Hydrofracking, Regulation, and Archaeology
Wednesday morning I turned on Albany, New York’s WNYT news and saw the actor Mark Ruffalo speaking in an interview about Tuesday’s protest against New York State’s permitting of hydrofracking in upstate New York. Ruffalo, who lives in upstate New York, offered the opinion that hydrofracking will either be “banned” or “heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily regulated” in the Empire State. He may or may not be right.
The issue of whether hydrofracking will be banned or permitted under state regulations is currently being considered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Until DEC speaks definitively on this issue, it is not clear whether fracking will be banned, heavily, heavily, heavily, heavily regulated, regulated to a lesser extent, or permitted with little significant regulation. Environmental, health, and economic issues concern a good many people as they watch to see how the DEC will act.
Impacts to historic and archaeological sites (often referred to as cultural resources) are among the many kinds of environmental impact that DEC has the responsibility to regulate should it permit hydrofracking of the Marcellus Shale or other deposits in New York. As I reported in Fieldnotes last fall, the November 2011 issue of Scientific American (1) describes what hydrofracking is, (2) briefly outlines some of the controversy and concerns, and (3) provides a graphic illustration that allows one to visualize the nature of ground disturbance at a generic well-site developed for hydrofracking.
Archaeologists– who, like geologists and engineers, are well-trained, well-educated professionals– expect agencies such as DEC to adequately take into account the effect that issuing permits has on historic and archaeological sites. Archaeology magazine reported on concerns that state regulations in Pennsylvania (where hydrofracking is already permitted) may not be strong enough to protect archaeological sites (I heard a report on the radio recently that seemed to indicate that Pennsylvania’s regulations have been under study, although archaeology was not mentioned specifically). Meanwhile, the National Parks Conservation Association has announced a study to examine the effects of fracking on archaeological sites and other resources located in National Parks.
In New York State (again, last November) the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) provided extensive comments to DEC Commissioner Joe Martens on the “Revised Draft-Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement” currently under review with regard to permitting hydrofracking. In short, NYAC (which had also commented in 2008) identified its interest as the appropriate protection and management of New York’s cultural resources, urging (with reference to a large number of specific sections of the Draft-Supplemental GEIS) that an adequate process be put in place to do so (NYAC in fact urged compliance with the State and National Historic Preservation Acts). NYAC’s 2011 comments essentially sought to correct the GEIS in some places, and introduce the concept of archaeological impacts where it was needed in other places.
The concerns of archaeologists in New York State are based upon the knowledge that important historic and archaeological sites are widely distributed across New York’s landscape, including the areas proposed for hydrofracking. These sites are not few in number, or located mainly in isolated or already protected areas. New York’s archaeological sites, in their totality, contain the information needed to tell the significant stories of New York’s past (including the area’s history before New York even existed).
These stories include the significant changes in Native American culture and land-use during the time before contact with Europeans. Another story-line follows the stream of Native American history into its confluence with New York’s Dutch, French, and English history. In addition, a large number and wide variety of 18th and 19th century farmstead sites can be studied by archaeologists to tell the tales of the expansion of the frontier, and how the children born after the Revolutionary War became the first generation of Americans who made themselves American in a cultural sense. Another set of archaeological sites records the lives of people who had lived as slaves and learned to be free in rural New York. Yet another set of archaeological sites contains information important to the history of Scotch, Irish, German, and other immigrants. These various kinds of home and farm sites populate upstate New York’s landscape and occur among industrial sites such as Indian stone quarries and early settlers’ gristmills, sawmills, tanneries and potteries; remembered and unremembered Indian graves and burial grounds; church and school-house sites; marked and no-longer marked historic cemeteries; the occasional battlefield or old military installation; and a variety of other kinds of historic places. It is important to recognize that these are the kinds of sites that could be affected, and that impacting them diminishes the heritage of a variety of individual communities. Destroying them without proper recording diminishes New York State’s ability to connect in tangible ways with its history.
Currently, the wide variety of archaeological and historic sites (numbering at minimum in the many thousands) is afforded due attention and reasonable protection in the review of a variety of other kinds of DEC permits and actions. If hydrofracking in New York is permitted, archaeological and historic sites affected or potentially affected by this industry should be identified and evaluated in a reasonable process of historic documentation, fieldwork, scientific investigation, and consultation with concerned parties (such as archaeologists, the State Historic Preservation Office, and Indian tribes or other concerned communities). When these sites cannot be protected, mitigating measures that are reasonable in the view of archaeologists and concerned communities should be implemented and carried through to completion. This is the kind of process that professional archaeologists consider to be essential. Hopefully, NYAC’s comments can be used as a basis to develop a sufficient cultural resource review process for fracking (or should there be any question about this, perhaps Mr. Martens would ensure an on-going discussion with NYAC in order to better inform a wise cultural resource policy).
