There was one pot that was 4 1/2 inches high that was recovered from the Murray site. Here is a picture of that one:These pieces were written up by Christopher Wren in 1914 where he said the following:
He also pointed out that the one face on the pot was actually made to look pushed or deformed and added that there was an Iroquoian legend that he had been told might actually have explained why the face looked the way it did...
As I studied this site, I also tried to see what other Iroquioan and Susquehannock (who were Iroquoian but bitter enemies of the Iroquois) pottery had faces...this is what I found:
In fact, as I was just reading my latest issue of "American Archaeology" by the Archaeological Conservancy, I learned that pottery with the same designs were found at America's first French colony, Fort Charlesbourg-Royal (founded by Cartier and Roberval, 1541) in what is now Quebec City.
This full body design along with the face in this pottery is coincidentally much like another piece found at well known site in PA - known as the Washington Boro site:
Come to find out, the Washington Boro site was reported by Cadzow(below) in 1936 to have faces on every vessel:
The Washington Boro site was dated by Dr. Barry Kent in his book "Susquehanna's Indians" at 1600 - 1625 AD. Here is some of those pots from this site that were described above:
Strange as it seems, Kent dates the Athens (Murray Garden) site at 1570 - 1600.
This following copper/brass spiral is a European trade item and was found alongside the faced pottery in Athens, PA and reported by Harrison Wright of the Wyoming Hostorical Society in 1883. These spiral pieces were made by breaking up European pots and reworking the material into these shapes.
in 1883 at the Murray Garden site.)
As I am writing this, there is a Susquehannock pot with faces on it out there on Ebay which claims to be from the Washington Boro site discussed above. As you know from my last post, I am so opposed to the commercialization of this scientific evidence and am opposed to the sale of these items, as is the Society of American Archaeology. This is what prompted me to write that post because I saw this pot and recognized it from my research on the Murray site.
This is the description for the pot - and - it just was sold about an hour ago...for $1,035.
I hope that after this post today you can understand what I was trying to say in my last post a little better. Taking artifacts (EVIDENCE) from sites and selling them is a detriment to archaeological study and just the wrong thing to do.
Tell me your thoughts.