IN UPLAND SETTINGS: AN ANALYSIS OF SITE
DATA IN A SAMPLE OF EXEMPTED WATERSHEDS
Brandywine Creek Watershed
Chester, Lancaster, and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania
Douglas C. Kellogg
Robert G. Kingsley
4.1 Introduction to the Project
Purpose and Goals
The Brandywine Creek watershed is one of 19 drainage sheds in Pennsylvania regarded by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP) as having yielded quality data on prehistoric sites located in upland settings (BHP 1996:31). Additional archeological surveys are currently not required in these 19 drainage sheds as a mater of policy and priority (BHP 1996:30-32). The Pennsylvania Archaeological Council (PAC) selected the Brandywine Creek watershed (Figure 1) for a more detailed analysis of data in low-priority watersheds. This report presents PAC's review of the data quality and current research context of the Brandywine Creek watershed, and an assessment of the survey priorities policy of the BHP. The report presents a brief description of the Brandywine Creek environment, a review of the prehistoric cultural context with an emphasis on research themes and issues, a review and analysis of the site data derived from the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files, a review and analysis of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) research within the Brandywine Creek watershed, and conclusions and recommendations for application and refinement of the BHP survey priorities.
Overview of the Geomorphology and Hydrology of the Brandywine Creek Watershed
The Brandywine Creek watershed is located in southeastern Pennsylvania and northern Delaware, primarily within the Piedmont Uplands Section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (Figure 1). A finger of the Triassic Lowlands section intersects a portion of the upper Brandywine Valley (Figure 2). The Piedmont Uplands are characterized by broad, gently rolling hills and valleys with low to moderate relief. The portion of the valley situated within the Piedmont Lowlands consists of broad, moderately dissected valleys and karstic terrain (Berg et al. 1989). Within Pennsylvania, the watershed has a total drainage area of 301 square miles (780.22 sq. km). The Brandywine Creek drainage is part of the Lower Delaware Subbasin, which is included in the larger Delaware River Basin.
The Piedmont Physiographic Province is situated in a transition zone between the Appalachian Plateau to the northwest and the Inner Coastal Plain to the south. The Piedmont Province in general developed from differential erosion of rock that metamorphosed during the Alleghenian Orogeny (Marsh and Marsh 1989:20). Geologically, the Piedmont Uplands are extremely complex (greatly faulted and folded), resulting in a highly dendritic drainage pattern (Berg et al. 1989). Small streams generally drain to the east onto the Coastal Plain and were graded to lower stands of sea-level during the Pleistocene (Costa and Cleaves 1984:70). Bedrock of the region is comprised of three groups of metamorphic rocks: (1) metamorphosed sedimentary rocks of the Wissahickon group; (2) gneiss and intrusive igneous rocks of the Wilmington complex; and (3) basement gneiss of the continent and its metasedimentary cover, including quartzites and marbles (Bosbyshell et al. 1999:42-44). The Piedmont rocks extend below the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, under a wedge of sediments that forms the Coastal Plain and continental shelf (Klitgord et al. 1988; Maguire et al. 1999). The underlying bedrock geology controls and is thus reflected in topographic features of the region.
Groundwater in the Piedmont is controlled by a two-part system consisting of regolith, which is the unconsolidated rock, sediment, and soil that forms the surface of the earth, and the underlying fractured crystalline bedrock (Heath 1989). Storage of groundwater depends on the character and thickness of the regolith. Groundwater flow is related to fracture patterns in the underlying bedrock and to the efficiency of the hydraulic connection between the base of the regolith and the bedrock (Heath 1989:2-6). Stream locations follow weaknesses in the bedrock, where there is a transfer of groundwater between fractures in the bedrock and the overlying regolith material. Surface runoff occurs where there is an impenetrable layer, such as clay deposits, separating bedrock from surficial sediments.
Prehistoric Cultural and Research Context
The most recent research framework, or prehistoric cultural context, for southeastern Pennsylvania has been developed by Custer (1996). This work on the archeology of eastern Pennsylvania is an extension of his (Custer 1985) summary in the Pennsylvania State Plan (Raber 1985). The work also builds on Custer's earlier work on the Delmarva Peninsula (Custer 1984, 1989). The following discussion will be framed within Custer's recent synthesis.
Most archeological research in the region generally explores the same research themes and issues outlined by Custer (1996). An ecological and/or subsistence settlement approach is most common. Technology is another common theme, with lithic procurement as a major issue. Custer (1996) treats the prehistoric time periods and archeological cultures exhaustively. The literature on Contact period archeology in southeastern Pennsylvania has been largely the domain of Becker (1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988). The Lenape (Delaware) have also been treated extensively by Harrington (1921), Speck (1931), Kraft (1986), and Weslager (1972). These authors reconstruct Lenape lifeways based on ethnohistorical accounts. The archeology of the Contact period remains poorly understood.
The initial occupation of eastern North America is customarily placed at the end of the last continental glaciation. Controversy surrounds the exact date of occupation, but the issue hinges on the presence of people prior to the appearance of Clovis-type Paleoindian cultures. The Clovis-first model holds that people first entered the Americas near the end of the Wisconsinan glaciation as the ice sheet receded circa 12,000 radiocarbon years before present (yrs BP). Several archeological sites have yielded radiocarbon dates that imply an occupation earlier than Clovis or fluted point Paleoindian. Controversy surrounds most of these sites, including the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in western Pennsylvania (e.g., Adovasio et al. 1990). There is no evidence for a pre-Clovis occupation in the Brandywine Valley.
Paleoindian sites are relatively rare, although finds of Clovis and other types of fluted points are relatively common in eastern North America. In eastern Pennsylvania, the Shoop site in Dauphin County, first reported by Witthoft in 1952, is interpreted as a staging camp for exploiting upland bogs (Carr 1989; Custer 1996:120). The site is situated on a hilltop that can be characterized as upland and interior. In the vicinity of the Brandywine drainage, Paleoindian sites tend to be focused on riverine settings and also associated with swamps and wetlands (Custer 1996:91-100). Water sources apparently provided focal points for hunter-gatherer settlement within a highly mobile subsistence system. Movements within the region may have been "tethered" to bedrock sources for preferred lithic materials. A generalized adaptation is inferred, rather than a specialization on particular game animals (e.g., megafauna). Upland use appears limited presumably because of a preference for or need to be near reliable water sources or game-attractive environments (Custer 1996:91-105). Paleoindian site types include quarries, lithic reduction stations, base camps, base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting camps, and isolated finds. Site types in the Brandywine Creek uplands might include base camp maintenance stations, outlying hunting camps, and isolated finds. There are no known lithic sources preferred by Paleoindian groups in the project area, except perhaps the ubiquitous quartz. Three sites in the Brandywine Creek watershed with evidence of Paleoindian occupations are reported by Custer (1996:122) in riverine settings (Sites 36CH313, 36CH373, and 36DE10). However, according to the PASS computer datafile, Sites 36CH373 and 36DE10 do not contain Paleoindian components. Two other sites, not mentioned by Custer, reportedly contain Paleoindian components: Sites 36CH131 and 36CH153 are both located on upland stream benches. A Paleoindian point or biface is also reported for Site 36CH644 (middle slope setting).
The Paleoindian occupation of eastern North America is most often considered from a cultural-ecological perspective that emphasizes adaptation to changing environments. Issues of exploration, colonization, and migration are often considered. Discussions and interpretations also emphasize the technology of fluted point manufacture and the apparent preference for high quality lithic materials. A topic of debate is direct procurement of stone raw materials vs. trade and exchange for different materials between groups of Paleoindians. The potential for cultural interactions between Clovis migrants and hypothesized indigenous pre-Clovis peoples is an emerging issue. All of these discussions are hampered by poor chronological control and small sample size problems.
The Early Archaic period is poorly known in eastern Pennsylvania and much of the Middle Atlantic region. Tool forms changed from fluted to stemmed and notched and lithic material preferences changed; rhyolite use increased (Custer 1996:129), but mobility may have decreased as people settled into regions initially explored and occupied by their Paleoindian ancestors. Custer (1996) lumps the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods into a Hunter-Gatherer I "cultural" period because, following William Gardner, he interprets the lifeways of the Early Archaic period as essentially unchanged from the Paleoindian period. The change in tool forms is seen as stylistic and not technological or as an adaptation to some change (Custer 1996:130). Site types and settlement pattern are essentially unchanged from the Paleoindian period.
The Brandywine Valley site-file data do not contribute substantially to the Paleoindian-Early Archaic transition. Three sites with Paleoindian components were reported in the PASS files: two located on upland stream bench settings and one on a river floodplain. Four sites with Early Archaic occupations are reported, one each situated on a riverine terrace, upland middle slope, upland stream bench, and upland flat. From such a small sample it is unwise to generalize. However, these data are suggestive of a broadening in the Early Archaic settlement strategies, compared to the previous Paleoindian period. This is contrary to the Gardner-Custer model of a unitary Paleoindian-Early Archaic adaptation. More and better-quality regional data are needed before this issue can be resolved.
The Middle Archaic period, or Hunter-Gatherer II cultural period (Custer 1996:133), is also poorly known in eastern Pennsylvania and in the Middle Atlantic region in general. Bifurcate base bifacial tools are diagnostic of the Middle Archaic in eastern Pennsylvania, placing the region within a widely distributed "Atlantic Slope" tradition (Custer 1996:133). Changes in technology evident in the Middle Archaic period include the use of ground stone tools that may indicate an increased reliance or intensification on plant foods. A decease in residential mobility may not have occurred, but movements appear to have become more predictable and regular. Caching of tools or raw materials suggest expected return visits to certain places. A wider variety of lithic sources was used, including coarse-grained stone materials. Middle Archaic site types include base camps and procurement camps. The procurement camps are often manifested as small lithic scatters. The Middle Archaic settlement pattern is different from the preceding periods. Most bifurcate bifaces have been found on upland slopes near ephemeral streams and bogs (Custer 1996:158; Custer and Wallace 1982). Changes observed between the Early Archaic and Middle Archaic periods are attributed to shifting environments associated with the end of the last ice age.
One problem in recognizing Middle Archaic sites relates to confusion surrounding triangular bifaces and projectile points. Until recently, these artifacts were automatically assigned a Late Woodland affiliation. Triangular projectile points recently have been recovered from Archaic deposits (e.g., Cavallo 1981; Custer 1996:135-138; Siegel et al. 1999:49-50; Stewart 1998; Stewart and Cavallo 1991:23). Custer (1996:137-138) and Stewart and Cavallo (1991:23) suggested a Middle Archaic chronological association for these points, although recently Stewart indicated that they should be assigned more generally to the Archaic: "These artifacts pre-date 2100 BC and are used over a period extending to 4000/4500 BC, and possibly as early as 6000/6500 BC" (Stewart 1998:1). In unstratified plow zone deposits however it is impossible to distinguish Middle Archaic from Late Woodland triangles. Key morphological or technological attributes have not been identified for the artifacts from each of the time periods. Therefore, it is likely that some Middle Archaic sites, or components within sites, have been misclassified as Late Woodland.
Beginning with the Late Archaic period, archeological data are much more abundant than for the preceding periods. The data suggest a transition from mobile hunting and gathering to more sedentary lifestyles accompanied by increasing social complexity and an increasing rate of cultural change (Custer 1996:163). There are more sites and more artifacts in more places during the Late Archaic than in previous periods, which suggests significant population increases (Custer 1996:213). Hundreds of upland lithic scatters may be attributed to the Late Archaic through Middle Woodland periods (Custer 1996:194-195). The majority of these are represented by quartz debitage. Nonetheless, settlement patterns appear to indicate a shift to reliable water sources because of a dry climatic episode. Along with increased population, collecting strategies (sensu Binford 1980, 1982) and extensive exchange networks developed. Band or other social group territories have been hypothesized for eastern Pennsylvania (e.g., Kent 1970; Custer 1996:216). Two cultural complexes have been defined for the region during the Late Archaic period: the Delaware Valley Archaic complex, and the Poplar Island complex (Custer 1996:179).
Variability in lithic material use continued to increase. For example, quartzite use is rare prior to the Late Archaic period (Custer 1996:212). Local materials are most commonly used, but some materials, like argillite (Stewart 1992) seem to take on social, symbolic, or ideological values (Custer 1996:214-216). Technological innovations occur as well with the introduction of heavy wood-working tools and stone bowls (Custer 1996:184, 213).
