Barry Kent - "Susquehanna's Indians"

Barry C. Kent wrote "Susquehanna's Indians" (1984) which is an archeological interpretation about the general culture and history of the Susquehannocks. In it - he claimed that the artifacts found at Spanish Hill and in Bradford County were all from a much earlier date than 1615 when Brule would have visited Carantouan.  This was intended to be proof that this area could not have been the site of Carantouan.

"Clark (Murray 1931), more than anyone else, has fretted over the location of Carantouan.  Eventually, and with dogmatic assertation, 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) The Carantouan were later identified as Andastes or Susquehannocks...Subsequent archeological surveys at Spanish Hill (Moorehead 1918:121 1938 68-69; Donehoo 1918:130 - 34;Griffin 1931a) and elsewhere in the Susquehanna Valley ...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" ~ Barry Kent - "Susquehanna's Indians - [page 33-34)

I was not able to find any information that said that Mr. Kent visited Spanish Hill or performed any personal archeological studies around it.   So, I asked for some input from some PA archeologists, as to why the dates for Spanish Hill and Bradford County sites were considered to be "pre-Brule." This is one reply to my question that I received from a thoughtful responder:

"Hello Deb,

I'm jumping in here without much knowledge of the location being discussed or the historical documents.  I just wanted to make some observations based on your discussion.

Seventeenth-century Susquehannock towns usually leave behind large archaeological sites with an abundance of artifacts and features that are diagnostic to that time period.  They are not hard to identify archeologically, and most have been identified decades ago because of their high visibility for surface collecting of artifacts.

Prehistoric villages also have stockades and graves.  I'm not familiar with the specific archeology of Bradford County, but in most of Pennsylvania, prehistoric villages are much more common than seventeenth century villages.  These pre-historic villages also have stockades and graves.  These are the Owasco, Proto-Susquehannock, and Schultz period sites."

The reason why I feel the need to include this note above is that you can clearly see that Kents' book set a standard in dating ALL Susquehannock sites,  no need to look at them anymore, the verdict is in by finding or not finding certain items. The "artifacts and features diagnostic to a given time period" are robotically placed  into their given "categories" of time and that is that....no matter what other evidence may be available. 

Let me explain:

In 1953 Wray and Schoft developed a way to date the sequence of Seneca locations based on the evidences of European trade goods found in their village and grave sites. Later, Witthoft tried applying this same dating technique to his study of the migration of the Andastes. Kent adopted this technique, with a little adjustment, to establish his claim that the latest date that the Andastes could have been in Bradford County was 1575. This would mean that Carantouannais could not be located in Bradford County, because Brule’s visit was in 1615. Kent explained the dating method he used like this:

"One of the most complete sequences of trade materials for the eastern United States is that established by Wray and Schoff (1953, and Ray 1973) for the Seneca sites of Western New York. A certain amount of refinement of this sequence and it’s dating is clearly possible. However, this basic chronological ordering is still widely accepted. By comparing the trade goods of the next period, (Shultz stage) of the Susquehannock cultural; development with those of the Seneca sequence. Witthoft(1959: 67) postulated a date of about 1575 for the beginning of the of the Shultz stage. More recent investigations have suggested only minor changes in this dating. The Shultz stage occurs almost exclusively in the lower Susquehanna Valley, and specifically at the Shultz site south of Washington Boro in Lancaster County." (Kent 1984:34)

There is a glaring hole in this method of using the evidence of trade goods when you get to the Carantouans however. That is because I have not found anything that tells me where the Carantouans would have gotten the trade goods from, other than from killing a passerby or something like that. Because from all I have read, these people were not trading with anyone at the time when Brule would have made his visit. Interestingly, there was a marked difference in the type of Susquehannock pottery that was found in the Bradford county area as well...These two points lead me to believe that the dating of Bradford County and therefore Spanish Hill sites might very well be incorrect using these current methods.

In Kent’s defense, I would like to note that it appears even he questioned his method and how it strangely did not seem to fit well with the area of Bradford County to some degree. The following statements made by Kent that illustrate this more clearly:

"Many facets of developing Susquehannock culture history in the upper reaches of the Susquehanna River valley still need to be worked out. The need for more archeology here may be tainting our understanding of settlement patterns, trade good associations, and the evolution of Shultz Incised from Proto Susquehannock. Even more mundane questions, such as the relationships of the strange vessels with faces and rim and body decorations from the Athens area of Bradford County (see Witthoft 1959; 48; and illustrations in Wren 1914; Plate 6, figures 1-8; Plate 8, Figures 1-4) can perhaps be answered through more intensive archeology." (Kent 1984:298)

"Northward from the Wyoming Valley, evidence for the Susquehannock sites and pottery is still very thin. Not until we are well into Bradford County, PA do we encounter any quantity of this pottery. Even here, the sites are small and scattered, but there is clearly a concentration of them along the Susquehanna in the northern half of the county" (Kent 1984:297)

"Witthoft(1959:28, 30, 42-51) noted that the Shultz incised pottery from the North Branch, and particularly from Bradford County, is slightly different from the later, more abundant expressions of the type in Lancaster County. North Branch Shultz Incised is generally better made, with more neatly and crisply incised decorations. Only rarely is this pottery found in association with trade goods – but the fact that this does occasionally occur is what is most important. That fact enables a chronometric assignment to upper North Branch Schultz Incised of somewhere between 1525 and 1550. As Witthoft (1959: 29) has indicated, sites in this area generally produce only a few scraps of brass or an occasional glass bead, which are often badly deteriorated." (Kent 1984:297)

"People in the Wyoming Valley and at places like Quiggle on the West Branch, whose occupation there date at least to 1500 A.D., where definitely living in fortified towns. By contrast with these living arrangements, the apparent hamlet settlement style of the earliest Bradford County Susquehannocks seems very curious. If this is indeed an accurate picture, then clearly there were marked social and political differences between these Susquehannocks and most of their neighbors." (Kent 1984:297)

It is my opinion that while Kent recognizes the differences that are seen in the upper Bradford County area, his insistence in using the same method of dating areas of occupation by the pottery and evidence of European trade goods is flawed. 

• First, he states that the pottery found in the upper Bradford County area is indeed different than anywhere else; in fact "better made, with more neatly and crisply incised decorations," and describes "strange vessels with faces and rim and body decorations from the Athens area of Bradford County." This would at least open the argument that the pottery in Bradford County may very well not be able to be dated using the standard methods currently being used. Currently the differences in Susquehannock pottery are used to show different periods among our Susquehannock sites. I would have to ask why these differences noted in Bradford County wouldn’t be significant of a different time period here as well. 

• Secondly, the sparse amount of trade goods that were found in the Bradford County grave sites actually could mean one of two things in my mind. One, these people left before the later trade goods were available; or two, these people were still here, but that later trade goods were not available to them.

In a contradiction in his own report, Kent continues to show that Bradford County is very different on one hand, yet he continues to insist on using the same measurement standards. Furthermore, Kent’s assumption concerning equal accessibility of European trade goods to the Carantouannais in comparison with other Indian sites is not inline with the first statements made by Samuel Champlain in 1615:

"I was glad to find this opportunity for gratifying my desire of obtaining a knowledge of their country. It is situated only seven days from where the Dutch go to traffic on the fortieth degree (on the Hudson.) The savages there, assisted by the Dutch, make war upon them, take them prisoners, and cruelly put them to death; and indeed they told us that the preceding year, while making war, they captured three of the Dutch, who were assisting their enemies, as we do the Attigouautans, and while in action one of their own men was killed. Nevertheless they did not fail to send back the three Dutch prisoners, without doing them any harm, supposing that they belonged to our party, since they had no knowledge of us except by hearsay, never having seen a Christian; otherwise, they said, these three prisoners would not have got off so easily, and would not escape again should they surprise and take them. This nation is very warlike, as those of the nation of the Attigouautans maintain." (Slafter 1880:73)

Indeed the whole premise of Carantouannais is that it was for the French to "learn of" this new  people. This would have been the first visit from the north. Likewise, Captain John Smith states quite clearly that his barges could not make it past the great falls in Pennsylvania; so there again, they were not visited from the south either. The account of the three Dutchmen reported by Champlain and also by Klyntees and Hendrickson at the Delaware Bay all describe the Dutch as being enemies of these people and trading with their enemies, not the Carantouans. The Iroquois were the "native middlemen" for the fur trade and were hated enemies of the Carantouans. The following text from Champlain also tells us that they were not friendly with the surrounding tribes either. "They have only three villages, which are in the midst of more than twenty others, on which they make war without assistance from their friends." (Slafter 1880:73)

My obvious questions are:

• Who were the Carantouans getting trade goods from?
• Was a there a trading blockade surrounding the Carantouannais, "Big Tree" area?
• Would this unavailability of trade goods by Kent's standards, have frozen the Carantouans and Bradford County in time?
• If we cannot show that the Carantouans were receiving trade goods at this time, shouldn’t we be 

  looking for an area that shows little to no trade goods, in Kent’s terms, not showing many "Shultz

  Period" or later period artifacts as opposed to showing them…like Bradford County, PA?

Instead Kent reports:

"Subsequent archeological surveys at Spanish Hill (Moorehead 1918:121;1938:68-69; Donehoo 1918; 130-34; Griffin 1931a) and elsewhere in the upper Susquehanna Valley (Witthoft 1959a:29; 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 Proto-Susquehannock and early Shultz periods of the sixteenth century…Here again, negative evidence from the archeology leaves us in doubt as to the significance of the interpretations of Brule's accounts, and for that matter, any reference to seventeenth-century Susquehannock towns north of Lancaster County." (Kent 1984:34)

Conclusion:

While I understand that Kent’s book, which included restating chosen pieces from the Moorehead and Griffin reports that we have discussed, may not have been meant to be the "authority" on Carantouannais and Spanish Hill, it was perceived to be; and it literally changed the history of Spanish Hill and Bradford County. As it stands, it is unsettling to consider that Bradford County history would be left written without the details discussed above being considered. I feel that those who have been perceived to be the authorities on this topic, in the end, have only looked from a "topside-view" and were granted merit without the effort due to the Carantouannais topic. I believe this occurred merely because Kent’s words concerning Spanish Hill and Bradford County were a piece of a greater work, Susquehanna’s Indians. I understand this book, as a whole, was deserving of the merit it received.

Although I have heard of the politics that are needed to support someone's work, or someone's name, is it

so wrong to argue that one small piece of a great piece may have been flawed?

The reality is that I have no title or need for anything but the truth. In the end, the truth is the only thing can really stand the test of time. I have faith that it can still be found, and hope that this website can insight more discussions to come.

The Current Problem Defined: 

• The current standard for period dating Susquehannock sites has flaws when it is applied to Spanish Hill and Bradford County.  
• These flaws have literally rewritten areas of our Bradford County early history in some areas, and has obstructed our views of history in others. 
• As long as we continue to ignore these flaws," the errors in reporting our early history will not be corrected
• The early history of Spanish Hill and Bradford County will remain untold and/or ambiguous ensuring little interest, and eventually create a "black hole" as time washes away the last remaining evidences we could find today.

.