Investigating the Indigenous History of Camp Michaux, Pennsylvania Justin Michael Reamer Dickinson College

Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar

Student Honors Theses By Year Student Honors Theses

5-17-2015 Investigating the Indigenous History of Camp Michaux, Pennsylvania Justin Michael Reamer Dickinson College

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.dickinson.edu/student_honors Part of the Anthropology Commons, and the History Commons

Recommended Citation Reamer, Justin Michael, "Investigating the Indigenous History of Camp Michaux, Pennsylvania" (2015). Dickinson College Honors Theses. Paper 194.

This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Investigating the Indigenous History of Camp Michaux, Pennsylvania

By Justin Reamer

Submitted in partial fulfillment of Honors Requirements for the Department of Anthropology

Dr. Maria Bruno, Supervisor

May 5, 2015

Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………...iv Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...... 1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………....2

Cultural History of Eastern Pennsylvania.……………………………………………..…6

Paleoindian Period………………………………………………………………..8 Archaic Period…………………………………………………………………..10 Woodland Period………………………………………………………………..16

Contact Period…………………………………………………………………...22 Summary………………………………………………………………………...23 Theories and Methods for Site Prediction and Discovery………………………………23

Describing the Cultural History of North America……………………………...24 The Environment and Systems Theory in Site Prediction and Discovery……....24 Human Agency and Cultural Site Distribution………………………………….26 Processual Landscape Perspective………………………………………………27

Geographic Information Systems: Integrating Models and the Environment…...28

Summary………………………………………………………………………....30 Resources of the Camp Michaux Project Area………………………………………….30 Environmental Reconstructions: Flora and Fauna…………………………………..31 Geology………………………………………………………………………….34

Hydrology………………………………………………………………………..36 Soils……………………………………………………………………………...37

Methods………………………………………………………………………………….39

Geographic Information systems………………………………………………...40 Pedestrian Survey………………………………………………………………..42 Shovel Test Pit Survey…………………………………………………………..44

Artifact Processing……………………………………………………………….46 Analysis of Lithic Artifact………………………………………………………46 Results…………………………………………………………………………………...47 GIS………………………………………………………………………………47 Pedestrian Survey………………………………………………………………..49

Shovel Test Pit Survey ………………………………………………………….48

Excavations/Strata……………………………………………………………….50

Artifacts………………………………………………………………………….50

Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………………………………....52 Interpreting Results……………………………………………………………...52

Revisiting Probability Map……………………………………………………....54

New Questions and Speculation………………………………………………....55

Future Research………………………………………………………………….57

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….59 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..61 Appendix………………………………………………………………………………...65

iii

Acknowledgements

I would first off like to thank Dr. Maria Bruno for all of the help and guidance that she provided to me over the course of this thesis. Without her help this project would not have even gotten off the ground.

I would also like to thank the Dickinson College Anthropology Department for their feedback and help both on this thesis and in my courses.

I would like to Mr. James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College’s GIS Specialist, for his help with all my GIS related questions or needs.

Thank you to all of classmates in the Spring 2014 Anthropology Senior Colloquium for your support and feedback while writing this.

Thank you to Victoria Cacchione and all the volunteers for the help excavating at Camp

Michaux.

Thank you to my friends at Dickinson, especially Haley, for your support and encouragement during the writing process.

And finally thank you to my family, Mom, Dad, Melissa, and Adam, for all of your love and support during my time at Dickinson and while writing my thesis.

Abstract

The Camp Michaux Archaeological Project area is home to a well-documented historical occupation but until this study no one had investigated it for a possible Indigenous

Period occupation. The goal of my research was to answer the question, was there an

Indigenous Period occupation in the Camp Michaux Project Area, for which I believed the answer would be yes. I based this hypothesis on the cultural history of the region, a theoretical framework for predicting sites, and the natural resources in the project area. Using a variety of methods including Geographic Information Systems and shovel test pit surveying, two lithic artifacts were recovered over the course of my investigation. I conclude, based on established guidelines, that these flakes would constitute an archaeological site from the Indigenous Period. I also discuss the significance of my research in contributing to our understanding of the Indigenous Period in Eastern

Pennsylvania and addressing problems with the marginalization of indigenous groups within the region.

Introduction

The Dickinson College Archaeological Project at Camp Michaux started in the Spring

2013 after a proposal to conduct research there by Dr. Maria Bruno of Dickinson College was approved by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The Camp

Michaux Project Area (Figure 1.2) is located in the Michaux State Forest on South Mountain in Pennsylvania (Figure 1.1). The idea for the project began when David Smith of the

Cumberland County Historical Society brought the area to the attention of Dr. Bruno (Bruno

2012).

Figure 1.1 Map of the location of Camp Michaux Project Area on South Mountain(Source: Bruno 2012).

The Camp Michaux Project Area was chosen for a few reasons, including that no systematic survey had ever taken place at Camp Michaux previously for historic or

Indigenous Period sites and also because of the long historical occupation of the site (Bruno

2012). The project as outlined was meant to provide a field component to the Archaeological

Method and Theory course (ARCH 300)1 required of all archaeology majors at Dickinson

College. As the field work component of the course, students would begin a Phase I

Assessment (basic archaeological inventory) of the site using pedestrian survey and shovel test pits when required. A goal of the project was to eventually lead to student research projects and theses in the future, which this paper will accomplish in part.

The historical occupation of Camp Michaux has been well documented thanks to the work of David Smith and other members of the Cumberland County Historical Society

(Smith 2011). These other members include John Paul Bland who wrote the book Secret

War at Home: The Pine Grove Furnace Prisoner of War Interrogation Camp (2006). The first documented presence at the site in the historical period began in 1787 when a family farm, which would later be named the Bunker Hill Farm, started there. The farm was bought in the late 18th century by the nearby iron ore industrial complex operating out of Pine Grove

Furnace to help support the needs of their workers as well as their families and any animals, in conjunction with other nearby farms. The Iron Ore period of the site lasted until the late

19th century when the iron industry collapsed and the farm was eventually sold to the state in

1912, who then leased it to farmers until 1919 (Smith 2011). The land remained unoccupied until 1933 when it was selected to be the first Civilian Conservation Corp camp (CCC) in

Pennsylvania under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and was given the designation S-51-PA,

CCC Company 329. During this period, the workers of the camp built roads in the area and the infrastructure for what would become Pine Grove State Forest as well as working to reforest a 60 square mile area that had been cut down during the Iron Ore period and

1Archaeological Methods ARCH 290, after a curriculum revision in Spring 2014

constructing around 40 buildings (Bland 2006; Smith 2011). Starting in 1942, Camp

Michaux changed purposes again and became a German Prison of War camp. The intent of the camp was to interrogate captured German officers and later in the war Japanese officers.

This continued until November 1945 when the land was returned by the federal government to Pennsylvania (Smith 2011). The final phase of historical occupation at Camp Michaux started in 1948 and lasted until 1972 when the area served as summertime church camp.

Then in 1975, after the church camp closed down the buildings were sold off and taken down to allow the forest to take back over (Smith 2011).

Figure 1.2 Map of the Camp Michaux Project Area (Source: James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College) In spite of this long historical occupation, one question, the one I am trying to answer in this thesis, had never been asked of Camp Michaux: was there an Indigenous Period occupation in the area? I hypothesize that the answer to this question will be that there was an indigenous occupation. Before addressing the importance of my question, I would like to first address why I am referring to the time period as the Indigenous Period. Most

archaeologists refer to the era I am investigating as the prehistoric or the precontact period.

The former term has fallen out of favor for most because it implies the indigenous people of

North America had no history before Europeans arrived (Burke et al. 2008: 15). The term precontact is still widely used by archaeologists, but it too is slowly falling out of favor

(Burke et al. 2009: 224). In order to be as respectful as possible to the cultural traditions and opinions of indigenous people I will use the term Indigenous Period.

The fact that archaeologists used and sometimes still use the term prehistoric is important to discuss because it shows a disregard for the long history of indigenous people in

North America. I believe that my question is important to ask, in part, because it helps to address this marginalization of indigenous history both in general and at Camp Michaux. My thesis is the first time the Indigenous Period at Camp Michaux has been investigated, despite the site being well known for its historic use. Answering my question is also important because it will help to expand our knowledge of the Indigenous Period of South Mountain, for which little is known, and Eastern Pennsylvania as a whole.

In order to begin answering my question, in the following section I will cover the cultural history of Eastern Pennsylvania to better understand the Indigenous Period in the larger region the Camp Michaux Project Area belongs. In the third section, I will review how archaeological theory influences site prediction, discovery, and how site distribution patterns are viewed. In the fourth section, I will cover the environmental resources in the

Camp Michaux Project Area that could have drawn and helped sustain any potential indigenous occupants into the area. In my methods section, I will discuss the methods I used to gather data to answer my question. I will present my results from the field work methods I used, including detailing lithic artifacts recovered in my results section. Lastly, I will discuss

what my results reveal about the Indigenous Period in the Camp Michaux Project Area, what new questions these bring up and where I believe future research should head.

Cultural History of Eastern Pennsylvania

Fig. 2.1- Map Showing Divide between Eastern and Western Pennsylvania (Source: Custer 1996: 10)

I believe the before investigating an area for a possible site, which I am doing in this paper, it is important to understand what the cultural history of that area is for the time period(s) of interest. Because the Camp Michaux Project Area is located within the larger area of Eastern Pennsylvania (Figure 2.1), I will discuss the cultural history of this area here.

The dividing line between Eastern and Western Pennsylvania in the Indigenous Period was the Allegheny Front (dotted line in Figure 2.1), as it provided a naturally occurring barrier preventing interaction between these two regions of the modern state. This divide is evident as Eastern Pennsylvania shows more cultural affinities to the Middle Atlantic Region whereas Western Pennsylvania is more closely related to the Ohio Valley and Hopewell area

(McConaughy 2012). Due to this association, most archaeologists working within Eastern

Pennsylvania during the Indigenous Period have used the same time periods as the larger

Middle Atlantic Region (Kinsey 1983). These time periods are the Paleoindian period, the

Archaic period and the Woodland period, with the Archaic and Woodland periods each generally broken down into three subperiods of Early, Middle and Late (Kinsey 1983; Custer

1996) (Table 1.1).

In addition to the project area being within Eastern Pennsylvania, it also falls into the physiographic Blue Ridge Province of Pennsylvania, which is effectively South Mountain

(Custer 1996). Although it is impossible to know exactly how the people of this area lived during the Indigenous Period, these time specific breakdowns give archaeologists a framework for discussing changing lifeways, site types and locations, and what artifacts denote these changes in culture.

