This month of March is National Women’s History Month! There have been and continue to be inspiring female archaeologists that have contributed much to our understanding of history, archaeology, and the world around us! While there are many historical female archaeologists, we also seek to highlight and honor some of those within our IUP walls today that are contributing every day to our knowledge and interests about science, society, and the world.

Dr. Lara Homsey-Messer is a current IUP professor, and a geoarchaeologist with a MA in geology (2003) and PhD in archaeology (2004); both from the University of Pittsburg. After instructing and teaching at University of Pittsburg for several years, and then teaching at Murray State University in Kentucky for nine years, she began teaching at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2014. She teaches courses ranging from environmental archaeology and geoarchaeology, to the prehistory of North America. As an appointed Graduate Coordinator for the Applied Archaeology master’s program in 2017, she has guided students through intensive coursework and innovative thesis work. She has also contributed through her own studies and research, in journals such as the American Antiquity, Geoarchaeology, and Southeastern Archaeology. In 2019 she published Experiencing Archaeology: a Laboratory Manual of Classroom Activities, Demonstrations, and Mini-Labs for Introductory Archaeology. She is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), part of the Society for American Archaeology, and the Geological Society of America. During her time at IUP she has received the IUP President’s Recognition for Achievement in Scholarship three times (2015, 2016, & 2017). She also recently became a mother and is currently on a well-deserved sabbatical. Her work and efforts are a credit to all female archaeologists, and she deserves praise for all that she is contributing to our understanding of the past.

Dr. Andrea Palmiotto is also a current IUP professor, an archaeologist specializing in zooarchaeology, and a board-certified forensic anthropologist. She received her MA and PhD in anthropology from the University of Florida. She has worked for the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, leading field recoveries in Vietnam and Laos to analyze and identify skeletal materials belonging to US casualties from WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. She has recently led an IUP forensic archaeology field school in Frankfurt, Germany to recover a American WWII B-17 aircraft crash site. She also guides students through coursework including topics on human osteology, zooarchaeology, and forensic anthropology, to name a few. Her personal research has been published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Forensic Anthropology, Journal of Archaeological Science, Southeastern Archaeology, and more. She is an RPA, and a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Society for American Archaeology, Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, and Southeastern Archaeology Conference, and she also serves as a technical assessor for the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board. She recently received the highest professional certification through the American Board of Forensic Anthropology, making her one of two American Board of Forensic Anthropology Diplomates currently working in the state of Pennsylvania! She also led through 2021-2022 the formation of a digital textbook, or Open Educational Resource (OER), to be used in introductory anthropology courses; titled Introduction to Anthropology: Holistic and Applied Research on Being Human. She too has, and continues to, contribute valuable information to our knowledge about history, and is a woman deserving of recognition for all that she has accomplished.

There are many female archaeologists in the past that are now recognized as being trailblazers, some that did not get the recognition that they deserved during their time, and also many that are still alive today making incredible discoveries.

Dame Kathleen Kenyon (1906-1978) is a commonly referenced archaeologist who was the first female president of the Oxford University Archaeological Society. She developed the Wheeler-Kenyon grid method, to better understand soil layers. She became the leading English archaeologist of the Neolithic culture in the Fertile Crescent during her lifetime. Her work at Jerusalem and Jericho (excavated Tell es-Sultan 1952-1958) led to the knowledge that the ancient site of Jericho was the oldest continuously occupied settlement in history, the oldest and lowest town in the world. She served as director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and later as the principal of St. Hugh’s College at Oxford until she retired in 1973. Being in a different county other than Britain, she was able to move into positions of power, albeit through imperial links, but still positions of authority that she would most likely not have been able to occupy in the UK as a woman, giving her the opportunity to excavate new sites and contribute to history as an impressive and defining female archaeologist that led the way for more to come.

Jane Dieulafoy (1851-1916) was a French archaeologist, writer, and explorer, known for excavating the site of Susa along with her husband, in the late 1800s. She fought in the Franco-Prussian War, later traveling through Persia to Susa dressed in men’s clothes (trousers were illegal for women to wear in France during that time) with her hair cut short. She labeled, mapped, photographed, and reconstructed remains and finds, all new field recording methods for their time.

American archaeologist and anthropologist Zelia Maria Magdalena Nuttall (1857-1933) was the first to identify artifacts that dated back to the pre-Aztec period, as she specialized in pre-Aztec Mexican cultures and pre-Columbian manuscripts. She even recovered two manuscripts that were housed in private collections, essentially lost to the scientific world, one being the Codex Zouche-Nuttall.

Mary Brodrick (1858-1933) was a French woman who was initially turned away by male scholars at the Sorbonne in Paris, before she found there were no rules against studying archaeology; she became the first female student to be admitted to the prestigious institution. She became one of the first female excavators in Egypt.

Despite many barriers Maud Cunnington (1869-1951) faced as a female, such as not being able to legally own land as a married woman, she was eventually recognized for her contributions to archaeology. Along with her husband Ben Cunnington, she excavated the Neolithic burial mound at Woodhenge from 1926-1929, eventually purchasing and gifting Woodhenge and The Sanctuary (a Neolithic structure near Avebury) to the British nation. They even raised money to buy Stonehenge and the surrounding land for future public ownership. She was the first female president of the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, the second women ever to be nominated as an honorary fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, and she was distinguished as a Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in 1948.

Margaret Murray (1863-1963) is also a well-recognized female archaeologist of the early 20^th century. She was the first female lecturer of archaeology in the U.K., teaching at the University College London. She specialized in Egyptology and excavated in Malta, Menorca, and even Palestine.

Gertrude Bell (1868-1926), also known as the “Mother of Mesopotamian Archaeology,” was the second woman to graduate from Oxford University in the U.K. She traveled to many archaeological sites in the Middle East, along with T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), becoming one of Europe’s foremost experts on Arab culture while she was alive, while also leading digs in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. She was also the Director of Antiquities in Iraq, founding the Iraq Archaeological Museum in Baghdad in 1926.

Harriet Boyd Hawes (1871-1945) traveled to Crete and discovered, among many other sites, Gournia, the first Minoan settlement ever unearthed. Not only did she supervise around a hundred working men and women alike, but she was also able to publish her findings in a report still referenced today.

Dorothea Bate (1878-1951) was the first women employed as a scientist by the Natural History Museum of London; cataloguing collections until she was publishing her own scientific articles and work, all while traveling the world looking for fossils. She not only discovered many new species and fossils, but she paved the way for future researchers to better identify their own paleontological discoveries.

