Keri Sansevere

Temple University

“Using Experimental Archaeology to Interpret Late Archaic

Pit Houses in the Middle Atlantic”

Abstract: In recent years, scholars have speculated and

debated (Kraft 2001, Artusy & Griffith 1975, Custer & Silber

1995) about the recognition, function, and technology of

semi-subterranean pit structures. Inspired by Middle

Atlantic research, I was struck by the possibility that

these structures might mistakenly be interpreted as refuse

pits or tree-throw in the literature. Using experimental

archaeology, I construct a Late Archaic-Early Woodland pit

house mimicking archaeological data in order to gain insight

into form, function, building techniques and materials,

decision-making processes, and site formation. Additionally,

a basic wood-working toolkit was constructed in order to

further test the hypothesis that tools were only employed in

the pit digging process of pit house construction.

Introduction

Pit houses Throughout the World

Although pit houses are typically thought to be an

American southwest phenomenon (Cameron 1990, Gilman 1987,

Nabokov & Easton 1989), these structures have been located

throughout the world in vastly differing geographical and

cultural areas, including Middle Atlantic states, like

Delaware. Archaeological data abounds that documents Native

American use of semi-subterranean pit house dwellings

(Daifuku 1952, Artusy & Griffith 1975, Custer 1987, Gilam

1987, Nabokov & Easton 1989, Cameron 1990, Lightfoot et al

1993, Custer & Silber 1995). As early as 1952, Hiroshi

Daifuku argues that evidence of at least 5 of these

structures was discovered in Russia. In addition, Daifuku

recognizes several structures in Mal’ta, the Great Plains of

North America, Siberia, Alaska, and California. Some of

these structures, particularly those located in Delaware

(Custer & Silber 1995), may have had an outer layer of sod

or earthen matter supported by an internal frame. Daifuku

suggests that shelters found in Russia outsize those found

in other parts of the world, especially North America.

Evidence of the largest semi-subterranean pit house ever

found was located in Russia at the Kostienki Site. This pit

house measured 2 feet deep, 45 feet wide, and 105 feet long.

In contrast, Delaware provides us with some of the smallest

pit houses ever recorded. Among these, features indicative

of a pithouse at the Snapp Site suggested dimensions of 9

inches deep, 7.5 feet wide, and 9 feet in length (Custer &

Silber 1995).

Archaeologists working in the 1970s at the L’anse aux

Meadows Viking compound also recovered remnants of what may

have been historic pit houses. At L’anse aux Meadows, the

only archaeologically documented Viking settlement in

Vinland (New Foundland), archaeologists excavated several

semi-subterranean structures (Hall 2007: 161). Similar

structures have been recovered in Revolutionary War contexts

used as military huts (Orr, personal comm.). Similar to the

hypothesis developed by Carson et al (1981) in regard to

historic earthfast architecture, historical archaeologists

argue that, because these structures were small and “easy to

build”, they were constructed first, before any other

structures, and used only initially. This data supports the

argument made by Delaware researchers (Artusy & Griffith

1975, Custer & Silber 1995) that these structures were only

occupied for a short period of seasonal winter time use.

Dimensions of several

excavated pit houses:

Depth Width

Length Diameter Citation

Clyde Farm Site, DE : 12.3 ft

6.4 ft (Custer et al)

Snapp Site, DE: . 9 in 7.5 ft

9ft (Custer & Silber)

Mispillion Site, DE: 3.2ft 11ft

12ft (Artusy & Griffith)

Warrington Site, DE: 3.7ft 9.3ft

10.6ft (Artusy & Griffith)

Poplar Thicket Site, DE: 1.5ft 10ft

12.6ft (Artusy & Griffith)

Island Field Site, DE: 1.8ft 8.6ft

12ft (Artusy & Griffith)

Western Canada Site: 4ft 6ft

9 ft (Laguna)

Gagarino Site, Russia: 1.6ft 13.5ft

16.5ft (Daifuku)

Kostienki Site, Russia: 2ft 45ft

105ft (Daifuku)

Pushkari Site, Russia: 2ft 12ft

11ft (Daifuku)

Mal’ta Site, Alaska: 2ft 9ft

12ft (Daifuku)

Ob Site, Alaska: 9ft 3ft

30ft (Daifuku)

Great Plains, North America:

30-36ft (Daifuku)

Fig 1: This table illustrates the variation of dimensions of pit houses that have been

excavated in North America and Asia.

