|
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
After a year's absence, I am pleased that this new
issue of the PAC newsletter is available. I have to admit that I
bear a major responsible for the delay in that I have been negligent
in writing this column and in sending other material to the newsletter.
This issue also marks the long planned change in editors from Phil
Perazio to Ken Basalik. Phil has done a wonderful job for a number
of years and we all owe him many thanks for his efforts. We should
welcome Ken to the job by at least sending him some material for
the next issue. At the rescheduled fall meeting in January, we will
discuss the possibility of changing from a printed format for the
newsletter to an electronic version. Let me know what you think
about that change.
So what has PAC been doing recently? We have been
busy with public education projects. Valerie Perazio did a great
job this past year with the student essay contest. Once again the
award ceremony was held in conjunction with the Archaeology Month
celebration on City Island. The students toured the City Island
excavation and visited the experimental archaeology exhibit which
featured a reconstructed Monongehela house. Valerie and I also arranged
for the PAC traveling exhibit booth to be displayed at the State
Social Science Teachers conference in Lancaster. The booth will
also be at the National Science Teachers Association Annual Conference
this March in Philadelphia. The NSTA booth will be co-sponsored
by PennDOT. PAC was awarded a PHMC local history grant in August
to revise our Project Archaeology curriculum. Project director,
Renata Wolynec has started work on the project.
We have also added two new pencil designs to go along
with the two we produced last year for you to hand out to schools
when you do classroom programs. The pencils each focus on one of
the multidisciplinary aspects of archaeology: Archaeology is¼Science,
Archaeology is ¼Art, Archaeology is ¼History, Archaeology is ¼Writing.
If you would like a set or some for a program, send me a request.
We also have videotapes that contain all six of the short (8-10
minute) videos on different aspects of Pennsylvania archaeology.
You can distribute the videos to schools or other local groups or
you can use them in classroom programs. Thanks to Pat Miller, Paul
Raber, Sarah Neusius, Lori Frye, and Joe Baker for their assistance
with the project. The video project was funded by a PHMC historic
preservation grant.
Another major accomplishment has been the publication
of the second volume based on our annual symposia held on Fridays
during the SPA Meetings. The volume, Ice Age Peoples of Pennsylvania,
was edited by Kurt Carr and James Adovasio, and is Number 2 of the
series Recent Research in Pennsylvania Archaeology, published by
the PHMC in 2002. Copies are available for PAC members at a slightly
discounted price from me or Mark McConaughy or from the PHMC for
$14.95. Copies of the first volume in the series, The Archaic, are
also still available.
The membership requirement for PAC changed last spring
following a vote of approval on a constitutional amendment. PAC
Vice President Dan Roberts and his committee of Phil Neusius and
Gary Coppock put much effort into the project which has changed
the requirements for membership as well as the process for applicants
to become members. We are opening the membership requirements so
that archaeologists with BA degrees and employment and interest
in Pennsylvania archaeology can join. We also have changed the application
process so that an applicant just has to send his or her vita to
Dan and the committee and board can accept the application before
the next meeting. We have had a spurt in membership applications
since the change. I would hope you encourage other members of your
firms or departments to join as well.
So what's next? This will be a busy, but short spring
since the fall meeting has been delayed until January 31. There
are some big issues in Pennsylvania archaeology- How will the state
budget deficit affect agencies like the PHMC and PennDOT? The leadership
of both agencies is changing. How will that affect their policies
that affect archaeological sites? Because of financial problems,
the Carnegie Museum is suspending access to its site files and report
repository and not replacing staff members who have retired. What
does this mean for those interested in research? A major Susquehannock
site in York County is threatened by development. Is this another
example of the problems with Act 70? How can we help protect the
site?
There are some PAC issues as well. It's once again
time for PAC elections. This is an opportunity for any of you to
become more active in the organization either as members of the
nominating committee or as candidates. If your interests are in
research or publications or public education, this is your opportunity
to make PAC more active in that area.
It's PAC's year to take the lead in preparing material
for Archaeology Month. Renata Wolynec has volunteered to take on
the design of the poster, using the theme of the French and Indian
War which will have an anniversary in 2003. Other materials and
events will be needed, so there will be plenty for volunteers to
do.
On a personal note, I have enjoyed my stint as PAC
President. I have had the chance to work with many of you on our
different projects. I want to thank all of you for this opportunity
and for your support. I know that the next President will enjoy
that support as well.
Beverly ChiarulIi
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
.
COOPERATION COLUMN
There were no submissions for this edition.
.
.
CURRENT RESEARCH
In an effort to shine some light onto the "gray" literature,
the editor requests submissions for the Current Research column. These
should be short descriptions of on-going or recently completed work.
Reference to the full report should be included, if available. Please
forward such items to the editor (see below).
***
The Leetsdale Project
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, has completed
two years of fieldwork at Site 36AL480 (see PAC Newsletter, Fall 2000).
This stratified, multi-component site is located within the floodplain
of the Ohio River at Leetsdale, Pennsylvania. Site 36AL480 is approximately
12 acres in size and has cultural deposits extending from just below
ground surface to about 4.5 m below ground surface. The site has evidence
of intact Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Transitional Archaic, Late
Woodland, and 19th century industrial components. It is eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D for its
potential to add significant information to our current understanding
of historic and prehistoric occupations in the upper Ohio River Valley
region. None of the Phase I-III studies have located any Native American
remains or grave goods.