Born in Crete, Anna Apostolaki (1881-1958) was the first woman to be a member of the Archaeological Society of Athens, one of the first female graduates from the University of Athens, and the first curator of the National Museum of Decorative Arts in 1926, where she published a catalogue on Coptic textiles. A woman with power in the age of men, she was also the founder of the Lyceum Club of Greek Women.

Gertrude Caton-Thompson (1888-1985) worked at sites in Egypt, Malta, Zimbabwe, and South Arabia. Her 1929 Zimbabwe dig was entirely excavated by women! She methodically excavated in 10×30 ft intervals and was the first archaeologist to use aerial surveys of the land to locate sites; these are methods still used today, essentially revolutionizing the way sites were studied and surveyed.

Dorothy Garrod (1892-1968) was the first female professor at Cambridge and led excavations at 23 sites throughout seven countries. Her work uncovered the first evidence of the Middle Stone Age and the first evidence of dog domestication. She led an incredible all-female excavation team at Mount Carmel that discovered the Tabun Neanderthal fossils. Another female of note that was active in this excavation was Yusra, a local Palestinian village woman, who actually pulled the single tooth from a sieve that led to the identification of Tabun 1. Yusra has now been credited by the Smithsonian for her find!

Tessa Verney Wheeler (1893-1936) was a British archaeologist, who along with her husband, Mortimer Wheeler, led excavations, such as the at the Iron Age hill fort at Maiden Castle, at which she was instrumental in gathering funding from the public due to her advocacy work. Wheeler and her husband were some of the first to film of their excavations to bring them to the public. She instructed many other female archaeologists on excavation techniques, her scientific approach to archaeology, and the recordation of small finds; these include Kathleen Kenyon, Beatrice de Cardi, Veronica Seton-Williams, Ione Gedye, Molly Cotton, and Egyptologist Margaret Drower. She also aided in the development of the Institute of Archaeology in London.

German mathematician Maria Reiche (1903-1998) studied the Nazca Lines of Peru in 1940, showed their mathematical accuracy, and suggested that they were related to astronomy. This brought more attention to these ancient areas, and by demonstrating their significance it aided in their preservation and protection.

Lady Aileen Fox (1907-2005) was one of the first female lecturers in archaeology, working at University College of the Southwest at Exter. The Richborough Roman Fort was the site of her first excavation, where she later developed a small museum on the site without training, as during her time there was little training available on how to do so. While struggling to create a new archaeology department at the University, Fox fought to show the world the value of archaeology, and all it has to offer.

Russian Tatiana Proskouriakoff (1909-1985) was an architect-turned-Mayan architecture and hieroglyphic interpreter. She produced reconstructions of Mayan architecture through plans and drawings. She was also the first to suggest that Mayan hieroglyphs contained dynastic histories, as well as calendrical information, which led to the decipherment of many hieroglyphs.

Jacquetta Hawkes (1910-1996) was focused on pioneering public archaeology, after digging in England, Ireland, and even Palestine. Her approach to interpreting archaeological evidence was more humanistic, leading to her suggestion that the Minoan society could have been ruled by women. She applied public archaeology techniques, spreading her theory by using newspapers, books, TV interviews, and even through the radio.

North American archaeologist Hannah Marie Wormington (1914-1994) was the second woman admitted by Harvard University’s anthropology department, and by the age of 24 she began publishing her textbooks, one of which, the Ancient Man in North America, was the standard on the subject for quite some time. She excavated sites and rock shelters across Colorado and Utah. She was also the first curator of archaeology at what is now the Denver Museum of Nature & Science. Cynthia Irwin-Williams (1936-1990) was a protégé of Wormington’s; she led the first archaeological excavations of the Valesquillo Reservoir area in Mexico. She also led projects in Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and more.

Honor Frost (1917-2010) was a leading female in the underwater archaeology world. She applied her diving skills to expand excavations and reconstructions of submerged shipwrecks. After training under Kathleen Kenyon in Jericho she worked at sites in Lebanon, then later led dives and excavations of sites and shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. Her discoveries include the lost palace of Alexander and Ptolemy in the Port of Alexandria.

Lithuanian Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994) became a professor of Archaeology at University of California after her family emigrated. Maria studied female figurines, and the Baltic Neolithic and Bronze societies, and also developed the ‘Kurgan hypothesis’ (an Indo-European region migration hypothesis). She wrote three books focused on the civilization of goddesses of ‘old Europe,’ and while some of her ideas have been challenged, her interpretive work on material culture, social organization, and religious practices have led to new research and approaches.

Gudrun Corvinus (1932-2006) was not only an archaeologist, but also a paleontologist and geologist, excavating sites throughout Africa and Asia, contributing to both vertebrate paleontology and Paleolithic archaeology. She was part of the team that discovered the 3.2 million years old Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” skeleton. While working in Ethiopia in 1974, she was the first person to find the Gona archaeological deposits, which included the oldest known stone artefacts in the world.

Another female archaeologist that not much is known about, but should be, is Gussie White, one of many African American women digging and laboring at the Irene Mound project in Georgia in 1937. Gussie spoke Gullah, and she even attended the Tuskeegee Normal School for women, which trained her as an educator and clerical worker, before the mound project. As an African American and a woman, she was not given the credit she deserved for her efforts and under the Works Progress Administration, she was paid little for her work (around 12 dollars a week). Today, her and others are beginning to be recognized for their contributions to history. Her efforts and those of other female African Americans will be remembered.

All of these women have made priceless contributions to the world of archaeology, and their names deserve to be known and recognized. Along with our IUP professors, there are other female archaeologists from many corners of the globe, working hard to continue to pave the way for anyone to become an archaeologist and find their place in the world of archaeology.

Shahina Farid was born in London to parents who emigrated from Pakistan. After studying archaeology at the University of Liverpool, she worked at sites in Turkey, Bahrain, London, and the United Arab Emirates, publishing over 40 scientific articles. She was also field director of the Çatalhöyük project for around twenty years, instructing and managing over 200 scientists, students, and volunteers from around the world at the 7,500 B.C. to 5,700 B.C. Neolithic and Chalcolithic settlement in Anatolia.

Dr. Alicia Odewale is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Tulsa, focusing on archaeology of the African Diaspora in the Caribbean and Southeastern United States. A member of the Society of Black Archaeologists, her work focuses on community-oriented, Black feminist archaeology. She has worked on sites in St. Croix of the Virgin Islands, researching archaeological sites related to Afro-Caribbean heritage, but she has also researched sites in Oklahoma, Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi. She also serves as a co-creator of the Estate Little Princess Archaeological Field School that instructs local students on archeological skills, and as director of the Historical Archaeology and Heritage Studies Laboratory at TU.

