You’re looking for a photograph of William Penn standing under the Shackamaxon elm tree. Maybe you want a high-resolution snapshot of a 1700s Philadelphia street corner to see exactly what the cobblestones looked like.
Here is the cold, hard truth: they don't exist.
It sounds obvious when you say it out loud—the camera wasn't invented until the 19th century—but the search for pictures of the Pennsylvania colony is one of the most misunderstood rabbit holes in American history. People get tripped up by the sheer volume of "historical" images floating around the internet. Most of what you see on Pinterest or in quick Google searches are actually Victorian-era reimagining’s or late 19th-century "Colonial Revival" recreations.
If you want to see the real Pennsylvania colony, you have to look at what the settlers actually left behind: sketches, oil paintings, and architectural surveys. It’s a game of visual detective work.
The Problem With "Authentic" Visuals
The Pennsylvania colony was founded in 1681. Joseph Nicéphore Niépce didn't produce the first permanent photograph until 1826. That is a massive 145-year gap.
When you search for images, you're usually met with the iconic painting The Treaty of Penn with the Indians by Benjamin West. It’s everywhere. You’ve seen it in every history textbook since the third grade. But West painted that in 1771—nearly a century after the event supposedly happened. He wasn't there. He was painting a romanticized version of his home colony from a studio in London. He even got the clothes wrong. The Quakers in the painting are wearing outfits that wouldn't have been in style for another fifty years.
This is the central challenge. To find the Pennsylvania colony, you have to look past the "fake" history and find the contemporary primary sources.
Maps Were the Original Instagram
In the late 1600s, if you wanted to show off your colony, you didn't take a selfie. You commissioned a map.
Thomas Holme’s "Portraiture of the City of Philadelphia," published around 1683, is basically the first "picture" we have of the colony's layout. It isn't a landscape painting, but it shows the intent. It shows the grid. Penn wanted a "greene country towne," and Holme’s map is the visual evidence of that vision before the first brick was even laid. Honestly, it's more revealing than a blurry photo would have been. It shows a rejection of the cramped, fire-prone alleys of London in favor of wide streets and open squares.
📖 Related: Bates Nut Farm Woods Valley Road Valley Center CA: Why Everyone Still Goes After 100 Years
What Contemporary Artists Actually Saw
There are a few rare, authentic visual records from the colonial period that weren't painted decades later by someone's grandson.
One of the most important is the "South East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia" by Peter Cooper. Painted around 1720, this is likely the oldest surviving painting of any city in British North America. It’s a long, panoramic view of the waterfront.
It looks... well, it looks a bit clunky. The perspective is off. The buildings look a little flat. But this is the real deal. You can see the busy Delaware River docks. You can see the spire of Christ Church. It captures a colony that was moving away from Penn's quiet Quaker dream and toward becoming a massive Atlantic powerhouse.
Sketches in the Margin
If you really want to see the nitty-gritty of colonial life, look at the sketches found in journals and land surveys. These weren't meant to be "art." They were functional.
- Surveyor drawings: These often show the tree lines, the types of fences (usually split-rail), and the humble log cabins that preceded the fancy brick mansions.
- Botanical illustrations: John Bartram, America’s first great botanist, lived just outside Philadelphia. His drawings of local plants and his garden (established in 1728) are some of the most accurate "pictures" of the Pennsylvania environment as it looked to the colonists.
- The Peale Family: Later in the colonial period, Charles Willson Peale and his children started documenting everything. While many of their famous portraits come right at the end of the colonial era (the 1770s), their attention to detail regarding clothing, tools, and interiors is unmatched.
Architecture: The Only Physical "Pictures" Left
Since we can't look at a photo, we have to look at the buildings. A building is just a three-dimensional picture of the past.
Pennsylvania’s colonial architecture is distinct because of the stone. While New England had wood and the South had brick, Penn’s settlers found massive amounts of fieldstone.
The Mid-Century Shift
By the 1750s, the "look" of the colony changed. The early, rough-hewn aesthetic gave way to Georgian symmetry. If you visit the Pennsylvania Hospital (founded in 1751) or the Powel House in Philadelphia, you aren't just looking at old buildings. You’re looking at the visual peak of the colony.
These structures were designed to project wealth and stability. They used "king's red" bricks, white-painted wood trim, and massive sash windows. When people search for pictures of the Pennsylvania colony, this is usually the aesthetic they are subconsciously looking for—the refined, wealthy, pre-Revolutionary world of Benjamin Franklin.
