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

After not being able to host it last year due to covid, the Department of Anthropology was finally able to have our annual Archaeology Day Open House here at IUP! We had over 50 visitors who came to learn about and explore the field of archaeology and what it means to be an archaeologist!

We had many stations and activities set up inside and outside of McElhaney Hall. Beginning at the Entrance Table, we had undergraduate students, Kaylee and Callie, along with second-year graduate students Pat and Sonja, welcoming visitors into our Open House. There were posters and pamphlets, candy and snacks, and a place to sign up for anthropology club. This is also where the Archaeology Day passport could be picked up. This passport was used to guide people around to each set-up, so that they could get a stamp for each exhibit and table they visited.

Another station outside was led by first-year graduate student Emma, who presented on the importance of mapping in archaeology. Using a poster, worksheet, and mini grid, children and adults alike could practice mapping. She instructed people on why we do mapping, what we map, why we prefer mapping over taking photographs, what we need to include on our maps, and why we use a grid system when mapping. She stated that it is our goal as archaeologists to record as much information as possible, and that because digging is destructive, we need an accurate mapping of our excavation units before we continue to dig artifacts up, as mapping provides context for the location of the recovered cultural resources, as well as a record of any features and stratigraphy in the unit.

First-year graduate student Liz also had a set-up outside, where she was teaching people about stratigraphy. She used different colored, kinetic sand and small rocks and pottery sherds in a clear box to mimic the stratigraphic layers archaeologist encounter as they dig down into the soils. She also had a bright and colorful poster, along with a matching worksheet that allowed visitors to learn more about stratigraphy, and what various layers can look like.

Also outside was Susanne Haney from PennDOT (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) and the Westmoreland Archaeological Society Chapter #23 of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. She was doing flint knapping and instructing others on how to do it as well. She also had brought many examples of prehistoric artifacts, many of which she had made herself. A few things she showcased were an atlatl, stone tools and pendants, a nutting stone, flint ridge chert, obsidian, red catlinite from Wisconsin that can be used to make pipes, bifaces and scrapers, a tiny, dried gourd to represent the ones used by ancient Native American to hold up fishing nets in the water, and cordage made from plant materials such as basswood bark and dogbane, and also deer sinew fibers.

When you entered McElhaney Hall, on one side you could enter the Children’s room. This room contained many activities to keep kids entertained, but also to introduce them to the world or archaeology. From ceramic analysis to coloring worksheets, paleolithic “cave” paintings, making wampum bead bracelets, and more, kids were guided by volunteer Heather and first-year graduate student Kahlan through a range of archaeological topics. This will hopefully serve as a foundational step for the younger generation in their archaeological journey.

The next room over held our section on Zooarchaeology, led by first-year graduate student Emily and second-year graduate student Zach. Emily discussed hominins and showcased how skulls changed over the course of millions of years to bring us to the skulls of the modern-day humans. She also laid out stone tools that correlate to each skull and displayed a replica of footprints made by the primitive species Australopithecus afarensis, or “Lucy,” from 3.6 million years ago. There was even a worksheet for students to match the pictures of the skull replicas to their corresponding names and date ranges. Zach was in charge of animal bones and skeletons and used a display that had visitors match the animal to an individual bone, which included a bear skull amongst others. He also displayed whole turtle shells, cat, fish, and frog skeletons, shells, and a pig head that had many visitors intrigued and curious to know what it was!

In the same room, third-year graduate student Ashley was displaying her ongoing master’s thesis on Modoc City. She exhibited many of the historic artifacts that she has excavated from the site, which dates from 1873 to around 1890, although these were just a few from the 9+ whole boxes Ashely has filled. She also laid out several newspaper articles describing life in the city during its time of occupation. Some of the historical artifacts presented include a broken frozen charlotte, makeup containers or compacts, utensils, suspender clasps, bells, an original Dr. Scholl’s foot-eazer, glass and ceramic pieces, pocket watch components, dresser handles, boot heels, and even a mint container!