Swedish-Somali archaeologist Dr. Sada Mire has a PhD from UCL’s Institute of Archaeology. She is the founder and executive director of the Horn Heritage Organization and is currently an assistant professor of archaeology at Leiden University. Her 2014 TEDxEuston talk focused on the need for cultural heritage. She has recently been active in the Horn of Africa, working to preserve its heritage by establishing the Department of Tourism and Archaeology in Somaliland, creating a digital museum that features Somali cultural materials and objects, and by teaching archaeological method to the local African people so they can carry out their own work.

Dame Rosemary Cramp was born in 1929 and is still alive today. She was the first female professor for Durham University, leading a team that excavated Jarrow Abbey, the home of Saint Bede, which recovered some of the earliest stained glass in Britain. She is currently working on the Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculpture, a research project seeking to document early sculptures in a systematic manner across the whole of England; the Corpus stands as the only existing record for several pieces of art. She was one of the first Trustees of the British Museum and one of the first Commissioners for English Heritage.

Kathleen O’Neal Gear is both an American archaeologist and well-known writer. She is a former state historian and archaeologist for Wyoming, Kansas, and Nebraska. She has received two Special Achievement Awards from the U.S. Department of the Interior for her work in archaeology, as well as a Spur Award for Best Historical Novel of the West. She has also received the Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from the U.S. Congress, an Owen Wister Award for western literature, and she was even inducted into the Western Writers Hall of Fame.

Susan Greaney, a Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries (FSA), is a British archaeologist focusing on the study of British prehistory. She is a Senior Properties Historian with English Heritage. In 2019 she was named a BBC New Generation Thinker and she was also elected as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. She has conducted archaeological research and content development for sites such as Stonehenge, Tintagel Castle, and Chysauster ancient village.

Theresa Singleton is an African American archaeologist who focuses on the African Diaspora in, and historical archaeology of, North America. She was the first African American recipient of the Society of Historical Archaeology’s highest honor, the J.C. Harrington Award. She is currently an author and associate professor at Syracuse University, teaching anthropology and historical archaeology.

American classical archaeologist Joan Breton Connelly is a professor of Classics and Art History at New York University. She is also currently the director of the Yeronisos Island Excavations and Field School in Cyprus, and she is even an honorary citizen of the Municipality of Peyia, Republic of Cyprus. She received a MacArthur Fellowship in 1996, the Archaeological Institute of America Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching Award in 2007, and the Lillian Vernon Chair for Teaching Excellence at NYU from 2002-2004.

Archaeologist and Egyptologist Sarah Parcak uses remote sensing and satellite imaging to focus on locating potential sites in Rome, Egypt, and other areas formerly occupied by the Roman Empire. While working as a professor of Anthropology and director of the Laboratory for Global Observation at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, she also works with her husband to direct projects in the Sinai, Faiyum, and Egypt’s East Delta.

There have been many incredible female archaeologists, and more continue to work hard and inspire the next generation even today. A great resource for more information on female archaeologists is the TrowelBlazer organization, https://trowelblazers.com, which shares the contributions of women and other underrepresented groups studying archaeology, geology, and paleontology, and also provides resources for them. This month, remember those who overcame incredible odds, faced many obstacles, and challenged adversity, all in their pursuit for historical truths, recognition, and especially for their passion of archaeology.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

References:

https://www.europeana.eu/en/blog/groundbreaking-women-in-archaeology

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/first-female-archaeologists/

https://ulasnews.com/2021/03/08/women-in-archaeology/ndigventures.com/2015/03/pioneering-women-in-archaeology/

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/pioneering-female-archaeologists/

https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-most-inspirational-female-archaeologists-from-history

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/women-in-history/six-groundbreaking-female-archaeologists/

https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-female-archaeologists/reference

https://www.livescience.com/62086-pioneering-women-archaeologists.html

On March 8^th we had two special guests join us for our first Graduate Colloquium of the semester. Mr. Andrew Myers, MA, RPA and Patricia Stahlman, MS, visited to present and discuss Cultural Resource Management on the Allegheny National Forest in 2023. They sent bios which are below, so you can better understand who they are and what they do.

Mr. Andrew Myers, MA, RPA is an archaeologist with the USDA Forest Service stationed out of the Marienville Ranger District in western Pennsylvania. He began his archaeological career in 1982 working for Dr. Stanley Lantz of the Carnegie Museum at the multicomponent Penelec (36WA152) site located near Warren, Pennsylvania. It was during this time he learned excavation technique at a Late Paleoindian though Contact period site that was also the location of a stockade Mead Island tradition village. During his career he has worked on numerous projects throughout the Mid-Atlantic region before returning to the Forest Service in 2017. His research interests include Late Woodland ceramics and has extensively studied Glaciated Allegheny Plateau (GAP) tradition archaeology with an interest in the McFate phase (circa. AD 1400-1590).

Patricia Stahlman, MS has over 20 years of experience in cultural resource management, much of that with the Forest Service. During her time on the Allegheny National Forest she has managed Section 106 compliance projects covering thousands of acres of federal lands and recorded and/or investigated hundreds of cultural sites. Projects have included Phase I surveys, Phase II evaluations, and Phase III data recovery. Patricia’s research interests include the history and pre-history of the Upper Ohio River Valley, particularly within the Clarion River and Tionesta Creek drainage basins.

To summarize, the presentation provided an overview of the cultural resource management program effected on the Marienville Ranger District of the Allegheny National Forest (ANF).  Any ground disturbing activity is subject to federal law which dictates agencies must take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties.  Each year in response to a host of projects including timber sales, oil and gas development, and recreation, varying degrees of archaeological investigation are implemented including surveys, evaluations, and data recovery.  Recent projects conducted on the District that were discussed included two Phase I block surveys and a Phase III data recovery project held at a Civil War era house site.  At the end of the presentation a discussion on obtaining federal jobs was also presented for students preparing to enter the workforce.

