https://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=EbruckIron Allentown Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-10-23T22:52:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.45.3https://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Paul_Balliet_(1811-1886)&diff=2088Paul Balliet (1811-1886)2020-10-12T17:12:15Z<p>Ebruck: /* Work */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Early Life==<br />
Paul Balliet was born in Whitehall Township, Ballietsville on May 11, 1811, to [[Stephen Balliet (1753-1821)]] and [[Magdalena Burgalter (1765-1805)]]<ref> Mathews and Hungerford 1884: 511 </ref>. Paul Balliet was home schooled for the majority of his early life, but later had the opportunity to study in Easton, PA<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Family==<br />
Paul married Sarah Moyer, from Whitehall. They had several children together: Paul, Sabina, Josephine, Catherine, Amanda<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>, and Ella<ref>Roberts et al. 1914, 49</ref>. Following the death of his wife, Paul Balliet married Kate Emery on May 20, 1878<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Work==<br />
Paul Balliet worked on his father's farm, which in later years he purchased for himself. He also managed a store in Heidelberg township, as well as managed a furnace that his father owned<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>. Along with his brothers [[Aaron Balliet (1813-1895)]] and [[John Balliet (1819-1886)]], Paul Balliet became involved in a mining enterprise in North Whitehall. Paul Balliet was also a stockholder at Coplay furnace, which was close to his home<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>. Additionally, Paul Balliet sat on the Allentown Savings Institution Board of Trustees<br />
<br />
In 1863, Paul Balliet was reported as one of the top 20 earners in Lehigh County, along with his brother, [[Aaron Balliet (1813-1895)]], and brother-in-law, [[Benjamin Levan (1806-1886)]]. That year he earned $7,309 through his interests in the Ironton Iron Mine and the Lehigh Valley Iron Company <ref>Hellerich 1987, 144</ref>. Paul Balliet was a Republican and served as county commissioner, as well as was a member of the German Reformed Church of Unionville<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 538</ref>.<br />
<br />
One can see property owned by Paul Balliet on the [[1865 Aschbach Map of Lehigh County]], Pennsylvania <ref>Aschbach 1865</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
*Aschbach, G. A. 1865. ''Map of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania : From Original Surveys.'' Image. Philadelphia: M.H. Traubel. Accessed October 3, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/item/2012592181/.<br />
<br />
*Hellerich, Mahlon Howard. 1987. ''A History of Allentown: 1861-1865.” In Allentown 1762-1987: A 225-Year History,'' edited by Mahlon Howard. Hellerich, 91–180. Allentown, PA: Lehigh County Historical Society.<br />
<br />
*Mathews, Alfred, and Austin N Hungerford. 1884. ''History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Everts & Richards.<br />
<br />
*Roberts, Charles, John Stoudt, Thomas Krick, and William Dietrich. 1914. ''History of Lehigh County Pennsylvania and a Genealogical and Biographical Record of its Families.'' Vol. 2, Allentown, PA: Lehigh Valley Publidhing Company Ltd.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Bernhard_Fernow_(1851-1923)&diff=2019Bernhard Fernow (1851-1923)2020-10-03T17:15:31Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Background=<br />
<br />
Bernhard Fernow was born in the Prussian Province of Posen. He emigrated to the Unites States in 1876 after marrying his wife Olivia Reynolds, who actively helped him in many of his later projects. In 1886, Fernow was named the third Chief of the USDA's Division of Forestry of the United States until 1898. <br />
During his time as Chief his main policy goals were the establishment of a national forest system and introduction of scientific forest management. Fernow produced many scientific reports while working toward the creation of national forests to protect watersheds. Fernow is known to be called the "father of professional forestry in the United States."<br />
<br />
=Waste Places=<br />
<br />
=Yield of Wood and When to Cut It=<br />
According to Fernow, the weight of charcoal, if properly prepared and housed, is practically a constant factor, since most charcoal is not used fresh, but rather used after weeks when it has absorbed almost all amounts of moisture (up to 10 to 15 per cent)<ref>Bernhard, 1882, 21</ref>.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Fernow, Bernhard E. 1883. “Planting in Waste Places.” The American Journal of Forestry, January, 153–55.<br />
Fernow, Bernhard E. 1882. “The Yield of Wood and When to Cut It.” Journal of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers 3 (1): 19–26.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Bernhard_Fernow_(1851-1923)&diff=2018Bernhard Fernow (1851-1923)2020-10-03T17:12:53Z<p>Ebruck: /* Background */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Background=<br />
<br />
Bernhard Fernow was born in the Prussian Province of Posen. He emigrated to the Unites States in 1876 after marrying his wife Olivia Reynolds, who actively helped him in many of his later projects. In 1886, Fernow was named the third Chief of the USDA's Division of Forestry of the United States until 1898. <br />
During his time as Chief his main policy goals were the establishment of a national forest system and introduction of scientific forest management. Fernow produced many scientific reports while working toward the creation of national forests to protect watersheds. Fernow is known to be called the "father of professional forestry in the United States."<br />
<br />
=Waste Places=<br />
<br />
=Yield of Wood and When to Cut It=<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Fernow, Bernhard E. 1883. “Planting in Waste Places.” The American Journal of Forestry, January, 153–55.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Bernhard_Fernow_(1851-1923)&diff=2017Bernhard Fernow (1851-1923)2020-10-03T17:12:38Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>=Background=<br />
<br />
[Bernhard Fernow] was born in the Prussian Province of Posen. He emigrated to the Unites States in 1876 after marrying his wife Olivia Reynolds, who actively helped him in many of his later projects. In 1886, Fernow was named the third Chief of the USDA's Division of Forestry of the United States until 1898. <br />
During his time as Chief his main policy goals were the establishment of a national forest system and introduction of scientific forest management. Fernow produced many scientific reports while working toward the creation of national forests to protect watersheds. Fernow is known to be called the "father of professional forestry in the United States."<br />
<br />
=Waste Places=<br />
<br />
=Yield of Wood and When to Cut It=<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Fernow, Bernhard E. 1883. “Planting in Waste Places.” The American Journal of Forestry, January, 153–55.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Bernhard_Fernow_(1851-1923)&diff=2016Bernhard Fernow (1851-1923)2020-10-03T17:05:41Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Please see other pages for formatting. Don't forget to add notes and references. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=Background=<br />
<br />
=Waste Places=<br />
<br />
=Yield of Wood and When to Cut It=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<br />
=Notes=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Iron_production&diff=1969Iron production2020-09-30T14:56:23Z<p>Ebruck: /* Blast Furnace */</p>
<hr />
<div>Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow <br />
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.<br />
<br />
Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Iron Communities==<br />
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fuel==<br />
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Operation==<br />
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal, <br />
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron. <br />
<br />
===Bloomery===<br />
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, and operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Blast Furnace===<br />
Blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries, as blast furnaces could be run continuously for months at at time, conserved heat, and could produce much more iron. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century with a conical shape on top<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. <br />
<br />
The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The outer wall was generally constructed of any stone, often granite, grauwach (a dark coarsegrained sedimentary stone), or slate<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The inner walls of the furnace were essential to build adequately as it had to stand up to high heat over long periods of time. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.<br />
<br />
==The Fining Process==<br />
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Walloon Process=== <br />
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===<br />
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Puddling===<br />
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Forging===<br />
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were automated by waterwheel or steam power, and could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Furnace==<br />
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Workers==<br />
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.<br />
<br />
*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.<br />
<br />
* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010<br />
<br />
* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40<br />
<br />
** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Iron_production&diff=1968Iron production2020-09-30T14:34:41Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow <br />
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.<br />
<br />
Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Iron Communities==<br />
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fuel==<br />
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Operation==<br />
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal, <br />
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron. <br />
<br />
===Bloomery===<br />
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, and operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Blast Furnace===<br />
Blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries, as blast furnaces could be run continuously for months at at time, conserved heat, and could produce much more iron. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. <br />
<br />
The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The outer wall was generally constructed of any stone, often granite, grauwach (a dark coarsegrained sedimentary stone), or slate<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The inner walls of the furnace were essential to build adequately as it had to stand up to high heat over long periods of time. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.<br />
<br />
==The Fining Process==<br />
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Walloon Process=== <br />
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===<br />
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Puddling===<br />
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Forging===<br />
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were automated by waterwheel or steam power, and could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Furnace==<br />
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Workers==<br />
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.<br />
<br />
*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.<br />
<br />
* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010<br />
<br />
* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40<br />
<br />
** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Iron_production&diff=1967Iron production2020-09-30T14:27:31Z<p>Ebruck: /* Blast Furnace */</p>
<hr />
<div>Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow <br />
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.<br />
<br />
Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Iron Communities==<br />
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fuel==<br />
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Operation==<br />
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal, <br />
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron. <br />
<br />
===Bloomery===<br />
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, and operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Blast Furnace===<br />
Blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries, as blast furnaces could be run continuously for months at at time, conserved heat, and could produce much more iron. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. <br />
<br />
The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.<br />
<br />
==The Fining Process==<br />
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Walloon Process=== <br />
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===<br />
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Puddling===<br />
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Forging===<br />
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were automated by waterwheel or steam power, and could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Furnace==<br />
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Workers==<br />
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.<br />
<br />
*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.<br />
<br />
* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010<br />
<br />
* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40<br />
<br />
** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Iron_production&diff=1966Iron production2020-09-30T14:24:24Z<p>Ebruck: /* Forging */</p>
<hr />
<div>Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow <br />
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.<br />
<br />
Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Iron Communities==<br />
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fuel==<br />
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Operation==<br />
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal, <br />
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron. <br />
<br />
===Bloomery===<br />
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, and operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Blast Furnace===<br />
Blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries, as blast furnaces could be run continuously for months at at time, conserved heat, and could produce much more iron. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. <br />
<br />
The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Fining Process==<br />
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Walloon Process=== <br />
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===<br />
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Puddling===<br />
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Forging===<br />
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were automated by waterwheel or steam power, and could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Furnace==<br />
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Workers==<br />
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.<br />
<br />
*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.<br />
<br />
* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010<br />
<br />
* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40<br />
<br />
** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Iron_production&diff=1965Iron production2020-09-30T14:23:27Z<p>Ebruck: /* Workers */</p>
<hr />
<div>Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow <br />
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==History==<br />
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.<br />
<br />
Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.<br />
<br />
In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Iron Communities==<br />
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fuel==<br />
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Operation==<br />
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal, <br />
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron. <br />
<br />
===Bloomery===<br />
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, and operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Blast Furnace===<br />
Blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries, as blast furnaces could be run continuously for months at at time, conserved heat, and could produce much more iron. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. <br />
<br />
The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Fining Process==<br />
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Walloon Process=== <br />
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===<br />
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Puddling===<br />
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.<br />
<br />
===Forging===<br />
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods. Forging is effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were automated by waterwheel or steam power, and could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.<br />
<br />
==The Furnace==<br />
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Workers==<br />
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.<br />
<br />
*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.<br />
<br />
* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010<br />
<br />
* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40<br />
<br />
** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Harvesting_Wood&diff=1948Harvesting Wood2020-09-27T11:43:25Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Wood==<br />
Charcoal production involved extensive woodcutting over broad forest areas, often times whole forests were depleted. Wood must be dry before it could be used for [[charcoal production]] and [[iron production]]. Wood cut in the late autumn and early winter proved to hold the least amount of water. For example, wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January. Wood cut in December and January was more solid and would dry faster<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Dead of decayed wood was of no use for making charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 83</ref>. <br />
<br />
In 1878, 4 cords worth of charcoal proved to provide 1 ton of pig iron <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>. Places like Hopewell Furnace would use a 30 year cutting cycle which meant they had to use way more land so that the cut trees had plenty of time to regrow. Around 200 acres would be cut annually at Hopewell and 147,000 acres or 230 square miles of forest were harvested annually nationwide which led to obvious cases of forest depletion. In response to the depletion, furnaces and their employees because very strong supporters of forestry early on because of their need for forests to continue supplying wood <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref><br />
<br />
The kind of wood has a major impact on the quality of charcoal. Denser types of woods were preferred to soft woods as they produced more heat and were less friable<ref>Straka 2015, 106</ref>. It has been recorded that sometimes a mixture of soft and hard woods would be used to create charcoal<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. It was also important that the wood being harvested was in good condition, this meant no decaying, knotted or decaying wood<ref>Straka 2014, 106-107</ref>. Optimal size for commercial charcoal is about 25 to 80 mm across the grain<ref>Svedelius 1875</ref>. Most, if not all species of wood can be carbonized to make charcoal.<br />
<br />
==Woodcutters==<br />
A cord of wood is four foot lengths of wood stacked four feet high and eight feet long. Woodcutters could cut anywhere from a few cords to more than one thousand cords. Many woodcutters were farmers who supplemented their income in the offseason<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. For example, between 1851-1853 Edwin Gault was paid for 1993.5 cords<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. One must remember, however, that he may have had helpers whom he then paid. Colliers also became woodcutters during the winter months in order to get a full-years wage<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Payments for cutting wood varied greatly due to location and time<ref>Overman 1854, 84</ref>.<br />
<br />
