final technical report - Pennsylvania Archaeology

Transcription

FINAL
TECHNICAL
REPORT
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA SYNTHESIS:
THE UPPER JUNIATA RIVER SUB-BASIN 11 (WATERSHEDS A-D)
WALTER INDUSTRIAL PARK: MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
GREENFIELD TOWNSHIP, BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ER 00-2888-013
Prepared for
KELLER ENGINEERS, INC.
418-420 ALLEGHENY ST.
HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA 16648
Submitted by
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
570 Beatty Road
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146-1300
GAI PROJECT NO. 2002-236-10
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
Back of Cover
FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
PENNSYLVANIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA SYNTHESIS:
THE UPPER JUNIATA RIVER SUB-BASIN 11 (WATERSHEDS A-D)
WALTER INDUSTRIAL PARK: MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS
U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
GREENFIELD TOWNSHIP, BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ER 00-2888-013
Prepared for
KELLER ENGINEERS, INC.
418-420 ALLEGHENY ST.
HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA 16648
Written by
Douglas H. MacDonald, Ph.D., RPA
Lead Archaeologist
With contributions by
Kenneth W. Mohney, Ph.D., Senior Archaeologist II
Lisa Dugas, Archaeologist II
GAI CONSULTANTS, INC.
570 Beatty Road
Monroeville, Pennsylvania 15146-1300
GAI PROJECT NO. 2002-236-10
FEBRUARY 10, 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................I
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS............................................................................................................................VI
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY ........................................................... 1
CHAPTER II.
PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................... 7
CHAPTER III.
BACKGROUND AND KEY PROJECTS ..................................................................... 29
CHAPTER IV.
PALEOINDIAN PERIOD.............................................................................................. 45
CHAPTER V.
EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD......................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER VI.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD ...................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER VII.
LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD............................................................................................ 73
CHAPTER VIII.
TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC PERIOD ................................................... 97
CHAPTER IX.
EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD ................................................................................. 115
CHAPTER X.
MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD............................................................................... 127
CHAPTER XI.
LATE WOODLAND PERIOD .................................................................................... 133
CHAPTER XIII.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 167
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 177
APPENDIX A:
PROJECT PERSONNEL RESUMES
APPENDIX B:
REFERENCES DATA
APPENDIX C:
COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS DATA
Upper Juniata Data Synthesis
Penns/juniata/juniata_report
i
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin. .........................................................................2
Figure 2.
Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Field-Confirmed
Locations of Toolstone. ............................................................................................16
Figure 3.
Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the Upper Juniata SubBasin. ........................................................................................................................32
Figure 4.
Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Artifacts. ...........................................................54
Figure 5.
Late Archaic Diagnostic Projectile Points................................................................74
Figure 6.
Burial No. 5, Sheep Rock Shelter, Late Archaic. .....................................................86
Figure 7.
Transitional Period Artifacts.....................................................................................98
Figure 8.
Early Woodland Artifacts. ......................................................................................118
Figure 9.
Middle Woodland Artifacts. ...................................................................................128
Figure 10.
Planview of the Gnagey Site. Compare with Figure 12, the Planview of the
Bedford Village Site (from George 1983:6). ..........................................................138
Figure 11.
Late Woodland Artifacts.........................................................................................142
Figure 12.
Circular House Structure adjacent to Trench and Stockade, Bedford Village
Site (36Bd90; from Catton 1994). ..........................................................................148
Figure 13.
Planview of Structure 1, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67)..............................150
Figure 14.
Planview of Workman Site (36Bd36) Structures (from Michels and Huner
1968:160). ...............................................................................................................152
Figure 15.
Late Woodland Artifacts from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1).................................154
Figure 16.
Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; from Burns and Raber 1998:8) .............157
Figure 17.
Archaeological Site Components by Time Period, as reflected in PASS Files
and Research Report Coverage. ..............................................................................167
Figure 18.
Archaeological Components by Period, adjusted by Duration of Period
(Sites/Decades per period; cf. Fiedel 2001)............................................................168
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin......................................................15
Table 2.
Comparison of Raw PASS File Data with Checked PASS File Data Utilized in
this Study...........................................................................................................................29
Table 3.
Paleoindian Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ..............................................48
Table 4.
Paleoindian Site Data, Upper Juniata (PASS files). .........................................................48
Table 5.
Paleoindian Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS files)..........................49
Table 6.
Paleoindian Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ..............50
Table 7.
Early Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)............................................57
Table 8.
Early Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ....................57
Table 9.
Early Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting. .......................58
Table 10.
Early Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin. ...................................58
Table 11.
Early Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files). ............................59
Table 12.
Early Archaic Points/Raw Materials: the Workman Site (36Bd36). ................................61
Table 13.
Middle Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).........................................65
Table 14.
Middle Archaic: Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata. .....................................................66
Table 15.
Middle Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). .................67
Table 16. Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tabulation of Material by
Watershed for Middle Archaic Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin..............................68
Table 17.
Middle Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata...................................................70
Table 18.
Late Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files) .............................................78
Table 19.
Late Archaic: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting (PASS Files)............................80
Table 20.
Late Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).......................81
Table 21.
Late Archaic Site Locations Relative to Stream Confluences: Cross-tab of Site
Location relative to Stream Flow and Confluence Direction. ..........................................83
Table 22.
Late Archaic Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...............................................84
Table 23.
Late Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files)...............................91
Table 24.
Late Archaic Collections Analysis Results.......................................................................94
Table 25.
Transitional Period Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ................................103
iv
Table 26.
Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by
Setting..............................................................................................................................104
Table 27. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
(PASS Files)....................................................................................................................104
Table 28.
Transitional Period Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin...................................106
Table 29.
Transitional/Terminal Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS
Files)................................................................................................................................110
Table 30.
Transitional/Terminal Archaic period Collections Analysis Results. ............................112
Table 31.
Early Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)......................................121
Table 32.
Early Woodland Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ..............121
Table 33.
Early Woodland Artifacts, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ..............................122
Table 34.
Early Woodland Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin. ......................................122
Table 35.
Middle Woodland Sites (PASS Files).............................................................................129
Table 36.
Middle Woodland Site Location Data (PASS Files). .....................................................130
Table 37.
Middle Woodland Research Reports. .............................................................................130
Table 38.
Late Woodland Research Reports and Key Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin..................146
Table 39.
Late Woodland Camp Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Research Reports
(see Table 38 for Citations).............................................................................................158
Table 40.
Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Watershed, Upper Juniata
Sub-Basin (PASS Files). .................................................................................................159
Table 41.
Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata SubBasin (PASS Files)..........................................................................................................159
Table 42.
Late Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files). ......................................160
Table 43.
Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Lithic
Raw Material Type (PASS Files)....................................................................................162
Table 44.
Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Stone Type by
Watershed (PASS Files)..................................................................................................163
Table 45.
Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Results of GAI’s Collections
Analysis...........................................................................................................................164
Table 46.
Cross-Tabulation of Archaeological Components by Period and Watershed
(PASS Files)....................................................................................................................168
Table 47.
Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files
Data). ...............................................................................................................................170
v
Table 48.
Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Collections
Analysis (Typed Points)..................................................................................................170
Table 49.
Lithic Raw Material Use by Watershed in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS
Files)................................................................................................................................172
Table 50.
Site Placement Relative to Water over Time, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS
Files)................................................................................................................................173
Table 51.
Changes in Subsistence over Time at Sheep Rock Shelter. Data from Michels
and Dutt (1968) and Michels and Smith (1967)..............................................................174
vi
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1.
View East toward the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Watershed C from the
Lookout along S.R. 30 on the Allegheny Front. Willis Mountain and
Shawnee Lake are in the Background. ..............................................................7
Photograph 2.
The Frankstown Branch Juniata River, east of Hollidaysburg, in
Watershed A......................................................................................................8
Photograph 3.
View of the Allegheny Front from Chestnut Ridge and New Paris, near
Bedford. View West..........................................................................................9
Photograph 4.
View of the Raystown River Valley from Tussey Mountain. View East.
Raystown Lake is Cloaked in Fog...................................................................10
Photograph 5.
The Raystown Branch Juniata River near Saxton and Stonerstown,
Southern Edge of Raystown Lake. View North..............................................10
Photograph 6.
Mines Chert Cobbles on the Raystown River Edge, S.R. 2019, East of
Bedford............................................................................................................17
Photograph 7.
Shriver Chert along Business Route 220 near Hyndman, Pennsylvania.........21
Photograph 8.
A Cruise Ship at the Inundated Sheep Rock Shelter on Raystown Lake
(Huntingdon County Visitors Bureau 2002:9)................................................28
Photograph 9.
Feature Excavation at the Sheep Rock Shelter Site (from 1993
Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)......................................................39
Photograph 10.
Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania
Archaeology Month Poster). ...........................................................................39
Photograph 11.
Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. at Mykut Rockshelter
(36Hu143). Photograph provided by Paul Raber. ...........................................41
Photograph 12.
Hearth Excavation at the Sunny Side Site, 36Bd267, near the
Confluence of Yellow Creek and the Raystown Branch. ...............................42
Photograph 13.
Transitional Period Hearth, the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267) along
Yellow Creek near its confluence with the Raystown Branch......................107
Photograph 14.
Clemson Island Pottery, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993 Pennsylvania
Archaeology Month Poster). .........................................................................153
Photograph 15.
Late Woodland Bark Container, Sheep Rock Shelter (from 1993
Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster)....................................................155
Photograph 16.
View of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). North Profile (see Figure 16).
Provided by Paul Raber, Heberling Associates, Inc......................................156
vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY
A.
INTRODUCTION
This document is a prehistoric archaeological data synthesis for the Upper Juniata River subbasin 11 (Figure 1), prepared by GAI Consultants, Inc. (GAI) for Keller Engineers (Keller).
The data synthesis represents an alternative mitigation for the Walter Industrial Park project
in Greenfield Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. The alternative mitigation was
coordinated by Keller and the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC)
Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP). The goal of the project is to synthesize Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files data, as well as research report information, to
summarize the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin in south-central Pennsylvania. This
report provides a broad prehistoric context and research goals for future archaeological
research in the region. Ultimately, the report should provide valuable information for
archaeologists or laypersons interested in the prehistory of Pennsylvania.
B.
PROJECT SETTING
The Upper Juniata River sub-basin encompasses nearly 2,000 square miles of total drainage
area and includes several mid-order drainages that have dissected the ridge and valley
landscape (Figure 1). The project area is bounded to the west by the imposing Allegheny
Front, on the north by Bald Eagle Mountain, on the east by the Upper Raystown Branch, and
on the south by the lower Raystown Branch and a series of ridges that lead to the Upper
Potomac Valley. Four watersheds comprise the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the Little
Juniata and Frankstown Branch Juniata Rivers (Watershed A), Standing Stone and Clover
Creeks (Watershed B), the upper Raystown Branch Juniata River and Dunning Creek
(Watershed C), and the lower Raystown Branch Juniata River (Watershed D). Several
southwest-northeast-trending ridges and mountains are present within the Upper Juniata subbasin, including (from west to east) Blue Knob, Dunning Mountain, Evitts Mountain, Brush
Mountain, Lock Mountain, Tussey Mountain, Broad Top, and Terrace Mountain. The largest
municipalities in the sub-basin include Altoona, Bedford, Everett, Huntingdon, and
Hollidaysburg, with most of the landscape utilized for agriculture and other rural industry,
such as mining.
C.
PREHISTORY OF THE UPPER JUNIATA SUB-BASIN: AN INTRODUCTION
For at least the last 12,000 years, Native Americans have occupied the rugged landscape of
the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Native Americans hunted, fished, and gathered the vast array of
natural resources to subsist and flourish in this region of long valleys, rivers, and ridges.
Prehistoric occupation was initiated during the Paleoindian period, more than 12,000 years
ago, when small groups of families migrated into the previously uninhabited region. These
initial inhabitants utilized beautifully-crafted fluted spear points and atlatls (spear throwers)
and traveled over a wide area. Evidence from Sheep Rock Shelter, now under Raystown Lake
south of Huntingdon (Figure 1), indicates that Early Archaic foragers (ca. 9,500 years ago)
utilized notched and stemmed spear points with finely-serrated blades and subsisted largely
on the collection of wild plants and the hunting of game.
1
Ba
Mo ld E
un ag
tai le
n
Upper Juniata
River Sub-Basin 11
Figure 1. Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
Cr
ee
k
St
on
eC
re
ek
Cr
ee
k
Ju
nia
ta
Ri
Blu
ve
r
eM
ou
nta
in
Cr
oo
ke
d
Riv
er
Ra
ys
tow
Mo
nB
un
tain
ran
ch
Ju
nia
ta
M
ou
nta
in
Tu
sc
ar
or
a
Hi
ll
Sid
eli
ng
Bedford
Village
Bedford
Sub-Basin 11 Watersheds
A: Watershed A--Frankstown
Branch-Little Juniata River
Cr
ee
k
Everett
B: Watershed B--Crooked and
Standing Stone Creeks
Mo
un
tain
Sh
aff
er
Co
ve
Cr
ee
k
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Huntingdon
Sheep Rock
Shelter
D
Bro
ad
top
Sunny Side
Site
k
ee
Cr
Tu
sca
ror
a
12 miles
30 miles to
Susquehanna
Mykut
Rockshelter
Key Archaeological Sites
6
B
St
an
din
g
Ru
n
Pin
Clo
ey
ve
Cr
rC
ee
k
ree
k
Br
an
ch
Fr
an
ks
to
wn
ing
nn
Du
Ch
es
tnu
tR
idg
e
Roaring
Spring
w
llo
Ye
C
Alle
ghe
ny
Ri
ve
r
Hollidaysburg
Scale
0
Petersburg
Bridge
Workman
River
Juniata
h
c
n
a
r
wn B
Raysto
gai
Lit
tle
Ju
nia
ta
Ri
Sin
ve
kin
r
g
A
Ju
nia
ta
App
ala
chi
an
Pla
tea
u
Mo
unt
ain
s,
reek
sC
Bob
Fro
nt,
Alle
ghe
ny
Altoona
k
ee
Cr
DRAW N DHM APPRO V E D jcl DAT E 7/18/02 DW G . N O 20 02-236-10--C -A1
ld
Ba
k
ee
Cr
e
l
g
Ea
Sp
ru
ce
Pennsylvania
Major Cities
C: Watershed C --Dunning
Creek
D: Watershed D--Raystown
Branch-Juniata River
Figure 1
Map of the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
2
This mobile forager lifestyle continued through the end of the Early Archaic period until
approximately 8,800 or so years ago. At this time, during the Middle Archaic period, Native
American populations steadily increased and there was a change in subsistence and
settlement pattern. In contrast to the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, Native
Americans of the Middle Archaic (ca. 8,000 years ago) occasionally lived in base camps on
terraces of rivers for a few months of the year. From these base camps, Native Americans
traveled to uplands and low-mid-order tributaries to collect seasonally-available resources.
Travel to the south and east is indicated by the increasing use of rhyolite from sources near
Chambersburg at South Mountain. The change in subsistence pattern led to a dramatic
population increase during the initial portion of the Late Archaic period, approximately 5,200
years ago. However, the population increase was short-lived and, for some reason, the
archaeological record shows that populations decreased dramatically in the latter portion of
the Late Archaic, by approximately 4,200 years ago.
At this time, during the Transitional or Terminal Archaic period, evidence from Sheep Rock
Shelter and the Sunny Side Site (see Figure 1), both on the Raystown Branch, indicates that
Native Americans used cooking vessels made of steatite and pottery. During the latter portion
of the Transitional period and the Early Woodland period (ca. 3,500 to 2,500 years ago),
Native Americans at Sheep Rock Shelter first incorporated small amounts of domesticated
foods into their diets, including corn, beans, squash, and sunflower, as well as a variety of
other wild seed crops. Ceremonial goods increased in abundance across the region, as
reflected by the recovery of a cache of Adena blades made of Flint Ridge chert from a site in
Bedford County. Sheep Rock Shelter also yielded burials, red ocher, and quartz crystals,
evidence of increasing ritual use of the landscape at this time.
By approximately 800 A.D. (1,200 years ago), Late Woodland populations increased even
more dramatically than during the Late Archaic, as represented at important sites such as
Petersburg Bridge, Workman, Mykut Rockshelter, and Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 1).
The population increase was likely prompted by the increased availability of resources due to
agriculture and the increasing use of semi-sedentary villages. While comparatively little indepth excavation has occurred in the sub-basin, there is little evidence in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin to indicate that Late Woodland Native Americans relied extensively on agriculture
and sedentism. Native Americans used domesticated crops at Sheep Rock Shelter, where
dense layers of corn kernels and stalks, among other crops, were recovered; however,
abundant wild resources were recovered as well, including fish, mollusk shell, animal bones,
and wild plants. No other site in the Upper Juniata has yielded corn and only one Late
Woodland village has been excavated in the entire sub-basin. This site—Bedford Village—is
located near Bedford (see Figure 1) and was occupied for approximately 50 years by Native
Americans of unknown ethnicity. Cultural influences include Monongahela cultures to the
west, Clemson Island cultures to the east, and Potomac Valley cultures to the south. Whoever
occupied the site built it to last and for protection, incorporating a stockaded wall with
bastions, a protected entrance, and an interior trench. Features within the site suggest that the
deer hunting was the main means of subsistence for village occupants.
3
Thus, while areas to east, south, and west experienced an increase in agricultural lifeways and
village life, there is little evidence that this lifestyle was popular in the Upper Juniata subbasin. While few in-depth archaeological studies have been conducted in the sub-basin, the
available data support the hypothesis that Late Woodland Native Americans in this region
subsisted largely on hunted and gathered resources, as they had for the prior 11,000 years. By
the end of the Late Woodland period, proto-historic Susquehannock populations increased
their reliance on inter-ethnic trade, utilizing the Upper Juniata sub-basin as a procurement
area to gather trade goods, such as hides, stone, among other valuable resources.
While there have been few in-depth studies in the sub-basin (compared to nearby regions,
such as the Susquehanna Valley), the last 12,000 years of prehistory were dominated by a
hunter-gatherer lifestyle within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Only during the last 2,000 years
or so did a few Native Americans begin to settle down and live in villages to grow crops at a
small number of locations in the region. By the time of European contact some 400 years ago,
many Native Americans lived in villages and grew crops for much of their subsistence;
however, this initial picture of Native American lifeways, as sedentary farmers, was a largely
recent phenomenon and did not reflect the reality of the last 12,000 years of Native American
life in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata subbasin and is organized into 13 chapters, including four background/summary chapters and
nine chapters that summarize prehistory by time period. Chapter II describes the project
setting and provides information on the landscape and resources available to prehistoric
Native Americans. A comprehensive overview of paleoenvironments and lithic raw materials
is also provided in Chapter II. Chapter III provides an overview of methods utilized during
the collection of data for the report and summarizes the key archaeological projects that have
been conducted in the sub-basin. Chapters IV through XI provide overviews of the
Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional/Terminal Archaic,
Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland periods. The final chapter provides
a summary overview of major cultural and demographic trends over time in the sub-basin.
The ultimate goal of this report is to provide a context for future research in the region. By
using the information gathered in this report, future archaeologists will hopefully be able to
better understand the important research issues and cultural historical milestones of the last
12,000 years of Native American lifeways in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
D.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jonathan C. Lothrop, Ph.D., RPA, was project manager, while Douglas H. MacDonald,
Ph.D., RPA, was principal investigator and author of the technical report. Kenneth W.
Mohney, A.B.D. (Transitional Period chapter) and Lisa M. Dugas (soils/land-use and
flora/fauna sections) contributed to the final report as well. Lisa Dugas also conducted
background research and coordinated collections analysis at the State Museum in Harrisburg.
Mohney conducted the collections analysis at the State Museum. Brian R. Fritz coordinated
the lithic raw material analysis and provided samples of cherts from the Upper Juniata River
4
region. Without Brian’s help, the collections and raw materials analyses would have been
impossible.
GAI would like to express its gratitude to the following individuals in Harrisburg who
facilitated completion of the project in one way or another: D. Noël Strattan (PHMC-BHP);
Pete Van Rossum (PHMC-BHP); Kurt Carr (PHMC-BHP); and Janet Johnson (State
Museum). Each of these individuals went out of their way to provide assistance during the
course of this project. In addition, Phillip Neusius, Beverly Chiarulli (both, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania), Paul Raber (Heberling Associates, Inc.), Rick Duncan, and Tom
East (both, Skelly and Loy, Inc.) all provided research reports and other materials to facilitate
completion of the project. I am indebted to each of them for their assistance.
This study was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act; 36CFR771, as amended; the guidelines developed by the Advisory Council
of Historic Preservation published November 26, 1980; the amended Procedures for the
Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties as set forth in 36CFR800; and the Pennsylvania
History Code.
5
6
CHAPTER II. PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Upper Juniata River (Sub-Basin 11) and its four watersheds encompass nearly 2,000
miles of total drainage area within the much larger basin of the Susquehanna River (see
Figure 1). As defined by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2002),
Sub-Basin 11 is comprised of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Juniata Rivers
(Watershed A), Standing Stone and Clover Creeks (Watershed B), the upper Raystown
Branch Juniata River and Dunning Creek (Watershed C; Photograph 1), and the lower
Raystown Branch Juniata River (Watershed D).
This chapter provides an overview of the natural environment of the Upper Juniata sub-basin,
including descriptions of the region’s physiography, drainage, soils, bedrock, floral and
faunal resources, as well as past and present environments. In addition, this chapter includes a
detailed overview of lithic raw
materials available to prehistoric
Native Americans in the subbasin. Analysis of the variety of
cherts and other stones used by
Native Americans provides
insight into prehistoric use of the
landscape.
Photograph 1. View East toward the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin,
Watershed C from the Lookout along S.R. 30 on the Allegheny
Front. Willis Mountain and Shawnee Lake are in the Background.
A.
PHYSIOGRAPHY, DRAINAGE, AND WATERSHED DESCRIPTIONS
Physiography
The Upper Juniata River, Sub-Basin 11 (see Figure 1; Photograph 1), lies predominantly
within the Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley physiographic province
(Fenneman 1938; Thornbury 1965; Way 1999). The western edge of the sub-basin also
includes the Allegheny Front in the Allegheny Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateau
province. The Ridge and Valley province dominates the sub-basin and traverses central
Pennsylvania in a series of broad southwest-northeast-oriented upland ridges and lowland
river and stream valleys. As Way (1999:357) states:
7
With the exception of the major trunk-stream valleys, the regional
drainage pattern can be characterized as comprising long, straight stretches
parallel to the [ridges] and short stretches at right angles to them. This
trellis pattern shows conspicuously, even in the road network, and occurs
as a result of the alternating resistant and nonresistant folded strata within
the section.
The province is bounded to the west by the Allegheny Front, a southeastern-facing
escarpment that marks the eastern boundary of the Allegheny Mountain section of the
Appalachian Plateau.
The sub-basin is bounded on the east by a series of ridges, including Tuscarora Mountain,
Sideling Hill, and Jacks Mountain (Faill and Nickelsen 271; Fenneman 1938; Thornbury
1965). On the north, Bald Eagle and Nittany Mountains separate the sub-basin from North
Bald Eagle Creek and the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. On the south, several
ridges divide the Upper Juniata from the Upper Potomac River basin. Elevations in the subbasin range from a low of 610 ft. above mean sea level (amsl) in Huntingdon (northeast
corner of the project area) to a high of 3,146 ft. amsl at Blue Knob in the far western portion
of the project area. Relief between valleys and ridges is typically between 800 and 1,500 ft. in
1-3 miles.
Watersheds
The Upper Juniata River sub-basin encompasses a total drainage area of 1,943 sq. miles (see
Figure 1), including all of Blair County, most of Bedford and Huntingdon Counties, and
small portions of Fulton, Cambria, Somerset, and Centre Counties. According to the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2002), the sub-basin includes four
watersheds (A-D): A) the Frankstown Branch Juniata River and Little Juniata River; B)
Crooked Creek and Standing Stone Creek; C) Dunning Creek and the upper Raystown
Branch Juniata River; and D) the lower Raystown Branch Juniata River.
Watershed A encompasses
approximately 738 sq. miles in
the northwest portion of the
sub-basin. The Frankstown
Branch
Juniata
River
(Photograph 2) and the Little
Juniata River are the major
streams within the watershed.
Photograph 2. The Frankstown
Branch Juniata River, east of
Hollidaysburg, in Watershed A.
The Little Juniata River flows
8
northwesterly, past Altoona, with southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek, Sinking Run, and
Spruce Creek as its major tributaries. The Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River passes the
towns of Roaring Spring and Hollidaysburg, with Piney Creek and Clover Creek as its major
feeder streams. The Little Juniata River joins the Frankstown Branch Juniata River
approximately six miles northwest of Huntingdon. The Frankstown Branch flows for more
than 31 miles with a fall of 340 ft., or 10.8 ft. per mile (Butts 1945:2).
The town of Huntingdon lies within the center of Watershed B, encompassing an area of
approximately 241 sq. miles in the northeastern portion of the sub-basin. The north-flowing
Crooked Creek and south-flowing Standing Stone Creek (the two major streams of the
watershed) have their confluence with the Little Juniata River in Huntingdon. A series of
northeasterly-trending ridges, including Stone and Broad Mountains, mark the eastern
boundary of Watershed B in the northern portion of sub-basin 11.
Watershed C encompasses the southern 548 sq. miles of the sub-basin, including Dunning
Creek and the upper portion of the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River (Raystown Branch).
Dunning Creek flows southeasterly off the slopes of the Allegheny Mountains to its
confluence with the Raystown
Branch at the city of Bedford.
Chestnut Ridge is a prominent
feature of the landscape north of
Bedford between Dunning Creek
and the Allegheny Front
(Photograph 3). The Raystown
Branch is the largest stream
within the watershed, flowing
east-northeasterly
through
Bedford and eventually through
a gap in Tussey Mountain, an
imposing southwest-northeastoriented ridge that traverses
nearly the entire sub-basin
(Photograph 4).
Photograph 3. View of the Allegheny Front from Chestnut Ridge
and New Paris, near Bedford. View West.
Approximately one mile east of Tussey Mountain at Everett, the Raystown Branch veers
northward into Watershed D (see Photograph 4 and Photograph 5). Watershed D
encompasses approximately 416 sq. miles of the sub-basin. The Raystown Branch is
“remarkable for its meandering course” (Butts 1945:2) and flows for nearly 35 miles, falling
a total of 160 ft., or 4.6 ft. per mile. Several Appalachian mountains, including (from south to
north) Sideling Hill, Broadtop, and Jacks Mountain, provide an eastern barrier for the
Raystown Branch, while Tussey Mountain is an imposing barrier to the west (see Photograph
4).
9
Photograph 4. View of the
Raystown River Valley from
Tussey Mountain. View East.
Raystown Lake is Cloaked in Fog.
The Raystown Branch flows
northward through a wide
valley
between
these
mountains (Photograph 5) to
its confluence with the main
branch of the Juniata River,
east of Huntingdon.
Photograph 5. The Raystown
Branch Juniata River near Saxton
and Stonerstown, Southern Edge of
Raystown Lake. View North.
Major feeder streams within Watershed D include the southeasterly flowing Yellow Creek,
which joins the Raystown Branch at the communities of Sunnyside and Hopewell. Several
miles north of Hopewell is Raystown Lake (see Photograph 4; also see Photograph 8 at the
end of this chapter), created by the construction of the Raystown Dam in 1961, approximately
three miles south of the confluence of the Raystown Branch Juniata River and the main
branch of the Juniata River.
Beyond the sub-basin, the Juniata River flows easterly for approximately six miles where it
flows to the north of Blue Mountain. The Juniata then follows the arc of the Ridge and Valley
east-northeasterly for approximately 30 miles, passing to the north of Tuscarora Mountain
prior to its confluence with the Susquehanna River, approximately 12 miles north of
Harrisburg.
10
B.
CONTEMPORARY LAND-USE AND SOILS (BY LISA M. DUGAS)
A variety of residual, colluvial, and alluvial soils are present in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
The soils are largely formed by the differential erosion of bedrock and alluviation along
major valleys. The following is an overview of soils and current land-use within each
watershed.
Watershed A Soils
Exposed bedrock in the ridges and valleys of Watershed A—the Little Juniata and
Frankstown Branch Rivers—ranges from the Lower Cambrian-age Waynesboro formation to
the Pennsylvanian Conemaugh formation (Lohman 1974). The slopes and ridges of
Watershed A are comprised of Ordovician and Silurian quartzite, sandstone, conglomerates
and shale. The dominate soil association (24% of the sub-basin) is Laidig–Hazleton–
Buchanan. This soil association consists of channery silt loam and gravelly silt loam in
sloping to very steep settings. The soils are formed from acid sandstone, quartzite and shale
and range from well-drained to somewhat poorly-drained (Merkel 1978). These soils occur in
mostly wooded spans of State Game Land and farmland across the project area.
Bedrock in the western portion of Watershed A (Appalachian Plateau) ranges from
Pennsylvanian to Mississippian, including a variety of shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone
and coal (Merkel 1978). The dominant soil association is Laidig-Hazleton-Clymer, including
channery and sandy loams that can be very stony. These soils are well drained and are formed
from acid sandstone, quartzite, and conglomerate. This soil is found in nearly 16% of
Watershed A and occurs in landscapes that are sloping to very steep and on broad
mountaintops. Much of the area is wooded with expansive game lands, although some areas
have been strip mined for coal (Merkel 1978).
The limestone valleys of Watershed A, including the Nittany Valley, Sinking Valley, Canoe
Valley and Morrisons Cove, are comprised of Cambrian and Ordovician limestone and
dolomite (Lohman 1974). The dominant soil in this area consists of Hublersburg (cherty silt
loam)-Murrill (gravely silt loam)–Opequon (silt clay loam) association. This association
overlays approximately 14% of Watershed A and occurs in a landscape consisting of gently
sloping hills to very steep foot slopes in upland valleys that are marked by sinkholes and
drainageways. These well-drained soils range in depth and weather from limestone and
sandstone and are primarily utilized for agriculture.
The Nittany Valley, stretching from Tyrone to Hollidaysburg, is underlain with Silurian
limestone and Devonian shale (Lohman 1974). The Berks (channery silt loam)–Brinkerton
(silt loam)-Weikert (channery silt loam) association overlays most of this area, supporting
woodlands on ridges, foot slopes and drainageways. The soils vary in depth and drainage and
formed from weathered acid shale. The steep slopes, low available water and high water table
prevent viable agriculture. Although the towns of Altoona and Tyrone are located within the
expanse of this soil association, the potential for urban development also tends to be limited
by these factors (Merkel 1981).
The Basher-Monongahela-Purdy association occurs along sections of the Little Juniata River
and the Frankstown branch of the Juniata River. The Basher soil is loam silt-loam and fine
11
sandy-loam, while the Monongahela and Purdy are silt-loam. These soils are found in
floodplains and terraces with a nearly level or gently sloping landscape. Formed in alluvium
from shale and sandstone, these soils are deep and range from moderately well drained to
poorly drained. Most of the area where this soil occurs is used for urban development, such
as the town of Hollidaysburg, while other sections are farmed or wooded (Merkel 1981).
The sandy loam Morrison association is dominant over the limestone and occurs on upland
valley slopes. The soil is well drained and weathered from calcareous sandstone and
dolomitic limestone. Most of the land where this soil association occurs is wooded with little
development due to slope; however, some areas with less rocky surfaces are used for dairy
farms or orchards. Clay and sand are extracted from areas where Vanderslip soil is prominent
(Merkel 1978).
Watershed B Soils
The bedrock of Watershed B (Standing Stone and Crooked Creeks) ranges in age from
Middle Cambrian to Pennsylvanian, with more recent Pleistocene fluvial deposits along the
Juniata River and its tributaries (Lohman 1974). The soils that dominate Watershed B are the
Berks-Weiker-Ernest Association, which develops from weathered acid shale (Merkel 1978).
The landscape consists of rolling hills with steep sided narrow valleys and ridges in
intermountain valley areas. The channery silt-loam Berks-Weikert soil is well drained. The
Berks soil tends to be deep while the Weikert soil is shallow. Colluvial Ernest silt loam
develops at the bases of steep slopes and tends to be deep and well drained (Merkel 1978).
The Berks-Weikert-Ernest association overlays most of Watershed B, spanning from the East
Branch of Standing Stone Creek to the southwest near the terminus of Crooked Creek.
The Opequon (clay loam)-Edom (clay loam)-Weikert (silt loam) association occurs in the
valley of Shavers Creek, in the Raystown valley east of Tussey Mountain, and in the valley
south of the Little Juniata River. This association occurs in a sloping to moderately steep
valley regions. The soils range from shallow to deep and are well drained. This soil
association is derived from shaley limestone and a variety of shale (Merkel 1978). The town
of Huntingdon is located in the center of Watershed B.
Watershed C Soils
Watershed C—Dunning Creek and the Upper Raystown Branch—is predominantly located in
the Ridge and Valley province, but includes a portion of the Appalachian Plateau in the west.
Bedrock ranges from the Upper Cambrian Warrior Limestone to the Pennsylvanian
Conemaugh Formations (Lohman 1974). The main ridges contain quartzite and sandstone;
the lower ridges are comprised of siltstone and shale, while valleys are limestone. The BerksWeikert-Blairton is a channery silt loam association that is prominent in this watershed. This
soil association occurs in a landscape where rolling hills and narrow ridges are dissected by
tributaries with restricted floodplains and valleys. These soils are formed in acid shale,
siltstone, and sandstone. The Calvin-Klinesville-Leck Kill association is also prominent in
Watershed C. This channery silt loam association occurs in landscapes with hills and low
ridges that are deeply dissected by streams with narrow to moderately wide floodplains. The
Harerstown (siclo)-Clarksburg (silo)-Opequon association occurs in the undulating hilly
12
landscape of the limestone valleys and coves where the uplands are broad and the bottoms are
moderately wide. The soil is a very rocky silt clay loam that is formed in residuum and
colluvium of limestone, shale, and sandstone over shallow bedrock (Knight 1998).
The towns of Bedford, Everett, and Breezewood are located along the Raystown Branch of
the Upper Juniata River in Watershed C. near Bedford. Shawnee State Park includes
Shawnee Lake, the dammed portion of the Shawnee Branch of the Juniata River, a key tourist
attraction in the area.
Watershed D Soils
Watershed D—including the north-flowing, lower portion of the Raystown Branch—has
geologic bedrock formations and soils similar to Watersheds B and C, with the addition of
the Hazleton-Clymer-Dystrochrepts association. These sandy loamy soils occur on broad
ridges and mountaintops with smooth side slopes and ridges and undulating plateaus. Areas
are dissected by small to medium streams. The soil is very deep to moderately deep, welldrained and derived form acid sandstone, conglomerate, and siltstone and shale (Knight
1998).
The land in this association is mostly wooded and well suited to recreation. Farmland is
located in the areas where the Clymer soil is present. Strip mining also occurs in this area.
Due to the slope, stony nature of the soil and seasonally high ground water, development is
limited to recreation. Raystown Lake and Rothrock State Forest are the main tourist
attractions of Watershed D.
C.
BEDROCK GEOLOGY AND LITHIC RAW MATERIALS
Bedrock Geology and Setting
The Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley province includes 33 geologic
formations in Bedford County alone, most of which consist of pre-Pennsylvanian-age
sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite formations (Butts et al. 1939; Butts 1945; Faill and
Nickelsen 1999; Wood 1980). The seemingly endless, rolling Appalachians stretch 1,200
miles from Alabama to New York, including approximately 230 miles within Pennsylvania.
The section varies from 40 miles to 70 miles wide in central Pennsylvania (Way 1999:355).
H.D. Rogers (1858), Pennsylvania’s first state geologist, painted an excellent picture of the
topographic setting of the Appalachian Mountain section. Rogers (cited in Way 1999:355)
remarked at the “extraordinary length, slenderness, evenness of summit and parallelism of [the]
multitudinous crests or ridges” of the mountain chain. As Way (1999:355) summarizes:
In general, mountains are long, narrow, and even-crested. Intervening valleys
are highly variable in width and elevation, and a trellis drainage pattern is
well-developed throughout the section. As folds plunge beneath the surface,
resistant units converge upon themselves, resulting in fishtail, canoe-shaped,
and zigzag topographic configurations.
13
The ridges and valleys of the province formed by differential erosion of the various rock
systems, with coarse Silurian Tuscarora Formation quartz and Ordovician Juniata and Bald
Eagle Formation sandstone forming the major ridgetops (see Photograph 4). Less-resistant
Cambrian and Ordovician carbonates, Silurian mudstones and limestones, and Devonian
mudstones form valley floors of major streams (Way 1999:356).
Two of the most noteworthy geologic features of the Appalachian Mountain section occur in
the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the Broad Top synclinorium and the Nittany Valley.
The Broad Top synclinorium lies within the central portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin,
but extends for 250 miles into southern Virginia. The Broad Top is a “high, dissected
tableland of low relief” (Way 1999:358), which resembles a large mesa with an undulating
top and elevations that range from 900 to 2,400 ft. amsl. Erosion of the higher knobs,
including Dunning and Tussey Mountains, has left large sandstone ridges surrounded by a
dendritic stream network.
In addition to Broad Top, another significant geologic feature of the sub-basin is the Nittany
Valley. The smaller, southern portion of the Nittany Valley occurs in the far northwestern
portion of sub-basin 11, as the southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek flows southwesterly to
join the Little Juniata River at the town of Tyrone. Less than 1 mile (2 km) to the northeast of
the headwaters of the southern branch of Bald Eagle Creek (beyond sub-basin 11), the north
branch of Bald Eagle Creek comprises the bulk of the Nittany Valley, flowing northeasterly
to its confluence with the West Branch of the Susquehanna River at Lock Haven. Within the
Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Nittany Valley contains a fairly broad stream valley bounded by
hills ranging in elevation from 800 to 1,500 ft. amsl. Dolomites, including beds of chert,
jasper, and quartz, underlie the uplands of the Valley.
To the southeast, Morrison Cove is a somewhat offset continuation of the Nittany Valley.
Morrison Cove is a broad lowland in the central portion of the sub-basin, between Lock and
Dunning Mountains in the west and Tussey Mountain in the east. Elevations within the cove
range from 1,200 to 1,400 ft. amsl. Clover, Piney, Plum and Yellow Creeks are all mid-order
tributaries that flow through Morrison Cove (see Figure 1).
Lithic Raw Materials
The geologic landscape of the Upper Juniata River sub-basin provided several lithic raw
materials for use by Native Americans in stone tool production, including numerous cherts,
jaspers, and quartzites (Table 1). Figure 2 is a map of known locations of chert and other
stone outcrops within the Upper Juniata sub-basin and vicinity. Each location is further
discussed below. Among the most widely known lithic raw materials include Mines oolitic
chert, Nittany chert, Bald Eagle jasper, and Shriver chert, among others. Several other lithic
raw materials, including rhyolite (east), steatite (south), and Flint Ridge chert (west), were
transported into the region within the toolkits of Native Americans and mark the boundaries
of trading systems and settlement patterns. In consultation with Brian Fritz, GAI conducted a
fieldview of lithic raw material sources in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Cherts and quartzites
were collected at several sources and were compared with artifacts from eight sites within the
14
sub-basin (see Chapters IV-XI). The wide variety of cherts available to Native Americans is
discussed below.
Table 1. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
LITHIC RAW
MATERIAL
Mines Chert
Nittany Chert
Bald Eagle Jasper
Bellefonte Chert
Bellefonte Quartz
Tonoloway Chert
Keyser Chert
Tipton Chert
Tuscarora Quartzite
Shriver Chert
Corriganville Chert
AGE
Ordovician
Ordovician
Ordovician
Ordovician
Ordovician
Silurian
Silurian
Silurian
Silurian
Devonian
Devonian
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Black oolites in white matrix; fossils
Black-gray; some oolites; no fossils
Nittany formation; yellow-red
Dark gray to pale brown
White quartz
Black-dk. Gray; some pink/yellow-bn
Dark gray
Lt. Gray to brown ; Red-yellow UV
White-Pale Red; mod-fine grain
Black-gray; weathers yellow
Moderate translucent ; creamy white
REFERENCE
Butts 1945:3; Butts et al. 1939 :12
Butts 1945:3-4
East et al. 1999
Knowles 1966:15
Knowles 1966:15
Knowles 1966
Knowles 1966:33
East and Beckman 1992
Butts 1945:5
Butts 1945:9; Butts et al. 1939 :59
--
Local Sources: Ordovician Cherts
Mines Chert
Light gray, oolitic Mines chert is located in foot-thick beds within the Ordovician-age Mines
Dolomite Formation (Beckerman 1980: 25; Butts 1945:3; Butts et al. 1939:12). Mines chert
is comprised of large “oolitic grains…commonly black and set in a white matrix” (Butts
1945:4). According to Butts (1945), the Mines chert is “very rough or scoriaceous,” with
many pieces containing cryptozoan fossils of 1 in. to 1 ft. in diameter.
Several outcrops of Mines chert are known within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the
valleys of southern Bald Eagle Creek (Fogelman 1983: 11; Hay 1980: 73), the Frankstown
Branch, and the Raystown Branch (Photograph 6). Along the Frankstown Branch Juniata
River near Williamsburg, Butts (1945:3) notes a Mines chert outcrop approximately halfway
between its confluences with Piney and Clover Creeks. With Brian Fritz, GAI collected
Mines chert from the Frankstown Branch stream bed and associated road cut along Fox Run
Road, approximately 1.5 miles north of Williamsburg. Butts (1945:3) states that a good
outcrop of the chert is located approximately 5 miles south of Williamsburg, near the small
town of Oreminea/Mines (Butts 1945:3). Butts et al. (1939:12) also state that Mines
Dolomite is exposed on a bluff south of the Little Juniata River opposite Schoenberger
Station.
15
10
Figure 2. Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Field-Confirmed Locations of Toolstone.
Upper Juniata
River Basin
9
B
Li
ttl
eJ
un
iat
aR
ive
r
8
Altoona
Pennsylvania
A
Huntingdon
7
6
Riv
er
Br
an
ch
Ju
nia
ta
Fro
nt,
Alle
ghe
ny
Fra
nk
sto
wn
Br
an
ch
Mo
unt
ain
s
Hollidaysburg
Roaring
Spring
D
Ch
es
tnu
tR
idg
e
k
ee
Cr
Alle
ghe
ny
w
llo
Ye
C
Ra
ys
tow
n
DRAW N DHM APPRO V E D jclDAT E 7/18/02 DW G . N O 20 02-236-10--C -A2
ld
Ba
S.
k
ee
Cr
le
g
Ea
MAP KEY
1
Keyser, Shriver, and
Corriganville cherts
2
Keyser, Shriver,
Tonoloway, and
Corriganville cherts
3
Tuscarora Quartzite
4
Keyser, Mines,
Tonoloway
5
Bellefonte quartz/chert,
Mines, Nittany
6
Mines, Nittany
7
Keyser
8
Tipton, Mines
9
Mines, Nittany
10
Bald Eagle Jasper
1
nch
wn Bra
Raysto
Bedford
5
3
Everett
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
4
gai
2
Scale
0
6
12 miles
Figure 2
Lithic Raw Materials in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin:
Field-Confirmed Locations of Toolstone
16
Guided by Brian Fritz, GAI collected Mines chert
from the Snake Spring Valley, one mile south of
the intersection of U.S. Route 30 on S.R. 2019. In
this location, chert cobbles were strewn along the
Raystown Branch Juniata River bottom and river
edge (Photograph 6), east of Bedford, just north
of the small town of Lutzville.
Photograph 6. Mines Chert Cobbles on the Raystown
River Edge, S.R. 2019, East of Bedford
Nittany Chert
The Nittany Dolomite Formation contains small amounts of black and gray Nittany chert.
The Nittany Formation directly overlies the Mines Formation across much of the region and
also is within the Ordovician-age Beekmantown Group (Beckerman 1980:25; Butts 1945:34). In contrast to the Mines chert, Nittany chert is less oolitic, with white cryptocrystalline
grains in a black matrix, whereas Mines chert has black oolites within a white matrix. Fossils
are rare in Nittany chert, another contrast to the fossil-rich Mines chert. In bedrock, Nittany
chert is black, but weathers to gray upon exposure. Schindler et al. (1982:541-542) note that
black chert was the preferred raw material at all sites in the Nittany Valley during the Late
Woodland.
The Nittany Formation is found within a broad, zigzag belt running from the Nittany Valley
in the north to approximately 1 mile north of Williamsburg on the Frankstown Branch.
Surficial outcrops in the Upper Juniata sub-basin occur within Sinking Valley, west of
Tyrone and Bellwood in Watershed A. Overall, surface outcrops of Nittany chert are rare;
however, Butts (1945:4) states that the broad flat spur 1 mile southwest of Clover Creek
contains surficial outcrops of eight inch diameter chert nodules. Also, East et al. (1999) note
surface exposures of poor-quality Nittany chert at several sources in the general vicinity of
Half-Moon Creek, a low-order tributary of Spruce Creek to the northeast of Sinking Valley.
According to Butts (1945:4), the best exposure of Nittany dolomite/chert is on the south bank
of the Frankstown Branch, one mile north of Williamsburg:
17
[Here] much dense residual chert in pieces, the largest 6 feet in diameter, is scattered over the
surface underlaid by the Nittany Formation. Chert full of rhombohedral cavities from which
crystals of calcite or dolomite have been dissolved are common.
Bald Eagle Jasper
While previous research suggested that Bald Eagle jasper (or Houserville jasper) was found
within the Ordovician-age Bald Eagle Formation (Beckerman 1980:2; Fogelman 1983:10), it
has been recently shown to be actually associated with the Ordovician-age Nittany Formation
(East et al. 1999: 3-9, 7-73) in the northwestern portion of the project area (Watershed A).
Bald Eagle Jasper is yellow in its natural state and turns a bright red when heated (Schindler
et. al 1982:528). Macroscopically, Bald Eagle jasper looks similar to the well-known Vera
Cruz Jasper of eastern Pennsylvania, though the Bald Eagle jasper lacks the sheen or luster of
the Vera Cruz (Fogelman 1983: 10).
During their background research for the U.S. Route 220 project, which follows the Nittany
Valley, East et al. (1999:3-9 to 3-12) conducted a lithic resources study with thin section and
x-ray diffraction analyses of jasper from Nittany Valley sources. They concluded that “Bald
Eagle jasper, and material of varying quality that may be part of the Bald Eagle jasper facies,
seems to be located on the Ordovician Nittany Formation in association with other iron and
silica rich formations, and fault zones” (East et al. 1999:3-9). Their study identified lowquality Bald Eagle Jasper and cherts at outcrops within the Nittany Formation along HalfMoon Creek and vicinity, a few miles south of Port Matilda.
Previous studies (Schindler et. al. 1982: 540-542) suggest that Bald Eagle jasper was not
widely used in the region except during the Early to Middle Archaic; however, recent studies
in the Nittany Valley (East et al. 1999; MacDonald and Mohney 2001) suggest active use
during the Late Archaic as well.
Bellefonte Chert and Quartz
The Bellefonte Formation is also of Ordovician-age and contains dark-gray Bellefonte chert
and Bellefonte quartz. The Bellefonte Formation directly overlies limestones within the
Nittany Formation (see above). Knowles (1966:15) states that “there is a thick cherty zone
which on weathering produces blocks up to 3 feet across of dark-gray chert which is vesicular
in aspect.” In cross-section, “the chert is a pale-brown-colored mosaic of micro-crystalline
quartz in which inclusions of small (up to 0.08 mm) brownish-colored, rhomb-shaped ghosts
of carbonate grains may be seen” (Knowles 1966:16). Given their close proximity, their
similar outcrop locations, and their similar macroscopic characteristics, cherts from the
Bellefonte and Nittany Formations are visually indistinguishable.
The Bellefonte Formation and associated chert outcrops are located on the west slope of
Tussey Mountain within the Snake Spring Valley west of Everett in Bedford County
(Knowles 1966:15). With Brian Fritz, GAI confirmed the locations of these outcrops in a
farm field just north of S.R. 30, approximately two miles west of Everett. Fairly large (handsized) nodules of Bellefonte chert was strewn throughout the field. Hand-sized, prismatic
cobbles of Bellefonte quartz were recovered in the field, as well. GAI was unable to locate
18
knappable Bellefonte chert or quartz during its search of Bellefonte Formation outcrops in
roadcuts along the west slope of Tussey Mountain west of Williamsburg.
Local Sources: Silurian Cherts and Quartzite
Tonoloway Chert
The Tonoloway and Keyser Limestones and cherts occur in the Silurian-age Cayuga Group,
stratigraphically above the Ordovician limestones and cherts (see above), but below
Devonian limestones and cherts (see below). Tonoloway chert (Butts 1945; Hay 1980: 73;
Knowles 1966:34-35) is variously described as black, dark gray, light gray, pinkish and
yellowish-brown with trace fossils. Butts (1945:7) states that “thin layers of black chert occur
in the top 10 feet of the [Tonoloway Limestone formation].” Butts et al. (1939:52-53) note
“thin lenses of chert” in an exposure of Tonoloway limestone in Tyrone along a small stream
near Lincoln and 15th streets.
Keyser/Tipton Chert
Keyser chert derives from the Silurian-age Keyser Formation and stratigraphically overlies
the Tonoloway Limestone. According to Knowles (1966:33), the Keyser Formation outcrops
“as a narrow, continuous, northeastward-trending band along the eastern side of Tussey
Mountain and Warrior Ridge.” The Keyser is composed of three members, with only the
upper member yielding dark-gray chert. Given their similar ages and outcrops, as well as their
similar macroscopic traits, the Keyser and Tonoloway cherts are virtually indistinguishable.
Further, the chert-bearing Devonian-age Old Port Formation (see below) overlies the Keyser
Formation. Cherts from the Old Port include Shriver, which is variably gray, dark gray and
dull black, similar to Keyser.
Keyser chert was collected by GAI and Brian Fritz at two locations within the Upper Juniata
sub-basin. First, just east of Hollidaysburg, a vein of Keyser chert was present in a road cut
north of S.R. 22; no natural outcrops were observed near this location. The second exposure
of Keyser was a natural outcrop on Chestnut Ridge north of Bedford near the small town of
New Paris. In this location, Keyser chert co-occurs with Shriver chert within agricultural
fields on the sideslopes of Chestnut Ridge. While this source was likely used by prehistoric
Native Americans, it is difficult to distinguish the two cherts, since modern plowing has
strewn chert cobbles of both Shriver and Keyser across the fields (see George 1983:50-52).
Tipton chert occurs in the Silurian-age Keyser Formation as well. This light gray to brown,
moderately-translucent chert has been identified in large quantities at archaeological sites
near the town of Tipton, south of Altoona (East and Beckman 1992; Hay et al. 1984). Brian
Fritz has also collected samples in Bellwood, approximately 5 miles north of Altoona.
Ultraviolet (UV) light characteristics of unpatinated to moderately patinated Tipton chert are
unique for cherts in the region. The long-wave UV response is reddish-yellow (5YR7/6),
while the short-wave UV response is light greenish-gray (5G8/1) to pinkish-white (5YR8/2),
depending on the amount of cortex and patination. The reddish-yellow response under longwave UV for fresh break surfaces was more consistent in Brian Fritz’s collected samples than
the short-wave response; thus, the long wave UV response is considered to be fairly
diagnostic of Tipton chert. Colors may vary more widely if patinated or cortex laden. Most
19
other cherts in the region have no response to UV light or respond with non-diagnostic shades
of purple.
Tuscarora Quartzite
The Silurian-age Tuscarora quartzite is also found within the project area. High quality
Tuscarora quartzite was collected by the authors and Brian Fritz just east of Bedford on S.R.
30. Large, boulder-sized cobbles were abundant and of high quality. Colors ranged from
white (10R8/1) to pale red (10R6/3). Sourcing of Tuscarora quartzite artifacts presents a
major problem, however, as there are numerous outcrops across the Ridge and Valley
province and Upper Juniata sub-basin. Tuscarora typically is found on or near the tops of
high ridges in the region.
Butts (1945:5) acknowledges outcrops of this quartzite on the west side of Tussey Mountain,
the east side of the Lock-Dunning Mountain ridge, and on Point View Knob, overlooking the
Frankstown Branch west of Williamsburg. Based on Watts’ (1945) and Knowles (1966)
description, the overall quality of the quartzite is unclear, but is likely fine-grained enough for
stone tool production. According to Knowles (1967:27), “thin-section examination of the
Tuscarora shows that it is…orthoquartzite, containing 90 percent detrital quartz [and] 6 to 7
percent silica cement,” among other trace elements.
Local Sources: Devonian Cherts
In addition to the cherts from Ordovician (Mines, Nittany, and Bellefonte) and Silurian
(Tonoloway and Keyser) Systems, at least two other cherts—Shriver and Corriganville—
derive from the Devonian System. As described by Knowles (1967:37), “the [Devonian-age]
Old Port Formation occurs as a narrow, continuous, northeastward-trending band” across
Watershed C in the current project area. The Old Port directly crosses the Raystown and
Shawnee Branches, approximately at the location of Shawnee Lake and Shawnee State Park
(Hoskins 1981). This formation also is exposed south of Everett, as well as along Chestnut
Ridge, northeast of Shawnee Lake. PASS forms recorded prior to the establishment of
Shawnee State Park state an abundance of lithic debitage and cores from the reduction of
local chert blocks scattered along the Shawnee Branch of the Juniata River, suggesting the
presence of local outcrops of Devonian cherts.
Shriver Chert
The Shriver Limestone, within the Oriskany Group (Old Port Formation) of the Devonian
System, contains highly siliceous limestones and Shriver chert (Butts 1945; Butts et al.
1939). The Shriver Limestone directly overlies the Helderberg limestone and their outcrops
are difficult to differentiate; as such, cherts from these limestones are sometimes referred to
as Helderberg-Shriver chert or even Old Port chert. As Butts (1945:9) states, "sandy pieces
are exceedingly fine-grained and some pieces have a cherty aspect on fresh fracture." Freshly
exposed Shriver chert is dark and impure, but weathers yellow, with abundant fossils.
Beckerman (1980:12) and Butts (1945:8) note that gray Helderberg, or Shriver, chert is
associated with the Devonian-age Helderberg Limestone.
20
Shriver is named after Shriver Ridge, an outcrop in Cumberland, Maryland (Butts et al.
1939:59). Outcrops of Shriver chert are present “along the northeast flank of Warrior Ridge
and in the gorge of the Juniata River through that elevation….Its presence may be detected by
the abundance of small, yellow chips or blocks which strew the surface” (Butts et al.
1939:60). As noted above, outcrops of the Old Port Formation, possibly including Helderberg
and/or Shriver cherts, also occur near Everett, Shawnee Lake, and Chestnut Ridge in
Watershed C. Shriver chert also outcrops in ridges and valleys of the Susquehanna River
Valley and vicinity, where it is sometimes referred to as “Penn’s Creek” chert.
Along with Brian Fritz, GAI collected Shriver chert at two locations in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin: south of Bedford near Hyndman (Photograph 7) and along Chestnut Ridge, both in
