Pandemics among Native American Populations in Pennsylvania and Surrounding Regions

Like many of you, the archaeologists at the State Museum of Pennsylvania are telecommuting from home working to mitigate the spread of Covid-19. Across the North American continent, we know that millions of Native Americans died as the result of diseases introduced by the invading Europeans. This week’s blog is a brief overview of pandemics that affected Native American populations in Pennsylvania and the surrounding regions. This will include the types of diseases, their immediate effects on native populations, how Native populations responded and the broader effects on societies during the time that Europeans moved into the region. 

A pandemic is defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world. To a Delaware or Susquehannock Indian, smallpox must have felt like it was affecting their whole country and essentially their whole world. An epidemic is a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time and has been commonly used to describe widespread diseases in Native populations. Depending on the context, local versus regional, we will use both terms.  

It is difficult to identify disease in Native Americans prior to European contact. Infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, existed in Native American populations prior to European contact, but they require detailed osteological analysis to identify. These studies have not been undertaken regularly until recently. Therefore, it is difficult to investigate how prevalent they were because we don’t have the information. We know that diseases of pandemic proportions arrived with the Christopher Columbus sponsored by Spain in 1492. There is some debate, but it is thought that Hispaniola was his first stop and diseases spread quickly throughout the West Indies. The Native American population consisting of approximately a million people in the West Indies was exterminated quickly. Not all died from disease, many were enslaved, died in warfare or were causally killed (Diamond 1999:373). 

While infecting the West Indies, the Spanish brought diseases such as smallpox to the mainland of Central America. Cortez is credited with conquering the Aztec in 1521, however there is a more interesting back story. Arriving in 1519, Cortez heard stories of great treasures held by the Aztec empire.  Along with an army of 250 Spanish soldiers, he was invited into the capital city of Tenochtitlan by the emperor Montezuma who believed this was the best way to control the Spanish. Relations between the Spanish and the Aztec quickly broke down; Montezuma died, killed by the Spanish or his own people is unclear, but Cortez was driven out of the city escaping back to the coast. A year later, after the Aztec population was decimated by smallpox killing millions, Cortez returned with an army of Indians and the city, in its severely weakened state, was horribly pillaged. His victory was more a result of the disease rather than his military ability. A similar sequence of events occurred across South America including the pillaging of the Inca empire. 

Aztec suffering form smallpox pandemic 

Additional Spanish incursions into the American Southwest and the Southeast were economic failures but spread diseases and millions of Native Americans died. In the Southwest, several expeditions were initiated but met resistance from local Indian populations. The Coronado expedition in the 1540s was especially brutal but was one of the last until the late 1500s. In the Southeast, the De Soto invasion cut a deadly path through a large number of Native American towns, brutalizing the population and infamous for spreading disease. 

In the Northeast, it is difficult to identify when the first epidemics struck Native populations. European fishermen were exploring the North Atlantic coast; the French were exploring the St. Lawrence basin and the Spanish were exploring the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay (O’Brien 2008: 47, 60). The Indians were interested in European goods and the Europeans were interested in natural resources such as the gold being exploited by the Spanish. Based on our knowledge of pathogens such as the coronavirus or even the common flu, disease was almost certainly exchanged in these early trading events, but we don’t have the historic records to determine either way. 

Prior to the Europeans, there were probably epidemics among Native Americans, but they are difficult to identify. However, some archaeologists have explained gaps in the archaeological record (time periods when there are no archaeological sites) by suggesting devastating epidemics. Stewart Fiedel (2001) has argued that the low number of recorded sites during the Early Woodland period (2800 to 2000 BP) in the Middle Atlantic region could be explained by a pandemic that significantly reduced Native American populations to the point that they were barely visible in the archaeological record. Barry Kent (1984:123) has suggested that the sites on the West and North branches of the Susquehanna River cease to be occupied around 1525 and the reason was that an epidemic had devastated the population with the survivors moving elsewhere. A similar scenario has been suggested for the seemingly sudden end of the Monongahela culture in the upper Ohio Valley of western Pennsylvania. There are a small number of Monongahela sites with a low density of European trade goods, but no sites with large numbers of European materials similar to the Susquehanna or Delaware valleys. After 1635, the Monongahela culture seems to disappear and one of several possible explanations is a major pandemic (Johnson and Means 2020; Wallace 1968: 14).

James Herbstritt (2020), also follows this logic suggesting that pathogens were responsible for the collapse of the Shenks Ferry people in the lower Susquehanna River Valley. Shenks Ferry villages and hamlets dating from the 13th to the early 16th century are found along the major streams of Lancaster County. Over time, according to Herbstritt, their population seems to expand into the adjacent Schuylkill drainage to the east and later it retracts back into the major streams of Lancaster County. In the early 1500s, a time of early Spanish and French exploration in the surrounding region, their sites had retracted to along the Susquehanna River. This last retraction may be the result of diseases contracted during contact with coastal Algonquians who had acquired pathogens from Dutch, Swedish and English sailors. When the Susquehannocks migrated from the north to the lower Susquehanna valley 1550s, the Shenks Ferry population had been decimated by pathogens, causing their social and political system to collapse. The survivors either moved or more likely were assimilated by the Susquehannocks. The latter explanation, according to Herbstritt (2020), is supported by Shenks Ferry and Susquehannock ceramic vessels in the same pit features.