This site was identified as part of the pre-construction permitting
process for fabrication of the District's new Braddock Dam, a floatable
concrete structure. The dam was constructed in two segments in a specially
excavated, large casting/launch basin within a 30-acre work area along
the Ohio River. Following consultation with the Pennsylvania Bureau
for Historic Preservation, three areas (Areas 1, 2, and 3) totaling
about 1.8 acres were segregated and fenced within the construction
area for archaeological data recovery. Due to active construction
and other constraints, the District is excavating the site in a staged,
multi-contractor approach under the direction of a District archaeologist.
Separate contracts were awarded for historic literature research,
prehistoric literature research, geomorphology, palynology, historic
data recovery and three contracts for prehistoric data recovery. The
initial data recovery fieldwork began in fall 2000 with the historic
component. At this time the District is reviewing draft submittals
of the historic context, historic archaeology site component, prehistoric
context, and interim geomorphology reports.
By spring 2001, Hardlines Design Company completed documentary research
and field excavations on the historic industrial component, a brick
factory, situated in the northern (Area 1) portion of Site 36AL480.
The brick factory was owned and operated by the Harmony Society from
1890-1901 during the latter period of this religious sect. There was
an earlier brick factory on the property but archaeological evidence
for this was negligible. The document research provided background
information on early brick manufacturing, the economics of brick production,
and the history of Harmonist involvement in brick manufacturing. The
archaeological fieldwork was limited to the upper meter of soil to
minimize damage to any intact prehistoric occupations that may be
present. The study uncovered subsurface structural remains of seven
brick kilns, a drying room, well, and other features. The fieldwork
documented type, size, construction methods, and fuel for the kilns.
Also, changes in the drying room floor construction, heat source,
and technology were identified. The drying room was a large structure
where the freshly molded bricks were heat cured (excess moisture was
driven out of the brick so that the bricks could withstand the high
firing temperatures in the kiln).
Gray & Pape conducted the prehistoric context study. This involved
comprehensive synthesis of regional prehistoric studies, reviewing
lithic material types and projectile point types from approximately
15 other local site collections, and examining site files settlement
patterns for a large area within the upper Ohio River drainage basin
of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
In 2002 URS Corp. completed over 95% of the prehistoric data recovery
fieldwork within a 1350 m2 portion of Area 1. Approximately 75 prehistoric
cultural features were excavated. Because of the dynamics of the hydrology
of the Ohio River and Little Sewickley and Sewickley creeks, this
portion of the site was frequently inundated creating a series of
lamellar-like soil couplets that ended about 3000 years ago or approximately
3,000 years later than the stacked AC/C soil horizons elsewhere on
the site. The excavation documented numerous individual camp sites
that date to the period between 4000-1000 BC. Artifacts recovered
from this excavation include fire cracked rocks and small quantities
of points, other stone tools, and lithic debitage. This study also
identified a cistern, circular hot floor, and some furnaces that were
not identified by the previous historic data recovery fieldwork due
to the greater depth of these features.
Greenhorne & O'Mara, and their sub-consultant, KCI, conducted data
recovery excavations within a 200+ m2 block within Area 2. Work began
in 2002 and will finish in the spring of 2003. As of Feb 1, 2003,
the excavations have yielded approximately 70 features and over 45,000
artifacts. The artifact assemblage includes over 30 steatite fragments
(bowl pieces and two discs), dozens of ceramic sherds, and hundreds
of tools including projectile points, gravers, nutting stones, hammerstones,
scrapers (end and hafted), pestle, drills, drills/punches, net weights,
spokeshaves, knives, and expedient tools. Steatite artifacts are rare
in southwestern Pennsylvania. The closest outcrops of steatite are
found in the Piedmont area of eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia. Several 'bird' points (points that are generally less than
1.5 inches in length) were recovered from within the same 10 cm level
as the steatite fragments. 'Bird' points include Merom Expanding Stemmed
and Trimble point types. These points were considered to be a defining
characteristic of the Riverton Culture sites located in the Wabash
River Valley of Illinois but clusters of these points are also found
in the lower Ohio River Valley. This Leetsdale cluster of 'bird' points
may represent the easternmost find of these points from a good site
context in the US and possibly the only documented cluster of these
small points in Pennsylvania.
Tetra Tech, and their sub-consultant, Michael Baker Jr., conducted
data recovery excavations of over 200 sq m within the southern portion
of Site 36AL480 (Area 3) from late spring through late fall of 2001.
There is archaeological evidence of at least five distinct occupations
that fall within the Late Archaic, Transitional Archaic, and Early
Woodland periods. Remains recovered from this excavation include over
175 stone tools (spear points, knives, graver, scrapers, drill tip),
about 450 pottery sherds, nearly 8,000 pieces of lithic debitage,
seven steatite fragments, four ochre/hematite fragments, nearly 1,000
animal bone fragments (mostly tiny pieces), over 750 botanical remains
(mostly nutshell pieces), and over 10,000 fire cracked rocks. Numerous
fire pits, roasting pits, storage pits, postholes, and surface fires
were excavated.