Watershed C. Also of note, Fritz notes that knappable Shriver chert is not found in the
Shriver Limestone in two outcrops west of Williamsburg and east of Hollidaysburg, both on
S.R. 22, well north of Bedford. Apparently, the quality and quantity of the Shriver chert
decreases on a northward trend away from Bedford within the sub-basin. The two high
quality sources visited by the authors include a sideslope southwest of Bedford near
Hyndman on Business Route 220 in the Cumberland Valley (see Photograph 7) and a plowed
field sideslope in New Paris on Chestnut Ridge northwest of Bedford (see Photograph 3).
These outcrops produced fairly high quality, large (bigger than hand-sized) cobbles. As noted
above, these Shriver chert outcrops occur near outcrops of Keyser and Tonoloway cherts and
are sometimes difficult to distinguish from one another; however, the Shriver chert is
typically of a higher quality, more
abundant, and more readily available
than either the Keyser or Tonoloway
cherts. For those reasons, prehistoric
Native Americans apparently used it
fairly frequently, as it accounts for a
majority of lithic assemblages at
most sites in the Upper Juniata subbasin and beyond.
Photograph 7. Shriver Chert along
Business Route 220 near Hyndman,
Pennsylvania.
Corriganville chert is found within the Corriganville Formation of the Devonian System.
This chert is opaque to slightly translucent, creamy white, and typically outcrops near Shriver
chert. Brian Fritz collected Corriganville chert at several locations in the Upper Juniata subbasin. The quality of the chert is low-moderate, with infrequent higher quality nodules.
Corriganville chert was collected at both the Hyndman and the Chestnut Ridge locations
described above for the Shriver chert. The stone is fairly unique due to its white color and,
thus, is also fairly easy to recognize in archaeological collections.
21
Local Chert Summary
As reviewed above, a wide variety of cherts were available for prehistoric use throughout the
Upper Juniata sub-basin. This review also confirms that several varieties of gray and black
cherts are present across the project area (Hay 1980:75). Cherts from the Ordovician (Mines,
Nittany, and Bellefonte), Silurian (Tonoloway and Keyser), and Devonian (Shriver and
Corriganville) Systems are all found within the sub-basin, several of which are described as
being gray, dark gray, dull black and/or black. Several characteristics can be used to
differentiate a these cherts. The Mines chert is easily distinguishable by its oolitic matrix,
while the brownish Tipton variety of Keyser chert has a unique long-wave ultraviolet light
response (reddish yellow). Most other cherts in the region have no response or a mild dark
purple UV response. Corriganville chert is unique due to its whitish-gray color, while the
Tuscarora quartzite is also unique, as it is the only high-grade orthoquartzite in the sub-basin;
however, it outcrops at several ridgetops across the sub-basin and sourcing prehistoric
quartzite artifacts to specific sources would be difficult.
Among the black cherts, Shriver is the most common in archaeological assemblages due to
its comparatively high quality and its abundance. The other black and gray cherts, including
Tonoloway, Keyser, Nittany and Bellefonte, are all of generally lower quality and less
availability in this region; however, each of these stones was used during prehistory and
should be considered possible sources for artifacts in prehistoric site assemblages.
Non-Local Sources
Rhyolite
Rhyolite, found within Precambrian metavolcanic formations (Potter 1999: 346), was a
popular raw material for stone tool production in the adjacent Great Valley section of the
Ridge and Valley Province. The nearest sources of rhyolite occur greater than 100 km (60
miles) to the southeast at South Mountain near Chambersburg. South Mountain is the most
well-known primary source of rhyolite and metarhyolite. Stewart (1987) notes that boulders
of rhyolite are present in a wide area surrounding South Mountain, likely distributed by
various erosion and weathering processes.
Numerous archaeological sites, especially in Watersheds C and D in the Upper Juniata subbasin, contain small numbers of artifacts produced from rhyolite. Studies within the nearby
Aughwick Creek Valley (directly west of the current project area in the Juniata River subbasin) suggest that this stream valley was used as a travel corridor to collect rhyolite (Raber
1995).
Several historic Native American paths—including the Raystown Path—traversed gaps in the
north-south ridge system to connect the Great Valley to the east with the Raystown Branch
and the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143). The Raystown Path passed within
10 km of South Mountain near Chambersburg and continued westward along the current
route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through Watershed C.
22
Steatite
The most proximate known sources of steatite, or soapstone, are along the Upper Potomac
River, approximately 50 km (30 miles) south of the current project area (pers. comm., W.
Johnson, Michael Baker, Inc.). The Raystown River corridor would have provided an ideal
corridor for travel to and from the Potomac River Valley to collect steatite. Steatite is a soft,
easily shaped stone that was used during the Terminal Archaic period to produce cooking
vessels. Later, steatite was used as temper in the earliest-known pottery types.
Flint Ridge Chert
Flint Ridge chert occurs within the Vanport Formation of the Middle Pennsylvanian System
of east-central Ohio, approximately 250 km (150 miles) west of the Upper Juniata River subbasin. Flint Ridge is variably homogenous, mottled, laminated, or brecciated and often has
small veins of chalcedony or quartz crystals. Color ranges from white to dark-gray, with
yellow, pink, red, and blue not uncommon. This stone was widely distributed during
prehistory and occurs at sites within sub-basin 11, greater than 200 kilometers (124 miles)
distant (Tankersley 1989:269).
Onondaga Chert
Onondaga chert is a high-quality chert of dark to bluish-gray with microfossil striations of
lighter colors (Vento and Donahue 1982). The stone has a medium texture, a shiny luster, and
is moderately translucent. Primary outcrops of Onondaga chert occur within the LowerMiddle Devonian Onondaga Formation across the glaciated region of New York, and
discontinuously in the Ridge and Valley of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia
(Luedtke 1992:129). Secondary cobbles of Onondaga chert are distributed much more
widely, occurring across northwest and central Pennsylvania within the boundaries of the
terminal Pleistocene glaciation, and was locally available as occasional stream cobbles within
the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Holland 1999).
D.
MODERN AND PAST CLIMATES
The modern climate of Bedford County is classified as humid continental with a mean annual
temperature of 49º F. Winters are relatively cold and dry, while summers are warm and
humid. Annual precipitation is heaviest between May and August and averages 37-39 inches
in the Appalachian Mountain section of the Ridge and Valley. Variation in precipitation is
due largely to elevation, with the upper elevation ridges and mountains receiving more rain
and snow than the valleys (Braker 1981; Trewartha 1967).
Results of paleoenvironmental and faunal studies at several sites in central Pennsylvania,
including Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967), Buckles Bog (Larabee 1986), Big
Pond, Crider’s Pond (Watts 1979), and New Paris #4 (Guilday et al. 1964), provide a window
into the region’s paleoenvironment over the last 12,000 years. Several other studies have
been conducted elsewhere in Appalachia and Pennsylvania that provide additional insights
into regional environmental changes of the Holocene (Carr 1998b; Gaudreau 1988; Guilday
et al. 1977; Joyce 1988; Maxwell and Davis 1972; Stingelin 1965; Whitehead 1973).
23
Between 21,000 and 17,000 B.P., the Laurentide ice sheets reached their maximum extent in
eastern North America, with the Kent Moraine of the Erie Lobe extending as far south as
central Ohio and northern Pennsylvania (Crowl and Sevon 1999:226). The southern boundary
of the 304-meter- (1,000-foot-) thick ice sheets was approximately 15 km (9 miles) south and
45 km (28 miles) east of New Castle in northwestern Pennsylvania. By 14,000 B.P., with
global warming, the ice retreated to northern areas of New England and Canada, depositing
stratified sequences of glacial till across northwestern Pennsylvania (Gates 1993; Gaudreau
1988:218; Watts 1979).
During the late Glacial period, tundra was widespread at areas adjacent to glaciers and at
higher elevations in Appalachia. At the base of the Cranberry Glades pollen profile
(Pocahontas County, West Virginia) (circa 12,185 B.P.), sedge, pine, spruce, and grass pollen
were dominant. Another site in the Appalachian Plateau, Big Run Bog in Tucker County,
West Virginia (Larabee 1986) yielded a tundra pollen spectrum dominated by sedges and
grasses in levels dated to between 17,040 B.P. and 13,860 B.P.. Similar late Glacial tundra
pollen assemblages have been noted for other upland locations in Appalachia as well
(Maxwell and Davis 1972:506; Whitehead 1973:625).
Northeastern North America experienced relatively rapid warming between 14,000 and
11,000 years ago (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Gates 1993:84; Stingelin 1965). The retreat of
the glaciers, as well as a steady succession of vegetative types in Greater Appalachia, reflects
this dynamic transition. By 12,000 B.P., paleoenvironmental sites in southern Pennsylvania
revealed pollen assemblages suggesting widespread boreal forest of spruce and pine. Data
from New Paris No. 4, Bedford County, Pennsylvania (Guilday et al. 1964) and Hartstown
Bog, Crawford County, Pennsylvania (Walker and Hartman 1960), suggest ameliorating
boreal forest conditions at approximately 11,000 B.P. Mt. Davis Marsh, near Meyersdale in
Somerset County, Pennsylvania, was also dominated by spruce, pine, and fir (Stingelin
1965:50).
By 11,500 B.P., in southwestern Pennsylvania, Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Washington
County) vertebrate remains (Adovasio et al. 1998:11) revealed a temperate “Carolinian”
fauna, as well as oak, hickory, and pine, suggesting the initial emergence of the Mixed
Mesophytic forest. Subsequently, white ash invaded the area, along with beech and chestnut
(Castanea) (Watts 1979:452). Upland sites in north-central Pennsylvania, such as
Tannersville Bog (Monroe County) and Longswamp (Berks County) also revealed deciduous
forest by 10,000 B.P. (Davis 1984:172).
Pollen analysis of samples from Sheep Rock Shelter also identifies a decrease in pine and a
corresponding increase in oak over the 9,000 year occupation of the cave. In addition,
Guilday and Parmalee (1965:48) state that “all species recovered…are typical of the area as it
is under present climatic conditions.” These data suggest that the Upper Juniata River basin
and vicinity likely supported a Mixed Mesophytic forest suite for at least the last 9,000 to
10,000 years.
24
As climates ameliorated during the hypsithermal interval, between 10,000 and 5000 B.P.,
cool-adapted boreal forest species (e.g., spruce and Jack pine) declined in importance in
uplands of the Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley, including such sites as Cranberry
Glades, Mt. Davis Marsh, Tannersville Bog, and Potts Mountain Pond (Davis 1984:173,178;
Joyce 1988:197). Many of the species of flora and fauna of central Appalachia spread rapidly
up in elevation and northward to colonize once-glaciated terrain (Davis 1984:173; Gates
1989; Gaudreau 1988:218; Watts 1979).
Approximately 5,000 years ago, climates began to cool slightly across eastern North America
(Gajewski 1988:259), resulting in an increase in red spruce at upland sites such as
Tannersville Bog and Cranberry Glades. This transition marked the end of the middle
Holocene hypsithermal warm episode (Davis 1984:178). However, data from Sheep Rock
Shelter clearly show no change in the types of pollen (Cutler and Blake 1967) and faunal
remains (Guilday and Parmalee 1965) during the hypsithermal, suggesting that lowland sites
(such as the Raystown Branch and vicinity) were not directly affected by this mid-Holocene
warming trend.
Increases in charcoal are noted in pollen diagrams across eastern North America during the
late Holocene (Davis 1984; Fredlund 1989). In pollen Zone C-2 (4000-2200 B.P.) at
Gallipolis Locks and Dam on the Ohio River in Mason County, West Virginia, increased
charcoal flecking is likely due to increased fire disturbance related to human modification of
the landscape for horticulture. In Zone C-3 (2200 to 0 B.P.), the dominating pollen type is
Ambrosia, or ragweed, associated with the fluorescence of regional agricultural practices.
Pollen from corn and other domesticates also begins to appear in the paleoenvironmental
record.
Sheep Rock Shelter (Cutler and Blake 1967:125-168) yielded a diverse suite of corn, beans,
and squash remains, confirming the increased use of domesticates during the last 2,000 years
or so. Other regional sites also show dramatic increases in grasses with the rise in Native
American horticulture and Euroamerican agriculture over the last few centuries (Davis
1984:178).
E.
FLORA AND FAUNA (BY LISA M. DUGAS)
Upper Juniata River Sub-basin 11 falls within two forest regions--the beech-basswood-oakhemlock Mixed Mesophytic forest along the Appalachian Plateau, and the Appalachian Oak
forest (Kuchler 1964) of the Ridge and Valley Province, formerly referred to as the OakChestnut forest (Braun 1950). The Mixed Mesophytic forest is located in the western third of
Watershed A and in the northwest portion of Watershed C. Remaining areas of Watersheds
A, B, C and D are covered by the Appalachian Oak forest. Secondary growth resulting from
timbering and blight (Oak-Chestnut forest) adds to the diversity of both forest regions.
Prehistoric faunal assemblages in sub-basin 11 revealed a rich and diverse fauna for forager
exploitation. The white-tailed deer was the most commonly exploited mammal. Avian and
aquatic resources were also exploited. Except for the extinction of certain large animals elk
(Cervus elaphus), wolf (Canis lupus), and cougar (Felis concolor) (Carnegie Museum of
Natural History 2002) and the increases in other species populations, such as white-tailed
25
deer, turkey, and woodchuck, the faunal composition of the area is little changed from early
historic times (Shelford 1963).
Dominant canopy arbors in the Mixed Mesophytic forest are beech (Fagus grandifolia),
tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), basswood (Tilia heterophulla, T. heterophulla var.
Michauxii, T. floridana, T. neglecta), sugar maple (Acer saccharum, A. saccharum var.
nigrum, A. saccharum var. Rugellii), chestnut (Castanea dentatat), sweet buckeye, (Aesculus
octandra), red oak (Quercus baorealis var. maxina), white oak (Q. alba), and hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis) (Braun 1950:40). The undercover of this forest consists of dogwood
(Cornus florida), magnolias (Magnolia tripetala, M. marconphylls, M. Fasseri), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), striped maple (Acer pensylanicum) redbud (Cercis canadensis),
ironwood or blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana) (Braun 1950:43). During the spring summer
and fall months, the herbaceous component of the forest floor consists of a diverse
community of vegetation dominated by wildflowers and ferns. Vernal flora, such as Trillium
grandiflorum, Erythronium americanum, and a variety of wild flowers (Sanguinaraia
canadensis, Stylophorum diphyllum, Delphinium tricorne) are prevalent until summer, when
ferns become more abundant (Dryopteris Goldinana, Phegopteris hexagonopters, Adiantum
pedatum, etc.) (Braun 1950:46). Mesophytic asters (Aster cordifolius, A. divaricatus) and
goldenrods (Solidago caesia, S. latifolia) prevail during the fall (Bruan 1950:46).
The Allegheny Front marks the boundary between the Mixed Mesophytic and the former
Oak-Chestnut forests (Braun 1950:39 and 194). However, this boundary is more
appropriately defined as a transitional area where vegetation traits of the Mixed Mesophytic
forest overlap the ridges and valleys of the Oak-Chestnut forest (Braun 1950:40). Features of
the Mixed Mesophytic forest occasionally occur in scattered coves and valleys in the OakChestnut forest (Braun 1950:192). The typical Oak-Chestnut forest spanned over most
mountain slopes and rolling uplands of the sub-basin. Chestnut (Castanea), red oak (Q.
baorealis var. maxina), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), white oak (Q. alba), black oak (Q.
velutina), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), and tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera) (Braun 1950:199,
575-577) dominated the canopy layer of Oak-Chestnut forest. Common shrubbery includes a
variety of Rhododendron and Azalea, Mountain Laurel (Kalmia latifolia), berry baring
Vaccinium, Leucothoe, and Menziesia pilosa (Braun 1950:199, 569, 571, 582). A fungus
disease during the early 20th century killed most of the chestnut trees in the Pennsylvania
(Braun 1950:233). Currently dominated by red oak (Quercus baorealis var. maxina), white
oak (Q. alba), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), black oak (Q. velutina), and chestnut oak (Q.
montana), the former Oak-Chestnut forest is defined as the Appalachian Oak forest, (East et
al. 1999:3-15; Braun 1950:233, 575-577). Pines (Pinus), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),
hickories (Carya), and maples (Acer) occur within the forest as sub-dominant species in the
community (East et al. 1999: 3-15; Braun 1950:374, 568, 571).
As noted above, the wildlife exploited by indigenous people has changed little in historic
times. Modern wildlife species that inhabit sub-basin 11 are white-tailed deer, black bear,
gray squirrel, red and gray fox, cottontail rabbit, ruffed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, and
wild turkey (Merkel 1981:63). During its lithic raw material study for this project, GAI
observed a black bear within uplands above the Raystown Branch, approximately 10 miles
26
south of Huntingdon. Other mammals including muskrat, raccoon, beaver and rodents are
also plentiful. Additionally, various water foul, songbirds, reptiles and amphibians (Merkel
1981:63) populate the area.
The frequency and distribution of wildlife is reflected by habitat. White-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) occur throughout the sub-basin, but tend to frequent wooded or
partially wooded areas (Merkel 1981:63; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). The
black bear (Ursus americanus) prefer secluded woods with a plentiful water supply (Merkel
1981:63; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002). The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus)
(Alsop 2001) inhabit timbered areas or the edges of fields. Gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis) and turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) tend to inhabit mature woods where oak and
hickory nuts are abundant (Merkel 1981:63; Alsop 2001; Carnegie Museum of Natural
History 2002). Gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) woodcock (Scolopax minor), thrush
(Catharus ustulatus, C. guttatus), and woodpecker (Picoides pubescens, P. villosus) also
prefer woodland areas (Knight 1998:91).
Red fox (Vulpes vulpes), woodchuck (Marmota monax), cottontail rabbits (Lepus
americanus, Sylvilagus floridanus, S. obscurus), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus
colchicus), bobwhite quail (Callipepla squamata), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and
field sparrow (Spizella pusilla) inhabit open pastures and meadows (Knight 1998:91; Alsop
2001; Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2002).
Beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) make
their homes in wetlands along steams and ponds (Knight 1998:91; Carnegie Museum of
Natural History 2002). Wood duck (Aix spona), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose
(Branta canadensia), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) (Alsop 2001) co-inhabit wetland
areas of sub-basin 11. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Knight 1998:91; Carnegie Museum of
Natural History 2002) populate the entire area of sub-basin 11.
F.
SUMMARY
Subsequent to the end of the Pleistocene (ca. 11,000-10,000 years ago), the landscape and
forest environment of the Upper Juniata region remained largely unchanged for over 9,000
years during the Holocene. Native Americans utilized the wide variety of lithic raw materials
to produce tools by which to exploit the vast array of flora and fauna available within the oak
forests of the region. As will be discussed below, Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey
(PASS) files contain site forms for well over 400 prehistoric archaeological sites in sub-basin
11. These sites attest to the constant and unrelenting use of the region by Native Americans
during prehistory.
Only in the last 50 years or so has the environment been significantly altered, as so eloquently
described in this passage written by John Witthoft (Michels and Smith 1967:21), as he sat
within Sheep Rock Shelter (Photograph 8), now under more than 100 m of water in
Raystown Lake:
27
Each year I have seen twice as many cottages, twice as many motorboats
as the previous year [on the Raystown Branch]. The Raystown is but a
small lake and it has more horsepower per square mile than any other
water in the United States. As I worked at [Sheep Rock Shelter], camped
on the lake shores, cruised the river at night and at dawn, explored the
forest, and climbed rock ledges, I saw many aspects of nature that were
still in full vigor and that I could see reflected in the archaeology of the
site. Many of these wonderful things are gone now, and I suppose the rest
have a limited life expectancy.
Photograph 8. A Cruise Ship at the Inundated Sheep Rock Shelter on Raystown Lake (Huntingdon
County Visitors Bureau 2002:9).
28
CHAPTER III. BACKGROUND AND KEY PROJECTS
GAI reviewed archaeological and historical reports and publications, as well as PASS files
data on recorded sites to develop overviews of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
These summaries provide an archaeological and historical context for assessing potential site
significance and for predicting the locations and types of archaeological sites that might be
present in the sub-basin. GAI also conducted an analysis of lithic artifacts from eight
archaeological sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and collected lithic raw materials at
sources in the sub-basin to facilitate an understanding of stone availability during prehistory.
These studies were intended to reveal trends in lithic raw material use over time in the region.
This chapter provides an overview of the methods used in collecting data for the study and
also provides a brief summary of key archaeological projects that have been conducted in the
sub-basin.
A.
PASS FILES DATA
On May 6, 2002, PASS files data were kindly provided to GAI by the Bureau for Historic
Preservation (BHP) for all previously-recorded archaeological sites in the Upper Juniata subbasin (n=378). The 378 recorded sites included information regarding 964 prehistoric site
components (Table 2). PASS forms were submitted by a variety of individuals, including
local artifact collectors, universities, and cultural resource management firms. Prior to
utilizing the data, each site form was compared to raw data that were organized within a
Microsoft Access data base. GAI screened these data carefully by comparing site forms with
computerized data; any errors (e.g., site location, projectile point type, site type, etc…) were
corrected and data from all forms were entered into the data base, including information on
site type, location, age, lithic raw materials, and artifacts.
Table 2. Comparison of Raw PASS File Data with Checked PASS File Data Utilized in this Study.
COMPONENTS:
COMPONENTS:
RAW PASS DATA1
CHECKED PASS DATA2
Paleoindian
12
12
Early Archaic
16
12
Middle Archaic
40
35
Late Archaic
146
87
General Archaic
195
-Transitional
48
35
Early Woodland
38
19
Middle Woodland
37
11
Late Woodland
101
77
General Prehistoric
331
-Total Components
964
288
Total Sites
378
202
1
=raw unchecked data as presented in PAS Chronol table within BHP PASS files; 2=PASS data
checked for diagnostic artifacts
PERIOD
29
After screening the PASS data base, GAI identified 288 site components from 202 recorded
sites as useful for the study (see Table 2). The other 176 sites and 676 components were
eliminated from use in the study due to a lack of specific diagnostic artifact information.
Typically, these eliminated sites listed a period of occupation for a given site, but failed to
include a picture or a description of a specific diagnostic artifact. Without these diagnostic
artifacts, GAI was unable to confirm the period of occupation; thus, those sites were not
included in the study. While considerably smaller than the original, unchecked PASS data,
the refined PASS files data proved invaluable in understanding the prehistory of the Upper
Juniata sub-basin. What the data lacked in specificity (e.g., use of terms like “chert/flint,”
rather than specific chert types), they made up for in revealing general trends over time in
prehistoric site locations, demography, and tool use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
B.
COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS
To supplement the general information from PASS files, GAI conducted an analysis of
projectile points (n=177) from eight archaeological site collections from the Upper Juniata
sub-basin. Appendix C includes complete results of the analysis. Projectile points from six of
the analyzed collections were assessed as to their cultural historical type and their lithic raw
material type. Two of the analyzed sites did not include projectile points that were typeable
either to cultural historical period or raw material type. The archaeological site collections
used in the analysis included four sites in Watershed D (36Bd36, 36Bd190, 36Hu50, and
36Hu106). Site 36Bd36 is the Workman Site that contained the bulk of the artifacts (n=129
of 177) evaluated in the study. One artifact collection each from Watershed A (36Bl38) and
Watershed C (36Bd161) was also examined by GAI. Selection of the collections was based
on the total number of points available in each collection, as well as their age, and site
location.
Of the 177 points, GAI determined a cultural historical type (e.g., Lamoka point or Kirk
point) and a relative age for 134 points. Of these 134 points, GAI identified lithic raw
material type for 122 points. These 122 points were then utilized to assess changes in lithic
raw material use over time in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Since the data were slightly biased
toward sites in the upper Raystown Branch (Watershed D), the observed trends pertain
mostly to this area. The 134 points that were identifiable to type include nine Early Archaic,
two Middle Archaic, 41 Late Archaic, eight Transitional/Terminal Archaic, one Early
Woodland, one Middle Woodland, and 62 Late Woodland points. This chronological
distribution largely mimics site file data, especially for sites in Watershed D, in which the
majority of sites date to the Late Archaic and/or the Late Woodland periods.
GAI collected geologic samples at sources to facilitate stone type identification (see Chapter
II). This comparative collection included approximately 15 stone types, largely collected by
Brian Fritz and GAI directly from sources in the sub-basin (see Chapter 2 for more details).
Of the 177 points studied in the analysis, 155 were typed to specific lithic raw materials. For
many of the stones, there are multiple outcrops across the sub-basin, thus, precise provenance
for the stones used in projectile point manufacture was uncertain; however, for the purposes
of this study, the most proximate known exposure to the respective sites were assumed to be
the sources for cherts in the collections.
30
The 155 points were produced from 12 different known types, including Shriver chert (n=61
points), rhyolite (n=25), Corriganville chert (n=20), Bellefonte chert (n=13), Keyser chert
(n=12), jasper (n=11), Tipton chert (n=4), Nittany chert (n=4), Tonoloway chert (n=3), and
one each of Mines chert and white quartzite. Thus, of the 155 points, all but the 25 rhyolite
points were produced from lithic raw materials available within the sub-basin itself. As
reflected in this report, this emphasis on use of local lithic raw materials was a pervasive
pattern during most of the prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Each of the following
chapters provides detailed results of the collections analysis for points that pertain to the
respective periods. These data supplement lithic raw material data provided in PASS files and
research reports.
C.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH REPORTS
To supplement PASS files data and collections analysis, GAI reviewed pertinent
archaeological reports to better evaluate the types of sites found in the project area. Two
large, regional-scale studies were conducted during the last forty years, including the
Raystown Reservoir Archaeological Salvage and Survey (Smith 1966; Michels and Smith
1967), and the Bald Eagle Archaeological Research Program (Hatch 1980). Each of these
surveys was conducted within similar settings and provided important information regarding
prehistoric site types that may occur within the project area. More importantly, however, over
100 cultural resource management reports and academic projects have been completed within
the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Appendix B provides a complete list of sources used in this
study, including those surveys where no sites were identified. Each of these reports is also
cited in the bibliography, so that the full range of referenced documents is available for
researchers.
D.
KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED A: LITTLE JUNIATA-FRANKSTOWN BRANCH
With the exception of Watershed B (which lacks major projects), the major studies within
each watershed are introduced below to provide a context for more detailed discussion of
them in subsequent chapters. Figure 3 is a map of the approximate locations of key
archaeological sites and projects discussed in this section.
Gromiller Cave
In the early 1960s, the Sheep Rock Chapter of the SPA (Stackhouse 1965) excavated this
small cave approximately five miles east of Hollidaysburg. The cave lies in the side of Lock
Mountain, approximately a third of a mile south of the Frankstown Branch. While some
stratification was present, many of the levels were mixed into a palimpsest “midden zone, “
which yielded the majority of prehistoric artifacts. Nineteen projectile points were found in
the midden, including 15 sidenotched and one stemmed point, suggestive of a substantial
Late Archaic occupation. Hearths identified below the midden are assumed to date to the
Archaic occupations, although no radiocarbon dating was conducted. Three triangle points
and two shell-tempered pottery sherds suggest a Late Woodland site occupation as well.
Stackhouse (1965) interprets the site as a seasonal hunting camp.
31
12
ek
re
C
gle
Ea
Lit
tle
Ju
nia
ta
Ri
ve
r
ld
Ba
S.
1
B
2
Upper Juniata
River Basin
3
Altoona
Pennsylvania
Petersburg
Bridge
A
Huntingdon
Riv
er
7
Sunny Side
Site
Mykut
Rockshelter
D
Workman
6
Br
an
ch
Ju
nia
ta
5
Ra
ys
tow
n
Fra
nk
sto
wn
Fro
nt,
Alle
ghe
ny
Roaring
Spring
10
Ch
es
tnu
tR
idg
e
11
Sheep Rock
Shelter
k
ee
Cr
C
Alle
ghe
ny
4
Br
an
ch
Mo
unt
ain
s
Hollidaysburg
w
llo
Ye
DRAW N D H M A P P R O V E D jclDAT E 7/18/02 DW G . N O 20 02-236-10--C -A3
Figure 3. Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
Projects Key
See Chapter 3 for Project Descriptions
8&9
nch
wn Bra
Raysto
Bedford
Bedford
Village
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Everett
1
2
3
S.R. 220
S.R. 6220
TIPTON IND. PARK
4
5
6
7
GROMILLER CAVE
RAYSTOWN SURVEY
S.R. 26
LOYSBURG HIGHWAY
8/9 BEDFORD AIRPORT/
BEDFORD DIST. CENTER
10 CHESTNUT RIDGE
11 AUGHWICK CREEK
12 BALD EAGLE
Scale
0
6
Map Key
12 miles
Key Archaeological Sites (locations are approximate)
1
Key Archaeological Projects (locations are approximate)
Major Cities
Figure 3
Locations of Key Projects and Archaeological Sites in the
Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
32
State Route 220 Project
The State Route (S.R.) 220 project was a major archaeological investigation of both the
southern and northern Bald Eagle Creek Valleys conducted by Skelly and Loy in the mid to
late 1990s (East et al. 1999). Ten sites were investigated at the Phase II level, while one was
a data recovery project at the Wiser Site on north Bald Eagle Creek (a few miles north of the
current project area). Alignments for proposed road right-of-ways tended to follow steep or
less desirable areas for habitation near south Bald Eagle Creek and floodplain and other likely
loci for prehistoric habitation along north Bald Eagle Creek. As a result, a only one
prehistoric site was identified on south Bald Eagle Creek, Fisher #1 (36BL90). This site
consists of eight prehistoric flakes found in a single shovel test. The shovel test is located
near the northern boundary of the project area; the site likely continues to the north, outside
of the study area.
Results of the north Bald Eagle Creek survey documented a general low density, short-term
use of the area. A single exception occurred at the Wiser Site (36CE442), where excavations
documented Late Archaic features as well as a Late Archaic stone bead manufacturing area.
S.R. 6220 Project
The S.R. 6220 project, conducted by Skelly and Loy (East and Beckman 1992), consisted of
shovel test and test unit excavation along terraces, floodplains, and footslopes of the Little
Juniata River in Blair County, as part of a wetlands replacement project. This project was the
southern portion of the S.R. 220 project described above. In all, five of the seven tested areas
produced prehistoric sites along S.R. 6220. All of the sites were small, temporary camps
consisting of low to moderate densities of lithic debris; no features were identified.
Regarding site function, all were likely loci for the early to late stage reduction of local chert
as well as the resharpening/rejuvenation of cherts from extra-local sources.
Site36BL52 (Replacement Site 2)
The site is located in an area of well-drained soil amid a landscape of poorly-drained soils.
Biface thinning using locally available Tipton Chert was the major activity at the site. No
diagnostic artifacts were recovered.
Site 36BL53 (Replacement Site 3)
Although located on a floodplain, this site was contained entirely within near surface
deposits. Investigations recovered a single Kirk Stemmed point of Onondaga chert indicating
an Early Archaic occupation. Because Onondaga chert is not found naturally in the area, this
point was likely manufactured elsewhere and imported to the site. In addition to the
projectile point, analysis also identified flake debris, dominated by Tipton and dull-gray
chert.
Site 36BL54 is a multi-component site located on the floodplain of the Little Juniata River;
cultural components include Middle and Late Archaic and Late Middle to Late Woodland.
All components were defined on the basis of diagnostic projectile points, excavations
33
encountered neither pottery nor dateable features. Debitage and tool classes were dominated
by biface thinning debitage of Tipton chert; because there were no concentrations of
diagnostic artifacts, non-diagnostic tool and debitage cannot be associated with any particular
occupation. The site appears to represent a series of overlapping, small temporary camps
occupied sporadically over several thousand years.
This site is a moderate density lithic scatter occupying a floodplain setting on the Little
Juniata River. Artifacts include four non-diagnostic bifaces and debitage; artifact classes are
dominated by locally occurring Tipton Chert. The site likely represents a small, temporary
camp.
The site is a low-moderate density lithic scatter located on a Pleistocene terrace overlooking
the Little Juniata River. Analysis identified a single Brewerton point, indicating a Late
Archaic occupation. Tipton chert reduction dominates the flaked stone assemblage at the
site. Because the location was not chosen for wetland replacement, no units were excavated,
hindering interpretation.
In all, investigations detailed the numerous small encampments found on the margins of the
Little Juniata River. Although located in floodplain environs, buried soils were conspicuous
by their absence. Most prehistoric occupation at the sites appears to consist of short-term
campsites focused on Tipton chert reduction and, likely, a variety of resource processing
activities.
Tipton Industrial Park Project
The Tipton Industrial Park Project, conducted by Archaeological and Historical Consultants,
Inc. in 1984 (Hay et al. 1984), consisted of shovel test and test unit excavations along the
Little Juniata River and adjacent tributaries. The study identified four sites—Sites 36Bl38,
36Bl41and 36Bl43—each interpreted to be a Late Archaic camp by Hay et al. Three of the
sites are along levee remnants and floodplain of the Little Juniata River and one is along a
small unnamed tributary of the Little Juniata. Tipton Chert, a locally occurring raw material,
comprises the majority of the raw materials found at these four sites.
Site #1 (36Bl38)
Site #1 consists of a dense scatter of Tipton chert debitage and Late Archaic projectile points
on a levee of the Little Juniata River. Lithic analysis and topographic setting suggests that
the site functioned as a general purpose camp, occupied seasonally by family sized groups for
a variety of domestic tasks.
Site #3 (36Bl40)
Site #3 consists of a large moderate density lithic scatter of Tipton chert, Bald Eagle Jasper,
chalky gray chert and a variety of other raw materials. Topographically, the site is located
immediately adjacent to the Little Juniata River making it an attractive locus for prehistoric
34
occupation. Most major temporal periods are represented at the site; the multi-component
nature of the site serves to hinder interpretations regarding specific components.
According to the authors of the report (Hay et al. 1984), an absence of features suggests that
all occupations at the site were temporary, perhaps the remains of short-term seasonal
subsistence camps. The presence of Bald Eagle Jasper and brown chert suggest a series of
minor encampments during the Early and Middle Archaic. Denser quantities of Tipton Chert
suggest more frequent Later Archaic occupations. The reduction sequence for Tipton Chert is
identical to Site # 1. The similar topographic setting, absence of features, and similarities in
reduction sequences all suggest that Site #3 had the same function as Site #1; perhaps the
decision of which encampment to use was based on micro-variation in resources at each site
for any given visit.
Site #4 (36Bl41)
Site #4 consists of a moderate scatter of Tipton Chert debitage associated with five
prehistoric features on a levee of the Little Juniata River. Features consist of four firepits and
a single postmold. Late Archaic projectile points dominate the diagnostic tool assemblage,
suggesting that the features may also date to this occupation. Localized concentrations of
brown chert and Bald Eagle Jasper were located within the larger Tipton Chert scatter. The
authors suggest that the occupation of Site #4 were similar to those at Sites #1 and #3, with
the exception of preserved features. The presence of features may indicate a longer-term
occupation and/or may reflect cooking and processing of foods at the site. No feature
radiocarbon dates were reported within the project report (Hay et al. 1984).
Site #6 (36Bl43)
Like the other three sites, Site #6 exhibits a large amount of Tipton Chert debitage, which the
authors interpret to be indicative of a Late Archaic occupation. Unlike the other sites,
however, Site #6 is small in size and located on a minor tributary of the Little Juniata River,
suggesting it was used even more briefly than the other three sites.
Minor use of the area for temporary hunting or gathering camps occurs during the Early or
Middle Archaic. These occupations are marked by a focus on Bald Eagle Jasper and brown
chert reduction; most of these occupations occur as isolated concentrations of artifacts within
a larger concentration of materials from later time periods.
In all, excavations at these four sites suggest that the heaviest use of floodplain environs on
the Little Juniata River occurred during the Late Archaic, based on the presence of numerous
temporary encampments. Lithic reduction during this period focused on the reduction of
Tipton Chert, a relatively important raw material to inhabitants of the local area, though only
minor amounts of this raw material occur at sites in the greater region. Features, where
present, suggest the use of deep cooking pits to process game.
Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67)
The Petersburg Bridge Site was located on a terrace overlooking the confluence of the Little
Juniata River and the Frankstown Branch (GAI 1983). Investigations revealed an intense Late
35
Woodland Clemson Island occupation, including four house structures and 477 cultural
features. In addition, a poorly defined Late Archaic occupation was also identified at the site.
Radiocarbon dates obtained from the site places the occupation at 955±70 A.D. and 1070±50
A.D. Excavated structures averaged 2.0-2.5 meters in diameter and several included
associated hearths and other features (see Late Woodland chapter). In addition to structures,
three other feature concentrations were marked by concentrations of postholes and pit
features.
Diagnostic projectile points include Middle to Late Woodland types (Levanna and Jack’s
Reef), as well as several Late Archaic types (Brewerton Eared Triangle, Poplar Island and
other contracting stem types). Lithic raw materials are dominated by cherts, although specific
types were not recorded. In addition, lesser amounts of Jasper, quartz, quartzite, limestone
and rhyolite were identified. Ceramic sherds are diagnostic of Clemson Island occupations
and consist primarily of cord-marked or fabric-impressed grit-tempered sherds.
E.
KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED C: DUNNING CREEK AND UPPER RAYSTOWN
BRANCH
Bedford Village (36Bd90)
First identified in 1938, the Bedford Village site is the only excavated Late Woodland village
site in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Excavated initially by Juniata College in 1977 (under
direction of Dr. Paul Heberling), the site was more fully excavated in early 1980s by Dr.
James Hatch (1979) and a field school from Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). Two
Master’s Theses were produced from this research, including a site report by D.K. Catton
(1994) and a faunal analysis study by W.C.J. Boyko (1987). GAI obtained copies of the
theses directly from the secretary of the Department of Anthropology at Penn State.
The Bedford Village site (36Bd90) encompasses several acres of floodplain/terrace along the
Raystown Branch just north of Bedford. The village layout, including circular houses, a
circular stockade and trench with attached bastions and protected entrance, yielded a mixed
assemblage of Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac Valley pottery. Faunal
materials indicate that the hunting and processing of deer was the main focus of site
occupants during the period of site occupation between ca. 900-1000 A.D.
Bedford County Airport Project
During the late-1980s and early-1990s, Phase I-III excavations were conducted at the Bedford
County Airport, four miles north of Bedford. The project was predominantly within upland
hillside and hilltop settings overlooking Dunning Creek. Phase I and II studies were
conducted by Heberling Associates (Heberling et al. 1990), while a data recovery excavation
at two of the sites (the Ickes I and II sites) was conducted by Indiana University of
Pennsylvania (Baker and Baker 1990; Chiarulli and Walker 1998). Analysis and reporting of
data recovery results are pending (pers. comm., 2002, P.Neusius, IUP).
Of Heberling’s 16 Phase I sites, 15 were located in upland settings, while one was in a creek
floodplain. Eight of the sites contained Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts, with only minor
36
amounts of materials from other time periods. Twelve of the prehistoric sites continued to
Phase II testing. Results of Phase II studies indicated heavy use of the uplands above Dunning
Creek during the Late Archaic for seasonal subsistence, with limited use during other time
periods. As Heberling et al. (1990:173) state: “the consistent character of these sites suggests
a picture of repeated use of the area during the Late Archaic period.” Each of the sites also
yielded lithic artifacts produced largely from local Shriver chert, but with small amounts of
rhyolite as well, suggesting ties to Native Americans in the Great Valley, some 100 km east.
Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project
The Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project occurred in three stages over the source of four
years, 1996 to 2000 (Raber and Heberling 1996, 1999, 2000a). This project identified 24
prehistoric sites on terraces and small tributaries of Dunning Creek, a major tributary to the
Raystown Branch Juniata River. Most sites were located in the uppermost levels of stream
terraces; due to the relatively stable nature of Dunning Creek, relatively little overbank
deposition was noted during the Holocene, accounting for the lack of deeply stratified sites.
Only a single site, 36Bd260 exhibited any evidence of possible stratification; because the site
was avoided, confirmation of multiple, stratified occupations was not confirmed. Because it
was a sewerline with a relatively narrow impact zone, project planners were able to move the
alignment to avoid sites, thus intensive site specific excavations were not conducted during
this study.
Four sites were classified as probable base camps, 13 as small camps, and three as quarry
related camps; site type is unknown for two. Base camps were locales with a generally
moderate to lengthy occupation, occupied by all members of a social group, where a number
of domestic activities were thought to occur. Small camps may be overnight bivouacs used by
an entire social group for a brief stay or, more likely, may be resource processing loci where a
task group worked or maintained itself when away from the main basecamp habitation.
Quarry related camps are sites where recently acquired toolstone underwent initial reduction
and shaping; these locales are likely to be marked by accumulation of early-reduction
debitage, cores, and roughly shaped bifaces.
Late Archaic projectile points were recovered from three sites (36Bd197, 36Bd198,
36Bd200), all basecamps. The preferred raw material at all sites was chert followed by
varying amounts of jasper (both yellow and red), rhyolite, quartzite, and other minority types.
Investigations identified a single Late Woodland site based on the presence of pottery
(possibly Monongahela Cordmarked); this site (36Bd260) also exhibited evidence of another
(undefined) occupation stratigraphically below the Late Woodland occupation.
The author (Raber 2000a) believes that base camps located on broad terraces along major
streams characterize the settlement pattern in the Dunning Creek and nearby valleys. Smaller
resource processing loci are located on tributaries of these larger streams, near springheads in
uplands, and along narrow portions of terrace along the larger streams.
37
F.
KEY STUDIES IN WATERSHED D: RAYSTOWN BRANCH JUNIATA RIVER
Raystown Reservoir Survey and Sheep Rock Shelter
Raystown Survey
In the Raystown Reservoir Survey, conducted in the late-1960s by Pennsylvania State
University (Michels and Smith 1967), 37 prehistoric archaeological sites were identified
within the area of the present Raystown Lake (see Photograph 4) along the Raystown Branch
of the Juniata River. The majority of the sites occurred within the river valley proper, with
only 7 sites located on ridgetops, most of which overlooked the confluence of two streams.
Many of the sites, including the Workman Site (36Bd36; Michels and Huner 1968), were
located on point bars. The major exception to this rule was rockshelter sites, including Sheep
Rock Shelter (36Hu1), one of the most important archaeological sites in central Pennsylvania
(Guilday and Parmalee 1965; Michels 1968, 1994; Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and
Dutt 1968). Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter were the only well-excavated and well-dated
sites of the Raystown Survey. Thirty-five other sites were identified, but information
regarding them is limited and the ages of the sites are uncertain (see Michels and Huner
1968).
Based on the results of excavations at these various sites, Michels and Smith (1967:810)
proposed two main site types over the course of the Holocene in central Pennsylvania: 1)
during the Archaic, Native Americans utilized the area for mobile foraging and deposited a
variety of lithic, bone, wood, and antler artifacts consistent with a nomadic lifestyle; and 2)
during the Woodland, Native Americans incorporated the use of sedentary hamlets, or small
villages, into their settlement pattern, with increasing use of pottery and domesticated crops.
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1)
Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (36HU1) in the 1960s (Photograph 9 and 10) provided the
most detailed evidence of prehistoric occupation in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The site is
one of the most important in the region, due to its deeply-stratified deposits and fine
preservation of organic materials. Sheep Rock Shelter contained lithic, ceramic, wood,
faunal, and human osteological artifacts from nine stratified components dating to the Early
Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional Late Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle
Woodland, early-Late Woodland, and late-Late Woodland/Proto-historic periods (Guilday
and Parmalee 1965; Michels 1968, 1994; Michels and Dutt 1968; Michels and Smith 1967).
The Sheep Rock Shelter reports were preliminary and consist of three volumes, two
published in 1967 by Michels and Smith and one in 1968 by Michels and Dutt. Each of the
volumes was obtained at the Pennsylvania State University library and is an absolutely
essential tool in understanding the prehistory of this region.
During the Early Archaic (Kirk points; stone tools), Middle Archaic (stone tools; middens;
hearths), and Late Archaic (Laurentian/Brewerton points; burials; stone tools), mobile huntergatherers camped in Sheep Rock Shelter with increasing frequency over time. This increasing
frequency is interpreted to be due to a corresponding increase in population density over time.
38
According to Michels and Smith (1967), the change to the sedentary hamlet settlement
pattern of the Woodland was initiated during the Transitional Late Archaic at Sheep Rock
Shelter, in which more than 70 steatite vessel fragments were recovered along with net
sinkers and four varieties of Broadspear points. These artifacts suggest an increasing reliance
on the storage of foods and the increased use of a wide variety of foods, such as fish. During
the Early Woodland (as discussed in Chapter III), Native Americans began to use pottery, as
exemplified by the recovery of Vinette I, Half Moon Cordmarked and Fayette Thick ceramic
sherds at Sheep Rock Shelter. Settlement patterns were restricted to local drainages, as few
“exotic” lithic raw materials were used in stone tool production. During the Middle
Woodland at Sheep Rock Shelter, the “virtual isolation”
(Michels and Smith 1967:819) of site occupants is again
evidenced by the lack of exotic lithic raw materials and
pottery.
Photograph 9. Feature Excavation at the Sheep Rock Shelter
Site (from 1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology Month Poster).
Photograph 10.
Excavations at Sheep
Rock Shelter (from 1993
Pennsylvania
Archaeology Month
Poster).
39
Increasing artifact density suggests rapid population growth during the Late Woodland at
Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967). Pottery influences from the Owasco (northern
Susquehanna River Valley) and Clemson Island (southern/central Pennsylvania) indicate a reestablished regional trade network, increasing sedentism, and increasing reliance on maize
agriculture. Pottery in the late-Late Woodland component is of the Shenk’s Ferry type,
similar to that found to the north and east in the Susquehanna River Valley. Protohistoric
artifacts from the site also suggest that the Susquehannock Indians established a hamlet at
Sheep Rock Shelter, as evidenced by the recovery of diagnostic Shultz Incised pottery.
Sheep Rock Shelter yielded an incredible suite of subsistence remains, suggesting that Native
Americans procured a diverse suite of foods. Faunal remains (Guilday and Parmalee
1965:37) were dominated by deer, but also included nearly every other mammal, bird, and
fish that inhabited the area. Wild plants, such as hickory nut, chestnut, and wild fruits, as well
as domesticated plants, such as corn, beans, squash, and sunflower, were all recovered from
the excavations.
The Workman Site (36Bd36)
While Sheep Rock Shelter is commonly thought of as the most important archaeological site
in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Workman Site (36Bd36) also revealed artifacts dating
back 9,000 years (Michels and Huner 1968). While not as well known as Sheep Rock Shelter,
the Workman Site was also identified during the Raystown Reservoir survey near the towns
of Saxton and Stonerstown (see Photograph 5). The site is located on a point bar on the east
floodplain/terrace of the Raystown Branch near Saxton, the far southern end of Raystown
Lake. While excavations were limited to the upper foot of deposits, they revealed hundreds of
lithic, ceramic and groundstone tools ranging in age from the Early Archaic to the Late
Woodland period. Two human burials were also excavated that likely date to the Late
Woodland site occupation. The Late Woodland component is the most significant and likely
represents the remains of small hamlet with structures.
S.R. 26 Intersection Improvement
Two phases of work were conducted for this project at the intersection of S.R. 26 and S.R.
913 on the west side of the Raystown Branch near Stonerstown. The site lies on the opposite
side of the river from the Workman Site, described above. Phase I work was conducted by
CHRS (Gross et al. 1995) with subsequent Phase II work by Lewis et al. (1996). Excavations
at the site yielded a several Late Archaic points, including Brewerton and Steubenville types.
No features were identified and all artifacts were recovered in the plowzone. The site is likely
the remains of a Late Archaic lithic reduction episode.
Little Valley (SR 3001) Project and Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143)
Heberling Associates, Inc. (Heberling) conducted Phase I-III excavations at Mykut
Rockshelter (36Hu143; Photograph 11) and Phase I-II studies at 36Hu129 and 36Hu147 for
road widening along SR 3001, Little Valley Road (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000; Raber
and Burns 1999). The sites are located within Little Valley, the first small valley to the east of
the Raystown Branch and between Terrace and Bunns Mountains.
40
The two Phase II sites—36Hu129 and 36Hu147—were the remains of small open
encampments, with 36Hu129 dating to the Middle-Late Archaic (Burns and Raber 1998).
Mykut Rockshelter—Site 36Hu143 (see Photograph 11)—yielded a dense deposit of cultural
debris in multiple components within a rockshelter (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000). The
site overlooks Tatman Run, a small tributary of the Raystown Branch that would have
provided an easy travel route to and from the river. Artifacts from the site include lithics,
pottery, faunal remains, and shell, with the most intensive occupation dating to the Late
Woodland. The site was also occupied on a short-term basis during the Terminal Archaic and
Early Woodland.
Photograph 11. Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. at
Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). Photograph provided by
Paul Raber.
The Sunny Side Site (36Bd267)
GAI conducted a Phase I survey prior to construction of a proposed wastewater collection
system in Hopewell Township, Bedford County (MacDonald 2001). During the survey, GAI
identified Site 36Bd267, the Sunny Side Site, on the floodplain/terrace of Yellow Creek near
its confluence with the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River. The Sunny Side Site consists
of a 70-cm-wide hearth (Photograph 12) with associated Selden Island steatite-tempered
pottery and lithic debris at a depth of 94 cm below ground surface in a buried Ab horizon.
41
A hickory wood charcoal sample from the hearth
at the Sunny Side Site (Photograph 11) was dated
to 3500±100 B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090
and BC 2050 to 1540; Beta-158705). With the
associated pottery, the site represents one of only
two well-dated Transtional/Terminal Archaic
period sites in the entire sub-basin (see Chapter
VIII).
Photograph 12. Hearth Excavation at the Sunny Side
Site, 36Bd267, near the Confluence of Yellow Creek and
the Raystown Branch.
Loysburg Highway Demonstration Project
Heberling (Heberling and Heberling 1989)
conducted Phase I and II studies for the Loysburg
Highway project in South Woodbury Township, Bedford County in 1989. Four sites
(36Bd158, 36Bd159, 36Bd160, and 36Bd177) were identified on the Yellow Creek
floodplain, each of which represents the remains of one or more short-term encampments.
Site 36Bd158 contained multiple occupations during the Late Archaic, Early or Middle
Woodland and Late Woodland. Sites 36Bd159 and 36Bd177 contained Late Archaic
occupations, while 36Bd160 may also contain an Archaic occupation. Lithic procurement of
local cherts was the main goal of site occupants at each site.
G.
PERTINENT STUDIES IN PERIPHERAL AREAS
Bald Eagle Archaeological Research Program
Extensive archaeological investigations also occurred between 1970 and 2000 throughout
much of the Bald Eagle Creek Valley. While the southern portion of this valley—including
south Bald Eagle Creek and vicinity—is within the current project area, the majority of
Pennsylvania State University’s archaeological research program was focused approximately
15 km (9 miles) to the northwest in the vicinity of Milesburg, along north Bald Eagle Creek.
The northern branch of Bald Eagle Creek flows along the junction of the Appalachian
Plateaus Province and the Ridge and Valley Province and has its confluence with the West
Branch of the Susquehanna River in Lock Haven. The Bald Eagle research program was
spearheaded by James Hatch of the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). During the late
1970s, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) and PSU initiated a
long-term study of archaeological resources in the Bald Eagle Valley and vicinity (Hatch
1980; Hay 1981). A significant result of the study was the creation of a predictive model of
42
prehistoric site locations for this area. Subsequently, archaeological surveys were conducted
to identify sites in the valley.
Because of the PHMC/PSU study, as well as several others in the Bald Eagle Creek area (Hay
1981; Hay and Graetzer 1985; Houck 1989; Webster et al. 1977), more than 30
archaeological sites were identified within the northern Nittany Valley. The 24 sites studied
in detail include 8 with Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts, 12 with Late Woodland diagnostics,
and 1 each with Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, and Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts.
Each of the prehistoric sites is on a floodplain or terrace of Bald Eagle Creek or a feeder
stream and, thus, occurs in similar settings to those found in the current project area.
The Milesburg Site (36Ce38; Webster et al. 1977) and the Fisher Farm Site (36Ce35; Hatch
1980, 1983) are two of the most intensively studied sites in the Bald Eagle study area. The
Milesburg Site is located on the southern floodplain/terrace of Bald Eagle Creek in
Milesburg. This site yielded Early Archaic, Late Archaic, and Late Woodland projectile
points and pottery. Further downstream, the Fisher Farm Site is a Late Woodland farming
village occupied approximately 1,000 years ago. Extensive excavations were conducted by
PSU at the site, resulting in the identification of several hearth (fire pit) and human burial
features between 0 and 30 cm below the ground surface underlying the plowzone.
West Branch of the Susquehanna River Survey
In the late-1960s, William Turnbaugh (1977) conducted a survey of amateur artifact
collections of sites along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River in Lycoming and
Clinton Counties. Turnbaugh’s study identified nearly 200 sites, most of which were found
along well-drained, high terraces of the Susquehanna River. Small camp sites were located in
uplands and along small streams.
Aughwick Creek Valley Survey
Cultural resource management projects within the Aughwick Creek Valley have yielded
significant data on the settlement patterns of Native Americans in south-central Pennsylvania
(Raber 1995). Aughwick Creek empties into the Juniata River approximately 10 miles east of
the confluence of the Raystown Branch with the Juniata River. Archaeological investigations
for highway improvements along S.R. 522 resulted in the identification of Sites 36Hu44 and
36Hu73. These and other sites in the Aughwick Creek Valley suggest that settlement patterns
consisted of localized movements for subsistence and long-distance movement to collect
resources outside of the local area. The prevalence of rhyolite at the sites suggests ties to the
Great Valley, some 80-90 km to the southeast during the entire Holocene.
H.
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION TO PREHISTORY CHAPTERS
The numerous research projects discussed above provide a wealth of information by which to
evaluate the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Appendix B for a list of projects).
These studies, among others discussed in the following chapters, highlight a great disparity in
the ages and locations of researched sites. None of the projects discussed above identified
Paleoindian components and there was only limited study of Early Archaic, Middle Archaic,
Early Woodland and Middle Woodland sites. The focus, thus, was on the Late Archaic and
43
Late Woodland periods, similar to adjacent regions (Custer 1996; Hay et al. 1987; Hatch
1980; GAI 1995). Another limitation is the near lack (six Phase I survey reports) of
information regarding the prehistory of Watershed B in the northeastern portion of the project
area.
The following chapters provide an overview of the prehistory of the Upper Juniata sub-basin,
utilizing research reports, PASS files data, and the results of GAI’s collections analysis. The
chapters are organized by time period: Paleoindian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late
Archaic, Transitional/Terminal Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, and Late
Woodland. The review encompasses the last 12,000 years of Native American use of the
Upper Juniata sub-basin, comparing and contrasting data from different periods to better
understand changes in subsistence, demography, settlement patterns, site types, stone tool
manufacture, and lithic raw material use.
44
CHAPTER IV. PALEOINDIAN PERIOD
12,500 to 10,000 B.P.
A.
PALEOINDIAN OVERVIEW
The earliest occupation of North America occurred during the Paleoindian period prior to
12,000 years ago (B.P.). While the exact date of human entry into the New World remains a
point of debate, it is generally agreed that it was from Asia via the Bering land bridge,
exposed as a result of Pleistocene glaciation. Until recently, the Clovis culture, with its
famous fluted spear points, was thought to be the oldest Native American culture of the
Americas at ca. 11,000 B.P. (Bonnichsen and Turnmire 1991). However, recent excavations
at sites throughout the Americas have challenged the well-established “Clovis-first”
paradigm and stimulated extensive debate regarding the nature of the original founding
population of the Americas (cf. Clark et al. 2002). Excavations at Monte Verde, Chile
(Dillehay 1997) indicate that Native Americans occupied coastal South America at least
12,000 years ago (Meltzer 1998), suggesting the occupation of North America several
hundred years prior. Recent excavations at sites along the California coast (Jones et al.
2002:215) suggest that Paleoindian populations were coastally-adapted, suggesting a coastal
migration with subsequent migrations to the interior and to eastern North America (Fladmark
1983).
Early Paleoindian sites along the eastern seaboard—including Meadowcroft (Adovasio et al.
1978; Carr and Adovasio 2002a), Cactus Hill (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997), and a handful of
others (see Carr and Adovasio 2002b)—support the likelihood of a pre-Clovis population in
North America. Given the early dates from Monte Verde and these east coast sites, as well as
the generally slow nature of human population migrations (MacDonald 2002a), the founding
population of North America may have been present as early as 14,000 to 16,000 years ago,
with populations reaching the eastern seaboard and central Pennsylvania soon thereafter (Carr
and Adovasio 2002a).
B.
PALEOINDIAN MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY
Pre-Clovis
The earliest well-documented occupation of Pennsylvania comes from Meadowcroft
Rockshelter in the Cross Creek drainage of Washington County at between 11,300 and
12,800 B.P. (Adovasio et al. 1978). Meadowcroft Rockshelter yielded a Miller lanceolate
point and prismatic blades from the earliest cultural levels, while Cactus Hill in Virginia also
