Exhibit Caption, Final

Here is the final edited version of my exhibit caption:

This horn supposedly belonged to Edward Braddock, a British General in the French and Indian War. Robert Tempest acquired this horn after Braddock’s death in 1755. Engraving their names and adding metal fixtures, five generations of Tempests turned this horn into a canvas documenting their personal connection to colonial America. 

I kept to a straightforward, chronological history of the horn that reflects back to colonial America at the end. Referencing how the Tempests altered the horn and used it to connect them to the past brings in the commemorative aspects of the horn. (And, it's exactly 50 words. Yay!)

Exhibit Captions

Caption 1

This horn supposedly belonged to Edward Braddock, British General during the French and Indian War. Braddock died in battle after disregarding his colonial compatriots’ advice. Acquiring the horn, the Tempest family added the metal fixtures and their own names. In doing so this Philadelphia family connected themselves to the colonial period when Americans began developing an independent identity.

Caption 1 – Thoughts

For this caption, I wanted to get a sense of the larger, national narrative in which the Tempest Powder Horn fits. This caption relays the traditional interpretation of Braddock and the French and Indian War. The horn serves as a link between the family and the larger narrative. For visitors this mediation could be a way to think about the relationships between people and famous historical figures and begin a conversation about why these relationships exist. If the overall exhibit focuses on commemorating the founding of the new nation and we were organizing it by chronology of the event remembered, than this would be a potential label. The chronology in this case would go from the French and Indian War to the War of 1812.

Caption 2

In 1834, Robert Tempest added his name to a new silver band on this recently inherited powder horn. According to family legend, the horn belonged to British General Edward Braddock who died in the French and Indian War. By altering the horn Tempest family members claimed their place in the story of America’s colonial foundations.

Caption 2 – Thoughts

With this caption I wanted get a little more personal and use the experience of one Robert Tempest as a way to relate to the visitors. Often, families will have stories of objects that are meaningful, regardless of whether or not they are true. The feeling of inheriting one of these objects can be like owning a little bit of history. In this way visitors can access the object through an individual and understand commemoration by feeling what is like to think about family and personal histories. This caption leaves the horn’s history before the Tempests acquired it and its elaborate decorations as mysteries that the visitor can ponder if they wish. I imagine that this would be an appropriate label if we did the exhibit about how commemorating the founding of America comes from different sources. The powder horn, in this scenario, would be about families and individuals remembering personal histories in ways that thy feel are significant to the nation as a whole. Other object come from companies, clubs, and official organizations.

Caption 3

Robert Tempest acquired this powder horn in the 1750s and passed it to his son. Five generations of Tempests owned this horn, among them weavers, soldiers, and silversmiths. Reportedly belonging to notorious British General Edward Braddock in the French and Indian War, this horn became a canvas for one Philadelphia family to create their own legacy in the new American nation.

Caption 3 – Thoughts

This caption focuses on the Tempest family as a whole and the question of what it means that they continuously used and altered the powder horn. Like Caption 2, this caption relies on the visitor’s sense of family as an entry point for relating to the powder horn. The idea that the family tried to write out Braddock, commonly made out to be a fool in the historical record, and insert themselves could be a good conversation point for thinking about how different people can relate to past figures and events when they do not feel any connections. If the exhibit focused on how people use commemoration as a way to construct their histories than this caption would fit in.

Final Thoughts

A challenge I had with beginning to write these exhibit captions was deciding on a main subject and action. The horn has so many names on it and potentially all of these names tell a story. How to roll commemoration in with it and make sure that the writing is relevant to the mission of Independence Hall and the theme of building a new nation added more challenges. Doing this in fifty words is definitely more difficult, and took way more time, than I originally assumed.

To fit in with the mission of Independence Hall and the other artifacts I tried to use Braddock as a way to link the colonial period and the French and Indian War to the colonists beginning to view themselves as somehow independent from Britain. This connection in combination with the ways the Tempest’s engraved their own names on the horn provides a good platform to think about how people commemorate the founding of the nation. One thing that sets this particular artifact apart from the others is that specific individuals initiated the commemorating on the Tempest Powder Horn. Most of the artifacts were either mass produced, manufactured, purchased, or created for profit.

