Scenes from Bellevue Poor House

Photographs of Bellevue Poorhouse, Blackwell's Island, NY, 1900. Via the Museum of the City of New York (link).

Scenes from the Kings County Almshouse

Photographs of the Kings County Almshouse, Brooklyn, NY, Circa 1900, via the Museum of the City of New York (link).

A Scene from the Richmond County Almshouse

Richmond County Almshouse, Port Richmond, NY, 1900. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Transfer from the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Social Museum Collection (link).

A Scene from the Chenango County Almshouse

Chenango County Almshouse, Preston, NY, 1900. Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Transfer from the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Social Museum Collection (link).

A Scene from the Oneida County Almshouse

The Women's Day Room, Oneida County Almshouse, Rome, NY, 1900. Source: Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum, Transfer from the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Social Museum Collection (link).

The Almshouse in Photographs

These photographs, held by the Harvard University Library, depict the almshouse complex as it appeared around the time of the 1901 map. The image above is labeled "panorama from the rear." Looking at a modern topographical map of the area, there is a ridge that runs northwest/southeast along the present Saw Mill River Parkway, which I believe is the ridge in the picture. That could make the white line that you can see in the left background of the picture the road that runs on the west side of the almshouse complex; thus the picture (if I am right) was taken facing west. I could be wrong, but I have some further evidence (to be featured in a later post) that may help to confirm or deny my theory.



This photograph is labeled simply "almshouse," but if you note the four dormers and the Mansard-roofed building directly to the rear of it (and the smaller Mansard-roofed addition on the right), it seems to be the same building that is shown in the photograph below, labeled "Women's yard and rear of main building." This photo gives a sense of how many different phases of construction the almshouse has undergone. The photo above is also notable for the presence of people standing in front of the main building - are they residents of the almshouse, drawn outside by the novelty of the photographer in their midst?

Here's another photograph of the main building, which gives a better view of the stone facade, the many attached buildings stretching off to the right of the photo, and the decorative molding. I am intrigued by the white post running through the left foreground, which doesn't seem to be visible in the other photograph; is it a flagpole?

Another view of the main building and its attachments with stone wall, driveway, and trees in the foreground. Any guesses as to the reason certain tree trunks are white? This photo and the one above are labeled "Residence Buildings."



This is the front and rear views of the hospital. Notable: pediment, arched doorway, women on the porch (nurses?), stable or barn or some kind in the background, rear wings that look like an addition, fenestrated basement.

The photograph below is labeled "Laundry; dormitory for men on upper floors." You can see the washing hanging on the line in the foreground, attached to the tree (with the strange white-painted trunk). There seems to be a wood pile on the side of the building. Apparently the building was originally intended as a double house or dormitory, with its two off-center doors.

Labeled simply "barns." The almshouse complex was a working farm, and able-bodied inmates were expected to work for their keep. Those who couldn't do manual labor were given less strenuous tasks. 

Lastly, another view of the complex, showing the main building, gardens, and barns. I'm not sure where this photo would have been taken from, though I suspect it is looking west; perhaps the photographer was on the roof of another building.

St. Mark's Church

Although I've posted this picture of St. Mark's Church before, this is a much better version of the image. You can see that there are windows in the steeple that don't appear in this other photo. The book in which this photo appears was published in 1893, whereas the other photo was taken between 1893 and 1905. It stands to reason that this photo is older.

Field Day 5

Today we continued the excavation of the dry well, which I should more properly call Feature 1, considering that we are not 100% sure that it is a dry well (although the evidence seems to point that way). Before we began to dig, we made an effort to recreate one of the old photographs of St. Mark's Church, taken around the 1890s. This was the result:

The view is partially obstructed by the tree in the new photo, but I think it came out pretty well. In both pictures you can see the Caroline Carpenter stone (left foreground) and the pointy Gothic Philip and Nancy Sarles stone (to the right of the church in the old photo, partially blocked by the tree in the new photo). You can also see the two stones slightly to the left of the center of the photo that lean toward each other. One of them was given a new base after the old photo was taken.

 

After taking the photograph and before continuing with Feature 1, we took a few minutes to mark out extensions of STP 3, where we had found the possible foundation wall. These new STPs, which will be called STP 3-A, -B, and -C, will hopefully tell us whether the stones continue and help us to determine whether they are actually a foundation wall. The newly discovered photograph of St. Mark's Church which I posted last night supports our foundation wall theory. In that photograph, the church appears to be located far more to the east than we had previously believed.

Above are the new STPs we marked out. I am not sure if we should keep the unit divided into 20" x 20" squares or combine them into one 40" x 40" unit. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches (as always). Keeping the divisions will allow for more precise recording of strata, features, and artifacts, but will take more time. Eliminating the divisions will save time but sacrifice some precision.

Finally, on to Feature 1. As you can see, there are a lot of rocks, and it only got rockier as we went down. Along with the rocks, we found abundant artifacts: nails, pieces of glass (fancy and non-fancy), charcoal, coal, slate, and pieces of metal and concrete. As we uncovered larger and larger pieces of slate, someone (not me - I think it was Pat?) observed that the shape and size of the slate seemed to resemble the hexagonal slate shingles on the church's steeple, which we were only able to view clearly after scanning the photograph that Laurie found yesterday.

This photograph also provides a better view of the windows of the church (below). Could these windows be the source of some of the glass we were finding? We have uncovered several types of glass - a large quantity of clear, thin pieces; a large quantity of clear pieces with an opaque brown patterning; and a few miscellaneous pieces.

Could the patterned glass pieces (a.k.a. fancy glass) have come from stained glass windows? Were the windows in the photograph above stained glass or not? Upon seeing the photograph above, Laurie and I wondered whether the criss-cross pattern in the windows could have been the same as this brown pattern. However, my father, whose repository of random knowledge is infinite, suggested that the criss-cross pattern was made up of wires that held the panes in place.


There is another possibility for the brown patterned glass - it could have come from the window in the middle of the steeple, which is partially blocked by a tree branch in the photo (below). OR it could not be window glass at all! Whatever it turns out to be, I have to say that the interplay between archaeological and documentary evidence is one of the best parts of historical archaeology. Wouldn't you love to see a photograph of Stonehenge when it was still in use?

One thing I can say about St. Mark's Church is that I don't think I've ever seen a church like it in real life. I would be interested to know if there are any similar churches still standing in the area.

The work of sifting goes on, with both the shaker screen ...


... and this smaller screen. Note the nails and pieces of glass (one clear and one blue) on the frame of the screen. I think I see a nail poking out of the dirt in the middle of the screen too.

Towards the end of our work day, we discovered this white crumbly stuff in two corners of the unit. Is it mortar?

Here's Feature 1 at the end of the day, showing the bottom of Level 1. As Pat observed, the stones we encountered farther down in the feature are more angled, that is closer to perpendicular with the ground surface than parallel to it. You can see some of the angled rocks in this picture, as well as the quarrying mark on the big stone. I am very curious to see if we ever see the bottom of that stone.

As you can see in this photo, we have bisected the feature in order to gain a profile view. This means we will be able to see the strata not only on the sides of the feature, but through the middle of it. This was Eugene's suggestion and so far it seems to be working out very well.

Historical Society Photo

Although it is labeled "Spencer Optical Works," the buildings in this photograph don't seem to resemble the other photos of the Spencer Optical Works that are at the historical society. I think it may have been mislabeled. Also, this photo appears to have been taken in mid-century, perhaps the 1930s or 40s, and I believe that the Spencer Optical Works buildings were no longer standing at that point. The sign outside the door on the first floor of the building says "J. Howard Co." Can anyone identify this place?

Two Stereoviews by Lyman Beers Gorham

The two stereoviews above were taken by Lyman Beers Gorham. In the first, you can see the store of Lyman's brother George Gorham on the far right. Both stereoviews are part of the Jeffrey Kraus Collection. Thank you to Mr. Kraus for giving his permission to show them here and to Frank Wesley for sending the images to me.

Photographs by Lyman B. Gorham

The grandson of Oliver Knapp (and son of my late grandmother's close friend) Frank just alerted me to these two stereographic images in the digital collection of the New York Public Library. Both were taken by Lyman Beers Gorham, youngest of the Gorham brothers and professional photographer. The upper image shows the railroad station about 1880. The lower one shows a church - but which one? At first I thought it was the old Catholic Church, but it doesn't seem to match the image of that church that I have seen. Perhaps someone can help me identify it.

The Old Town

George W. Gorham's Store on West Main St. and Maple Ave.

I have recently been in touch with Frank, the grandson of town historian Oliver Knapp (and great-grandson of the Oliver Knapp pictured in this photo), who had been kind enough to share some of his photos of the old town, such as the store of George W. Gorham, above. Below is a photo of a man Frank thinks was probably a butcher, standing in the doorway of a building on West Main Street.

West Main Street, butcher?

At the time the picture was taken, the building below housed the local press, post office, and a pharmacy. In 1882 pharmacy was purchased by Stephen H. Sarles, who had started working there as a teenager.

1 January 1876