Friday, February 28, 2020

Important Women in Pennsylvania Archaeology - Dorothy Preston Skinner



In the Archives of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) is a notable, but little-known document prepared by a woman who is equally as elusive as her manuscript. The manuscript Seneca Notes, collected by Dorothy P. Skinner, on the Allegheny Reservation, New York, 1928 and Cornplanter Reservation, Pennsylvania, 1929 documents cultural and religious beliefs of the Seneca Indians.  Dorothy Skinner was the widow of Alanson B. Skinner who was an anthropologist for the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of the American Indian in New York. Dorothy was a member of the Wyandot tribe, the Deer clan. Alanson had participated in the Susquehanna Archaeological Expedition of 1916 and was known by members of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission (precursor to the PHMC), including Frances Dorrance . It may have been this connection, or the fact that Alanson was tragically killed in a car accident in 1925 that led to Dorothy’s employment with the Pennsylvania Historical Commission (PHC).   Research of Dorothy doesn’t indicate she had received any formal training prior to employment with the PHC.
Dorothy was hired to continue the work of Frances Dorrance in compiling the Indian Survey data. The Indian Survey was recognized at the state (Pennsylvania Federation of Historical Societies) and national level (American Anthropological Association) as monumental advance in site recording. Dorrance received much of the credit for her systematic organization of the project.  Miss Dorrance prepared a report of the project at the request of the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters in 1928. Published in the Bulletin of the League and recognized for its significant data- the publicity drew the attention of leading scholars who determined the need to conduct scientific field work on the most significant of the recorded sites.
Schoolhouse on the Cornplanter reservation 1929

Miss Dorrance’s survey had gathered much information, primarily from the central and eastern counties. Dorothy Skinner was hired to conduct a preliminary survey of western Pennsylvania counties and to inspect the collections of individuals who had completed the survey form.   Her photographs, recording of archaeological sites and documentation of artifacts laid the groundwork for future field investigations.  While working on the Indian survey, Dorothy spent several weeks in 1928 on the Allegheny Indian Reservation in New York, returning in 1929 to the Cornplanter Reservation, Warren county, Pennsylvania.  Her observations of their living conditions, work ethic and cultural traditions documented the lifeways of the Seneca prior to their removal fromthe Cornplanter tract. Her contribution to the ethnological record of the Seneca and Shawnee tribes is irreplaceable. The photographs which capture the faces or as Dorothy described them “hard working people, struggling along for a mere existence.” Dorothy couldn’t have imagined the construction of the Kinzua dam when she wrote “ Most of the customs of the old days have disappeared on the Cornplanter reservation and there will probably be a time when there will be no more Seneca living there.” (PA Archaeologist V.3, No.5)

Calico Dress collected by Dorothy Skinner in 1929


The ethnographic pieces collected by Dorothy include a calico dress with a ribbon trim, believed to date to the late 19th or early 20th century. Unfortunately, sixty recordings made on Dictaphone which were noted in manuscripts, along with still and motion pictures have not been located.  Dorothy is noted in our records as traveling to Oklahoma to document the culture history of the Shawnee in 1930 but was apparently no longer working for the PHC.



Members of the Seneca tribe living on the Cornplanter tract in 1929 


At some time in the early 1930’s Dorothy was accepted into an apprentice position at the Newark Museum in New Jersey. Included in the collections of the museum are beaded cradle ornaments, attributed to the late 19th- early 20th century; North Dakota, South Dakota; gift of Dorothy P. Skinner, 1942.
The legacy of Dorothy Skinner and her work in documenting the culture history of so many indigenous people were and continue to be an important tool in our understanding of cultural heritage and a useful tool in predicting culture change. The stories which were carried forward from generation to generation helped to explain the world around them.    Ceremonies often honored the seasons and changes in food resources. As recorded by Dorothy, “the Maple Festival ceremony is held every Spring shortly after the sap begins to run. It is called in Seneca “En-nōh-ches-gŭoh” and means boiling mush. The festival lasts only one day. The morning is devoted to the ceremonies which include the dance of the O”-ga-we and the woman’s dance, and then the playing of the bowl and counter game. The food that is served at noon is sweetened corn meal mush and sometimes hominy soup to which has been added maple sugar. “  Celebrating the harvest of whatever was being harvested is a common practice that we can all relate to and understand. Being thankful for what the earth has provided is important and a lesson we can learn from in today’s world as well.
 We hope you have enjoyed this post about another significant woman who has contributed so much to the anthropological and archaeological record of Pennsylvania. We hope you will be inspired to read more about the Seneca Indians and the indigenous peoples from your community who have contributed so much to our heritage. Please help us to preserve and appreciate the past. To learn more about the Indian tribes who lived in Pennsylvania, please visit our gallery in The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Bison in Pennsylvania – Yes...No...Probably Not.