During the Early and Middle Woodland periods the major river valleys of the region were avenues of communication (Custer 1996:223). A seasonal settlement cycle included winter base camps with storage features in floodplain settings. In-ground storage facilities are interpreted as implying a degree of sedentism. Smaller upland sites are seen as either transient camps or dispersed winter settlements. However, given the database, the opposite pattern of summer dispersal is also possible (Custer 1996:237). Many of the interior lithic scatters may relate to the Early Woodland period (Custer 1996:245). Exchange systems moved rhyolite and argillite through the region, but the system collapsed at the end of the Middle Woodland period (Custer 1996:243). Although a great degree of cultural continuity is evident in the region, linguistic and other data suggest the possibility of a movement of Algonquian speakers into the region from the north (Fiedel 1987, 1991). Furthermore, there is evidence of a widespread discontinuity in prehistoric cultures during Early Woodland times (Fiedel in press).
The Black Rock complex (Kingsley et al. 1990) of the lower Delaware River valley and the equivalent Wolfe Neck complex of the northern Delmarva Peninsula (Custer 1989:253-256; 1996:247) are characterized by putative extended or multifamily riverine base camps occupied during the spring, summer, and fall. Periodic forays and winter dispersal into the interior by smaller groups occurred at small temporary camps, contributing to the numerous lithic scatters (Custer 1996:248). One of the most significant changes during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods was population change. Custer (1996:259-260) argued for increasing population levels during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods, following a demographic trend that began in the Late Archaic. He cited the large Middle Woodland component in the Abbott Farm site as evidence for this trend.
If relative site frequencies are used as a proxy for population levels, then the archeological data indicate a dramatic decline by the Early Woodland continuing through the Middle Woodland period. An apparent population spike is inferred for the Late Woodland period. This pattern has been observed for the Brandywine (this study), Schuylkill (Kingsley et al. 1990), and Lehigh (Siegel et al. 1999) drainages, as well as other areas in the Northeast (e.g., Fiedel in press; Mulholland 1988). Some degree of population re-structuring may have occurred during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods, resulting in the large Middle Woodland component at the Abbott Farm site. Such re-structuring may have been a response, in part, to environmental changes (see Fiedel in press). However, until regional studies have been conducted correlating site (or component) sizes with population levels, it apears that there may have been major population changes during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods across much of the Northeast.
Custer (1996) characterizes the Late Woodland period as the Village Life cultural period. A sedentary lifestyle is commonly associated with the full-scale adoption of cultivated plants. Domesticated plants were probably introduced into the region from the south and west. Shifts in settlement pattern accompanied the increased reliance on crops. Artifact styles changed and ceramic decorations became more elaborate. The Minguannan complex dominates southeastern Pennsylvania, but the Shenks Ferry complex, centered in the Susquehanna River valley, is also present (Custer 1996:286-289). The Minguannan complex does not appear to fit the overall pattern for agricultural villages. Sites are small and lack house features, storage pits, or midden areas (Custer 1996:288). In fact, site types and their distributions change little from the preceding periods. There is considerable variation in the archeology of eastern Pennsylvania as a whole for the Late Woodland period (Custer 1996:297), but the Village Life cultural period is not relevant to much of southeastern Pennsylvania.
The Contact period began with the first substantial European settlements in the region. The Lenape (Delaware), an eastern Algonquian group, occupied southeastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware, and New Jersey (Becker 1993; Grumet 1990:181-189; Kraft 1986; Weslager 1972:31-49). Ancestors of the Lenape may have migrated to the region during the Early Woodland or Middle Woodland periods (Fiedel 1987, 1991). Late Woodland pottery types clearly connect the prehistoric archeology with Native American groups encountered by Europeans (Custer and Griffith 1986; Grumet 1990:182-185). Archeological data from the Piedmont province, characterized as the Late Woodland period Minguannan Complex (Custer 1984:155-157), are consistent with ethnohistoric data on the Lenape (Stewart et al. 1986:59-67).
The Lenape were riverine and coastal foragers who focused on fish and other aquatic resources (Becker 1993:22). Unlike their Iroquoian neighbors, the Susquehannocks to the west, the Lenape apparently grew little corn before European contact. The Susquehannocks aggressively dominated the fur trade with European colonists (Kent 1984), leaving the Lenape with little to trade, except small quantities of corn and their land, or access to their land (Becker 1999:88). Over 800 extant deeds record the transfer of "Lenapehoking" to Europeans between 1630 and 1779 (Grumet 1989). First, the Dutch, then the Swedes claimed the area, finally giving way to the English in 1664 (Weslager 1972:134-135). English colonists continued purchasing land from the Lenape. William Penn allowed the Lenape, who sold him their land between the Christina River (in present Delaware) and Chester Creek (in present Pennsylvania) in 1683, to reserve for their own use lands for one mile on each side of the Brandywine Creek, including the village of Queonemysing at "Big Bend" (Weslager 1972:165), occupied between 1680 and 1701 (Becker 1986:98-99).
By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Lenape were displaced north and westward from locations along the lower Delaware River, where the principal European settlements were established (Becker 1986; Weslager 1972:174). However, European settlement continued to encroach on Native American lands. Fraudulent transactions such as the infamous "Walking Purchase" in 1737 (Jennings 1970; Kraft 1986:227-228) infuriated the Lenape, who began to leave the area hoping to find support with other Native American groups. In 1742, the remaining Lenape living along the lower Delaware River were ordered west (Weslager 1972:233). Continued European expansion before, during, and after the American Revolution kept pushing the Lenape from lands promised by treaty until they finally found themselves relegated to the Indian Territories of Oklahoma in the 1860s. Today, descendants of the Lenape are recognized by the federal government as the "Delaware Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma", and the "Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma." Other known descendants of the Lenape live on the Six Nations Reserve in Ontario, Canada (Weslager 1972:17).
To summarize, the literature of southeastern Pennsylvania archeology emphasizes a series of themes that cross-cut all time periods. The dominant theoretical orientation is cultural ecology or "biosocial" (Custer 1984, 1989, 1996). The major concerns are cultural historical (establishing sequences of archeological cultures) and adaptationist (settlement and subsistence patterns). The physical environment is considered to be a primary factor structuring cultural patterns and change. Population increases are attributed to environmental amelioration. Migrations and regional and extra-regional trade and exchange systems reflect subcontinental social processes that influenced the region. The major research agendas include:
1. mobility patterns
2. lithic procurement, technology, function, and style
3. subsistence patterns
4. settlement patterns and seasonality
5. trade and exchange
6. other technologies, e.g., ceramics.
Interpretations frequently are based on assumptions and generalizations that need to be tested. Social or ideological themes are considered only in relation to particularly unusual artifacts or sites. Anthropological questions, such as the development of social complexity, are seldom addressed. Research issues are also addressed later in this report after a review of the extant archeological data for the Brandywine Creek watershed.
|Table of Contents||Top of Page|
4.2 The Existing Data
The following section reviews the existing data for prehistoric sites located in the Brandywine Creek watershed. The presentation is mostly descriptive; not all of the data and interpretations are directly relevant for testing the watershed policy. Nonetheless, the information is presented in the interest of completeness of reporting. For organizational purposes, the data are grouped into five broad non-mutually exclusive categories.
Riverine vs. Upland Settings
In total, 309 prehistoric sites are listed in the PASS files for the Brandywine watershed. This represents .396 sites/sq. km (or 1 site/2.5 sq. km) (1.02 sites/sq. mi. [or 1 site/.97 sq. mi.]). Within the Brandywine Valley, the PASS-file documented sites are distributed across 11 topographic settings (Table 1). Not all BHP-defined topographic settings are represented in the Brandywine watershed archeological site database (BHP 1996:17-20).
Within the Brandywine watershed database, Codes 02 and 04 represent riverine settings and the remaining codes refer to upland settings. On this basis, 91 prehistoric sites (29.44% of the total) are located in riverine settings (floodplains, terraces). The remaining 218 sites (70.51%) are distributed across nine upland settings (Table 2). Not surprisingly, this distribution is similar to figures reported by BHP (1996:Figure 10) for the Piedmont Uplands in general (26% of sites in riverine settings, 74% of sites in upland settings). Within the Brandywine Valley uplands specifically, 46 percent of the total sites are located on Topographic Setting 08 (stream benches associated with low-order streams).
Table 1: Topographic Settings of the Brandywine Creek Archeological Sites and their PASS-File Codes
|04||Terrace; ancient floodplains above active floodplain|
|08||Stream bench; level, generally narrow, areas along hillsides or overlooking Rank 1 streams|
|09||Hill ridge/toe; level/nearly level area above floodplain|
Table 2: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of PASS-File Documented Sites in the Brandywine Creek Watershed Listed by Topographic Settings
|Topographic Setting||Number of Prehistoric Sites||% of Total|
Table 3 presents data on 21 sites within the watershed that were subjected to Phase II evaluations. Approximately six additional sites are known to have gone to Phase II, but the reports could not be located and/or the sites did not have site numbers. Table 3 shows the PASS topographic setting category for each site, as well as whether the Phase I/II excavations identified features, artifacts, and the temporal placement of the site. The investigators' recommendations regarding site significance are also indicated.
A few things may be learned from the table. First, only two (10%) of the 21 sites are located on topography not considered "upland" (Topographic Settings 02 and 04). Of the remainder, 13 (62%) sites occur on Topographic Setting 08 (stream bench). The remainder distribute across Setting 10 (upland flat, n=3), Setting 11 (hilltop, n=1), Setting 12 (ridge top, n=1), and Setting 15 (hillslope, n=1). This pattern strongly suggests a tendency for "good" sites to occur on Topographic Setting 08 (stream bench), mirroring the distribution of sites as a whole (46% occur on stream benches).
Second, only two stream bench sites were found to be significant, and a third was regarded as a "maybe". The fact that only a small percentage of the sites was found to be significant might be interpreted as a rather dismal outcome. However, the fact that so many stream bench sites were targeted for Phase II evaluations indicates that as a group the investigators considered these sites to be sufficiently productive at the Phase I level to warrant Phase II investigations. Though most sites ultimately were found to be not eligible for listing in the National Register, important and usable data were gained from them nonetheless.
Third, it is clear that "substantial" prehistoric sites occur on landforms classified by the BHP as uplands. "Substantial" is regarded as something other than the "classic" Piedmont Uplands quartz lithic scatter. When most archeologists think of archeology in the Piedmont Uplands, they think of the small, ubiquitous, enigmatic quartz scatters that dot the landscape. However, several sites identified in Table 3 are far more substantial, evidenced by the presence of features, large quantities of artifacts, and diagnostic artifacts. The assumption that all Piedmont upland sites are small worthless quartz scatters is flawed. Important, significant sites do occur in the uplands.
Table 3: Data for Sites Receiving Phase II Archeological Evaluation
|Site#||Name||Topo Category(a)||Features?||No. of Arts||Temporal(b)||Significant?||Reference(c)|
|CH 465||Stoltzfus I||08-Bnch unn trib WBBW||no||112||no data||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 483||Stoltzfus III||10-UplnFlt unn trib WBBW||no||343||TA||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 438||Kauffman II||08- Bnch on WBBW||54||1061||EAEMLW||yes||Pitt 1990|
|CH 537||Kauffman I||08- Bnch unn trib WBBW||no||335||ELTA||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 339?d||Piersol I||08- Bnch unn trib WBBW||no||252||LA||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 339||Piersol II||08-apparently on a trib||41||1053||LA/SF||yes||Pitt 1990/GAI 1989|
|CH 536||Stoltzfus II||08-apparently on a trib||no||206||ELA||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 532d||"WBBWC"||02-on WBBWC||no||1||no data||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 530||Indian Run||10-UplnFlt unn trib WBBW||no||52||?W||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 151d||Devereaux||12-RdgTop||no||9||no data||no||PASS/Pitt 1990|
|CH 533||Heim||10-UplnFlt unn trib EBBW||no||223||no data||no||Pitt 1900|
|CH 534||Kertz||15-HilSlp BlackHorseCr.||no||514||no data||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 538d||Milford Road||08- Bnch MarshCreek||no||868||ELTAEW||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 494||Font||08- Bnch unn trib Marsh Creek||no||336||LA||no||Pitt 1990|
|CH 179||---||08- Bnch conf. WB/EB||no||"yes"||no data||no||JC 1994|
|CH 289||Dutt#57||11-Hilltop over WBBW||no||"yes"||no data||no||PASS/MAAR 1992|
|CH 283||Dutt#L||04-Terr Taylor Run||131||2700+||LW/C||yes||PASS/MAAR 1992|
|CH 469||Lloyd Neal||08-Bnch Rock Run||2||269||no data||"maybe"||SJS 1984|
|CH 462||Thompson B||08-Bnch Birch Run||no||80||no data||no||SJS 1984|
|CH 466||Griffiths||08-Bnch Birch Run||no||14||no data||no||SJS 1984|
|CH 128||---||08-Bnch Valley Creek||4||2118||LA||no||JMA 1997|
Bnch-Bench; Upln-Upland; Flt-Flat; unn-unnamed; conf-confluence;
BW-Brandywine Creek; WB-West Branch (of Brandywine Creek); EB-East Branch (of Brandywine Creek); Terr-Terrace; Hilslp-Hill Slope; Trib-Tributary; RdgTop-Ridge Top;
(b) A-Archaic W-Woodland E-Early M-Middle L-Late T-Terminal C-Contact SF-Shenk's Ferry
PASS-Pennsylvania Archeological Site Survey files
Pitt-University of Pittsburgh, Cultural Resource Management Program
GAI-GAI Consultants, Inc.
