NORTH AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGIST, Vol. 25(1) 91-113, 2004
PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF EUROPEAN
MATERIAL CULTURE AT TWO MID-TO-LATE
17TH-CENTURY NATIVE AMERICAN SITES
IN THE CHESAPEAKE
LAURA J. GALKE
Washington and Lee University
ABSTRACT
This article examines the assemblages of two Contact period Native American
sites: Posey (c. 1650-1700) and Camden (c. 1680-1710). While the collections
from these two sites share many similarities, their analysis revealed that
occupants of the Posey site had far greater proportions of European material
goods than their counterparts at the Camden site. The amount of European
artifacts at each site was scant at best, but Posey residents used European
artifacts as commodities for trade while Camden inhabitants possessed a
number of formal European tools, suggesting that they were more directly
integrated into daily activities.
INTRODUCTION
This work considers the material culture recovered from two late 17th-century
Chesapeake sites occupied by Native Americans: the Posey Site (18CH281) in
Charles County, Maryland and the Camden Site (44CE03) in Caroline County,
Virginia. Each of these sites was briefly occupied during the second half of the
17th century, well after direct, sustained European contact in the region. They each
represent Native American settlement on the frontier of their respective territories,
and they are located within 30 miles of one another (Figure 1). Analysis of these
sites demonstrates that many Native Americans in the Chesapeake region did not
necessarily abandon their territories but continued to live in the colonial landscape,
along with European and African newcomers, throughout the 17th century. These
91
Ó 2004, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
92
/
GALKE
Figure 1. A portion of the Herrman map, showing the approximate
locations of Camden and Posey. Other settlements mentioned
in the text are circled (Herrman, 1673)
sites offer an opportunity to explore the nature of Native American settlement and
culture during the second half of the 17th century, well after initial contact in the
Chesapeake. Native Americans here and elsewhere changed their culture in
response to contact, but they were active participants in that change, not passive
consumers. This change should not be equated with acculturation.
Archaeological research within the Chesapeake, and indeed North America
in general, is conventionally focused on either prehistoric or historic period
sites (Lightfoot, 1995:202). The “historic” versus “prehistoric” divide is not in
itself egregious. However, the way in which it is applied to the archaeological
record can be problematic. Sites that fall outside of this dichotomy, including
17th-century Contact period sites, are a particular concern. Native American
Contact period sites, those that contain European artifacts, have often been
analyzed by archaeologists trained in prehistoric archaeology, as representative of a continuation of prehistoric culture and traditions (Lightfoot, 1995:
202). European Contact period sites—those that contain Native American
artifacts—are not typically referred to as Contact period sites at all, but are
analyzed as historical sites. It is the Native American community, not the
European colonists, who are viewed as having a Contact period. This perspective should be avoided, as it implicitly assumes that Native American culture
was transformed while European culture, though influenced by contact, was
not significantly altered.
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
93
This traditional dichotomy reflects a cultural bias, albeit an unintentional one,
among researchers of this period. Because of this bias, Contact period Native
American sites have been analyzed and conceived of as essentially prehistoric
sites (King and Chaney, 2000). When European artifacts are viewed as tantamount
to European culture, their presence within Native American contexts is often used
as a measure of that society’s amount of contact with Europeans and their degree
of acculturation. This standard weakens our interpretations in two ways: first in
terms of site chronology and second in terms of our understanding of the ways
in which members of an ethnic group are defined. By implicitly conferring
acculturation onto the Native communities and cultural continuity upon the
European insurgents, we fail to consider European culture as an example of one of
many contending perspectives on the colonial Chesapeake frontier. European
culture changed Native lifeways but was in turn changed by Contact period
interaction. In terms of site chronology, Contact period Native American sites
contain European ceramics, tobacco pipes, and other temporally-discrete and
dated items that may be underutilized in defining the occupation range for the site.
Sometimes, European material goods present at such sites are used as a subjective
measure of the degree of acculturation rather than as a tool for refined site
chronology (see Barse, 1985:146-159, 211, as an example of the former).
CONTACT AND MATERIAL CULTURE
The presence of European artifacts within Native American Contact period
sites has often been used as a way of measuring the degree of interaction between
these two ethnic groups, and theories concerning Native American acculturation are often inferred (Barse, 1985:157-159; Harmon, 1996:3, 1999; Lightfoot,
1995:206; MacCord, 1969:38). The study of ethnic groups in contact often forms
along one of three lines. A group is often described as: 1) maintaining its culture;
2) existing in the process of becoming acculturated; or 3) acculturated. In the
search for material correlates for this process, a simple formula was assumed:
greater numbers of European artifacts present at a contact site indicated a greater
colonial influence upon the traditions and lifeways of the aboriginal group. The
greater the numbers of European material present, the greater the degree of Native
acculturation and, by inference, the more extensive the contact with Europeans
(Lightfoot, 1995:206; Thomas, 1991:2). It has often been implicitly assumed
that Native American sites with fewer European artifacts would necessarily date
to earlier in the 17th century. This may be one of the reasons that some late
17th-century Native American sites, such as Posey, have been assumed to date
from the first half of the century. However, a number of Native American sites
with a low percentage of European artifacts have been found in the Middle
Atlantic region that date from throughout the 17th century (Kraft, 1989;96;
1991:213; Lenik, 1989:103, 107; Santone, 1998:126). It should therefore not be
assumed that a meager number of European items was limited to initial contact.
94
/
GALKE
Given the overall small percentage of European artifacts present at these and other
17th-century Native American sites, their importance as indicators of cultural
change has likely been exaggerated.
Recent scholarship suggests that European material culture at Native American
sites was subsumed into Native American culture (Calloway, 1997:47; Lenik
1989:103, 116; Moreau, 1998:1, 3, 5, 8; Thomas, 1991:4-5; Waselkov, 1989:130).
These objects were “commodities”: items that were dissociated from their prior
context or creators. Iron kettles, brass objects, and European artifacts thus became
a part of Native American material culture, understood in terms of their
own worldview (Calloway, 1997:47, 198; Gleach, 1997:11; Lightfoot, 1995:206;
Miller and Hamell, 1986; Moreau, 1998:5; Morgan, 1999:51; Sahlins,
1993:16-17; Thomas, 1991:39). As the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has stated,
“. . . the first commercial impulse of . . . [indigenous] people is not to become
just like us but more like themselves” (Sahlins, 1993, quoted in Morgan, 1999:51).