Cultural Periods Time (Years Before Present) Diagnostic Artifacts Paleoindian 12,000 to 10,000 BP Fluted points (Clovis, Derbert, and Dalton-Hardaway types) Early Archaic 10,000 to 8500 BP Side and corner notched projectile points sometimes with serration (Palmer, Charleston, Kirk, Amos, Kessel types) Middle Archaic 8500-5000 BP Bifurcate and stemmed points (St. Albans, Lecroy and Kanahwal, Kirk Stemmed, Otter Creek, Morrow Mountain II types), Ground stone tools appear Late Archaic 5000 to 3000 BP Wide variety of ground stone tools including stone bowls, Broadspears (Susquehanna Tradition) Early Woodland 3000 to 2000 BP Ceramics of Marcey Creek Horizon, Bare Island Culture; notched and stemmed projectile points, ground stone tools, large bifaces Middle 2000 to 1000 BP More highly refined shell and grit Woodland tempered ceramics; Three Mile Island Complex Late Woodland 1000 to 450 BP Appearance of agriculture, triangular core and flake based projectile points, Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry ceramics Table 1.1- Cultural History of Eastern Pennsylvania including diagnostic artifacts

Paleoindian Period

The earliest inhabitants of Pennsylvania arrived in the area during the Late

Pleistocene. The exact time still remains controversial and varies depending on one’s views about the dates given to the occupations at the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Western

Pennsylvania (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983). Because of this controversy, the Paleoindian period in Eastern Pennsylvania is generally started at 12,000 BP and lasts until 10,000 BP, coinciding with the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the glacial retreat in North

America.

Overall, there are very few Paleoindian sites found in Eastern Pennsylvania compared to later time periods but, based on the few sites and using data from the rest of the Middle

Atlantic, the assemblages, site types and locations, and lifeways for people living in this period can be defined. Custer (1996) notes most of the artifacts found during the Paleoindian period in Pennsylvania are lithics, with most sites of this time period associated with fluted points. The earliest fluted points closely resemble the Clovis points more common in

Western North America and are labeled as such. After the Clovis points, later assemblages are categorized as Mid-Paleo or Derbert, and then Dalton-Hardaway closer to the Early

Archaic. Missing from the Paleoindian assemblages, however, are tools for processing plant materials, with most of the tools made for the killing and butchering of animals. The lack of objects designed to process plants does not preclude their use, as carbonized plant remains are found in association with some Paleoindian sites (Custer 1996). Other food remains found with Paleoindian sites include a variety of animal bones ranging from larger game to small mammals and birds. There is no evidence that humans ever lived with or interacted with Pleistocene megafauna in Eastern Pennsylvania (Custer 1996).

The lithic artifacts found in association with Paleoindian sites were often made up of high quality cryptocrystalline rocks such as jasper and Onondaga chert from Western New

York, the latter of which is found only from sites in the Susquehanna Valley (Custer 1996).

The Onondaga chert, as with other non-local cherts found in assemblages throughout the

Mid-Atlantic, likely came from time intensive forays into the locations where it was present

(Tankersley 1998). The gathering of these high quality materials is commonly thought to have been a part of the yearly rounds made by these highly mobile groups. It is probable that the occupants of this time period made seasonal moves focusing on different resources at different times of the year. For example, it has been suggested based on sites in New York

State that replenishment of lithic resources likely occurred in the summertime and hunting of larger game animals likely occurred in the winter. This, however, does not mean that these processes didn’t occur throughout the year (Custer 1996; Tankersley 1998). The high mobility of the hunter gather groups was argued by Custer (1996) to have been a choice, probably as insurance against a lack of resources in a given area. The archaeological record shows that this may have been the case, with a wide variety of site types and locations having been inhabited by Paleoindian groups.

A majority of Paleoindian period sites in Eastern Pennsylvania are found in close proximity to the two major rivers of the regions, the Susquehanna and the Delaware. Sites there are occasionally found deeply buried in floodplain settings but are more commonly found in the terraces overlooking the rivers, which would have provided a good vantage point of both the river and forests and grasslands near the rivers, especially in the

Susquehanna River Valley (Custer 1996). But, this does not mean that there were not sites farther into the interior as sites have been found in association with the small streams that

cross the landscape away from the major rivers (Kinsey 1983). Unfortunately, no sites have been found in the more upland settings of the Blue Ridge physiographic province in either

Pennsylvania or Maryland (Custer 1996).

The different locations inhabited often featured different types of site, which it has been argued is the result of different needs from these locations. These site types include base camps, quarry sites, base camp maintenance sites, hunting sites, and transitory base camps (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983). Base camps are the most common type of site and are demonstrated by large deposits of materials from repeated use (Custer 1996). The end of the

Paleoindian period transitions into the Early Archaic period, where the lifeways were largely similar although a few differences did begin to appear.

The Archaic Period

Early Archaic

The Early Archaic period in Eastern Pennsylvania lasted from 10,000 BP until 8500

BP and is seen by some archaeologists as a continuation of the Paleoindian period rather than a part of the Archaic period (Custer 1996). Because of marked differences from the

Paleoindian period, most archaeologists still consider the Early Archaic a part of the Archaic period and the first adaptation to the newly emerging Holocene environment (Kinsey 1983).

The major differences between the Paleoindian period and the Early Archaic are in the artifact assemblages, settlement densities, and locations (Custer 1996; Carr 1998).

The main change at this time occurs with the artifact assemblages found in association with Early Archaic sites. Sites of this period are generally identified by the presence of side and corner notched projectile points that are often also ground based and serrated. Diagnostic points of the Early Archaic include Palmer, Charleston, Amos, Kirk and

Kessel types (Custer 1996:97; Carr 1998:46). In addition to point types changing during this period, some ground stone woodworking tools, like adzes and axes, begin to appear in the archaeological record (Carr 1998:49-50). The raw lithic materials exploited by the Early

Archaic peoples still focused on high quality materials, but poorer quality lithic sources were also being used in a higher frequency (Custer 1996). This includes an increase in the usage of metarhyolite from the South Mountain region, with recent evidence suggesting that metarhyolite quarrying was more intensive in the Early Archaic than previously assumed

(Carr 1998; Carr et al. 2001).

This change in lithic usage also led to changes in site locations throughout the region, although site types remained largely unchanged. Floodplain and floodplain terrace settings were still the most commonly used locations in the region during the Early Archaic but more upland settings also started to be exploited. This change possibly occurred because of the lithic resources offered in these locations (Custer 1996; Carr 1998; Carr et al. 2001). It has been hypothesized that the people living here at this time were still highly mobile with yearly site relocations of up to 130 kilometers for the Susquehanna River Valley (Carr 1998). The site types of this time period, mostly the same as the Paleoindian period, fall within five categories: quarry and quarry reduction sites at the source of the lithic materials, base camps and related maintenance sites generally close to a water source and quarry, and hunting stations usually farther from the quarrying sites and focusing on highly productive areas like floodplains (Kinsey 1983; Carr 1998).

Middle Archaic

The Middle Archaic period for Eastern Pennsylvania begins at 8500 BP and ends at

5000 BP and features large changes in the archaeological record that appear to coincide with

environmental changes. There is, however, some difficulty in discussing this period as there are few diagnostic artifacts that can clearly date sites to the Middle Archaic. This leads to the possibility that many sites have been misidentified as Early Archaic or Late Archaic, especially during the later portions of this period, due to a lack of stratification (Custer 1996).

Some of the changes that can be assumed from this period include changes in resource usage and toolkits, and also changes in site distribution and density.

Sites from the Middle Archaic are often identified, once again, from the lithic tools that are found in association with them. Carr (1998) and Custer (1996) provide excellent detail on the points commonly found during this period. The projectile points from the Early

Middle archaic are often categorized as being a part of the Bifurcate Phase (8500-7800 BP).

Diagnostic points from this period include St. Albans, Lecroy, and Kanahwal. Other point forms include those of triangular shapes and stem points such Kirk stemmed, Morrow

Mountain II, Guilford and Otter Creek Points (Carr 1998; Custer 1996). The later Middle

Archaic point traditions are extremely varied and very few points from this period are considered diagnostic, which often leads to the misidentification of sites. Points from the

Middle Archaic are most commonly made from flakes and not bifacial reduction as was previously common. New additions to the tool assemblages also appear at this time, with plant processing tools becoming more common in the archaeological record. These additions are mostly ground stone tools including more axes, gouges, grinding stones, pestles and adzes (Kinsey 1983; Custer 1996). In addition to different projectile point forms and new tools entering the assemblage, there was a focus on different lithic resources. The high quality cryptocrystalline materials previously favored were replaced with lower quality materials such as quartzite, quartz and rhyolite. In the Blue Ridge province of the

Appalachian Mountains, including South Mountain in Pennsylvania, more sites are found, especially in association with metarhyolite deposits (Carr 1998; Carr et al. 2001, Custer

1996; Kinsey 1983).

Along with the newer projectile points and stone tools appearing in the Middle

Archaic, sites are found in a wider variety of locations. This includes more sites found in upland settings away from rivers, in a variety of environmental conditions. Sites have been found in the Blue Ridge Province of Maryland and Pennsylvania in areas over-looking low order streams and also near metarhyolite outcrops (Custer 1996). In floodplain settings,

Middle Archaic sites tend to occupy different locations from the sites of the Early Archaic and Paleoindian periods. These new settings being exploited probably correlates to changes in lifeways at this time, as evidenced by plant processing tools found in the archaeological assemblages. Custer (1996) hypothesizes that at this time nut bearing trees, such as oak and hemlock, expanded into the area causing interior settings to be more productive. This, he believes, led to Middle Archaic people becoming more generalized foragers focusing equally on plant gathering and hunting (Custer 1996:133). Custer (1996) also believes that these groups were still highly mobile, but probably moved more frequently over a smaller range than their predecessors. The Middle Archaic is, as a whole, heavily underrepresented in the archaeological record, but what is known, shows the genesis of what appeared in the Late

Archaic.

Late Archaic

The Late Archaic period of Eastern Pennsylvania started at 5000 BP and ended at

3000 BP with the beginning of the Woodland period (Custer 1996). Many archaeologists

(Carr 1998, Kinsey 1983) refer to the last 1000 years of this span as a separate period called

the Transitional Archaic, but for the purpose of this paper I will not make the distinction.

The Late Archaic period in this region was marked by many changes in both the way people lived, the size of their groups, and the tools and resources they utilized. These changes appear in the archaeological record as regional and sub-regional adaptations, with the Camp

Michaux Project Area falling within the bounds of the Poplar Island Complex of the lower

Susquehanna River drainage (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983).

The archaeological assemblages found in association with sites of this time period are markedly different from those previously found, although they do build off of those from the

Middle Archaic. Continuing the trend of the previous period, more ground stone tools for plant processing are found from sites dated after 5000 BP. These tools include axes, celts, adzes, crescent shaped scrapers, net sinkers, milling stones, hammerstones and drills (Custer

1996; Kinsey 1983). Custer (1996:184) hypothesized that the increasing frequency of these tools was related to dug-out canoe making, land clearance for this purpose and firewood, and an increased reliance on plant foods. Another ground stone implement that appeared late in this time period were stone bowls made from steatite and soapstone and likely used for cooking (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983). The lithic blades or projectile points that appeared after 4500 BP are very distinctive, with the start of the Broadspear Horizon in the Middle

Atlantic Region and Eastern Pennsylvania. Broadspears are large, wide points featuring side notches with distinct traditions in different regions. South Mountain falls under the umbrella of the Susquehanna Broadspear Tradition (Custer 1996). These lithics were hypothesized by

Custer (1996: 177) to have been cutting blades and not projectile points, as they often appear with other stemmed points, but this is a debated position. Lithic preferences were highly variable by region during this period but in general high quality cryptocrystalline lithic

materials were not used (Kinsey 1983). In the Susquehanna Valley, which is where the study area falls, the most commonly used material was South Mountain metarhyolite with quartzite and siltstone also somewhat common (Custer 1996). The Late Archaic featured the most intensive usage of metarhyolite of any time during the Indigenous Period of Pennsylvania.