yielded blades. Both Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill lack fluted points. No pre-Clovis early
Paleoindian sites have been identified in south-central Pennsylvania.
The flaked stone inventory from Meadowcroft Rockshelter (Carr and Adovasio 2002:7-9)
was produced from local Monongahela chert and non-local stones, including Flint Ridge
chert from central Ohio and jasper from central Pennsylvania. The prismatic blades from the
site are small and were produced from prepared cores. The Meadowcroft toolkit also includes
the Miller projectile point. The point is small and lanceolate, with its maximum width toward
45
the tip. This Meadowcroft toolkit has an “Eurasiatic, Upper Paleolithic” flavor, according to
Carr and Adovasio (2002:8).
The similarities between the stone tools from these sites and those of Upper Paleolithic
Europe, as well as caucasoid traits in early Paleoindian human skeletal remains (Chatters
2000) in western North America, have spurred some to suggest a possible pan-Atlantic
migration from Upper Paleolithic northern Europe to eastern North America with subsequent
travel westward (Collins 1999). However, Straus (2000) provides an excellent argument
against such a migration, with the lack of viable land along the north Atlantic coast (and no
evidence of a maritime Paleoindian culture) being the major stumbling block of the
argument. Also, the same data used to support a European migration—an Upper Paleolithic
toolkit and caucasoid skeletal features—also support a northeast Asian origin. Upper
Paleolithic populations of Hokkaido (northern Japan) and Kamchatka (southeast of Siberia)
were ancestors of the present-day caucasoid Ainu. Upper Paleolithic sites in these areas date
to greater than 14,000 years ago, indicate a maritime culture, and yield stemmed and
lanceolate projectile points and blades (Dikov 1996; West 1996:548). This area of northeast
Asia, thus, represents a likely origin point for Paleoindian populations.
Clovis
Subsequent to the pre-Clovis occupations, such as at Meadowcroft, Native American hunters
utilized a variety of fluted points, including Clovis, Gainey, and Parkhill in the east and
midwest. The Clovis culture was widely spread across the Americas, including Pennsylvania,
while Gainey and Parkhill were focused in the Great Lakes (Shott 1993). The Clovis tool kit
is characterized by fluted spear points, largely produced from exotic cherts indicative of longdistance mobility.
According to Howard (1991:257), Clovis points are comparatively large lanceolate points
with lenticular to oval cross-sections. The points have “slightly convex edges, gradually
tapering tips, and their greatest width is at or near…midpoint. Moderate sharpening and
reshaping” is common, often resulting in the blunting of the tip. The flutes are the most
characteristic trait of the Clovis point, but they are not as visually impressive as Folsom
points from western North America. In contrast to the Folsom point, which entailed the
removal of one broad, long flute, Clovis points include the removal of multiple channel
flakes from the base (Mounier et al. 1993), presumably a strategy to reduce the chances of
point breakage during final fluting (Ellis and Payne 1995).
Fluted-point sites typically yield a variety of other lithic tools as well, including finely-shaped
endscrapers, sidescrapers, spokeshaves, limaces, blades, piece esquillees (wedges), and an
assortment of other cutting tools (Custer 1996:104). This tool kit suggests a subsistence
pattern largely oriented toward the hunting of game. In formerly-glaciated regions, including
areas north of the headwaters of the Delaware River (Wyoming, Susquehanna, and Bradford
Counties in eastern Pennsylvania), subsistence was likely oriented toward the hunting of
caribou (Meltzer 1986:15), while in unglaciated areas (including the entire project area), a
wider variety of game were likely procured, including woodland caribou, deer, bear, and
other smaller game.
46
Fluted-point Paleoindian sites in the region include the Shoop Site in northern Dauphin
County (Witthoft 1952; Carr 1989) and Shawnee-Minisink on the Upper Delaware River
(McNett 1985). At Shoop, numerous fluted points, blade tools, and scrapers were surfacecollected from a circa 20-acre parcel only a few miles northeast of the confluence of the
Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers. Shawnee-Minisink (Dent 2002; McNett 1985) on the Upper
Delaware River in eastern Pennsylvania yielded the only radiocarbon-dated fluted point in the
state (10,940±90 B.P.; Dent 2002:56).
Based on lithic raw materials from Paleoindian sites, several authors (Gardner 1989; Meltzer
1986; Carr and Adovasio 2002) suggest two disparate settlement patterns for eastern
Paleoindian populations. Populations in areas affected by glaciation were more mobile and
exploited a larger territory, as exemplified by the presence of lithic raw materials from a
variety of local and non-local sources at archaeological sites. This mobility was largely driven
by their reliance on migratory caribou, according to Meltzer (1986). In contrast, Paleoindians
in areas unaffected by glaciation relied on a more diverse resource base (as outlined above)
and apparently traveled locally within comparatively constricted territories, as exemplified by
the exploitation of largely local lithic raw materials.
The contrasting pattern is also expected due to the likely variation in population densities in
the two areas. With the colder, harsher climates of once-glaciated terrain, populations were
likely reduced (Kelly 1995) and individuals would have been required to travel longer
distances to maintain social contacts. Such population contacts were likely maintained even
in the lowest population densities; in these cases, individuals simply traveled further to
maintain social contacts, trade, and to find mates (MacDonald 1998, 2002; MacDonald and
Hewlett 2001). The lower density of resources also would have required wider travel realms
to ensure subsistence success and minimize the risks of starvation failure. Such travel would
result in use of a wider range of lithic raw materials, including fair amounts of materials from
long-distance locales.
In contrast, Paleoindian populations in areas not affected by glaciation may have been slightly
more densely packed and established, and likely operated in more constricted territories.
Especially in areas with abundant lithic raw materials and a higher biomass, such as most of
central Pennsylvania (including the Upper Juniata sub-basin), Paleoindians would not have
needed to travel extensively to obtain lithics or foods, as these resources were likely abundant
within their home ranges. The higher population densities, if present, also would have
required shorter travel distances to maintain social networks.
In support of this model, artifacts at the Shoop Site were predominantly produced from nonlocal Onondaga chert from western New York, as well as smaller amounts of Flint Ridge
chert from central Ohio (Carr 1989; Lothrop 1989). These data generally support the model
presented above, suggesting that Paleoindians in areas affected by glaciation, such as the
upper Susquehanna River Valley, utilized extensive mobility in their settlement and
subsistence patterns.
47
C.
PALEOINDIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files indicate the presence of 12 previouslyrecorded Paleoindian sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 3). Each of these sites is
characterized by the presence of surface-collected fluted points or unfluted lanceolate points.
None of the sites have been studied by professional archaeologists
Table 3. Paleoindian Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0039
36BD0059
36BD0074
36BD0083
36BD0103
36BD0132
36BD0155
36BL0029
36BL0064
36HU0025
36HU0026
36HU0065
SITE NAME
Jack Rhodes Farm
Shale Cliff
Rt. 31 Covered Bridge Site
-Bob Egolf #1
New Baltimore #1
Snider Farm
Leighty's Market
Nearhoof
Baker Site #2
Baker Site #1
Fluted Point
PERIOD
ARTIFACTS
Paleoindian - Late
Paleoindian - Late
Paleoindian - mid
Paleoindian
Paleoindian - early
Paleoindian
Paleoindian
Paleoindian
Paleoindian - Late
Paleoindian
Paleoindian
Paleoindian
Late Paleo (Plano)
Late Paleo (Plano)
Mid-Paleo (Folsom)
Late Paleo (Plano)
Clovis
Clovis
Clovis
Clovis
Late Paleo (Plano)
Paleoindian
Paleoindian
Clovis
MATERIAL
Chert/Flint
---Chalcedony
Jasper
Chert/Flint
------
The locations and types of Paleoindian sites indicate that Paleoindian populations traveled
frequently within river and stream corridors (Table 4 and Table 5). Of the 12 sites that have
yielded Paleoindian projectile points in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 11 are located on
floodplains or benches of streams/rivers, while one is located on the toe of a ridge (see Table
4).
Table 4. Paleoindian Site Data, Upper Juniata (PASS files).
SITE NO.
SITE NAME
36BD0039
36BD0059
36BD0074
36BD0083
36BD0103
36BD0132
36BD0155
36BL0029
36BL0064
36HU0025
36HU0026
36HU0065
Jack Rhodes Farm
Shale Cliff
Rt. 31 Covered Bridge
-Bob Egolf #1
New Baltimore #1
Snider Farm
Leighty's Market
Nearhoof
Baker Site #2
Baker Site #1
Fluted Point
48
SITE TYPE
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Lithic Reduction
Open
Prehistoric
Isolated Flute Point
SETTING
Floodplain
Ridge/Toe
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
W
SHED
D
C
C
C
C
C
D
A
A
D
D
A
ELEV.
800
1160
1160
1180
1140
1330
1130
1015
1100
740
760
990
NEAREST RIVER
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Bald Eagle
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Of the 12 Paleoindian sites, two are on the Frankstown Branch and one is on south Bald
Eagle Creek in Watershed A; five are in Watershed C along the Upper Raystown Branch or
Dunning Creek; and four are in Watershed D along the lower Raystown Branch. The lack of
Paleoindian sites in Watershed B is likely due to sample bias, as comparatively little research
has been conducted in that area. All 12 Paleoindian sites are identified in the PASS files as
open habitation or isolated fluted point find locations, suggestive of short-term camp
occupations. The types of sites suggest that camps were inhabited briefly with frequent
population movement.
The presence of sites in uplands away from major river valleys—especially such well-known
sites as Meadowcroft and Shoop—also suggests use of uplands for seasonal subsistence,
despite the paucity of such sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Shoop and Meadowcroft
were likely camping locations for populations exploiting uplands on the peripheries of their
territories. Only one upland site in the Upper Juniata sub-basin—36Bd59, the Shale Cliff Site
(in Bedford County near the Raystown Branch)—yielded Paleoindian artifacts, suggesting
limited Paleoindian use of uplands.
Table 5. Paleoindian Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS files).
SITE NO.
DIST. TO
STREAM
DIRECTION OF
STREAM
36BD0039
60
36BD0059
0
36BD0074
36BD0083
36BD0103
310
36BD0132
80
36BD0155
5
36BL0029
40
36BL0064
--
36HU0025
30
36HU0026
100
36HU0065
0
ORDER OF
STREAM
DIST. TO CONFLUENCE DIRECTION OF CONFLUENCE
(M)
(M)
East
5
240
--
--
0
80
South
4
10
East
4
Southeast
South
North
ORDER OF
CONFLUENCE
Southeast
5
--
--
140
Southwest
4
320
Northeast
4
4
620
Southeast
5
3
100
South
3
4
60
Northeast
5
Northeast
2
210
--
--
10
Northeast
5
South
On-site
East
2
--
--
800
Southwest
5
5
640
Southwest
5
1
300
Southeast
3
Access to water was a key factor for Paleoindian site placement in lowlands and uplands, as
exemplified by the Shoop Site. Even though it is located on a sloping upland hillside, Shoop
is near several water sources, including three springs and three low-order streams. The site
appears to be the remains of several lithic tool production areas spread thinly across the
hillside, indicating short-term use by itinerant foragers.
Data from PASS files also suggest that access to water was a key factor for Paleoindian site
placement in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Table 5). All ten of the Paleoindian sites with
data on proximity to water are within 100 meters of a water source, with eight of those sites
in the floodplains or terraces of major streams and two adjacent to low-order streams.
49
Proximity to the confluences of streams also was important to site placement, as 11 of the 12
Paleoindian sites are within 800 meters of a confluence. For seven of those sites, the stream
confluence was south, southeast or southwest of the site location. This preference may be
related to hunting strategies, with individuals establishing camps downwind from potential
hunting locations. Prevailing storm patterns and winds are southwest to northeast in the subbasin; thus, camps established north of confluences would generally be downwind, except in
unusual weather conditions. While based on a small sample, these data indicate that the
establishment of camps in proximity to stream confluences was associated with game
procurement strategies and prevailing wind patterns. Data from PASS files do not indicate
any Paleoindian site location trend within specific soil types or geologic formations.
D.
PALEOINDIAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE
Based on the data presented above, Paleoindian populations likely subsisted in highly mobile
bands of hunters and gatherers who inhabited major river valleys and used uplands for
seasonal subsistence. The Ridge and Valley province likely served as a corridor for the
migration of Pleistocene flora and fauna, which likewise attracted Native Americans
(Turnbaugh 1977). As during other time periods, the wide flat valleys of the Upper Juniata
sub-basin—including the Raystown Branch Juniata River—provided excellent travel routes
and abundant natural resources for populations moving among the Upper Potomac River, the
Ohio River, and the Susquehanna River.
Table 6. Paleoindian Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
QUART
SAND
FLINT
NOT RECORDED
ZITE
JASPER
STONE
QUARTZ
RHYOLITE
CHERT/FLINT
SHALE
RIDGE
TOTAL
36BD0039
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
--
1
36BD0059
1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
36BD0074
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
1
36BD0083
1
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
--
2
36BD0103
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
1
2
36BD0132
--
--
1
--
1
1
1
--
--
4
36BD0155
--
--
1
--
--
1
1
--
--
3
36BL0029
--
1
1
1
--
1
1
--
--
5
36BL0064
--
--
1
--
--
--
1
--
--
2
36HU0025
1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
36HU0026
1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
36HU0065
1
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
Total
5
1
4
1
1
3
7
1
1
24
While generally limited to broadly-characterized lithic raw material types (e.g., chert, jasper),
data from PASS files also indicate use of a range of lithic materials. Of the eight Paleoindian
sites in the PASS files with data on lithic raw materials, seven list chert/flint as the main
lithic raw material type, as would be expected (Goodyear 1989). Other common raw
materials include jasper (n=4 sites) and rhyolite (n=3), while shale, quartz, and quartzite were
each recovered at one site. Flint Ridge chert was used to produce a Clovis point recovered at
50
Site 36Bd103, located on the floodplain of a low-order tributary of Dunning Creek
(Watershed C) in King Township, Bedford County. Details regarding other types of lithic
artifacts at the respective sites were not provided by PASS forms.
E.
PALEOINDIAN SUBSISTENCE
Paleoindians have traditionally been viewed as being primarily dependent on the hunting of
Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodon and caribou; however, evaluations of the
archaeological evidence for Paleoindian subsistence suggest that early eastern Native
Americans may have practiced a more generalized hunting and gathering economy, including
collection of a variety of wild plants and nuts and the hunting of a variety of game (Dent and
Kauffman 1985; Dent 1991; Lepper 1983; Meltzer 1988). Research at sites near ShawneeMinisink in the Upper Delaware River Valley suggests that large megafauna, including
mastodons, were likely extinct for at least a millennium before the first Native Americans
entered the region (Dent 2002:69).
In unglaciated portions of Pennsylvania, including the current project area, late Pleistocene
environments (see Chapter II) likely were comprised of mixed hardwood forests in lowlands
and mixed conifer-spruce-hardwood forests in higher elevation uplands (see Chapter II).
These wooded settings favored a wide diet breadth, such as that used by contemporary Native
Americans in deciduous and boreal forest settings (Steegman 1983).
F.
RESEARCH ISSUES
This summary of data regarding Paleoindian sites in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin has
generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting archaeological
work in the area. At least nine main research questions are of concern within the Upper
Juniata sub-basin. This list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a
starting point for generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide
information pertaining to these research questions will likely meet National Register
Criterion D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be
eligible for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1.
When did Native Americans first occupy the Upper Juniata River sub-basin?
2.
What types of tools were produced and utilized by Paleoindians in the sub-basin and
what do they indicate about a region of origin?
3.
What types of features were utilized by Paleoindians?
4.
What types of foods were exploited by Paleoindians?
5.
What types of lithic raw materials were used by Paleoindians?
6.
What do lithic raw materials tell us about Paleoindian travel and trade patterns?
7.
Did Paleoindian settlement patterns differ in the glaciated portions of the state and
the unglaciated portions of the state, as suggested by Carr and Adovasio (2002a)?
8.
Did Paleoindians travel within bounded territories, or were population densities so
low as to not limit human movements across the landscape?
51
9.
52
Does the low density and ephemeral nature of Paleoindian sites in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin indicate that populations were only passing through the area or that
populations simply traveled frequently within the area? If the former, where were
Paleoindians going and coming from? If the latter, what were the prevalent routes of
travel and preferred habitation settings?
CHAPTER V. EARLY ARCHAIC PERIOD
10,000 to 8800 B.P.
A.
EARLY ARCHAIC MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY
The beginning of the Archaic period in eastern North America is generally associated with
the onset of the Holocene, which directly followed the end of Pleistocene glaciation. Carr
(1998a) suggests significant environmental changes, from a spruce-dominant forest to the
Mixed Mesophytic forest, which are largely supported by paleoclimatic data presented in
Chapter II. Cultural changes followed the environmental changes, as groups began to
schedule their activities and specialize in methods of seasonal resource extraction in response
to the existence of a more diversified resource base. Although archaeological research on the
Early Archaic period in the region has been limited, it is likely that patterns characterizing the
Northeast in general were also typical of central Pennsylvania (Carr 1998a). Groups were
highly mobile and Carr (1998a:49, 60) and Stewart and Katzer (1989) suggest that the region
sustained a slight population increase during the early Holocene.
Early Archaic Material Culture
A technological change in stone points was characterized by a switch from Paleoindian fluted
and lanceolate points to Early Archaic notched and stemmed points with deep lateral edge
serrations (Figure 4). This transition in point types in all likelihood reflects changes in
associated hafting technologies that may reflect a change in prey species from conifer forestadapted Pleistocene fauna to Mixed Mesophytic forest-adapted Holocene fauna. Early
Archaic projectile point types include Kirk, Palmer, Kessel, Thebes, and Charleston cornernotched and stemmed points (Figure 4). Each of the 12 Early Archaic sites in the sub-basin
was identified as such due to the presence of a Kirk corner-notched or stemmed point (see
Table 7). While other point types may have been used in the region during the Early Archaic,
none have been recognized at sites in the PASS files.
Kirk corner-notched points have medium-large, serrated triangular blades with straight to
concave bases with corner notches. Flaking patterns are largely random, while edges were
thinned by removal of long, narrow pressure flakes resulting in a flat face lacking a medial
ridge. Edges have deep serrations, measuring 2-mm-wide and 3-mm-deep on average. Bases
of Kirk corner-notch points were thinned via pressure flaking, while tangs on notches are
predominantly rounded (Broyles 1971:65).
Kirk stemmed points are medium sized with slightly expanding stems. The blades are long,
narrow and, as with Kirk corner-notched points, have very deep and pronounced serrations.
Stems expand toward the base, which ranges from flat to slightly concave. Sides to the stem
are straight to slightly concave, with bases thinned by pressure flaking.
53
Figure 4. Early Archaic and Middle Archaic Artifacts.
Early Archaic Kirk Corner-Notched Points
Sheep Rock Shelter
(Michels and Smith 1967:683)
Early Archaic Kirk Stemmed Point
Site 36Bl53 (SR 6220 project)
(East and Beckman 1992:46)
actual size
2 cm
1 inch
Middle Archaic LeCroy Point
Wall Site
(Davis n.d.:73)
Middle Archaic LeCroy Points
Memorial Park Site
(Custer et al. 1996:31)
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
DRAWN DHM APPROVED jcl DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236-10--C-A4
actual size
Middle Archaic Neville/Stanly Points
actual size
Middle Archaic Untyped Bifurcate Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
54
Memorial Park Site
(Custer et al. 1996:31)
Figure 4
Early Archaic and Middle Archaic
Projectile Points
Recently, bifurcate points (see Figure 4) have also been dated to as early as 9,400 B.P.
(Bergman et al. 1998:72-73) from the Sandts Eddy Site on the upper Delaware River. These
points typically date to circa 8000 B.P. throughout the east (Justice 1987:82-99). Bifurcate
points appear to date to the latter portion of the Early Archaic to the Middle Archaic and may
suggest technological continuity between the two periods (Bergman et al. 1998:70; Stewart
and Cavallo 1991). However, others (Carr 1998a:60-64, 1998b:79; Gardner 1987) dispute the
cultural continuity between the Early and Middle Archaic, as there appears to be a significant
increase in population that corresponds to the switch to bifurcate points. These changes may
reflect additional cultural transitions, including subsistence and settlement pattern shifts. Carr
(1998a:61) indicates that population growth was slow between the Paleoindian and Early
Archaic, but rapid between the Early and Middle Archaic, as represented by archaeological
site densities in Pennsylvania. PASS files data include 12 previously-identified Early Archaic
sites in the sub-basin, an equal number to the Paleoindian period. As discussed more in the
subsequent chapter, there was a significant increase in the quantities of sites with bifurcate
points, suggestive of a population increase during the Middle Archaic.
The dearth of Early Archaic sites in areas on the periphery of the Upper Juniata sub-basin
confirms the generally low density of Early Archaic populations in central Pennsylvania (Carr
1998a). Three Early Archaic sites of note are located within 30 miles of the current project
area: the Milesburg Site (36Ce38) in Centre County, approximately 50 km (30 miles)
northwest of the project area (Webster et al. 1977); the West Water Street Site in Lock Haven
on the floodplain of the West Branch Susquehanna River (Custer et al. 1996); and the
Herndon Site on the lower central Susquehanna River, approximately 50 km (30 miles)
northwest of Huntingdon (MacDonald 2002). At the Herndon Site, a Kirk/Palmer cornernotched projectile point was identified at a depth of 2.3 meters below ground surface (mbgs),
approximately one meter below a well-dated Late Archaic level.
Early Archaic Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates
Carr (1998a:62) and Gardner (1987) suggest that the Early Archaic persisted between
approximately 10,000 and 8800 years B.P. in the northeast. Broyles (1971) identified Kirk
corner-notched points in Early Archaic levels at the St. Albans Site in West Virginia with
bracketing radiocarbon dates of between approximately 9850 and 8750 B.P. (6800 B.C.;
Kinsey 1972), while Carr (1998a) reported a date of 9250 B.P. at the Fifty Site in Virginia.
The West Water Street Site on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River—within 20 miles
of the current project area—yielded Kirk/Palmer corner-notched points within levels dated to
approximately 9400 B.P. (Custer et al. 1996).
Sheep Rock Shelter is the only site with radiocarbon dates from an Early Archaic component
in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Two radiocarbon dates were attained from Sheep Rock
Shelter, which bracket the Early-Middle Archaic component at the site (Michels and Dutt
1968:58, 323). However, both dates were taken from “decayed organic matter” (~tree roots)
and therefore post-date the actual site occupation. The two dates are:
55
6920±320 B.C. (9190 to 8550 B.P.) from Sample M-1909, decayed
organic matter (not charcoal); Excavation Level 8.
5100±250 B.C. (7300 to 6800 B.P.) from Sample M-1908, decayed
organic matter (not charcoal); Excavation Level 8.
Michels and Dutt (1968:58) use the two radiocarbon dates to bracket excavation Level 8—the
“Early Archaic deposit”—which dates from approximately 8000 to 5000 B.C. or
approximately 10,000 to 7000 B.P. Since the publication of the Sheep Rock Shelter report,
chronologies and point types have been refined; thus, excavation Level 8 more realistically
represents a joint Early and early-Middle Archaic component. The recovery of a LeCroy point
along with two serrated Kirk points within the same level suggests multiple occupations of
the shelter during the Early Archaic and beginning of the Middle Archaic periods.
While bifurcate points have been dated to before 8,800 years ago (see discussion above;
Bergman et al. 1998), for the purposes of this report, we assume that bifurcate points mark
the transition to the Middle Archaic period, as per Carr (1998a). The main reason for this
decision is based on the organization of PASS files data, which link bifurcate points with the
Middle Archaic. For the purposes of this report and for the sake of consistency with other
papers reliant on PASS files data (Carr 1998a, 1998b), the Early Archaic is assumed, thus, to
date to the period between approximately 10,000 and 8,800 years ago.
B.
EARLY ARCHAIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
Based on the site data provided in PASS files (Table 7), as well as that from pertinent
professional studies at Early Archaic sites (see discussion later in this section), Early Archaic
site types and placement generally resemble those of the Paleoindian period. As noted above,
sites are placed within the Early Archaic period if they yielded variants of the Kirk/Palmer
corner-notched point or the Kirk Stemmed point, among other Early Archaic points described
above. Archaeological sites with bifurcate points are discussed in the Middle Archaic
chapter.
Early Archaic Site Types: PASS Files Data
According the PASS files, 16 sites are attributed Early Archaic site components; however, of
these 16, Early Archaic diagnostic artifacts have been identified at only 12; these 12 sites are
discussed in this section (Table 7). Table 7 and Table 8 provide detailed site location data on
the 12 sites, while Table 9 is a summary of site location data. Kirk corner-notched and
stemmed points were the predominant diagnostic artifacts. As these tables show, a majority
of sites (n=10) are within fairly level (<5% slope) floodplains or terraces of creeks or rivers,
with only two sites located on upland hilltops or sideslopes. Eleven of the sites are open
camps or lithic reduction locations, with the lone other site being Sheep Rock Shelter.
In contrast to the Paleoindian site data, there was no preference for locating sites to the north
of stream confluences; however, six of the 12 sites were located upstream of confluences,
while only two were located downstream. Sites were located near both low- and high-order
56
streams, but, if they were located near small streams, a confluence with a higher-order stream
was typically within 600 meters of the site (Table 8).
Table 7. Early Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
WATERSH
SITE #
NAME
STREAM
ED
SETTING
ELEV.
TYPE
36BD0036
Workman
D
Raystown
Floodplain
820 Open
36BD0079
36BD0137
-Smith #2
C
C
Raystown
Raystown
Floodplain
Floodplain
1130 Open
1120 Open
36BD0171
Stahl #2
C
Raystown
Hilltop
1180 Open
36BL0028
Hite-Locality 1
A
Frankstown
Floodplain
1010 Open
36BL0040
36BL0043
TIP3
TIP6
A
A
Little Juniata
Little Juniata
Floodplain
Floodplain
980 Open
980 Open
36BL0053
Replacement Site 3
A
Little Juniata
Floodplain
1120 Open
36BL0060
Canoe Creek East
A
Frankstown
Floodplain
920 Open
36BL0062
Canoe Creek East 2
A
Frankstown
Terrace
905 Open
36BL0064
Nearhoof Site
A
Bald Eagle
Terrace
1100 Open
36HU0001
Sheep Rock
D
Raystown
Hillslope
640 Rockshelter
Interestingly, each of the four Early Archaic sites in Bedford County (along Dunning Creek
or the Raystown Branch) are located north or northeast of a stream, while each of the seven
sites in Blair County (along the Frankstown Branch, Little Juniata River, or Bald Eagle
Creek) is located south of a stream (Table 8). While this relationship may be coincidental
(given the small sample size), another hypothesis is that foragers traveled predominantly in
the area between these major streams within the geographic center of the Upper Juniata subbasin (see Figure 1) and located their sites on the respective shores within that area.
Table 8. Early Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
Site
Slope
36BD0036
36BD0079
36BD0137
36BD0171
36BL0028
36BL0040
36BL0043
36BL0053
36BL0060
36BL0062
36BL0064
36HU0001
0
0
0
5
2
5
0
0
5
--0
Dist to
Stream
80
10
40
200
20
60
30
53
140
--40
Direction
Of Str.
Northeast
North
Northwest
West
North
Southeast
West
East
South
--South
Order of
Stream
5
4
1
1
2
3
1
5
4
--5
Dist. To
Conflu.
600
100
180
400
100
420
290
220
120
-10
600
Direct. Of
Conflu.
Northeast
Northeast
Northeast
North
East
East
South
Southeast
South
--Southwest
Flow of
Confluence
none
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
downstream
upstream
Upstream
upstream
--upstream
Order of
Conf.
5
4
4
5
2
3
3
5
5
0
0
5
In summary, Early Archaic site placement apparently was oriented around access to major
water courses. Sites were either placed on terraces of major streams themselves or on
57
tributaries near confluences with larger streams. This pattern resembles that of the
Paleoindian period, as access to water apparently was key to site placement, as would be
expected of mobile foragers (Kelly 1995; Steward 1936).
Table 9. Early Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting.
SITE TYPE
FLOODPLAIN
TERRACE
HILLTOP
HILLSLOPE
TOTAL
Open, Large
--
Open, size unknown
7
--
1
--
1
2
--
--
9
Rockshelter/Cave
Lithic Reduction
--
--
--
1
1
--
1
--
--
1
Total
7
3
1
1
12
Early Archaic Site Types: Research Report Data
Of the 12 Early Archaic sites in the sub-basin, five were identified by professional
archaeologists, as represented in Table 10. In additional to Sheep Rock Shelter, the
professionally-studied sites include the Workman Site (36Bd36; Michels and Huner 1968),
the Tipton 4 Site (36Bl40; Hay et al. 1984), Site 36Bl53 (East and Beckman 1992), and Site
36Bd171 (Stahl #2 Site) at the Bedford Airport (Heberling et al. 1990). Each of the projects
was conducted under the auspices of cultural resource investigations prior to construction of a
major public works project. Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman were both excavated prior to
the raising of Raystown Lake in the late 1960s. Sites 36Bd171 and 36Bl40 were each
associated with municipal works projects, including a regional airport and an industrial park,
respectively. Finally, Site 36Bl53 was excavated prior to the widening of S.R. 6220 near
Altoona. Of the five projects, two were near Altoona in Watershed A, two were near
Huntingdon in Watershed D, and one was near Bedford in Watershed C. Of the five projects,
two (Site 36Bl40 and Site 36Bl53) were excavated at the Phase I level; one was excavated at
the Phase II level (Site 36Bd171); and two were excavated at the Phase III level (Sheep Rock
Shelter and Workman).
Table 10. Early Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
WATER
SITE #
36BD0171
36BL0040
36HU0001
36BD0036
36BL0053
AUTHOR
Heberling
Hay et al.
Michels/Dutt
Michels/Huner
East/Beckman
YEAR
PROJECT
1990
1984
1968
1968
1992
Bedford Airport
Tipton Ind.Pk.
Raystown Lk.
Raystown Lk.
SR 6220
LOCATION
Bedford
Tipton
Raystown Lake
Raystown Lake
Altoona
SHED
PHASE
C
A
D
D
A
II
I
III
III
I
Unfortunately, only Sheep Rock Shelter contained well-dated Early Archaic artifacts, while
only Site 36Bl53 was a single component Early Archaic site without mixing with artifacts
from other components. The other sites in the sub-basin yielded Kirk and/or other Early
Archaic projectile points, but from mixed (typically plowzone) contexts with diagnostic
artifacts from multiple periods of occupation.
58
As with PASS files data, each of the Early Archaic sites in the CRM reports is located on or
near a mid-high order stream. Site 36Bd171 (Stahl #2) is located on a hilltop overlooking
Brush Run (a tributary of Dunning Creek north of Bedford), while Workman and Sheep Rock
Shelter are located on the Raystown Branch. Two additional sites—36Bl40 and 36Bl53—are
located near the Little Juniata River near Altoona/Tipton in Watershed A. With the
exception of Sheep Rock Shelter, each of the sites identified in these CRM projects is an
open camp.
C.
EARLY ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE
Lithic raw materials at Early Archaic sites provide insight into regional travel and trade
networks between 10,000 and 8,800 years ago. PASS files provide general information
regarding raw material types and the five cultural resource management projects with Early
Archaic artifacts provide additional information. To supplement this data, GAI conducted an
analysis of eight artifact collections at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg. Of
these eight sites, only the Workman Site (36Bd36) yielded nine Early Archaic projectile
points, each of which was examined for this project.
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: PASS Files
As shown in Table 11, categories of lithic raw materials are generalized in the PASS files;
however, broad patterns of lithic raw material use can be assessed based on the data.
Chert/flint artifacts (n=9 sites) dominate the assemblages, followed closely by Jasper (n=6
sites), and rhyolite (n=3 sites). One site each yielded artifacts produced from quartzite and
chalcedony. Jasper use was concentrated in Watershed A, nearest the local sources of Bald
Eagle jasper near Bald Eagle Creek. The Paleoindian and Early Archaic lithic raw material
data are similar, suggesting continuity in settlement patterns and raw material use between
the two periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. During both the Paleoindian and Early
Archaic periods, emphasis was on local lithic raw material; however, rhyolite use indicates
southward-oriented trade and travel realms and use of jasper indicates the presence of
unknown local jasper sources (likely) or travel to the Bald Eagle Creek Valley near
Watershed A.
Table 11. Early Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
CHERT/
SITE #
36BD0036
36BD0079
36BD0137
36BD0171
36BL0028
36BL0041
36BL0043
36BL0053
36BL0060
36BL0062
36BL0064
36HU0001
Total
CHALCEDON
FLINT
JASPER
RHYOLITE
1
1
-1
1
1
1
1
-1
1
-9
---1
-1
1
-1
1
1
-6
-----1
1
--1
--3
NO RECORD
-1
1
--------1
3
QUARTZITE
Y
---1
--------1
---1
--------1
TOTAL
1
2
1
4
1
3
3
1
1
3
2
1
23
Note: a “1” indicates presence of a material, not quantity of the material, at the site.
59
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: CRM Reports
As noted above, five CRM projects have been conducted in the sub-basin that yielded Early
Archaic artifacts. Kirk corner-notched points (see Figure 4) dominate the assemblages, but
Kirk Stemmed points (see Figure 4) and Kessel points (Site 36Bd171; Heberling and
Heberling 1990:207) were also found as well. Of the five sites, only Site 36Bl53 yielded an
apparently unmixed Early Archaic component with data regarding lithic raw material use.
While Sheep Rock Shelter contained a well-dated Early Archaic component, Middle Archaic
bifurcate points were found in the similar stratigraphic position and only general statements
regarding chert use are presented in the reports (Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt
1968).
As observed in the PASS files, lithic reduction of locally-available cherts was the main
emphasis for site occupants at each of these reported sites. Locally-available Tipton chert was
procured nearby and reduced at Sites 36Bl40 and B6Bl53 near Altoona. At 36Bd171 (Stahl
#2) near Bedford, reduction of local Shriver (or “Bedford”) chert was the main task of site
occupants (Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling et al. 1990).
For Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967:614), a total of 2,907 lithic debitage were
collected, the only material for which lithic raw materials were identified. Here, flint/chert
categories account for 43.2% of the total, followed by chalcedony (31.8%), jasper (13.7%),
and rhyolite (7.0%). However, these data are for the entire lithic assemblage, including all
periods of occupation; thus, it is unclear as to lithic raw material use during only the Early
Archaic occupations.
In addition to projectile points and debitage, the lone celt from Sheep Rock Shelter was
recovered in excavation level 8 and likely dates to the Early Archaic occupation. This celt
was prepared on a bifacially-retouched “irregular thick flake blank” (Michels and Dutt
1968:368) of coarse-grained black chert. This chert description could correspond to any one
of the variety of black cherts in the region, including Shriver, Nittany, Bellefonte, or Keyser
cherts, all of which were available in the greater Raystown Branch area. The medial and
distal-bit portions of the tool were abraded, while the distal bit also heavily damaged from
use.
Lithic raw material data were not available for the Workman Site; however, the report
suggests a “heterogeneity” of lithic materials, suggestive of local chert use (Michels and
Huner 1968:201; see below for an analysis of projectile points from the site).
As noted above, Site 36Bl53, located along the Little Juniata River in Watershed A (East and
Beckman 1992), was the only Early Archaic occupation with detailed lithic raw material data.
Here, excavations revealed an Onondaga chert Early Archaic Kirk Stemmed point (see Figure
4) and 68 other lithic artifacts, including 66 flakes, a biface, and one uniface. Locallyprocured Tipton chert (53%) dominates the assemblage, but dull-gray chert (unknown source)
also was well-represented (43%). East and Beckman (1992:6) note that outcrops of the
Shriver (Old Port), Keyser and Tonoloway geologic formations are present at or near the site;
thus, the gray chert could derive from any of these geologic strata. Among other lithic raw
60
materials, two rhyolite artifacts were recovered, as was one artifact of Bald Eagle jasper and
Onondaga chert (the Kirk stemmed projectile point).
These lithic raw material data from research reports are consistent with information provided
in the PASS files; namely, that Early Archaic foragers mainly utilized local lithic raw
materials, with limited use of non-local materials.
Early Archaic Lithics and Settlement: the Workman Site (36Bd36)
In addition to the cultural resource management and PASS file data discussed above, GAI
conducted lithic raw material analysis of the Workman Site (36Bd36) projectile point
assemblage. Results of these investigations provide additional insights into lithic raw
material use during the Early Archaic in the sub-basin. The entire Workman Site point
assemblage was assessed as to point type and lithic raw material type. Lithic raw materials
from each of the major sources discussed in Chapter II were provided by Brian Fritz and
supplemented by materials collected during field visits to rock outcrops.
During this analysis, nine Early Archaic points were analyzed from the Workman Site
assemblage (Table 12). These points include four Kirk corner-notched points, four Kirk
stemmed points, and two untyped serrated point blade fragments. Of the points, three were
produced from Shriver chert, three from jasper, and one each from Keyser chert, Tonoloway
chert, and white Corriganville chert. Each of these raw materials has sources within 20 miles
of the Workman site and, thus, was locally available.
Table 12. Early Archaic Points/Raw Materials: the Workman Site (36Bd36).
CATALOG NUMBER
A69.2.2861
A67.2.2064
A67/2/768
A67.2.2760
A67.2.1344
A67.2.1927
A67.2?
A67.21714
A66.2.319
D.
POINT TYPE
Kirk CN
Kirk CN
Kirk CN
Serrated Blade
Kirk Stemmed
Kirk Stemmed
Kirk Stemmed
Kirk Stemmed
Serrated Blade
MATERIAL
Tonoloway
Shriver (weathered)
Shriver (weathered)
Shriver (weathered)
Jasper
Jasper
Jasper
Keyser chert
Corriganville chert
EARLY ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Early Archaic Summary
Data from PASS files, research reports, and analysis of the Workman Site artifacts suggest
demographic continuity between Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, as has been posited for Pennsylvania as a whole (Carr 1998a). The total
number of Early Archaic sites (n=12) is identical to that of the Paleoindian period, suggesting
population stasis between the periods. During both periods, sites are predominantly open
camps in stream and river floodplain/terrace settings. While Paleoindians apparently
preferred placement of sites to the north of stream confluences (possibly as a hunting
strategy), this pattern does not emerge during the Early Archaic. During both periods,
however, access to high order streams likely facilitated mobility in the region.
61
In contrast to Paleoindians, who utilized comparatively more exotic cherts in tool production,
Early Archaic Native Americans apparently increased their use of local cherts. Lithic raw
material data the Workman Site assemblage indicate use of local Shriver, Keyser,
Corriganville, and Tonoloway cherts in lithic production. The wide availability of local cherts
and the array of natural resources suggest that populations, while of generally low density,
remained within localized territories during the Early Archaic. The ridge and valley terrain
likely facilitated this local-territory establishment, as human travel was likely oriented in
southwest-northeast trajectories following the course of ridges and valleys, as has been
suggested elsewhere (Heberling et al. 1990; Raber 1995).
According to PASS files data, rhyolite was the only significant non-local lithic raw material
used in stone tool production (jasper was likely procured at fairly local sources). This
suggests contacts with groups in the Great Valley to the southeast, with travel perhaps
oriented along the known Native American trail, the Raystown Path (Wallace 1971:142-143).
This path passed followed the Raystown River to within only a few miles of South Mountain,
the most well-known source of rhyolite in the Great Valley (Stewart 1987).
Early Archaic Research Questions
This summary of Early Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin
has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting
archaeological work in the area. Ten Early Archaic research questions are listed below; this
list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating
additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to
these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register Criterion D; thus,
unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for
listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
1.
2.
3.
4.
When was the Early Archaic?
How does the Early Archaic differ from the preceding Paleoindian period?
What types of foods were procured during the Early Archaic?
What types of tools were produced and utilized by Early Archaic Native
Americans?
5.
Was the change in projectile point technology precipitated by a change in prey
species and/or hunting strategies or are the changes stylistic?
6.
Were bifurcate points produced during the Early Archaic?
7.
What types of lithic raw materials were used during the Early Archaic?
8.
What do lithic raw materials tell us about Early Archaic travel and trade patterns?
How do they compare to the Paleoindian and Middle Archaic?
9.
Did Early Archaic foragers travel within established territories; if so, were the
boundaries socially and/or ecologically defined, or both?
10. Does the low density and ephemeral nature of Early Archaic sites in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin indicate low population densities and/or does it reflect low
intensity of occupations by itinerant populations?
62
CHAPTER VI. MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD
8800 to 5300 BP
A.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC OVERVIEW
Compared to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, there is a three-fold
increase in the number of recorded archaeological sites for the Middle Archaic period in the
Upper Juniata sub-basin. These data support Carr’s (1998a:17) and Gardner’s (1987)
hypothesis of a significant population increase between the Early and Middle Archaic
periods. Carr (1998b:88) provides the most complete overviews of the Middle Archaic in
central Pennsylvania and notes a “significant increase in population” during the Middle
Archaic. Sites like Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman continued to be occupied during the
Middle Archaic, but many other locations were being used by Middle Archaic foragers as
well. These population increases may correspond to a wider availability of food resources and
a corresponding shift toward a more logistically-organized subsistence/settlement pattern, as
occurred elsewhere in North America at this time (Brown and Vierra 1983). Cowin (1991:48)
characterizes the Middle Archaic settlement system as consisting of base camps positioned
on Holocene-age river terraces, smaller resource procurement stations for seasonal plant and
animal exploitation in upland settings, and lithic-reduction stations near bedrock outcrops of
stone exploited for tool manufacture.
The Middle Archaic shift in subsistence pattern may have corresponded with increasing
territoriality and reduced mobility, resulting in increased duration of site occupation. In turn,
this pattern of land-use resulted in increasing Middle Archaic site visibility compared to sites
of the prior Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Apparently, steps were being taken during
the Middle Archaic—such as increasing populations and diversification of resource base—
that eventually led to the increased sedentism of the Late Archaic, Transitional Archaic, and
Woodland periods.
B.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC MATERIAL CULTURE AND CHRONOLOGY
Middle Archaic Material Culture
As described in the preceding chapter, bifurcate point production is the major technological
change between the Early and Middle Archaic periods. Middle Archaic point forms (see
Figure 4) in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are predominantly Neville/Stanly and LeCroy, with
fewer examples of MacCorkle, St. Albans, and Kanawha stemmed points (Kuhn 1985).
While some place Morrow Mountain contracting stem points (Custer et al. 1996:28) and
Otter Creek points in the Middle Archaic (East and Beckman 1992:69-70; East et al. 1999:46), others (PASS files; Carr 1998a, 1998b; Kinsey 1972) discuss them in the context of the
Late Archaic. For the sake of consistency with PASS files data, this report discusses these
two point types within the contexts of the Late Archaic period.
LeCroy bifurcate points are the most common projectile points at Middle Archaic sites in the
Upper Juniata sub-basin and vicinity (see Figure 3). According to Broyles (1971:69), LeCroy
points are fairly small with trianguloid blades with straight edges. Blades are serrated on most
63
points (but not all) and the bases are deeply notched by the removal of a large central flake
with surrounding pressure flakes. Stems are straight to slightly flared with no basal grinding.
Neville points are also found at Middle Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These
points are similar to Stanly Stemmed points (Coe 1964) and the two types are often lumped
together as one type, the Neville/Stanly point. Neville/Stanly points were produced from
small bifaces and large, bifacially-modified flakes. Cross-sections are lenticular, with flakes
meeting at the midline (Dincauze 1976). Pressure retouch was likely used to finalize shaping
of the stem and shoulder. Bases are concave and occasionally have a shallow notch,
resembling bifurcation. After basal shaping, blade edges were finalized by pressure retouch,
with regularity of the outline more important than edge sharpness.
In addition to projectile points, lithic assemblages from Middle Archaic sites, such as West
Water Street (Custer et al. 1996), include a variety of hafted drills, knives, endscrapers, and
sidescrapers, as well as cores and utilized flake tools. Sites typically have high proportions of
bifaces in various stages of reduction, depending on proximity to stone sources.
Middle Archaic Chronology
Carr (1998b:79) cites radiocarbon dates of 8900 and 8888 B.P. for bifurcate point levels from
the Fifty (Virginia) and St. Albans (West Virginia) sites, respectively, while LeCroy levels at
the St. Albans Site dated to approximately 8300 B.P. An extensive Middle Archaic
component at the West Water Street Site on the West Branch Susquehanna (only 20 miles
north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin) yielded a date of ca. 7400 B.P. (Custer et al. 1996:33),
associated with Neville/Stanly and LeCroy points (see Figure 4). West Water Street also
yielded a previously-unidentified triangle point type in its Middle Archaic levels. Finally, the
Memorial Park Site (36Cn164) in Lock Haven, approximately 35 miles north of the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, yielded a small, but well-dated, Middle Archaic component (GAI 1995).
Neville points were found in association with features dated to between ca. 7000 and 6700
B.P.
Middle Archaic radiocarbon dates for the Upper Juniata sub-basin are limited to the 6800
B.P. date from Sheep Rock Shelter (see Early Archaic above). The date marks the upper
boundary of excavation level 8, which contained two Early Archaic points and a LeCroy
bifurcate point (see Figure 4); thus, the deposit contains a mix of Early and Middle Archaic
artifacts. In the 1967 preliminary report from Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith
1967:812-814), the authors state that the Middle Archaic levels are highlighted by “a six-foot
thick deposit consisting of midden soils, zones of charcoal and ash [and]…two burials.”
However, the deposits are associated with “Laurentian” projectile point styles (Michels
1968:70), which date to approximately 4500 to 5300 B.P. (Kinsey 1972:402-408; see next
chapter). Based on this point association and the fact that these levels are stratigraphically
above the Early and Middle Archaic level 8, the two burials and the associated midden
contents likely date to the Late Archaic site occupation and will be discussed in the next
chapter. For the purposes of this report and for the sake of consistency with PASS files
(which also place the Laurentian points in the Late Archaic period), sites with Laurentian
64
point types are associated with the Late Archaic. The date of 5300 B.P. is used as the
approximate terminus of the Middle Archaic and the beginning of the Late Archaic.
C.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
As with the preceding two chapters, only sites with diagnostic point types are included in the
discussion of PASS files data. Some 40 sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin are listed as
having Middle Archaic components in the PASS files, with 35 of these sites yielding
bifurcate points (Table 13). This site total represents a three-fold increase over the preceding
Paleoindian (n=12 sites) and Early Archaic (n=12 sites) periods. Of the 35 sites, 24 are in
Watershed C, six are in Watershed D, four are in Watershed A, and one site is in Watershed
B. The prevalence of sites in Watershed C suggests that the Middle Archaic population
density increase was mainly focused in the southern portion of the sub-basin, along Dunning
Creek and the Raystown Branch.
Table 13. Middle Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
TYPE
SETTING
36BD0004
36BD0005
36BD0010
36BD0011
36BD0046
36BD0050
36BD0051
36BD0079
SITE NO.
Reynoldsdale Fish H.
Reynoldsdale
Bob Diehl site
between Rt. 31
Bridge
Lutz
Stahl
--
SITE NAME
Lithic Red.
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Bench
Terrace
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
Ridge/Toe
Floodplain
Floodplain
0
1100
1240
1260
1100
1200
1080
1130
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
36BD0082
36BD0083
36BD0089
36BD0092
36BD0097
36BD0111
36BD0113
36BD0114
36BD0119
36BD0120
36BD0131
36BD0142
36BD0155
36BD0161
36BD0170
36BD0182
36BD0218
36BL0028
36BL0035
36BL0062
36BL0064
36HU0001
36HU0036
----Hostetler's #2
Boat House #2
Hoenstine #2
Hoenstine #3
Acker #2
Ryot #5
Helacky #1
Shellbark #1
Snider Farm
Claycomb Site #1
Stahl #1
Bedford Prison
wall site
Hite-Locality 1
B-1
Canoe Creek East 2
Nearhoof
Sheep Rock Shelter
Hammon
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Lithic Red.
Rock Shelter
Open
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Ridge/Toe
Floodplain
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Hillslope
Hillslope
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Bench
Terrace
Terrace
Hillslope
Floodplain
1180
1180
1140
1120
1160
1120
1140
1140
1110
1200
1180
1140
1130
1150
1140
1060
1090
1010
1190
905
1100
640
700
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
D
D
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Juniata River
Bald Eagle
Raystown
Raystown
ELEV.
WATERSHED
MAJ. DRAINAGE
65
SITE NO.
36HU0050
36HU0128
36HU0180
36BD0036
SITE NAME
Rockshelter
Miller-B
Raystown Resort
Workman
TYPE
Rockshelter
Lithic Red.
Lithic Red.
Open
SETTING
ELEV.
Hillslope
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
WATERSHED
700
650
860
820
D
B
D
D
MAJ. DRAINAGE
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
As shown in Table 13 and Table 14, PASS files data indicate that Middle Archaic site
location and setting generally resemble that of the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic
periods. Sites are predominantly open camps or lithic-reduction stations located on the
floodplains, terraces, or benches of streams and rivers. Sheep Rock Shelter and 36Hu50 (the
Rockshelter Site) are the lone Middle Archaic sites not listed as open camps or lithicreduction locations. Also, along with only three other sites (36Bd50, 36Bd97, and 36bd161),
the rockshelters are the only sites not located on a stream terrace, bench or floodplain. Both
rockshelter sites are on hillslopes, while the other three sites are located on ridgetops or
sideslopes overlooking water courses. All of the sites are, thus, located in the vicinity of a
water source, with 15 sites located near a high-order stream (grade 4 or 5) and another 16
near low-mid-order (grade 1-3) streams. These data suggest that water access, and not
necessarily the size of the water source, was the key to site placement.
Table 14. Middle Archaic: Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata.
SETTING
Floodplain
OPEN
17
ROCK
SHELTER
--
LITHIC
REDUCTION
1
Terrace
5
--
2
Bench
Ridgetop
2
2
---
2
--
Hillslope
1
1
--
2
2
Total
27
1
5
33
TOTAL
18
7
4
Access to two or more water sources was also important for determination of camp locations
during the Middle Archaic. Of the 35 Middle Archaic sites, all but five are located near
(within 1,500 m) a stream confluence (see Table 14); however, no patterning emerged
regarding the directionality of site location relative to the confluence. Of the 30 sites near
confluences, 14 are located north or east of a confluence, while 16 are located south or west.
Twenty-two of the Middle Archaic sites are near the confluences of high-order (grade 4 or 5)
rivers, while eight are near the confluences of low-mid-order (grades 1-3) streams. Finally,
there was some correlation between site placement and stream flow, as 18 of the sites are
located upstream from a confluence and eight are located downstream. Thus, the major factor
in Middle Archaic site placement was access to water, with an additional preference for
locations upstream of river confluences.
66
Table 15. Middle Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0004
36BD0005
SLOPE º
-00
DIST. TO
STREAM
5
130
ORDER OF
STREAM
2
4
DIST TO
DIRECT TO
CONFLUENCE CONFLUENCE
5
North
160
North
LOC. OF
CONFLUENCE
Upstream
Upstream
ORDER OF
CONFLUENCE
-5
36BD0010
00
20
3
1150
West
Downstream
3
36BD0011
36BD0046
36BD0050
36BD0051
36BD0079
36BD0082
00
00
00
00
00
00
20
80
20
100
10
10
1
4
1
1
4
4
1100
500
2000
480
100
100
Southwest
South
Southeast
Southeast
Northeast
Southwest
Upstream
Upstream
no conf.
Downstream
Upstream
Downstream
3
4
4
4
4
4
36BD0083
00
10
4
320
Northeast
Upstream
4
36BD0089
00
40
4
1100
Southeast
no conf.
5
36BD0092
36BD0097
36BD0111
36BD0113
36BD0114
36BD0119
36BD0120
36BD0131
36BD0142
36BD0155
36BD0161
36BD0170
36BD0182
36BD0218
36BL0028
36BL0035
36BL0062
36BL0064
36HU0001
36HU0036
36HU0050
36HU0128
36HU0180
36BD0036
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
3
5
5
5
-2
1
--00
00
50
5
-00
40
80
140
360
100
0
0
30
20
5
140
150
150
-20
0
--40
30
40
20
-80
3
4
4
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
2
1
1
-2
1
--5
1
5
--5
260
120
760
740
580
120
880
220
1020
60
600
200
230
-100
1100
-10
600
1300
740
1000
-600
Southwest
North
Southeast
Southwest
South
Southwest
South
Northeast
Southwest
Northeast
Northeast
North
Northwest
-East
Southeast
--Southwest
Northwest
Northeast
South
-Northeast
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
-Upstream
no conf.
--Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
no conf.
-no conf.
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
0
2
3
0
0
5
5
6
2
0
5
D.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE
Lithic raw materials at Middle Archaic sites provide information regarding travel and trade
patterns. PASS files and cultural resource management reports provide general information
regarding raw material types. To supplement these data, GAI conducted an analysis of eight
artifact collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Of these eight sites, two yielded
Middle Archaic bifurcate points, Sites 36Bd161 and Site 36Hu50.
67
Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: PASS Files Data
Similar to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, chert/flint was the dominant
material used during the Middle Archaic (Table 16). The widespread availability of chert
likely explains its extensive use during these periods. As during both the Paleoindian and
Early Archaic periods, jasper and rhyolite were the next most popular raw materials for
Middle Archaic Native Americans; however, during the Middle Archaic, rhyolite use
increased compared to jasper. Of the 35 sites, 12 (32%) contained rhyolite artifacts, compared
to eight for jasper. This marks a change from the Early Archaic, when jasper was the
preferred non-chert/flint material.
Of the 12 sites with rhyolite artifacts, nine of them are in Watershed C, the southernmost
portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Only two sites in Watershed A and one site in
Watershed D contained rhyolite artifacts. Watershed C is conveniently located to the most
proximate rhyolite sources on South Mountain, some 30 miles to the southeast. Several
historic Native American paths—including the Raystown Path—traversed gaps in the northsouth ridge system to connect the Great Valley to the east with the Raystown Branch and the
Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143). The Raystown Path passed within 10 km
of South Mountain near Chambersburg and continued westward along the current route of the
Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through Watershed C. The two Middle Archaic sites in the
sub-basin with steatite artifacts are in Watershed C, the most proximate portion of the subbasin to the Potomac River (and steatite sources).
As will be discussed in the next chapter, rhyolite and steatite use continued to increase during
the subsequent Late and Transitional Archaic periods. Apparently, the cultural connections
and travel realms of Late Archaic foragers were originally established during the Middle
Archaic, as reflected by the increasing use of rhyolite and steatite in the southern portions of
the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Table 16. Middle Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tabulation of Material by Watershed for
Middle Archaic Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
LITHIC MATERIAL
Not Identified
Quartzite
Jasper
Quartz
Rhyolite
Chert/Flint
Chalcedony
Shale
Onondaga Chert
Steatite
Flint Ridge
Total
WATERSHED A
--3
-2
4
-----9
WATERSHED B
-----1
-----1
WATERSHED C
14
1
3
2
8
16*
1
3
1
2
1
52
WATERSHED D
2
1
2
1
4
-----10
TOTAL
16
2
8
2
11
25
1
3
1
2
1
72
*For example,16 sites in Watershed C yielded chert/flint artifacts
68
Middle Archaic Lithics and Settlement: CRM Reports
Six cultural resource management projects have identified Middle Archaic site components
or projectile points within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including three in Watershed C, two
in Watershed D, and one in Watershed A (). Three of the sites are located in the vicinity of
Bedford along the Raystown Branch or Dunning Creek, while two of the sites (Workman and
Sheep Rock Shelter) are located near Raystown Lake, south of Huntingdon. The final site—
36Bl35—was identified near Altoona in Blair County. Three of the projects were highway
related, two were related to Raystown Lake construction, and two were municipal projects,
including one conducted under the auspices of Act 70 (Chiarulli and Walker 1998).
While three of the projects were Phase III data recoveries, little data regarding lithic raw
material use was collected for any of the projects. Davis et al. (n.d.) conducted a data
recovery investigation at the Wall Site (36Bd218) north of Bedford along Dunning Creek.
The site yielded a single LeCroy bifurcate projectile point (see Figure 2) from a
multicomponent plowzone deposit. While “local” lithic raw materials dominated the
assemblage, no specific chert types were identified, nor was there any apparent spatial
segregation of the multiple occupations of the site.
At Site 36Bd46, also located north of Bedford along Dunning Creek, Chiarulli and Walker
(1998:51) recovered multiple types of diagnostic artifacts, including bifurcate points, from
the site surface. As with the Wall Site, the limited sample size and the lack of spatial
segregation of site occupations precluded a discussion of Middle Archaic lithic raw material
use.
Site 36Bd82 (Baker 1994), west of Chestnut Ridge in Watershed C, also yielded a variety of
points (including Middle Archaic) in a plowzone. Lithic raw materials from this site include
“Nittany” chert (~Shriver?), rhyolite, and oolitic chert (probable Mines), among others. No
specific data regarding the Middle Archaic projectile points were provided in the report.
Site 36Hu129 yielded a possible Neville/Stanly point within uplands west of Raystown Lake.
The non-diagnostic character of the point precludes the site’s inclusion in the Middle Archaic
database; however, it is worthy of note that the possible Middle Archaic site yielded high
percentages of jasper artifacts. Raber and Burns (1999) suggest that a local jasper source is
likely nearby.
Near Altoona, excavations prior to highway expansion (L.R. 1061) yielded a LeCroy Middle
Archaic bifurcate point from Site B-1 (36Bl35; Hay et al. 1983). The point was recovered
within mixed contexts with multiple Late Archaic points. Finally, neither the Workman Site
(36Bd36) or Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) reports contained information regarding lithic raw
material use during the Middle Archaic site occupations. Thus, while six cultural resource
management projects in the Upper Juniata sub-basin yielded Middle Archaic diagnostic
projectile points (Table 17), none provide detailed information regarding lithic raw material
use or stone tool production during the Middle Archaic period.
69
Table 17. Middle Archaic Archaeological Studies, Upper Juniata.
SITE NO
36BD0046
36BD0082
36BD0218
36BL0035
36HU0001
36BD0036
W.Shed
Author
Year
C
C
C
A
D
D
Chiarulli
P.Baker
C.Davis
Hay et al.
See text
See text
1998
1994
n.d.
1983
1967
1968
Project Name
Act 70 Site 36Bd46
Ryot Covered Bridge
Bedford Dist. Center
LR 1061 Alignments
Sheep Rock Shelter
Workman Site
Phase
II
I
III
II
III
III
Location
East St. Clair
West St. Clair
Bedford
LR 1061
Raystown Lake
Raystown Lake
Middle Archaic Lithics and Settlement: Collections Analysis
As noted above, only two Middle Archaic projectile points were studied within the
collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Single bifurcate point fragments from Site
36Bd161—the Claycomb Site #1—and Site 36Hu50—the Rockshelter Site—were examined
by GAI. The Workman Site also yielded at least five bifurcate points (Michels and Huner
1968:Plate 1); however, these points were not among those available to GAI during the
analysis of Workman Site lithic assemblage. The bifurcate point from 36Bd161 is a St.
Albans point likely produced from local Bellefonte chert, while the point from 36Hu50 is an
untyped bifurcate likely produced from Shriver chert. Both Bellefonte and Shriver cherts are
locally available, although the precise bedrock sources for the artifacts are unknown (see