The presentation also covered the legal framework that goes into working for the Forest Service, how a project gets started, predictive modeling, large block surveys, what a Phase I survey and types finds in the Allegheny Forest would look like, along with how sites might be located, followed by examples of recent projects they are currently working on, and finished with a discussion on opportunities with the Forest Service. My favorite part was when Mr. Myers talked about site indicators and what the remnants of a historical site could look like if one does not know if one is there; such as a random opening in a forest, the presence of apple trees, or heirloom flowers which could potentially the remains of a historic garden near a former house site. Students were able to get a taste of what working for the Allegheny National Forest is like, and they were able to make connections with those who have been involved in it for years. We are so grateful that we had the opportunity to learn from and discuss with Myers and Stahlman about the important work they are doing within the Forest Service.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Last weekend, March 9-12 was the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference held in Ocean City, Maryland. I was able to attend amazing sessions, panels, and student events and this was the first archaeology conference that I have presented at which was a great accomplishment as well. I arrived bright and early on Friday to attend a session on the Archaeology of Schools and Education in the Mid-Atlantic. This session included presentations on marbles and writing slates and how they can be analyzed to understand what students were learning and how they were learning it. There was also a brilliant presentation on the way we talk about Black schools and education. The presenter showed examples of exhibits and written reports that devalue black intelligence and education by not exploring what they were taught thoroughly and frankly being lazy when analyzing artifacts related to black schools.

The second session of the day was entitled Archaeology of and for Native Peoples of the Mid-Atlantic. The papers in these sessions included a comparative analysis of projectile points from three sites around the same area in Maryland and a look into a middle woodland site in Delaware that was found during compliance for a road widening. There was also a very entertaining talk about cupules, which I have never heard of, that were found on the Roanoke River by archaeologists who were kayaking in the area. Cupules are depressions in rock that resemble an inverse spherical cap or dome and in this instance might be a marker from the indigenous groups of the region. 

The final session of the day was Case Studies in Community-Based Archaeology which was fascinating and definitely inspired me for future community-based projects that I will help organize. There were too many good papers to list and I am amazed at how much Mid-Atlantic archaeologists have taken communities into account during their projects. Collaboration and communication with stakeholders were big themes at this conference. I am excited to see how these themes grow in the next few years as community archaeology becomes the norm. 

There were also a lot of great student committee events that I was able to participate in all weekend. The first was a networking event where professionals sat at round tables and each group of students circled around to each person to learn more about their careers and how they became professional archaeologists. This was a great event to meet people that you could then find later to network with. There was also a coffee hour and “archaeolympics” which was a series of archaeology activities that allowed students to talk with each other and talk about their experience in archaeology and career plans. These were great events that really helped build connections as you met a lot of people. 

This year’s plenary, or keynote, speaker was Dr. Alexandra Jones, founder of archaeology in the community. She holds many positions in a variety of archaeological and cultural resource management environments but she mainly focused on her work bringing archaeology to D.C. and surrounding communities. Her central theme was her effort to bring sustainable archaeology into her practice as a way to empower different communities. She cites her work at the Estate Little Princes Archaeological Project in St. Croix, US Virgin Islands as a way that she could try this method in an isolated environment. She runs a field school where previous year’s participants are paid crew chiefs and TAs and she ensures that they all have a say in what happens to their cultural resources. Sustainable archaeology is one of the best ways of ensuring we have meaningful connections with our community partners where they benefit as much as we do. It was clear from the rousing applause and many questions, that the other members of the conference were just as excited about this idea as she was. 

The rest of the conference passed in a blur and I heard some amazing presentations and discussions in panels that really made me think about the future of archaeology and where I could fit in. Conferences are great because they make people feel connected to other researchers in a visceral way and can help produce new and amazing ideas through sharing different approaches and methods. I know I am brimming with a new appreciation for Middle-Atlantic archaeology and I am looking forward to next year! 

Yesterday was world anthropology day so we thought this would be the perfect time to reflect on the relationship between archaeology and anthropology. It’s important to say that archaeology is anthropology through and through (at least in the U.S.) and archaeology developed with anthropological principles of wanting to understand and respect the cultures of the people that we study. But while other subsections of anthropology focus on languages, cultural ideas, and the physical make-up of humans, archaeologists tend to study the history of people and cultures through the stuff they left behind, or material culture.

As we know, archaeology tends to adopt methods, theories, and practices of other social sciences. One of the more recent methods that we have adopted is ethnography which is the study of people through thorough observation in order to understand their rich social lives and culture. In archeology, we use ethnography to try to understand past cultures and the patterns that we discover at archeological sites.  By studying a present-day culture that is analogous to a past culture, we can better understand the parts of cultures that we aren’t always able to find through material remains. 

The ways that archeologists use ethnographies vary depending on the site they are studying. Some look at historical ethnographies which are both published and unpublished sources such as archives and field notes. This information is especially helpful if the archeology involves a group that was observed and interacted with in the past but is no longer living, or, who had many cultural changes. Additionally, some archeologists rely on oral histories. These oral histories are like ethnographies but instead of asking questions related to cultural systems or participating in the culture through participant observation, the archeologist invites individuals to share their histories through their experiences or stories that were passed down through generations.  By consulting present-day people about the past and emphasizing group histories that have been passed down archeologists gain information on the lives of the people in the past. This information can then be applied to the material culture of the past groups related to the present-day cultures who gave oral histories. 

Archaeology is best when it consults all the sources it can, and ethnographic sources are some of the most informative depending on the site. We hope you enjoyed anthro day 2023 and we’re looking forward to seeing what the future of anthropology and archaeology holds!

Further Reading:

https://www.americananthro.org/anthroday

https://www.thoughtco.com/ethnoarchaeology-cultural-anthropology-archaeology-170805

Parker, Bradley J. 

2011 Bread Ovens, Social Networks and Gendered Space: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Tandir Ovens in Southeastern Anatolia. American Antiquity 76.4: 603–27. 

Schiffer, Michael Brian. 

2013 Contributions of Ethnoarchaeology.” The Archaeology of Science. Vol. 9. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique: Springer International Publishing, 53–63.

Politis, Gustavo

2015 Reflections on Contemporary Ethnoarchaeology. Pyrenae 46.

Valentine’s Day is fast approaching! Have you bought the red roses and written notes to your valentine yet? Perhaps one of your Valentine’s Day cards will be in the familiar shape of a heart. But have you ever wondered where that shape came from, its origins, its symbolic and emotional meaning, and how it has transformed from the beating organ inside us all to the simple double-scalloped, v-shaped based symbol commonly drawn up on February 14^th? And how did the simple shape become connected to the meaning of love? What archaeological discoveries contribute to our understanding of this symbol?

Ancient Cyrene coin with with heart-shaped silphium design.

