Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Previous Archaeological Investigations
Methods
Laboratory Methods
The Windy Knolls Property Shovel Test Results
Shovel Test Results
Test Unit Results
Midden Analysis
Conclusion
References

"A Place Now Known Unto Them:" The Search for Zekiah Fort, by Alex J. Flick, Skylar A. Bauer, Scott M. Strickland, D. Brad Hatch, and Julia A. King

Profile image of D. Brad HatchD. Brad HatchProfile image of Scott StricklandScott StricklandProfile image of Skylar BauerSkylar BauerProfile image of Julia A. KingJulia A. King

2012, Site Report

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The paper investigates the historical context and archaeological significance of Zekiah Fort, a location in Maryland tied to indigenous and colonial interactions during the late 17th century, particularly around the time of Bacon's Rebellion. It highlights the complex relationships between the Piscataway and Mattawoman tribes with English settlers and their subsequent struggles following the siege of the Susquehannock fort. The findings presented include various archaeological artifacts that contribute to understanding the Native American presence and colonial impact in the region.

Figures (246)
Figure 1. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River valley, c. 1680.
Figure 1. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River valley, c. 1680.
Archaeologists call this time the Paleo-Indian period, which began in North America about 12,000 years ago and lasted roughly 2,500 years (Table 1). Very few Paleo-Indian sites are known in Maryland, both because the population was small and because many early archaeological sites have been inundated by the rising waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In Charles County, archaeologists have identified — but not yet investigated — eleven Paleo-Indian sites. These sites have been identified by the recovery of distinctive stone tools or “fluted” projectile points, so-called because of the characteristic notching of stone flakes from the point’s base. These easily recognized points, which include spear tips, are found in association with Paleo-Indian sites across North America, and their relative uniformity over thousands of miles has intrigued archaeologists for decades. In Charles County, most sites dating to this period are found in the Zekiah Swamp drainage or in the Potomac River valley west of the Route 301 corridor (Barse 1985:22-26; Wanser 1982:6).
Archaeologists call this time the Paleo-Indian period, which began in North America about 12,000 years ago and lasted roughly 2,500 years (Table 1). Very few Paleo-Indian sites are known in Maryland, both because the population was small and because many early archaeological sites have been inundated by the rising waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In Charles County, archaeologists have identified — but not yet investigated — eleven Paleo-Indian sites. These sites have been identified by the recovery of distinctive stone tools or “fluted” projectile points, so-called because of the characteristic notching of stone flakes from the point’s base. These easily recognized points, which include spear tips, are found in association with Paleo-Indian sites across North America, and their relative uniformity over thousands of miles has intrigued archaeologists for decades. In Charles County, most sites dating to this period are found in the Zekiah Swamp drainage or in the Potomac River valley west of the Route 301 corridor (Barse 1985:22-26; Wanser 1982:6).
Figure 2. John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1608 (published 1612), showing the Potomac River drainage.
Figure 2. John Smith’s Map of Virginia, 1608 (published 1612), showing the Potomac River drainage.
Figure 3. Augustine Herrman’s Map of Maryland and Virginia, 1670 (published 1673) showing the Potomac River.
Figure 3. Augustine Herrman’s Map of Maryland and Virginia, 1670 (published 1673) showing the Potomac River.
Figure 4. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River valley, c. 1695-1700.
Figure 4. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River valley, c. 1695-1700.
Figure 5. Reconstructed boundaries of Zekiah Manor.
Figure 5. Reconstructed boundaries of Zekiah Manor.
Figure 6. Plat of His Lordship’s Favor, Zekiah Manor, 1705 (Courtesy Maryland State Archives).
Figure 6. Plat of His Lordship’s Favor, Zekiah Manor, 1705 (Courtesy Maryland State Archives).
Figure 7. Project area.
Figure 7. Project area.
Historically, the surveyed portion of the Windy Knolls parcel has been in agricultural use although, beginning in the 1970s, the southern knoll was developed with a single family home. USDA photographs indicate that, in 1963 and probably for many years, even the knoll slopes were cultivated (Figure 10). The property is accessed by old farm roads. One of these roads provides access to the
Historically, the surveyed portion of the Windy Knolls parcel has been in agricultural use although, beginning in the 1970s, the southern knoll was developed with a single family home. USDA photographs indicate that, in 1963 and probably for many years, even the knoll slopes were cultivated (Figure 10). The property is accessed by old farm roads. One of these roads provides access to the
Figure 10. 1963 USDA aerial photograph of the Windy Knolls property. Notice that most of the slopes are plowed, along with the two barns (Courtesy USDA SCS).
Figure 10. 1963 USDA aerial photograph of the Windy Knolls property. Notice that most of the slopes are plowed, along with the two barns (Courtesy USDA SCS).
Figure 11. Perennial spring located on the Windy Knolls property.
Figure 11. Perennial spring located on the Windy Knolls property.
Figure 12. Northeast face of south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 12. Northeast face of south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 13. Unnamed tributary along base of the south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 13. Unnamed tributary along base of the south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 14. c. 1970 house located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 14. c. 1970 house located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 15. Abandoned tobacco barn located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 15. Abandoned tobacco barn located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 16. Man-made ditch, Wind) Knolls property.
Figure 16. Man-made ditch, Wind) Knolls property.