JC-Jay F. Custer
MAAR-Mid-Atlantic Archeological Research, Inc.
SJS-SJS Archeological Services
JMA-John Milner Associates, Inc.
(d) Described wrong in text, mapped wrong or can't locate on map, number may be wrong
Nature of Data Quality
An issue concerning data quality relates to the nature and methods of site discovery. Table 4 lists the Brandywine Valley site sample by methods of discovery and topographic settings.
Thirty sites in the PASS database are blank within the site discovery (SITEDISC) field. An additional 13 sites are listed as "unknown" with regard to method of discovery. The majority of sites (163, or 52.75% of the total) were documented on the basis of collector interviews with no concomitant field checks. Of these, 55 sites (17.79% of total) are located in riverine settings, and 108 sites (34.95% of total) are situated in the uplands. Combining Discovery Method Codes A, U, and Blank for upland settings results in 141 sites (45.63% of total). The block of five discovery methods referred to as systematic surface survey, systematic sub-surface testing, shovel testing, test pits, and extensive test excavation resulted in a total of 94 sites (30.42% of the total). These are divided among 23 (7.44% of total) riverine settings and 71 (22.97% of total) upland settings.
Table 4: Frequencies of PASS-File Documented Sites located in the Brandywine Creek Watershed Listed by Discovery Methods and Topographic Settings
|Topographic Setting||Discovery Method*||--|
Blank: No information (?).
A: Collector interview. I: Shovel testing.
B: Collector interview with field check. J: Test pits.
C: Non-systematic surface survey. K: Extensive test excavation.
D: Systematic surface survey U: Unknown.
E: Systematic sub-surface testing.
A corollary issue concerns the relation between site type and method of discovery (Table 5). Prehistoric open habitations represent 201 sites (65.04% of total). Of these, 23 (7.44% of total) are "blank" (no discovery method reported) and 135 (43.68% of total) were documented by collector interviews with no field check. Of the 309 prehistoric sites listed in the PASS files for the Brandywine Valley, 94 were documented using systematic methods. Methods of site discovery and documentation must be considered of primary importance in evaluating the quality of data and inferences based on them.
Table 5: Frequencies of PASS-File Documented
Sites located in the Brandywine Creek Watershed Listed by Discovery Methods
and Site Types
|Unknown function > 20 m radius||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||1||1|
|Prehistoric open habitation||23||135||-||2||5||20||9||1||3||3||201|
|Village (incl. historic Indian)||-||-||-||-||-||-||1||-||-||-||1|
|Isolated fluted point locus||-||1||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||1|
|Open prehistoric site, unknown function||4||23||-||3||-||15||6||-||2||2||55|
|Historic and prehistoric(a)||1||1||-||2||1||4||12||-||4||-||25|
(a) For the purposes of this study, sites that are listed in the PASS files with codes greater than 50, but which also contained prehistoric artifacts were changed to 50. A few sites were listed with codes of 51 (historic domestic site) and 58 (historic farmstead) but they also contained prehistoric artifacts.
A: Collector interview.
B: Collector interview with field check.
C: Non-systematic surface survey.
D: Systematic surface survey
E: Systematic sub-surface testing.
I: Shovel testing.
J: Test pits.
K: Extensive test excavation.
The majority of PASS-file documented prehistoric sites located within the Brandywine Creek watershed are listed with no dated components (Tables 6 and 7). Since many sites are multicomponent, the total number of dated components as opposed to "general prehistoric" is considerably higher than the total number of documented sites within the watershed (compare Tables 2 and 6).
Table 6: Frequencies of Prehistoric Components Listed by Topographic Settings for PASS-File Documented Sites Located in the Brandwine Creek Watershed
|Time Period||Topographic Setting*||--|
*Topographic setting codes: see Table 1
Table 7: Distribution of PASS-File Documented Sites located in the Brandywine Creek Watershed Listed by Topographic Settings and Dated versus Undated Components
|Topographic Setting||Sites with Dated Components||Prehistoric Sites with No Dated Components||
Archaic and Woodland Sites
|Archaic and Woodland Sites with Dated Archaic Components||Archaic and Woodland Sites with Dated Woodland Components|
In this study, dated components are defined as one or more of the following time periods: Paleo-Indian, Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Late Archaic, Terminal Archaic, Early Woodland, Middle Woodland, Late Woodland.
The largest category of temporal assignment is "prehistoric only" (175 sites), 82 of which are located on benches overlooking Rank 1 streams (Topographic Setting 08). This is followed by Late Archaic components, found in 103 sites; 48 of these sites are located on Topographic Setting 08. The third frequency spike corresponds to Late Woodland components: 46 sites in total, 19 on Topographic Setting 08. The relative frequency of prehistoric components identified for the Brandywine watershed conforms to patterns noted elsewhere in the Northeast (e.g., Fiedel in press; Mulholland 1988). That is, relatively few sites are documented for the Paleo-Indian, Early Archaic, and Middle Archaic periods. There is a dramatic increase in the numbers of sites dating to the Late Archaic and Terminal Archaic periods, followed by a significant decline during the Early Woodland and Middle Woodland periods. During the Late Woodland period another spike is documented. This pattern was not unanticipated. It has been identified in the lower Schuylkill River Valley adjacent to the north (Kingsley et al. 1990) and in the lower Lehigh Valley to the north of the Schuylkill (Siegel et al. 1999:Figure 138).
Table 8 displays the distribution of temporally sensitive artifacts by topographic setting as reported in the PASS files. Most of these artifacts are located on stream benches (Topographic Setting 08; (37.6%), followed by terraces (Topographic Setting 04; 26.1%). Within these topographic settings, Piedmont tradition points predominate (28 and 20, respectively). Raw materials were rarely available for the projectile points. The relative frequencies of dated prehistoric components is mirrored in the distribution of chronologically distinctive artifacts (compare Tables 6 and 8).
Table 8: Distribution of Temporally Sensitive Artifacts by Topographic Setting within the Brandywine Creek Watershed.
|Chronological Affiliation||Topographic Setting||Total|
|Early Archaic point||
|Middle Archaic point||1||2||-||1||-||-||-||-||-||1||-||5|
|Late Archaic point||
|Piedmont tradition point||7||20||1||-||28||-||3||1||-||2||-||62|
|Laurentian tradition point||
|Transitional tradition point||
|Koens Crispin/Savannah River point||
|Orient Fishtail point||2||1||-||-||2||-||-||-||-||-||2||7|
|Steubenville/Fox Creek point||
|Middle Woodland point||
|Jacks Reef point||
|Late Woodland point||2||1||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||1||4|
|Late Woodland Triangle point||4||12||1||1||16||2||1||1||-||-||-||38|
|Late Woodland ceramics||
|Minguannan series ceramics||
|Funk Incised ceramics||
|Potomac Creek Cord Impressed ceramics||
Table 9 shows a cross-tabulation of prehistoric sites by topographic setting and lithic raw material type. As such, each archeological site is tabulated as many times as there are distinct raw materials reported for the site. For example, a site reportedly containing jasper, quartz, and rhyolite artifacts will be tabulated three times in Table 9, once for each of the raw materials.
Seventeen lithic raw material types are listed in the PASS files for the Brandywine Creek archeological sites (Table 9). All told, 172 sites are listed with quartz artifacts. Of these, 77 sites are located on benches overlooking Rank 1 streams. Jasper and quartzite are the second and third-most prevalent raw material types, found in 100 and 95 sites, respectively. Again, most of these sites are located on benches overlooking Rank 1 streams. This pattern is seemingly at odds with lithic distributions reported by Kinsey for the Archaic period in the Piedmont Uplands (Kinsey 1977:Table 3). Kinsey employed four topographic settings: stream, creek, hilltop, and riverine, compared to 11 settings reported for the Brandywine Creek database. His "hilltop" setting potentially subsumes such settings in the current analysis as hill ridge, upland flat, hilltop, ridgetop, saddle, and hillslope. Even if the lithic raw material data for these six topographic settings are collapsed into one group the frequency of sites containing quartz artifacts is considerably less than sites found on stream benches (Table 9). Kinsey tabulated projectile points by raw material; the current study examined the distribution of lithic raw materials regardless of artifact class.
Table 9: Frequencies of Prehistoric Sites Listed by Presence of Lithic Raw Materials and Topographic Settings for PASS-File Documented Sites Located in the Brandwine Creek Watershed
|Lithic Raw Material||Topographic Setting||
|No lithics reported||-||3||-||3||6||-||1||1||-||1||-||15|
The distribution of artifact classes by topographic setting is displayed in Table 10. Again, each archeological site is tabulated as many times as distinct artifact classes are reported in the PASS files. Twenty-six artifact classes are listed in the files for prehistoric sites in the Brandywine Valley. Artifact Class Codes 28-32 are undefined in the CR/GIS Database Design Manual. Chipped-stone tools (Code 03) and stone debitage (Code 02) dominate the artifact classes, appearing in 212 and 206 sites, respectively. Stream benches (Topographic Setting 08) contain the greatest number of sites for all artifact classes combined (Table 10).
Table 10: Distribution of Artifact Classes by Topographic Setting
|Artifact Class||Topographic Setting(b)||Total|
|chipped stone tools||20||50||6||3||95||3||16||6||6||3||4||212|
|ground and polished stone tools||1||8||-||-||11||-||-||-||-||-||-||20|
|gorgets, pendants, & other non-utilitarian lithic artifacts||-||1||-||-||1||-||-||-||-||-||-||2|
|antler and/or bone artifacts||-||-||-||-||1||-||-||-||-||-||-||1|
|non-artifactual bone or antler||1||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||1|
(a)Topographic Setting Codes: see Table 1
(b) Not defined in the CR/GIS Database Design manual (Pennsylvania Department of Education database).
It is inappropriate to apply formal measures of diversity to these data given the unsystematic collection techniques and uneven reporting standards (see Bobrowsky and Ball 1989; Kintigh 1989). Table 11 presents simple descriptive statistics for the distribution of artifact classes by topographic setting. Unexpectedly, the maximum number of artifact classes for a single site occurs on Topographic Setting 08. Conventional wisdom predicted that the greatest number of artifact classes would be found in sites located on riverine settings (i.e., large villages located along big streams will produce the greatest variety of artifact classes in a region). However, the mean number of artifact classes by topographic setting is higher for the riverine locations (Topographic Codes 02 and 04), compared to upland stream benches. The highest mean value is for sites located on hillslopes (Code 15). It would be unwise to generalize from these data and statistics given the caveats regarding collection and reporting standards.
Table 11: Frequency Distribution of Sites and Artifact Classes by Topographic Setting within the Brandywine Creek Watershed (a)
|Minimum Number of Artifact Classes||Maximum Number of Artifact Classes||Median Number of Artifact Classes||Mean Number of Artifact Classes||Standard Deviation|
(a) Information about artifact classes was available for 268 sites.
Review of Previous Surveys and Reports
All BHP Environmental Review (ER) cultural resources reports and appropriate manuscripts addressing terrain within the Brandywine watershed that were available at the BHP were examined. In addition, a handful of compliance studies that did not fall within the jurisdiction of the state environmental review system are on file in JMA's library. In all, 76 reports were reviewed (Table 12).