As for well documented pandemics, they are first noted in the 1630s in New England. The Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts numbered approximately 12,000 prior to their meeting with the Puritans in the 1620s. “Because of their frequent and sustained contact with the whites” European diseases reduced their population by 90% by 1675 (Treuer et al 2010:26). Disease completely disrupted basic life functions resulting in poverty, political upheaval and disillusionment in their spiritual leaders. They were the first tribe in the region to feel the effects of devastating epidemics and their old enemy, the Narragansetts (who had maintained “social distancing”), forced them to cede territory. 

In 1634, William Bradford of the Plymouth Plantation in Massachusetts reported that 95% of a tribe along the Connecticut River died of smallpox and many of the dead were unburied (Kraft 2001:389). While on a map making survey, van den Bogaert recorded eight Mohawk villages in the Hudson valley. These were affected by a devastating smallpox epidemic. Approximately 4000 died and it spread via community contact, a term that we know so well today, to adjacent tribes killing thousands more. Snow (1995) conducted a detailed analysis of this incident and noted that the Mohawk subsequently formed four smaller villages. Snow (1995:36) estimates that there was a mortality rate of 63% during this epidemic. At the time of European contact, the Five Nations numbered approximately 20,000 people. By the 1640’s, the Iroquois population was half its pre-contact level. As unfortunate as the number is, it is believed that coastal populations were reduced by 90%. 

The smallpox pandemic of 1660-1663 began in New Amsterdam, spread to the Susquehannocks in 1661 and to the Lenape (Delaware) in 1663. This was bad timing and as noted by Willem Beeckman, it caused “great mortality” among the Susquehannocks who were being pressed by the Seneca Indians from the north. In addition, it was bad for trade indicating there were economic impacts. The Lenape suffered additional smallpox epidemics in 1677 and 1694 (Kraft 2001:431). By the end of the 1600s, the Lenape  population had been reduced by 90%, much of it from diseases, and were outnumbered 20 or 30 to one by their Dutch, Swedish, Finnish and English neighbors (Kraft 2001:389). Throughout the 1600s, the Lenape had good relations with their European neighbors and had a great deal of control over the fur trade and their territory. However, with their population severely reduced, and the Europeans greatly increased, this situation changed. By the 1700s they began moving west. 

Europeans carried many infectious diseases such as smallpox, measles, influenza, plague, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, malaria and others. Kraft reports (based on Dobyns 1983:8-26) that tularemia may have affected animals as well as people. As another consequence of the European invasion, tularemia may have exterminated Indian dogs. Early explorers and traders frequently mentioned how common dogs were in Indian villages. However as argued by Largent (2020: 1-4) their genome is not found in our modern dog population suggesting that they were somehow eliminated. They seem to have been replaced by Old World dogs, possibly because of this disease. In addition, most European dogs were larger and specialized, trained for specific duties. 

Epidemics not only caused death, depending on their severity, they caused a great disruption in the basic functions of tribal societies.  People were unable to care for the sick: subsistence activities were impacted causing hunger and dehydration; mothers infected their babies; and there was a loss of faith in healers and spiritual leaders causing stress in traditional ideological systems. The young and the old were the first to succumb, resulting in a loss in traditional knowledge and leadership. As populations decreased, they were susceptible to domination by their enemies such as the Narragansett in New England, the Iroquois in New York, the Susquehannocks in the Middle Atlantic or the Europeans wherever they could take advantage of the situation. When tribal boundaries began to break down, warriors from different tribes joined together for defensive or offensive measures or allied with the Europeans, and when they contracted diseases, they were transmitted back to their home villages.

The driving economic force of the 17th century in Pennsylvania and the Middle Atlantic region was the “fur trade” – the exploitation of natural resources by the Europeans in exchange for superior technological items by Native Americans. Both sides understood this system and adapted to preserve it. However, epidemic diseases were a destabilizing factor for a variety of reasons such as reducing the flow of furs or requiring Europeans to find new trading partners. Adding to the instability was the practice of “mourning wars”. In response to death in a family, morning wars involved capturing enemies, torturing some to replenish the community spirit and adopting others to replenish loved ones. This was especially common among the Iroquois and Susquehannock resulting in a constant low level of violence, but it was also practiced by the Lenape (Soderlund 2015: 106). As the Lenape increasingly blamed the Dutch, Swedes and Finns for their problems and their epidemics, they became the object of their morning war acts threatening the stability of the fur trade. 