The American Bison on exhibit at The State Museum of Pennsylvania


This week’s blog deals with the presence of bison in Pennsylvania during prehistoric and early historic times. The debate has been going on for over a century. Research on bison or buffalo in Pennsylvania can be organized into two groups; a few scientific studies note that there are no known skeletal remains from Pennsylvania. This is in contrast to numerous reports of bison, sometimes numbering in the thousands, by early explorers and hunters and at least ten referenced place names, suggesting the animal as the origin for these names.

As background, The American Bison Association reports that the so-called American buffalo is not a true buffalo, i.e. the Cape buffalo or water buffalo of Africa and Asia, but rather, it is related to the European bison. Scientifically, they are classified as Bison bison bison, part of the Bovidae family along with the cow. However, the literature seems to use bison and buffalo interchangeably. They once roamed the Great Plains of the American West numbering as many as 60 million. However, by 1889, hide hunters had catastrophically reduced the herds, down to 635 wild bison according to Hornaday (1889:525). Although, their range extends east of the Mississippi, the numbers are far smaller. They are very large animals with females averaging about 1000 pounds and males about 1500-2000 pounds (American Bison Association brochure n.d.). They are very fast on their feet and can withstand severe cold and snow.

The most popular references to hunting bison in Pennsylvania are by Thomas Ashe, Travels in America in 1806 and a 60-page book by Colonel Henry W. Shoemaker (1919), A Pennsylvania Bison Hunt. Ashe describes detailed migration routes involving thousands of animals in central and western Pennsylvania. Guilday (1963:136) quotes a long passage from Ashe who relates a story of a man whose cabin was knocked down by a large herd and in retaliation, the man killed 600-700 animals. Guilday (1963:176) goes on to state “In view of the vagueness of the locality and the known propensity of Thomas Ashe for colorful embellishment without regard for the fact, this oft-quoted account cannot be considered seriously.”

Shoemaker (1915) wrote in detail of a bison hunt near Weikert, Union County during the winter of 1799-1800. According to Shoemaker (1915:31-35) a herd of 300 animals stampeded through a cabin, killing a mother and three children. The father and a group of approximately 50 others, tracked them down and killed them all. Guilday (1963) and Williams et al (1985) label these as an outrageous exaggeration. Shoemaker actually defined a new species separated from the western bison, Bison, americanus pennsylvanicus. However, since his definition was not based on physical remains but only hearsay and folklore, it was “considered invalid by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature” (Williamson et al 1985:173). Considering the number of large animals involved in these stories, there should be physical skeletal remains, but none can be documented.

Turnbaugh (1977:70-71) also reviews the reports of bison in the West Branch of the Susquehanna drainage. Specifically citing the fanciful descriptions of Colonel Henry W. Shoemaker (1919) and Thomas Ashe (1808). he agrees with Guilday (1963) and Frank G. Roe (1971) that there is no collaborating evidence to support these stories.

Traditionally, the last bison shot in Pennsylvania was killed by Colonel John Kelly in the 1790s on the McClister farm 5 miles from Lewisburg (thus the mascot for nearby Bucknell University is the “bison”). There are two others who claim to have killed the last bison. Williamson et al. (1985:173) reviews the conflicting information concerning the last bison killed in Pennsylvania, concluding that the information cannot be trusted. The dates fall between 1790 and 1810. These would have been spectacular trophies, yet no physical remains are known.

Another argument for the presence of bison are the numerous place names in Pennsylvania such as Buffalo Creek in Washington County; Buffalo Creek in Butler and Armstrong counties; Buffalow Creek in Union County along with Buffalo Township; Big Buffalow Creek in Perry County along with Buffaloe Hill and Little Buffalow Creek; Buffaloe Run near Bedford;  Buffaloe Lick Creek in Somerset County and finally Buffaloe Run in Centre County.

Gail Gibson (1969) examined 18th century maps and traced the origin of these place names. For the most part, she found that what are now labeled as Buffalo Creek, Run or Lick, originally had other names un-related to the animal. So, for example, Buffalo Creek in Union Count was originally named Buffellow Creek possibly refereeing to an individual rather than the animal. This is almost certainly the case for Buffalo Creek in Butler and Armstrong counties where it was originally the name of a village, Buffelors, and, again, not representing the animal. In addition, she relates the account of Thomas Penn purchasing a bull buffalo in 1733, but there is no mention of where this animal was acquired.

However, her last example consists of two independent references to hunting buffalo in the Monongahela Valley south of Brownsville, Pennsylvania. She feels these are reliable reports. However, she concludes that they may be false, and she returns to the conclusions reached by Guilday that there is no physical evidence in the form of bones from archaeological contexts and no reports of Native Americans using products rendered from these animals. Therefore, they may have been present but in very low numbers or absent altogether.

As for skeletal remains of bison in Pennsylvania, there are only a handful of reports. In their listing of vertebrate fauna from the Pleistocene (i.e. before 10,000 years ago) to the present, Toomey and Fay (1994:Appendix 1) cite only two examples: one is Pleistocene in age from the Frankstown cave in Blair County and considering Pleistocene bison remains in the neighboring states, this is not surprising. The second collection, consisting of four bone fragments, are from the Late Woodland period Martin site in Fayette County (Gilmore 1946). Guilday (1963:135) rejects these as bison. The bone was not saved and Guilday thinks it is an intrusive cow bone because other cow bones were found on the site and no other bison bones have been found in the region.

This is a problem with some early archaeological collections in that bone was recorded but not always saved for future identification. Augustine (1938:10) reports fragmentary bones of “woods bison” from a Late Woodland pit at the Emerick site. However, it is unclear whether this collection was ever curated and therefore not available to confirm this identification. James P. Bressler reports bison bone from a midden at the Bull Run site in Lycoming County. The collection included a bison skull along with one of the bones imbedded by an arrow. Unfortunately, the bone was broken when a crew member tried to remove the arrow point and, again, the material is not available to confirm the field identification.

Guilday has reviewed all of the reports in the Carnegie collection, and most of the reported bison skeletal remains from Pennsylvania and the surrounding region. He reports that bison remains were “conspicuously absent” from the Buffalo and the Mt. Carbon sites in West Virginia where approximately 100,000 bones were analyzed. He also rejects the bison metacarpal from the Beech Bottom Mound, West Virginia. The bone was not saved and was probably cow. However, he recognized a bison bone beamer “made of thoracic vertebral spines” recovered from the Madisonville site in western Ohio. Guilday (1963) supports finds in Ohio, New York, Maryland and the Carolinas, indicating bison may have been on the fringes of Pennsylvania.

To summarize, Gibson (1969), Guilday (1963) and Williams et al. (1985) have examined the reports by early hunters and place names and generally conclude that there is little collaborating evidence to support bison in post Pleistocene Pennsylvania. They all make the argument that bison are grazers and not suited to the eastern forests that did not support the buffalo’s ecological requirements. Witthoft (1967:17) reminds us that there is no ethnographic or historical evidence that Native Americans traded buffalo products to the Europeans or that they had historical or religious traditions that reference that animal. However, based on a recent discussion with Joe Stahlman (2020) THPO for the Seneca, the Seneca have a tradition of hunting buffalo along the Erie Lake plain and even burning the forest to keep it in a grassland for the buffalo.

Williams et al. (1985:176) concludes that there is no physical “evidence to support the occurrence of bison in Pennsylvania”. However, the number of reports and place names suggest they probably occurred, but in low numbers. Toomey and Fay (1994:44) reach a similar conclusion that bison may have been present in parts of Pennsylvania up to 1800, but based on “the lack of remains, were very rare or absent from Pennsylvania during most of the Holocene.” In the last sentence of Guilday (1963:138), he states “But, judging from the scanty historical record, the lack of archaeological finds and what we know of the buffalo’s ecological requirements, it must have been scarce in the area.“

This author takes a “cup half full” perspective, agreeing with the above conclusions but doubtful that bison were here at all. However, it is difficult to prove the negative – bison are not here because we haven’t found any skeletal remains – maybe they will be uncovered in the next excavation. 

Bibliography
Ashe, Thomas
1808            Travels in America Performed in 1806 for the Purpose of Exploring the Rivers Allegheny, Monongahela, Ohio and Mississippi and Ascertaining the Produce and Condition of their Banks and Vicinity. London

Augustine, Edgar E.
1938            Recent Discoveries in Somerset County. Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 8(1):6-12.

Bressler, James P.
1980            Excavation of the Bull Run site 36LY119. Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 50(4):31-63

Gibson, Gail
1969            Historical Evidence of the Buffalo in Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, April, pp.151-160.

Gilmore, Raymond M.
1946            Mammals in Archaeological sites from Southwestern Pennsylvania. Journal of Mammalogy 27:227-234.

Guilday, John E.
1963            Evidence for Buffalo in Prehistoric Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33:135-139.
1971            Biological and Archaeological Analysis of Bones from a 17th Century Indian Village (46 PU 31), Putnam County, West Virginia. Report of Archaeological Investigation, Number 4, Editor Bettye J. Broyles, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey. Morgantown, West Virginia.

Hornaday, W. T.
1889            The extermination of the American bison. Report to the United States Natural History Museum 1886-87:iv + 369-548

Mattern, Billy N.
1993            Local Buffalo – Fact or Fiction. Presented before the Snyder County historical Society, March 23, 1993.

Roe, Frank G.
1971            The North American Buffalo: Acritical Study of the Species in it Wild State. University of Toronto Press. Toronto. Second Revised Edition.

Shoemaker, Henry W.
1915            A Pennsylvania Bison Hunt. Middleburg Post Press.

Toomey, Richard S. and Leslie P. Fay
1994            The Changing Vertebrate Fauna of Pennsylvania over the Pat 15,000 years in Volume II, Paleoenvironmental and Paleoclimatic Reconstruction of Pennsylvania over the Last 15,000 years. Edited by Frank J. Vento, submitted to the Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Turnbaugh, William A.
1977            Man Land and Time. Unigraphic, Inc. Evansville, Indiana

Williams, Stephen L., Suzanne B. McLearen, Marion A. Burgwin,
1985            Paleo-archaeological and Historical Records of Selected Pennsylvania Mammals, Annuals of Carnegie Museum 54(4):77-188.

Witthoft, John

1967            The American Indian as Hunter. Harrisburg.



For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .

Friday, January 31, 2020

Early Ceramics of Philadelphia: Examples from the Market Street Project


Many of the collections in the Section of Archaeology were recovered from the city of Philadelphia. These collections are full of beautiful ceramic vessels that document the European settlement and early occupation of this area. Today we will look at a collection from Market Street that contains a wide variety of ceramics.

The city of Philadelphia was founded in 1682 by William Penn and his Quaker followers and by the end of the eighteenth century was the largest urban center in the United States. The earliest settlement of the city began along the waterfront of the Delaware River along Front Street and spread north and south. Market Street runs west from Front Street toward the Schuylkill River and is part of the “old City”. As well as being one of the earliest sections of the city, the east end of Market Street housed the first printing office of Benjamin Franklin, in which he printed The Pennsylvania Gazette.



Map of the city of Philadelphia in 1802 Showing Market Street and the waterfront (Public Domain)


Archaeological excavations were undertaken in the 1970s by PennDOT prior to the construction of an access ramp over I-95 between the Penn’s Landing Development and Market Street.
Preliminary work on this project would involve the demolition of 19 structures from Market Street to Church Street and between Front and Second Streets. The firm of Abraham Levy Architect, under the direction of Herbert Levy and Charles Hunter, was hired to conduct archaeological salvage prior to the demolition activities.

Surprisingly, beneath the buildings located within the demolition area a number of historic features were found, including wells, privies, garbage pits, and foundations of earlier buildings. These features represented the daily life of this part of the city during the early-eighteenth through mid-nineteenth centuries. Thousands of artifacts were recovered from the excavations and a total of eight sites were recorded (36Ph1 thru 36Ph8).



During the earliest years of settlement of Philadelphia, a large proportion of its ceramics would have been imported from England. Types such as Nottingham and Fulham stonewares, Staffordshire earthenware, and North Devon Sgraffito are all named for the areas of England in which they were produced.  Examples of these types were recovered from the Market Street sites.



Early English ceramics, including: (l. to r.) Fulham stoneware, Nottingham stoneware, combed Staffordshire, North Devon Sgraffito earthenware, combed Staffordshire (photo by PHMC)


Porcelain from China was a very popular type of ceramic that was introduced to Europe in the sixteenth century and was later produced specifically for the export market. Attempts to reproduce Chinese porcelain in the early to mid-1700s were unsuccessful but resulted in a new type of ceramic called tin-glazed earthenware, which was manufactured in England, France, Italy, and Spain.



Examples of tin-glazed earthenware (top) and Chinese porcelain (bottom) from Market Street (photo by PHMC)


Another common type of ceramic was red earthenware or redware, so-called due to its red color. Redware has been made for centuries and continues to be made to this day. Although the first redware would have been brought from England and Europe, local potteries were soon established. Local clay sources from within the city itself were used for manufacture of bricks and likely were also used for making redware.



Brightly colored examples of redware from Market Street sites (photo by PHMC)


Two such local redware potters were Daniel Topham, who operated a pottery along 8th and Filbert Streets from 1766 to 1783, and Andrew Miller, Sr., who purchased the same property and operated his pottery from 1785 until his sons took over in the early 1800s. It is not known if any of the redware pieces in the collection were made by either Topham or Miller, but it is certainly possible that some of the redware comes from one or both of these sites.



Throughout the 1700s, potters continued to attempt to produce “porcelain-like” pottery and more refined ceramic types. These ranged from more delicate redwares, white (and scratch-blue) salt-glazed stoneware, and creamware.



Three teapots: (l. to r.) Refined red ware, white salt-glazed stoneware, and creamware


Thin-bodied, white earthenwares with beautiful and creative decoration, called pearlware, developed near the end of the eighteenth century. Pearlwares were very popular and came in a wide range of decorative techniques including mocha, banded or annular, marbled, engine-turned, rouletted, dipped, and many others.



Pearlware and creamware vessels with a variety of decoration were recovered from Market Street sites: mocha and banded mocha, dipped, engine-turned and rouletted, and marbled (photo by PHMC)


Even more delicate pearlwares can be found in the form of teacups and bowls. A great assortment of teacups, bowls, and saucers were recovered from the Market Street sites. Many of these are decorated with flowers, geometric designs, and Chinese scenes that have been hand painted or transfer-printed.



Pearlware teacups and saucers in varying designs and patterns (photo by PHMC)


These are just some of the many types of ceramics that were found during the excavations at Market Street. While the majority of the pieces discussed here were imported from Europe there were also a great number of potteries in and around the Philadelphia area throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that may be examined in future blogs. Additionally, ceramics were not the only artifacts recovered from these sites as they were rich with domestic goods and personal items that tell a story about the lives of the people of Philadelphia.

Due to the numbers of archaeological projects and recorded sites in Philadelphia, there are also many other site collections that contain these types of historic ceramics. As always, the Market Street assemblage and other collections held by the Section of Archaeology are available for use by anyone with scholarly research objectives.



Archaeological research of early ceramics has yielded fascinating information about consumerism in colonial America. The wealthy Quaker households of Philadelphia contained fine imported ceramics and glass stemware as opposed to the working-class neighborhoods with their locally made redware plates, bowls and tankards. The key role Philadelphia’s location along the Delaware and Schuylkill river played an important part in distributing these ceramics into the surrounding communities and researchers have traced Philadelphia potters across Pennsylvania.



We hope you’ve enjoyed learning more about these beautiful ceramics but will also understand the important information they hold for archaeologists in understanding the activities of our early settlers. Preservation of the archaeological record from these historic neighborhoods have produced numerous publications. Below is a list of just a few that help to tell the story of Philadelphia’s past. We hope you will be inspired to examine the archaeological record of your community and help us to preserve the past.

For Additional Reading:
Carpentier, Donald and Jonathan Rickard
2001            Slip Decoration in the Age of Industrialization. Ceramics in America 2001. Chipstone Foundation, Milwaukee, WI.

Cotter, John L., Daniel G. Roberts, Michael Parrington
1992            The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.

Articles on Bonnin and Morris, Philadelphia porcelain makers:
Hunter, Robert
2007            Ceramics in America. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.

Myers, Susan H.
1980            Handcraft to Industry: Philadelphia Ceramics in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century. Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology, No. 43. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Orr, David G.
2003            Samuel Malkin in Philadelphia: A Remarkable Slipware Assemblage. Ceramics in America 2003, pp. 252-255 (http://www.chipstone.org/article.php/97/Ceramics-in-America-2003/Samuel-Malkin-in-Philadelphia:-A-remarkable-Slipware-Assemblage).

Yamin, Rebecca
-->
2008            Digging in the City of Brotherly Love: Stories from Philadelphia Archaeology. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

For more information, visit PAarchaeology.state.pa.us or the Hall of Anthropology and Archaeology at The State Museum of Pennsylvania .
--> --> --> --> --> -->