To begin, let us ask, can archaeology really reveal human emotions, such as love, from the material culture and historical knowledge that is recovered from excavations? An article by a Sarah Tarlow (2000), titled “Emotion in Archaeology,” discusses just this. She reviews the archaeological approaches to emotion while “arguing that the study of emotion in the past is both necessary and possible.” She also notes that while “emotion history may not in itself be a useful focus for archaeological research, the study of emotion is a necessary part of any endeavor to look at social and cultural aspects of the past. If one cannot write a past which consists entirely of changing emotional states, neither should one write a past in which deeply meaningful aspects of human experience are either assumed or ignored” (Tarlow 2000:730).

Along with studying emotion, symbols are also something archaeologists should be aware of. You could turn to fictional symbologist Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code for iconographical inspiration, but John E. Robb’s (1998) article, “The Archaeology of Symbols,” discusses why and how archaeologists in particular, should be dealing with symbols. He concludes that “any serious consideration of ancient society requires us to deal with its symbols,” that “human symbolism is so diverse…that multiple approaches are needed to deal adequately with it,” and that “a major problem in the archaeology of symbols is understanding how varied kinds of symbols relate to each other,” thus “we need to incorporate symbols more fully into our understanding of social relations” (Robb 1998:329, 342).

Heart shapes were initially seen in ancient decorative art. For example, a gold and faience heart-shaped fig leaf pendant dating to 300-100 BCE was recovered from the Indus Valley civilization. Its shape could have contributed to the modern symbol we recognize today, as ivy, fig, and water-lily leaves were commonly found in art and heraldry. Ivy was also a symbol for fidelity. The Ancient Egyptians even believed the heart was the most important part of the body, the key to the afterlife, the source of intelligence, memory, emotion, personality, and even the soul. This belief is the reason that the heart was the only organ kept inside the body when it was mummified, unlike the others that were removed and preserved separately. Some turn to the city-state in Africa known as Cyrene, with heart-shaped silphium, a large fennel, that was imprinted on their coins. While silphium was used as a contraceptive, it might have become associated with the symbol of love as time passed. Some theorize that the heart-shape developed as a stylized depiction of human anatomy, meant to represent breasts, buttocks, or genitalia, while others believe ancient philosophers inspired the shape, as they saw the heart as a central part of a being.

Roman de la poire manuscript, 1201-1300.

While heart-shapes were common in art, it is believed that their connection to love began sometime in the 13^th century. As courtly love in Medieval times began to lead to the production of more illustrations of such, the heart-shape began to be used more commonly as a symbol for love; the first depiction is in the 1250 French manuscript the Roman de la poire, with a man handing his heartesque-shaped heart to a lady. Typically, we see the heart being pointed upside up until the 14^th century, but as the 15^th century emerged, the typical two-bumps-at-the-top-one-point-at-the-bottom-shape, became used more frequently, so much so, it was placed on card decks.

16th/17th century heart-shaped urn from Rennes, France.

Playing cards from the Middle East entered Europe in the 1370s, and while their material was too fragile to survive in the archaeological record, surviving cards from the late 1400s are depict the heart symbol. Artifacts surviving in the archaeological record, including the five heart-shaped urns found in Rennes, France during archaeological excavations in 2015. They dated to the 16^th and 17^th centuries. Recovered in the basement of the Convent of the Jacobins, the urns contained embalmed hearts, one belonging to Toussaint Perrien, Knight of Brefeillac. Eventually, Catholic Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque’s 1673 depiction of Jesus’ Sacred Heart helped popularize the shape, along with the eventual celebration of St. Valentine’s Day established in A.D. 496, whieh was rejuvenated in the 17^th century, with the accompanying love notes affixed with hearts. The Victorian era was rife with the greeting card tradition as well, leading to the heart decorations on mass produced cards today.

Thomas Dillon’s shop in Galway, Ireland with hangning claddagh ring symbol.

One of my personal favorite symbols of love with a heart-depiction is the one on an Irish Claddagh ring. Dating to around the early 1700s, when the design first appeared in an Irish fishing village named Claddagh, now part of the city of Galway, the ring was used as both an engagement and/or wedding ring, in order to save money. The design was created by a Richard Joyce, a craftsman who was taken by Algerians and sold to a Moorish goldsmith to work as an apprentice, only released after William III demanded so in 1689. Upon returning to Galway, he created his jewelry business, along with the Claddagh Ring motif, despite his captor offering half of his wealth and his only daughter in marriage if he just stayed in Algeria to work with him. The rings became popular as they were the only Irish-made rings worn by Queen Victoria and later by Queen Alexandra and King Edward VII. They were made and supplied by a Dillon of Galway, who received the Royal Patent to make them, and since 1750, are still making them today. The hands represent friendship, the heart, love, and the crown, loyalty. Depending on how you wear the ring, it can take on four different meanings. If it is on the right hand with the heart turned upside down and away from the hand, then this means the wearer is not in a relationship. If it is worn on the right hand turned right-side-up and towards the hand, then the wearer is in a relationship. If it is worn on the left hand, with the heart turned upside down and away from the hand, then this means the wearer is engaged. If it is worn on the left hand turned right-side-up and towards the hand, then the wearer is married!

From the verb on the I ♥ NY shirt, to emojis and video game lives, hearts have infiltrated many aspects of our lives. The symbol and its meaning will forever continue to affect the way we express and depict the emotion of love; it may even evolve, altered just as it already has been, changing and shifting just as our societies, languages, and cultures do.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Resources:

https://www.artandobject.com/news/history-heart-shape

The Archaeology of Love Part I: The Heart of the Matter

https://www.providencevintagejewelry.com/blog/history-of-the-claddagh-and-how-to-wear-an-irish-claddagh-ring/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/317404.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A7ab043d47a386c9d5c1808588da82e5c&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/davidson/Material%20Culture%20course/

Yesterday was Groundhogs day! A day when Punxatawney Phil (or Buckeye Chuck, or Woodstock Willie, depending on what state you live in) climbs out of his borrow and decides if it will be an early spring or 6 more weeks of winter based on the presence of his shadow. 

This day originated from a Christian Holiday called “Candlemas” where Christians would bring their candles to the church to have them blessed and ensure their household was blessed for the rest of the winter. Over the years, this tradition became a day of weather prediction as they believed that if there was good weather and bright skies on Candlemas, winter would continue, but if it was cloudy spring would arrive soon. 

Punxatawney Phil held by his handler.

As this tradition spread to other countries in Europe, the Germans had a variation that included a hedgehog seeing its shadow. Then, as German settlers arrived in Pennsylvania and other nearby regions, it became a groundhog that was the prognosticator for a continued winter or an early spring. 