It is unclear to whom the property was conveyed following Thompson’s death in 1814, but it is likely that it went to his wife, Eleanor Middleton Thompson, who retained title to portions of His Lordship’s Favor in the late 1820s (King and Strickland 2009a). By 1879, the property was in the possession of Henry A. Thompson; Henry may have been related to John and Eleanor but he was not their son. At his death in that year, Henry Thompson left the property in the hands of Richard T. Boarman and R.H. Edelen as trustees.
It is unclear to whom the property was conveyed following Thompson’s death in 1814, but it is likely that it went to his wife, Eleanor Middleton Thompson, who retained title to portions of His Lordship’s Favor in the late 1820s (King and Strickland 2009a). By 1879, the property was in the possession of Henry A. Thompson; Henry may have been related to John and Eleanor but he was not their son. At his death in that year, Henry Thompson left the property in the hands of Richard T. Boarman and R.H. Edelen as trustees.
Figure 17. Soil types at the Windy Knolls property; BaB: Beltsville silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GgB: Grosstown gravelly silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; MnC: Marr-Dodon comples, 5 to 10 percent slopes; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded.
Figure 17. Soil types at the Windy Knolls property; BaB: Beltsville silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GgB: Grosstown gravelly silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; MnC: Marr-Dodon comples, 5 to 10 percent slopes; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded.
What had in part driven testing of the Windy Knolls parcel was a reference in the 1798 Federal Direct Tax Assessment describing property in the name of Thomas A. Dyson as “Indian Town” (see Chapter IV). At the time of this tax assessment, Dyson, who was then sheriff for Charles County, was holding the property for the State of Maryland because of tax delinquencies (Table 3). The property was described as being part of the Jordan tract and part of Lot 22 of Zekiah Manor. The property is located just north of the Besche Oil Company property and can be found on Tax Map 25, Parcel 50. The Dyson tract was not surveyed as part of this project, but is included in this discussion because of its unusual name in the Federal Direct Tax. This property was, like the Windy Knolls property, acquired by John Smith from William Joseph in 1696. John Smith sold this portion of the larger Jordan tract to John Moore on October 20, 1715. The property is described only as running next to George Askin’s land. Askin had also acquired a portion of the Jordan tract from Smith, and this property was located just north of Billingsley Road in what is now the Broadview Run subdivision and well beyond our survey area. The property sold to Moore remained in
What had in part driven testing of the Windy Knolls parcel was a reference in the 1798 Federal Direct Tax Assessment describing property in the name of Thomas A. Dyson as “Indian Town” (see Chapter IV). At the time of this tax assessment, Dyson, who was then sheriff for Charles County, was holding the property for the State of Maryland because of tax delinquencies (Table 3). The property was described as being part of the Jordan tract and part of Lot 22 of Zekiah Manor. The property is located just north of the Besche Oil Company property and can be found on Tax Map 25, Parcel 50. The Dyson tract was not surveyed as part of this project, but is included in this discussion because of its unusual name in the Federal Direct Tax. This property was, like the Windy Knolls property, acquired by John Smith from William Joseph in 1696. John Smith sold this portion of the larger Jordan tract to John Moore on October 20, 1715. The property is described only as running next to George Askin’s land. Askin had also acquired a portion of the Jordan tract from Smith, and this property was located just north of Billingsley Road in what is now the Broadview Run subdivision and well beyond our survey area. The property sold to Moore remained in
Figure 18. The Steffens (18CH0093) and Hogue (18CH0103) properties.
Figure 18. The Steffens (18CH0093) and Hogue (18CH0103) properties.
Figure 19. The Lindens, c. 1840, built by John Francis Gardiner.
Figure 19. The Lindens, c. 1840, built by John Francis Gardiner.
Figure 20. Wheat field surveyed at the Steffens property, facing south toward Zekiah Run.
Figure 20. Wheat field surveyed at the Steffens property, facing south toward Zekiah Run.
Figure 21. A small knoll surveyed at the Hogue property.
Figure 21. A small knoll surveyed at the Hogue property.
Figure 22. View of fields at the Hogue property. Figure 23. View of lower-lying areas near Zekiah Run at the Hogue property.
Figure 22. View of fields at the Hogue property. Figure 23. View of lower-lying areas near Zekiah Run at the Hogue property.
Figure 24. View of fields along Piney Branch, Hogue property. Figure 25. Soil types at the Steffens and Hogue properties; BgB: Beltsville-Grosstown-W oodstown complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; GgB: Grosstown gravelly silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; Is: Issue silt loam, occasionally flooded; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded; WdB: Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.
Figure 24. View of fields along Piney Branch, Hogue property. Figure 25. Soil types at the Steffens and Hogue properties; BgB: Beltsville-Grosstown-W oodstown complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; GgB: Grosstown gravelly silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; Is: Issue silt loam, occasionally flooded; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded; WdB: Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.
Table 4. Chain of title for the Steffens property (His Lordship’s Favor).
Table 4. Chain of title for the Steffens property (His Lordship’s Favor).
The Hogue property, directly east of the Steffens property, traces its history to two tracts, including Moreland’s Chance/Howell’s Delight and Thompson’s Fertile Meadows (Table 5). The first record of Moreland’s Chance dates to 1747, when John Moreland is recorded as the owner. A deed recorded that year from Moreland to his son-in-law, Paul Howell, does not note when Moreland originally acquired the property. The property was repatented to Samuel Howell, Paul Howell’s son, in 1790 under the name “‘Howell’s Delight.” Howell’s Delight stayed within the Howell family until 1848 when it, along with part of Thompson’s Fertile Meadows, was sold to John F. Gardiner and Aloysius Bowling. Gardiner had previously, about 1840, acquired the adjacent Steffens property.