Each caption places the Tempests, Braddock, and commemoration in a particular relationship with slightly different connotations. Right now I like Caption 3 because it give a sense of the family and the generations that the horn lived through. Additionally, Caption 3 focuses on how, in addition to commemorating the colonial era, the alterations allowed the family to create a legacy. For thinking about commemoration, this type of active history making would be a useful conversation point.

Local History and the Tempest Powder Horn

The Tempest Powder Horn is engraved with the names of five Tempests: Robert Tempest, Robert Tempest II, Robert Tempest III, James R. Tempest, and Robert Tempest IV. In terms of physical location there are two places that stand out as being important to the Tempest’s story. The first is the land on the northwest corner of Fifth and Walnut. Currently this land is the park ground behind Independence Hall, formerly, the State House Yard. Before then it was the residence of Robert Tempest and family. The second important location is the Slate Roof House, or William Penn’s Mansion. When Robert Tempest IV donated the Tempest Powder Horn to the city he donated it along with the wainscoting from the Slate Roof House. The Slate Roof House was Robert Tempest III’s workplace for over fifty years. Both of these locations were demolished within the Tempest family's lifetime.

I went to both of these locations, initially to sketch them there, but being rained out, I ended up taking pictures. The pictures I printed on plain copy paper and transferred to velum drawing paper. I then drew ghost images of the buildings that have since disappeared. 

The first location I visited was the corner of Fifth and Walnut. 

Tempest House Ghost, northwest corner of Fifth and Walnut, park behind Independence Hall, mixed media

In April of 1743 Robert Tempest was a plush-weaver in Philadelphia who had recently moved his business to Strawberry Alley. A few months after moving shop, Robert Tempest married Rachel Hinds at Christ Church. Rachel’s father, Robert Hinds, worked as a bricklayer on the State House and later acquired two lots on the corner of Fifth and Walnut that backed up to the State House Wall. In 1746 Robert Hinds gifted these two lots, and the three houses he built on them, to his daughter and her husband. Rachel gave birth to their son, Robert Tempest II on Christmas day that year.[1]

In 1760 the Pennsylvania Assembly began the process of acquiring the lots that extended to Walnut Street and on the 10^th of September 1762, the Assembly trustees purchased the Tempest’s land for £1400. The Tempests continued to live at Fifth and Walnut, paying rent to the Assembly through 1764, the first date that appears on the horn and the year the year I suspect Robert Tempest passed away. By the 1770s the Pennsylvania assembly cleared the square around the State House, leaving no trace of the Tempest’s home.[2]

Close up view of the square around the State House (later Independence Square). The map on the left is from 1762. This map depicts buildings in the shaded regions. L is the State House, the thin line to the below of L is the State House Wall and the building on the corner of Fifth and Walnut (lower right of the square) is the Tempest’s home. Map created by Nicholas Scull. Source:  Philadelphia GeoHistory Network, http://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-image.cfm/FF-Maps_1762. The map on the right is from 1796 and depicts the square around the State House clear. Map created by John Hills. Source: Philadelphia GeoHistory Network, http://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-image.cfm/237-MP-019

Visiting this location today, the square looks as if it has always been an open park space. For the building that I drew I looked at a variety of colonial prints of Philadelphia. I chose simple, standard architectural features. I am guessing that the house is a double by deduction, but really I do not know what the building looked like. I do know that this location was the first home of the powder horn.

The second location I visited is the Welcome Park, formerly the site of the Slate Roof House.