The European material goods that characterized the earliest Native American
Contact period sites were primarily of copper items. Native Americans especially valued copper for its scarcity and religious significance (Potter, 1993:209;
Waselkov, 1989:122). Early 17th-century Native American Contact period assemblages are often characterized by the presence of a number of copper-alloy objects
and glass beads (Calloway, 1997:45; Kent, 1984:203; MacCord, 1995:143). The
assemblages of Native American Contact period sites that exhibit long-term
colonial interaction seem to contain more iron objects and more formal iron
tools than sites from early contact situations (Kent, 1984:229-230).
European artifacts from the 17th-century tend to be more temporally diagnostic,
that is they exhibit shorter manufacturing ranges, than Native American material
culture of that time. They can, therefore, in certain contexts, offer a more refined
site chronology than is possible using radiocarbon dates or the manufacturing
ranges for Native American pottery or formal lithic tools, dating methods that are
often essential in the analysis of prehistoric sites (Kent, 1984:267). European
ceramics, tobacco pipes, and, when available, dated coins, tokens, and bottle seals
can provide a very precise site chronology (Diamond, 1996:97; Lenik, 1989:111).
However, while such artifacts offer more refined chronology, they tend to represent a very small portion of the overall site assemblage at Native American
Contact period sites (Axtell, 1988:176; Hodges, 1986:4; Kent, 1984:267; Kraft,
1989:96, 1991:213; Lenik, 1989:103, 107; Santone, 1998:126).
Seventeenth-century interactions in the Chesapeake between Europeans and
Native Americans modified both cultures, and were dictated by neither (Daunton
and Halpern, 1999:3; Oberg, 1999:3; Way, 1999:127). Researchers often emphasize the adoption and adaptation of European material goods by Native Americans
yet make little comment on the profound affect that Native American culture
had, and has, upon European culture (MacCord, 1995:142-149). Native American
corn, tobacco, and fur had dramatic influences upon European culture in both
the New World and Old, an influence that continues to this day. Within a few
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
95
short years of contact, the English were either trading for Native tobacco pipes,
or were manufacturing a version of them, using either local red clays or European
white clays (and sometimes combining the two clays). However, when Europeans
adopted Native American cultural practices or material culture, it was generally
regarded as the manifestation of a new, “American” culture, not a degeneration
of European culture (Calloway, 1997:198; Fausz, 1982:11-12).
[Europeans] appropriated Indian ways to their own uses and came to regard
those ways, ultimately, as “American,” not Indian. But when Indians borrowed and adapted from Europeans, Europeans interpreted their strategies of
survival as acts of cultural suicide. They assumed that Indians who changed
ceased being Indians, and those who survived by adopting European ways
became “invisible” (Calloway, 1997:198).
With the exception of guns, the implements brought by the Europeans
were already, in one form or another, a part of Native material assemblages
(Axtell, 1988:169). So the acquisition of European counterparts to these items
perhaps demonstrated a preference materials such as iron, not the superiority
of European culture. The influx of so many European metal items offered Native
Americans an option to re-work them into objects and ornaments of their own
making (Axtell, 1988:169; Bradley et al., 1998:192-193; Miller and Hamell,
1986:314; Moreau, 1998:5).
One type of raw material may have had a profound impact on Native cultures in the Chesapeake. The increase in the amount of copper objects on
Contact period sites is often credited to European trade. Prior to contact, archaeological investigations generally recovered copper objects primarily from
burial contexts (Goodman, 1984:67). Ethnohistorical accounts of the Powhatan
Indians of Virginia indicated that fragments of copper had spiritual value,
and were sometimes thrown into area waterways as a tribute to the spirits of
the seas (Calloway, 1997:47; Finn, 1987:152). Copper served as a symbol of
power and wealth, and as such its distribution was controlled by those who
had political and religious power (Davidson, 1993:145; Goodman, 1984:67;
Potter, 1989:152, 1993:17-18, 172-173; Waselkov, 1989:122). It has been
argued that European contact greatly disrupted the distribution of items such
as copper and wampum, by making it more prevalent and by distributing them
equally to trading partners regardless of their status within their communities (Davidson, 1993:145; Potter, 1989:152; Salisbury, 1982:149; Waselkov,
1989:122). Copper goods and shell beads reaffirmed social rank, but as
trade with the Europeans intensified, these items became a kind of currency, available to and used by the elite and common people alike
(Davidson, 1993;145; Potter, 1989:152; Salisbury, 1982:149, Waselkov,
1989:122). The consequences for traditional social structure would have been
dramatic.
96
/
GALKE
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
While the Spanish conducted intermittent exploration of the Chesapeake
during the 16th century and established a short-lived mission at Ajacan, the first
sustained contact in the region occurred along the James River with the 1607
settlement of Jamestown (Hodges, 1993:14; MacCord, 1989:121). Jamestown,
quite by accident, was established in the heart of the powerful Powhatan Chiefdom
with origins dating at least to the second half of the 16th century (Axtell, 1995:1;
Turner, 1985:209). Within four years, tension between the Jamestown colonists
and the Powhatan Chiefdom erupted into open hostilities in Virginia, with coordinated attacks against the English in 1622 and 1644 (Axtell, 1995). Retaliation
from the English was relentless, and the Powhatan Chiefdom was shattered by
the middle of the 17th century (Axtell, 1995:40; MacCord, 1989:122, 1995:140).
Tensions also existed between Maryland and Virginia colonists from the
beginning of Maryland colonization. The Virginians considered the Maryland
territory part of their colony, and had well established trading agreements with
Native Americans throughout the area (Fausz, 1985:226). They did not want
the Maryland colonists usurping the fur trade which the Virginians had established (Fausz, 1982:9, 1984:8-10, 1985:253). The Virginians maintained a trading
post on Kent Island, located in the northern portion of the Chesapeake Bay,
in present-day Maryland. Here they engaged in a profitable trade with the
Susquehannocks, whose relations with the western shore Maryland Piscataway
were tense. The 17th-century residents of the Posey site would have been members
of the Piscataway Nation.