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc. is providing geomorphology and palynology
support for the environmental reconstruction studies undertaken as
part of the data recovery plan for 36AL480. Dr. Frank Vento, Clarion
University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Joe Schuldenrein, Geoarcheology Research
Associates, Inc., and Dr. John Jones, Texas A&M University have started
to reconstruct the site formation processes and climate. Their preliminary
findings indicate that the site was situated on a point bar or a series
of low ridges of sand and gravel that developed on the inside bank
of a river meander as a result of channel migration toward the outer
bank. In the early to mid-Holocene, the Ohio River cut through part
of this point bar, separating it from the rest of the river terrace
and creating an island. By 5,500 years ago this new river channel
became inactive and the low-lying backchannel area became a wetland.
Most of the occupations at 36AL480 fall within the period when the
backchannel was a wetland environment rather than an active river
channel. The presence of two peat lenses located about 20-30 cm above
the Pleistocene gravels has been a surprising discovery. An examination
of recovered pollen and plant remains showed evidence of a mixed beech
forest in the upper peat lens and the earlier peat deposit indicated
the presence of heath-type pollen consistent with a blueberry heath.
A date on one of the peat lenses indicates the change in vegetation
occurred about 10,000 years ago. We anticipate confirming this information
with additional radiometric dates.
Excavations terminated in mid-January 2003 for weather and is scheduled
to resume in spring 2003. Dr. Patricia Miller, of KCI, will give a
presentation on some of the Area 2 preliminary results at the upcoming
spring SPA meeting. When fieldwork resumes at the site this spring,
we hope to have a site tour available for PAC members. The date will
be announced through the PAC mailing list. In 2003 all remaining fieldwork
at Site 36AL480 will be completed. Draft reports for much of the work
will be under review. Portions of the analysis and report preparation
will continue into 2004. Follow the progress of these excavations
on the District's web site and web cam at http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/webcam/leet_webcam.htm.
Submitted by Lori Frye and Conrad Weiser
***
36Yo337
Middle Woodland Site In York County
A Phase II archaeological survey of Site 36Yo337 was
completed for the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
at the Defense Logistic Agency Defense Distribution Center (DDC),
New Cumberland, York County, Pennsylvania. During previous Phase IB
survey of an area within the DDC, the site was identified on a bluff
south of the Susquehanna River. Chronologically diagnostic artifacts
suggested that occupation of the site spanned the Late Archaic through
Late Woodland periods, but the predominant occupation was attributed
to the Early and Middle Woodland periods, marked by Calvert projectile
points and grit-tempered ceramics with affinities to pottery found
on contemporaneous sites on Three Mile Island. The series of ceramics
identified by Smith on Three Mile Island spanned the Early Woodland
through early Middle Woodland periods. The assemblages included grit-tempered,
cord-marked pottery (as well as fabric and net impressed pottery)
and short, wide, stemmed projectile points with affinities to Calvert
and Vernon points found at the Accokeek Creek Site in northern Maryland.
Twenty-seven projectile points or point fragments were
recovered at 36Yo337. Five stemmed specimens, including four of rhyolite
and one of chert, formed the largest group. These points have broad
triangular blades and relatively wide, straight-sided stems. This
form was suggestive of, but noticeably smaller than the Snook Kill
or Savanna River broadpoint types of the Late Archaic. It is more
probable that they are related to the small, broad-bladed stemmed
points noted by Smith at Early Woodland to early Middle Woodland sites
on Three Mile Island in Dauphin County. Smith described these points
as "Calvert-like" forms, in turn similar to Calvert points such as
those described by Stephenson at the Accokeek Creek Site in Maryland.
A small rhyolite point with a wide base was tentatively identified
as a Hellgramite point of the Early Woodland, common in Cumberland
and York Counties. That point also has similarities to Brewerton ear
notched points of the Late Archaic.
Most of the sherds had some form of grit temper, with
quartz/feldspar predominating (43% of ceramics), followed by a combination
of quartz and chert (6%) and other crushed rock (10%). The use of
various crushed rock tempers is characteristic of Middle Woodland
ceramic types in this region. Ceramics from the site are related to
a little-known series of pottery found at Three Mile Island and a
few other sites in the Lower Susquehanna Valley and are probably related
to Susquehanna Cord-marked ceramics of the early part of the Middle
Woodland.
A large oval fire pit feature yielded a radiocarbon
age of 2300+/-80 B.P. (BETA-112727). This resulted in a calibrated
date of 525-175 B.C., placing it within the early Middle Woodland
Period. Examination of a flotation sample from the feature revealed
that charred plant remains were not plentiful, although walnut, acorn,
and grape were identified.
David Rue, A&HC
.
.
.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
There is no report for this issue.
.
.
.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
PAC Membership Amends Constitution to
Make Requirements For Admission
to the Organization More Inclusive
.
In the fall of 2001, the PAC membership overwhelmingly voted to amend
the organization's constitutionally-mandated requirements for admission.
Specifically, the vote focused on Section IV: Membership. The approved
amendments make admission requirements more inclusive by 1) requiring
a graduate degree OR a Bachelor's degree and a minimum level and type
of experience, and 2) making allowances for those who do not have
professional publications and/or presentations to their credit. The
amendments also streamline the admission process by 1) vesting in
the Executive Board, rather than those members present at the appropriate
meeting, the authority to decide for or against admittance, and 2)
allowing for such consideration at any time during the year.