The Hogue property, directly east of the Steffens property, traces its history to two tracts, including Moreland’s Chance/Howell’s Delight and Thompson’s Fertile Meadows (Table 5). The first record of Moreland’s Chance dates to 1747, when John Moreland is recorded as the owner. A deed recorded that year from Moreland to his son-in-law, Paul Howell, does not note when Moreland originally acquired the property. The property was repatented to Samuel Howell, Paul Howell’s son, in 1790 under the name “‘Howell’s Delight.” Howell’s Delight stayed within the Howell family until 1848 when it, along with part of Thompson’s Fertile Meadows, was sold to John F. Gardiner and Aloysius Bowling. Gardiner had previously, about 1840, acquired the adjacent Steffens property.
Figure 26. The St. Peter’s Catholic Church property/Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 26. The St. Peter’s Catholic Church property/Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 27. Unnamed stream, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 27. Unnamed stream, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 28. Beaver pond, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 28. Beaver pond, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 29. Power;ines, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 29. Power;ines, the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 30. View of Maryland Route 5 from the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 30. View of Maryland Route 5 from the Jordan Swamp I site.
Figure 31. Soil types at the St. Peter’s Catholic Church Property/Jordan Swamp I; BaB: Beltsville silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; BcA: Beltsville-A quasco complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; GwD: Grosstown- Woodstown-Beltsville complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; HgB: Hoghole-Grosstown complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Is: Issue silt loam, occasionally flooded; LQA: Lenni and Quindocqua soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes; LsB: Liverpool silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded; UdB: Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 5 percent slopes; WdB: Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.
Figure 31. Soil types at the St. Peter’s Catholic Church Property/Jordan Swamp I; BaB: Beltsville silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; BcA: Beltsville-A quasco complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes; GmD: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; GmF: Grosstown-Marr-Hoghole complex, 15 to 40 percent slopes; GwD: Grosstown- Woodstown-Beltsville complex, 5 to 15 percent slopes; HgB: Hoghole-Grosstown complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes; Is: Issue silt loam, occasionally flooded; LQA: Lenni and Quindocqua soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes; LsB: Liverpool silt loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes; Pu: Potobac-Issue complex, frequently flooded; UdB: Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 5 percent slopes; WdB: Woodstown sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes.
Table 6. Chain of title for the St. Peter’s Catholic Church property.
Table 6. Chain of title for the St. Peter’s Catholic Church property.
Figure 32. Areas of previous archaeological survey in the project area; A: Hickey (1970); B: Marshall (1976): C: LeeDecker and Wuebber1988a; D: Ballweber (1990); E: Ballweber (1997); F, G, H: Hopkins (2006, 2007), Wall and Kollman (2007), Wall and Schmidt (2008), Wall, Schmidt, and Kollman (2007a, b); J: Barse, Eichinger, and Scheerer (2000); K: Billingsley Road (just north of C): LeeDecker and Wuebber (1988b).
Figure 32. Areas of previous archaeological survey in the project area; A: Hickey (1970); B: Marshall (1976): C: LeeDecker and Wuebber1988a; D: Ballweber (1990); E: Ballweber (1997); F, G, H: Hopkins (2006, 2007), Wall and Kollman (2007), Wall and Schmidt (2008), Wall, Schmidt, and Kollman (2007a, b); J: Barse, Eichinger, and Scheerer (2000); K: Billingsley Road (just north of C): LeeDecker and Wuebber (1988b).
Figure 33. Projected location of “Zekiah Town” described by Dennis Husculah, 1682.
Figure 33. Projected location of “Zekiah Town” described by Dennis Husculah, 1682.
For all four properties discussed in this report, including Windy Knolls, Steffens, Hogue, and St. Peter’s Church, we used a shovel testing strategy for locating and identifying areas of archaeological significance. This is the method we have consistently used since our initial work in the region beginning in 2008 (King, Strickland, and Norris 2008; King and Strickland 2009a, b; Strickland and King 2011). Although shovel testing can be “labor intensive” (Lightfoot 1986:484), especially when compared with pedestrian survey, in areas where ground visibility is limited or where buried deposits exist, shovel testing provides the best and most efficient means for recovering sub-surface information (see also Lightfoot 1989). Further, because all of our project areas include a mix of agricultural fields and wooded lots, and because most farmers and other land managers today avoid wide-scale plowing as part of best management farm practices, we early on instituted a program of systematic shovel testing as the strategy best suited for locating archaeological sites. Figure 34. Excavating a shovel test.
For all four properties discussed in this report, including Windy Knolls, Steffens, Hogue, and St. Peter’s Church, we used a shovel testing strategy for locating and identifying areas of archaeological significance. This is the method we have consistently used since our initial work in the region beginning in 2008 (King, Strickland, and Norris 2008; King and Strickland 2009a, b; Strickland and King 2011). Although shovel testing can be “labor intensive” (Lightfoot 1986:484), especially when compared with pedestrian survey, in areas where ground visibility is limited or where buried deposits exist, shovel testing provides the best and most efficient means for recovering sub-surface information (see also Lightfoot 1989). Further, because all of our project areas include a mix of agricultural fields and wooded lots, and because most farmers and other land managers today avoid wide-scale plowing as part of best management farm practices, we early on instituted a program of systematic shovel testing as the strategy best suited for locating archaeological sites. Figure 34. Excavating a shovel test.
Figure 35. Screening shovel test fill.