Delaware: Closer to Home

In their publication, “A Brief Report of Semi-

Subterranean Dwellings in Delaware” (1975), Richard Artusy

and Daniel Griffith were among the first Eastern United

States archaeologists to present archaeological data to

support a shelter pattern in Delaware similar to

archaeological pit house features found in other areas of

North America, such as the American Southwest and Canada.

Despite this, some researchers (Kraft 2001: 132) persist the

notion that the archaeological data recovered by Artusy and

Griffith and other colleagues is more indicative of storage

pits, or simply a depression left by trees, rather than

semi-subterranean dwellings.

In many excavations of prehistoric sites in Delaware,

post mold stains are unidentifiable because of the sandy

nature of the soil (Custer & Silber 1995). Archaeologists

are usually only left with scant residues of the past, and

must interpret and draw conclusions without such defining

evidence. Despite this, archaeologists (Artusy & Griffith

1975, Custer & Silber 1995) have found preserved post mold

stain patterns in Delaware that suggest a pit dwelling. In

spite of this, “there is little or no general agreement on

the archaeologically recognizable definitive attributes of

semi-subterranean dwellings of the pit type” in the Middle

Atlantic Region (Artusy & Griffith 1975). The purpose of my

research and experiment is to prove that not only is it

possible that a pit house can be built in the Middle

Atlantic, but that important and insightful data can be

extrapolated from a model which may yield revealing details

regarding Late Archaic-Early Woodland vernacular

architecture, construction techniques, form, and building

materials.

Archaeological Record of a Delaware Pit House

In the field, pit houses can generally be identified by

remnants of a hearth, post mold stains, and presence of a

depression (Kraft 2001: 132). According to researchers, the

presence of a hearth suggests a seasonal winter occupation

as hearths not only provide a source of energy harnessed to

process foods, but provide inhabitants with warmth (Custer &

Silber 1995, Artusy & Griffith 1975). The presence of post

molds indicates that the inhabitants inserted wooden posts

directly into the ground either by hammering with stones or

performing a downward twisting motion to secure the posts

into the ground. In the field, these post molds can be

identified as a darkened area of the soil, most commonly

narrow and cylindrical, filled with rich organic material

leftover from rotting wooden posts. Particularly revealing

of the dwelling’s shape, these post molds tend to be angled

(Custer & Silber 1995). Lastly, the presence of a pit is the

final and arguably most defining feature of a pit house.

Like post molds, this impression can have low visibility in

the field and can be difficult to find. Typically, this

“pit” ranges in dimension (Fig. 1) and is usually shaped

like a “D” (Artusy and Griffith 1975, Daifuku 1952).

Problem

Although a number of pioneering efforts have been

helmed within the last half century to enhance our

understanding of prehistoric pit houses in the Middle

Atlantic, our understanding of site formation, technology,

materials, and form is still hazy. We can only begin to

understand form through careful spatial analysis of post

mold stains, hearths, and depressions. Despite this, it is

difficult for us to grasp construction technology and to

understand building materials because of the extreme

ephemeral nature of pit houses. One feature of the pit house

that can only be speculated at is the construction process.

Unlike archaeologists involved in historic vernacular

architecture, archaeologists dealing with prehistoric

structures are usually without the advantage of photographs,

the Historic American Building Survey (HABS), deeds, probate

inventories, and other powerfully insightful written

sources. The raw and organic materials harvested, exploited,

and manipulated by prehistoric builders have long since

degraded, becoming part of the soil hundreds or maybe

thousands of years before 20th and 21st century

archaeological excavations. Hints at what the framework and

superstructure (or outer shell) of the pit house may have

looked like can only be inferred by sparse extant features.