Chapter II for discussion of lithic raw material types and their sources).
E.
MIDDLE ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Middle Archaic Summary
Data collected from PASS files provided the bulk of useable information for understanding
Middle Archaic site types, stone tool production and lithic raw material use. Cultural resource
management research reports and collections analysis also provided minor supplementary
data. One major change of the Middle Archaic was the three-fold increase in the numbers of
recorded sites, compared to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Despite this
site increase, however, data within PASS files are still relatively scant and most likely do not
represent a valid sample of Middle Archaic settlement patterns.
Nevertheless, these data corroborate that of Carr (1998a, 1998b) who observed a similar
population increase in greater Pennsylvania. In the Upper Juniata sub-basin, this population
increase was concentrated in the Watershed C, along the upper Raystown Branch and
Dunning Creek. The southern focus of this population increase suggests possible movement
of Middle Archaic populations from the south, perhaps along the Upper Potomac basin, or
from the east near rhyolite sources in the Great Valley. The population focus within the
Raystown Branch Valley also may reflect a settlement pattern preference for wide valleys; the
Raystown Branch is the broadest valley in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
While population increase, preference for wide valleys, and/or the introduction of new
populations from the south or east are possible explanations for the increase in site counts,
another explanation is an increase in site visibility compared to earlier periods. Middle
70
Archaic subsistence models suggest the increased use of base camps compared to preceding
periods. Base camps entail longer-term occupations than itinerant camps of mobile foragers,
the predominant site type during the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. Nevertheless, the
lack of clear Middle Archaic base camp sites does not support the site visibility hypothesis.
Similar to the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, access to water was the key
to Middle Archaic site placement. Each Middle Archaic site was accessible to a water source
and most of the sites were also near stream confluences. No correlations were observed
between site placement, directionality of water flow, or direction of confluences for the
Middle Archaic sites, although there appeared to be a slight preference for placement of sites
upstream of confluences.
The lack of adequate research at Middle Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin
precludes a discussion of Cowin’s (1991) Middle Archaic site type model. As stated earlier,
she suggests that Middle Archaic Native Americans used lowland river terraces for base
camp placement, with small groups then moving outward to collect seasonally-available
resources and lithic materials. While most Middle Archaic sites are located in lowlands along
rivers and streams, the lack of extensive archaeological work at those sites precludes a
discussion of site types. Thus, it is uncertain if the sites do in fact represent base camps or
whether there are also other types of sites in those areas.
During the Middle Archaic, chert and flint continued to be popular in stone tool production.
However, rhyolite increased in popularity, as it was recovered at nearly one third of the
Middle Archaic sites in the sub-basin. The increase in use of rhyolite corroborates the earlier
hypothesis that populations moved into the Upper Juniata sub-basin from areas to the south
(the Upper Potomac drainage) and/or the east (the Great Valley). During the Middle Archaic,
these populations appear to have focused their settlement along the Raystown Branch and
Dunning Creek in the southern portion of the sub-basin. Jasper use within the sub-basin also
suggests stone acquisition at sources near Bald Eagle Creek in Watershed A.
Based on a review of these data, the Middle Archaic does apparently represent a break from
the preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as
hypothesized elsewhere (Carr 1998a, 1998b). While the Paleoindian and Early Archaic
periods apparently represent periods of stasis, two major patterns emerge that distinguish the
Middle Archaic: an increase in population (in the southern portion of the sub-basin) and
increase in rhyolite use, suggesting increasing cultural ties to the south and east. These two
patterns escalate during the Late and Transitional Archaic periods, suggesting that the Middle
Archaic period witnessed the onset of demographic and social changes that became more
firmly entrenched during subsequent periods (see Chapters VII and VIII).
Middle Archaic Research Questions
This summary of Middle Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin
archaeological work in the area. Eleven Middle Archaic research questions are listed below;
this list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for
71
generating additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information
pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register
72
1.
How does the Middle Archaic differ from the preceding Paleoindian and Early
Archaic periods?
2.
Does the increase in Middle Archaic sites reflect an increase in population density?
3.
Was the increase in Middle Archaic population focused in Watershed C or is this a
result of sample bias?
4.
Was there a settlement pattern preference for wide river valleys during the Middle
Archaic?
5.
Where are the Middle Archaic base camps, if present, and what are there
archaeological signatures?
6.
What types of foods were procured during the Middle Archaic?
7.
What types of tools were produced and utilized by Middle Archaic Native
Americans?
8.
Are any other types of stone tools diagnostic of Middle Archaic occupations?
9.
Was the change in projectile point technology between the Early and Middle
Archaic—from notched and stemmed points to bifurcate points—precipitated by a
change in prey species and/or hunting strategies or are the changes simply stylistic?
10.
Were bifurcate points produced strictly during the Middle Archaic?
11.
What other projectile point types (e.g., Archaic triangles) were produced during the
Middle Archaic?
12.
What types of lithic raw materials were used during the Middle Archaic?
13.
What do lithic raw materials tell us about Middle Archaic travel and trade?
14.
What does the presence of rhyolite and jasper indicate regarding trade and travel
patterns during the Middle Archaic?
15.
How does lithic raw material use compare to the preceding Paleoindian and Early
Archaic periods and the subsequent Late and Transitional Archaic periods?
CHAPTER VII. LATE ARCHAIC PERIOD
5300 to 3800 B.P.
A.
LATE ARCHAIC OVERVIEW
The Late Archaic period witnessed several dynamic changes in population, culture and
environment in eastern North America. Population increases are noted across the Middle
Atlantic (Custer 1988) and Pennsylvania (Raber et al. 1998). The continued rise in sea levels
due to environmental warming apparently increased available biomass (Turnbaugh 1977),
including estuarine resources. According to Custer (1988; Custer and Wallace 1982) and
Turnbaugh (1977), the increased availability of resources: 1) stimulated population growth;
2) increased use of logistic subsistence/settlement patterns; and 3) led to the widespread
establishment of regional exchange networks. Late Archaic Native Americans developed a
well-defined schedule of resource exploitation (Cowin 1991; Raber 1995, 1999, 2000) with
the possible exploitation of riverine resources at sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels
and Smith 1967). The following chapter examines these Late Archaic issues within the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, as reflected in PASS files data and regional research reports.
B.
LATE ARCHAIC TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Late Archaic Technology
Within central and eastern Pennsylvania, diagnostic artifacts of the Late Archaic period
(Figure 5) include Laurentian point types (Kinsey 1972:403-408; Ritchie 1965), such as Otter
Creek, Vosburg, and Brewerton, as well as Piedmont point types (Kinsey 1972:418-417),
including Poplar Island, Lackawaxen, Normanskill, and Lamoka (see Figure 5). Laurentian
points are generally side- or corner-notched, while Piedmont points generally have straight to
contracting stems. Detailed descriptions of these points are provided in Kinsey (1972),
Ritchie (1965), and Custer (2001), among others (East et al. 1999; Justice 1987; Kent 1996;
Michels and Dutt 1968). While the Laurentian tradition, as it was originally defined for sites
in New York (Ritchie 1965), includes such artifacts as gouges, plummets, semilunar knives,
slate points, and copper implements, the Laurentian tradition in the Susquehanna Valley and
vicinity generally is restricted to the diagnostic projectile points, although some of the other
artifacts may be recovered at sites as well.
Additional technological changes of the Late Archaic include increased use of groundstone
tools, such as manos, metates and pitted cobbles, for food processing (Hart 1995b; Kinsey
1972). These objects are often referred to as site furniture (Schiffer 1983), meaning that they
were produced and used at a residence for an extended period or were curated at that location
for future use. In consort with site furniture, large storage pits and food processing features,
such as hearths and smudge pits, are also used more frequently during the Late Archaic.
These artifacts and features, if recovered at archaeological sites, imply extended stays at one
location by entire family groups. Sites with these features and artifacts are often interpreted
as base camps from which Native Americans made daily forays for resource procurement, a
typical characteristic of a logistic settlement pattern, as defined by Binford (1980).
73
Figure 5. Late Archaic Diagnostic Projectile Points.
2 cm
Brewerton Points
Sheep Rock Shelter
Actual size
Actual size
Late Archaic Brewerton
Projectile Point (36Bl54)
Lamoka Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Actual size
Actual size
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Late Archaic Brewerton
Projectile Point (Wall Site)
(Davis n.d.:73)
Genesee Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Otter Creek Point
36Bl54
74
Bare Island Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Figure 5
Late Archaic Projectile Points
Numerous researchers (Cowin 1991; Custer 1988; Raber 1995, 1999) propose generally
similar Late Archaic models of settlement that entail an increase in logistic subsistence
patterns within Pennsylvania and the greater Mid-Atlantic region. Rather than being foragers,
thus, in which families moved frequently to obtain resources (as was the pattern during the
preceding Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods), Native Americans were collectors, in
which families were seasonally sedentary at one location (base camps) for extended periods.
From these base camps (typically thought to be located along major waterways), individuals
procured resources (plants, animals, lithics, etc…) during short trips to uplands and to lowmid-order tributaries.
Late Archaic Chronology
While numerous cultural research management projects have been conducted at Late Archaic
sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see discussion below), Late Archaic radiocarbon dates
have only been obtained at two sites: Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1; Michels and Dutt 1968:58)
and Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; Raber 2000), both located in the Raystown Branch Valley
south of Huntingdon (see Figure 1 for general site locations). The nature of most Late
Archaic sites—lithic scatters in plowed or mixed contexts—in the Upper Juniata sub-basin
unfortunately precludes feature identification and radiocarbon dating.
At Sheep Rock Shelter, excavation level six is the Late Archaic site component, measuring
between 12-36 inches thick across the entire shelter. This level lay stratigraphically above the
Early and Middle Archaic levels and below the Transitional levels. Two radiocarbon dates
were attained from the Late Archaic component (Michels and Dutt 1968:58):
2350±50 B.C. or 4250 to 4350 B.P. This date was taken from charcoal within a hearth on the
Brewerton living floor (level 6) and is considered the most accurate measure of the site
occupation.
1850±180 B.C. or 3980 to 3620 B.P. This date was taken from “charcoal sweepings from the
same floor” as the other date; however, it is thought to have been contaminated by
“carbonaceous material [e.g., wood, roots] derived from a later context.”
Based on the two dates, this Sheep Rock Shelter living floor was occupied between
approximately 5,000 and 4,000 years ago. Projectile points associated with the Late Archaic
living floor at Sheep Rock Shelter are predominantly Laurentian, including multiple varieties
of Brewerton side-, eared- and corner-notched points, as well as smaller numbers of Genesee
and Bare Island points (see Figure 5).
Excavations by Heberling Associates Inc. (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000) at Mykut
Rockshelter provided the only other radiocarbon dates for a Late Archaic component in the
Upper Juniata sub-basin. Sixteen radiocarbon dates were assayed from the rockshelter, which
is located on a small drainage overlooking Raystown Lake. Two of the dates—4510±60 B.P.
(Beta-139447; Feature 22) and 4230±60 B.P. (Beta; Feature 9)—established a small Late
Archaic site occupation. The dates were from hearth charcoal and were associated with a
75
lithic reduction area within the rock overhang. No Late Archaic diagnostic projectile points
were recovered in association with the feature.
In confirmation of these radiocarbon dates from Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter,
several other sites in central Pennsylvania have similarly dated Late Archaic components.
The Wiser Site (36Ce442) was excavated during expansion of S.R. 220 along north Bald
Eagle Creek, approximately 20 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. This site yielded
an extensive Late Archaic occupation with Brewerton and other Late Archaic points. Eight
radiocarbon dates ranged between ca. 5200 and 3900 B.P. (East et al. 1999:7-44). One of the
dates—5220±70 (Beta-86174)—was directly associated with a Brewerton side-notched point.
The Memorial Park Site (36Cn164) in Lock Haven, approximately 35 miles north of the
Upper Juniata sub-basin, yielded a variety of Late Archaic points from well-dated contexts
(GAI 1995:191-202). Twenty features, including hearths and smudge pits, yielded
radiocarbon dates of between ca. 5200 and 4900 B.P. for its late Laurentian component. The
recovery of large numbers of groundstone tools confirmed that the site likely functioned as a
base camp with a fairly permanent population. Thirteen Piedmont features were also
identified, yielding radiocarbon dates of between 4410 and 4050 B.P., as well as evidence of
acorn processing.
Excavations at the Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bressler 1989), approximately 15 miles
downriver from Memorial Park on the West Branch, yielded an extensive Late Archaic
component dated to ca. 5100 B.P. Thirteen Brewerton points were recovered, as were
features containing butternut and hickory nut shells. In addition, 12 netsinkers suggest that
fishing was important to Late Archaic site occupants.
The Skvarket Site (36Lu132; Miller 1998) on the North Branch Susquehanna River north of
Sunbury yielded a date of 4,160±70 B.P. associated with Lackawaxen and triangle projectile
points. Miller (1998:107,115-116) suggests that triangle points, while generally considered a
Late Woodland point type, also occur within occupations of other time periods, as was noted
earlier for the Middle Archaic at the West Water Street Site.
Approximately 12 miles south of Sunbury on the east shore of the Susquehanna River, the
Herndon Site (36Nb180; MacDonald 2002) yielded a 2-sigma calibrated date of between
4,250 and 3,860 (Beta-168784) for a hearth and an associated Piedmont-type contractingstem point (~Poplar Island/Lackawaxen).
Further afield, the Faucett Site in the Delaware Valley yielded a Brewerton component with
dates of between 5380 and 4980 B.P. In the Upper Susquehanna Valley, Lamoka components
generally date to between 5150 and 4350 B.P. (East et al. 1999:4-7), while Lamoka points
date to approximately 4300 and 4020 B.P. at sites in New England and New York. Wall
(2000:12) also identified a buried Lamoka component on the West Branch Susquehanna with
radiocarbon dates of ca. 3800-4000 B.P. Kinsey (1972:341) cites dates of 4380-4060 B.P. for
Otter Creek points.
76
Based on these radiocarbon dates and associated projectile points from sites in central
Pennsylvania, Laurentian/Brewerton site components date to the earlier portion of the Late
Archaic, between ca. 5300 and 4500 B.P. Other Late Archaic projectile points, including
Otter Creek, Lamoka, and various contracting stem varieties (e.g., Lackawaxen and Poplar
Island) appear to date to the latter portion of the Late Archaic between approximately 4400
and 3800 B.P. In nearby regions, Brewerton points persist to the end of the Late Archaic
(Gleach 1985:190) and may do so within the Upper Juniata sub-basin as well.
C.
LATE ARCHAIC SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
Of the 146 sites in PASS files with “Late Archaic” components, 87 yielded diagnostic
Laurentian and/or Piedmont diagnostic projectile points. Because of the lack of specificity
regarding diagnostic points, the other 59 sites listed as having Late Archaic components are
not discussed. Nevertheless, the 87 sites with diagnostic Late Archaic artifacts more than
doubles the total of the Middle Archaic period (n=35) and is a more than seven-fold increase
over the Paleoindian (n=12 sites) and Early Archaic (n=12 sites) periods. Twenty-one
research reports include Late Archaic data for the Upper Juniata sub-basin as well.
As noted above, Raber (1995, 1996, 1999, 2000) has proposed a model of Late Archaic
settlement within the Raystown Branch Valley and vicinity of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. In
Raber’s Chestnut Ridge/Aughwick Creek model, base camps are situated on broad terraces
along major streams, were occupied by all members of a social group for an extended period.
The social group was likely comprised of single and/or extended families. Small camps may
be overnight bivouacs used by an entire social group for a brief stay or, more likely, may be
resource processing loci where someone spent the night or conducted tasks when away from
the main basecamp. These camps were located on tributaries of the larger streams, near
springheads in uplands, and along narrow portions of terrace along the larger streams.
Quarry-related camps are sites where recently acquired toolstone underwent initial reduction
and shaping; these locales are marked by accumulation of early-reduction debitage, cores, and
roughly-shaped bifaces.
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: PASS Files
Of the 87 sites with Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 70
contained Laurentian Brewerton points. Sixteen sites possessed artifacts only identified as
Late Archaic, while only seven sites yielded Piedmont-type points, such as Lamoka or
contracting stem varieties. Seven of the 87 sites yielded both Laurentian and Piedmont points.
If the chronology of the Late Archaic, as presented above, is accurate, then, given the
dominance of Brewerton points across the project area, the population increase in the Upper
Juniata was largely restricted to the first half of the Late Archaic period, between
approximately 5,300 and 4,500 years ago. The low number of sites with Piedmont type points
suggests a fairly rapid population decline during the latter portion of the Late Archaic.
Alternatively, the low numbers of Piedmont-type points is due to bias in point typology, in
which the Piedmont types are not as recognizable as the Brewerton forms. Also, in all
likelihood, the chronology of the Late Archaic is not well-defined and, as occurs in nearby
regions (Gleach 1985), Brewerton forms may actually date to the entire Late Archaic.
77
Regardless of the cause, Brewerton points clearly dominate the lithic assemblages of Late
Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Not only was the population increase apparently limited to the first half of the Late Archaic
period, but PASS files data also show that the largest increase in Late Archaic sites was along
the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and its tributaries in Watersheds C (n=49 sites) and
D (n=13 sites). Twenty-two sites were also identified in the northwest portion of the subbasin, along the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch Rivers, while the remainder (n=3)
were identified in Watershed B in the northeast portion of the sub-basin. The majority of the
sites (n=62 of 87), thus, were recorded along the Raystown Branch and its tributaries,
suggesting that this region sustained a disproportionate share of the population increase
during the Late Archaic.
Table 18. Late Archaic Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files)
SITE NO.
36BD0002
36BD0017
36BD0018
36BD0023
36BD0036
36BD0048
36BD0073
36BD0089
36BD0094
36BD0108
36BD0109
36BD0111
36BD0112
36BD0113
36BD0115
36BD0118
36BD0121
36BD0123
36BD0124
36BD0125
36BD0129
36BD0130
36BD0131
36BD0132
36BD0133
36BD0137
36BD0138
36BD0142
36BD0143
36BD0145
36BD0147
36BD0155
36BD0158
36BD0159
36BD0161
36BD0162
78
NAME
-opposite the ball field
D.Plummer Bregle Farm
Dew Drop
Workman Site
Smith
---Bob's Creek #1
Fish Hatchery #2
Boat House #2
Steinbach
Hoenstine #2-Walnut Tree
Bob Egolf #3
Acker #1
Ryot #3
Ryot #4
Ryot #6
Ryot #7
Dew Drop #2
Helacky #2
Helacky #1
New Baltimore #1
New Baltimore #3
Smith #2
Smith #4
Shellbark #1
New Baltimore #2
Acker-Rhodes
Georges Creek
Snider Farm
Site Locus E-16
Site Locus W-16
Claycomb Site #1
Claycomb #2
ARTIFACTS
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Piedmont
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Late Archaic
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
Piedmont
Piedmont
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Pied/Laur.
Laurentian
Pied/Laur.
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
TYPE
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Prehistoric
Prehistoric
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
SETTING
Floodplain
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
Bench
Bench
Slopes
Slopes
ELEV
1240
--1200
820
1100
1160
1140
1140
1140
1110
1120
1120
1140
1180
1110
1220
1200
1200
1200
1180
1180
1180
1330
1300
1120
1140
1140
1340
1120
1230
1130
1100
1100
1150
1160
W.SHED
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
C
C
36BD0164
36BD0167
36BD0168
36BD0169
36BD0171
36BD0172
36BD0173
36BD0174
36BD0177
36BD0182
36BD0190
36BD0197
36BD0199
36BD0218
36BD0222
36BD0243
36BD0247
36BD0248
36BD0265
36BL0001
36BL0011
36BL0016
36BL0027
36BL0028
36BL0029
36BL0035
36BL0036
36BL0038
36BL0040
36BL0041
36BL0046
36BL0054
36BL0056
36BL0064
36BL0071
36BL0072
36CE0269
36CE0283
36CE0284
36CE0285
36HU0001
36HU0033
36HU0050
36HU0067
36HU0106
36HU0107
36HU0109
36HU0114
36HU0122
36HU0127
36HU0143
Claycomb #4
Sellers #1
Sellers #2
Sellers #3
Stahl #2
Stahl #3
Ickes Site #1
Ickes Site #2
Wakefield
Bedford Prison
Rhodes Site
CR-4
CR-6
wall site
JLG
Ford 2
Georges Creek Site #2
cr-13
Slagle
Gromiller Cave
Bottomsfield
Canoe Creek II
-Hite-Locality 1
Leighty's Market
B-1
D-1
TIP1
TIP3
TIP4
--Replacement 10
Nearhoof
Starck
Sharer site #2
Kepler
-Deibler Pasture
Rockspring Cave
Sheep Rock Shelter
James Grove
Rockshelter
-Carbaugh Lower Field
--Cunningham Bridge
Kyper-B
Miller-A
Mykut Rockshelter
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Piedmont
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Pied/Laur.
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Late Archaic
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Late Archaic
Late Archaic
Laurentian
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Village
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Prehistoric
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Lithic Red.
Lithic Red.
Lithic Red.
Open
Open
Open
Rock Sh.
Rock Sh.
Open
Rock Sh.
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Rock Sh.
Hillslope
Ridge/Toe
Ridge/Toe
Ridge/Toe
Hilltop
Hillslope
Floodplain
Bench
Hillslope
Terrace
Terrace
Terrace
-Terrace
Terrace
Slopes
Terrace
Terrace
Ridgetop
Hillslope
Ridge/Toe
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Bench
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Bench
Floodplain
Bench
Bench
Bench
Bench
Hillslope
Floodplain
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Ridge/Toe
1140
1160
1160
1160
1180
1140
1080
1080
1140
1060
829
1140
1115
1090
1060
1020
1200
1260
1160
960
960
880
1020
1010
1015
1190
1240
960
960
980
1080
960
950
1100
1090
1055
1260
1170
1160
1160
640
760
700
680
820
840
880
720
670
637
1060
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
A
D
D
D
B
B
B
D
79
While research bias in Watershed C is another possible explanation for the high density of
Late Archaic sites, data collected for this project suggests that research was fairly evenly
distributed across the sub-basin, if slightly biased away from Watershed C. Of the 21
research projects in the sub-basin (see discussion below; Table 23), six each were in
Watersheds C and A, while nine were in Watershed D. With the exception of Watershed B,
which has experienced very minimal work of any kind, these data suggest that research bias
is not a factor in the distribution of Late Archaic sites in the sub-basin.
Based on the discussion above, Late Archaic populations increased predominantly in the first
half of the period, between approximately 5300 and 4500 years ago. This population increase
is reflected by the predominance of Brewerton projectile points (see Table 17). Late Archaic
populations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin focused their settlement in Watersheds C and D,
along the Raystown Branch, Dunning Creek, Yellow Creek and vicinity, and, to a lesser
extent, along the Frankstown Branch and Little Juniata Rivers of Watershed A. The location
of population increase mirrors that of the preceding Middle Archaic, which also experienced
significant increases in sites along the Raystown Branch, compared to the preceding
Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods. As with the Paleoindian, Early Archaic, and Middle
Archaic periods, however, the predominant site type and placement pattern continued to be
open camps and lithic reduction sites along the floodplains and terraces of streams and rivers
(Table 19).
Table 19. Late Archaic: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting (PASS Files)
LITHIC RED.
OPEN
ROCK SH.
BASE
TOTAL
Bench
Floodplain
Terrace
Alluvial Setting Totals
Hillslope
Hilltop
Ridge/Toe
Ridgetop
Slopes
Uplands/Slopes Total
No data
SETTING
1
1
1
3
--------
10
41
13
64
4
1
4
1
3
13
1
1
--1
2
-1
--3
--
-1
1
2
--------
12
43
15
70
6
1
5
1
3
16
1
Total
3
78
4
2
87
PASS files identify two possible base camp sites during the Late Archaic (Table 18),
supporting Raber’s model for increasing use of logistic subsistence patterns. In this model, as
reviewed above, base camps are established in river valleys from which subsistence forays
are conducted. Another major change during the Late Archaic is a substantial increase in sites
within uplands and hill slopes, including ridgetop sites (n=6) and rockshelters (n=4; see
Table 19). Increased use of uplands and rockshelters also supports Raber’s model, as these
types of sites likely represent instances of “task-specific extraction activities like hunting,
fishing, and gathering,” as would be expected within a collector subsistence strategy (Burns
and Raber 1998:3).
80
During the preceding periods, specific site location data suggested patterns of site placement
relative to streams and stream confluences. As shown in Table 20 below, specific site data
was available regarding 74 of the 87 Late Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. As
with other time periods, access to water was the key to site placement, as 63 of the sites are
located within 150 m of a water source. Given the Late Archaic settlement pattern model, it is
expected that more sites would be located along small streams, as they would have been used
frequently for subsistence; fewer, but larger, sites are expected in valleys of larger rivers. Size
of stream varied, as expected, with 50 sites near low-mid order streams (grade 1-3) and 21
sites being near high order (grade 4-5) streams. Given that most sites were listed as open
camps (and only two as villages or base camps), there were no PASS data available to
evaluate the possible correlation between site type, site size, and stream order. Research
reports, discussed below, provide more insight into this issue.
Table 20. Late Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
SLOPE
36BD0002
36BD0023
36BD0036
36BD0048
36BD0073
36BD0089
36BD0094
36BD0108
36BD0109
36BD0111
36BD0112
36BD0113
36BD0115
36BD0118
36BD0121
36BD0123
36BD0124
36BD0125
36BD0129
36BD0130
36BD0131
36BD0132
36BD0133
36BD0137
36BD0138
36BD0142
36BD0143
36BD0145
36BD0145
36BD0147
36BD0155
36BD0158
36BD0159
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
3
DISTANCE TO
STREAM
10
120
80
200
100
40
340
10
160
140
10
360
10
20
260
10
60
60
40
120
30
80
10
40
10
20
140
50
50
60
5
0
0
ORDER OF
STREAM
DISTANCE
TO CONF.
3
1
5
1
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
3
1
4
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
1
1
1600
360
600
760
100
1100
620
1380
240
760
720
740
1480
40
460
360
140
200
60
380
220
100
280
180
840
1020
400
580
580
400
60
460
500
DIRECTION
OF CONF.
Northeast
South
Northeast
Northwest
Southwest
Southeast
Southwest
Southeast
North
Southeast
East
Southwest
Northwest
Northwest
Southeast
Southeast
Northeast
Northeast
Southwest
Northeast
Northeast
South
East
Northeast
East
Southwest
Southeast
Northwest
Northwest
Northwest
Northeast
Northwest
Northwest
FLOW
OF CONF.
Upstream
No conf.
No conf.
No conf.
Downstream
No conf.
No conf.
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
No conf.
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
No conf.
Upstream
No conf.
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
No conf.
No conf.
ORDER
OF CONF.
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
5
5
5
81
SITE NO.
36BD0161
36BD0162
36BD0164
36BD0167
36BD0168
36BD0169
36BD0171
36BD0172
36BD0173
36BD0174
36BD0177
36BD0182
36BL0001
36BL0011
36BL0016
36BL0027
36BL0028
36BL0029
36BL0035
36BL0036
36BL0038
36BL0040
36BL0041
36BL0046
36BL0054
36BL0056
36CE0269
36CE0283
36CE0284
36CE0285
36HU0001
36HU0033
36HU0050
36HU0067
36HU0106
36HU0107
36HU0109
36HU0114
36HU0114
36HU0122
36HU0127
SLOPE
5
5
5
5
11
11
5
5
00
00
5
5
20
5
00
1
2
2
1
5
00
00
5
00
1
5
3
2
2
2
00
00
50
00
---0
0
0
--
DISTANCE TO
STREAM
140
240
120
200
280
300
200
120
40
70
130
150
100
300
0
540
20
40
0
0
70
60
60
0
380
140
30
80
50
20
40
30
40
40
10
20
120
10
10
0
30
ORDER OF
STREAM
DISTANCE
TO CONF.
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
5
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
5
5
1
1
1
1
5
2
5
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
--
DIRECTION
OF CONF.
600 Northeast
620 Northeast
680 Northeast
680 Northeast
850
East
780
East
400
North
520 Northeast
450 Northeast
450 Northeast
210 Northeast
230 Northwest
220
West
280 Northeast
60 Southeast
500
East
100
East
210
East
1100 Southeast
860 Northwest
450
West
240
West
420
East
480 Northeast
640 Southeast
760 Northeast
4040 Northeast
2200
West
2420
West
2520
West
600 Southwest
300 Southeast
740 Northeast
360 Southeast
40
South
100
South
280
South
10 Northeast
10 Northeast
50
East
560
East
FLOW
OF CONF.
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
No conf.
No conf.
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
No conf.
Upstream
No conf.
Upstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Upstream
No conf.
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
No conf.
ORDER
OF CONF.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
5
5
2
2
2
2
5
3
6
5
3
3
3
4
4
2
2
The location of sites relative to stream confluences was important during preceding periods
and was also important during the Late Archaic (Table 21). All but 10 of the Late Archaic
sites were located within 1,500 m of a stream confluence, with the remainder within 2,200 m
of a confluence (see Table 20). As shown in Table 21, the Late Archaic pattern of site
82
placement relative to confluences mirrors that of the preceding Middle Archaic. The majority
of sites (n=38 of 56 sites with data) are located upstream from a confluence and a minority
(n=15 sites) are located downstream. As during the Middle Archaic, there was apparently no
preference for site locations in specific directions relative to stream confluences, as 33 sites
were placed north of confluences and 22 sites were placed south of confluences, with several
to the east (n=11) and west (n=6) as well. Finally, the size of the confluence varied, with 41
sites being located near a high-order (grade 4-6) confluence and 31 sites being located near a
low-mid order (grade 1-3) stream confluence.
Table 21. Late Archaic Site Locations Relative to Stream Confluences: Cross-tab of Site Location relative
to Stream Flow and Confluence Direction.
LOCATION OF CONFLUENCE
No flow data
Confluence Downstream
Upstream, Between Conf.
Upstream, Not Between
Total
EAST
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
EAST
WEST
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
EAST
WEST
WEST
TOTAL
1
3
2
5
-1
1
--
4
3
8
7
4
1
4
2
-3
--
4
-4
3
1
3
1
1
-4
-2
16
15
23
18
11
2
22
9
5
11
6
6
72
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: Research Reports
While PASS files data provide a general picture of Late Archaic site types, 21 research
reports provide more specific data regarding Late Archaic occupation of the Upper Juniata
sub-basin (Table 22). The 21 reports cover 15 cultural resource management projects that
identified 36 sites with Late Archaic projectile points. Most (n=27 sites) of the sites were
identified during Phase I surveys and/or experienced only minimal Phase II testing; thus, site
type is uncertain for these sites due to the low level of effort, although they likely represent
camp locations. Only two sites (Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter) contained intact
stratified Late Archaic components, while four others (Workman, Wall and Ickes I and Ickes
II) were Phase III plowzone sites that yielded mixed deposits with large quantities of Late
Archaic artifacts.
Regardless of the generally minimal level of effort conducted at the sites, this body of
literature provides important data, especially regarding site types, placement, and technology
(see next section), to evaluate Raber’s Late Archaic settlement pattern model in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin. While evidence of base camps is generally lacking during the Middle
Archaic, cultural resource management reports suggest that a few of the Late Archaic sites in
the Upper Juniata sub-basin may have served as base camps, including Sheep Rock Shelter
and Workman, among others described below.
The overview below covers Late Archaic sites across the sub-basin, beginning in the Upper
Raystown Branch near Huntingdon and progressing clockwise down the Raystown Branch
and, finally, to Watershed A and up to the Frankstown Branch/Little Juniata River area.
83
84
Bob Egolf #3
Multiple
Multiple
Ickes I and II
Rhodes
Multiple
Wall Site
CR-13
Gromiller Cave
Multiple
TIP 1, 3 & 4
--
Wetland 4, 6
Sheep Rock
Sheep Rock
Petersburg Br.
Mykut Rock.
Mykut Rock.
Mykut Rock.
--
36BD0115
Bd155,158,159, 177
Multiple1
Bd 173, 174
36bd0190
Bd197,199, 200
36bd0218
36bd0248
36Bl0001
BL27, 35, 36
Bl38, 40, 41
36BL0046
Bl54, 56
36hu0001
36hu0001
36hu0067
36hu0143
36hu0143
36hu0143
36Hu157
SITE NAME
Workman Site
SITE NO.
36Bd0036
I,II
II
III
II
II
III
III
II
I
I
II
I
I
III
I
I
II, III
II
I, II
I
III
PHASE
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
L, P
L, P
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
Laurentian
L, P
Laurentian
L, P
Laurentian
Laurentian
PT. TYPE
Raber et al.
Burns/Raber
Raber
Raber/Burns
Mitchem
Michels/Dutt
Michels/Smith
East/Becman
Lazenby/Heb.
Hay/Stevenson
Hay et al.
Stackhouse
Raber
C.Davis
Raber
Gross et al.
Baker/Baker
Heberling
Heberling
Raber
Michels/Huner
AUTHOR
PROJECT
S.R. 3019
SR 3001
SR 3001
SR 3001
Petersburg Br.
Sheep Rock
Sheep Rock
SR 6220
US 220/LR 1061
Tipton Ind.
LR 1061
Gromiller Cave
Chestnut Ridge
Bedford Dist.
Chestnut Ridge
SR 26
Bedford Air.
Bedford Air.
Loysburg Hwy.
Chestnut Ridge
Workman Site
1994
1999
2000
1999
1983
1968
1967
1992
1987
1984
1983
1965
1999
nd
1996
1995
1990
1990
1989
2000
1968
YR.
LOCATION
Cass Twp.
Carbon Twp
Carbon Twp
Carbon Twp
Alexandria
Rays. Lake
Rays. Lake
Bellwood
Tyrone
Tipton
LR 1061
Hollidays.
East St. Clair
Bedford
East St. Clair
Liberty Twp.
Bedford
Bedford
S. Woodbury
E. St. Clair
Rays. Lake
Table 22. Late Archaic Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
D
D
D
D
A
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
D
C
C
D
C
D
WSHED
COUNTY
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Huntingdon
Blair
Blair
Blair
Blair
Blair
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
Huntingdon
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1): Late Archaic Component
Sheep Rock Shelter is the best example of a possible Late Archaic base camp in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, as it contains a thick (12-36 inch) midden with evidence of a variety of
work tasks, suggesting the presence of whole families or bands. Several burn and storage
features were identified in the Late Archaic levels, along with human burials. Among the
burials is “Sheep Rock Woman” (Saul 1968:208), as well as two other mature individuals
(one possible male and one possible female). Sheep Rock Woman was typed as an Amerind
and was placed within the Middle Archaic excavation levels; however, as noted earlier, point
types associated with the skull are Laurentian, suggesting a Late Archaic age. Approximately
52 grams of red ocher were recovered in association with the skull. While not discussed in
detail in the site report, an infant skeleton was apparently found nearby, suggesting that both
may have died during childbirth (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
At approximately the same depth in another portion of the shelter, two Brewerton sidenotched points were recovered in association with a second Late Archaic burial in excavation
level 6 (Figure 6). Prior to burial, the skeleton was covered by two “artificially-placed layers
of…very large flat stones” (Michels and Smith 1967:245). A third layer of smaller stones
directly overlaid the skeleton, which was placed in a shallow trench. The original orientation
of the burial was likely extended, as shown in Figure 6 (Michels and Smith 1967:246). The
skeleton was nearly complete, except for a missing skull (only two front teeth were
recovered) and long-bone fragments. Saul (1967:247) interprets the skeleton to be a “Late
Archaic extended, probably male burial…it is possible that the peoples of this time period
practiced a form of bundle re-burial, waiting until the skeleton had partially deteriorated
before removing the skull and long bones to another site.”
In addition to the burials, several cooking features and domestic tools, including six varieties
of endscrapers (Michels and Dutt 1968:418), drills, sidescrapers, and groundstone tools,
suggest use of Sheep Rock Shelter by entire families conducting a variety of tasks. The
organization of the preliminary site reports unfortunately precludes an in-depth discussion on
Late Archaic features, as it was difficult to interpret the locations of features relative to
excavation levels and strata.
Sheep Rock Shelter also yielded an abundant variety of faunal remains and shell that provide
information regarding Late Archaic subsistence in the Raystown Branch Valley. While not
differentiated by site component (Guilday and Parmalee 1965; Michels and Dutt 1968),
faunal remains at the site were mostly deer (~50%), with an array of other mammals as well.
Evidence of fishing is present, as 180 fish scales were recovered in the Late Archaic
excavation levels. Only nine fish scales were recovered in the level above and only five were
recovered in the level below, suggesting that the scales were introduced into the level via
cultural processes. Most of the fish scales are Type A, which most commonly derive from
Alosa sapidissima, or American Shad (Michels and Dutt 1968:125), suggesting the
procurement of this anadromous fish during the spring.
Pennsylvania/juniata/juniata_report
Page 85
Interpretation Of Burial
Foot Scale
0
6”
1 ft.
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Figure 6. Burial No. 5, Sheep Rock Shelter, Late Archaic.
Figure 6
Late Archaic Burial No. 5 from Sheep Rock Shelter
(from Michels and Smith 1967: 246)
86
Nearly 700 grams of mollusk shell and over 13,000 grams of untyped bone were recovered in
the level as well, indicating extensive hunting and processing of a variety of aquatic and
forest prey. No botanical remains were identified in the Late Archaic excavation levels at
Sheep Rock Shelter.
Based on the types of artifacts, burials, features, and subsistence remains, entire families were
clearly present at Sheep Rock Shelter. These data support the notion that Late Archaic Native
Americans used the shelter as a base camp from which they conducted subsistence forays,
including hunting, gathering, and fishing. The location of the site within a major river valley
conforms to Raber’s model of base camp placement.
The Workman Site: Late Archaic Occupation
The high density of Late Archaic materials at the Workman Site, including at least 49
Brewerton points (eared-, corner-and side-notched varieties), suggests that it also served as a
base camp for Late Archaic Native Americans operating within the Raystown Branch Valley.
Unfortunately, excavations at the Workman Site in the floodplain/terrace of the Raystown
Valley removed only the plowzone to expose the subsoil for Woodland feature identification.
Thus, excavations did not extend below 1-2 ft. of the ground surface (Michels and Huner
1968:21-22); as such, only the later Woodland site occupations were fully exposed. Deep
excavations might have revealed additional stratified site occupations. Regardless, the sheer
quantity of Late Archaic artifacts suggests extended stays or multiple visits to the site. As
with Sheep Rock Shelter, the location of the site in the Raystown Valley fits Raber’s
predictive model of a base camp location. GAI analyzed the majority of the Late Archaic
points at the State Museum, with results presented below.
Mykut Rockshelter: Late Archaic Occupation
Mykut Rockshelter—Site 36Hu143—yielded a small Late Archaic component within a
stratified rock overhang deposit (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000; see Photograph 11).
The site overlooks Tatman Run, a small tributary of the Raystown Branch that would have
provided an easy travel route to and from the river (now Raystown Lake). Data regarding the
Late Archaic occupation was restricted to two radiocarbon dates of ca. 4200 to 4500 B.P. (see
above) from hearths and associated lithic debris. If Sheep Rock Shelter was a Late Archaic
base camp within the Raystown Branch Valley, Mykut Rockshelter would have provided an
excellent camp location during short subsistence forays into nearby uplands east of the river.
S.R. 26/S.R. 913
Phase I survey and Phase II testing were conducted at the intersection of S.R. 26 and S.R. 913
on the west side of the Raystown Branch near Stonerstown. Excavations identified site
36Bd190 (the Rhodes Site) on the opposite side of the river from the Workman Site,
described above. Phase I work was conducted by CHRS (Gross et al. 1995) with subsequent
Phase II work by Lewis et al. (1996). Excavations at the site yielded several Late Archaic
points, including Brewerton and other stemmed types. No features were identified and all
artifacts were recovered in the plowzone. The site is likely the remains of a Late Archaic
lithic reduction episode or camp.
Page 87
S.R. 3019
Phase I and II studies were conducted by Heberling (Raber et al. 1994) at the Late Archaic
Site 36Hu157. Located in the valley of Great Trough Creek in uplands above Raystown Lake,
the site yielded 316 lithic artifacts, including Laurentian, Piedmont, and Transitional
projectile points. No features were identified and the site likely represents the remains of a
small resource procurement camp. The high percentage of rhyolite in the assemblage suggests
travel/trade to the southeast. Rhyolite was the predominant lithic raw material used at the site,
accounting for 46 percent of the entire lithic assemblage. Chert (42%), jasper (5.7%), oolitic
chert (n=2 artifacts), quartzite (n=5 artifacts), and quartz (n=1 artifact) also were used at the
site.
Loysburg Highway Project
Heberling (Heberling and Heberling 1989) conducted Phase I and II studies for the Loysburg
Highway project in South Woodbury Township, Bedford County in 1989. Three Late Archaic
sites were identified on the floodplain/terrace of Yellow Creek, a mid-order tributary of the
Upper Raystown Branch. Site 36Bd158 contained Late Archaic multiple occupations, while
Sites 36Bd159 and 36Bd177 apparently contained the remains of single Late Archaic
occupations. Lithic reduction of local cherts was the main goal of site occupants at each site.
Bedford County Airport and Bedford Industrial Park
During the late-1980s, Phase I-III excavations were conducted at the Bedford County Airport,
approximately ten miles north of Bedford (Heberling et al. 1990; Baker and Baker 1990. The
project was predominantly within upland hillside and hilltop settings overlooking Brush Run,
a small tributary of Dunning Creek, east of Chestnut Ridge. Of Heberling’s 16 Phase I sites,
15 were located in upland settings, while one was in a creek floodplain. Results of Phase II
studies indicated heavy use of the uplands above Dunning Creek during the Late Archaic for
seasonal subsistence, with limited use during other time periods. Of the 16 Phase II sites,
eight yielded Late Archaic artifacts, predominantly consisting of Brewerton points within
lithic debitage scatters. Many of the remaining sites were interpreted to be Late Archaic as
well, based on their similarity to the Late Archaic site assemblages. As Heberling et al.
(1990:173) state: “the consistent character of these sites suggests a picture of repeated use of
the area during the Late Archaic period.” These Late Archaic sites likely represent Shriver
and other local chert lithic-reduction stations and camps used for seasonal subsistence
procurement.
Subsequent Phase III excavations at two of the Bedford County airport sites—the Ickes 1 and
Ickes 2 Sites (36Bd173 and 36Bd174)—by Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP; Baker
and Baker 1990) also yielded a high density of local chert artifacts within a low-order streamterrace setting. While Phase I survey identified the Ickes 1 and 2 Sites as two different site
areas, subsequent Phase II and III work revealed that they represent one large, continuous
scatter of artifacts. Diagnostic projectile points included 14 Brewerton points from Ickes 2
and two Piedmont-type (Poplar Island and untyped stemmed) points from Ickes 1. Eight
radiocarbon assays were conducted of features at the Ickes 1 and 2 Sites during Phase II and
88
Phase III work, none of which yielded Late Archaic dates, however. The dates ranged from
Early-Middle Woodland to Late Woodland. The problematic association between the
Woodland feature dates and the predominantly Late Archaic artifact assemblage is explained
as a case of “reverse stratigraphy” (Long 1996), in which Late Archaic artifacts washed from
further upslope onto the former ground surface exposed during the Woodland. This resulted
in a mixed assemblage of Woodland and Late Archaic artifacts within the buried Woodlandage soil. Regardless of the problematic stratigraphy, the moderate-high artifact density of
these sites, as well as their locations on hilltops and terraces of Brush Run, suggest that they
were camps used for lithic reduction of locally-collected cherts during the Late Archaic (see
more discussion of lithic raw material use below).
Nearby the Bedford County Airport sites, Phase II and III excavations were conducted at the
Wall Site in winter, 1995 (36Bd218; Davis et al. n.d.) at the location the proposed Bedford
County industrial park. The Wall site yielded several Brewerton points (see Figure 5) from
mixed plowzone contexts within the floodplain of a small tributary of Dunning Creek. The
site assemblage was comprised exclusively of “Bedford” (~Shriver) chert and the report
suggests that the site represents a resource-extraction site.
Chestnut Ridge Project
The Chestnut Ridge Wastewater Project (Raber 1999, 2000; Raber and Heberling 1996)
identified three Late Archaic sites (36Bd197, 199, 200) on terraces and small tributaries of
Dunning Creek, itself a tributary of the upper Raystown Branch northwest of Bedford. Two
of the sites—36Bd197 and 36Bd198—were interpreted to be base camps because of the “size
and variety of the assemblage, as well as the setting” of the sites within a low-order stream
tributary of Bob’s Creek (Raber and Heberling 1996:66-71). Many of the 11 other sites
identified during the Chestnut Ridge survey were interpreted to be Late Archaic camps,
although diagnostic artifacts were lacking from many of the sites. Raber’s model of Late
Archaic settlement was in part based on the results of the Chestnut Ridge survey.
Tipton Industrial Park
The Tipton Industrial Park Project (Hay et al. 1984) identified a series of small Late Archaic
camps along the Little Juniata River and adjacent tributaries in Watershed A south of
Altoona. Of four identified prehistoric sites, Sites 36Bl38, 36Bl41and 36Bl43 yielded Late
Archaic diagnostic artifacts and moderate quantities of locally-procured Tipton chert (see
Chapter II). Based on their location, Raber’s model might characterize these sites as base
camps, as they are located along one of the main water courses—the Little Juniata River—in
Watershed A. However, the limited research conducted at the sites precludes a determination
of site function. The moderate density of artifacts and the lack of site furniture (e.g., large
groundstone tools) suggest that the sites may actually represent camp or lithic reduction
locations, rather than base camps.
S.R. 6220 Project
The S.R. 6220 project (East and Beckman 1992) also identified two Late Archaic sites—
36Bl54 and 36Bl56—along the Little Juniata River in Blair County near Altoona. The sites
Page 89
are small, temporary camps consisting of low to moderate densities of lithic debris with no
features. An Otter Creek projectile point was recovered from Site 36Bl54 (see Figure 5). The
sites were interpreted to be Tipton chert lithic reduction locales, similar to the sites identified
at the nearby Tipton Industrial Park (see above). Along with the Tipton Industrial Park sites,
these low-density, Late Archaic occupations suggest that major waterways also were used as
camping locations, rather than strictly as base camps.
Late Archaic Site Types and Locations: Summary
Overall, PASS file data and research reports suggest that the trends in site placement and
population density that began during the Middle Archaic escalated during the Late Archaic in
the Upper Juniata sub-basin. During both periods, there were significant population increases
within the southern and eastern portions of the sub-basin, mainly (but not exclusively) within
the Raystown Branch and vicinity. As with preceding periods, the emergent factor of Late
Archaic site placement appears to have been access to water, with a secondary preference for
access to stream confluences. Late Archaic sites were also more often placed upstream of
confluences, but, as during the Middle Archaic, there was no preference for locating sites in
any specific cardinal direction relative to a confluence. Ultimately, data support the
contention that there was significant demographic continuity between the Middle Archaic and
Late Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
In support of the PASS file data, research reports provide specific data by which to better
evaluate Raber’s settlement pattern model in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The only variation
from the model appears to be the use of larger river valleys, such as the Raystown Branch, the
Little Juniata River, and Dunning Creek, for resource extraction and lithic reduction camp
locations. In addition, smaller tributaries, such as Bob’s Creek in Watershed C, also provided
viable locations for more permanent base camps, as indicated by sites identified during the
Chestnut Ridge survey (Raber and Heberling 1996). While sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter,
Workman, among others, support the contention that larger river valleys were likely locations
of base camps, these valleys, as well as smaller, mid-order tributaries, apparently were also
used for a wide variety of purposes, including resource procurement (e.g., hunting, fishing,
gathering, lithic). The site placement pattern, thus, appears to have been one of base and
temporary camps on mid-high-order streams and rivers and additional small camps on loworder tributaries and uplands. Late Archaic Native Americans appear to have utilized the
entire landscape to support their growing population.
D.
LATE ARCHAIC SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE
As briefly introduced in the previous section, Late Archaic Native Americans predominantly
used locally-available lithic raw materials, such as Shriver chert, Nittany chert, Bald Eagle
jasper, and Tuscarora quartzite. However, non-local lithic raw materials were also recovered
at many of the sites. These non-local cherts indicate travel and trade patterns of Native
Americans during the Late Archaic. In this section, data from PASS files, research reports
and GAI’s collections analysis provide a means to evaluate Late Archaic settlement patterns
and lithic raw material use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. These data, in consort with that
provided above for site types and placement, provide a cohesive picture of Late Archaic
90
settlement within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as well as trade and travel patterns beyond the
sub-basin.
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: PASS Files
Two main trends emerge regarding the Late Archaic PASS lithic artifact data: 1) the
predominance of Brewerton (Laurentian) points compared to Piedmont points; and 2) the
dominance of chert, jasper, and rhyolite in the lithic assemblages (Table 23). As noted above,
70 sites yielded Laurentian artifacts, while only seven sites yielded Piedmont-type points. The
remainder of the sites was identified only as yielding Late Archaic diagnostic artifacts.
PASS data for the 87 Late Archaic sites confirm the widespread use of local cherts and flints
for stone tool production within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. PASS forms for 67 of the 87
Late Archaic sites (77%) noted the presence of chert/flint artifacts, compared to 33 each for
jasper and rhyolite (see Table 23). The predominance of local cherts is expected, as several
chert sources are available throughout the sub-basin. The source of the jasper artifacts is
uncertain, but the nearest known sources are within the Bald Eagle Creek Valley and vicinity
(East et al. 1999; see Chapter II and Figure 2). More proximate sources may be present, but
as yet remain unidentified. The high percentage of rhyolite artifacts (~38% of sites) is
common in Late Archaic assemblages, a trend of toolstone-use that was initiated during the
preceding Middle Archaic period. These data support the contention of widespread cultural
contact with cultures to the south and southeast, especially along the Potomac River and the
lower Susquehanna and vicinity.
Table 23. Late Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
LITHIC
CHERT/FLINT
JASPER
RHYOLITE
NOT IDENTIFIED
QUARTZITE
QUARTZ
SHALE
ONONDAGA CHERT
CHALCEDONY
SILTSTONE
SANDSTONE
ARGILLITE
STEATITE
FLINT RIDGE
LIMESTONE
HEMATITE
METASANDSTONE
SLATE
LATE ARCHAIC
13
4
7
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
-1
--1
-1
PIEDMONT
5
4
3
3
1
2
1
---1
--------
LAURENTIAN
49
25
23
20
5
5
4
4
4
3
1
2
1
2
1
-1
--
TOTAL
67
33
33
26
8
8
6
6
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
% OF SITES
77.0
37.9
37.9
30.0
9.2
9.2
6..9
6.9
5.8
4.6
3.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Page 91
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Research Reports
While PASS files data include general information regarding toolstone use in the sub-basin,
cultural resource management reports provide more specific data that can facilitate a more
complete picture of Late Archaic settlement patterns. Data from these reports confirm the
widespread use of local cherts, as well as jasper and rhyolite at Late Archaic sites. As with
the previous section, the projects are discussed in a clockwise fashion within the sub-basin,
beginning in the Upper Raystown Branch near Huntingdon.
Excavations at the Rhodes Site (36Bd190; Lewis et al. 1996) on the west bank of the
Raystown Branch (opposite the Workman Site), yielded nearly 2,000 lithic artifacts produced
from chert (60%), jasper (33%), and rhyolite (7%). While specific data regarding chert types
was not available, it is likely that most of the cherts were locally obtained. The high
percentage of jasper suggests a nearby source of Bald Eagle jasper; although no known
outcrops exist, the Nittany Formation outcrops across the sub-basin and a local source is
probably present, as suggested elsewhere (Raber and Burns 1999:17).
North of the Rhodes Site on uplands overlooking Raystown Lake, Heberling conducted data
recovery excavations at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143). While data regarding the brief Late
Archaic occupation is limited (a data recovery report is pending), the overall lithic
assemblage suggests an emphasis on use of local cherts. Nearby Mykut Rockshelter, Site
36Hu129 yielded a possible Neville/Stanly or, alternatively, a Late Archaic stemmed point,
within uplands west of Raystown Lake. The non-diagnostic character of the point precludes
extensive discussion; however, it is worthy of note that the site yielded high percentages of
jasper artifacts, similar to the Late Archaic Rhodes Site, located only a few miles downstream
(Raber and Burns 1999).
Another Late Archaic site in uplands west of Raystown Lake, Site 36Hu157 (Raber et al.
1994) was identified in the valley of Great Trough Creek in uplands above Raystown Lake.
The site yielded 316 lithic artifacts, including high percentages of rhyolite (46%), suggesting
travel/trade to the southeast. Local lithic raw materials, including chert (42%), jasper (5.7%),
oolitic chert (n=2 artifacts), quartzite (n=5 artifacts), and quartz (n=1 artifact) also were used
at the site.
Approximately 30 miles southwest of Raystown Lake (Watershed D), Phase I-II excavations
at several Late Archaic sites along Yellow Creek in Morrison Cove (east of Tussey
Mountain) revealed extensive use of local gray and white cherts in stone tool production. The
gray chert, called “Bedford County” chert in the Loysburg Highway report (Heberling and
Heberling 1989), could be any of the variety of dark gray and black cherts available in
Morrison Cove. Shriver chert is the most likely candidate, given its widespread distribution
and comparatively high quality. Dark gray chert accounted for ca. 70% of the lithic artifacts
from Site 36Bd158, while ca. 12% were gray and white cherts. The presence of white chert at
Site 36Bd158 is fairly unique and represents one of the few instances in which creamy white
Corriganville chert was used in stone tool production. Corriganville chert outcrops with
Shriver chert along Chestnut Ridge to the west (see Figure 2). Only a few artifacts from Site
36Bd158 possessed cortex, suggesting that the mid-late-stages of biface reduction were a
92
focus at the site (Heberling and Heberling 1989:56). Nearby, Site 36Bd177 also yielded
Brewerton points along with high densities of the local gray and white cherts.
While of a considerably lower artifact density, Site 36Bd159 yielded a contracting-stem
Poplar Island point, as well as numerous artifacts produced from gray and white cherts,
similar to 36Bd158 and 36Bd177. These three sites support the idea that low-mid-order
tributaries—such as Yellow Creek in this instance—were used for primarily for lithic and
other resource procurement during the Late Archaic. The sites also provide data to suggest
that this pattern continued through the entire Late Archaic period, as represented by points of
both the Laurentian and Piedmont type, respectively.
Along Brush Run, a small tributary of Dunning Creek near Bedford, results of Phase I-III
excavations at the Bedford County Airport confirm the widespread use of local Shriver and
other cherts. Each of the Bedford Airport sites yielded significant percentages of artifacts
produced from local chert (76% at Ickes 1; 90.3% at Ickes 2). Baker and Baker (1990:16-18)
interpreted the variety of dark gray, black, and olive chert artifacts as Nittany chert. While
Nittany chert outcrops in the area (see Chapter II), several other lithic raw materials of similar
color and quality also have sources within 10-20 miles of the Bedford Airport sites. The most
abundantly available and highest quality of these materials is Shriver chert, with known
outcrops along Chestnut Ridge. Keyser and Tonoloway cherts also occur in the area. In all
likelihood, thus, several varieties of local cherts were reduced at the Bedford Airport sites,
rather than exclusively Nittany chert.
At the Ickes I and Ickes II Sites (Bedford Airport), small amounts of non-local cherts were
also recovered, including Flint Ridge (2.5 and 0.2%, respectively), Upper Mercer (1.7 and
0.3%), Onondaga (0.3 and 0.8%), and rhyolite (2.8 and 2.3%). Rhyolite was the most
abundant of the non-local cherts, confirming the Late Archaic connection to the Great Valley
to the east (Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling et al. 1990). Several flakes of oolitic chert
were also recovered at Ickes 2. While the authors (Baker and Baker 1990:18) were uncertain
as to the source of this material, it is probably Mines oolitic chert (see Chapter II), which
outcrops locally along the Raystown Branch, a few miles southeast of Bedford. Quartzite
artifacts were also given a non-local source designation; however, as reflected in Chapter II,
fairly high quality outcrops of Tuscarora quartzite outcrops are present within the city limits
of Bedford, only a few miles from the Bedford Airport. As noted above, excavations at the
Wall Site in the Bedford County Industrial Park (near the Bedford County Airport sites)
confirmed the nearly exclusive use of local cherts (~Shriver) by Late Archaic foragers within
the Dunning Creek Valley and vicinity as well (Davis et al. n.d.).
Along Chestnut Ridge (Raber 2000), northwest of Bedford, Late Archaic sites yielded
predominantly Shriver chert artifacts as well as varying amounts of jasper (both yellow and
red), rhyolite, and quartzite. The presence of Shriver and other cherts in these assemblages is
expected, given the presence of known outcrops on Chestnut Ridge (see Chapter II).
Finally, in the northwest portion of the sub-basin, Tipton chert, a locally occurring raw
material near Altoona, comprises the majority of the raw materials found at local Late
Page 93
Archaic sites. These sites include the three Tipton Industrial Park sites (Hay et al. 1984) and
the two S.R. 6220 (East and Beckman 1992) sites (36Bl54 and 36Bl56), described in more
detail above. Each of these sites along the Little Juniata River in Watershed A was apparently
used for the early-to-late-stage reduction of Tipton chert, as well as the
resharpening/rejuvination of stone from non-local sources, including rhyolite.
Late Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Collections Analysis
Of the eight collections examined at the State Museum, all of them yielded Late Archaic
projectile points (Table 24). Analysis of these points provides an excellent data base by
which to evaluate lithic raw material use across the sub-basin during the Late Archaic period.
While lithic raw material use was discussed in several of the research reports, as described
above, few of them provide data regarding specific lithic raw material types. Information
from PASS files also lacks these specific data. GAI’s collections analysis of Late Archaic
points at the State Museum, thus, provides supplementary information regarding Late
Archaic settlement and tool production within the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Within the eight collections, a total of 51 Late Archaic points were examined by GAI. Of the
51 points, 43 possessed identifiable lithic raw materials, including 23 Brewerton, 6 Lamoka,
two each of Snook Kill, Bare Island, and Otter Creek, as well as one Wading River point (see
Table 24). As reflected in Table 24, Shriver chert dominates the projectile point assemblages,
accounting for half (n=18 of 36) of the points. Rhyolite (n=10) and Corriganville chert (n=6)
were also used in significant numbers, while jasper, Keyser chert, Mines chert, Nittany chert,
Bellefonte chert, and white quartzite were used infrequently in Late Archaic point production
at these sites. Of the 43 points in the sample, thus, 34 were in all likelihood produced from
locally-available materials, with only the 10 rhyolite points being non-local. While the
emphasis was clearly on use of Shriver chert, these data also show that a wide variety of other
local cherts were utilized by Native Americans in the sub-basin. The use of rhyolite at these
sites also confirms that Late Archaic travel and trade routes were primarily to the south and
east.
Table 24. Late Archaic Collections Analysis Results.
BELLE
CORRIGAN
FONTE
VILLE
Untyped
--
--
Snook kill
--
--
POINT TYPE
JASPER
RHYOLITE
SHRIV
WHITE
ER
QUARTZITE
KEYSER
MINES
NITTANY
--
1
--
--
4
1
1
7
--
--
--
--
2
--
--
2
TOTAL
Brewerton
1
5
--
1
1
1
2
13
--
23
Bare island