Each report was reviewed for detailed and general information and recorded on two report summary forms. Detailed information included the BHP ER number, project acreage, survey methods, number of prehistoric sites identified, number of shovel test units excavated, number of 1-x-1-m units excavated, average depths of archeological deposits, and site types/distinctive artifacts. The second form recorded information regarding the presence or absence of a research design, an expressed theoretical perspective, a predictive model, and model evaluation and regional synthesis (see below).
The frequency of state environmental review reports per year in the Brandywine Valley ranges from a high of nine in 1991 to a low of zero in 1989 and 1997, with mean and median values of 3.5 and 2.5 reports, respectively (Figure 3). For this analysis, the year was based on when a project was assigned an ER number by the BHP, not necessarily when a project was completed.
The investigations are distributed across 58 Phase I archeological surveys, seven combined Phase I/II studies, seven Phase II evaluations, two Phase III data recoveries, and one non-compliance research study (Table 12). The quality of reporting varies considerably. The best reports include all of the salient information in the abstracts or executive summaries. The worst reports contain very little or no information even in the body of the text.
Based on the available data, approximately 1976.71 acres of terrain within the Brandywine watershed have been subjected to professional archeological investigations. Project acreages range from a high of 455 to a low of 0.16, with mean, median, and standard deviation values of 53.425, 24.0, and 86.57, respectively. This distribution is skewed to the right (skewness = 2.788), with the majority of project areas clustered around 25 acres. Within Pennsylvania, the Brandywine watershed encompasses 301 square miles (192,640 acres). Thus, 1.02 percent of the watershed has been investigated by archeologists. In all, 3,758 shovel test units and 48 1-x-1-m units have been excavated. These projects resulted in the identification of 91 sites.
If this site-discovery rate (91 sites for 1976.71 acres) is representative, then the total number of prehistoric sites within the Brandywine watershed is projected to be approximately 8,868. Currently, there are 309 prehistoric sites listed in the PASS files for the watershed. This represents 3.48 percent of the projected total (n=8,868) number of sites. As noted earlier, many of these sites have not been reliably documented, so the actual percentage of the total is likely to be considerably lower.
Table 12: Correlation Table: Environmental Review (ER) Number and Bibliographic Reference
|ER #||Project||Bibliographic Reference|
|Research||Jehle and Carr 1983|
|Phase I||Becker 1975|
|Phase I||Benack and Beckman 1991|
|Phase I||Graff et al. 1984|
|Phase I||McCormick, Taylor and Associates 1983a|
|Phase I||McCormick, Taylor and Associates 1983b|
|Phase I||John Milner Associates, Inc. 1983a|
|Phase I||John Milner Associates, Inc. 1983b|
|Phase II||John Milner Associates, Inc. 1984|
|Phase III||Catts and Siegel 1997|
|83-0338-029-B||Phase I/II||Davidson and Shrader 1983|
|83-0751-029||Phase I||Davidson and Shrader 1984|
|83-1113-029-I||Phase IB||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1992|
|83-1113-029-M||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1993a|
|83-1113-029-P||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1993b|
|83-1113-029-Y||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1994a|
|83-1113-029-CC||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1994b|
|84-1863-029||Phase I/II||Jensen 1986|
|84-1863-029||Phase I/II||Sheehan et al. 1984|
|85-0468-029-C||Phase I||Hay and Levy 1985a|
|85-0468-029-D||Phase I||Hay and Levy 1985b|
|85-0468-029-H||Phase I||Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. 1987|
|85-0468-029-I||Phase II||Sheehan et al. 1988|
|85-0469-029||Phase II||Sheehan et al. 1987|
|85-1290-029||Phase I||Basalik and Lewis 1986|
|85-1843-029||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1986|
|86-1200-29-D||Phase I||Custer 1990a|
|87-0343-042||Phase I||Cultural Resources Management Program, Univ. of Pittsburgh 1990a|
|Phase II||Cultural Resources Management Program, Univ. of Pittsburgh 1990b|
|87-0343-042||Phase II||Cultural Resources Management Program, Univ. of Pittsburgh 1988|
|87-0343-042||Phase III||GAI Consultants, Inc. 1989|
|87-0957-042||Phase I/II||Rue 1987|
|87-0957-042||Phase I||Rue and Jackson 1987|
|87-0957-042||Phase I||Walczak and Bello 1997|
|88-0022-029-A||Phase I||Custer 1987|
|88-0750-042||Phase I/II||Pape et al. 1988|
|88-1435-029-B||Phase I||Basalik and Tabachnick 1989|
|88-1526-029-D||Phase I||Ward 1993|
|90-0341-029-C||Phase I||Luhman 1992|
|90-1800-029-D||Phase I||Sheehan et al. 1991|
|90-2117-29-A||Phase I||Custer 1990b|
|91-1060-029-E||Phase I||Robertson and Roulette 1991|
|91-1251-029-A||Phase I||Joire et al. 1997|
|91-2529-029||Phase I||Jensen and Hundefund 1992|
|91-3731-029-B||Phase I||Custer 1991|
|91-3878-029-G||Phase I/II||Hoffman et al. 1992|
|91-3993-071-B||Phase I||Hansell 1991|
|91-3993-071-C||Phase II||Hansell 1992|
|91-4445-029-F||Phase I||Custer 1995|
|92-1058-045||Phase I||Lewis and Berge 1992|
|93-1029-029-F||Phase I||Benedict and McCarthy 1993|
|93-3140-029-B||Phase I||Anonymous (Unknown) 1995|
|94-0940-029-B||Phase I/II||Custer 1994|
|94-1100-029-C||Phase I||Kellogg 1994|
|94-1623-029||Phase I||Miller 1998|
|94-1669-029-D||Phase I||Joire et al. 1994|
|95-0602-029||Phase IB/II||Veit and Pagaulatos 1995|
|95-0892-045||Phase I||Miller 1995|
|95-0892-045||Phase I||Miller 1996|
|95-1071-029-A||Phase I||Jensen et al. 1995|
|95-1822-029-C||Phase I||Bibler et al. 1995a|
|95-1964-029-C||Phase I||Bibler et al. 1995b|
|95-3577-029||Phase I||McElroy and Epperson 1998|
|95-8012-029||Phase I||Baublitz and Greifenstein 1995|
|96-2193-029||Phase I||Lewis et al. 1999|
|96-8153-029||Phase I||Cultural Resources Group, Loius Berger & Associates, Inc. 1996|
|96-8161-029-B||Phase I||Lewis and Gross 1996|
|98-1871-042||Phase I||Stevenson and Riley 1998|
|99-0278-029||Phase I||Siegel et al. 1999|
|00-0023-029||Phase I||Gerhardt and Kingsley 2000|
|Table of Contents||Top of Page|
4.3 Research Issues
Review of Previous Research
The State Plan for archeological research in Pennsylvania was produced over 15 years ago (Raber 1985). The basic research framework for eastern Pennsylvania has not changed much since that time and Custer's (1985) synthesis forms the basis for his 1996 elaboration. In 1986, Custer published a review and critique of cultural resources management (CRM) archeology in southeastern Pennsylvania that grew out of the State Plan background. For site survey projects, Custer (1986) saw three needs:
1. a basic level of comparability of site and non-site location data;
2. a predictive modeling framework; and
3. a clear significance framework.
At a minimum, survey reports should address expectations for sites in the project area based on existing location model;, provide a description of the field methods that insured an adequate test; and note whether or not the field results match or conflict with the models' predictions (Custer 1986). Custer (1986:44), echoing Gardner (1978), argued that even the smallest survey provides data on site locations. The report standards for Pennsylvania (BHP 1991a:49-53) incorporate Custer's (1986) needs in the "minimum level of acceptable documentation for archaeological compliance projects" (BHP 1991a:49). Compliance reports in Pennsylvania should include, as appropriate:
1. predictions about what types of sites are expected and where;
2. description of the research objectives and rationale;
3. discussion of the predictive model(s) employed;
4. discussion of sampling and testing designs and methods and rationale;
5. discussion of the basis for interpretation;
6. discussion of how sites identified in the survey relate to the archeological record of the area;
7. discussion of site function(s), distributions, and settlement patterns;
8. an assessment of the predictive model(s) and other theoretical constructs, as appropriate;
9. an assessment of the reliability of the data;
10. an assessment of the project results relative to the goals and purpose of the study; and
11. a discussion of future research potential.
All available survey reports for the Brandywine Creek watershed on file at the BHP were reviewed (Table 10). Each report was evaluated in terms of Custer's (1986) critique, concerning research goals and contributions of each report. The ER numbers of all projects within the watershed were taken from the PASS quadrangle maps and the matching reports were reviewed (Table 12). Sixty-one Phase I (both IA and IB) and Phase II reports were included in this review (Table 13). Two Phase III data recovery reports were included. Three reports included a statement describing the theoretical orientation of the researchers. Twelve reports included at least a minimal research design; five of these were Phase II or III projects. Forty-two reports contained no research design, either explicit or implicit, including five Phase II reports and one Phase III.
Table 13. Brandywine Creek Watershed: Archaeology Report Summary Form
|Model Evaluation and Regional Synthesis?||Known
|Pitt 1990a APEC||I||Yes||-||Yes||None||many||?||?||46 P II|
|Pitt 1990b APEC||II||Yes||-||NA||None||46||-||-||2 eligibles sites|
|83-1113-029-CC||I||None||None||None||None||0||11||-||11 loci; NFI, but R. poten.|
|83-1113-029-P||I/II||None||None||Minimal||None||0||1||0||PII - NE|
|90-1800-029||I||Yes||None||Yes||None||1||2||-||1 P II|
|91-1251-029A||I||None||None||None||None||0||1||-||NFI; project changed|
Predictive models of site location were lacking in 20 reports with ER numbers later than 1986. Explicit models were employed in only two projects conducted in the Brandywine River drainage over the last thirty years. Implicit or "minimal" predictive models are usually embedded in the cultural context section of the report. The results of the survey or Phase II evaluation were assessed against either the predictive models or regional syntheses in 11 of 58 reports. Thus, the results of 47 surveys were not used to further our understanding of prehistoric settlement pattern or to address any research themes or issues. In terms of Custer's (1986) challenge to CRM archeology in southeastern Pennsylvania, the majority of projects have apparently contributed little to our knowledge of Pennsylvania prehistory.
At least 135 new sites were identified during these surveys. Twenty-two previously recorded sites were involved in 12 projects. No new or known archeological sites were identified in 23 of the projects. Thirty-four sites were recommended for Phase II evaluations. It is difficult to determine how many of these sites were considered significant based on the reports on file. Avoidance was recommended in a number of cases without an explicit recommendation of eligibility. Other projects were modified or abandoned, so that further archeological investigations were not needed or required. In one project, eleven sites were identified; no further evaluations were recommended, but the sites were considered to have research potential nonetheless. Four sites were considered eligible for listing in the National Register, although the research potential of the sites received little discussion.
The majority of the reports use a simple gravity model to either predict or interpret settlement patterns. That is, some characteristic, or group of characteristics, attracts people to particular localities. A water source is the most common attractor. Site probability falls off as the distance to water increases in a gravity model. Other geographic or locational models (e.g., Hodder and Orton 1976; Clarke 1977) were rarely proposed. Optimal foraging models are implied in considering sites as oriented towards "game-attractive" environments or habitats, although explicit elaboration of these models is lacking in the reports. Few of the CRM reports for the Brandywine Creek watershed meet the minimum reporting standards of the BHP (1991a:49-53) or rise to Custer's (1986) challenge. Thus, the research potential of upland sites in the Brandywine Creek watershed has received inadequate consideration over the last 15 years.
The BHP (1991b) defines a prehistoric archeological site as:
•three or more culturally modified items within a 15-meter diameter area found in surface inspection of a plowed field;
•two or more culturally modified items recovered from shovel tests spaced 15 m apart;
•five or more finished tools recovered from an area of one acre or less; or any subsurface culturally derived feature.
Isolated Paleoindian period artifacts (points) are recorded as sites. Other isolated diagnostic artifacts are recorded, but not assigned site numbers. PASS site forms are to be completed for isolated diagnostic artifacts "as important information concerning prehistoric land use" (BHP 1991b:1).
