|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(1):1-16 |
| A Bradford County site is described based on the artifacts
recovered from an archaeological investigation in 1972 by Leslie L.
Delaney Jr. and King's College, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. |
|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(1):17-50 Archaeology and Geomorphology of the Coverts Crossing (36Lr75) and Coverts Bridge (36Lr228) Sites, Lawrence County Pennsylvania Douglas H. MacDonald & David L. Cremeens |
|
Data recovery excavations at the Coverts Crossing (36Lr75) and
Coverts Bridge (36Lr228) Sites, Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, by
GAI Consultants, Inc. (GAI) identified stratified Late Archaic and
Late Woodland deposits on the floodplain of the Mahoning River, west
of New Castle. The geomorphology, lithic technology, ceramic
associations, settlement and subsistence strategies evident at both
sites are discussed in detail. |
|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(1):51-59 Monongahela Houses with Separate Walls and Roofs; Perhaps, Perhaps Not Richard L. George |
| Historical, environmental and archaeological evidence are used
to refute the hypothesis that some upland Monongahela houses had
separate walls and roofs like those recorded in the southeastern
United States. Rather, it is suggested that the vertical structural
posts of some Monongahela houses were slanted outward to counter
forces that occurred when the poles' opposite ends were bent inward
and secured to form the wigwam roof |
|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(2):8-46 Revisiting Mary Butler's "Three Archaeological Sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania" Bernard K. Means |
| Written in the first half of the last century, and based on
findings from Depression-era federal relief work projects, Butler's
"Three Archaeological Sites in Somerset County, Pennsylvania"
continues to influence interpretations of the Late Prehistoric past
in the Upper Ohio Valley. Archival research indicated that various
factors influenced Butler's descriptions of the three sites
considered in this work and uncovered problems with data related to
all three. These problems do not detract from the overall value of
Butler's work, who succeeded in her primary intent of defining and
describing the Monongahela culture. Problems with site data do need
addressing if these sites are to be re-examined in the context of an
evolving model of the interrelationships between village spatial
layouts and social organization. Finally, as shown here, readers of
archaeological reports should use report contents critically and
cautiously. Reports always present interpretations rather than
unvarnished views of field and analytical results. |
|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(2):47-98 Discovering Monongahela Rock Art W Rex Weeks |
| The archaeological study of rock-art pertains to the designs
that people made and used on stationary geological surfaces in the
past. Carved on sandstone ledges, the rock-art of the Upper Ohio
Valley is probably affiliated with the Monongahela archaeological
culture, A.D. 1050- 1630. In this study, data are derived from
published site reports, archives, and casts of rock carvings.
Stylistic analysis of 20 sites indicates that Monongahela rock-art
primarily was made and used in a manner that limited its visibility,
and thus the chances of its discovery. Most Monongahela rock-art
sites were probably made and used secretly to protect knowledge,
much like the teaching rocks of Anishinaubae --- the good-hearted,
native people o f the North. |
|
2002 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 72(2):99-109 The Notched Disk as a Digging Tool Rudolph E. Bennage Jr. |
| Notched disks have long been recognized by archaeologists as a
formal stone tool, but their function has proved enigmatic. Recent
experimentation by the author suggests that the notched disk may
have functioned best as a digging tool. |
| Previous Volume Next Volume |