An archaeological prospection survey was undertaken at the Hatfield site in November 2011. In total, 28 subsurface anomalies were identified through magnetic susceptibility, magnetic gradient, and ground-penetrating radar methods. Several of the anomalies resulted from modern activities at the site, including agricultural plowing and previous archaeological excavations. However, a number possibly represent prehistoric cultural remains pertaining to a Monongahela tradition component at the Hatfield site, including two pit features, six dwellings, and a house ring zone. The size and arrangement of dwellings as well as the spatial layout of the house ring is consistent with most known Monongahela tradition villages. If the anomalies indeed represent a section of a village, it would encompass an estimated area of 0.69 to 0.92 ha. In addition, a composite anomaly to the south of the Hatfield site may represent a second village covering an area of 0.1 ha.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonDavid A.2002Elites Among the Monongahela?: Evidence for Emergent Social Complexity in the Late Prehistoric-Protohistoric Period of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Archaeology of Eastern North America, 30, pp. 131–146.
2.
BARTINGTON INSTRUMENTS LTD.N/A Operation Manual for MS2, Magnetic Susceptibility System, OM0408, Issue 42, Bartington Instruments Ltd., Oxford.
3.
BercelG. Travis and EspinoJason2010The Hatfield Site: A Monongahela Tradition Village in Washington County, Pennsylvania, paper presented at the 81st Annual Meeting of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, April 9-11, Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Retrieved October 3, 2011 from http://www.orgsites.com/pa/alleghenychapter/_pgg6.php3
4.
BrittTadHargraveMichael, and SimmsJanet2002Geophysical Archaeological Survey at Poverty Point State Historic Site (16WC5) West Carrol Parish, Louisiana, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC SR-02-13.
5.
BukerWilliam E.1993The Portman Site (36AL40), Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 63:2, pp. 7–52.
6.
BurksJarrod2009Large Scale Magnetic Gradient and Magnetic Susceptibility Survey at sites 36AD500 and 36 AD501, Near Gettysburg, PA, Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., submitted to R. Goodwin & Associates, Inc., Contract No. #2009-23. Copies available from Ohio Valley Archaeology, Inc., Columbus.
7.
CampanaStefano and SpiroSalvatore (editors) 2009Seeing the Unseen Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology, Taylor & Francis Group, London.
8.
ClayR. Berle2006Conductivity Survey: A Survival Manual, in Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, JohnsonJay K. (ed.), University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 70–107.
9.
ConyersLawrence B.2004Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology: Volume I of Geophysical Methods for Archaeology, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
10.
ConyersLawrence B. and GoodmanDean1997Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists, Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
11.
DearingJohn A.1999Environmental Magnetic Susceptibility, Using the Bartington MS2 System (2nd Edition), Chi Publishing, Kenilworth, United Kingdom.
12.
FritzBrian L. and ValkoAmanda L.2007Hatfield Site (36Wh678): Initial Site Visit, report prepared for the Allegheny Chapter #1, Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. Retrieved from www.orgsites.com/pa/alleghenychapter/_pgg6.php3
13.
GeorgeRichard L.1978The McJunkin Site, A Preliminary Report, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 48:4, pp. 33–47.
14.
GeorgeRichard L.BabichJay, and DavisChristine E.1990The Household Site: Results of a Partial Excavation of a Late Monongahela Village in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 60:2, pp. 40–70.
15.
ResearchGeoscan2005FM256 Single/Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer System, Geoscan Research, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
16.
SliceGpr2011GPR-Slice & GPRSIM, Version 7.0. Retrieved October 3, 2011, from http://gpr-slice.com
17.
Gssi2009SIR-3000 Rugged, High-Performance Single-Channel GPR Data Acquisition System, Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., Salem, New Hampshire.
18.
HargraveMichael L.1992A Comparison of Traditional and Geophysical Strategies for Assessing the National Register Status of Archaeological Sites at Fort Riley, Kansas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories.
19.
HartJohn P.1995Storage and Monongahela Subsistence-Settlement Change, Archaeology of Eastern North America, 23, pp. 41–56.
20.
HartJohn P.NassJohn P., and MeansBernard K.2005Monongahela Subsistence-settlement Change?Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology, 30:2, pp. 327–365.
21.
HasenstabRobert J. and JohnsonWilliam C.2001Hilltops of the Allegheny Plateau: A Preferred Microenvironment for Late Prehistoric Horticulturalists, in Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, SullivanL. P. and PrezzanoSusan C. (eds.), The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 3–18.
22.
HeimmerDon H.1992Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource Management and Archaeological Investigations, prepared for Rocky Mountain Regional Office National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. Prepared by Geo-Recovery Systems, Inc.
23.
HerbstrittJames T.1984Mystery of the Monongahela Culture: Archaeology at Foley Farm, Pennsylvania Heritage, 10:3, pp. 26–31.
24.
HerbstrittJames T.2003Foley Farm: The Importance of Architecture and the Demise of the Monongahela, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 73:1, pp. 8–54.
25.
JohnsonWilliam C.2001The Protohistoric Monongahela and the Case for an Iroquois Connection, in Societies in Eclipse: Archaeology of the Eastern Woodlands Indians, A.D. 1400-1700, BroseD. S.CowanC. W., and MainfortR. C.Jr. (eds.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
26.
JohnsonWilliam C.AthensWilliam P.FuessMartin T.JaramilloLuis G.BastianiniKeith R., and RamosElizabeth1989Late Prehistoric Period Monongahela Culture: Site and Cultural Resource Inventory, report prepared by the Cultural Resource Management Program, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh in fulfillment of a survey and planning grant from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
27.
JohnsonW. J. And JohnsonD. W.2005Application of Geophysics to North American Prehistoric Sites. Retrieved December 10, 2011 from Archaeological Geophysics Consulting, http://archaeology-geophysics.com/Publications.html
28.
JolHarry M. (editor) 2009Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications, Elsevier B.V., Oxford, United Kingdom.
29.
KvammeKenneth L.2003Multidimensional Prospecting in North American Great Plains Village Sites, Archaeological Prospection, 10, pp. 131–142.
30.
KvammeKenneth L.2006Integrating Multidimensional Geophysical Data, Archaeological Prospection, 13, pp. 57–72.
31.
KvammeKenneth L. and AhlerStanley A.2007Integrated Remote Sensing and Excavation at Double Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota, American Antiquity, 72:3, pp. 539–561.
32.
MeansBernard K.2006The Social Implications of a New Method for Estimating the Number of Residents within Monongahela Houses from Their Floor Areas, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 22, pp. 31–50.
33.
MeansBernard K.2007Circular Villages of the Monongahela Tradition, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
34.
NeubauerWolfgang2004GIS in Archaeology—The Interface between Prospection and Excavation, Archaeological Prospection, 11, pp. 159–166.
35.
ScollarIrwin1990Topics in Remote Sensing: Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36.
WagnerW. R.CraftJ. L.HeymanL., and HarperJ. A.1975Greater Pittsburgh Region Geologic Map and Cross Sections, Map 42, Bureau of Topographic 2nd Geologic Survey, Harrisburg.
37.
WeaverWendy2006Ground-Penetrating Radar Mapping in Clay: Success from South Carolina, USA, Archaeological Prospection, 13, pp. 147–150.
38.
WeymouthJ. W.1986Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 9), SchifferM. B. (ed.), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
