THE MARKET STREET WITCH BOTTLE, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE MARKET STREET WITCH BOTTLE,
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
J. Stephen Alexandrowicz
Maryland Historical Trust
Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum
St. Leonard, Maryland
ABSTRACT
Urban archaeological excavations were conducted at the Market
Street Site District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the spring of
1981. One bottle and its contents were unique from the thousands
of other specimens recovered from the cisterns, wells, and other
cultural features that were recorded during that project. This
complex artifact may represent physical evidence of a witchcraft
custom associated with early 19th century urbanization in
Pittsburgh. Witchcraft in western Pennsylvania has heretofore been
unrecognized in the early and present historical accounts. The
Market Street Witch Bottle is compared to and contrasted with
examples from other American and English Sites.
INTRODUCTION
To begin this discussion, we have to understand what witch bottles are
and where they originated. As defined by Merrifield (1955: 195) and Becker
(1978: 1), witch bottles were magical vessels or objects used as a "common
counter-measure against witch-craft". Cotton Mather ( 1689, cited in Bunn
1982:1) referred to witch bottles as "A Devil's shield against a Devil's
sword ••• " or an anti-witch charm. In general, a review of the relevant
literature suggests that witch bottles were used as a counter measure against
witchcraft when a specific person was the object of special acts of
witchcraft, or as a "shotgun" effect to give protection over an entire
household (Becker 1978; 1980; Bunn 1982; Fowler 1876; Merrifield 1954; 1980).
To counter special acts of witchcraft, the witch bottles were often
buried outside or deposited in a stream (Becker 1978; 1980; Merrifield 1954;
1980). When used to protect a house, the bottles were buried under the hearth
or threshold (ibid.). The intent of this paper is not to explain the
philosophy of witchcraft and witch bottles, or, as Bunn (1982:4) appropriately
stated "How (and indeed If) these counter charms worked ••• " (and I am
stressing these words in capital letters). Rather, this paper is designed to
explain the witch bottle phenomenon and to elucidate possible precursors for
the specimen that was recovered during the Market Street Site District
excavations conducted in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1981
(Alexandrowicz, J.S. 1981; 1985; n.d.; Alexandrowicz, S.R. 1981; Alexandrowicz
and Alexandrowicz 1983; 1984).
WITCH BOTTLES FROM THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT
At this point, my resear~h is in its formative stages and I have
encountered only one bottle from continental Europe that constitutes "hard"
evidence for a witch bottle. Merrifield (1955) briefly discusses this witch
bottle with associated bone contents from Mottlingen, Germany. A 19th century
117scholar, Ludwig Hanselmann (1876, cited by Merrifield 1955; and Becker 1980)
wrote about witchcraft in Continental Europe. Becker (1978:7; 1980:23)
indicates that witchcraft was manifested in "magical" vessels recovered from
15th through 16th century contexts in Germany, Holland, and Scandanavia. Once
again, Merrifield (1954; 1980: 15) suggests that possible precusors of the
English examples, designed for the entrapment of evil spirits in stoneware
vessels, were in the Netherlands and Germany. Furthermore, he suggests that
there is a possible link between the continental practices in the Netherlands
and Germany of burying the witch bottles under thresholds and hearths, or
throwing them in marshes as seen in North Holland, with the practices in
England (Merrifield 1980:15). Finally, Merrifield (1980:14) suggests that
the early bellarmines used in English witchcraft were imported from the
Rhineland, and that the use of bella r mines is a uniquely English custom.
Future research may eventually reveal additional i nformation that will explain
the evolutionary use of witch bottles and the correlation between the
Continental European, English, and American counterparts.
WITCH BOTTLES AND CHARMS FROM ENGLAND
With reference to the beliefs in witchcraft from England, Ralph
Merrifield, an authority on English wi tchcr a ft, discusses two examples that
may have medieval backgrounds. The first example, a lead inscription da ting to
the 17th century, exhibited attribut e s similar to Roma n age artifacts
(Merrifield 1980:18-19). The second example, a witch bottle with its inscribed
paper contents dating to the late 19th or e arly 20th century, indicated a
tradition in the belief in mag i c charms that has continued from medieval times
up to and including the present century (ibid.:16).
