Made in America: Philadelphia Queensware Pottery in the Early 19th Century

During the early nineteenth century, conflict between England and France led to an American trade embargo that restricted the importation of goods from these countries. Soon after, English hostilities on the high seas that led to the War of 1812 also stopped the flow of foreign goods to America, including fine British ceramics. The lack of certain imported goods led to the establishment of a number of new American industrial enterprises to fill the void.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, a form of thin, cream-colored ceramic called creamware was being manufactured in England. One style of creamware was made popular by British Queen Charlotte and became known as Queensware. Queensware enjoyed immense commercial popularity and was one of the items banned during the embargo and subsequent war.

Creamware Cup (left) Shown with a Copy in American Queensware (right)

Utilizing local clays, some possibly dug from within the city, Philadelphia potters attempted to make their own versions of Queensware and other fine British earthenware ceramics. However, the use of local clays produced a more yellow vessel body rather than white or cream colored. Some potteries, such as the newly-formed Columbian Pottery, offered a British-trained potter to make the enterprise seem more authentic. By 1808, Scottish-born Master Potter Alexander Trotter was producing earthen tablewares for the Columbian, including yellow tea and coffee pots, sugar boxes, jugs, baking dishes, chamber pots, and other items. The Columbian’s goods were advertised “at prices much lower than they can be imported” and at rates that “are less than half the price of the cheapest imported Liverpool Queensware” (Myers 1980).

AMERICAN

Manufactured Queensware, at the following reasonable

rates-viz

Chamber Pots                                        4s a $2 25 per doz

Ditto ditto                                               6s     1  80   ditto

Wash Hand Basons                                4s     2         ditto

Ditto ditto                                               6s     1  60   ditto

Pitchers                                                  4s     2  70   ditto

Coffee Pots                                            4s     5          ditto

Ditto ditto                                               6s     4          ditto

Tea Pots                                               12s     2  25   ditto

Ditto                                                      18s     1 80    ditto

Pitchers                                                  6s     1 80     ditto

Dinner Plates 75 cents per dozen-all other sizes, with every other article of Queensware, in proportion

 Copied from a Price List for Columbian Pottery Wares in Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser 1813

Philadelphia Queensware Pitcher and Teapot from PHMC Collections

Trotter’s wares became popular and were soon advertised for sale as far away as Alexandria, Virginia and other cities along the east coast. Trotter continued his work in Philadelphia until around 1815, when the Columbian Pottery closed up and he moved to Pittsburgh. For a short time period Trotter continued manufacturing Queensware in the Pittsburgh area, where he produced vessel forms that were “similar to those of the Potteries in Philadelphia” (Myers 1980).

By 1810, another Scotsman, Captain John Mullowny, was advertising similar ceramic articles for sale at his Washington Pottery on Market Street. Mullowny also appears to have been successful in his ventures and by 1812 he had added specialized production techniques and included engine-turned and press-molded Queensware vessels in his inventory (Myers 1980). An advertisement from that same year lists the many vessel forms produced by the Washington Pottery (Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser 1812).

   WAREHOUSE OF THE

 WASHINGTON POTTERY,

     HIGH NEAR SCHUYLKILL SIXTH STREET,

  The public are informed that Soup and Shallow

PLATES are now ready for delivery in addition to the

following articles, of which a constant supply is always

kept up.

CUPS & SAUCERS,

SUGARS & CREAMS,

Gallon, Quart, Pint & Half Pint Grelled & Plain PITCHERS

Gallon, Quart, Pint and Half Pint BOWLS,

SALT and PEPPER BOXES,

STEWING DISHES that will stand the fire,

BASINS and EWERS,

WINE COOLERS,

MANTLE ORNAMENTS & GARDEN POTS

Quart, Pint and Half Pint MUGS,

GOBLETS, TUMBLERS & EGG CUPS,

BUTTER TUBS & BUTTER BOATS,

PICKLING JARS & JELLY POTS of all sizes,

MILK PANS, &c, &c, &c.

  The Plates manufactured at the Washington Pottery,

will be found by experience superior to imported plates,

when necessary to stew on a chafing dish or embers, as

they will stand the heat without cracking.

 1812 Ad Copied from a Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser for the Washington Pottery

Following the end of the war in 1815, many of the potteries continued to manufacture Queensware vessels; however, the resumption of trade with Britain meant that the finer quality Staffordshire wares were available once again and at rates similar to the American-made knock-offs. Ceramics, as well as other British goods, flooded the market in 1815 and 1816 in an attempt to stifle the new American industries. Soon it became apparent that the Philadelphia potters could not compete with England’s finer pieces and most of the Queensware producers were out of business by 1820.

The State Museum collections house a number of examples of Queensware recovered from archaeological sites located mainly in the city of Philadelphia. Evaluation of these pieces indicates that the quality of the Philadelphia wares is somewhat lacking. Many issues related to the Queensware pieces appear to be associated with the production and firing of the vessels including: overfired, burned, or bubbled glaze; kiln furniture marks; uneven or missing glaze; crazing; smeared clay; and pitting. Every piece identified as Queensware exhibited at least one, if not several, of these flaws.

Closeup of Queensware Cup Showing Cracking and Missing Glaze (Center Top) and Speckling

 Due to its yellow color, Queensware is often mistaken for yellowware (1828-1930). However, the Queensware pieces have thinner walls and very little decoration, as opposed to yellowware. Queensware colors fall generally into the yellow spectrum but there is a greater variation in shades. Yellowware often exhibits linear bands of varying colors (blue, white, cream) or has a white interior whereas Queensware does not.  And Queensware vessels more often take the form of tea pots, cups and saucers, pitchers, and chamberpots, while common yellowware forms are often mixing bowls, basins, milk pans, molds, and baking dishes.

If you found this blog of interest and would like more detailed information, articles regarding Queensware will be published in an upcoming issue of The Journal for Northeast Historical Archaeology. Additional information on Philadelphia ceramics and citations for this blog can be found in the following sources:

Miller, George L. and Amy C. Earls

2008   War and Pots: The Impact of Economics and Politics on Ceramic Consumption Patterns. In Ceramics in America 2008.

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. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Philadelphia Aurora General Advertiser

1812   October 27.

Relfs Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser

1813   April.

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

LiDAR Aids Archaeologists in Documenting Fort Hunter

During this year’s excavation at Fort Hunter (2016), the State Museum of Pennsylvania was fortunate enough to have a survey crew from PennDOT perform LiDAR scans of the milk house structure and surrounding excavation units. Partnering across agencies provided an opportunity for PennDOT to establish a new bench mark for highway use and for archaeologists to utilize modern technology not available within the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

What is LiDAR?

LiDAR, a form of 3D scanning, is a method for creating a 3D model of an object, structure or environment. A LiDAR scanner (seen in the image below) bounces millions of points of light off of objects in its path, measuring distance and position. By collecting data on millions of points, a three dimensional point cloud is created which can be processed into a 3D model. PennDOT uses LiDAR to create highly accurate renderings that can be used in the management of Pennsylvania’s roads and bridges. Our excavations at Fort Hunter were scanned using Terrestrial LiDAR. This form of LiDAR, involves setting up the LiDAR scanner in several stationary positions around the site or structure to be scanned. Aerial LiDAR has aided in the discovery of long forgotten archaeological sites obscured by jungle overgrowth. These two types of LiDAR differ not only in their scanning method, but also in the resolution and applications of the data they produce. Terrestrial LiDAR provides more accurate and detailed models of smaller areas than aerial LiDAR, which makes it an especially useful tool in examining features at Fort Hunter.

PennDOT surveyors prepare the terrestrial LiDAR scanner adjacent to the milk house. Image: PHMC/Melanie Mayhew

At Fort Hunter, the survey crew used terrestrial LiDAR to create detailed and precise 3D maps of structures and our excavations. The scans of Fort Hunter are comprised of over an estimated 100 million points. Our main objective was to capture information about the milk house and smoke house features, but additional data was also captured.

LiDAR scan of Fort Hunter, note the black areas are where the laser’s path was blocked from reaching the structure. Note the milk house in the lower right corner of the image. Image: PennDOT/Photogrammetry & Surveys Section

As you can imagine, it is impossible to capture all of the three dimensional data at an archaeological site using photographs and hand drawn maps. Terrestrial LiDAR creates a map with far more detail and precision than can be created by hand. The processed LiDAR scans that resulted from this endeavor can be rotated 360 degrees, viewed under multiple filters, and a video can even be made to appear as if you are moving through the scanned site. Millimeter-accurate measurements can be made between any points in the model.

This rendering of the milk house at Fort Hunter can be used to take measurements, create images, videos or 3D printed models. Image: PennDOT/Photogrammetry & Surveys Section

How will these scans be used?

The digital data created by the LiDAR scans will become part of the site’s collected documentation, and it has the ability to greatly enhance the archaeological record without using additional shelf space. In the image below, you can see a circular stone foundation of what is believed to be an octagonal smoke house adjacent to the structure we refer to as the milk house. The survey crew was able to scan both the interior and exterior of the milk house, creating a 3D replica of the structure as it exists today. Because archaeology is a destructive process, and because it is generally not practical to leave excavations open indefinitely, LiDAR scans provide an excellent opportunity to digitally recreate a structure or three dimensional feature long after fieldwork has concluded.

Two images of the smokehouse’s foundation produced from PennDOT’s LiDAR scan at Fort Hunter. The scans can be viewed from any angle and filters can be applied to change the appearance of the images. Image: PennDOT/Photogrammetry & Surveys Section

The images and data from these scans will provide enhanced interpretive material for future exhibits, and carry forward our goal of educating the public about Pennsylvania’s archaeology.

The State Museum of Pennsylvania’s Section of Archaeology would like to extend a big Thank You to PennDOT’s Photogrammetry & Surveys Section for lending their time and talents to provide us with this data.

Please visit our gallery of Anthropology and Archaeology on the second floor of The State Museum of Pennsylvania where you can view additional artifacts representing our archaeological heritage.  Look for an updated exhibit on our investigation at Fort Hunter Mansion and Park in the spring of 2017.

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

Thimbles through Time, Space and Life

The Fort Hunter field season has wrapped up and now artifact processing is in full swing. As we clean and process the artifacts we are able to see more clearly what is present in the collection. It is important to examine the types of artifacts present in a collection as they help tell the story of the landscape and its use. In order for archaeologists to develop an accurate timeline for sites, several methods are used including stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, and artifact typologies based on datable artifacts.

This year at Fort Hunter, we found the most complete example of a thimble to date. Thimbles may not be the first artifact type you think of when contemplating the kinds of artifacts that can help date a site, but in fact thimbles have a long and well documented history, though not widely published.

There is documentation of leather thimbles as early as the medieval period in Europe. Bone, horn and wooden thimbles have also all been found on early archaeological sites (Hill 1995). The earliest metal thimbles in England appear in AD 1350 (Hill 1995). At this time thimbles were being made and decorated by hand, using various techniques including hammering, stamping and pressing. Like many other objects, later period thimbles were produced via mechanical methods of casting. During the 17^th century some of these machine made thimbles were made through a slightly different process, making them from two pieces by attaching the separately made crown to the body. This process of manufacture is another clue to dating them.  

Various forms of thimbles through time: 14^th century (left), 2-piece 17^th century (center), 19^th century pronounced rim (right) (from UK Detector Finds Database 2005).

Just as the process for making thimbles changed, so did the form or shape and design on thimbles. It wasn’t until the fifteenth century that thimbles became taller and similar to their current form, while previously they were a short shallow cup-like shape (Hill 1995, UK Detector Finds Database 2005). The height of the thimble sides as well as the height of the dome varied between manufacturers as well as through time. Designs on thimbles also changed, beginning with hand punched “pits” or indentations in the medieval period and later changing to mechanically indented or knurled indentations (Hill 1995, UK Detector Finds Database 2005). The indentations or designs are most often small round indentations or can also be a waffle pattern. These varying patterns on the body or crown of a thimble can also indicate its age. Finally, the rim of a thimble can be indicative of a specific time period as some rims were left flat, whiles others were rolled.

18^th Century thimble found at Fort Hunter (36Da159) during 2016 State Museum of Pennsylvania field season.

With this brief understanding of why thimbles are considered datable, we can now look at the thimble found this year at Fort Hunter. As can be seen in the image, the Fort Hunter thimble is a one piece cast thimble with knurled indentations and the waffle-patterned crown. Based on historical research this form and design is often called a “Lofting” type of thimble, named for John Lofting a Dutch thimble maker, who produced large quantities of thimbles for export from England (UK Detector Finds Database 2005). It is believed that the Fort Hunter thimble represents the final development in the “lofting” form, which was quickly copied and exported by other European manufacturers throughout the 18^th century. 

Lofting thimbles found at Fort Loudon

 

Other types of thimbles found at Fort Loudon:  2-piece 17^th century (left), 19^th century crown with concentric design (right)

Top of other types of thimbles found at Fort Loudon:  2-piece 17^th century (left), 19^th century crown with concentric design (right)

Another important aspect of having good datable artifacts on a site is that comparative analyses can be done between sites. In order for archaeologists to develop the most accurate picture of past life, how artifact and site types were used and to determine whether sites are contemporaneous, comparisons are made using as many examples of specific artifact and site types as possible. For example, there have been thimbles found at other French and Indian War period forts in Pennsylvania, such as the five 18^th century Lofting thimbles, one 17^th century two-piece thimble and one 19^th century thimble with a concentric crown design found at Fort Loudon.  Other examples of thimbles from Pennsylvania forts include two 18^th century Lofting type thimbles from Fort Augusta and Fort Morris each. Fort Morris also has an example of a 17^th century two-piece thimble. Having this information allows archaeologists to see that there are similarities in the form, decoration and ages of this artifact type which not only helps date these sites, but may also lead to further conclusions about who in these forts were using the thimbles: was it soldiers, a designated tailor or women (Gale 2007)? These are just some of the questions that can be explored by further analyzing the thimbles.

18^th century Lofting thimbles from Fort Augusta

 

Thimbles found at Fort Morris: 18^th century Lofting thimbles (right and left), 2-piece 17^th century (center) (image from Warfel 2010).

So, through using previous archaeological evidence as well as the historic record these little artifacts have proven to be an important tool in helping archaeologists understand the period of occupation and activities for many sites. As a common domestic object, thimbles can help date a site or a component of a site through the artifact typology, as our Fort Hunter thimble helps us develop a better understanding of the landscape around the Fort Hunter Mansion.

   

References:

Gale, R. R.

2007    "A Soldier-Like Way": The Material Culture of the British Infantry 1751-

1768. Track of the Wolf, Elk River, Minnesota.

Hill, Erica

1995    Thimbles and Thimble Rings from the circum-Caribbean Region, 1500-1800:   Chronology and Identification. Historical Archaeology 29(1):84-92.

Hume, Ivor Noel

1969   A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. republished by University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

           

UK Detector Finds Database

            2005    Thimbles. http://www.ukdfd.co.uk/pages/thimble.html.

Warfel, Steven

2010    The Discovery of Fort Morris: A Report on 2009 Archaeological Investigations at the 333 East Burd Street Site, Shippensburg, PA.

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

Eastern States Archeological Federation 83rd Annual Meeting

          

          It has been another busy and productive October at The State Museum wrapping up Archaeology Month celebrations and outreach programs. Fort Hunter artifacts are in process in the lab and the 2016 Workshops in Archaeology last Saturday was a well-attended event with over 145 participants. If you missed the Workshops this year, or would like to learn more about recent archaeological investigations and research in the region, we invite you to the Eastern States Archeological Federation (ESAF) 83^rd Annual Meeting this weekend in Langhorne, Pennsylvania at the Sheraton Bucks County. Those interested in Paleoindian archaeology will find this year’s conference particularly informative.

Fluted point and endscrapers from a Paleoindian component at the Snyder Complex site, NJ. Photographer credit: Kurt Carr.

Thursday kicked off the conference with a well-received tour of two Paleoindian sites in New Jersey, the Snyder Complex and Plenge. However, it is still possible to attend Saturday and Sunday paper sessions. Walk-in registration will remain open Friday through Saturday afternoon. Follow the provided link to ESAF meeting registration for more details.

Jen Rankin describing the soil profile of the stratified Synder Complex site on Thurday’s tour. Photographer credit: Kurt Carr

                Tour guides Jen Rankin (Temple University, AECOM), Michael Stewart (Temple University, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office), Leonard Ziegler (Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Archaeological Society of New Jersey), and Joe Gingerich (Temple University) deserve accolades for setting the prehistoric stage in a vivid and entertaining way on yesterday’s tour. Stories from their combined decades of archaeological investigation at these locations contextualized the sites, making them come alive in the minds of participants.  

Leonard Ziegler, long time collector at the Plenge site taking lead on the tour. Photographer credit: Kurt Carr

                Regular conference sessions begin today, Friday, November 4th. Kurt Carr, Senior Curator (The State Museum of Pennsylvania) and current ESAF President chairs a prehistoric session focusing on the use of lithic quarries in Pennsylvania by indigenous peoples. The concurrent session, chaired by William A. Farley (University of Connecticut), explores Native American cultural history spanning the Protohistoric, Contact and Early Historic archaeological record on the Eastern Seaboard. Early afternoon Contributed Papers, a session chaired by Ernest A. Wiegand (Norwalk Community College), discuss investigations at Allen Meadows: A Paleoindian camp in the Norwalk River Valley; and an elementary school archaeology outreach program at the historic School in Rose Valley, Stephen Israel (The School in Rose Valley). Late afternoon Contributed Papers provide a greater regional perspective of prehistoric lithic use, monument building, Hopewell influence in North Central Ohio, and Metz Transitional ware pottery. This session is chaired by Justin A. Reamer (University of Pennsylvania).

ESAF Presenter, Session Chair and President Kurt Carr. Photographer credit: Beth Hager.

                Saturday sessions include a deep dive into Paleoindian Peoples and Landscapes of the Northeast, chaired by Jonathan C. Lothrop (New York State Museum) and Zachary L. Singer (University of Connecticut), and Urban Archaeology in Historic Philadelphia, chaired by Kevin Bradley (Commonwealth Heritage Group). A Contributed Papers session in the late afternoon continues on the theme of Paleoindian archaeology with in-depth analyses of tool use and experimental tool production. Chaired by Lucy Harrington (Mercyhurst University), her thesis research of Paleoindian through Middle Archaic bifaces and unifacial tools was largely conducted with collections curated at The State Museum of Pennsylvania.  

          The Contributed Papers following the Historic Philadelphia session is chaired by our very own Curator, Janet Johnson and will be held in the late morning. These papers will cover an eclectic mix of historic and prehistoric topics from the Waynesburg and Blacksville Street Railway Company in Green County, PA, Marc Henshaw (Michael Baker International), to Intra-Family Tenancy in Antebellum West Virginia, Gary Coppock (Skelly and Loy, Inc). It is also an opportunity to see a repeat presentation of Effigies of the Susquehannock by Janet, who was a featured presenter at last week’s Workshops, as well as an overview of Social Complexity during the Late Prehistoric in Western, PA by John P. Nass, Jr. (California University of Pennsylvania). The evening will be concluded at 8pm with Banquet speaker, Roger Moeller (Archaeological Services), A Return to the Templeton Paleoinidian Site After 40 Years. Banquet tickets are now limited and may not be available at the door.

ESAF Presenter and Session Chair, Janet Johnson. Photographer credit: Don Giles.

                The final session held on Sunday is chaired by Richard Veit (Monmouth University) and will also feature an array of prehistoric and historic papers from archaeological investigations in Delaware and New Jersey. Use the following link to download an ESAF meeting schedule and presentation abstracts for a complete summary of events and speakers.

               On a final note the Section of Archaeology would like to extend a special thanks to all our dedicated volunteers who helped behind the scenes, making the 2016 Workshops in Archaeology a success: Andi, Clydene & Steve, Linda, Judy, Chriss, Paul, Toni, Phil, Yasmin, Aunyer, and Hope.

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

2016 Annual Workshops in Archaeology: Understanding Symbols of the Past, Objects, Landscapes and Native American Beliefs

The State Museum of Pennsylvania’s Section of Archaeology invites you to join us October 29, 2016 for our annual Workshops in Archaeology program.  The theme of this year’s presentations is Native American symbolism in artifacts and on the cultural landscape.  As always the program is designed to offer an overview of archaeological research and discoveries to the general public. 

Anthropologists have long examined symbols created by past cultures as a way of interpreting and understanding social, political or individual expression.  These take the form of abstract designs and depictions of animal, human and supernatural figures, frequently in stone and clay.  The arrangement of earthworks and mounds also had meaning to people in the past.

Some of these symbols had religious connotations. Others represented clans or depicted supernatural beings that required appeasement.  Although rarely found at archaeological sites, symbols on baskets or beadwork on clothing are also expressions of religious and cultural beliefs.  Some designs may have been simply decorative art.  Whatever the case, they are reflections of how people perceived and organized their world.  Symbolic artifacts recovered from the archaeological record provide a unique resource for examining past cultural behavior.  Eight presenters will examine the archaeological evidence of symbolism in Native American cultures and offer insights into their interpretations. 

2016 ANNUAL WORKSHOPS IN ARCHAEOLOGY PROGRAM

Session Descriptions:

All sessions listed below will be held in the Auditorium of the State Museum

9:00 – 9:10 a.m.

Opening remarks –Beth Hager, Acting Director, The State Museum of Pennsylvania

9:10-9:50 a.m.        Session 1   Petroglyphs in Pennsylvania

                                                   –On the Rocks at Parkers Landing 

Kenneth Burkett

Executive Director, Jefferson County History Center, Brookville PA

North Fork Chapter 29 of the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology

The few accessible petroglyph sites in Pennsylvania are the only intact locations where evidence intentionally left by the early Native Americans can be viewed and contemplated in their unaltered natural setting.  Among these, the Parkers Landing Petroglyphs (36CL1) stands out as the most intensively utilized rock art location known within the upper Allegheny River basin. The quantity, variable styles and assortment of figures at Parkers Landing suggests that this location was utilized over a long period of time possibly beginning in the Middle Woodland period and extending into the 18^th century. But why were they created? 

This presentation will include an updated review of this important site and discuss its figural groupings, possible usage and apparent relationship to other regional petroglyph sites.

And

                                                        The Safe Harbor Petroglyphs 

                                                        –Looking for Meaning

Paul Nevin

Rock Art Researcher & Authority on Lower Susquehanna River Rock Art

The Petroglyphs at Safe Harbor, Lancaster County, PA have evoked wonder for more than 150 years. These rock carvings have often been described as “enigmatic” - difficult or impossible to interpret or understand. Is it indeed impossible, or can we begin to get a sense of their purpose and meaning?  Since first visiting the petroglyphs in the 1980’s a fascination and desire to understand their meaning has been a challenging task that has often been met with skepticism. “How can we ever know what was in the minds of the ancient people who created these images?”   Their possible meaning as theorized by Nevin will be presented along with evidence to support them.

9:50-10:20 a.m.         Session 2        Stone Landscapes in 

                                                           Pennsylvania and the 

                                                           Northeast

Daniel Cassidy,  AECOM

Jesse Bergevin , Oneida Indian Nation

Christopher Bergman, AECOM     

The Stone Landscapes of Pennsylvania and adjoining Northeastern states are typically composed of well-crafted stone cairns, casual rock piles, and rock walls, as well as a variety of other dry-laid stone features.  Stone Landscapes are a matter of continuing scholarly debate as to their origin, period of construction, and purpose.  This paper discusses a number of locations in Pennsylvania and New York and presents data on geographic setting, morphology, methods of construction, and site-specific and regional spatial patterning.  Various theories regarding their origins are reviewed with an aim to better understanding these enigmatic landscape features, probably resulting from both Native American and Euroamerican activities.

10:20-10:40 a.m.         Break   coffee and snacks

                       

10:40-11:20 a.m.         Session 3       Ohio Hopewell:  Bridging 

                                                           the Sacred and Profane

Paul Pacheco

Associate Professor & Chair
Department of Anthropology
SUNY Geneseo

The central mystery in understanding the construction and use of the great Central Ohio earthworks and mounds during the Middle Woodland Period is how and why would low density tribal populations, reliant to a large degree on fluctuating natural resources, expend so much energy on what most would classify as ceremonial behavior?  This presentation attempts to provide an answer to this question by integrating what we know about Ohio Hopewell settlement and subsistence practices with current attempts to understand the cultural meaning served by the earthwork/mound centers.  My perspective is both multi-scalar and landscape focused, looking at symbolism from household to inter-regional scales.   My goal will be to provide a bridge across the sacred and profane dichotomy which has come to dominate Ohio Hopewell archaeology in recent decades.

11:20 a.m-12:00 p.m      Session 4     Burial Ceremonialism at 

                                                             Sugar Run Mound (36WA359), 

                                                             a Hopewellian Squawkie Hill

                                                             Phase Site, Warren County, Pennsylvania

Mark McConaughy, Preservation Specialist

Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office

Sugar Run Mound (36WA359) is a Squawkie Hill phase Hopewel­lian burial mound located in Warren County, Pennsylvania. There were three separate periods of mound burial construction at this site. The earliest burial phase included production of two effigies of a bird and possible celt/ax made from large stone cobbles, on two sides of a central cobble cist. Multiple cremations were interred under the bird effigy of Mound Unit 1. Mound Unit 2 consisted of two stone box tombs each containing an extended burial with some secondary burials placed around them. Mound Unit 3 had an extended burial laid on the existing ground surface. The different modes of burial and associated grave goods indicate the function of Sugar Run Mound changed through time. This presentation explores those changes.

                                                     

12:00–1:15 p.m.            Lunch (on your own) - see order form for box lunch option

1:15-1:55 p.m.               Session 5       Shell Effigies and Animal 

                                                              Symbolism in Delaware Burial 

                                                              Ritual

R. Dustin Cushman

Adjunct Professor of Anthropology

Rowan University

This presentation examines the use of effigy grave goods within the context of burial rituals in the Delaware Valley and adjacent regions. Burial ritual among the Delaware evolved from pre-contact forms (before 1620 A.D.) to reinforce group cooperation and network creation during contact times when such behaviors and systems would have been advantageous. Shell effigy beads and pendants tend to be the most abundant forms of animal symbolism found, though effigy pipes, turtle shell rattles, bear teeth and antler headdresses are also present. Many of the animals selected appear in Delaware stories of creation and death; and therefore may symbolize life, death, and the liminality of the in between.

1:55-2:35 p.m.             Session 6       Effigies of the Susquehannock

              

Janet R. Johnson

Curator, The State Museum of Pennsylvania

The Susquehannock Indians who lived in the Lower Susquehanna River from about 1575 AD to 1763 are often identified with distinct attributes of ceramic production.  Their ceramics have been examined and classified by several archaeologists in developing a typology of Susquehannock pottery attributes.   The Washington Boro phase of the Susquehannock sequence which dates from approximately 1610-1630 AD exhibits the greatest number of effigy symbols. Researchers have examined the patterns and placement of effigies on pottery as an expression of social change or acculturation.  This presentation will focus on the complexity of these design elements, examining patterns for indicators of individuality or replication across multiple Susquehannock sites.  

2:35-3:15 p.m.           Session 7       Powerful Pipes: Base Metal 

                                                          Smoking Pipes of the 17^th 

                                                          and 18^th Centuries

Rich Veit

Professor and Chair

Monmouth University

Tobacco pipes are among the most personal and intimate of artifacts.  Archaeologists have found them to be valuable tools for dating sites, tracking trade networks, and examining social groupings.  This presentation examines an unusual subset of tobacco pipes, the base metal smoking pipes used and possibly made by Native American peoples in the Northeast in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.  Ranging from miniscule to massive, these pipes, which often bear elaborate ornamentation, are found across much of eastern North America.  It concludes that metal tobacco pipes were part of a broader suite of artifacts used during the Contact Period that reflect a melding of Old and New World traditions.

                           

3:15-3:30 p.m.            Break   coffee and snacks

3:30-4:10 p.m.            Session 8      Beadwork Designs

Rosemary Hill  

Beaver Clan and member of the Tuscarora Nation     

This presenter will share beadwork designs and techniques of raised beadwork as taught within the Tuscarora community.  Traditional designs were acquired through generations from mother, grandmother, great-aunt and several other Tuscarora women beadwork teachers. The session will highlight these beading techniques along with the reason and meaning of patterns, and variety of family connection that the beading brings to the generations of our people.

The women of the Tuscarora Nation have preserved their gift of beading by teaching to members in the community, as well as generations of their own families. This session will feature pieces of original Tuscarora bead work examples as well as examples created by the artist.

4:10-4:50 p.m.             Conclusions/Closing Summary                                                                                                                

William Engelbrecht

Professor Emeritus

SUNY/Buffalo State

We are often reluctant to study symbols of the past since we can never know with certainty the complexity of meaning with which they were imbued. Yet, Native Americans were and are spiritual people. When we who study the Native past fail to acknowledge this and ignore possible spiritual symbolism, our reconstruction of this past is impoverished. However, uncritical projection of contemporary beliefs and concerns into the past must be avoided. An approach which weighs multiple lines of evidence including Native oral tradition should be encouraged in assessing the possible meaning of past symbols.

4:50 – 5:00 p.m.           Closing Comments - questions and discussion

5:00 – 6:00 p.m.             Social in the Hall of Anthropology and                                         Archaeology, Second Floor

In addition to the presentations, attendees can share their archaeological discoveries with staff from the State Historic Preservation Office who will provide assistance with identifying artifacts and recording archaeological sites, essential tasks for protecting and preserving our archaeological heritage. An additional offering includes a demonstration by a master flintknapper who will make stone tools using Native American techniques. A reception at the close of the sessions will provide an opportunity for the attendees to meet with the presenters and staff in the Anthropology and Archaeology Gallery of The State Museum.

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m        Flint Knapping Demonstration 

                                           –Auditorium Foyer

Steve Nissly

This presentation will feature an expert flintknapper who will demonstrate how stone tools were made during the Prehistoric and Contact periods in Pennsylvania.

9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m         Site Recording in Cultural Resources Geographic                                            Information System-Susquehanna Room

Noel Strattan

State Historic Preservation Office

Recording of archaeological sites is an essential task in protecting and preserving our archaeological resources. 

1:10 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.       Artifact Identification –Susquehanna Room

Doug McLearen and Kira Heinrich

State Historic Preservation Office

These individuals have over 50 years of combined experience with archaeological artifacts.  Bring in your historic or prehistoric artifacts for identification and analyses by the experts.

More information and registration information can be found in the 2016 Archaeology Workshops brochure or by contacting Kurt Carr at kcarr@pa.gov.  There is a registration fee to attend this event.

	Registration Fee:    $25.00  Early Registration  Deadline(October 21)             $15.00  Student                               $15.00  Heritage Society, SPA,               and PAC Members                          35.00 at door- No Discount

 

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