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
2
--
2
Lamoka
--
1
2
--
--
1
1
1
--
6
Otter creek
--
--
--
1
--
--
--
1
--
2
Wading river
--
--
--
--
--
--
1
--
--
1
Total
1
6
2
3
1
2
10
18
1
43
94
E.
LATE ARCHAIC: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Late Archaic Overview
One of the major implications of these data is the demographic and cultural continuity
between the Middle Archaic and Late Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While
the increase in population was more significant during the Late Archaic, the pattern emerged
during the preceding Middle Archaic. During both periods, population increases mainly
occurred along the Raystown Branch and vicinity and most sites were placed with access to
water and upstream of a stream confluence.
While these data suggest some continuity between the Middle and Late Archaic, some
changes occurred between the two periods that likely reflect a change in settlement pattern.
One of the main differences between the Middle and Late Archaic is the increase in sites on
small streams, uplands, and rockshelters, suggesting a wider use of the landscape during the
Late Archaic compared to the Middle Archaic. In consort with this, the increase in use of
base camps in mid-high order drainages supports the notion that Late Archaic Native
Americans increased their use of a logistic subsistence strategy, with resource procurement
being conducted on a daily basis from semi-permanent base camps. As reflected in the
research report data, these base camps were placed on mid- and high-order streams, while
short-term camps were located in all settings, most likely in relation to the locations of
seasonally-available resources.
The sheer abundance of data collected from PASS files, research reports, and collections
analysis, support Raber’s (1995, 1999, 2000; Raber and Heberling 1996) model of Late
Archaic settlement in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While the model was mainly intended to
apply to sites in the Raystown Branch, Dunning Creek, and Aughwick Creek areas, data
presented here suggest that the settlement pattern likely encompassed the entire Upper Juniata
sub-basin.
These settlement and demographic patterns initially emerged during the Middle Archaic and
escalated during the Late Archaic. The next few chapters provide data to suggest, however,
that these trends reached a stasis and may have ultimately reversed during the Transitional,
Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods. For reasons that will be discussed, site
counts decrease within the Upper Juniata sub-basin (and elsewhere) beginning approximately
4,200 years ago and don’t rebound again for nearly 3,000 years.
Late Archaic Research Questions
This summary of Late Archaic archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin
archaeological work in the area. Nine Late Archaic research questions are listed below; this
list is by no means comprehensive and should be used only as a starting point for generating
additional research issues. Archaeological sites that can provide information pertaining to
these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion D; thus, unless
they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible for listing in the
National Register for Historic Places:
Page 95
1. Does the Late Archaic represent a continuation of the Middle Archaic?
2. Does the increase in recorded sites imply an increase in populations?
3. Does the predominance of Brewerton points indicate that the population increase was
focused within the early portion of the Late Archaic?
4. Why was the population increase focused in the Raystown Branch and vicinity?
5. Does the fairly low density of sites with Piedmont point types indicate that
populations decreased toward the end of the Late Archaic?
6. If so, does the population decrease continue into the subsequent Transitional/Terminal
Archaic period.
7. If populations decreased in the Upper Juniata, where did they go and why?
8. If there was a population decrease in the Upper Juniata at the end of the Late Archaic
and Transitional Archaic periods, it coincided with increasing sedentism and
agriculture. Doesn’t this contradict the traditional pattern, in which agriculture and
populations grow in consort with each other? How can we explain the population
decline in the face of the subsistence and settlement pattern changes?
9. What was the nature of social interaction between Late Archaic populations in the
Great Valley and in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as indicated by the increasing
densities of rhyolite at Late Archaic sites?
96
CHAPTER VIII. TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC PERIOD
3800 to 3000 B.P.
by Kenneth W. Mohney, A.B.D.
A.
TRANSITIONAL/TERMINAL ARCHAIC OVERVIEW
The Terminal Archaic or Transitional period witnessed several dynamic changes in
settlement and subsistence. Population reductions initiated during the end of the Late Archaic
period persisted into the Transitional/Terminal Archaic. Regional exchange networks were
likely responsible for the movement of increasingly larger amounts of jasper and rhyolite to
locations far from their original sources (Stewart 1987). In addition, a number of
technological innovations, particularly in cooking technology and food processing, occurred
during the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period. The beginnings of the period saw intensive
use of steatite vessels, while the end of this period witnessed the introduction of pottery to the
region (see Figure 5). Diagnostic projectile point styles (Figure 7) include both broad blade or
“broadspear” types during the early portion of the Terminal Archaic followed by fishtail
points during the latter portion (Custer 2001).
In Pennsylvania and the Middle Atlantic region, riverine adaptations escalated during the
Terminal Archaic (Kinsey 1972, Turnbaugh 1977). Terminal Archaic settlements in nearby
regions (Custer 1996; Raber 1995) also indicate the increased use of base camps for logistic
subsistence, a continuation of the subsistence and settlement pattern developed during the
Middle and Late Archaic periods. While subsistence remains are sparse within the boundary
of the study area, data from adjoining regions provides some clue as to potential food
resources. In the nearby north Bald Eagle Creek drainage, East et al. (1999) report a possible
domestic squash blossom and a wild sumpweed seed in a level dated ca. 4100 B.P. from the
Wiser Site. Hart (1995b) reports a squash rind fragment from Late Archaic/Transitional
levels (ca. 3500 to 4500 B.P.) at the Memorial Park Site in Lock Haven. These data suggest
that Native Americans made occasional use of squash and perhaps other domesticates during
the Transitional period.
Regarding wild plant foods, excavations at Memorial Park (GAI 1995:516) also report the
presence of hickory, bitternut, hazelnut, butternut, walnut, acorn, grape and elderberry.
Faunal remains at sites in adjoining regions suggest the frequent use of fish and other aquatic
resources. At Canfield Island in Williamsport, on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River,
over 400 netsinkers were found in Terminal Archaic levels (Bressler 1989:46). Several
caches of 16-30 netsinkers suggest the use of fairly large nets for large-scale fish collection.
Large platform hearth and rock pavements may be associated with the smoking, roasting, or
drying of fish (Bressler 1989:72; Custer 1995; Wall et al. 1996).
The following chapter evaluates the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period within the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, including overviews of material culture, chronology, site types, and
settlement patterns. Data from the Upper Juniata are interpreted in light of patterns observed
within adjacent regions, as introduced above.
Page 97
Figure 7. Transitional Period Artifacts.
Perkiomen Broadspear Points
Workman Site (36Bd36)
Michels and Huner 1968:227, Plate 3
Orient Fishtail Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Michels and Smith 1967: 699
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
All Projectile Points
Actual Size
Selden Island Pottery, Body Sherds
Left: Eroded; Right, Cordmarked
Sunny Side Site (36Bd267)
Transitional Broadspear Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Michels and Smith 1967:691
98
Figure 7
Transitional Period Artifacts
TERMINAL ARCHAIC TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Terminal Archaic Technology
Projectile Points
The most distinguishing characteristics of this time period are the large, wide, and thin
projectile points, or “broadspears” (Witthoft 1971; see Figure 7). Broadspear types include
Lehigh/Snook Kill, Perkiomen, and Susquehanna styles. Most broadspear points post-date the
Late Archaic Savannah River point, a form with antecedents in the southeastern United States
that gradually was adopted by groups living to the north (Turnbaugh 1975). Broadspears are
usually very well-made, exhibiting superior workmanship on both good and decidedly poorquality raw materials.
Generally, two trajectories are recognized for broadspear manufacture. Cresson (1990)
provides an excellent review of broadspear manufacturing techniques. Large broadspears
were made from blanks derived directly from quarry contexts. Their surfaces usually exhibit
several large, well-controlled percussion-flake scars; these flake scars allowed the biface to
be rapidly thinned while maintaining its width. Small broadspears could be made from
recycled large variants, but most commonly were made from smaller flake blanks derived
from large bifaces or cores.
Initially, broadspears were viewed as cutting implements, points, or perhaps, fishspears
(Ritchie 1969). Subsequent experimental use and the examination of a number of
archaeological assemblages have led some researchers to question the viability of the broad
blade types as projectiles. Though conceived as a study in fracture patterns, Truncer’s (1990)
experiments with Perkiomen broadpoints indicated that they tended to “bounce” off a deer
carcass rather than penetrate its hide. Some authors, thus, hypothesize that the high edge
angles and width of these points were unsuited for use as a spear or dart tip. Custer (1996)
believes that broadspears represent special function tools, likely for the processing of game
animals, while Wall et al. (1996) suggest that broadspear preforms served a variety of
purposes including use as cores, knives, and scrapers.
Cresson’s (1990) comprehensive study of broadspears from the New Jersey region suggest
these tools functioned primarily as cutting tools with secondary use as projectiles and
perforators. His research is part of a growing body of literature that suggests that Broadspears
served as cutting tools, while other bifacial implements served as projectile points (Cresson
1990, Custer 1995, Miller 1998). In Cresson’s view, narrow bladed/ stemmed points such as
Bare Island and Lackawaxen points were much more suitable for hunting. Points with narrow
blades are much more likely to penetrate the hide of an animal than are broader bladed forms.
Studies suggest that the tip of a point must begin penetrating an animal hide immediately
upon impact or it will tend to “bounce” off the target. The wide tip of many broadspears is
unsuitable for the quick penetration needed for use as projectile tips, although a minority
were used a projectiles. Often, the “small” variants of the broadspear form exhibit impact
damage indicative of use as projectile points (Cresson 1990).
Page 99
In addition to their use as points or as multipurpose cutting tools, broadspears frequently
show evidence of extreme resharpening. Successive episodes of use and resharpening often
reduce the original width of the biface by as much as 90 percent. Many of these heavily
resharpened tools are then used as drills. The form of the drill is unmistakable; an extremely
narrow blade and a base with extremely broad shoulders that represent the original
unresharpened width of the blade.
While broadspears dominated the early portion of the Terminal Archaic, Drybrook and the
more common Orient Fishtail points (see Figure 7) are associated with the end of the
Terminal Archaic. These distinctive points exhibit a concave base with markedly flaring
basal ears reminiscent of a fish’s tail hence the derivation of the name.
A final point type sometimes associated with the Terminal Archaic of the greater region is the
Steubenville/Fox Creek stemmed and lanceolate point types. First defined by Mayer-Oakes
(1955) in the Upper Ohio Valley, these distinctive point types date to ca. 4,200-3,400 BP in
the Ohio Valley (East et al. 1999; Lothrop n.d.). Steubenville points have not been identified
in good contexts in the Susquehanna/Juniata drainages. However a morphologically similar
point style, the Fox Creek type, dating to the Woodland period, has been identified in
regional assemblages (Custer 2001:32; Funk 1968). For the purposes of this report, given the
lack of data regarding their time of use, Steubenville/Fox Creek points are not included in
analysis of site types for any period.
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Steatite and Ceramics
In addition to broadspear points, a second hallmark of the period is the use of soapstone or
steatite bowls (Turnbaugh 1977). These bowls are believed to be an innovation in cooking
technology, allowing for the first time the placement of a container directly into a fire (Wall
et al. 1996). Alternatively, these bowls may have served as storage containers, although their
overall modest size would severely limit the amount of stored food. Steatite, or soapstone, is
found scattered throughout eastern Pennsylvania and portions of Maryland, with the most
proximate sources to the south along the Potomac River (see Chapter II; Custer 1996).
Most steatite bowls are relatively small, measuring 12-15 inches long and 2-3 inches high
with round, or flat bottoms (Wall et al. 1996). In addition, much smaller steatite bowls are
encountered occasionally; these bowls frequently contain soot or carbonized material on their
interior while the bottom of the bowl is uncharred. Some researchers (Wall et al. 1996)
believe that these containers served as lamps that utilized fish oil or moss as fuel.
Ceramics generally function as cultural horizon markers for archaeologists who study the
subsequent Woodland period, but the earliest ceramics in the Middle Atlantic region were
introduced during the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period (Reid 1984). Steatite-tempered
wares, including Marcey Creek and Selden Island (see Figure 7), were the earliest varieties in
the Middle Atlantic (Dent 1995: 224-227). The Bull Run Site (36LY119) on the Susquehanna
River in Lycoming County yielded steatite-tempered Marcey Creek Plain pottery in
association with Terminal Archaic Orient Fishtail Points (Berger 2001:16). The Miller Field
Site on the Upper Delaware River, New Jersey, also yielded Marcey Creek Plain steatite100
tempered pottery in an Orient component radiocarbon dated to 3170±120 years B.P. (Kinsey
1972:451-453; Custer 1996: 219-221; Dent 1995:226). The Accokeek Creek Site on the
Potomac River yielded Marcey Creek pottery stratigraphically below an Early Woodland
Pope’s Creek component with Vinette I pottery (Stephenson et al. 1963).
While Marcey Creek pottery was plain, flat-bottomed, and was molded from clay slabs,
Selden Island and Bare Island Cordmarked pottery were the earliest pottery types produced
using the coiling technique. These vessels were conoidal with the earliest types still
incorporating steatite as the temper. Selden Island was first defined at the Selden Island Site
in Montgomery County, Maryland, by Slattery (1946).
Recent excavations at the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267), near the confluence of the Raystown
Branch and Yellow Creek in Bedford County (MacDonald 2001), identified Selden Island
Cordmarked steatite-tempered ceramics within a small rock-lined hearth dated to 3500±100
years B.P (see Figure 5). The earliest previously-known date—2955±90 B.P.—on Selden
Island pottery is from Clyde Farm in Delaware (Dent 1995:226).
Terminal Archaic Chronology
In Pennsylvania, the Terminal Archaic is thought to begin roughly at 3800 B.P. with the
introduction of broadspear points into the region. This period is comparatively short lived,
with a terminal date of approximately 3000-2800 B.P. The end of the period is marked by the
demise of the fishtail-type points and the increasingly widespread use of pottery.
In Sub-Basin 11, two well-dated Terminal Archaic/Transitional components have been
identified, both in Watershed D:
At Sheep Rock Shelter, Level 5, the Transitional component, produced a date of 1270±160
B.C. or 3380-3060 B.P. (M2085). Diagnostic artifacts from this level included broadspears
and steatite; however, no steatite-tempered pottery was recovered from the site.
A date of 3500 B.P. ±100 B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090 and BC 2050 to 1540; Beta
158705) was obtained from a hearth with associated Selden Island pottery at the Sunny Side
Site (MacDonald 2001). This site is located along Yellow Creek, near its confluence with the
Raystown Branch. This date is the earliest known for Selden Island pottery.
These are the only two radiocarbon dates available for the Terminal Archaic in the study area;
however, dates are available for adjacent regions. Survey in the Aughwick Creek Valley, just
to the west of the current project area, produced dates of ca. 3180 B.P. at Site 36Hu73 and ca.
3210 B.P. at Site 36Hu44 (Raber 1995). Artifacts associated with these dates include
broadspear points and small stemmed and notched bifaces. The stemmed and notched bifaces
may represent non-broadspear occupations; alternatively, these points may have been in use
at the same time as the broadspears, possibly representing functional variants.
Page 101
In the Susquehanna Valley, Susquehanna Broadspears range in age from 3595-3290 B.P.,
while Perkiomen Broadspears range from 3720-3640 B.P. (East et al. 1999). At the Memorial
Park site on the West Branch of the Susquehanna, Canfield Island/Susquehanna components
date to ca. 3000, to 3500 B.P. with steatite. Orient fishtail projectile points date from
approximately 3200-2800 B.P. at sites in the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1995), while at
Memorial Park, the Orient Phase dates to ca. 3100 to 2900 B.P. (GAI 1995).
Some researchers believe that narrow stemmed points, such as Bare Island or Lackawaxen
types, were in use at the same time as the broadspears (see Late Archaic Technology, Chapter
VII). Just north of the project area, Bare Island points were the most numerous point type at
the Wiser Site (36Ce442; East et al. 1999), which dates from 4000-3400 B.P., suggesting that
there may be some cross-over in use of Late Archaic Piedmont stemmed points (e.g., Bare
Island, Poplar Island, and Lackawaxen) and Transitional period broadspears.
C.
TERMINAL ARCHAIC SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
Of the 48 sites listed in PASS files with Terminal Archaic components, only 35 list
associated diagnostic projectile points; thus, only these sites are discussed here. The trend in
decreasing site counts continued from the end of the Late Archaic period. While this could
indicate that fewer people used the area during the end of the Late Archaic and Terminal
Archaic periods, an alternative view is that increasing occupational duration or reuse of sites
may characterize this period (Custer 1996). Thus, the decrease in the number of recorded
sites may signal increasing duration of settlement occupation rather than a population
decrease during the Terminal Archaic. If this is the case, sites should yield increased densities
of artifacts and features.
Raber’s (1995) study of site type trends in the Aughwick Creek Valley just west of the
present study area suggests that three types characterize the Late-Terminal Archaic settlement
pattern. As discussed in the Late Archaic chapter, the site types include macroband base
camps located on terraces overlooking major river valleys, with smaller resource procurement
and trailside camps in smaller stream valleys or in upland settings. Custer (1996) believes
that riverine resources and sites were increasingly important during the Terminal Archaic and
led to the repeated use and reuse of base camps at favored floodplain locations along major
rivers. In the greater region, Wall et al. (1996) suggest that Terminal Archaic Native
Americans became increasingly adapted to riverine resources with a high redundancy in
occupation of large base camps along major river systems.
Terminal Archaic Sites Types and Locations: PASS Files
Table 25 shows that Terminal Archaic sites are not evenly distributed in the study area.
Watersheds C and D contain 19 and seven sites respectively, while Watershed A contains a
further nine sites. As during other time periods, little archaeological research has been
conducted in Watershed B and no Terminal Archaic sites have been identified in that
watershed. As during the Late Archaic, the majority of Terminal Archaic sites are focused
along the Raystown Branch and its tributaries, suggesting that it was a hub of travel and
settlement during the period.
102
Table 25. Transitional Period Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0002
36BD0018
36BD0038
36BD0046
36BD0096
36BD0112
36BD0114
36BD0116
36BD0123
36BD0128
36BD0142
36BD0150
36BD0155
36BD0157
36BD0158
36BD0182
36BD0219
36BD0223
36BD0243
36BL0018
36BL0027
36BL0028
36BL0041
36BL0043
36BL0064
36CE0285
36HU0101
36HU0106
36HU0112
36HU0001
36BD0036
36BD0171
36BD0172
36HU0067
36bD0198
SITE NAME
-D.Plummer Farm
-Bridge
Hostetler's #8 & #14
Steinbach
Hoenstine #3
Hull #5
Ryot #4
Beckner
Shellbark #1
Ferra
Snider Farm
Site Locus E-16
Bedford Prison
Mart Site
historic
ford 2
Miller
-Hite-Locality 1
TIP4
TIP6
Nearhoof Site
Rockspring Cave
Graysville Cave
Carbaugh Low. Fld
-Sheep Rock Shelter
Workman Site
Stahl #2
Stahl #3
-CR-5
WSHED
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
D
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
C
C
A
C
MAJ.STREAM
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Bald Eagle
Frankstown
Frankstown
Juniata River
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Raystown
SETTING
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Terrace
Terrace
-Slopes
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Bench
Hillslope
Floodplain
Slopes
Hillslope
Floodplain
Hilltop
Hillslope
Floodplain
Terrace
ELEV.
SITE TYPE
1240
0
800
1100
1120
1120
1140
1140
1200
1190
1140
1160
1130
1140
1100
1060
1070
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Lithic Red.
Rock Shelter
Rock Shelter
Open
Rock Shelter
Rock Shelter
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
1020
1960
1020
1010
980
980
1100
1160
1080
820
1000
640
820
1180
1140
680
1135
PASS files data indicate that the vast majority of Terminal Archaic sites in the study area are
open sites (n=31), including camps and lithic reduction stations, while the remainder of sites
are rockshelters (Table 26). The presence of large numbers of open sites located on
floodplains or terraces of the Juniata River system offers tentative support for the models of
Raber (1995) and Custer (1996), which suggest increased use of riverine resources during this
time period. Some 88.2 percent of all Terminal Archaic sites in PASS files occur in alluvial
settings, while the preceding Late Archaic period yielded 81.4 percent of sites in alluvial
Page 103
settings. However, mean distance to water was similar between the Late Archaic (88.1 m)
and Transitional Archaic periods (90.8 m), respectively, and both of these numbers represent
increases of a mean of 30 m compared to the Middle Archaic (60.97 m). PASS files also do
not provide sufficient site type information to characterize the riverine Terminal
Archaic/Transitional sites as “base camps,” as would be predicted by Raber’s model.
Research reports may provide additional insights into the size and type of these riverine sites.
Table 26. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Locations: Cross-Tabulation of Site Type by Setting
NA
FLDPLN
TERRACE
BENCH
SLOPES
HILLTOP
TOTAL
Open
Lithic Red.
Rock Shelter
SITE TYPE
1
---
18
---
6
1
--
1
-1
3
-3
1
---
30
1
4
Total
1
18
7
2
6
1
35
As during preceding periods, distance to nearest water was an important determinate for
Terminal Archaic site locations (Table 27). Of the 35 Terminal Archaic sites, 30 are located
within 150 meters of a stream. Twenty-two are located near low-order (grade 1-3 streams),
while 13 are located near high order (grade 4-5) streams. These data are generally consistent
with the hypothesis that Terminal Archaic settlement occurred along streams or rivers with
more ephemeral use of uplands.
Table 27. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0002
SLOPE
00
DIST. TO
STREAM
10
DIRECT. TO
STREAM
ORDER OF
STREAM
South
3
DIST. TO
CONF.
1600
ORDER OF
CONF.
DIREC. TO CONF.
FLOW OF CONF.
Northeast
Upstream
3
36BD0018
--
0
--
--
0
--
--
--
36BD0036
00
80
Northeast
5
600
Northeast
No conf.
5
36BD0038
00
100
Southwest
5
480
Northwest
Upstream
5
36BD0046
00
80
West
4
500
South
Upstream
4
36BD0096
00
0
On-site
3
0
On-site
No conf.
3
36BD0096
00
0
On-site
3
0
On-site
No conf.
3
36BD0112
00
10
Southeast
1
720
East
Upstream
4
36BD0114
00
100
West
3
580
South
Upstream
3
36BD0116
00
20
West
4
440
Northwest
Upstream
4
36BD0116
00
20
West
4
440
Northwest
Upstream
4
36BD0123
00
10
North
2
360
Southeast
Upstream
3
36BD0128
00
40
South
4
320
Southeast
Downstream
4
36BD0142
00
20
South
4
1020
Southwest
Downstream
4
36BD0142
00
20
South
4
1020
Southwest
Downstream
4
36BD0150
00
20
East
1
80
Northeast
Upstream
4
36BD0155
3
5
North
4
60
Northeast
Downstream
5
North
4
60
Northeast
Downstream
5
Southwest
5
300
West
Downstream
5
36BD0155
3
5
36BD0157
--
10
104
SITE NO.
SLOPE
DIST. TO
STREAM
DIRECT. TO
STREAM
ORDER OF
STREAM
DIST. TO
CONF.
DIREC. TO CONF.
FLOW OF CONF.
ORDER OF
CONF.
36BD0158
--
0
On-site
1
460
Northwest
No conf.
5
36BD0171
5
200
West
1
400
North
Downstream
5
36BD0172
5
120
South
1
520
Northeast
Downstream
5
36BD0182
5
150
North
1
230
Northwest
Upstream
5
36BD0198
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
36BD0219
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
36BD0223
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
36BD0243
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0
36BL0018
50
460
South
2
2650
Southeast
Upstream
2
36BL0018
50
460
South
2
2650
Southeast
Upstream
2
36BL0027
1
540
South
2
500
East
Upstream
3
36BL0027
1
540
South
2
500
East
Upstream
3
36BL0028
2
20
North
2
100
East
Upstream
2
36BL0041
5
60
Southeast
3
420
East
Downstream
3
36BL0043
00
30
West
1
290
South
Upstream
3
36BL0064
--
--
--
--
10
--
--
0
36CE0285
2
20
Northwest
1
2520
West
Downstream
2
36HU0001
00
40
South
5
600
Southwest
Upstream
5
36HU0067
00
40
Northeast
4
360
Southeast
Upstream
5
36HU0101
50
20
East
2
760
Northeast
Downstream
2
10
East
2
40
South
Upstream
3
10
West
1
1000
North
Upstream
4
36HU0106
36HU0112
20
Distance to stream confluence was also an important determinate of Terminal Archaic site
location. Thirty-three Terminal Archaic sites (89.2 percent) are located within 1,500 meters
of a steam confluence, while 8 of these sites are located less than 100 meters from a stream
confluence. However, this pattern is similar to the Late Archaic, as are the mean distances to
confluences for Late Archaic (568.7 m) and Transitional (610.5 m) sites. These are two of the
highest mean distances to confluences of any time period, suggesting, if anything, that access
to water and stream confluences was actually less important for Transitional sites than during
preceding periods. Like the preceding Late Archaic period, the majority (n=20) of sites are
located upstream of the confluence, while a minority (n=11) are located downstream of a
confluence. As in preceding time periods, little preference could be discerned for locating a
site relative to specific cardinal directions around the stream confluence, with 14 north, 12
south, five east and two west of stream confluences; this site breakdown is similar to that of
the Late Archaic, suggesting that Late Archaic and Transitional Archaic Native Americans
used similar criteria in selecting site locations.
Terminal Archaic Site Types and Location: Research Reports
Eleven cultural resource studies in the Upper Juniata sub-basin have recovered Terminal
Archaic/Transitional period artifacts (Table 28). Most of these projects entailed limited Phase
I archaeological surveys with very small data sets, including two projects in Watershed A
near Altoona (Hay et al. 1983; Hay et al. 1984) and three in Watershed C near Bedford
Page 105
(Heberling and Heberling 1989; Heberling et al. 1990; Raber and Heberling 1996). Several
other projects involved Phase II and III excavations, but generally recovered Terminal
Archaic material in mixed, plowzone contexts, including three projects in Watershed C
(Chiarulli and Walker 1998; Heberling 1990; Davis n.d.) and one in Watershed D (Michels
and Huner 1968). Sheep Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1967) and the Sunny Side Site
(MacDonald 2001) represent the only stratified Transitional period components in the entire
Upper Juniata sub-basin. A few of the more important Transitional period projects are
discussed below.
Table 28. Transitional Period Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE
36Bd0036
36BD0046
Bd155,158
Bd171,172
36bd0198
36bd0219
36Bd267
36BL0027
36Bl41, 43
36hu0001
36hu0067
AUTHOR
PROJECT NAME
YEAR
LOCATION
WSHED PHASE
Michels and Huner
Chiarulli
Heberling/Heb.
Heberling et al.
Raber
C.Davis
MacDonald
Hay et al.
Hay et al.
See text
Mitchem/Houston
Workman Site
Act 70 Site 36Bd46
Loysburg Highway
Bedford Airport
Chestnut Ridge
Bedford Dist. C.
Hopewell Waste.
LR 1061
Tipton Ind.Pk.
Sheep Rock
Petersburg Bridge
1968
1998
1989
1990
1996
n.d.
2001
1983
1984
67,68
1983
Raystown Lk.
East St. Clair
South Wood
Bedford
East St. Clair
Bedford
Hopewell
LR 1061
Tipton
Raystown Lake
Alexandria
D
C
D
C
C
C
D
A
A
D
A
III
II
I,II
II
I
III
I
II
I
III
II
Sheep Rock Shelter
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1; Michels 1968; Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt
1968) contained a large and varied Terminal Archaic assemblage and provides the most
detailed window on Terminal Archaic life in the sub-basin. Despite this large assemblage,
only a relatively small area of the shelter was occupied during the Transitional period,
suggesting an ephemeral camp occupation (Michels 1968:73).
Along with a variety of Transitional period diagnostic artifacts, including broadspears,
steatite netsinkers (n=2), and Orient fishtail points, the site provides the only direct evidence
of Terminal Archaic subsistence in sub-basin 11. Level 5, the Transitional component,
yielded nine fish scales, 72.5 g of mollusk shells, and 7,900 grams of untyped faunal
materials (mostly deer; Guilday and Parmalee 1965). The two steatite net sinkers were found
in general association with the fish scales in the rock shelter, suggesting that the cave was
utilized during the Transitional period by Native American fishermen (Michels and Dutt
1968:356). However, the comparatively high density of faunal materials also suggests
extensive hunting by site occupants.
In addition to faunal remains, which document the importance of hunting at the site,
ethnobotanical remains included walnut, hickory, butternut, and hackberry, indicating a
varied diet for Terminal Archaic Native Americans in the Raystown Branch Valley. Although
cultigens are known from the surrounding region (see earlier discussion), corn, beans (likely
intrusive; Yarnell 1993:13), squash, and sunflower were only recovered in the upper portion
106
of level 5 and likely date to the Early Woodland component (see discussion in the next
chapter). These data indicate that Sheep Rock Shelter likely functioned as a specialized
subsistence camp during the Terminal Archaic period. In contrast to the Late Archaic site
occupation, which likely was a base camp, the Terminal Archaic/Transitional occupation of
Sheep Rock Shelter was comparatively brief, with the comparatively low density of
archaeological materials suggestive of an overnight camp occupation by a small family.
Workman Site
The excavations at the Workman Site produced 14 Terminal Archaic projectile points and
five steatite sherds, all mixed with the more common Late Woodland remains. Because of the
“noise” produced by its location in a Late Woodland site, the nature of the Terminal Archaic
occupations is difficult to reconstruct; however, as during the Late Archaic, the site location
on a terrace overlooking the Raystown Branch Valley likely provided direct access to a
variety of both floodplain and upland resources. The low density of Terminal Archaic
diagnostics, however, suggests fairly ephemeral use compared to the Late Archaic
occupation. As at Sheep Rock Shelter, thus, Terminal Archaic occupations at the Workman
Site likely consisted of fairly brief occupations by small families conducting daily subsistence
tasks within the Raystown Branch Valley.
Site 36BD267
Site 36BD267, the Sunny Side Site, is located on the floodplain/terrace of the lower reaches
of Yellow Creek, immediately upstream of its confluence with the Raystown Branch near the
communities of Hopewell and Sunny Side (MacDonald 2001). Prehistoric lithic and ceramic
artifacts and a small hearth (Photograph 13) were identified within a buried soil (Ab’ horizon,
visible in Photograph 13). The
70-cm-wide circular hearth
was comprised of 31 firecracked
sandstone
and
quartzite river cobbles. Large
pieces of hickory wood
charcoal were packed between
the FCR.
Photograph 13. Transitional
Period Hearth, the Sunny Side Site
(36Bd267) along Yellow Creek
near its confluence with the
Raystown Branch.
A sample of hickory wood charcoal from the hearth (Beta-158705) was dated to 3,500±100
B.P. (calibrated age: BC 2120-2090 and BC 2050 to 1540). The site represents a Terminal
Archaic occupation, with perhaps the earliest-known pottery in the region. The ceramic
Page 107
assemblage from the Sunny Side Site consists of 13 pieces, including 5 body sherds and eight
crumbs. Seven sherds contained identifiable steatite temper, while temper type was
indeterminate on the remainder (see Figure 7). Exterior markings are cordmarked/smoothed
on two body sherds, while the remainder is eroded.
Based on these general characteristics and on a brief examination by William Johnson of
Michael Baker Inc., the steatite-tempered pottery sherds from the Sunny Side Site were
identified as Selden Island cordmarked. The previous earliest dates for Woodland Selden
Island steatite-tempered pottery are ca. 2900 B.P. from the Clyde Farm Site in Delaware
(Dent 1995). As such, pottery from the Sunny Side Site is perhaps the earliest in the Middle
Atlantic region.
The Sunny Side Site is the most likely candidate for base camp designation of any
Transitional period site in PASS files. Because the site was avoided during construction of
Hopewell Township’s wastewater facilities, GAI’s (MacDonald 2001) Phase I survey did not
fully document site boundaries; however, it is likely that the site encompasses several acres
of the Yellow Creek terrace. If so, the site may be a Transitional period base camp, from
which subsistence forays were conducted up Yellow Creek, the Raystown Branch, and nearby
uplands.
Site 36Bd98
Site 36Bd198 was identified during the Chestnut Ridge (Raber and Heberling 1996; Raber
1999) wastewater survey north of Bedford in Watershed C on a small stream terrace. This site
contained a very high density of lithic artifacts of a variety of different types. The number and
variety of tools led excavators to postulate that the site represents a microband sized base
camp. The location of the site on a terrace fits the model of Terminal Archaic settlement, as
suggested by Raber (1995).
Petersburg Bridge
Excavations at the Petersburg Bridge site (GAI 1983) near the confluence of the Little Juniata
and Frankstown Branch yielded only limited evidence of Terminal Archaic occupation,
including a few stemmed projectile points from mixed contexts. The location of the site on a
terrace near the confluence of the two major streams fits the pattern of site placement defined
above.
Terminal Archaic Site Types and Locations: Summary
In general, PASS files and research reports indicate that Terminal Archaic settlement was
focused in stream valleys with ephemeral use of uplands. Unlike the preceding Middle and
Late Archaic, in which site numbers increased over time, the number of sites in the Terminal
Archaic decreases, suggesting either a dispersal of populations away from the sub-basin or,
alternatively, a concentration of the population into fewer, but larger numbers of base-camp
sites. This site count pattern persists even when the duration of the respective periods is taken
into account (see discussion in Chapter XIII). When site counts are divided by the number of
decades in the respective time periods, the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period contains
0.44 sites per decade, compared to 0.58 for the Late Archaic.
108
While some favor the scenario of population stasis and nucleation (Custer 1996), there is at
present little in the PASS files and research report data to support this scenario in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin. If this model is accurate, site files should contain records of traditional
base camp sites with high densities of artifacts, features, and site furniture, such as steatite,
pottery, and groundstone tools. However, as reviewed above, while most sites identified to
date are in alluvial settings, they appear to be fairly small, short-term camps. Only the Sunny
Side Site represents what may be a true base camp; however, the limited amount of
excavation at that site (two 1x1-meter units; MacDonald 2001) precludes a definite site type
interpretation.
Overall, Transitional/Terminal Archaic period human populations were concentrated in the
Raytown and Frankstown Branch Valleys, as would be predicted by Raber’s (1995)
settlement pattern model. Like the preceding Late Archaic, the data indicate that distance to
water was a strong factor influencing settlement, as was proximity to stream confluences,
even the mean distance to both streams and stream confluences increased compared to the
Late Archaic. Also, the reduction of sites initiated during the end of the Late Archaic
continued into the Terminal Archaic. Overall, thus, there is general continuity in site types
and demography between the Late and Terminal Archaic periods in the Upper Juniata subbasin.
D.
TERMINAL ARCHAIC/TRANSITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Terminal Archaic Native Americans predominantly used locally-available jasper and cherts,
including Corriganville, Tipton, and Shriver. In addition, the general trend is for the increased
use of non-local rhyolite as a raw material. In this section, data from PASS files, research
reports, and GAI’s collections analysis are used to evaluate trends in Terminal Archaic
settlement patterning and raw material use in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, as well as to
provide insights into trade and travel patterns outside of the sub-basin.
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: PASS Files
Two trends are apparent when examining Table 29: 1) broadspear points, dating to the initial
portions of the Terminal Archaic, are much more prevalent than Orient points, which date to
the end of this period; and 2) jasper and rhyolite use increases compared to chert/flint. The
predominance of broadspear points suggest that the Upper Juniata Valley was utilized more
intensively during the early portion of the Terminal Archaic, with less use over time. This
trend continues the population decline observed during the latter portion of the Late Archaic.
As will be seen, the trend continues into the Early and Middle Woodland periods as well.
The second trend regards the increasing importance of rhyolite and jasper in stone tool
manufacture. In the preceding Late Archaic period, Native Americans utilized the combined
categories of jasper/rhyolite about the same amount as they used chert/flint. During the
Terminal Archaic period, jasper/rhyolite use becomes more common than chert/flint. The
large bifaces and points manufactured during this period required homogeneous raw material
with highly predictable fracture properties. Jasper and rhyolite both meet these criteria.
Sources of rhyolite are located well to the southeast of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, while
Page 109
jasper was available nearby in the Bald Eagle Valley and possibly in previously-unidentified
sources within the sub-basin itself.
Table 29. Transitional/Terminal Archaic Lithic Raw Material Use, Upper Juniata (PASS Files).
RAW MATERIAL
BROAD
TRANSITIONAL
SPEARS
Chert/Flint
Jasper
Rhyolite
Not Identified
Quartzite
Shale
Quartz
Steatite
Chalcedony
Onondaga Chert
Siltstone
Hematite
Greenstone
Slate
15
11
9
5
-1
2
2
--
Total
LEHIGH/
SNOOK
KOENS/
SAVANNA
ORIENT
TOTAL
-1
-1
9
5
5
1
3
-1
-2
1
2
----
2
2
2
1
1
1
---1
-----
2
2
2
--1
---------
1
1
-1
-1
-1
----1
--
27
21
18
8
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
47
29
10
7
6
97
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Research Reports
Cultural resource management projects have produced a limited data base regarding Terminal
Archaic sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Of the 11 reports that discuss Terminal Archaic
artifacts (see Table 28), most describe excavations either limited in scope or where the
recovery of Terminal Archaic artifacts was tangential to the main occupations during another
period. The data gathered from several of the more important excavations are discussed
below.
Sheep Rock Shelter
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) contained a large and varied Terminal Archaic assemblage,
including two steatite net sinkers and an adze produced from a coarse-grained black chert
(~Shriver?) (Michels and Dutt 1968:356). The adze has a plano-convex longitudinal section
and a biconvex transverse section. The distal bit end is sub-convex with rounded edges. All
flake scars have been smoothed through use and hafting, as was the proximal/haft end. A
similar artifact was recovered in a Transitional occupation at the O’Neil Site in New York.
Dates from that site (ca. 3200 B.P.) and Sheep Rock Shelter (ca. 3220 B.P.) are nearly
identical (Michels and Dutt 1968:367).
The excavations at the Workman Site produced Terminal Archaic artifacts from mixed,
predominantly Late Woodland contexts. Excavations recovered 14 Terminal Archaic points
including Susquehanna Broadspears (n=4), Perkiomen Broadspears (n=2), and Orient
110
Fishtails (n=8). A variety of raw materials were used to produce the points, including
argillite, chalcedony, gray chert, jasper, quartzite, and rhyolite (see discussion below). The
sources of rhyolite occur well east of the site at South Mountain, while the argillite may
derive from the Delaware River Valley.
36Bd98
36Bd198, identified during the Chestnut Ridge wastewater survey (Raber and Heberling
1996) was located on a low rise on a terrace near Dunning Creek. This site contained a very
high density of lithic artifacts manufactured from local cherts. Despite very limited
investigations, two projectile points, two preforms, seven scrapers, and 38 unifacial tools
were recovered along with 275 flake stone debitage. Local cherts were used to produce 97
percent of the artifacts, while rhyolite and jasper comprise the remainder. The low
percentages of rhyolite/jasper are somewhat at odds with other sites in the sub-basin;
however, Chestnut Ridge is on the far western border of the sub-basin and may mark the edge
of a rhyolite distribution area.
Site 36Bd267
As described above, Site 36Bd267 (the Sunny Side Site) yielded steatite-tempered Selden
Island pottery and a handful of untyped/unsourced chert debitage, associated with a small
hearth dated to ca. 3,500 B.P. While the sources for the chert artifacts are unknown, the most
proximate known sources of steatite are along the Upper Potomac River, approximately 50
km (30 miles) south of the current project area (pers. comm., W. Johnson, Michael Baker,
Inc.). If the steatite used at the site derived from this area, it suggests south-oriented cultural
ties via migration or trade. The Raystown Branch River corridor would have provided an
ideal corridor for the cultural diffusion of pottery-production techniques in the region. The
recovery of steatite-tempered pottery from sites along the Delaware River (Custer 1996; Dent
1995), also suggests use of south-north-trending river corridors by Native Americans during
the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period.
Petersburg Bridge
Excavations at this site produced limited evidence of Terminal Archaic occupation, including
four stemmed projectile points that possibly date to the Terminal Archaic. The low number of
projectile points limits the interpretive potential of this site; however, the raw material suite
does include local quartzite, chalcedony, and jasper. No Transitional period rhyolite artifacts
were recovered at the site.
Terminal Archaic Settlement and Lithics: Collections Analysis
Four of the eight collections examined at the State Museum yielded Terminal Archaic
artifacts. Because GAI performed a comprehensive review of chert sources in the study area,
our comparative collection allows for a more detailed examination of raw material sources.
Eight Terminal Archaic points were examined from four of the collections (Table 30). The
eight artifacts consisted of four broadspears and four fishtails; the proportion of points types
(four of each) is somewhat unexpected as PASS files indicate that broadspears far outnumber
fishtails in the greater study area. In addition, five of seven points (raw material is
Page 111
indeterminate for one point) are manufactured from chert; this differs from the PASS file data
in which Terminal Archaic jasper/ rhyolite outnumber points manufactured from chert.
Perhaps these sites, due to the small sample and their concentration in the Raystown Valley,
represent a biased view of Terminal Archaic raw material use in the region.
Table 30. Transitional/Terminal Archaic period Collections Analysis Results.
SITE
CATALOG NUMBER
POINT TYPE
RAW MATERIAL
36BD36
36BD36
36BD36
36BL38
36BL38
36BL38
36BD190
36BD161
67-2-2064
A67-2-2700
JC68-781
13
5
5
19.6
90
fishtail
fishtail
fishtail
broadspear
broadspear
broadspear
broadspear
fishtail
corriganville
jasper
rhyolite
tipton
unknown
tipton
shriver
shriver
Regardless, the use of local jasper and cherts, including Tipton, Shriver, and Corriganville,
suggest that locally available raw material sources were important in the Terminal Archaic, in
addition to the non-local rhyolite. While jasper/rhyolite may have been preferred for point
manufacture, the abundance and local availability of cherts likely inspired their frequent use
by Terminal Archaic hunter-gatherers (cf. Andrefsky 1994; MacDonald 1995).
E.
TERMINAL ARCHAIC CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Overview
PASS files and research report data indicate that the Terminal Archaic/Transitional period
represents a continuation of trends initiated toward the end of the preceding Late Archaic
period. These trends include decreasing site densities, increasing proportions of sites in
alluvial settings, and continued placement of sites near stream confluences. Custer (1996)
believes that changes in the environment and resource structure increased habitat
productivity. Similarities in artifact assemblages include the continued use of significant
percentages of rhyolite, jasper, and local cherts in tool production. Most sites in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin occur near streams, especially near stream confluences. Raber’s (1995)
study of prehistoric settlement patterns in the Aughwick Creek Valley just outside of the
present study area suggests localized movements of people for subsistence and long-distance
movement to collect resources outside of the local area. Site types consist of macroband base
camps located on terraces overlooking major river valleys with smaller resource procurement
or transient camps in smaller stream valleys or in upland settings.
Regarding non-local lithic raw materials, Stewart (1987) notes a dramatic increase in the
amount of jasper, rhyolite, and other resources traded over long distances in central and
eastern Pennsylvania. Data from PASS files support a healthy reliance on jasper and rhyolite
for point manufacture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, although site reports and the collections
analysis recorded fewer points of non-local rhyolite than expected.
112
While data from the Upper Juniata sub-basin is limited to subsistence remains from Sheep
Rock Shelter, data from surrounding regions confirms a heavy reliance on aquatic resources
in addition to use of nuts, seeds, and possibly, early domesticates such as squash. Because of
a lack of preserved faunal remains, most of the evidence for use of fish and other resources
comes indirectly from the presence of numerous netsinkers, cooking features, and a variety of
rock platform features (Bressler 1989; Wall et al. 1996).
Terminal Archaic/Transitional Period Research Questions
Intensive work at a variety of sites is needed to fill in the many gaps in the Terminal Archaic
knowledge base for the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While a number of excavations have
encountered Terminal Archaic materials, few are in good context, with many being mixed
with material from earlier or later time periods. Additional excavations at sites like
36Bd267—the Sunny Side Site (MacDonald 2001)—would provide much-needed answers to
the research issues presented below:
1.
What are the reasons for the apparent lack of use of the Watershed B?
2.
What are the functional and chronological relationships between broad blade forms
and narrow point forms? Are any of the styles contemporaneous?
3.
What, if any relationships exist between Steubenville and Fox Creek points? Can
these points be separated in statigraphically mixed contexts?
4.
What are the associations between pottery types and projectile point horizons?
5.
Is there any evidence for early cultigens?
6.
What faunal resources were exploited by Terminal Archaic groups?
7.
Is there support for widespread changes in resource structure that may have lead to
the changes in settlement patterns observed in the sub-basin?
8.
What does the continued reduction in site counts tell us about Terminal
Archaic/Transitional populations? If populations were reduced, where were Native
Americans going and why?
9.
How can we reconcile the decrease in populations with the changing subsistence
pattern, including increasing use of agriculture and sedentism?
10.
What role did the Sub-Boreal climate play in population fluctuations during the
Transitional period?
Page 113
114
CHAPTER IX. EARLY WOODLAND PERIOD
3000 to 2100 BP
A.
EARLY WOODLAND OVERVIEW
The Early Woodland period witnessed the continuation of trends that emerged during the
preceding Transitional and Late Archaic periods, including the increased use of ceramic
vessels and the introduction of horticulture (Smith 1987). Although the subsistence base
continued to be based on hunted and gathered resources, horticulture gradually assumed
greater importance. Early Woodland sites in the greater Susquehanna Valley, including the
Memorial Park Site on the West Branch in Lock Haven (Hart 1995b), reveal the first
evidence of early domestication of squash, chenopod, maygrass, sumpweed, and sunflower.
Ethnobotanical remains from various Early Woodland sites suggest that, while domesticates
were introduced, they were dominated by the use of widely available wild plant foods
(Adovasio and Johnson 1981; Ballweber 1989; Ritchie 1980). The emergence of the Adena
cultural complex in the central Ohio Valley influenced groups as far east as New York and
New Jersey, and directly involved populations within the Susquehanna River watershed and
vicinity (Raber 1985).
Beginning in the latter portion of the Early Woodland, Native Americans of the Adena and
Meadowood cultures built burial mounds and other ceremonial facilities along the Ohio River
and mid-Atlantic coast (Adena), as well as along the upper portion of the Susquehanna
Valley in New York (Meadowood). Structure and size of these ceremonial complexes was
highly variable, as exemplified by Cotiga Mound on the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River in
southwest West Virginia (Frankenberg and Henning 1994:441-443). This mound dates to
2100 B.P. and contained the remains of between 7 and 18 individuals. The mound also
contained ethnobotanical evidence in the form of sweetgum, pine, seeds and walnut shells
(Frankenberg and Henning 1994). These data confirm similar data from the Susquehanna
Valley of New York that suggest a diet of predominantly wild foods during the Early
Woodland (Ritchie 1980:181). Other important mounds include Grave Creek Mound on the
Ohio River (Hemmings 1977) and Gore Mound on the Kanawha River (Fowler et al. 1976).
In uplands above major drainages, Adena peoples occupied small camps and engaged in
short-term extractive activities, such as lithic and food processing (Schweikart 1998:17). This
site distribution pattern of mounds in floodplains and camps in uplands resembles that used
by Adena cultures in the Middle Atlantic (Custer 1996:242) and Meadowood cultures in
southern New York along the Susquehanna River Valley and vicinity (Ritchie 1980:180-200;
Snow 1980:267).
Diagnostic artifacts for this period in the greater Susquehanna Valley region include Cresap
stemmed (2950 to 2400 B.P.), Adena stemmed (2750-2250 B.P.), Meadowood points (25002790 B.P.; Ritchie 1980:181), and Robbins stemmed points (2400 B.P. to 1750 B.P.) (Justice
1987:191-196). Pottery, comprised mainly of grit-tempered plain wares (e.g., Armstrong
Plain), was also introduced during the Early Woodland. Other artifacts associated with the
Adena are tubular open-ended and block-ended pipes, rolled copper beads and bracelets, cut
mica, and groundstone gorgets and celts (Hart et al. 1994:23). McMichael (1971) and Clay
Page 115
(1991) suggest that “sacred circle” earthworks with interior ditches and double posted
circular houses also characterize Adena sites along the Upper Ohio Valley, such as Cresap
Mound (Clay 1991; Dragoo 1963).
Another trend initiated during the Transitional period, decreasing site counts, also continued
into the Early Woodland. The number of recorded sites decreased dramatically during the
Early Woodland (see discussion below), suggesting a continuation of population
reductions/nucleation begun during the end of the Late Archaic period. Alternatively,
populations utilized fewer sites by concentrating populations in one location (nucleation) for
extended periods (Custer 1996:234-235). In this scenario, populations did not decline, but
rather remained stable and were grouped within more nucleated base camps or villages.
These villages were likely comprised of bands, or groups of related families who worked
together to achieve subsistence success. Custer (1996:235) states that these village sites
increased in density during the Early Woodland in the Susquehanna and Delaware River
Valleys. These sites reveal houses, large cooking and food processing features, and other data
to indicate occupation by multiple families for extended periods (Dent 1995:229-230).
According to these studies, thus, sedentism, incipient horticulture, and increasing use of
villages are the hallmarks of the Early Woodland in the greater Susquehanna River Valley.
This chapter evaluates whether similar trends were utilized by Early Woodland Native
Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
B.
EARLY WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Early Woodland Pottery
Along with projectile points, ceramics generally function as cultural horizon markers for
archaeologists who study the Woodland period. Subsequent to the steatite-tempered wares of
the Terminal Archaic, Native Americans introduced several grit-tempered varieties of
ceramics during the Early Woodland. Detailed descriptions of these various ceramic wares
can be found in Custer (1996:218-227), Schuldenrein et al. (1991:52-55), and Kinsey
(1972:453-475). Within the Juniata sub-basin, discussion of Early Woodland pottery types is
limited to the Sheep Rock Shelter reports (Michels and Smith 1967; Michels and Dutt 1968).
The general trend of Early Woodland pottery in central Pennsylvania and the greater
Susquehanna River Valley was toward the production of coarse, grit-tempered, and thickwalled conoidal vessels with cordmarked surface treatment (see Figure 6). There were two
significant differences between Early Woodland vessels and Transitional period Marcey
Creek and Selden Island vessels. First, Early Woodland potters replaced steatite temper with
various forms of grit or crushed rock, including quartz, chert, and other minerals. Second,
Early Woodland potters replaced flat-bottomed vessels with conoidal-shaped ones.
Another significant difference between Transitional and Early Woodland pottery was the
mode of production from use of clay slabs during the Transitional to the use of the coiling
technique during the Early Woodland. These technological innovations allowed the
production of thinner vessels over time with fewer and smaller-tempered grains. The coiling
116
technique was so innovative that it persisted throughout the Woodland and remained the
primary means of pottery production for millennia (Custer 1996:223).
Vinette I pottery (see Figure 8) is often the earliest grit-tempered ware at Early Woodland
sites and is typically found in association with Meadowood points in the Middle Atlantic and
Susquehanna Valley regions. Vinette I pottery is coarse, thick, and densely packed with large
grit temper, such as quartz and flint. Vessel forms are straight sided with conoidal bases
(Kinsey 1972:453).
Vinette I sherds were found in association with two other Early Woodland Exterior
Corded/Interior smoothed pottery varieties at Sheep Rock Shelter—Juniata Thick and Sheep
Rock Corded (Michels and Smith 1967:469-471), both considered to be local variants of
Vinette I (see Figure 8). Within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, Sheep Rock Shelter is the lone
site to yield Early Woodland pottery from a stratified deposit. While Sheep Rock Shelter
lacks associated radiocarbon dates in the Early Woodland component (see below), the Early
Woodland level is bracketed by well-dated Transitional and Middle Woodland components.
While several additional Upper Juniata sites have yielded these Early Woodland pottery types
(see discussion below), sherds are typically recovered in mixed plowzone contexts and the
densities at the sites are low, suggesting ephemeral occupations or low-intensity pottery
production.
Vinette I sherds were recovered from features with radiocarbon dates of 3,180±70, 2,870±90,
and 2,460±90 B.P. at the Girty’s Notch Site (36PE45) on the upper Susquehanna River
(Berger 2001:17). Abbot Farm near Trenton, New Jersey, also yielded Vinette I sherds
(Kinsey 1972:454). The Accokeek Creek Site on the Potomac River yielded an Early
Woodland Pope’s Creek component with Vinette I pottery stratigraphically above a Terminal
Late Archaic Marcey Creek strata (Stephenson et al. 1963).
Additional Early Woodland ceramic types found in the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity
include Brodhead Net-Marked vessels that were tempered with various forms of grit.
Interiors of the pots are imprinted with net/fabric, while the exteriors are smooth
(Schuldenrein et al. 1991:53). Sherds of this type were associated with radiocarbon dates of
ca. 2400 to 2100 B.P. at the Lower Black’s Eddy Site on the Delaware River. At the Miller
Field Site in the Upper Delaware Valley, Brodhead Net-Marked sherds were dated to ca.
2400 B.P. (480±80 B.C.; Kinsey 1972:455-456).
Early Woodland Projectile Points
Various forms of stemmed and notched projectile points were also produced during the Early
Woodland period. Meadowood points, often found in association with Vinette I pottery, are
deeply side-notched with a trianguloid blade shape (see Figure 8; Justice 1987:170). Both
were recovered at the Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bressler 1989) in Williamsport on the
West Branch of the Susquehanna River and at the Faucett Site (36PI13a) on the Delaware
River.
Page 117
Figure 8. Early Woodland Artifacts.
Adena Stemmed Point
Michels and Huner 1968:227, Plate 3
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Meadowood Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Rossville Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
gai
Juniata Thick (~Vinette I) Pottery
Sheep Rock Shelter
All Artifacts Actual Size
Figure 8
Early Woodland Artifacts
118
In addition to Meadowood points, Early Woodland diagnostic projectile points include Adena
Stemmed, Lagoon, Rossville, among others (see Figure 8). Kinsey (1972:433-436), Custer
(1996:227-232), and Schuldenrein et al. (1991:43) all provide descriptions of Early
Woodland point styles in central and eastern Pennsylvania. In the Hudson and Delaware
Valleys, researchers place Steubenville/Fox Creek lanceolate and stemmed points within the
Early-Middle Woodland period (Funk 1968; Kinsey 1972; Schuldenrein 1991:43). However,
within western Pennsylvania and the West Virginia Panhandle, these points date to the Late
Archaic (Mayer-Oakes 1955). PASS files data interpret these points as Early Woodland;
however, given the lack of radiocarbon dates associated with the points in the sub-basin, their
age remains uncertain in the current project area. Until these points are found in well-dated
contexts within central Pennsylvania, thus, we do not consider Steubenville/Fox Creek points
within any time period.
As during the Transitional period, a variety of other artifact types are also typical of Early
Woodland sites. Domestic sites typically yield groundstone tools, such as mortars, pestles,
metates, manos, and pitted cobbles, while mortuary sites may contain ground slate objects,
such as pendants, gorgets, effigy pipes, as well as jewelry, projectile points, and blade/biface
caches produced from exotic lithic raw materials (see below).
Early Woodland Chronology
The radiocarbon sequence for the Early Woodland period is based largely on areas outside of
the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Within the sub-basin itself, only three Early Woodland
radiocarbon dates are available, while Sheep Rock Shelter constitutes the lone stratified Early
Woodland site component.
Sheep Rock Shelter yielded Vinette I pottery as well as local sub-types (~Juniata thick and
Sheep Rock corded) with Meadowood points in excavation level 4, the Early Woodland
component of the site. This level is bracketed by a Transitional occupation dated to ca. 3200
B.P. (level 5) and a Middle Woodland occupation dated to 2000-1700 B.P. (50 A.D.-320
A.D., level 3).
The Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) at Bedford County Airport (see below) yielded a radiocarbon date
of 2490±100 B.P. or 540 B.C. (Beta-35145) from a storage pit that also yielded several
charred nut hulls. No diagnostic Early Woodland artifacts were recovered from the feature,
which was partially truncated during backhoe work at the site (Baker and Baker 1990:9). The
authors speculate that the date may be incorrect, as associated diagnostic artifacts suggest a
Late Archaic date of occupation.
Also, Mykut Rockshelter yielded a radiocarbon date of 2280±50 B.P. or 410-200 B.C. (Beta)
from Feature 18. No Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts were recovered in association with
the date, suggesting a fairly ephemeral occupation. This site, as noted elsewhere in this
report, contained multiple occupations from different time periods, suggesting repeated use of
this rock overhang.
Page 119
Site 36Bl58, excavated for the Hollidaysburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (Raber et al.
1993), yielded an Early Woodland component represented by Vinette I pottery and an
associated broad-stemmed biface. While no radiocarbon dates were associated with the Early
Woodland component, wood from an overlying culturally-sterile level yielded a Middle
Woodland date of ca. 160 A.D. (1790±130 B.P.), confirming the Early Woodland age of the
underlying deposits.
Approximately 30 miles north of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Canfield Island Site
(36Ly37) yielded a dense artifact concentration with Meadowood points and Vinette I
pottery. An associated date of ca. 270 A.D. was deemed too recent due to contamination.
Meadowood points at the site were produced from Shriver (“Helderburg”) chert and rhyolite.
(Bressler 1989:31).
Further afield, within the Delaware River Valley of eastern Pennsylvania, the Lower Black’s
Eddy Site (36Bu23) yielded radiocarbon dates of 2450±150 B.P. (Beta-19322) and 2540±70
B.P. (Beta-26602), among others, for an Early Woodland component. Features at the site
include hearths, storage pits, and other thermal features in association with Lagoon and
Rossville points and Brodhead Net-Marked pottery sherds.
C.
EARLY WOODLAND SITE TYPES AND LOCATION TRENDS
PASS files data provide insight into Early Woodland settlement and site type patterns in the
Upper Juniata sub-basin. The most noticeable Early Woodland trends are the reduction in
numbers of sites and the increase in diversity and quantity of artifacts at the sites. These two
trends suggest either population reduction and/or population nucleation with increased
ceremonialism.
Early Woodland Site Types: PASS Files
Nineteen sites with Early Woodland diagnostic artifacts were recorded in PASS Files, a
decrease of 16 from the Transitional and 68 from the Late Archaic. As with previous periods,
open camp and lithic-reduction sites in floodplain/terrace/bench settings (n=15) predominate
during the Early Woodland period (Table 31 and Table 32). However, upland ridgetop and
rockshelter sites are also present in small numbers (n=4), suggesting a continuation of the
logistic subsistence pattern. While artifact assemblages are not discussed in great detail in the
PASS files, the presence of a variety of flaked stone, groundstone, and ceramic artifacts at a
few of the sites (Table 33) may indicate the increased use of base camps during the Early
Woodland.