One outbreak of smallpox illustrates the complexity of the fallout from epidemics. In 1654, a Swedish ship landed in the lower Delaware River near Tinicum with much needed supplies. Unfortunately, a hundred passengers had already died of smallpox and more died on land. This resulted in an epidemic in the local Lenape population, killing more. Lenape sachems complained to Swedish Governor Risingh, accusing him of intentionally infecting the Lenape people. The Swedes and the Lenape had recently signed a treaty of mutual respect and assistance. This incident could jeopardize the agreement. Risingh sympathized with the Lenape and suggested they should turn to God. The Lenape had a history of not converting to Christianity and quickly disregarded his suggestion. Both groups wanted to preserve the treaty and the Lenape knew that “morning war” would be a problem. Risingh showed empathy and the sachem convinced their people not to participate in morning war (Soderlund 2015: 83). 

Self-righteous Europeans saw epidemics as acts of God – “Where the English come to settle, the Devine Hand makes way for them by removing or cutting of the Indians either by wars with one another or by some ravaging mortal Disease (Denton 1845:6,7) Reported in Kraft (2001:390)

Smallpox was the most common pathogen, but other diseases had significant impacts. It is not known if venereal disease was in the pre-contact Lenape population, but syphilis was present in the West Indies. Columbus brought it back with him and it spread quickly throughout Europe and the British Isles. Syphilis was recorded in Boston in 1646 but the Lenape could have already been infected by sailors along the Atlantic coast.

It is often asked “Why were Indian populations so susceptible and Europeans not? The standard explanation is that they had no immunity to these diseases while Europeans had been living with them for thousands of years. But why did Europeans have these diseases and the Indians did not? According to Diamond (1999:357) many of these diseases were viruses that started with domesticated animals and were eventually transferred to humans. In the early Middle East and Europe, many animal herders lived with their animals. These living conditions were ripe for animal viruses to mutate and move to humans. Native Americans had very few domesticated animals. The North American horse went extinct at the end of the Pleistocene and the American bison did not have the temperament for easy domestication. The llama/alpaca and guinea pig were restricted to South and Central America. In addition, the Americas only had a few “cities’ with high concentrations of people where these diseases could develop whereas the Old World in Asia, the Middle East and Europe had many cities with concentrated populations for the virus to spread.  

 As a final indignity, the earliest recorded example of germ warfare is found in 1763 when English Lord General Jeffery Amhurst and Colonel Henry Bouquet conspired to infect the Delaware with smallpox. Two blankets and a handkerchief from smallpox victims were given to friendly Delaware’s at Fort Pitt. However, as noted by Kraft (2001:464), this was unnecessary as the damage had long been done and the population had been reduced by 90% from pre-contact times. The 17th century in Pennsylvania was a tumultuous time beginning with two powerful Native American tribes totally engaged in the “fur trade’ and ending with decimated populations and the fur trade passing them by. 

Finally, Engelbrecht (2003), Snow (1995) and Dobyns (1983) suggest that European diseases spread far inland well before interior tribes made direct contact with Europeans. Obviously, these epidemics were not restricted to the initial contact along the Atlantic coast. In 1801, a group of Pawnee returning from New Mexico, infected their homeland along the lower Platte River and lost half of their people (Andrist 1964:14). The worst of the smallpox epidemics on the Great Plains occurred in the 1830s. The Mandan were almost wiped out when they were visited by a steamboat; of an estimated population of 1500, only 31 survived. Their neighbors the Arikara and Hidatsa were reduced from 4000 to 2000. The pandemic spread north to the Crows, Assiniboine’s and Blackfeet. It is estimated that 6000 to 8000 Blackfeet died. Tribes attempted to escape but continued to die, leaving their dead unburied and teepees standing (Andrist 1964:14). 400 Sioux died in the spring of 1838. The Pawnees returned home with captured Sioux and 2000 Pawnee died. From there it spread to the Osage and from there to the Kiowa and Comanches in the winter of 1839 – 40. The virus eventually ran its course in the early 1840s, but unknown thousands were dead.

Image of Mandan Village after the epidemic of 1837. 

 Epidemics have continued in Pennsylvania with devastating epidemics such as the great yellow fever plague in Philadelphia in 1793 (Powell 1949); the typhoid epidemic in Harrisburg in 1916 and the Spanish flu pandemic of 1919 just to name a few. We are now experiencing a new pandemic. It will be devesting. It will be hard, but we will get through this one also. With all the incredible developments in medicine, we may have become complacent. Hopefully, this will result in better preparations for future pandemics.

We hope you have found this presentation interesting and will join us in future blogs. It is important to remember that examining the past through the archaeological record has provided an opportunity to examine how cultures changed and adapted to these pandemics. It helps us to see that adaptation and change are often necessary in survival and we can all understand the need to adapt to new ways of working, social engagement and subsistence as we move forward. Please continue to practice social distancing and follow the CDC Guidelines to ensure the passing of this pandemic is as soon as possible.

References

Andrist, Ralph K.

1964    The Long Death: The Last Days of the Plains Indians, Macmillan Company, New York.

Diamond, Jared

1999    Hemispheres Colliding: The Histories of Eurasia and The Americas Compared. in Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Dobyns, H. F.

1983    Their Numbers Became Thinner. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Engelbrecht, William

2003    Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World, Syracuse University Press.

Fiedel, Stuart

2001    What Happened in the Early Woodland. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29:101-142.

Herbstritt, James T.

