Tri-Counties Genealogy & History by Joyce M. Tice
Tri-County Articles
Bradford County PA
Chemung County NY
Tioga County PA

Photo of Spanish Hill 1999 by Joyce M. Tice
A House has since been built on the top
Tri-County Genealogy & History Sites Home Page
How to Use This Site
Warning & Disclaimer
Athens Borough & Township Page
More Local History Articles
No Unauthorized Commercial Use
Say Hello to Joyce 
Joyce's Search Tip - November 2008
Do You Know that you can search just the articles on the site by using the Articles button in the Partitioned search engine at the bottom of the Current What's New Page
Susquehannocks, Brûlé and Carantouannais:

A Continuing Research Problem*

(The Bulletin and Journal of Archaeology of New York State, Number 91, Fall 1985 pages 39-51)

Richard J. McCracken Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology

Regional Conservation Archaeologist,

Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh

ABSTRACT

Between 1876 and 1878, General John S. Clark of Auburn, New York, developed his hypothesis regarding identification of the Carantouannais as the Susquehannocks, suggested the location of the village of Carantouan, and interpreted Etienne Brule’s account of his journey of 1615-1618. His ideas were accepted with little dissent. This paper summarizes archaeological data refuting most of Clark’s work, states the need to research old questions anew, and discusses dissemination and use, on a continuing bases, of existing data in applying a "direct archaeological approach" to history.

INTRODUCTION

"Archaeology offers a method of checking and criticizing the older theories of Indian prehistory and a technique for reconstructing the history of ancient peoples during late prehistoric times. This, the "direct historical approach" to archaeology, is beginning to clarify many realms of American prehistory" (Witthoft 1959:20). So wrote John Witthoft in 1959.

One pitfall in using the direct historical approach in reconstructing history, particularly during the early contact period, is a failure on the part of later researchers to continue to question earlier results or to accept contrasting data acquired through the practice of field archaeology. In order for the direct historical approach to have valid meaning, its results must be disseminated to and used by those who are actively engaged in the disciplines of anthropology and history. Both disciplines must be made aware of what the other is doing; must correlate and synthesize results; and must question and test theories. Lines of battle must be drawn. Strong offensive and defensive positions must be established. The mild, equivocating demurral so common in our technical writing today, while intended to avoid conflict and confrontation, does little to advance knowledge. Those whose theories are to succeed, to stand the test of time, must be positive and forceful in advancing their theories. They must draw the criticism of colleagues, and their theories must either stand or fall upon their merits.

A case in point, illustrating how researchers have been ponderously slow in acting upon conflicting data, are General John S. Clark’s treatment of the events surrounding the 1615 attack by Champlain and his Huron allies upon the Entohonoron. Therein, he identified the Entohonoron as Onondaga; placed their fort at Nichol’s Pond; identified the Carantouannais as the Andaste (Susquehannocks); located the village of Carantouan at Spanish Hill, identified two additional Susquehannock towns which he associated with the three-hamlet Susquehannock, story of Brule; and even suggested the paths of march to Nichol’s Pond of both Champlain and the Susquehannocks (cf. Murray 1931).

GENERAL JOHN S. CLARK AND NICHOL’S POND

For the past 106 years Clark, perhaps more than any other person, has had a profound effect upon researchers and scholars of the French/Iroquois relationship.

J. S. Clark of Auburn, New York, farmer, surveyor, civil engineer, philologist and antiquarian, devoted much of the latter half of his life to the study of the Iroquois, their language, and most specifically to the location of their villages as recorded by early French, Dutch and English explorers. His stated goal was to identify the position of every Indian town in New York (Ibis:xiv;4). In this he collaborated with several of the leading authorities of the day. Acceptance of many of his ideas and theories was swift and nearly total, not by way of proof which he offered but, it would appear, more by the force of his personality. Such certainly was the case in his equation of the Carantouannais as the Susquehannocks and the location of their of Carantouan at the site of Spanish Hill. When J. S. Clark spoke, people listened! Most of his conclusions regarding Champlain’s 1615 campaign were based upon either his comparative studies of linguistics and phonemics or upon his interpretation and interpolation of early maps. Upon what evidence he based his conclusion that Carantouan was located at Spanish Hill is not clear. Certainly, from the standpoint of today’s requirement to present evidence in support of conclusions, Clark’s hypotheses doe no meet the test.