  Second-year graduate students Amanda and Emma, along with Dr. Chadwick, a professor here at IUP, were also in this room, discussing the PHAST (PennDOT Highway Archaeological Survey Team) program, what goes inside a dig kit, and what some of the geophysical tools used in archaeology are and how they operation. These such geophysical instruments included metal detectors and ground-penetrating radar.

Back in the hallway second-year graduate student Luke was displaying a historic artifacts collection. He explained that historic sites are those that date between European contact in America to our modern day. As part of his graduate assistantship, he takes care of the legacy collections here at IUP. Some of the artifacts he works with are from excavations done 50 years ago at Hanna’s Town, a 1700s site, so he has been going through them, organizing them, and putting them in archival bags for storage, to keep up to new standards of preservation and to prevent deterioration and disorganization. He also displayed a historic artifact learning collection of things we see often at historic sites for visitors to observe and interact with.

 There was also a prehistoric artifact collection, hosted by Westmoreland Archaeological Society Chapter #23 of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. Many of the artifacts on display were recovered by Sidney Guest, a member of the chapter, as well as from the group themselves. Their exhibited collection included, petrified wood, a wide assortment of bifaces and projectile points, a large nutting stone, and even some tools archaeologists use in the field, to name a few. Mr. Guest explained that some of the artifacts were from excavations at a rock shelter near Derry, PA. He also stated that their chapter had just sent many boxes of artifacts to the State Museum after finishing up a dig they had been conducting over the past 16 years at a Monongahela village site with two overlapping village components. The Consul site (36WM100) included 49 houses and produced over 19 radiocarbon/AMS dates, with one of the villages dating to the Early Monongahela period around A.D. 1350, and the other to the Middle Monongahela period around A.D. 1450. We are so grateful that the Westmoreland Archaeological Society were able to come out and join us!

First-year graduate student Laura was next to the prehistoric artifacts set-up, and her station was about garbology, the study of modern humans through analyzing modern-day waste, and its connection to archaeology. She noted that archaeologists excavate landfills and utilize ethnographic interview methods to understand how humans create and dispose of waste, to answer questions about waste disposal, and to help apply these interpretations in other settings and studies. Laura also included a QR code on her handout that links students to “A Tale of Garbage” by Ian McTaggart for more information, and she provided a take home activity worksheet that had visitors keep track of their trash disposal habits to see what this can tell them about their trash practices. She also engaged with visitors by having them participate in an activity where they had to determine which bag of trash came from which room in the house, which simulated how trash can lead to inferences about people.

In the final room inside, we had second-year graduate student Jacob in the floatation lab teaching and instructing people about how and why we use the laboratory technique of archaeological flotation. The floatation machine is used to recover tiny artifacts and plant remains from soil samples, which visitors got to experience up close.

And finally, as people exited our Archaeology Day event, they passed by our Exit table, manned by first-year graduate student Wesley. He was passing out free posters and information on stewardship through fliers. He was also having those who left voluntarily fill out a paper with questions about their experience. We had great feedback, one visitor commented, “It was fun and interesting😊,” and many people noted their favorite activities.

A huge thank you to everyone who came out and supported this open house, and to those who put everything together, Dr. Andrea Palmiotto and second-year graduate student Mikala Hardie! We will most definitely be hosting this event next year, so please join us again, or for the first time, in 2023!

Homecoming was this past Saturday, and it was packed with fun events and activities, celebrations, a parade, a football game, and the crowning of the Crimson Homecoming Court. In America, the idea of selecting a Homecoming court and having a King and Queen arose in the 1930s. Originally, Kings and Queens were chosen based on the float the came in on during the Homecoming parade. The crowning of royalty is something other parts of the world are exposed to as well. With the recent passing of Queen Elizabeth II, sometime in 2023 King Charles III will be crowned during a coronation ceremony. In August of this year Misuzulu Zulu was crowned as the new Zulu king in South Africa, wearing a headdress of traditional leopard skin and black feathers.

Princess Blanche’s crown, ca.1399

Although receiving a cheap, bedazzled crown after being voted as the most popular by classmates does not really compare to the coronation of British or Africa royalty, the ceremonies do have something in common; something worn on the head as a symbol of royalty, leadership, and power. Typically called a crown or headdress, these physical symbols are usually made out of rare or symbolic materials, and they legitimize who is in charge and who has the authority to sometimes do whatever they want.