Of the 19 Early Woodland sites, only 14 contained information on specific site locations
relative to streams and stream confluences (Table 32). Of those 14 sites, six were located
south of a stream, four were north of a stream, and three were west of a stream (one site
lacked data). Of the 14 sites, seven each were located adjacent to a low-mid-order streams
and high-order streams, respectively. Fourteen of the 19 sites were located on or near a
tributary of the Raystown Branch (14 in Watershed C, 4 in Watershed D), while four sites
were on the Frankstown Branch and one was on south Bald Eagle Creek (Watershed A; see
Table 31). This pattern mirrors that of the preceding Middle, Late, and Transitional Archaic
120
periods, with populations concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of the sub-basin.
No Early Woodland sites are currently recorded in Watershed B in the northeast portion of
the sub-basin.
Table 31. Early Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
SITE NAME
WSHED
STREAM
SETTING
Munic.
ELEV.
1260
SITE TYPE
36BD0011
between route 31
C
Raystown
Juniata T.
Stream Bench
Open
36BD0017
36BD0036
36BD0052
opposite the ball field
Workman Site
Coon Rock Shelter
C
D
D
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
-Liberty T.
W. Prov. T.
Terrace
Floodplain
Hillslope
0
820
960
36BD0096
C
Raystown
E.St.Clair
Floodplain
1120
Open
36BD0104
Watson-Fetter Cache
C
Raystown
E. St. Clair
Terrace
1160
Cache
36BD0146
Covered Bridge
C
Raystown
E. St. Clair
Floodplain
1120
Open
36BD0157
C
Raystown
E.St. Clair
Floodplain
1140
Open
36BD0164
Claycomb #4
C
Raystown
Bedford T.
Hillslope
1140
Open
36BD0171
Stahl #2
C
Raystown
Bedford T.
Hilltop
1180
Open
36BD0190
Rhodes Site
D
Raystown
--
Terrace
829
Open
36BD0217
Chestnut ridge market
C
Raystown
--
Terrace
1140
Village
36BD0243
ford 2
C
Raystown
--
Slopes
1020
Open
36BL0004
Loop
A
Frankstown
Frnkstwn T.
Floodplain
940
Open
36BL0028
Hite-Locality 1
A
Frankstown
Freedom T.
Floodplain
1010
Open
36BL0058
Holidaysburg Sewage
A
Frankstown
Frnkstwn T.
Terrace
920
Open
36BL0064
Nearhoof Site
A
Bald Eagle
--
Terrace
1100
Lithic Red.
36CE0285
Rockspring Cave
A
Frankstown
Fergeson T.
Bench
1160
Rock Shelter
36HU0001
Sheep Rock Shelter
D
Raystown
Penn Twp.
Hillslope
640
Rock Shelter
Open
Open
Rock Shelter
Table 32. Early Woodland Site Location Data, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0011
36BD0036
36BD0052
36BD0096
36BD0104
36BD0146
36BD0157
36BD0164
36BD0171
36BL0004
36BL0028
36BL0058
36CE0285
36HU0001
SLOPE
00
00
00
00
00
00
5
5
00
2
00
2
00
OF STREAM
DIRECTION
ORDER OF
STREAM
Southwest
Northeast
South
-Southwest
North
Southwest
Southeast
West
West
North
West
Northwest
South
1
5
5
3
1
4
5
1
1
4
2
5
1
5
DISTANCE DIRECTION
TO CONF. TO CONF.
1100
600
1000
0
600
100
300
680
400
280
100
240
2520
600
Southwest
Northeast
Southeast
On-site
East
Northwest
West
Northeast
North
Northeast
East
Northeast
West
Southwest
ORDER OF
CONF.
3
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
2
5
2
5
FLOW OF
CONF.
Upstream
No Conf.
Upstream
No conf.
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Downstream
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
Upstream
Page 121
Table 33. Early Woodland Artifacts, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0011
36BD0017
36BD0036
36BD0052
36BD0096
36BD0104
36BD0146
36BD0157
36BD0164
36BD0171
36BD0190
36BD0217
36BD0243
36BL0004
36BL0028
36BL0058
36BL0064
36CE0285
36HU0001
SITE NAME
ARTIFACTS
between route 31
opposite the ball field
Workman Site
Coon Rock Shelter
Watson-Fetter Cache
Covered Bridge
Claycomb #4
Stahl #2
Rhodes Site
chestnut ridge market
ford 2
Loop
Hite-Locality 1
Holidaysburg Sewer
Nearhoof Site
Rockspring Cave
Sheep Rock Shelter
MATERIALS
Adena pts, celts, gorgets, pestles, stea.
Adena pts, pestles, pitted cob, stea.
Ceramics, stone tools
Meadowood pts.
Stone tools
Adena pts, ceramics, steatite
Stone tools
Adena pts.
Meadowood pts.
Grit temp/flat bott. Ceramics
Grit temp/flat bott. Ceramics
Meadowood pts.
Vinette I, lithics
Adena pts
Ceramics, bone, stone
Meadowood pts., ceramics, grndstn
Chert, quartz, rhyolite, steatite
Chert, jasper, quartz, rhyolite
Chert
-Chert, jasper, rhyolite
Flint ridge
Chert, quartz, rhyolite, shale, steatite
Chert, jasper, rhyolite
-Chert, chalcedony, jasper, quartzite
Chert, jasper
Argillite, chert
Chert, jasper, onond., quartzite, rhyo.
Steatite
Chert
Chert, jasper
Chert, jasper
--
Early Woodland Site Types: Research Reports
Only five cultural resource management reports discuss sites with Early Woodland period
components in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 34). The significance of this dearth reflects
the decrease in the total number of sites during the Early Woodland period in the region
compared to the preceding Late and Transitional Archaic periods. Whether this reduction in
sites is a reflection of declining populations and/or increasing use of nucleated settlements
(and, thus, fewer sites with greater numbers of artifacts) is unclear.
Table 34. Early Woodland Research Reports, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE #
Bd164, 171
36Bd0036
36Bd104
36Bd0190
36Bl0058
36Hu0001
122
SITE NAME
-Workman Site
Fetter Cache
Rhodes
Holidaysburg
Sheep Rock
PHASE
II
III
-I,II
I, II
III
AUTHOR
Heberling
Michels/Huner
Smith
Gross et al.
Raber et al.
See text
YEAR
PROJECT NAME
1990
1968
1978
1995
1993
67/68
Bedford County Air.
Workman Site
Watson-Fetter
SR 26 intersection
Holidaysburg Waste.
Sheep Rock Shelter
LOCATION
Bedford
Raystown Lake
East St.Cl.
Liberty Twp.
Frnkstwn Twp.
Raystown Lake
Sheep Rock Shelter: Early Woodland Component
As discussed above, Sheep Rock Shelter is the most significant Early Woodland site in the
sub-basin. The Early Woodland deposit (level 4) ranges from 0-30 inches thick across the
shelter (Michels and Dutt 1968:57). Diagnostic artifacts from level 4 of the site include
Meadowood projectile points, as well as Vinette I pottery and its two local variants, Juniata
Thick and Sheep Rock corded (see Figure 8). The Juniata Thick and Sheep Rock corded are
similar to Vinette I and are considered variants of the same type (Michels and Dutt 1968:57).
A wide variety of subsistence remains were recovered from excavation level 4, including
several types of wild and domesticated plants, animal bones, fish scales and mollusk shells.
The array of foods suggests that the entire suite of available foods was exploited by Native
Americans at Sheep Rock Shelter. The introduction of cultivated crops also supports the
assertion that the site was a base camp from which people traveled to obtain foods. Corn,
beans (intrusive?) and squash plant remains were identified in the upper portion of
excavation level 5 (Transitional/Early Woodland), suggesting that small plots were planted in
nearby river terraces and subsequently transported for processing and consumption to the
rock shelter.
While no evidence of cultivated crops was recovered in excavation level 4, several corn,
beans, squash, and sunflower plant fragments were recovered in the upper levels of level 5,
which dates to the end of the Transitional and beginning of the Early Woodland. In total,
three 8-row corn cobs, five untyped cobs, and nine corn kernels were recovered in level 5
(Michels and Smith 1967:165). Other evidence of crop domestication in level 5 included two
gourd fragments, six Pepo (squash) seeds, three bean pods, and two sunflower fragments.
Evidence of wild plant utilization in level 4 includes two acorn fragments, one hickory nut,
and two hackberry seeds.
One of the most significant findings in excavation levels 3 and 4 was the high number of fish
scales and mollusk shells, suggesting that Early-Middle Woodland site occupants spent much
of their time fishing and collecting shells from the Raystown Branch. Nearly 800 fish scales
(n=796; Michels and Dutt 1968:128), the second most of any level at the site, were recovered
in levels 3 and 4, the Early-Middle Woodland period. Unfortunately, fish remains from Sheep
Rock Shelter were discussed collectively as levels 3 and 4 in the preliminary report (Michels
and Dutt 1968). Only the Late Woodland deposit yielded more fish scales (n=1,018) than the
Early-Middle Woodland levels. Most of the fish scales are Type A scales, which suggest the
procurement of Alosa sapidissima, or American Shad (Michels and Dutt 1968:125), an
anadromous fish that migrates up the major river valleys in spring from the Atlantic seaboard.
Large quantities of mollusk shells—more than 2,200 grams—were also recovered in levels 3
and 4 of Sheep Rock Shelter, further evidence that use of the river and its resources were
important for site occupants during the Early and Middle Woodland periods. Most of the
mollusk shell at Sheep Rock was unburned and the authors (Michels and Dutt 1968:152)
interpret this to mean that the shell was boiled or steamed prior to use at the shelter.
Page 123
Other Early Woodland Sites
Four other research reports provide information regarding Early Woodland sites in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin (see Table 34). The Workman Site (36Bd36), downriver from Sheep Rock
Shelter, yielded Early Woodland diagnostic projectile points; however, the assemblage was
comprised of only six points from mixed plowzone contexts. No Early Woodland pottery was
identified at the site, suggesting that it did not serve as a base camp, as it likely did during the
Late Archaic period. Early Woodland points included four Meadowood points and two
Adena points (Michels and Huner 1968:227-228). The chert used to produce the Adena
points is described as being pinkish-white and gray-buff flint. Given the lack of local cherts
that fit this description and the fact that the artifacts are Adena points, Flint Ridge chert is the
most likely stone used for production of the two artifacts. The small number of Early
Woodland points at Workman supports the contention that this site was not a base camp
during the Early Woodland.
Across the river from the Workman Site, Phase II excavations at the Rhodes Site (36Bd190)
also yielded an Early Woodland Lagoon projectile point from a mixed plowzone context. The
limited assemblage suggests an ephemeral occupation during the Early Woodland (Gross et
al. 1993).
The Watson-Fetter Cache (36Bd104) is a collection of 67 Flint Ridge blades found by a local
resident of East St. Clair Township, Bedford County in the 1950s (Smith 1978:72). The
cache was identified near a rock overhang along a small tributary of the Raystown Branch.
These types of Adena-related ceremonial sites are extremely rare in central and eastern
Pennsylvania, suggesting that the region was a hinterland of the Adena social sphere during
the Early-Middle Woodland period. GAI intended to analyze the blade cache, but was unable
to locate its owner. Also, the photograph accompanying Smith’s (1978:72) description of the
cache is actually of the Sutter Cache from Crawford County, not the Watson-Fetter Cache.
Sites 36Bd164 and 36Bd171 at the Bedford County Airport also yielded Early Woodland
Adena projectile points from mixed plowzone contexts (Heberling et al. 1990:72), while data
recovery excavations at the Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) yielded an Early Woodland radiocarbon
date from a storage pit with charred nut hulls (Baker and Baker 1990:9). No associated Early
Woodland artifacts were identified at the site and the upper portion of the feature was plowdisturbed, suggesting that the date is problematic. The low artifact densities of these sites
suggest ephemeral occupations (if any) during the Early Woodland.
Finally, in the northwest portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin in Hollidaysburg, Raber et al.
(1993) excavated an intact Early Woodland component from Site 36Bl58. The site yielded
Vinette I pottery and a broad-stemmed biface stratigraphically below wood dated to the
Middle Woodland (see discussion above), placing it within good stratigraphic context. The
small size of the assemblage (n=41 artifacts) suggests that the site functioned as a camp for
Early Woodland foragers within the Frankstown Branch.
124
D.
EARLY WOODLAND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE
Limited information is available regarding Early Woodland lithic raw material use and lithic
technology. As reflected in Table 33, Adena and Meadowood points are the most common
projectile point types at Early Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Along with
these points, a variety of ceramics and groundstone tools are also commonly recovered.
Groundstone tools include manos, metates, gorgets, pestles, celts, and pitted cobbles. Sheep
rock shelter also yielded an adze produced from “hard, compact shale-like siltstone” (Michels
and Dutt 1968:370).
PASS files data suggest continued use of local cherts (n=13 sites) during the Early
Woodland, followed by jasper (n=9), rhyolite (n=6), steatite (n=3) and quartz (n=3). Shale,
Onondaga chert, Flint Ridge chert, chalcedony and argillite were each identified at one site.
As during the preceding periods, rhyolite and steatite were the dominant non-local stones
used in tool production, suggesting continued travel and trade to the south and east.
The low number of sites with Flint Ridge chert is unexpected, given the presence of the
Watson Fetter cache site near Bedford. The presence of such Adena cache sites, such as
Watson Fetter, along with other “ceremonial” artifacts (e.g., pendants and jewelry) at Sheep
Rock Shelter, suggests contact between Early Woodland Native Americans in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin and the Adena and/or Meadowood cultures. Given the marginal role of the
Upper Juniata in the interaction sphere, the influence of the Adena/Meadowood was minimal
and was largely restricted to a few items likely obtained via down-the-line trade. Sites like the
Watson Fetter Cache represent unique sites, however, which suggest occasional excursions
by Early Woodland Native Americans between the Upper Juniata and central Ohio, the
source of the Flint Ridge used to produce the Adena blades in the cache.
Only one of the projectile points analyzed at the State Museum was an Early Woodland type.
This Rossville point was recovered from Site 36Bd36, the Workman Site, and was produced
from locally-available Shriver chert.
E.
EARLY WOODLAND: CONCLUSION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Early Woodland Overview
The Early Woodland PASS files and research report data indicate a decline in identified sites
dating to the Early Woodland period. This site decline may be a result of continued
population reductions in the Upper Juniata sub-basin; alternatively, the decreased site sample
may be indicate a lack of adequate archaeological survey in settings preferred by Early
Woodland Native Americans. While the first evidence of crop domestication is present at
Sheep Rock Shelter, there is little evidence to support the hypothesis that populations became
nucleated during the Early Woodland. No Early Woodland base camps, with the possible
exception of Sheep Rock Shelter, have been identified in the sub-basin. Most sites are small
camps with low artifact/feature densities, rather than larger base camps, as would be expected
if populations were settling down into nucleated communities. However, the overall reduced
numbers of Early Woodland sites may also be a result of biased archaeological survey in
lowland river terrace settings. Other trends, such as increasing use of rhyolite and jasper,
Page 125
continue into the Early Woodland period. These raw material data suggest continued social
ties to areas to the south and west, as during preceding periods.
Ultimately, the Early Woodland period witnessed the continuation of trends initiated during
the end of the Late Archaic and Terminal Archaic/Transitional periods. As will be seen in the
next chapter, these population trends reached a low point during the Middle Woodland, prior
to a dramatic turnaround during the Late Woodland period.
Early Woodland Research Questions
This summary of Early Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata subbasin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting
archaeological work in the area. Seven Early Woodland research questions are listed below;
pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet the National Register
126
1.
How does the Early Woodland differ from the preceding Transitional and Late
Archaic periods?
2.
What was the influence of the Adena culture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin?
3.
How extensive was agriculture during the Early Woodland?
4.
Which topographic settings have the largest numbers of frost-free days to support
agriculture? Have these identified settings been adequately sampled by
archaeological survey?
5.
Does the reduction in site numbers reflect decreasing populations?
6.
Was there an increase or decrease in the use of semi-sedentary base camps during
the Early Woodland?
7.
How can we reconcile decreasing populations with the rise of agriculture and
sedentism? Was hunting and gathering the predominant subsistence method?
8.
If populations declined, where did Native Americans go and why?
9.
Has bias in archaeological survey locations resulted in the apparent site decline and
lack of base camps during the Early Woodland?
10.
If so, where are the Early Woodland base camp sites?
CHAPTER X. MIDDLE WOODLAND PERIOD
2100 to 1200 B.P. (150 B.C. to A.D. 800)
A.
MIDDLE WOODLAND OVERVIEW
In the Middle Atlantic and eastern Pennsylvania, the Middle Woodland period is
characterized by an elaboration in burial ceremonialism, widespread interregional exchange,
and the increased importance of indigenous cultigens and maize (Custer 1996; Kinsey 1972;
Smith 1987). Within the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity, including the Upper Juniata River
sub-basin, the Middle Woodland period is not well represented. This may be due to the
decreasing populations in the sub-basin, initiated during the Transitional period.
Alternatively, increasing sedentism led to a reduction in the total numbers of sites utilized
during the period, thus, decreasing site counts compared to other periods. In this argument,
populations remained stable or decreased only slightly (Custer 1996) compared to earlier
periods.
B.
MIDDLE WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Middle Woodland Technology
Middle Woodland technology represents a continuation of styles utilized during the Early
Woodland period. Ceramics of the Middle Woodland increase in diversity, decorations
become more common, and vessel thickness generally decreases with increasing
technological sophistication. Projectile point types, such as Rossville and Lagoon points that
were initially used during the Early Woodland, persist into the early portion of the Middle
Woodland. Additional types include Hopewellian artifacts, such as Snyders and Raccoon
corner-notched points (Figure 9). Groundstone tools, including manos, metates, pitted
cobbles, adzes, and tool sharpeners (Figure 9), are recovered at sites as well.
While some researchers (Custer 1996) place Jack’s Reef corner-notched points within the
Middle Woodland period, we discuss them in the Late Woodland, largely due to the
association of a Jack’s Reef point with a Clemson Island (Late Woodland) feature at Sheep
Rock Shelter (Michels and Smith 1968:345). Most researchers agree (Custer 1996, 2001;
Kinsey 1972; Justice 1987) that the point type overlaps with both the latter portion of the
Middle Woodland and the early portion of the Late Woodland periods, however.
Middle Woodland Chronology
A total of six Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates are available for sites in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin. The dates of 320±140 A.D. (M-2082) and 60±140 A.D. (M-2083) were taken from
excavation level 3 of Sheep Rock Shelter and were associated with a variety of subsistence
goods, including fish scales, mollusk shell, and the most bone of any level at the shelter.
Page 127
Raccoon Notched Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Obverse
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
DRAWN DHM CHECKED DHM APPROVED JCL DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236-10--C-A9
Figure 9. Middle Woodland Artifacts. Raccoon Notched Point
Snyders-like Point
Sheep Rock Shelter
Workman Site
Michels and Huner 1968:232,
Honing Stone/Abrader
Sheep Rock Shelter
Reverse
gai
Quartz Crystals
Sheep Rock Shelter
All Artifacts Actual Size
Figure 9
Middle Woodland Artifacts
128
Four other Middle Woodland radiocarbon dates have been assayed at sites in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin, none of which are associated with a substantial occupation. The Ickes 1
(36Bd173) and Ickes 2 Sites (36Bd174) yielded three Middle Woodland dates from features
at the Bedford County Airport project:
ca. 40 B.C. (1990±90 B.P.; Beta-35141; Baker and Baker 1990:11)
ca. 260 A.D. (1690±140 B.P; Beta-7060; Baker and Baker 1990:7)
ca. 370 A.D. (1580±100 B.P.; Beta-35143; Heberling et al. 1990:139)
Each of the Middle Woodland features also yielded charred nuts and likely served as storage
pits or hearths. Middle Woodland diagnostic artifacts were not recovered at either site, with
most diagnostic artifacts being Late Archaic. The authors suggest contamination of the
charcoal samples or ephemeral Middle Woodland occupations.
Finally, excavations for the Hollidaysburg Wastewater Treatment Facility (Raber et al.
1993:60) identified Site 36Bl158, which also yielded a Middle Woodland date of ca. 160
A.D. (1790±130 B.P.); however, the date was from wood in a culturally-sterile level above an
Early Woodland component (discussed above).
C.
MIDDLE WOODLAND SITE TYPES, LOCATIONS, AND SETTLEMENT
The reduction in recorded sites that was initiated during the end of the Late Archaic
continued into the Middle Woodland, as only 11 Middle Woodland sites are listed in the
PASS files compared to 19 Early Woodland sites. As revealed by PASS file data (Table 35),
small camp sites are the exclusive site type for the Middle Woodland in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin. Sites are equally distributed across the sub-basin, with four sites in Watershed C
and three sites each in Watersheds A and D. As typical, Watershed B is not well represented
in the site files. Of the 11 sites, eight listed the Raystown Branch as the nearest major stream,
while the Little Juniata, Bald Eagle Creek, and the Frankstown Branch were each listed once.
As is typical, sites are predominantly located on floodplains, terraces, and stream benches
(n=7), with a minority on hillslopes (n=4). All but two of the sites, both rockshelters, are in
open settings.
Table 35. Middle Woodland Sites (PASS Files).
SITE NO.
36BD0052
36BD0079
36BD0092
36BD0118
36BD0158
36BL0092
36CE0360
36HU0101
36HU0122
36BD0036
36BD0161
SITE NAME
Coon Rock Shelter
--Acker #1
Site Locus E-16
Bellwood Bridge
Hort. Farm #1
Graysville Cave
Kyper-B
Workman
Claycomb #1
WATERSHED
D
C
C
C
D
A
A
A
B
D
C
MAJ. RIVER
SETTING
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Juniata
Bald Eagle
Frankstown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Terrace
Slopes
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Slopes
SITE TYPE
Rock Shelter
Open
Open
Open
Open
Lithic red.
Open
Rock Shelter
Open
Open
Open
ELEV.
960
1130
1120
1110
1100
1060
1230
1080
670
820
1150
Page 129
Specific data on site locations suggest that proximity to water was the key factor in Middle
Woodland site placement, as each site was less than 150 m from a water source (Table 36).
Order of stream was not an important factor in determining site location, nor was direction of
the stream relative to the site location. Proximity to a stream confluence was also an
important criterion for site placement, as nine of the 11 sites were located near (less than
1,500 m) a confluence. Most sites were located north of the nearest stream confluence, while
several were also located upstream of confluences.
Table 36. Middle Woodland Site Location Data (PASS Files).
Site No.
Slope
36BD0052
36BD0079
36BD0092
36BD0118
36BD0158
36BL0092
36CE0360
36HU0101
36HU0122
36BD0036
36BD0161
00
00
00
00
--0
50
0
00
5
Distance
Direction Order
40 South
10 North
40 West
20 West
0 On-site
-- -100 West
20 East
0 On-site
80 Northeast
140 Southeast
5
4
3
4
1
-2
4
5
2
Con.Dist
1000
100
260
40
460
-2160
760
50
600
600
Con.Direct
Southeast
Northeast
Southwest
Northwest
Northwest
-West
Northeast
East
Northeast
Northeast
Con.Order
5
4
3
4
5
-2
2
2
5
5
Con.Flow
Upstream
Upstream
Upstream
Downstream
No Conf.
-No Conf.
Downstream
Upstream
No Conf.
Upstream
Research report data contribute little to the discussion of Middle Woodland site types, as only
five reports indicate the presence of Middle Woodland artifacts. Four of the reports (Table
37) contained only an ephemeral Middle Woodland component, represented by a few
diagnostic artifacts from mixed plowzone contexts. With the exception of Sheep Rock
Shelter, no sites contain a stratified Middle Woodland component.
Table 37. Middle Woodland Research Reports.
SITE #
PHASE WATERSHED
36BD0158 I,II
36BL0092 II
36BD0036 III
36BD0161 II
36HU1
III
D
A
D
C
D
AUTHOR
YEAR
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
Heberling/Heberling
East
Michels and Huner
Heberling/Heberling
Michels et al.
1989
1998
1968
1990
67,68
Loysburg Hwy
Bellwood Br.
Workman
Bedford Air.
Sheep Rock
South Woodbury Twp.
Bellwood
Raystown Lake
Bedford
Raystown Lake
Evidence from Sheep Rock Shelter indicates an increasing reliance on agricultural goods
during the Middle Woodland along the Raystown Branch. The site yielded 84 fragments of
corn, including 1 six-row, 73 8-row, 8 10-row, 1 12-row, and 1 16-row cob fragment. Other
domesticates from Middle Woodland level 3 included 223 squash (Pepo)
fragments/seeds/stems, 50 bean pods/seeds, and four sunflower seeds. Middle Woodland site
occupants also exploited wild plant foods as well, including acorn (n=9), black walnut
(n=15), chestnuts (n=1), butternuts (n=8), hickory nuts (n=8), hackberry seeds (n=16), and a
130
peach pit. The Middle Woodland level 3 also yielded the most bone (22,567 g) of any level at
the site, suggesting better preservation compared to earlier periods, or, alternatively,
increased dependency on hunting. Fish scales (n=796, combined level 3/4 data) and mollusk
shell (2,261 g, combined level 3/4 data) were also recovered in the Middle Woodland levels
of Sheep Rock Shelter.
Several unique artifact types were also recovered in the Middle Woodland levels of Sheep
Rock, including a “honing stone” (see Figure 9). The artifact had “numerous deeply scoured
grooves on both faces and probably used for the sharpening of bone implements such as awls.
A small hole has been worn through the center of the specimen. The item is made of green
siltstone” (Michels and Dutt 1968:365). In addition, level 3 yielded the most red ocher of any
level, 55% (161 g) of the total from the site (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
While no burials were recovered in the Middle Woodland levels, the presence of ocher and
three multifaceted clear and translucent, white and rose quartz crystals (see Figure 9) suggest
that Middle Woodland Native Americans conducted rituals and perhaps burials within the
shelter (Michels and Dutt 1968:397).
Unfortunately, the dearth of data from Middle Woodland site occupations precludes an indepth discussion of settlement patterns and lithic raw material use in the sub-basin.
Additional studies of Middle Woodland sites in the sub-basin should make an effort to better
understand the organization of lithic technology and the use of lithic raw materials.
D.
MIDDLE WOODLAND: OVERVIEW AND RESEARCH ISSUES
Middle Woodland Overview
The Middle Woodland period stands out in the Upper Juniata sub-basin due to the general
lack of information compared to all other time periods. The low number of sites (n=11) listed
in PASS files indicates a continuation of population reductions in the sub-basin that began
during the end of the Late Archaic period. The lack of Middle Woodland village sites in the
sub-basin refutes an argument for increased sedentism and nucleation resulting in a decreased
site count. The evidence fully supports the hypothesis that populations decreased between the
Late Archaic and Middle Woodland periods.
Sheep Rock Shelter provides virtually the only window into Middle Woodland lifeways in
the region. Evidence from that site clearly shows an increasing reliance on domesticates,
including corn, beans, squash, and sunflower. However, Middle Woodland Native Americans
also continued their use of hunted and gathered foods, including a variety of nuts, berries,
fish, shells, and game animals. Evidence of ceremonialism was also present in the Middle
Woodland levels at Sheep Rock Shelter, suggesting a continuation of ritual traditions
initiated during the Late Archaic and Early Woodland occupations.
Page 131
Middle Woodland Research Questions
This summary of Middle Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata subbasin has generated several research issues that should be considered when conducting
archaeological work in the area. Eight Middle Woodland research questions are listed below;
pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion
D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible
for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
132
1.
How does the Middle Woodland differ from the preceding Early Woodland and
subsequent Late Woodland?
2.
Why did populations continue to decline during the Middle Woodland period?
3.
What was the influence of Adena/Hopewell cultures on Middle Woodland Native
Americans in the Upper Juniata sub-basin?
4.
Did pottery use increase during the Middle Woodland?
5.
Did populations become nucleated during the Middle Woodland? If so, where are
the base camp/village sites?
6.
What role did agriculture play during the Middle Woodland period?
7.
How did settlement patterns change, as reflected in lithic raw material use at Middle
Woodland sites?
8.
Was there an increase in ceremonial/ritual activity in the Upper Juniata sub-basin
during the Middle Woodland?
9.
CHAPTER XI. LATE WOODLAND PERIOD
1100 to 400 B.P. (AD 800-1600)
A.
LATE WOODLAND CULTURES, TECHNOLOGY, AND CHRONOLOGY
During the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, Native Americans experienced
dynamic culture changes, including increasing population densities and widespread cultural
contacts. While Native American use of the Upper Juniata sub-basin had steadily declined
between the end of the Late Archaic and the Middle Woodland period, the Late Woodland
witnessed an apparent population explosion, resulting in a seven-fold increase in recorded
sites compared to the Middle Woodland period. With the increasing populations came
expanded trade and social networks. Monongahela groups from the west, Susquehanna
Valley populations from the east (e.g., Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry), as well as Potomac
Valley groups from the south and Owasco groups from the north, all affected cultural change
in the sub-basin during the Late Woodland period. Increasing sedentism and agriculture
spurred population growth; however, hunting and gathering persisted, as evidenced by the
PASS files and research report data presented in this chapter. While the Upper Ohio Valley
and vicinity to the west, the Susquehanna Valley to the east/north, and Upper Potomac Valley
to the south witnessed the rise of unique Late Woodland culture groups, the Upper Juniata
was somewhat of a hinterland. PASS files data only one true sedentary village in the subbasin, only two possible agricultural hamlets, but a proliferation of resource procurement
camps.
As this chapter will describe, the main Late Woodland cultural influences in the sub-basin
were clearly from the Susquehanna River to the east. The vast majority of sites in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin are a result of Clemson Island occupations during the early portion of the
Late Woodland and Shenks Ferry occupations toward the end of the Late Woodland period.
Nevertheless, Monongahela houses and ceramics, Owasco ceramics, and Potomac Valleytype house forms and ceramics have all been identified at sites in the sub-basin. Sites such as
Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, Petersburg Bridge, and Bedford Village indicate a variety of
cultural influences, suggesting the movement of several different cultures through the subbasin. As during previous periods, the Raystown Branch Valley provided an excellent
corridor for travel between the Upper Ohio Valley to the west and the Susquehanna and
Potomac Valleys to the north, east and south. Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin reflect the intermingling of cultures via trade, marriage, and other social means, as
well as the possible presence of multiple different ethnic groups in one region.
The following section provides brief overviews of Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Ohio
Valley, Potomac Valley, and Susquehanna Valleys to provide a background for the
subsequent analysis of site types and land-use of Late Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin.
Page 133
Upper Ohio Valley Late Woodland Cultures
To the west of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Monongahela culture was dominant during
the Late Woodland, focusing their settlement on the Monongahela, Youghiogheney, and
Upper Ohio River Valleys of southwestern Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia.
Monongahela sites east of the Allegheny Front are rare, but cultural influences are reflected
in similarities in house types, pottery styles, and other cultural traits, especially in the western
portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Monongahela sites occur in a variety of settings,
including the floodplains and benches of major rivers, but were generally concentrated within
upland saddles and flats (George 1974, 1983; Cowin 1985; Nass and Hart 2000). Site types
include villages in river bottomlands, as well as along trail networks on upland hilltops and
saddles near drainage divides (Johnson et al. 1989). Smaller camps are generally restricted to
uplands and terraces of smaller streams and rivers.
The Monongahela constructed large, multiseasonal, palisaded villages of one to five acres in
size and probably contained from 100 to 150 inhabitants. These villages were generally
circular and were often fortified with a round or oval stockade. Circular houses around a
central circular plaza were abutted by large circular storage pits (Bennett and Porter 1986:17;
Nass and Hart 2000). Monongahela ceramics are typically shell-tempered and cordmarked
and were produced via the coiling method (Herbstritt 1981). Chesser notched, Jack's Reef
Corner Notched, Levanna and Madison Triangular (Justice 1987), as well as Backstrum Sidenotched (George 1992), are all diagnostic projectile points found at Late Woodland
Monongahela sites.
Monongahela ceramic types have been identified in small numbers at both the Workman and
Sheep Rock Shelter Sites in the Raystown Branch (Watershed D). The Bedford Village site
(Catton 1994) in Bedford may be the eastern-most Monongahela village and is the only true
Late Woodland village in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin. In Somerset County, just to the
west of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Monongahela-culture Gnagey Site yielded several
Clemson Island pottery sherds, confirmation of contact between the two cultures, likely via
intermarriage and/or trade (George 1983; Stewart 1990:91).
Potomac Valley Late Woodland Cultures
The Upper Potomac River Valley is less than 30 miles south of the Raystown Branch. The
close proximity of the two river corridors likely resulted in trade, intermarriage, and
socializing between cultures in both areas; however, the rugged nature of the terrain
separating the two areas was apparently enough to divide them into two distinct culture areas.
In the Potomac River Valley of Maryland and Virginia, the Montgomery Focus includes
Shepard and Page ceramics. These types have “Owascoid, cord-wrapped stick decorations”
(Stewart 1990:90-91) similar to earlier Jacks Reef Corded. Both the Workman Site and
Sheep Rock Shelter along the Raystown Branch contained small percentages of Shepard and
Page ceramic types, while the Workman Site also contained house forms that generally
resemble some within the Upper Potomac Valley (see discussion below). Pottery from the
Bedford Village site is reminiscent of that produced within the Upper Potomac Valley,
especially in the use of a predominant final S twist in cordage production (Catton 1994;
Johnson 2001).
134
Susquehanna Valley Late Woodland Cultures
As discussed in this chapter, Clemson Island cultures exerted the most cultural influence
within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The Late Woodland is typically divided into three subphases within the Susquehanna Valley and vicinity: Clemson Island (A.D. 750/900-1250);
Stewart (Shenks Ferry) (A.D. 1250-1350); and McFate-Quiggle (A.D. 1350-1600), although
recent studies have called into question the value of such sub-phases (Espenshade 2001).
Clemson Island
Clemson Island has been intensively studied during recent years, including major overviews
by Graybill (1995), Hay et al. (1987), Hatch (1980) and Stewart (1990). Clemson Island is an
early-Late Woodland sub-phase based largely on the presence of punctated “Clemson Island”
pottery at archaeological sites in Centre, Clinton, Dauphin, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lycoming,
Mifflin, Northumberland, Perry, Snyder, and Union Counties (Graybill 1995; Stewart 1990).
This pottery is characterized by an increase in finely-made cordmarkings and punctations on
vessel exteriors; an increase in decorated lips; and in increase in finely-crushed quartz, chert,
or other grit temper (although shell has been noted in later Clemson Island assemblages as
well). Detailed type descriptions of Clemson Island pottery are presented below. Ground
stone tools increase in quantity as well, due to the need for plant-processing equipment
(Graybill 1995).
Clemson Island stone tool technology was expedient, meaning that there was an emphasis on
the production of short-use life tools for daily tasks and a decrease in biface production.
Projectile points are restricted largely to Levanna and Madison triangles and some Jack’s
Reef Corner Notched. Jack’s Reef and triangle points were recovered in association with
Clemson Island pottery and hearths at Sheep Rock Shelter and Petersburg Bridge in the
Upper Juniata sub-basin (see below; Michels and Dutt 1968:345). Small amounts of Clemson
Island pottery were also recovered at the Bedford Village and Gnagey sites, both considered
to be predominantly Monongahela villages.
Shenks Ferry and McFate-Quiggle
The Fisher Farm Site (Hatch 1980, 1983), as described below, contained a large Shenks Ferry
(A.D. 1250-1350) village occupation. Sites typically yield Shenks Ferry plain and
cordmarked pottery wares, triangular projectile points, clay smoking pipes, and increasing
numbers of ground stone tools. Finally, the McFate-Quiggle phase (A.D. 1350-1600) is
infrequent in the upper reaches of the Susquehanna, but is characterized by the increasing use
of Susquehannock-type, high-collared, shell-tempered pottery (Hatch 1980).
Key Late Woodland Sites near the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin
Numerous Late Woodland sites have been excavated in areas surrounding the Upper Juniata
sub-basin, including: Book Mound (36Ju1) in Juniata County (Jones 1931; Stewart 1990);
Canfield Island (36Ly37; Bressler 1989) in Lycoming County; Memorial Park (36Cn164;
GAI 1995) in Clinton County; and Fisher Farm (36Ce35; Hatch 1980) along Bald Eagle
Creek in Centre County (Hatch 1980). The Gnagey Site (36So55; George 1983) is also
relevant, as it is one of the eastern-most Monongahela villages and yielded small quantities of
Page 135
well-dated Clemson Island pottery. Each of these five sites is located within approximately
15-30 miles of the Upper Juniata sub-basin and provides context for subsequent discussion of
sites within the sub-basin.
Book Mound (36Ju1)
Book Mound (36Ju1) is one of the earliest known Clemson Island village sites excavated in
central Pennsylvania (Jones 1931; Stewart 1990). The site is located on a terrace of the
Juniata River, approximately 20 miles east of its confluence with the Raystown Branch in
Huntingdon. The site possessed a ceremonial mound in association with a large Clemson
Island village occupation, the closest such site to the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Canfield Island (36Ly37)
The Canfield Island Site (36Ly37; Bresser 1989) is located on Canfield Island within the city
limits of Williamsport on the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. Two Late Woodland
components dating to the McFate-Quiggle and Clemson Island phases were identified at the
site. Madison triangle points and shell-tempered pottery dominate the McFate-Quiggle
component, which also yielded several cobble tools and associated food processing features
with evidence of turtle processing. The Clemson Island component was dated to ca. 1000
A.D. and yielded Levanna triangle points, pitted cobbles, celts, knives, net sinkers, and
scrapers, largely produced from local Shriver chert. Bone fish hooks and barbed bone
harpoon heads were also recovered, suggesting that fishing was an important subsistence
task. Clemson Island Levanna Cord-on-Cord pottery (see description below; Figure 11) is the
dominant pottery type. Numerous post molds were identified and corn and weed seeds were
recovered from features, suggesting that the site likely was a seasonal food processing
hamlet, as per Memorial Park below.
Memorial Park (36Cn164)
Located in the city of Lock Haven, GAI (1995) conducted extensive data recovery
excavations at this site prior to the construction of a levee along the West Branch in the early
1990s. The site yielded four Late Woodland components, including three Clemson Island
occupations and one Stewart (Shenks Ferry) occupation. The site possessed 80 features,
several houses, and thousands of lithic and ceramic artifacts. The three Clemson Island
occupations dated to ca. 800 A.D., 900 A.D., and 1050 A.D., respectively, while the Stewart
occupation dated to ca. 1350 A.D. Jacks Reef projectile points were recovered from the two
earliest site occupations, but not from the final Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry
occupations. Triangle points were recovered in each of the Late Woodland occupations and
were largely produced from locally-available cherts. Pottery styles generally conform to the
Clemson Island typology presented below (see Hart 1995a:520).
Clemson Island components at Memorial Park also yielded significant data regarding
subsistence, including maize kernel and cob fragments, two types of domesticated
Chenopodium, as well as a tobacco seed and a sunflower kernel. Wild foods used at the site
include hickory, chestnut, hazelnut, walnut, butternut, black walnut, acorn, wild rice, and a
variety of mammals, fish, and birds. The highest density of houses and large storage features
136
were built during the Clemson Island occupations, suggesting a fairly sedentary, agricultural
community. However, Hart (1995b:525), based on the overall small number of houses and
their distribution, does not interpret the site as a village, instead suggesting that the site likely
represents a seasonal hamlet, or a “small habitation site for agricultural production.” If this is
the case, Memorial Park may have been a hamlet associated with the West Water Street Site
(36Cn175), a Clemson Island village with a stockade located approximately two miles
upstream from Memorial Park on the West Branch in Lock Haven (Custer et al. 1996).
Fisher Farm (36Ce35)
Within close proximity (~15 miles north) of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the Fisher Farm
Site (36Ce35; Hatch 1980, 1983) is located on the west bank of north Bald Eagle Creek,
which flows northward to its confluence with the West Branch Susquehanna River in Lock
Haven. Eleven radiocarbon dates from the village site identified occupations dating to the
early-Late Woodland Clemson Island phase (705±70 A.D., UGa 2683; 960±90 A.D., UGa
2485), and the late-Late Woodland Shenks Ferry phase (see below; 1350±105 A.D., UGa
22276). Clemson Island pottery at Fisher Farm was cordmarked or fabric impressed with grit
temper and punctations on the rim, while Shenks Ferry pottery was highly decorated,
cordmarked, rim incised, and grit tempered. The Clemson Island component yielded Jack’s
Reef and triangle points, while the Shenks Ferry occupation yielded triangle points. A small
Susquehannock occupation is also denoted at Fisher Farm by the presence of a few shelltempered pottery sherds and small Susquehannock triangle points. Each of the Late
Woodland occupations was dominated by the use of local black chert.
The Gnagey Site (36So55)
Located in Somerset County, the Gnagey Site (36So55) is the easternmost Monongahela
village in the region (George 1983). While the Bedford Village site (36Bd90) near Bedford
maintains a Monongahela-type village layout, including circular houses and a circular
stockade, cordage-twist directions suggest affiliation with cultures from the Upper Potomac
Valley. George’s (1983) excavations at the Gnagey Site, thus, provide the best data on the
eastern-most influences of the Monongahela culture, as well as the western-most influences
of the Clemson Island culture.
Gnagey maintains a typical Monongahela-style village layout, including circular houses
within a circular stockade (Figure 10). The Gnagey Site yielded significant quantities of
Monongahela pottery, as well as limited quantities of Clemson Island sherds (associated with
radiocarbon dates of 920±80 A.D., 1030±80 A.D., 1085±80 A.D., and 1190±65 A.D.). An
additional link between the Upper Juniata sub-basin and the Gnagey Site was in the lithic raw
materials used in stone tool production. Most chert utilized at the Gnagey Site were procured
in Bedford County, including types discussed in Chapter 2, such as Shriver, Bellefonte,
Nittany, and Mines (George 1983:50). The Gnagey Site also provided the earliest known
dates for corn—ca. 900-1000 A.D.—at any Monongahela site in the region (Nass and Hart
2000:144).
Page 137
gai
DRAWN
DHM DATE
7/18/02
DWG.
NO Compare
20 02-236-10--C-A10
Figure
10. Planview
of the
Gnagey
Site.
with
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Upper Juniata
Sub-Basin
The Gnagey Site (36So55)
B
A
Site Location
Figure 12, the Planview of the Bedford Village Site (from George 1983:6).D
Meter Scale
0
5
C
10 m
Early Trench
Later Trench
Early House
Stockade
Posts
Later House
Early Village
Later Village
Figure 10
Planview of the Gnagey Site. Compare with Figure
10, Planview of the Bedford Village Site
Adapted From George 1983:6
138
This brief review of important Clemson Island, Monongahela, and Shenks Ferry sites on the
periphery of the Upper Juniata sub-basin provides a basis for discussion of sites within the
sub-basin itself. The following section provides an overview of Late Woodland chronology
and technology, as reflected by sites in the sub-basin.
B.
LATE WOODLAND TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY IN THE UPPER JUNIATA
SUB-BASIN
A variety of pottery types and stone tools were utilized by Late Woodland Native Americans
in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. As will be seen, most of the types are affiliated with
Susquehanna Valley cultures, with lesser influences from Monongahela, Upper Potomac, and
Owasco (New York) groups. The following section provides a list of radiocarbon dates for
occupations within the study area, as well as an overview of the main types of technologies
used in the sub-basin. Subsequent sections discuss site types and settlement patterns during
the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata.
Late Woodland Chronology
Several radiocarbon dates are available for Late Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata subbasin. Diagnostic artifacts are associated with some of these radiocarbon dates, providing a
well-dated Late Woodland chronology. Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1) and Mykut Rockshelter
(36Hu143) yielded five and six Late Woodland/Protohistoric radiocarbon dates, respectively.
Also, the Ickes 1 Site (36Bd173) yielded three dates, while the Petersburg Bridge Site
(36Hu67) and Bedford Village (36Bd90) each yielded two dates. Thus, a total of 17
radiocarbon dates document Late Woodland occupations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Sheep Rock Shelter Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates
Five radiocarbon dates were assayed for the Late Woodland/Protohistoric level 2 at Sheep
Rock Shelter (36Hu1):
1450±100 A.D. (M-2086)
1460±100 A.D. (M-1904)
1490±100 A.D. (M-2084)
1600±100 A.D. (M-1905)
1690±100 A.D. (M-1903)
Each date documents Clemson Island or Shenks Ferry occupations during the latter portion of
the Late Woodland period; however, the presence of Jack’s Reef projectile points, as well as
early types of Clemson Island pottery, suggests that the site was occupied during the early
Late Woodland as well. Clemson Island, Shenks Ferry, and Monongahela ceramics were
recovered in this level, as were abundant corn, beans, squash, and wild food remains. The
level also yielded two infant burials with associated Late Woodland pottery sherds. Detailed
results of excavations in the Late Woodland levels of Sheep Rock Shelter are presented
below.
Page 139
Mykut Rockshelter Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates
Excavations by Heberling Associates, Inc. (Raber 2000; Burns and Raber 1998; pers. Comm.,
Paul Raber, 2002) at Mykut Rockshelter near Raystown Lake yielded 16 radiocarbon dates,
six of which indicate substantial occupation during the entire Late Woodland period between
ca. 800-1650 A.D.
650-890 A.D. or 1270±60 B.P. (Beta-165451); charcoal from Feature 12
Clemson Island sherds document an early Late Woodland occupation, while Shenks Ferry
and Quiggle pottery sherds indicate additional late-Late Woodland occupations at Mykut
Rockshelter. As will be discussed below, subsistence remains included animal bone, mollusk
shell, and turtle shell, but no domesticates.
Petersburg Bridge Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates
Two radiocarbon dates were assayed from Clemson Island features at the Petersburg Bridge
Site (36Hu67; GAI 1983) near the confluence of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch
Rivers northwest of Huntingdon.
955±70 A.D. (Beta-7060); charcoal from hearth (Feature 1)
1070±50 A.D. (Beta-7059); charcoal from hearth (Feature 2)
Four structures, multiple pit features and hearths, as well as Clemson Island pottery and Jacks
Reef and triangle projectile points, were recovered in association with these dates (see
below).
Bedford Village Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates
Two radiocarbon dates were analyzed from the Bedford Village Site (36Bd90; Catton 1994),
the lone Late Woodland village in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin. One date marks the
period during which the stockade was in use, while the second date marks the date of final
occupation of the site, after the stockade had ceased operation:
990-1120 A.D. or 895±65 B.P.(Uga-185); charcoal from stockade trench
950-1070 A.D. or 940±60 B.P.(Uga-185); charcoal from feature that post-dates
stockade trench
Ickes 1 Late Woodland Radiocarbon Dates
Two Late Woodland radiocarbon dates were assayed on a buried soil at the Ickes 1 Site
(36Bd173) at the Bedford County Airport project (Baker and Baker 1990:9-10), while
140
another date was assayed on charcoal from a storage pit or large post mold at the same site
(Feature 6). No associated Late Woodland artifacts were recovered at the sites, suggesting
possible contamination (as with Early and Middle Woodland dates from the same sites) or
ephemeral Woodland occupations.
790 A.D. or 1160±90 B.P. (Beta-35144); charcoal, Feature 6 post/storage pit
1010 A.D. or 940±70 B.P. (Beta-35138); bulk soil sample, buried A horizon
1220 A.D. or 730±90 B.P. (Beta-35139); bulk soil sample, buried A horizon
Late Woodland Technology
Pottery
Extensive discussions of Late Woodland pottery types are available in several volumes,
including Stewart (1990), Hatch (1980, 1983), Hay et al. (1987), and Hart (1995a). This
section provides a brief overview of pottery types recovered at sites in the Upper Juniata subbasin (see Figure 9) and is based entirely on information within the above referenced sources,
especially Stewart (1990:86-87) and Hay et al. (1987:19-57). Descriptions of Monongahela
pottery types are derived from Mayer-Oakes (1955), as well as the Sheep Rock Shelter
(Michels and Smith 1967) and Workman (Michels and Huner 1968) site reports.
In general, the variety of Clemson Island pottery types are characterized by cordmarkings or
fabric impressions on vessel exteriors, grit (chert or quartz) temper, and distinctively deep
punctations along the rim. The punctations are typically arranged in one-four rows, with one
being most common and four being rare. Although there are minor discrepancies in the
typology of Clemson Island ceramics, both Stewart (1990) and Hay et al. (1987) divide the
ceramics into early and late groups, based on the association of pottery types with
radiocarbon dates at sites in the Susquehanna Valley. The following is a list of Clemson
Island pottery types identified at sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The list is
approximately chronological (from early to late), although the evolution of types was a
continuum with many types present in single components at respective sites.
Clemson Island: Levanna Cord-on-Cord
Heavy cord marking on exterior and lip. No punctations, internal decorations, or rim
preparation are present. This type is considered the most basic and earliest of the Clemson
Island types (Figure 11).
Clemson Island Cord-on-Cord
Similar to Levanna cord-on-cord, except for the use of punctates, some lip and vertical
cordmarking on the exterior (see Figure 11). This type was the most common Clemson Island
type of pottery at the Monongahela Gnagey Site in Somerset County (see above). The type
was also most common at the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67; GAI 1983) near the
confluence of the Little Juniata and Frankstown Branch rivers. The Workman Site (36Bd36;
Michels and Huner 1968) also yielded 20 sherds of a local variant of this type called Clemson
Island Punctate.
Page 141
Figure 11. Late Woodland Artifacts.
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
DRAWN DHM CHECKED DHM APPROVED JCL DATE 7/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236-10--C-A11
1 inch
Levanna Cord-on Cord
(Hay et al. 1987:27)
Clemson Island Horizontal Complicated
(Hay et al. 1987:32)
1 inch
Clemson Island Cord-on-Cord
(Hay et al. 1987:27)
Shenks Ferry Incised (Sheep Rock Shelter)
Clemson Island Platted Horizontal
(Hay et al. 1987:27)
1 inch
Jack’s Reef Pentagonal Points
Memorial Park Site (36Cn164)
(GAI 1995:286)
Jack’s Reef Corner-Notched Point
(Justice 1987:218)
Actual size
1 inch
Triangle Projectile Points
Sheep Rock Shelter
Actual size
Figure 11
Late Woodland Diagnostic Artifacts
142
A complete vessel of this possible type was discovered from an unknown provenience in
Bedford County (George 1986:35-38). The vessel measures 15.2 cm high, 14 cm wide, with
an interior opening of 10.3 cm. The rim measures 5 mm thick and has a single row of
punctates, as well as cordmarking. The body of the vessel has plain-weave, S-twist fabric
impressions that resemble cordmarkings, while the interior is plain. Temper is small angular
fragments of black shale.
Clemson Island Platted Horizontal
This type is defined by rim sherd decorations, produced via “oblique cord wrapped stick
impressions arranged in horizontal plats” (Stewart 1990:86; see Figure 11). Sheep Rock
Shelter and Workman both yielded small numbers of sherds of this type.
Clemson Island Horizontal Complicated
Similar to Owasco Corded Horizontal, this type (see Figure 11) is a variant of Clemson
Island corded horizontal. Vessel necks have irregular incised lines. Sheep Rock Shelter
yielded three sherds of a similar type called Clemson’s Island Incised (Michels and Smith
1967:473-474).
Clemson Island Platted Oblique
Similar to the Clemson Island Platted type defined at Workman and Sheep Rock Shelter. As
defined at the Workman Site (Michels and Huner 1968:90), this type has a single line of deep
punctates parallel to the lip. The interior rim is stamped with a cordwrapped stick or paddle
and the necks sometimes also exhibit diagonal stamping.
Clemson Island Flared Rim
Characterized by a flare rim, with all other diagnostic traits of Clemson Island pottery. The
Gnagey Site yielded sherds of this type, as did Sheep Rock Shelter, where they were called
Clemson Island Overhanging Rim.
Levanna Corded Collar/Page Cordmarked
This type is essentially the same as the Impressed Rim variety of Page Cordmarked at the
Workman Site (Stewart 1990:87; Michels and Huner 1968:98-100). Similar types have been
found in the Great Valley section of the Ridge and Valley and along the Upper Potomac
Valley. At Workman, the type is coiled and tempered with coarse limestone. The exterior is
cordmarked, while the neck has smoothed cordmarkings and the interior is smoothed.
Shenks Ferry Incised/Banded, Simple, and Complex
Three variants of Shenks Ferry pottery were recovered at Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 11).
Each type was produced via coiling and malleating with a cordwrapped paddle and anvil;
temper is typically coarse chert; exteriors are cordmarked and interiors are smoothed. The
banded variety has three incised lines adjacent to the lip, while the neck is decorated with
incised lines in a herringbone pattern. The simple variety has decorations of vertical or
diagonal incised lines on exterior, while the interior of the rim has diagonal incised lines.
Finally, the complex variety is decorated with “complex incised line groups that form
geometric platts that are usually triangular” (Michels and Smith 1967:483).
Page 143
Watson Plain and Watson Cordmarked
The Workman Site yielded 26 sherd fragments of Watson Plain and 14 sherds of Watson
cordmarked. These types are tempered with limestone, coiled, and subsequently malleated
with a paddle and anvil. Temper is coarse limestone, with both interior and exteriors
smoothed on the Plain variety and exteriors cordmarked on the other variety. Lips are square
to rounded with straight to slightly outflaring rims. These traits fit the description of Watson
Plain and Cordmarked, as defined by Mayer-Oakes (1955:194-196). These types were
common at the Gnagey Site in eastern Somerset County, accounting for approximately 10
percent of the typed sherds.
Monongahela Cordmarked
As defined by Mayer-Oakes (1955:197-198) and, subsequently, by Michels and Smith
(1967:529) at Sheep Rock Shelter, this type is typically limestone-tempered (but can be shelltempered), coiled, and malleated with paddle and anvil. Exteriors are cordmarked with some
smoothing and interiors are smoothed. Some sherds have possible “fingernail impressions”
(Michels and Smith 1967:529) on rims. Six Monongahela cordmarked sherds were recovered
at Sheep Rock Shelter. This type was the most common at the Gnagey Site in eastern
Somerset County, accounting for nearly 90 percent of the typed sherds (George 1983:28).
Local Pottery Types
Several apparently local Late Woodland pottery types were identified at the Workman Site,
none of which have been identified elsewhere in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, including the
Late Woodland component of Sheep Rock Shelter. The types include Saxton Impressed,
Saxton Incised, Stonerstown Incised, Workman Cordmarked (with several variants), Warriors
Path Smoothed (with several variants), and Warriors Path Cordmarked (with several
variants), each of which is described in detail in Michels and Huner (1968:102-118). The
importance of these local types is that none of them were found at Sheep Rock Shelter,
located only 40 miles to the north of Workman. Michels and Huner (1968:120) interpret
these differences between the sites as evidence of two different cultural groups inhabiting the
Raystown Branch during the Late Woodland. Based on the variety of pottery types described
above, a variety of cultures were influential in the sub-basin; thus, these local types likely
represent unique variations of regional types due to cultural contacts via marriage, trade, or
other socialization.
Late Woodland Lithic Technology
Generally, Late Woodland lithic technology in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and elsewhere
(Hart 1995b:522; Hatch 1980; Stewart 1990) is characterized by the production of expedient
tools for daily tasks using locally-available cherts. Clemson Island sites yield both Jacks Reef
corner-notched points and a variety of triangle points, including Levanna and Madison
varieties (see Figure 11). Shenks Ferry sites typically yield only triangle points, which
generally decrease in size over time. As in the Bald Eagle Creek drainage (Hatch 1980), the
use of local black cherts is prevalent during the Late Woodland, as will be discussed in more
detail in subsequent sections of this report. Site furniture, in the form of groundstone tools
(e.g., metates, manos, pitted cobbles, etc…), is also common at Late Woodland villages and
specialized camp sites.
144
PASS files include data regarding 77 Late Woodland sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin,
with the majority of the sites yielding Clemson Island components. The Upper Juniata area is
home to some important Late Woodland sites, including Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman,
Bedford Village, and Petersburg Bridge, among others described below. The following
sections describe these sites and interpret them in light of Hatch’s (1980), Hay et al. (1987),
and Stewart’s (1990) Late Woodland site types models, described below.
D.
LATE WOODLAND SITE TYPES AND LOCATIONS: UPPER JUNIATA SUB-BASIN
The increase in Late Woodland populations is reflected by a more than six-fold increase in
recorded sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While only 12 Middle Woodland sites are
recorded in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 77 Late Woodland sites are recorded in PASS files.
In addition, a few of those Late Woodland sites are hamlets or special purpose agricultural
camp sites, confirmation of the increasing role of agriculture and sedentism. Nevertheless, as
reflected in research reports, site files clearly indicate the prevalence of small camps during
the Late Woodland. Thus, while agriculture increased in importance, hunting and gathering
remained the most significant means of food procurement. The increasing site density
resulted in coverage of the Late Woodland period by 16 cultural resource management
projects. The following section provides an overview of Late Woodland sites and site types in
the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Late Woodland Site Types in Central Pennsylvania
Based on the results of excavations at Fisher Farm and elsewhere in the West Branch
watershed, Hatch (1980:325) proposed a site type model for Late Woodland cultures that has
been generally adopted in the region (Hay et al. 1987:57-67; Stewart 1990:93-101). We
introduce the site type model here to provide a context for discussion of Late Woodland sites
in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
During the Clemson Island phase, site types consisted of agricultural villages with burial
mounds, farmsteads/hamlets on village peripheries (without mounds), and special purpose
camps for subsistence. The villages were comprised of small oval or rectangular structures
for small groups of nuclear and extended families. Associated features include large pits for
the storage of subsistence goods, as well as occasional burial mounds (GAI 1995; Stewart
1990). Hamlets are similar to villages, but they generally contain fewer houses and storage
pits and lack mounds and stockades. Hamlets were likely utilized on a short-term basis for
agricultural or other subsistence production. This pattern changed during the Shenks Ferry
phase, with the onset of village nucleation. House types changed from small, single-family
residences to multi-family house groups surrounded by protective stockades, suggestive of
increasing tribal hostilities at approximately 1200-1300 A.D. Hatch (1980:326) suggests that
such sites as the Bull Run Site on the West Branch in Williamsport epitomize this change.
The Shenks Ferry occupation at Bull Run yielded a date of 1230±100 A.D. from its stockade
and associated Shenks Ferry ceramics. This is the earliest date in the West Branch for a
protective feature. Interestingly, Monongahela sites in the Upper Ohio Valley also
experienced a similar change at this time, as exemplified by excavations at the Gnagey Site in
Somerset County (see above).
Page 145
Using this model of Clemson Island site types, the following overview of key Late Woodland
sites within the Upper Juniata sub-basin reflects research reports and PASS files.
Late Woodland Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin: Research Reports
Sixteen research reports and articles provide data regarding Late Woodland sites within the
Upper Juniata sub-basin (Table 38). As reflected in research reports and PASS data, only one
pure village site (Bedford Village) and only two possible hamlets (Workman and Petersburg
Bridge) have been excavated to date in the sub-basin. One hypothesis to explain the low
density of Late Woodland villages and hamlets is that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was
primarily used for resource procurement by Clemson Island groups and, to a lesser extent,
Monongahela and Upper Potomac cultures. If this is the case, thus, the Upper Juniata region
was an interaction zone of at least three different Late Woodland cultures. Sites in the region
should reflect a blending of cultures, including a variety of archaeological materials used by
multiple cultures at sites. The summary of sites below tests this hypothesis utilizing the PASS
files and research report data.
In the description of sites below, a distinction is made between two types of “camps.” In this
study, ephemeral lithic scatters with low artifact densities are defined as short-term camps,
while those sites that represent intensive occupation episodes with dense artifact deposits are