Wood cutters comprised a large proportion of the workers at any charcoal iron furnace. At Hopewell Furnace between 1851-1853, 225 persons were paid for any type of work and 116 were paid for cutting cord wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. At Hopewell, on average approximately two cords of wood could be chopped down in a single day<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Two and a half cords was the average at Hanging Rock District<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. It was noted, however, that in the Hanging Rock District there worked "...Reuben Beverly, who was reputed to be the champion chopper of this region and who, it is said, could cut, split and rank eight cords per day indefinitely. His name was as familiar throughout the Hanging Rock field as was that of the lad who cut down the cherry tree"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. Crandall also indicated that he personally had "known many expert wood choppers who could chop, split and rank from four to five cords a day"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>.<br />
<br />
Woodcutters sometimes delivered the wood to charcoal hearths, called "delivering in the ring". They were paid $1.75 for this wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Deforestation==<br />
Charcoal production created a huge impact on forest depletion. Forest destruction tended to be complete near smelters and furnaces, it was generally localized near the demand for the fuel.<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. The average annual furnace output was 1000 tons of pig iron. Thus, an average iron plantation furnace would require fuel from 150 acres of woodland per year. <ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.The woodland area surrounding the furnace was extremely important to feeding the charcoal furnace. <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Because of the consistent use for the furnaces, regeneration and growth were so slow that wood supplies would likely be depleted after a decade or so of woodcutting<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. The furnaces acknowledged the slow regeneration of wood and as a result many furnaces practiced various forms of conservation and land management as a way of maintaining their source of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Over time iron production became increasingly efficient, ergo more acres of woodland were required to fuel production<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Woodlands in the east were typically more plentiful than that in the western United States and they typically took less time to regenerate<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. Calculations of woodland required for production varied based on factors such as location, furnace productivity (pit or kiln), and forest regeneration<ref>Straka 2014, 110-111</ref>. Eastern woodlands typically supplied more wood per acre and regenerated more quickly than their western counterparts<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Crandall, Elias. 1906. ''Reminiscences of the Hanging Rock District (Concluded).'' The Iron Trade Review, July, 19.<br />
<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
<br />
*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. “Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters .” Scientific Research Publishing Inc.: 105. https://muhlenbergcollege.instructure.com/courses/14963/files/836339/download?wrap=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. “History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.” Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf<br />
<br />
*Svedelius, G. (1875). Hand-Book for Charcoal Burners. New York: John Wiley & Son<br />
<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Harvesting_Wood&diff=1947Harvesting Wood2020-09-27T11:41:46Z<p>Ebruck: /* Wood */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Wood==<br />
Charcoal production involved extensive woodcutting over broad forest areas, often times whole forests were depleted. Wood must be dry before it could be used for [[charcoal production]] and [[iron production]]. Wood cut in the late autumn and early winter proved to hold the least amount of water. For example, wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January. Wood cut in December and January was more solid and would dry faster<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Dead of decayed wood was of no use for making charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 83</ref>. <br />
<br />
In 1878, 4 cords worth of charcoal proved to provide 1 ton of pig iron <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>. Places like Hopewell Furnace would use a 30 year cutting cycle which meant they had to use way more land so that the cut trees had plenty of time to regrow. Around 200 acres would be cut annually at Hopewell and 147,000 acres or 230 square miles of forest were harvested annually nationwide which led to obvious cases of forest depletion. In response to the depletion, furnaces and their employees because very strong supporters of forestry early on because of their need for forests to continue supplying wood <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref><br />
<br />
The kind of wood has a major impact on the quality of charcoal. Denser types of woods were preferred to soft woods as they produced more heat and were less friable<ref>Straka 2015, 106</ref>. It has been recorded that sometimes a mixture of soft and hard woods would be used to create charcoal<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. It was also important that the wood being harvested was in good condition, this meant no decaying, knotted or decaying wood<ref>Straka 2014, 106-107</ref>. Optimal size for commercial charcoal is about 25 to 80 mm across the grain (Svedelius, 1875). Most, if not all species of wood can be carbonized to make charcoal.<br />
<br />
==Woodcutters==<br />
A cord of wood is four foot lengths of wood stacked four feet high and eight feet long. Woodcutters could cut anywhere from a few cords to more than one thousand cords. Many woodcutters were farmers who supplemented their income in the offseason<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. For example, between 1851-1853 Edwin Gault was paid for 1993.5 cords<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. One must remember, however, that he may have had helpers whom he then paid. Colliers also became woodcutters during the winter months in order to get a full-years wage<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Payments for cutting wood varied greatly due to location and time<ref>Overman 1854, 84</ref>.<br />
<br />
Wood cutters comprised a large proportion of the workers at any charcoal iron furnace. At Hopewell Furnace between 1851-1853, 225 persons were paid for any type of work and 116 were paid for cutting cord wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. At Hopewell, on average approximately two cords of wood could be chopped down in a single day<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Two and a half cords was the average at Hanging Rock District<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. It was noted, however, that in the Hanging Rock District there worked "...Reuben Beverly, who was reputed to be the champion chopper of this region and who, it is said, could cut, split and rank eight cords per day indefinitely. His name was as familiar throughout the Hanging Rock field as was that of the lad who cut down the cherry tree"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. Crandall also indicated that he personally had "known many expert wood choppers who could chop, split and rank from four to five cords a day"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>.<br />
<br />
Woodcutters sometimes delivered the wood to charcoal hearths, called "delivering in the ring". They were paid $1.75 for this wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Deforestation==<br />
Charcoal production created a huge impact on forest depletion. Forest destruction tended to be complete near smelters and furnaces, it was generally localized near the demand for the fuel.<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. The average annual furnace output was 1000 tons of pig iron. Thus, an average iron plantation furnace would require fuel from 150 acres of woodland per year. <ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.The woodland area surrounding the furnace was extremely important to feeding the charcoal furnace. <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Because of the consistent use for the furnaces, regeneration and growth were so slow that wood supplies would likely be depleted after a decade or so of woodcutting<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. The furnaces acknowledged the slow regeneration of wood and as a result many furnaces practiced various forms of conservation and land management as a way of maintaining their source of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Over time iron production became increasingly efficient, ergo more acres of woodland were required to fuel production<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Woodlands in the east were typically more plentiful than that in the western United States and they typically took less time to regenerate<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. Calculations of woodland required for production varied based on factors such as location, furnace productivity (pit or kiln), and forest regeneration<ref>Straka 2014, 110-111</ref>. Eastern woodlands typically supplied more wood per acre and regenerated more quickly than their western counterparts<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Crandall, Elias. 1906. ''Reminiscences of the Hanging Rock District (Concluded).'' The Iron Trade Review, July, 19.<br />
<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
<br />
*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. “Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters .” Scientific Research Publishing Inc.: 105. https://muhlenbergcollege.instructure.com/courses/14963/files/836339/download?wrap=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. “History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.” Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf<br />
<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Harvesting_Wood&diff=1946Harvesting Wood2020-09-27T11:40:44Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Wood==<br />
Charcoal production involved extensive woodcutting over broad forest areas, often times whole forests were depleted. Wood must be dry before it could be used for [[charcoal production]] and [[iron production]]. Wood cut in the late autumn and early winter proved to hold the least amount of water. For example, wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January. Wood cut in December and January was more solid and would dry faster<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Dead of decayed wood was of no use for making charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 83</ref>. <br />
<br />
In 1878, 4 cords worth of charcoal proved to provide 1 ton of pig iron <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>. Places like Hopewell Furnace would use a 30 year cutting cycle which meant they had to use way more land so that the cut trees had plenty of time to regrow. Around 200 acres would be cut annually at Hopewell and 147,000 acres or 230 square miles of forest were harvested annually nationwide which led to obvious cases of forest depletion. In response to the depletion, furnaces and their employees because very strong supporters of forestry early on because of their need for forests to continue supplying wood <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref><br />
<br />
The kind of wood has a major impact on the quality of charcoal. Denser types of woods were preferred to soft woods as they produced more heat and were less friable<ref>Straka 2015, 106</ref>. It has been recorded that sometimes a mixture of soft and hard woods would be used to create charcoal<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. It was also important that the wood being harvested was in good condition, this meant no decaying, knotted or decaying wood<ref>Straka 2014, 106-107</ref>. Most, if not all species of wood can be carbonized to make charcoal. <br />
<br />
==Woodcutters==<br />
A cord of wood is four foot lengths of wood stacked four feet high and eight feet long. Woodcutters could cut anywhere from a few cords to more than one thousand cords. Many woodcutters were farmers who supplemented their income in the offseason<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. For example, between 1851-1853 Edwin Gault was paid for 1993.5 cords<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. One must remember, however, that he may have had helpers whom he then paid. Colliers also became woodcutters during the winter months in order to get a full-years wage<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Payments for cutting wood varied greatly due to location and time<ref>Overman 1854, 84</ref>.<br />
<br />
Wood cutters comprised a large proportion of the workers at any charcoal iron furnace. At Hopewell Furnace between 1851-1853, 225 persons were paid for any type of work and 116 were paid for cutting cord wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. At Hopewell, on average approximately two cords of wood could be chopped down in a single day<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Two and a half cords was the average at Hanging Rock District<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. It was noted, however, that in the Hanging Rock District there worked "...Reuben Beverly, who was reputed to be the champion chopper of this region and who, it is said, could cut, split and rank eight cords per day indefinitely. His name was as familiar throughout the Hanging Rock field as was that of the lad who cut down the cherry tree"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. Crandall also indicated that he personally had "known many expert wood choppers who could chop, split and rank from four to five cords a day"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>.<br />
<br />
Woodcutters sometimes delivered the wood to charcoal hearths, called "delivering in the ring". They were paid $1.75 for this wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Deforestation==<br />
Charcoal production created a huge impact on forest depletion. Forest destruction tended to be complete near smelters and furnaces, it was generally localized near the demand for the fuel.<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. The average annual furnace output was 1000 tons of pig iron. Thus, an average iron plantation furnace would require fuel from 150 acres of woodland per year. <ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.The woodland area surrounding the furnace was extremely important to feeding the charcoal furnace. <ref>Straka 2014, 110</ref>. Because of the consistent use for the furnaces, regeneration and growth were so slow that wood supplies would likely be depleted after a decade or so of woodcutting<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. The furnaces acknowledged the slow regeneration of wood and as a result many furnaces practiced various forms of conservation and land management as a way of maintaining their source of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Over time iron production became increasingly efficient, ergo more acres of woodland were required to fuel production<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Woodlands in the east were typically more plentiful than that in the western United States and they typically took less time to regenerate<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. Calculations of woodland required for production varied based on factors such as location, furnace productivity (pit or kiln), and forest regeneration<ref>Straka 2014, 110-111</ref>. Eastern woodlands typically supplied more wood per acre and regenerated more quickly than their western counterparts<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Crandall, Elias. 1906. ''Reminiscences of the Hanging Rock District (Concluded).'' The Iron Trade Review, July, 19.<br />
<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
<br />
*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. “Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters .” Scientific Research Publishing Inc.: 105. https://muhlenbergcollege.instructure.com/courses/14963/files/836339/download?wrap=1<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. “History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.” Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf<br />
<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1912FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:42:37Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of the work==<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
==Plan==<br />
Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. The class utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on iPads and Android devices in order to learn and see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using GPS, the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fieldwork==<br />
During the 2016 fieldwork, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detection were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future shovel test pits. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation. This included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016, three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal and iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However, these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of [[The Balliet Family]] in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Lastly, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1911FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:42:16Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of the work==<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
==Plan==<br />
Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. The class utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on iPads and Android devices in order to learn and see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using GPS, the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fieldwork==<br />
During the 2016 fieldwork, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detection were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future shovel test pits. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation. This included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016, three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal and iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However, these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of [[the Balliet family]] in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Lastly, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1910FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:40:15Z<p>Ebruck: /* Fieldwork */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of the work==<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
==Plan==<br />
Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. The class utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on iPads and Android devices in order to learn and see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using GPS, the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fieldwork==<br />
During the 2016 fieldwork, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detection were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future shovel test pits. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation. This included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016, three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1909FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:29:18Z<p>Ebruck: /* Plan */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of the work==<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
==Plan==<br />
Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. The class utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on iPads and Android devices in order to learn and see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using GPS, the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fieldwork==<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1908FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:22:52Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Purpose of the work==<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
==Plan==<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Fieldwork==<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
==Results==<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1907FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:17:08Z<p>Ebruck: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. ''The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook''. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1906FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:16:51Z<p>Ebruck: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook. United<br />
States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.<br />
<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1905FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:16:32Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey<ref>Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70</ref>. The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217<br />
<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook. United<br />
States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1904FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:13:24Z<p>Ebruck: added notes and references</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman, 2009, 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes<ref>Carter 2019, 17</ref>..<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217<br />
<br />
Burke, H., Smith, C., and Zimmerman, L. J. 2009. The Archaeologist’s Field Handbook. United<br />
States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1903FieldWork 20162020-09-23T14:11:38Z<p>Ebruck: /* Purpose of the work */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. In attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. Through LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry, colliers and the way colliers used the landscape.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1892FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:56:03Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1891FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:53:47Z<p>Ebruck: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217<br />
<br />
=Notes=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1890FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:53:41Z<p>Ebruck: /* Notes */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<br />
=Notes=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1889FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:53:29Z<p>Ebruck: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1888FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:51:52Z<p>Ebruck: /* Fieldwork */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. <br />
<br />
The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain with steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey and an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified<ref>Carter 2019, 19</ref>. One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. <br />
<br />
Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1887FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:48:21Z<p>Ebruck: /* Fieldwork */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut<ref>Carter 2019, 18</ref>. Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1886FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:46:31Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron<ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1884FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:45:54Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron <ref>Carter 2019, 21</ref>. However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1883FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:44:24Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 (pg 21). A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron (pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1881FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:41:14Z<p>Ebruck: /* Results */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 (pg 21). A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron (pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
<br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
Refer to [[Field Work 2018]] for updates on this research.<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1880FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:40:45Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of [[colliers]] in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 (pg 21). A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron (pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
Refer to [[field work 2018]] for updates on this research. <br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1878FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:39:54Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of ((colliers)) in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004 (pg 21). A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron (pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. <br />
The background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family in the Lehigh area. Second, this research highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
This research has opened the avenues for further research, although many questions still remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
Refer to ((field work 2018)) for updates on this research. <br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1875FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:33:33Z<p>Ebruck: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of ((colliers)) in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016''. Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1874FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:33:01Z<p>Ebruck: added references</p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of ((colliers)) in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=<br />
Carter, Benjamin and Backenstoss, Morgan. 2017. Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2016, . Submitted to: John Papson, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1871FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:28:12Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1867FieldWork 20162020-09-22T20:12:11Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. The aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
To further students understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets which was used for charcoal and iron production. During field work, different methods were utilized; including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. <br />
<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Dr.Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed Carter to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data. The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits (31, 39, 58, 40, 41, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9, 3) were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified (1000, 1001, possibly, 1002) that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. <br />
Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
To further the understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets and was used for charcoal and iron production. During the field work the class utilized several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). A plane, whose precise location is known- thanks to the GPS (Global Positioning System) and IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), flies over the terrain. A laser in the airplane projects a beam of light that bounces off objects. The time it takes the light to return to the sensor in the plane is used to calculate the distance the beam travelled (called a “return”). Equipment on the plane also records the location of the plane and the angle at which the beam is being shot. With all of this data, the precise location of laser “returns” can be calculated, constructing a point cloud that represents objects the lasers bounced off (NEON, 2014 “Basics”). For archaeologists, the “last” return, that is the lasers that bounce of the ground (rather than vegetation or buildings), are the most important because they can be used to provide very high resolution topography. Normally, point clouds are converted into digital elevation models (DEM), provides gridded coverage rather than a point cloud. These are normally viewed as hillshade models, which provide a view of the landscape created by applying a light source at a particular angle to the DEM (digital elevation model) (Carter 2016). Each pixel of the DEM, which originally represented height, is converted to a number dependent up the angle of the imaginary sun. This is much easier for the human eye to understand compared to the DEM. Importantly, both the DEM and the hillshade are available openly through the state of Pennsylvania on the PASDA Imagery Navigator (http://maps.psiee.psu.edu/ImageryNavigator/). The DEM was used to produce a slope analysis in QGIS. A slope analysis, looks at each pixel and, based upon the 8 pixels surrounding it, determines the slope of that pixel. The number associated with that pixel, therefore, becomes slope rather than altitude. The key is that flat areas will appear very different from slope. <br />
<br />
Because charcoal pits are a round, perfectly level area approximately 10-15 meters across, they are easy to recognize in highly sloped terrains such as the slopes of the Blue Mountain. Charcoal pits are difficult to identify in areas were the slope is low, because one cannot differentiate them from the surrounding terrain. On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as “eyes” or flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and levelling of the site to make charcoal. Unfortunately, DEM provided by PASDA (and therefore the hillshade and the slope analysis) is constructed from only a sampling of last returns (“Class 8, Model Key (thinned-out ground points used to generate digital elevation models and contours.” PaDCNR n.d.), thereby reducing resolution. Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed him to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data (See Figures 9 and 10). Figure 11 shows the difference between the hillshade using Class 8 data and the slope analysis using Class 2 data.<br />
<br />
Maps were able to be used to identify the furnaces. Both historic as well as modern maps were used. By looking at old maps the group is able to see that the furnace was called Balliet's Furnace in 1865 although now it is called Lehigh Furnace. Although there is nothing remaining of the furnace or its associated structures, the maps are able to give the group the location of where they used to be and gives a jumping off point in where to look via LiDAR and other technological surveying devices.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Field_Work_2018&diff=1866Field Work 20182020-09-22T20:10:05Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>In the fall of 2018, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land that was used for charcoal and iron production. The class conducted some surveys and a small excavation of a colliers hut, utilizing several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting.<br />
<br />
Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) (Carter and Backenstoss 2017, Carter 2019a, 2019b). On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and leveling of the site in order to make charcoal.<br />
<br />
The purpose of this research was to introduce students to survey methods and orient them to the landscape. The second was to investigate the three collier’s huts on the side of the mountain through excavation. Through the field work, four new collier’s huts were identified in the field and three more potential ones were noted. The confirmed identification of four more collier’s huts however, increases the total confirmed huts to eleven.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Field_Work_2018&diff=1864Field Work 20182020-09-22T20:08:22Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2018 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the fall of 2018, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land that was used for charcoal and iron production. The class conducted some surveys and a small excavation of a colliers hut, utilizing several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting.<br />
<br />
The purpose of this research was to introduce students to survey methods and orient them to the landscape. The second was to investigate the three collier’s huts on the side of the mountain through excavation. Through the field work, four new collier’s huts were identified in the field and three more potential ones were noted. The confirmed identification of four more collier’s huts however, increases the total confirmed huts to eleven.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1863FieldWork 20162020-09-22T15:19:19Z<p>Ebruck: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. <br />
By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, the class intended to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape. By initiating this research, the group wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. Through research in this area, the goal was to illuminate the role of colliers in the Lehigh Valley and provide some insight into their lives.<br />
<br />
During the fall semester of 2016 the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg.The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. In doing so the aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers, as charcoal-makers were known, working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community. <br />
<br />
By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
To further students understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets which was used for charcoal and iron production. During field work, different methods were utilized; including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. <br />
<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Dr.Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed Carter to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data. The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits (31, 39, 58, 40, 41, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9, 3) were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified (1000, 1001, possibly, 1002) that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used. <br />
Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
To further the understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets and was used for charcoal and iron production. During the field work the class utilized several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). A plane, whose precise location is known- thanks to the GPS (Global Positioning System) and IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), flies over the terrain. A laser in the airplane projects a beam of light that bounces off objects. The time it takes the light to return to the sensor in the plane is used to calculate the distance the beam travelled (called a “return”). Equipment on the plane also records the location of the plane and the angle at which the beam is being shot. With all of this data, the precise location of laser “returns” can be calculated, constructing a point cloud that represents objects the lasers bounced off (NEON, 2014 “Basics”). For archaeologists, the “last” return, that is the lasers that bounce of the ground (rather than vegetation or buildings), are the most important because they can be used to provide very high resolution topography. Normally, point clouds are converted into digital elevation models (DEM), provides gridded coverage rather than a point cloud. These are normally viewed as hillshade models, which provide a view of the landscape created by applying a light source at a particular angle to the DEM (digital elevation model) (Carter 2016). Each pixel of the DEM, which originally represented height, is converted to a number dependent up the angle of the imaginary sun. This is much easier for the human eye to understand compared to the DEM. Importantly, both the DEM and the hillshade are available openly through the state of Pennsylvania on the PASDA Imagery Navigator (http://maps.psiee.psu.edu/ImageryNavigator/). The DEM was used to produce a slope analysis in QGIS. A slope analysis, looks at each pixel and, based upon the 8 pixels surrounding it, determines the slope of that pixel. The number associated with that pixel, therefore, becomes slope rather than altitude. The key is that flat areas will appear very different from slope. <br />
<br />
Because charcoal pits are a round, perfectly level area approximately 10-15 meters across, they are easy to recognize in highly sloped terrains such as the slopes of the Blue Mountain. Charcoal pits are difficult to identify in areas were the slope is low, because one cannot differentiate them from the surrounding terrain. On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as “eyes” or flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and levelling of the site to make charcoal. Unfortunately, DEM provided by PASDA (and therefore the hillshade and the slope analysis) is constructed from only a sampling of last returns (“Class 8, Model Key (thinned-out ground points used to generate digital elevation models and contours.” PaDCNR n.d.), thereby reducing resolution. Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed him to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data (See Figures 9 and 10). Figure 11 shows the difference between the hillshade using Class 8 data and the slope analysis using Class 2 data.<br />
<br />
Maps were able to be used to identify the furnaces. Both historic as well as modern maps were used. By looking at old maps the group is able to see that the furnace was called Balliet's Furnace in 1865 although now it is called Lehigh Furnace. Although there is nothing remaining of the furnace or its associated structures, the maps are able to give the group the location of where they used to be and gives a jumping off point in where to look via LiDAR and other technological surveying devices.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1810FieldWork 20162020-09-16T15:12:28Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
Possible headers:<br />
<br />
=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. <br />
By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, the class intended to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape. By initiating this research, the group wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living 3 structure for the colliers. Through this research in this area, the goal was to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
To further students understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets and was used for charcoal and iron production. During field work different methods were utilized, including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. <br />
<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Dr.Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed him to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data. The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, we used GPS on a combination of iPads and<br />
Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), we were able to walk to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work we were able to locate and assess 12 LiDAR-identified pits (31, 39, 58, 40, 41, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9, 3). Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified (1000, 1001, possibly, 1002) were identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, we used a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox. <br />
Using the form, we recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work we utilized several different methods including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, we performed a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest). The general area in which we were working with consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. This field work has highlighted four important components. First, our background research has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, we have highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal 22 industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, we have identified over 670 charcoal pits on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of our ground truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, we have tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. We failed to locate a collier’s hut. <br />
<br />
More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1809FieldWork 20162020-09-16T15:10:33Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
Possible headers:<br />
<br />
=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. <br />
By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, the class intended to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape. By initiating this research, the group wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living 3 structure for the colliers. Through this research in this area, the goal was to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
To further students understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets and was used for charcoal and iron production. During field work different methods were utilized, including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. <br />
<br />
First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Dr.Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed him to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data. The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, we used GPS on a combination of iPads and<br />
Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), we were able to walk to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work we were able to locate and assess 12 LiDAR-identified pits (31, 39, 58, 40, 41, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9, 3). Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified (1000, 1001, possibly, 1002) were identified that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, we used a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox. <br />