This year, a few members of the upper cohort went this year and saw Phil proclaim that we will have 6 more weeks of winter to the crowd’s exasperation. As I stood there cursing Phils’ prediction and dreading a longer snowy and bitter-cold Indiana winter, I began to think of other ways rodents tend to interfere with the environment and make archaeologists’ jobs harder. 

Both present-day, and past rodents share an affinity for burrowing and creating tunnel systems under the ground that has a habit of disturbing sites throughout the United States. Their burrows tend to have a different color and texture than the surrounding soil making them stand out. Not only can they trip up archaeologists who might assume these rodent burrows are archaeological features (guilty), but they make it increasingly difficult to understand the stratigraphy of the site. Additionally, their back dirt tends to include artifacts that are thrown out of context and into upper levels, sometimes meters away from their original location. If that’s not enough, their borrowing can also disrupt larger features and artifacts caches which travel down centimeter by centimeter as the ground around them is displaced by the rodent.

Rodent Hole disrupting the stratigraphy of a unit.

We can’t always blame rodents, because humans have a history of disturbing archaeological sites just as much as they do. Plow scars and cut-and-fill areas are just two examples of the ways that different occupations of people can interfere with the features of a site. Lucky for us, Harris Matrices can help us understand and analyze the stratigraphy of a site including areas that have been bisected by rodent burrows or plow scars. All you need is plain gridded paper (or Excell) and a lot of patience as you start to relate the different stratigraphic levels to each other by context and characteristics. After your finished, your matrix will hopefully look like the one depicted here and will let you understand how each deposit relates to others.

An example of a Harris Matrix and an the associated stratigraphy.

So, while rodents do seem to make our lives harder as archaeologists, especially by predicting more winter which could curtail our spring field projects. We have tools that make it easier to understand why some artifacts are out of context and where the rodent borrows disrupted natural stratigraphy. Given this, I think it’s fair to say that groundhogs are our frenemies.

Further Reading:

https://www.groundhog.org/legend-and-lore

https://thesubversivearchaeologist.net/category/burrowing-rodents/

https://germannaarch.wordpress.com/2021/07/12/rodent-burrows-into-our-heart-and-our-site/

https://www.thoughtco.com/harris-matrix-archaeological-tool-171240#:~:text=The%20Harris%20Matrix%20%28or%20Harris-Winchester%20matrix%29%20is%20a,cultural%20events%20which%20make%20up%20a%20site%27s%20history.

Spatiotemporal data as the foundation of an archaeological stratigraphy extraction and management system

New year, new me, a common motto stated in thousands of minds throughout the world as we cycle back to the month of January, marking the beginning of a new or fresh start for many of us. Archaeologists have a unique skill set that allows them to become a new and different person when placed in varying situations. Not only are archaeologists’ explorers of what lies hidden beneath the earth, they are detectives, determining what recovered objects might have once been, they are rebuilders, putting pieces of the past back together to form a larger image, they are adventurers, willing to go to some of the hottest or coldest places on earth to find what has been lost, they are educators, historians, protectors of knowledge, and seekers of truth. Archaeologists have the ability to be placed in new roles and locations, all the while immersing themselves in new cultures, researching the site they are working on, and even learning dead languages. These are probably all contributing reasons (along with being someone who naturally roves and travels the rolling hills and fields of the globe without many suspicions being thrown their way) that archaeologists have been used as spies! A little-known fact that sounds like something out of a novel or from the big screen, but a truth, nonetheless!

T.E. Lawrence

Using his archaeological excavations at the Syrian site of Carchemish as a cover during the first World War, British archaeologist Thomas Edward Lawrence, or Lawrence of Arabia, worked for British intelligence, observing German progress on a railway line that connected Berlin and Baghdad. In 1913, along with fellow archaeologist Charles Leonard Woolley, he was sent to Sinai as part of the Palestine Exploration Fund, as a cover, while they collected military topographical data.

A note from Sir Louis Mallet to Sir Edward Grey, May 20, 1914, regarding Gertrude Bell.

Gertrude Bell was a resource to the British intelligence’s Arab Bureau around the same time, contributing valuable information on Egyptian geography and even spying on Iraqi tribal activities around Basra. Her travels through the Arabian desert from January to May in 1914, constructed reports with valuable information, and prepared her for what more she could contribute to the intelligence departments when she was sent to Arabia after war broke out a few months later.

A commonly recognized archaeologist-turned-spy for a time, is American Mayanist Sylvanus Morley. In 1917 he was not only taking pictures of an old Spanish fort and touring archaeological sites in Honduras which covered more than 2,000 miles, but he was also on the hunt for German agents, shortwave broadcast stations, and submarine bases.

During the second World War, American archaeologists began to take part in espionagesque work, relaying linguistic and geographical information to offices like the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), while some even used their areas of expertise as fronts. Archaeologist Samuel Lothrop was one such person; chosen to spy while working in countries such as Costa Rica, Mexico, British Honduras, and Guatemala. Under the Special Intelligence Service (SIS), a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)-supervised foreign intelligence division in Central and South America, he not only was trained in mail drops and secret codes, but he was also sent to Peru to supposedly carry out archaeological research at Lima’s National Museum, all the while handling local operatives, establishing a network of informants, collecting intelligence, and following political developments.

Clothier’s “research” being cited in a document you can actually access on JSTOR!

Tennis star, William J. Clothier II was turned into an archaeologist by the SIS and Harvard to allow him to gain access to the Peru in the early 1940s. He even “published” an article on Andean Recuay pottery, ghostwritten by an American archaeologist; this article has been cited before without question by several scholars! After spying in Chile and Cuba, and after the war ended, Clothier joined the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Even during the Cold War, the CIA was not only archaeologists, but also art historians, and other academics in various fields, for CIA intelligence-gathering purposes. There have been many other archaeologists-turned-spies throughout history, such as Rodney Young, James Henry Breasted, Dorothy Cox, Virginia Grace, and more; some history has forgotten, or their names never revealed, but their risks and efforts should not be forgotten or trivialized.

However, becoming a spy may not be as adventurous or exotic, like something out of a movie, as one may think. In 1970s, geologist Jon Kalb was falsely accused of being a CIA operative. This threatened the safety of his family, as well as himself, and even harmed his reputation, but he was able to win a lawsuit against the National Science Foundation, who played a part in the rumors that led to the suspicion surrounding him. The fear today for contemporary archaeologists is that they could be put in harm’s way based on historical ties between archaeologists and intelligence agencies. Some suggest that to avoid accusations of spying, archaeologists and professional archaeological organizations should “forswear connections to intelligence agencies for the safety of themselves and their colleagues,” to show that archaeologists are committed “to scientific rather than political goals” (Price 2003).