Archaeologists have long made the point that archaeological sites are non-renewable resources. Archaeological sites can never be replaced, and therefore should not be consumed without a very good reason. It is necessary to exercise wisdom about environmental permitting and regulation concordant with the knowledge that archaeological sites (or affected portions of archaeological sites) are irreplaceable.
Papers on the Archaic Period Presented at the 2012 NYSAA Annual Meeting
On Saturday April 28, 2012, several papers on Archaic period topics were among the presentations in the symposium honoring the late Al Dekin at the annual meeting of the New York State Archaeological Association (NYSAA). This meeting was held at the Clarion Hotel, Poughkeepsie, New York, and was sponsored by the Incorporated Orange County Chapter of the NYSAA. Papers that reported on research into the Archaic period (ca. 3,000-10,000 years Before Present, or BP) included:
- “Fishing Encampments: Landscape, Scale, and Contemporary Archaeology in Northwest Pennsylvania” by Susan Prezzano, Clarion State University;
- “The Five-Mile Dam Site: A Proto-Laurentian South Hill Manifestation in the Mohawk Valley” by Daniel Cassedy, URS Corporation;
- “Landscape and Place in the Formation of Archaic Societies, or a Multi-Scalar Perspective of the Late Archaic in New York State” by Edward Curtin, Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc.; and
- “A GIS-Assisted Re-Analysis of the Interstate-88 Sites in the Schenevus Creek Valley, New York” by Nina M. Versaggi and Samuel Kuderle, Public Archaeology Facility, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University.
These papers are part of a planned volume on archaeological and historical studies of landscape, technology, and scale that will be edited in honor of Al Dekin. Appropriately, much of the data used derives from cultural resource management planning, survey, and data recovery projects, public archaeology, and field training. My special interest is in the Archaic period and so I provide a brief preview here of the papers touching on the Archaic.
Susan Prezzano’s paper provides exciting new insights into Middle Archaic period (7200-8400 BP) use of the Clarion River (Pennsylvania) landscape. Special attention is given to fishing practices, including evidence of early fishing technology.
Dan Cassedy’s paper helps to refine the chronology of the Proto-Laurentian South Hill phase (some 5,000-6,000 years BP), as well as the human use of the local Mohawk River floodplain, providing previously unpublished empirical data for comparison to Robert E. Funk’s concept of an eastern New York, Proto-Laurentian platform for the development of Late Archaic cultures.
Bannerstone in process from a Late Archaic site in the Vosburg Site Archaeological District, Guilderland, NY
My paper looks at Late Archaic (ca. 3,800-5,000 BP) societies at several spatial scales, examining local landscape use outside of settlements and campsites; the relationship between settlements and their immediately surrounding landscapes; the interactions between neighboring communities; and the definition of regions through the mediation of social diversity around important places.
Nina Versaggi’s and Samuel Kuderle’s paper views a long temporal perspective of the Schenevus/upper Susquehanna drainage that includes both Archaic and Woodland sites, identifying the differently scaled environmental attributes or physical features that seem to have influenced hunter-gatherer perception and use of the landscape.
The range of this year’s NYSAA meeting papers presented on the Archaic– in combination with last year’s (reported in Fieldnotes, April 21, 2011)– provides strong examples of how Archaic period studies in the Northeastern United States are yielding important new information as well as significant new interpretations.
252 Acres…Already Cleared
(This is the seventh in a series of posts about the environmental context of human ecosystems and archaeological sites in eastern North America)
I have been told that when he was looking for land to buy, the New Netherland settler Pieter Bronck was attracted to a large clearing in Coxsackie where the hunting was good. This apparently became the core of the Bronck Patent purchased in 1662 from the Mohican Indians. According to the written transaction, 252 acres located away from the Hudson River were already cleared at the time of purchase (Dunn 1994:226). Hunting may have been good because of the high biodiversity along the edges of the clearing (and the corresponding excellent browse for deer), as the archaeologist Roger Moeller (1996) has discussed for the eastern woodlands in general.
From 1999-2005, working for the Greene County Industrial Development Agency, Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc. performed a series of Phase 1 and Phase 2 archaeological surveys, as well as data recovery excavations at several prehistoric sites within the old Bronck Patent, likely within the cleared area referred to in the deed (which seems to indicate the area between Coxsackie Creek and the Catskill Path near the Kalkberg ridge). These investigations revealed evidence of a long period of land use from about 9,000 BC to 1761 AD, when Anthony Van Bergen (one of the Bronck family’s neighbors) built his own stone house a mile or so north of the Bronck house.
