Period 1996; Carr 1998b; Fiedel 2001). EW 0.21 The increase in populations MW 0.12 between the Paleoindian and Late LW 1.1 Archaic periods is expected, as Native Americans increased their use of a logistic subsistence and settlement system. These changes allowed increased occupation of base camps with subsequent collection of wild foods during daily subsistence forays. The increase in semi- sedentary lifestyles stimulated population increases until the early portion of the Late Archaic period.
While these site count trends are common throughout the northeast, the precipitous decrease in site numbers between the Late Archaic and the Middle Woodland period would not be predicted given the nature of subsistence and settlement pattern changes (Fiedel 2001). Custer (1996) has argued that populations did not actually decline at this time. Instead, he suggests that populations became nucleated, reducing the overall numbers of sites during the
168 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Transitional, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods. In all other areas of the world where sedentism increases along with agriculture, as postulated for the Early and Middle Woodland periods in central Pennsylvania, the sizes of sites and their visibility on the landscape increases. Thus, we would expect to find fairly large village sites dating to these periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. However, if populations nucleated, there is no evidence of it during the Transitional, Early Woodland, or Middle Woodland periods in the study area. No villages from these time periods have been identified and only one site— Sheep Rock Shelter—has yielded evidence of domesticates in the entire Upper Juniata sub- basin during the Woodland. These data do not support the hypothesis that site visibility has led to a biased view of population reductions in this region. Instead, as witnessed by the parallel reduction in coverage in cultural resource management reports (see Figure 17), the changing quantities of sites in PASS files may actually mark real population fluctuations during prehistory.
As noted, the gradual increase in population between the Paleoindian and Late Archaic periods could be predicted, as could the high population densities of the Late Woodland period. However, why did populations decrease in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and elsewhere (Fiedel 2001) during the Transitional, Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods, when farming and sedentism were first introduced into the subsistence and settlement system? Aren’t these changes typically accompanied by increases in population, rather than decreases? One explanation may be that certain areas of the Mid-Atlantic region actually experienced population increases, while others, such as the Upper Juniata sub-basin, experienced corresponding population declines. Perhaps individuals from the Upper Juniata sub-basin dispersed to population centers in other areas, such as the Delaware, Susquehanna, Allegheny, Potomac, or Ohio River Valleys.
Custer (1996:235) notes an increase in large village sites during the Early and Middle Woodland in eastern Pennsylvania, while the Upper Ohio and Allegheny Valleys also experienced social and demographic changes with the rise of the Adena and Hopewell cultures (Clay 1991; Mayer-Oakes 1955). While the influence of Adena and Hopewell cultures was limited in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Chapters IX and X), cultural links to eastern Pennsylvania and the Potomac Valley increased during this period of population decline, as reflected by the increasing reliance on rhyolite and steatite, respectively. Also, while lower in density, populations were generally concentrated in the southern (Watershed C) and eastern (Watershed D) portions of the sub-basin during the Transitional, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods, as would be expected if populations disseminated toward these areas.
However, if populations dispersed from the Upper Juniata sub-basin between the Transitional and Middle Woodland periods, we still do not have a viable explanation for the dispersal. In population dispersals such as these, push (climatic) and pull (cultural) influences are often responsible for the changes. The sub-boreal environments of the time would have supported even larger populations (Custer 1996:232; see Chapter II). Thus, if the push hypothesis of climatic stimulus fails to explain the demographic changes, perhaps the impetus for the population dispersal was a cultural pull. Perhaps the dynamic cultural changes of the time,
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 169 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
including agriculture, sedentism, and increasing ceremonialism, attracted populations to regional population centers, such as along the Delaware, Susquehanna, Potomac, or even the Ohio and Allegheny Rivers. Resolving the causes of population flux in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, and Pennsylvania as a whole, is a major research task for regional prehistorians (Fiedel 2001).
B. LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS Another key trend over time in the Upper Juniata sub-basin was the predominant use of local lithic raw materials in stone tool manufacture, from the earliest Paleoindian occupations to the more recent Late Woodland, as reflected in PASS files (Table 47), research reports, and GAI’s collections analysis results (Table 48). During each time period, Native Americans predominantly utilized local cherts. For nearly 40 percent of PASS sites, chert/flint was the main type of lithic raw material recovered at the sites (Table 47), while rhyolite and jasper each were identified at approximately 20 percent of the sites. The low density of non-local stones, with the exception of rhyolite, suggests generally localized travel patterns.
Table 47. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files Data).
Flint Period Chert Chert % Rhyolite Rhyolite% Jasper Jasper % Onondaga Ridge other Total Paleo 7 38.9 3 16.7 4 22.2 0 1 3 18 EA 9 45.0 3 15.0 6 30.0 0 0 2 20 MA 26 44.8 12 20.7 8 13.8 1 1 10 58 LA 67 39.4 33 19.4 33 19.4 6 2 29 170 Trans. 29 33.7 18 20.9 21 24.4 2 0 16 86 EW 14 33.3 7 16.7 8 19.0 0 1 12 42 MW 5 45.5 2 18.2 3 27.3 0 0 1 11 LW 55 40.7 26 19.3 24 17.8 2 2 26 135 Total 212 39.3 104 19.3 107 19.8 11 7 26 540 Other includes quartz, shale, steatite, quartzite, and chalcedony
Table 48. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Collections Analysis (Typed Points).
BELLE CORRIGAN WHITE AGE UNTYPED JASPER KEYSER MINES NITTANY RHYOLITE SHRIVER TIPTON TONOL. FONTE VILLE QUARTZITE TOTAL EA -- -- 1 3 1 ------3 -- 1 -- 9 MA -- 1 ------1 ------2 LA 7 2 6 2 3 1 2 10 18 -- -- 1 52 Trans 1 -- 1 1 ------1 2 2 -- -- 8 EW ------1 ------1 MW ------0 1 -- -- 1 LW 7 10 10 3 5 -- -- 4 22 -- 1 -- 62 Total 15 13 18 9 9 1 2 15 47 3 2 1 135
170 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Especially during the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, this trend is unexpected, as Native Americans almost always incorporated some exotic stones into their tool assemblages, either via down-the-line trade or occasional direct procurement at distant outcrops (Carr 1998a; MacDonald 1998). While jasper use increased during the Early Archaic, the sources of the stone were likely local, within 20-30 miles of a given site (see Chapter II). Future research in the region needs to substantiate the locations of local jasper outcrops. These data from the Upper Juniata sub-basin confirm the predicted pattern of Paleoindian lithic material use in unglaciated Pennsylvania (see Chapter IV). Carr and Adovasio (2002a) suggest that local cherts were used in these regions affected by glaciation, while more non-local cherts were used in areas not affected by glaciation.
As noted above, another significant trend in lithic raw material use was the changing role of rhyolite over time. Rhyolite-use peaked between the Middle Archaic and Transitional periods, as exemplified by Tables 45 and 46. As rhyolite use increased, local chert use decreased in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. PASS files data and collections analysis results, thus, support the scenario suggested above, that populations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin increased contact with groups in, and/or travel to, the Great Valley to the east between the Transitional and Middle Woodland periods. However, if there was true population dispersal, one might expect an even more significant change in rhyolite use, rather than the 4-5 percent increase that we see between the Early and Middle Archaic and Transitional and Early Woodland periods.
