|
.
PAC PRESIDENT'S
COLUMN
Submitted by: Paul Raber, PAC President
Heberling Associates
I just came back from the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation's (PennDOT's) Byways to the Past conference at
Indiana University of Pennsylvania. This was the seventh Byways
conference and, as always, a worthwhile experience. For those of
you who aren't familiar with the conference, I strongly recommend
that you consider attending next year. The conference considers
all aspects of archaeology, history, and historic preservation as
they relate to transportation. PennDOT funds a substantial part
of the archaeology, historic structures studies, and preservation
efforts in the state. It probably has more influence on how archaeology
is done in Pennsylvania that any other single government agency.
The conference is an opportunity to get to know the people who make
the daily decisions about how archaeology and preservation are funded
and conducted in Pennsylvania, and to decipher the signals about
the future of those efforts.
Unfortunately, the signals aren't good. The current
buzz words, which have come down from "above" (the federal government)
are "streamlining" and "rightsizing," which translate to greater
scrutiny of how and why money is spent on archaeology and, in general,
doing less. The first part of that message is probably good: undoubtedly
too much bad, inadequate, or unnecessary archaeology has been done
with public funds, and some critical perspective is needed. Archaeology
has too often been viewed by agency folks as something that will
go away if you throw enough money at it. This has sometimes yielded
less than wonderful archaeological practice and a climate that treats
archaeology as a nuisance that can be eliminated by the blind application
of money (or selective neglect). But compliance with federal and
state preservation laws has also produced some outstanding archaeology
and real additions to our knowledge of the past. Even using the
most basic standards (the number of sites recorded in the Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files, for instance) we can easily
see what a substantial contribution publicly funded archaeology
has made over the past 25 or 30 years. All of us can think of transportation-related
archaeological projects - our own or those of our colleagues - that
have yielded important new data or fresh insights on the prehistory
and history of the Commonwealth.
It is probably also a good thing that PennDOT and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be more circumspect
in the near future in trying to solve transportation problems by
building more and bigger roads and bridges. By this time it should
be evident to all but the most obtuse (or greedy) that this has
simply created the cycle of expansion of facilities, overuse, and
sprawl that currently plagues much of Pennsylvania. As citizens,
archaeologists should be as aware and concerned as anyone about
the environmental and social costs of unregulated development and
sprawl.
The bad part of the new message is the oversimplified
idea that we have done too much archaeology in the past and now
need to do less. If "streamlining the process" merely translates
into trying to do as little archaeology as possible, we will have
subverted the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act,
which requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their
actions on archaeological sites. The challenge, as it always has
been, is to do the best archaeology possible while doing what is
appropriate for the scale and nature of project effects. Both of
those ideas - the best archaeology and appropriate treatment - are
intimately and inextricable tied to the concept of significance.
We can't know what constitutes good archaeology and appropriate
archaeology if we don't consider what makes archaeological sites
significant. For the largest class of sites, those which might be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion D, significance is tied to research potential, to
what the site might add to the current body of knowledge about the
past. That body of knowledge is not static, but changes constantly
as archaeologists assess their understanding of the past. Significance
is therefore linked in a fundamental way to research and research
potential. Archaeological resources cannot be "managed" without
grappling with the concepts of significance and research potential,
concepts that change or evolve with the growing body of data. Archaeologists
have something important to say to agency resource managers about
that.
The Pennsylvania Archaeological Council (PAC) has
a critical role to play in developing current philosophy and praxis
in publicly funded archaeology. We have the opportunity to involve
ourselves in individual projects and in statewide issues related
to transportation-related archaeology. We currently participate
as a consulting party in project-specific memoranda of understanding
(MOUs) and in statewide programmatic agreements (PAs) that deal
broadly with classes of projects or archaeological sites. Our involvement
(and that of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (SPA)) has
been essential in allowing the voice of the archaeological community
to be heard in negotiations about how archaeology will be treated
in transportation projects. Individual PAC members have served as
representatives for the organization on a variety of projects and
statewide agreements in past years, but we are running out of dedicated
members to accept this responsibility. In the current political
climate, it is critical that PAC continue to participate as a consulting
party in PennDOT projects. I invite PAC members who have not already
done so to consider serving as representatives for PennDOT MOUs
and PAs. A minimal commitment of time and effort on your part will
yield a major benefit to archaeology in Pennsylvania.