Should archaeologists assist intelligence agencies for the good of their country or even the world? Or does this shed doubt on the legitimacy of the work that our field is conducting? What do you think?

Check out some of these sources for more information:

BOOKS:

Classical Spies: American Archaeologists with the OSS in World War II Greece by Susan H. Allen

The Archaeologist Was a Spy: Sylvanus G. Morley and the Office of Naval Intelligence by Charles H. Harris III and Louis R. Sadler

NPR PODCAST:

Archaeology Spies with Neal Conan and David Price (author of: Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists)

HISTORY HIT VIDEO:

Archaeologist Spies of World War One with Dr. Amara Thornton

JOURNAL ARTICLE:

Spying by American Archaeologists in World War I by David Browman

WEBSITE ARTICLE:

The Perfect Spy by Nancy Brokaw

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2003/sep/04/research.artsandhumanities#:~:text=In%20the%20second%20world%20war,contributions%20to%20the%20war%20effort.

https:/blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/digging-king-country/

Since November is National Indigenous Heritage Month we want to feature an archaeological site that is pretty well known, Machu Picchu, Peru. However, while most people know that it was a ceremonial place for the Incan empire, they may not know that it was also likely a place of agricultural innovation. In fact, there is a whole area that the Incans devoted to agriculture. Through the archaeological evidence, we can see the intelligence and creativity of the Incans as they navigated the steep Andean Mountains.

Machu Picchu Agricultural Terraces

 The agricultural area is comprised of cultivation terraces that look like large step platforms following the incline of the mountain. These platforms were made of many layers of material such as mulch, sand, and gravel that facilitated drainage and prevented flooding which would cause landslides. Additionally, the steps utilized natural drainage as an irrigation system directly from channels that connected the levels. The terraces also maximized the amount of land Incans were able to use to cultivate crops.  The agricultural sector is divided from the urban area of the site by a long 400- meter retaining wall with a water drainage channel to prevent land erosion. By creating these terraces, the Incans could develop and adapt their agricultural practices to the surrounding landscape without worrying about landslides. 

Estela Cóndor
grows five different
varieties of potatoes
to sell in the market,
along with a yellow
tuber called mashua
(Tropaeolum
tuberosum ) that she
cooks for her family.
– Image credit: Jim
Richardson, National
Geographic

Machu Picchu resides in a subtropical climate making the environment mild, warm, and damp. This climate made it perfect for cultivating large amounts of crops. While there is still some debate on if this specific area was where the pinnacle of agricultural innovation occurred, it is true that there were many different types of crops grown at this site leading archaeologists to believe that the indigenous people of the Andes experimented with agriculture more than any other group in the world. In fact, today there are over 3,000 varieties of the potato found in the Andes alone including species such as Pitiquina, Limena, and Phureja. Some of these potatoes were even used to treat headaches and skin rashes.  Not to mention the numerous tomato and pepper varieties that we have in the world today. Most of this innovation and variation is due to the experimental agriculture of the Incans and the other indigenous groups that inhabited Central and South America.

So, if you’re looking for someone to thank when you eat mashed potatoes or french fries, it’s probably the Incans. And, if you plan on visiting Machu Picchu make sure you ask the tour guides about the agricultural innovations that occurred on the very land you’re walking on. 

Further Reading: 

Indian Givers: How Native Americans Transformed the World by Jack Weatherford

https://www.pptoursperu.com/machu-picchu-areas-agricultural-urban-quarry/

https://www.perurail.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-machu-picchu-terraces/

https://candide.com/GB/stories/a0e2f664-6c08-4c86-a768-59716b19c894

https://www.ticketmachupicchu.com/platforms-agricultural-terraces-machu-picchu/

On November 2^nd, Dr. Claire Milner, Emeritus Curator and Director of Exhibits at Penn State’s Matson Museum of Anthropology, joined us for her presentation, “Dating, Dumping, and Destruction: Reconstructing Life Histories of Farmers and Farmhouses in Central Pennsylvania.” She described three Penn State archaeological field schools she ran as project director at farmsteads in Central Pennsylvania. Two sites were excavated in Huntingdon County, the Massey site from 2006-2007 and the Scare Pond Farm from 2008-2009. She led excavations at the Foster site in Centre County from 2015-2016, as well.

Dr. Milner began by discussing why we should study farmhouses. Farmhouses are studied in historical archaeology as they can provide valuable informational contribution for the historical record and also address anthropological questions about human behavior. Farming has been and still is an extremely common way of life in the United States, and farmhouses are actually the most common type of archaeological site in the U.S. The 19^th to early 20^th centuries were a time of huge social and economic change, from industrialization and urban migration to innovations in agriculture and household technology. In Central Pennsylvania, lumbering and iron ore extraction, along with expansion of transportation and marketing networks were growing. However, today, the sites Dr. Milner studied are covered in trees and pastureland.

The Massey site was owned by the Massey family who were also owners of the Scare Pond Farm site. Thomas Massey emigrated from England to Chester County PA in 1683. He had children, and grandchildren, including Mordecai Massey (1747-1837). Mordecai had several children, including Daniel, who established agricultural societies at the state and local levels, and whose daughter Elizabeth would come to inherit the site in 1875 according to his will. In addition to documentary evidence of the family’s wealth and Daniels, from ventures such as co-owning a steel and whisky house, there was also a ‘fancy’ cemetery where Daniel and other family members were buried, with an iron railing around it that adds to the fact that this family had a good amount of money during their time. It is not clear when Daniel established his independent household, but it was most likely after his father’s death, sometime in the early 1840s. The main excavated house was built before 1875, most likely when Daniel started to pay taxes separately from his family, however, later ownership and occupancy is uncertain between the 1870s and 1930s when the state took over the property.

