perspectives on the use of european …users.clas.ufl.edu/davidson/historical archaeology...

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

� 2004, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

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 represen-

tative 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 per-

spective should be avoided, as it implicitly assumes that Native American culture

was transformed while European culture, though influenced by contact, was

not significantly altered.

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)

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 accultura-

tion 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.

USE OF EUROPEAN MATERIAL CULTURE / 93

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 espe-

cially valued copper for its scarcity and religious significance (Potter, 1993:209;

Waselkov, 1989:122). Early 17th-century Native American Contact period assem-

blages 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 repre-

sent 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 empha-

size 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

94 / GALKE

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 bor-

rowed 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 cul-

tures in the Chesapeake. The increase in the amount of copper objects on

Contact period sites is often credited to European trade. Prior to contact, archaeo-

logical 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 com-

munities (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 cur-

rency, 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.


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 coor-

dinated 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 estab-

lished (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 Susque-

hannocks 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

96 / GALKE

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


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 archaeo-

logical 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 com-

bination 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

98 / GALKE

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


Table 1. A Comparison of Selected Artifact Categories as a

Percentage of the Entire Site Assemblagea

Posey

(in counts per m square) Camden

Category Number Percent Number Percent

Ceramics

Yeocomico

Camden

Potomac Ceek

European ceramics

White clay pipe

Red clay pipe

Bottle glass

Wrought nails

Lead shot/gunflintb

Lithics

Copper alloy

Total

1816.7

220.5

84.8

1511.4

34.5

52.1

131.0

18.8

39.3

58.7

121

20

2292.1

79.2

12.1

4.7

83.2

1.5

2.3

5.7

0.8

1.7

2.6

5.3

0.9

100%

8900

0

177

8723

62

25

317

16

95

9

535

13

9972

89.2

0

1.8

87.5

0.6

0.2

3.2

0.2

1.0

0.1

5.4

0.1

100%

aCamden counts based upon those reported in MacCord, 1969.

bShot/European flint includes lead shot, gunflint fragments, and European flint debitage.

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 demon-

strated 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

100 / GALKE

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.

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 con-

sisted 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 recog-

nition 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).

102 / GALKE

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 demon-

strated that, while the categories of materials present were similar, their proportion


of each site’s assemblage differed (Figure 3). Native American pottery over-

whelmingly 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

104 / GALKE

Figure 3. Bar chart showing the percentage of the total site assemblage at

Camden, and Posey, for selected categories. Native ceramics not included.

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


Figure 4. Iron table knives from the Camden 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 after-

math. 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.

106 / GALKE

Figure 5. Selected iron objects from the Posey site.

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 advan-

tages, 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 continu-

ation 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 dis-

covered 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


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, indi-

viduals 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

108 / GALKE

the mutability of meaning and function inherent in material culture. Archaeo-

logical 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.


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 Archaeo-

logical 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.

110 / GALKE

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 Publi-

cation 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.


1969 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 South-

east, 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.

112 / GALKE

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]


perspectives on the use of european …users.clas.ufl.edu/davidson/historical archaeology...

Documents