Experimental Archaeology: A Research Method

Like all archaeology, experimental archaeology seeks to

gain insight into past events by interpreting material

culture. Experimental archaeology involves people

“discovering for themselves the nature and application of a

range of technologies” (Reynolds 1963). This field attempts

to answer questions posed by early archaeologists such as

“how did they do it” or “how much time did it take?”

(Kelterborn 1963).

It is called “experimental” archaeology because there

is an element of experiment involved. For this project, the

experiment lies in placing myself in a wooded environment

and constructing a pit house from immediately available

resources. Experimental archaeology wishes to bring science

to the forefront of its research by executing replicable,

measurable, and controlled experiments (Kelterborn 1963,

Reynolds 1963). The goal of experimental archaeology is to

“provide enhanced analogies for archaeological

interpretation” as well as “confirm or deny interpretations

of data from excavations” (Mathieu 2002, Reynolds 1963).

Through experiment, replication, and experience, I will be

employing this branch of archaeology to draw conclusions

about semi-subterranean pit structure in the Middle

Atlantic.

The available literature on pit houses summarized in

above sections does not suggest what types of tools were

employed during construction. As with dwelling form,

employed toolkits can only be inferred at this point through

experimental studies. Two independent research projects were

carried out using experimental archaeology as a research

method in order to understand both form and technology by

1.) constructing a pit house in the late autumn-winter using

available resources and 2.) testing the efficiency of a

basic wood-working lithic toolkit.

Constructing a Pit House Model

Perhaps one of the most important points to take away

from this project is that, although we can make sweeping

generalizations of vernacular form, regional variations will

always persist based on local ecology and microclimate.

Though experimental archaeology can not pristinely replicate

the past and past human decision making processes, it can

illuminate the experience of the builder.

I have chosen to base my replica on the work done by

Custer & Silber (1995) at the Snapp Prehistoric Site (Site

153) (7NC-G-101) located in New Castle County, Delaware. Not

only is their among the most contemporary publications on

pit houses, but it is the “only completely preserved version

of a pit house in Delaware” (Custer & Silber 1995). I have

relied on the dimensions proposed by Custer and Silber of 9

ft in length, 7 feet in width, and a pit of 9 inches deep.

Landscape

A suitable site location was chosen before construction

could occur. The pit house model was constructed at Poricy

Park located in Middletown, New Jersey, near an experiential

project lead by Bill Schindler of Washington College several

years ago. The site sits on a bluff and makes an ideal camp

near fresh water yet elevated from flooding which allows for

view of incoming weather, visitors, and game. Wild vegetal

edibles like rootstocks and mast trees as well as game

animals, particularly deer and rabbit, are bountiful. Trees

abound in the deciduous forest dominated by Oak, Black

Walnut, Sweet Gum, Tulip Poplar, Maple, and Sassafras. Tree

limbs, grown weak and tired by weather, disease, or injury

pepper the ground. This is a valuable resource that requires

little energy to harvest, as it has already been felled by

nature.

Tools/Materials

To make the most authentic model of a Late Archaic/

Early Woodland pit house, research was done to discover

tools that may have been used in the past when constructing

a pit house. Flint, quartz, or any strong rock may have been

used for hammering or “pounding stakes and saplings into the

ground” (Kraft 1991: 117). In addition to hammer stones,

other stone implements, such as choppers and adzes were

likely utilized for the same function (Tuck 1978). Digging

sticks were used for similar purposes as well. Throughout

cooler months in the Eastern Woodlands, downed wood was (and

still is in open spaces) an abundant resource that could be

gathered without the use of tools. In addition, other easily

accessible materials include fallen leaves and dirt. Another

implied resource employed in construction processes is the

sheer power of human hands. Absolutely the most readily

available and easiest tool to use, the power housed in human

hands is arguably the tool that is most unrecognized, yet

most actively used throughout human history. In producing my

replica, I have used all of the above materials.