Figure 35. Screening shovel test fill.
Figure 36. Location of shovel tests at the Windy Knolls property.
Figure 36. Location of shovel tests at the Windy Knolls property.
Figure 39. Using the RTK system to establish the archaeological grid.
Figure 39. Using the RTK system to establish the archaeological grid.
Figure 38. Location of shovel tests at the St. Peter’s Catholic Church/Jordan Swamp I property.
Figure 38. Location of shovel tests at the St. Peter’s Catholic Church/Jordan Swamp I property.
Figure 41. Overall view of test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 41. Overall view of test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 42. Excavating test units at Windy Knolls I.
Figure 42. Excavating test units at Windy Knolls I.
Figure 43. Screening plow zone from test units at Windy Knolls I.
Figure 43. Screening plow zone from test units at Windy Knolls I.
Table 7. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Table 7. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 45. Distribution of colonial artifacts from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 45. Distribution of colonial artifacts from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 44. Distribution of lithics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 44. Distribution of lithics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 46. Distribution of refined earthenwares from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 46. Distribution of refined earthenwares from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 47. Distribution of brick from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 47. Distribution of brick from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property.
Figure 48. Site boundaries for Windy Knolls I (18CH0808) and Windy Knolls II (18CH0809).
Figure 48. Site boundaries for Windy Knolls I (18CH0808) and Windy Knolls II (18CH0809).
Acknowledging that these counts are small (as shovel test data often is), these distributions nonetheless demonstrate the presence of a fairly intensive occupation dating to the second half of the 17" century. The site’s topography, including its defensible location, nearby source of potable water, relatively productive agricultural soils, location on Zekiah Manor, and the types of artifacts recovered all point to Windy Knolls I as the Zekiah Fort. Given the ambiguity of the documents, however, and the possibility that “Zekiah Town” (mentioned by Dennis Husculah in 1682) and “Zekiah Fort” were two different settlements (an issue we retum to in the conclusion), we made the decision to undertake additional testing at the site with larger, five-by-five-foot units placed in areas of artifact concentration. Not only would we increase our artifact sample (dramatically so, as it turns out), we hoped to identify and document sub-plow zone features at the site. We were especially interested in identifying archaeological traces of any fortifications at the settlement.
Acknowledging that these counts are small (as shovel test data often is), these distributions nonetheless demonstrate the presence of a fairly intensive occupation dating to the second half of the 17" century. The site’s topography, including its defensible location, nearby source of potable water, relatively productive agricultural soils, location on Zekiah Manor, and the types of artifacts recovered all point to Windy Knolls I as the Zekiah Fort. Given the ambiguity of the documents, however, and the possibility that “Zekiah Town” (mentioned by Dennis Husculah in 1682) and “Zekiah Fort” were two different settlements (an issue we retum to in the conclusion), we made the decision to undertake additional testing at the site with larger, five-by-five-foot units placed in areas of artifact concentration. Not only would we increase our artifact sample (dramatically so, as it turns out), we hoped to identify and document sub-plow zone features at the site. We were especially interested in identifying archaeological traces of any fortifications at the settlement.
Figure 50. Distributions of Native and colonial ceramics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 50. Distributions of Native and colonial ceramics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 52. Distribution of colonial bottle glass from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I. Figure 51. Distributions of red and white tobacco pipes from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 52. Distribution of colonial bottle glass from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I. Figure 51. Distributions of red and white tobacco pipes from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 53. Distribution of glass beads from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 53. Distribution of glass beads from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 54. Distribution of European flint from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 54. Distribution of European flint from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 55. Distribution of animal bone fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 55. Distribution of animal bone fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 56. Distribution of oyster shell fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 56. Distribution of oyster shell fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 57. Distribution of square iron nail fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 57. Distribution of square iron nail fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 58. A contemporary drawing of the 1675 Susquehannock Fort (British PRO).
Figure 58. A contemporary drawing of the 1675 Susquehannock Fort (British PRO).
Figure 60. Contour map of the south knoll top, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 60. Contour map of the south knoll top, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 62. Plan view of Test Unit 340235, Windy Knolls I. Figure 63. Plan view of Test Unit 345230, Windy Knolls I; the grayish brown feature in the center and east side of the unit is 20" century in date; the feature in the northwest side is characterized by a dark yellowish brown (10Y R3/6) sandy loam mottled with 20% yellowish brown (10Y R5/4) sandy loam with 6% fired clay and charcoal flecks, and may be 17" century in date; north is at top of picture.
Figure 62. Plan view of Test Unit 340235, Windy Knolls I. Figure 63. Plan view of Test Unit 345230, Windy Knolls I; the grayish brown feature in the center and east side of the unit is 20" century in date; the feature in the northwest side is characterized by a dark yellowish brown (10Y R3/6) sandy loam mottled with 20% yellowish brown (10Y R5/4) sandy loam with 6% fired clay and charcoal flecks, and may be 17" century in date; north is at top of picture.
Figure 64. Plan view of Test Unit 405325, Windy Knolls I. Figure 65. Plan view of Test Unit 465230, Windy Knolls I; the linear feature in the northeast section is a plow scar remnant; the complex of features in the west half includes a circular feature of dark yellowish brown (10Y R4/4) silty loam mottled with 5% brownish yellow (10Y R6/6) clayey loam with charcoal and fired clay flecking and a partially uncovered feature of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silty loam mottled with 5% brownish yellow (10Y R6/8) silty loam with charcoal flecking and inclusions; north is at top of picture.