The Piscataway were not only subjected to pressures from the raiding Susquehannocks from the north but also from the expanding Powhatan Chiefdom just
across the Potomac River in Virginia (Cissna, 1993:1). The English settlement
at Jamestown brought both trade goods and unrest to the region as periodic
wars erupted between the English and the Powhatan Chiefdom (Fausz, 1984:3,
1985:252). When colonists came to establish a settlement in Maryland, almost
three decades after the establishment of Jamestown, they arrived under fortuitous
circumstances from the perspective of both the local Native Americans and the
English themselves. The English were anxious to curry favor among the Native
Americans for peaceable relations and to avoid the wars that had characterized
interaction across the Potomac. No less important was the colonists’ interest in
having local allies against potentially aggressive Native American groups to the
north, as well as against potentially hostile European settlers in Virginia.
On their part, Local Native American groups were anxious to accommodate
the new Maryland colonizers since these gun-possessing settlers would be
a powerful ally against the Susquehannocks (Fausz, 1980:11, 1985:252). The
Yeocomico Indians seemed more than happy to sell their village to the European
settlers for the site of St. Mary’s City. They were perhaps delighted to
receive European trade goods in exchange for a village that they were apparently
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
97
in the process of abandoning, possibly as a result of pressures from the
encroaching Susquehannocks.
By the second half of the 17th century, most remaining western shore Native
American groups were consigned to designated reservations on the edges of
European settlement, whether by their own inclination or by force (Archives
of Maryland III, 1883:489; Cissna, 1993:9; Hodges, 1981:10; MacCord, 1995:
140-141; Semmes, 1929:197). In 1663, Native Americans beseeched the colonial
authorities of Maryland to control colonial settlement:
. . . [the Native groups] have not only left their town standing by the water,
but have removed themselves farther of even to their utmost bownds of
their land—leaving place to the English to seate on their ancient plantacons
by the river side the English not being (as they informe mee) contented with
what land is already freely granted doe still take up land and seate themselves
very nigh unto the said Indians (Archives of Maryland III:489).
Indian settlement in Virginia was prohibited within the former heartland of the
Powhatans at this time, and their settlement area was limited (Hodges, 1981:10;
MacCord, 1995:40). Warfare, civil disruption, and relocation throughout the 17th
century drastically reduced the Native population of the Chesapeake (Ubelaker
and Curtin, 2001:139). Nonetheless, many Native Americans continued to inhabit
lands their ancestors had occupied for millennia.
Augustine Herrman’s 1673 map of Virginia and Maryland illustrated European
structures dominating all of the major tributaries throughout both states (Figure 1).
In the vicinity of Posey, Native American structures were shown and the area
around Mattawoman neck was identified as “Pamunky Indian land” (Figure 1).
However, in the area surrounding Camden, European structures were ubiquitous.
These uniformly-drawn structures likely represent conventions, not necessarily
actual dwelling locations. However, they likely provide a decent portrayal of the
extent of colonial settlement at that time. On the north side of the Rappahannock
River, up river from the Camden site, the “Doogs Indian” settlement was depicted
with Native American-style structures, but even here, a European-style structure
existed within its midst (Figure 1). Both Posey and Camden were on or near the
frontier of European expansion as shown on this map, but European settlement
surrounded Camden, while Posey was located just north of its extent (Figure 1).
THE SITES
The Posey Site
The Posey site (1650-1680) was situated on a level terrace between
Mattawoman Creek and the Potomac River (Figure 1). Although the site was
used intermittently by Native Americans during the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland periods, the most intensive occupation of the site occurred during the
second half of the 17th century (Harmon, 1999:iii). The large number of artifacts
98
/
GALKE
found and their concentration within a small core area suggested an intense and
perhaps year-round occupation at that time.
Thomas Cornwallis had applied to Lord Baltimore for a land grant in the area
in 1636, but there is no evidence that he actually occupied the tract (Harmon,
1999:21). In later years, it was described as “in the possession of Indians.” In
1668, the Articles of Peace and Amity stipulated that the land between the heads
of Mattawoman and Piscataway creeks, an area that included the Posey site,
was allotted to Native Americans. English settlement was forbidden in the area.
However, disputes over ownership and access characterized the property well
into the first half of the 18th century. Archaeological evidence has suggested
that Native Americans had abandoned the immediate area of the Posey site
by 1695 (Harmon, 1999:23-25).
The Posey data used in this analysis were derived from two separate archaeological investigations. In 1985, William Barse oversaw the excavation of a 2 meter
by 8 meter block within the site core. The investigation revealed a number of
postmolds and materials that lead Barse to conclude that he had uncovered the
remains of an oval or circular house (Barse, 1985:155). In 1996, Dr. Julia A. King,
Mr. Edward Chaney, and Mr. James Harmon supervised the excavation of 510
shovel test pits and 37 1.5 meter by 1.5 meter units throughout the site (Harmon,
1996:iii). The shovel tests confirmed the location of the site core, where 21 of
the test units were excavated. Twelve of these units formed an excavation
block that uncovered an unidentified, shallow, and artifact-rich feature.
Researchers suggested that it represented a refuse-filled drainage feature
(Harmon, 1999:142-143).
Each of these investigations used ¼-inch mesh screens to systematically recover
material from the plowzone. During the course of each investigation, a number
of features were sampled. Material recovered from these features is not included
in the present analysis. Only materials from the core of the site occupation and
recovered from the plowzone layer are used here.
The excavation unit size used by each investigation at Posey was different. The
1985 units measured 1 meter by 1 meter, while the 1996 excavations employed
1.5 meter by 1.5 meter units. Therefore, calculations were performed in order
to convert the 1996 excavation unit counts into counts per square meter (Table 1).
All of the data totals from Posey used in the present analysis represent a combination of the counts derived from both the 1985 Barse block excavations and
the 1996 King, Chaney, and Harmon investigations. While the 1996 excavations
explored a large area, only data derived from the 21 excavation units within the
site core were used in this analysis.