The amended text of Section IV of the Constitution now reads as follows:
Any person shall be considered for membership in the Council who
satisfies the following requirements:
A. A graduate degree in anthropology, archaeology, or a closely-related
field; or a Bachelor's degree in anthropology, archaeology, or a
closely-related field, and two years of professional experience
in a research, supervisory, educational, or administrative capacity.
B. A professional interest in Pennsylvania archaeology. This interest
must be documented by the applicant and should clearly demonstrate
how the applicant's professional activity has contributed, or may
contribute, to the advancement of Pennsylvania's prehistoric or
historical archaeology. This documentation may include:
1. Authorship of professional archaeological publications.
2. Authorship of archaeological papers presented at professional
or professional/ avocational meetings.
3. Authorship of archaeological contract or grant reports.
4. Development or implementation of archaeological educational
or interpretative programs.
5. Administration or supervision of archaeological programs or
projects.
C. Applicants shall be admitted to membership upon the positive
recommendation of the Membership and Ethics Committee and a positive
vote of a majority of the Executive Board. The Membership and Ethics
Committee shall establish a schedule for the membership application
process such that candidates are admitted in a timely manner after
their applications are received.
During 2002, the first year under the new procedures, 10 persons
were admitted to the membership, a much higher than usual number than
in years past. Presumably, the less onerous requirements and procedures
encouraged more people to apply. From the point of view of the person
responsible for implementing the process, there is no question that
the new procedures are much better than the old. Along with members
of the Executive Board and the Membership and Ethics Committee, I
sincerely hope that more archeologists plying their trade in Pennsylvania
will be encouraged to join the organization under the new requirements
and procedures.
Dan Roberts Chair, Membership and Ethics Committee
.
PAC Essay Contest
The essay contest is still going strong. The last two
years have had wonderful award ceremonies with around 50 people in
attendance. This past year, one of the winners mother's sent a note
thanking us all for a "...wonderful way to encourage children to appreciate
[our] work...and to promote the importance of preserving our history...".
There is some concern, however, for the small number of teachers/schools
that are represented. Some new names are in for the current year,
but the numbers are still small. Please send any suggestions for expanding
this writing/knowledge opportunity for students to Valerie Perazio.
Valerie B. Perazio
.
DISCUSSION AND DEBATE
"When Every One is Somebodee.."
.
In short, whoever you may be,
To this conclusion you'll agree,
When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!
-Don Alhambra, The Gondoliers
Abstract
So-called "lithic scatters" do not usually merit preservation
in place, and are subject to similar kinds of field and analytic treatment,
regardless of eligibility for listing in the National Register. While
the potential exists in Pennsylvania for consensus on standard treatments,
there appears to be no consensus on eligibility, nor any forthcoming.
Eligibility of these sites is not an academic issue, but a matter
of public policy, since the eligibility path chosen has major implications
for agencies that need to coordinate tax-supported projects under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. More than that,
the problems in Pennsylvania may push the National Register to decide
whether it will be relevant in preservation efforts, or merely a feel-good
list for affirming our collective memory.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this paper are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation,
nor the Federal Highway Administration.
Definition of a Lithic Scatter
The term "lithic scatter" is one that has crept into the
literature over the last 25 years, and like "natural foods"
or "good music," the meaning is largely in the eye of the
beholder. The Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey has over 18,000
sites inventoried, and although there are open sites and camps, not
one of them is classified as a lithic scatter. I do happen to agree
with Michael Barber (2001) that the term should be banished from the
language, but none of the alternatives are particularly attractive
and I do not wish to add to the confusion by coining another term,
acronym’d or not.
By lithic scatter, I do mean archaeological sites composed almost
entirely of chipped stone, that behaviorally represent some type of
temporary encampment rather than a permanent habitation, that are
generally smaller than larger, on the order of one-half acre or less,
and that archaeologically represent a constrained suite of tool and
artifact types. Artifact densities are on the lower end –less than
10-15 per square meter in excavated and screened area; however, densities
in and of themselves are not a defining characteristic.
Neither are characteristics of setting – lithic scatters can occur
on upland and flood plain locations. Lithic scatters do not have an
inherent level of integrity. They can be plow disturbed or not. Lithic
scatters can contain features, as long as the features are not evidence
of a more permanent habitation, e.g. post-molds.
Lithic scatters are best defined by what they are not. They are not
villages or hamlets, or base camps. They are not quarries or quarry
reduction stations. They are not rock shelters. Various authors have
characterized them as surface scatters of debitage, sites that are
small, with few artifacts, with few tools or bifaces, and generally
without ceramics (Barber 2001:85). I would take this definition one
step further. These are archaeological sites for which functional
interpretation is difficult to discern. In the end, lithic scatters
are the small, difficult to understand sites. But I’ll refrain from
calling them SDTUS’s.
Criterion D – what is important information?
Most archaeological sites that are eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places, especially prehistoric archaeological
sites, are significant under Criterion D. Criterion D states that
a property is significant if it:
"Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important
in history or prehistory"
For a site to be eligible for listing, though, it must also possess
sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling, and association to convey its significance. A site with excellent
integrity is rare in the Eastern United States, and the chances are
good that it contains data sets not normally found in other sites,
e.g. living floors, internal micro-patterning, plant and animal remains,
undisturbed features. These data sets have an excellent potential
to tell us important things about the past. The National Register
notes that logically one first assesses significance, then integrity;
but the ease with which an archaeologist can find meaningful research
questions for a site is affected by the site’s richness and integrity.