Use of rhyolite also increased with proximity to the sources in the Great Valley to the east (Table 49). Of the 83 sites with rhyolite artifacts in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 47 percent of them are in Watershed C, the southernmost portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, with an additional 26.5 percent in Watershed A and 18 percent in Watershed D. Watershed C is conveniently located to the most proximate rhyolite sources on South Mountain, some 30 miles to the southeast. Several historic Native American paths—including the Raystown Path—traversed gaps in the southwest-northeast ridge system to connect the Great Valley to the east with the Raystown Branch and the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143). The Raystown Path passed within 10 km of South Mountain near Chambersburg and continued westward along the current route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through Watershed C. This trend of increased rhyolite use along the Raystown Branch is paralleled in the use of steatite, which also has sources in eastern Pennsylvania and the Potomac River Valley (Table 49).
While rhyolite and steatite use peaked in the southern portion of the sub-basin, Native Americans used jasper most frequently in Watershed A along the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branches. The most proximate known sources of Bald Eagle jasper are only a few miles north of Watershed A (see Figure 2) and are the likely sources of much of the jasper used during prehistory in the sub-basin. Thirty sites in Watershed C also yielded jasper artifacts, suggesting possibly local jasper outcrops (see Chapter II). Future research in the region should substantiate the locations of these jasper outcrops, if present.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 171 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Also of interest, the only four sites with artifacts produced from Flint Ridge chert in the sub- basin are in Watershed C, along Dunning Creek and the upper Raystown Branch. The Raystown Path traverses Watershed C to the Ohio and Allegheny River Valleys to the north and west (Wallace 1971), toward sources of Flint Ridge in east-central Ohio. The presence of Flint Ridge at sites along this path suggests its use during prehistory.
Table 49. Lithic Raw Material Use by Watershed in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
LITHIC WATERSHED WATERSHED WATERSHED WATERSHED MATERIAL A B C D TOTAL Chert/Flint 66 13 122 35 236 Not Identified 21 10 86 47 164 Jasper 39 3 30 13 85 Rhyolite 22 7 39 15 83 Quartz 4 -- 17 1 22 Shale -- -- 20 -- 20 Quartzite 6 -- 7 6 19 Chalcedony 1 -- 11 3 15 Sandstone 3 -- 3 1 7 Steatite 1 -- 6 -- 7 Argillite -- -- 6 -- 6 Limestone/Dolomite 3 -- -- 2 5 Onondaga Chert -- 1 2 2 5 Flint Ridge -- -- 4 -- 4 Siltstone 2 -- -- 1 3 Hematite -- -- 1 1 2 Metabasalt/Greenstone -- -- 2 -- 2 Slate -- -- 2 -- 2 Metasandstone -- -- 1 -- 1 Total 168 34 359 127 688
The wide availability of local cherts and the array of natural resources facilitated the formation of localized territories, as did the ridge and valley terrain. Human travel was slowed both to the west (Allegheny Front) and east (a series of north-south ridges and steep valleys), so travel patterns were likely oriented in southwest-northeast trajectories following the course of ridges and valleys, as has been suggested elsewhere (Heberling et al. 1990; Raber 1995). The fact that rhyolite was the only significant non-local lithic raw material used in stone tool production suggests established social ties with Native Americans in the Great Valley and the Lower Susquehanna Valley to the southeast. Use of jasper also indicates travel in the northern portions of Watershed A along the Bald Eagle Creek drainage.
D. SITE TYPES AND SUBSISTENCE IN THE UPPER JUNIATA
Site Locations Relative to Water A main trend of PASS files site location data is the consistent placement of sites near sources of water during all time periods. As reflected in Table 49, mean distance to water for all sites
172 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
in the sub-basin is 82.3 m, while mean distance to a stream confluence is 492.1 m. Mean distances to water source and stream confluence are greatest during the Transitional and Late Archaic. This trend is unexpected given the increased reliance on riverine resources during these periods (see Chapters VII and VIII). However, the increased means for these periods may simply reflect the increasing use of a logistic subsistence system, in which uplands and other areas away from water were used more frequently.
Early and Middle Woodland sites have the lowest mean distances to nearest water (both<50 m), while Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites were located closest on average to stream confluences (both<290 m). Again, these trends may simply reflect the predominant subsistence and settlement patterns of the time. During the Early and Middle Woodland, populations may have increased use of base camps in riverine settings, thus causing the low mean distances to water for these periods. Also, Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations were comparatively more mobile than those of any other time period; thus, stream confluences may have provided means to access multiple travel routes. Highly mobile populations may have also utilized stream confluences as convenient meeting places for socializing or trading.
Table 50. Site Placement Relative to Water over Time, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
NUMBER MEAN DISTANCE TO MEAN DISTANCE TO PERIOD OF SITES WATER (M) CONFLUENCE (M) Paleoindian 12 65.0 286.7 Early Archaic 12 67.3 276.4 Middle Archaic 35 61.0 570.3 Late Archaic 87 88.1 568.9 Transitional 35 90.8 610.5 Early Woodland 19 48.9 491.1 Middle Woodland 11 45.0 603.0 Late Woodland 77 59.6 529.9 Mean -- 82.3 492.1
Subsistence and Settlement Changes over Time The role of the Upper Juniata sub-basin as cultural interaction zone is also reflected in the settlement system and the predominance of small camps during all time periods. Even during the Late Woodland period, only one excavated village (Bedford Village; 36Bd90) is present in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin, while during the Late Archaic, only two possible base camp sites (Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman) are present. This region was always used for hunting and gathering, even as crops became more widely used during the Late Woodland. Thus, as regions to the north (Clemson Island), south (Upper Potomac), east (Clemson Island) and west (Monongahela) saw populations move to sedentary villages during the Late Woodland, the change was much more subtle in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Here, the low density of villages and hamlets, as well as the high density of camps, indicates that Native Americans mainly utilized the area for subsistence procurement. Small families and/or bands from the north, south, east, and west apparently utilized the Upper Juniata sub-basin for seasonal resource procurement.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 173 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Archaeological studies at Bedford Village (36Bd90) indicate that the hunting of deer was a key subsistence task of site occupants. Because botanical studies have not been conducted to date at the site, the extent of crop domestication is uncertain at Bedford Village. Sheep Rock Shelter (Table 51) yielded both domesticated and wild food remains, including corn, beans, squash and sunflower, as well as wild nuts, berries, fish, game, and mollusk shells. While faunal remains were not separated by excavation level at the site, deer dominated the assemblage as a whole, accounting for nearly 50 percent of faunal remains (n=1,927 of 4,099 mammal bones; Guilday and Parmalee 1965:38). These data confirm the use of a wide range of foods at Sheep Rock Shelter. While the density of the respective food items varied over time at the site (Table 51), the pattern of a diversified resource base remained the same. Sheep Rock Shelter, thus, paints the most vivid picture of prehistoric life on the Raystown Branch during the Holocene. Native Americans, during all time periods, used hunting, fishing and gathering to subsist, even after the introduction of horticulture.
Table 51. Changes in Subsistence over Time at Sheep Rock Shelter. Data from Michels and Dutt (1968) and Michels and Smith (1967).
EXC. AGE FISH SCALES1 MOLLUSK UNTYPED BOTANICALS LEVEL (COUNT) (GRAMS) BONE (G) (TYPES PRESENT) 1 Historic 29 539.7 1097.0 Corn, beans, squash 2 Late woodland 1018 3241.6 6639.1 Corn, beans, squash 3 Middle Woodland 796 (3/4) 2261 (3/4) 22567.2 Corn, beans, squash, nuts, berries 4 Early Woodland 796 (3/4) 2261 (3/4) 6624.3 Corn, beans, squash, acorn, nuts, berries 5 Transitional 9 72.5 7900.6 Nuts, berries 6 Late Archaic 180 697.8 2156.8 -- 7 Mid-Late Archaic 5 536.1 8701.4 -- 8 Early-Mid Archaic 3 584.8 721.4 -- Total 2040 7933.5 56407.8 -- 1mostly American shad
E. CONCLUSION: FUTURE AVENUES OF RESEARCH IN THE UPPER JUNIATA SUB- BASIN Throughout prehistory, the Upper Juniata sub-basin was in all likelihood interaction zone between cultural areas, with a variety of groups moving through the area along the major paths that followed the Raystown Branch and vicinity. The nature of the environment—the long, southwest-northeast-oriented valleys and ridges—and the abundance of wild resources likely contributed to the region’s status as a veritable hinterland. Access to the Great Valley and rhyolite sources to the east was via a select few passes through ridges along the Raystown Path. Access to the south and the Upper Potomac Valley was likely along the Cumberland Path (the current route of S.R. 220 between Bedford and Cumberland). Access to the north was likely via the Bald Eagle Creek Valley and Watershed A. Finally, travel to the west was likely the most difficult, with Native Americans traversing the Allegheny Front to reach the Appalachian Plateau.