The oldest known crown belonging to the British royal family is the Princess Blanche’s crown, that dates to around 1399; it is set with pearls, diamonds, sapphires, rubies, and emeralds. Although the origins of the royal crowns we recognize today reach back to the emperors of the Roman Empire, crowns, headdresses, and other forms of adornment that showcase the leader of the group have been used by other civilizations across the world in many different periods of time.

Empress Xiao’s crown before it was cleaned,  CNS/Tian Jin

Empress Xiao’s crown after it was cleaned,  CNS/Tian Jin

In 2012, archaeologists in China uncovered a 6^th century crown that originally belonged to Empress Xiao from the Sui dynasty (AD 581-618). It is the oldest imperial crown ever discovered in China, found in a tomb in Yangzhou, in the modern-day Jiangsu Province. The crown had been resting in a rotten wooden box and was restored at the Cultural Relic Protection Institute in Shaanxi Province. It was decorated with pearls, cotton, silk, fragile copper wires, and thirteen flower decorations, each composed of gilded bronze wires with delicate representations of stalks, stamens, and petals.

Silla Gold Crown, National Museum of Korea

In Korea, five gold crowns excavated from five royal tombs, helped the ancient capital of Guemseong, modern day Gyeongju, justify the meaning of its name, ‘city of gold.’ The five crowns are from the Silla Kingdom that extended their rule from southeast Korea during the Three Kingdoms period (57 BC-AD 668) all the way to the Unified Silla Kingdom period (AD 668-935). The crowns belonged to Silla kings and queens who were buried in large, stone-lined tombs within earth mounds, when they passed. The crowns were preserved and survived because of the clay placed between the layers of stone, the lack of horizontal entrances to the tombs, and the fact that the tombs were never looted. The first of the National Treasures of Korea were found in 1921 in a tomb known as the Gold Crown tomb that dated to the second half of the 5^th century. The other four tombs with their crowns were found nearby and are called the Great Tomb at Hwangnam, Cheonmachong (the ‘Heavenly Horse Tomb’), the Gold Bell Tomb, and the Auspicious Phoenix Tomb. The Silla crowns are made up of three parts, an openwork tall conical cap, a piece resembling a wing or butterfly which fits into the cap, and a diadem; chains with pendants also hang from the sides of the crowns. In addition to the embellished, sheet-cut gold pieces that form the crowns, they are adorned with jade pendants.

Baekje Gold Crown Ornaments

Researchers note similarities to gold crowns from the Black Sea area, Bactria, Japan, and China. Baekje and Goguryeo, the other two kingdoms from the Three Kingdoms period besides Silla, also had crowns. Recognized Goguryeo crowns were made of guilt-bronze, but Baekje has famous crown ornaments, in addition to crowns, known as Geumjegwansik attributed to their kingdom, that were excavated from a tomb in Gongju, South Korea in 1971. The two gold diadems are shaped like flames with flower and vine-like patterns and were worn by the king of Baekje. They were found in the tomb of King Muryeon who was in power from AD 501-523.

Gold Greek wreath

Box the crown was found in

In 2016 a man found a 2,300-year-old Greek myrtle wreath dating to around 300 BC underneath his bed. The crown, valued at over 100,000 English pounds, was in a cardboard box in Somerset, England. Usually worn for religious ceremonies or given as prizes at athletic and artistic contests, the crown from Ancient Greece is pure gold, handmade, and weighs about 100 grams.

Assyrian crown

Tombs dating to around 750-700 BC were found by Iraqi archaeologists in 1990. One contained a gold crown with trellis vines, lapis-lazuli grapes, four-winged robed figures, and rows of pomegranates and rosettes. The crown was from the ancient Assyrian empire of Mesopotamia and the tombs were found under the floors of rooms in Ashurnasirpal II’s (883-859 BC) harem.