Native American artifacts overwhelmingly dominated this site assemblage.
The most prevalent material found was Native pottery (79.2%), followed by terra
cotta tobacco pipes, lithics, European shot and gunflint, white clay tobacco pipes,
nails, European ceramics, bottle glass, and copper alloy objects (Table 1). Native
pottery types present included Potomac Creek (83.2%), Yeocomico (12.1%), and
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
99
Table 1. A Comparison of Selected Artifact Categories as a
Percentage of the Entire Site Assemblagea
Posey
(in counts per m square)
Category
Camden
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1816.7
220.5
84.8
1511.4
79.2
12.1
4.7
83.2
8900
0
177
8723
89.2
0
1.8
87.5
European ceramics
34.5
1.5
62
0.6
White clay pipe
52.1
2.3
25
0.2
131.0
5.7
317
3.2
Bottle glass
18.8
0.8
16
0.2
Wrought nails
39.3
1.7
95
1.0
Lead shot/gunflintb
58.7
2.6
9
0.1
121
5.3
535
5.4
20
0.9
13
0.1
2292.1
100%
9972
100%
Ceramics
Yeocomico
Camden
Potomac Ceek
Red clay pipe
Lithics
Copper alloy
Total
a
Camden counts based upon those reported in MacCord, 1969.
Shot/European flint includes lead shot, gunflint fragments, and European flint debitage.
b
Camden (4.7%) wares, typical of Late Woodland-to-Contact-period assemblages
(Table 1). Other wares were present in minor amounts (Harmon, 1999:80).
The faunal remains from Posey were analyzed under the supervision of David
Landon and Andrea Shapiro, of Michigan Technological University (Landon and
Shapiro, 1998). Due to the highly fragmentary nature of this plowzone-derived
assemblage, 53.6% of the recovered faunal material consisted of unidentifiable
mammal bone fragments. The identifiable portion of the faunal assemblage was
dominated by native and diverse wild taxa, dominated by deer (19.3%). It also
contained various turtle species (14.5%), gar (5.0%), muskrat (1.7%), and perch
(0.8%). With the exception of a few pig molars discovered within the plowzone,
forming 1 percent of the faunal assemblage and possibly representing a single
100
/
GALKE
specimen, no European-derived species were found (Landon and Shapiro, 1998).
This differed from colonial European domestic sites Compton Site (c. 1651-1685),
Patuxent Piont (c. 1658-1690), St. Johns Site (c. 1638-1665), Kingsmill Tenement
(c. 1630-1650), Governor’s Land well (1650s) of the time which, as early as
the mid-17th century, produced faunal assemblages dominated by domesticated
European animals, including cattle, swine, sheep, and chicken (Walsh, 2001:237).
No definitive metal tool cut marks were found on the bone fragments from the
Posey site, though the cut marks visible upon some fragments were ambiguous.
This indicates that stone tools continued to be used for food preparation, despite
the availability of iron tools at this time. It was clear that at this site in the arenas
of diet and food preparation, Native American traditions continued (Landon
and Shapiro, 1998:15-17).
To test the assumption that the copper alloy materials present at Posey orignated
from Europe, three items, two cones and one triangle, were examined using a
scanning electron microscope. This microscope, operated at the Patuxent
River Naval Air Station in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, was available due to
an agreement between the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory
(where the Posey artifacts are currently housed) and the Patuxent River
Naval Air Station. The resulting elemental analysis demonstrated that the two
copper-alloy cones found at the site were made from an alloy that combined
copper and zinc—an alloy necessarily derived from Europe. However, the
results drawn from a copper triangle were more ambiguous. It was made from
pure copper, which indicated that the material could have originated from
either Europe or North America. While not conclusive, these results demonstrated that Posey residents did possess European-derived copper-alloy objects.
Despite its European origin, the copper alloy was fashioned into traditional
Native forms.
White clay tobacco pipes were important contributors to dating the site. Twelve
7/64-inch pipe stems, commonly made between 1650 and 1680, were recovered
from the site core. In addition, two Llewellyn Evans pipe bowls, manufactured
between 1661 and 1689, were found. While 14 pipes provided a small sample size,
the tight temporal range, and the accuracy of pipe stem dating during the second
half of the 17th century, indicated that this data could not be ignored. Together
with support from the 50 European ceramic sherds present, an occupation range
from 1650-1700 was suggested (Harmon, 1999:iii, 99).
The Posey site provides an example of the importance of considering European
artifacts when calculating a site’s occupation range (Harmon, 1999:40-41). While
there was some intermittent Late Archaic and Early Woodland period activity
at Posey, European artifacts from the site core indicated a date range in the
latter part of the 17th century A.D. Barse’s original investigations yielded a
single radiocarbon sample from Feature 1 at the site. This sample yielded a
reported occupation range of AD 1575 ± 90 years (Data 13560) (Boyce and
Frye, 1986:10). Based upon this information, and somewhat on the amount of
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
101
European material present, Stephen Potter (1993:205) suggested that the site
was occupied sometime between A.D. 1600 to 1660.
The radiocarbon assay from Feature 1 at Posey, 375 ± 90 BP was recalibrated
using the Calib radiocarbon program (Stuiver and Reimer, 2000), resulting in
a date of cal 2 sigma AD 1404 (1483) 1797 (Figure 2). The broad span for this
radiocarbon date shows that this single assay is not useful for dating this site
and certainly is much less precise than the date that can be obtained from the
historic artifacts. Subsequent excavations lead by Julia King, Edward Chaney, and
James Harmon of the site’s core area in 1996 resulted in the adjusted occupation
range for the main site component to 1650-1700 (Harmon, 1999:iii).
The Camden Site
Camden (c. 1680-1710) was located on the south bank of the Rappahannock
River, in Caroline County, Virginia (Figure 1). The site was originally excavated
by the Archaeological Society of Virginia in 1964-1965 under the direction of
Howard MacCord (MacCord, 1969). All of the units were excavated within a
single domestic structure now believed to be part of a larger, internally-dispersed
late 17th-century Native American settlement (Hodges, 1986:4, 6; MacCord,
1967:95, 1989:124).