We need to be sure that our voice is heard by those
making the decisions about streamlining and rightsizing at FHWA
and PennDOT. Your presence at the next Byways conference might be
one step in that direction. Another might be volunteering to serve
as PAC representative in consulting party activities. Our message
should be that to be more efficient and cost-effective in an era
of scarce money and political pressure, the agencies' emphasis must
be on value and not simply price, on making sure that the agencies
get the best possible archaeology (and resource protection) for
their dollars.
PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Archaeology Month Program Planned at
Fort Hunter
Submitted by: Kurt Carr, PHMC, BHP
During Archaeology Month, the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, Bureau for Historic Preservation will be investigating
the location of Fort Hunter which is located just north of Harrisburg.
Fort Hunter was a British supply fort during the French and Indian
War and was one of three forts built between here and Sunbury. Fort
Halifax and Fort Augusta were the other two and the latter was the
largest British fort built in Pennsylvania. Fort Hunter is operated
by Dauphin County and is currently conducting a remote sensing project
to locate the fort. If all goes well, the Commonwealth Archaeology
Program, in the form of Jim Herbstritt and volunteers will ground
truth the remote sensing results. We expect 5,000 visitors on Fort
Hunter Day, September 17 and another 1,500 visitors on Pennsylvania
Indian Festival Day, October 1. We are hoping to find the fort but
situated at a stream confluence with the Susquehanna River. The property
contains a major prehistoric site as well.
***
Symposium on Native Americans in Pennsylvania,
October 14, 2006
Submitted by: Kurt Carr PHMC, BHP
The Pennsylvania Humanities Council, Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Pennsylvania
Archaeological Council, and the Mid Atlantic American Studies Association
are sponsoring a symposium on Native Americans in Pennsylvania. This
will be held on October 14, 2006 in the State Museum and the Keystone
building. This is a collaboration of archaeologists, historians, conservators,
Native Americans, and teachers. The goal is "to develop an accessible,
interdisciplinary, content-rich, and interesting program that will
serve a diverse audience of professional historians, archeologists
(professional and avocational), museum professionals, educators, students,
and the general public. We'd like to make a special effort to include
Native Americans in the program." We are expecting 200 - 400 attendees.
Our audience will include adults and children.
Program
"Exploring Pennsylvania's Native American Heritage"
October 14, 2006
AM
9:00 Welcome
9:30 Keynote Address
Daniel K. Richter, McNeil Center for Early American Studies
10:30 Break
11:00 Concurrent Sessions
"Native American Origins"
Explore different perspectives on how and when Native Americans populated
Pennsylvania and the New World.
Chair: Kurt Carr, PHMC Bureau for Historic Preservation
James Adovasio, Mercyhurst College
Kinorea Dickman, Smithsonian Institution--NMAI
Discussant: Jay Custer, University of Delaware
"Pennsylvania Indians on the Web:
ExplorePAhistory.com"
Hear about the creation of "The Indians of Pennsylvania," the newest
story to be featured on Pennsylvania history's most exciting web site.
Chair: Robert Weible, The State Museum of Pennsylvania
Charles Hardy III, West Chester University
Timothy Shannon, Gettysburg College
Comment: Audience
"Caring for Native American Collections"
Learn how to handle and care for archaeological and ethnographic Native
American collections.
Chair: Deborah Filipi, Pennsylvania Federation of Museums and
Historical Organizations
Tom Evans, Smithsonian Institution--NMAI
Stephen Warfel, The State Museum of Pennsylvania
Discussant: Deborah Filipi
PM
12:30 Lunch on Your Own
2:00 Concurrent Sessions
"Cultures in Contact"
Discover how archaeological evidence and oral tradition preserve a
record of profound changes in Native American lifeways resulting from
contact with Europeans.
Chair: Paul Raber, Pennsylvania Archeological Council
Gerald Dietz, Seneca Descendant
Michael Stewart, Temple University
Discussant: Timothy Shannon, Gettysburg College
"The Carlisle Indian School"
Discuss the Indian boarding school experience and learn how native
pupils kept alive tribal traditions and folkways amidst pressure to
assimilate into mainstream white society.
Chair: Dennis Downey, Millersville University
Barbara Landis, Cumberland County Historical Society
Carolyn Rittenhouse, Millersville University and Cheyenne River
Sioux Reservation
Dovie Thomason Sickles, Native American Folklorist
Comment: Audience
"Teaching Native American History"
Learn some tips for teaching Native American history from a variety
of perspectives to diverse audiences.
Chair: Charles Kupfer, Penn State-Harrisburg
Kinorea Dickman, Smithsonian Institution--NMAI
Mary Pat Evans, Susquehanna High School
Jill Showalter, North Museum of Natural History & Science
Renata Wolynec, Edinboro University
3:30 Break
4:00 Wrap-up Plenary
Moderator: Daniel K. Richter, McNeil Center for Early American
Studies
James Adovasio, Mercyhurst College
Kinorea Dickman, Smithsonian Institution--NMAI
Timothy Shannon, Gettysburg College
Comment: Audience
5:30 Book Signing and Reception
Public Activities
All Day
Exhibition of Private Collections
Throughout the day, private Native American artifact collections
will be exhibited by members of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology,
Inc. Be sure to examine these fascinating objects and talk to the
people that found them.
11:00 AM
Children's Activities: Making Native American Cordage and Exploring
Native American "Rock Art"
Renata Wolynec, Edinboro University, has developed interactive archaeology
curriculum for grades four through eight. She will demonstrate Native
American technology and belief systems through the cordage-making
process and a project on Pennsylvania "rock art."
Native American Tool Manufacturing Demonstrations
Native peoples in Pennsylvania met daily needs by crafting tools,
clothing, shelters, and more from naturally available materials. Watch
and learn as prehistoric technology expert Steve Nissly demonstrates
and explains ancient technologies.
Film: More Than Bows and Arrows
The winner of 11 film festivals, this narrative examines the contributions
of Native Americans to American and Canadian culture and history.
2:00 PM
Gallery Tours
Take a personalized tour of The State Museum's Hall of Anthropology
& Archaeology with Steve Warfel, Senior Curator of Archaeology. Special
attention will be given to Commonwealth treasures displayed in the
gallery.
Lab Tours
Janet Johnson, Curator of Archaeology, will lead a "behind the scenes"
tour of The State Museum's archaeology lab and storage facility, where
more than 3 million artifacts are given perpetual care.
Film: America's Stone Age Explorers
This NOVA production explores the exciting controversy surrounding
recent archaeological finds which challenge long-standing theories
about human migration into the New World.
A Pre-Registration Form is printed at the end of the newsletter
for your convenience. Pre-registration deadline is October 6, 2006.
***
Section 106 Course Planned
Submitted by: Joseph Baker, PennDOT Bureau of Design
Once again we are going to offer the two-day introductory course
in Section 106 and historic preservation issues. The course is tentatively
set for February 21 - 22, 2007. This course is taught by Lynn Sebastian
of the SRI Foundation (http://srifoundation.org/pdf/WKSHP_2.pdf).
It is suitable for anyone who may encounter and have to deal with
historic preservation issues on federally funded transportation projects
including project and portfolio managers, environmental staff, cultural
resource managers, consultants, and consulting parties. The course
is free for PennDOT and other agency staff and for our non-profit
partners. There is a very reasonable charge for our for-profit business
partners. For more information please contact Joe Baker at josebaker@state.pa.us
or (717) 705-1482.
COMPLIANCE
Submitted by: Jerry A. Clouse, McCormick Taylor, Inc.
A New Section 106 Programmatic Agreement is Being
Developed
Since the fall of 2005, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
(PennDOT) have been meeting to discuss the development of a New Section
106 Programmatic Agreement, an agreement that would expand upon the
current Minor Projects Programmatic Agreement (MPPA). In addition
to streamlining the Section 106 process, the purpose of the new agreement
is to formalize delegation of certain aspects of that process from
FHWA, USACE, and the SHPO to PennDOT. The intent of the new programmatic
agreement (PA) is to include all federal-aid projects (CE, EA, and
EIS). The current MPPA only covers CE level projects. Due to the complexities
of FHWA and USACE, two separate agreements may be required. Through
a series of meetings, representatives of the various agencies have
focused their discussion on the expected key points of the new PA.
Included among the discussion points are: FHWA delegation, FHWA responsibilities,
public involvement, levels of review by PennDOT staff, documentation,
SHPO expedited review, public controversy, dispute resolution, annual
review (QC/QA), education, and stewardship.
Transparency will be a key element in the operation of the new PA,
and it is proposed that an electronic delivery system be developed
to make the process more accessible to the public and the agencies.
Since the first PA was enacted in 1998, it has become apparent that
some changes would make the process more efficient and more cost effective.
In addition, the current PA does not cover state-funded projects,
does not adequately define public controversy, does not provide for
tribal consultation, and does not incorporate revised Section 106
effect findings for archaeological sites. The new PA will seek to
comprehensively resolve these issues. The Pennsylvania Archaeological
Council (PAC) has been invited to be a consulting party. It is expected
that there will be a meeting with consulting parties in late spring
to gather their input on the PA.
CURRENT RESEARCH
Current Research by John Milner Associates, Inc.
Submitted by: Peter E. Siegel
John Milner Associates, Inc. conducted archeological
survey and evaluation investigations in Valley Forge National Historical
Park. This work was conducted for Boles, Smyth Associates, Inc.
on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Fieldwork
for the survey was divided into three components: (1) shovel testing,
(2) metal detecting, and (3) ground-penetrating radar. The metal-detector
survey resulted in the identification of a large concentration of
Revolutionary War-era artifacts, principally musket and rifle balls
and buckshot, but no artifacts associated with the camp areas such
as buttons, buckles, food remains, or camp equipage. The concentration
of lead balls is interpreted to be the remnant of a firing or musketry
range. The firing range was assigned archeological site number 36MG414.
***
GAI and PPL Complete Central West Branch Archaeological
Synthesis
and Great Island Geomorphology Study
Submitted by: Douglas H. MacDonald, Benjamin Resnick,
and David L. Cremeens
GAI Consultants, Inc.
In 2005, GAI Consultants, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
prepared a synthesis of prehistoric archaeological data for Pennsylvania
River Subbasin 9, the Central West Branch of the Susquehanna River
and all its tributaries, including Pine Creek, Kettle Creek, Bald
Eagle Creek, and Spring Creek. The report was required by the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission Bureau for Historic Preservation
(PHMC/BHP) due to PPL Gas Utilities' (PPL) construction of a 12"
natural gas pipeline across Great Island near Lock Haven, Clinton
County, Pennsylvania. Because the pipeline passed near the previously-identified
Site 36Cn5, the PHMC/BHP required monitoring during construction,
a geomorphological study of Great Island, and an archaeological
data synthesis. The goal of the report was to synthesize Pennsylvania
Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) files data, as well as research
report information, in order to summarize the prehistory of the
Central West Branch Susquehanna River subbasin in north-central
Pennsylvania. Great Island and the City of Lock Haven are the focal
points of the synthesis from which a broad prehistoric context for
the entire Subbasin 9 is provided.
GAI's report provides a detailed sketch of the geomorphology
of Great Island, based on geomorphological coring conducted for
PPL by GAI. The geomorphology analysis included a field visit where
seven (7) soil-sediment cores were extracted in a transect across
the island. Each core revealed fine sandy loam sediments with multiple,
buried alluvial soils. To summarize briefly, five strata were identified
based on morphologic characteristics observed in the cores. The
eastern half of the island is older and has a more developed soil
at the surface than does the western half. Detailed results are
included in GAI's report.
In addition to the geomorphology study, GAI reviewed
archaeological and historical reports and publications, as well
as PASS files data on recorded sites to develop overviews of the
prehistory of the Central West Branch Subbasin. In GAI's similar
study of the nearby Upper Juniata Subbasin, GAI identified 288 site
components from 202 recorded sites (MacDonald 2003). During that
study, 176 sites and 676 components were eliminated from use in
the study due to a lack of specific diagnostic artifact information.