Late Indus Valley civilization copper crown remnants, A.K. Pandey/Archaeological Survey of India

Archaeologists uncovered a 4,000-year-old copper crown in modern day India in 2015 that belonged to the late Indus Valley civilization. It is one of two crowns from an Indus Valley site ever recovered, was found resting on a skull, and is decorated with a carnelian and a fiance stone. Along with the skeleton and crown, pottery and animal bones were also found nearby. Researchers suggest that this person could have been someone important, like a local leader of some kind, based on the crown. However, the crude, simple, local decorations on the pottery, suggest that this person might have not been all that powerful, that they were more likely to have been someone who was rich or had good taste, rather than a political figure.

6,000-year-old Dead Sea Cave crown

One crown that has claimed to be the oldest in the world is a 6,000-year-old crown found in 1961 in a Dead Sea Cave. The cave was in the Galilean highlands of the Judean Desert of Israel and recovered by archaeologists Pessah Bar-Adon. The crown dates to the Copper Age between 4000-3500 BC, more specifically the Chalcolithic period (4500-3600 BC), and was amongst 400 other artifacts in the cave, a finding that has become known as the Nahal Mishmar Hoard. The thick copper ring with vultures and doors jutting from the top was one of five crowns from the hoard. The objects are thought to have been placed in the cave for safe keeping, and from the Chalcolithic Temple of Ein Gedi, which is around 12 kilometers away. Some question if the “world’s oldest crown” was even used as a crown at all; perhaps it was a stand for an urn, or something else, but the seven-inch tall with about equal diameter band of blackened copper, is eye-catching, with its rim of pointed figures, hilt-shaped cross, long-necked birds, and gates or grilles with horns.

The largest fragment of the ivory tiara found in the Denisova Cave, depicted from three separate angles, Institute of Archeology and Ethnography

The claim to the “world’s oldest crown” is challenged by what some believe is a 35,000-50,000-year-old crown or headband made of woolly mammoth tusk ivory and broken into three pieces. Rediscovered by archaeologists in a Denisova Cave in the Altai mountains of Siberia, the head piece was worn by a man, but it is up for speculation if it was used to designate royalty or leadership, a mark of a family or tribe, or if it was just used to hold his hair back. Diadems such as these are rare, and there would have been several steps taken to create this item. The tusks would have to have been separated from the animal, cut into pieces, soaked in water to be shaped, then physically shaped, scraped, cut, grinded, drilled, and finally polished. This crown was too long to be a bracelet, had microscopic wear that showed it had contact with organic material like skin, was bent to fit to an adult male’s temple, and the longest piece had half a hole on one side drilled into it that was most likely used with cords or straps to affix to the head; all reasons that contributed to the belief that these pieces of ivory potentially had a crown-like function.

Crowns and other head-adorning symbols of leadership are prevalent in many other societies and civilizations; some have survived, while others are recognized through art, written records, oral histories, carvings, and sculptures. Native Americans in Pre-Columbian times wore headdresses, headbands, and war bonnets, in various styles and sizes depending on the tribe and location in the country. They could be made from the hairs of animals such as porcupines, moose, and deer’s tails, from feathers, buffalo fur and horns, and otter fur and tails, in addition to beads, quillwork, and decorative patterns. Ancient Maya headdresses were worn by the elite, with the King’s being the largest, the larger the headdress the more important the person. Wood, cloth, jade, shells, and colorful feathers were used to carefully craft these headdresses that were made to look like animals that were important to the culture, such as the jaguar, snake, or falcon. The quetzal bird was coveted by the Mayan culture and its feathers were used solely for royalty.