The excavation of Concentration 23B.1
Discoveries of particular interest include finds suggesting a long history of hunting and other activities within the study area. In addition, a small but intensively used campsite dating to the AD 1200s was found (this is referred to as Artifact Concentration 23B.1). The 1200s are a time when most archaeologists agree that the upper Hudson region was home to the ancestors of the Mohicans. These various discoveries are summarized in a final report provided to the Greene County Industrial Development Agency and the New York State Historic Preservation Office (Curtin 2008).
The circumstantial evidence of hunting is intriguing. Probably the most general evidence is the large numbers of broken and unbroken projectile points found dispersed across some 200 acres of archaeological study area. While some of these were found within camp sites, the large majority were found outside of the camp sites. Most of these spear, dart, and arrow points date to the Archaic period (1000-9000 BC), but several indicate continued use of this landscape into the Middle Woodland period, as late as AD 1000.
Projectile point haft elements discarded after being replaced.
In addition to the large numbers of projectile points found outside of campsites, a small concentration of broken projectile points from the Late Archaic period (about 2000 BC) was found in two small campsites in the southern part of the Greene Business and Technology Park. This group of projectile point fragments is interesting, because several of them are haft fragments, that is, the portion left attached to the spear or dart shaft after the blade and tip of the projectile point breaks-off during use, as would happen in hunting. In hunting camps, the haft elements would be discarded and replaced by new or resharpened projectile points (cf. Sterud 1977), leaving high frequencies of the small stone debris created in the end-stages of chipped stone tools manufacture. Small chert flakes were found in unusually high percentages in the camps in question.
In contrast to the finds made in the Late Archaic camps, in large areas outside of campsites unbroken projectile points and tip and blade fragments were found broadly distributed across the landscape. These presumably were lost or abandoned during hunting.
Projectile points with missing or damaged haft areas, found outside of camps. Two of these also have visible heat damage.
From the Late Archaic period on, Native Americans in the eastern woodlands are thought to have managed the forest for enhanced hunting by burning the understory, allowing for better sight and human movement through the woods, while encouraging fresh plant growth for browsing prey-species, such as deer. Forest-clearing– which would have created the rich edge-areas that Moeller (1996) discussed– was accomplished by burning as well as by cutting with stone axes. This was undoubtedly a laborious process accomplished over a long period of time, as Charles Mann (2006) has discussed in his book 1491, based upon observations made in South American forests.
Given the long period of time in which people appear to have been hunting in this part of Coxsackie, it is conceivable that human forest modification began early. It is suspected that over a long period of time, human activity resulted in substantial forest clearing (of the sort reported in Bronck’s deed). In the archaeological record of the Greene Business and Technology Park, elevated frequencies of heat damaged artifacts occur over much of the area where high proportions of unbroken projectile points and projectile point blade and tip fragments occur (north of the inferred Late Archaic camps). In addition, in this northern area, an apparent burned tree root was radiocarbon-dated 130 +/- 40 BC. This could have been burned due to a lightning strike or a human-set fire, but it falls within the long period of suspected forest clearing. The radiocarbon sample provides a date linking the period of hunting from nearby camps during the Late Archaic period (about 2000 BC) to a renewed period of occupation during the Late Woodland Period, about AD 1200-1300.
The heat-damaged artifacts presumably were on the ground or buried slightly below ground surface when fires were set in the habitual practices of firing the understory and creating clearings (Johnson 1996 discusses evidence of ancient forest burning based upon heat-damaged artifacts found near Stockbridge, Massachusetts).
Highly fragmented pottery from Concentration 23B.1.
The largest archaeological excavation was conducted at Concentration 23B.1. Careful digging revealed a small campsite with some very interesting attributes. Very small fragments of pottery were found as well as a diverse artifact assemblage including chipped stone tools such as scrapers and utilized flakes. There were also artifacts that archaeologists sometimes refer to as site furniture: general purpose artifacts such as hammerstones and anvilstones that are usually left at camps for everyone’s use. One piece of site furniture was a pitted stone, an artifact type often interpreted as used for cracking nutshells (white oak grew nearby, based upon flotation recovery of charcoal fragments). Interestingly, few projectile point fragments were found, and those that were found seemingly were older than the date of occupation, suggesting that they are fragments of objects that may have been picked up, reworked, and put to other uses by the camp’s occupants. One point was reworked into a graver; a small point fragment was made into a so-called “spokeshave” (that is, a scraper for curved surfaces). While this site had plenty of evidence of occupation, hunting does not appear to have been a strong focus of activity (as it was at the Late Archaic period camps).
Quartzite scraper from Concentration 23B.1.
Concentration 23B.1 (described further in Curtin 2011) is located within the large area interpreted as a long-term hunting area, and where– in conjunction with hunting and camping over several thousand years– there may have been a large clearing by the time Concentration 23B.1 was occupied (about AD 1200-1300, based upon radiocarbon dates of AD 1170+/-60 and AD 1200+/-60). Apparently established for some general, mostly non-hunting purposes in an area that had long been used for hunting, the obvious question is: Why was this site occupied? Although several samples of soil from the site were processed by flotation to recover organic materials, no animal bone or evidence of food plants was found (however, melted silica spheres from burned plants, consistent with firing grassland, were found; McKnight 2010).
People surely ate, but It is thus difficult to find a definitive subsistence-based reason for why this site was occupied. However, the period around 1200 AD is associated with the Medieval Warm Period, a several-hundred year long period of relatively warm, sometimes droughty climate that could have affected growing corn or other subsistence pursuits. Possibly, just possibly, if increasingly adverse conditions affected some of the favored agricultural sites near the Hudson River and large streams, Mohican ancestors may have occupied inland sites more routinely; or at least cultivated crops on interior, moisture-retentive, clayey soils, camping for short periods while away from a home-base. Concentration 23B.1 may represent a seasonal or temporary residence associated with nearby gardens, or even a well-located wild resource procurement site that provided resilience, especially in hard times. Whichever the case, this site provides a connection between the Bronck Patent and Mohican land use of a few hundred years earlier, within the context of a plausible history of human intervention in forest dynamics and land clearing that occurred over a much longer period of time.
A more extended discussion of the Concentration 23B.1 site and its Hudson Valley and Medieval Warm Period contexts can be found in the New York State Museum Record, Volume 2. We’d like to thank the Greene County Industrial Development Agency for their support of these investigations.
References Cited
Curtin, Edward V.
2008 Phase 3 Archaeological Data Recovery Report, Greene Business and Technology Park, Town of Coxsackie, Greene County, New York. Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc., Ballston Spa, New York. Submitted to Greene County Industrial Development Agency, Coxsackie, New York. On file, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, Peebles Island State Park, Waterford, New York.
2011 A Small Site in Coxsackie, Circa A.D. 1200: Some Ecological Issues Concerning Its Age and Location. In Current Research in New York State Archaeology: A.D. 700-1300, edited by Christina B. Rieth and John P. Hart, pp. 53-76. New York State Museum Record, Volume 2. Electronic document.
Dunn, Shirley W. 1994. The Mohicans and Their Land 1609–1730. Purple Mountain Press, Fleischmann’s, New York.
Johnson, Eric S.
1996. Discovering the Ancient Past at Kampoosa Bog, Stockbridge, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Archaeological Services, Amherst.
Mann, Charles C.
2006. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Vintage Books, New York.
McKnight, Justine Woodard
2010. Analysis of a Single Flotation Sample from Non-Feature Contexts within Concentration 23B.1, Dunn and Prescott Properties, Greene Business and Technology Park, Town of Coxsackie, Greene County, New York. On file, Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc., Ballston Spa, New York.
Moeller, Roger W.
1996 Some Thoughts on Late Woodland Ecology. In A Northeastern Millennium: History and Archaeology for Robert E. Funk, edited by Christopher Lindner and Edward V. Curtin; Roger W. Moeller, general editor. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 12:61-66.
Sterud, Eugene L.
1977 The Application of Small Site Methods to the New York Archaic. In Archaeology and Geochronology of the Susquehanna and Schoharie Regions, edited by John R. Cole and Laurie R. Godfrey, pp. 53-73. Hartwick College, Oneonta, New York.
A Symposium to Honor Albert A. Dekin, Jr.
Al Dekin
On April 28, 2012, a number of former students and their co-authors will present a symposium at the annual meeting of the New York State Archaeological Association to honor the late Binghamton University professor, Albert A. Dekin, Jr. Al Dekin was a significant educator and researcher focusing primarily on the archaeology of the Arctic and of Northeastern North America. He also was a university administrator, past president of the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC), and leader in setting the performance and training standards of the emergent field of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) in archaeology. The symposium is organized by Nina Versaggi, Laurie Miroff, and Edward Curtin.
The presenters include William Andrefsky, Jr., Jonathan Lothrop and co-author Graydon Ballard, Susan Prezzano, Daniel Cassedy, Edward Curtin, Niels Rinehart, Nina Versaggi and Sam Kuderle, Robert Quiggle and Matthew Kirk, Paul Robinson and co-author Doug Harris, Victor Mastone and co-authors Craig Brown and Christopher Maio, and John Knoerl. The range of subject matter includes both prehistoric (precontact) and historic period archaeology, and a wide variety of topics including Paleoindians, Archaic sites, prehistoric land use patterns, GIS applications in archaeological surveys and analysis, lithic technology, industrial archaeology of the Adirondacks, and a series of papers on the significance, documentation and preservation of battlefields. The broad themes of the symposium are landscape, scale, and technology (that is, technology as both archaeological subject matter and techniques of analysis and information management).
Artifacts from the I-88 highway project, directed by Al Dekin
The symposium honoring Al Dekin will be held as part of the program of the annual meeting of the New York State Archaeological Association (NYSAA) at the Clarion Hotel, Poughkeepsie, New York. The symposium will begin at 8:55 AM on Saturday, April 28, and will run through 3:00 PM, with lunch from Noon-1:40. The NYSAA program (including a variety of other papers on prehistoric and historic period archaeology) will continue afterward on Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. On Sunday afternoon there is a field trip to Fishkill Cantonment and Van Wyck Historical House in nearby Fishkill, New York.
The NYSAA meeting is hosted by the Incorporated Orange County Chapter of the New York State Archaeological Association. The registration fee (payable at the meeting) is $35.00.
NEW YORK ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THE RECESSION ON ARCHAEOLOGY IN NEW YORK STATE
During the program portion of its April 27, 2012 meeting, the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) will present a series of short presentation and panel discussion on the effects of the recession on archaeology in New York State. The presenters and panelists include Ed Curtin of Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc.; Mike Cinquino of Panamerican Consultants, Inc; Doug Perrelli of SUNY Buffalo; Joe Diamond of SUNY New Paltz; Fred Stevens of the Iroquois Indian Museum and the Van Epps-Hartley Chapter (New York State Archaeological Association); and Chuck Vandrei of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The program will cover a wide range of subjects important to the functioning of archaeology in New York State, including the recession’s effects on private sector and public sector Cultural Resource Management (CRM), academic programs and the training of archaeologists, challenges to museums and the practice of archaeology, and archaeological considerations within the current dynamics of environmental regulatory review.
The program will be from 3:00-5:00 PM on April 27, 2012 (following the NYAC business meeting, 1:00-3:00 PM) at the Clarion Hotel, Poughkeepsie, New York. The NYAC business meeting and program are free of charge and open to the public. The NYAC meeting is held jointly with the annual meeting of the New York State Archaeological Association (NYSAA). The NYSAA program on April 28-29 is exceptional, and open to the public for a registration fee.
One Day in the Work of an Archaeologist
My work varies from day-to-day depending upon whether I am in the office or in the field, or what exactly I need to do. Nonetheless, there are some things I try to do regularly. Following the advice of the great management consultant Steven Covey, I view my work as addressing a combination of things that are either important and urgent, or important but not urgent. The long term goal is to make urgent important things fewer by doing important-not urgent things more proactively. This means that some things need to be done on a regular basis, including the things that prepare you for– or sustain you through– the hands-on aspects of your job. 
Thus it was that I started Friday, March 23, 2012 by doing one little thing I try to do every day–taking a few minutes first thing in the morning to focus on being relaxed. A few relaxed minutes before things get hectic helps to be more responsive (and less reactive) to what needs to be done later.
Since I oversee a small archaeological consulting firm, it is also important for me to keeping current in the fields of archaeology and business, and this is another almost-daily activity. On Friday, I took another step toward currency early in the morning by reading a chapter in After the Ice: A Global Human History 20,000-5,000 BC by archaeologist Steven Mithen. 
Reading this book is part of my current goal of broadening my understanding of ancient hunting and gathering societies and early farming communities on a world-wide basis in order to assist my understanding of the archaeology of eastern North America. It’s a way of gaining perspective. In the spirit of working on important-not urgent, I try to read for about an hour every day if possible. Other books I have been reading over the winter include The Little Big Things by Tom Peters, a sort of manifesto for understanding the nature of doing business during the Great Recession. I am also starting to take a good look at Doing More with Less, by Bruce Piasecki, another 
book to come out of the recession (but, like The Little Big Things, a book with an enduring message for the “recovery” and beyond).
Checking my email from home, I found I had a message from Governor Cuomo. A while back I inadvertently got on the Governor’s mailing list, and so his messages arrive rather frequently, and I don’t usually reply. But Friday’s message announced a Women’s History exhibit in the Hall of Governors, so I took a brief moment to give the Governor some positive feedback. How could this not be important for someone interested in history?
Putting the reading and email aside, I drove to the office. In the car, I looked ahead to a couple of posts to write in the near future, and reviewed my intentions and specific plans for a day of office work. Friday in the office would require at least one important phone call, but most of the day would involve research and inferences regarding mapped and electronically stored archaeological information (i.e., I would be doing a lot of hands-on archaeology, but I wouldn’t actually be looking at any artifacts—at least not on Friday, March 23).
In the office, I conferred with Kerry about our work, and then shifted to the first task at hand. This job involved consulting by phone with a colleague in the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) about the spatial extent of a project that had the potential to affect archaeological resources. This was a conversation that was essential to determining how the continuing consideration of the archaeological review process would occur. In terms of urgency and importance, this conversation definitely was important, but not a crisis management situation, because I try to allow time for this project every week, and in this case determined to follow through on the issue at hand within a two-day rather than two-hour time frame.
The next job of the day was a review of artifact occurrence across a map of another proposed construction project to determine whether the home site of an early pioneer could be avoided by realigning a road. The final answer is yet to come because it will require consultation and review by others, but after about an hour of looking at data and thinking the situation through, the possibility of archaeological site avoidance seemed feasible. While people often imagine archaeologists excavating and making discoveries (and I often imagine myself this way), helping others to avoid archaeological impacts is a major part of the job of an archaeological consultant.
I spent the rest of the afternoon working on the analysis of data from the archaeological project in Wilton, New York mentioned in Fieldnotes on February 17, 2012. This work is being done as a requirement of a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation approval of a construction project. Curtin Archaeological’s continuing goal in this analysis is excellence in archaeological investigation. I have heard that archaeologists used to say that about 30% of an archaeological project was spent in the field and 70% was spent in the lab. I would venture to say that given today’s concerns with varied and detailed analyses (in archaeology and every other science, CSI and Bonesfans), the time spent in the lab and at the computer often requires more than 70% of the Principal Investigator’s time in an archaeological data recovery project. I spent much of Friday afternoon
Some chert varieties from the Wilton project site
reviewing where all of the prehistoric artifacts had been found, and finished by examining how different types of artifactual stone (Normanskill chert, Fort Ann chert, quartz, quartzite, slate, chalcedony, and various, miscellaneous flinty materials) occurred in different percentages in different soil strata. The point is that the different stone materials are associated with different regions of New York and New England, and changes in their prevalence at different depths may indicate how the site was used by people from different regions at different times. The result of this analysis proved exciting, and after Kerry and I considered how it is going so far, I left the office with a great feeling of satisfaction (a feeling not guaranteed every day). I will discuss these analysis results in Fieldnotes in the not-too-distant future.
Before arriving at home, I ended the day with some exercise, another important-not urgent activity (mostly walking) I try to do for a half-hour several days a week. Important-not urgent things are regularly scheduled to avoid urgent crises: scheduled in the case of exercise to avoid stress and other health problems. I strongly recommend regular exercise, as do many others, such as Tom Peters: turns out exercise is a potent, anti-recession Little Big Thing.
The Battle of Wilton, February 17, 1693
(This is the second in a series on history and archaeology in upstate New York communities)
“The territory that now comprises the county of Saratoga lay in the angle of two great pathways, one from the north, the other from the west. And lying as it did in the angle of the war trails, it became the battle ground of nations.”
Thus wrote Nathaniel Bartlett Sylvester in his great little book called Historical Sketches of Northern New York and the Adirondack Wilderness (1877), This passage is in the beginning of the chapter that ends with the Battle of Wilton on February 17, 1693. Wilton is just north of Saratoga Springs (although there was no Town of Wilton in 1693, so the name of the battle comes from the 19th century, perhaps coined by Sylvester himself).
The battle of Wilton was fought as a running engagement between a force of some 700-800 French and Indian allies, who had just attacked Mohawk villages in their homeland southwest of Saratoga County, and some 250 pursuers from the colony of New York. The New Yorkers caught up with the French and Canadian Indians in Wilton, where the western war path that led to the Mohawk valley met the northern war path to Montreal. A violent struggle ensued. After the fighting in Wilton, the French and Indian force fled along the northern path to a place in the Queensbury-Glens Falls area where they crossed the upper Hudson River on ice that, conveniently for them, thawed and broke up before the pursuing New Yorkers reached the river. The surviving French and Indians made it safely back to Canada.
In 2011, Curtin Archaeological completed an archaeological investigation at a site in Wilton located just south of the intersection of the great western and northern warpaths. Our excavation did not find traces of the battle, but on-going analyses may allow us to comment on traditional use of these travel routes before the French and Indian Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries. Later this year we will post more on the results of this dig.
If you would like to read a fascinating, longer, and more detailed account of the 1693 Battle of Wilton– rich with the language of the period– you can find it in the venerable History of the Five Indian Nations, written by the prominent New Yorker Cadwallader Colden in the early 18th century. Colden based his account of the battle on Col. Peter Schuyler’s journal of 1693.
References:
Colden, Cadwallader
1727/1747 The History of the Five Indian Nations Depending on the Province of New-York in America. Reprinted 1985 byCornellUniversity Press, Ithaca, New York.
Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett
1877 Historical Sketches of Northern New York and the Adirondack Wilderness. William H. Young, Troy, New York. Reprinted 1997 by Harbor Hill Books, Fleischmanns, New York.
Making History in Saratoga Springs: Health and Horses in the City, Ancient Settlements out by the Lake
(This is the first in a series on history and archaeology in upstate New York communities)
Canfield Casino
Saratoga Springs in New York’s Hudson Valley region draws thousands of visitors and summer residents to events ranging from Dance Flurry in February, to the New York City Ballet in July, and the late summer thoroughbred horse races. The streets even get packed in the dead of winter, with the Christmas-time Victorian Streetwalk, the New Year’s Eve First Night celebration, and the mid-winter Chowderfest.
Many visitors may not be aware before coming, but find out after they arrive that Saratoga is a very historic city. The Victorian architecture is well preserved, and can be enjoyed quietly on casual walks or more interactively in regular summer-evening ghost tours. Saratoga Springs has several historic districts that provide for the preservation and appreciation of the city’s heritage.
Saratoga Springs Heritage Area Visitor's Center
Saratoga Springs is named after a number of mineral springs promoted as healthful and healing in the 19th century by entrepreneurs and developers such as Gideon Putnam. The centrally-located Saratoga Springs Heritage Area Visitors Center, also known informally as the Drink Hall, houses the City Historian’s Office. It provides exhibits in a building once used for taking the waters. The City of Saratoga Springs in fact abounds in museums, including the Saratoga Springs History Museum, located in the Canfield Casino (a gambling establishment in the 19th century); the Saratoga Springs Automobile Museum; the National Museum of Dance; the National Museum of Racing (horse-racing, that is); the Tang Teaching Museum at Skidmore College; the Children’s Museum at Saratoga Springs; and the New York State Military Museum.
A century ago, the State of New York acquired extensive holdings in the south of the city in order to preserve the productive capacity of the springs. This area is now Saratoga Spa State Park, containing much of the neo-classical architecture subsequently built (with the much-needed help of Franklin D. Roosevelt) as state-of-the-art spa facilities. Here in places the springs rise to the ground surface along a fault between rock formations. This geological effect is visible in the Spa Park, where the waters emerge in the valley below the escarpment, and where one of the picnic grounds is located next to a beautiful gushing geyser. The walk (or ski) along the nearby escarpment top is one of my favorites. The springs also emerge in the valley of springs that runs from Congress Park to High Rock Park in the center of the city. Visitors to this part of Saratoga can taste the water from several springs.
Saratoga Springs was founded most of all as a resort for taking the waters, but since the 1860s it has been sustained to a great extent by thoroughbred horse racing (and of course, betting on horses, staying in hotels or rented houses, dining in restaurants, and at times, gambling in casinos, such as Canfield’s, now the museum). The Travers is the great historic race of Saratoga, and is sometimes referred to as the graveyard of champions for the storied racing upsets that have occurred here. While the Travers is thought of by many as the fourth leg of the Triple Crown, over the long haul of each track season there are a lot of other highly regarded races, such as the Jim Dandy and the Whitney.
The late 19th century in Saratoga Springs provided a great recreational experience, with people moving from the racetrack and the down-town hotels to other venues such as the gambling houses, the collegiate rowing regattas on Saratoga Lake, and highly-regarded restaurants or “lake-houses”. The horse racing and regattas were some of the most significant sporting events in the United States during the late 19th century. One notable restaurant, Moon’s Lake House, was located near the finish of the regatta course. The chef at Moon’s Lake House, George Crum, is said to have invented potato chips, which were no doubt somewhat different than today’s snack, except inSaratoga Springs where restaurants and entrepreneurs have tried to recreate authentic recipes.
In the 18th century, the earliest Euroamerican settlement was placed near the present-day Olde Bryan Inn, on the escarpment overlooking High Rock Spring. These settlers shared the company of Native American neighbors who were already there, and who had been monitoring Euroamerican settlement ambitions for several years. During Saratoga’s 19th century hey-day, Native Americans visited the on-going tourist season on a regular basis, establishing summer encampments where they lived and sold crafts to visitors. The 19th century Indian encampments may have continued the earlier practice of visiting the area seasonally for fishing or hunting.
The famous Moon’s Lake House chef George Crum had Mohican Indian ancestors, and going back a long way, some of his ancestors may have been regular residents on the lofty plateau overlooking the lake. In George Crum’s day, visitors to Moon’s and the regatta grandstand viewed Saratoga Lake from this high vantage point. Much more recently, the Saratoga Springs archaeologist James P. Walsh has conducted excavations on the plateau near the end of Arrowhead Road; and Skidmore College conducted an excavation to further explore a site that planners and developers had protected when constructing the Water’s Edge residential development.
Walsh found evidence of Indian occupation dating back as far as 8,000-9,000 years ago. While these early residents may have been mobile hunter-gatherers on quick trips to the forest behind the bluff-top, later residents of about 3,000-4,000 years ago were more settled. They dwelt at a site Walsh called Arrowhead Casino (after a well-known night-spot that was located nearby). The residents of 3,000-4,000 years ago had a much more substantial, multi-season community and intensively harvested the local resources. Skidmore’s dig at Waters Edge found evidence of somewhat later occupation, probably occurring during the early centuries AD (people may have built a new settlement then after a long absence).
The State of New York and the National Register of Historic Places have recognized the importance of the resources Walsh found by nominating and listing the Arrowhead Casino Prehistoric Site on the National Register of Historic Places. More recently, the Archaeological Conservancy has acquired a multi-acre site in this area to protect it for the future.
Arrowhead Casino site kiosk
Corbett (2001) provides a very good account of the history of tourism in Saratoga Springs, while Swanner (1988) gives a comprehensive natural and cultural history of the springs, their preservation, and their role in the life of the city. James Walsh has published reports on his investigations in The Bulletin of the New York State Archaeological Association. You can visit a very nice explanatory kiosk out by the lake, on the Archaeological Conservancy’s property at the end ofArrowhead Road.
References Cited
Corbett, Theodore
2001 The Making of American Resorts: Saratoga Springs, Ballston Spa, Lake George. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Swanner, Grace Maguire
1988 Saratoga: Queen of Spas. North Country Books, Utica, New York.
Walsh, James P.
1977 Arrowhead Casino: A Middle to Late Archaic Site at Saratoga Lake. The Bulletin, New York State Archaeological Association 71:29-37.
1995 The Kitchen Garden Site. The Bulletin, New York State Archaeological Association 109:8-19.
Go Walking and Imagine the Prehistoric World
In his book After the Ice, which talks about the human experience following the last great Ice Age, British archaeologist Steven Mithen offers this perspective: “to be a good prehistorian one should not just read the technical reports that emanate from archaeological science, but actually go walking and immerse oneself in the natural world, edging a little closer to the hunter-gatherer experience.”
In archaeology and a variety of other occupations, as we survey the modern landscape, it is important to sense our world as it was long ago. I celebrate the field archaeologists and the investigators in other sciences whose imaginations are fueled in the great outdoors. And for many of us whose lives are spent too much behind desks, at computers, or otherwise behind closed doors, let’s go walking in the woods more often!
Ed Curtin and Alice hiking in the Hennig Preserve, Saratoga County, New York
Fieldnotes Says Hello to 2012
Over the past year, our archaeological surveys taken us to communities across eastern New York such as Queensbury, Clifton Park, Halfmoon, Malta, Saratoga Springs, Wilton, Ballston and Ballston Spa, Mechanicville, Albany, Bethlehem, Niskayuna, Johnstown, Argyle, Coxsackie, Colonie, Cohoes, and Cobleskill. In our spare moments we try to bring you our thoughts and an occasional nice photo or news of an interesting discovery in Fieldnotes.
Blue floral painted pearlware (1775-1830) and polychrome painted pearlware (1795-1830) in situ, Saratoga County
As we ease toward February, 2012, and I tear my attention away from what appears to be a tall, teetering pile of Phase 1 and Phase 2 survey reports-in-the-making, I anticipate the variety of new posts in the coming months. Fieldnotes will offer a continuing series of posts on the Archaic period in New York State, utilizing information collected by Curtin Archaeological as much as possible. There will also be book reviews, and more on environmental archaeology and past records of climate change. If I get a chance, I will try to mention some recreational reading I found enjoyable, along the lines of thrillers and adventure stories and fascinating non-fiction. Kerry, Andy, and I will try to pass along interesting stories posted in other sources, archaeological methods and techniques we find helpful, original photos, and with any luck, a bit more on historical archaeology.
Exposing a shell feature on a 19th century site in Schoharie County
We’re always happy to hear from you. Let us know what you think.
Fieldnotes- Hydrofracking, Regulation, and Archaeology
- Papers on the Archaic Period Presented at the 2012 NYSAA Annual Meeting
- 252 Acres…Already Cleared
- A Symposium to Honor Albert A. Dekin, Jr.
- NEW YORK ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL WILL DISCUSS THE EFFECT OF THE RECESSION ON ARCHAEOLOGY IN NEW YORK STATE
- One Day in the Work of an Archaeologist
- The Battle of Wilton, February 17, 1693
- Making History in Saratoga Springs: Health and Horses in the City, Ancient Settlements out by the Lake
- Go Walking and Imagine the Prehistoric World
- Fieldnotes Says Hello to 2012
