|
No abstracts in 64(1) |
|
1994 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 64(2):7-39 Archaeological Investigations at the Mon City Site (36WH737), Washington County, Pennsylvania John P. Hart |
|
Archaeological investigations at the Mon City Site (36WH737) on the
west bank of the Monongahela River in Washington County,
Pennsylvania revealed portions of a Late Prehistoric Monongahela
tradition small habitation site. This site occupied a narrow
Holocene levee between the Monongahela River and a back channel
slough. Evidence of one house pattern was documented as were storage
facilities, pit features, and a hearth. Pottery attributes,
including a high percentage of final Z-twist cordmarking and dowel
impressed lips, exemplify the late Middle Monongahela period.
Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates indicate mid-sixteenth-century
occupations. Subsistence remains reflect the exploitation of a
variety of wild resources available within the immediate vicinity of
the site and nearby uplands in addition to maize-based agriculture.
The Mon City Site and another recently reported small habitation
site indicate that this relatively poorly known class of sites
played important roles in Middle Monongahela subsistence-settlement
systems. |
|
1994 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 64(2):40-53 An Analysis of the Faunal Assemblage from the Mon City Site (36WH737) Flora Church |
| The Mon City site (36WH737) faunal assemblage was analyzed as
part of the archaeological investigations of this site by GAl
Consultants, Inc. in 1990. The site has been interpreted as a small
Monongahela habitation locus dating to the late Middle Monongahela
period. The site occupied a late Holocene terrace between the
Monongahela River and a backchannel slough. A low frequency of maize
was recovered from across the site, suggesting a maize-based
economy. However, the results of the faunal analysis indicate that
the location of the site was particularly well-suited to provide a
variety of wild resources as supplemental elements of the
subsistence economy. The fauna suggest the intersection of several
environmental zones, such that species from a forest zone,
edge-zone, and slough areas were all taken by the inhabitants of the
site. White-tailed deer, wild turkey, turtles, and fish dominated
the assemblage. Minor amounts of other large and small mammals,
birds, and reptiles were also identified, indicating the fortuitous
procurement of additional resources. The assemblage is dominated by
resources which would have been optimally available during the
spring and fall seasons; however, it is possible to acquire some
species during the summer and winter seasons, so that a year-round
occupation of the site cannot be ruled out. |
|
1994 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 64(2):54-59 Revisiting the Monongahela Linguistic/Cultural Affiliation Mystery Richard L. George |
| Various theories about the linguistic/cultural affiliation of
Monongahela are reviewed. Based on petroglyph distribution in
western Pennsylvania and evidence that the rock art was a creation
of Algonquin speakers, I believe that some of the Monongahela were
of Algonquin origin. The fact that there are no petroglyphs in
central and northwestern Pennsylvania and western New York is
because these areas were occupied by Iroquoian speakers during the
Late Prehistoric period. Other scholars have suggested that
Iroquoian speakers were interacting with Late Monongahela people,
and additional evidence is presented to confirm this. I conclude
that the archaeologically conceived term, Monongahela, likely
encompasses speakers of several languages, including Siouan. |
|
1994 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 64(2):60-85 Geoarchaeology, Landscape Formation, and Site Identification: A Case Study in Modern Cultural Activities and Prehistoric Site Disturbance Robert P. Wheelersburg |
| This paper examines landscape formation processes in the Buckwha
Creek Valley, Carbon County, Pennsylvania using the methods and
concepts of geoarchaeology. Reconstructing regional landform
development is critical for understanding archaeological site
modification and destruction on uplands, resulting in the subsequent
movement of prehistoric remains to valley floors. Interpreting how
prehistoric artifacts are redeposited at specific locations allowed
more accurate identification of intact archaeological sites along
Buckwha Creek. The results of the study call into question the
validity of the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files
and other data bases that record archaeological sites based on
prehistoric artifacts alone. The paper recommends ways to increase
the reliability of site identifications to permit the use of site
files for research and cultural resource management |
| Previous Volume Next Volume |