Ancient Egyptian pharaohs also had recognizable crowns and headdresses, each with a certain meaning indicated by their shape. The Deshret or Red Crown, established the king as the ruler of Lower Egypt. No physical examples of this crown survive today. Hedjet, the White Crown, establishes the king’s rule over southern Egypt; it too has no surviving example. The Pschent, the Double Crown, also known as Sekhemti or the “Two Powerful Ones”, symbolizes the king’s rule over both Upper and Lower Egypt. This crown is the merging of the Red and White Crowns, a move done under King Narmer during the Pharaonic period (3000 BC-332 BC). Nemes, was a striped head cloth that is easily recognized as being worn by King Tutankhamun on his coffin. The earliest depiction of this headdress was found on an ivory label of King Den from the 1^st dynasty. It was typically worn to cover a crown and the backside of the head. The Khepresh, or Blue Crown, made from stained leather, became popular by the 18^th dynasty, but is known as a war crown, as it was depicted often as being worn by Ramesses II in the Battle of Kadesh. The Atef Crown was the crown of the first mythical king Osiris but was worn by other deities. Its earliest depiction is of being worn by the Pharaoh Sahure in the 5^th dynasty of the Old Kingdom. The Hemhem or Triple Atef became popular during the reign of Akhenaten (1353-1336 or 1351-1334 BC) and the Ptolemaic period or dynasty (323/305-30 BC). It was a variation of the Atef Crown, was also called the “Roaring One”, and was worn by Heka, the god of magic.

The craftsmanship that has gone into making crowns of all shapes, sizes, and materials throughout the centuries is astounding. But archaeologists have to be careful when determining what should be labeled as a crown, or whether the artifact they are studying just resembles the familiar shape. From fakes to mistakes, like when researchers initially concluded that a 6^th century bucket fitting was a crown, archaeologists and scholars need to be vigilant when examining and labeling artifacts.

Crowns will always fascinate people because of what they stand for; power, authority, and even popularity. They are still used by royal families, in Halloween costumes, and to adorn the heads of Homecoming Queens and Kings today. As you celebrate occasions such as Homecoming, take some time to recognize that so many of the mundane parts of customs we celebrate today, are reflections of objects used in ancient traditions for many, many years.

Follow IUP Anthropology on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Further Reading and Sources:

https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/history/history-homecoming

https://www.dw.com/en/south-africa-thousands-witness-crowning-of-new-zulu-king/a-62877697

https://www.grunge.com/865856/this-is-the-oldest-known-british-royal-family-crown/

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/6th-century-crown-chinese-empress-revealed-first-time-its-full-glory-006631

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/957/the-gold-crowns-of-silla/

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/5961/baekje-gold-crown-ornaments/

https://www.primidi.com/crown_of_baekje/national_treasure_of_korea_no154

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3610916/Incredibly-rare-2-300-year-old-Ancient-Greek-gold-crown-worth-100-000-kept-decades-tatty-box-old-newspapers-bed-owner-no-idea-was.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/cultures/mesopotamia_gallery_08.shtml

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/4000-year-old-copper-crown-found-india-002558

https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/34290

https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/6000-year-old-crown-found-dead-sea-cave-revealed-001436

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-worlds-oldest-crown

https://www.livescience.com/64297-ancient-woolly-mammoth-tiara-denisova-cave.html

https://theamericanhistory.org/important-facts-native-american-headdresses.html#:~:text=The%20roach%20headdresses%2C%20also%20known%20as%20porcupine%20roaches%2C,headdresses%20were%20often%20worn%20by%20dancers%20and%20warriors.

https://mayansandtikal.com/mayan-clothing/mayan-headdresses-clothes/

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/crowns/

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa-news-general-opinion/crowns-pharaohs-00579

https://quickjewelryrepairs.com/articles/what-is-the-history-of-the-royal-crowns/#:~:text=The%20oldest%20crown%20in%20the%20world%20was%20discovered,of%20this%20culture%20is%20their%20mastery%20of%20coppersmithing.

https://www.dw.com/en/a-crown-or-a-bucket-when-archaeologists-make-mistakes/a-46807172

It’s been getting chilly and crisp in Indiana, PA this past week and I don’t know about you but fall weather makes me want to sit inside and make something. If you are like me, you might be interested in experimental archaeology which is a practice where archaeologists make and utilize technologies of past people in order to understand them better. Archaeologists use experimental archaeology to test hypotheses of how and why people used different technologies. Typically, materials are gathered from the environment around you making it an accessible hobby for anyone interested in the technologies of the past.  Here are some experimental archaeology crafts that you can do while you enjoy the lovely fall weather! 