Procedure

In the Fall of 2007, this shelter was constructed in a

series of phases that allowed me to work on a portion for a

manageable length of time, and then return to it to build on

what I had already constructed. Phase 1: The top layer of

earthen debris (leaves, sticks, weeds) was removed using

hands and digging stick. A stick (approx 4ft long, 2 inches

diameter) (downed, dead) was used for clearing brush from

the surface. The same type of stick was used to break up the

skin of the soil. Rocks were employed as digging implements.

Hands, probably the most effective tool, were used to pick

up chunks of soil broken up by the sticks and rocks. Due to

time restraints, a modern shovel was also used to expedite

digging. Phase II: Various sizes of downed wood were gathered

(approx 5ft-20 ft in length, 1-3 inches in diameter) within

a 100 meter radius. Small holes were dug with a digging

stick on the outer rim of the pit in which posts were sunken

in to. Phase III: Earthen debris (twigs, dirt, leaf liter) were

harvested (mostly leftover excess from digging the pit) and

situated on the super structure.

Fig. 2. Photo of the excavated pit.

Fig. 3. The superstructure frame.

Fig. 4. The finished structure with layer of earthen debris.

Observations/Data:

Prior to constructing the pithouse model, I formulated

a number of questions centered on the construction and

function of semi-subterranean pit dwellings. These questions

were tested and answered with observable data.

How long will it take to build?

The construction process spanned two months of

intermittent work in my spare time. Myself and my assistant

worked on the pit house for ten consecutive Sundays for

about five hours a day. Construction took approximately 40

hours between two people who had never built any type of

prehistoric dwelling. Undoubtedly, Native Americans were at

least orally versed in their own building traditions and

understood the local landscape and its materials at a deeper

level than my own cognizance. Given this, these builders

could likely build a pit house with more precision and less

time.

What is the function of sunken posts?

The Eastern Woodlands are subject to a variety of

weathers, from warm and sunny to cold and snowy throughout

the seasons. Since it is speculated that pit houses were

only a temporary, seasonal shelter, it makes sense that this

structure should be reinforced against winter elements such

as cold, wind, and snow. The function of the post molds seem

to provide the superstructure with more support, acting like

an anchor, when compared to the super structure posts that

are simply resting on the ground. We anchored the larger and

heavier posts, or principal members, first because they were

the main support of the dwelling.

Is this shelter water tight?

If a thick layer of mud or clay was applied to the

outer layer, this shelter could be water tight. Following

analysis in a rain storm, the super structure provides

protection from precipitation. The excavated pit does retain

a moderate level of dampness in storms, though no flooding

occurred.

How many people can fit in this shelter?

Judging by the size of the finished structure, 3

individuals could be accommodated in the pit area.

Additionally, 3 individuals could fit on the ledge formed by

excavating the pit.

What tools are necessary to build a pit house?

The only step that required tools was excavating the

pit area. Digging sticks and stone implements were the most

useful prehistoric tools in this phase. Wood-working tools,

though not necessary in this situation, could potentially

enhance the structure’s stability.

How long before needing maintenance?

The structure will require maintenance on a regular

basis. Forces of nature (faunal, floral, and human) acted on

the outer shell, structural members, and pit, which will

have to be reinforced with more materials on a weekly basis.

Most importantly, it will have to be upkept after storms and

especially windy days

What are the advantages of a semi-subterranean shelter?

Being semi-subterranean, the pit lends a lower profile

which seems to provide some relief against harsh winter

winds. The pit seems to be most effective for wind

protection when the inhabitants are in a laying down

position within the pit. The pit also functions as a

“heating pad”, staying at a warmer temperature than

unexcavated areas. The benefits of the pit correlate to how

deep the pit is dug. The deeper, the pit, the more

protection the inhabitants receive. The function of these

features are additional evidence that these structures were

built to stand against winter weather.