Ultimately, the sub-basin’s restricted accessibility contributed to its use mainly by small families and bands for resource procurement. Even while villages and hamlets arose throughout the Susquehanna, Upper Potomac, and Ohio Rivers during the Late Woodland
174 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
period, some 1,000 years ago, Native Americans continued to hunt and forage in small groups, residing in small camps in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
This report has delineated several important cultural and demographic trends over the last 12,000 years of prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Examination of Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files and regional research reports provided abundant data by which to evaluate prehistoric lifeways in the region. While PASS files data are limited to general trends, their value has been proven in this report and elsewhere (Carr 1998a, 1998b). Research reports also provide valuable insight into the prehistory of the region, providing additional details not available in PASS data. While most regional research is limited to Phase I archaeological surveys (many of which failed to identify archaeological sites), a handful of the projects yielded fruitful results that contribute to the better understanding of regional prehistory.
As summarized above, while several clear trends emerge from PASS file data and research reports, additional information would contribute to a better understanding of their causes and explanations. One of the clear biases in research within the sub-basin is the overall lack of research in Watershed B in the northeast corner of the sub-basin. Only six research reports are available for projects in this watershed, each of which was a Phase I survey that failed to identify archaeological sites with diagnostic artifacts. Clearly, more work needs to be conducted in Watershed B.
Other portions of the sub-basin have been studied in some detail during numerous Phase I surveys and select Phase II and Phase III studies. Despite this work, few stratified, well-dated components have been excavated in the sub-basin. Within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the landmark Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman site excavations provide the baseline for work in the region. Since these excavations, Phase II and Phase III work has only occurred at a handful of sites in the sub-basin. Excavations at Bedford County Airport remain largely unreported, while results of other data recovery excavations at Bedford Village are extremely difficult to find and are limited to two Master’s Theses. Recent excavations at Mykut Rockshelter and the Sunny Side Site in Watershed D provide important new information on stratified sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While the Mykut Rockshelter report is in preparation, excavations at the Sunny Side Site did not proceed beyond a Phase I test phase, however.
The most pressing need in the Upper Juniata sub-basin is the excavation of additional well- stratified archaeological sites, such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Mykut Rockshelter, Bedford Village and the Sunny Side Site. In addition, archaeological surveys must sample all known settings to better evaluate the locations of base camps and villages in the region. Determining those settings with the greatest number of frost-free days may aid in the identification of agricultural village locations. The inherent nature of cultural resource management studies, the predominant form of research in the region, is to sample small portions of areas to be impacted by construction projects; thus, while most data presented in this study indicate a low density of villages and hamlets and a high density of camp sites, these data may reflect an unrepresentative sampling of known landforms by archaeological surveys. Future research
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 175 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report should evaluate the nature of prior surveys and determine where future studies should be conducted to identify possible base camp and village locations. Such a study could be completed within the context of an alternative mitigation for a cultural resource management project (such as the current study) or as an academic project.
This report urges cultural resource managers and academic prehistorians to consider working in this region. As indicated by this report, we are at only the tip of the iceberg in terms of research in this area. While adjacent regions, such as the Susquehanna Valley and the Appalachian Plateau, have experienced tremendous research, the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin has experienced comparatively little study. Hopefully, this report will inspire more research in the region so that we may better understand its role in the prehistory of Pennsylvania.
176 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
REFERENCES
Adovasio, J.M., J. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath 1978 Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977; An Overview. American Antiquity 43 (4): 632- 651.
Adovasio, J.M., R. Fryman, A.G. Quinn, D.C. Dirkmaat, and D.R. Pedler 1998 The Archaic West of the Allegheny Mountains: A View from the Cross Creek Drainage, Washington County, Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania, pp. 1-28, edited by P.A. Raber et al. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Adovasio, J.M. and W.C. Johnson 1981 The Appearance of Cultigens in the Upper Ohio Valley: A View from Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(1-2):63-80.
Alsop, Fred J. III 2001 Smithsonian Handbooks, Birds of North America, Eastern Region. D&K Publishing, Inc., New York.
Andrefsky, William, Jr. 1994 Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.
Baker, P.H. 1994 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Ryot Covered Bridge (Bedford County Bridge No. 12) Rehabilitation Project, West St. Clair Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 94-1323. Submitted to P.Joseph Lehman, Inc. by Garrow and Associates, Inc., Latrobe, Pa.
Baker, T.R. and P.H. Baker 1990 Phase II/III Archaeological Investigations conducted at the Ickes 1 (36Bd173) and Ickes 2 (36Bd174) Sites at the proposed Bedford County Airport, Bedford Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 84-1532. Report prepared for Biro Tech, Inc. by Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Ballweber, H.L. 1989 A Study of Six Early/Middle Woodland Sites in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59(2):46-99.
Beckerman, I.C. 1980 A Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of District 9. In The Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context, edited by J.W. Hatch, pp. 12-41. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 177 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Bedford County Planning Commission 1983 Bedford County Planning Commission Historic Sites Survey Combination Final Report and Data Analysis. Bedford County Planning Commission, Bedford.
Beers, F.W. 1877 Atlas of the County of Bedford, Pennsylvania. F.W. Beers and Co., New York.
Benack, L.A., M.G. Sams, and K.A. Beckman 1995 Bedford County S.R. 0869, Section 002 Bobs Creek Bridge Replacement. Phase I Abbreviated Report Format Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers- Consultants, Harrisburg and Monroeville, PA.
Bennett, R.N., and W.D. Porter 1986 Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed 11.7 Mile Pipeline Corridor in Kanawha County, West Virginia. Prepared by WAPORA, Inc. For Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Berg, Thomas M., John H. Barnes, W. D. Sevon, Viktoras W. Skema, I. Peter Wilshusen, and Dawna S. Yannacci 1989 Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Management, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.
Berger Group, The Louis 2001 Proposed Federal Correctional Institution, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, Cultural Resources Investigations at Four Alternative Federal Correctional Institution Sites, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington.
Bergman, C., J. Doershuk, R.Moeller, P.LaPorta, and J.Schuldenrein 1998 An Introduction to the Early and Middle Archaic Occupations at Sandts Eddy. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early-Middle Holocene, pp. 45-76, edited by. P.Raber et al. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-21.
Blackburn, H.E. and W.H. Koontz 1906 History of Bedford and Somerset Counties, Pennsylvania. Lewis Publishing Co., New York.
178 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Boldurian, Anthony T., Frank J. Vento, Kenneth W. Mohney, Susanne M. Hubinsky 1992 Phase I Archaeological Investigations in the Freedom Township Water and Sewer Authority Project Area, Blair County Pennsylvania. Report submitted for Stiffler, McGraw and Associates, Inc. by the Office of Conservation Archaeology University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg, PA.