2020    The Late Woodland Period in the Susquehanna and Northern Potomac Drainage Basin AD 1100 to 1575. in The Archaeology of Native Americans in Pennsylvania edited by Kurt W. Carr, Christopher Bergman, Christina Rieth, Bernard K. Means, Roger Moeller and Elizabeth Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Johnson, William and Bernard Means

2020    The Monongahela Tradition of the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods, Twelfth to Seventeenth Centuries AD, in the Lower Upper Ohio Drainage Basin. in The Archaeology of Native Americans in Pennsylvania edited by Kurt W. Carr, Christopher Bergman, Christina Rieth, Bernard K. Means, Roger Moeller and Elizabeth Wagner. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kent, Barry C.

1984    Susquehanna’s Indians, Anthropological Series no 6. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Kraft, Herbert C.

2001    The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Lenape Books

Largent, Floyd

2020    America’s Lost Dogs, Mammoth Trumpet 35(1):1-4.

O’Brien, Greg

2008    The Timeline of Native Americans: The Ultimate Guide to North America’s Indigenous Peoples. Thunder Bay Press, San Diego.

Powell, J. H.

1949    Bring Out your Dead: The Great Plague of Yellow Fever in Philadelphia in 1793. The University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Snow, Dean R.

1995    Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Sites. The Institute for Archaeological Studies, University at Albany, SUNY.

Soderlund, Jean R.

2015    Lenape Country: Delaware Valley Society Before William Penn, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Treuer, Anton, Karenne Wood, William W. Fitzhugh, George P. Horse Capture, Sr., Theresa Lynn Fraizer, Miles R. Miller, Miranda Belarde-Lewis, and Jill Norwood

2010    Indian Nations of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C.

Wallace, Paul A. W.

1968    Indians in Pennsylvania, third printing. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Welcome to Spring: Indigenous Methods of Tracking Time

March 20^th officially heralded in the beginning of spring with the spring equinox, and we have been granted our first glimpses of warmer weather. The equinox is the point at which the earth’s axis tilts neither towards or away from the sun, it is the midpoint between summer and winter and the date when the day and night occupy equal amounts of time. Around the world, cultures have long marked this occasion as the end of winter and a sign that warmer weather is on its way. It is a time for celebration as the scarcity of winter fades into the welcome warmth and abundance of warmer months. The indigenous people who lived in this area before the arrival of Europeans were no different, marking the seasonal round by the movement of the sun, the phases of the moon, the constellations in the night sky and by observing the changes in their environment.

In order to track the movement of the sun, ancient people built structures and utilized natural features which, either through imaging or sighting, tracked the movement of the sun from winter solstice to equinox to summer solstice and back again as the rising sun moves across the horizon from north to south. Sighting calendars use alignments of natural or man-made features to indicate the direction of the rising or setting sun, while imaging calendars create specific shadows or rays of light at certain times of the year. For a people who were far more connected to their environment than we are today, the movement of the sun and the accompanying changes were part of the rhythm of life, dictating when to hunt, gather plants or sow fields. Today we use dates on a calendar, but these ancient solar calendars are, in many cases, functioning just as they have for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

An example of an imaging calendar, a rectilinear area adjacent to this circular motif on Little Indian Rock in the Lower Susquehanna fills with light as the sun crests over another section of the rock on the equinoxes. The light first fills one portion of the box, bisected by a natural crack, before expanding to fill the remainder of the shape. Serpent motifs elsewhere on this rock sight to the rising sun on the equinoxes. (photo by Melanie Mayhew)

With the passing of time, the indigenous cultures of this area celebrated their respective festivals and ceremonies, although often it was not the sun’s position that was used for the timing of these rites. The Iroquois and Delaware relied upon other events such as environmental changes, phases of the moon and constellations present in the night sky to determine the correct time for their ceremonies.

The Delaware, as recorded by Frank Speck, use the position of the stars and the moon to inform them of the proper time to gather medicinal herbs, plant crops in the spring, and the time at which animals breed and fish move up stream. The gathering of materials for basket-making was also tied to the seasons, and in order to produce durable hides, animals must be killed at the right time of year. This determination of activities based on the seasonal round is pervasive and is an integral part of the indigenous lifeway. Star-lore was used to inform tribal members of environmental changes and the proper times for such activities as leaving for or returning from a hunt.

 This watercolor painting by John White titled “A Festival Dance” depicts inhabitants of coastal North Carolina participating in the green corn or harvest ritual and was painted between 1585 and 1593. (Photo: C Trustees of the British Museum)

A feature of Iroquois, Delaware and other indigenous cultures is the naming of each lunar cycle based on environmental changes occurring at that time. The moon names may change by group and location and reflect cultural and regional variation in indigenous culture. The lunar names give a clue as to the activity that occupies the central role for that time of the year.

The names of the moons as described in the book Travels in New France. Moon names varied by region and cultural group.

The cyclical nature of time and observances of the sun’s position have been recorded in the Middle Atlantic in ethnographic records, and to a lesser extent in village patterning and recovered artifacts. Whatever the season, there was always some significance to the time of the year as we travel around the sun and through the seasons, once again arriving at spring.