Slate Roof House Ghost, currently Welcome Park, corner of 2nd and Sansom (formerly Norris Alley), mixed media

Robert Tempest III was the grandson of Robert Tempest. At 25 Robert Tempest III went into business as a jeweler and silversmith with Joseph Marshall. Marshal and Tempest set up shop in the Norris Alley wing of the Slate Roof House in 1813. They remained there until approximately 1865, when the house was no longer usable. It was demolished in 1867.[3]

Steroeview titled Slate roof house, 2nd &Sansom, photographed by John Moran in 1864. The bottom is a close up of the stereoview that shows a very faint sign for “Marshall and Tempest” above the doorway on the left wing of the building.Source: Free Library of Philadelphia Historic Images of Philadelphia Collection, libwww.freelibrary.org/hip/ecw.cfm?ItemID=pdc100025

In addition to being a craftsman Robert Tempest III was an active volunteer with the Hibernia Fire Engine Company, eventually becoming President of that organization in 1851, and was a Director of the Union Burial Ground Society in Southwark. Both Robert Tempest III and the first Robert Tempest were craftsmen who also dedicated their time to the city, one as a constable, and the other as a fireman. For Robert Tempest III, the powder horn that his family owned since colonial times was an important link to the past and to his grandfather. I believe that Robert Tempest III was responsible for engraving the names of his father and grandfather along with their death dates, the newer silver and brass modifications to the horn, and for continuing the tradition by engraving it for his son, James. The yearning to hold tightly to a vision of Philadelphia that was quickly fading could have been the catalyst for Robert Tempest III to modify the horn and directly connect himself to a colonial past. That Robert Tempest III’s business occupied the former residence of William Penn further displays the desire to connect with the past.[4]

The Welcome Park today is a quiet, lonely feeling open square. There is a historical narrative along the south wall of the park relaying William Penn's story, but very little afterward. For my ghost house I used later images of the house after different additions had been made in the nineteenth century instead of the model version in the middle of the park. My main reference image was from 1854, courtesy of the Library Company found here.

Though the destruction of both of these places destroyed important pieces of the Tempest's family history, neither was premature. The first Robert Tempest had passed away before the assembly cleared his home. Robert Tempest III was 78 and no longer working at the time the Slate Roof House was demolished. Once Robert Tempest III modified the horn, he established a precedent for succeeding generation to do the same. Robert Tempest IV inherited the horn after his father James Tempest passed away suddenly.  In 1899, Robert Tempest IV broke the precedent and gifted the horn to the city. By 1907 he had left Philadelphia altogether. Why Robert Tempest IV left the city, breaking the family’s connection to local history is another chapter in the story of the Tempest Powder Horn.

Notes:

[1] For Robert Tempest's occupation and location see The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 21, 1743, page 4; For marriage documents see Pennsylvania Archives, Series 2, Volume VIII, Marriage Record of Christ Church, Philadelphia.1709-1806, 133; for information about their home at Fifth and Walnut see Charles H. Browning, “The State House Yard, and Who Owned it First after William Penn,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 40, no. 1 (1916): 85-103.

[2] For purchase of land see Browning, 101; For rent documents see Pennsylvania Archives, Series 8, Volume VII, Votes of Assembly 1767, 6047; also see Charlene Mires, Independence Hall in American Memory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 10.

[3] Westcott, Thompson, The Historic Mansions and Buildings of Philadelphia: With Some Notice of Their Owners and Occupants (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1877) for Slate Roof House see 37-55, for Tempest see 55. http://books.google.com/books?id=PTUWAAAAYAAJ&pg

[4] For involvement in Union Burial Ground Society see Public Ledger, December 8, 1842, page 2. For involvement with Hibernia Fire Engine Company see “City Items,” North American, February 24, 1851, page 1.

Readings Response: Emotions and Things

Things often resonate with people is different ways. The material that people interact with throughout their lives can trigger emotions and memories, and can provide a point of access to share those emotions and memories with others.

Kay Healy’s “Lost and Found” was a wall instillation at the Free Library of Philadelphia that featured rooms with objects that the artist made from people’s recollections of things that they once possessed but are now lost. The people selected all have emotional stories that connect the thing they have lost to their life and draw out larger lessons about concepts of family and home. On one hand, asking people to talk about a lost thing they wish they could still have is a set-up that required respondents to feel an emotional attachment to their objects as a prerequisite for participation. On the other hand, the lost and found motif is extraordinarily relatable and prompts listeners to think about their things and what they would say if asked the same question.