The large number of quarrying pits found at the Carbaugh Run Metarhyolite Quarries on

South Mountain are evidence of this, because most of the pits date to this time period (Carr et al. 2001). These different types of lithic artifacts have often been found together in caches that first appear during the Late Archaic period, which is indicative of dramatic changes in lifeways at this time (Custer 1996).

According to Custer (1996), the settlement patterns and subsistence strategies of the

Late Archaic groups showed marked changes from the Middle Archaic and earlier times.

The archaeological record appears to show decreased mobility for the hunter gatherer groups in the region, as a collector strategy began to be employed (Custer 1996). The collector strategy involves the hunter-gatherer group residing at a permanent or semi-permanent base camp from which parties depart to collect necessary resources, such as food and lithic materials (Binford 1980). Custer (1996:186-197) argues this strategy is shown in the archaeological record with larger base camps located near reliable sources of surface water.

In association with these base camps, storage pits, large rock hearths and stone bowls are often founding indicating an increased degree of permanence. Also at this time, a diverse array of small base camps, and procurement and related camps (e.g. quarry and hunting sites) are found in more upland settings. The people of this time were not only exploiting a larger range of environmental settings but they also used a wider array of food resources, with wild amaranth and chenopodium beginning to appear in the archaeological record. Also probably

consumed during this period, were game animals, both large and small, and nuts from the highly productive hickory and oak trees in the region (Custer 1996).

The Woodland Period

Early Woodland

The Early Woodland period in Eastern Pennsylvania is defined as the time period from 3000 BP until 2000 BP. It is generally seen as a continuation of Late Archaic trends but more intensive than the earlier period (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983; Stewart 1995). In the past, archaeologists marked the start of the Woodland period by the emergence of settled villages, agriculture, and ceramics in the archaeological record (Kinsey 1983). Recent studies have shown that the Early and Middle Woodland do not appear to have settled villages or agriculture. Because of this, the Early Woodland period is started with the first evidence for ceramics in the archaeological record (Custer 1996; McConaughy 2012). These ceramics were originally very crude in their forms with large grit tempers, usually of soapstone. The earliest ceramics were straight sided with thick walls, flat bottoms and no decorations and are considered to be a part of the Marcey Creek Horizon (Custer 1996;

Kinsey 1983); however, throughout the Early Woodland period, these ceramics changed in design and form. Eventually the process was refined so that the ceramics were made by creating coils of the ceramic materials until approximately conical shapes with rounded bottoms were formed. These vessels also had thinner walls, because of this technique and smaller tempers. Designs, such as cord marked pottery, became common towards the end of the Early Woodland period and net wrapped pottery appeared after 2400 BP. The first regional variations and complexes appeared during the latter part of the Early Woodland, including the Bare Island Culture that appeared in the Susquehanna River region (Custer

1996; Kinsey 1983). Other diagnostic or common artifacts from this time period include notched and stemmed projectile points and large bifaces found in some burials. Although the

Adena culture was not present in this region, some artifacts from this culture do make their way into the burials of the Early Woodland period, with graves containing Adena bifaces, copper beads and gorgets found. Ground stone tools, thought to be for plant processing, are also found in a higher quantity during this time period (Custer 1996; Stewart 1995).

The Early Woodland people developed new settlement patterns and features which indicate an increased level of sedentism. The main base camps of this time, while still small, were larger than those of the Late Archaic and have been called “hamlets” by Stewart

(1995:163). Hamlets are often associated with a large number of storage and refuse pit features and specific activity areas which point towards a more sedentary lifestyle. In a similar fashion to the previous time period, base camps were generally found near larger bodies of water such as rivers and were often on top of Late Archaic sites (Custer 1996;

Kinsey 1983). Also in use, were specialized procurement camps, such as for hunting and lithic materials, in a variety of ecological settings, but generally near a water source. This procurement strategy coincides with an increase in rock shelter sites during the Woodland period, as they were often used by procurement parties (Custer 1996). One lithic material utilized by these people was the metarhyolite found on South Mountain, which is believed to have been a valuable resource in the developing trade networks of this period (Carr 1998).

Middle Woodland

The Middle Woodland period starts at 2000 BP and ends at 1000 BP. It is seen as a further continuation of the Early Woodland period but also as developing the trends that would become common in the Late Woodland period. Changes in settlement structure and

artifact assemblages indicate that this was a time of further increased sedentism (Custer

1996; McConaughy 2012). The early portion of the Middle Woodland period is not associated with any well-defined cultures and the only complexes that arise in this period are the Abbot Farm Complex of the Delaware River Valley and the Three Mile Island Complex of the Susquehanna River Valley (Custer 1996; McConaughy 2012).

The artifacts of the Middle Woodland period are largely differentiated from the Early

Woodland through changes and advancements in ceramics, as lithic tools remain generally unchanged. One of the major changes in ceramic technology at this time according to Custer

(1996:224-227) were the tempers used, which in turn affected the thickness of ceramic walls.

Starting in the Middle Woodland, tempering with shell was the common practice; however, as the period progressed, these techniques became more advanced and refined. Eventually micaceous pastes and finely crushed grit tempers were used to make ceramics. By the end of the period, regional variations in decorations and temper began to appear, but would become more pronounced in the Late Woodland period. The ceramic vessels of the Middle

Woodland were also much larger than the Early Woodland, with more vessels of heights greater than 50 centimeters and capacities greater than five gallons found (Custer 1996: 238-

239). Ceramics also became more finely decorated during at this time (Stewart 1995).

The settlement patterns and subsistence patterns of the Middle Woodland people appears to have remained largely unchanged from the Early Woodland groups. There is some evidence for an even greater degree of sedentism at this time, based on the larger ceramic vessel and storage feature sizes (Custer 1996). The inhabitants of the region were probably still living in larger semi-permanent to permanent multifamily settlements, from which small parties set out to procure resources such as food and lithic materials. These base

settlements still focused on riverine settings with procurement camps in the interior in a diverse array of environmental settings (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983). Burials from this time also start to become more elaborate and complex. This is possibly a sign of emerging hierarchy or a result of increased sedentism. It is also possible that faming began at this time.

There is evidence for the people of the region knowing about and utilizing crops from the

Eastern Agricultural Complex including chenopodium, amaranth and sunflowers (Custer

1996; Stewart 1995). Lastly, it is possible that trade networks that started in the Early

Woodland period became more advanced at this time as Middlesex goods from modern New

York State, including copper beads and bifaces, are found in some burials and metarhyolite from South Mountain appears to have been a valuable trade commodity in Eastern

Pennsylvania (Custer 1996: 242). These trade networks were probably the result of the two major rivers that flow through the area, the Susquehanna River and Delaware River. The rivers connect Eastern Pennsylvania to the rest of the Middle Atlantic and served as a highway for the greater region. But, the elaborate trade networks established during this time, collapsed at the end of the Middle Woodland period, which is marked by the appearance of fully permanent villages and the introduction of maize agriculture (Custer

1996; McConaughy 2012).

Late Woodland

The Late Woodland period, which comprises the last portion of Indigenous Period in

Eastern Pennsylvania, started at 1000 BP and ended at European contact which was approximately 450 BP. It is represented in the archaeological record by the appearance of settled villages, agriculture, and distinctive regional ceramics (Custer 1996). The villages of this period were larger than previous times and are often found in fertile riverine settings.

Towards the end of the Late Woodland, many villages are found surrounded by post molds, which were possibly the result of stockades being constructed for protection (Custer 1996:

280-281; Stewart 1995: 194). There was a marked decrease in mobility closer to contact, probably in relationship to increases in agricultural production. It was during the Late

Woodland that maize, bean and squash agriculture first appeared in Eastern Pennsylvania based on evidence from refuse pits. Although mobility was decreased, small procurement camps are still found (Custer 1996; Stewart 1995). Many of these were located in rock shelters which were used most frequently at this time (Raber 2008; Raber 2010).

Changes in technology also appeared in the Late Woodland as the bow and arrow appeared, which would have helped increase hunting yields and practices. This change manifests itself in the archaeological record through projectile points, which are only triangular shaped, and core and flake based. High quality cryptocrystalline materials are also the most highly used lithic materials again (Custer 1996; Stewart 1995). In the Late

Woodland period, regionally distinctive traditions, in the form of pottery, also manifest themselves in the archaeological record. Two of these regional variations appear in the

Susquehanna River Valley and are thus of importance in studying the Camp Michaux Project

Area, the Clemson Island Culture and the Shenks Ferry Culture (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983).

The Clemson Island Culture appears in the archaeological record starting at around

1000 BP, largely in the Upper and Middle Susquehanna River drainages. This group followed similar settlement patterns to the rest of the Late Woodland period groups and is defined in archaeological contexts by its distinctive pottery found (Kinsey 1995; Stewart

1990). The ceramics as described by Stewart (1990) and Kinsey (1983) were decorated simply, with cord marking or fabric impression and incising a very rare occurrence. They

generally had round or conical bases and were tempered with shell and finely crushed rock grit. The most distinguishing feature of the Clemson Island Culture was that their pottery featured raised nodes or bosses around the lips and upper rims. This culture spanned a relatively short time frame as it ended around 700/800 BP (Stewart 1990). It was thought at one point that this group became the Shenks Ferry people, but that was likely not the case as they occupied different areas and did not overlap temporally (Custer 1996).

The Shenks Ferry Cultural tradition began in the lower Susquehanna River Drainage after 1000 BP and it was recently dated to 675 BP at the earliest (Custer 1996; Graybill and

Herbstritt 2014). The tradition has three distinct phases or periods based upon changes in ceramic decorations and styles. These are the Blue Rock phase (675- 600 BP); the Lancaster phase (600-500 BP) and the Funk phase (500-400 BP) (Graybill and Herbstritt 2014).

Pottery from all three phases is decorated by incising and cord marking and made using a finely crushed rock grit temper (Graybill and Herbstritt 2014; Kinsey 1983). The forms used vary over time but is sequenced by Graybill and Herbstritt (2014:32-33) as starting with low collars which were replaced by high collars, straight lip profiles being replaced by everted lips, notched replacing undecorated lips and eventually punctuated lips replacing all of the other lip forms. Shenks Ferry villages are described as planned agricultural villages, probably with multiple families living there, and other procurement settlements, often utilizing rock shelters, along streams. Toward the end of the Shenks Ferry culture, villages became stockade, likely with the arrival of the Susquehannock (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983; Raber

2008; Raber 2010).