References:

Snow, Dean

1996     The Iroquois. Blackwell Publishers, Malden.

Speck, Frank G.

1931     A Study of the Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony, Vol II. The Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

Stevens, Sylvester K. et al (Eds.)

1941     Travels in New France by J.C.B. Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

          

Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.)

1978       Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 15, Northeast. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

The Leiser Collection – Preserving our Past for our Future

This week in Pennsylvania archaeology we are visiting some old friends and familiar collections. At the end of last week a few of the Section of Archaeology staff set out toward Milford, Pa, where they spent two days conscientiously packing up, long time collector and educator, Bill Leiser’s artifact collection from several eastern Pennsylvania sites. Mr. Leiser is a retired middle school science teacher, who collected on sites in the Upper Delaware River Valley for over 50 years and has spent time in his retirement continuing to educate students on prehistoric life in Pennsylvania and the importance of archaeology and record keeping.

Mr. Leiser with a reconstructed pot and stone tools from the Santos site.

 

Mr. Leiser discussing site information and artifacts with staff member as we work to safely bag and box up the artifacts.

Mr. Leiser is a dedicated and knowledgeable avocational archaeologist who has devoted a lot of his time to excavating, curating and sharing his collections. Working alongside other avocational archaeologists such as David Werner, William DeGraw and a former student of Mr. Leiser’s- Fred Assmus these men honed their excavation and mapping skills. Fred Kinsey who was a curator with the William Penn Memorial Museum (now the State Museum of Pennsylvania) and later at the North Museum at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, provided guidance to these former members of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Lenape Chapter 12. Bill gleaned invaluable knowledge on recording and mapping sites and continued to keep detailed records on his own excavations. You may remember from previous blog posts (Pike County, The Werner Collection, and In Memorium, Fredrick Assmus January 6, 1946-October 14, 2012) these other members of Chapter 12 have also donated their collections to the Section of Archaeology, which included most of the Zimmermann site (36Pi14) artifacts. Thanks to Mr. Leiser’s donation we believe we have completed our acquisition of all of the available Zimmermann site collection, which as has been mentioned in previous blogs is a large, well-documented site due to the efforts of Mr. Werner, Mr. Leiser, Mr. DeGraw and Mr. Assmus (Collecting in Archaeology).

 

A few of the Zimmermann site artifacts in Mr. Leiser’s collection.

 

One of the many shelving units and cases that Mr. Leiser safely kept his collections.

Along with excavating and collecting at the Zimmermann site, Mr. Leiser also collected on numerous other sites. Some of these other sites include the Santos site (36Pi37 and 36Pi02) and the Ludwig/Pitman site (36Pi19), both of which are large multi-component sites with numerous artifacts covering a large span of time. As he learned from the Zimmermann site, Mr. Leiser continued to take copious notes, create maps of the excavation units and organized the artifacts in such a way that he retained the unit and level information for each one. It is this extensive work that lends to these collections true value as exceptional research sources and great tools to furthering our understanding of the history/prehistory of this region.

Example of some of Mr. Leiser’s notes and maps for the Santos site.

 

Example of how Mr. Leiser kept artifacts organized by site, unit and level.

 

Bill and James with a few artifacts from the Santos site.

With the help of Bill and his son James, archaeology staff were able to safely pack and transport Mr. Leiser’s collection to The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Section of Archaeology. We will begin to process Mr. Leiser’s collection into our cataloging and inventory system. This process allows us to prepare the collection for future researchers. The inventory process encompasses current point and ceramic nomenclature facilitating an opportunity to further comparative research into these recently acquired collections from the Upper Delaware. We thank Mr. Leiser for his hospitality, diligence and efforts to help preserve these all-important pieces of our past.

Upcoming events:

Dr. Kurt Carr will be sharing research related to the recently reprinted book Indian Paths of Pennsylvania, Paul Wallace, 2018, this weekend at the Lehigh Valley Heritage Museum https://www.discoverlehighvalley.com/event/indian-paths-of-pennsylvania/55608/

Archaeologists understand the importance of sharing our research with the community and offer a variety of venues for avocational and professional archaeologists to present their findings. Every spring there is a flurry of conferences available for the general public to attend and share in these discoveries. For those who would like to attend, the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference (MAAC) is being held in Ocean City, Md this year from March 21^st – 24^th. For the program and other additional information on the meeting please visit the website here: MAAC 2019. Online registration is closed, but walk-in registration is available.

                Another opportunity to hear about the archaeology of Pennsylvania is the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (SPA) annual meeting being held in Uniontown, Pa on April 5^th – 7^th. For additional information please visit the SPA annual meeting website at: http://www.pennsylvaniaarchaeology.com/AnnualMeeting.htm . We hope to see you at one of the spring meetings or at one of the speaking engagements of our staff. Please take some time to read about the archaeological heritage of our commonwealth and the lessons that archaeology can provide for the future. Follow the example of Bill Leiser and his friends to record archaeological sites that you may know about.  Remember this is your heritage and it is our duty as citizens to strive to preserve the past for the future.  