Figure 2. The calibrated radiocarbon date from the Posey site, Feature 1.
102
/
GALKE
Fifty 5 foot by 5 foot square units were excavated. The roughly 40 foot by
30 foot area investigated revealed a simple stratigraphy of a plowzone overlying
sterile subsoil (Hodges, 1986:4; MacCord, 1969:3). Two features were uncovered:
a hearth and an unidentified oval pit containing secondary deposits of oyster
shell, faunal bone, and Native American ceramics (Hodges, 1986:4-5). The
artifacts were cleaned and analyzed under the direction of Howard MacCord
(MacCord, 1969:3). They are presently housed at the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources in Richmond, Virginia.
Over 9,000 artifacts were recovered during the 1964-1965 excavations. Food
remains indicated that the site’s occupants consumed a diet that consisted of
locally-available wild fauna including deer, turkey, turtle, raccoon, duck, oyster,
clam, and crab (MacCord, 1969:5). Eighty-nine percent of the assemblage consisted of Native American ceramics (Table 1). The majority of ceramics found
at Camden consisted of Potomac Creek and Camden wares (Hodges, 1986:4-5;
MacCord, 1967:96, 1995:146). Tobacco pipes of both Native American and
European manufacture were recovered, as well as copper items, bottle glass,
gunflints and gun hardware, European ceramics, including Rhenish stoneware and
refined earthenware, and iron tools including knives, files, and nails (Hodges,
1986:5; MacCord, 1967:95-96, 1989:124). Artifacts of European manufacture
were attributable to the second half of the 17th century.
A silver medallion was found at the site and was inscribed “Ye King of
Machotick,” and dated from the second half of the 17th century, possibly
a gift for a treaty signed in 1662 (Hodges, 1986:5; MacCord, 1967:96,
1989:124). Colonial authorities created such badges and gave them to native
peoples to recognize those groups who participated in peace treaty agreements
(MacCord, 1967:96, 1989:124). This was done to document their official recognition by colonial authorities and could be used by members of such Native
American nations to identify themselves upon entering colonial settlements
(Hodges, 1986:5).
Materials from Camden represented a single household (Hodges, 1993;
MacCord, 1967:95, 1989:124) that archaeologist Mary Ellen Hodges has argued
was part of a larger Native American village situated “. . . within the boundaries
of the late seventeenth-century Nanzattico reservation . . .” (Hodges, 1993:20,
35; 1986:5-6).
During the mid-seventeenth century, the colonial government set aside
several tracts of land along the Rappahannock River as preserves for native
peoples in an effort to lessen tensions between the Indians and planters who
were moving into the Indians’ lands in increasing numbers (Hodges, 1986:5).
Patents indicated that Nanzattico extended inland for two miles on the south side
of the Rappahannock River (Hodges, 1986:6). One hundred and ten warriors of
both Nanzattico and Portobago Indians resided there, as reported in the 1669
census (Hodges, 1986:6).
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
103
One colonial observer of the settlement at Nanzattico noted that
These savages have rather pretty houses, the walls as well as the roofs
ornamented with trees, and so securely fastened together with deer thongs that
neither rain nor wind causes them inconvenience (de Dauphine, 1934:152
quoted in Hodges, 1986:7).
de Dauphine also noted that the Nanzattico inhabitants were attired in both
European garments and Native American deerskin clothes. Native American
women, the observer claimed, made pottery vessels and tobacco pipes, some of
which were purchased by colonists (de Dauphine, 1934:153, in Hodges, 1986:7).
The closest Native American-style structures shown on the 1673 Herrman map
were depicted on the north side of the Rappahannock, while European style
structures were represented on the south (Camden) side (Figure 1). If this
map provides a literal representation, then the occupants of Camden may have
occupied a European-style structure, as suggested by Howard MacCord, and
may well have represented tenants of the plantation of which it was a part
(MacCord, 1967:95-96). Based upon archaeological evidence, Howard MacCord
described the structure uncovered at Camden:
. . . a small cabin fronting toward the nearby Rappahannock River, with a
mud and stick chimney, an earthen floor, and a central fire on the floor.
Hand-forged nails indicate that the structure was made at least partly of
boards, rather than logs (MacCord, 1967:95).
MacCord (1967:96) has suggested that the household represented the remains
of a Native American tenant, one who was hired by a nearby plantation owner
to provide food by hunting and fishing, and who may have also acted as an
interpreter, or scout.
ANALYSIS
The materials selected for comparison between the Camden and Posey sites
included the following broad categories: Native American ceramics, red clay
tobacco pipes, white clay tobacco pipes, lithics (including debitage and formal
tools), glass, copper alloy materials, iron, and lead shot/gunflint. These broad
classes were compared in terms of their relative proportion of the overall site
assemblage. For the purposes of this analysis, I assumed that all red clay pipes
were of Native manufacture. Since during this time there was a great availability
(in terms of amount and access) of copper alloy items, I assumed most were of
European origin. Even though the Posey and Camden sites were somewhat
contemporaneous, the relative proportions of selected major categories of artifacts
differed dramatically and consistently between the two sites (Table 1).
A side-by-side comparison of select artifact categories at these sites demonstrated that, while the categories of materials present were similar, their proportion
104
/
GALKE
of each site’s assemblage differed (Figure 3). Native American pottery overwhelmingly dominated the assemblage of these selected categories at both sites
(Table 1). Native American ceramics made up an astonishing 89% of the Camden
assemblage and 79% of the Posey assemblage. Lithics, a category that included
debitage, cores, and formal tools, had similar percentages at each site, and formed
just over 5% of the total assemblage (Table 1 and Figure 3).
A greater contrast was evident among the European artifacts present. Posey had
noticeably higher proportions of European materials, including white clay pipes,
ceramics, nails, bottle glass, copper items, and lead shot and gunflint (Figure 3).
When the overall proportion of European items (metal, European flint, ceramics,
glass, and white clay tobacco pipes) was considered, Posey contained over four
times more European material culture than Camden. Despite this, European
artifacts still account for only 9.7% of the Posey site core assemblage.