Discrepancies are apparent in the definition of sites among the CRM reports for the Brandywine Creek watershed. Isolated finds and low density scatters are noted or recorded in reports, but are not consistently reported on PASS forms. PASS forms are apparently not required for fewer than five "finished tools recovered within an acre" (BHP 1991b:1). Many small low-density lithic scatters are excluded from the archeological site survey maps and, thus, from regional research.
The characterization of all sites in the Piedmont Uplands as small quartz scatters is false. "Substantial" occupation sites, with features and diagnostic artifacts, occur in the uplands as well; however, the majority of sites in the Piedmont Uplands are indeed the well-known quartz scatters. An issue that bears upon the definition, research potential, and interpretation of small upland sites in southeastern Pennsylvania is regional spatial patterning and site clustering. Sites are usually envisioned as discrete, bounded concentrations of archeological materials. In the case of small upland sites, artifact density can be quite low. Assigning boundaries to such sites is somewhat arbitrary, especially on the basis of shovel test excavations. Boundaries may be more clearly defined for sites identified through surface collection, or on discrete landforms. However, many upland lithic scatters have been identified across seemingly undifferentiated, upland terrain. Typically, each small scatter identified as a site is evaluated individually for National Register eligibility. The assumption is that each site represents a separate cultural manifestation. But if small lithic scatters are clustered and somehow related, then groups of sites are the relevant units of analysis, and not the individual scatters. Dunnell (1992), among others (e.g., Ebert 1992) has argued that the "notion of site" is detrimental to the practice of archeology. In the case of the upland lithic scatters, the administrative or management decision to assign each a separate "site" number precludes a whole set of possible interpretations, and limits the evaluation and potential significance of these sites or site clusters. The individual lithic scatter becomes ineligible to the National Register of Historic Places, not because it lacks research potential, but by definition. Clusters of small sites might be considered as Historic Districts if bounded clusters could be demonstrated, but that may only increase the spatial scale of the problem, as discussed below.
The problem is a matter of scale and is a classic example of seeing the trees, but not the forest. Perhaps small upland lithic scatters should be interpreted and studied at a larger scale. In this context, the low density of cultural material, or isolated finds not recorded as archeological sites in the PASS files, may also be included. If isolated finds and low density scatters of cultural material are considered it becomes obvious that sites are embedded in dispersed artifact concentrations with apparent infinite tails (Wobst 1983:50). This observation has led to the development of what has been defined as "landscape archeology" (see Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992; Crumley and Marquardt 1990). Others have characterized it as "non-site archeology" (see Ebert 1992). A true non-site archeology is difficult, if not impossible, within the context of the Section 106 process (Wobst 1983:66). A determination of eligibility requires an explicit specification of boundaries, for example. However, from a research perspective the importance of the small upland lithic scatter cannot be ignored. The sheer numbers of the sites would suggest that they comprise a large portion of the archeological record of eastern Pennsylvania. If there are tens or hundreds of thousands of these sites, then they could conceivably contain the majority of prehistoric cultural material deposited in the region, more than all the much fewer riverine sites combined.
None of the reports on file with the BHP for the Brandywine Creek watershed consider upland lithic scatters in a larger, landscape context. We do not know if there are discrete clusters of lithic scatters. We do not know if there are gaps, or voids, in the distribution. Wobst (1983:67-68) argues that the application of sampling strategies and models developed in the southwestern United States results in the need to consider the distribution of sites in the East as essentially unknown. The distribution of sites cannot be considered fully specified unless it can be statistically retrodicted based on the information that has been collected (Wobst 1983:39). This requires prospecting for sites based on sampling, evaluation of the sampling, and hypothesis testing. These requirements have not been met for the Brandywine Creek watershed.
Finally, the question arises as to the authenticity of some small upland lithic sites as the products of prehistoric cultural behavior. This issue is fundamental to the interpretation of site settlement patterns. How many of the small Piedmont quartz scatters are not prehistoric sites? Archeologists and collectors working in the region frequently are confused by plow-fabricated quartz "debitage." This question is important, especially with regard to overall frequencies of sites and their locations within the Brandywine watershed. Many of the Brandywine Creek watershed PASS-file sites are documented from informant interviews without field verification. Thus, the authenticity of many sites reported for the Brandywine Creek watershed must be questioned.
Site Function/Settlement Pattern
What is/are the function(s) of the small, "classic" Piedmont quartz scatter sites? What did people do in these places, and what is/are the role(s) of these sites within the larger settlement and subsistence systems? In other words, what kind(s) of human behavior resulted in the creation of numerous small quartz scatters across the Piedmont (and elsewhere)?
Upland resource extraction has been suggested (e.g., Custer 1996). Yet, how does a quartz lithic scatter translate to upland resource extraction? Are the quartz artifacts expedient tools, byproducts of tool production, or some combination of both? What kinds of extracted resources would result in a scatter of quartz?
Do the quartz lithic scatters represent kill and butchering sites? Animals were hunted for over ten millennia, so thousands of kill sites would be expected. But, why do they seemingly consist entirely of quartz? Is the predominance of quartz specific to the Piedmont? Are, say, small jasper lithic scatter sites in the Lehigh drainage also kill and butchering sites?
Lithic acquisition/production has been suggested for the function of quartz scatters (e.g., Catts and Siegel 1997:10-11). A simple "quartz encounter" model depicts people traversing the landscape of the Piedmont Uplands over the full range of prehistory, collecting, fabricating, and using quartz artifacts as needed. This view of human behavior is simplistic. Departures from the simple quartz encounter model include: (1) an embedded strategy of lithic procurement within the larger settlement and subsistence round, (2) preferences for high-quality, non-local materials over less-desirable local materials, and (3) a logistical procurement strategy based on locally available and predictable resources. This last scenario is more likely to be associated with groups that are relatively sedentary and have "settled into" the local territory. These are not mutually exclusive models of lithic procurement and use; elements of all three probably were combined in varying proportions throughout prehistory.
We do not currently know what small upland sites mean, or what they represent in terms of past cultural behavior. Most often they are characterized as individual, short-term procurement camps, as discussed above. On the other hand, they may have nothing to do with subsistence, and they have not been considered from alternate research or cultural perspectives. The watershed policy characterizes the research potential of upland lithic scatters as lacking or minimal. The reality is that the research potential of these sites has not yet been fully explored, especially in CRM contexts.
Alternative Models and Research Approaches
The main problem with upland lithic scatters is that we don't really know how to interpret them, often because we don't know their cultural context, i.e., what component(s)/time period(s) they represent. Part of the problem has been discussed above. If the sites are clustered, they may have been occupied contemporaneously as dispersed settlements. If we consider the cluster as a whole, we might find that diagnostic artifacts are present. The problem is analogous to individual features on a typical site. The individual feature may lack diagnostic artifacts or datable material, but we know the cultural context because of associated features and artifacts. Perhaps the individual upland lithic scatter would be better perceived as a feature itself, rather than as a "site." From this perspective the primary research question that must be addressed is the presence or absence of clustering in upland lithic scatters. Is there patterning in the clustering or in the voids? If there are clusters, what is the focus of the clustering: spring heads, wetlands, lithic outcrops, view sheds, particular soil types, etc.?
One example of patterning may be linear. What if the majority of upland lithic scatters are travel camps along overland routes connecting drainages or territories, as suggested by Stewart (Custer 1996:236)? Then the linear zones of higher site density might correspond to documented trails (e.g., Wallace 1954) (Figure 4). A model for this kind of patterning was suggested by Kellogg and Kingsley (1999) for very small sites in the uplands of southern New Hampshire. The hypotheses have not yet been tested. Interestingly, small upland sites may not be as common in New England as they are in the Middle Atlantic. If so, then why not? Is there a subcontinental trend in small site density with latitude? Is there a relationship between site density and topographic variability (surface roughness at the regional or even subcontinental scale), resource patchiness, or other factors? If small, upland sites in Pennsylvania go undocumented, then we will never know and will never be able to address such questions.
Two basic archeological settlement patterns may be postulated:
The sequential model is assumed in most previous research. In the sequential model, each upland lithic scatter is viewed as a separate occupation, or series of occupations at the same location. Thus, each upland lithic scatter can be considered to be a discrete site. Clusters of sites may result from slight shifts in reoccupation of a locality, shifting environments, errors in relocating a former occupation on a return visit, visits to the same vicinity at widely spaced intervals of time, or some combination of these factors. Purposeful avoidance of previous occupations is also a possibility.
High densities of upland lithic scatters can be explained by either model. Under the sequential model, simple "noise" can be invoked, i.e. repeated occupations of approximately the same place or vicinity. Given enough repeated visits over the long term (hundreds or thousands of years) to undifferentiated upland settings, a continuous distribution of cultural material would be expected. Repeated contemporaneous visits might yield the same results, however.
The contemporaneous model has not been considered in southeastern Pennsylvania. As discussed above, clusters of sites might result from dispersed settlement of a locality and its vicinity. Of course, combinations of the two formation processes may have operated in the past. The contemporaneous model might apply to the Lenape. Becker (1988) has characterized the Lenape settlement pattern as warm season camps along the rivers of the region, focused on fishing and fish runs, with the colder seasons spent in the interior. Interior settlements comprised dispersed villages of several families or extended families. In earlier research, Becker (1980; 1988) lamented the lack of Lenape villages in the region and the difficulties in establishing a Lenape presence in the regional archeology. Perhaps clusters of upland lithic scatters are the seasonal Lenape villages. If such a pattern of settlement extends back in time thousands of years, then it may pertain to the prehistory of the Lenape. As yet, there has been no attempt to interpret upland lithic scatters in terms of Lenape ethnohistory or ethnography; i.e., application of the direct historical approach.
Another testable hypothesis is the band territory model (Kent 1970; see also Custer 1996:215-216) by examining regional patterning in upland lithic scatters. Territories are often accompanied by buffer zones. Voids in the distributions of upland lithic scatters might reflect such buffer zones, regardless of the specific reasons for the deposition of the individual sites. Kent's model pertains to the Late Archaic period, but may also be relevant to the Lenape (e.g., Becker 1988).
Numerous hypotheses can be offered to explain why upland lithic scatters were deposited. Three have been mentioned thus far. The most common is resource procurement, an economic explanation. Location is explained in terms of a gravity model. The site is close to the source of food or other resources that were sought. A second hypothesis is that the sites were travel stops. The exact location is somewhat arbitrary in this case, and local topography may play a role. A least-effort model might be involved to explain site locations under this hypothesis. A combination of gravity and least-effort models might explain how interior upland regions were exploited by hunter-gatherers. Would foragers leave a different pattern of sites than collectors in the uplands? A third hypothesis is that upland lithic scatters represent dispersed group settlements. Several neighboring sites were occupied contemporaneously under this hypothesis. This model is based on social gravity rather than an attraction to environments or resources alone. Perhaps there is an appropriate spacing for contemporaneous occupations dictated by cultural practice-a gravity model with a minimum threshold.
Upland lithic scatters may be the residues of specialized activities or of special-function camps. As such, they may have served as satellites to larger habitations. This scenario may be testable through examination of the spatial distributions of all sites in a region, especially using GIS to layer alternative views of the landscape by such criteria as site chronologies, site types, site sizes, etc.
4.4 Site Significance
Only a small number of research issues have been explored in attempting to interpret the upland lithic scatters of southeastern Pennsylvania. There is a lack of theoretical orientation in CRM reports from the Brandywine Creek watershed and few reports include explicit research designs. Few, if any, of the reports have attempted to place findings in a larger (regional or anthropological) explanatory or theoretical context. In sum, there has been little effort to explain or interpret upland lithic scatters. We do not know if there are patterns in the distribution, and no research has been conducted to explore this issue. The watershed survey priorities model contends that small, upland sites can seldom be considered eligible for listing in the National Register because they do not contribute to research issues. We find that the mere existence of these sites is a research issue. The lack of individual significance may be attributed to an a priori definition of what constitutes an archeological site. The deck, in effect, is stacked against small, upland lithic scatters by a modern cultural bias that focuses on circumscribed areas as settlements. The bias is analogous to the cultural differences between Native American and European conceptions of property (e.g., Cronon 1983; Becker 1980, 1984; Grumet 1989). From a purely archeological research perspective it is essential that site locations be recorded. Settlement pattern research, the dominant research perspective of current and past research in southeastern Pennsylvania, cannot be conducted without knowledge of site locations no matter how a "site" is defined. Even current materialist settlement models have not been evaluated in CRM research over the past 15 years, despite Custer's (1986) call for consistency and survey evaluation. Implicit in the watershed survey priorities model, the research potential of upland sites has been exhausted for the "19 drainage sheds [that] have been identified with the highest quality of data on upland prehistoric site locations" (BHP 1996:31).
