|
.2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(1):1-29 |
|
In the Ridge and Valley region of Pennsylvania, gaps in the ridges
have functioned through time as critical places in the landscape,
controlling the routes of most travel through the region. Sites
located near these gaps offer a distinctive view of regional
patterns of resource use and group movement through time. The
investigation of one such site, 36JU104, in the Lewistown Narrows,
has revealed a record of over 8500 years of short-term camps or
bivouacs related to regional travel that informs us about the scale
and pattern of both local and exotic resource use, and the changing
patterns of hunter-gatherer economic and social organization. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(1):30-52 The Late Prehistoric Components at the Godwin-Portman Site, 36AL39 Richard L. George |
| The Godwin-Portman site, 36AL39, was test excavated in 1968 by
the Carnegie Museum o f Natural History and salvage excavated in 1
978-79 by volunteers from several SPA chapters. This prolific,
multicomponent site was destroyed in 1979. Recovered data suggest
several Late Prehistoric occupations at the site, including a
possible Fort Ancient presence during the 15th century A.D.
Excavated and surface collected artifacts from the Late Prehistoric
components are discussed, as well as subsistence related data. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(1):53-70 Facing Monday Creek Rockshelter (33H0414): A Late Woodland Hunting Location in Southern Ohio Staci E. Spertzel, Elliot M. Abrams, AnnCorinne Freter, and Gregory S. Springer |
| The use of rockshelters in southeastern Ohio intensified during
the Late Woodland period as part of an expanded upland resource
procurement strategy. The excavation of Facing Monday Creek
Rockshelter (33H0414) in Hocking County, Ohio documents this
resource expansion process. Data in the form of lithics, ceramics,
and faunal and floral materials from the rockshelter are presented.
Based on these data, it is hypothesized that Late Woodland peoples,
living in increasingly larger residential settlements within
relatively fixed territories, increased the distances they traveled
to procure resources, thus expanding the use of rockshelters as
temporary hunting stations. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(1):71-76 Artifacts |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(2):1-33 |
|
Indian Camp Run No. 1 (36F065) is a shallow stratified multicomponent
archaeological site located along the Allegheny River
in Forest County, Pennsylvania. Ongoing excavations at the site
have produced a number of suspected Terminal Pleistocene age
tools found within buried stratigraphic contexts. One whole fluted
point is included in the sample and has tentatively been identified
as a Barnes point, a type which dates to approximately 10600 rcy
B.P. Some of the other tools recovered may relate to later
Paleoindian complexes. This paper examines the proposed
Paleoindian assemblage and reviews environmental conditions in
the area during the Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene transition. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(2):34-69 |
|
In early 2001 , the author initiated a study of rockshelter sites in
western Pennsylvania based on information contained in the
Pennsylvania Archaeology Site Survey (PASS) files housed at the
Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. The results of
this investigation showed that as of March 14, 2003, there were
611 rockshelter sites recorded in the 24 county study area.
Statistical analysis was conducted on the study data on a wide
range of site characteristics and prehistoric utilization variables.
The results support the widely held theory that most rockshelters
in the study area were used primarily as short-term camps, with
peak utilization occurring during the Late Woodland/Late
Prehistoric periods. The study also served to document
investigator recording patterns and the disturbed condition of
many rockshelter sites. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(2):70-75 |
|
This paper continues a discussion on aspects of the Monongahela
Drew tradition. Previous manuscript errors are corrected,
questionable radiocarbon dates are reviewed, and challenges to
proposed theories are discussed. In addition, a possible new Drew
tradition pottery trait is presented. |
|
2007 Pennsylvania Archaeologist 77(2):76-78 |
| Previous Volume Next Volume |