1992a Phase I Archaeological Investigations in the Jugtown Vicinity Sewage Collection System Project Area, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Report submitted for Richard T. Haines, AICP, Planning Director, Blair County Planning Commission by the Office of Conservation Archaeology University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg, PA. Bureau of Historic Preservation
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Karen L. Turnmire, eds. 1991 Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.
Boyko, W.C.J. 1987 Vertebrate Faunal Remains from the Bedford Village Site (36Bd90), Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Braker, W.L. 1981 Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennsylvania. USDA-Soil conservation Service. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Braun, E.L. 1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia.
Bressler, J.P. 1989 Prehistoric Man on Canfield Island 36Ly37, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. North Central Chapter No. 8, Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology and the Lycoming County Historical Society.
Brown, J.A., and R.K. Vierra 1983 What Really Happened in the Middle Archaic. In Archaic Hunters and Gatherers of the American Midwest, edited by J.A. Phillips and J.A. Brown, pp. 165-196. Academic Press, New York.
Broyles, B.J. 1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia, 1964-1968. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of Archaeological Investigations 3, Morgantown.
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania 1991 Cultural Resource Management in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations. Bureau of Historic Preservation and Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. Burns, J.A. and P.A. Raber
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 179 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
1998 Investigations at the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 63rd SPA Meeting, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, April 25-26, 1998.
Bush, David R. 1992 Phase I Reconnaissance of the Proposed Blue Knob State Park Comfort Station and Subterranean Water and Electric Line Construction at Burnt House Picnic Area Study Area, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the Department of Environmental Resources by the Center for Cultural Resource Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
Bush, David R. and Ashley Tupper 1997 Phase I Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cassville Borough Sewer, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for Cassville Water & Sewer Authority by the Center for Cultural Resource Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
Butts, C.F. 1945 Geologic Atlas of the United States, Hollidaysburg-Huntingdon Folio Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
Butts, C., F.M. Swartz, and B. Willard 1939 Topographic and Geologic Atlas of Pennsylvania No. 96 Tyrone Quadrangle. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002 Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Mammals Internet Site. www.carnegiemuseum.org/cmnh/mammals/mammals.html
Carr, K.W. 1989 The Shoop Site: Thirty-Five Years After. In New Approaches to the Past, edited by W.F. Kinsey and R.W. Moeller, pp. 5-28. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, CT.
1998a The Early Archaic Period in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 68(2):42-69.
1998b Archaeological Site Distribution and Patterns of Lithic Utilization during the Middle Archaic in Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period, edited by P.Raber, P.Miller, and S.Neusius, pp. 77-90. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Carr, K.W. and Adovasio, J.M. 2002a Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by K.W. Carr and J.M. Adovasio, pp. 1-50. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology No. 2, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
180 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Carr, K.W. and Adovasio, J.M., editors 2002b Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology No. 2, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Catton, D.K. 1994 Archaeological Excavations at Bedford Village (36Bd90): An Analysis and Synthesis. Master’s Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Chatters, J.C. 2000 The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316.
Chiarulli, B. and R.B. Walker 1998 Draft Report of the Act 70 Archaeological Investigations of Site 36Bd46, East St. Clair Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 97-0699. Submitted to the Bureau for Historic Preservation by Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Clarke, G. and C.M. Barton 2002 Pioneers on the Land: New Insights into the Peopling of the New World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Clay, R. Berle 1991 Adena Ritual Development: An Organizational Type in a Temporal Perspective. In The Human Landscape in Kentucky’s Past: Site Structure and Settlement Patterns, edited by C. Stout and C.K. Hensley, pp. 30-39. Kentucky Heritage Council.
Coe, J.L. 1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54(5), Philadelphia, Pa.
Colbert, B.M., P.H. Baker and M.G. Sams 1998 Bedford County S.R. 0036, Section 005 Tussey Mountain Bridge Over Yellow Creek. Phase I Archaeology report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers- Consultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA
Collins, M.B. 1999 Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Coppock, Gary, P.A. Raber, S.D. Heberling 1999 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Bald Eagle/Snyder Township Sewer System, Snyder Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Northern Blair County Regional Sewer Authority by Heberling Associates, Inc.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 181 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Coppock, G., J.M. Stiteler, S.D. Heberling, and P.A. Raber 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Spicer Brooke Bridge Replacement, S.R. 3019, Section 002, Juniata Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for The Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Coppock, G., J.M. Stiteler 2000 Summary Report, Phase I Archaeological Testing Proposed Wetlands Replacement Project, West Providence Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Cowin, Verna L. 1985 The Woodland Period. In A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources, Volume II, edited by Paul A. Raber, pp. 185-193. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1991 The Middle Archaic in the Upper Ohio Valley. In Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology. Vol. 7, pp.43-53.
Cresson, Jack 1990 Broadspear Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of Biface Manufacture, Form, and Use History with Insights Toward Understanding Assemblage Diversity. In Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Roger Moeller, pp. 105-130. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem Ct.
Crowl, G.H. and W.D. Sevon 1999 Quaternary. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C.H. Shultz, pp. 225-231. Pennsylvania Geological Society, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh Geological Society.
Custer, J.F. 1988 Late Archaic Cultural Dynamics in the Central Middle Atlantic Region. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4: 39-60.
1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
2001 Classification Guide for Arrowheads and Spearpoints of Eastern Pennsylvania and the Central Mid-Atlantic. Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Custer, J.F., and E.B. Wallace 1982 Patterns of Resource Distribution and Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the Piedmont Uplands of the Middle Atlantic Region. North American Archaeologist 3(2): 139-172.
182 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Custer, J.F., Scott C. Watson, and Daniel N. Bailey 1996 A Summary of Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at the West Water Street Site (36Cn175), Lock Haven, Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 66(1): 1-53.
Cutler, H.C. and L.W. Blake 1967 Notes on Plants from the Sheep Rock Shelter Site. In Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, pp. 125-168, edited by J.W. Michels and I.F. Smith. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Davis, Christine E. 1990 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Westvaco’s Woodyard Landfill, Tyrone Borough, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted for Westvaco.
Davis, C.E., D.A. Anderson, and Amy K. Wilks n.d. Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Phase II/III Archaeological Surveys, Bedford Distribution Center, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 96-0855. Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona.
Davis, Christine E., and Amy K. Wilks 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Southern Cove Wastewater Project, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona, PA.
1996 A Phase I/II Archaeological Survey of the Mill Creek Wastewater System. Report submitted to Mill Creek Township b y C.Davis Consultants, Verona, Pennsylvania. ER 89-0528-061.
Davis, M.B. 1984 Holocene Vegetational History of the Eastern United States. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 166-181. Longman Press, London.
Davis, Christine E., Amy K. Wilks, and Curtis L. Biondich n.d. Phase I Archaeological Survey, Bedford Business Park, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, Edited by Amy K. Wilks. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona, PA.
1999 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Blair County Convention Center & Access Road, Allegheny Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania, Edited by Amy K. Wilks. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona, PA.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 183 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Dick Wright Property, Huntingdon and Bedford Counties. Christine Davis Consultants, Inc.
Delcourt, P.A. and H.R. Delcourt. 1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, edited by R.C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.
Dent, R.J., Jr. 1991 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: The Earliest Populations. In The People of Minisink, pp. 117-144, edited by D.G. Orr and D.V. Campana. National Park Service, Philadelphia.
1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New York.
2002 Paleoindian Occupation of the Upper Delaware Valley: Revisiting Shawnee Minisink and Nearby Sites. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, pp. 51-78, edited by K.W. Carr and J.M. Adovasio. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Dent. R.J., Jr. and B.E. Kauffman 1985 Aboriginal Subsistence and Site Ecology as Interpreted from Microfloral and Faunal Remains. In Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, pp. 55-79, edited by C.W. McNett. Academic Press, New York.