Figure 64. Plan view of Test Unit 405325, Windy Knolls I. Figure 65. Plan view of Test Unit 465230, Windy Knolls I; the linear feature in the northeast section is a plow scar remnant; the complex of features in the west half includes a circular feature of dark yellowish brown (10Y R4/4) silty loam mottled with 5% brownish yellow (10Y R6/6) clayey loam with charcoal and fired clay flecking and a partially uncovered feature of dark yellowish brown (10YR4/4) silty loam mottled with 5% brownish yellow (10Y R6/8) silty loam with charcoal flecking and inclusions; north is at top of picture.
Figure 66. Plan view of Test Unit 470235, Windy Knolls I. Two test units (Test Units 575110 and 575120) were excavated on the northwest slope of the knoll, just west of the old farm road ascending the knoll. Although this area is not level with a noticeable slope, shovel tests excavated in this area had generated a number of artifacts. The plow zone from the two units ranged from brown to dark yellowish brown silty sandy loam with large amounts of gravel. The plow zone ranged in thickness from 0.7 foot on the east side of Test Unit 575120 to 1.19 feet on its west side and 1.28 feet in depth on the east side of Test Unit 575110 to deeper on the west side. What may be a modern post hole and mold was found in Test Unit 575110; no other features were observed in either unit. Two units, Test Units 620625 and 645600, were excavated at the base of the knoll on its northeas side, and both units were considerably deeper than the units at the top of the knoll. Both contained « modern plow zone overlying an early plow zone. The modem plow zone in both units consists of yellowish brown sandy loam mixed with about 20 percent gravel. This plow zone measures 0.8 to 0.9" foot in thickness. The early plow zone consists of a dark yellowish brown sandy loam mottled with five to ten percent yellowish brown sandy loam. The early plow zone in Test Unit 620625 was approximatel; one foot in thickness, while the early plow zone in Test Unit 645600 averaged about 0.6 foot in thickness The early plow zone in Test Unit 645600 also contained a moderate amount of gravel. The modem plov zone in Test Unit 620625 contained only eight artifacts, while the early plow zone yielded eight times tha number, supporting our interpretation based on the shovel test evidence that the early plow zone contain: the original site midden. Test Unit 645600, however, was the opposite, with the bulk of the artifacts (31. in the top layer; the early plow zone contained only twelve artifacts.
Figure 66. Plan view of Test Unit 470235, Windy Knolls I. Two test units (Test Units 575110 and 575120) were excavated on the northwest slope of the knoll, just west of the old farm road ascending the knoll. Although this area is not level with a noticeable slope, shovel tests excavated in this area had generated a number of artifacts. The plow zone from the two units ranged from brown to dark yellowish brown silty sandy loam with large amounts of gravel. The plow zone ranged in thickness from 0.7 foot on the east side of Test Unit 575120 to 1.19 feet on its west side and 1.28 feet in depth on the east side of Test Unit 575110 to deeper on the west side. What may be a modern post hole and mold was found in Test Unit 575110; no other features were observed in either unit. Two units, Test Units 620625 and 645600, were excavated at the base of the knoll on its northeas side, and both units were considerably deeper than the units at the top of the knoll. Both contained « modern plow zone overlying an early plow zone. The modem plow zone in both units consists of yellowish brown sandy loam mixed with about 20 percent gravel. This plow zone measures 0.8 to 0.9" foot in thickness. The early plow zone consists of a dark yellowish brown sandy loam mottled with five to ten percent yellowish brown sandy loam. The early plow zone in Test Unit 620625 was approximatel; one foot in thickness, while the early plow zone in Test Unit 645600 averaged about 0.6 foot in thickness The early plow zone in Test Unit 645600 also contained a moderate amount of gravel. The modem plov zone in Test Unit 620625 contained only eight artifacts, while the early plow zone yielded eight times tha number, supporting our interpretation based on the shovel test evidence that the early plow zone contain: the original site midden. Test Unit 645600, however, was the opposite, with the bulk of the artifacts (31. in the top layer; the early plow zone contained only twelve artifacts.
Table 11. Native stone lithics from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I (18CH0808); not including European flint. Native stone artifacts from the test units (that is, the non-European flint lithic assemblage) include primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes, utilized flakes, shatter, bifaces/tools, and fire-cracked rock (Table 11). Native stone consists primarily of quartz, although quartzite and local chert are also represented in the assemblage. Other types, including rhyolite, jasper, sandstone, slate, and groundstone, are represented by only one or two specimens.
Table 11. Native stone lithics from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I (18CH0808); not including European flint. Native stone artifacts from the test units (that is, the non-European flint lithic assemblage) include primary, secondary, and tertiary flakes, utilized flakes, shatter, bifaces/tools, and fire-cracked rock (Table 11). Native stone consists primarily of quartz, although quartzite and local chert are also represented in the assemblage. Other types, including rhyolite, jasper, sandstone, slate, and groundstone, are represented by only one or two specimens.