Dr. Milner then went over discovered features and parts of the site that were excavated during her field schools at the Daniel Massey site. The site included a house, privy, garden, porch and patio. They located the north and east rooms of the house, along with a basement. A feature outside of the house was a garden with a barbed wire fence. The archaeologists noted the house layout based on a foundation collapsing into the basement. Trash would have been dumped out of the window area during the sites period of occupation, so based on a perimeter created by a midden, the location of a potential window was discovered. The entrance area of the house was determined to have a porch and patio; the front door was located based on piers of wood platforms into the door, and there was an indication of a brick patio, along with parts of porch pads and other remnants. Both a brick chimney and paved stone floor were also noted. A mystery wall Milner uncovered was eventually determined to be evidence of a rebuilding episode, as the house was T-shaped, buried above an L-shaped structure. There were also coins found inside and outside of this rebuilding, that gives great dates for when the rebuilding took place. Evidence of burnt wood in the basement suggests that a fire could have been the reason for the rebuilding. While a stone pad could have been interpreted as a pad for a staircase, it is unknown whether or not his house had a second floor. Other notable features include the Massey middens, and the Massey privy, a two-hole privy. There were a variety of dumping contexts and stratified deposits that may indicate a shift in dumping behavior and/or occupancy around the house perimeter, the privy, and the area around and downslope from the privy (a possible upslope shift). After occupancy, there was some scavenging of construction materials such as the wood floor, and eventually the exterior of the house collapsed into the interior, as marked by unit profiles and materials in the basement. There was also some garbage dumping within the house after its collapse; found at shallow depths were artifacts such as broken medicine bottles and a scythe blade stuck in the corner of the house at an angle, not contemporaneous with the occupation.

The Scare Pond Farm site was located on an extremely steep sloping ledge, an unusual place. This site included a house, barn, small outbuilding, and unknown building along the sharp sloping hill. It was also uncertain if any Massey’s had actually lived there. There was a spring nearby, but no evidence of a spring house, although a creek was further down slope from the house.

The previous occupants of the house had created lined pathways of stones and the archaeologists tested the barn on the bank, where they recovered a crock pot, and evidence of animals tamping down on the clay floor. They also tested an outbuilding foundation with a horseshoe in it, the foundation of the house itself, and the basement area. There was little found inside the basement; it was surmised that some bricks were from a collapsed chimney. Construction materials such as, a piece of cut wood from the floor and an upper stone tier, had been removed from the site, scavenged by someone. There were dumping features west of the house, one with a feature and one with a concentration of artifacts (stoneware). The recovered stoneware indicated garbage being dumped away from the house upslope. There were scattered stones next to the southeast house foundation wall that were full of mixed materials, which led to the discovery of two more rooms of the house. The walls of the rooms were constructed from whatever materials they could find, including brick and stone, and they could post-date the original foundation. A porch was evident from remnants of three stone pads in a line used as a base for the porch to hold it upright; the front of the porch was lined with stone. Marbles children would have played with were also recovered, most likely they had fallen off the porch. There were some confusing walls, and a mystery building with partly stratified deposits, that included a strangely angled wall, and sat on a slope. There was also a buried brick feature where the angled wall was, perhaps a buried patio. Stratigraphy indicated that there were multiple dumping episodes inside the building, leading to the supposition that animals were kept in one of the buildings on the site. Some features located included stoneware piping that suggested perhaps some type of plumbing was put in for the house during an expansion period. A surprise outside wall and a hitching post on one side of the house were also recovered. A clay layer inside and hitching post outside suggests the presence of animals. The fact that there were no level areas for cultivated fields also supports the idea that this site was perhaps occupied by a tenant of the Massey family who took care of animals.

The Foster Farm was also excavated by Dr. Milner. This site was located on land owned by Penn State University, and by studying it, the researchers can provide information on the Arboretum history, explore 19^th-20^th century farm life, and compare with the Massey and Scare Pond Farm sites.  Prior to Penn State’s ownership, records show that in 1791 an iron furnace was established by Miles & Patton, with timberland being converted into farms by the furnace owners, as well. The site went through a variety of owners throughout the centuries, records suggest that a tenant farmer was an occupant at the site for at least part of the time. The last owner was Charles Foster (1859-1934) who owned 120 acres, before the land became PSU pastureland in 1935. The Foster Farm landscape is made up of karstic limestone with well-drained fertile soil. However, there is no standing water nearby.

The site included a house, garden, possible cistern, porch, and standing outbuilding, and it had been heavily impacted by mowing. It was assumed that those who used to occupy the site were dependent on cistern water collection, as no other nearby water sources were present. A metal water pipe was found in the basement debris, but it could have possibly been deposited later. A basement foundation was also located, along with a rail line close to the site. Dr. Milner went on to discuss many features and describe parts of the site. There was a pit feature along the exterior of the west foundation wall that was perhaps a cistern. They found the house’s foundation interior, part of a chimney, evidence of a garden, the basement entrance, a west sloping dumping area, and on another side of the house an area of very mixed deposits, along with evidence of dumping around the house perimeter and the indication of a porch based on stacked stones, as well. There was little debris dumped inside the house, but a concentration of debris was along the perimeter, but this was not able to be excavated as it was close to the crumbling foundation wall. There were also areas of activity away from the house, but no discernable structures.

Data from the collection created from all three sites was then presented; artifact types and total counts found were discussed, which included a range of ceramics with a variety of decorative types, glass, metal, animal bones, nails, and other construction materials and debris. Less common artifacts present included smoking pipes, clothing like buttons and buckles, ammunition, pencil leads, coins, combs, musical instruments like a harmonica, toys, part of a pocket watch, and at Foster, a mantle clock part. Rarer but interesting finds included a backpin with the quote, “I’m a devil, give me a soda” found at the Massey site, an Irish pipe with a Home Rule harp design found at the Foster site, and also found at the Massey site were parts of an Admiral Dewy pitcher commemorating the 1898 Battle of Manila.

Dr. Milner then mentioned that by excavating these sites, there are many research opportunities provided. Researchers could delve into site occupation by trying to distinguish tenant versus owner occupancy, or research more on what activities occurred at each site over time. Interested parties could investigate what the objects and houses tell us about variation in human behavior, by measuring differences in wealth and status between occupations within or between sites or by studying differential access to markets and transportation in the Centre region. Researchers could also do intrasite and intersite chronology; determine the age of different occupations based primarily on historic records, and compare them to the archaeological record, or determine the relative chronology of buildings, strata, and rebuilding episodes within a site. Although, there are technical issues with it comes to making the artifact category counts comparable, given that they were excavated at different depths and to different extents. However, she is very interested and willing to work with students, and even have the collection brought to IUP if necessary. In the next few years, she has to finish with the projects and determine the collections fate. From dating projects based on the artifacts and documentary evidence, to research on the garbage dumping contexts and how these episodes relate to the occupations and destruction of the site, there are many opportunities for further research into these three sites.

Dr. Claire Milner’s presentation was extremely informative and educational! We cannot thank her enough for coming and speaking to us!

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram