Mysteries of the Tuaoi Stone of Atlantis

Every few years, inquiries about a mysterious object make their way through the offices of the State Museum. We’re here to set the record straight that this object is not, nor has ever been, in the possession of the State Museum of Pennsylvania. This week’s blog is courtesy of one of our volunteers in the Section of Archaeology, Addison Warner. Addison has an interest in Meso-American archaeology, and “volunteered” to write about Pennsylvania’s connection to the Maya culture. Enjoy this short piece about the mystery surrounding this unusual object from south of the border.

Cayce Power Stone

It has been rumored for many years that the Tuaoi Stone, also known as the fire stone or emblem stone, the all powerful Atlantean crystal, is hidden amongst the collections of the State Museum of Pennsylvania. Atlantis is the mythical continent that according to Greek legends existed in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. As the legend goes, the inhabitants were the most technologically advanced culture in the world. Just before the continent sank into the ocean in a fiery explosion, a few Atlanteans escaped to the four corners of the earth, taking with them, the concept of pyramids, agriculture and the wheel.

Yet today, there still remains a mystery as to who possesses this powerful stone and where it remains hidden. It has been purported that this stone possesses the power to provide energy for daily life, rejuvenating the human body to a younger state. Legend has it that it will allow for harnessing fusion fuel from the sea water and even reduce the gravity on certain objects. These are just a few of the stone’s supposed powerful abilities. One can see the desire for our modern culture to locate and exploit its power.


During its final collapse around 10,000 B.C., the inhabitants of Atlantis spread their culture and knowledge throughout the world. They brought with them the power of the Tuaoi Stone to the Maya culture, in what is now modern day Guatemala and the Yucatan region of Mexico. This is where the Tuaoi stone was reported to be rediscovered in the early 1930’s by an American prophet Edgar Cayce. According to Cayce’s writings the crude crystal was unearthed by E. R. Johnson during excavations from 1931-1938 in a Maya site called “Piedras Negras”, in the Northern Guatemalan lowlands. Johnson was in collaboration with the Pennsylvania state museum and the emblem stone was given to the Pennsylvania state museum following the 1933 field season. According to the State Museum of Pennsylvania’s records, no archaeological excavations were ever conducted by the State Museum in the region of the Maya culture. However, archaeologist Dr. John Alden Mason from the University of Pennsylvania conducted several excavations in Central America in the early 1930’s. In coordination with the University of Pennsylvania, they claim that no such stone was ever given to them or is in their possession. This remains a huge mystery for believers of the lost continent of Atlantis. Both the State Museum of Pennsylvania and the University of Pennsylvania have no knowledge of such an artifact existing or being in their possession. So where is the mysterious Tuaoi stone? Who possess its power… and where does it remain hidden? These are questions that will fuel the fire for further investigations as to what really happened to the Tuaoi stone itself and the lost culture of Atlantis.

Next week’s entry promises to be free of crop circles, UFOs or any other wingnut conspiracy theories that may be out there. Until then, stay scientific.



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

Antler Flakers

Figure 1, antler flakers

Among the essential media utilized by Native American cultures for making tools for daily use were the horns from deer, elk and other cervids living around them. Much of this material, better known as antler was worked and shaped by carving, scraping, grinding and smoothing with stone tools and in more recent times with tools of iron such as axes, knives and other similar items obtained through trade with Europeans after their arrival in the New World. Many of these objects are found in the material record when archaeologists investigate Native American habitation sites through careful excavation.

In Pennsylvania and other parts of eastern North America some of these antler objects were used to make something else – in a manner of speaking, tools to make tools. Examples of this are the so-called “antler flakers” used to knap arrowheads and other stone tools (Figure 1). These unique tools are remarkably uniform in shape and size from region to region. Antler flakers, however, vanish from the archaeological record by the mid-1630’s when their utility becomes obsolete due to new innovations in Native American tool kits . Coupled by a cursory search of the files and repository at the State Museum of Pennsylvania’s Section of Archaeology and a review of the literature on the topic provides us with information on a sample of these objects which follows.

Free-hand pressure chipping of the Klamath Indians. (Schumacher 1877)

For comparison, data from three cultural regions around the Finger Lakes of New York and, the lower Susquehanna of southcentral Pennsylvania were used that provide us with some interesting insight on antler flakers. During the early to mid-sixteenth century antler flakers show up on early proto-Mohawk sites located in the Mohawk valley of eastern New York. There, three sites, Garoga, Klock and Smith-Pagerie yielded ten antler flakers, a small number when compared to compilations from other sites (Funk and Kuhn 2003). At a fourth Mohawk site, the Rice’s Woods site dated to the AD 1580 -1614 period, six additional antler flakers were found all sharing similar morphological attributes (Snow 1995; Figure 5.26).

Within the Seneca sequence (Wray 1973) antler flakers have been found at five early proto-historic Iroquois sites where they are apparently common, in fact, quite common (Wray et al. 1987; 1991; 2001). At the Adams, Tram and Cameron sites, Seneca settlements occupied in the late 16th to possibly the earliest decades of the 17th century, the morphology of antler flakers mirror that which is found in the Mohawk data, albeit present in greater frequency. These variations in the data might best be explained by differences in the provenience data of the two regions (ie. middens vs. cemeteries).

Bone chipping implement of the Eskimo (Murdoch 1892)

In the lower Susquehanna valley, antler flaker data from the Susquehannock occupations at Schultz and Washington Boro village sites show a similar chronological pattern when comparisons are made with the New York sites, especially Seneca and the later Rice’s Woods Mohawk site. Excavations conducted at the Schultz and Washington Boro sites in the early 1930’s (Cadzow 1936) and again at Washington Boro in the early 1950’s (Witthoft nd.) followed again at Schultz in the 1970’s (Smith 1970; Casselberry 1971; Kent 1984) provide us with the largest sample of antler flakers for Susquehannock. For villages of the lower Susquehanna valley the majority of these tools were found in the middens and trash pits of the longhouses and near the palisades where the Susquehannocks would go to build their settlements.

Why do antler flakers disappear from the archaeological record around the beginning of the 17th century? The reason simply may be the change in tool technologies of the Native Americans at that time. With the infusion of European made trade kettles beginning around AD 1615-1625 stone arrowheads were rapidly being replaced with metal tipped arrow heads fashioned from cut kettle scraps made in the shape of their stone age predecessor. These small bit lethal weapon tips begin to turn up at the beginning of the 17th century. By the second to third decade of the 17th century metal arrow points are extremely common on all Iroquoian sites. By the third decade of the 17th century a few sites begin to yield evidence of guns which were beginning to be introduced into the native material culture in exchange for furs and other desired commodities. By the 1640’s (post Washington Boro Period) guns were largely the preferred weapon of choice of the Native American. Eventually bow and arrow technology was replaced by these new inventions which negated the need for the antler flaker.

References:

Cadzow, D. A.
1936 Archaeological Studies of the Susquehannock Indians of Pennsylvania. Safe Harbor Report No.2. Pennsylvania Historical Commission, Harrisburg.

Casselberry, S.E.
1971 The Schultz-Funk Site (36LA7): Its Role in the Culture History of the Susquehannocks and Shenks Ferry Indians. Doctoral thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Funk, R.E. and R.D. Kuhn
2003 Three Sixteenth Century Mohawk Iroquois Village Sites. New York State Museum Bulletin 503. The University of the State of New York. The State Education Department, Albany.

Kent, B. C.
1984 Susquehanna’s Indians. Anthropological Series No.6. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Murdoch, J.
1892 Ethnological Results of the point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Report. Bureau of American Ethnology. Pp.19-441. Washington.

Schumacher, P.
1877 Methods of Making Stone Weapons. Bulletin of the U.S. Geological and Geological Survey Terr. Vol .3 pp. 547-549. Washington.

Smith, I.F.
1970 Schultz Site Settlement Patterns and External Relations: A Preliminary Discussion and Possible Interpretation. New York State Archaeological Association Bulletin 50: 27-34.

Snow, D.R.
1995 Mohawk Valley Archaeology: The Sites. Volume 1. The Institute for Archaeological Studies, University at Albany SUNY, Albany

Witthoft, J.
Nd. Unpublished Field Notes – Eschelman Site (36LA12). Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania.

Wray, C.F.
1973 Manual for Seneca Iroquois Archeology. Culture primitive, Inc. Rochester.

Wray, C.F. et al.
1987 The Adams and Culbertson Sites. Research Records No. 19. Rochester Museum and Science Center. Rochester.

Wray, C.F. et al.
1991 Tram and Cameron: Two Early Contact Era Seneca Sites. Research Records No. 21. Rochester Museum and Science Center. Rochester.

Wray, C.F. etal. 2001 Dutch Hollow and Factory Hollow: The Advent of Dutch Trade Among the Seneca. Research Records No. 24. Rochester Museum and Science Center. Rochester.

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

Talking Turkey

Once again we turn our thoughts towards Native peoples and the first Thanksgiving celebration. Last year when we wrote this blog we discussed the three sisters, corn, beans and squash and their likely spot on the table. This year, our focus will turn to the main course of the celebration on most dinner tables in the United States for at least the past 100 years- the Turkey. Thanksgiving did not become a National Holiday until 1863 when President Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring the date as the last Thursday in November.

Much has been written about the foods served at the first Thanksgiving and a record of the event published in 1622 (Mourt's Relation)refers to the gathering of “fowl” which likely included wild ducks, geese, quail and other game. The pilgrims referred to all birds as “fowl” and did not make a distinction of turkey so we can not determine with any certainty if turkey were actually part of the celebration.

Archaeological excavations have yielded the faunal remains of turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) at most Native American sites of the Late Woodland period. An interesting assemblage from the Eschelman Site, Lancaster County provided evidence of the butchering and processing methods employed by Native peoples. Eschelman Site was the midden or “garbage dump” site for the Susquehannock Washington Boro Village which dates from approximately 1600-1625. The population estimate for this village is roughly 1700 (Kent 1984) based on archaeological evidence of house size and stockade lines. This was a fairly large population which would have required a varied food supply.

The species present in this assemblage include the usual deer, bear, beaver raccoon and turkey to identify a few of the more dominant. Formulas that have been developed for estimating “minimum numbers” (MNI) of species were employed in producing the following data.

Butchering marks visible on the faunal assemblage indicate that turkeys were either skinned or plucked and then butchered to remove heads, feet and wings at the shoulder joint. The bird was then placed whole in a pot until the meat was removed and the bones were “boiled clean”. No cut marks were present on femora, dorsal vertebrae or sternums and no charring or scraping marks were visible.

The relatively high number of turkey available in this collection brings about the question of whether this is a normal or high percentage in comparison with other Susquehannock sites. Of the analyzed data available it would appear that this is a higher than normal percentage of turkey represented. The following table compares the minimum number of individuals (MNI) for each of the five taxons previously identified in the assemblages from four Susquehannock sites.




While the data suggests that turkey played a larger role in the diet of Native peoples in the period from 1600- 1625, it is also understood that the assemblage from Washington Boro, the Eschelman midden site may contain a larger sample size due to the nature of the site. The pattern though does raise some interesting questions in the role of village size and demand on the turkey population. Strickler site population is estimated at 2900 (Kent 1984) an increase of 1200 people since the Washington Boro site. The population of Susquehannocks declines after about 1660 and estimates drop to 900 individuals for the Byrd Leibhart site. Could demand have exceeded supply and thus fewer birds were available to the residents of Byrd Leibhart?

Historic accounts document over hunting of turkey by early settlers which led to a rapid decline in the species. By the early 1800’s the population was almost eradicated as hunters harvested them without any regulation. The remaining birds were found in the central counties in the ridge and hill top woods of Pennsylvania. Demand for lumber and the resulting stripping and deforestation of “Penn’s Woods” further decimated the flock.

The creation of the Pennsylvania Game Commission in 1895 and efforts to regenerate forests saved the estimated few thousand birds from complete extirpation. It was not until 1905 that a limit of one turkey a day for a six week hunting season was introduced. Various methods were employed over the next fifty years including the raising of turkeys by the Commission for release and wildlife management practices. This increased regulation and population supplements led to the first state wide hunting season in 1954. Ten counties did not have a natural population of turkey and those areas were supplied with “game farm raised” turkeys. Careful control over the next fifty years and the “trap and transfer” program implemented by the Game Commission restored the turkey population and led to the elimination of turkey farms operated by the Commission.



Whether the turkey was actually part of that first Thanksgiving is debatable, but what is not in question is its important role in the history of this Commonwealth. Most of us will partake of a turkey from our local grocer or farm market, but for those lucky enough to bag a wild turkey be thankful for the foresight of the Commission in preserving these impressive birds. The following quote from Ben Franklin summarizes the majesty of this bird and his rightful place in history-

Ben Franklin wrote to his daughter regarding his disappointment that the Bald Eagle was chosen over the turkey as the National Bird.

"For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.”



Kent, Barry C. 1984. Susquehanna's Indians. Anthropological Series No. 6 Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Guilday, J.E.,P.W. Parmalee, and D.P. Tanner. 1962. Aboriginal Butchering Techniques at the Eschelman Site (36La12), Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 32(2):59-83.

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