James Griffin

James Griffin - 1905 - 1997 

James Griffin was hired by Louise Welles Murray of the Tioga Point Museum to do further research on some of the known archeologically troublesome village sites in our area.  Sadly, the spring before Mr. Griffin began his research, Louise passed away, and the museum and the Griffin research was then "championed" by Louise's daughter, Elsie.  

Mr. Griffin was the most well noted in his generation as the foremost expert in ceramics and the dating thereof, as well in radiocarbon dating to date periods of Indian cultures, etc. 

It was not until 1984, that James Griffin's name was used regularly in association with Spanish Hill however, when another well respected scientist and author, Barry Kent wrote "Susquehanna's Indians."

In just a few pages, Barry Kent virtually put the "last nail in the coffin" and changed the history of Spanish Hill as for it being the site of Carantouan when he used the following statement to make the claim that Spanish Hill did not ever have palisades or "fortifications" on the top of the hill (and thereby not being as he described the site of the fortified village site called Carantouan.):

"Griffin’s work confirmed the presence of a few Indian artifacts on top of Spanish Hill(36BR27), but had his report been published, it would have put to rest any further concerns about its being the site of Carantouan, or it’s having Indian earthworks around it’s top margins" (Kent 1984:301)

I was able to locate the Griffin Report from 1931 titled The Tioga Point Museum Expedition. Mr. Griffin clearly states one of the reasons for his excavations on the hill was to "clear up some of the unanswered questions" concerning "the exact nature of the earth rim around the top of the hill." He was hired by the Tioga Point Museum in Athens, PA. Having very few funds, the museum could not afford a well known or experienced anthropologist; but Mr. Griffin’s price was most probably acceptable. You see in 1931, James Griffin had just graduated from college, having not even begun his graduate studies. In basic terms, the "Griffin Report" referred to by Barry Kent was written during Griffin’s first field season out of college. This does not mean that lack of experience in this area could not warrant respect for a respectable report that had been well researched. On the other hand, thorough research should be expected.

I did not find the Griffin report to be what I had expected, after having read what Barry Kent had written about it. Mr. Kent (1984:301) writes of the "Griffin Report" putting "to rest any further concerns  about its being the site of Carantouan, or its having Indian earthworks around its top margins." Griffin’s report covered a lot of other areas, but very little was written about Spanish Hill. I found exactly five typed pages in all, with some diagrams and pictures. That’s it. In the report, Mr. Griffin states his purpose:

"It was hoped the investigation in 1931 might definitely clear up some of the unanswered

questions as to the location of the ossuary and the exact nature of the earth rim around the top of

the hill.

 

One of the problems was that of the composition of the ridge along the top of the hill. This ridge

does not follow the crest of the hill around the entire circumference but on the northwest side runs

down the slope to join the northern edge. See Diagram VIII (below.) The embankment along the

ridge of the hill proper at the present time does not project very noticeably above the level of the

earth on the inside of the crest. The impression of an embankment is given because the natural

slope of the hill would lie under the present ridge. The slope of the ridge is much steeper than

would probably be the case were weathering the sole agency which caused the ridge or if erosion

was allowed to continue unchecked for a long period." (Griffin 1931:32-3)

His explanation of his excavations was as follows:

"The major excavations on Spanish Hill consisted of eight trenches and numerous test pits in the

ridge. Three trenches were dug in the northwest portion of the ridge and test pits along the

northwest side. Three trenches were thrown across the embankment on the west side, two

trenches on the east side and test pits were also sunk in the northern ridge." (Griffin 1931:33)

The following image is from the Griffin report, marking where each trench was dug on the top of Spanish Hill. I have also added the Clark map on the right. What you can clearly see from this is that Griffin used Clark’s map for his investigation on Spanish Hill.

The questions to me are, 

• Why did he use Clark’s survey; and was Clark’s survey still a valid tool for ames Griffin to use in 1931 for locating places to dig the trenches?

• In other words, were the earthworks on top of the hill still the same as when Clark saw them in 1878?

•  Did Griffin see entrenchments, or did he use Clark’s map from 1878 to try to locate them?

Also - I need to point out one glaring clue as to why I believe we should see a difference between Griffin’s report of the fortifications and the reports from those before him. There is something very noticeably missing from his report. That is that even before the Civil War, easily before Clark’s visit, annual plowing had begun on the top of Spanish Hill, with cultivation of anything from corn to different types of grains. The annual plowing and harvesting had to have changed the way the land up there looked, especially when they plowed to the edges. I am told that the preferred method of plowing was from the inside outward, in order to enlarge the plowing space. That would mean plowing occurred over the area where the fortifications would have been hundreds of years before.

Let me give you a timeline of people reporting "seeing" (not hearing of) the fortifications on Spanish Hill:

1795 - Duke Rochefoucault de Liancourt states -"a mountain rises form the bank of the river

Tioga (Chemung) in the shape of a sugar loaf upon which are seen the remains of some

entrenchments… One perpendicular breastwork is yet remaining which, though covered

with grass and bushes, plainly indicates that a parapet and a ditch have been constructed

here."

 

• 1804 - Alexander Wilson states - "Now to the left the ranging mountains bend, And level plains

before us wide extend; Where rising lone, old Spanish Hill appears, The post of war in ancient

unknown years. It’s steep and rounding sides with woods embrowned, Its level top with old

entrenchments crowned;

 

• April 1878 - Mr. I.P Shepard illustrates the location of the fortifications and even states whose

residence, throughout a long life of eighty seven years, was close to the hill and who remembered

"distinctly" the "Spanish Ramparts" before the plow of an overzealous farmer nearly leveled

them to the ground. Uncannily – his drawing shows the same lines as the survey General Clark

would draw after he looks at Spanish Hill a month later.

 

• May 1878 – General John S. Clark stated – that the hill "rises abruptly from the surrounding

plain about 200 feet with a nearly level platform top of about 10 acres enclosed by the palisades

which appear to have been banked up on the outside and in." and draws the survey to show

the locations of the "remnants of old fortifications."

 

• 1916 – Warren Moorehead from the Susquehanna River Expedition reports his findings at Sugar

Creek – "traces of a fortified hilltop, there being distinct traces of embankments. This being

smaller than Spanish Hill, but it resembled same. It contained Iroquoian pottery and triangular

flint points, probably Andaste."

 

• 1921 - "Aboriginal Sites in and Near Teaoga, Athens PA" in which included a map of Spanish

Hill showing Palisade lines, as depicted by early visitors.

 

• 1931 –James Griffin reports that – "the embankment along the ridge of the hill proper at present time does not project very noticeably above the level of the earth on the inside of the crest. The "impression" of an embankment is given because the natural slope of the hill would lie under the present ridge…"

It is my opinion that although each of these persons visited the same place, they did not see the same thing on top of Spanish Hill. The annual plowing moved much of our evidence of the palisades either over the edge of the hill, or away from their original location and there was obvious damage from the constant harvesting as well. It would also seem quite obvious that the original makeup that had once laid beneath the entrenchments in the times of the Carantouans was not under the "rises of earth" that were seen by Griffin in 1931, thus giving him a target above ground that didn’t match up to what was under it years before anymore.

To a young, inexperienced anthropologist looking at the earth in the places he had seen the small rises in the ground, it would have seemed clear to him that this must have been the same earth below his feet that was spoken of by people such as Duke Rochefoucault de Liancourt, General Clark, Warren Moorehead, and so many others. It must have made him wonder if those people before him had been exaggerating. He must have been disappointed when he commented on how the embankment did not project very noticeably above the level of the earth "at the present time." He was also using a map that was drawn in 1878 as a reference for his own survey in 1931. For all of these reasons, I have to wonder if he dug his trenches where he could have found what he was looking for, and if there was anything left for him to find.

As stated earlier, while I am sure Mr. Griffin was very excited to have had the opportunity to conduct this study for the Tioga Point Museum which was directed at that time by Jessie Murray, he was very disappointed that it was never published. There were rumors around that time that Jessie Murray didn’t like the results about Spanish Hill and therefore did not publish any of the report. While I have no way of knowing what had happened to cause it not to be published, after reading the report, I have to believe that this report by this young man simply did not meet Ms. Murray’s standards. One obvious example is that Griffin starts out his report by describing Spanish Hill, "According to some old measurements, it is 100’ high, 900’ long, and 173’ wide." (Griffin 1931:31) In fact, the hill actually rises about twice the height at two hundred feet above the plain and encloses roughly ten acres. He also states that the hill is situated about one half mile from the Chemung River, when it is actually no more than one quarter mile. Again, he uses General Clark’s map from 53 years prior to his visit, and does not note it as such. For these reasons alone, most would have to agree that this report fell short of being outstanding, or one of the reports Griffin would have most wanted to be remembered by.

I apologize if it appears that I have little respect for the work of Mr. Griffin. I do not question that Mr. Griffin was well respected in his trade by his peers for achievements throughout his career. However, I hardly see how this five page report written in his first season out of college should be worthy of rewriting history, or of rewriting the works of those that claim to have seen the trenches many years before. My personal opinion is that the fact that the report was not published makes it seem more influential than if it had been. On the other hand, the Griffin Report is the only report that I believe exists claiming the fortifications did not exist. Therefore, it was the only one Kent could have used to make the claim that there were no fortifications, even though his source was never published.

To be sure, it did not take this researcher much effort to find quite a bit of information suggesting these claims that no fortifications existed on Spanish Hill to be without the proper research or backing; and therefore, undeserving of the merit that it received. One only needs to go back through the vast number of historical accounts of those that witnessed those embankments when they were still able to be seen (only some of which I have included here) to realize that at one time fortifications did indeed exist on top of Spanish Hill.