This American Life’s “House on Loon Lake” tells the story of a young boy who broke into an abandoned home and became enthralled in the mystery of the family that once lived there. Where Healy told the stories of object that people longed for, this story was about one that people consciously abandoned. The conclusions of this story, though sad, offered perspective on how and why people sometimes choose to leave the past in the past, whereas others, like the narrator or any of Healy’s interviewees desired to hold onto it.

The Radio Lab episode “Things” more directly contemplates the emotional connections people form with things. At one point in the episode, the presenters discuss whether a 3D print of a sugar egg that resonates with childhood memories means the same as the original. In the end, the process of making a new egg with a child turned out to be more meaningful than a 3D print could have been. Talking about the difference between things that have a physical connection to people led to a discussion of what one presenter called the “unbridgeable gulf” between people and the things that people make with technology. This conversation highlighted the role of human imagination in making things powerful. The ability to touch something and think about how someone made it, what they did with it, and what it meant to them may be the most important part of studying material culture.

Sam Roberts’ “Object Lessons in History” speculates about the popular surge of object-based histories that the three previous works arguably feed into. Acknowledging that material culture is a great way to lure people into history, the article points to correlations between more recent object histories and contemporary reality television. This link that Roberts makes between momentary popular trends and object histories makes me think about whether the relationships that people currently have with material things are the same relationships that people in the past had with material things. How would Kay Healy’s project be different if it revolved around people 500 years ago, or 50 years from now?

Powder Horn Reflections: The works covered this week largely had to do with how people look back upon things and how they use things to look back. The powder horn, passed down through generations, could have been handled as a vehicle for some story about the past that the family relayed to every succeeding generation. Its owners could have looked at it in the same way Radio Lab’s presenter looked at the Neil Armstrong letter and asked many of the same questions. Thinking about that letter, the presenters wondered whether the letter being typed instead of handwritten affected its meaning, if the emotional connection to the letter would be the same even if Neil Armstrong never actually touched the thing. For my powder horn, this is an integral question because I have no proof yet that the horn ever belonged to General Braddock, nevertheless the care of the horn implies that it was important to the family.

Works Cited:

Healy, Kay. “Lost and Found.” Instillation runs October 2, 2014- October 2, 2015.

This American Life. "House on Loon Lake." Episode 199. November 16, 2001.

Roberts, Sam. “Object Lessons in History.” New York Times. September 27, 2014. 

Radio Lab. “Things.” Season 12, Episode 8.  

Object Description

(Note: My description is based on observing the horn on Tuesday, measurements and weights are all approximate and will be adjusted.)

Powder horn, mid-eighteenth century (better photos coming soon!)

Form and Formal Function:

This object is a powder horn. The horn is a lighter yellowish-brown color and appears to have yellowed with age. The horn has a curve to it, but has been polished (and possibly shaped). The length of the horn is around 12 inches. The diameter at the bottom of the horn is about 3 inches. The horn gets narrower from the bottom up. The top of the horn has a diameter of around 2 inches, while the tip’s diameter is .5 inch. The bottom of the horn has a flat, gold cap. The function of this cap is to create an enclosed form that holds powder. At the top of the horn there is a narrow silver rim that connects the horn to a larger gold cap that can open to pour powder into the gun. On the lower end of this cap there is a loop to attach the horn to its owner. (This could be done with a shoulder strap, on a belt, or attached to other gear, but I need to look into how powder horns were carried.) The upper gold cap has a series of simple, circular bands leading up to a ridge with a more pronounced band and a rounded notch that could be a mechanism to open the cap and let powder out. Beyond this notch, the cap is narrower (half the diameter or less) and extends with a similar series of bands for about 1.5 inches. The horn is surprisingly light, due to its hollow nature, and does not weight more than 2 pounds.

Decoration:

The horn is engraved with a variety of drawings, designs, and names of people who owned the horn and the person who gifted it to them. I have seen this type of engraving called scrimshaw, but am uncertain whether that is the proper term for engraving into all types of bone, or if that only refers to sea-faring peoples. The illustration that takes up the most space on the horn is the British Royal Coat of Arms, centrally situated on the horn. There is also a view of ships on the water with a waterfront view of a city in the background. Other illustrations include a tree, and two men in hunting clothing with two dogs hunting a stag.

“Gen. Edward Braddock” is engraved below a crest on the upper part of the horn. The crest looks as if it may have originally contained different engraving and then was blacked out to write “R. Tempest 1764 to 1809 to” this continues upward, “Robert R. Tempest 1834” continues upward, “Presented by Robert R. Tempest to James R. Tempest Dec. 25, 1874” continues below, “To Robert Tempest, Pianist and Composer, 1894.”

Materials and Their Significance:

Though I am not certain, I guess that the horn either a cattle or stag horn. On the horn there is an illustration of two men in hunting garments chasing a stag with large antlers. This illustration may commemorate the hunt, as may the transformation of the antler into a powder horn. This interpretation fits with readings that mention powder horns as trophies in addition to their utilitarian function. However, most other horns I have come across that are a similar size have been from cattle.

The metal caps on the horn look like they were made from a mold, but the materials appear expensive, especially as I peruse horns from other collections. The majority of horns I have come across have brass caps. Silver and gold signify the wealth and status of whoever had the horn assembled.

Who Made This:

The question of who made this horn is complicated and layered. The original owner (be it Braddock or someone else) may have hunted the animal that provided the horn, but I do not think they would have been the one who assembled it. The horn is beautifully shaped and the metal fixtures are perfectly symmetrical, leading me to believe that a professional artisan executed the cutting, shaping, and added fixtures.

The engraving is another layer. The drawings could have been commissioned while the horn was being assembled and done by a different artisan. It is also possible that drawing were added after the horn had been in use to commemorate events that the horn witnessed. The engravings with names are slightly easier to locate. These still would have been done by different artisans, likely who specialized in engraving, at the different times when the horn changed ownership.

Provenance:

Provenance is a huge question with this object. A Philadelphia Inquirer article from August 5, 1899, tells of Robert Tempest’s recent gift of the horn to the Museum in Independence Hall. This article states that the horn had previously belonged to General Edward Braddock, whose name is inscribed on the horn. Braddock died on July 13, 1755 after sustaining wounds at the Battle of the Monongahela at the beginning of the French and Indian War. The first R. Tempest appears on the horn with the date 1764 and the ownership of the horn from this date is clear. Until I do more research I can only speculate about the period during the war.

Questions:

• Did this powder horn really belong to Edward Braddock? If so, was it brought from England?
• How did the Tempest family acquire the horn?
• Why did this horn mean so much to this family? What type of story would each successive generation hear about the horn’s past?
• What is the relationship between the myth of Edward Braddock, commonly treated as a fool who disregarded the sound advice of his colonist compatriots, and this family’s treasuring of this object? What does this say about how people remember historical figures?
• Who did the illustrations and at what point in time? Was it one individual or many? Do the illustrations represent Braddock or the Tempest Family?
• What do the illustrations mean? Is the waterfront scene depicting Philadelphia or somewhere else? 
• What is the relationship between scrimshaw engravings and this type of powder horn decoration? What does that relationship tell about trade, economies, and Atlantic culture of the eighteenth century?
• What does it mean for an object in a format commonly accepted as American folk art to have the British Royal Coat of Arms engraved in it and belong to an aristocratic British general? What does this say about American identity in the eighteenth (and through the nineteenth) century?

Coming up:

This object analysis is still missing key bits of information. I have not yet seen the object file, which could very well answer some of my questions. I would also like to inventory the drawings on the horn and draw the horn from different angles. I will be able to do these things next time I visit Independence Hall. I have begun collecting a variety of sources ranging from histories of General Braddock and the French and Indian War, particularly the war in Pennsylvania, and writings about powder horns and folk traditions. 

Some Sources:

A decent overview of Powder Horns from a collector/connoisseur perspective: LeFevre, Gregory. "Engraved Powder Horns." Early American Life. October, 2011. 

A fun History Detectives episode about a powder horn: here!

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has a huge collection of powder horns, many from the same time period as the one I am studying.