Using the form, we recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work we utilized several different methods including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, we performed a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest). The general area in which we were working with consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1808FieldWork 20162020-09-16T14:47:56Z<p>Ebruck: added content</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
Possible headers:<br />
<br />
=Purpose of the work=<br />
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg. <br />
By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, the class intended to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape. By initiating this research, the group wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living 3 structure for the colliers. Through this research in this area, the goal was to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives.<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
During our field work we utilized several different methods including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, we performed a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest). The general area in which we were working with consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey.<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1803FieldWork 20162020-09-15T20:59:36Z<p>Ebruck: added notes</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
Possible headers:<br />
<br />
=Purpose of the work=<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
<br />
=Notes=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=FieldWork_2016&diff=1802FieldWork 20162020-09-15T20:56:18Z<p>Ebruck: added references</p>
<hr />
<div>This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.<br />
<br />
Possible headers:<br />
<br />
=Purpose of the work=<br />
<br />
=Plan=<br />
<br />
=Fieldwork=<br />
<br />
=Results=<br />
<br />
=References=</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Colliers&diff=1667Colliers2020-09-09T15:37:38Z<p>Ebruck: added notes and references</p>
<hr />
<div>=Collier Life=<br />
Historically, the collier profession was not one for the faint of heart, as great skill was required in order to successfully maintain multiple charcoal hearths at one time for months on end<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. Living alone, or occasionally with a son or apprentice, in a small [[Collier huts| collier hut]], colliers could not afford to lose concentration for even one moment, as the slightest wayward breeze or hole in the charcoal hearth could cause irreparable damage to the charcoal. However there were exceptions to this, and some colliers lived near the furnaces in more permanent housing<ref>Walker 1966,238</ref>, sometimes with the accompaniment of their families <ref>Walker 1966, 109</ref>. The Furnace management had to make certain that living quarters were available to all of their workmen. Some workers lived in homes they owned, others rented houses from the Furnace or local landlords. Rent for Furnace houses was usually from $12 to $25 per year. <ref>Walker 1966, 99</ref>. One such example of this can be identified in the 1860 census where John Bachman, a forty year old collier, was listed as living with his wife and eleven children, ages four months through nineteen years<ref>United States Census, 1860</ref>. More information on John Bachman can be found on the [[Lives of Workers]] page. Another notable collier in the area was [[Joseph Johns (1794-1906)]]. The quality of charcoal was important to colliers' livelihood as high quality charcoal, charcoal that was strong, compact and heavy<ref> Walker 1966,240</ref>, fetched higher prices<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. The collier profession required almost constant twenty-four-hour surveillance of the hearths [https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=FB3FA03A-1DD8-B71C-071149ADB08DBD2E]. A dangerous role a collier may have needed to perform was called "jumping the pit." This crucial job required a collier to climb onto the hearth and place more wood into any "soft spots" in the pile<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. If anything went awry, the collier risked falling into the smoldering charcoal fire<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. While making charcoal, colliers lived in the woods in roughly constructed [[collier huts]]<ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. During the winter months, colliers became woodcutters in order to get a full-years wage, as the ideal season for charcoal production was during the warmer months of the year<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Woodcutters were paid by the cord; some would try to deceive the system and loosely pile their billets or stack them over stumps to falsely increase the volume<ref> Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Often, the colliers lived at the site of production for months at a time, from late May to October. During the summer they lived in crude wood huts in areas with many insects. A master collier and one or two helpers "coaled" together, working as many as eight or nine pits at a time. This is probably why they wore long sleeves and pants, so as to protect them from the already volatile elements. Colliers bought relatively little food from the company store, leading to reason they must have raised much of what they ate. There were records of sales of melons, potatoes, turnips, turkeys, pork, veal and beef and a little mutton; shad, herring and mackerel; pickles, peaches, sweet potatoes, beans, cherries and cabbage. Corn meal was a regular item of store purchase before 1808 and seldom appeared after that. Rye and wheat flour were the more common bases for baked items in later years. Sugar, tea, coffee, chocolate, salt, pepper and spices were kept in regular stock at the store. Preserving of meat was a problem for colliers before freezing was available<ref>Walker 1966, 111</ref>.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Collier Pay==<br />
Colliers were paid for their charring approximately $1.12-$1.25 per one hundred bushels of charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 117</ref>. According to Walker<ref> Walker 1966, 261</ref>, colliers at Hopewell Furnace (Birdsboro, PA) made a monthly pay between $8.62-$20.62 in 1805-1807, $16.00-$23.00 in 1818-1820, $13.50-$18.00 in 1825-1827 and 1835-1837 and $17.50-$24.00 in 1851-1853. In order to better understand how much this is worth, we can convert this to modern amounts using Measuring Worth<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php</ref>. For example, if we just adjust for inflation, $8.62 in 1805 is equivalent to $194.00 today (2019). That is an incomplete picture, however, because it does not take into account economic growth. "Relative labor earnings" is a better measure because it compares the wage to the average wage from the two time periods<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/#measures</ref>. Using this measure,<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php</ref> $8.62 in 1805 would be more like getting paid between $3,110.00 (unskilled labor) to $5,940.00 (skilled labor) today (2019). Similarly, $17.50 in 1835 would have a "relative labor earnings" value of $5,170.00 (unskilled) and $10,500.00 (skilled). This suggests that, relative to today, colliers were relatively well paid. Indeed, at the Dale Furnace in 1799, only the Manager of the Furnace was paid more per month (9 pounds, 7 shillings and 6 pence or approximately $300.00/ year)than the "coaler" or collier (8 pounds). Even the furnace keeper, the individual responsible for the operation of the furnace, earned less than the colliers<ref> Gemmell 1949, 91</ref>. This is not quite as true between 1836-40 at the Hampton Furnace (Hereford Township, PA), when the colliers earned $17.50 compared to $25.00 for the keeper<ref> Gemmell 1949, 95</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*''Agriculture and Rural economy – Charcoal → .'' 2010. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library. [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.346]. Originally published as "Agriculture et économie rustique – Charbon de bois," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 1 (plates) (Paris, 1762).<br />
<br />
*Gemmell, Alfred. 1949. ''The Charcoal Iron Industry in the Perkiomen Valley.'' Norristown, PA.: Hartenstine Printing House.<br />
<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
<br />
*MeasuringWorth Foundation. 2020. ''Measuring Worth- Relative Worth Comparators and Data Sets''. [https://www.measuringworth.com/index.php . Accessed April 24, 2020]<br />
<br />
*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1]<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. ''History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.'' Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62.[https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf]<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies: 104-114.[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010]<br />
<br />
*Svedelius, G., Joseph Leonard W. Nicodemus, and Björn R. Anderson. 1875. ''Hand-book for Charcoal Burners.'' New York: Wiley. [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7dr2qz7d&view=1up&seq=166]<br />
<br />
*''United States Census, 1860,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSD-C5Y?cc=1473181&wc=7QL9-Y6C%3A1589434177%2C1589434982%2C1589435676] : 24 March 2017, Pennsylvania > Carbon > East Penn Township > image 2 of 22; from "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," database, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : n.d.); citing NARA microfilm publication M653 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).<br />
<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia,: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Colliers&diff=1666Colliers2020-09-09T15:37:04Z<p>Ebruck: added notes and references</p>
<hr />
<div>=Collier Life=<br />