Contact Period

The Contact period in Eastern Pennsylvania starts around 450 BP, when Europeans are thought to have first arrived in the area, and ends around 200 BP with the complete removal of the indigenous populations from the region (Custer 1996). Although this period is not a part of the Indigenous Period, I am including it because it explains why there is no historical documentation of the indigenous groups present in the Camp Michaux area during its historical occupation, as there is for other regions. For this time span, there are some ethnohistoric accounts of the Susquehannock but they are so fraught with biases that the best information comes from the archaeological record (Custer 1996). The Contact period is marked by drastic declines in population, from disease and European expansion, and definitive changes in the lifeways of the indigenous people. The dominant Native American group in Eastern Pennsylvania at European contact was the Susquehannock, who migrated into the Susquehanna Valley around 400 BP from what is now Southeastern New York State

(Custer 1996). The Susquehannock were an Iroquoian group who came to dominate the whole of Eastern Pennsylvania and forced out the former Shenks Ferry population (Graybill and Herbstritt 2014). For subsistence, this group relied on maize agriculture supplemented by a wide array of wild plants and animals. Villages in the Contact period were quite large in size and often heavily fortified. They were mostly located near large river ways, like the

Susquehanna River. Structures in villages were reminiscent of the Iroquois, including long houses up to 95 feet having been found in Susquehannock villages (Custer 1996). The

Susquehannock were able to thoroughly dominate Eastern Pennsylvania because of their fur trade with the European explorers and settlers. However, this power diminished by 275 BP

because the Susquehannock lost control with the expansion of European colonists and wars with the Iroquois tribes in New York over trade (Custer 1996).

Summary

The Indigenous Period of Eastern Pennsylvania, and thus the Camp Michaux Project

Area, spans a long period of time with many cultural changes manifesting themselves as time progressed. These cultural changes appear in distinctive ways in the archaeological record and have been summarized in Table 1.1. The diagnostic artifacts for each of these periods are helpful to archaeologists in determining the time periods in which an archaeological site was inhabited. Although this is very useful information, it does not inform us as to the most probable locations of archaeological sites or why these particular locations may have been inhabited during the Indigenous Period. For this, archaeological theory must be considered.

Theoretical Approaches to Site Prediction and Discovery

The prediction of archaeological site locations is an inexact science. Often archaeologists rely on their own experience and judgment to predict where they think a site might be (Baker and Jailett-Wentling 2013). As archaeology has developed as a discipline, archaeologists have taken different approaches to finding sites and explaining their patterning. In North American Archaeology, there have been three main theoretical trends that have shaped how archaeologists approached finding sites and explained their distribution on the landscape: Culture History, Processual and Post-Processual. In this chapter, I will review each of these approaches. I will also discuss a more recent approach that stems from processual archaeology, the landscape perspective, as this closely aligns with my own approach to site prediction at Camp Michaux. Lastly, I will discuss how Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) are used by archaeologists to create probability models for site

locations. Although GIS is a tool for archaeologists and thus more of a methodology, I am discussing it here because how an archaeologist uses it is influenced by their theoretical approach (Kvamme 2006).

Describing the Cultural History of North America

The earliest North American archaeologists primarily sought to answer questions about where people were, when they were there and what cultural group they belonged to

(Binford 1962). They were focused on delineating and describing general cultural areas and their cultural history. The descriptions created by these archaeologists are still used today, primarily the general time periods, diagnostic artifacts and site types, as evidenced by my research above for Eastern Pennsylvania (Griffin 1964). To generate these descriptions, fieldwork was often focused on finding the highest quantities of artifacts at a given site and excavating there. Archaeologists of this time would focus their efforts on the most visible sites, such as mounds, or rely on local people telling them about sites. In other words, they were opportunistic in finding locations to excavate (Binford 1972). Thus, one major problem emerged with the way these archaeologist approached their work; it was not useful in predicting where sites would be or explaining why sites were in particular locations. Cultural historians at most would describe where sites were located physiographically but did not give anything beyond this general description. These issues led to the emergence of a new archaeological theory in the 1960s (Binford 1962).

The Environment and Systems Theory in Site Prediction and Discovery

Lewis Binford outlined the goals of processual or “new” archaeology in his essay

“Archaeology as Anthropology” (1962). In it, Binford advocated archaeologists take a more scientific approach to archaeology. Processual archaeologists believed that by doing this, the

archaeological record, including the reasons why people occupied certain areas of the landscape, could be fully explained (Binford 1962; Hurst Thomas 1973). One way processualists tried to achieve this was focusing on the role the environment played in forming the archaeological record. Because they viewed human culture as an “extra-somatic means of adaptation” to the environment, those following this theory saw the environment as determining where sites were located on the landscape and therefore where they were most likely to find new sites (Binford 1962: 218). They theorized that sites would be found where environmental factors, such as soil quality, were most desirable (Binford 1972; Hurst

Thomas 1973).

Another approach that “new” archaeologists brought into the field of archaeology was systems theory. Archaeologists used systems theory as a way of trying to understand and predict the process that formed the archaeological record and where to find new sites. They viewed all aspects of human culture as part of a larger system dominated by the environment, which created the archaeological record (Hurst Thomas 1973; Salmon 1978). Processualists often generated models to simplify the systems that caused what they observed in the archaeological record. Archaeologists created them by theorizing about what might have led to the formation of the archaeological record in a particular locale, or by using ethnographic studies or previously studied sites. Models broke down an aspect of human culture into its component parts and studied its relationship to the other components in the system.

Archaeologists would then use their models to explain or simulate how cultural practices interacted with the environment and adjusted to environmental change to form sites (Hurst

Thomas 1973; Lake 2014). Because models were used to predict probable site locations based on environmental factors deemed important or influential, they were most helpful

during the initial phases of research. All models required fieldwork to test their efficacy

(Hurst Thomas 1973; Moran 2002; Lake 2014).

David Hurst Thomas’ (1973) study testing Julian Steward’s Western Shoshone

Subsistence strategies is helpful in illustrating how processual archaeologists used both environmental factors and systems theory in predicting site location and distribution. Hurst

Thomas (1973) took Steward’s ethnographic description of subsistence strategy and broke it down into its component parts. He then integrated them into a model showing relationships and decision points throughout the year. Using his model, he then simulated a year one thousand times changing only environmental factors to predict how and where the archaeological record would form in a given year (Hurst Thomas 1973). Through fieldwork testing, Hurst Thomas (1973) was able to show the accuracy of his model, which confirmed to him the role the environment played in shaping the archaeological record.

Human Agency and Cultural Site Distribution

Many critiques have been put forth in response to processual archaeology, with a particular emphasis on explanations for the distribution of archaeological sites and the human behavior that produces these patterns. Ian Hodder (1985) was the leader of this new movement called post-processual archaeology. Post-processualists criticized the processual approach’s focus on systems and the environment as ignoring meaning in culture and being overly deterministic (Hodder 1985). Instead, they sought to humanize the archaeological record in part by advocating for human agency and culture as the shapers of the landscape and archaeological site distribution (Hodder 1985).

This fundamentally different view of the landscape and archaeological locations on it can reveal important aspects of the area being studied. Post-processualists examined how

cultural factors, such as long engrained traditions or religion, and individual actions shaped the formation of sites (Hodder 1985). A good example of how this view can reveal more about archaeological site distribution comes from Robin Torrence (2002) in her study of sites on Garua Island, Papua New Guinea. Previously, archaeologists believed sites in the Papua

New Guinea region consisted only of sedentary agricultural villages on island coastlines.

Torrence (2002) argues that this erroneously focuses just on subsistence strategies and ignores the possibility for other types of sites and supports studying the islands with what she calls a cultural landscape approach. Through the course of her study, Torrence (2002) revealed that there were sites on Garua Island away from the coast that could only have been predicted by viewing the landscape as the result of individual actions and cultural processes outside of subsistence strategies.

Although post-processual archaeologists, like Torrence (2002), are not reliant on models for how they consider possible site locations, it does not mean that they do not use them (Lake 2014). Post-processual archaeology can be useful in creating models that assess probable site locations on the landscape. As I will discuss below, with changes in modern modeling and prediction tools such as GIS, the use of post-processual ideas about how and why people occupied the landscape is likely to become both more common and effective for locating sites (Dore and Wandsnider 2006).

Processual Landscape Perspective

Since the heyday of processual archaeology, slightly different approaches in interpreting patterns in the archaeological record have arisen in response to critiques of environmental determinism. One of these is the landscape perspective, presented by

Rossignol (1992), which defines the landscape and elements of it as a determining factor in

shaping the distribution of archaeological artifacts and features. This perspective acknowledges that there are cultural factors that determine the location of sites on a landscape but does not focus on these when examining site distribution patterns. Landscape perspective archaeologists instead focus on environmental factors, as they believe these to be more important in creating site distribution patterns (Rossignol 1992: 4-11). The elements of the landscape deemed most important in impacting the formation of the archaeological record are the physiographical properties of the land and environment such as soils, water and subsistence resources. The landscape perspective is also regional in that it seeks to show that regional geology and ecology are influential factors of how archaeological sites are distributed (Rossignol 1992).

It is this perspective that has been the most informative in the methods I have used in my prediction that there will be a site in the Camp Michaux Project Area. The development of computer software programs known as GIS, has aided archaeologists in modeling the environment, site distribution patterns, and predicting probable site locations.

Geographic Information Systems: Integrating Models and the Environment

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computer software tool that facilitates

“the collection, maintenance, storage, analysis, output, and distribution of spatial data and information (Bolstad 2012:1).” GIS is a powerful tool that has changed how archaeologists both study sites and predict and discover probable site locations. Archaeologists can use a

GIS to model the probability of finding a site in a given location by using the relevant available data and inductive reasoning, (Baker and Jailett-Wentling 2013). Using a GIS model to predict where archaeological sites may be is useful particularly in Cultural

Resource Management (CRM) work over a larger area as it is cost effective and efficient at

communicating with non-archaeologists (Wescott 2006). These models are heavily influenced by environmental factors when determining the likelihood of a site. Data on these factors are gathered by examining databases of known archaeological sites from a given period and the environment that surrounds them (Lock and Harris 2006). Relevant environmental data generally includes slope, elevation above sea level, local relief, distance to a water source, soil fertility, and geology (Kvamme 2006: 8; Lock and Harris 2006:49).

These will vary by area, but can provide an idea of the general environmental and physiographical settings of archaeological sites regionally for the area of interest. From here, a model can be designed, using GIS software and the data gathered on the environmental parameters of known archaeological sites in a region, to give the probability of site being present in an unstudied area based on these same environmental parameters. Due to limitations with current techniques and the software available, these probabilities are usually a ranking from low to high of a site being present (Kvamme 2006:18; Lock and Harris

2006:48-49).

GIS models also face similar limitations to early processual models in that they do not account for the cultural reasons a site could be present. This can be amended if the distribution of culturally important sites, such monumental architecture or ceremonial sites, is considered, which can be added to the models as either a repellant of settlement or an attractor. But models using cultural factors such as monumental architecture are largely hypothetical and untested, thus their efficacy is still largely unknown to archaeologists in

North America (Lock and Harris 2006; Dore and Wandsnider 2006). Another consideration often ignored when using GIS in model building, is a small sample size to draw data from due to few documented sites in the region being studied. This does not mean that models are

ineffective or useless in predicting site locations, it is just important to remember that correlation does not mean causation (Dore and Wandsnider 2006).

Summary

Theoretical approaches to archaeological site distribution and prediction have varied throughout time and influenced how archaeologists conduct their research. My own approach has most closely followed the landscape perspective I discussed above. As I will discuss in my methods, I have relied on natural resources found in the Camp Michaux Project

Area to predict that a site will be present and where it is most probably located. Although I would have liked to consider cultural factors when predicting site locations, there is little information about this for sites in the region so I could not incorporate them in my model.

Because I will be using the natural resources of the project area in predicting possible site locations, it is important for me to discuss what these resources are first, before discussing my methods for site prediction.