The eligibility of small sites that are not easily addressed by meaningful
research questions remain problematic in Pennsylvania, particularly
since no statewide context exists. All lithic scatters share certain
things in common: they all have a location and a setting; they have
an areal extent; they have an assemblage; and are the material remains
of past human behavior. All are currently part of a settlement pattern
(following Flannery 1976), and were at one time part of a settlement
system - from the largest mound group to the isolated find. What archaeologists
do best with this material evidence is search for patterns, using
available theories, to draw conclusions that inform us about our past.
Without a context, the three biggest problem with lithic scatters
are that: 1) current settlement studies have become a theoretical
dead end, where the goal is assignment of sites to a type, not the
behavioral interpretation of the pattern or system; 2) although a
central premise of archaeology is that human behavior is patterned,
some behavior is random and non-meaningful, but still produces patterns,
and mixed remains from successive re-occupations can create patterns
artificially; and 3) archaeology is inherently a sampling exercise.
Interpretations and decisions about site management are always based
on incomplete information. The challenge to archaeologists is to separate
the non-meaningful noise from the meaningful information.
Typology is a basic starting point in interpreting archaeological
sites. Almost all research and definitely all settlement studies begin
with answering the questions, what is it, and to when what does it
date? Almost all settlement typologies derived since 1980 owe their
intellectual roots to Binford’s analysis of hunter-gatherer settlement
systems (Binford 1980), especially in defining and distinguishing
collectors and foragers. The archaeologist’s "game" for
these small, difficult to interpret, sites is to assign them to either
procurement camp or transient camp status – procurement camp being
the material remains of a specialized work force engaged in a specific
utilization of the environment; transient camp being the remains of
the entire social unit briefly occupying a location on what is presumed
a seasonal round.
In many ways these remains look alike: low-density, lithic scatters,
of a smaller size, with some tools, but not the richness of assemblages
that comes from a base camp or village. Neither set of remains is
likely to have features indicating an investment in the location,
like hearths, permanent shelters, etc. Furthermore, as Binford pointed
out, these types are ideals, and what is actually going on is a gradient
of behavior between collector and forager, procurement and transient.
Unless the archaeologist is incredibly lucky, or incredibly brazen,
Phase I and II testing is unlikely to provide the kind of data needed
to address this very basic question of typology for most lithic scatters,
although datable artifacts may be discovered in the process.
When is there enough testing to make that typological assignment?
Archaeologists should be able to test enough to determine eligibility
(whether this is called Phase II or not). Excavated 1 x 1 m units
would certainly uncover features, if present; however, in either procurement
or transient camp interpretation, features are not expected. And if
one or two features were identified, unless containing excellent preservation,
they would be insufficient to type the lithic scatter. Controlled
surface collections or aggressive shovel testing or 1 x 1’s would
certainly recover more artifacts, but would not be expected to reveal
an assemblage profile different from the one initially identified.
In general, an archaeologist would not expect dense chipping clusters
throughout the lithic scatter if none had been identified prior. Nor
would the archaeologist expect a hamlet, village or a quarry to reveal
itself. Finding a datable artifact, usually a projectile point in
the lithic scatter, might provide minimally one time period during
which the location was occupied, but other components could be possibly
present. Even with substantial testing, the archaeologist is still
often left with the problematic lithic scatter and no secure typological
assignment. And even with a typological assignment, and perhaps an
identifiable time period of association, the archaeologist may come
away from the site knowing only that prehistoric populations occupied
this space at this time.
So which lithic scatters are likely to yield information important
in prehistory, and which possess sufficient integrity of location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association
to convey that significance, making them eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places? Published National Register
Guidance is only partially helpful. When there is an adequately developed
context for the resource type, the Guidance provides a clear and logical
path for evaluation. When there is not an adequately developed context,
the archaeologist is essentially left to his/her own devices. Small
sites, such as lithic scatters, are noted in the Guidance, but eligibility
is again by reference to a historic context (Little et al. 2000:21).
I believe a close read of the published Guidance would support a view
that a few lithic scatters would be considered eligible and most not,
if a well-developed context existed. I also believe that the Guidance
pushes archaeologists away from attributes of integrity as the starting
point, and toward important research questions, which are based in
what we already know about the past and wish to learn next.
The National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act, as its title suggests is
about preservation. In enacting this law, Congress declared that:
The historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should
be preserved¼
Historic properties significant to the Nation’s heritage are being
lost¼
The preservation of this irreplaceable heritage is in the public
interest..
Front and center, Title 1, Section 101(a)(1)(A), expands the concept
of the National Register. It is clear to me that the National Register
was envisioned as the number one tool for preservation, ahead of the
SHPO (Section 101[b]), certified local governments ([c]), and grants
to states ([d]). Although archaeological sites were always part of
the mix for the National Register, how does the intent of Congress
stack up with the reality?