Figure 67. Selected stone tools from test units, Windy Knolls I; clockwise from top left: quartz triangular point (Lot 259). quartz biface (Lot 953): quartz biface or point (Jot 273). 07. Selected stone tools trom test units, At the Posey site, lithics, including flakes, cores, Knolls I; clockwise from top left: quartz an tools (and excluding European flint and fire-cracked ar point (Lot 259). quartz biface (Lot rock), were recovered at the rate of 11.4 artifacts per test fara, bibdGerer meine Lan 27a unit (423 artifacts from 37 units) (Harmon 1999)."" At Knolls I, debitage and tools were recovered at the rate of three artifacts per test unit (137 artifacts ) units), or only about a quarter of the counts observed for Posey. At Camden, a town site located
Figure 67. Selected stone tools from test units, Windy Knolls I; clockwise from top left: quartz triangular point (Lot 259). quartz biface (Lot 953): quartz biface or point (Jot 273). 07. Selected stone tools trom test units, At the Posey site, lithics, including flakes, cores, Knolls I; clockwise from top left: quartz an tools (and excluding European flint and fire-cracked ar point (Lot 259). quartz biface (Lot rock), were recovered at the rate of 11.4 artifacts per test fara, bibdGerer meine Lan 27a unit (423 artifacts from 37 units) (Harmon 1999)."" At Knolls I, debitage and tools were recovered at the rate of three artifacts per test unit (137 artifacts ) units), or only about a quarter of the counts observed for Posey. At Camden, a town site located
Table 12. Flint artifacts and debitage recovered from Windy Knolls I. As with the native stone, flint debitage was classified as secondary or tertiary based on presence (secondary) or absence (tertiary) of cortex (no primary flakes were recovered) (Table 12). About 70 percent of the flint artifacts were classified as tertiary, including mostly small flakes or shatter probably indicative of later-stage gunflint or tool manufacture, gunflint resharpening, or other retouch.
Table 12. Flint artifacts and debitage recovered from Windy Knolls I. As with the native stone, flint debitage was classified as secondary or tertiary based on presence (secondary) or absence (tertiary) of cortex (no primary flakes were recovered) (Table 12). About 70 percent of the flint artifacts were classified as tertiary, including mostly small flakes or shatter probably indicative of later-stage gunflint or tool manufacture, gunflint resharpening, or other retouch.
Figure 68. Gunflints and debitage from test units, Windy Knolls I; the specimen in the lower right hand corner is of non-local Native chert; all other specimens in this figure are believed to be of European flint.
Figure 68. Gunflints and debitage from test units, Windy Knolls I; the specimen in the lower right hand corner is of non-local Native chert; all other specimens in this figure are believed to be of European flint.
Table 13. Gunflints from East Coast Indian sites. The Windy Knolls I total includes gunflints from test units (19) and shovel tests (2); adapted from Kent 1983:30-31.
Table 13. Gunflints from East Coast Indian sites. The Windy Knolls I total includes gunflints from test units (19) and shovel tests (2); adapted from Kent 1983:30-31.
Table 14. Total ceramics recovered from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I.
Table 14. Total ceramics recovered from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 69. Selected Native ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row: Potomac Creek rim, cord-marked (Lot 279); Potomac Creek rim, plain (Lot 276); Moyaone body fragment, plain (Lot 238); Moyaone body fragment, plain (Lot 243); second row: shell-tempered body fragments, plain (Lot 276); third row: shell-tempered body fragments, plain (Lot 276).
Figure 69. Selected Native ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row: Potomac Creek rim, cord-marked (Lot 279); Potomac Creek rim, plain (Lot 276); Moyaone body fragment, plain (Lot 238); Moyaone body fragment, plain (Lot 243); second row: shell-tempered body fragments, plain (Lot 276); third row: shell-tempered body fragments, plain (Lot 276).
Figure 70. Possible Colonoware from test units, Windy Knolls 1; possible rim fragment (Lot 304).
Figure 70. Possible Colonoware from test units, Windy Knolls 1; possible rim fragment (Lot 304).
Figure 71. European ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, possible Rhenish brown stoneware (Lot 235); tin-glazed earthenware; tin-glazed earthenware; middle row: Merida Micaceous IJ; Meridé Micaceous II ; bottom row, English brown stoneware rim (Lot 277), Merida Micaceous II (Lot 249). All three possible Colonoware fragments from the Windy Knolls I site are small in size. One fragment is less than %4-inch in maximum length, possibly shell-tempered, and with a flat bottom and smooth angular sides. The second fragment is an unglazed micaceous red earthenware with a reduced gray core that may be from a vessel with a flat base. The sherd is 7/8-inch in diameter. The third possible colonoware fragment, recovered from a water-screened column sample, is a sand- and shell-tempered rim or base sherd. None of these fragments is fully convincing in large part because of their small size, but their forms suggest that Colonowares may in fact have been present at Windy Knolls I.
Figure 71. European ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, possible Rhenish brown stoneware (Lot 235); tin-glazed earthenware; tin-glazed earthenware; middle row: Merida Micaceous IJ; Meridé Micaceous II ; bottom row, English brown stoneware rim (Lot 277), Merida Micaceous II (Lot 249). All three possible Colonoware fragments from the Windy Knolls I site are small in size. One fragment is less than %4-inch in maximum length, possibly shell-tempered, and with a flat bottom and smooth angular sides. The second fragment is an unglazed micaceous red earthenware with a reduced gray core that may be from a vessel with a flat base. The sherd is 7/8-inch in diameter. The third possible colonoware fragment, recovered from a water-screened column sample, is a sand- and shell-tempered rim or base sherd. None of these fragments is fully convincing in large part because of their small size, but their forms suggest that Colonowares may in fact have been present at Windy Knolls I.