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

TWIPA turns 10!

This week marks a major milestone for TWIPA – it has been a full 10 years since we began blogging about all things archaeology in Pennsylvania. After nearly 400 posts covering all manner of archaeological interests, it can be difficult to keep the creative inspiration flowing, and we feel like this is quite an accomplishment. 

We’ve shared with our readers a comprehensive overview of the archaeology of each of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, and posted about topics for literally (and yes, we mean literally) every letter of the alphabet.

We’ve highlighted Cultural Resource Management projects that have been curated at the State Museum of Pennsylvania, as well as several artifact collections generously donated to the museum from a number of avid avocational archaeologists. 

Some posts focused on the meat and potatoes of prehistoric projectile point and ceramic typologies, and still others have drawn attention to more recent, yet out of the ordinary archaeological finds, like a “Frozen Charlotte”, a mechanical toy beetle, and an 1852 U.S. three cent silver coin.

We’ve also kept our readers abreast of the happenings at regional archaeological conferences such as MAAC, ESAF, SPA, and of course the annual Workshops in Archaeology. Local high school classes conducting their own simulated archaeological excavations, or mock digs, have been showcased on TWIPA as well.

Posts about public outreach efforts undertaken by the Section of Archaeology such as our participation in the Kipona Native American Pow-wow and the Pennsylvania Farm Show appear like clockwork, year in and year out, like the changing of the seasons, as do detailed updates every Fall about our excavations at Fort Hunter.

Some posts are longer than others, some more data driven than others. Some rely on figures and photos more so than dense text. Once cobbled together, composed and formatted, the one thing they all have in common is the desire to share this information with you, our readers. You are the reason we put our fingers to the keyboard, and we hope you’ve found our posts interesting and enjoyable.

So, with all due respect to David Letterman and his famous “Top 10” lists, below you will find our 10 most viewed posts since we began way back in February 2009.

 #10

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/07/jacks-reef-pentagonal-and-jacks-reef.html

#9

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/09/excavation-continues-at-fort-hunter.html

#8

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-yards-and-under-porch-fort-hunter.html

#7

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/01/projectile-point-types-of-early-archaic.html

 #6

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2011/10/archaeological-evidence-of-witchcraft.html

#5

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/03/earliest-european-trade-goods-and.html

#4

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2018/08/2018-fort-hunter-excavations.html

#3

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2011/04/thoughts-on-g.html

#2

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-pros-and-cons-of-hunting-with.html

#1

http://twipa.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-petroglyphs-of-pennsylvania-rock.html

Take a moment and reflect on how your own life, indeed the world, has changed in the last 10 years, and what it might possibly look like in another 10.  What artifacts will future archaeologists unearth that will be unmistakable hallmarks of the second decade of the 21^st century?

Be sure to check back in two weeks when we'll debut a new look to our blog page!

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Free-standing Keyhole Structures and the Late Woodland Period

Excavation and recovery of the burned keyhole structure.

A curious archaeological feature of the Upper Ohio and the Susquehanna Valley of Pennsylvania is the semi-subterranean free-standing keyhole structure (Smith 1976). Its general two - dimensional shape can be easily compared to the keyhole of a door lock (Figure 1). Attributed to the Late Woodland Period (circa AD. 1000 – 1550) the keyhole structure has three principal parts: the body and rock filled pit connected by a trench that is usually an upward ramped tunnel that extends to the main body (Figure 2).  One or more rows of postmolds line the outer-most edge of keyholes the exception being  the opening around the rock filled pit that remained open for entry and exit purposes. Although the above ground three - dimensional aspect of this feature type no longer exists due to the ravages of time and the elements of nature, certain clues survive in the archaeological record that provide us with a glimpse of their architecture and probable function.

Figure 1.  Comparative shapes of a keyhole feature and the keyhole of a door lock.   

Figure 2. Generalized cross-section of a Late Woodland keyhole structure.

The floor of the body is often covered with carbonized material consisting of a flattened layer of charred grass thatch overlain by burned sections of saplings that connect with the post-lined pattern of postmolds encircling the wall of the body. Occasionally these are cross - configured suggesting that the saplings were inserted into the ground, then bent inward to form an arbor or igloo - like superstructure over the body and ramp. Slabbed charred bark overlying the thatch and saplings present inside many of the keyhole structures indicate that an outer layer of bark was installed to insure a weather tight shell from wind, rain and snow. Some examples show the presence of a relict drainage trench around the inside edge of the body (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Excavation plan of a keyhole structure showing the drainage trench.

                The analysis of more than seventy Late Woodland keyhole structures from the Unglaciated Plateau of northcentral Pennsylvania (Herbstritt 1995) has yielded clues as to their function.  The long axis of these structures is oriented along a northwest, west and southwest line that is also the direction of the prevailing winds in this region. The insulated walls serve as a protective barrier against these winds. A curious modification of the free-standing keyhole structure is the keyhole compound presently known only from those in the Unglaciated Plateau. The architectural design of this unique type of keyhole feature is its incorporation of up to five keyholes joined to a common rock pit (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Artist’s conception of a keyhole compound.