defined as “specialized resource procurement sites.” While most Late Woodland sites in the
sub-basin are small short-term lithic scatters, Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter
represent specialized resource procurement sites. Similarities and differences are compared
between sites in the Upper Juniata and those described above from surrounding regions.
Table 38. Late Woodland Research Reports and Key Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin.
SITE #
SITE NAME(S)
Bd36,Hu38
36Bd0046
36Bd0082
36Bd0090
Bd171,173
36Bd0218
36Bd0260
36Bl001
36Bl0027
Bl38, Bl40
36Bl0046
36Bl0058
36Bl0098
36Hu0001
36Hu0067
36Hu0143
Workman
--Bedford Village
-Wall
CR-23
Gromiller Cave
-TIP 1, TIP 3
--Vail Ind. Park 2
Sheep Rock Sh.
Petersburg Brdg
Mykut R.Shelter
SITE TYPE PHASE
Hamlet
Camp
Camp
Village
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Sp.Camp
Hamlet
Sp.Camp
III
II
I
III
II
III
I
I
II
I
I
I,II
I
III
II
I-III
LOCATION
SHED
YEAR
AUTHOR
Raystown Lake
East St. Clair
West St. Clair
Bedford
Bedford
Bedford
East St. Clair
Holidaysburg
LR 1061
Tipton
Tyrone/Altoona
Hollidaysburg
Snyder Twp.
Raystown Lake
Alexandria
Carbon Twp.
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
D
1968
1998
1994
1994
1990
n.d.
2000
1965
1983
1984
1987
1993
2000
-1983
1999
Michels and Huner
Chiarulli and Walker
P.Baker
Catton
Heberling et al.
C.Davis
Raber
Stackhouse
Hay et al.
Hay et al.
Lazenby and Heberling
Raber
Duncan
See text
Mitchem and Houston
See text
Only one excavated site in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin—Bedford Village (36Bd90)—
can be considered a true Late Woodland village, as defined above (Catton 1994). Other
146
village sites may be present, but remain unexcavated or unidentified. As noted above, two
radiocarbon dates place site occupation of Bedford Village between ca. 900 and 1000 A.D.
The early date marks the period of village occupation, while the latter marks the final date of
occupation of the village. As would be expected in the multi-ethnic Upper Juniata sub-basin,
the village was likely a single occupation site for about 50 years by an unknown ethnic group
with a combination of Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac influences.
The Bedford Village site contains the remains of several structures, including one welldefined circular Monongahela-type house arranged within a protective stockade with bastions
(Figure 12). Bedford Village, thus, is the only site with protective features in the Upper
Juniata sub-basin. While not completely excavated, the enclosure was likely circular (Catton
1994). A trench lined the interior of the stockade and was filled with refuse discarded from
nearby houses. The stockade, defined by 384 postmolds, measured approximately 82.2 m,
with an interior living space of roughly 11,000 sq. meters (2.7 acres). Two bastions and a
protected entranceway were also constructed adjacent to the stockade. As Catton (1994:93)
states: “The extensive fortifications reinforce the idea of Bedford Village as a settlement on
the periphery of a culture group.” The stockade’s probable circular shape, with an interior
circular house, suggests affinities with Monongahela groups to the west.
The nearest site to Bedford Village with protective structures is the Monongahela Gnagey
Site, 30 miles southwest across the Allegheny Front. Bedford Village and Gnagey share
several similarities, including site layout and general ceramic types. Both sites possess
circular stockades with trenches, bastions, and protected entranceways, with interior circular
houses (compare Figure 10 and Figure 12). Nevertheless, while pottery types at Bedford
Village are predominantly shell-tempered (as at Gnagey), cordage twist marks on Bedford
Village pottery are final S twist, similar to those from the Upper Potomac Valley (cf. Johnson
2001), while pottery at Gnagey have predominantly final Z twist cordage marks.
Catton (1994:85) interprets these data to mean that Bedford Village site occupants “had a
stronger association with groups of [the Upper Potomac Valley of] Maryland and Virginia
than with the Monongahela groups of southwestern Pennsylvania [with]…some interaction
with the eastern groups of the Susquehanna Basin” as well. The author cites the relative ease
of access to the Upper Potomac Valley to the south (e.g., the current route of S.R. 220 from
Bedford to Cumberland), compared to the difficulty in crossing the imposing Allegheny Front
to Monongahela territory to the west, as support for her argument.
These conflicting data suggest that Bedford Village maintains uncertain cultural affiliation.
While the village plan is certainly Monongahela, as are many of the pottery types, the cordage
twist direction suggests ties to the Upper Potomac Valley. One explanation is that
intermarriage between individuals from Monongahela and Upper Potomac groups resulted in
a fairly mixed ethnic group at Bedford Village. Conceivably, the Bedford Village may
represent a Monongahela outlier in which site occupants maintained contact with more
accessible Upper Potomac groups to the south. Inter-ethnic marriage is a common means to
solidify social and trade ties and may explain the apparently mixed ethnicity of Bedford
Village populations.
Page 147
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
DRAWN DHM DATE 8/18/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236-10--C-12
Site Location
Upper Juniata
Sub-Basin
B
A
Figure 12. Circular House Structure adjacent to Trench and Stockade,
D
Boundary of Excavations
Bedford Village Site (36Bd90; from Catton 1994).
C
F.89
F.87
F.88
0
1
2
Meter Scale
TRENCH
S39N59
F.68
HOUSE OUTLINE (postmolds)
F.72
F.69
F.51
STOCKADE POSTMOLDS
Figure 12
Planview of Circular House in Relation to Stockade
and Trench, Bedford Village Site (36Bd90)
Adapted From Catton 1994:43
148
Subsistence remains from Bedford Village suggest extensive hunting by site occupants
(Boyko 1987), while the presence of hundreds of cooking features and roasting pits indicate
the processing of large quantities of food as well. No ethnobotanical studies were conducted
of feature contents, thus, the extent of wild versus domestic food production is uncertain.
However, well-preserved bone refuse from the site shows that Late Woodland Native
Americans placed a special emphasis on white-tailed deer procurement (Boyko 1987).
Postmold arrangements around large pit features containing abundant deer bones suggest the
use of drying racks in association with cooking pits at the site (Catton 1994). Deer bone was
also used in bead production, as bead-manufacturing areas were identified with beads in
various stages of production.
Late Woodland Hamlets (Research Reports)
Only two sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin—Petersburg Bridge (36Hu67) and Workman
(36Bd36)—are possible hamlet locations, both of which likely represent sites occupied by
small groups of Clemson Island families. Both sites are within floodplains/terrace settings of
major rivers (Little Juniata and Raystown Branch, respectively) and yielded Clemson Island
pottery associated with a handful of houses and storage features, but no protective features.
Neither site yielded domesticates, suggesting occupation of both sites in the spring or
summer, prior to crop harvesting.
Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67)
The Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) is located on an alluvial terrace landform within a farm
field east of the confluence of the Frankstown Branch and Little Juniata Rivers near
Petersburg, approximately five miles northwest of Huntingdon. The site lies within a small
basin formed by the streams and surrounded by Tussey Mountain to the west and Warrior
Ridge to the east. GAI (1983) conducted Phase II excavations at the site, including controlled
surface collection and stripping of the plowzone to identify sub-surface features (Figure 13).
Artifact densities and types were similar to those revealed at Fisher Farm, a Clemson
Island/Shenks Ferry hamlet on Bald Eagle Creek (described above).
Plowzone stripping identified 477 features, with the majority being postmolds of at least four
small (~1.80x2.0 meter) oval structures, one of which is represented in Figure 13. Additional
features include storage pits and hearths adjacent to the structures (see Figure 13).
Radiocarbon dates from two of the pit features place occupation of the site between 950 and
1070 A.D. Clemson Island pottery types, along with triangle (n=9) and Jack’s Reef points
(n=8), were associated with the features. The small size of the site, and the lack of corn or
other domesticates from features, suggests that the Petersburg Bridge Site was a small hamlet
occupied by a group of nuclear families during the spring or summer, prior to availability of
crops in late summer-fall (GAI 1983:37).
Page 149
150
gai
Scale=100 cm
Postmolds
A
A
A
A’
A
Feature 1 Profile
Feature 1
A’
Excavation of Feature 1, below
Figure 13. Planview of Structure 1, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67).
DRAWN DHM APPROVED jlc DATE 8/16/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-13
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
Excavation Grid
STRUCTURE 1
Feature 2
Figure 13
Upper Juniata
Data Synthesis
Planview
of Structure 1, Petersburg Bridge Site
(36Hu67)
The Workman Site (36Bd36)
Located on the Raystown Branch, approximately 30 miles south of Sheep Rock Shelter and
40 miles southeast of Petersburg Bridge, the Workman Site (36Bd36) yielded structures and
features associated with another Clemson Island hamlet (Michels and Huner 1968). The site
is in a floodplain/terrace setting on the east bank of the Raystown Branch, a typical setting for
a Late Woodland hamlet site. As noted earlier, the upper 1-2 ft. of plowzone deposits were
removed to identify features at the site. Numerous hearth and storage pit features were
identified, as were six house structures (Figure 14). House shapes were oval and rectangular,
suggestive of possible cultural contacts with groups to the south (Upper Potomac Valley) or
north (Owasco). No radiocarbon dates were assayed at the site. While the authors suggest that
the houses range in age from Late Archaic to Late Woodland, five of the six houses
(Structures 1,2,4,5 and 6) clearly date to the Late Woodland, based on a TPQ (terminus post
quem) method, which defines the structure’s age based on the most recent artifact within
feature fill. The sixth house (Structure 3) contained two Late Archaic projectile points that
are likely intrusive into feature fill; thus, all six houses are likely of Late Woodland age. Two
burials were identified at the Workman Site, neither of which was clearly dateable; however,
based on their locations near Late Woodland features and artifacts, they also likely date to the
Late Woodland occupations.
Based on this interpretation of the houses, as well as the site’s alluvial terrace setting, the
Workman Site likely represents a hamlet, or small agricultural settlement, similar to
Petersburg Bridge. The dominant ceramics were Clemson Island and assorted local types
(Michels and Huner 1968:81-120), with a minority of Monongahela, Owasco, and Upper
Potomac types. The presence of these exotic pottery types, as well as a variety of house
forms, suggests cultural influences via intermarriage, trade or other social means with Upper
Potomac or Owasco cultures.
Late Woodland Specialized Camps (Research Reports)
Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut Rockshelter represent special purpose Clemson Island/Shenks
Ferry camps with dense deposits of artifacts, including lithics, ceramics, and subsistence
remains. The sites likely represent the remains of multiple episodes of food processing and
camping by Native Americans within the Raystown River corridor and associated uplands.
As described below, PASS files identify several other rock shelter sites with Late Woodland
artifacts, suggesting an increase in use of these sites during the Late Woodland.
Sheep Rock Shelter
Level two of Sheep Rock Shelter contains the remains of the Late Woodland/protohistoric
site occupations. Level two yielded five radiocarbon dates ranging from 1450 to 1600 A.D.,
suggesting occupation within the latter portion of the Late Woodland; however, Clemson
Island pottery types (Photograph 14) dominate the artifact assemblage, with some Shenks
Ferry, Monongahela, Upper Potomac Valley, and Owasco sherds as well. The presence of
Jack’s Reef points at the site, along with triangle points, also confirms the presence of an
earlier Clemson Island occupation. In all likelihood, the site was occupied during the entire
course of the Late Woodland period.
Page 151
152
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
DRAWN DHM APPROVED jlc DATE 8/16/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-14
A
Foot
Scale1968:160).
Figure 14. Planview of Workman Site (36Bd36) Structures (from Michels and
Huner
10
0
A
Figure 14
A’
20 feet
A’
Planview of the Workman Site (36Bd36)
Michels and Huner 1968:160)
Upper Juniata
Data Synthesis
Structures
(from
Photograph 14. Clemson Island
Pottery, Sheep Rock Shelter
(from 1993 Pennsylvania
Archaeology Month Poster).
A wide range of subsistence
remains were recovered
within level 2 of Sheep Rock
Shelter (Michels and Smith
1967:154-168), suggesting
the
consumption
and
processing of a wide variety
of hunted, gathered, and
domesticated foods. More
fish scales (n=1018; mostly
American shad) and mollusk
shells (3,241 g) were recovered in level 2 than any other level at the site, suggesting the
importance of fishing and shellfish procurement during the Late Woodland. Hunting was also
conducted at the site, with nearly 7,000 g of untyped bone recovered in level 2. Wild foods
include acorn, black walnuts, chestnuts, butternuts, hickory nuts, hazel nuts, cherry seeds,
hackberry seeds, peach pits, and wild plum pits. This diverse range of foods suggests
intensive use of the entire landscape for resource procurement.
Sheep Rock Shelter level two also provides the only known evidence of crop domestication
in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. A diverse array of corn types, including 4-row (n=13), 6-row
(n=30), 8-row (n=1046), 10-row (n=131), 12-row (n=6), and 14-row (n=2) were recovered in
the shelter. Each of the varieties represents a “strain of Northern Flint [that]…was high in
protein and starch and low in fiber” (Michels and Dutt 1968:471). In addition to these
identifiable fragments, five corn stalks, three corn husks, and nearly 700 corn kernels were
found as well. Additional domesticates include squash (n>1,000 fragments), beans (n>700
fragments), and sunflower (n=30). These crops suggest extensive farming at a nearby
location, likely on a flat terrace near the rockshelter. Crops were apparently transported to the
shelter for processing and consumption.
Along with the evidence of wild plants, domesticates and fish, two probable hoes, several
netsinkers (Michels and Dutt 1968:355-357), and numerous wood, bone, and bark tools
(Michels and Smith 1967:303-375), including this incised deer rib knife (Figure 15), were
also recovered in level 2 of Sheep Rock Shelter.
A large variety of other lithic tools, including scrapers, drills, and groundstone tools, suggests
a wide range of task-oriented activities at Sheep Rock, including food processing and textile,
lithic, and non-lithic (e.g., bone, antler) tool manufacture. Textiles and cordage (n=292
fragments), all produced using variations of plain twined weaving, were also recovered from
the Late Woodland level of Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 15).
Page 153
DRAWN DHM CHECKED JCL DATE 8/15/02 DWG. NO 20 02-236--C-A15
Figure 15. Late Woodland Artifacts from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1).
Turtle Shell Container
Net Fragment
1 inch
Net Sinker
Net Sinker/other
1 inch
Adze
Actual size
1 inch
Knife in Engraved Rib Handle
gai
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
1 inch
Figure 15
Late Woodland Artifacts from
1 inch
Obverse
154
Reverse
Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1)
Analysis of twist types suggests variation in production technique depending on the fiber
type, with 72.4 percent of soft-fiber cordage being S-twisted and 84 percent of hard-fiber
cordage (Indian hemp, Apocynum) being Z-twisted. These data suggest variation in twist
based on raw material, rather than ethnicity (cf. Johnson 2001). The most predominant knot
was the granny, most of which “were tied in a manner peculiar to Sheep Rock” (Michels and
Smith 1967:259).
Remains of textiles and cordage at Sheep Rock Shelter suggest intensive use of Indian hemp,
elm bark, and corn husk strips for production of dishes, mats, baskets (Photograph 15), nets,
and clothing fabrics. Net fragments from Sheep Rock Shelter (see Figure 11) were “formed
from a small diameter cord
woven into a net with a 4-cm
mesh [that was likely]…used for
the capture of very small animals
or fish” (Michels and Smith
1967:285). The remarkable
preservation suggests a variety of
cordage production techniques
(see
Michels
and
Smith
1967:269-301
for
details)
depending on raw material.
Photograph 15. Late Woodland Bark
Container, Sheep Rock Shelter (from
1993 Pennsylvania Archaeology
Month Poster).
The Late Woodland level 2 also revealed evidence of occasional ceremonial use of the
rockshelter. Artifacts such as a red sandstone gorget, several red ochre fragments, a quartz
crystal, and two infant burials support the notion that ceremonies and burials were
occasionally conducted at the shelter.
The extremely rich artifact assemblage from Sheep Rock Shelter provides unprecedented
insights into Late Woodland lifeways in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. The site reveals that
Late Woodland Native Americans hunted, gathered, and domesticated foods and produced
and maintained a wide variety of tools and textiles at the shelter. The site likely functioned as
a special-purpose camp and part-time residence for families conducting seasonal subsistence
tasks in the Raystown Valley. While no villages have been identified nearby, their presence is
assured by the large quantities of agricultural foods found in the shelter. Agricultural fields
and associated villages were most likely located within sight of the shelter on level terraces of
the Raystown Branch, now submerged under Raystown Lake.
Page 155
Mykut Rockshelter
As described above, six radiocarbon dates and more than a dozen features document several
Late Woodland occupations between ca. 800 and 1650 A.D. at Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143;
Figure 16; Photograph 16; see Photograph 11). Clemson Island, Shenks Ferry, and Quiggle
phase artifacts were all recovered in the rock overhang in uplands above the Raystown
Branch. According to Raber (2000), the site is located in a “gap in Terrace Mountain that
channels the movements of humans and game animals between…the Raystown Branch, and
to other sites like Sheep Rock Shelter.” Raber (2000) reports the recovery of over 16,000
fragments of animal bone and teeth, as well as abundant mollusk shell. The dominant prey
species for Late Woodland hunters was apparently deer, which accounts for nearly a third of
the bone assemblage. Rabbit, turtle, and snake were also processed at the site. Drills at the
site were likely used to produce clothing and/or non-lithic tools, such as bone and antler
tools.
Raber (2000) suggests that Mykut Rockshelter was occupied by extended family groups
during the fall and winter. The site, thus, likely represents a special purpose camp within
Hatch’s (1980) model of Late Woodland site types, as defined above. Site occupants likely
lived in hamlets and villages in
the Raystown River during much
of the year. The remarkable lack
of domesticates at Mykut
Rockshelter suggests “a basic
continuity
in
[forager]
adaptations from the Archaic
period through the end of the
prehistoric era” (Raber 2000:4-5)
in the Raystown Valley.
Photograph 16. View of Mykut
Rockshelter (36Hu143). North
Profile (see Figure 16). Provided by
Paul Raber, Heberling Associates,
Inc.
Thus, while agriculture and sedentary life had become part of the Late Woodland settlement
pattern, sites like Mykut Rockshelter and Sheep Rock Shelter confirm the value of hunting
and gathering in Late Woodland lifeways. Data from Mykut Rockshelter support the overall
picture of Late Woodland life in the Upper Juniata sub-basin presented in this report, as one
predominantly dependent on hunting and gathering, with seasonal use of domesticates to
supplement an already rich forager diet.
156
50
100 cm
DRAWN DHM APPROVED JCL DATE 8/15/02 DWG. NO 02-236--C-16
~3.0 meters
Excavated portion of shelter
Mykut Rockshelter
Site Location
B
Page 157
Adapted from Burns and Raber 1998:8
Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143)
Figure 16
Unexcavated
Shelter Floor
Rock Overhang
Figure 16. Profile of Mykut Rockshelter (36Hu143; From Burns and Raber 1998:8)
C0NSULTANTS, INC.
0
Scale
C
D
A
Upper Juniata
Sub-Basin
gai
Late Woodland Camps (Research Reports)
With the exception of the one village (Bedford Village), the two hamlets (Workman and
Petersburg Bridge) and the two specialized camps (Sheep Rock Shelter and Mykut
Rockshelter) discussed above, each of the other Upper Juniata sub-basin Late Woodland sites
discussed in research reports represent low-intensity lithic reduction areas or small camps
(see Table 38). Artifact densities at each of the sites are fairly low and no houses or other
substantial hearth or storage pit features were identified at the sites. Artifacts at the sites are
typically restricted to Jack’s Reef and triangular projectile points, as well as small quantities
of Clemson Island and/or Shenk’s Ferry ceramic sherds. The sites likely represent ephemeral
camp occupations by Late Woodland Native American hunter-gatherers.
Table 39. Late Woodland Camp Sites in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Research Reports (see Table 38
for Citations).
SITE #
SITE NAME
LOCATION
SETTING
NEAREST WATER
ARTIFACTS
Watershed A
36Bl27
--
~Altoona
Floodplain
Frankstown B.
Triangle pts, pottery; low density local chert
36Bl38
Site #1
Tipton
Levee
Little Juniata R.
36Bl40
Site #3
Tipton
Floodplain
Little Juniata R.
Triangle point; low density tipton chert
flakes
Triangle points, gray chert/bald eagle jasper
36Bl46
--
Tipton
Floodplain
Trib.Little Juniata
Triangle points; low density local lithics
36Bl58
Holidays.Sew.
Holidaysburg
Terrace
Frankstown Br.
Clemson Is. Pottery; low density local lithics
36Bl98
Vail Ind.Pk. #2
Snyder Twp.
Floodplain
Bald Eagle Cr.
Madison pt.; low density Tipton, black chert
36Bd46
Bridge
E.St.Clair T.
Terrace
Watershed C
Dunning Cr.
Triangle pts, low density local lithics
36Bd82
Catena
W.St.Clair T.
Terrace
Dunning Cr.
Triangle pts., low density local lithics
36Bd171
Stahl #2
Bedford
Hilltop
Brush Run/Dunn.
Triangle point; local cherts
36Bd218
Wall
Bedford
Terrace
Trib. Of Dunning
Madison, Jacks Reef; Shriver
36Bd260
CR-23
E.St.Clair T.
Terrace
Dunning Cr.
Possible Monongahela pottery, local cherts
The research report literature provides information on only one camp site in a cave setting.
Gromiller Cave (36Bl1) is located approximately a third of a mile from the Frankstown
Branch, east of Hollidaysburg (Stackhouse 1965). While the midden levels of the cave
contained a variety of artifacts from multiple periods of occupation (including historic), Late
Woodland artifacts included three triangular points and two shell-tempered pottery sherds,
suggesting a Shenks Ferry occupation. A variety of other artifacts may be associated with the
Late Woodland occupation, including two slate-tempered pottery sherds, a celt, and a
hematite ball.
Except for Gromiller Cave, each of the Late Woodland camp sites is in an open setting
adjacent to a stream/river floodplain/terrace in Watershed A or C. The sites typically yielded
between 10 and 300 artifacts, including a few Late Woodland diagnostic projectile points or
pottery sherds. Details regarding these various camp sites are summarized in Table 39.
158
Late Woodland Site Types and Locations: PASS Files
A total of 77 sites with Late Woodland diagnostic artifacts are identified in PASS files (Table
40 and Table 41). Open sites, including camps and perhaps some villages, dominate the Late
Woodland PASS files data in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, especially in Watersheds A and C
(see Table 40 and Table 41). Of 65 open sites, 53 are Watersheds A or C. In contrast, both
rockshelters and open sites were equally popular locations for camp sites within Watershed
D, along the Raystown Branch. PASS files data support models of settlement suggested
elsewhere in the literature (Hay et al. 1987; Hatch 1980), as most of the open sites (including
hamlets, camps, lithic reduction stations, and possibly villages) are located predominantly in
stream floodplains or terraces (n=61 of 66 sites), while rock shelters were the only sites
focused within hillslopes (n=6 of 10 sites). As discussed above, Bedford Village represents
the lone excavated Late Woodland village within the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
As discussed elsewhere (Burns and Raber 1998; Raber 2000), Late Woodland Native
Americans intensified use of rockshelters along the lower Raystown Branch (Watershed D)
during the Late Woodland period. Seven of the 10 Late Woodland rockshelter sites in the
sub-basin are located along the Raystown Branch (see Table 40), while the other three are
located along the Frankstown Branch, within 20 miles of Raystown Lake. The local geology
in this area provided accessible shelters that are not present in other parts of the sub-basin
(Burns and Raber 1998). Some of these rockshelters—as discussed above—were used as
short-term ephemeral camp locations, while a few were used more intensively as specialized
subsistence camps (e.g., Sheep Rock and Mykut).
Table 40. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Watershed, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS
Files).
SITE TYPE
Lithic Reduction
Open
Rockshelter
Total
A
B
C
D
TOTAL
2
17
3
22
-5
-5
-36
-36
-7
7
14
2
65
10
77
Table 41. Late Woodland Sites: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Setting, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS
Files).
SITE TYPE
Lithic Red.
Open
Rock Sh.
Total
FLOODPLAIN TERRACE STREAM BENCH HILL RIDGE/TOE HILLSLOPE HILLTOP MIDDLE SLOPES UPPER SLOPES
0
39
0
39
2
14
0
16
0
7
1
8
0
3
1
4
0
1
6
7
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
TOTAL
2
65
10
77
Page 159
Table 42. Late Woodland Sites, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
SITE #
SITE NAME
36BD0002
36BD0005
36BD0011
36BD0012
36BD0013
36BD0014
36BD0015
36BD0023
36BD0035
36BD0036
36BD0037
36BD0038
36BD0039
36BD0046
36BD0052
36BD0070
36BD0073
36BD0074
36BD0076
36BD0082
36BD0090
36BD0097
36BD0109
36BD0119
36BD0120
36BD0126
36BD0128
36BD0137
36BD0142
36BD0144
36BD0145
36BD0146
36BD0148
36BD0149
36BD0157
36BD0171
36BD0180
36BD0182
36BD0218
36BD0225
36BD0260
36BL0001
36BL0009
36BL0012
36BL0013
36BL0014
36BL0016
-Reynoldsdale
between route 31
dew drop inn
Hildebrand Farm
No. 2 Bridge Site
Deihl Log Cabin
Dew Drop
Claycomb
Workman Site
--Rhodes Farm
Bridge
Coon Rock Sh.
Erskine Farm
-Rt. 31 Bridge Site
--Bedford Village
Hostetler's #2
Fish Hatchery #2
Acker #2
Ryot #5
Ryot #8
Beckner
Smith #2
Shellbark #1
Kegg
Acker-Rhodes
Covered Bridge
Hull #7
Holler
Hostetler's 8/14
Stahl #2
Snake Spring 3
Bedford Prison
wall site
NBE
cr-23
Gromiller Cave
Penn-Central
Assunepachla
White Bridge
Walters
Canoe Creek II
160
WSHED
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
C
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
SITE TYPE
MAJ. RIVER
SETTING
Village(?)
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Rockshelter
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Village
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Rockshelter
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Floodplain
Terrace
Bench
Terrace
Terrace
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Hill Ridge
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Hillslope
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Hill Ridge
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Terrace
Floodplain
Floodplain
Hilltop
Terrace
Terrace
Terrace
Floodplain
Terrace
Hillslope
Floodplain
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
ELEV.
1240
1100
1260
----1200
1180
820
820
800
800
1100
960
1120
1160
1160
1070
1180
1060
1160
1110
1110
1200
1200
1190
1120
1140
1200
1120
1120
1160
1140
1140
1180
1040
1060
1090
1040
1150
960
960
1000
920
900
880
SITE #
SITE NAME
36BL0017
36BL0019
36BL0020
36BL0021
36BL0027
36BL0028
36BL0029
36BL0038
36BL0040
36BL0046
36BL0058
36BL0064
36BL0098
36CE0285
36HU0001
36HU0003
36HU0009
36HU0035
36HU0038
36HU0050
36HU0062
36HU0067
36HU0091
36HU0101
36HU0111
36HU0112
36HU0122
36HU0143
36HU0193
36HU0194
Kettle Nursery
Watts Farm
Woomer Farm
--Hite-Locality 1
Leighty's Market
TIP1
TIP3
Holidayburg Sew
Nearhoof Site
Vail Ind. Park #2
Rockspring Cave
Sheep Rock Sh
-Cunningham
Sweet Spring
Trough Creek RS
Rockshelter
--Sewage Plant
Graysville Cave
--Kyper-B
Mykut RS
denton
parsonage
WSHED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
A
B
A
D
D
B
D
B
B
SITE TYPE
MAJ. RIVER
SETTING
Open
Open
Quarry
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Sp. Camp
Lithic Reduction
Lithic Reduction
Rockshelter
Rockshelter
Rockshelter
Open
Open
Open
Rockshelter
Open
Open
Open
Rockshelter
Rockshelter
Rockshelter
Open
Rockshelter
Open
Open
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Frankstown
Bald Eagle
Bald Eagle
Frankstown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Juniata River
Frankstown
Juniata River
Frankstown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Raystown
Juniata River
Raystown
Bench
Bench
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Bench
Floodplain
Terrace
Terrace
Bench
Hillslope
Hillslope
Bench
Hill Ridge
Bench
Hillslope
Floodplain
Floodplain
Floodplain
Hillslope
Slopes
Slopes
Floodplain
Hill Ridge
Terrace
Terrace
ELEV.
1810
1040
1000
1040
1020
1010
1015
960
960
1080
920
1100
1020
1160
640
700
730
780
1080
700
720
680
600
1080
1080
1000
670
1060
800
760
Specific site location data from PASS files indicate a clear preference for locating sites near
streams, as 75 of 77 sites were located less than 400 m from a stream. However, in contrast to
other time periods, Late Woodland sites were not necessarily located near stream
confluences, as only 25 sites were located less than 400 m from a confluence. While access to
streams was the apparent key to site placement, there was no preference for locating sites in
any preferred cardinal direction near the streams (n=20 north, 23 south, 10 west, and 6 east).
The overwhelming theme of these PASS files (and research report) data is the predominance
of small camp sites in stream and river floodplain and terrace settings. The low density of
villages and hamlets, as well as the high density of camps, may reflect a settlement pattern
unique to the Upper Juniata sub-basin during the Late Woodland period. Alternatively, the
low density of villages and hamlets is a result of sample bias, resulting from inadequate
sampling of representative landforms.
Page 161
E.
LATE WOODLAND LITHICS AND SETTLEMENT
Late Woodland Lithics: PASS Files
As reflected in Table 43, the general category, chert/flint, dominates the lithic raw material
types in PASS files. Of the 77 Late Woodland sites listed in the PASS files, 45 yielded chert
artifacts, compared to 22 and 17 for rhyolite and jasper, respectively. As would be expected
during the Late Woodland, the highest incidences of rhyolite use occurred in Watersheds C
and D, which together accounted for 16 of the 22 sites with rhyolite artifacts in the sub-basin.
Steatite artifacts were exclusively recovered in Watershed C as well. Watersheds C and D
were the most proximate areas of the sub-basin to the rhyolite and steatite sources in the
Great Valley and vicinity to the east. Jasper use was equally distributed between sites in
Watersheds A and C, both areas of supposed local sources of the stone (see Chapter 2).
Quartz and quartzite were almost exclusively recovered in Watershed C as well, where the
stones are locally available. Exotic, non-local cherts are limited at the sites, with only one site
in Watershed A yielding a Flint Ridge artifact and one site in Watershed C yielding an
Onondaga chert artifact.
Use of steatite, and to a lesser extent, rhyolite, at sites may reflect Late Woodland settlement
and trade patterns, or, alternatively, may represent mixing of components at sites. PASS files
data often do not identify specific lithic raw materials used to produce diagnostic artifacts;
thus, sites with multiple components may lump raw materials rather than differentiate them
by site occupation. As such, PASS files data regarding lithic raw materials should be used
with caution and only to generate hypotheses to be evaluated by collection of data from
dateable sites.
Table 43. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Site Type by Lithic Raw Material Type
(PASS Files).
STONE TYPE
Chert
Not Ident
Rhyolite
Jasper
Quartz
Shale
Steatite
Quartzite
Chalcedony
Limest.
Sandst.
Flint Ridge
Hematite
Onond.
Siltstone/slate
162
OPEN
35
28
19
13
6
5
4
4
2
1
2
1
-1
1
RSHELTER
QUARRY
LITHIC RED
VILLAGE?
5
4
1
2
----1
-------
1
--------1
------
2
--1
------------
2
-2
1
1
-1
----1
-1
TOTAL
45
32
22
17
7
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
Table 44. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Cross-Tab of Stone Type by Watershed (PASS Files).
STONE TYPE
W.SHED A
Chert/Flint
13
Not Identified
9
Rhyolite
6
Jasper
8
Quartz
-Shale
-Steatite
-Quartzite
1
Chalcedony
-Lime/sandstone
4
Flint Ridge
-Hematite
-Onondaga Chert
-Siltstone/slate
1
W.SHED B
2
2
-1
-----------
W.SHED C
24
15
13
8
6
5
5
3
2
-1
1
1
1
W.SHED D
6
6
3
-1
---1
------
TOTAL
45
32
22
17
7
5
5
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
Late Woodland Lithics: Research Reports
Lithic raw material use is also documented in cultural resource management reports. The
overwhelming theme of Late Woodland lithic tool production is the use of locally-available
cherts, with little if any non-local stone use. In contrast to the earlier Archaic periods, in
which rhyolite from the Great Valley was a favorite lithic raw material, Late Woodland sites
typically yield only scant quantities of rhyolite and other non-local stones. While the PASS
files data suggest that rhyolite was popular during the Late Woodland (22 of 77 Late
Woodland sites yielded rhyolite artifacts), data from research reports suggest that rhyolite
was present in very low densities at the sites. The overwhelming emphasis was on use of
local cherts in the production of expedient tools and triangle points (cf. Parry and Kelly
1987).
Artifacts from each of the specialized camp sites and hamlets, as discussed above, were
predominantly manufactured from local lithic raw materials. Both Sheep Rock Shelter and
Mykut Rockshelter yielded Jack’s Reef and triangle projectile points, predominantly
manufactured from local cherts (although specific data regarding stone types was not
available for either site). Late Woodland projectile points from the Workman Site (36Bd36)
also include Jack’s Reef and triangle projectile points. More than 60 Late Woodland points
were recovered at the site, second only to the Late Archaic (n>80). While not discussed in
detail, local jasper and black and gray “cherts of poor quality” (Michels and Huner 1968:242)
were commonly used in triangle point production, as reflected in GAI’s collections analysis
results, below. Also, the Petersburg Bridge Site (36Hu67) yielded Jack’s Reef and triangle
projectile points produced from a variety of local lithic raw materials, including gray chert
(~Shriver), gray chalcedony, tan chert (~Tipton?), oolitic chert (~Mines), and brown chert.
While not defined as to specific lithic raw material types, these general types match
descriptions of locally-available cherts (see Chapter 2).
Page 163
As reflected in Table 39 above, each of the low density camp sites in Watersheds A and C
also yielded lithic artifacts produced nearly exclusively from local cherts, including Tipton
chert in Watershed A and Shriver chert in Watershed C. Finally, as noted above, the Late
Woodland Monongahela Gnagey Site—located on the Somerset Plateau to the west of the
Upper Juniata sub-basin—also yielded stone artifacts produced largely from cherts in
Bedford County, suggesting use of the area by Monongahela groups (George 1983).
Late Woodland Lithics: Collections Research
GAI identified the lithic raw materials used to produce projectile points in eight artifact
collections at the State Museum in Harrisburg. Of the 177 projectile points examined in the
collections, 62 were diagnostic of Late Woodland occupations, including Madison (n=26),
Levanna (n=15), untyped triangle (n=19), and Jack’s Reef (n=2) points. Of the 62 Late
Woodland points, 53 were recovered at the Workman Site (36Bd36) along the Raystown
Branch, while six points were found at 36Hu50, a rockshelter site also located along the
Raystown Branch. Single Late Woodland artifacts were examined from three additional sites
as well (36Bl38, 36Hu111, and 36Bd157). Because most of the points were recovered at the
two Raystown Branch sites, results should be biased toward lithic raw materials used in that
area.
Lithic raw material use confirms the widespread role of local cherts, including Shriver (n=22
points), Bellefonte (n=10), Corriganville (n=10), and Keyser (n=5). Rhyolite (n=4 points) and
jasper (n=3), as previously indicated by the research reports data, were used comparatively
infrequently during the Late Woodland in the Raystown Branch.
Table 45. Late Woodland Lithic Raw Material Use: Results of GAI’s Collections Analysis.
F.
RAW MATERIAL
JACKS REEF
LEVANNA
MADISON
TRIANGLE
TOTAL
Shriver
Bellefonte
Corriganville
Keyser
Untyped
Rhyolite
Jasper
Translucent black chert
Black chert
Tonoloway
Total
1
-1
-------2
9
1
2
1
-1
1
---15
6
4
5
3
3
-1
2
1
1
26
6
5
2
1
1
3
1
--
22
10
10
5
4
4
3
2
1
1
62
-19
LATE WOODLAND: SUMMARY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Late Woodland Overview
Based on PASS files, research report, and collections analysis, the Late Woodland period in
the Upper Juniata sub-basin is marked by several major trends, including: 1) Increasing
populations; 2) Increasing inter-ethnic contact; 3) Increasing use of sedentism; 4) Increasing
164
reliance on agriculture at Sheep Rock Shelter; and 5) Continued reliance on hunting and
gathering for major portions of the diet.
Sites such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Workman, Petersburg Bridge, and Bedford Village indicate
a variety of cultural influences, suggesting the movement of several different cultures through
the Upper Juniata region. As during previous periods, the Raystown Branch Valley and its
tributaries provided an excellent corridor for travel between the Upper Ohio Valley to the
west and the Susquehanna and Potomac Valleys to the east and south, respectively. Late
Woodland cultures in the Upper Juniata sub-basin reflect the intermingling of cultures via
trade, marriage, and other social means, as well as the possible presence of multiple different
ethnic groups in one region.
Data collected for this report suggest that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was largely a multicultural interaction zone during the Late Woodland period. Clearly, the main Late Woodland
cultural influences in the sub-basin were from the Susquehanna River to the north and east,
especially in Watersheds A and D. The vast majority of sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin
are a result of Clemson Island occupations during the early portion of the Late Woodland and
Shenks Ferry occupations toward the end of the Late Woodland period.
Nevertheless, influences from the Monongahela to the east and Upper Potomac Valley to the
south are evident, especially at sites along the lower Raystown Branch in Watershed D.
Bedford Village is the lone excavated village to date in the sub-basin and it was clearly built
by Native Americans of Monongahela ethnicity; however, as noted above, while most pottery
was of Monongahela type, cordage twist directions on pottery suggest cultural ties to the
Upper Potomac Valley to the south, while other pottery sherds indicate social and/or trade
ties to Clemson Island peoples to the east (as at the Monongahela Gnagey Site in the
Somerset Plateau). In contrast, Clemson Island and Shenks Ferry pottery dominates the
artifact assemblages from both Sheep Rock Shelter and the Workman Site. Both sites yielded
small numbers of Monongahela and Upper Potomac ceramics as well. Clearly, inter-ethnic
contact was common during the Late Woodland in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
The boundary of culture areas was likely a non-demarcated zone through the middle of the
Upper Juniata sub-basin; thus, the region most likely represented an area of interaction
between Monongahela, Clemson Island, and Upper Potomac cultures. Each of these cultures
likely occupied and used the Upper Juniata sub-basin as a resource procurement area, as
attested by the prevalence of camp sites and the low density of excavated villages (n=1) and
hamlets (n=2). Because of the comparatively unique interaction pattern, thus, the settlement
pattern does not completely support Hatch’s (1980) and Hay et al.’s (1987) models,
especially in the low density of villages and hamlets and the high density of camps.
One hypothesis to explain the Late Woodland data is that the Upper Juniata sub-basin was an
interaction zone utilized by at least three major cultural groups. As such, the site type and
settlement pattern is fairly unique due to the high density of camps and low density of
villages and hamlets, a pattern that generally contrasts that of the Clemson Island and
Monongahela cultures (Hay et al. 1987; Hatch 1980; Nass and Hart 2000).
Page 165
An alternative hypothesis is that archaeological survey in the Upper Juniata sub-basin has not
adequately sampled settings that may contain village and hamlet sites. The nature of
archaeological survey, largely comprised of linear surveys for cultural resource management
projects, may have resulted in an unrepresentative sample of site types. As such, additional
Late Woodland villages and hamlets may be present, but remain unidentified in the
archaeological record. Future research needs to evaluate both of the hypotheses to better
explain Late Woodland settlement patterns in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
Late Woodland Research Questions
This summary of Late Woodland archaeological data in and near the Upper Juniata sub-basin
archaeological work in the area. Seven Late Woodland research questions are listed below;
pertaining to these and other research questions will likely meet National Register Criterion
D; thus, unless they lack integrity, sites that address these research questions will be eligible
for listing in the National Register for Historic Places:
166
1.
How can we explain the apparent population explosion during the Late Woodland?
2.
How prevalent was sedentism and agriculture in the Upper Juniata sub-basin?
3.
Was the Upper Juniata sub-basin an interaction zone between cultures?
4.
Given the presence of hamlets along the Raystown (the Workman Site) and
Frankstown (Petersburg Bridge) Branches, as well as corn at Sheep Rock Shelter,
where, if any, are the associated villages?
5.
Have archaeological surveys in the basin adequately sampled known landforms for
possible village locations?
6.
7.
How do we explain the blending of cultural elements at Gnagey, Bedford Village,
Workman, and Sheep Rock Shelter (e.g., marriage, trade, other)?
8.
Why did Late Woodland cultures begin to construct fortifications at sites like
Bedford Village? Do the fortifications suggest inter-ethnic conflict and, if so,
between whom?
9.
If there was inter-ethnic conflict at Bedford Village, how do we reconcile it with
the multiple cultural influences exhibited in pottery forms/production methods?
CHAPTER XIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
This report has provided an overview of archaeological research in the Upper Juniata subbasin, encompassing the last 12,000 years of prehistory. Native American populations have
fluctuated during that time, with two major increases approximately 4,500 and 1,000 years
ago, respectively, and a major decline between those two peaks. Settlement patterns, as
witnessed by lithic raw material use, were focused within local territories until the Late
Woodland period, with subsistence oriented toward the hunting, gathering, and fishing of
wild resources. While crop domestication and sedentism were introduced approximately
2,000 years ago, foraging and hunting continued to be the most viable form of subsistence.
While neighboring regions of the Upper Ohio, Potomac, and Susquehanna River Valleys
experienced a real agricultural revolution during the Late Woodland, the Upper Juniata subbasin was an ethnic interaction zone, utilized by cultures from each of these areas, but not
completely settled by any one of them. Alternatively, the archaeological record in the subbasin is biased by unrepresentative sampling of settings, resulting in the under-representation
of village and hamlet sites. This chapter provides a summary of these major trends and points
to some new directions for research.
A.
DEMOGRAPHY
PASS files and research reports provide data to assess population fluctuations over the last
12,000 years of prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Figure 17; Table 46). As shown in
Figure 17, PASS files data indicate that the Upper Juniata experienced a fairly gradual
population increase between the Paleoindian (n=12 components) and Late Archaic periods
(n=87 components), or between 12,000 and 4,500 B.P. As discussed earlier, population
densities peaked during the early portion of the Late Archaic and were focused within the
Raystown Branch and vicinity in Watersheds C and D. Near the end of the Late Archaic
period, approximately 4,000 years ago, there was a decrease in total site components that
continued until the Late Woodland period (n=77 components), 1,000 years ago, when the
trend reversed and populations increased dramatically.
0
Paleo
EA
20
40
0
PASS Sites
5
35
6
Figure 17. Archaeological Site
Components by Time Period, as
reflected in PASS Files and
Research Report Coverage.
Research
Reports
87
21
35
Trans
LW
100
12
LA
MW
80
12
MA
EW
60
11
19
5
11
5
77
16
This trend persists if the
duration of a given period is
taken into account, by dividing
the number of components by
the number of decades in a
given time period, as in Figure
18 (cf. Fiedel 2001). These
Page 167
trends are also reflected in cultural resource management reports (see Figure 16), with peaks
in coverage of Late Archaic (n=21) and Late Woodland (n=16) sites, as well as in collections
analysis results, which identified more Late Archaic (n=52) and Late Woodland (n=62)
points than any other type.
Table 46. Cross-Tabulation of Archaeological Components by Period and Watershed (PASS Files).
PERIOD
WSHED A
WSHED B
WSHED C
WSHED D
TOTAL
TOTAL %
Paleo
EA
MA
LA
Trans
EW
MW
LW
3
7
4
22
9
5
3
22
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
5
5
3
24
49
19
10
4
36
4
2
6
13
7
4
3
14
12
12
35
87
35
19
11
77
4.2
4.2
12.2
30.2
12.2
6.6
3.8
26.7
Total
Total %
75
26.0
10
3.5
150
52.1
53
18.4
288
100
100
--
Sites/Decades in Period
0
0.5
Paleo
0.05
EA
0.1
1
1.5
Figure 18. Archaeological
Components by Period, adjusted by
Duration of Period (Sites/Decades per
period; cf. Fiedel 2001).
The variation in population
densities occurs elsewhere in the
LA
0.58
east and is not unique to the
Upper Juniata sub-basin (Custer
Trans.
0.44
1996; Carr 1998b; Fiedel 2001).
EW
0.21
The increase in populations
MW
0.12
between the Paleoindian and Late
Archaic periods is expected, as
LW
1.1
Native Americans increased their
use of a logistic subsistence and
settlement system. These changes allowed increased occupation of base camps with
subsequent collection of wild foods during daily subsistence forays. The increase in semisedentary lifestyles stimulated population increases until the early portion of the Late Archaic
period.
0.1
Period
MA
While these site count trends are common throughout the northeast, the precipitous decrease
in site numbers between the Late Archaic and the Middle Woodland period would not be
predicted given the nature of subsistence and settlement pattern changes (Fiedel 2001).
Custer (1996) has argued that populations did not actually decline at this time. Instead, he
suggests that populations became nucleated, reducing the overall numbers of sites during the
168
Transitional, Early Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods. In all other areas of the world
where sedentism increases along with agriculture, as postulated for the Early and Middle
Woodland periods in central Pennsylvania, the sizes of sites and their visibility on the
landscape increases. Thus, we would expect to find fairly large village sites dating to these
periods in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. However, if populations nucleated, there is no
evidence of it during the Transitional, Early Woodland, or Middle Woodland periods in the
study area. No villages from these time periods have been identified and only one site—
Sheep Rock Shelter—has yielded evidence of domesticates in the entire Upper Juniata subbasin during the Woodland. These data do not support the hypothesis that site visibility has
led to a biased view of population reductions in this region. Instead, as witnessed by the
parallel reduction in coverage in cultural resource management reports (see Figure 17), the
changing quantities of sites in PASS files may actually mark real population fluctuations
during prehistory.
As noted, the gradual increase in population between the Paleoindian and Late Archaic
periods could be predicted, as could the high population densities of the Late Woodland
period. However, why did populations decrease in the Upper Juniata sub-basin and elsewhere
(Fiedel 2001) during the Transitional, Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods, when
farming and sedentism were first introduced into the subsistence and settlement system?
Aren’t these changes typically accompanied by increases in population, rather than
decreases? One explanation may be that certain areas of the Mid-Atlantic region actually
experienced population increases, while others, such as the Upper Juniata sub-basin,
experienced corresponding population declines. Perhaps individuals from the Upper Juniata
sub-basin dispersed to population centers in other areas, such as the Delaware, Susquehanna,
Allegheny, Potomac, or Ohio River Valleys.
Custer (1996:235) notes an increase in large village sites during the Early and Middle
Woodland in eastern Pennsylvania, while the Upper Ohio and Allegheny Valleys also
experienced social and demographic changes with the rise of the Adena and Hopewell
cultures (Clay 1991; Mayer-Oakes 1955). While the influence of Adena and Hopewell
cultures was limited in the Upper Juniata sub-basin (see Chapters IX and X), cultural links to
eastern Pennsylvania and the Potomac Valley increased during this period of population
decline, as reflected by the increasing reliance on rhyolite and steatite, respectively. Also,
while lower in density, populations were generally concentrated in the southern (Watershed
C) and eastern (Watershed D) portions of the sub-basin during the Transitional, Early
Woodland, and Middle Woodland periods, as would be expected if populations disseminated
toward these areas.
However, if populations dispersed from the Upper Juniata sub-basin between the Transitional
and Middle Woodland periods, we still do not have a viable explanation for the dispersal. In
population dispersals such as these, push (climatic) and pull (cultural) influences are often
responsible for the changes. The sub-boreal environments of the time would have supported
even larger populations (Custer 1996:232; see Chapter II). Thus, if the push hypothesis of
climatic stimulus fails to explain the demographic changes, perhaps the impetus for the
population dispersal was a cultural pull. Perhaps the dynamic cultural changes of the time,
Page 169
including agriculture, sedentism, and increasing ceremonialism, attracted populations to
regional population centers, such as along the Delaware, Susquehanna, Potomac, or even the
Ohio and Allegheny Rivers. Resolving the causes of population flux in the Upper Juniata
sub-basin, and Pennsylvania as a whole, is a major research task for regional prehistorians
(Fiedel 2001).
B.
LITHIC RAW MATERIAL USE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Another key trend over time in the Upper Juniata sub-basin was the predominant use of local
lithic raw materials in stone tool manufacture, from the earliest Paleoindian occupations to
the more recent Late Woodland, as reflected in PASS files (Table 47), research reports, and
GAI’s collections analysis results (Table 48). During each time period, Native Americans
predominantly utilized local cherts. For nearly 40 percent of PASS sites, chert/flint was the
main type of lithic raw material recovered at the sites (Table 47), while rhyolite and jasper
each were identified at approximately 20 percent of the sites. The low density of non-local
stones, with the exception of rhyolite, suggests generally localized travel patterns.
Table 47. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files Data).
Period
Chert
Chert %
Rhyolite
Rhyolite%
Jasper
Jasper %
Flint
Ridge
Onondaga
other
Total
Paleo
7
38.9
3
16.7
4
22.2
0
1
3
18
EA
9
45.0
3
15.0
6
30.0
0
0
2
20
MA
26
44.8
12
20.7
8
13.8
1
1
10
58
LA
67
39.4
33
19.4
33
19.4
6
2
29
170
Trans.
29
33.7
18
20.9
21
24.4
2
0
16
86
EW
14
33.3
7
16.7
8
19.0
0
1
12
42
MW
5
45.5
2
18.2
3
27.3
0
0
1
11
LW
55
40.7
26
19.3
24
17.8
2
2
26
135
11
7
26
540
Total
212
39.3
104
19.3
107 19.8
Other includes quartz, shale, steatite, quartzite, and chalcedony
Table 48. Lithic Raw Material Use over Time: Upper Juniata Sub-Basin, Collections Analysis (Typed
Points).
AGE
UNTYPED
BELLE
CORRIGAN
FONTE
VILLE
JASPER
KEYSER
MINES
NITTANY
RHYOLITE
SHRIVER
TIPTON
TONOL.
WHITE
QUARTZITE
TOTAL
EA
MA
LA
Trans
EW
MW
LW
--7
1
--7
-1
2
---10
1
-6
1
--10
3
-2
1
--3
1
-3
---5
--1
-----
--2
-----
--10
1
--4
3
1
18
2
1
0
22
---2
-1
--
1
-----1
--1
-----
9
2
52
8
1
1
62
Total
15
13
18
9
9
1
2
15
47
3
2
1
135
170
Especially during the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods, this trend is unexpected, as
Native Americans almost always incorporated some exotic stones into their tool assemblages,
either via down-the-line trade or occasional direct procurement at distant outcrops (Carr
1998a; MacDonald 1998). While jasper use increased during the Early Archaic, the sources
of the stone were likely local, within 20-30 miles of a given site (see Chapter II). Future
research in the region needs to substantiate the locations of local jasper outcrops. These data
from the Upper Juniata sub-basin confirm the predicted pattern of Paleoindian lithic material
use in unglaciated Pennsylvania (see Chapter IV). Carr and Adovasio (2002a) suggest that
local cherts were used in these regions affected by glaciation, while more non-local cherts
were used in areas not affected by glaciation.
As noted above, another significant trend in lithic raw material use was the changing role of
rhyolite over time. Rhyolite-use peaked between the Middle Archaic and Transitional
periods, as exemplified by Tables 45 and 46. As rhyolite use increased, local chert use
decreased in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. PASS files data and collections analysis results,
thus, support the scenario suggested above, that populations in the Upper Juniata sub-basin
increased contact with groups in, and/or travel to, the Great Valley to the east between the
Transitional and Middle Woodland periods. However, if there was true population dispersal,
one might expect an even more significant change in rhyolite use, rather than the 4-5 percent
increase that we see between the Early and Middle Archaic and Transitional and Early
Woodland periods.
Use of rhyolite also increased with proximity to the sources in the Great Valley to the east
(Table 49). Of the 83 sites with rhyolite artifacts in the Upper Juniata sub-basin, 47 percent of
them are in Watershed C, the southernmost portion of the Upper Juniata sub-basin, with an
additional 26.5 percent in Watershed A and 18 percent in Watershed D. Watershed C is
conveniently located to the most proximate rhyolite sources on South Mountain, some 30
miles to the southeast. Several historic Native American paths—including the Raystown
Path—traversed gaps in the southwest-northeast ridge system to connect the Great Valley to
the east with the Raystown Branch and the Upper Juniata sub-basin (Wallace 1971:142-143).
The Raystown Path passed within 10 km of South Mountain near Chambersburg and
continued westward along the current route of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, directly through
Watershed C. This trend of increased rhyolite use along the Raystown Branch is paralleled in
the use of steatite, which also has sources in eastern Pennsylvania and the Potomac River
Valley (Table 49).
While rhyolite and steatite use peaked in the southern portion of the sub-basin, Native
Americans used jasper most frequently in Watershed A along the Little Juniata and
Frankstown Branches. The most proximate known sources of Bald Eagle jasper are only a
few miles north of Watershed A (see Figure 2) and are the likely sources of much of the
jasper used during prehistory in the sub-basin. Thirty sites in Watershed C also yielded jasper
artifacts, suggesting possibly local jasper outcrops (see Chapter II). Future research in the
region should substantiate the locations of these jasper outcrops, if present.
Page 171
Also of interest, the only four sites with artifacts produced from Flint Ridge chert in the subbasin are in Watershed C, along Dunning Creek and the upper Raystown Branch. The
Raystown Path traverses Watershed C to the Ohio and Allegheny River Valleys to the north
and west (Wallace 1971), toward sources of Flint Ridge in east-central Ohio. The presence of
Flint Ridge at sites along this path suggests its use during prehistory.
Table 49. Lithic Raw Material Use by Watershed in the Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
LITHIC
MATERIAL
WATERSHED WATERSHED WATERSHED
A
B
C
WATERSHED
D
TOTAL
Chert/Flint
Not Identified
Jasper
Rhyolite
Quartz
Shale
Quartzite
Chalcedony
Sandstone
Steatite
Argillite
Limestone/Dolomite
Onondaga Chert
Flint Ridge
Siltstone
Hematite
Metabasalt/Greenstone
Slate
Metasandstone
66
21
39
22
4
-6
1
3
1
-3
--2
-----
13
10
3
7
--------1
-------
122
86
30
39
17
20
7
11
3
6
6
-2
4
-1
2
2
1
35
47
13
15
1
-6
3
1
--2
2
-1
1
----
236
164
85
83
22
20
19
15
7
7
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
Total
168
34
359
127
688
The wide availability of local cherts and the array of natural resources facilitated the
formation of localized territories, as did the ridge and valley terrain. Human travel was
slowed both to the west (Allegheny Front) and east (a series of north-south ridges and steep
valleys), so travel patterns were likely oriented in southwest-northeast trajectories following
the course of ridges and valleys, as has been suggested elsewhere (Heberling et al. 1990;
Raber 1995). The fact that rhyolite was the only significant non-local lithic raw material used
in stone tool production suggests established social ties with Native Americans in the Great
Valley and the Lower Susquehanna Valley to the southeast. Use of jasper also indicates travel
in the northern portions of Watershed A along the Bald Eagle Creek drainage.
D.
SITE TYPES AND SUBSISTENCE IN THE UPPER JUNIATA
Site Locations Relative to Water
A main trend of PASS files site location data is the consistent placement of sites near sources
of water during all time periods. As reflected in Table 49, mean distance to water for all sites
172
in the sub-basin is 82.3 m, while mean distance to a stream confluence is 492.1 m. Mean
distances to water source and stream confluence are greatest during the Transitional and Late
Archaic. This trend is unexpected given the increased reliance on riverine resources during
these periods (see Chapters VII and VIII). However, the increased means for these periods
may simply reflect the increasing use of a logistic subsistence system, in which uplands and
other areas away from water were used more frequently.
Early and Middle Woodland sites have the lowest mean distances to nearest water (both<50
m), while Paleoindian and Early Archaic sites were located closest on average to stream
confluences (both<290 m). Again, these trends may simply reflect the predominant
subsistence and settlement patterns of the time. During the Early and Middle Woodland,
populations may have increased use of base camps in riverine settings, thus causing the low
mean distances to water for these periods. Also, Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations
were comparatively more mobile than those of any other time period; thus, stream
confluences may have provided means to access multiple travel routes. Highly mobile
populations may have also utilized stream confluences as convenient meeting places for
socializing or trading.
Table 50. Site Placement Relative to Water over Time, Upper Juniata Sub-Basin (PASS Files).
NUMBER
PERIOD
Paleoindian
Early Archaic
Middle Archaic
Late Archaic
Transitional
Early Woodland
Middle Woodland
Late Woodland
Mean
OF SITES
12
12
35
87
35
19
11
77
--
MEAN DISTANCE TO
WATER (M)
65.0
67.3
61.0
88.1
90.8
48.9
45.0
59.6
82.3
MEAN DISTANCE TO
CONFLUENCE (M)
286.7
276.4
570.3
568.9
610.5
491.1
603.0
529.9
492.1
Subsistence and Settlement Changes over Time
The role of the Upper Juniata sub-basin as cultural interaction zone is also reflected in the
settlement system and the predominance of small camps during all time periods. Even during
the Late Woodland period, only one excavated village (Bedford Village; 36Bd90) is present
in the entire Upper Juniata sub-basin, while during the Late Archaic, only two possible base
camp sites (Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman) are present. This region was always used for
hunting and gathering, even as crops became more widely used during the Late Woodland.
Thus, as regions to the north (Clemson Island), south (Upper Potomac), east (Clemson
Island) and west (Monongahela) saw populations move to sedentary villages during the Late
Woodland, the change was much more subtle in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Here, the low
density of villages and hamlets, as well as the high density of camps, indicates that Native
Americans mainly utilized the area for subsistence procurement. Small families and/or bands
from the north, south, east, and west apparently utilized the Upper Juniata sub-basin for
seasonal resource procurement.
Page 173
Archaeological studies at Bedford Village (36Bd90) indicate that the hunting of deer was a
key subsistence task of site occupants. Because botanical studies have not been conducted to
date at the site, the extent of crop domestication is uncertain at Bedford Village. Sheep Rock
Shelter (Table 51) yielded both domesticated and wild food remains, including corn, beans,
squash and sunflower, as well as wild nuts, berries, fish, game, and mollusk shells. While
faunal remains were not separated by excavation level at the site, deer dominated the
assemblage as a whole, accounting for nearly 50 percent of faunal remains (n=1,927 of 4,099
mammal bones; Guilday and Parmalee 1965:38). These data confirm the use of a wide range
of foods at Sheep Rock Shelter. While the density of the respective food items varied over
time at the site (Table 51), the pattern of a diversified resource base remained the same.
Sheep Rock Shelter, thus, paints the most vivid picture of prehistoric life on the Raystown
Branch during the Holocene. Native Americans, during all time periods, used hunting, fishing
and gathering to subsist, even after the introduction of horticulture.
Table 51. Changes in Subsistence over Time at Sheep Rock Shelter. Data from Michels and Dutt (1968)
and Michels and Smith (1967).
EXC.
LEVEL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
AGE
Historic
Late woodland
Middle Woodland
Early Woodland
Transitional
Late Archaic
Mid-Late Archaic
Early-Mid Archaic
Total
1
mostly American shad
FISH SCALES1
(COUNT)
29
1018
796 (3/4)
796 (3/4)
9
180
5
3
2040
MOLLUSK
(GRAMS)
539.7
3241.6
2261 (3/4)
2261 (3/4)
72.5
697.8
536.1
584.8
7933.5
UNTYPED
BONE (G)
1097.0
6639.1
22567.2
6624.3
7900.6
2156.8
8701.4
721.4
56407.8
BOTANICALS
(TYPES PRESENT)
Corn, beans, squash
Corn, beans, squash
Corn, beans, squash, nuts, berries
Corn, beans, squash, acorn, nuts, berries
Nuts, berries
-----
E.
CONCLUSION: FUTURE AVENUES OF RESEARCH IN THE UPPER JUNIATA SUBBASIN
Throughout prehistory, the Upper Juniata sub-basin was in all likelihood interaction zone
between cultural areas, with a variety of groups moving through the area along the major
paths that followed the Raystown Branch and vicinity. The nature of the environment—the
long, southwest-northeast-oriented valleys and ridges—and the abundance of wild resources
likely contributed to the region’s status as a veritable hinterland. Access to the Great Valley
and rhyolite sources to the east was via a select few passes through ridges along the
Raystown Path. Access to the south and the Upper Potomac Valley was likely along the
Cumberland Path (the current route of S.R. 220 between Bedford and Cumberland). Access
to the north was likely via the Bald Eagle Creek Valley and Watershed A. Finally, travel to
the west was likely the most difficult, with Native Americans traversing the Allegheny Front
to reach the Appalachian Plateau.
Ultimately, the sub-basin’s restricted accessibility contributed to its use mainly by small
families and bands for resource procurement. Even while villages and hamlets arose
throughout the Susquehanna, Upper Potomac, and Ohio Rivers during the Late Woodland
174
period, some 1,000 years ago, Native Americans continued to hunt and forage in small
groups, residing in small camps in the Upper Juniata sub-basin.
This report has delineated several important cultural and demographic trends over the last
12,000 years of prehistory in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. Examination of Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files and regional research reports provided abundant