👉 See also: Why T. Pepin’s Hospitality Centre Still Dominates the Tampa Event Scene
Misconceptions About the "Wilderness"
There is a common trope that the Pennsylvania colony was a dark, impenetrable forest until 1776. This is a visual myth.
By the mid-1700s, the area around Philadelphia, Lancaster, and York was arguably more "civilized" than many parts of rural England. The German settlers (erroneously called the Pennsylvania Dutch) had transformed the landscape into a highly organized patchwork of farms.
If you could travel back in time with a camera, you wouldn't see endless woods. You would see:
- Massive "Bank Barns" built into the sides of hills.
- Orchards stretching for miles.
- Turnpikes crowded with Conestoga wagons (which, by the way, were invented in the Conestoga Valley of Lancaster County).
The visual reality was one of intense industry. Pennsylvania was the "Breadbasket of the Colonies," and the pictures we do have—the sketches of mills and granaries—reflect a landscape that was being rapidly reshaped by European farming techniques.
Why the Lack of Images Matters
We live in a world where everything is documented. If it isn't on video, did it even happen?
The lack of actual pictures of the Pennsylvania colony forces us to engage with history differently. We have to read the tax records to understand what people owned. We have to look at the "Great Law" of 1682 to understand their values.
When we rely on the 19th-century paintings of the colony, we are seeing the past through a nostalgic filter. The Victorians loved to make the colonial era look cleaner, more religious, and more "quaint" than it actually was. The real colony was muddy. It was loud. It was a place where dozens of languages were spoken in the streets of Philadelphia, from Swedish and Dutch to German and Lenape.
The Lenape Perspective
We also have to acknowledge the massive hole in the visual record regarding the indigenous people of Pennsylvania. Most "pictures" of the Lenape (Delaware) people from the colonial era were drawn by Europeans who had never seen them. They often used "noble savage" tropes or copied the features of European models.
✨ Don't miss: Human DNA Found in Hot Dogs: What Really Happened and Why You Shouldn’t Panic
To get an accurate visual of the Lenape during the colonial period, researchers today look at material culture—the beadwork, the tool marks on longhouses, and the specific patterns of trade silver found in archaeological digs. These are the "pixels" that make up the real image of the people who were there long before Penn arrived.
How to Find the Best Visual Substitutes
If you are a researcher, a student, or just a history buff trying to visualize this era, don't just use Google Images. You’ll get a mess of reenactment photos and AI-generated garbage.
Go to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania digital archives. They have digitized thousands of original manuscripts, including many that contain marginalia and sketches.
Check out the Library Company of Philadelphia. Founded by Ben Franklin in 1731, they have one of the world's best collections of colonial-era prints and maps.
Look at the Winterthur Museum collections. While located in Delaware, their collection of Pennsylvania furniture and decorative arts provides a "picture" of the colonial interior that no painting can match. You can see the actual wear on a chair, the imperfections in the glass, and the specific shade of blue used in a quilt.
Actionable Insights for Visualizing the Past
- Avoid "Colonial Revival" Art: If a painting looks too perfect or was painted between 1880 and 1920, treat it as historical fiction. It tells you more about the 1900s than the 1700s.
- Study the "Face" of the Colony through Maps: Maps like the Scull and Heap map of 1752 provide more accurate "views" of the city’s skyline than most paintings of the era.
- Visit the "Living" Pictures: Places like Ephrata Cloister or Landis Valley Village provide a physical, tactile experience of the German sectarian and rural life that defined the colony’s interior.
- Look at Material Culture: A hand-forged Pennsylvania Longrifle or a piece of Sgraffito pottery is a visual record of the craftsman's hand. These objects are the "high-definition" photos of their time.
- Check the Date: Always look for the "created" date of an image, not just the "subject" date. If there is more than a 20-year gap between the event and the image, be skeptical.
The Pennsylvania colony wasn't a static, sepia-toned world. It was a vibrant, chaotic experiment in religious tolerance and commercial expansion. While we may never have a photograph of William Penn, the "pictures" we do have—the ones hidden in maps, architecture, and tax ledgers—tell a much more complex and interesting story than a simple snapshot ever could.
To see the real Pennsylvania, start by looking at the things the colonists touched, not just the paintings they didn't paint.