As mentioned above, bellarmines FIG~E 1. LINE DRAWlll(; OF A
(Figure 1) seemed to be the favored vessel "CLASSIC" BELLERMINE FRCM SUFFOLK,
form used in counter magic against ENGLAfV (AFTER B.Jt-.N 1982: 6) •
witchcraft in England (Bunn 1982). The
rationale behind their use may have been
attributed to a single or a combination of
reasons. Bunn (1982: 4) is quick to point
out that bellarmine production began at
the turn of the 16th century in the
Rhineland. The term "Bellarmine," refers
to a type of stoneware vessel that had a
characteristic grotesque face embossed on
the neck of the vessel. The
anthropomorphic face is often mistakenly
identified by some as Cardinal Bellarmino
(Merrifield 1980). (not to see.14')
The earliest recorded version or account of a counter magic technique
that employed a witch bottle comes from Suffolk, England (Bunn 1982;
Merrifield 1980). Joseph Glanvil (1681) published an account in Sadducismus
Triumphatus in 1681. Likewise, the earliest reported us e of a witch bottl e in
England dates to 1620 with a Suffolk specimen (Becker 1978; Merr i field 1954).
To date, I have recorded a minimum of 23 di ffe re n t sp ec imen s that were
recovered from Suffolk, England (Becker 1978; 1980; Bunn 1982; Merrifield
1980; Merrifield and Smedley 1958). One of the specimens with a variety of
associated contents has been noted by several researchers with reference to
118the typical and atypical or unique contents (Becker 1978:9; 1980:21; Bunn
1982:5; Merrifield and Smedley 1958:98). This bottle was a stoneware
specimen, not a bellarmine. Typical contents recovered were: " ••• a piece of
felt (in several fragments but originally sewn into a heart shape), into which
6 or 7 brass pins were stuck; a piece of light brown human hair; [and] more
than 40 iron nails ••• " (Bunn 1982: 5). Atypical or unique contents included
'' ••• [a] two pronged iron fork ••• , small fragments of glass (more than 40), 24
brass studs with convex heads (upholstery pins?), [and] fragments of 4(?) flat
wooden spills, pointed at both ends ( sulpher matches?) ••• " (Becker 1978: 9).
The bottle had been sealed with a clay plug, which when analyzed indicated the
presence of phosphate. Hence, it was deduced by researchers that either the
specimen had been buried in a midden or soil closet (privy), or had once
contained urine (Becker 1978; Bunn 1982; Merrifield and Smedley 1958).
Authors from the 17th century such as Belgrave (1671), Glanvil (1681),
Mather (1689; 1691), and 20th century authorities (Becker 1978; 1980; Bunn
1982; Merrifield 1954; 1955; 1980; Merrifield and Smedley 1958) have all noted
the ubiquitous characteristic of urine associated with witch bottles. One
witch bottle found in Padstow, Cornwall, England, which Merrifield (1980:13,
19) attributed to a post-1900 association, contained urine with pins imbedded
into the exterior facet of the cork that sealed the bottle. In other
instances, artifacts were placed into the witch bottles without urine. In some
cases, the witch bottles contained a cloth heart stuck with pins and other
associated items such as hair, as illustrated by the specimen recovered from
Westminster, England (Merrifield 1980:12-13). Merrifield (1980:15) noted that
a similar witch bottle with a cloth heart was found at Norfolk, England. Felt
hearts pierced with pins have been found in London, Ipswich, and Stepany
(Merrifield 1980: 15). Bunn (1982), and Merrifield and Smedley (1958) all
point out that the famed "Pottery Street" witch bottle from Suffolk contained
a piece of felt, possibly heart shaped, that had been stuck with pins and
placed inside of the stoneware specimen with other associated magical
contents.
WITCHCRAFT AND WITCH BOTTLES IN AMERICA
The most celebrated and infamous accounts of witchcraft in North America
occured in the colony of Massachusetts during the late 17th century. Upham
(1959) provided a detailed account of the frenzied activities that permeated
the social structure in Salem and associated areas in eastern Massachusetts.
Increase Mather's son, Cotton Mather (1689; 1691), wrote several articles that
condoned the use of counter magic or white magic in certain instances. One
possible physical manifestation of white magic or counter magic in New England
has been addressed by Richard Michael Gramly (1981). He discussed a pictograph
depicting a triangular grouping of symbols found south of 17th century Salem
Village. Gramly (ibid.) suggested that the symbols represented a warning or
protection against witches and witchcraft.
In the colony that became the state of Pennsylvania, witchcraft was a
fact of life in the 17th century. Becker (1978: 1) states: "The English 'Act
Against Conjuration' ••• of 1603 demonstrated concern for parallel activities
in Great Britian. Witchcraft in the colonies appears to have reflected the
tastes of the mother county just as the Colonials shared English architecture,
ceramics, and other items of trade." In 1684, William Penn presided over a
trial of an alleged witch at a meeting of the Provincial Assembly. Becker
119(1978:1; 1980:19) citing Fletcher (1950:505) claims that an 'Act for the
Advancement of Justice' in the colony " ••• incorporated • • • 'An Act Against
Conjuration, Witchcraft, and Dealing with Evil and Wicked Spirits' passed in
England in 1685." The amount of legal action taken by the provincial
authorities in the late 17th to early 18th centuries in the colony that became
Pennsylvania indicates that witchcraft was a reality in the social milieu of
that time.
The earliest recorded witch bottle in America was found in 1976 in
eastern Pennsylvania by Marshall Becker (1978; 1980). Referred to as the
Essington Witch Bottle, it was a free-blown specimen made of olive-green
glass. Becker (ibid.) suggested a date of manufacture of ca. 1740. Within
the bottle, sealed by a wooden plug, were six spherical headed brass pins. The
specimen was found in a small hole an inverted position, with an associated
bird bone and ceramic sherd buried with it. A structural foundation possibly
representing the 17th century residence of the Swedish Governor Johan Printz
was located in close proximity to the hole where the Essington witch bottle
was found. However, the bottle may have been deposited during the time when a
Quaker, named John Taylor, occupied the house, ca. 1748 (Becker 1978; 1980).
This specimen was the only recorded witch bottle found in America prior to the
witch bottle recovered during the 1981 Market Street Site District
archaeological investigations.
In addition to the Essington and Market Street witch bottles, two other
potential witch bottles have been recovered in America. The first potential
candidate was found by a collector in 1978 at the Great Neck archaeological
site in Virginia Beach, Virginia (Painter 1980). The lack of verifiable
stratigraphic associations with this specimen, in conjunction with the
whimsical or metaphysical contents of the written article, make this a dubious
candidate as a witch bottle.
Another possible witch bottle was located in 1982 during a testing
project in Dorchester County, Maryland (Schiek and Thomas 1983). An
olive-green wine bottle neck was found with 17 nickel-plated copper straight
pins stuck into the exterior and interior facets of the stopper. This
artifact was found in an early 19th century fill deposit, stratigraphically
above, but apparently associated with a late 18th to early 19th-century
building foundation. Despite the fact that the specimen was fragmentary, it
exhibits the characteristic elements of a witch bottle. Becker (1986, personal
communication) concurs with my contention that this specimen represents a
probable witch bottle.
Thus far, the facts indicate that the Essington, Pennsylvania, witch
bottle, the Dorchester County, Maryland, witch bottle, and the Market Street,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, witch bottle, are the only representat i ve specimens
of this type found in America.
THE MARKET STREET WITCH BOTTLE:
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL SETTING
During March 1981, the Market Street Site District urban archaeological
project was undertaken in the City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Alexandrowicz,
J.S. 1981; 1985; n.d.; Alexandrowicz, S.R. 1981; Alexandrowicz and
Alexandrowicz 1983; 1984). James L. Swauger (1955; 1960; 1968; 1984; Swauger
120and Haynes 1953; 1959; Swauger and Lang 1967) has noted that the excavations
at Fort Pitt were the first urban archaeological excavations in Pittsburgh.
The Market Street Site District excavations were the first urban
archaeological excavations in the city to investigate the residential and
commercial aspects of Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh's location, in direct proximity to the "Three Rivers",
encouraged trade and exchange which contributed to the progressive economic
and demographic development of the city. The people who emigrated from Europe
to this developing community were a mixture of ethnic groups composed of
English, Scottish, Irish, Germans, Polish, and others. These immigrants
transplanted their crafts, social mores, customs, and, indeed, their cultural
heritages, when they left their homelands to settle in this "urban frontier
town" (Wade 1971).
The archaeological excavations conducted in 1981 were a direct result of
construction activities for the corporate headquarters of PPG (Pittsburgh
Plate Glass) Industries, Inc. (Figure 2). At that time, construction
operations and archaeological excavations were focused on two city blocks.
Thirteen cultural features were recorded by the archaeological investigations
in Area 1 and Area 2. This paper will be focused solely on one artifact that
was recovered from Feature 1, a brick lined cistern, located in Area 1.
FIGLRE 2. LOCATION OF FEATURES 1,2, ANJ 3, MEA 1. TI1E FEATURES
AAE PLOTIED ON A 20TH CENTURY MAP (ALLEGHENY COUNTY ffiOPERTY
IDENTIFIPCTION MAP, 1983, BLOCK 1-H, LOT 39). NOTE -fl-lAT TI1E
FEATURES AAE SITUATED IN TI1E SOUTHERN FDRTION OF LOT 326 AS TI1E
MEASLREMENTS ccmESFOtnED TO TI1E 1835 DEED.
FEATURE 1, AREA 1
Three cultural features, a brick lined cistern (Feature 1), a building or
privy foundation and associated refuse deposit (Feature 2), and a probable
privy/trash pit (Feature 3), ~ere recorded in the southwestern corner of Area
1211 (Figure 2). Feature 1 was a brick lined cylinder (Figure 3), that appeared
to have been initially designed as a cistern. Later, it may have functioned as
a privy, and certainly functioned as a trash pit from the first quarter
through the mid-19th century. The witch bottle and its contents were recovered
from Stratum 2 (labeled F 15), the lowermost cultural deposit within Feature
1. Based on the recovery of an associated diagnostic fragment of a
blown-molded historical flask embossed "J.R.", among the hundreds of other
artifacts, the deposit has been dated with a terminus post quem of 1824. The
"J.R." flask (signifying John Robinson) was only made from 1824-1830 (McKearin
and Wilson 1978:503, 524-525:Type GI-6a). Thus, the associated artifacts from
the bottom of the cistern, including the small, free-blown, cylindrical bottle
and it's contents, were deposited as trash sometime during or after 1824.
FIGLRE 3. ffiOFI LE OF THE NW-SW SECTION OF FEATURE 1, AAEA 1 (AFTER ALEXN'JDROWICZ
1985).
CONSTRUCTION GRADE
DISTURBED
----
ORANGE SAND INCLUSIONS
- ARTIFACT CONCENTRATION
COBBLE INCLUSION
ARTIFACT CONCENTRATION
COBBLE INCLUSION
ARTIFACT CONCENTRATION
F-11/16
...................... ,: 5 feet
LAND OWNERSHIP AND BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS
By using the measurements for Feature 1 from the extant streets as they
existed in 1981, and extrapolating those measurements onto a map entitled
"Plan of Lots in the Manor of Pittsburgh made for the Penns by Colonel George
Woods in 1784" (Hill 1787), I was able to estimate that Feature 1 was situated
within the original boundaries of Lot 326, in the southeastern portion of that
lot. We are able to deduce that from the deeds for Lot 326 that only a few
individuals could have owned the land during the earliest possible date of
deposition, and shortly thereafter. Therefore, possible owners of the southern
portion of Lot 326 (and further sub-divisions of the southern area of that
lot) during 1824 and shortly after that date included: John Irwin (1791-1825)
122(Allegheny County Deed Books 1791:367-368); Abishai Way (1825-1826) (Allegheny
County Deed Books 1825:141-142); Frederick Rapp (1826-1831) (Allegheny County
Deed Books 1826: 142-143); Benjamin Darlington (1831-1834) (Allegheny County
Deed Books 1831:150-151); Abishai Way (1834-1835) (Allegheny County Deed Books
1834:511-512); B. Darlington (1835) (Allegheny County Deed Books
1835:462-463); B. Darlington (1836) (Allegheny County Deed Books
1836a:445-446); and Abishai Way (1836 - the point to which my research has
progressed thus far) (Allegheny County Deed Books 1836b:ll9-121).
My research has found that the southern portion of Lot 326 contained
Stores 1147 (near Lot 327) and 1149 (center of Lot 326) by at least 1835
(Allegheny County Deed Book 47:462-463). Abishai Way and Benjamin Darlington
bought and sold the southern portions of Lot 326 on numerous occasions.
Benjamin Darlington owned the northern portion of Lot 326 at that time as
well. Abishai Way owned the southern portion of the lot in 1825-1826,
1834-1835, and the sub-divided section of the lot in 1836. Frederick Rapp,
the business agent for the Harmonists of Economy (Shepherd, Jr. 1986, personal
communication; Baumann 1983), owned the southern portion of the lot from
1826-1831. Raymond v. Shepherd, Jr. (1986, personal communication) and
Baumann (1983) have indicated that Abishai Way was a middle man, who bought
goods from and sold goods to the Harmonists who resided and worked in the
village of Economy, 40 miles (24.9 km) up the Ohio River. Hence, there may be
some additional correlations between the activities of Abishai Way of
Pittsburgh, Frederick Rapp (a Harmonist and landowner in Pittsburgh), and the
Harmonists of Economy, Pennsylvania. Perhaps there may be additional ties with
the Harmonists German heritage and customs. Baumann stipulates that:
Founder Johann George Rapp ••• and his congregation believed
that religion should be based on primitive Christianity outlined
in the Bible, that the established Church was corrupt and worldly
and that the millenium was fast approaching. They were also much
influenced by German mystics (Baumann 1983:1).
Thus, we have another potential avenue of investigation with respect to
possible origins for the belief in mysticism, and perhaps witchcraft and witch
bottles.
With regard to other commercial activities, John Robinson had business
with the Harmonists. He sold glasswares to them (Shepherd, Jr. 1986, personal
communication). As mentioned above, the "J.R." flask was found in association
with the Market Street Witch Bottle and provided the terminus post quern of
1824 for the deposit.
Verna Cowin (1985a) has noted a series of possible tenants and businesses
for this area, based on the City Directories of 1812-13, 1815, 1819, 1826,
1837, and 1850. Future research of all available references is needed to
investigate the backgrounds of each of the potential landowners who may have
owned and perhaps lived and worked in this southern portion of Lot 326 when
the witch bottle and the other associated artifacts were deposited in the
cistern.
123THE MARKET STREET WITCH BOTTLE AND ITS CONTENTS
THE BOTTLE
The Market Street Witch
Bottle was a free-blown,
small, cylindrical,
aquamarine, liquor/spirit,
"porter" type bottle (Figure
4). In addition to this small
specimen, three larger,
free-blown, cylindrical,
aquamarine, liquor/spirit
bottles were also recovered in
FIGLRE 4. LINE DRAWIN3 OF 11-lE 9'1ALL Feature 1. I contend that
"FDRTER-TYPE" FREE-BLOWN, CYLINJRICAL they all represent "porter"
EDTILE IDENTIFIED AS 11-lE M/lRKET STREET type bottles. Lowell Innes
WITCH OOTILE. (1976:85, Figure 26)
illustrates two similar
free-blown, quart size
cylindrical bottles with ring
collars, one of which belonged
in the collection of Mrs. Paul
E)(POSED LIP WITH LAID-ON RING
Craig Nonetheless, Innes
(ibid.) attributes these
specimens to manufacture in
CORK STAIN
the Monongahela District, ca.
LIP - FINISH
1797-1850.
I might add that two
~:11nch
similar small, aquamarine,
cylindrical, "porter" type,
bottles were recovered during
other archaeological
excavations in Pittsburgh.
One specimen was excavated
during Phase II of the PPG
Project, conducted by the
Carnegie Museum's Section of
:------,\ Man in 1982 (Cowin 1985b,
personal communication).
:/ \\ Another specimen was excavated
!LOW-PIPE PONTIL during the Pittsburgh Light
BASE PROFILE Rail Transit Project conducted
by the University of
Pittsburgh's Cultural Resource
Management Program in 1982
(Hochrein 1986, personal
communication).
In addition to the foregoing discussion addressing the probable
manufacture of these bottles in the Monongahela or Pit ts burgh Districts,
Figure 26 in Innes' s (1976) book shows a "witch ball and vase". Innes
illustrates witch balls and vases in five separate figures in his book. Figure
124164 in lnnes's (1976:184, Figure 164) book entitled Pittsburgh Glass
1797-1891: A History and Guide for Collectors portrays, among two other glass
items, a "witch ball and vase". The caption for the illustrated "witch ball
and vase" reads:
Unpatterned vase holding a witch ball, light green glass.
Glassblowers made such whimsical ornaments for the delight of
friends and relatives. The belief still lingered that witch balls
kept away evil spirits and brought good luck, also that they
purified the air. 1820-1850. H(eight). 8". (ibid.:184).
This contention will be reinforced with the facts presented in the succeeding
discussion on the Market Street Witch Bottle.
THE CONTENTS
The Market
Street Witch
Bottle was sealed
FIGLRE 5. LINE DRAWING OF lHE HEART 00 with a cork.
l'R I /W3ULAA 9-JAPED PI ECE OF FELT WITH Within the bottle
IMBEOOED PINS A1'D NEEDLES RECOVERED FRFIGlRE 6. LINE DRAWING OF THE FAERIC
IN:£)LES CR IN'.'£JLE PATIERNS RECOVERED FRCM
Wlll-llN THE "fDRTER-T'f PE" EDTILE.
Two complete fabric or textile
(cloth), square-toed shoe insoles or
insole patterns were recovered
virtually intact (Figure 6). Overall
construction is a balanced plain
weave (Emery 1966:76, Figure 85),
although larger warp and weft
elements occur on the average every
16th course. The warp and weft
elements are single ply, "z" spun
(Adovasio 1977; Emery 1966; Hurley
1979). The larger warp and weft
elements, which occur, on the
average, every 16th warp and weft
course, are single ply, "Z" spun
(ibid.). The individual
construction elements or threads
appear to be cotton, although this
has yet to be verified.
A COMPARISON OF THE MARKET STREET WITCH BOTTLE WITH EXAMPLES FROM AMERICA,
ENGLAND, AND CONTINENTAL EUROPE
In the following discussion, major similarities and differences are noted
for the American, English, and European witch bottles.
( 1) The first obvious difference is that the American witch bottles differ
from the majority of the English and th e sole example from Germany in that the
Market Street witch bottle, the Essington witch bottle, and the Dorchester,
Maryland, witch bottle fragment are all made of glass. The majority of the
English and German examples are made of stoneware, characteristically Rhenish
or English bellarmines. However, there are documented examples of glass witch
bottles from the eastern and western regions in England.
A unique characteristic of the Market Street witch bottle is that it
exhibits definite a ttributes that suggest that it was ma nufactured at a
western Pennsylvania glasshouse. English and Germans are known to have been
employed in these Monongahela and Pittsburgh District glasshouses.
Additionally, the "witch balls and vases" manufactured in the Pittsburgh area
provide analogs or additional proof for the belief in witchcraft in this area.
The other American witch bottles could have been made in either America or
England.
(2) Contents of the witch bottles found in America share the common attribute
of pins being either the sole constituent or a portion of the magical
contents. The Market Street witch bottle had 9 brass pins a nd 3 iron needles
included among other items. The Essington witch bottle contained 6 brass pins
sealed within the specimen as the sole contents. Convers e ly, the Dorchester,
Maryland, neck fragment had 17 nickle-plated copper pins imbedded into the
exterior and interior of the closure. The Dorchester example has affinities
with the variety of witch bottles found in the western region of England
(Harte 1984, personal communication), with specific examples found in Padstow
and Winterborne Kingston. On the other hand, the Essington and the Market
126Street examples exhibited attributes which are characteristic of specimens
found in the eastern region, specifically in Suffolk and London, England.
The Essington witch bottle was unique in that it was buried with a bird
bone and ceramic she rd. Continental European witch bottles are sometimes
found with associated bone.
The Market Street witch bottle was unique from its American counterparts
in that it contained a heart or trianglar shaped piece of felt with pins and
needles imbedded in it. Analogous specimens have been found in Suffolk,
Westminster, and London, within the eastern region of England. However, no
English examples of felt hearts appear to have been placed in glass witch
bottles.
In addition, the Market Street Witch Bottle contained two square-toed
shoe insole patterns or shoe insoles that were originally wrapped within the
piece of felt. There are no parallels for this type of content on either side
of the Atlantic Ocean. However, the famed "Pottery Street" witch bottle from
Suffolk, England, contained a variety of unique items, such as a fork and
possible matches. Other Suffolk witch bottles have contained rake tines (Bunn
1982).
The Market Street witch bottle contained items that were immersed in a
liquid that is unidentified at this time. If the chemical analysis indicates
the presence of phosphate, and hence urine, there are numerous examples of
similar specimens in the eastern and western variants of English witch
bottles. Neither of the other American examples had a liquid associated with
the contents.
(3) Temporally, the Essington witch bottle is suggested to date from the
mid-18th century. The Market Street witch bottle and the Dorchester,
Maryland, witch bottles were recovered from archaeological contexts that are
indicative of the first quarter of the 19th century. Witch bottles in the
eastern and western regions in England have been recovered from early 17th
through early 20th century archaeological/cultural contexts.
(4) The Market Street witch bottle was recovered in an urban context. On the
other hand, the Essington and Dorchester, Maryland, examples were recovered in
rural contexts. English examples have been found in both rural and urban
contexts.
With reference to specific locations, the Essington and Dorchester,
Maryland, specimens were recovered in association with a building. The Market
Street witch bottle was recovered in a cistern that was adjacent to a possible
building/privy foundation. English specimens are found under thresholds and
chimneys, as well as outside of buildings, and in ditches, streams, and
rivers.
(5) All three American specimens exemplify the fact that the belief in
witchcraft, counter magic, and good luck was present in the communities
located in the eastern region of America.
127CONCLUSION
In the preceeding paper, I have attempted to provide a definition for
witch bottles and to elucidate their basic characteristics. Analogous
examples from England, Continental Europe, and America have been presented.
An equally important task was the explanation of regional variations in
England and their American counterparts.
Witch bottles are a small and unique class of artifact which provide
physical evidence or symbolism for beliefs in mysticism, magic, witchcraft,
rituals, and religion. These beliefs have been a part of mans cultural
evolution for centuries. For example, consider the symbolic objects ranging
from pottery masks, stingray spines, pottery and stone figurines, and other
specimens recovered in varied contexts in Mesoamerica (Coe 1965; DeBorhegy
1961; Drennan 1976: Drucker~~· 1959; Flannery 1976; Niederberger 1969).
The Market Street witch bottle is just one example of three possible
witch bottles that have been identified in America thus far. More
importantly, it represents tangible proof that the Englishmen and Continental
Europeans who emigrated to the developing 19th century urban frontier city
called Pittsburgh, believed in witchcraft, counter magic, good luck, and evil.
These beliefs were an intricate part of their cultural traditions that had
been transplanted and diffused into their new American homelands from their
European origins.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is dedicated in memory of my father.
Research for this topic was made possible with the assistance of the
following individuals: Susan, my wife, for her ideas and support; Jeremy
Harte and Rodney Alcock from England provided valuable comments on witch
bottles; Lucia Vinciguerra introduced me to Rodney; Raymond v. Shepherd
contributed personal communications and valuable assistance with references
for Old Economy; Marshall Becker assisted with his personal communication on
witch bottles; Ronald Thomas and Anthony Opperman furnished information on the
Dorchester County, Maryland, witch bottle; Verna Cowin and Michael Hochrein
cooperated with their personal communications concerning the respective small
porter-type bottles recovered from their archaeological projects in
Pittsburgh; James Swauger shared his knowledge and articles on Fort Pitt;
James Adovasio and Robert Drennan provided their tutelage through graduate
courses in basketry and Mesoamerican archaeology, respectively; Richard
Scaglion and Ronald Carlisle have maintained an active interest in my
research; my father, John L. Alexandrowicz, and Dennis Pogue contributed their
photographic expertise for my slide presentation; and finally, George Miller,
whose querries about my study into the "Gray Zone" inspired me from the
inception of my research up to the final period of this article.
REFERENCES CITED
Adovasio, James M,
1977 Basketry Technology: A Guide to Identification and Analysis. Aldine Publishing
Co., Ch i ca go.
128Alexandrowicz, J. Stephen
1981 The Market Street Sites: A Study In Urban Archaeology. Research Grant Proposol.
Ms. on tile, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
1985 The Market Street Site District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: A Case Study In Urban
Archaeology. Unpublished M.A. Thesis Preliminary Draft, Department of
Anthropology, University ot Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
n.d. Urban Archaeology in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 1981-1983. Unpublished manuscript
in preparation.
Alexandrowicz, J. Stephen and Susan R. Alexandrowlcz
1983 The Market Street Sites, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: A Study in Historical Urban
Archaeology. Paper presented at the 48th meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
1984 The Market Street Site District, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: A Case Study in Urban
Archaeology. Paper presented at the 17th meeting of the Society for Historical
Archaeology, Wi I liamsburg, Virginia.
Alexandrowicz, Susan R.
1981 Historical Urban Archaeology in Pittsburgh: The PPG Project. Ms. on ti le,
Department of Fine Arts, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Deed Books
1791 Deed Book 2:367-368. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1825 Deed Book 33 : 14 1-142. Ms. on file, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1826 Deed Book 33:142-143. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1831 Deed Book 42:150-151. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1834 Deed Book 46:511-512. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1835 Deed Book 47 :462-463. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Ott ice
Building, Pittsburgh.
1836a Deed Book 49:445-446. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
1836b Deed Book 50:119-121. Ms. on ti le, Deed and Records Department, County Office
Building, Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Property Identification Map
1983 Block 1-H, Lot 39. Map on fl le, County Office Building, Pittsburgh.
Balgrave, Joseph
1671 Astrological Practice of Physick. Obadiah Blagrave, London.
129Baumann, Roi land M. (editor)
1983 Guide to the Microfilmed Harmony Society Records 1786-1951 In the Pennsylvania
State Archives. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Becker, Marshall
1978 An Eighteenth Century Witch Bottle In Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania
Archaeologist 48(1-2):1-11.
1980 An American Witch Bottle. Archaeology 33(2):18-23.
1986 Personal Communication, University of Pennsylvania.
Bunn, l.A.W.
1982 "A Devi I 1s Shield ••• ": Notes on Suffolk Witch Bottles. Lantern 39:3-7.
Coe, Michael D.
1965 The Jaguar's Children: Pre-Classic Central Mexico. Museum of Primitive Art, New
York.
Cowin, Verna L.
1985a Urban Archaeology: A Study of Pittsburgh. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
1985b Personal Communication, Section of Man, Carnegie Museum of Natural History,
Pittsburgh.
DeBorhegyi, s. F.
1961 Shark Teeth, Stingray Spines, and Shark Fishing in Ancient Mexico and Central
America. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17:273-296.
Drennan, Robert D.
1976 Religion and Social Evolution In Formative Mesoamerica. In: The Early
Mesoamerican Village, (Kent v. Flannery, editor). Academic Press, New York.
Drucker, Phi lip, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert J. Squier
1959 Excavations at La Vanta, Tabasco, 1955. Bui letin No. 170. Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Emery, Irene
1966 The Primary Structure of Fabrics: An 11 lustrated Classification. The Textl le
Museum, Washington, D.C.
Flannery, Kent V. (editor)
1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.
Fletcher, Stevenson. W.
1950 Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country Life, 1640-1840. Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Harrisburg.
Fowler, James
1876 On the Process of Decay in Glass, and Incidentally, on the Composition and Texture
of Glass at Different Periods. Archaeologia 46(part 1):65-162.
130Glanvi I, Joseph
1681 Sadducismus Triumphatus- or Full and Plain Evidence Concerning Witches and
Apparitions. London.
Gramly, Richard Michael
1981 Witchcraft Pictographs from Near Salem, Massachusetts. Historical Archaeology
15 ( 1 ) : 113-116.
Hanselmann, Ludwig
1876 Die Vergrabenen und Eingemaurten Thongeschirre des Mittelalters. Westermanns
Jahrbuch der lllustrieten Deutschen Monatshefte 41:393-405.
Harte, Jeremy
1984 Personal Communication, Dorchester Museum, Dorchester, England.
Hill, John
1787 Plan of Lots in the Manor of Pittsburgh Made tor the Penns by Colonel George Wood
in 1784. Copy on fl le, Dari ington Memorial Library, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Hochrein, Michael
1986 Personal Communication, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Hurley, Wi I liam M.
1979 Prehistoric Cordage; Identification of Impressions on Pottery. Tarazacum, Inc.,
Washington.
Innes, Lowe I I
1976 Pittsburgh Glass- 1797-1891: A History and Guide for Collectors. Houghton Mifflin
Co., Boston.
Mather, Cotton
1689 Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions. Boston.
1691 Late Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions. Thomas
Parkhurst, London.
McKearin, Helen and Kenneth Wi Ison
1978 American Bottles and Flasks and Their Ancestry. Crown Publishers, Inc., New York.
Merrifield, Ralph
1954 The Use of Bellarmines as Witch-Bottles. Guildhall Miscellany 3:2-15.
1955 Witch Bottles and Magical Jugs. Folk-Lore 56:195-207.
1980 Witch Charms and White Wizards. British Heritage 1(2):12-19.
Merr I t i e Id , Ralph and Norman Smedley
1958 Two Witch Bottles from Suffolk. Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of
Archaeology 28(1):97-100.
131Niederberger, c. v.
1969 Paleoecologia Humana y Playas Lacustres Post-Pleistocenical en Tlapacoya. Boletln
No. 37: 19-24, lnstltuto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
Painter, Floyd
1980 An Early 18th Century Witch Bottle: A Legacy ot the Wicked WI tch of Pungo. The
Chesopian 18(3-6):62-71.
Schiek, Martha J. and Ronald A. Thomas
1983 Archaeological Study for the Step 11 Engineering Services at the University of
Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies at Horn Point, Dorchester
County, Maryland. Mid-Atlantic Archaeological Research, Inc •• Newark.
Shepherd, Raymond V., Jr.
1986 Personal Communication. Director, Old Economy Vi I lage, Ambridge.
Swauger, James L.
1955 Power Tools and Archaeology. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 25(1):51-57.
1960 Excavations at the Flag Bastion of Fort Pitt. Pennsylvania Archaeologist
30 ( 3-4) : 111-117.
1968 Music Bastion Dig at Fort Pitt. Carnegie Magazine 42:82-84.
1984 Archaeological Salvage at the Site of Forts Pitt and Duquesne, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: 1949-1965. In: The Scope of Historical Archaeology: Essays in
_H_o_no_r__o_f__Jo_h_n__L_._C_o_t_t_e_r (David Orr and Daniel Crozier, editors). Temple
University Press, Phi ladelphla.
Swauger, James L. and Auther M. Haynes
1953 Archaeological Salvage at the Site of Fort Pitt. Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh.
1959 Historical Archaeology at Fort Pitt, 1953. Anthropological Series No. 4. Annals
of Carnegie Museum 35(11):247-274.
Swauger, James L. and R. W. Lang
1967 Excavations at the Music Bastion of Fort Pitt, 1964-1965. Annals of Carnegie
Museum 39:39-67.
Upham, Charles W.
1959 Salem Witchcraft (2 Volumes). Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York.
Wade, Richard. c.
1971 The Urban Frontier: Pioneer Life in Early Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Lexington, and
St. Louis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
132You can also read