Site significance is also problematic from a data perspective. The current database is biased and skewed, and cannot be considered representative of the Brandywine Creek watershed as a whole. The present data clearly indicate that different types of sites are located in upland settings, and include the predominant small quartz scatters as well as more substantial occupations; at least two of the latter were found to be significant and eligible for listing in the National Register. Minimally, then, it may be concluded that substantial, significant sites do indeed occur in the uplands of the Brandywine Valley. As discussed, the significance or potential significance of the quartz scatter sites is at present problematic. As individual entities, they are universally regarded as being not significant. Viewing these data in other ways might lead to a different conclusion. Simply identifying the existence, location, and artifact content of upland lithic sites based on Identification Survey (Phase I) data, in the long perspective, will add important information regarding prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns. Placing dots on maps may reveal spatial patterns, especially using GIS, that may not have been discernible prior to the cumulative results of upland surveys. Realistic models of prehistoric settlement patterns can only be generated from a reliable database. Abandoning further surveys will preclude the potential to refine our settlement pattern models. By necessity, the conduct of research and the development of research designs in the compliance framework will advance through feedback between the continual gathering of data and our ideas about the data. This is largely an inductive approach to the building of settlement pattern models. In any case, the cessation of surveys in upland settings within the 19 exempted watersheds under the model states that significant and potentially significant sites will likely never be found under compliance-driven surveys.
|Table of Contents||Top of Page|
4.5 Site Location Expectations
The single most compelling finding of this study is the association of significant, potentially significant, and otherwise informative prehistoric sites with Topographic Setting 08 (stream bench). The majority of recorded upland sites, and the majority of sites subjected to Phase II evaluation in the Brandywine Creek watershed, occur on this landform. Site types include the numerous quartz scatters as well as more substantial settlements. This upland setting is currently exempted from Phase I survey under the watershed model. The present analysis suggests that stream benches (Topographic Setting 08) should not be exempted from Phase I survey requirements.
It also cannot be assumed that all areas of the watershed have been plowed. A recent survey within the Brandywine watershed in New Castle County, Delaware identified an unplowed, single component, early lithic reduction site in an upland setting that would not have been surveyed under the Pennsylvania watershed survey priorities model (Catts et al. 2000). The site was evaluated through a Phase II testing program; the significance of the site rests in the fact that 99 percent of the lithic material is from the eastern Pennsylvania jasper sources and can be considered exotic to northern Delaware (Kellogg n.d.). Analyses of the flaking technology and other aspects of the data are underway.
4.6 Summary and Recommendations
Relevant PASS-file data for the portion of the Brandywine Creek watershed located in southeastern Pennsylvania were evaluated. This assessment was based on the selected files of the CR/GIS database that were supplied to the investigators. Documented prehistoric sites within the watershed were examined in terms of topographic settings, discovery methods, site types, chronological associations, and lithic raw material distributions. In addition, all relevant cultural resources reports available at the BHP were reviewed. Four issues provided a general framework for the investigation:
•the definition of archeological site;
•site function/settlement pattern; and
•alternative models and research approaches.
Although the major value of upland sites data specifically, and PASS-file data in general, is for settlement pattern research, other important research themes and issues have not been explored. Settlement pattern research seeks to understand how groups distributed themselves across the landscape through time. As chronologically distinctive distribution patterns are identified, research questions are developed to understand underlying processes or conditions that resulted in the patterns. Given the nature of the database in southeastern Pennsylvania, it is likely that at this stage of research questions will center on materialistic issues. Specifically, these include adaptive strategies, demography, trade and exchange, and environmental reconstruction.
The challenge at this point is to distinguish apparent from real patterns. Convincing or believable narratives about what happened in prehistory can be constructed only from a reliable database. Some patterns identified in the Brandywine Creek PASS-file database are replicated in other areas. One such pattern is that relative frequencies of sites by major prehistoric time periods are consistent for the Brandywine, Lehigh, and Schuylkill valleys, based on PASS-file data (Kingsley et al. 1990; Siegel et al. 1999) and for the Northeast in general (Fiedel in press; Mulholland 1988). The other consistent pattern is between the relative distribution of prehistoric sites by topographic settings for the Brandywine watershed specifically (this study) and for the Piedmont Uplands in general (BHP 1996). This latter pattern should be consistent; the Brandywine data are part of the larger Piedmont Uplands data. Other types of research issues cannot be addressed if upland site recordation stops.
One of the criteria for exempting a watershed from further Phase I archeological surveys in upland zones is prehistoric site density (BHP 1996:16-17). There are 309 prehistoric sites listed in the Brandywine watershed PASS-file database, producing a density figure of 1 site per 2.5 sq. km. This value is within the highest state-wide site density range of 1 to 6 sites per sq. km (BHP 1996:Figure 6). However, the database reveals that 163 sites are derived from informant interviews with no field verification, 30 sites have no information reported for discovery methods, and 13 sites were identified by unknown discovery methods. Thus, out of 309 sites listed in the Brandywine database, 206 are of an unverified and hence unknown nature; indeed, many may or may not be real. If these unverified sites are in fact not real, then 103 sites remain in the database, resulting in a density figure of 1 site per 7.57 sq. km. Assuming that the sites are real raises the issue of how sites are defined. The ways that sites are perceived in the regulatory vs. research arenas may be mutually exclusive. If a site definition that focuses on minimal bounded areas is used, then research values at larger spatial scales are precluded. If sites are defined as more-or-less continuous distributions of cultural material, then manageable boundaries are precluded from consideration, as are research issues that emphasize discontinuities in distributions (e.g., territories).
Based on our analysis of the Brandywine Creek prehistoric PASS-file data, it is our opinion that Phase I archeological surveys should be required for all topographic settings, upland and riverine. In particular, high probability areas for the presence of prehistoric sites are located on stream benches overlooking Rank 1 steams (Topographic Setting 08). This topographic setting contains 46 percent of the PASS-file documented sites in the watershed. Most sites deemed worthy of Phase II evaluation also occurred on 08 landforms. All of the patterns noted in this study are derived from the PASS files and cultural resources reports. Although all patterns are suggestive, and in some cases replicated elsewhere, it is our opinion that they should be treated as hypotheses to be tested with tightly controlled systematic surveys. While the BHP-derived data are useful for discussing cultural-historical sequences within a region (watershed), it is difficult to rigorously evaluate site locational patterns, or any other substantive research questions based on the quality of the current data. Data on "non-sites" and isolated finds should not be excluded from the PASS site files or survey maps, and the computerized site file data should be made available for GIS and other analyses undertaken in CRM contexts.
Looking ahead, it is suggested that the Brandywine watershed be subjected to a systematic survey based on probabilistic sampling. It will be important to stratify the watershed by a set of major topographic variables. Perhaps these could be the topographic settings defined by the BHP (1996). Within each topographically defined sampling stratum the landscape should be partitioned into a set of approximately equal sized units. The specific size and shape of each of the units should conform to natural and/or cultural landmarks; however, the approximate size of each unit should be about one to two square kilometers. This will be large enough to allow for the potential to examine spatial and functional interactions between sites within a given sampling unit.
Within each stratum, a specified number of units should be randomly selected for survey. Within each of the selected sampling units all plowed fields should be systematically surveyed. Results of such a survey will provide an objective basis for discussing relative distributions of sites across the landscape. Surveying plowed fields is quick and a reliable method for discovering sites. Aside from steeply sloped terrain and rockshelters the majority of the landscape has been under cultivation at some time following European colonization. Selecting currently plowed fields may approximate a random sample of acreage per sampling stratum. This kind of probabilistic survey, based on the investigation of plowed fields, has been documented to be replicable and reliable elsewhere (e.g., Dickson 1979; Foard 1978; Keay and Millett 1991; Siegel 1984; Steponaitis 1986; Warren and Miskell 1981). Probabilistic surveys performed across the State, perhaps by physiographic region, will provide a body of fundamental baseline information, against which the watershed model, and others, may be compared.
Recently, it has been suggested that every effort should be made to perform full-coverage surveys rather than regional sampling in reconstructing settlement patterns (Fish and Kowalewski 1990a). This is an admirable goal, but, despite Fish and Kowalewski's (1990b:3) claim to the otherwise, is probably not feasible in most normal circumstances in eastern North America. All but one of the chapters in their volume dealt with surveys performed in arid sections of the world, where surface visibility was excellent. The one exception, the Wallace Reservoir Survey (Georgia Piedmont), was conducted after the Georgia Power Company completed "the bulldozing, burning, and burying of trees and smaller vegetation over 70 percent of the flood pool ... [which] resulted in varying degrees of ground disturbance and generally excellent surface exposure" (Fish and Gresham 1990:149). Without the bulldozing, burning, and burying it is unlikely that a full-coverage survey would have been performed.
Ideally, and in conjunction with the probabilistic survey, it is recommended that Phase II-level test excavations at a sample of upland sites in the Brandywine watershed be undertaken. The sample of sites could be drawn randomly, or could consist of sites with apparent high potential for producing meaningful data. In this endeavor, the productivity and data quality of upland sites can be measured and assessed objectively.
|Table of Contents||Top of Page|
Adovasio, J. M., J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath
1990 The Meadowcroft Rockshelter Radiocarbon Chronology 1975-1990. American Antiquity 55(2):348-354.
Bapty, Ian, and Tim Yates
1990 Archaeology after Structuralism.: Post-Structuralism and the Practice of Archaeology. Routledge, London, U.K.
Becker, Marshall J.
1976 The Okehocking Indians: A Remnant Band of Delaware Indians in Chester County, Pennsylvania During the Colonial Period. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 46:25-63.
1980 Lenape Archaeology: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Considerations in Light of Recent Excavations. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 50(4):19-30.
1983 The Boundary Between the Lenape and Munsee: The Forks of Delaware as a Buffer Zone. Man in the Northeast 26:1-20.
1984 The Lenape Bands Prior to 1740: The Identification of Boundaries and Processes of Change Leading to the Formation of the "Delawares." In The Lenape Indians: A Symposium, edited by H.C Kraft, pp. 19-32. Seton Hall University, New Jersey.
1985 The European Contact/Early Historic Period in the Lenape Realm of Pennsylvania's Piedmont and Coastal Plain. In A Comprehensive Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in Pennsylvania, edited by Paul Raber, pp. 41-53. Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1986 Cultural Diversity in the Lower Delaware River Valley: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by J.F. Custer, pp. 90-101. University of Delaware, Newark.
1988 A Summary of Lenape Socio-political Organization and Settlement Pattern at the Time of European Contact. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 4:79-83.
1993 The Lenape and Other "Delawarean" Peoples at the Time of European Contact: Population Estimates Derived from Archaeological and Historical Sources. The Bulletin of the New York Archaeological Association 105:16-25.
1999 Archaeology at the Printzhof (36De3): The Only Documented Early 17th Century Colonial Site in the Delaware Valley. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 15:77-94.
Berg, T. M., J. H. Barnes, W. D. Sevon, V. W. Skema, J. P. Wilshusen, and D. S. Yannacci
1989 Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania. Map 13. Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Parks and Forestry, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 42:3-17.
1982 The Archaeology of Place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31.
Bobrowsky, Peter T., and Bruce F. Ball
1989 The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 4-12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bosbyshell, H., M.L. Crawford, and L. Srogi
1999 Distribution of Overprinting Metamorphic Mineral Assemblages in the Wissahickon Group, Southeastern Pennsylvania. In The Mid-Atlantic Piedmont: Tectonic Missing Link of the Appalachians, edited by D.W. Valentino and A.E. Gates, pp. 41-58. Special Paper No. 330, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Bragdon, Kathleen, J.
1996 Native People of Southern New England; 1500-1650. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Broughton, Jack M., and James F. O'Connell
1999 On Evolutionary Ecology, Selectionist Archaeology, and Behavioral Archaeology. American Antiquity 64(1):153-165.
Bureau for Historic Preservation (BHP)
1991a Cultural Resource Management in Pennsylvania: Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1991b Site Identification Criteria, Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey Files. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1996 The Development of Prehistoric Settlement Pattern Research Priorities in Pennsylvania. Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg.