Fire altered rocks found in one or more areas of the keyhole structure is another clue to their possible function as a sweat lodge. Smith (1976) notes that rocks were commonly piled inside the main body, set to one side near the wall making for easy access to and from the semi-subterranean pit. The excavation of other keyhole structures in the West Branch of the Susquehanna Valley contained abundant fire altered rock scattered along the ramp joining the main body. These rocks always show evidence of reddening on their fractured surfaces. Based on the contents of the keyhole structure identified at the Fisher Farm site (36Ce35) in Centre county, Hatch and Daugirda (1980) postulated that the feature functioned as a smoke house for the curing of food stuffs.

Figure 5. Experimental reconstruction of the keyhole structure.

Results of experimental research (Figure 5) on the, burning (Figure 6) and excavation of a reconstructed  keyhole structure (see top), suggests that such features were used as a food storage facilities (Herbstritt 1995). The interior temperature of the structure could have been controlled over extended periods of time during warmer conditions. Information from the experimental work and follow-up excavation of the reconstructed keyhole demonstrated that the archaeological evidence alone could not provide the necessary information revealed through the experimental reconstruction. All said, given the present state of knowledge it may be assumed that semi-subterranean keyhole structures were likely multi-functional as their uses probably varied over the course of the year from sweat lodges to smokeries to food storage structures.

Figure 6. Burning of the keyhole structure.

We hope that you have enjoyed this brief presentation on keyholes from the archaeological and experimental perspectives. Learning from the past through archaeological investigations or experimental archaeology is important to understanding and appreciating our cultural heritage. Please help us to preserve the past by collecting responsibly and respecting our preservation laws.  Do join us next time when we will again bring you yet another fascinating topic on This Week in Pennsylvania Archaeology. 

REFERENCES

Hatch, James W. and Joyce Daugirda

1980       The Semi-Subterranean Keyhole Structure at Fisher Farm – Feature 28. The Fisher farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context. Edited by James W. Hatch. Occasional Papers, No.12. The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Anthropology.

Herbstritt, James T.

1995       Reliving Prehistory: The Experimental Archaeology of a Keyhole Structure. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania, Inc. Morgantown.

Smith, Ira F.

1976       A Functional Interpretation of Keyhole Structures in the Northeast. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 46(1-2): 1-12.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Congratulations and thank you to everyone

The staff of the Section of Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania just completed a very busy week at the 2019 Pennsylvania Farm Show. The weather was cool but no snow.  We seemed very busy, especially the first weekend. However, based on our sampling system, we estimated that approximately 33,000 people visited our exhibit. This is down slightly from last year. This high volume of attendance is a testimony to the quality of the exhibit, the initiative of our volunteers in engaging the public, and the public’s interest in archaeology.

2019 Farm Show 

We would like to sincerely thank you for your personal contributions and hard work.  There is no question in our minds that this exhibit and your efforts make a difference in Pennsylvania archaeology. We continued to see excitement in the eyes of children and adults as they sat in the dugout and as they stood gazing at the artifacts in the display cases, wondering what it must have been like to live in Pennsylvania many, many years ago.

Archaeology Section staff in the dugout canoe 

The dugout is becoming the place to take the annual family picture. You spoke to thousands of visitors and distributed over 6900 archaeology brochures, 755 copies of American Archaeology magazine and 765 back issues of Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine.  You also handed out, 1435 Planetarium tickets, 498 Archaeology Month posters and 1548 tattoos. These were especially important in promoting the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, the State Museum and the Heritage Foundation.

The Farm Show presentation is a great way to advance the goals of our respective agencies and organizations. For most, if not all of us, this event represents the most intensive interaction with the public that we have all year. Our primary goal is to promote the archaeology of the Commonwealth and visitation to the State Museum. However, it is also an opportunity to share highlights of Pennsylvania archaeology with our fellow citizens and to promote membership in the Heritage Foundation and the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. 

PHMC Executive Director Andrea Lowery enjoying the hands-on corn grinding activity

Pennsylvania has an outstanding wealth of archaeological resources that we believe can enhance the lives of all citizens.  Our exhibit on the archaeology of Susquehannock Indians and the information you disseminated was one step in communicating this heritage to the people of Pennsylvania.  This year, we felt the public had some knowledge of this Indian tribe and our conversations were much more interactive.

 As you know, the archaeology of Pennsylvania is being destroyed at an ever-increasing rate. We need help in slowing this destruction.  We feel the Farm Show exhibit represents a significant vehicle for the dissemination of information and for increasing the public’s awareness of the threats to their archaeological resources. 

We are very interested in everyone’s comments on how to improve the Farm Show presentation, so please send us your thoughts.  We have not picked a topic for next year’s Workshops or the Farm Show so if you have suggestions, please let us know.

Thank you again. 