Documenting Archaeological Residues of a Pit House

The site was revisited approximately once a month

following construction over a period of two years. On

December 4, 2010, I took copious notes at the site and

recorded observations based on site decay as well as floral,

faunal, and human interference. This decaying process is

thought of as an ongoing force that enables the structure to

be in constant motion that works to encourage destruction.

Structure

Two years following construction, approximately 2% of

the outer shell, a conglomerate of dirt, leaves and small

particles of woodland detritus, remained (Fig. 5). This is

largely due to weather forces, particularly rain, snow, and

wind. The small percentage of remaining shell is snared in

“catch areas”, or nooks and crannies within the

superstructure, or are concentrated where the posts meet the

ground. Twenty percent of non-principal members (wood not

sunk into earth) broke or fell out of place. Five posts are

in the breaking process and have begun to splinter. Two

large members (not principal) not entwined into the apex

dislodged from the superstructure. Tree bark once attached

to posts is peeling off.

Fig. 5. Only a small amount of the earthen debris layer remains on the

superstructure. Photograph from rear of structure.

The frame’s structural integrity is falling prey to

insect damage, particularly to wood-boring beetles and

termites as evidenced by tubular hollows within wooden

members (Fig. 6). Spiders are constructing their own webbed

dwellings within the pit house’s interstices, taking

advantage of the many posts that can be used as handles for

their webs. Gnats and other small winged insects were also

present within the pit house. An unidentified white fungus

was also observed on two posts that detached from the

structure (Fig. 7). Along with insects and fungus, humans

have also interfered with the destruction process.

Individuals who have found the pit house used broken posts

and placed them onto the pit ledge as make-shift seats (Fig.

8). In addition these contemporary visitors have also left

their own archaeological traces in the form of small

artifacts behind, such as curiously small plastic bags and

cigarette packs.

Fig. 6. Insect damage on wooden post.

Fig. 7. Fungal growth on one of the structure’s posts.

Fig. 8. Humans have manipulated posts into seats.

Soil

The soil on which the pithouse rests also contains

ecofacts and archaeological residues (Fig. 9 & 10). When

examining the soil for data, the excavated pit profile was

treated similarly to how we might treat soil stratigraphy in

the field. The top layer located on the ledge of the pit

consists of a 2” layer of dry leaf matter and a few small

broken posts. Underneath this layer is a .1” thick layer of

a very dark grayish brown silty sand (10 YR 3/2) that

contains small twigs, acorn shells and other nut remains, as

well as worm castings. This stratum is somewhat moist and

friable. Germinating Wood Violets were observed shooting

through both layers rooting in the below stratum. The third

stratum observed in the pit profile and was a light brownish

gray (10 YR 6/2) silty sand that contained worm and other

insect burrow holes and root hairs. The soil was very

friable and somewhat moist. The pit was overlaid with a 3”

layer of very wet hole leaf matter and approximately 4 foot

long broken posts. Below this was a very moist dark brown

(10 YR 3/3) clayey loam.

Fig. 9. Photograph of soil stratigraphy.

Fig. 10. Photograph of soil stratigraphy. Of particular note here are

the insect holes with the middle stratum.

Although it will likely take years for the

superstructure to give out and collapse upon itself, readily

observable signs of human, floral, faunal, and

climatological interference are taking their tolls. These

significant forces are engaged in constant motion with

eachother that directly and indirectly work to destroy the

shelter and begin the process of site formation.

Reconstructing a Lithic Toolkit

The above experimental approach to understanding pit

houses has illustrated that it is possible to construct this

dwelling using a very minimal toolkit that employed

predominately a digging stick followed by several rocks

utilized as digging implements. The above experiment shows

that tools were only necessary in excavating the dwelling’s

pit. The superstructure and shell was soundly constructed

without any tools.