Iron objects formed a much higher proportion of the assemblage from Posey
than from Camden. These items were European in origin, and the proximity of
these two occupations to European settlement suggested that direct exchange was
responsible. The iron that Camden residents possessed, while a smaller proportion
than present at Posey, often consisted of formal items, including an iron ring, an
iron file, an iron chain, gun parts, and multiple table knife fragments (MacCord,
1989:124) (Figure 4). However, the iron objects from the core of Posey consisted
primarily of sheet iron, wrought nails, a number of small, unidentifiable iron
Figure 3. Bar chart showing the percentage of the total site assemblage at
Camden, and Posey, for selected categories. Native ceramics not included.
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
105
Figure 4. Iron table knives from the Camden site.
fragments, a small cone, a projectile point, and a single table knife fragment
(Figure 5). Other than the one table knife fragment, there were no formal European
items. This pattern suggested that the residents of Camden had greater access
to formal European items and seemed to incorporate them into their daily lives.
These metal items had ceased to be viewed as exotic commodities, and may have
served as mundane, utilitarian objects.
In contrast, at both sites European ceramics were almost completely rejected.
Within Native artifact categories, pottery counts far outweighed those of lithics,
yet among the European counterparts that they possessed, metal tools and objects
occurred in far greater numbers than European ceramics. The occupants of these
sites clearly preferred their own pottery, continuing a tradition that spanned
generations.
DISCUSSION
What accounts for the variability in response to European contact between these
two sites? Posey represented a small hamlet whose inhabitants gathered exotic
106
/
GALKE
Figure 5. Selected iron objects from the Posey site.
European artifacts for trade. Its location at the boundary between European
settlement to the southeast and Native communities to the northwest may have
placed its occupants in an ideal location to act as trade brokers. If so, the greater
proportion of European-derived objects signified the collection of these materials
for trade with interior Native groups. It is less likely that the greater availability
of the items alone can account for the high proportion of them at Posey, since
Camden was surrounded by European settlement, and therefore had potentially
greater assess to European material. Yet Camden residents possessed a lower
proportion of European goods compared to their counterparts at Posey.
Another explanation for this difference may lie in the response that the Native
American occupants at each of these sites had to European migration. Relations
between the Powhatans and Europeans were contentious, and Camden site
occupants would have lived within that environment of hostility and its aftermath. In Maryland, Europeans attempted more peaceable relations, but European
encroachment was intrusive nonetheless. While the land upon which the Posey site
was situated was reserved for Native habitation, land disputes with European
descendents characterized relations well into the first half of the 18th century.
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
107
Is it possible that increased contact between Europeans and Native Americans
enhanced traditional ethnic identity, on the parts of Europeans and Native
Americans alike? While the people of Camden used a number of formal metal
tools and may have lived in a European-style house, it was evident that the
proportions of artifact categories used, while similar to those present at the Posey
Site, were nonetheless meager. Since Camden residents seemed “surrounded” by
European plantation landscape, were they more anxious to assert their own
traditions? Stephen Silliman’s analysis of early 19th-century Native American
workers at a ranch in northern California lends some support to this premise
(Silliman, 2001:204).
At Rancho Petaluma, Silliman noted that the Native laborers continued to
exchange with groups in northern California to obtain obsidian. Despite the ready
availability of formal metal tools and of glass bottles for raw material, Native
workers continued to manufacture lithic products from obsidian (Silliman, 2001:
204). Silliman asserted that the Native population continued to manufacture and
use lithic tools as a means to “. . . solidify a nineteenth-century identity” (Silliman,
2001:204). While these stone tools possessed economic and functional advantages, he argued that it was the value that stone products had within the realm of
Native identity that made them especially significant (Silliman, 2001:203).
These two assemblages share many similarities, in terms of the types of artifacts
present and their temporal range. The vast majority of artifacts present within these
respective assemblages were unequivocally of Native American heritage: pottery,
faunal remains, lithics, structures, and settlement patterns all reflected a continuation of their cultural traditions throughout the late 17th century. It seemed that
the residents of Camden came to use European tools in their daily lives, as
formal, use-specific tools were present. They clearly preferred Native American
ceramics and pipes to their European counterparts. The proportion of stone
artifacts remained high, and was even slightly higher that the proportion discovered at Posey (Figure 3).
The subsistence assemblage and architectural remains of Posey indicated that
they maintained pre-contact traditions. Unlike Camden, the area of the Posey site
was apparently situated on the frontier of European expansion. Nonetheless,
European materials comprised a much greater proportion of the overall assemblage
at Posey than was true of Camden’s inhabitants. Apparently, at Posey, Natives
viewed European materials as exotic trade commodities rather than everyday
tools. Unlike the Camden assemblage, which had a number of formal European
tools, the only formal iron tool recovered at Posey was a single iron table knife tang
from the site core. Still, the amount of European materials overall was quite modest.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis focused upon the types of European artifacts present at two Native
American Contact period sites. These materials enabled a more refined site
108
/
GALKE
chronology. Often, initial analysis of Native American Contact period sites with a
scant number of European items is interpreted as automatically representing an
early 17th century site. This is perhaps because there are so few European artifacts
present that analyzers have interpreted a small percentage of European artifacts
with a small amount, or short duration, of contact.
While few in number, an analysis of tobacco pipes and European ceramics
present at Posey indicated that it was occupied during the second half of the 17th
century. European artifacts also revealed a great deal about the different ways in
which these Native communities viewed European material culture. Camden
residents possessed a number of formal iron tools and objects. However, the
occupants of Posey, while they had a greater percentage of iron objects, had only
one formal iron tool: a table knife. The kinds of European materials present at
Posey suggested that they were likely being used for trade with other, interior
Native American groups or remanufactured into traditional Native forms, such
as iron triangles. At Camden, formal European tools seemed to be incorporated
into daily life, while at Posey, they were viewed more as exotic trade goods.
Despite the ready availability of European objects during the late 17th century,
Native material culture dominated the assemblages at each of these sites.
Further, the material collections from these sites illustrated that Native Americans
adapted European material culture in distinctly indigenous ways. By any measure,
the residents of these sites were not abandoning their way of life. Native
Americans remained a part of the late 17th- century landscape, a full partner in
the development of the region.