Dikov, N.N. 1996 The Ushki Sites, Kamchatka Peninsula. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 244-250. The University of Chicago Press.
Dincauze, D.F. 1976 The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire. Peabody Museum Monographs No. 4. Harvard University, Boston.
Dragoo, D.W. 1963 Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of Carnegie Museum 37.
Duncan, R.B. 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Vail Industrial Park, Snyder Township, Blair County. Report submitted to Keller Engineers, Inc. by Skelly and Loy, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
East, Thomas C. and K.A. Beckman 1992 Blair County S.R.6220 Wetland Replacement. Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Report Prepared for PennDOT District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA.
184 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
East, Thomas C., Patricia H. Baker and Margaret G. Sams 1998 Blair County, S.R. 0865, Sections 002 and 003, Bellwood Bridge Replacement Project. Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations submitted by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA.
East, Thomas C., Jonathan M. Dreher and Margaret G. Sams 1995 Blair County, Sinking Run No. 1 Bridge Replacement, S.R. 1031, Section 009. Phase I Archaeology Abbreviated Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0.
1997 Blair County, Arch Spring Bridge Replacement, S.R. 1013, Section 008. Phase I Abbreviated Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0.
East, T.C., R.B. Duncan, M.G. Sams, C.T. Espenshade, P.H. Baker, and A.T. Vish 1999 Phase I/II Archaeological Testing and Phase III Data Recovery, U.S. Route 220 Improvement Project, S.R. 0220, Section C10. Report submitted to PennDOT District 2-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
Ellis, C. and J.H. Payne 1995 Estimating Failure Rates in Fluting Based on Archaeological Data: Examples from NE North America. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:459-474.
Espenshade, C. 2001 Two Native Potters “Speak” about Punctuates: Harding Flats Data and the Clemsons Island Concept. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 17: 59-84.
Espenshade, C.T, and M.G. Sams 2001 Blair County, Frankstown Township, S.R. 2007, Section 001, Oldtown Run Bridge Replacement. Phase I Archaeological Survey Abbreviated Report prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9- 0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants.
Faill, R.T. and R.P. Nickelsen 1999 Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and Valley Province. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, pp. 269-286, edited by C.H. Shultz. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Fenneman, N.M. 1938 Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Fiedel, S.J. 2001 What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America 29: 101-142.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 185 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Fladmark, K.R. 1983 Times and Places: Environmental Correlations of Mid-to-Late Wisconsinan Human Population Expansion in North America. In Early Man in the New World, pp. 13-42, edited by R. Shutler. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Ca.
Fogelman, G.L. 1983 The Pennsylvania Artifact Series Lithics Book. Paulhamus Litho, Inc.
Fowler, D. B., E. T. Hemmings, and G. R. Wilkins 1976 Some Recent Additions to Adena Archaeology in West Virginia. Archaeology of Eastern North America 4:110-121.
Frankenberg, S. R. and G. E. Henning 1994 Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Cotiga Mound (46MO1), Mingo County, West Virginia. GAI Consultants, Inc. Project Number 90-509-12.
Fredlund, Glen G. 1989 Holocene Vegetational History of the Gallipolis Locks and Dam Project Area, Mason County, West Virginia. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Contract Publication Series 89-01, Lexington, Kentucky.
Funk, R.E. 1968 A New Middle Woodland Complex in Eastern New York. The New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 44:1-32.
GAI Consultants, Inc. 1983 Phase II Investigation of the Petersburg Bridge Site L.R. 352, Section O11, Huntington,County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
1995 Archaeological Investigations at the Memorial Park Site (36Cn164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Final Report Submitted to the U.S.A.C.O.E., Baltimore District by GAI, Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
2001 Phase I Archaeological and Geomorphological Survey, Hopewell Township Wastewater Facilities Project. Submitted to Hopewell Township, Bedford County, by GAI, Monroeville, PA.
Gajewski, K. 1988 Late Holocene Climate Changes in Eastern North America estimated from Pollen Data. Quaternary Research 29:255-262.
Gardner, W. M. 1987 Paleoindian and Archaic in West Virginia: An Overview for the State Historic Preservation Plan. West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, Charleston.
186 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Gates, D.M. 1993 Climate Change and its Biological Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Gaudreau, Denise C. 1988 The Distribution of Late Quaternary Forest Regions in the Northeast. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by G.P. Nicholas, pp. 215-256. Plenum Press, New York.
George, R.L. 1974 Monongahela Settlement Patterns and the Ryan Site. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 44(1-2):1-22. 1983 The Gnagey Site and the Monongahela Occupation of the Somerset Plateau. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53(4):1-97. 1985 The Archaic Period. In A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources, edited by P.Raber, pp. 181-184. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg. 1986 A Clemson’s Island Vessel from Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 56(3-4):38. 1992 Early Late Woodland in Western Pennsylvania; the Backstrum Side Notched Point Evidence. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 62(1):62-72.
Gleach, F.W. 1985 A Compilation of Radiocarbon Dates with Applicability to Central Virginia. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia: 40(4):180-200.
Glenn, J. 1992 Phase I Reconnaissance of the Proposed Trough Creek State Park Subterranean Water and Electric Line Construction at Picnic Area #5 and the Camping Area Study Areas, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for the Department of Environmental Resources by the Center for Cultural Resource Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
Goodyear, A.C. 1989 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian Groups of North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp. 1-10. Westview Press, Boulder, Co.
Graybill, J.R. 1995 Cultural Background. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 33-56. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 187 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Grele, Aviva Weiss 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Shaffers Run Bridge Replacement (S.R. 0022, Section 011), Morris Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
Gross, C.S., T.R. Lewis, D. Rotenstein, R.C. Pultorak, K.J. Basalik, and R.T. Baublitz n.d. Phase I/II Archaeological Survey, S.R. 869, Section 003, Bridge Over Christ Run Creek, Village of Pavia and Union Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gross, C.S., T.R. Lewis, and R. Pultorak 1994 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scrubgrass Creek Bridge replacement Project, S.R. 4034, Section 001, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gross, C.S., R. Pultorak and K.J. Basalik 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, State Route 026, Section 01S Intersection Improvement, Liberty Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gruber, J.W. 1969 Book Review: Sheep Rock Shelter Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 39(1- 4):72
Guilday, J.E., P.S. Martin, and A.D. McCrady 1964 New Paris No. 4: A Pleistocene Cave Deposit in Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society 26:121-194.
Guilday, J.E. and P.W. Parmalee 1965 Animal Remains from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1), Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35:34-49.
Guilday, J.E., P.W. Parmalee, and H.W. Hamilton 1977 The Clark’s Cave Bone Deposit and the Late Pleistocene Paleoecology of the Central Appalachian Mountains of Virginia. Bulletin #2 of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh.
188 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Hart, J.P. 1995a Pottery Analysis. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 203-248. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
1995b Summary and Conclusions. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 507-548. Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
Hatch, J.W. 1977 The Raystown Hydro-Power Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Baltimore Division, Corps of Engineers by the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
1979 An Archaeological Assessment of Construction Impacts at Old Bedford Village, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Hatch, J.W., editor 1980 The Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
1983 A Stratigraphic Analysis of Late Woodland Material Culture Change at Fisher Farm. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53(1-2):11-27.