data by which to evaluate prehistoric lifeways in the region. While PASS files data are
limited to general trends, their value has been proven in this report and elsewhere (Carr
1998a, 1998b). Research reports also provide valuable insight into the prehistory of the
region, providing additional details not available in PASS data. While most regional research
is limited to Phase I archaeological surveys (many of which failed to identify archaeological
sites), a handful of the projects yielded fruitful results that contribute to the better
understanding of regional prehistory.
As summarized above, while several clear trends emerge from PASS file data and research
reports, additional information would contribute to a better understanding of their causes and
explanations. One of the clear biases in research within the sub-basin is the overall lack of
research in Watershed B in the northeast corner of the sub-basin. Only six research reports
are available for projects in this watershed, each of which was a Phase I survey that failed to
identify archaeological sites with diagnostic artifacts. Clearly, more work needs to be
conducted in Watershed B.
Other portions of the sub-basin have been studied in some detail during numerous Phase I
surveys and select Phase II and Phase III studies. Despite this work, few stratified, well-dated
components have been excavated in the sub-basin. Within the Upper Juniata sub-basin, the
landmark Sheep Rock Shelter and Workman site excavations provide the baseline for work in
the region. Since these excavations, Phase II and Phase III work has only occurred at a
handful of sites in the sub-basin. Excavations at Bedford County Airport remain largely
unreported, while results of other data recovery excavations at Bedford Village are extremely
difficult to find and are limited to two Master’s Theses. Recent excavations at Mykut
Rockshelter and the Sunny Side Site in Watershed D provide important new information on
stratified sites in the Upper Juniata sub-basin. While the Mykut Rockshelter report is in
preparation, excavations at the Sunny Side Site did not proceed beyond a Phase I test phase,
however.
The most pressing need in the Upper Juniata sub-basin is the excavation of additional wellstratified archaeological sites, such as Sheep Rock Shelter, Mykut Rockshelter, Bedford
Village and the Sunny Side Site. In addition, archaeological surveys must sample all known
settings to better evaluate the locations of base camps and villages in the region. Determining
those settings with the greatest number of frost-free days may aid in the identification of
agricultural village locations. The inherent nature of cultural resource management studies,
the predominant form of research in the region, is to sample small portions of areas to be
impacted by construction projects; thus, while most data presented in this study indicate a
low density of villages and hamlets and a high density of camp sites, these data may reflect an
unrepresentative sampling of known landforms by archaeological surveys. Future research
Page 175
should evaluate the nature of prior surveys and determine where future studies should be
conducted to identify possible base camp and village locations. Such a study could be
completed within the context of an alternative mitigation for a cultural resource management
project (such as the current study) or as an academic project.
This report urges cultural resource managers and academic prehistorians to consider working
in this region. As indicated by this report, we are at only the tip of the iceberg in terms of
research in this area. While adjacent regions, such as the Susquehanna Valley and the
Appalachian Plateau, have experienced tremendous research, the prehistory of the Upper
Juniata sub-basin has experienced comparatively little study. Hopefully, this report will
inspire more research in the region so that we may better understand its role in the prehistory
of Pennsylvania.
176
REFERENCES
Adovasio, J.M., J. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1978
Meadowcroft Rockshelter, 1977; An Overview. American Antiquity 43 (4): 632651.
Adovasio, J.M., R. Fryman, A.G. Quinn, D.C. Dirkmaat, and D.R. Pedler
1998
The Archaic West of the Allegheny Mountains: A View from the Cross Creek
Drainage, Washington County, Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in
Pennsylvania, pp. 1-28, edited by P.A. Raber et al. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Adovasio, J.M. and W.C. Johnson
1981
The Appearance of Cultigens in the Upper Ohio Valley: A View from
Meadowcroft Rockshelter. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(1-2):63-80.
Alsop, Fred J. III
2001
Smithsonian Handbooks, Birds of North America, Eastern Region. D&K
Publishing, Inc., New York.
Andrefsky, William, Jr.
1994
Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American
Antiquity 59(1):21-34.
Baker, P.H.
1994
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey of the Ryot Covered Bridge (Bedford County
Bridge No. 12) Rehabilitation Project, West St. Clair Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, ER 94-1323. Submitted to P.Joseph Lehman, Inc. by Garrow and
Associates, Inc., Latrobe, Pa.
Baker, T.R. and P.H. Baker
1990
Phase II/III Archaeological Investigations conducted at the Ickes 1 (36Bd173)
and Ickes 2 (36Bd174) Sites at the proposed Bedford County Airport, Bedford
Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 84-1532. Report prepared for Biro
Tech, Inc. by Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.
Ballweber, H.L.
1989
Beckerman, I.C.
1980
A Study of Six Early/Middle Woodland Sites in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 59(2):46-99.
A Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction of District 9. In The Fisher Farm Site: A
Late Woodland Hamlet in Context, edited by J.W. Hatch, pp. 12-41. Department
of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park.
Page 177
Bedford County Planning Commission
1983
Bedford County Planning Commission Historic Sites Survey Combination Final
Report and Data Analysis. Bedford County Planning Commission, Bedford.
Beers, F.W.
1877
Atlas of the County of Bedford, Pennsylvania. F.W. Beers and Co., New York.
Benack, L.A., M.G. Sams, and K.A. Beckman
1995
Bedford County S.R. 0869, Section 002 Bobs Creek Bridge Replacement. Phase
I Abbreviated Report Format Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. EngineersConsultants, Harrisburg and Monroeville, PA.
Bennett, R.N., and W.D. Porter
1986
Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed 11.7 Mile Pipeline Corridor in
Kanawha County, West Virginia. Prepared by WAPORA, Inc. For Columbia
Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Berg, Thomas M., John H. Barnes, W. D. Sevon, Viktoras W. Skema, I. Peter Wilshusen, and
Dawna S. Yannacci
1989
Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources
Management, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey.
Berger Group, The Louis
2001
Proposed Federal Correctional Institution, Northumberland County,
Pennsylvania, Cultural Resources Investigations at Four Alternative Federal
Correctional Institution Sites, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. Cultural
Resource Management Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington.
Bergman, C., J. Doershuk, R.Moeller, P.LaPorta, and J.Schuldenrein
1998
An Introduction to the Early and Middle Archaic Occupations at Sandts Eddy. In
The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early-Middle
Holocene, pp. 45-76, edited by. P.Raber et al. Pennsylvania Historical and
Binford, Lewis R.
1980
Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and
Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-21.
Blackburn, H.E. and W.H. Koontz
1906
History of Bedford and Somerset Counties, Pennsylvania. Lewis Publishing Co.,
New York.
178
Boldurian, Anthony T., Frank J. Vento, Kenneth W. Mohney, Susanne M. Hubinsky
1992
Phase I Archaeological Investigations in the Freedom Township Water and
Sewer Authority Project Area, Blair County Pennsylvania. Report submitted for
Stiffler, McGraw and Associates, Inc. by the Office of Conservation
Archaeology University of Pittsburgh, Greensburg, PA.
1992a
Phase I Archaeological Investigations in the Jugtown Vicinity Sewage
Collection System Project Area, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Report
submitted for Richard T. Haines, AICP, Planning Director, Blair County
Planning Commission by the Office of Conservation Archaeology University of
Pittsburgh, Greensburg, PA. Bureau of Historic Preservation
Bonnichsen, Robson, and Karen L. Turnmire, eds.
1991
Clovis: Origins and Adaptations. Center for the Study of the First Americans,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Boyko, W.C.J.
1987
Braker, W.L.
1981
Braun, E.L.
1950
Bressler, J.P.
1989
Vertebrate Faunal Remains from the Bedford Village Site (36Bd90), Bedford
County, Pennsylvania. Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology,
Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Soil Survey of Centre County, Pennsylvania. USDA-Soil conservation Service.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Company,
Philadelphia.
Prehistoric Man on Canfield Island 36Ly37, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
North Central Chapter No. 8, Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology and the
Lycoming County Historical Society.
Brown, J.A., and R.K. Vierra
1983
What Really Happened in the Middle Archaic. In Archaic Hunters and
Gatherers of the American Midwest, edited by J.A. Phillips and J.A. Brown, pp.
165-196. Academic Press, New York.
Broyles, B.J.
1971
Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West
Virginia, 1964-1968. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Report of
Archaeological Investigations 3, Morgantown.
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania
1991
Cultural Resource Management in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological
Investigations. Bureau of Historic Preservation and Pennsylvania Historical and
Burns, J.A. and P.A. Raber
Page 179
1998
Bush, David R.
1992
Investigations at the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 63rd
SPA Meeting, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, April 25-26, 1998.
Phase I Reconnaissance of the Proposed Blue Knob State Park Comfort Station
and Subterranean Water and Electric Line Construction at Burnt House Picnic
Area Study Area, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for the
Department of Environmental Resources by the Center for Cultural Resource
Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
Bush, David R. and Ashley Tupper
1997
Phase I Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Proposed Cassville Borough
Sewer, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management
Report prepared for Cassville Water & Sewer Authority by the Center for
Cultural Resource Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
Butts, C.F.
1945
Geologic Atlas of the United States, Hollidaysburg-Huntingdon Folio
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
Butts, C., F.M. Swartz, and B. Willard
1939
Topographic and Geologic Atlas of Pennsylvania No. 96 Tyrone Quadrangle.
Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
Carnegie Museum of Natural History
2002
Carnegie Museum of Natural History Section of Mammals Internet Site.
www.carnegiemuseum.org/cmnh/mammals/mammals.html
Carr, K.W.
1989
The Shoop Site: Thirty-Five Years After. In New Approaches to the Past, edited
by W.F. Kinsey and R.W. Moeller, pp. 5-28. Archaeological Services,
Bethlehem, CT.
1998a
The Early Archaic Period in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist
68(2):42-69.
1998b
Archaeological Site Distribution and Patterns of Lithic Utilization during the
Middle Archaic in Pennsylvania. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania:
Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene Period, edited by P.Raber,
P.Miller, and S.Neusius, pp. 77-90. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, Harrisburg.
Carr, K.W. and Adovasio, J.M.
2002a
Paleoindians in Pennsylvania. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, edited by
K.W. Carr and J.M. Adovasio, pp. 1-50. Recent Research in Pennsylvania
Archaeology No. 2, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
180
Carr, K.W. and Adovasio, J.M., editors
2002b
Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania. Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology
No. 2, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Catton, D.K.
1994
Chatters, J.C.
2000
Archaeological Excavations at Bedford Village (36Bd90): An Analysis and
Synthesis. Master’s Thesis submitted to the Department of Anthropology,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from
Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316.
Chiarulli, B. and R.B. Walker
1998
Draft Report of the Act 70 Archaeological Investigations of Site 36Bd46, East St.
Clair Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 97-0699. Submitted to the
Bureau for Historic Preservation by Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Clarke, G. and C.M. Barton
2002
Pioneers on the Land: New Insights into the Peopling of the New World.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Clay, R. Berle
1991
Coe, J.L.
1964
Adena Ritual Development: An Organizational Type in a Temporal Perspective.
In The Human Landscape in Kentucky’s Past: Site Structure and Settlement
Patterns, edited by C. Stout and C.K. Hensley, pp. 30-39. Kentucky Heritage
Council.
The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society 54(5), Philadelphia, Pa.
Colbert, B.M., P.H. Baker and M.G. Sams
1998
Bedford County S.R. 0036, Section 005 Tussey Mountain Bridge Over Yellow
Creek. Phase I Archaeology report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. EngineersConsultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA
Collins, M.B.
1999
Clovis Blade Technology. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Coppock, Gary, P.A. Raber, S.D. Heberling
1999
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Bald Eagle/Snyder Township Sewer System,
Snyder Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Northern
Blair County Regional Sewer Authority by Heberling Associates, Inc.
Page 181
Coppock, G., J.M. Stiteler, S.D. Heberling, and P.A. Raber
2000
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Spicer Brooke Bridge Replacement, S.R. 3019,
Section 002, Juniata Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for
The Federal Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Coppock, G., J.M. Stiteler
2000
Summary Report, Phase I Archaeological Testing Proposed Wetlands
Replacement Project, West Providence Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Cowin, Verna L.
1985
1991
Cresson, Jack
1990
The Woodland Period. In A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of
Archaeological Resources, Volume II, edited by Paul A. Raber, pp. 185-193.
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
The Middle Archaic in the Upper Ohio Valley. In Journal of Middle Atlantic
Archaeology. Vol. 7, pp.43-53.
Broadspear Lithic Technology: Some Aspects of Biface Manufacture, Form, and
Use History with Insights Toward Understanding Assemblage Diversity. In
Experiments and Observations on the Terminal Archaic in the Middle Atlantic
Region, edited by Roger Moeller, pp. 105-130. Archaeological Services,
Bethlehem Ct.
Crowl, G.H. and W.D. Sevon
1999
Quaternary. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C.H. Shultz, pp. 225-231.
Pennsylvania Geological Society, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh Geological Society.
Custer, J.F.
1988
Late Archaic Cultural Dynamics in the Central Middle Atlantic Region. Journal
of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4: 39-60.
1996
Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and
2001
Classification Guide for Arrowheads and Spearpoints of Eastern Pennsylvania
and the Central Mid-Atlantic. Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Custer, J.F., and E.B. Wallace
1982
Patterns of Resource Distribution and Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the
Piedmont Uplands of the Middle Atlantic Region. North American
Archaeologist 3(2): 139-172.
182
Custer, J.F., Scott C. Watson, and Daniel N. Bailey
1996
A Summary of Phase III Data Recovery Excavations at the West Water Street
Site (36Cn175), Lock Haven, Clinton County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Cutler, H.C. and L.W. Blake
1967
Notes on Plants from the Sheep Rock Shelter Site. In Archaeological
Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, pp.
125-168, edited by J.W. Michels and I.F. Smith. Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Davis, Christine E.
1990
Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Westvaco’s Woodyard Landfill, Tyrone
Borough, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report
submitted for Westvaco.
Davis, C.E., D.A. Anderson, and Amy K. Wilks
n.d.
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Phase II/III Archaeological Surveys, Bedford
Distribution Center, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 96-0855. Christine
Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona.
Davis, Christine E., and Amy K. Wilks
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Southern Cove Wastewater Project, Bedford
County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic
Preservation by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona, PA.
1996
Davis, M.B.
1984
A Phase I/II Archaeological Survey of the Mill Creek Wastewater System. Report
submitted to Mill Creek Township b y C.Davis Consultants, Verona,
Pennsylvania. ER 89-0528-061.
Holocene Vegetational History of the Eastern United States. In Late Quaternary
Environments of the United States, edited by H.E. Wright, Jr., pp. 166-181.
Longman Press, London.
Davis, Christine E., Amy K. Wilks, and Curtis L. Biondich
n.d.
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Bedford Business Park, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, Edited by Amy K. Wilks. Cultural Resource Management Report
submitted to Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona, PA.
1999
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Blair County Convention Center & Access Road,
Allegheny Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania, Edited by Amy K. Wilks.
Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Bureau for Historic Preservation by Christine Davis Consultants, Inc., Verona,
PA.
Page 183
2000
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Dick Wright Property, Huntingdon and Bedford
Counties. Christine Davis Consultants, Inc.
Delcourt, P.A. and H.R. Delcourt.
1981
Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 YR B.P. to the Present. In
Geobotany II, edited by R.C. Romans, pp. 123-165. Plenum Press, New York.
Dent, R.J., Jr.
1991
Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: The Earliest Populations. In The
People of Minisink, pp. 117-144, edited by D.G. Orr and D.V. Campana.
National Park Service, Philadelphia.
1995
Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. Plenum Press, New
York.
2002
Paleoindian Occupation of the Upper Delaware Valley: Revisiting Shawnee
Minisink and Nearby Sites. In Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania, pp. 51-78,
edited by K.W. Carr and J.M. Adovasio. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Dent. R.J., Jr. and B.E. Kauffman
1985
Aboriginal Subsistence and Site Ecology as Interpreted from Microfloral and
Faunal Remains. In Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian Site in the
Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, pp. 55-79, edited by C.W. McNett.
Academic Press, New York.
Dikov, N.N.
1996
Dincauze, D.F.
1976
Dragoo, D.W.
1963
Duncan, R.B.
2000
The Ushki Sites, Kamchatka Peninsula. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory
and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 244-250. The University
of Chicago Press.
The Neville Site: 8,000 Years at Amoskeag, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Peabody Museum Monographs No. 4. Harvard University, Boston.
Mounds for the Dead: An Analysis of the Adena Culture. Annals of Carnegie
Museum 37.
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Vail Industrial Park, Snyder Township, Blair
County. Report submitted to Keller Engineers, Inc. by Skelly and Loy, Inc.,
Monroeville, Pa.
East, Thomas C. and K.A. Beckman
1992
Blair County S.R.6220 Wetland Replacement. Phase I and Phase II Cultural
Resources Report Prepared for PennDOT District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc.
Engineers-Consultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA.
184
East, Thomas C., Patricia H. Baker and Margaret G. Sams
1998
Blair County, S.R. 0865, Sections 002 and 003, Bellwood Bridge Replacement
Project. Phase I/II Archaeological Investigations submitted by Skelly and Loy,
Inc. Engineers-Consultants, Monroeville and Harrisburg, PA.
East, Thomas C., Jonathan M. Dreher and Margaret G. Sams
1995
Blair County, Sinking Run No. 1 Bridge Replacement, S.R. 1031, Section 009.
Phase I Archaeology Abbreviated Report prepared for the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0.
1997
Blair County, Arch Spring Bridge Replacement, S.R. 1013, Section 008. Phase I
Abbreviated Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Engineering District 9-0.
East, T.C., R.B. Duncan, M.G. Sams, C.T. Espenshade, P.H. Baker, and A.T. Vish
1999
Phase I/II Archaeological Testing and Phase III Data Recovery, U.S. Route 220
Improvement Project, S.R. 0220, Section C10. Report submitted to PennDOT
District 2-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
Ellis, C. and J.H. Payne
1995
Estimating Failure Rates in Fluting Based on Archaeological Data: Examples
from NE North America. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:459-474.
Espenshade, C.
2001
Two Native Potters “Speak” about Punctuates: Harding Flats Data and the
Clemsons Island Concept. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 17: 59-84.
Espenshade, C.T, and M.G. Sams
2001
Blair County, Frankstown Township, S.R. 2007, Section 001, Oldtown Run
Bridge Replacement. Phase I Archaeological Survey Abbreviated Report
prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 90 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants.
Faill, R.T. and R.P. Nickelsen
1999
Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and Valley Province. In The
Geology of Pennsylvania, pp. 269-286, edited by C.H. Shultz. Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Fenneman, N.M.
1938
Fiedel, S.J.
2001
Physiography of Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
What Happened in the Early Woodland? Archaeology of Eastern North America
29: 101-142.
Page 185
Fladmark, K.R.
1983
Fogelman, G.L.
1983
Times and Places: Environmental Correlations of Mid-to-Late Wisconsinan
Human Population Expansion in North America. In Early Man in the New
World, pp. 13-42, edited by R. Shutler. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, Ca.
The Pennsylvania Artifact Series Lithics Book. Paulhamus Litho, Inc.
Fowler, D. B., E. T. Hemmings, and G. R. Wilkins
1976
Some Recent Additions to Adena Archaeology in West Virginia. Archaeology of
Eastern North America 4:110-121.
Frankenberg, S. R. and G. E. Henning
1994
Phase III Data Recovery Excavations of the Cotiga Mound (46MO1), Mingo
County, West Virginia. GAI Consultants, Inc. Project Number 90-509-12.
Fredlund, Glen G.
1989
Holocene Vegetational History of the Gallipolis Locks and Dam Project Area,
Mason County, West Virginia. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. Contract
Publication Series 89-01, Lexington, Kentucky.
Funk, R.E.
1968
A New Middle Woodland Complex in Eastern New York. The New York State
Archaeological Association Bulletin 44:1-32.
GAI Consultants, Inc.
1983
Phase II Investigation of the Petersburg Bridge Site L.R. 352, Section O11,
Huntington,County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by GAI
Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
1995
Archaeological Investigations at the Memorial Park Site (36Cn164), Clinton
County, Pennsylvania. Final Report Submitted to the U.S.A.C.O.E., Baltimore
District by GAI, Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
2001
Phase I Archaeological and Geomorphological Survey, Hopewell Township
Wastewater Facilities Project. Submitted to Hopewell Township, Bedford
County, by GAI, Monroeville, PA.
Gajewski, K.
1988
Gardner, W. M.
1987
186
Late Holocene Climate Changes in Eastern North America estimated from
Pollen Data. Quaternary Research 29:255-262.
Paleoindian and Archaic in West Virginia: An Overview for the State Historic
Preservation Plan. West Virginia State Historic Preservation Office, Charleston.
Gates, D.M.
1993
Climate Change and its Biological Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Inc.,
Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Gaudreau, Denise C.
1988
The Distribution of Late Quaternary Forest Regions in the Northeast. In
Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by G.P.
Nicholas, pp. 215-256. Plenum Press, New York.
George, R.L.
1974
Monongahela Settlement Patterns and the Ryan Site. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 44(1-2):1-22.
1983
The Gnagey Site and the Monongahela Occupation of the Somerset Plateau.
Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53(4):1-97.
1985
The Archaic Period. In A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of
Archaeological Resources, edited by P.Raber, pp. 181-184. Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1986
A Clemson’s Island Vessel from Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 56(3-4):38.
1992
Early Late Woodland in Western Pennsylvania; the Backstrum Side Notched
Point Evidence. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 62(1):62-72.
Gleach, F.W.
1985
Glenn, J.
1992
Goodyear, A.C.
1989
Graybill, J.R.
1995
A Compilation of Radiocarbon Dates with Applicability to Central Virginia.
Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia: 40(4):180-200.
Phase I Reconnaissance of the Proposed Trough Creek State Park Subterranean
Water and Electric Line Construction at Picnic Area #5 and the Camping Area
Study Areas, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for the
Department of Environmental Resources by the Center for Cultural Resource
Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among Paleoindian
Groups of North America. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited
by C.J. Ellis and J.C. Lothrop, pp. 1-10. Westview Press, Boulder, Co.
Cultural Background. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the
Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 33-56. Final
Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI
Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
Page 187
Grele, Aviva Weiss
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Shaffers Run Bridge
Replacement (S.R. 0022, Section 011), Morris Township, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Archaeological and Historical
Consultants, Inc.
Gross, C.S., T.R. Lewis, D. Rotenstein, R.C. Pultorak, K.J. Basalik, and R.T. Baublitz
n.d.
Phase I/II Archaeological Survey, S.R. 869, Section 003, Bridge Over Christ Run
Creek, Village of Pavia and Union Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural
Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gross, C.S., T.R. Lewis, and R. Pultorak
1994
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scrubgrass Creek Bridge replacement Project,
S.R. 4034, Section 001, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for U.S.
Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration and
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural Heritage Research
Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gross, C.S., R. Pultorak and K.J. Basalik
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey, State Route 026, Section 01S Intersection
Improvement, Liberty Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for
the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration and
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Cultural Heritage Research
Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Gruber, J.W.
1969
Book Review: Sheep Rock Shelter Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 39(14):72
Guilday, J.E., P.S. Martin, and A.D. McCrady
1964
New Paris No. 4: A Pleistocene Cave Deposit in Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Bulletin of the National Speleological Society 26:121-194.
Guilday, J.E. and P.W. Parmalee
1965
Animal Remains from Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1), Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35:34-49.
Guilday, J.E., P.W. Parmalee, and H.W. Hamilton
1977
The Clark’s Cave Bone Deposit and the Late Pleistocene Paleoecology of the
Central Appalachian Mountains of Virginia. Bulletin #2 of the Carnegie
Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh.
188
Hart, J.P.
1995a
1995b
Hatch, J.W.
1977
1979
Pottery Analysis. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the
Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 203-248.
Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI
Summary and Conclusions. In Final Report, Archaeological Investigations at the
Memorial Park Site (36CN164), Clinton County, Pennsylvania, pp. 507-548.
Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore. GAI
The Raystown Hydro-Power Cultural Resources Reconnaissance, Huntingdon
County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Baltimore Division, Corps of Engineers
by the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
An Archaeological Assessment of Construction Impacts at Old Bedford Village,
Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park.
Hatch, J.W., editor
1980
The Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context. Department of
Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA.
1983
Hay, C.A.
1980
A Stratigraphic Analysis of Late Woodland Material Culture Change at Fisher
Farm. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 53(1-2):11-27.
An Analysis of the Chipped Stone Assemblages from the National Register
Survey-1978. In The Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context,
edited by J.W. Hatch, pp. 65-82. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper
No. 12. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
1981
The 1980-1981 Central Region Archaeological Survey. The Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1984
An Intensive Archaeological Survey of the Huntingdon Levee, Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania. Submitted to Pennsylvania DGS by Pennsylvania State
University. Technical Report No. 3, Department of Anthropology, University
Park, Pennsylvania.
Hay, C.A., I.C. Beckerman, C.M. Stevenson
1984
Archaeological Investigations of the Tipton Industrial Park Property, Tipton,
Pennsylvania. Submitted to Altoona Enterprises, Inc. by Archaeological and
Historical Consultants, Inc. Technical Report No. 5.
Page 189
1987
A Management Plan for Clemson Island Archaeological Resources in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Hay, C.A. and M.A. Graetzer
1985
Archaeological Investigations at the Jacks Mill Site 36Ce230), Final Mitigation
Research. Prepared for Boasburg Limited Partnership by The Pennsylvania State
Hay, Conran A., Christine J. Challingsworth, Gary S. Webster
1983
An Intensive Archaeological and Historical Survey of Three Proposes
Alignments for L.R. 1061, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to
Green International and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by
Pennsylvania State University, Department of Anthropology, University Park.
Heberling, Paul M. and Scott D. Heberling
1987
Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Wastewater System Collection Facilities,
Hopewell Borough, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for
Hopewell Borough Council by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1988
Phase II Archaeological Investigation Entriken Bypass Project, T.R. 944 L.R.
31013, Section 14A, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report prepared for
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and Federal Highway
Administration in association with McCormick, Taylor and Associates by
Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1988a
Phase I Cultural Resource survey, Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities, Borough of Newry and Blair Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania.
Report submitted to the Borough of Newry in association with Gwin, Dobson &
Formen, Inc. Consulting Engineers by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1989
Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Loysburg Highway Demonstration
Project, T.R. 36, Section 007, South Woodbury Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, ER 88-0226. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by Heberling
Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1996
Project No. DGS 29-1, Picnic and Camping Facilities, Greenwood Furnace
State Park, Jackson Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report
Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of General Services by Heberling
Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
Heberling, Scott D.
1991
US Route 22 Truck Climbing Lanes, S.R. 0022, Section A00, Catherine and
Frankstown Twps., Blair County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District
9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
1993
190
Weyant Bridge Replacement, S.R. 0096, Section 11B, King Township, Bedford
County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
District 9-0 and Federal Highway Administration in association with The EADS
Group by Heberling Associated, Inc. Huntingdon, PA.
1994
Warriors Mark Bridge Replacement, S.R. 4013, Section 001, Franklin Township,
Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Phase I/Phase II Archaeological
Investigations Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
District 9-0 in association with Gwin Engineers/The EADS Group by Heberling
Associates, Inc.
Heberling, Scott D., Paul M. Heberling, Paul A. Raber
1992
Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Homerview Estates, Blair Township,
Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to John E. Holtzinger Jr. by
Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Heberling, Scott D., Paul A. Raber, Judith A. Heberling
1990
Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Bedford County Airport, Bedford
Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 84-1532. Submitted to Federal
Aviation Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
1997
Management Summary, Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery, Water Street
Inn/Mytinger Hotel, Site 36Hu151, S.R. 0022 Improvements at Water Street S.R.
6022, Section 005, Morris Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report
submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by Heberling
Associated, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1998
Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Buffalo Run Industrial Railroad Track
Benner and Spring Townships Centre County, Pennsylvania. ER No. 96-0441027. Prepared for SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority, Lewisburg, PA.
Hemmings, E. T.
1977
Investigations at Grave Creek Mound 1975-76: A Sequence for Mound and Moat
Construction. The West Virginia Archaeologist 36(2):59-68.
Herbstritt, James T.
1981
Bonnie Brook: A Multicomponent Aboriginal Locus in West-Central
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 51(3):1-59.
Holland, John D.
1999
Hoskins, D.M.
1981
The Cherts of Northwestern Pennsylvania: Indigenous and Otherwise. Paper
presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology, Brookville, PA.
Atlas of Preliminary Geologic Quadrangle Maps of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, 4th Series, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Page 191
Houck, R.M.
1989
Howard, C.D.
1991
Phase I Archaeological Survey Port Matilda Authority Borough of Port Matilda,
Centre County Pennsylvania, ER 84-0439-027. S.E.O. Services, Port Matilda,
PA.
The Clovis Point: Characteristics and Type Description. Plains Anthropologist
35(129): 255-262
Huntingdon County Visitors Bureau
2002
Raystown Lake: The Crown Jewel of Pennsylvania. Tourism and Visitor
Services, Huntingdon County, Hesston, Pennsylvania.
Isreal, Stephen
1982
Johnson, W.C.
2001
A Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of Two Proposed Road Realignments
Segments along Raystown Branch Road Township Road T-430 on U.S.
Government Property, Raystown Lake, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania.
Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District Planning
Division.
Who were those Gals? Cordage Twist Direction and Ethnicity in the Potomac
River Basin, Preliminary Evidence suggesting Population Continuity and
Replacement during the Late Woodland Period. Paper presented at the Middle
Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, MD.
Johnson, W.C., W.P. Athens, M.T. Fuess, L.G. Jaramillo, K.R. Bastianini, and E. Ramos
1989
Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela Culture Site and Cultural Resource
Inventory. Report prepared by the University of Pittsburgh Cultural Resource
Management Program. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Jones, R.W.
1931
Report of Robert W. Jones, Wild Rose, Wisconsin. Fifth Report of the
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, pp. 97-111.
Jones, T.L., R.T. Fitzgerald, D.J. Kennett, C.H. Miksicek, J.L. Fagan, J. Sharp and J.M. Erlandson
2002
The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and its Implications for New World
Colonization. American Antiquity 67(2):213-230.
Joyce, Arthur A.
1988
Justice, N.D.
1987
192
Early/Middle Holocene Environments in the Middle Atlantic Region: A Revised
Reconstruction. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America,
edited by George P. Nicholas, pp. 185-214. Plenum Press, New York.
Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Kelly, Robert L.
1995
The Foraging Spectrum. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Kent, B.C., I.F. Smith, and C. McCann (eds.)
1971
Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission Anthropology Series No. 1. Harrisburg.
Kent, B.C.
1996
2001
Kinsey, W.F., III
1972
Knight, W.R.
1998
Knowles, R.R.
1966
Koetje, Todd A.
1992
Piney Island and the Archaic of Southeastern Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 66(2):1-42.
Susquehanna’s Indians. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Pennsylvania Historical and
Soil Survey of Bedford County, Pennsylvania. United States Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Geology of a Portion of the Everett 15-Minute Quadrangle, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey, 4th Series, Harrisburg.
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Martinsburg Municipal Authority Sewage
Treatment Project, Borough of Martinsburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report
submitted to Martinsburg Municipal Authority by Archaeological Services,
Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Koetje, Todd A., and Katherine Jackson
1994
Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Manns Choice/Harrison TWP Authority
Supervisors Sewerage Project, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for the
Manns Choice/Harrison TWP Authority Supervisors by Indiana University of
Pennsylvania.
1994a
Kuhn, R.D.
1985
Report of the Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Marklesburg Authority
Supervisors Sewerage Project, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Conducted
for the Marklesburg Authority Supervisors by Archaeological Services, Indiana
University of Pennsylvania.
A Morphological Analysis of Bifurcated-Base projectile Points in the
Northeastern United States. Man in the Northeast 29:55-69.
Page 193
Larabee, P.A.
1986
Late Quaternary Vegetational and Geomorphic History of the Allegheny Plateau
at Big Run Bog, Tucker County, West Virginia. Unpublished Masters of Science
Thesis. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Lazenbee, M.E.C.
1987
Sixth Avenue Widening Project, Route 764 (L.R. 493, Section 021), Allegheny
Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Federal
Highway Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation by
McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc.
Lazenbee, M.E. Colleen and P.Heberling
1987
Blair County Expressway, U.S. 220/L.R.1061, Section 07,08,09,10, Tyrone to
Altoona, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Bellwood and Pinecroft Interchanges.
Phase I Archaeological and Historical Study submitted to Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration by
McCormick, Taylor and Associates, Inc.
Lepper, Bradley T.
1983
Fluted Point Distributional Patterns in the Eastern United States: A
Contemporary Phenomenon. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 8(2):269286.
Lewis, T.R., K.J. Basalik, and R. Baublitz
1996
S.R. 026, Section 01S, Intersection Improvement Project, Liberty Township,
Bedford County, Pennsylvania, Phase II Archaeological Survey Site 36BD190,
ER 94-3287-009. Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
Lewis, Thomas R., Alice Coneybeer, and Kenneth J. Basalik
1995
Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge B-493 Wetland Mitigation Area, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Phase I/II Archaeological Survey Report prepared for the
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc.
by Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc., North Wales, PA.
Lohman, S.W. with E.W. Lorh
1974
Ground Water in South-Central Pennsylvania, US Geological Survey.
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Long, D.E.
1996
Lothrop, Jon
n.d.
194
Geomorphology and Soil Stratigraphy of the Bedford County Airport Sites
36Bd173-174: Applications for Site Chronology. Student Research Paper
submitted to IUP Archaeological Services.
Panhandle Archaic in the Upper Ohio River Valley: Data Recovery at the East
Steubenville (46BR31) and Highland Hills (46BR60) Sites. Report in
Preparation for West Virginia Division of Highways by GAI Consultants,
Monroeville, PA.
1989
The Organization of Paleoindian Lithic Technology at the Potts Site. In Eastern
Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use, edited by C.Ellis and J.Lothrop, pp. 99-137.
Westview Press, Boulder.
Luedtke, Barbara E.
1992
An Archaeologist’s Guide to Chert and Flint. Archaeological Research Tools 7.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
MacDonald, D.H.
1995
Mobility and Raw Material Use at the Hunting Camp Spring Site (35Wa96),
Blue Mountains, Oregon. North American Archaeologist 16(4):343-362.
1998
Subsistence, Tool-Use, and Reproductive Strategies of Northern Plains Folsom
Hunter-Gatherers: A View from the Bobtail Wolf Site, North Dakota. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
2001
Phase I Archaeological Survey, USDA/RUS: Hopewell Township Wastewater
Facilities, Hopewell Twp., Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 97-2467,
including Results of Phase I Study at the Sunny Side Site (36Bd267). Submitted
to Hopewell Township by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
2002
Phase I Archaeological Survey, PennVEST: Wastewater Facilities, Herndon
Borough/Jackson Township, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, ER 981797. Submitted to Herndon Borough by GAI Consultants, Inc.
2002a
Paleoindians as Estate Settlers: Archaeological, Ethnographic, and Evolutionary
Insights into the Peopling of the New World. In Pioneers on the Land, in press,
edited by G.Clarke and M.Barton. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
MacDonald, D.H. and B.S. Hewlett
2001
Reproductive Interests and Forager Mobility. Current Anthropology 40(4).
MacDonald, D.H. and K.W. Mohney
2001
Phase Ia Archaeological Survey, Bald Eagle Project, Boggs Township, Centre
County, Pennsylvania, ER 2000-2549. Prepared for Allegheny Energy Supply by
GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Maxwell, Jean A. and Margaret Bryan Davis
1972
Pollen Evidence of Pleistocene and Holocene Vegetation on the Allegheny
Plateau, Maryland. Quaternary Research 2:506-530.
McAvoy, J.M. and L.D. McAvoy
1997
Archaeological Investigations at Site 44Sx202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County,
Virginia. Research Report Series No. 8. Commonwealth of Virginia Department
of Historic Resources, Richmond.
Page 195
McNett, C.W. Jr.
1985
Meltzer, D.J.
1988
Merkel, E.J.
1978
1981
Michels, J.W.
1968
1994
The Shawnee-Minisink Site: An Overview. In Shawnee-Minisink, A Stratified
Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley in Pennsylvania, edited
by C.W. McNett Jr., pp. 321-325. Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Late Pleistocene Human Adaptation in Eastern North America. Journal of
World Prehistory 2: 1-52.
Soil Survey of Blair County, Pennsylvania. USDA- Soil conservation Service.
Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Soil Survey of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. USDA- Soil conservation
Service. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Settlement Pattern and Demography at Sheep Rock Shelter: Their Role in
Culture Contact. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24(1):66-82.
Excavations at Sheep Rock Shelter (36Hu1): An Historical Review.
Michels, J.W. and J.S. Dutt
1968
Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1967 Pennsylvania State
University Field School in Archaeology. Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Michels, J.W. and Smith, I.F.
1967
Archaeological Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1966 Pennsylvania State
University Field School in Archaeology. Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Michels, J.W. and J.B. Huner
1968
Preliminary Report of Archaeological investigations of the Workman Site
(36Bd36), Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, the Pennsylvania State University, Occasional Paper No. 4.
Miller, Patricia E.
1995
196
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Globe Run Bridge Replacement S.R.
0305, Section 002, West Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Cultural
Resource Management Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Archaeological and Historical
Consultants, Inc.
1998
Millis, Heather
1999
Lithic Projectile Point Technology and Raw Material Use in the
Susquehanna River Valley. In The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: HunterGatherers of the Early and Middle Holocene, edited by R.A. Raber, P.E.
Miller, and S.M. Neusius, pp. 91-120. Recent Research in Pennsylvania
Archaeology No. 1, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Proposed T-518 Bridge Replacement
Over Adams Run, East St. Clair Township, Bedford County Pennsylvania.
Cultural Resource Management Report submitted to Keller Engineers by TRC
Garrow Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Mitchem, B. and R.Huston
1983
Phase II Investigation of the Petersburg Bridge Site L.R. 352, Section O11,
Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by GAI
Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Mounier, R.A., J. Cresson, and J.W. Martin
1993
New Evidence of Paleoindian Biface Fluting from the Outer Coastal Plain of
New Jersey at 28-OC-100. Archaeology of Eastern North America 21:1-23.
Munford, B.A.
1994
Phase I Archaeological Inventory of the Hilltop to Claysburg 115kV
Transmission Line, Cambria, Bedford, and Blair Counties. Report submitted to
Texas Eastern Pipeline Co., by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, Pa.
Nass, J.P., Jr. and J.P. Hart
2000
Subsistence-Settlement Change during the Late Prehistoric Period in the Upper
Ohio River Valley: New Models and Old Constructs. In Cultures before
Contact: the Late Prehistory of Ohio and Surrounding Regions, edited by R.A.
Genheimer, pp. 124-155. The Ohio Archaeological Council, Columbus.
Parry, W.J. and R. Kelly
1987
Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Lithic
Technology, edited by J.K. Johnson and C.A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
2002
Pennsylvania DEP Watershed Notebook. In http: www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/
deputate/watermgt/WC/subjects/WSN, pp. 11A-11D. Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection Home Internet Site.
Potter, N., Jr.
1999
Southeast of Blue Mountain. In The Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C.
Schultz, pp. 345-351. Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Page 197
Raber, Paul A., editor
1985
Archaeological Testing and Mitigation of the Proposed Comfort Station, Stewart
Warehouse and Altman Mill, America’s Industrial Heritage Project, Saltsburg
Canal Park--Phase I Development, Saltsburg Borough, Indiana County,
Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management Report prepared for the National
Park Service by GAI Consultants, Inc., Monroeville, PA.
Raber, P. A.
1993
198
Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Site 36Bl57, S.R. 6220, Section G08,
Antis Township. Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource Management
Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0
in association with The EADS Group, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon,
PA.
1994
Executive Summary, Phase I Archaeological Survey, S. R. 0096, Section 10M,
South Bard Bridge, Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural
Resource Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1994a
Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 26, Section 006; Weimer Run Bridge
Monroe Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource
Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc.,
Huntingdon, PA.
1995
Prehistoric Settlement and Resource Use in the Aughwick Creek Valley and
Adjoining Areas of Central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 65(1):118.
1995a
Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 26, Section 006; Weimer Run Bridge
Monroe Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource
Management Report prepared for The Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc.,
Huntingdon, PA.
1995b
Phase II Archaeological Investigation, Site 36Bl57, S.R. 6220, Section G08,
Antis Township. Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 in association with The
EADS Group, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1995c
Executive Summary, Phase I Archaeological Survey, S. R. 0096, Section 10M,
South Bard Bridge, Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, District 9-0 by
1999
Late Woodland Settlement in the Uplands of Central Pennsylvania: the View
from the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 65th SPA Meeting,
Philadelphia, April 6, 2000.
1999a
Addendum Supplementary Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair
and West St. Clair Townships, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for CET
Engineering, Inc., and The Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority by
2000
Late Woodland Settlement in the Uplands of Central Pennsylvania: The View
from the Mykut Rockshelter, 36Hu143. Paper presented at the 65th SAA Meeting,
Philadelphia.
2000a
Supplementary Phase I Archaeological Survey, Phase 3 Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Chestnut Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair and West St.
Clair Townships, Bedford County, Pennsylvania, ER 95-3604. Submitted to CET
Engineering, Inc. by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon.
Raber, P.A. and J.A. Burns
1999
Phase II Archaeological Studies, Sites 36Hu129 and 36Hu147, S.R. 3001, Little
Valley Road, Carbon and Todd Townships, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania,
ER 94-0607. Submitted to PennDOT District 9-0 by Heberling Associates, Inc.,
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
Raber, P.A. and S.D. Heberling
1990
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, Wastewater Treatment Plant, Borough of
Manns Choice and Harrison Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania.
Prepared for the Borough of Manns Choice and Glace Associated, Inc. by
Heberling Associates, Huntingdon, PA.
1991
Phase I Archaeological Survey and Phase II Workplan, S.R. 6220, Section G08,
Ruscito Property, Antis Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation District 9-0 and Federal Highway
Administration in association with Skelly and Loy Engineers-Consultants by
Heberling Associated, Huntingdon, PA.
1993
Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, S.R. 0036, Section 006, McKee Gap,
Freedom and Taylor Townships, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resource
Management Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation District 9-0 in association with The EADS Group by Heberling
Associates, Inc. Huntingdon, PA.
1996
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Chestnut
Ridge Joint Municipal Authority, East St. Clair, West St. Clair, and King
Townships, Pleasantville and St. Clairsville Boroughs, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania, ER 95-3604-009. Submitted to CET Engineering by Heberling
Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.
1996a
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Huntingdon Area School District, Walker
Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, ER 95-0160. Submitted to
Huntingdon School District by Heberling Associates, Huntingdon.
Page 199
1996b
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Wetlands Replacement Area, Smithfield
Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Heberling Associates, Inc.
Raber, Paul A., Scott D. Heberling, Frank J. Vento
1993
Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, Hollidaysburg Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion, Frankstown Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania,
ER 92-0352. Submitted to Hollidaysburg Borough by Heberling Associates, Inc.,
Huntingdon, PA.
1994
Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, S.R.1005, Section 001, Beaver
Creek Bridge No. 2 Replacement, South Woodbury Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
District 9-0 and the Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates,
Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 4005, Section 001; Neff Bridge, Porter
Township, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 by Heberling Associates,
Raber, P.A, P.E. Miller, and S.M. Neusius, eds.
1998
The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle
Holocene Period. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
Raber, Paul A., and Frank J. Vento
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey S. R. 2011, Section 001; Clover Creek Bridge,
Huntingdon Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering District 9-0 and The
Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates, Inc., Huntingdon, PA.
Raber, P.A, P.E. Miller, and S.M. Neusius, eds.
1998
The Archaic Period in Pennsylvania: Hunter-Gatherers of the Early and Middle
Holocene Period. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg, PA.
Raber, P.A., J.B. Sutton, S.D. Heberling, F.J. Vento
1994
Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations, S.R. 3019, Section 001, Great
Trough Creek Bridge Replacement, Cass Township, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
District 9-0 and the Federal Highway Administration by Heberling Associates,
Reid, K.C.
1984
200
Fire and Ice: New Evidence for the Production and Preservation of Late Archaic
Pottery in the Middle-Latitude Lowlands. American Antiquity 49: 55-76.
Ritchie, W.A.
1965
The Archaeology of New York State. The Natural History Press, Garden City.
1969
The Archaeology of New York State (revised edition). The Natural History Press,
Garden City.
1980
The Archaeology of New York State (revised edition). Harbor Hill Books,
Harrison, New York.
Rue, David J.
1998
2001
Phase Ib/II Archaeological Surveys for Construction of Facilities at the Upper
Corners Peninsula, Raystown Lake Recreational Area, Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania. Report Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore
District Planning Division by Archaeological & Historical Consultants, Inc.,
Center Hall, PA.
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Livestock Evaluation Center,
Ferguson Township, Center County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the
Department of General Services by Archaeological and Historical Consultants,
Inc., Center Hall, PA.
Sams, Margaret G. and Lisa A Benack
1996
Blair County, S.R. 4002, Section 001, Sugar Run Bridge Replacement. Phase I
Archaeology Report submitted to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Engineering District 9-0 by Skelly and Loy, Inc. Engineers-Consultants.
Saul, F.P.
1968
The Human Skeletal Remains of the Sheep Rock Shelter. In Archaeological
Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, pp. 199-220, edited by J.W. Michels and
J.S. Dutt. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State
Schindler, D.L., J.W. Hatch, C.A. Hay, and R.C. Bradt
1982
Aboriginal Thermal Alteration of a Central Pennsylvania Jasper: Analytical and
Behavioral Implications. American Antiquity 47: 526-544.
Schiffer, M.B.
1983
Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48(4):
675-706.
Schuldenrein, J., R.G. Kingsley, J.A. Robertson, L.S. Cummings, and D.R. Hayes
1992
Archaeology of the Lower Black’s Eddy Site, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: A
Preliminary Report. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 61(1):19-75.
Schweikart, J. F.
1998
An Upland Settlement in the Adena Heartland: Preliminary Evidence and
Interpretations from Two Early Woodland Non-Mortuary Habitations in Perry
County, Ohio. Unpublished Manuscript on File at ASC Group, Inc. Columbus,
Ohio.
Page 201
Shaffer, B.J.
2000
Archaeological Identification Survey Report for S.R. 0056, Section 104
Transportation Improvement Project, West St. Clair Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Engineering District 9-0 by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc., Harrisburg,
PA.
Shaffer, B.J., R.H. Eiswert, F.F. Arnold, K.M. Post
2001
Archaeological Identification Survey Report for S.R. 0056, Section 010,
Transportation Improvement Project, East St. Clair Township, Bedford County,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Engineering District 9-0 by McCormick, Taylor & Associates, Inc. Harrisburg,
PA.
Shelford, V.E.
1963
Shott, M.J.
1993
Slattery, R.G.
1946
Smith, B.D.
1987
Smith, I. F., III
1966
1972
The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
The Leavitt Site: A Parkhill Phase Paleoindian Occupation in Central Michigan.
Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 25. University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
A Prehistoric Indian Site on Selden Island, Montgomery County, Maryland.
Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 36: 262-266.
The Independent Domestication of Indigenous Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern
North America. In Emergent Horticultural Economies of the Eastern
Woodlands, edited by W.F. Keegan, pp. 3-48. Center for Archaeological
Investigations, Southern Illinois Univ. at Carbondale, Occasional Paper No. 7.
Raystown Reservoir Archaeological Salvage and Survey Program. Final Report
Submitted to the National Park Service, Washington.
The Watson Fetter Cache. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 78(1):72.
Snow, D.R.
1980
The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.
Stackhouse, E.
1965
Gromiller Cave. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 35(3-4):105-117.
202
Stephenson, R.L., A.LL. Ferguson, and H.G. Ferguson
1963
The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence.
Museum of Anthropology Papers 20. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Steegmann, A. Theodore
1983
Boreal Forest Adaptations: The Northern Algonkians. Plenum Press, New York.
Steward, J.H.
1936
Stewart, M.
1987
1990
The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands. In Essays in Anthropology
Presented to Alfred Louis Kroeber, edited by R.H. Lowie, pp. 331-350.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 15: 47-58.
Clemson’s Island Studies in Pennsylvania: A Perspective. Pennsylvania
Stewart, M. and J.Cavallo
1991
Delaware Valley Middle Archaic. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7:1942.
Stewart, M. and J. Kratzer
1989
Prehistoric Site Locations on the Unglaciated Appalachian Plateau.
Stingelin, R.W.
1965
Straus, L.G.
2000
Late-Glacial and Post-Glacial Vegetational History in the North Central
Appalachian Region. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Geology and Geophysics. Pennsylvania State University, State College.
Solutrean Settlement of North America? A Review of Reality. American
Antiquity 65(2):219-226.
Sutton, J.B. and S.D. Heberling
1991
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Hesston Wastewater Collection System, Penn
Twp., Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Heberling Associates, Huntingdon.
Tankersley, Kenneth B.
1989
A Close Look at the Big Picture: Early Paleoindian Lithic Resource Procurement
in the Midwestern United States. In Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use,
edited by B. Lepper and J. Lothrop, pp. 259-292. Westview Press, Boulder.
Thornbury, W.D.
1965
Regional Geomorphology of the United States. John Wiley and Sons, London.
Page 203
Tildlow, Evelyn M.
1995
Phase I Archaeological Survey, Kocher Well Field Project, Ferguson Township,
Center County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the State College Borough
Water Authority by Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
Trewartha, G.T.
1967
Truncer, James
1990
Turnbaugh, W.H.
1975
1977
An Introduction to Climate. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Perkiomen Points: A Study in Variability. In Experiments and Observations on
the Terminal Archaic in the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Roger Moeller,
pp. 1-62. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem Ct.
Toward an Explanation of the Broadpoint Dispersal in Eastern North American
Prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Research 31:51-68.
Man, Land, and Time: The Cultural Prehistory and Demographic Patterns of
North Central Pennsylvania. Lycoming County Historical Society, Williamsport,
Pennsylvania.
Turner, R. and J.B. Huner
1968
A Physical Geography of the Raystown River Valley. In Archaeological
Investigations of Sheep Rock Shelter, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, edited
by J.W. Michels and I.F. Smith. Preliminary Report of the Results of the 1966
Pennsylvania State University Field School in Archaeology. Department of
Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, State College.
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde
1999
Phase I Archaeological Investigation, Broad Top Wastewater Management
Program, Broad Top Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Prepared for
Broad Top Township.
Vento, F.J., and J. Donahue
1982
Lithic Raw Material Utilization at Meadowcroft Rockshelter and in the Cross
Creek Drainage. In Meadowcroft: Collected Papers on the Archaeology of
Meadowcroft Rockshelter and the Cross Creek Drainage. Symposium at 47th
Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Walker, E.L.
1861
204
Map of Bedford County, Pennsylvania. Geological Survey of Pennsylvania,
Pittsburgh.
Wall, R.D.
2000
A Buried Lamoka Occupation in Stratified Contexts West Branch Valley of the
Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 70(1):1-44.
Wall, Robert D., R. Michael Stewart, John Cavallo, Douglas McLearen, Robert Foss, Phillip Perazio,
and John Dumont
1996
Prehistoric Archaeological Synthesis. Trenton Complex Archaeology: Report
15. The Cultural Resource Group, Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., East
Orange, Jew Jersey. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and the
New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environmental Analysis,
Trenton.
Wallace, P.A.W.
1971
Indian Paths of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Walker, P.C. and Hartman, R.T.
1960
The Forest Sequence of the Hartstown Bog Area in Western Pennsylvania.
Ecology 41 (3): 461-474.
Watts, W.A.
1979
Way, J.H.
1999
Late Quaternary Vegetation of Central Appalachia and the New Jersey Coastal
Plain. Ecological Monographs 49(4):427-469.
Appalachian Mountain Section of the Ridge and Valley Province. In The
Geology of Pennsylvania, edited by C.Shultz, pp. 353-361. Pennsylvania
Geological Survey, Harrisburg.
Webster, D., M. Aldenderfer, J.W. Hatch, and C.A. Hay
1977
The Milesburg Site: A Hunting Camp in Central Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 47(4):37-47.
West, F.H.
1996
The Archaeological Evidence. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and
Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by F.H. West, pp. 537-560. The University of
Chicago Press.
Whitehead, Donald R.
1973
Late-Wisconsin Vegetational Changes in Unglaciated Eastern North America.
Quaternary Research 3:621-631.
Witthoft, J.
1952
1971
A Paleoindian Site in Eastern Pennsylvania: An Early Hunting Culture.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96: 464-495.
Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures. Foundations of
Pennsylvania Prehistory 1: 161-194.
Page 205
Wood, C.R.
1980
Yarnell, R.A.
1993
206
Summary Groundwater Resources of Centre County, Pennsylvania. Water
Resource Report 48, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, Harrisburg.
The Importance of Native Crops during the Late Archaic and Woodland Periods.
In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by C.M. Scarry, pp.
13-26. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

final technical report - Pennsylvania Archaeology

Transcription

Similar documents

January - Juniata River Valley

rientation Leaders

Greenhouses, Nurseries, Florists

Nature - Juniata River Valley

January 2012 - Juniata River Valley

calendar of events - Juniata River Valley

October/November 2001 - Campus Offices

Mussels -- In Tacony Creek?

Fergie Saison de Rose

May 2009 - Juniata River Valley