The first and most beloved example is flintknapping! This is a process that pre-contact societies used to make stone tools. It involves carefully chipping away at specific parts of a “raw” stone, also called a core. You first start with percussion flakes which chip off because of the force you apply to certain parts of the core. Then, you take off smaller pieces by applying pressure to an edge of the core with a deer antler or some other type of sharpened tool. This step refines the tool into whatever you want it to be such as an arrow/spear point or an adze. If you have kids or if you’re worried about injuring yourself you can also try “soapknapping” which takes some of the same ideas of flintknapping as you carve your stone tool out of a bar of soap. The supplies needed for flintknapping are flint/chert which is what you make your stone tool out of, a hammerstone, a piece of leather to protect your leg, a billet made from deer antler or hard wood, and an antler tine or sharpened wood for pressure flaking. 

The process of flintknapping. Credit: Closter Nature Center

If stone tools aren’t your thing maybe you would like to make a basket out of pine needles, sweetgrass, or other dry plant materials that you can forage. There are many ways to make a basket but one of the most comprehensible ways is by coiling. To make a coiled basket you first have to collect the materials. Once you have your pine needles or sweetgrass make sure to wash them, bundle them, and lay them out to dry before you start working with them. Once they are dry, you can finally begin by wrapping a cord that is attached to a tapestry needle around a bundle of around four to six pieces of your material. Your foundation cord should be wrapped 10-15 times and be ¾ inch long at first. Then, you will curl the end in and start the spiral formation by pushing the needle through the middle of the two beginning rows and sewing the new rows into the previous coil. If this sounds incredibly confusing don’t worry, there are step-by-step instructions linked at the bottom under “Sources and Further Reading”. 

Making a coiled pine needle basket.

If you’re looking for an easier project, you could make a pinch pot which is one way Native Americans made pottery for food storage and cooking. To make a pot you need to either find clay in a local clay bed,  buy it at your local craft store, or make it by looking up a salt-dough recipe. If you collect your clay, you will likely have to process it so if you are looking for a really easy project you might want to stick with air-dry clay. Once your clay is prepared, roll it out and then roll it into a ball. Then you will put your thumb in the center to make a crater in the clay and from that crater you can pinch the sides of your pot to your desired thickness. From there you can add imprinted designs using a pencil or anything else you have around your house! If you are using air-dry clay then you can simply set your project out to dry but if you are using a salt-dough or you gathered clay you will have to bake and fire it respectively. 

A pinch pot made by a young girl from Abbott Farm excavations. The center scar is from a twig impression in the clay. NJSM # AE98089.

No matter what project you choose, you will be able to get into the mindset of the people who created and used these technologies many years ago. This is what archaeologists are interested in, understanding the people of the past through the materials that they produced. By making these materials ourselves, we can get a sense of what it was like to make them and experiment with different processes to test the feasibility of certain hypotheses. We can also have fun while we’re at it which is a big benefit! 

Sources and Further Reading: 

https://exarc.net/experimental-archaeology

Flintknapping: 

https://archaeology.uiowa.edu/flintknapping-0 https://www.elymuseum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HAH-worksheet-Pre-history-Stone-Age-Knapping.pdf 

https://wildernessawareness.org/articles/stone-tools-and-flintknapping/

Basket Weaving: 

http://www.nativetech.org/basketry/coilinstr.html

https://www.knowitall.org/interactives/anaturalstate/pine-needle-basket/

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/sflarch/collections/seminole-baskets/technique/

Pinch Pot:

https://exploreandmore.org/sanity-savers-make-a-pinch-pot-for-the-archaeological-society-anniversary/

https://www.instructables.com/Harvesting-Your-Own-Clay-Dirty-But-Delightful/

https://exploreandmore.org/sanity-savers-salt-dough-unicorns-and-easter-eggs/

https://thepotterywheel.com/pinch-pot-history/

https://newjerseyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/miniature-clay-pot-an-ancient-toy/

Image Credits:

https://closternaturecenter.org/?event=primitive-technology-2

https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/how-to-weave-pine-needle-baskets

https://newjerseyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/miniature-clay-pot-an-ancient-toy/