Hay, C.A. 1980 An Analysis of the Chipped Stone Assemblages from the National Register Survey-1978. In The Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context, edited by J.W. Hatch, pp. 65-82. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
1981 The 1980-1981 Central Region Archaeological Survey. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1984 An Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Huntingdon Levee, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. Submitted to Pennsylvania DGS by Pennsylvania State University. Technical Report No. 3, Department of Anthropology, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Hay, C.A., I.C. Beckerman, C.M. Stevenson 1984 Archaeological Investigations of the Tipton Industrial Park Property, Tipton, Pennsylvania. Submitted to Altoona Enterprises, Inc. by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Technical Report No. 5.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 189 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
1987 A Management Plan for Clemson Island Archaeological Resources in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Hay, C.A. and M.A. Graetzer 1985 Archaeological Investigations at the Jacks Mill Site 36Ce230), Final Mitigation Research. Prepared for Boasburg Limited Partnership by The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Hay, Conran A., Christine J. Challingsworth, Gary S. Webster 1983 An Intensive Archaeological and Historical Survey of Three Proposes Alignments for L.R. 1061, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to Green International and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Pennsylvania State University, Department of Anthropology, University Park.
Heberling, Paul M. and Scott D. Heberling 1987 Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Wastewater System Collection Facilities, Hopewell Borough, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for Hopewell Borough Council by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1988 Phase II Archaeological Investigation Entriken Bypass Project, T.R. 944 L.R. 31013, Section 14A, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and Federal Highway Administration in association with McCormick, Taylor and Associates by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1988a Phase I Cultural Resource survey, Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities, Borough of Newry and Blair Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Borough of Newry in association with Gwin, Dobson & Formen, Inc. Consulting Engineers by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1989 Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Loysburg Highway Demonstration Project, T.R. 36, Section 007, South Woodbury Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 88-0226. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1996 Project No. DGS 29-1, Picnic and Camping Facilities, Greenwood Furnace State Park, Jackson Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of General Services by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
Heberling, Scott D. 1991 US Route 22 Truck Climbing Lanes, S.R. 0022, Section A00, Catherine and Frankstown Twps., Blair County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
1993 Weyant Bridge Replacement, S.R. 0096, Section 11B, King Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
190 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
District 9-0 and Federal Highway Administration in association with The EADS Group by Heberling Associated, Inc. Huntingdon, PA.
1994 Warriors Mark Bridge Replacement, S.R. 4013, Section 001, Franklin Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Phase I/Phase II Archaeological Investigations Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 in association with Gwin Engineers/The EADS Group by Heberling Associates, Inc.
Heberling, Scott D., Paul M. Heberling, Paul A. Raber 1992 Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Homerview Estates, Blair Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to John E. Holtzinger Jr. by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Heberling, Scott D., Paul A. Raber, Judith A. Heberling 1990 Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Bedford County Airport, Bedford Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 84-1532. Submitted to Federal Aviation Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
1997 Management Summary, Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery, Water Street Inn/Mytinger Hotel, Site 36Hu151, S.R. 0022 Improvements at Water Street S.R. 6022, Section 005, Morris Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Heberling Associated, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1998 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Buffalo Run Industrial Railroad Track Benner and Spring Townships Centre County, Pennsylvania. ER No. 96-0441- 027. Prepared for SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority, Lewisburg, PA.
Hemmings, E. T. 1977 Investigations at Grave Creek Mound 1975-76: A Sequence for Mound and Moat Construction. The West Virginia Archaeologist 36(2):59-68.
Herbstritt, James T. 1981 Bonnie Brook: A Multicomponent Aboriginal Locus in West-Central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(3):1-59.
Holland, John D. 1999 The Cherts of Northwestern Pennsylvania: Indigenous and Otherwise. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Brookville, PA.
Hoskins, D.M. 1981 Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th Series, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 191 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Houck, R.M. 1989 Phase I Archaeological Survey Port Matilda Authority Borough of Port Matilda, Centre County Pennsylvania, ER 84-0439-027. S.E.O. Services, Port Matilda, PA.
Howard, C.D. 1991 The Clovis Point: Characteristics and Type Description. Plains Anthropologist 35(129): 255-262
Huntingdon County Visitors Bureau 2002 Raystown Lake: The Crown Jewel of Pennsylvania. Tourism and Visitor Services, Huntingdon County, Hesston, Pennsylvania.
Isreal, Stephen 1982 A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Two Proposed Road Realignments Segments along Raystown Branch Road Township Road T-430 on U.S. Government Property, Raystown Lake, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Planning Division.
Johnson, W.C. 2001 Who were those Gals? Cordage Twist Direction and Ethnicity in the Potomac River Basin, Preliminary Evidence suggesting Population Continuity and Replacement during the Late Woodland Period. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, MD.
Johnson, W.C., W.P. Athens, M.T. Fuess, L.G. Jaramillo, K.R. Bastianini, and E. Ramos 1989 Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela Culture Site and Cultural Resource Inventory. Report prepared by the University of Pittsburgh Cultural Resource Management Program. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Jones, R.W. 1931 Report of Robert W. Jones, Wild Rose, Wisconsin. Fifth Report of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, pp. 97-111.
Jones, T.L., R.T. Fitzgerald, D.J. Kennett, C.H. Miksicek, J.L. Fagan, J. Sharp and J.M. Erlandson 2002 The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67(2):213-230.
Joyce, Arthur A. 1988 Early/Middle Holocene Environments in the Middle Atlantic Region: A Revised Reconstruction. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by George P. Nicholas, pp. 185-214. Plenum Press, New York.
Justice, N.D. 1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
192 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Kent, B.C., I.F. Smith, and C. McCann (eds.) 1971 Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Anthropology Series No. 1. Harrisburg.
Kent, B.C. 1996 Piney Island and the Archaic of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 66(2):1-42.
2001 Susquehanna’s Indians. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Kinsey, W.F., III 1972 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Knight, W.R. 1998 Soil Survey of Bedford County, Pennsylvania. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Knowles, R.R. 1966 Geology of a Portion of the Everett 15-Minute Quadrangle, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 4th Series, Harrisburg.
Koetje, Todd A. 1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Martinsburg Municipal Authority Sewage Treatment Project, Borough of Martinsburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to Martinsburg Municipal Authority by Archaeological Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Koetje, Todd A., and Katherine Jackson 1994 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Manns Choice/Harrison TWP Authority Supervisors Sewerage Project, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Manns Choice/Harrison TWP Authority Supervisors by Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
1994a Report of the Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Marklesburg Authority Supervisors Sewerage Project, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Conducted for the Marklesburg Authority Supervisors by Archaeological Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Kuhn, R.D. 1985 A Morphological Analysis of Bifurcated-Base projectile Points in the Northeastern United States. Man in the Northeast 29:55-69.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 193 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Larabee, P.A. 1986 Late Quaternary Vegetational and Geomorphic History of the Allegheny Plateau at Big Run Bog, Tucker County, West Virginia. Unpublished Masters of Science Thesis. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Lazenbee, M.E.C. 1987 Sixth Avenue Widening Project, Route 764 (L.R. 493, Section 021), Allegheny Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc.
Lazenbee, M.E. Colleen and P.Heberling 1987 Blair County Expressway, U.S. 220/L.R.1061, Section 07,08,09,10, Tyrone to Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Bellwood and Pinecroft Interchanges. Phase I Archaeological and Historical Study submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration by McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc.
Lepper, Bradley T. 1983 Fluted Point Distributional Patterns in the Eastern United States: A Contemporary Phenomenon. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8(2):269- 286.
Lewis, T.R., K.J. Basalik, and R. Baublitz 1996 S.R. 026, Section 01S, Intersection Improvement Project, Liberty Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, Phase II Archaeological Survey Site 36BD190, ER 94-3287-009. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Lewis, Thomas R., Alice Coneybeer, and Kenneth J. Basalik 1995 Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge B-493 Wetland Mitigation Area, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Phase I/II Archaeological Survey Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Lohman, S.W. with E.W. Lorh 1974 Ground Water in South-Central Pennsylvania, US Geological Survey. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Long, D.E. 1996 Geomorphology and Soil Stratigraphy of the Bedford County Airport Sites 36Bd173-174: Applications for Site Chronology. Student Research Paper submitted to IUP Archaeological Services.
Lothrop, Jon n.d. Panhandle Archaic in the Upper Ohio River Valley: Data Recovery at the East
194 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Steubenville (46BR31) and Highland Hills (46BR60) Sites. Report in Preparation for West Virginia Division of Highways by GAI Consultants, Monroeville, PA.
1989 The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.Ellis and J.Lothrop, pp. 99-137. Westview Press, Boulder.
Luedtke, Barbara E. 1992 An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
MacDonald, D.H. 1995 Mobility and Raw Material Use at the Hunting Camp Spring Site (35Wa96), Blue Mountains, Oregon. North American Archaeologist 16(4):343-362.
1998 Subsistence, Tool-Use, and Reproductive Strategies of Northern Plains Folsom Hunter-Gatherers: A View from the Bobtail Wolf Site, North Dakota. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey, USDA/RUS: Hopewell Township Wastewater Facilities, Hopewell Twp., Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 97-2467, including Results of Phase I Study at the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267). Submitted to Hopewell Township by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
2002 Phase I Archaeological Survey, PennVEST: Wastewater Facilities, Herndon Borough/Jackson Township, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, ER 98- 1797. Submitted to Herndon Borough by GAI Consultants, Inc.
2002a Paleoindians as Estate Settlers: Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Evolutionary Insights into the Peopling of the New World. In Pioneers on the Land, in press, edited by G.Clarke and M.Barton. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
MacDonald, D.H. and B.S. Hewlett 2001 Reproductive Interests and Forager Mobility. Current Anthropology 40(4).
MacDonald, D.H. and K.W. Mohney 2001 Phase Ia Archaeological Survey, Bald Eagle Project, Boggs Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania, ER 2000-2549. Prepared for Allegheny Energy Supply by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Maxwell, Jean A. and Margaret Bryan Davis 1972 Pollen Evidence of Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation on the Allegheny Plateau, Maryland. Quaternary Research 2:506-530.
McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy 1997 Archaeological Investigations at Site 44Sx202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 195 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
McNett, C.W. Jr. 1985 The Shawnee-Minisink Site: An Overview. In Shawnee-Minisink, A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley in Pennsylvania, edited by C.W. McNett Jr., pp. 321-325. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Meltzer, D.J. 1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptation in Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 2: 1-52.
Merkel, E.J. 1978 Soil Survey of Blair County, Pennsylvania. USDA- Soil conservation Service. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1981 Soil Survey of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. USDA- Soil conservation Service. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Michels, J.W. 1968 Settlement Pattern and Demography at Sheep Rock Shelter: Their Role in Culture Contact. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24(1):66-82.
1994 Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1): An Historical Review. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 64(1):28-40.
Michels, J.W. and J.S. Dutt 1968 Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1967 Pennsylvania State University Field School in Archaeology. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Michels, J.W. and Smith, I.F. 1967 Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1966 Pennsylvania State University Field School in Archaeology. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Michels, J.W. and J.B. Huner 1968 Preliminary Report of Archaeological investigations of the Workman Site (36Bd36), Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the Pennsylvania State University, Occasional Paper No. 4.
Miller, Patricia E. 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Globe Run Bridge Replacement S.R. 0305, Section 002, West Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
196 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
1998 Lithic Projectile Point Technology and Raw Material Use in the Susquehanna River Valley. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter- Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene, edited by R.A. Raber, P.E. Miller, and S.M. Neusius, pp. 91-120. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology No. 1, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Millis, Heather 1999 Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed T-518 Bridge Replacement Over Adams Run, East St. Clair Township, Bedford County Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to Keller Engineers by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Mitchem, B. and R.Huston 1983 Phase II Investigation of the Petersburg Bridge Site L.R. 352, Section O11, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Mounier, R.A., J. Cresson, and J.W. Martin 1993 New Evidence of Paleoindian Biface Fluting from the Outer Coastal Plain of New Jersey at 28-OC-100. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:1-23.
Munford, B.A. 1994 Phase I Archaeological Inventory of the Hilltop to Claysburg 115kV Transmission Line, Cambria, Bedford, and Blair Counties. Report submitted to Texas Eastern Pipeline Co., by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
Nass, J.P., Jr. and J.P. Hart 2000 Subsistence-Settlement Change during the Late Prehistoric Period in the Upper Ohio River Valley: New Models and Old Constructs. In Cultures before Contact: the Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by R.A. Genheimer, pp. 124-155. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Parry, W.J. and R. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Lithic Technology, edited by J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2002 Pennsylvania DEP Watershed Notebook. In http: www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/ deputate/watermgt/WC/subjects/WSN, pp. 11A-11D. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Home Internet Site.
Potter, N., Jr. 1999 Southeast of Blue Mountain. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C. Schultz, pp. 345-351. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 197 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Raber, Paul A., editor 1985 Archaeological Testing and Mitigation of the Proposed Comfort Station, Stewart Warehouse and Altman Mill, America’s Industrial Heritage Project, Saltsburg Canal Park--Phase I Development, Saltsburg Borough, Indiana County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for the National Park Service by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
Raber, P. A. 1993 Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Site 36Bl57, S.R. 6220, Section G08, Antis Township. Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 in association with The EADS Group, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1994 Executive Summary, Phase I Archaeological Survey, S. R. 0096, Section 10M, South Bard Bridge, Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1994a Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 26, Section 006; Weimer Run Bridge Monroe Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1995 Prehistoric Settlement and Resource Use in the Aughwick Creek Valley and Adjoining Areas of Central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 65(1):1- 18.
1995a Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 26, Section 006; Weimer Run Bridge Monroe Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1995b Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Site 36Bl57, S.R. 6220, Section G08, Antis Township. Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 in association with The EADS Group, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1995c Executive Summary, Phase I Archaeological Survey, S. R. 0096, Section 10M, South Bard Bridge, Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1999 Late Woodland Settlement in the Uplands of Central Pennsylvania: the View from the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 65th SPA Meeting, Philadelphia, April 6, 2000.
198 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
1999a Addendum Supplementary Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair and West St. Clair Townships, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for CET Engineering, Inc., and The Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
2000 Late Woodland Settlement in the Uplands of Central Pennsylvania: The View from the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 65th SAA Meeting, Philadelphia.
2000a Supplementary Phase I Archaeological Survey, Phase 3 Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair and West St. Clair Townships, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 95-3604. Submitted to CET Engineering, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
Raber, P.A. and J.A. Burns 1999 Phase II Archaeological Studies, Sites 36Hu129 and 36Hu147, S.R. 3001, Little Valley Road, Carbon and Todd Townships, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, ER 94-0607. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
Raber, P.A. and S.D. Heberling 1990 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Borough of Manns Choice and Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Borough of Manns Choice and Glace Associated, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1991 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Workplan, S.R. 6220, Section G08, Ruscito Property, Antis Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and Federal Highway Administration in association with Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants by Heberling Associated, Huntingdon, PA.
1993 Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, S.R. 0036, Section 006, McKee Gap, Freedom and Taylor Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 in association with The EADS Group by Heberling Associates, Inc. Huntingdon, PA.
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair, West St. Clair, and King Townships, Pleasantville and St. Clairsville Boroughs, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 95-3604-009. Submitted to CET Engineering by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
1996a Phase I Archaeological Survey, Huntingdon Area School District, Walker Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, ER 95-0160. Submitted to Huntingdon School District by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 199 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
1996b Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wetlands Replacement Area, Smithfield Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Heberling Associates, Inc.