Resources of The Camp Michaux Project Area

Based on the ideas that I have established in the previous chapter, I believe that it is important to discuss the different environmental resources that would have been available to any indigenous occupants of the Camp Michaux Project Area. These include the various successions of flora and fauna that inhabited the area as glaciers retreated and the climate changed. The geology of the area is also important because many archaeologists have hypothesized that sources of lithic materials, for the production of stone tools, were some of the most important resources for indigenous groups (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1983). Also of importance, in terms of predicting sites for the Indigenous Period, are the hydrology of the

region, meaning in this case the nearest source of fresh potable water, and the soils that comprise the site (Kvamme 2006; Lock and Harris 2006).

Environmental Reconstructions: Flora and Fauna

The flora and fauna of the South Mountain area were highly variable throughout the

Indigenous Period and evolved over time due to the receding glaciers and other changes in climate. For this reason, I believe that it is best to cover these resources in terms of what would have been available to the indigenous occupants of the area at different time periods.

As there is limited environmental reconstruction data for South Mountain and Eastern

Pennsylvania, these trends will be looked at more for the Middle Atlantic region as a whole

(Custer 1996).

The initial occupation of the area by humans occurred during the late Pleistocene, as already established. The late Pleistocene, starting around 14,000 BP, was the last period during which the Laurentide Ice Sheet had any effect on the climate of the Middle Atlantic

Region due to its southernmost point at the headwaters of the Delaware River in modern day

New York State. At this time the pollen record shows that there was a mix of different plant biomes in Eastern Pennsylvania with large cool and mixed coniferous forests dominating the landscape, interspersed with open grassland in some areas. There were also some deciduous forests along the streams, rivers, and wetlands of the area (Custer 1996; Williams et al. 2000;

Williams et al. 2004). In the late Pleistocene, the fauna in the region was highly varied with a large number of species being found. There is, as previously mentioned, no evidence that

Pleistocene megafauna were still roaming Eastern Pennsylvania by the time humans reached the area (Custer 1996).

The Holocene period started at around 11,500 BP and brought with it many changes in the environment of the region that would become more pronounced through time

(Williams et al. 2004). In the early Holocene, which coincides with the end of the

Paleoindian period and the entirety of the Early Archaic period, there was a reduction in the expanses of grassland in the region and mixed coniferous forests became more prevalent. In particular, it appears, through the pollen record, that there was a large increase in the distribution of species of the genus Pinus (pine trees). The fauna at this time was probably relatively similar to the late Pleistocene (Custer 1996; Williams et al. 2004).

The Middle Holocene saw changes in biomes and climate that brought Eastern

Pennsylvania closer to the modern environment. At this time, conditions became very wet and warm when compared to the late Pleistocene and early Holocene, and also to today. The

Laurentide Ice Sheet had lost all influence climatically over the region by this point and there were marked seasonal differences in terms of temperature and precipitation, like the modern climate (Custer 1996). As a result of this warming trend and modern climactic appearance, the flora and fauna of the region looked very similar to how they do today. Forests became more productive at this time as mixed deciduous hardwood forests moved into the region.

These forests were initially dominated by hemlock and succeeded by oak, which saw a major increase in distribution sometime between 7000 and 5000 BP. During this time South

Mountain probably saw more hemlock than oak, as hemlock preferred areas with a steeper and more rugged topography and oak areas of a lower relief (Custer 1996; Williams et al.

2000; Williams et al. 2004). These nut producing trees were more productive than the previous coniferous forests, which probably attracted more game animals to the area in

distributions that would be considered more modern (Custer 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt

2004).

After this warm wet period, which has been dubbed by some the Holocene Climactic

Optimum, the climate became much drier with clear changes in local rainfall patterns, as there were periods of both wet and dry conditions (Delcourt and Delcourt 2004). At this time highly productive mast nut bearing trees, such as walnut and hickory, came to dominate the local forests forcing out hemlock and reducing quantities of oak (Custer 1996; Williams et al.

2004). These tree nuts were highly productive and could be stored for upwards of three years after seasons with good harvests, which could be up to 1,900,000 kilograms of acorns and

236,000 kilograms of hickory nuts in a watershed with a ten kilometer radius (Delcourt and

Delcourt 2004: 69). In addition to providing a substantial and consistent food resource to the people in the area, the mast nuts were also valuable in their ability to attract large numbers of game animals, such as deer and squirrel, into the area. Also at this time, plants that would become domesticated in the Eastern Agricultural Complex, such as amaranth and chenopodium, probably occurred in heavily disturbed areas, such as near rivers and streams

(Custer 1996).

The last period of environmental change in the area in terms of flora and fauna types and distribution was when the environment became fully modern which is estimated to have occurred around 2500 BP (Custer 1996; Williams et al. 2000; Williams et al. 2004). Our modern environment in the Middle Atlantic Region is comprised of cool or temperate mixed forests. Forests in the region during the Indigenous Period were dominated by oak and chestnut but there was a large variety of nut producing tree species present. Individual species distribution was based on favorable conditions for individual species such as soil,

slope and sunlight. In the Blue Ridge physiographic province of Eastern Pennsylvania, chestnut, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, scrubs, pitch pine, hemlock, sugar maples, white oak,

Northern Red oak and pawpaw were all present. Evidence for these trees comes from both the pollen record and European witness accounts of tree species in the 17th century. The trees of the region were all highly productive food sources with the various fruits and nuts that they produced (Custer 1996: 232-234; Delcourt and Delcourt 2004: 70). Also of use to indigenous occupants of the region as a food source were amaranth and chenopods such as goosefoot (Custer 1996; Delcourt and Delcourt 2004). A wide range of animals were also available for hunting and trapping at this time including deer, turkeys, small game such as squirrel and rabbits, and waterfowl. There is evidence that the indigenous occupants of

Eastern Pennsylvania hunted all of these (Custer 1996).

Geology

Figure 4.1 Geological Map of Camp Michaux Project Area (Source: James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College)

The most important geological feature (Figure 4.1) in the Camp Michaux Project

Area, and the one that underlies most of the site except in the higher elevations, is the

Catoctin metarhyolite formation of the Appalachian Mountains’ Blue Ridge Province. The metarhyolite formation is a part of the larger Catoctin formation of metamorphosed rocks in the Appalachian Mountains (Stewart 1984a). The distribution of this lithic material is over a very small range in Maryland and Pennsylvania running only thirty linear miles across the two states ending on South Mountain (Stewart 1984b:14). Metarhyolite originated as a volcanic rock and thus exhibits some features of that, including exhibiting a flow structure and possibly containing multicolor phenocrysts from quartz or feldspar. Other properties of the stone are that it is hard and tends to break with a conchoidal fracture (Stewart 1984a: 2).

Metarhyolite has been divided by archaeologists and geologists into ten different types, five of which were useful for lithic production and are found in archaeological sites. These five types are uniformly aphantic blue, porphyritic blue, flow banded blue, red or lavender, and mottled metarhyolite. Each of these types are found in Pennsylvania with mottled only found here (Stewart 1984a: 4).

Metarhyolite was a useful resource for the indigenous inhabitants of the area even though it was also tough stone to work and flakes are harder to detach from the core than other lithic materials. Fractures occur in broader cones than other materials which meant the knappers had to strike at a more oblique angle on platforms. The quality of the stone for lithic tool production varies by the outcrop which led to selective quarrying to find the best materials (Stewart 1984a: 5-6). An example of this is with the Carbaugh Run Metarhyolite

Quarries on South Mountain where numerous quarry pits were excavated by indigenous occupants to access the best materials and often ignored outcrops. A total of seventeen quarry

sites and quarry related sites have been found on South Mountain (Carr et al. 2001). The limited distribution of metarhyolite is useful because it can help identify both time period of a site and trade as it is often found far from the source (Custer 1996). The material was used heavily in lithic production and was favored over other similar materials starting in the Early

Archaic period and extending until the Late Woodland. The most intensive time period for quarrying of metarhyolite on South Mountain appears to be in the Late Archaic which is when a majority of the quarry pits from the Carbaugh Run sites are dated to (Carr et al. 2001;

Custer 1996; Stewart 1984a).

Hydrology

Figure 4.2 Course of Tom’s Run through the Camp Michaux Project Area (Source: James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College) The main source of fresh water in the Camp Michaux Project Area is Tom’s Run

(Figure 4.2), the stream that runs through the site. Tom’s Run is a low order or small stream according to the Strahler Classification system. It is probably a 1 Order stream, meaning that it forms the headwaters for a larger body, but that is hard to classify exactly (Dodds 2002).

Tom’s Run could also be classified as a temperate forest stream based upon the vegetation that surrounds it (Dodds 2002). The stream is important because it is the primary freshwater source for the Camp Michaux Project Area. Freshwater was an important resource for the indigenous inhabitants of Eastern Pennsylvania as previously stated. Tom’s Run is also important for the depositional environment it provides. It deposits nutrient rich soil in the areas surrounding it, providing valuable resources, both now and during the Indigenous

Period, in terms of plant food and the animals these would attract (Custer 1996; Dodds

2002).

Soils

Figure 4.3 Map of Soils in Camp Michaux Project Area (Source: James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College)

The soil quality of the Camp Michaux Project area is highly variable with most of the site being soil that is classified as poor for farming. Importantly, there are three areas that are considered either farmland of statewide importance or where all areas are prime farmland

(Figure 4.3). All areas are prime farmland is the highest designation given in soil certification in terms of soil productivity as established by Congress. Prime farmland has

“the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing” crops of high economic value (USDA 2015). These lands contain soils of the top quality and can produce sustained high yields with proper farming methods. The designation farmland of statewide importance means that the land has been determined to be of importance to the state for the productions of crops. These lands are almost considered prime farmland and still produce crops of a high economic yield with the potential to approach the same production as prime farmland given favorable conditions (USDA 2015).

One soil in the Camp Michaux Project Area is designated as an area of prime farmland. The area comprised of Glenville Silt Loam with a three to eight percent slope

(GnB in Figure 4.3). This area is located just north of Tom’s Run and just south east of the old farmhouse (will insert figure). Glenville Silt Loam falls into the Glenville series of soils which are deep soils (bedrock is greater than 152.4 centimeters deep) in reasonably well drained to moderately poorly drained areas. They are created from residuum or colluvium that is altered by weathering from certain rocks such as schist and gneiss (USDA 2008).

The two soils that comprise the areas of statewide importance are Highfield channery silt loam with an eight to fifteen percent slope (HgC in Figure 4.3), which is located underneath the area that comprised the old farmhouse and barn, and Atkins Silt Loam (Aw in

Figure 4.3), which is found in the areas immediately adjacent both north and south of Tom’s

Run throughout the entire Camp Michaux Project Area. Highfield channery silt loam falls within the Highfield series of soils. These soils are of a similar depth to the Glenville series of soils; however, they are drained much better than the previous series. Highfield soils are generally formed in areas of weathered metamorphosed rocks, in this case it would be the metarhyolite that underlies South Mountain (USDA 2006). Atkins Silt Loam soils, which

surround Tom’s Run, are a part of the Atkins series of soils. Atkins series soils are very deep soils that tend to form around streams and rivers in more upland settings. These soils do not drain well and are formed from alluvium that is more acidic because the upland soil is formed by eroding shale and sandstone (USDA 2005).