Based upon previous interpretations of archaeological

pit house evidence described above, researchers suggest that

these structures were impermanent, built in a short amount

of time, and used as temporary winter shelters. Given this,

a “bare bones” approach to pit house construction was taken,

using only absolutely essential tools in construction.

However, this approach is faulted in that it did not fully

consider other types of material culture used to construct a

pit house. Corroborated with the presence of lithic work

areas near pit houses (Custer & Silber 1993, Artusy &

Griffith 1975), it is possible that a basic lithic toolkit

was created and used throughout pit house construction.

Expanding the range of utilized tools may influence the

form of the pit house from the experimental interpretation

described above to one that could be constructed out of cut

wood secured with some type of wrapping (i.e. cordage)

overlaid with cut evergreen boughs or bark. Additionally, a

mixture of these qualities with the proposed experimental

form could also be manifested. In order to test the

practicality of a basic set of wood-working tools, a modest

hypothetical lithic toolkit comprised of a scraper, an axe,

and knife was replicated.

Toolkit Manufacture

Both hard and soft percussion tools were employed in

replicating a basic lithic toolkit. Argillite was selected

as the raw material in all three tool classes because it is

located in abundance in the central Middle Atlantic in

addition to it being a readily accessible modern knapping

resource.

To create the ax, an argillite blank was selected that

was slightly previously worked. A hammer stone was employed

to thin and shape the blank without any support (i.e. not

rested on thigh). Ten flakes (roughly 3mm in thickness, 1 ½

inches long) were removed from the blank’s edges. Following

removal of these flakes, the argillite ax was then placed

into a wooden handle. To create the wooden handle, an oak

branch was first selected based upon length and girth

qualities. The branch had an approximate length of 5 feet,

but was shortened by placing the branch between two

adjoining tree trunks and then snapped to a length of about

2 feet long. The branch was additionally selected for its

thickness, which fits comfortably in my hand (about 2 inches

wide). Once the branch was trimmed to a manageable length, a

3 ½ inch long slit was gouged out near the top of the handle

using an argillite chisel and hammerstone as well as an

argillite scraper. The slit extended into the handle

approximately 2 inches until it reached the opposite end.

The argillite ax was then lodged into the slit using

pressure and tension. The top portion of the ax (the

platform) was lightly hammered into place using a

hammerstone. The ax was reinforced into the wood using

several dabs of crafting glue. Hemp cordage was wrapped

around both the handle and for additional support. Time

invested time to complete manufacture was 4 hours.

To make the knife, a blade was knapped out of an

argillite blank supported on my thigh using a soft

percussion antler billet. The blade’s shape was defined

using short and quick unsupported hammerstone blows. A

pressure flaker was then used to sharpen the blade and

create a serrated edge. Once the blade was made, a wooden

handle was created out of a thin tree limb. The limb was

shortened to approximately 8 inches long and the exterior of

the bottom half was scraped to make for a more comfortable

and aesthetically pleasing gripping area. The blade was then

hafted onto the handle by splitting the top most inch of

wood down the center using a scraper and hammerstone. The

blade was then secured into the split by pressure and a

small amount of crafting glue. For further supprt, the blade

was reinforced with hemp cordage. It took 2 hours to create

the knife.

Lastly, a scraper was constructed from an argillite

blank using soft hammer percussion. Like the blade, the

blank was supported with my thigh as it was struck by the

billet. The scraper was not modified further. It took 30

minutes to manufacture the scraper.

Testing a Basic Wood-Working Lithic Toolkit

Once the three tool classes were constructed, each was

tested on wood samples for efficiency and in order to form

wear patterns on each tool. To test the efficacy of the ax,

the tool was employed in several wood-cutting situations.

The ax was used to chop through a number of different tree

limbs, both green and already downed. The replicated knife

was utilized by cutting through hemp cordage and pliable

vines. Lastly, the scraper was tested by scraping bark off

of a tree limb. Each tool was worked until it noticeably

decreased in efficiency and developed wear patterns.