Ew ONY EE DE I aN 110 11U, 4 vuy., feii’ RAE IIS ARE Aad Ne Be Ae Oe ee 7 , 18CH0281), and Camden (VA; 44CE0003) sites. Knolls I. The nearest known English residence to the site was located four miles south at the intersection of Kerrick and Zekiah swamps. This property, known as Hawkins Gate (today) or Fair Fountain (historically), was owned first by Josias Fendall and later by Henry Hawkins. Neither man lived on the property, but archaeological evidence recovered from the Hawkins Gate site (18C H0004) indicates a tenant was there between c. 1660 and 1695. At least one feature there may be a filled cellar. Indian-made products were found at Fair Fountain, including tobacco pipes and Potomac Creek pottery. Copper scrap was also found, although in a very small quantity when compared with Windy Knolls I (see below) (Bauer and King [2013]).
Ew ONY EE DE I aN 110 11U, 4 vuy., feii’ RAE IIS ARE Aad Ne Be Ae Oe ee 7 , 18CH0281), and Camden (VA; 44CE0003) sites. Knolls I. The nearest known English residence to the site was located four miles south at the intersection of Kerrick and Zekiah swamps. This property, known as Hawkins Gate (today) or Fair Fountain (historically), was owned first by Josias Fendall and later by Henry Hawkins. Neither man lived on the property, but archaeological evidence recovered from the Hawkins Gate site (18C H0004) indicates a tenant was there between c. 1660 and 1695. At least one feature there may be a filled cellar. Indian-made products were found at Fair Fountain, including tobacco pipes and Potomac Creek pottery. Copper scrap was also found, although in a very small quantity when compared with Windy Knolls I (see below) (Bauer and King [2013]).
Figure 72. Red clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, I-r: rim fragment with rouletting around the rim and unidentified rouletted decoration (Lot 253); rouletted rim fragment; bowl fragment with rouletted decoration (Lot 244); bowl fragment with hollow-reed impressed decoration (Lot 246); bottom row, I-r: rim and bowl fragment with rouletted decoration with white infill (Lot 254); European-style heel with rouletted “Z” or “N” design (Lot 241); bowl fragment with rouletting (Lot 251); “agatized” stem fragment (Lot 256). The 34 decorated red clay tobacco pipe fragments) depict predominately rouletted designs although, in most cases, fragments are too small to suggest a specific motif, such as the classic running deer (Figure 72). Single and double banded rim rouletting is common as well as unidentified diagonal dentate rouletting. Only one red clay fragment appears to have been incised, although the possible motif is unidentified. A serrated fossil shark’s tooth found at the site may have been used to create rouletting on pipes during the manufacturing process (Figure 73) (Potter 1993:226, 228). No evidence of wasters generated during the tobacco pipe manufacturing process were recovered from Windy Knolls I, however, suggesting that this shark’s mMOSeA.
Figure 72. Red clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, I-r: rim fragment with rouletting around the rim and unidentified rouletted decoration (Lot 253); rouletted rim fragment; bowl fragment with rouletted decoration (Lot 244); bowl fragment with hollow-reed impressed decoration (Lot 246); bottom row, I-r: rim and bowl fragment with rouletted decoration with white infill (Lot 254); European-style heel with rouletted “Z” or “N” design (Lot 241); bowl fragment with rouletting (Lot 251); “agatized” stem fragment (Lot 256). The 34 decorated red clay tobacco pipe fragments) depict predominately rouletted designs although, in most cases, fragments are too small to suggest a specific motif, such as the classic running deer (Figure 72). Single and double banded rim rouletting is common as well as unidentified diagonal dentate rouletting. Only one red clay fragment appears to have been incised, although the possible motif is unidentified. A serrated fossil shark’s tooth found at the site may have been used to create rouletting on pipes during the manufacturing process (Figure 73) (Potter 1993:226, 228). No evidence of wasters generated during the tobacco pipe manufacturing process were recovered from Windy Knolls I, however, suggesting that this shark’s mMOSeA.
Figure 73. Fossil shark’s tooth from test unit, Windy Knolls I (Lot AT)
Figure 73. Fossil shark’s tooth from test unit, Windy Knolls I (Lot AT)
Figure 74. White clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, |-r: bowl fragment with incuse serif letter “E,” probably Llewellin Evans (Lot 239; rim fragment with rouletting; bowl fragment with stem-and-leaf motif, possibly Dutch (Lot 258); stem fragment with Bristol-style rouletting (Lot 276); bottom row, I-r: stem fragment with Bristol-style rouletting and maker’s mark, “IS,” probably John Sinderling (Lot 244). Figure 74. White clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I;
Figure 74. White clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, |-r: bowl fragment with incuse serif letter “E,” probably Llewellin Evans (Lot 239; rim fragment with rouletting; bowl fragment with stem-and-leaf motif, possibly Dutch (Lot 258); stem fragment with Bristol-style rouletting (Lot 276); bottom row, I-r: stem fragment with Bristol-style rouletting and maker’s mark, “IS,” probably John Sinderling (Lot 244). Figure 74. White clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I;
Heater’s Island, the place the Piscataway moved to in 1699, produced a comparable number of measurable pipe stems (N=151) with a Binford date of 1692. The Piscataway were at Heater’s Island until c. 1712. Dennis Curry (personal communication, August 11, 2011) has suggested that the date may be skewing early because the Piscataway may have been forced to curate pipes at Heater’s Island, given their relative isolation from English markets, although, overall, the Heater’s Island assemblage contains a rich assemblage of goods of European manufacture. Figure 76. Comparison of pipe stem bore diameters, multiple sites, Windy Knolls I; Hawkins Gate: c. 1660-1695; Notley Hall: c. 1665-1695; Fendall: c. 1670-1715; Westwood Manor: c. 1680-1715.