Methodology

I employed a wide variety of techniques to look for evidence of an indigenous occupation in the Camp Michaux Project Area. Before fieldwork was even conducted, I used

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) databases and models in order to try to predict the most likely locations of Indigenous Period sites in the project area. The initial GIS database used was created by James Ciarrocca of Dickinson College specifically for Camp Michaux. I also used the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s CRGIS database after field work had been conducted to create a model showing probable site locations in the Camp Michaux Project

Area.

The fieldwork consisted of two different strategies to locate sites: pedestrian survey and shovel test pit survey. I employed both of these surveying techniques using a combination of purposive and probabilistic sampling strategies (Stewart 2002). Purposive sampling involves selecting locations for survey based on intuition or knowledge of the site using subjective and not statistical techniques (Stewart 2002, 44). Probabilistic sampling is the opposite as it employs statistics and probabilities in determining which areas to survey.

Using this approach, sites are often surveyed randomly or after being broken up into different areas based on factors such as environment, called stratification (Stewart 2002, 44).

Although I employed GIS, pedestrian survey and test pit excavation at different each one was

important in determining if there was an indigenous occupation at the Camp Michaux Project

Area.

Geographic Information Systems

Throughout the whole time I was conducting research, I used GIS in some capacity.

For the purposes of this study, two different GIS databases were used. The first database was created by James Ciarrocca the GIS Specialist at Dickinson College and was designed specifically for the Camp Michaux Archaeological Project. The database contained a multitude of layers gathered from online resources available to the public for no charge and run by government institutions like the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Pennsylvania

Spatial Data Access (PASDA). One of the important layers in my model was hydrology

(Figure 4.2), which shows the course of Tom’s Run, the main water source, through the area.

Another important layer was the geology layer (Figure 4.1), which is useful in showing what bedrock formations underlie the project area and where they are. I also used the soil layers

(Figure 4.3), which mapped where different soils were on the landscape and described their attributes. Mr. Ciarrocca created other layers specifically for the Camp Michaux Project

Area, these included the slope layer (Figure 5.1), which is a topographic map showing the percentage of slope throughout the site. The project grid (Figure 1.2) was also created by

Mr. Ciarrocca. I first used this database as a part of the Archaeological Method and Theory course in Spring 2013. We utilized the database to select quadrants for survey by assessing the natural resources in the area and determine which areas we felt had the highest probability of containing an indigenous occupation.

The second database I utilized was Pennsylvania’s Cultural Resources Geographic

Information System (CGRIS) maintained by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission. This resource is a compilation of the historic and archaeological sites in the

Figure 5.1 Slope Map of Camp Michaux Project Area, green areas are between 0% and 8% slope, yellow between 8% and 25% slope, and red is any slope greater than 25% (Source: James Ciarrocca, Dickinson College)

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania designed for archaeologists and other historical professionals. I was most interested in this database for the information it provided about the archaeological sites in the South Mountain area, which included site location, soil types, geology and distance to water. In order to use this resource and gather the data I needed on specific sites, I first had to apply for access to justify why I required this information and needed a letter of support from Dr. Maria Bruno. I required access to this in order to create a probability model for the Camp Michaux Project Area determining which areas of the site have the highest probability of containing a site from the Indigenous Period. After I gained access to this resource I found all of the sites from the South Mountain area and created a table summarizing information mentioned above. I then took this information a created a model based on their perceived importance using the analytical and modeling tools in the

ArcGIS software from Dickinson College. I then applied this model it to the project area to

produce a map showing which areas had the highest and lowest probability of holding a site, ranked ordinally (high, medium and low).

Pedestrian Survey

Pedestrian survey is a systematic approach to studying an archaeological site and is generally the first step in any archaeological survey of an area whether the presence of a site is known or not (Stewart 2002: 205). It involves members of the project crossing the area of interest in regularly spaced parallel lines and making note about the locations of artifacts discovered or observations about phenomena that may be further studied later. The purpose behind a surface survey is to look for artifacts in areas where the surface is exposed due to a number of factors including erosion or plowing (Stewart 2002).

Figure 5.2 Map Showing Quadrants Surface Surveyed- Grey is Spring 2013 quadrants, Red is Spring 2014

At the site, the first fieldwork I conducted was in conjunction with the Archaeological

Method and Theory classes in the Spring semesters of 2013 and 2014 and consisted of

pedestrian or surface survey. In our pedestrian survey, we kept a spacing of ten meters between crew members at all times and also utilized compasses to maintain our bearing and keep us in a straight line. The dates of pedestrian survey in the Spring 2013 semester for the

Camp Michaux Project Area were Wednesday March 20, 2013, Wednesday April 3, 2013, and Saturday April 20, 2013. On the first and second day of fieldwork, four quadrants were surveyed, E0700N0400, E0800N0400, E0800N0500, and E0900N0400 (Figure 5.2 grey quadrants). On Saturday April 20, 2013 a total of six quadrants were surveyed, three by the group interested in the indigenous time period, of which I was a part, and three by the group interested in the farm house period of the site. These quadrants were E0300N0100,

E0300N0200, E0300N0300, E1000N0400, E1100N0400, E1100N0500 (Figure 5.2 grey quadrants). In the Spring 2014 semester, I conducted further pedestrian survey in search of evidence for an indigenous occupation of the Camp Michaux Project Area. A total of only four quadrants were surveyed during this semester due to a number of factors including a smaller class size for the Archaeology Method and Theory Class. The quadrants were all surveyed on Saturday, April 19, 2014. The four quadrants that we surveyed were

E0200N0400, E0300N0400, E0400N0400, E0500N0400 on the local grid (Figure 5.2 red quadrants).

In the process of our pedestrian survey, artifacts were collected. Before collecting them, per Stewart (2002: 216-217), the artifact locations were marked with brightly colored flagging tape or flags on a wire to remember their location and provenance. Once the artifacts were collected, they were placed in a bag and recorded with the date, location and type of artifact recovered. They were then transported back to the Dickinson Environmental

Archaeology Lab to be cleaned and analyzed at a later date.

Shovel Test Pit Survey

In addition to pedestrian survey, as with many initial archaeological projects, a subsurface survey using shovel test pits was conducted in the Camp Michaux Project Area.

I excavated the shovel test pits with Victoria Cacchione (a fellow senior archaeology major writing her thesis on the farmhouse), Dr. Bruno and a group of volunteers. All of the test pits, but one, were excavated in the Fall 2014 semester with the first being excavated as a demonstration in Spring 2014. Victoria and I determined the locations of the test pits in a meeting with Dr. Bruno based on our respective research questions. Our strategy here was a purposive sampling technique. We chose a 100 meter by 100 meter area (Figure 5.3) surrounding the farm house and barn wall of the site to place our shovel test pits as this aligned with where Victoria was interested in investigating and because of its proximity to the test pit from the year before.

The test pits excavated were circular with a diameter of 50 centimeters, which we measured out before starting the pits. We excavated following stratigraphic changes in the soil but removed no more than five centimeters at a time due to the shallow depths of the individual soil layers. Depth of the pits varied from 13 centimeters below ground surface

(cmbgs) to 40 cmbgs based on different factors for the individual pits. In general we tried to dig until we reached the sandy clay like C-Horizon, or third soil layer, as we knew this would be sterile. But if the B-Horizon (second soil layer) was particularly deep, we excavated until we had gone through ten centimeters of sterile (artifact free) soil. In order to determine if there were artifacts in the test pits we shoveled the soil into buckets and then sifted it using quarter inch (1/4”) screens to separate the artifacts from the dirt.

Figure 5.3 The 100 meter by 100 meter area surveyed with shovel test pits (Green=Excavated, Red=unexcavated)

The test pits were all documented on a Shovel Test Pit form (Appendix) for the site on which we recorded the test pit number and location, who excavated it, general observations about the location of the pit, the types and quantities of artifacts recovered, the depth of each pit and the Munsell soil color for each of the different horizons. We also photographed each of the test pits. We took these photos with a photo board containing

information about the test pit including the test pit number, location, date, and an arrow denoting north.

All artifacts we recovered via screening were placed in a paper bag on which we recorded the provenience data, which included the site name, the test pit number, the date it was recovered, the horizon it was found in, the initials of the excavators and the type of artifact it was (lithic, ceramic, metal, etc.). The artifacts were then transported back to the

Dickinson Environmental Archaeology Lab for later cleaning and analysis.

Artifact Processing

Once back in the lab, all of the artifacts recovered through both pedestrian survey and shovel test pit surveying went through a similar cleaning and cataloguing process shortly after they were recovered. The artifacts were first cleaned using water and toothbrushes to remove any dirt possible without damaging them. Metal artifacts were cleaned only with a dry tooth brush to avoid damage. They were then dried and sorted based on where they were recovered and the artifact type. The artifacts were also catalogued in the Dickinson College

Archaeology server with relevant data, which included the included artifact type, the quantity of each type collected, the number of the shovel test pit or location found while using pedestrian survey, the date, stratum if applicable, and bag number. This information was also recorded on an index card which went into a clear plastic bag with the artifacts. Everything was then stored in the Dickinson Environmental Archaeology Lab for later analysis.

Analysis of Lithic Artifacts

Any potential lithic artifacts that I recovered at the site were analyzed separately from the Historical Period artifacts recovered, which were studied by Victoria. After being cleaned, the potential lithic artifacts were examined for any evidence of having been shaped

or worked by humans. I then had any lithic artifacts that I thought were created during the

Indigenous Period confirmed or denied by Doug McLearan of the Pennsylvania Bureau for

Historic Preservation. Any confirmed artifacts were then drawn using drawing techniques from (Burke et al. 323-324) and accurately measured using calipers.

Results

In the following chapter I will discuss the results of the fieldwork I conducted over the three semesters covered above. Firstly, I will review the results of my GIS probability model, including what it reveals about the probability of different areas containing an

Indigenous Period site. Then I will briefly discuss the results of the pedestrian survey conducted over the Spring 2013 and 2014 semesters, however, this survey technique did not provide much information. I will then talk about the shovel test pit surveying and the artifacts that were recovered from those test pits. In regards to this, I will discuss the stratigraphy of our shovel test pits and the presence or absence of potential Indigenous Period artifacts. The artifacts potentially originating from an indigenous occupation were all lithics and I have since confirmed or rejected these as artifacts through outside consultation. Lastly,

I will discuss the details of any confirmed artifacts that were recovered.

GIS

In order to predict which areas of the Camp Michaux Project Area would have the highest probability of containing an Indigenous Period site, I built and ran a GIS probability model, as discussed above. After running the model, for purposes of clarity when displayed,

I ranked the probabilities of holding a site ordinally in three categories highest, medium or lowest probability (Figure 6.1). The red shaded portions of the project area have the lowest probability of containing a site. If these areas were excavated, I would expect that no

Indigenous Period sites would be recovered. Due to unfavorable slope, geological formations, soils, distance from water or any combination of those factors, these low probability zones are dissimilar to the environments of sites in the South Mountain Area. The yellow shaded portions of Figure 6.1 have neither a high nor low probability of having been occupied by indigenous people. I would not be surprised if an Indigenous Period site was recovered from these areas but the opposite is also true. The yellow portions have a few similar environmental factors to sites in the area but not a large number of them. The areas that I believe are most likely to contain archaeological evidence of an indigenous occupation if excavated are green in Figure 6.1. Sites from the South Mountain area are very similar to the green areas in terms of environmental factors.

Figure 6.1- Map showing probability of Indigenous Period Sites based upon GIS analysis. (Red=low, yellow=midlevel, green=high)

Pedestrian Survey

Quadrants Year Quadrants Year Quadrants Year Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed E0700N0400 2013 E0300N0200 2013 E0200N0400 2014 E0800N0400 2013 E0300N0300 2013 E0300N0400 2014

E0800N0500 2013 E1000N0400 2013 E0400N0400 2014 E0900N0400 2013 E1100N0400 2013 E0500N0400 2014 E0300N0100 2013 E1100N0500 2013

Table 6.1 Summary of Quadrants surveyed and year surveyed Table 6.1 and Figure 5.2 summarize and display the quadrants that were a part of our

pedestrian surveying and the year in which they were surveyed. Unfortunately, no artifacts

from the Indigenous Period were recovered during this stage of our field work.

Shovel Test Pit Survey

Shovel Test Pit # Artifacts Recovered? Time Period T1 Yes Historic and Indigenous T2 No ------T3 Yes Historic T4 Yes Historic T5 Unexcavated ------T6 Unexcavated ------T7 Unexcavated ------T8 Unexcavated ------T9 Unexcavated ------T10 Unexcavated ------T11 Unexcavated ------T12 Yes Historic T13 Yes Historic T14 Yes Historic T15 Yes Historic T16 Yes Historic T17 Yes Historic T18 Yes Historic T19 Yes Historic T20 Yes Historic and Indigenous Table 6.2 Summary of Shovel Test Pits Excavated

Due to the lack of evidence gathered from the pedestrian survey it was determined that any artifacts potentially within the boundaries of the Camp Michaux Project Area from the Indigenous Period were probably buried. In order to test this, a series of shovel test pits were excavated based on a purposive sampling technique (Stewart 2002, 44). In total we had planned to excavate around 20 shovel test pits, but unfortunately, only 13 were excavated

(Table 6.2).

Excavations/Strata

In the process of our shovel test pit excavations we recorded information pertaining to the stratigraphic layers of the site. The general stratigraphy of the site is as follows. The topmost layer of soil, the A-Horizon, for the site was an organic dark brown soil ranging from 3 to 23 centimeters in depth. The B-Horizon followed the A-Horizon was a light brown soil that ranged in depth from 7 centimeters in depth to 20 centimeters in our shovel test pits.

The B-Horizon was followed by an even lighter almost gray C-Horizon, however, this was not excavated so I cannot discuss its depth.

Artifacts were recovered almost exclusively from the A-Horizon. This includes the potential lithic artifacts that we recovered from the different test pits. Within the context of the A-Horizon, these lithic artifacts were found below or in situ with the historical artifacts.

In certain test pits, artifacts from the Historic Period were recovered in the B-Horizon, but these were pits that were incredibly dense in artifacts, which likely explains this result.

Artifacts

In total we recovered six potential lithic artifacts originating from an indigenous occupation in the Camp Michaux Project Area. One of these was recovered in the first shovel test pit excavated, T1, during the demonstration in Spring 2014. We recovered a

potential lithic projectile point from T4. Another four potential lithics were recovered in

T20, the test pit closest to T1 (see Figure 5.3).

In order to confirm whether or not these lithics did originate from the Indigenous

Period, I consulted with Doug McLearan of the Pennsylvania Bureau for Historic

Preservation. He was able to confirm two of our artifacts as flakes from this time period after examining all of them. The two artifacts determined to have originated from my time period of interest were the one flake from T1 and one of the four flakes from T20. Unfortunately, the lithic we recovered from T4 and thought to be a projectile point was not as the source material would have been unworkable.

Both of the flakes recovered from the Camp Michaux Project Area were likely debitage left behind from lithic reduction. Based on the clear striking platforms on the base of the flakes, the artifacts recovered from T1 and T20 (Figure 6.2) were definitely the result

Figures 6.2 (left) & 6.3 (right) Photograph and drawings of flakes (T1 Flake on left, T20 on Right) of human processes. The first lithic excavated, from T1, measures approximately 21 millimeters at its longest and 11.5 millimeters at its widest. The source material for the flake is an unknown type of metarhyolite. The flake from T20 measures approximately 27 millimeters in length and approximately 13 millimeters at its widest. The source material for

the lithic is an unknown type of metarhyolite likely of the same type as the lithic identified the previous year. The test pit this lithic was recovered from (T20) was placed based on its proximity to the test pit from the year before as they were less than fifteen meters apart.

Discussion and Conclusion

The question that has guided my examination of the Camp Michaux Project Area was whether or not there had been an indigenous occupation in this area. I believed that, based upon the research I had conducted with regards to the cultural history of Eastern

Pennsylvania, the resources available within the project area and the GIS model that I ran, I would find evidence for a site. Based upon my results from fieldwork I believe that I can safely answer that question and draw a few other conclusions about the site through the flakes I discussed in my results chapter. However, finding this new site only seems to raise more questions in my mind than it answers. In this chapter, I will discuss what some of these questions are and, based upon my background research, possible answers to them. I will also address where I feel future research into the Indigenous Period of the Camp Michaux Project

Area should go, as I feel there is still much work to be done in discovering the past of this area.

Interpreting Results

Although the field work I conducted revealed little in the way of artifacts from the

Indigenous Period, the two lithic artifacts that were recovered can tell us some about this time in the Camp Michaux Project Area. The Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey

(PASS) site identification criteria, written by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission (PHMC) (2013), defines what is to be considered an archaeological site for various time periods in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For the Indigenous Period,

there are five different definitions of what can comprise a site. One of these criteria is as follows, “Two or more flakes and/or other culturally modified items in adjacent shovel tests spaced no more than 15 M apart represent a site (PHMC 2013).” Based upon this definition, the two flakes that I have found in the Camp Michaux Project Area would be considered an

Indigenous Period site as they were recovered from adjacent test pits well within 15 meters of each other.

The two lithic artifacts recovered from the site are also important because they reveal much about the site’s potential to hold further evidence of an indigenous occupation. The flakes were recovered from two test pits dug at the site out of a total of thirteen excavated.

Although I would not expect two out of every thirteen pits excavated in the future to hold flakes, as this would require the site to have a very high concentration of artifacts, it is still promising for any future investigations into the Camp Michaux Project Area. A large portion of the site has yet to be surveyed using subsurface methods. Based on the results I have found so far, it is reasonable to assume that more Indigenous Period artifacts will be recovered in some of the shovel test pits excavated in the future.

I also believe that is important to note that any future artifacts from the Indigenous

Period found in the Camp Michaux Project Area are likely to be recovered via subsurface survey or excavation. It was not surprising at all to me that our pedestrian survey did not recover any artifacts from this time for a number of reasons, the first partly being where we were looking. Unfortunately, I conducted my GIS modeling after the field seasons which led to my surveying a number of quadrants that are not likely to hold an Indigenous Period site.

I did, fortuitously, survey a few quadrants in areas that I would expect to find sites based upon my model, such as those along the river. Based on this, the most likely reason that I did

not find any Indigenous Period sites from pedestrian survey is visibility. Any potential sites along the river are likely to be buried from the fluvial deposits. There are also issues with visibility from the thick leaf litter along the forest floor making exposed ground rare. The heavy usage of the forest in historic times is also problematic for pedestrian survey as it has been clear cut and then replanted, among other uses.

Outside of the fact that the two flakes recovered from test pits reveal that there is an

Indigenous Site in the Camp Michaux Project Area, there is some limited information that can be gathered from the flakes. When I consulted with Doug MacLearan to verify the flakes, he mentioned that they were made from metarhyolite but he was not sure of the exact type. This tells us that the flakes were likely quarried locally on South Mountain and if the type of metarhyolite can be determined the quarry of origin can possibly be discovered. He also mentioned that he did not think the flakes were from reduction of a broadspear due to their small size. The two flakes also tell me that in my search for evidence of an indigenous occupation, I was investigating the correct area of the site. Although other areas of the site not yet tested with subsurface surveying could, and probably do, contain artifacts from the indigenous period, the artifacts recovered show that I was not completely wrong in excavating shovel test pits where I did.

Revisiting the Probability Map

At this time I would like to go back and review the results that have been produced through my GIS modeling and discuss potential flaws and limitations with my model. This is not to say that I do not believe the model I created can be useful in predicting sites are in the

Camp Michaux Project Area. The area we excavated with our shovel test pits and found evidence for an Indigenous Period site was in the high probability (green) section of my map

(Figure 6.1), although the model still needs to be further tested. Flaws in my methods could be revealed in this future testing, although I did my best to account for what I could. One such flaw with the model that I believe could limit its effectiveness is the lack of a sample size for the South Mountain Area. There are 24 documented sites in the region from which all my data was gathered. This is a very small number to have drawn data from and could have distorted my results.

Another potential flaw in my model is that I could not account for cultural factors.

As I discussed in Chapter 3, sites of cultural or ritual importance, or the actions of an individual could have played an important role in where other sites were located on the landscape. Although I would ideally have accounted for this, in part because my model would have had to rely less on environmental determinants, there was insufficient data for me to do so because the CRGIS database I used only gave a basic description of what the sites were like and no more detail. I am bringing up these flaws because they could invalidate my model in the future, or they could be non-factors, but the only way to see if my probabilities are accurate is to further test the area through shovel test pit surveying.

New Questions and Speculation

Since I have been able to answer my question of whether or not there was an

Indigenous Period site in the Camp Michaux Project Area in the affirmative, more questions have been raised that I feel need answering. These questions range from simple cultural history questions to questions about usage of the area and for what purpose. Without further fieldwork it will be impossible to answer these questions in their entirety. However, I can speculate on them based upon the information I have gathered through both fieldwork and my literature review.

The first questions that arise are about the cultural history of the site. These inquiries include wanting to know when the site was used, what it was used for and any cultural affinities that those groups may have had. To answer the questions about time and purpose a more complete excavation of the site would be needed. Even then, unless diagnostic artifacts were recovered found it would probably be very difficult to determine when the area was occupied exactly but, a range of occupation periods, such as Woodland or Archaic, could probably be determined. Cultural affiliation would be even harder to determine, if possible at all, as there are very few well defined cultural groups or cultural horizons in Eastern

Pennsylvania.

Because of this, I cannot begin to speculate about what groups may have been in the area from a cultural standpoint. Nor can I argue in favor or against occupational purposes in the area as more artifacts or features would need to be recovered to determine this. However, using the background research I have conducted, I believe it is possible narrow down the list of possible time periods of occupation somewhat based upon lithic materials used and the spatial location of the Camp Michaux Project Area. Based upon the two flakes found being some form of metarhyolite and the location of the Camp Michaux Project Area on South

Mountain, I would argue that the area was not occupied during the Paleoindian Period and

Late Woodland Period. In these two periods, as stated above, high quality cryptocrystalline lithic materials were favored in projectile point production, which metarhyolite does not qualify as (Custer 1996). It can also be argued that the Camp Michaux Project Area would not have been occupied during these two time periods because of its upland setting and

Tom’s Run being only a low order stream, both of which were not common environmental

settings for occupations in these periods (Custer 1996). All of this though is based on the current two flakes I have found and can be easily amended with any future finds.