Carr, Kurt, W.
1989 The Shoop Site: 35 Years After. In New Approaches to Other Pasts, edited by W. Fred Kinsey and Roger Moeller, pp. 5-28. Archaeological Services, Bethlehem, Connecticut.
Catts, Wade P., and Peter E. Siegel
1997 Archeological Investigations in Conjunction with the Proposed Exton Square Mall Expansion, Exton, Chester County, Pennsylvania. John Milner Associates, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Submitted to The Rouse Company, Columbia, Maryland.
Catts, Wade P., Douglas C. Kellogg, and Tod L. Benedict
2000 A Phase I Archeological Survey of the AstraZeneca Triangle Property, Fairfax Due Diligence Project, New Castle County, Delaware. John Milner Associates, Inc. Report prepared for STV Incorporated, Douglassville, Pennsylvania.
Cavallo, John A.
1981 Turkey Swamp: A Late Paleo-Indian Site in New Jersey's Coastal Plain. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9:1-17.
Clarke, David L. (editor)
1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Costa, J.E., and E.T. Cleaves
1984 The Piedmont Landscape of Maryland: A New Look at an Old Problem. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 9:59-74.
1983 Changes in the Land: Indians Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. Hill and Wang, New York.
Crumley, Carole, and William H. Marquardt
Custer, Jay F.
1990 Landscape: A Unifying Concept in Regional Analysis. In Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology, edited by Kathleen M.S. Allen, Stanton W. Green, Ezra B.W. Zubrow, pp. 73-79. Taylor and Francis, New York.
1984 Delaware Prehistoric Archaeology. University of Delaware, Newark.
1985 Prehistoric Archaeological Resources of Pennsylvania's Piedmont and Coastal Plain. In A Comprehensive Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in Pennsylvania, edited by Paul Raber, pp. 25-41. Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
1986 An Assessment of Contract Archaeological Research in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1975-1985. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 56:42-51.
1988 Lithic Scatter Sites of the Piedmont Zone of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 58(1):30-42.
1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula. University of Delaware, Newark.
1996 Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Anthropological Series No. 7, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Custer, Jay F., and Daniel R. Griffith
1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle and Lower Delmarva Peninsula. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 29-57. University of Delaware, Newark.
Custer, Jay F., and Edith B. Wallace
1982 Patterns of Resource Distribution and Archaeological Settlement Patterns in the Piedmont Uplands of the Middle Atlantic Region. North American Archaeologist 3:139-172.
Dickson, D. Bruce
1979 Deduction on the Duck River: A Test of Some Hypotheses about Settlement Distribution Using Surface Site Survey Data from Middle Tennessee. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 4:113-137.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1980 Evolutionary Theory in Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Volume 3, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 35-99. Academic Press, New York.
1992 The Notion Site. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscape, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider, pp. 21-42. Plenum, New York.
Ebert, James I.
1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Fiedel, Stuart J.
1987 Algonquian Origins: A Problem in Archeological-Linguistic Correlation. Archaeology of Eastern North America 15:1-12.
1991 Correlating Archaeology and Linguistics: The Algonquian Case. Man in the Northeast 41:9-32.
in press What Happened in the Early Woodland. Archaeology of Eastern North America.
Fish, Paul R., and Thomas Gresham
1990 Insights from Full-Coverage Survey in the Georgia Piedmont. In The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, pp. 147-172. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Fish, Suzanne K., and Stephen A. Kowalewski (editors)
1990a The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
1990b Introduction. In The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey, edited by Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, pp. 1-5. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
1978 Systematic Fieldwalking and the Investigation of Saxon Settlement in Northamptonshire. World Archaeology 9:357-374.
Gardner, William, M.
1978 Comparison of Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distributions: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Paper presented at the 1978 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
Grumet, Robert S.
1989 The Selling of Lenapehoking. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 44:1-6.
1990 Historic Contact, Indians and Colonists in Northeastern North America, 1497-1783. National Historic Landmark Theme Study, Distribution Draft I, National Park Service, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Harrington, Mark R.
1921 Religion and Ceremonies of the Lenape. Indian Notes and Monographs, Miscellaneous Publications No. 19, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York.
1989 The Piedmont Ground-Water System. In Ground Water in the Piedmont, edited by C.C. Daniel, III, R.K. White, and P.A. Stone, pp. 1-13. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
Hodder, Ian (editor)
1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology (second edition). Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K.
Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton
1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology, Cambridge University, Cambridge, U.K.
1970 The Scandalous Indian Policy of William Penn's Sons: Deeds and Documents of the Walking Purchase. Pennsylvania History 37(1):19-39.
Kellogg, Douglas C.
n.d. Phase II Evaluation of Site 7NC-B-55, AstraZeneca Triangle Property, Fairfax Due Diligence Project, New Castle County, Delaware. John Milner Associates, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Submitted to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover.
Kellogg, Douglas C., and Robert G. Kingsley
1999 The Tasha-Bodwell Swamp Site (27-RK-202), Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Archaeologist 39(1):34-69.
Keay, S. J., and M. Millett
1991 Surface Survey and Site Recognition in Spain: The Ager Tarraconensis Survey and its Background. In Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology, edited by A. J. Schofield, pp. 129-139. Oxbow Monograph 4. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Kent, Barry C.
1970 Diffusion Spheres and Band Territories Among the Archaic Cultures of the Northern Piedmont. Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, College Park.
1984 Susquehanna's Indians. Anthropological Series No. 6, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Kingsley, Robert G., James A. Robertson, and Daniel G. Roberts
1990 Archeology of the Lower Schuylkill River Valley in Southeastern Pennsylvania. John Milner Associates, Inc. Report submitted to the Philadelphia Electric Company, Philadelphia.
Kinsey, W. Fred, III
1977 Patterning in the Piedmont Archaic: A Preliminary View. In Amerinds and their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, edited by Walter S. Newman and Bert Salwen, pp. 375-391. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 288. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.
Kintigh, Keith W.
1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George T. Jones, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Klitgord, K.D., D.R. Hutchinson, and H. Schouten
1988 U.S. Atlantic Coastal Margin; Structural and Tectonic Framework. In The Atlantic Continental Margin: U.S., edited by R.E. Sheridan and J.A. Grow, pp.19-55. Decade of North American Geology (DNAG) Volume I-2, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Kraft, Herbert C.
1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History, and Ethnography. Collections of the New Jersey Historical Society Volume 21, Newark.
Maguire, T.J., R.E. Sheridan, R.A. Volkert, M.D. Feigenson, and L.C. Patino
1999 Continuation of the Appalachian Piedmont Under the New Jersey Coastal Plain. In The Mid-Atlantic Piedmont: Tectonic Missing Link of the Appalachians, edited by D.W. Valentino and A.E. Gates, pp. 1-28. Special Paper No. 330, Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.
Marsh, B., and E. R. Marsh
1989 Landforms. In The Atlas of Pennsylvania, edited by D. J. Cuff, W. J. Young, E. K. Muller, W. Zelinsky, and R. F. Abler, pp. 18-25. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Mulholland, Mitchell T.
1988 Territoriality and Horticulture: A Perspective for Prehistoric Southern New England. In Holocene Human Ecology in Northeastern North America, edited by G.P. Nicholas, pp. 137-166. Plenum Press, New York.
Raber Paul A. (editor)
1985 A Comprehensive Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources in Pennsylvania. Bureau of Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Rossignol, Jacqueline, and LuAnn Wandsnider (editors)
1992 Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, Plenum, New York.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Siegel, Peter E.
1984 Prehistoric Behavioral/Locational Organization in the Lower Chenango River Valley, New York. Ph.D. prospectus, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghamton.
Siegel, P.E., T. L. Benedict, and R. G. Kingsley
1999 Archeological Data Recoveries at the Fahs II and Oberly Island Sites: Structure, Function, and Context in the Lower Lehigh Valley, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. John Milner Associates, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Submitted to URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Speck, Frank G.
1931 A Study of the Delaware Indian Big House Ceremony. Publications of the Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission No. 2, Harrisburg.
Steponaitis, Laurie C.
1986 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns from the Patuxent River Drainage, Maryland. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Stewart, R. Michael
1992 Argillite and the Prehistory of the Delaware Valley. Paper presented at the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
1998 Archaic Triangles at the Abbott Farm National Landmark: Typological Implications for Prehistoric Studies, Middle Atlantic Region. Paper presented at the 1998 Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
Stewart, R. Michael, and John A. Cavallo
1991 Delaware Valley Middle Archaic. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7:19-42.
Stewart, R. Michael, Chris C. Hummer, and Jay F. Custer
1986 Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle and Lower Delaware River Valley and the Upper Delmarva Peninsula. In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, pp. 58-89. University of Delaware Press, Newark.
Wallace, Paul A.W.
1954 Historic Indian Trails of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Warren, Robert E., and Tom Miskell
1981 Intersite Variation in a Bottomland Locality: A Case Study in the Southern Prairie Peninsula. In Plowzone Archeology: Contributions to Theory and Technique, edited by Michael J. O'Brien and Dennis E. Lewarch, pp. 119-158. Publications in Anthropology No. 27. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Weslager, Clinton A.
1972 The Delaware Indians: A History. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Wobst, H. Martin
1983 We Can't See the Forests for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, Edited by J.A. Moore and A.S. Keene, pp. 38-85. Academic Press, New York.
Table of Contents Top of Page
Bibliography of CRM Studies for the Brandywine Creek Watershed
1995 Phase I Archeological Survey, S.R. 3079 - Section 56S, Highland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 93-3140-029-B) Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc.
1987 Addendum to: A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Southern 10.4 Miles of an Eastern Shore Natural Gas Pipeline, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-0468-029-H) Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, Dover, Delaware.
Basalik, Kenneth J., and Tom Lewis
1986 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Shamona Creek Park, Uwchlan Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-1290-029) Report prepared for unknown, Pennsylvania.
Basalik, Kenneth J., and Alan Tabachnick
1989 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Brandywine Service Plaza Expansion Project, Wallace Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 88-1435-029-B) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Baublitz, Richard T., and Charles Greifenstein
1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 3027, Section 41M, Bridge Replacement Project, Pocopson Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-8012-029) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Becker, Marshall J.
1975 Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Area. Affected by Brandywine Creek Watershed Floodwater Retarding Dam PA-435A. Submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Benack, Lisa A., and Kristen A. Beckman
1991 Phase I Cultural Resources, Chester County, S.R. 3062, Section 29S, Strasburg Road Bridge. Skeely and Loy, Inc. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Bededict, Tod L., and John P. McCarthy
1993 A Phase I Archeological Survey of the McMullan Tract, Pennsbury Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 93-1029-029-F) John Milner Associates, Inc. Report prepared for Megill Construction Company, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Bibler, David C., James R. Kodlick II, Alan D. Beauregard, Stuart P. Dixon, and Elizabeth L. Roman
1995a Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 3077, Section 67S, Glenrose Bridge Replacement Project, East Fallowfield and Highland Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-1822-029-C) KCI Technologies, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Bibler, David C., James R. Kodlick II, Alan D. Beauregard, Stuart P. Dixon, Margaret A. Bishop, and Elizabeth L. Roman
1995b Phase I Archaeological Survey, S.R. 4033, Section 68S, Cornog Bridge Replacement Project, Wallace Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-1964-029-C) KCI Technologies, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Catts, Wade P., and Peter E. Siegel
1997 Archeological Investigations in Conjunction with the Proposed Exton Square Mall Expansion, Exton, Chester County, Pennsylvania. John Milner Associates, Inc. Report prepared for The Rouse Company, Columbia, Maryland.
Cee Jay Fredrick Associates and John Milner Associates, Inc.
1995 Historic Resources Impact Study for the Proposed Expansion of the Exton Square Mall, West Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to The Rouse Company, Columbia, Maryland.