Within the current study area of the Central West Branch river basin,
471 total sites and 831 components were eliminated due to a lack
of specific artifact descriptions on site forms. Based on these
numbers, 53.4 percent of Upper Juniata and 25.7 percent of Central
West Branch site forms contained useful information regarding site
age. For components, the Upper Juniata site files contained useful
data on 29.96 percent of identified components versus 24.7 percent
for the Central West Branch. While the total usable site counts
are reduced by 50 percent within the Central West Branch compared
to the Upper Juniata, the overall number of useful components is
similar between the two regions.
To supplement the general information from PASS files,
GAI conducted an analysis of available lithic artifact collections
from the seven previously-identified archaeological sites on Great
Island. Of the seven sites identified on the island, collections
from four sites were available for review. In particular, the goal
was to determine the lithic raw material distributions for each
site. To supplement PASS files data and collections analysis, GAI
reviewed pertinent archaeological reports to better evaluate the
types of sites found in the project area. All recorded radiocarbon
dates for the Central West Branch are provided in the report, including
more than 200 dates from various sites in the region.
One of the key findings of the study was the confirmation
of increased use of rhyolite during the Transitional Period in the
Central West Branch subbasin. The dominance of rhyolite at sites
like West Water Street, Memorial Park, and Fisher Farm for Transitional
period projectile points is overwhelming, indicating increasing
population movements between south-central and north-central Pennsylvania
at that time. Similar patterns were observed in the Upper Juniata
subbasin as well (MacDonald 2003). The cause of these movements
is unclear however, and is a key research issue of the region (Stewart
1987).
Finally, this report provides a revised and updated
summary of the origins and use of keyhole structures in the Central
West Branch subbasin. Based on information collected in PASS files
and research reports, nine regional sites - including seven in the
Central West Branch subbasin - have yielded keyhole structures.
They were used primarily during the 14th-17th centuries A.D. at
sites located along the main stem of the West Branch between Lock
Haven and Jersey Shore, suggesting a local origin. Dates for features
at sites along Pine Creek to the north and the North Branch to the
east are later, suggesting the gradual spread of their use outside
of the central core area. While their functions remain largely uncertain,
this study speculates that they may have functioned as centralized
food storage features within villages during the Shenks Ferry-Stewart
sub-phase of the Late Woodland, as first suggested by Hatch (1980).
Data presented in this report highlights a great disparity
in the ages and locations of researched sites in the Central West
Branch subbasin. None of the research projects discussed in this
report identified Paleoindian components and there was only limited
study of Early Archaic, Middle Archaic, Early Woodland, and Middle
Woodland sites. The focus of archaeological attention, thus, has
been on the Late Archaic/Transitional and Late Woodland periods,
similar to adjacent regions. Another clear trend of research is
the general neglect of more remote portions of the Kettle Creek
and Pine Creek watersheds; thus, little is known about upland use
of the Appalachian Plateau in the Central West Branch river basin.
In contrast, a great deal is known regarding the Ridge and Valley
portion, including the main stem of the West Branch Susquehanna
River, Bald Eagle Creek, and Spring Creek, especially for sites
dating to the Late Archaic/Transitional and Late Woodland periods.
Similar to other regional data syntheses - including
the companion volume by GAI on the Upper Juniata River Subbasin
11 (MacDonald 2003) - the goal of the Central West Branch synthesis
was to provide a context for future research in the region. By using
the information gathered in this report, future archaeologists will
hopefully be able to better understand the important research issues
and cultural historical milestones of the last 12,000 years of Native
American lifeways along the Central West Branch Susquehanna River.
GAI's full report will be available for distribution upon request
starting in summer, 2006.
Works Cited:
Hatch, J.W.
1980 Fisher Farm Site: A Late Woodland Hamlet in Context. Department
of Anthropology Occasional Paper No. 12. The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA.
MacDonald, D.H.
2003 Pennsylvania Archaeological Data Synthesis: The Upper Juniata
River Sub- Basin 11 (Watersheds A-D), ER 2000-2888- 013. Prepared
by GAI Consultants, Inc. for Keller Engineers, Inc. and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
Stewart, M.
1987 Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Archaeology of Eastern North America 15: 47-58.
***
Summary of 2006 Fort Augusta Excavations
Submitted by: Jim Delle Kutztown University
Using a grant from the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission and administered by the Northumberland County
Historical Society, Kutztown University conducted archaeological
testing at Fort Augusta in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. The work is being
done to assess both historic and prehistoric resources which may
be affected by the possible expansion of the historical society's
building.
The 2005 excavations produced significant remains
from the French and Indian War era. The goal of the 2006 field season
was to determine the nature of the prehistoric occupation of the
Fort Augusta site. To this end, the research design called for locating
and re-excavating trenches first dug during the 1981 field season,
to excavate below the bottom of these trenches as deep as possible
until cobbles were encountered, and to open several 1 meter unit
excavations in order to recover prehistoric artifacts with good
contextual information.
To attain these ends, we used a backhoe to strip off
several layers of post-19th century fill, which reached to nearly
1 meter in some places. We then shovel-shined and trowelled to locate
and re-excavate five trenches sunk in 1981 (including 1981 Trenches
2, 3, 4, 5, and 7). Although we were able to excavate into the sub-1981
levels in trenches 2, 3, and 4, very poor weather conditions (we
received in excess of 10 inches of rain over the final two weeks
of the project) constrained our initial plan to take all of these
trenches down to the Pleistocene cobble layer. We were able to reach
the cobble layer only in 1981 Trench 2.
We did open a total of 19 1 meter units. In six of
these we recovered artifacts from levels 3 (Fort Augusta-associated
fill), 4 (a Late Archaic A Horizon), and 5 (B Horizon below level
4). We found several Late Archaic points, including side notched,
corner notched, and stemmed points, as well as the tip of a broad
spear. We excavated two features that clearly are Late Archaic or
earlier, including a 1 meter sample of a hearth that we discovered
in the profile of 1981 Trench 7. This hearth contained plentiful
charcoal and fire cracked rock, but no diagnostic artifacts. We
managed to float 30 liters of this material and recovered botanicals
that still need to be analyzed. The second feature appeared in the
B Horizon below the buried A Horizon. We bisected this feature and
floated it. A few flecks of charcoal were recovered, but again no
diagnostic artifacts. Finally, we opened two backhoe trenches in
the front yard of the property. The goal of this was to determine
the condition of fort-related features uncovered in 1938. We discovered
that the WPA excavations destroyed the integrity of the fort related
features entirely. On Saturday, July 8, I will be meeting on site
with J. T. Marine, a geomorphologist, who will complete a geoarchaeological
assessment of the site. The site will be backfilled on Tuesday,
July 11..
. PUBLIC EDUCATION
No submissions for this edition.
PENNDOT REPORT
No report in this issue.
PAC COMPUTER USER'S
COLUMN
There is no article in this issue.
.
MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
The fee for membership in PAC is $25.00 per year. To apply for membership,
please forward a current resume or curriculum vita to Benjamin Resnick,
Chair Membership and Ethics Committee, Pennsylvania Archaeological
Council at:
GAI Consultants, Inc.
Pittsburgh Office
385 E. Waterfront Drive
Homestead, PA 15120
412-476-2000, ext. 1200
412-476-2020 (fax)
b.resnick@gaiconsultants.com
******************************************
PAC HOUSEKEEPING
Please make sure PAC has your current e-mail address
(or FAX number) so that we may distribute urgent information as quickly
as possible. Please send updates to mark McConaughy at mmcconaugh@state.pa.us.
******************************************
EDITOR'S NOTE
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all PAC members
who contributed to this newsletter. There would be no newsletter without
your willingness to take the time out of your busy schedule to write
about your work or that of your organization. I would also like to
thank Mark McConaughy who promptly replies to my last minute questions
and to my husband who provides valuable technical support.
I wish you all a productive, satisfying, healthy, and wonderful year!
Renata B. Wolynec, Editor
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
|