Other questions that have arisen through my findings are about the interpreting the current and any future Indigenous Period artifacts recovered from the site. These questions are not just about what the people were doing in the area but why they were there.

Depending on the theoretical predisposition of the archaeologist interpreting the site, answers to this and the questions asked will vary. A basic question that has come up for me is whether or not the people were on the landscape simply because it was rich in natural resources or if there was a more significant cultural reason for the indigenous people being in the Camp Michaux Project Area. I personally think that the occupation was likely the result of cultural factors or individual agency. But, without further archaeological evidence these questions cannot really be answered and even then interpretations will differ between archaeologists. And as was the case with my own research, more questions are likely to arise as further investigations into the indigenous history of the Camp Michaux Project Area are conducted.

Future Research

Although my research and field investigation at the Camp Michaux Project Area is likely at its end, I do have some ideas as to where any future research I would conduct could be focused. Any future research in my case would be focused on finding further evidence of an indigenous occupation in the area. This would serve to increase our knowledge of the site and help answer the questions that I have mentioned above. I believe that any future field work conducted at the site in regards to the Indigenous Period should be focused on subsurface surveying and possibly moving into a Phase II Archaeological Investigation.

The first step in fieldwork I would like to see conducted would be further excavations of shovel test pits over a larger area of the site. Ideally, these test pits would be excavated in the same manner as I have outlined in my methodology, so 57 centimeter diameter circular test pits2 excavated by stratigraphic changes in ten meter intervals. Time permitting future test pits would also be excavated to test the GIS model that I have produced in determining which areas of the Camp Michaux Project Area have the highest probability of containing artifacts from the Indigenous Period. To test my probability model, a stratified random sampling technique would need to be employed. By this I mean that multiple series of randomly drawn test pits would be excavated in each of the three areas (high, medium, and low probability) I have designated to see if there is any evidence of an indigenous occupation. If the model is effective in predicting this, the sites with the highest probability would have the most artifacts, the areas with medium probability would produce fewer artifacts, and the low probability areas would produce very few if any. After conducting further shovel test pit surveying in the Camp Michaux Project Area for evidence of

Indigenous Period sites, the project would ideally move into a Phase II Archaeological

Investigation. A Phase II Archaeological Investigation, as detailed by the Pennsylvania

Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP), is conducted to determine the patterning of the site both in terms of horizontal extent of artifacts at the site and the stratification of the site if it is stratified at all. It also seeks to uncover artifact variation and any features present. This work is done to determine the significance of the site within the water shed it is located and the regional area (BHP 2008). The fieldwork methods that area suggested by the BHP

2 It was recently brought to my attention by Joe Baker of Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Office that the standard circular test pit for the state is 57 centimeters in diameter not the 50 centimeters we believed it was when conducting our shovel test pit excavations.

specifically for Indigenous Period sites and relevant to the Camp Michaux Project Area include condensed test pit excavation with no more than five meters of spacing between survey units, followed by one meter by one meter excavation units placed over 3 to 10% of the site (BHP 2008). This step in the study and documentation of the Indigenous Period of the Camp Michaux Project Area would not be started until a better understanding of the site’s location in the confines of the area are known.

Conclusion

Was there an Indigenous Period occupation in the Camp Michaux Project Area? This was the question I presented at the beginning of this thesis and the one that drove my research and field work. My hypothesis was that I would find artifacts revealing a site from this time in the study area and this theory has been confirmed based on the evidence collected. Of course discovering a site is just the beginning of the research in this area as many more questions will arise through further study, some of which I have presented to you above but can only just start to answer.

On top of these new potential research questions is the underlying question of why is this work important or significant. I believe that studying the indigenous history of the Camp

Michaux Project Area is important for a number of reasons. Firstly, this study and future studies will help to contribute to the wider body of knowledge on the Indigenous Period on

South Mountain and in Eastern Pennsylvania. Although I was only able to determine that there were indigenous people in the study area, future research may be able to contribute more about why they were there and what they were doing, which can help to broaden our understanding of the region as a whole. Secondly, these questions are important to ask simply because they have never been asked before. Camp Michaux has a long and detailed

historical account of its use, yet no one has investigated whether or not it was used before this time. The lack of investigation of this time period is part of the much larger discussion about the marginalization of the histories of the indigenous people in the area and larger region. Hopefully the research I have presented is the beginning of looking beyond the features still standing in the Camp Michaux Project Area and into the indigenous people who occupied the area before them.

Bibliography Baker, Joe, and Angela S. Jailett-Wentling 2013 Finding Sites: An Analysis of Identification-Level Archaeological Surveys in Pennsylvania. North American Archaeologist 34(3):211-235

BHP, Bureau of Historic Preservation. 2008. Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission.

Binford, Lewis R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity(2):217-225.

1972 An Archaeological Perspective. New York: Seminar Press.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

Bland, John Paul 2006 Secret War at Home: The Pine Grove Furnace Prisoner of War Interrogation Camp.Carlisle, PA: Cumberland County Historical Society. Bolstad, Paul 2012 GIS Fundamentals: A First Text on Geographic Information Systems. Eider Press.

Bruno, Maria C. Proposal for Dickinson College Archaeological Project at Camp Michaux, Michaux State Forest, Cumberland County Pennsylvania. Unpublished Research Proposal, Department of Archaeology, Dickinson College.

Burke, Heather, Claire Smith, and Larry J. Zimmerman 2009 The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook: North American Edition. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Carr, Kurt W. 1998 The Early Archaic Period in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 68(2):42-69.

Carr, Kurt W., Laura Dribelbis and Robert Winters 2001 Intra-site Artifact Patterning and Settlement Patterns at the Snaggy Ridge, South Mountain Metarhyolite Quarries. Paper presented at 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.

Custer, Jay F. 1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Vol. 7. Harrisburg: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Dodds, Walter K. 2002 Freshwater Ecology: Concepts and Environmental Applications. Aquatic Ecology Series, 4. San Diego: Academic Press.

Dore, Christopher D., and LuAnn Wandsnider 2006 Modeling for Management in a Compliance World In GIS and Archaeological Site Location Modeling. Mark W. Mehrer and Konnie L. Wescott, eds. Pp. 66-88. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.

Graybill, Jeffrey R., and James T. Herbstritt 2014 Shenks Ferry Tradition Ceramic Seriation. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 84(1):27-45.

Griffin, James B. The Northeast Woodlands Area In Prehistoric Man in the New World. Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck eds. Pp. 223-258. Chicago: Published for William Marsh Rice University by the University of Chicago Press.

Hodder, Ian 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:1-26.

Hurst Thomas, David 1973 An Empirical Test for Steward’s Model of Great Basin Settlement Patterns. American Antiquity 38(2):166-176.

Kinsey, W. F. 1983 Eastern Pennsylvania Prehistory: A Review. Pennsylvania History(2):69-108.

Kvamme, Kenneth L. 2006 There and Back Again: Revisiting Archaeological Locational Modeling In GIS and Archaeological Site Location Modeling. Mark W. Mehrer and Konnie L. Wescott, eds. Pp. 2-35. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.

Lake, M.W. 2014 Trends in Archaeological Simulation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21(2): 258-287.

Lock, Gary and Trevor Harris 2006 Enhancing Predictive Archaeological Modeling: Integrating Location, Landscape, and Culture In GIS and Archaeological Site Location Modeling. Mark W. Mehrer and Konnie L. Wescott, eds. Pp. 36-55. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.

McConaughy, Mark A. 2012 The Middle Woodland: Western Pennsylvania Vs. Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 82(2):17-33.

Moran, Emilio 2000 Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) 2012 Site Identification Criteria, Bureau for Historic Preservation/State Museum, Harrisburg.

Raber, Paul A. 2008 The Mykut Rockshelter, 36hul43: An Upland hunting/butchering Station in Central Pennsylvania. Archaeology of Eastern North America: 25-62.

2010 The Intensification of Rockshelter use in the Late Woodland/Late Prehistoric Period. North American Archaeologist 31(3): 367-403.

Rossignol, Jacqueline 1992 Concepts, Methods, and Theory Building: A Landscape Approach In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, eds. Pp. 3-14. New York: Plenum Press.

Salmon, Merrilee H. 1978 What can Systems Theory do for Archaeology? American Antiquity 43: 174- 183.

Smith, David L. 2011 Camp Michaux Self-Guided Walking Tour. Cumberland County Historical Society, Carlisle, PA.

Stewart, Michael 1990 Clemson's Island Studies in Pennsylvania: A Perspective. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 60(1):79-107.

Stewart, R. Michael 1984a Archaeologically Significant Characteristics of Maryland and Pennsylvania Metarhyolites In Prehistoric Lithic Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region. Jay F. Custer, ed. Pp. 2-13. Newark, DE: Center for Archaeological Research, College of Arts and Science, University of Delaware.

1984b South Mountain (Meta) Rhyolite: A Perspective on Prehistoric Trade and Exchange in the Middle Atlantic Region In Prehistoric Lithic Exchange Systems in the Middle Atlantic Region. Jay F. Custer, ed. Pp. 14-4. Newark, DE: Center for Archaeological Research, College of Arts and Science, University of Delaware.

1995 The Status of Woodland Prehistory in the Middle Atlantic Region. Archaeology of Eastern North America 23:177-206.

2002 Archaeology: Basic Field Methods. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Tankersley, Kenneth B. 1998 Variation in the Early Paleoindian Economies of Late Pleistocene Eastern North America. American Antiquity 63(1):7-20.

Torrence, Robin 2002 Cultural Landscapes on Garua Island, Papua New Guinea. Antiquity 76(293):766.

USDA 2005 Atkins Series. Electronic document, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/A/ATKINS.html2014.

2006 Highfield Series. Electronic document, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/H/HIGHFIELD.html2014.

2008 Glenville Series. Electronic document, https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/G/GLENVILLE.html2014.

2015 Prime and Important Farmlands | NRCS Electronic document, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ak/soils/surveys/?cid=nrcs142p2_03 5988, accessed 2/18/2015.

Wescott, Konnie L. 2006 One Step Beyond: Adaptive Sampling and Analysis Techniques to Increase the Value of Predictive Models In GIS and Archaeological Site Location Modeling. Mark W. Mehrer and Konnie L. Wescott, eds. Pp. 56-65. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group.

Williams, John W., Thompson Webb III, Pierre H. Richards, and Paige Newby 2000 Late Quaternary Biomes of Canada and the Eastern United States. Journal of Biogeography 27(3):585-607

Williams, John W., Bryan N. Shuman, Thompson Webb III, Patrick J. Bartlein and Phillip L. Leduc 2004 Late Quaternary Vegetation Dynamics in North America: Scaling from Taxa to Biomes. Ecological Monographs 74(2):309-334.

PAGE # ___ of ____ Appendix

Camp Michaux Shovel Test Pit Form

Name of Excavators: Test Pit #: a

UTM Coordinates: a

Local Grid Coordinates: a Date: a

General Observations:

Description of Artifacts bags (include stratum, artifact types, and quantity):

PAGE # ___ of ____

Stratigraphic profile/Sketch (include depth measurements)

Description of Strata:

Depths:

Munsell colors:

General Texture:

Photographs: a

Drawings: a