The central paradox of the NHPA and archaeology is that it is necessary
to destroy archaeological sites in order to learn about them, making
the goals of preservation incompatible with the methods of archaeological
discovery. Thirty years ago, this paradox was finessed by stating
that information collection was also preservation. The core of this
argument is found in the old 36 CFR 800 research exception to adverse
effect.(1)
In practice, the regulation pushed agencies to data recovery as the
sole mitigation measure. The no adverse effect finding also permitted
agencies to "fly below the radar" of public interest or
involvement, so that the eligibility of the site was not as important
as the treatment plan. FHWA and PENNDOT got in the habit of seeking
SHPO approval of a work-plan, and with that approval would proceed
with final design. No adverse effect, no problem. The SHPO got in
the habit of arguing "site eligible, no further work." Again,
no adverse effect, no problem. However, none of these decisions have
anything to do with actual physical site preservation.
Changes in the Regulations and Change in Process
In 1999, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation made several
changes to the implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. One of the changes to 36CFR800 was to remove
the research exception to adverse effect for archaeological sites
that would undergo data recovery as a mitigation measure.
The 1999 changes corrected the long-standing situation whereby a
historic structure could be adversely affected by indirect impacts
such as noise or visuals, yet an archaeological site could be completely
destroyed but the effect is not adverse. Now impacted eligible sites
are adversely affected, and require an MOA. This has meaningful impacts
on how the Section 106 process is concluded.
It cannot be presumed that a site that is eligible warrants no further
work simply on the opinion of the SHPO (Table 1). Regardless of the
appropriate mitigation (including no mitigation), a memorandum of
agreement must be executed. Prior to the MOA, an effort to identify
consulting parties needs to be continued. While FHWA and PENNDOT may
be seeking consulting parties throughout the 106 process, it is often
the adverse effect finding that triggers interest in the community
and brings these groups forward.
One of the groups who’s views need to be sought are Native American
tribes. In Pennsylvania, FHWA has identified at least 12 Federally
recognized tribes who might have a legitimate interest in historic
properties found in Pennsylvania, even though there is no reservation
or tribal land within the Commonwealth. FHWA is currently in the process
of sorting out which types of projects and which types of sites, the
tribes are interested in. Eventually, FHWA and PENNDOT are optimistic
that each of the tribes that have an interest in historic properties,
including archaeological sites, will choose a targeted subset of all
projects and sites involved.
Concurrent with continued consultation on resolving adverse effects,
the FHWA must notify the Advisory Council and afford the Council the
opportunity to participate. The Council has 15 days from the time
of notification to decide to participate or not. Beyond coordination
with consulting parties, tribes, and the Council, the regulations
provide an appropriate notification to the public and their opportunity
to comment, which is understood to be 30 days.
At the end of the comment period, assuming non-participation by the
Council and a consensus resolution of adverse effects, a memorandum
of agreement can be executed. Minimum signatories include FHWA, as
the lead agency, the SHPO, and PENNDOT, as an invited party. The average
MOA takes 8 weeks to execute and file, with FHWA as the final signatory.
Once FHWA files the MOA with the Advisory Council, the MOA is executed,
and 106 consultation is then concluded. Adverse effect, big problem.
4(f) and lithic scatters
The National Historic Preservation Act is not the only applicable
statute relevant to historic preservation and archaeological sites.
In addition to Section 106 considerations, there is the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and what is commonly referred to as Section 4(f)
of the Transportation Act of 1966. For historic resources, the Federal
Highway Administration’s regulations require the agency to consider
the "use" of a historic property and to demonstrate that
there is no prudent and feasible way to avoid that use. If there is
still a 4(f) use, the agency is directed to then minimize, and finally
mitigate that use which cannot be avoided or minimized.
As currently interpreted by FHWA, in 23 CFR 771, there is an exemption
specifically crafted for archaeological sites. If an archaeological
site does not warrant preservation in place and is important chiefly
for the information it contains, then there is no 4(f) use, and subsequent
efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate do not apply. Of course, removing
4(f) considerations does not affect Section 106 obligations. For exceptional
sites that do warrant preservation in place, and for sites important
chiefly for reasons other than the information they contain, then
4(f) does apply.
The current regulations have been under review by FHWA, and applicability
of 4(f) to archaeological sites has been in discussion, particularly
with reference to the recent changes in Section 106 regulations. The
current exemption for most archaeological sites is understood not
to change merely because impacts to an archaeological site would be
considered an adverse effect; however, some within and outside of
FHWA have argued that should be the case, and changes to 4(f) are
being discussed for the next re-authorization of transportation funding.
Proposed Alternatives
A number of states have grappled with the problem of small, hard
to understand sites, and although details vary, they have been able
to draw a consensus around treatment and even eligibility, formalized
into a document of policy, or a programmatic agreement. In some states,
the sites in question are considered eligible, in other states they
are not. In some, context is emphasized more than in others, but in
each case there appears to be clear enough guidelines to know where
you stand upon finding a site and what needs to be done.
A similar approach could be productive for Pennsylvania. Reflecting
the recent Guidance provided by the National Register, the treatment
plan would need to be packaged with a thoroughly formed context. This
context needs to synthesize the existing knowledge base as related
to lithic scatters, providing in some detail, the specific
research questions the site type is expected to address. In producing
this context, Pennsylvania would be stating what is known, region
by region, time period by time period, and what specific important
questions need to be answered.