Cultural Resources Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
1986 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Chester Bridge Replacement, L.R. 413, Section 06B, Wawaset, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-1843-029) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1992 Phase IB Archaeological Investigation, SR 6030, Section B03/B04, Exton Bypass, Proposed Wetland Replacement Areas, West Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 83-1113-029-I) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1993a Management Summary of Completed Phase I Archaeological Investigations, Proposed Wetland Replacement Areas D, E, and F, SR 6030, Section B03/B04 associated with the Exton Bypass, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 83-1113-029-M) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1993b Management Summary of Completed Phase I Archaeological Investigations, Proposed Wetland Replacement Areas 12 and 20, SR 6030, Section B03/B04 associated with the Exton Bypass, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 83-1113-029-P) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Cultural Resources Group, Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
1994a Management Summary of Completed Phase I Archaeological Investigations, Proposed Wetland Replacement Area DB-4, SR 6030, Section B03/B04 Associated with the Exton Bypass, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 83-1113-029-Y) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1994b Management Summary of Completed Phase I Archaeological Investigations, Proposed Wetland Replacement Area 27, SR 6030, Section B03/B04 Associated with the Exton Bypass, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 83-1113-029-CC) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Bridge Replacement, SR 0162, Section 51S, Unionville Road Bridge, Newlin Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 96-8153-029) Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Cultural Resources Management Program, University of Pittsburgh
1988 Draft Report on Phase II Investigations in the Capacity Restoration Program Right-of-Way, Greene, Fayette, Fulton, Franklin, Adams, York, Lancaster, and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. (ER# 87-0343-042) Report prepared for Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, Houston, Texas.
1990a Phase I Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the APEC Project Right-of-Way, Southeastern Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Report prepared for Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, Houston, Texas.
1990b Phase II Archaeological Testing in the APEC Project Right-of-Way, Southern Pennsylvania, Part I . Report prepared for Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, Houston, Texas.
Custer, Jay F.
1987 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Fedena Property, West Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 88-022-029-A) Report prepared for Mr. and Mrs. S. Fedena, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
1990a Phase I Archaeological Survey of Proposed Glenmoore SewageTreatment Plant Site, Wallace Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 86-1200-29-D) Report prepared for Wallace Township Municipal Authority, Glenmoore, Pennsylvania.
1990b Phase I Archaeological Survey of Balderston Farms, West Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 90-2117-029-A) Report prepared for John Shelton, Exton, Pennsylvania.
1991 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Brandywine Manor Farm, West Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-3731-029-B) Report prepared for Stephen E. Cushman, Thorndale, Pennsylvania.
1994 Phase I and II Archaeological Studies of the Curtis Property, East Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 94-0940-029-B) Report prepared for Toll Brothers, Inc., Thornton, Pennsylvania.
1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Green Manor Farms, West Brandywine Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-4445-029-F) Report prepared for Stephen E. Cushman, Thorndale, Pennsylvania.
Davidson, Jane L. S. and John J. S. Shrader
1983 Chester County Prison Archaeological Site (36CH95). (ER# 83-0338-029-B) Chester County Historic Preservation. Report submitted to Chester County Supervisors, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
1984 Hibernia County Park Archaeological Survey. (ER# 83-0751-029) Chester County Historic Preservation and Chester County Parks and Recreation. Submitted to Chester County Supervisors, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Gerhardt, Juliette, J., and Robert G. Kingsley
2000 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Pocopson Elementary School, Pocopson Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 2000-0230-029-A) John Milner Associates, Inc. Report prepared for the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania.
GAI Consultants, Inc.
1989 Interim Report on Phase III Investigations of the Piersol II Site (36CH339), Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 87-0343-042) Report prepared for Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, Houston, Texas.
Graff, Stephen H., Kenneth J. Basilik, and Anne R. Brown
1984 Archaeological Location/Identification Study, Knowlton Road Bridge Rehabilitation Project L.R 23015, Section 47B, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
1991 Phase I Archaeological Cultural Resource Survey for Cambridge Properties Subdivision, Salisbury Township, Lancaster County, PA. DER 537 Program. (ER # 91-3993-071B) Archaeological Research Consultants, Temple University. Submitted to Richard Stauffer, Ephrata, Pennsylvania.
1992 Phase II Archaeological Cultural Resources Survey on the Hellwr (A) Site (36-LA-913), Salisbury Township, Lancaster County, PA. DER 537 Program. (ER # 91-3993-071C) Archaeological Research Consultants, Temple University. Submitted to Richard Stauffer, Ephrata, Pennsylvania.
Hay, Conrad A., and Candace B. Levy
1985a A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Northern 3250' of an Eastern Shore Natural Gas Pipeline, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-0468-029-C) Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, Dover, Delaware.
1985b A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Southern 10.4 Miles of an Eastern Shore Natural Gas Pipeline, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-0468-029-D) Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, Dover, Delaware.
Hoffman, Robert F., Karyn Z. Joire, and Kenneth M. Joire
1992 A Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations at the Parke Farm, A Proposed Residential Development Located in East Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-3878-029-G) MAAR Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Susan B. Harney c/o Robert Toland, Jr. Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Jehle, Patricia A. and Kurt W. Carr
1983 The Southeast Pennsylvania Upland Archaeology Project: Intrasite Analysis of Plowzone Sites. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Jensen, Anne M.
1986 West Branch Brandywine Creek Drainage, Phase I and II Cultural Resources Investigations of Three Proposed Dam Locations. Appendix 21: The Stoltzfus Site (36CD465), Phase II Investigations. (ER# 84-1863-029) SJS Archaeological Services. Report submitted to the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Jensen, Anne M., William J. Chadwick, J. Eric Landis, Anjan Chakrabarty, and Randall H. Wise
1995 Phase I Archaeological Investigation at Happy Days Farm, Uwchlan Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-1071-029-A) SJS Archaeological Services. Report submitted to the Kravco Company, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Jensen, Anne M., and Donald N. Hundefund
1992 Phase I Archaeological Investigations of the Proposed Middle School Site, Downingtown Area School District, Downingtown, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-2529-029) SJS Archaeological Services. Report prepared for the Downingtown Area School District, Downingtown, Pennsylvania.
John Milner Associates, Inc.
1983a Exton Bypass Environmental Impact Statement, L.R. 1004, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resources Technical Basis Report. Report submitted to the Federeal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
1983b Exton Bypass Environmental Impact Statement, L.R. 1004, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Cultural Resources Technical Basis Report. Report submitted to the Federeal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
1984 Exton Bypass Environmental Impact Statement, L.R. 1004, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Determination of Eligibility. Report submitted to the Federeal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Joire, Kenneth. M., Karyn Z. Joire, and Robert F. Hoffman
1997 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed U.S. Route 322 Improvements, East Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-1251-029-A) MAAR Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Robert F. Harsch Associates, Inc. West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Joire, Kenneth. M., Karyn Z. Joire, and Philip A. Perazio
1994 A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of a Portion of the Proposed Uhler Tract/Corey Farms Subdivision, Caln Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 94-1669-029-D) Kittatinny Archaeological Research, Inc. Report prepared for Rouse/Chamberlin Ltd, Exton, Pennsylvania.
Kellogg, Douglas C.
1994 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Route of the Proposed Disabled Acess Trail at Hibernia County Park, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 94-1100-029-C) MAAR Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Chester County Parks and Recreation Department, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Lewis, Tom, and Ronald C. Berge
1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Ridings II Subdivision, Birmingham Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 92-1058-045) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. Report prepared for J. Grace Company, Inc., Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.
Lewis, Tom, and Charlane Gross
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Bridge over Indian Run, S.R. 4021, Section 39M, Wallace Township, Chseter County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 96-8161-029-B) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. and Brandywine Conservancy. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Lewis, Tom, Carrie A. Kelley, Erika Bauroth, and Robert Wise
1999 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, PA Route 52 Improvement Project, Longwood Gardens, Pennsbury and Kennett Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 96-2193-029) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. and Brandywine Conservancy. Report submitted to Longwood Gardens and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
Luhman, Hope E.
1992 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Water Treatment Plant, Downington Borough, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 90-0341-029-C) Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc. Report prepared for Downingtown Municipal Water Authority, Downingtown, Pennsylvania.
McCormick, Taylor, and Associates
1983a Exton Bypass, Environmental Impact Statement, Cultural Resources Technical Basis Report. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg.
1983b Exton Bypass, Environmental Impact Statement L.R. 1004, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg..
McElroy, Patrick, and Terrence W. Epperson
1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey (Abbreviated Format) Como Farm/Tattersall Development Golf Course, West Bradford Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-3577-029) Cultural Heritage Research Services, Inc. Report prepared for Meadobrook Golf Management, Inc., Lombard, Illinois.
Miller, Patricia E.
1995 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, U.S. Route 1, Proposed Road Improvements (S.R. 0001, Section H06), Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-0892-045) Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1996 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report, U.S. Route 1, Proposed Road Improvements (S.R. 0001, Section H05), Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-0892-045) Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
1998 Phase I Archaeological Survey, Proposed Bridge Replacement Project, Cedar Knoll Road, S.R. 4005, Section 34S, West Brandywine and West Caln Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 94-1623-029). Archaeological and Historical Consultants, Inc. Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.
Pape, W. Kevin, Heidi Fassler, Ken Jackson, Sue E. Kozarek, Mark Robinson, and Marlesa Gray
1988 A Final Report of Phase I, II, and IIA Cultural Resources Investigations for the Proposed Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation Proposed Line-1278 Replacement Project, Lancaster and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania. (ER# 88-07050-042) Gray and Pape Cultural Resources Consultants. Report submitted to Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Robertson, James A., and Bill R. Roulette, Jr.
1991 A Phase I Archeological Survey of the Proposed Ashlea Development, Wallace Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 91-1060-029-E) John Milner Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Tarlecky Development Corporation, Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Rue, David J.
1987 Addendum: Phase I/II Cultural Resources Survey of Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation's Proposed 20-Inch Pipeline in Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. (ER# 87-0957-042) WAPORA, Inc. Report submitted to Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Rue, David J., and Kenneth Jackson
1987 Cultural Resources Report for Proposed Construction of Columbia Gas Trasmission Corporatiopn's 20-Inch Pipeline in Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. (ER# 87-0957-042) WAPORA, Inc. Report submitted to Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, Charleston, West Virginia.
Sheehan, Glenn W., Brooke Blades, Anne M. Jensen, Donald N. Hunderfund, and Elizabeth Y. Rump
1991 Wylie Tract, Birmingham Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Phase I Archaeological Survey. (ER# 90-1800-029-D) SJS Archaeological Services, Inc. Report submitted to C.S.C. Associates, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania.
Sheehan, Glenn W., John T. Jensen, and Senta German
1988 Phase II Archaeological Survey at Mr. Hoopes' Pasture 36CH475. (ER# 85-0468-029-I) SJS Archaeological Services, Inc. Report prepared for Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, Dover, Delaware.
Sheehan, Glenn W., Anne M. Jensen, and Malcolm K. Sender
1984 West Branch Brandywine Creek Drainage, Phase I and II Cultural Resources Investigations of Three Proposed Dam Locations. (ER# 84-1863-029) SJS Archaeological Services. Report submitted to the USDA Soil Conservation Service, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
1987 A Phase II Archaeological Survey of Six Prehistoric Sites in Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 85-0468-029) SJS Archaeological Services. Report submitted to Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company, Dover, Delaware.
Siegel, Peter E., Kevin. Simons, and Robert G. Kingsley
1999 A Phase I Archeological Survey of the Proposed Rainbow Elementary School Expansion, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 99-0278-029) John Milner Associates, Inc. Report prepared for Hebert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Stevenson, Christopher M., and Patrick Riley
1998 A Phase I Literature Review and Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Fiber Optics Communication System in Valley and West Whiteland Townships, Chester County, and Bart Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 98-1871-042) ASC Group, Inc. Report submitted to Burns and McDonnell, Kansas City, Missouri.
Veit, Richard, and Peter Pagoulatos
1995 Phase IB and II Cultural Resources Survey, The Home Depot, East Whiteland Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 95-0602-029) The Cultural Resources Consulting Group. Report prepared for Greenberg Farrow Architecture, Somerville, New Jersey.
Walczak, Kevin M., and Charles A. Bello
1997 Cultural Resources Investigation, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation Line 1A Reactivation Project, Chester and Delaware Counties, Pennsylvania. (ER# 87-0957-042) The Cultural Resources Consulting Group. Report prepared for Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Houston, Texas.
Ward, Jeanne A.
1993 A Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Brandywine Hospital Property in Association with the Proposed Construction of a Medical Office Building, Caln Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. (ER# 88-1526-029-D) Archaeological and Cultural Research Consultants. Report submitted to RedGo Properties, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Zatz, Karyn, Robert G. Kingsley, and Daniel G. Roberts
1987 An Archeological Reconnaissance of the Church Farm School Property. John Milner Associates, Inc. Report submitted to Rouse & Associates, Malvern, Pennsylvania.