            The staff of the Section of Archaeology, the State Museum of Pennsylvania 

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

2018 Fort Hunter Excavations

It’s that time of year again! No, not time for everything pumpkin spice. It’s time to gear up for the annual archaeological dig at Fort Hunter Mansion and Park, just north of Harrisburg. For the last 11 years, the Section of Archaeology of the State Museum of Pennsylvania has explored the Fort Hunter property in search of remains of the French and Indian War fort that once was located there. We have found many clues to the presence of the fort, including a cannonball, numerous military items, and a possible bake oven; but, not the fort itself. However, we know from research that the fort was in existence for only seven to eight years out of the nearly 300 years of historic occupation of this site and we have uncovered artifacts that tell us much about the other residents of this property. Not to mention the thousands of years of occupation by Native Americans.  Many of the TWIPA blog posts have dealt with the various Fort Hunter finds and you can access these by typing Fort Hunter into the “Search” box on the blog page.

The 2017 dig season focused on fully uncovering the stone foundation of what we believe to be a smokehouse from the early 1800s and reopening the block excavation behind the kitchen addition of the Mansion house that we investigated in 2016. The foundations of the smokehouse, an octagonal structure in which meats were smoked to preserve them, were carefully excavated to try to determine how it was constructed and to recover any artifacts that might have been associated with it to aid in its interpretation. As the foundation stones were removed, samples of rock and soil in the bottom of the smokehouse were taken to conduct further analyses. Following the mapping and removal of all the stones, this area was backfilled.

Area of the smokehouse foundation partially removed 

Come out and see what we find! This is an opportunity to learn about this important historic site and embrace our Commonwealth’s heritage. Artifacts will be on display and archaeologists will be on hand Monday-Friday, 9am-4:30pm (weather permitting) to answer questions about the site and how field archaeology is conducted. In addition to weekdays, excavation will take place on Fort Hunter Day on Sunday, September 16, 2018. Excavations will close for the year on October 5, 2018. 

 Excavations of the foundation revealed clues to its construction, including how the builder’s trench was dug and how the stones were fitted together without mortar to form a strong base for the wooden superstructure. Some stones that were removed even appeared to have been shaped with steel tools so that they fit together better, creating a stronger foundation.

Smokehouse foundation, partially removed, showing the builder’s trench

Stones removed from the smokehouse foundation that were shaped with tools to fit tightly together

The block excavation in the rear of the kitchen addition had been filled in following the 2016 excavations but was reopened last year because of the discovery of some interesting artifacts from the 1700s. Although 2017 excavations in this area did not end up producing much in the way of fort-related artifacts, some exciting finds were made. A ground surface believed to be the original surface during prehistoric time periods was found roughly 2 feet below the current ground level. This surface, called a buried A-horizon (a dark-colored, heavily organic soil), was covered by years of natural and manmade (fill) buildup. This A-horizon yielded several hundred native-made artifacts including pottery, stone weights for fish nets, projectile points (arrowheads), part of a native-made clay pipe stem, and chipping debris from making stone tools.

Excavations in the side yard behind the Mansion’s kitchen addition

 In addition, other aspects of the shape, size, and composition of the side yard were discovered. While this doesn’t sound very exciting, these factors can help the archaeologists reconstruct the landscape over time. For instance, we know that portions of the property along both the Susquehanna River and Fishing Creek were affected by flooding over the years, especially by Hurricane Agnes in 1972. This flooding caused portions of the yard to slump into the river and destroyed some of the small outbuildings. Could it have taken portions of the fort too? We can also see where someone tried to shore up the bank along the creek side of the yard with a fill of rocks, concrete, slag, and garbage at some point and then attempted to shore it up again in later years. The more recent fill layer included a wrapper from a local bread company, foil food packaging, and plastic garbage as well as light bulbs, bricks, painting supplies, linoleum fragments, and even a pair of boots! It was surmised that, following Hurricane Agnes repairs to the house were necessary and when the work was completed, the debris was thrown in the yard along the washed-out bank.

Edge of yard above Fishing Creek showing distinct fill layers. Note the upper fill layer of bricks and garbage and the lower layer of concrete, rock, and slag.

This year’s excavations begin on September 5 and will again focus on the area of the side yard behind the kitchen addition. We will uncover some of our blocks from 2017 and will expand them south toward the back (south) foundation of the Mansion. This back addition was built in the 1870s during the Boas/Reily family occupation of the house. Based on oral tradition, the house is generally believed to have been built over top of the fort’s blockhouse, so the archaeologists will try to get as close to the house as they can. By doing this, we hope to find remains of the fort or palisade, as well as to determine construction techniques of the house foundation and recover additional artifacts related to both. In addition, the Native American occupation level appears to continue south and we hope to recover additional artifacts and discover features related to this occupation.

Excavation filled at the end of 2017 season and area at rear of the house to be excavated in 2018

 Come out and see what we find! This is an opportunity to learn about this important historic site and embrace our Commonwealth’s heritage. Artifacts will be on display and archaeologists will be on hand Monday-Friday, 9am-4:30pm (weather permitting) to answer questions about the site and how field archaeology is conducted. In addition to weekdays, excavation will take place on Fort Hunter Day on Sunday, September 16, 2018. Excavations will close for the year on October 5, 2018. 

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .