Creation: What do you need to score a meal? In 1450, a Lenape (Munsee) or Esopus hunter would need much more than a fork and knife. They would most likely use a bow and arrow, crafted by hand from scratch. Lenape bows were self bows, or a bow made from a single piece of wood with a sinew bow string. Bows were around 57-62 inches in height, almost as tall as a man (Campisi and Hauptman). The accompanying arrows had wood shafts, made out of fine grain wood rods or canes. The wood would be skillfully straightened through a process of soaking, heating, bending and reshaping. Once straight, the shaft was shaved to a uniform diameter, and then sanded and smoothed by being drawn back and forth on a slab of rough or fine grained sand stone (Kraft).

The arrowhead would be made out of local stones, cherts, flints, quartzite and siltstones (LITHICS-Net, “Point Type: Levanna.”). The edges of the arrowhead were made sharp via a pressure flaker, or a sharp piece of bone or wood, that could chip at the edges until made sharp. Arrowheads come in many shapes and sizes. Hunters in and around the area that is now Historic Huguenot Street would most likely be using Levanna or Madison arrowheads. The difference in arrowheads is usually based on shape, with Levanna arrowheads being more equilateral and Madison more isosceles.

After the arrowhead was made it was secured to the shaft. At the end of the shaft would be an incision, in which the arrowhead could be placed. Then, the arrowhead was further secured with resin or wet sinew wrapped around the shaft and the lower extremities of the arrowhead. As the sinew dried it would shrink, strong securing the arrowhead further (Kraft).

Physical Description of the Object: The arrowhead below is an excellent example of a Levanna arrowhead, it’s nearly equilateral in shape and has a concave base. It’s very small, as seen compared to the penny. Standard visual classification puts this Levanna arrowhead in the quartzite family; the rock’s small but visible specks classify it as metamorphic (not siltstone) and its dullness is similar to that of other samples (not chert or flint). It’s about an inch both ways and feels good in the hand, and probably better at the tip of an arrow.

Photo credit Nabi Jung

Lenape and Esopus hunters of the Late woodland period “probably carried a pouch full of triangular points ready to replace arrowheads broken in use” (Kraft). The arrowheads in this pouch could be used for more than just a projectile. The sharp point could be used for skinning game or dismembering for easier transportation. The back edge of an arrowhead could be used as a scraper, or if made out of flint a strike a light. If used for either of these purposes, the back edge would become dull and polished or vitrified.

The arrowhead from Huguenot Street has no signs of dulling on it’s back edge. Though time has worn then down, one can feel what remains of the sharp edges, along with indents of the stone that was chipped off with the pressure flaker. There are also no signs of resin or sinew from when, or if, it was tied to a shaft. Then how did it end up on the ground? Say it was once tied to a shaft and was shot in a hunt. What was the hunter after? Or in other words, what’s for dinner?

Photo credit Nabi Jung

Narrative: There was a lot of large game in the area for hunting, even bison, but more common were elk, black bear, raccoons, turkeys, geese, turtles, fish and mussels. Bows and arrows were just as much employed for shoot fish as they were in war and hunting (Beauchamp). The largest quantities of protein available were during the spring where what must have astronomical numbers of shad, herring, striped bass, Atlantic salmon, and other fish swam up the Hudson and its tributaries (Funk). Historic Huguenot Street is located very close to the Walkill river, so maybe this arrow was shot at a fish, the fish swerves, the arrow misses, and it hits a rock. Snap! Off goes the arrowhead. The hunter doesn’t pick it up, he has more arrowheads in his pouch and besides, it’s spring, and he’s busy aiming at what will be the next of many catches today.

Or maybe not. There are no large chips on the arrowhead from collision with another rock. Maybe it hit something softer, something like flesh. It’s fall now, open season. One could pace after a elk or deer until it got exhausted and then club it to death, but who likes running? Hunters spot a herd of elk. They split up, slowly, trying to stay down wind as the surround the herd. Each hunter takes their position, and uproots the grass in front of him. Then he takes a piece of flint (maybe even an arrowhead) and starts a fire, with the uprooted grass preventing it from running back (Kraft). The elk run towards the center of the circle and the hunters follow, soon they are surrounded.

This is one theory behind the practice of burning forests. Burning was also another way of clearing fields for planting. In addition to the diverse protein options there were many plant options available. On an archeological site in Hurley, only 15 miles away from Huguenot Street, Professor Joseph Diamond excavated a number of plant and animal remains from ground pits. Among these were maize, acorns, black walnut, hickory, butternut, chestnut, and raspberries and blackberries. Discarding plant remains in these cleared areas would also make the soil more fertile, and promote these plants to regrow naturally in these areas (Diamond).

Clear land, along with high concentrations of edible plants, makes this land very attractive to deer and elk. It is much easier to hunt if you know where your prey will be. Professor Diamond believed that burning forests served these latter purposes rather than the first, and that hunting was more on a one to one basis. He mentioned the winter, as other sources had, when bears are fat and lethargic and snow is almost up to a deer’s belly. These factors make hunting easier, especially if one is equipped with snow shoes, though none have been found in the area (Kraft). Hunting in the winter would still require the hunter to stay downwind, slowly moving in closer, trying to mimic the quiet of the soft snow. As the elk looks away. Only the faintest rush breaks the silence as the arrow is drawn, the sinew pulled, the shot fired, and the elk falls dead.

Arrows designed for hunting were made specifically so that the arrowhead would not detach from the shaft. This was because arrows were usually recovered when hunting game and could be reused. There were some arrows designed to release the head when pulled out of the flesh. These were the arrows for people. In war, an arrow shot that was not fatal and then removed intact could be reused by one’s enemy. Whereas an arrowhead that was laced with poison, shot into an enemy, and then remained lodged in the body as the shaft was removed, proved to be much more deadly (Kraft).

Photo credit Nabi Jung

Provenance: It would be hard to find out whether the Huguenot Street arrowhead was one of such arrowheads. If anything, knowing humans, it was probably dropped on accident. Once it hit the ground it stayed there as 46 cm of dirt piled onto of it. Above ground the world it once knew was disappearing; its creator ventured to the area less and less as the Huguenots started their street. The fish swam up stream in smaller numbers as industry polluted the river. A college campus becomes larger and larger, naming two dorm buildings after the Lenape and Esopus. One of it’s professors, Joe Diamond, starts excavating on Huguenot Street. On July 12, 2012 the arrowhead is taken out of the ground. It’s cleaned up, numbered, and put in a little plastic baggie. Then in 2015 it was brought into the Honors Center by Professor Diamond, who was kind enough to share it with me.

References

Beauchamp, William M. Bulletin of the New York State Museum: Aboriginal Chipped Stone Implements of New York. 16th ed. Vol. 4. Albany: U of the State of New York, 1897. Print.

Campisi, J., and L.M Hauptman. Neighbors and Intruders: An Ethnohistorical Exploration of the Indians of Hudson’s River. N.p.: n.p., 1978. Print.

Diamond, Joseph. Table 1. Wolfersteig Site. Microbotanicals by Feature and Table 2. Wolfersteig Site. Faunal Remains by Feature. Apr. 2015. Raw data. New York, New Paltz.

Funk, Robert E. Recent Contributions to Hudson Valley Prehistory. 22nd ed. Albany: U of the State of New York, State Education Dept., 1976. Print.

Kraft, Herbert C. The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 B.C.- A.D. 2000. N.p.: Lenape Books, 2001. Print.

LITHICS-Net. “Point Type: Levanna.” LITHICS-Net. LITHICS-Net, 1997-2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

LITHICS-Net. “Point Type: Madison.” LITHICS-Net. LITHICS-Net, 1997-2008. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

This weathered copper coin is a Hibernia halfpenny that was originally made in Ireland in 1723 for the purpose of currency. The excavation of the coin on Huguenot St in New Paltz, New York illustrates a migration of currency as well as people.

Description: The Hibernia halfpenny is about the size of a modern day quarter. On one side, the profile of King George I is pictured. The profile has long curly hair tied behind the ears. Around the circumference of the coin, it says Georgius Dei Gratia Rex. Translated from the Latin this means by the grace of King George. On the other side of the coin, it says Hibernia 1723 around the circumference. In the center, there is a woman pictured in a dress holding up a palm branch with her right hand and leaning against a harp with her left arm. Her face is also depicted in a profile. After almost 300 years of existence, the coin has been weathered and eroded. It is hard to make out these details because of the overt oxidation the coin has experienced over time creating the green substance on its surface.

Provenance: The original owner of the coin will forever be unknown for it was used as an object of exchange passing from person to person for different goods. In Ireland, the Hibernia coppers were made for use in small transactions at the local market or tavern such as for a loaf of bread that cost a penny (Danforth). The coin may have traveled from the pockets of middle class Irish citizens through the pockets of transatlantic seamen or through the pockets of Irish immigrants into the hands of The Huguenots in the Middle Colony of New York (Danforth). The coin now rests in its habitus amongst many other excavated, historical objects in Professor Diamond’s archives. It was discovered on July 20, 2012 at approximately N 50m / E 18m on Huguenot St in the ground that resides between the Bevier and Deyo houses across the street from the Dubois Fort.

Narrative: Although we may never know the coin’s owner, we do know its maker. William Wood owned copper and tin mines in Ireland. He purchased the royal patent that authorized him to produce up to 360 tons of halfpence and farthings for Ireland at 30 pence to the pound over a period of fourteen years for an annual fee of £800 paid to King George I (Hibernia). Wood believed this would be a profitable business and purchased the patent for £10,000 in 1722 from the king’s mistress, The Duchess of Kendal (Hibernia). At the time, Wood’s coinage was heavier than the coppers already in circulation in Ireland making his money more valuable (Hibernia). As a result of their weight and the cost of production, Wood’s Hibernia coppers were actually less profitable for him to mint (Hibernia). It is believed that he even would have lost money over those fourteen years from the deal (Hibernia).

Amongst numismatists, there seems to be a disagreement about the degree of reception the Wood’s Hibernia coppers received. According to Brian J. Danforth’s article in The Colonial Newsletter, “Wood’s Hibernia Coins Come to America”, the coins were first well received but lost popularity over time in Ireland. Danforth explains that the lower class of Ireland, who were largely illiterate and rarely made records, were the primary users of the copper coins. Since the primary users of the coins did not make records, numismatists do not accurately know the exact extent of usage that these coins received. However, Danforth believes the coins became very popular in Ireland because as he describes Ireland was a “coin starved” nation. Danforth also states that American colonies did not have a sufficient amount of coinage to satisfy their economic needs in the eighteenth century either. Furthermore, England did not even have enough coinage to satisfy its own needs resulting in this shortage of coinage in its distant lands (Danforth). It is in this apparent massive deficiency that Wood’s believed he had the potential for a successful business endeavor.

Because of Ireland’s desperate need for coins, the popularity of the coppers was almost inevitable. In the mid 1720’s some numismatists believe Wood’s coins were rejected, but Danforth believes the coins were used commonly in Ireland until 1737. Jonathan Swift led the campaign against Wood’s coppers that successfully leaves evidence of opposition to the coins for numismatists today (Danforth). According to Philip Nelson’s The Coinage of William Wood, 1722-1733, Swift and his allies opposed Wood’s coinage because the coins were not approved by the Irish Parliament, were minted under a private patent, and weighed more than the English royal issue (qtd. in Danforth). Wood’s original estimate on the amount of coppers to mint was also so large that the opposition believed they would hurt the Irish economy drastically (qtd. in Danforth). However, Danforth notes the rise in copper coins by 150 percent in 1728 illustrates the success of Wood’s coins with them actually becoming the dominant coinage in Ireland despite Swift’s oppositional forces.

The American Colonies similarly needed coinage for small transactions. In the Northern Colonies, this need was most prevalent because of the demands of urban centers, artisans, and commerce (Danforth). Danforth writes that Wood’s coppers came to America as a result of trade between the colonies and Ireland, immigrants from Ireland traveling to the colonies, and the eventual devaluation of the coins in Ireland. Before the American Revolution, Ireland traded more with the Middle Colonies than the rest of the colonies (Danforth). Wood’s money would have crossed the Atlantic in the pockets of seamen and would have been used in Irish seaports for everyday purchases (Danforth). The coins also became twice as valuable in the colonies as they were in Ireland allowing for some to take advantage of the exchange rate for profit (Danforth). In 1737, New York had what Danforth describes as a surplus of copper coins because of its growing economy and the devaluation of Hibernia Coppers in Ireland. New York also had the most favorable exchange rate of coppers amongst the other colonies (Danforth). Danforth describes how these factors contributed to New York becoming the foremost trade partner with Ireland.

During economically hard times, an increase in immigration to the colonies occurred bringing with them the cultures and customs of their homes (Danforth). An Irish famine in the late 1720’s spurred emigration from Ireland with people looking for employment in America (Danforth). Another massive surge of immigration in the mid 1730’s around the time of the monetary decline of Wood’s coins in Ireland also increased the export of the coins to America (Danforth). When leaving their homes, the Irish took as many coins as they could. Danforth notes they would have chosen to carry with them the coins with the highest amount of value that took up the least amount of space making coppers the best choice for poor immigrants. In 1729, the supply of copper coins in Ireland decreased. Although the attitude towards Irish immigrants in New England was often unwelcoming, Irish settlements and communities were still able to make roots in America (Danforth). Poor Irish immigrants were usually from rural areas and settled in the Middle Colonies with all their possessions from home including whatever money they could put in their pockets such as Wood’s coins (Danforth).

In 1736, it was announced that a new royal copper would be made in England and sent to Ireland securing the devaluation of Wood’s coins (Danforth). As a result, Wood’s coins were shipped “en masse” to the American colonies (Danforth). Irish leaders such as Swift and his advocates who had been against Wood’s coins from the beginning finally succeeded in receiving an official set of copper coins from the London mint (Danforth). Danforth also mentions regulations that were placed on the acceptance of Wood’s coins in Ireland limiting their use and decreasing their popularity significantly. The ideal shipping destination for the coins were the Middle Colonies because of their significant trade with Ireland, their Irish immigrant populations familiar with the coinage, and their growing economy in need of coins for daily exchanges (Danforth). As a result of all these factors, this Hibernia halfpenny landed in New Paltz amongst the Huguenots.

Bibliography

Danforth, Brian J. “Wood’s Hibernia Coins Come to America.” The Colonial Newsletter. Aug 2001. Web. 14 Apr 2015.

Diamond, Dr. Joseph. Personal Interview. 8 Apr 2015.

“Hibernia Coppers 1722- 1724: Introduction.” Coin and Currency Collections at the University of Notre Dame Department of Special Collections. 4 Jan 2001. Web. 14 Apr 2015

Rubino, Catherine. Image 1. 1 Apr 2015

“US Woods Hibernia Half Penny 1722 to 1724.” Coin Quest. Image 2. Web. 14 Apr 2015.

Rubino, Catherine. Image 3. 8 Apr 2015.

A dining accessory that functioned as a place card, this napkin ring belonged to Gertrude M. Deyo as a child. At just over an inch in all dimensions, this square napkin ring embellished with Cupid riding a dragonfly sat atop a finely set dining table awaiting guests. Outside wall of the very same dining room, resided the skeletal remains of colonial conquest and slaughtering.

Despite the name, napkin “ring,” this item is one and a quarter inch square napkin holder made of silver. It has scalloped edges, two curves to a side, along both the top and the bottom edges. Given the approximate date of creation for the item in the mid 19^th century, it has suffered minimal damage, leaving the only trace of wear and tear small areas of old sticky tape.  The main aesthetic feature of the napkin ring is the image of Cupid riding a dragonfly due to the intricate details on the wings of Cupid and the unique pairing of beings. However, the other engraving on it bears the historical significance of the object. This other engraving holds the personal history that’s embedded in the communal past of New Paltz, through three simple letters: “GMD” for Gertrude M Deyo.

Gertrude was born in New Paltz to Matthew Deyo and Julia Etta Deyo, in 1868 as the eighth generation of Deyo’s born in the United States (Van Wagner 184). She was given this prior to her marriage based on the use of her maiden name, and probably at a younger age since it is dated closer to the mid 19^th century and Gertrude was born in 1868. It accompanied her most likely into her married years, and then was passed along to either to her sister, or directly to her niece, Mrs. Henry E Downer, the last owner of the ring (Van Wagner 255).

During the years of Gertrude’s marriage, she most likely kept her designated napkin ring with her, bringing her family’s silver dining accessories into her next life as a married woman. It would sit with the other dining furnishings, holding Gertrude’s name and place at the table with it. All would remain the same until  1894 when Gertrude’s husband, Abraham D Brodhead, decided to renovate the home in which they were living on Huguenot Street (NPT 1894). The home was to become “scarcely recognizable” and it was believed by members of the community that at least one of the other old stone houses should be “strictly guarded” to prevent a similar process of renovations from occurring (NPT 1894). The community feared that future generations would forget the lifestyle of their ancestors, that the culture of the time would be lost (NPT 1894). During this time, the couple moved all of their furnishings and themselves to the Tamney House for the duration of the renovation (NPT 1894). While excavating near the back of the home, a skeleton was discovered, along with parts of a shear and axe (NPT 1894). The New Paltz Times reported that very same month that the bones were of a Native American.

This, however, was not the first appearance of Native American corpses on the couple’s homestead, although it is reminiscent of a time of turmoil and conflict between the Huguenots and the native tribes of the area. Travel back in time another thirty years and Henry Johnson, much like Abraham Brodhead, while digging in his yard, revealed the human skeleton of a “red man” in the perfect state of preservation (NPT 1862). This body was seated upright, in the proper burial position of the Native American culture, and was determine to be at least two hundred years old, dating the skeleton back to the mid 17^th Century (NPT 1862).

Flash back to the time in which the first Native American who was discovered lived, and the time in which Huguenots were only beginning to settle in present day Ulster County region.  The Natives still lived in peace, practicing their culture freely, without the interference or destruction of the settlers. The Huguenots, signing a contract with the native tribes in 1660, began to increase their population in nearby Esopus with rapid numbers (Sylvester 3). With more Huguenots, there became a need for more space, and less concern for the people that were sacrificing their lands for the Huguenots. In 1663, the Second Esopus War took place, resulting in the plundering of the Huguenots’ village (4). The Natives captured men, women, and children, and the Huguenots in return held a Native of respectable status hostage (4). With the help of the Native they held hostage, the Huguenots traversed the county to retrieve their wives, discovering the bountiful lands of New Paltz, the believed promised land of the Huguenots (5). It is along this area, on the east side of the Wallkill, that a single Native was killed along the journey, a person who attacked the caravan of men single-handedly and fell victim to the leader of the troop (5). Interestingly enough, the Natives of this time fought primarily with tomahawks and battle axes, being their most efficient weapons (4). The Huguenots returned to the fruitful land upon rescuing the women, thus settling in present day New Paltz.

Could this tale of the single Native American slaughtered during the first appearance of the Huguenots in New Paltz be the same Native found during the renovations of the Deyo House under Abraham Brodhead? Or could the body belong to another Native, evidence of another incident of colonial conquest and Western privilege? The Huguenots’ settlement in New Paltz was not one of harmony and community with the Natives of the region. It held bloodshed, captivities, pillaging, and destruction. The Huguenots built the life they felt they deserved, one of grand houses and silver, personalized dining accessories on top of the rotting and forgotten culture of the people whose land they invaded.  In the midst of a community shocked at Brodhead’s ability to alter a part of their past culture, they discovered the culture that they had impeded on and demolished for their own wanting, another community trampled in the name of modernity and self-fulfillment.

Works Cited

Van Wagner, Carol et al. The Deyo (Deyoe) Family. New Paltz: Huguenot Historical Society 2003. Print.

“New Paltz Times.” New Paltz Buildings. 1862. Print.

“New Paltz Times.” New Paltz Buildings. 1894. Print.

Sylvester, Nathaniel Bartlett. “New Paltz.” History of Ulster County, New York. Philadelphia: Everts &      Peck 1880. Print.

Pestle found in August, 2012 on Historic Huguenot street between the Deyo and Bevier houses; this tools have been used for cooking, medicinal purposes, and spirituality dating as far back as 2500 B.C. Photo Credit: Julia Ponder

Bee Balm, a red flower with medicinal properties that grows in the Hudson Valley. Photo Credit: herbsguide.org

The Sandstone Pestle found on Historic Huguenot in August of 2012 is an object that dates back as far as 2500 B.C, and shows us how valuable sturdy tools were in a time that lacked modern amenities. Pestles are representative of cultures that relied heavily on plant matter as a source of food, and its second life as a nutcracker indicates a people who had a strong relationship to their objects, even after they were broken.

There is an old folklore told among the Muncee people of the story of the maiden Lanawee and her lover, “The Arrow.” Before the night of their wedding, the two lovers’ families met and were getting ready for the following day when The Arrow was taken sick by small pox, which had been plaguing the local people. Within the night the Oswego bridegroom died of his ailment. Lanawee was so stricken by grief that she in turn killed her self in the very spot that her betrothed had met his end, meaning to sacrifice herself to the Great Spirit in exchange for the good health of her people. Lanawee held a knife to her chest and shouted to the sky, “Lay me with The Arrow, I am but a blighted flower!” before taking her own life. The next morning when their families returned both bodies had disappeared, and in the place where their bodies had been grew bright red flowers, which are today widely called by the name Bee Balm. After finding the bodies,  the relatives of Lanawee and The Arrow decided to hold a celebration in honor of the departed and used the Bee Balm to decorate their clothing and hair. Later on, tea was made out of the plant, and was named after The Arrow’s place of origin, Oswego, and therefore become Oswego tea which was said to cure smallpox (Pritchard 298).

Photo Credit: Julia Ponder

Photo Credit: Julia Ponder

A mortar and pestle would have been used to crush and grind the flower that made Oswego tea, this pestle would have been very similar to the one found on Historic Huguenot street in 2012 by SUNY New Paltz Professor, Joe Diamond and his crew.The pestle is made of sandstone and has a cylindrical shape with a flat bottom, which is slightly rough, and has edges that have been worn dull with age. It is heavy in the hand, a completely solid item that is not easily broken; its smooth and rounded top fits nicely in the palm, while the bottom flat part of the pestle indicates its original form was different, and that we are actually only holding part of an original piece. Most likely at some point in its history this tool was broken in half, but was kept still after it was broken and used. The pestle is hypothesized to have been at least twice as large when it was first made, currently its size is about five inches in length and three in width.  There is indication that the pestle served another purpose in its second life as nut cracker, due to the indent on its upper left side where it was most likely used to crush acorns. Although it is impossible to tell the story of a single individual who might have owned this tool, we can let our imaginations make inferences as to where and when it belonged, and what significance it had to a culture which lacked all modern amenities.

Today, Pestles are usually seen with a mortar, but the one found by Professor Diamond’s crew was alone. Archaeological digs on the North East coast have many times discovered pestles that have attached effigies, most commonly a bear’s head, but also that of phallic symbols. Bears were sacred spiritual animals to the Algonquin people (Diamond). Pestles with bear effigies most likely did not serve the purpose of grinding, but were “fetishes or the guardian spirit of women” (Lenik 141).

Complete Pestle and Mortar on display at Historic Huguenot. It was found in Hurley, NY and donated by Reuban B. Crispall, October 1965. Photo Credit: Julia Ponder

The tribes of the Munsee were predominant in the New Paltz area, conducting trade and having confrontation with the setters (Grumet 48-49). Is it possible that this pestle could of traded hands between the Huguenot’s and the Muncee, and that an effigy could have been broken off in order to use this tool for other purposes? This question is quite possibly unanswerable, and expert Joe Diamond believes that this was just your ordinary everyday pestle; an object of simplicity, yet at the heart of traditions like cooking, medicine making, and spirituality. These objects are used still today for the same exact purposes as they were centuries ago.

A complete pestle and mortar can be seen on display on Historic Huguenot street. In proportion to the number of pestles found in the Hudson Valley, mortars are more scarce. This is due to the difficulty it took to hollow out the stone to create the mortar (Parker 60). Other’s speculate that the mortar was more easily used over again and again, therefore they were less likely to be discarded and harder for archaeologists to find. When they are found, pestles and mortars indicate that the culture that once used them was relent on plant foods, where a lack of such objects indicates a more hunting oriented culture. Not only does the pestle serve for crushing herbs for medicinal purposes, like the families of Lenawee and The Arrow, the pestle offered a way to eat plant foods, and smash grain that would have otherwise been inedible proving to be an essential tool in the lives of ancient peoples across the globe. In a world where common cooking objects are considered disposable, the Huguenot Street pestle reminds us that every day objects can still be reused and have value even after they are broken.

Works Cited:

Diamond, Joe. Personal Interview. 13 April 2015.

Lenik, Edward J. Picture Rocks: American Indian Rock Art in the Northeast Woodlands. Lebanon: University Press of       New England, 2002. Print

Grumet, Robert S. Manhattan to Minisink: American Indian Place Names in Greater New York and Vicinity. Norman:       University of Oklahoma Press, 2013. Print

Parker, Arthur C. The Archaeological History of New York. New York: The University of the State of New York, 1920. Print.

Pritchard, Evan T. Native New Yorkers: The Legacy of the Algonquin People of New York. San Francisco:                   Council Oak Books, LLC, 2002. Print.

Description

You’ve all seen it. That dilapidated stonewall that lies along the banks of the Wallkill River. Freshman and tourists walk by and wonder: “What the heck is that?” While seasoned SUNY New Paltz students avoid it for fear of harassment or assault or use it for their smoke circles and hangouts. Upon entering the New Paltz section of the Wallkill Valley Railtrail, walkers, runners and bikers pass this crumbling stone structure without any thought of what it might have been. The once closed structure now consists of only three walls. Any foundation that might have been there centuries ago when it was constructed is now dirt and leaves. The wall that once faced the Wallkill River is now nonexistent. What’s left of the structure is now covered in graffiti from the various decades of rebellious hippies and risky students wanting to leave their mark on the town. What they didn’t know was that the neglected stone that they were defacing was actually centuries old and built by two of the founding families of the town of New Paltz.

Provenance

The Elting family and the Lefevre family initially purchased the property together in an agreement for 3,000 acres of land along varying parts of the Wallkill River (Village of New Paltz). On this specific plot of land the Elting family built a steam mill equipped with various warehouses and shed, including the tool shed. For the first century or so after the purchase, the Elting family successfully ran their factory. However, when the business failed in 1894, A.P. Lefevre bought the steam mill property at an Elting Real Estate Sale (Village of New Paltz). The Lefevre’s retained ownership of the property until 1986 when most of the buildings were sold and demolished.

Narrative

Studying the old maps of the Village of New Paltz shows us that the structure was once a tool house, however it neglects to detail whose tools it held. One possibility is that it could have been used for both the Elting factory and the later Lefevre family business that stood on the opposite side of the train tracks. In 1748 Noah Elting, in conjunction with Nathaniel Lefevre, gained ownership of 3,000 acres of land “lying on both sides of the Wallkill” (Lefevre 485). On this land the Elting family built “Elting & Son”, a steam mill consisting of an icehouse, two lumber sheds, the flourmill and a coal shed that was shared between the factory and the neighboring trains that ran along the Wallkill Valley Railroad.

The family ran the steam mill and New Paltz’ one and only canning company until the business failed in 1894 (Village of New Paltz). Upon the failure of their business, the Elting family delegated ownership of the factory to the assignee A.K. Hays of Walden (Lefevre 485). For the next two years, Hays ran his barrel crafting company out of the factory and continued to utilize the far off tool shed on the other side of the tracks. Then, in 1896, the Elting family was forced to sell their properties in an estate sale, including the steam mill. At this sale, A.P. Lefevre purchased the property as the second location for his established lumberyard and hardware company (Village of New Paltz).

The 1905 map of the village shows that upon taking over the farm A.P. Lefevre and Sons Lumber and Hardware Company cleared out some of the buildings from the original Elting factory and added new spaces for their different business. However, the tool shed remains standing on the other side of the train tracks. In 1907, Lefevre rented out part of the coal shed to D.C. Storr’s Concrete Block Company, which allowed him to then build the residential areas of New Paltz (Village of New Paltz). Storr built almost all of the cottages that still remain standing on Oakwood Terrace and Manheim Boulevard. As if this was not enough, Storr also donated land for St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, built a windmill to supply the residents of the village with fresh water and erected entire new streets and walkways. Working out of the Lefevre’s coal shed with tools from the tool shed on the other side of the tracks, D.C. Storr modernized the village of New Paltz and turned it into a living destination for both students and families alike. For more than 70 years after initially acquiring the property, the Lefevre’s lumber business continued to thrive at their location alongside the Wallkill Valley train tracks. The tool shed also remained as a part of the property throughout the changing businesses and was continually shared with both the Wallkill Valley Railroad and the Consolidated Rail Corporation who continued to make stops to the lumberyard even after the closure of the New Paltz Train Station in 1959 (Mabee and Jacobs). This dilapidated structure that continues to stand along the banks of the Wallkill River has watched many businesses come and go. The stones in those three remaining walls watched over the course of centuries as the Eltings ran New Paltz’ one and only canning company until it failed, the railroad companies stopped coming through town, the Lefevre family ran a successful lumber yard and D.C. Storr built half of New Paltz with concrete.

Today, students, residents and tourists alike pass it by while walking along the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail. After sitting abandoned for years, plans were launched to turn the rail road tracks into a “linear park” in 1983 (Wallkill Valley Rail Trail Association). Volunteers worked together to clear the brush, smooth out paths for hiking and biking and repair the various bridges between New Paltz and Gardiner. After over a decade of hard work, the trail informally opened in 1991. When it first opened, it stretched along the river from the Village of New Paltz to the neighboring towns of Gardiner, Rosendale and Kingston (Mabee). In recent years, the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail Association has been rumored to be working to connect with the Dutchess County Rail Trail, which would connect New Paltz to the other side of the river. All the while, the volunteers have been passing by this abandoned structure that stood beside the trail and the Wallkill River. That graffiti covered and forgotten tool shed watches as the current residents of New Paltz pass it by and completely overlook the centuries of history hidden behind its neglected stones.

Photo Credit: Shelby Seipp, Charlie Seipp

Works Cited

Lefevre, Ralph. History of New Paltz, New York and Its Old Families

(from 1678 to 1820): Including the Huguenot Pioneers and Others Who Settled in New Paltz Previous to the Revolution. Albany, N.Y.: Fort Orange, 1903. Print.

Mabee, Carleton, and John K. Jacobs. Listen to the Whistle: An Anecdotal History of the

Wallkill Valley Railroad in Ulster and Orange Counties, New York. Fleischmanns, N.Y.: Purple Mountain, 1995. Print.

The Village of New Paltz: 100 Years of Community Life. New Paltz,

N.Y.: Centennial Committee, Village of New Paltz, 1988. Print.

“Villageofnewpaltz.org.” Villageofnewpaltz.org. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.

<http://dosingpdf.com/v/villageofnewpaltz.org1.html&gt;.

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail Association. “History-The Wallkill Valley Rail Trail.”

Wallkill Valley Rail Trail. Web. 24 April 2015.

CAPTION: This 17th century pipe fragment was found in Historic Huguenot Street in New Paltz, in late 2012. This particular fragment was part of a clay pipe fashioned by Hendrik Gerdes, a Dutch pipe maker, as his initials can be found on the heel of the pipe. Although a seemingly mundane object, this pipe gives us particular insight on colonial life in the Hudson Valley.

Physical Description:

Called a “little ladle” by the Elizabethans, the tobacco pipe was almost an essential piece of colonial living and there are clues that these pieces give us into the diverse community of Historic New Paltz. The particular piece(s), was discovered by Professor Diamond and his team at Historic Huguenot Street on September 18, 2012. The location of this pipe piece was North of the Freer House in unit 215. The pipe is in four separate pieces, and appears to have been white at one point or another. But, of course with the passage of time, the outside has become jaded. While there are scratches and points of discoloration that appear almost brown along the stem of the pipe. Being that the pipe is broken, one is able to see inside, again there is the same brown discoloration along the smooth interior of this piece. The whole in the mouthpiece is notably very small, and if memory serves me correct, Professor Diamond said that you could not actually smoke out of this pipe. On one of the pieces there is an impression of the initials “HG” on the heel, which signifies the Dutch pipe maker, Hendrik Gerdes.

Provenance:

Hendrik Gerdes was in commission during the 17th century, approximately circa 1668-1685. At the same time another prominent English  pipe maker named Edward Bird. Although he hailed from England, Bird Amsterdam to “fight for the Dutch” and subsequently met and married a woman named Anna Maria van der Heide. After the death of her first husband Anna married the then confectioner, Hendrik Gerdes.  A little odd how the two lives of two different pipe makers so intimately collided. Gerdes may have been a confectioner/sugar refiner or possibly worked one of the “large industrial potteries” that made  ceramic molds for sugar loaves.

 The heel appears to be a type 2 style heel, which includes a simple border around the initials. While this insignia is relatively simple, Gerdes did have another one that had a three pronged crown above his initials. Besides New Paltz, his pipes have been found everywhere from Caughnawaga Mohawk in Canada to my birthplace of Staten Island.

Although little, but the initials can be determined from merely looking at the pipe, upon further exploration we get the bigger picture. The look of the pipe itself gives insight as to the time period it was manufactured in, as well as where it originated. “…Dutch pipe bowls were often cone-shaped rest backwards on their stems, and were often more highly polished.  English pipes from that time period sat more upright, with a duller finish.” In a more general view, these clay pipes were extremely delicate. And although this particular make was made from clay, others were made from silver, brass or pewter. These typical 17th century, 11-inch clay pipes, if dropped would immediately fragments into six or seven pieces. A fact we see clearly, in the remnants of this piece.

Pictograph depicting the hell marks on traditional clay pipes. Photo Credit: EUROPEAN CLAY PIPE MARKS FROM 17TH CENTURY ONONDAGA IROQUOIS SITES

Two versions of Hendrik Gerdes makers mark, that would be found on the heel. Figure B is what is used on the pipe from Huguenot Street. Photo Credit: EUROPEAN CLAY PIPE MARKS FROM 17TH CENTURY ONONDAGA IROQUOIS SITES.

Narrative:

These tobacco pipes were used as a form of trade in colonial times and tobacco itself was a huge source of economic income for the colonies. Often times these pipes were used as a from of trade, in many instances between the colonizers and the Native Americans for furs and such.  And, although the pipes themselves were fashioned in Europe, tobacco was a product from the Americas, being introduced into Europe in the mid-1500’s. Another interesting facet of this practice, was that by the 17th century tobacco spread amongst every race, class and gender. Upon doing further research I also found that women were very much a part of the pipe making process. “Women have always been active in the pipe-making industry…as decorators and finishers, as pipe firers and proprietaries and as independent craft persons”. Although they were invisible to the public eye, women were very much apart of the process. For instance Edward Bird pipes were signed with his initials “EB”, although that did not necessarily mean he crafted the pipe, it could have very well been his son or his widow. Particularly considering that the pipes were still being made after his death. It’s really something to see women being such an instrumental part in creating objects that were so widely used, especially considering the time period. In addition to the pipe showcasing cultural assimilation, it is also representative of an early inclusion of women in economy. This holds true today, as women are central pillars of societies across the globe. For many communities they are the ones who start up their own businesses and support their families. Even in the small village of New Paltz, there is a strong presence of women in the community, as many own their own businesses along and around the bustling Main Street.

Although, I could not find anything specific on the specific owner of this pipe, I think the general idea of such an object is to see how a multi-faceted group produced such things. It was odd at the time to have both men and women making and using the same product. And what’s more, to have a multitude of cultures using each others products also seems a bit revolutionary. For New Paltz, it can signify the early culmination of all different types of people. What’s more it showed the melting pot that places like New Paltz had become. As we are aware, the French, Germans and English had settlements in New Paltz and most notably in Historic Huguenot Street. What is even more interesting is that despite the English conquests, Dutch pipes were still being imported and used. It’s interesting then, that we see a melding of cultures among the inhabitants of New Paltz at this time.

Although this pipe is seemingly just a vessel for tobacco, it represents a community on a much larger scale. It not only gives us context to see what life was like for the people before us, but also allows us to see how objects as mundane as a pipe could help weave the fabric of a community. It’s also quite striking to see, that many of the facets that this “little ladle”has proved to be so unique about it, are still relevant in our community today.

Cleric smoking a pipe with a shorter stem, which was used for easier handling.
Photo Credit: CW Journal

Works Cited:

Bradley, James W., and Gordon DeAngelo. EUROPEAN CLAY PIPE MARKS FROM 17TH CENTURY ONONDAGA IROQUOIS SITES. Vol. 9. N.p.: Eastern States Archeological Federation, 1981. Archaeology of Eastern North America. JSTOR.

Web.Mann, Rob. “Smoking and Culture: The Archaeology of Tobacco in Eastern North America.” Academia.edu. N.p., 2015. Web.

Tate, Bob. “Archeologists in New York Uncover Tobacco Pipes Dating Back to the 17th Century.” Pipemagazine.com. N.p., 18 Mar. 2010. Web.

Hume, Ivor Noël. “Hunting For a Little Ladle: Tobacco Pipes.” Colonial Williamsburg. CW Journal, 2002-2003. Web.

Rooney, Megan. “Huguenot Refugee Ring.” 2015. jpg.

Caption: Tucked away, inconspicuously in the corner of a collection box under a thin cloth laid a piece of paper with a ring fastened onto the rectangular sheet. For the Historic Huguenot Street historians however, it is an item that could possibly be one of the oldest and most interesting to their collection if legend can be proven as fact.

Rooney, Megan. “Huguenot Refugee Ring Reverse.” 2015. jpg.

Physical Description: The ring is fastened to a piece of somewhat thick paper, thicker than typical writing paper of today. It is fastened to the middle of the paper by four pieces of string, punctured through the paper and tied together on the backside. The ring has left a grey circle on the paper where perhaps the material of the ring has rubbed off onto the paper like tarnish from years of being attached. Information has been written onto the paper on which the ring is secured that suggests a great history for such an unassuming object. “Gold Ring worn by Huguenot Refugee // at time of Revocation of “Edict of Nantes” 1685” is written in ink onto the front of the paper above and below the placement of the ring. The script certainly looks like it was written from a different time where words were written on paper by quill and ink with a more expressive style. The back of the paper possibly reads: “Some one of Lillie Forebares” though the handwriting is somewhat illegible as compared to the other writing on the paper. Additionally, written upside-down and opposite the aforementioned description is a repeat of the front detail, this time stating: “Gold Ring worn by a Huguenot”.

Provenance: The object was donated to Historic Huguenot Street from a Ms. Katherine Wells and Mr. Freeman Lasher in memory of Edith E. Hasbrouck. A ring of such simplicity could have been a wedding band worn by one of the Huguenots who sought refuge in this area of New York or possibly in one of the European countries the Huguenots fled to such as Ireland, England, the Netherlands or Germany. The secondary object, the piece of paper the ring is attached to, comments on “some one of the Lillie forebears” which is a potential link to the rings ownership.

Narrative: Little can be determined about the ring’s history by just simply observing the ring itself. It is a humble piece of jewelry that would call little attention whether on a finger or off for it is thin and without markings, as plain as a ring can get. On the sheet of paper it is fastened to, it is referred to as a gold ring though that is an assumption thus far. It bares no markings or decorative details that would signify a maker, time period, or owner. The ring is simply a circle of metal. The claim on the piece of paper that a Huguenot refugee wore this ring during the Edict of Nantes is of both huge significance as well as speculation. It is simply a claim after all; hearsay, a myth. We cannot directly ask the object questions or will it to provide us with all the answers.

Rooney, Megan. “New Paltz Placard.” 2015. jpg.

The object combines fascination and frustration—it could potentially be an object of great importance for it could be a material link to the very event that caused the great emigration of Huguenots to various places around the world, in this particular case, our home of New Paltz. However, it could unfortunately be of no consequence at all—a story of make believe thought up by perhaps a history fanatic with a grand imagination or a distant relative related to someone in the New Paltz genealogy that could have sworn that’s how the story went about the ring in the retelling of a tale.

This object has been a source of enchantment. Regardless if its history is true or false, when one thinks about this ring, it is likely that nostalgia will take over as it has the potential to be a miniature piece of a dramatic history that is so dear to the town’s past.

The Edict of Nantes was a French law passed by King Louis IV allowing French Protestants a degree of religious freedom to publically worship their religion with full civil rights. The Protestants of France are referred to as the Huguenots and it was they who found freedom of persecution following the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes decades later by King Louis XIV in the New World. The overturning of the edict in 1685 spurred the emigration of the Huguenots to what would become New Paltz. If the description on the paper were indeed true, that would mean this ring was worn by a Huguenot seeking refuge in response to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and furthermore, this person could belong to that of a Lillie ancestry but there is still much to explore. In contrast, if this is false, then who crafted this story and why? Who are the Lillie’s, if anyone at all? Who may have worn this ring and from where did it come?

In initial searching, little has been found about a Lillie family connected with the Ulster County settlement by the Huguenots. However, some information was found about the Lillie Family of Lisburn in Northern Ireland. These Huguenots are descendants of de Lilles from the town of Lilles in France who left the country for Ireland in the 1570s following the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Eve in 1572. Is it possible that one of the Huguenots who came to the Hudson Valley is connected to this family line and wore this ring? If no Lillie family is connected to New Paltz or elsewhere in New York then it would be important to determine any connection the donors may have had with this ring and why they chose to donate it in memory of Edith E. Hasbrouck.

Trainor, Ashley. “Donor Card.” 2015. jpg.

The ring is so painfully simple that upon inspection, nothing can be derived from the materiality of it. However, the object does show us that we can emotionally connect to even the most basic of items. If this was in fact a wedding band from the 1600s, then the society has in its hands an item that bound two people through the placement of this item on their finger. Those people’s histories are a part of the ring as well in addition to anyone after them that wore this ring and carried it with them through their life. Now the ring has a new layer added onto it as it resides at Huguenot Street, its new home. We perpetuate the utter fascination with this object with the legends we imbue in it since its origins ultimately remain a mystery.

Bibliography

Best, E. Joyce. “The Huguenots Come to Lisburn.” Lisburn. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Cavendish, Richard. “The Edict of Nantes.” The Edict of Nantes. History Today, 4 Apr. 1998. Web. 13 Apr. 2015.

Trainor, Ashley. “Donor Card.” 9 April 2015. Digital Image

DESCRIPTION: In modern English lexicon, we’re all aware of the phrase “burying the hatchet”, literally meaning to end a feud or dispute by putting a dead stop to whatever we’re bickering about. But just several hundred years ago, that phrase had an entirely different meaning. According to The History of the Indian Tribes of Hudson’s River, the process of going to war was a simple yet elegant one; if a hatchet was stuck into the head of a murdered victim not from the same tribe as a murderer, anyone could literally “take up the hatchet” and declare war (Ruttenber 31). According to author William R. Gerard in his article “The Term Tomahawk”, the etymology of the word is seemingly derived from a Lenape word “tamahak”, which is essentially a root meaning “used for cutting” (Gerard 277). The first use of a term similar to this in English is from Captain John Smith’s account in his work Map of Virginia, in which he describes a tool called a tomahack, likely an erroneous spelling, which is “a long stone sharpened at both ends”. Gerard also explains that despite its obvious applications as a weapon, that a tomahawk’s cutting ability was somewhat weak. Rather than hacking downward into wood or meat, a “succession of blows would occur in a slanting direction, a sort of chipping operation” (Gerard 278).

Hatchet and axe heads aren’t particularly unique, as according to author Herbert C. Kraft in his book The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage, “finding arrowheads, spear points, and axes is exciting and enjoyable but often go undocumented” (25).  While I could find no specific examples of an axe head in the local area, more often than not, axes among Native American tribes did not differ very much. For example, axe heads were usually employed as “celts”, which is essentially an archaic tool with both digging and chopping abilities thanks in large part to its distinct edges. The second picture in this post, courtesy of Ice Age Artifacts, is typical of this style, as its distinctive edges and wide shape indicate possible implications like digging. PROVENANCE: According to archival work According to archival work NYS Arrowheads, it is very likely that “a Lenape warrior would have used a bow and arrow along with either a ball-headed war club or a ‘tomahawk’ hatchet”, likely acting as a short and long range compliment to one another (251). When a Lenape warrior would take up their arms, they would chant; “Let us go and devour them! Do not sit inactive! Follow the impulse of your hereditary valor! Anoint your hair! Paint your faces! Fill your quivers! Make the woods echo with your voices! Comfort the spirits of the deceased and avenge their blood!” (Ruttenber 31). A chant like this would often accompany a charge issued by a warchief or captain, as the Europeans would call them and more often than not, these were counter-attacks against the land encroaching Europeans, most often the Dutch settlers in the region (Ruttenber 30). For this reason, it seems likely that the Lenape would attempt to settle disputes peacefully before taking action, and likely the act of the Europeans forcing them off of their land or killing tribe members was a good enough impetus to fight back. However, war wasn’t always initiated by taking up the hatchet, and instead reparations could be made through gifts or simply giving the murderer up (Ruttenber 31). Clearly this wouldn’t be the case between tribes like the Lenape and the Dutch or any number of the other European settlers in the region but in addition to its uses as a weapon, an arrowhead such as the one depicted had many other roles to fulfil. Kraft explains that because the climate in the region around when the Dutch, the French Huguenots, and the English were settling roughly four hundred years ago was temperate, activities such as hunting and fishing were likely enacted alongside gardening and agriculture (34). For that reason, a Lenape axe head may have seen use chopping wood or breaking small stones in addition to hunting turkeys and turtles for meat as well as trapping and skinning wolves for their pelts (6).

DATE OF CREATION NARRATIVE: Very simply put, an axe had such as the ones in the pictures would have no unique history beyond what could be assumed. As most adzes, axes, and celts were made for functionality and not form, no distinct markings are typically found on them and as such, their own personal narratives are often lost to time. However, in this way of thinking, a practical history could be imagined rather easily. Likely created for both its utility as a tool and a weapon, a Lenape tribesman would have probably chosen stones that were of an appropriate but manageable size and weight, as a stone too big would be weighted improperly and cause swinging mishaps. After choosing the correct stone, the tribesman would likely attempt to chip the stone down to points to sharpen it at either one or both ends. This was probably done in the off chance that one end would break or simply dull over time, and as most mounted axe heads were done so on simple sticks, the “handles” likely wouldn’t have been meant for either hand nor had a definite head or tail. Most wrappings for axe heads were similar if not the same sinews used to bind arrowheads to shafts, and these sinews were likely from animal carcasses killed on previous hunts. The axes could then be employed as simple cutting implements, likely making woodchips if the cutting motion required it or for felling small trees. In terms of warfare usage, they were likely thrown rather than used in hand to hand combat because of their delicate constructions, leaving that duty to weaponry like warclubs and the like (Gerard 280). However, you might be asking what makes axe heads like the images shown unique to New Paltz?  Again, simply put, nothing really makes any axe head unique to the Lenape or New Paltz itself, however the cultural significance behind any objects like these is what matters most. As axe heads and celts were replaced with the traded iron cutting and digging implements used by the Europeans, the cultural practice of making personal implements became more or less lost to time. For that matter, each Native American tool that’s found is significant in some way, as even though the direct history behind it is lost, it signifies a history that is far older than the more widely known European narrative we are all accustomed to.

Works Cited:

Kraft, Herbert C. The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 B.C.- A.D. 2000. Lenape, 2001. Print.

NYS Arrowheads. Author unknown.

Ruttenber, Edward Manning. History of the Indian Tribes of Hudson’s River. Port Washington, NY: I.J. Friedman Division, Kennikat, 1971. Print.

Image Sources:

http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/images/stone-tomahawk

http://www.iceageartifacts.com/images/Gray%20Axe%20-%20KH%20(338%20x%20300)

http://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/files/1999/03/grooved_stone_axe

This late 19th century print depicts a romanticized scene of the Huguenots as they fled religious persecution in France. It is one of three such images in Abraham Brodhead’s office that act as a visual reminder of his cultural participation in the Colonial Revival movement that once swept through the Hudson Valley.

“Escape of a Huguenot Family after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew”

London published June 1^st 1880 by Henry Graves & C° the proprietors publishers to HM the Queen and TRH the Prince & Princess of Wales, 6. Pall Mall – copyright registered. Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1880 at the Library of Congress in Washington.

Engraved by J. Scott

Printed by Holdgate Brs.

“Escape of a Huguenot Family after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew”

Hanging on the north wall of Abraham Brodhead’s small second story office is a 25.5 in. x 34 in. print, set within glass and against a 3 in. linen mat. The frame is ornately carved wood, about 2 in. thick and decorated with gold colored paint. The prints’ somewhat ostentatious frame very much reflects the propagandistic nature of the scene, and both serve to catch the visitors attention almost immediately. As the eye moves across the composition from left to right, the viewer is confronted by an assortment of figures crowded together on a small wooden raft. Firstly, a young woman dressed in typical 16^th century peasant-clothing stands at the back of the raft, steering it through tall reeds. Sitting beside her, an elderly woman in a fine dress and headpiece looks worried as she consoles the disheveled elderly man leaning against her shoulder. Behind the couple are two bearded gentlemen, one with a purse around his waist who leans down to aid the couple, and another who stands proudly turned towards the front of the raft, as the other finely dressed woman wraps her hand around his neck and gazes desperately at his profile. Just in front of them are the two men wearing armor, one holds a tall spear and faces frontally while the other looks back towards the party sympathetically. Lastly, two young boys wearing peasant attire crowd the front of the boat, one attending to his weapon, and the other standing with his head up, looking eagerly towards whatever might lie ahead.

The northwest corner of Abraham Brodhead’s office. Half of the print is visible on the right side of the picture. It is the first decoration that a visitor encounters upon entering the room, and is situated directly opposite the door.

The printed inscription that lies just below the image is a key factor in discovering the origin of the print. James Scott (ca. 1809-1889), whose name is found on the lower right hand corner, was one of the finest English engravers of the mid to late 19^th century. Not much is known about his art education, but he became equally talented in the genres of portraiture, history paintings, and sporting subjects. Scott earned notoriety when his portrait of the Duke of Wellington was published in 1837, and over the next fifty years he engraved a large number of designs after the works of contemporary painters. Henry Graves & Co. was a publishing house in Pall Mall, London that was active between 1844 and 1899, and it ended up publishing over one hundred of Scott’s prints within that time period. The National Portrait Gallery in London now houses over two hundred prints published by Henry Graves & Co., twenty-two of which are attributed to the artist James Scott. The inscription informs us that this print was published on June 1^st, 1880, and dedicates the work to Her Majesty the Queen of England, and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince & Princess of Wales. This formality may seem odd in modern practice, but it was customary to honor the head of state in all matters of fine and high art especially for those who distributed prints & literature. Although it is not known how this particular print came to be in the Deyo-Brodhead family collection, we are able to infer that it was some point after 1880 when, as the inscription tells us, it travelled to Washington and passed through the Library of Congress.

The northeast corner of Abraham’s second floor office.

You may wonder how this unique foreign print became a part of the modern day Historic Huguenot Street collection. It’s a dramatic image of a purely fictional event; the raft that all ten Huguenots seem to be floating on could have never held the weight, and the socioeconomic diversity of their fleeing party (as is evident in the clothes they’re wearing) appears democratic, but highly improbable. It is true that over 5,000 French citizens were killed during St. Bartholomew’s massacre on August 23, 1572 in Paris alone, and thousands more fled the country permanently, but this particular rendering of the escape is inaccurate. What, then, is the point? Why would a respectable descendent such as Abraham Brodhead want a romanticized print that remembers this traumatic moment in French Huguenot history hanging in his primary office? Understanding the owners’ personal history and examining the broader cultural context of the Hudson Valley during the late 19^th century yields quite a fruitful explanation.

In 1894, Abraham and Gertrude Brodhead received notice that they had inherited what they believed to be a large sum of money from a “rich banker uncle”. Pierre Deyo was one of the original Patentees of New Paltz and had built his stone house along the main thoroughfare of the settlement in 1720. Slowly over the years, Deyo’s grandchildren added other stone additions to the rustic house, but none as dramatic as what Abraham and Gertrude decided to build nearly two centuries later.

A detail of the printed inscription. Only the title is visible without a magnifying glass.

At the ages of 37 and 32, Abraham and Gertrude regarded their inheritance as an opportunity to join a new, upper-echelon of society. The period of Colonial Revivalism that emerged in 1876 was a national expression of Early North American culture; although its underlying goal was to create a particular historical consciousness pertaining primarily to the original East coast colonies, the movement manifested itself as a style of architecture, decorative art, and landscape design. In keeping with the trend, the couple took out several bank loans (all of which they believed they would be able to pay off after the family money came through) and began reconstructing their small ancestral stone house into a three-storied mini-mansion. The stone foundation was retained as an important reminder of the family history, and once construction was complete, the original one room stone house became the couples’ main entertaining space. Abraham and Gertrude were able to welcome their guests into their lavish, contemporary home and point to the exposed wooden beams of their sitting room as a visual reminder of their ancestors’ hard work (and more importantly, of the Brodhead’s inherent privilege to that status).

Studio portrait of Gertrude Deyo (b. 1868-1926), daughter of Matthew Deyo & Julia Etta Dubois Deyo. She married Abraham Deyo Brodhead in 1890. Photo ca. 1890

Studio portrait of Abraham Deyo Brodhead (b. 1863-1926). Photo ca. 1880-90

At this point in history, the Brodhead’s were “competing”, for lack of a better term, with families like the Vanderbilts, the Roosevelts, and the Rockefellers who had established their own family estates across the river in Hyde Park and beyond. Although those particular families were also the embodiment of the struggle between “old” and “new money,” they represented the top tier of opulence and grandeur in American society. Even on their side of the Hudson, the Brodheads were up against the then-growing number of Gilded Age homes that were lining the streets of nearby Kingston. They never would reach the same social sphere that the aforementioned families occupied (primarily due to their habit of spending money they didn’t have), but this did not stop Abraham and Gertrude from trying. The Hudson Valley had turned into a hot spot for Colonial Revivalism and the Brodhead’s knew that in order to stand out, their best bet was to advertise their heritage.

A modern view of the Deyo House. Evidence of the original stone stucture built by Pierre Deyo in the 18th century can be seen on the exterior of the first floor.

Besides their newly impressive home and manicured gardens, what better way to display that particular connection than through decoration? This is where the interior of the Deyo-Brodhead house becomes important to the underlying Colonial Revivalism theme; family heirlooms and antique furniture inhabit every room, and dozens of prints & portraits dot the walls. In 1894, the Brodhead’s family home had become a stage, and these objects, their props. The image that James Scott created in 1880 is obviously sympathetic to the Huguenots, but more importantly, it portrays them as a resilient and brave people. The proud man comforting the emotionally distraught woman on his chest as he looks towards the future is an overt symbol of the Huguenots’ heroism. They were persecuted as French Protestants and run out of their own country, but instead of dying out and accepting defeat, the Huguenots became pioneers of a new land. When Pierre Deyo and the eleven other founders of New Paltz came to settle the area, they faced deadly inclement weather, starvation, and hostility from the Esopus Indians who were ready to fight for their land. These are the types of stories that would have been told as esteemed friends and colleagues visited with Abraham in his office, and these are the pieces of history that served to glorify the Brodhead name.

Studio Portrait of Gertrude Deyo in Hat. Photo ca. late 1890’s.

It seems somewhat strange that the true value of this print is indeed the lie that its able to tell. Its ornate frame indicates that the print was most definitely displayed and appreciated as a piece of fine art, but its true function was that of an ancestral advertisement. Although a modern perspective could perceive the Brodhead’s as power-hungry, it is crucial to remember that they were one family among a large scope of the American population who participated in this cultural obsession. In many ways, the Deyo House and the 19^th century art and artifacts that are now kept protected inside are able to add to the rich history of the original settlers. By examining the Brodheads and the way in which they attempted to re-establish a family legacy, we are able to better understand the complexity of this noteworthy print, and the role it had in reviving an idealized memory of the Huguenot settlers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“August 24: This Day in History, St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre.” History. A&E Networks Digital, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/saint-bartholomews-day-massacre&gt;.

“Henry Graves & Co. (active 1844-1899), Publishers.” The National Portrait Gallery. NPG, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp12751/henry-graves–co?search=sas&sText=Henry+Graves+%26+Co&OConly=true&gt;.

“James Scott (ca. 1809-1889), Engraver.” The National Portrait Gallery. NPG, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015. <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp15031/james-scott?role=art&gt;.

“The Katherine Deyo Cookingham Downer Collection.” Hudson River Valley Heritage. N.p., 19 Mar. 2007. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. <http://www.hrvh.org/cdm/search/collection/hhs/searchterm/Katherine%20Deyo%20Cookingham%20Downer&gt;.

Trainor, Ashley. “Professor Mulready’s Class.” Message to the author. 2 Apr. 2015. E-mail.

Weikel, Thomas. “Professor Mulready’s Class.” Message to the author. 3 Apr. 2015. E-mail.