First defined by Mary Butler (1939), the Monongahela “culture” was identified from several sites from Somerset County, Pennsylvania in conjunction with relief excavations. Prior to the 1930’s excavations, it was debated whether or not the southwestern Pennsylvania region had significant aboriginal occupation throughout prehistory (Means 2007a). Butler (1939) described three sites: Montague, Clouse, and Hanna. The original definition described the Monongahela as a cultural phenomenon delineated by prehistoric palisaded village sites with houses arranged in a circular fashion with commonalities in pottery type. Subsequent redefinitions of this sequence were published by Mayer-Oaks (1955), George (1974), Hart (1993) and Johnson (2001). Mayer-Oaks (1955) examined the technological aspects of the Monongahela tradition; pottery was described as round bottomed vessels, both grit and shell tempered, with cord marked exteriors. George (1974) expanded the definition of Monongahela settlement patterns as including sites in West Virginia, Ohio, and portions of Maryland with a preference for upland locations along known trade routes. It was argued that upland locations for settlements indicated a need for defensive positioning due to conflict (George 1974). Hart (1993) suggested that the settlement pattern was suggestive of a system of trade and interaction between large villages and small habitation sites, between which subsistence items and trade goods were exchanged.
The most detailed and widely used schematic for defining Monongahela culture is that proposed by Johnson (2001). Johnson (2001) described the geographical distribution of the Monongahela culture as occupying the portion of the unglaciated Allegheny Plateau, confined to areas of the Upper Ohio Valley region that are characterized by having an average growing season of 140 or more frost free days. The most distinctive feature of the culture was the settlement pattern; this is characterized by series of villages, hamlets, and isolated farmsteads occupying upland, river bluffs and hilltops (Johnson 2001). While previous literature argued for the presence of villages in upland locations for defensive reasons (George 1974, 1975, 1978, 1983; Mayer-Oaks 1955), Johnson (2001) suggested that this positioning was for deliberate economic reasons as the soils in upland regions of Pennsylvania are known to be highly productive for agriculture.
More specifically, Johnson (2001) divided the Monongahela culture into three distinct phases (See Table 3.2 for dates): Early, Middle and Late. Early Monongahela phase sites were defined by limestone and shell tempered pottery with Z-twist cordage impressions. Houses during this period were circular or oval shaped and ranged from 5 to 9 meters in diameter (George 1974, 1978, 1983; Herbstritt 1981; Johnson 2001). Storage facilities generally were subterranean, roofed structured occurring randomly in the circular confines of village space or connected to houses (Johnson 2001). The mortuary program for the Early phase was define by infants and young children buried in house floors while adults were in flexed burials between village houses and palisades. Grave inclusions were rare, but when they occurred they primarily consisted of items of personal adornment such as beads (Davis 1984). The Middle Monongahela period was defined by abandonment of peripheral territories and community consolidation into larger villages (Johnson 2001). A key development during the Middle phase was the appearance of “petal” like extensions to houses which may have functioned as storage facilities, sweat lodges, or community ceremonial centers
(Anderson 2002; Herbstritt 1984). The Late period was characterized by dramatic decrease in territory and retreat into the Monongahela core area. During this phase, mortuary behavior shifted; charnel houses were identified at the Sony and Household sites at the transition of the Middle and Late Monongahela periods (Johnson 2001).
Central debates in defining the Monongahela phenomenon are whether or not these collections of sites represented a single, defined archaeological “culture” and if this phenomenon was culturally or linguistically linked to any other known group (Johnson 2001; Means 1999, 2007a). Means (2007a) argued that the use of the Monongahela culture taxon leads to an overgeneralization of the similarities between community organization at Monongahela sites and a suppression of the variation that exists geographically and temporally for the Monongahela sequence as a whole (Hart 1993; Means 2003). Means (2007a) thus defined the Monongahela as a “tradition” rather than a culture to address the variability in settlement location, village structure, and community organization that occurred through time.
Several authors made cases for linguistic-cultural affiliations with other known groups (George 1994; Johnson 2001; Richardson and Swauger 1996; Swauger 1974). Swauger (1974) noted that petroglyphs were widespread throughout the Ohio Valley, and these were stylistically similar to Central Algonquin rock art and later Midewiwin, birch bark scrolls by the nineteenth century Ojibwe. Petroglyphs were made by pecking and rubbing rock surfaces. Common features of Ohio Valley rock art contemporaneous with the Monongahela included animalistic designs with spirit bands, heart lines, and power projections (Swauger 1974). Strikingly similar designs were found on later Ojibwe birch bark scrolls. Swauger (1974) suggested that these connections in art forms were evidence of a shared religious/linguistic tradition between the Monongahela and Algonquin speaking groups. It was further argued that the Monongahela represented a proto-Algonquin group based on these religious artworks. Weeks (2002) posited that the Monongahela petroglyphs were teaching rocks to protect sacred knowledge, and other symbols may have been boundary markers. George (1994) echoed an Algonquin cultural linguistic affiliation, noting the same similarities in petroglyphs and Ojibwe birch bark scrolls. Restored body sherds from pottery at the Monongahela Gnagey site also exhibited similarities in the form of incised winged creatures with Algonquian designs (George 1994). These observations make a convincing argument for a cultural connection between Monongahela, as rock-art is an artifact of place, as it remains a part of the landscape where it was made and used, and is thus one of the most reliable artifacts to track the movement of people and ideas throughout the landscape (Weeks 2002).
Conversely, Johnson (2001) stated that the Monongahela were culturally and linguistically tied to the Iroquoians, particularly southern Iroquoians such as the Susquehannock. This hypothesis is based on the presence of Iroquoian type goods at Monongahela sites during the Late Monongahela phase and possible historic references to Monongahela migrations into Susquehannock region following 1635AD (Johnson 2001: 76-82). Bulbous, low to medium-high collared Iroquoian style pottery vessels with horizontal incised marks were found in low frequencies at Late Monongahela phase sites. Pedestaled vessels similar to those recovered at Huron and Neutral Iroquoian sites were also discovered at the Late phase Foley Farm site in western Pennsylvania (Johnson 2001). The majority of Monongahela pottery vessels, however, were shell-tempered coil constructed cord-marked vessels, inherently
different from Iroquoian style and construction (Mayer-Oaks 1955). Copper, glass, and shell items similar to those found at Iroquoian sites also made up part of the Late Monongahela artifact assemblage such as beaver copper effigies like those from Seneca villages and the Oneida Cameron site. Copper spirals similar to those found at the Seneca Cameron, Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow sites were also part of the Late Monongahela artifact assemblage in low frequencies along with blue glass beads commonly found at Seneca and Neutral Iroquoian sites (Johnson 2001: 76-78). Isolated numbers of Iroquoian style shell whelk spirals and acorn shaped pipes were also discovered at Late Monongahela phase sites (Johnson 2001). Johnson (2001:80) suggests that at the time of the Monongahela demise (1635AD), remaining people were dispersed by Seneca raiding in the Ohio Valley region, as supported by Dutch historical accounts. Johnson (2001) argued that this dispersed group is the Black Minqua or Massawomeck, referred to by Dutch and Swedish historical accounts. This group was associated with the lower Susquehannock in the 1640’s and 1650’s, evidenced archaeologically by an influx of non-Susquehannock cordmarked ceramics (Johnson 2001: 81). While Johnson argues that this is evidence for cultural affiliation, low frequencies of Iroquoian artifact types in Monongahela sites could be the result of trade networks. It is important to stress that the cultural- linguistic affiliation question may not be entirely resolved, as the Monongahela tradition represents an archaeologically defined group rather than a historically known culture (Means 1999, 2007a).
3.4.2.2 Subsistence and Settlement
Means (2007a) extensively modeled the nature of settlement and community organization among the Monongahela. Settlement patterns consisted of ring shaped villages constructed around a central plaza or post, which served as an axis mundi around which village organization and activities were centered (Means 2002, 2007a). These nucleated settlements were mostly fortified by wooden palisades indicating the need for defense, and were commonly located in uplands away from river valleys (Hart 1993). House structures consisted of rounded huts and these structures predominated Monongahela villages until late in the cultural sequence, when after 1580AD, structures with teardrop or “petal shaped” appendages appeared, which may have functioned as sweat lodges, council houses, or community ceremonial centers (Anderson 2002; Herbstritt 1984). Anderson (2002) argued that the “petal shaped” appendage structures at late sequence Monongahela sites such as Sony and Household were community centers for ritual and ceremony. At the Sony site community centers atypical faunal assemblages were discovered such as the remains of poisonous snakes, snapping turtles, and birds of prey (Davis and Wilkes 1997). . These rare faunal assemblages indicated a ceremonial or ritual context in which the animals were utilized as part of feasting activities or part of the ritual “toolkit” (Anderson 2002).
Community organization as modeled by Means (2007a,b) was defined as a system of formally linked households via kinship or corporate group identities. In this scheme, small groups of households organized spatially in villages in clusters represented multi-family dwellings, whereas larger dwelling clusters represented broadly defined clan identity. Households were thus the basic unit of social interaction among the Monongahela. There was little to no evidence for dual organization at Monongahela village sites, though Means (2007a) stressed these types
of sodalities and emergent leaders could have left few tangible material correlates. Patterns of social organization for the Monongahela thus cannot be divorced from patterns of community organization in terms of the negotiation of physical space (Means 1999). Villages were not merely spaces for dwelling, but rather areas that dictated the regulation of private vs. communal performance (Means 1999; 2007a). The arrangement of palisades, households, plazas, and middens were all orchestrated by socially conditioned concepts of private and communal space through which household, leadership, and ritual activities interacted (Means 2007a). This pattern differs from Iroquoian style settlement, as the multi-family dwelling longhouse was the primary unit of social organization rather than clusters of small houses (Birch 2015).
Subsistence was characterized by intensive maize horticulture, evidenced by a preponderance of maize at Monongahela village sites as well as high δ13C levels in Monongahela burials, which indicated that maize constituted
50-70% of the Monongahela diet (Greenley 2006; Johnson 2001; McConaughy 2008; Sciulli 1995). Squash and beans supplemented the diet as well as deer and wild game (Johnson 2001). High rates of dental pathologies as reported by Sciulli (2002) are reflective of this dietary pattern as maize is a highly cariogenic food source.
3.4.2.3 Material Culture
Material culture mainly consisted of pottery, lithics, and items of personal adornment discovered in burials and middens (Johnson 2001). Monongahela pottery was characterized primarily by small coil constructed globular shaped jars, which were shell tempered and cordmarked, with fluted rims (Mayer-Oaks 1955; Means 2005). A small proportion of Monongahela ceramics were limestone grit tempered (Mayer-Oaks 1955). Monongahela lithics were small triangular points, such as the Scarem arrow point (Johnson 2001). Trends in lithic production among the Monongahela indicate that projectile points became smaller over time throughout the cultural sequence (George and Scaglion 1992). Other aspects of material culture among the Monongahela included trade shell earspools, bone and shell beads, clay pipes, native copper animal effigies, and in Protohistoric/Contact era burials, glass beads (Davis 1984; Johnson 2001; Anderson 2002).