CREATING A LEGEND

By 1877, Clark had advocated the location of the Entohonoron fort attacked by Champlain and the Huron in 1615 at the foot of Nichol’s Pond in the Town of Fenner, Madison County, New York. So firm in his advocacy of this location was he that in an address before the Pioneer’s Association of Syracuse, Clark made the following pronouncement:

I claim especially to understand the record of Champlain by following his narrative verbatim et literatum, and accepting is estimates of distances, his map and illustrations, I stand on no uncertain grounds. I understand the question thoroughly. I know that I am right. I desire no misunderstanding. I take the affirmative and throw down the gauntlet to all comers; and if any choose to enter the list, I have the most unbounded confidence that it will not be me that will be borne from the field discomfited. I identify the site as certainly as any gentleman can identify his wife at the breakfast table after ten years of married life… (Marshall 1887:44-45). In 1955, at the urging of William A. Ritchie, Peter P. Pratt took up the gauntlet as the basis for his Ph.D. dissertation on the Oneida (Pratt 1977:51). As a result of Pratt’s work, Clark’s Nichol’s Pond pronouncement was archaeologically disproved (Ibid:51-62).

The year following his Nichol’s Pond discourse (1878) Clark turned his attention to the location of Carantouan and to the Andaste (Susquehannocks) of Pennsylvania. Following publication of the address on Nichol’s Pond the Reverend David Craft of Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, wrote to Clark offering his assistance in the planned study of the Andaste (Murray 1931:3). Craft had been independently working to establish the location within Bradford County of ancient Indian towns mentioned by various early writers (Ibid), and had just completed writing a history of the county (Craft 1878). The collaboration of Clark and Craft was to have considerable impact upon future researchers as the location of Carantouan at Spanish Hill and the Carantouannais/Susquehannock equation came into general use (cf. Butterfield 1898; Beauchamp 1905; Grant 1907; Murray 1908; Biggar 1929; Jurgens 1966; Stewart 1970; Jennings 1978; and others).

In this same year (1878) Clark and Craft visited the location of Spanish Hill, which is situated on the east bank of the Chemung River near South Waverly, Athens Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. This archaeological site, which lies within the New York State border, has been designated 36BR27 by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. While there, they interviewed several local collectors and themselves collected artifacts from the site. Clark surveyed the hill, maps of which are contained in Murray’s volume (1931:19;23;33).

Thus far we have touched upon events which led to Clark’s interpretations of the works of Champlain, Sagard and Brebeuf. Clark never published the results of his work. Until his death in 1912 he continued to work on his maps, notes and manuscripts, making changes and adding marginal annotations (Ibid:xv), apparently, we must assume, not satisfied that the manuscripts were complete. Following his visit to Spanish Hill, a local newspaper, The Waverly Advocate, published the result of interviews with Clark and of a written report which he prepared for them (Ibid:18-33).

In 1908 Louise Welles Murray, of Athens, Pennsylvania (editor of Selected Manuscripts of General John S. Clark Relating to the Aboriginal History of the Susquehanna, 1931) published an excellent history of Tioga Point (see Murray 1908). This work is one of the best researched, most comprehensive and well written local histories of its kind. In this volume Mrs. Murray devoted some 190 pages summarizing local and regional Indian archaeology and history. Much of an entire chapter was give to the story of Champlain, Brule and the Andaste. Being acquainted with, and having discussed the development of Clark’s ideas with both he and the Reverend Craft, she fully accepted and amplified their hypotheses. Although she considered, even mentioned conflicting ideas, she wholeheartedly supported Clark. Again, in 1931, she authored a paper on sites located in the Athens area which was published in the American Anthropologist (Murray 1921. This two-part series contained a defense of her support of Clark’s hypotheses (Ibid:288-290). More will be said of this monograph later in the paper.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF SPANISH HILL

By 1918 Clark’s ideas had come under serious attack, however, until then very little serious archaeology had been done on or near Spanish Hill. In 1916, Warren K. Moorehead mounted the Susquehanna River Expedition under the auspices of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. One of the primary purposes of this expedition was to locate and excavate Andaste villages and cemeteries. Arriving at Tioga Point, Moorehead was called back to Andover, leaving Alanson Skinner in charge of the party. Assisting Skinner at this location was George P. Donehoo, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission. In 1918 Donehoo issued a report to the Commission on the archaeological investigation of Spanish Hill:

Spanish Hill has always been considered as being the site of this village of Carantouan. The hill itself is a natural fortification, overlooking the Chemung Valley… An investigation of Spanish Hill gave no evidence whatever of it having been a permanent village site… many test holes and trenches were dug, not only on the hill, but upon the side of it. The soil at no place gave evidence of any long occupation, or even of a short occupation by a large number of people… If Spanish Hill was the site of the stockade containing 800 men, some evidence of that occupation should be found… We found a few scattered fragments of pottery on the surface. Nothing whatever in any of the test holes which we dug… Brule does not say that it was upon a hilltop. The hilltop contains several acres of land. It is difficult to ascend on all sides. There is no water obtainable on the hill. It could be used as a place of defense for a short time, but not as a permanent village site… All of the members of the expedition were disappointed in the very poor results in the investigation of this farmers hill… The author of this brief sketch wishes to emphasize the fact that the statements made concerning Spanish Hill are his own. General John S. Clark, so far as the author is aware, was the first writer to advance the theory that Spanish Hill was the site of the Carantouan of Brule and Champlain. This location has been accepted by nearly all of the local history writers, upon what seems to the author to be very unscientific grounds. Even the map of Champlain does not place a village on Spanish Hill, nor does it five the name (Carantouan)… Mrs. Louise Welles Murray, who has done so much historical work in the vicinity of Athens, does not agree with the author as to the situation of the permanent village site of Carantouan. She, and many others, insist upon the Spanish Hill location. Mrs. Murray is conducting investigations on Spanish Hill, with a view of finding the village site. The author hopes that her work may be successful in every way, and that she may discover scientific evidence of a permanent, pre-historic Iroquois village site at this place. The author has no desire to cast aside traditions which are supported by scientific investigation. But, when scientific investigation is opposed in its results to the local traditions, the author accepts the former rather than the latter (Donehoo 1918:131-134). So strong a disclaimer, by a man of such notable reputation as Donehoo, should have caused serious doubt in the minds of most researchers. Taking a much weaker stand, Moorehead said in the same publication that the excavations at Spanish Hill were a great disappointment to him: Over 400 test pits were sunk on the hill itself and on the neighboring flats, but no indication of a large site could be discovered (Moorehead 1918:121). As previously stated, Murray published an article in 1921 which included a defense of Clark’s theort. In that report she failed to mention anything which Moorehead and Donehoo had to say of their archaeological investigation of Spanish Hill.

Louise Welles Murray died in 1931, the same year that her collection of Clark’s papers was published. In editing these papers, she never mentioned Donehoo, Moorehead, Skinner or the Susquehanna River Expedition of 1916. Nor did she mention them in he selected bibliography which she, perhaps craftily, defined as "References and Sources Cited by Clark in "Carantouan" and "Andaste" (Murray 1931:133)," thereby avoiding any outside references.


Figure 1. The Susquehanna River Watershed.

Figure 2. Proto-Susquehannock sites.


New York State sites, not numbered

1. Engelbert Cemetery SB, SI
2. Engelbert Flats PS, RM
3. Litchfield Station PS, RM, SI
4. Ellis Creek SB, SI
5. Winkelman PS, RM?

Pennsylvania sites, with state-assigned numbers
 

6. Spanish Hill (36BR27) ----
7. Clapp-Liddard (36BR28) ----
8. Heath (36BR144) SB, SI
9. Ahbe-Brennan (36BR42) SB, SI
10. Tioga Point Museum (36BR1) SB, SI
11. Murray Garden (36BR2) SB, SI
12. Tioga Point Farm (36BR3) SB, SI, PS, RM
13. Murray Farm (36BR5) SB, SI
14. Kennedy (36BR43) SB, SI, PS, RM
15. Nagle Farm (36BR15) PS, RM, SI
16. Ulster Creamery (36BR9) PS, RM, SI
17. Rockwell I (36BR10) SB, PS, RM
18. Blackman (36BR83) SB, SI, PS, RM
19. Oscalui (Ogehage?) (36BR41) PS, RM
20. Sick (36BR50) SI, RM, PS
21. Wilson (36BR58) PS, RM, SI
22. Strickland (36BR76) PS, RM, SI
23. Cass (36BR57) PS, RM, SI
24. Wysox Flats (36BR56) PS, SI
25. Homets Ferry (36BR70?) PS, SI
26. Wyalusing (Gohontoto?) (36BR68) PS, SI

Key

SB Susquehannock burial(s).
SI Schultz Incised pottery, in burials or found on surface.
PS Proto-Susquehannock pottery, in burials? Or found on surface.
RM Richmond Mills Incised pottery, found on surface.

Figure 3. Maps key.

Prior to her death she had arranged through a grant from the National Research Council to employ James B. Griffin to conduct excavations at several sites in Bradford county, one of which was Spanish Hill (Kent 1984:301). Jessee Welles Murray succeeded her mother, Louise, as director of Tioga Point Museum, and in this capacity she received and monitored the grant.

In his report of the 1931 excavations, Griffin wrote (1931:31-36) that eight trenches, 20 inches to 32 inches [50.8 to 81.3cm] wide, by 10 feet to 16 feet [3.05 to 4.9m] in length were dug to depths of from 36 inches to 45 inches [91.4 to 114.3cm] below surface, across the purported embankments surrounding the perimeter of the hill. In addition, "numerous test pits" were dug.

Within Trench 3, one grit tempered pottery rim sherd, exhibiting 45-degree incising, was found. And in Trench 1, a thin layer of charcoal upon fire-colored earth, which he assessed as antedating the formation of the embankment by some considerable period of time, were noted. No additional artifactual material or features were located in any of the eight trenches, and contents of the test pits were not mentioned, thereby giving the impression that content was negligible. He noted that no post molds or evidence of interior/exterior trenching were present, and that the stratigraphy of the embankment indicated that it was created during more than one episode..

In conversations with Dr. Griffin, he stated to the author that the purported "embankment" reported by Murray and others (L. Murray 1908:58-59; E. Murray 1921:289-290) appeared to have been created through post-contact period cultivation, most probably during or shortly following the initial colonial period of occupation. He further said that it is his firm belief that the embankment was purposely created by farmers in order to forestall erosion of the upper perimeter and sides of the hill (Griffin 1984).

Griffin’s report on Spanish Hill has not been published, however, Barry Kent summarizes his work as follows:

By this time considerable interest had been aroused concerning the archaeology of Bradford County, particularly in the area of Andaste (of Susquehannock) studies, and the identification of the occupants of Spanish Hill (36BR27)… Griffins work confirmed the presence of a few Indian artifacts on top of Spanish Hill, but had his report been published, it would have put to rest any further concerns about its being the site of Carantouan, or its having Indian earthworks around it top margins, (Kent 1984:33-34). Jessie Welles Murray died in 1935 and was succeeded by her sister, Dr. Elsie Murray. In 1936, Elsie Murray reported on flood damage caused to the area surrounding Spanish Hill (E. Murray 1936:13-18). In this she wrote of a stockaded village on the flats beneath the hill which Ellsworth Cowles, a local historian and amateur archaeologist appointed by the Tioga Point Museum to investigate Spanish Hill, identified as Andaste. Retest of this site (36BR28) by the Pennsylvania Historical Commission in 1964 and their reanalysis of Cowles’ material, proved it to be Owasco (Kent 1984:301) of e, A.D. 1300. Murray stated, "The rectangular palisade fell in line with Champlain’s map of Carantouan, with which Gen. J. S. Clark in 1878 had identified the Hill (E. Murray 1936:14)." She went on to relate the Brule story and footnoted the article with the following: "Clark’s conclusions were accepted by such authorities as J. S. Shea, Lewis Morgan and Justin Windsor (Ibid:17)." She did not mention the work of Moorehead’s Expedition and of Griffin; she tenaciously clung to the belief that Spanish Hill was the location of Carantouan.

In spite of the accumulating archaeological evidence to the contrary, Elsie Murray continued to advance Clark’s ideas through addresses and published papers (cf. E. Murray 1936; 1939;1946a; 1946b; 1948a; 1948b). It is most unfortunate that she did not qualify her conclusions by presenting results of Griffin’s work in 1931 and Donehoo’s observations in 1918. Furthermore, the report of Moorehead’s Expedition was published in 1938 (Moorehead 1938). It contained Donehoo’s report of 1918 to the Pennsylvania Historical Commission (Ibid:69). Moorehead stated in prefacing the quote that Donehoo’s opinion was in accord with his (Ibid).

In 1959 William A. Hunter, in "Historic Role of the Susquehannocks," questioned the use of Brule’s story thusly:

In connection with these more localized stories, we should insert a word of caution regarding the story of Etienne Brule and his supposed exploration of the Susquehanna in 1615-1618… but not until three years later did Champlain again encounter Brule, from whom he of course demanded an explanation, not only for the failure of his mission but also for neglecting to make any subsequent report. It should be obvious that any story told by Brule under such circumstances should be taken with several grains of salt, especially since there was no way of checking its accuracy. It may not be entirely irrelevant to note that Brule was later a turncoat and that Champlain dropped his story from later editions of his works. [Hunter1959:10-11]. Within the same volume (Witthoft and Kinsey 1959) John Witthoft fails to mention Brule, the Carantouannais or Spanish Hill in relation to the Susquehannocks. Clearly, he did not accept as much as the concept that there was any relevance here.

In 1979, Marilyn Crannell Stewart addressed Witthoft’s southern migration theory for Susquehannock sites and its reliance upon the Seneca dating sequence established by Wray and Schoff (cf. 1953) as follows:

Most archaeologists have accepted the migration hypothesis on the basis of the arguments outlined above, but there is contradictory evidence in Bruhle’s [sic] account of Carantouan, a large Susquehannock Village thought to be near Athens… in 1615. A Dutch map dated 1614 also places the Susquehannocks on the North Branch at this time. Both documents are in serious question, however. The problem can only be solved by a better knowledge of Bradford County archaeology. [Steward 1973:3]. Finally, Barry C. Kent’s definitive treatise on the Susquehannocks, published this year, contains several disclaimers regarding Etienne Brule and the Carantouan/Spanish Hill association, among which is the following: Historians have long puzzled over the people and location of the place which Etienne Brule described to Champlain as Carantouan… In the meantime Brule traveled in the area of Carantouan, including a trip down what is supposed to have been the Susquehanna River (Murray 1931:26) as far as the sea. Clark (Murray 1931) more than anyone else fretted over the location of Carantouan. Eventually, and with dogmatic assertion, he stated that it was "located beyond any possible question on the hill near Waverly, on the east bank of the Chemung, just south of the State line" (Murray 1931:22). Subsequent archaeological surveys at Spanish Hill (Moorehead 1918:121; 1938:68-69); Donehoo 1918:130-134; Griffin 1931a) and elsewhere in the Upper Susquehanna Valley (Witthoft 1959a; Lucy 1959; Stewart 1973) have failed to locate any evidence of seventeenth-century Susquehannock towns. Susquehannock materials which have been found in the region all relate to the Proto-Susquehannock and early Schultz periods of the sixteenth century. Here again, negative evidence from archaeology leaves us in doubt as to the significance of the interpretations of the Brule accounts, and for that matter any reference to seventeenth-century Susquehannock towns north of Lancaster County. [Kent1984:33-34]. The compilation of evidence thus far presented should put to rest the conclusion that Spanish Hill, or the flats beneath, could have been the site of Brule’s Carantouan.

THE SUSQUEHANNOCK SEQUENCE AND THE CARANTOUANNAIS

In 1953 Wray and Schoff established a sequence of Seneca site locations based on the study of trade goods found in their cemeteries and villages (Wray and Schoff 1953). Using a similar technique, Witthoft began applying this direct historical approach to his study of the Susquehannocks, results of which were published in 1953 (Witthoft and Kinsey 1959). In his book he established a basic sequence for the evolution of the Susquehannocks as a tribal unit and seriated their pottery sequence. One of his findings was that the Susquehannocks left Bradford County by 1575 and that, because of the absence of trade goods dating from e. 1550 to 1750 from this region, the area must have been depopulated for nearly 200 years. Subsequent archaeology in Bradford County, most notably in 1967-68 at the Engelbert Site (Elliott and Lipe 1970; Crannell 1970; Stewart 1973; Dunbar and Ruhl 1974), has failed to produce any evidence which would negate the dates previously established and, in fact, confirms Witthoft’s earlier findings. (All references within this paper to Bradford County, Pa., as relates to the Susquehannock occupation, are intended to include the contiguous Southern Tier area of New York State.) Most recently, and in light of more immediate findings, Barry Kent has refined Witthoft’s earlier sequence (Kent 1984:18). In his treatment of the Early Schultz Phase (i.e., the Bradford County Phase), Kent would establish 1550 as a terminal date for Susquehannock occupation within Bradford County and 1575 as a date for the establishment of Susquehannocks in the large stockaded village at the Schultz Site, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Ibid:18-19).

Kent states that during their occupation of Bradford County the Susquehannocks were living in small, scattered hamlets (Ibid:17;297;306) and he points out that no large, stockaded Early Schultz Phase villages have been found in Bradford County or the Southern Tier of New York. The lack of Susquehannock stockades in Bradford County would be prima-facie evidence that Brule’s Carantouannais could not have been living in Bradford County. Kent also states (Ibid:115) that the Susquehannocks derived from a poorly known earlier Proto-Susquehannock Phase. Subsequent to Kents writing of his book, Lucy and McCracken have analyzed and prepared a report, soon to be published in the Pennsylvania Archaeologist, on the first identified Proto-Susquehannock village. One of the most notable discoveries at this, the Blackman Site (36BR83), was the post mold pattern of a stockade. Sherd counts at this site (7:1 ratio) support the identification of the stockade as Proto-Susquehannock (Lucy and McCracken n.d.; see Kent 1984:304-305 for a counter analysis). In their report the authors suggest that large, stockaded Early Schultz Phase Susquehannock villages have not been found in Bradford County because they are not recognized as such. Early Schultz Phase pottery is known almost exclusively from excavation of graves. With one exception, the Wilson Site (McCann1962), living floors containing Early Schultz Incised pottery have not been found. Lucy and McCracken propose that the Bradford County Susquehannocks were using Richmond Mills Incised/Proto-Susquehannock Incised vessels in an everyday village life context and that the more fragile shell-tempered Schultz Incised pottery was used in a mortuary practice, reflecting a western Monongahela/Fort Ancient influence (cf. Crannel 1970; Stewart 1973). The association of Richmond Mills Incised pottery with Schultz Incised is demonstrated in the finding, in-situ of a Richmond Mills Incised pot nested within an Early Schultz Incised vessel in a Susquehannock burial on the Tioga Point Farm Site (36BR3) by Leroy Vanderpoel. Further, the authors point to a lack of Proto-Susquehannock Incised pottery in graves and of the immediate proximity of living floors containing Richmond Mills Incised/Proto-Susquehannock Incised ware to known Early Schultz Incised-furnished graves and cemeteries. That the proto-Susquehannock Phase people lived within stockaded villages can now be demonstrated.

Equation of Proto-Susquehannock with Early Schultz as a single phase characterized by the discrete use of two distinct pottery types is an hypothesis which, while intriguing in concept, still needs additional study. Possibly relevant to this argument are Kent’s observations that there are few instances of Proto-Susquehannock Incised and Schultz Incised intrasite associations (Kent 1984:297); that in later phases of the Susquehannock sequence most Strickler Cord-marked pottery was used as grave furniture (Ibid:139); and that there is a continuing Monongahela ceramic presence throughout this sequence (Ibid:142). The presence of stockaded Susquehannock villages during the Proto-Susquehannock Phase is indicated and their presence during the Early Schultz Phase (if the two phases were discrete) seems likely. Using a suggested absence of stockaded Susquehannock villages in an analysis of Brule’s story is no longer valid. Once again, more archaeology needs to be done in Bradford County.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE GOODS

The absence of trade goods from Early Schultz Phase sites in Bradford County is most significant in our analysis of the equation of the Carantouannais as the Susquehannocks. One of the artifacts most sensitive to dating is the European glass trade bead. This dating sequence has been worked out by American archaeologists who have found them in otherwise dateable contexts (Ibid:211). One reason why they are so valuable to the archaeological record is that they are the most numerous trade good found on contact period sites today (Ibid). Within Bradford County, Early Schultz Phase Susquehannock graves seldom yield more than one or two scrap brass or copper beads and many burials containing Early Schultz Incised pottery do not contain any beads at all. Glass beads are not found in these northern Susquehannock graves (see Kent 1984:297, who mentions an occasional glass bead in Susquehannock graves from within Bradford County). At the next stage in the Susquehannock development, the Schultz Site in Lancaster County, brass beads average one per burial and glass beads begin to appear, clearly indicating increased trade and at a later date. Witthoft and Kent have refined the dating of these beads to establish chronometric sequences. Based on their findings they have stated that the Susquehannocks had departed Bradford County by 1575 at the latest. The evidence is clear. The Susquehannocks were living at the Washington Boro Site in Lancaster County, when Brule made his journey to the Carantouannais in 1615. As Champlain states that Carantouan was a short three-days journey from the Onondaga Fort, it is out of the question to continue to equate the Carantouannais with the Susquehannocks. While the journey between Spanish Hill and either Nichol’s Pond or Lake Onondaga may have been a short three-days journey in 1615, it could not have been made in less than six days from Washington Boro. This elimination of the Susquehannocks from the picture raises new questions:

This last question is certainly open to debate, and for the most part, the answers to the first two questions rest upon finding the answer to the latter. Placement of Carantouan on the Susquehanna was done by Clark subsequent to his Carantouannais/Susquehannock equation. Champlain’s map of 1632 locates the Carantouannais on the Delaware River. This was said by Clark to be an error, a determination he made based on the statement of Brule that he traveled south ot Florida where the snow never stuck to the ground for more than a day. Annual mean temperatures upon the Chesapeake Bay are sometimes high enough to support this statement. As close as 50 miles east, the estuary of the Delaware River, with its many islands, could well have experienced a singularly mild winter in 1615-16. To summarily dismiss the Delaware River as the correct watercourse on which to place the Carantouannais is to second-guess the chronicler. If one were to move the location of the Carantouannais westward, it would not be completely improper to suggest the Allegheny River with its route to the Ohio-Mississippi drainage system.

The dotted line on Champlain’s 1632 map is also asserted to be the route taken by Brule to reach the Carantouannais, however, mention is seldom made of the fork this line depicts at its eastern terminus. If one were to assume this to be Brule’s route, with its dog-leg right hand turn near the terminus, what of the dog-leg left? May or must we assume this to be the route taken by Champlain and the Huron in their approach to the Onondaga Fort? Might we not assume that this line depicts a major path of communication over which natives traveled over long periods of time; a prominent highway so to speak?

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper has been to present current evidence which dispels forever the notion that Spanish Hill is the site of Brule’s Carantouan and to propose several questions which remain unsettled:

Today, 66 years after Donehoo’s analysis and publication of the results of the first intensive archaeological excavations of Spanish Hill, the controversy still rages at the local level. Several attempts have been made in the past to enshrine Spanish Hill and there is currently, once again, an attempt being made to do so. The Daughters of the American Revolution have established a Carantouan Chapter and the area Boy Scout camp is called Camp Brule. Failure of the scientific community to correct the record has aided in the perpetuation of a legend having no basis in fact, which has been archaeologically disproved, yet is accepted as fact by an unsuspecting public.

The author recently published two articles controverting the Brule legend in local historical society journals (McCracken 1984a;1984b). A local newspaper subsequently ran a feature story which called the papers controversial. Due to the ingrained nature of the legend, reasonable people are still very reluctant to accept the facts. Within the local community it is unlikely that the Brule legend will ever be put to rest, and Spanish Hill may someday become a shrine, as some are currently working to achieve.

This would be extremely unfortunate, for of equal interest to some is the origin of the name "Spanish Hill," said by early colonizers to have been called "Espana" or "Hispan" by ancestors of contact-period Indians (Murray 1908:62-63). Enhancing the image which this creates is the reported finding of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century artifacts attributed to Spanish origin, at or in the vicinity of Spanish Hill and near Owego, New York (Ibid). Also of interest is research being done by James F. Pendergast of the National Museum of Canada on the mid- to late-sixteenth century presence of the Spanish in the Chesapeake Bay (Pendergast 1983a;1983b). There is also the possibility of Spanish derivation of names or locations on the Block-Hendrickson maps of 1614 and 1616… This has the possibility of the beginnings of a replacement legend!

APOLOGIA

It is easy for one to sit back and review the works of others, particularly when one has the advantage of over 100 years of additional research and knowledge available. The author recognizes that this paper has been very critical of past researchers who have devoted much of the time and means to furthering knowledge. For this we apologize, and state that the paper has been prepared with both intent and purpose.

The intent has been to draw scholarly attention to a specific research problem and the manner in which it has been tacitly mishandled in the literature for over 100 years. The purpose has been to illustrate shortcomings in applying the direct approach to archaeological problems.

It is not enough to consult an authority of 25 to 50 years ago. New data is being recovered as such a rapid rate that this morning’s accepted ideas may be rendered obsolete by noon. Two principals are involved: one is to write and publish timely reports so that the data is available to researchers in useable form; the other is to do our homework, ask pointed questions, and if the answers fail to satisfy, take decisive action.

For the researcher who fails to question his work or the work of others, or who fails to keep abreast of the current state of information, the example herein given may one day be his reward. If conclusions are erroneous, they cannot constitute facts, and it is then up to us to set the record straight. And unless we do, we will enshrine many false legends. Historians need to become more aware of the archaeology being done today and they need to apply the results in a "direct archaeological approach" to history.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance received from Dr. Barry C. Kent, State Archaeologist, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Dr. Kent graciously allowed the use of several manuscript chapters of his book, Susquehanna’s Indians, in preparation of earlier papers on this subject. Also, from Dr. James F. Pendergast, Research Associate, National Museum of Canada, who permitted use of unpublished data, edited earlier papers, provided copies of obscure documents, and gave much-needed advice and guidance in the right direction. My deepest thanks to these two fine scholars.

In spite of the assistance and guidance given, the author if fully responsible for the entire content of this paper.

To assist future researchers, the following sources of documents are provided. The collection of the papers of John S. Clark are in the possession of the Cayuga County Historical Society, Auburn, New York. The collection of the papers of David Craft are housed in the Tioga Point Museum, Athens, Pennsylvania as are papers of both Louise nd Dr. Elsie Murray.

ADDENDUM

Subsequent to the preparation of this paper the author was shown an article published by Donald H. Kent (1976) which provides background data compiled from an historical perspective. This extremely well researched paper methodically and logically criticizes former research on the Brule question. Dr. Kent’s conclusions are, hopefully, complemented by the archaeological approach to which the present paper aspires.
 
 

*This paper was presented at the 1984 Annual Conference on Iroquois Research, The Institute of Man and Science, Rennselaerville, New York, October 12-13, 1984 (revised).

REFERENCES

Beauchamp, William M.

  1. History of the New York Iroquois. New York State Museum Bulletin 78(9).
Albany.

Biggar, H. P. ed.

  1. The Works of Samuel de Champlain. Vol. III The Champlain Society,
Toronto. Butterfield, Consul Willshire
  1. History of Brule’s Discoveries and Explorations 1610-1626 Publications
Of the Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland. Craft, Rev. David
  1. History of Bradford County, Pennsylvania, L. H. Everts Co., Philadelphia.
Crannell, Marilyn A. (Stewart)
  1. Shell Tempered Pottery Vessels from the Engelbert Site, Nichols, New York,
Master’s Thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton. Donehoo, George P.
  1. The Susquehanna Archaeological Expedition. In Second Report of the
Pennsylvania Historical Commission, pp. 125-151. Pennsylvania Historical

and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Dunbar, Helen R. and Katherine C. Ruhl
  1. Copper Artifacts from the Engelbert Site, New York State Archaeological
Association Bulletin 61:1-10. Elliott, Dolores N. and William D. Lipe
  1. The Engelbert Site. Triple-Cities Chapter, NYSAA, Binghamton, NY.
Grant, W. L. ed. 1906 Voyages of Samuel de Champlain, 1605-1638. In Original Narratives of

Early American History. J. Franklin Jameson, editor. New York.

Griffin, James B.
  1. Griffin Excavation, MS #1, on file, Division of Archaeology, William Penn
Memorial Museum, Harrisburg and Tioga Point Museum, Athens, Pa.
  1. Personal Communication (verbal). Nov 3, 1984, Eastern States Archaeological
Federation Annual Meeting, Annapolis. Hunter, William A.
  1. Historic Role of the Susquehannocks. In Susquehannock Miscellany. John
Witthoft and W. Fred Kinsey III, editors. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, Harrisburg.

Jennings, Francis P.
  1. Susquehannock. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 362-367.
Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 15. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Jurgens, Olga
  1. Brule, Etienne. In Dictionary of Canadian Biography 1:130-133. University
of Toronto Press. Toronto. Kent, Barry C.
  1. Susquehanna’s Indians. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Anthropological Series No. 6. Harrisburg. Kent, Donald H.
  1. The Myth of Etienne Brule. Pennsylvania History 43(4):291-306.
Pennsylvania Historical Association. Lucy, Charles L.
  1. Pottery Types of the Upper Susquehanna. Pennsylvania Archaeologist,
29(1):28-37. Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology. Milton. Lucy, Charles L. and Richard J. McCracken

n.d. The Blackman Site (36BR83): A Proto-Susquehannock Village in Bradford

County, Pa. In Pennsylvania Archaeologist 55(1-2):5-29, Society for

Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc. Milton

Marshall, Orasmus H.

  1. The Historical Writing of the Late Orasmus H. Marshall Relating to the
History of the West with an Introduction by William L. Stone. Joel Munsell’s

Sons. Albany

McCann, Catherine
  1. The Wilson Site, Bradford County, Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 33(2):43-55. Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc. Milton McCracken, Richard J.

1984a Was Brule No. 1? The Chemung Historical Journal 29(4):3380-3385.

Chemung County Historical Society, Elmira, N.Y.

1984b Bradford County’s Historic Indians and the Legend of Etienne Brule. In The

Settler 22(3):1-9. Bradford County Historical Society, Towanda, Pa.

Moorehead, Warren King

  1. A Brief Summary of the Archaeology of the Susquehanna. Second Report of
the Pennsylvania Historical Commission pp. 117-126. Pennsylvania Historical

and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.

Murray, Elsie

1936 Spanish Hill: Its Present, Past and Future. Pennsylvania Archaeologist

6(1):13-18. Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Inc., Milton. 1939 Te-A-O-Ga: Annals of a Valley. Tioga Point Museum, Athens, Pa. Reprint 1978. 1946a Carantouan: Old Spanish Hill. Address presented before the Northumberland Historical Society Oct 18, 1946. 1946b Etienne Brule: Explorer of the Susquehanna. Address presented before the Northumberland Historical Society Oct 18, 1946. 1948a Carantouan: Old Spanish Hill. Northumberland Historical Society Proceedings and Addresses, Vol. 16. Reprint 1978, Tioga Point Museum,

Athens.

1948b Etienne Brule: Explorer of the Susquehanna. Northumberland Historical Society Proceedings and addresses, Vol. 16. Reprint 1978, Tioga Point

Museum, Athens.

Murray, Louise Welles

1908 Old Tioga Point and Early Athens. Athens, Pa.

1921 Aboriginal Sites in and Near Teaoga, Now Athens, Penna. American

Anthropologist 23(2):183-214; 23(3):268-297. Lancaster. Murray, Louise Welles, ed.
  1. Selected Manuscripts of General John S. Clark, Relating to the Aboriginal
History of the Susquehanna. Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology

Publication No. 1. Athens, Pa.

Pendergast, James F.

1983a Paper read before the Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology Annual Meeting,

May 7, 1983. Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

1983b Paper read before the Eastern States Archaeological Federation Annual

Meeting, Nov 5, 1983. Salem, Mass.

Pratt, Peter P.

  1. A Perspective on Oneida Archaeology. In Current Perspectives in Northeast
Archaeology. Essays in Honor of William A. Ritchie, edited by Robert W.

and Charles F. Hayes III. Researches and Transactions of the New York State

Archaeological Association 17(1).

Stewart, Alexander M.
  1. French Pioneers in the Eastern Great Lakes Area, 1609-1671. edited by Rev.
John R. Lee, Occasional Papers No. 3. New York State Archaeological

Association. Rochester.

Stewart, Marilyn Crannell
  1. A Proto-Historic Susquehannock Cemetery near Nichols, New York. New
York State Bulletin 58:1-21. Witthoft, John
  1. Ancestry of the Susquehannocks. In John Witthoft and W. Fred Kinsey III,
eds. Susquehannock Miscellany. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission, Harrisburg.

Witthoft, John and W. Fred Kinsey III, eds.

  1. Susquehannock Miscellany. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission, Harrisburg. Wrey, Charles F. and Harry L. Schoff
  1. A Preliminary Report on the Seneca Sequence in Western New York.
Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23(2):53-63. Society for Pennsylvania

Archaeology, Inc., Milton, Pa.

Map enhancements by T. Miller.
Bradford County PA
Chemung County NY
Tioga County PA

Published On Tri-Counties Site On 13 OCT 2006
By Joyce M. Tice
Email: Joyce M. Tice

You are the  visitor since the counter was installed on 13 OCT 2006

©1984 Richard J. McCracken, Towanda, PA