Historically, the collier profession was not one for the faint of heart, as great skill was required in order to successfully maintain multiple charcoal hearths at one time for months on end<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. Living alone, or occasionally with a son or apprentice, in a small [[Collier huts| collier hut]], colliers could not afford to lose concentration for even one moment, as the slightest wayward breeze or hole in the charcoal hearth could cause irreparable damage to the charcoal. However there were exceptions to this, and some colliers lived near the furnaces in more permanent housing<ref>Walker 1966,238</ref>, sometimes with the accompaniment of their families <ref>Walker 1966, 109</ref>. The Furnace management had to make certain that living quarters were available to all of their workmen. Some workers lived in homes they owned, others rented houses from the Furnace or local landlords. Rent for Furnace houses was usually from $12 to $25 per year. <ref>Walker 1966, 99</ref>. One such example of this can be identified in the 1860 census where John Bachman, a forty year old collier, was listed as living with his wife and eleven children, ages four months through nineteen years<ref>United States Census, 1860</ref>. More information on John Bachman can be found on the [[Lives of Workers]] page. Another notable collier in the area was [[Joseph Johns (1794-1906)]]. The quality of charcoal was important to colliers' livelihood as high quality charcoal, charcoal that was strong, compact and heavy<ref> Walker 1966,240</ref>, fetched higher prices<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. The collier profession required almost constant twenty-four-hour surveillance of the hearths [https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=FB3FA03A-1DD8-B71C-071149ADB08DBD2E]. A dangerous role a collier may have needed to perform was called "jumping the pit." This crucial job required a collier to climb onto the hearth and place more wood into any "soft spots" in the pile<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. If anything went awry, the collier risked falling into the smoldering charcoal fire<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. While making charcoal, colliers lived in the woods in roughly constructed [[collier huts]]<ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. During the winter months, colliers became woodcutters in order to get a full-years wage, as the ideal season for charcoal production was during the warmer months of the year<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Woodcutters were paid by the cord; some would try to deceive the system and loosely pile their billets or stack them over stumps to falsely increase the volume<ref> Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Often, the colliers lived at the site of production for months at a time, from late May to October. During the summer they lived in crude wood huts in areas with many insects. A master collier and one or two helpers "coaled" together, working as many as eight or nine pits at a time. This is probably why they wore long sleeves and pants, so as to protect them from the already volatile elements. Colliers bought relatively little food from the company store, leading to reason they must have raised much of what they ate. There were records of sales of melons, potatoes, turnips, turkeys, pork, veal and beef and a little mutton; shad, herring and mackerel; pickles, peaches, sweet potatoes, beans, cherries and cabbage. Corn meal was a regular item of store purchase before 1808 and seldom appeared after that. Rye and wheat flour were the more common bases for baked items in later years. Sugar, tea, coffee, chocolate, salt, pepper and spices were kept in regular stock at the store. Preserving of meat was a problem before freezing was available<ref>Walker 1966, 111</ref>.. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Collier Pay==<br />
Colliers were paid for their charring approximately $1.12-$1.25 per one hundred bushels of charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 117</ref>. According to Walker<ref> Walker 1966, 261</ref>, colliers at Hopewell Furnace (Birdsboro, PA) made a monthly pay between $8.62-$20.62 in 1805-1807, $16.00-$23.00 in 1818-1820, $13.50-$18.00 in 1825-1827 and 1835-1837 and $17.50-$24.00 in 1851-1853. In order to better understand how much this is worth, we can convert this to modern amounts using Measuring Worth<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php</ref>. For example, if we just adjust for inflation, $8.62 in 1805 is equivalent to $194.00 today (2019). That is an incomplete picture, however, because it does not take into account economic growth. "Relative labor earnings" is a better measure because it compares the wage to the average wage from the two time periods<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/#measures</ref>. Using this measure,<ref> https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/relativevalue.php</ref> $8.62 in 1805 would be more like getting paid between $3,110.00 (unskilled labor) to $5,940.00 (skilled labor) today (2019). Similarly, $17.50 in 1835 would have a "relative labor earnings" value of $5,170.00 (unskilled) and $10,500.00 (skilled). This suggests that, relative to today, colliers were relatively well paid. Indeed, at the Dale Furnace in 1799, only the Manager of the Furnace was paid more per month (9 pounds, 7 shillings and 6 pence or approximately $300.00/ year)than the "coaler" or collier (8 pounds). Even the furnace keeper, the individual responsible for the operation of the furnace, earned less than the colliers<ref> Gemmell 1949, 91</ref>. This is not quite as true between 1836-40 at the Hampton Furnace (Hereford Township, PA), when the colliers earned $17.50 compared to $25.00 for the keeper<ref> Gemmell 1949, 95</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*''Agriculture and Rural economy – Charcoal → .'' 2010. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library. [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.346]. Originally published as "Agriculture et économie rustique – Charbon de bois," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 1 (plates) (Paris, 1762).<br />
<br />
*Gemmell, Alfred. 1949. ''The Charcoal Iron Industry in the Perkiomen Valley.'' Norristown, PA.: Hartenstine Printing House.<br />
<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
<br />
*MeasuringWorth Foundation. 2020. ''Measuring Worth- Relative Worth Comparators and Data Sets''. [https://www.measuringworth.com/index.php . Accessed April 24, 2020]<br />
<br />
*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1]<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. ''History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.'' Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62.[https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf]<br />
<br />
*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies: 104-114.[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010]<br />
<br />
*Svedelius, G., Joseph Leonard W. Nicodemus, and Björn R. Anderson. 1875. ''Hand-book for Charcoal Burners.'' New York: Wiley. [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7dr2qz7d&view=1up&seq=166]<br />
<br />
*''United States Census, 1860,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSD-C5Y?cc=1473181&wc=7QL9-Y6C%3A1589434177%2C1589434982%2C1589435676] : 24 March 2017, Pennsylvania > Carbon > East Penn Township > image 2 of 22; from "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," database, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : n.d.); citing NARA microfilm publication M653 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).<br />
<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia,: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruckhttps://wiki.ironallentownpa.org/index.php?title=Collier_huts&diff=1596Collier huts2020-09-06T17:13:34Z<p>Ebruck: /* Construction */</p>
<hr />
<div>While producing charcoal, colliers stayed in temporary huts they constructed located near their hearths<ref> Walker 1966, 242</ref>. Colliers tended to multiple charcoal hearths while they lived on the mountain<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. Each hearth took approximately two weeks to complete. A collier would mind a hearth closely for the first couple of days; after that, he would spend time starting a new hearth. Colliers could typically tend up to eight hearths at a time<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Construction==<br />
Collier huts were conical<ref>Peate and Walton 1958, 58</ref>, with a base eight feet across and ten feet high<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. The area where a collier decided to construct his hut was cleared of anything that would make the ground uneven, such as brush, stones, or stumps<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. A master collier and one or two helpers "coaled" together, working as many as eight or nine pits at a time. <ref> National Park Service 1941, 13</ref>. Three inch poles that sloped inward, crossed at the apex<ref>Peate and Walton 1958, 58</ref>, and were bound at the top were used as the basic structure for the huts and the spaces between the poles were filled in with smaller pieces of wood. Leaves and soil were packed in to act as insulation by filling in the gaps between posts<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. Additionally, collier huts consisted of: a hearth; a small door, which hung on framework<ref>Peate and Walton 1958, 60</ref> and was approximately four to six feet in height<ref>Peate and Walton 1958, 62</ref>, and cots constructed out of logs<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. The hearth had to be level to assure uniform burning. The hearth of the charcoal pit was a flat space 30 or 40 feet in diameter and free of all brush, roots, and stumps. An open level spot was chosen and great care was taken of that the surface to afford good shoveling and raking of the coal. <ref> National Park Service 1941, 13</ref>. When identifying the remains of a collier hut, important features to look for are: a trench; a berm, which may have an opening where the door would have been; and a circular depression in the center of these<ref>Carter et al. 2019, 43-44</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Location==<br />
A collier would construct his hut in a location as central to the charcoal pits he was burning as possible, and would have laid out the hut so that the wooden door, which was large enough for one man to fit through<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>, faced the pits<ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. Throughout the [[charcoal production]] process, the charcoal hearths required constant tending to throughout the day and night. If a collier let the fire consume his wood completely, he would be charged for its loss; so proximity to one's hearths was very important<ref>Walker 1966, 247</ref>. The indication of a good collier was one who obtained a high-yield of quality charcoal from the wood he used<ref>Walker 1966, 245</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Notes==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
* Carter, Benjamin, Michaela Feinberg, Deborah Grieder, and Stuart Hanford. 2019. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217, Fall 2018.''<br />
* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.<br />
* Peate, Iorwerth C. and James Walton. 1958. "Charcoal Burners Huts." ''Gerwin,'' Vol. 2 (2), 58-67.<br />
* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia,: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.</div>Ebruck