While the residents of Posey possessed a far greater proportion of European
material than present among the Camden residents, it seems likely that the
inhabitants were merely caching the material to trade inland. There is little
evidence for a change in their fundamental way of life: domiciles, diet, and even
seasonal mobility at Posey reflect Native traditions. The trade routes used were
established by generations of Native Americans and while the items used in
the exchange may have changed from generation to generation, the practice itself
was long-standing. Despite their low contribution to the overall site assemblage, it
would be a mistake to overlook the contribution these materials can make toward
site chronology. While the use of European artifacts can be overestimated when
used as an arbitrary measure of acculturation, they may be underutilized as a
chronological tool.
Identity can be defined, altered, and perhaps even exaggerated by contact.
Identity is constructed and reconstructed during the process of interaction
(Morgan, 1999:45, 49; Scarry and Maxham, 2002:142-143, 169). Contact with
other cultures does not result in a linear process from “pristine” traditions to
reaction to outsiders, to potential decline and acculturation. Instead, individuals as members of groups in contact negotiate group identity and traditions
(Scarry and Maxham, 2002). Viewing European artifacts within indigenous
contexts as “emblems of disintegration” (Thomas, 1991:2) fails to acknowledge
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
109
the mutability of meaning and function inherent in material culture. Archaeological evidence indicates that Native cultures responded to contact in a variety of
ways, but passive adaptation to European culture was not among them.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the staff of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(VDHR) for their generous assistance and hospitality during the re-examination of
the Camden artifacts. I would especially like to recognize the efforts of Mary Ellen
Hodges and Keith Egloff of VDHR. The elemental analysis of copper alloy objects
by personnel at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in St. Mary’s County,
Maryland, helped my analysis. I extend special thanks to Julie King and Edward
Chaney for their help and expertise with re-examining the Camden artifacts, and
for critical review of this material. Bernard Means read a number of drafts, and his
edits improved the content, for which I am grateful. Any inaccuracies in content
are my own.
REFERENCES CITED
ARCHIVES OF MARYLAND
1883
Archives of Maryland, Vol. I-LXXII, Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore.
AXTELL, J.
1988
After Columbus: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America,
Oxford University Press, New York.
1995
The Rise and Fall of the Powhatan Empire: Indians in Seventeenth-Century
Virginia, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia.
BARSE, W.
1985
A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Naval Ordnance
Station, Indian Head, Maryland, Volume I: Cornwallis Neck, Bullit Neck and
Thoroughfare Island, draft report prepared for the Department of the Navy,
Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Command.
BOYCE, H. and L. FRYE
1986
Radiocarbon Dating of Archeological Samples from Maryland, Maryland
Geological Survey Archeological Studies No. 4, Baltimore.
BRADLEY, J. W., T. F. MAHLSTEADT, and M. GIBBONS
1998
European Contact and the Continuity of Mortuary Ceremonialism on Cape
Cod: An Update from the Corn Hill Site, Truro, MA, Archaeology of Eastern
North America, 26:189-199.
CALLOWAY, C. G.
1997
New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America,
The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
CISSNA, P. B.
1993
Algonquians of the Western Shore: Indian/English Relations in the Maryland
Colony, 1634-1705, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle
Atlantic Archeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
110
/
GALKE
DAUNTON, M. and R. HALPERN (editors)
1999
Empire and Others: British Encounters with Indigenous Peoples, 1600-1850,
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
DAVIDSON, T.
1993
Relations between the Powhatans and the Eastern Shore, in Powhatan
Foreign Relations, 1500-1722, Helen C. Rountree (ed.), University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 136-153.
DE DAUPHINE, D.
1934
A Huguenot Exile in Virginia, The Press of the Pioneer, New York.
DIAMOND, J. E.
1996
Terminal Late Woodland/Early Contact Period Settlement Patterns in
the Mid-Hudson Valley, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 12,
pp. 95-111.
FAUSZ, J. F.
1980
Amerindian Resistance and Accommodation in the Seventeenth-Century
Chesapeake, paper presented at the Southern Historical Association Annual
Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
1982
Profits, Pelts, and Power: The “Americanization” of English Culture in
the Chesapeake, 1620-1652, paper presented at the American Historical
Association Annual Meeting.
1984
Merging and Emerging Worlds: The Interplay of Anglo-Indian Interest
Groups in the Early Chesapeake, 1620-1660, paper presented at the Third
Hall of Records Conference, St. Mary’s City, Maryland.
1985
Patterns of Anglo-Indian Aggression and Accommodation along the
Mid-Atlantic Coast, in Cultures in Contact: The European Impact on Native
Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America, A.D. 1000-1800, William W.
Fitzhugh (ed.), Anthropological Society of Washington Series, Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 225-261.
FINN, R. R.
1987
The Belief System of the Powhatan Indians, Quarterly Bulletin of Archaeological Society of Virginia, 42:3, pp. 150-158.
GLEACH, F.
1997
Powhatan’s World and Colonial Virginia: A Conflict of Cultures, University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
GOODMAN, C. G.
1984
Copper Artifacts in Late Eastern Woodlands Prehistory, A. M. Cantwell (ed.),
Center for American Archaeology, Evanston, Illinois.
HARMON, J. M.
1996
The Posey Site Revisited: A Contact Period Native American Village in
Cultural Context, paper presented at the 1996 Middle Atlantic Archaeology
Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
1999
Archaeological Investigations at The Posey Site (18CH281) and 18CH282
Indian Head Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center Charles County,
Maryland. Draft, prepared for Environmental Division Indian Head Division,
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Jefferson Patterson Park And Museum
Occasional Papers Number 7.
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
111
HERRMAN, A.
1673
Virginia and Maryland: As it is Planted and Inhabited this Present Year 1670
Surveyed and Exactly Drawn by the Only Labour and Endeavor of Augustine
Herrman, John Carter Brown Library, Providence, Rhode Island.
HODGES, M. E. N.
1981
A Brief Relation of Virginia Prehistory: A Summary of Current Ideas on the
Cultural History of the Native Inhabitants of Virginia, ca. 10,000 BC to the
Present, manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
Richmond, Virginia.