Raber, Paul A., Scott D. Heberling, Frank J. Vento 1993 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, Hollidaysburg Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion, Frankstown Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania, ER 92-0352. Submitted to Hollidaysburg Borough by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1994 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, S.R.1005, Section 001, Beaver Creek Bridge No. 2 Replacement, South Woodbury Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and the Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 4005, Section 001; Neff Bridge, Porter Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Raber, P.A, P.E. Miller, and S.M. Neusius, eds. 1998 The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Raber, Paul A., and Frank J. Vento 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey S. R. 2011, Section 001; Clover Creek Bridge, Huntingdon Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 and The Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Raber, P.A, P.E. Miller, and S.M. Neusius, eds. 1998 The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, PA.
Raber, P.A., J.B. Sutton, S.D. Heberling, F.J. Vento 1994 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, S.R. 3019, Section 001, Great Trough Creek Bridge Replacement, Cass Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and the Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Reid, K.C. 1984 Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic Pottery in the Middle-Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49: 55-76.
200 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Ritchie, W.A. 1965 The Archaeology of New York State. The Natural History Press, Garden City.
1969 The Archaeology of New York State (revised edition). The Natural History Press, Garden City.
1980 The Archaeology of New York State (revised edition). Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, New York.
Rue, David J. 1998 Phase Ib/II Archaeological Surveys for Construction of Facilities at the Upper Corners Peninsula, Raystown Lake Recreational Area, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Planning Division by Archaeological & Historical Consultants, Inc., Center Hall, PA.
2001 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Livestock Evaluation Center, Ferguson Township, Center County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Department of General Services by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc., Center Hall, PA.
Sams, Margaret G. and Lisa A Benack 1996 Blair County, S.R. 4002, Section 001, Sugar Run Bridge Replacement. Phase I Archaeology Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants.
Saul, F.P. 1968 The Human Skeletal Remains of the Sheep Rock Shelter. In Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, pp. 199-220, edited by J.W. Michels and J.S. Dutt. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Schindler, D.L., J.W. Hatch, C.A. Hay, and R.C. Bradt 1982 Aboriginal Thermal Alteration of a Central Pennsylvania Jasper: Analytical and Behavioral Implications. American Antiquity 47: 526-544.
Schiffer, M.B. 1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4): 675-706.
Schuldenrein, J., R.G. Kingsley, J.A. Robertson, L.S. Cummings, and D.R. Hayes 1992 Archaeology of the Lower Black’s Eddy Site, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: A Preliminary Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61(1):19-75.
Schweikart, J. F. 1998 An Upland Settlement in the Adena Heartland: Preliminary Evidence and Interpretations from Two Early Woodland Non-Mortuary Habitations in Perry County, Ohio. Unpublished Manuscript on File at ASC Group, Inc. Columbus, Ohio.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 201 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Shaffer, B.J. 2000 Archaeological Identification Survey Report for S.R. 0056, Section 104 Transportation Improvement Project, West St. Clair Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc., Harrisburg, PA.
Shaffer, B.J., R.H. Eiswert, F.F. Arnold, K.M. Post 2001 Archaeological Identification Survey Report for S.R. 0056, Section 010, Transportation Improvement Project, East St. Clair Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Harrisburg, PA.
Shelford, V.E. 1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Shott, M.J. 1993 The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleoindian Occupation in Central Michigan. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 25. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Slattery, R.G. 1946 A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36: 262-266.
Smith, B.D. 1987 The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, edited by W.F. Keegan, pp. 3-48. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois Univ. at Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 7.
Smith, I. F., III 1966 Raystown Reservoir Archaeological Salvage and Survey Program. Final Report Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington.
1972 The Watson Fetter Cache. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 78(1):72.
Snow, D.R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.
Stackhouse, E. 1965 Gromiller Cave. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35(3-4):105-117.
202 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Stephenson, R.L., A.LL. Ferguson, and H.G. Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Museum of Anthropology Papers 20. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Steegmann, A. Theodore 1983 Boreal Forest Adaptations: The Northern Algonkians. Plenum Press, New York.
Steward, J.H. 1936 The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands. In Essays in Anthropology Presented to Alfred Louis Kroeber, edited by R.H. Lowie, pp. 331-350. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Stewart, M. 1987 Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15: 47-58.
1990 Clemson’s Island Studies in Pennsylvania: A Perspective. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 60(1): 79-107.
Stewart, M. and J.Cavallo 1991 Delaware Valley Middle Archaic. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7:19- 42.
Stewart, M. and J. Kratzer 1989 Prehistoric Site Locations on the Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59(1):19-36.
Stingelin, R.W. 1965 Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial Vegetational History in the North Central Appalachian Region. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Geology and Geophysics. Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Straus, L.G. 2000 Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality. American Antiquity 65(2):219-226.
Sutton, J.B. and S.D. Heberling 1991 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Hesston Wastewater Collection System, Penn Twp., Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Heberling Associates, Huntingdon.
Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1989 A Close Look at the Big Picture: Early Paleoindian Lithic Resource Procurement in the Midwestern United States. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by B. Lepper and J. Lothrop, pp. 259-292. Westview Press, Boulder.
Thornbury, W.D. 1965 Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, London.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 203 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Tildlow, Evelyn M. 1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Kocher Well Field Project, Ferguson Township, Center County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the State College Borough Water Authority by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
Trewartha, G.T. 1967 An Introduction to Climate. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Truncer, James 1990 Perkiomen Points: A Study in Variability. In Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Roger Moeller, pp. 1-62. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem Ct.
Turnbaugh, W.H. 1975 Toward an Explanation of the Broadpoint Dispersal in Eastern North American Prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Research 31:51-68.
1977 Man, Land, and Time: The Cultural Prehistory and Demographic Patterns of North Central Pennsylvania. Lycoming County Historical Society, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Turner, R. and J.B. Huner 1968 A Physical Geography of the Raystown River Valley. In Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, edited by J.W. Michels and I.F. Smith. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1966 Pennsylvania State University Field School in Archaeology. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde 1999 Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Broad Top Wastewater Management Program, Broad Top Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Broad Top Township.
Vento, F.J., and J. Donahue 1982 Lithic Raw Material Utilization at Meadowcroft Rockshelter and in the Cross Creek Drainage. In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage. Symposium at 47th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Walker, E.L. 1861 Map of Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh.
204 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report
Wall, R.D. 2000 A Buried Lamoka Occupation in Stratified Contexts West Branch Valley of the Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 70(1):1-44.
Wall, Robert D., R. Michael Stewart, John Cavallo, Douglas McLearen, Robert Foss, Phillip Perazio, and John Dumont 1996 Prehistoric Archaeological Synthesis. Trenton Complex Archaeology: Report 15. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., East Orange, Jew Jersey. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environmental Analysis, Trenton.
Wallace, P.A.W. 1971 Indian Paths of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Walker, P.C. and Hartman, R.T. 1960 The Forest Sequence of the Hartstown Bog Area in Western Pennsylvania. Ecology 41 (3): 461-474.
Watts, W.A. 1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation of Central Appalachia and the New Jersey Coastal Plain. Ecological Monographs 49(4):427-469.
Way, J.H. 1999 Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and Valley Province. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C.Shultz, pp. 353-361. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Webster, D., M. Aldenderfer, J.W. Hatch, and C.A. Hay 1977 The Milesburg Site: A Hunting Camp in Central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 47(4):37-47.
West, F.H. 1996 The Archaeological Evidence. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 537-560. The University of Chicago Press.
Whitehead, Donald R. 1973 Late-Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 3:621-631.
Witthoft, J. 1952 A Paleoindian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 464-495.
1971 Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures. Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory 1: 161-194.
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Page 205 Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Wood, C.R. 1980 Summary Groundwater Resources of Centre County, Pennsylvania. Water Resource Report 48, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg.
Yarnell, R.A. 1993 The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M. Scarry, pp. 13-26. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
206 Upper Juniata Data Synthesis Penns/juniata/juniata_report