Documenting Wear Patterns

Observable wear patterns developed on each of the

tools. Wood polish formed on the exterior of the ax,

centralized on the striking area. Small bits of wood became

trapped in the microtopography of the utilized edge. Small

flakes (1mm long or less) detached from this edge during

use. The handle and reinforcement system maintained

throughout use. Microscopic analysis revealed evidence of

crushing on the utilized chopping edge. The knife developed

wood polish from use on vines, but not cordage, following 20

minutes of use. Both vine and cordage cutting significantly

dulled the knife so that it became increasingly difficult to

cut following 30 minutes of use. The glue reinforcement in

the hafted area detached from the blade following about 5

minutes of use, decreasing the effectiveness of the knife.

Like the ax and knife blade, the scraper also developed wood

polish. This tool decreased in efficiency within 17 minutes

of use as the blade edge dulled from wear.

Discussion

Based upon the time invested into creating the tools

corroborated with the efficiency of each tool, it seems

possible, though unlikely, that a basic wood-working toolkit

was employed during pit house construction. The knife and

scraper lost much of its efficiency in less than a half hour

of use which suggests that more than one knife and scraper

would have to be created in order to complete a pit house,

increasing the overall invested time spent in construction.

Not only are these tools time consuming to initially create

and then to replace, but they are not necessary in

construction. If pit houses were used in the Middle Atlantic

as more permanent warm-weather dwellings where individuals

would not be as pressured to build a shelter, tools would

be integral. The knife would be useful in cutting vines or

cordage which could be used to bind superstructure posts

together to secure the frame. In the summer, where downed

wood is not as plentiful in warmer months, the ax would be

especially useful, or perhaps necessary, in order to trim

tree limbs to an appropriate length. These limbs, and other

limbs or trunks, could be processed using a scraper to cut

off sections of bark which could be used to cover the

superstructure as an alternative to earthen debris.

Further Research

This experimental approach to understanding pit houses

has enabled a deeper understanding of building technology

and materials, form, function, possible decision-making

processes, and site formation. However, this project has

opened further research avenues involving taphonomic

processes and lithic toolkit wear patterns.

To speed up the destruction process, the shelter could

be manually destroyed by the force of human hands or fire,

though arguably this could taint site formation processes

and remove the pit house from natural factors that would

raze it. Perhaps reexamining the site through future

archaeological excavation in a few decades, an approach

taken by a number of researchers involved in similar

experiments, would further enhance our understanding of

these archaeologically elusive structures.

Another direction would be to construct a series of pit

houses, live in them for a short period of time, and then

destroy each one in a different way (i.e. abandoned and

naturally succumbing to nature’s course, burnt, robbed out,

deliberate destruction following a short-term use). After

revisiting the site following destruction, it would be of

interest to note what kind of impression occupation leaves

on the site and how different the archaeological signatures

are from eachother.

In addition to further dwelling reconstruction efforts,

the replicated tools with observable wear patterns could be

compared to other lithic tools excavated from pit house

sites. This comparison study would be carried out in order

to corroborate experimentally worn tools with tools worn in

uncontrolled real-life situations in order to evaluate the

possibility of wood-working tools employed in pit house

construction. In order to carry out this study,

determinations must be made in archaeological collections to

distinguish pit house building materials from more generic

wood-working activities.

Conclusion

Through this experimental approach to understanding

prehistoric pit houses, a number of important points have

been elucidated. First, it is plausible that pit houses were

indeed a part of prehistoric vernacular architecture in the

Middle Atlantic, not simply tree-throw, based upon the

observations that one was successfully modeled after

archaeological data from the region, are relatively easy to

build with local resources, and are structurally sound. By

creating a pit house based on archaeological data, we can

advance our understanding of form from scant post mold

patterns to a complete and tangible structure. Although this

approach illustrated that it is simply possible to build a

pit house with only digging implements, this approach is

faulted in that it did not consider the practicality or

efficiency of other tools. A basic wood-working lithic

toolkit was manufactured in order to test the hypothesis

that pit houses only require digging tools. Results indicate

that while a more sound structure could be constructed using

a basic lithic toolkit, it is less likely that builders

employed most, if not all of these tools, because of time

investment. Additionally, it is most logical that the

builder will use resources that are most easily attainable

and effective. A builder may chose not to use downed wood

because it is not plentiful but opt for saplings because

they are abundant, illustrating the range of materials and

technologies involved in constructing this type of dwelling.

Once the dwelling was constructed, humans, plants, animals,

and climatological conditions acted together to manipulate

the architecture and keep the pit house in decay. Three

years following construction, all of these signatures are

highly visible on posts, in soil profiles, or in the form of

material culture.

Bibliography

Cameron, Catherine A. “Pit Structure Abandonment in the FourCorners Region of the

American Southwest: Late Basketmaker III and Pueblo I Periods.” Journal of

Field Archaeology. Vol. 17, No. 1. Spring 1990, (27-37).

Callahan, Errett. “What is Experimental Archaeology?” Primitive Technology: A Book

of Earth Skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith. 1999, (4-6).

Callahan, Errett. “NA House Reconstruction Projects.” Primitive Technology: A Book of

Earth Skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith. 1999, (19-21).

Carson, Cary, et al. “Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies.”

Winterthur Portfolio. Vol. 16. No 2/3. Summer-Autumn 1981, (135-196).

Custer, Jay F. “An Early Woodland Household Cluster at the Clyde Farm Site (7NC-E-

6), Delaware.” Journal of Field Archaeology. Vol. 14, No. 2. Summer, 1987,

(230-235).

Custer, Jay F and Silber, Barbara Hsiao. Final Archaeological Investigations at the Snapp

Prehistoric Site (7NC-G-101), State Route 1 Corridor, Chesapeake and Delaware

Canal Section, New Castle County, Delaware. Del DOT, 1995.

Daifuku, Hiroshi. “The Pit House in the Old World and in Native North America.”

American Antiquity. Vol. 18, No. 1. Jul 1952, (1-7).

Gilman, Patricia A. “Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American

Southwest.” American Antiquity. Vol. 52, No. 3. Jul. 1987, (538-564).

Griffith, Daniel R and Artusy, Richard, E. “A Brief Report on Semi-Subterranean

Dwellings of Delaware.” The Archeolog. Vol XXVII, No 1.Summer, 1975, (1-9).

Hall, Richard. The World of the Vikings. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2007.

Kelterborn, P. “Preconditions and Strategies For Experimental

Archaeology.” Experiment and Design: Archaeological Studies in Honour of

John Coles. Ed Harding. Oxford: Oxbow, 1999. (599-600).

Kraft, Herbert C. The Lenape Delaware Indian Heritage. Lenape Books, 2001.

Lightfoot, Dale R. and Frank W. Eddy. “The Effects of Environment and Culture on the

Distribution of Prehistoric Dwellings at Chimney Rock Mesa, Colorado.” The

Geographical Journal. Vol. 159, No. 3. Nov. 1993. (291-305).

Mathieu, James R. “Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past Objects,

Behaviors and Processes.” Experimental Archaeology: Replicating Past

Objects, Behaviors and Processes. Ed. Mathieu. BAR International Series,

2002. (1-10).

Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton. Native American Architecture. New York & Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1989.

Reynolds, Peter J. “The Nature of Experiment in Archaeology.” Experiment

and Design: Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles. Ed Harding.

Oxford: Oxbow, 1999. (156-162).

Tuck, James A. “Regional Cultural Development.” Handbook of North American

Indians. Smithsonian: Washington, 1978.

Watts, Steve. “Sheltered in Prehistory.” Primitive Technology: A Book of Earth Skills.

Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith. 1999, (12-15).

White, John. “Why Build Traditional Houses Today?” PrimitiveTechnology: A Book of

Earth Skills. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith. 1999, (16-18).