One of the immediate advantages would be a standardization in capturing
site data, especially at the lower end of the spectrum. State guidelines
are relatively clear for the level of effort needed to identify sites,
but evaluation of sites that are identified is completely case-by-case.
The conundrum faced by Agency archaeologists is that we are following
the National Historic Preservation Act, and our testing is designed
to get to the answer on eligibility quickly. For an Agency, the resulting
identified sites, collected artifacts, analysis, and reports are byproducts
of this process, not the main goal. From a purely research perspective,
the sites are also a source of data, some of which is interpretable
by current techniques, some which may be interpretable at some future
date with advances in archaeological science and theory. While it
might be nice to more fully excavate each of these sites and collect
more data, there is nothing in the regulations to push the Agency
in that direction, other than a mitigation as a result of an adverse
effect. Consequently, there is a gap between compliance requirements
and a fully realized research program. The states that have working
treatment plans appear to have resolved that gap.
In addition to standardization, a treatment plan firmly grounded
in a historic context should resolve the question of site eligibility.
The logic of why some sites and not others are considered eligible
needs to be clearly communicated to the public. This should be highly
preferable to the current situation of disagreements between the SHPO
and the Agency, followed by weeks or months of uncertainty as the
parties attempt to resolve the disagreement. For the Agency, this
is a lose-lose proposition, since "victory" usually entails
lengthy delays in the project and additional consultant and staff
costs as the Agency must prove the negative to the SHPO and/or the
National Register. The current situation is a lose-lose proposition
for the SHPO as well. If the Agency prevails, the SHPO will have needlessly
spent internal political capital, as well as having spent scarce staff
resources for a site that has no preservation future and limited information
value. If the SHPO prevails, what in fact has been preserved?
I believe that any effort to develop a treatment plan needs to be
an open and public consultative process. It needs to consider the
views of the SHPO, agencies, interested parties such as SPA and PAC,
tribes, and the public. It would be arrogant and foolish to leave
the development of a treatment plan to professional archaeologists
alone.
Most likely, a treatment plan would be the basis for a programmatic
agreement. As in other more modest agreements, most of the time is
spent in consultation, not in the actual execution of the agreement.
If other existing or proposed agreements are any indication, the process
for reaching a treatment plan, and agreement will take from 3-5 years.
If the process is truly open, success will come, and it will be a
fairly simple matter to explain the program to agency officials and
the public alike.
Closing
The title of this paper comes from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta,
The Gondoliers. It is from the song, There Lived a King,
about the Kingdom of Barataria, where in the name of republicanism
everyone is promoted to the top "of every tree." William
Schwenck Gilbert, the librettist, knew when everyone is valued as
a bishop, or chancellor, or prime minister then these roles become
meaningless. Like the Kingdom of Barataria, making most lithic scatters
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in
the end renders that distinction meaningless, cheapening the Register
and its purpose. A well-developed context that summarizes existing
knowledge and establishes the important research questions will allow
everyone to make the hard choices necessary to sustain public support
for this public law, and to value that which we call important.
Notes:
(1) When the historic property is of value only for its potential
contribution to archaeological, historical, or architectural research,
and when such value can be substantially preserved through
the conduct of appropriate research, and such research is conducted
in accordance with applicable professional standards and guidelines
(36CFR800.9.c.1)(my emphasis)
(2) DON AL.
That King, although no one denies
His heart was of abnormal size,
Yet he'd have acted otherwise
If he had been acuter.
The end is easily foretold,
When every blessed thing you hold
Is made of silver, or of gold,
You long for simple pewter.
When you have nothing else to wear
But cloth of gold and satins rare,
For cloth of gold you cease to care--
Up goes the price of shoddy.
MAR. and GIU.
Of shoddy, up goes the price of shoddy.
DON AL.
In short, whoever you may be,
To this conclusion you'll agree,
When every one is somebodee,
Then no one's anybody!
.
References Cited
Barber, Michael B.
2001 Small Sites on the Appalachian Mountain Slopes: Changes
in Altitudes, Changes in Attitudes. Journal of Middle Atlantic
Archaeology 17:85-94.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement
Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity
45(1):4-20.
Flannery, Kent V.
1976 Evolution of Complex Settlement Systems, In The Early
Mesoamerican Village, Kent V. Flannery, editor, Academic Press:
New York, pp. 162-173.
Little, Barbara, Erika Martin Siebert, Jan Townsend, John H. Sprinkle,
Jr., and John Knoerl
2000 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological
Properties. National Register Bulletin, US Department of the
Interior, National Park Service.
Ira Beckerman
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
John Milner Associates Mourn
Loss of a Colleague and Friend
PAC member Douglas C. Kellogg died unexpectedly on April 7, 2001.
For the past six years he was a principal archaeologist at JMA. His
undergraduate degree was in Physics from the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville; he held a Masters degree in Quaternary Studies from
the University of Maine at Orono where he also earned a Ph.D in Paleoenvironmental
Archaeology. Last year Doug organized a field trip for the Geoarchaeology
Interest Group in conjunction with the SAA annual meeting in Philadelphia,
April 2000. He led a group of approximately 30 members to several
stops along the Delaware River coastal plain to, in Doug’s words,
"introduce and explore geoarcheological issues current in the
Middle Atlantic region and to encourage discussion and interaction
among individuals interested in Geoarchaeology". Doug’s enthusiasm
and commitment is reflected in the success of this day-long trip and
in the web page he designed to promote further interest in this field.