1986
Archaeological Addendum to the Camden National Historic Landmark,
Caroline County, Virginia, manuscript on file at the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, Richmond, Virginia.
1993
Archaeology of Native American Life in Virginia in the Context of European
Contact: Review of Past Research, in The Archaeology of 17th-Century
Virginia, Theodore R. Reinhart and Dennis J. Pogue (eds.), Special Publication 30 of the Archaeology Society of Virginia, pp. 1-65.
KENT, B. C.
1984
Susquehanna’s Indians, Anthropological Series No. 6, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission,
Harrisburg.
KING, J. A. and E. E. CHANEY
2000
Did the Chesapeake English Have a Contact Period?, manuscript on file at
the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland.
KRAFT, H. C.
1989
Evidence of Contact and Trade in the Middle Atlantic Region and with the
Minisink Indians of the Upper Delaware River Valley, Journal of Middle
Atlantic Archaeology, 5, pp. 77-102.
1991
The Indians of the Lower Hudson Valley at the Time of European Contact,
in The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Lower Hudson Valley and
Neighboring Regions: Essays in Honor of Louis A. Brennan, Occasional
Publications in Northeastern Anthropology No. 11, Archaeological Services,
Bethlehem, Connecticut, pp. 193-221.
LANDON, D. B. and A. SHAPIRO
1998
Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Posey Site (18CH281), report on
file at the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, St. Leonard,
Maryland.
LENIK, E. J.
1989
New Evidence on the Contact Period in Northeastern New Jersey and
Southeastern New York, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 5,
pp. 103-120.
LIGHTFOOT, K. G.
1995
Culture Contact Studies: Redefining the Relationship between Prehistoric
and Historical Archaeology, American Antiquity, 60:2, pp. 199-217.
MACCORD, H. A. Sr.
1967
The Camden Site, Caroline County, Virginia, The Conference on Historic Site
Archaeology Paper, 2:1, pp. 95-97.
112
/
1969
GALKE
Camden Site Report, Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeological Society of
Virginia, 24:1, pp. 1-55.
1969
The Contact Period in Virginia, Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 5,
pp. 121-128.
1995
Contact Ethnography in the Middle Atlantic Region, Part II, Journal of
Middle Atlantic Archaeology, 11, pp. 139-150.
MILLER, C. L. and G. R. HAMELL
1986
A New Perspective on Indian-White Contact: Cultural Symbols and Colonial
Trade, The Journal of American History, 73:2, pp. 311-328.
MOREAU, J. F.
1698
Traditions and Cultural Transformations: European Copper-Based Kettles
and Jesuit Rings from 17th Century Amerindian Sites, North American
Archaeologist, 19:1, pp. 1-11.
MORGAN, P. D.
1999
Encounters between British and “Indigenous” Peoples, c. 1500-1800, in
Empire and Others: British Encounters with Indigenous Peoples, 1600-1850,
Martin Daunton and Rick Halpern (eds.), University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, pp. 42-78.
OBERG, M. L.
1999
Dominion and Civility: English Imperialism and Native America, 1585-1685,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
POTTER, S. R.
1989
Early English Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute in the
Tidewater Potomac, in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, Peter Wood, Gregory Waselkov, and Thomas Hatley (eds.), University
of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 151-172.
1993
Commoners, Tribute, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture
in the Potomac Valley, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
SAHLINS, M.
1993
“Goodbye to tristies tropes,” Journal Modern History, 65, pp. 1-25.
SALISBURY, N.
1982
Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans, and the Making of New
England, 1500-1643, Oxford University Press, New York.
SANTONE, L.
1998
Resiliency as Resistance: Eastern Woodland Munsee Groups on the Early
Colonial Frontier, North American Archaeologist, 19:2, pp. 117-134.
SCARRY, J. F. and M. D. MAXHAM
2002
Elite Actors in the Protohistoric: Elite Identities and Interaction with
Europeans in the Apalachee and Powhatan Chiefdoms, in Between Contacts
and Colonies: Archaeological Perspectives on the Protohistoric Southeast,
Cameron B. Wesson and Mark A. Rees (eds.), The University of Alabama
Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 142-169.
SEMMES, R.
1929
Aboriginal Maryland, 1608-1689 in Two Parts, Part Two: The Western Shore,
Maryland Historical Magazine, XXIV:3, pp. 195-209.
USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE /
113
SILLIMAN, S.
2001
Agency, Practical Politics and the Archaeology of Culture Contact, Journal
of Social Archaeologgy, 1:2, pp. 190-209.
STUIVER, M. and P. REIMER
2000
Calib Revision 4.3, Radiocarbon Calibration Program, Radiocarbon, 35,
pp. 215-230.
THOMAS, N.
1991
Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in The
Pacific, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
TURNER, E. R.
1985
Socio-Political Organization within the Powhatan Chiefdom and the Effects
of European Contact, A.D. 1607-1646, in Cultures in Contact: The European
Impact on Native Cultural Institutions in Eastern North America, A.D.
1000-1800, William W. Fitzhugh (ed.), Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C., pp. 193-224.
UBELAKER, DOUGLAS and PHILIP D. CURTIN
2001
Human Biology of Populations in the Chesapeake Watershed, in Discovering
the Chesapeake, Philip D. Curtin, Grace S. Brush, and George W. Fisher
(eds.), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 127-148.
WALSH, L. S.
2001
Land Use, Settlement Patterns, and the Impact of European Agriculture,
1620-1820, in Discovering the Chesapeake, P. D. Curtin, G. S. Brush, and
G. W. Fisher (eds.), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,
pp. 220-248.
WASELKOV, G. A.
1989
Seventeenth-Century Trade in the Colonial Southeast, Southeastern
Archaeology, 8:2, pp. 117-133.
WAY, P.
1999
The Cutting Edge of Culture: British Soldiers Encounter Native Americans in
the French and Indian War, in Empire and Others: British Encounters with
Indigenous Peoples, 1600-1850, Martin Daunton and Rick Halpern (eds.),
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 123-148.
Direct reprint requests to:
Laura J. Galke
Laboratory of Anthropology
Liberty Hall Farmhouse
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450-0303
e-mail: [email protected]