The address for the site follows:
http://www.ellesworth.com/GIG_Trip/home.html
He was a member of the Register of Professional Archaeologists, The
Society for American Archaeology, the Geological Society of America,
the Delaware Archaeological Society and the Pennsylvania Archaeological
Council among others. His family request that contributions may be
made in his memory to the American Friends Service Committee, 1501
Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102; WXPN radio station, 3905 Spruce
St., Philadelphia, PA 19104 or the Southern Poverty Law Center, 400
Washington Ave., Montgomery, AL, 36104. Contributions in his memory
may also be made to the Geoarchaeology Interest Group of the SAA,
900 Second St. N.E., Suite 12, Washington, DC 20002-3557
Editor’s Note:
Due to the length of time since the last issue of the PAC Newsletter,
a number of items, including the tribute to Doug, were delayed in
appearing. This in no way diminishes our sense of loss, nor the importance
of honoring his memory.
Date: October 2001
To: Friends and Colleagues of Doug Kellogg
From: Dan Roberts and Rolfe Mandel
Re: Douglas C. Kellogg Fund for Geoarchaeological Research
Many of you may know that we are trying to establish a fund under
the auspices of the Society for American Archaeology’s (SAA) Geoarchaeology
Interest Group in memory of Doug Kellogg. Those familiar with Doug’s
extensive knowledge and research in the field of geoarcheology understand
what a fitting tribute this will be to his memory. The fund will provide
dissertation or thesis support to a recipient selected annually whose
area of graduate study is geoarcheology.
John Milner Associates, Inc., the family of Doug Kellogg, and other
entities will provide contributions to start the fund. However, contributions
by individuals are also needed in order for it to be a "self-perpetuating"
fund, with awards made from the interest earned on accumulated assets.
Many of you have indicated an interest in helping to establish this
memorial fund by making a personal contribution. If you would like
to do so, please fill in the amount you expect to contribute below.
Having an idea of the approximate level of "seed money"
will help the Geoarchaeology Interest Group and the SAA in their planning.
Once particulars are established, we will let you know when and to
whom your check is to be made out.
If you’d like additional information or have any questions about
the fund, please feel free to contact either one of us. Thank you
for your consideration!
Daniel G. Roberts, RPA
John Milner Associates, Inc
535 North Church Street.
West Chester, PA 19380-2397
Phone: (610) 436-9000
Fax: (610) 436-8468
droberts@johnmilnerassociates.com |
Dr. Rolfe D. Mandel
Department of Geography
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045-2121
Phone: (785) 228-0571
Fax: (785) 228-0587
mandel@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
|
.
PAC COMPUTER USER'S
COLUMN
There is no article in this issue
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Included with this newsletter is a copy of the Oberly
Island report by John Milner Associates that has been turned into
a CD by Joe Baker of PennDOT and Sarah Clark of IUP Archaeological
Services, produced courtesy of PennDOT for the PAC membership. I
have also talked to the board about including copies of the King
of Prussia Inn publication and possible the Gaydos tavern publication.???
Several other CDs on archaeological projects and conferences
are also available:
.
1. GAI Consultants, Inc has produced a CD version
of a Context Study for the Upper Juniata Basin. Copies can be
obtained by contacting Doug McDonald, Ben Resnick, or Jon Lathrop
at GAI. Doug's email is d.macdonald@gaiconsultants.com.
2. IUP Archaeological Services has produced two
CDs of the proceedings of the Byways to the Past Conferences.
One contains the proceedings of the first two conferences in 2000
and 2001. The second contains the proceedings from the third conference
in 2002. FYI flyer information is available on the website at
http://www.pennbyways.org
for the 2001 and 2002 conferences. Copies of the CDs which contain
transcriptions of the presentations and in some cases are illustrated
with graphics from power point presentation are available from
IUP by contacting Beverly Chiarulli bevc@iup.edu.
.
.
MEETING AND EVENTS CALENDAR
** Please send notices of upcoming events to the editor.
.
PLEASE NOTE
PAC encourages its members to join the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology.
It is important to foster communication between professional and avocational
archaeologists. Moreover, membership in SPA supports Pennsylvania
Archaeologist in which PAC members often publish.
SPA annual dues are $20.00 for individuals, $18.00 for students,
and $25.00 for families, which should be sent to:
Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology
P.O. Box 10287
Pittsburgh, PA 15232-0287
EDITOR'S NOTE
Materials for the PAC Newsletter should be sent to:
Ken Basalik
CHRS, Inc.
403 E. Walnut Street
Suite 200
North Wales, PA 19454
Phone: 215-699-8006; FAX: 215-699-8901
EMAIL: Kbasalik@chrsinc.com
Please send contributions by email or on disk (Wordperfect preferred).
Short items, 1 page or less, may be submitted in hard copy or by FAX.
Deadline for next issue:
June 30, 2003
******************************************
NOTE: Please make sure PAC has your current FAX and/or Email addresses
so that we may distribute urgent information as quickly as possible.
Send updates to Mark McConaughy.
.
|