Heater’s Island, the place the Piscataway moved to in 1699, produced a comparable number of measurable pipe stems (N=151) with a Binford date of 1692. The Piscataway were at Heater’s Island until c. 1712. Dennis Curry (personal communication, August 11, 2011) has suggested that the date may be skewing early because the Piscataway may have been forced to curate pipes at Heater’s Island, given their relative isolation from English markets, although, overall, the Heater’s Island assemblage contains a rich assemblage of goods of European manufacture. Figure 76. Comparison of pipe stem bore diameters, multiple sites, Windy Knolls I; Hawkins Gate: c. 1660-1695; Notley Hall: c. 1665-1695; Fendall: c. 1670-1715; Westwood Manor: c. 1680-1715.
Figure 77. Possible flakes from the working of bottle glass, from test units, Windy Knolls I (left: Lot 262; right: Lot 269).
Figure 77. Possible flakes from the working of bottle glass, from test units, Windy Knolls I (left: Lot 262; right: Lot 269).
The investigations at the Windy Knolls I site recovered a total of 289 glass beads from the test unit excavations, including 241 beads from the dry-screened plow zone deposit and 48 from the water- screened column samples (Table 17).'’ Water-screening the plow zone significantly enhanced bead recovery. Dry-screening recovered roughly 0.2 glass beads per square foot of plow zone (241 beads divided by 1150 square feet), while water-screening generated on average one glass bead per square foot of plow zone (48 beads divided by 46 square feet). This suggests that, if all of the plow zone had been water-screened, we could have potentially recovered 1,390 beads from the 46 excavated units (one bead times 1150 square feet plus 241 beads). Interestingly, not a single shell bead was recovered from any context at the Zekiah Fort. Table 17. Bead types recovered from test units, Windy Knolls I, and Heater’s Island (18FR0072).
The investigations at the Windy Knolls I site recovered a total of 289 glass beads from the test unit excavations, including 241 beads from the dry-screened plow zone deposit and 48 from the water- screened column samples (Table 17).'’ Water-screening the plow zone significantly enhanced bead recovery. Dry-screening recovered roughly 0.2 glass beads per square foot of plow zone (241 beads divided by 1150 square feet), while water-screening generated on average one glass bead per square foot of plow zone (48 beads divided by 46 square feet). This suggests that, if all of the plow zone had been water-screened, we could have potentially recovered 1,390 beads from the 46 excavated units (one bead times 1150 square feet plus 241 beads). Interestingly, not a single shell bead was recovered from any context at the Zekiah Fort. Table 17. Bead types recovered from test units, Windy Knolls I, and Heater’s Island (18FR0072).
Table 18. Glass bead types recovered from Windy Knolls I.
Table 18. Glass bead types recovered from Windy Knolls I.
Figure 78. Glass bead types from Windy Knolls I using Kidd and Kidd typology.
Figure 78. Glass bead types from Windy Knolls I using Kidd and Kidd typology.
Figure 79. Glass beads from test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 79. Glass beads from test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 80. Glass buttons from test units, Windy Knolls I (left: Lot 245; right: Lot 243.
Figure 80. Glass buttons from test units, Windy Knolls I (left: Lot 245; right: Lot 243.
Table 19. Copper alloy artifacts from dry- screened test units, Windy Knolls I. The excavations at Zekiah Fort produced a total of 65 copper alloy artifacts from the dry-screened test units (Table 19; Figure 81). Of these, the overwhelming majority consist of scrap material, some of which displayed evidence of use by folding, rolling, etc. This scrap material was likely used in the production of items such as triangular projectile points or tinkling cones, examples of which were recovered from the site, including four brass triangles and one tinkling cone. In addition, three U-shaped brass staples or staple fragments were recovered, with one fragment bearing cut marks. A single round, domed button was recovered, as were several round upholstery tacks. A thin, solid copper or brass cylinder was also found, although this object is believed to be a modern central electrode to a spark plug.
Table 19. Copper alloy artifacts from dry- screened test units, Windy Knolls I. The excavations at Zekiah Fort produced a total of 65 copper alloy artifacts from the dry-screened test units (Table 19; Figure 81). Of these, the overwhelming majority consist of scrap material, some of which displayed evidence of use by folding, rolling, etc. This scrap material was likely used in the production of items such as triangular projectile points or tinkling cones, examples of which were recovered from the site, including four brass triangles and one tinkling cone. In addition, three U-shaped brass staples or staple fragments were recovered, with one fragment bearing cut marks. A single round, domed button was recovered, as were several round upholstery tacks. A thin, solid copper or brass cylinder was also found, although this object is believed to be a modern central electrode to a spark plug.
Figure 81. Copper alloy artifacts from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, I-r: tinkling cone (Lot 237); perforated triangle fragment (Lot 258); perforated triangle (Lot 244); perforated triangle, bent (Lot 234); bottom row, I-r: tack (lot 255), triangle fragment, no perforation (Lot 254); scrap (Lot 258); rivet, possibly from a kettle (Lot 247). Knolls I; top row, l-r: tinkling cone (Lot 237); perforated
Figure 81. Copper alloy artifacts from test units, Windy Knolls I; top row, I-r: tinkling cone (Lot 237); perforated triangle fragment (Lot 258); perforated triangle (Lot 244); perforated triangle, bent (Lot 234); bottom row, I-r: tack (lot 255), triangle fragment, no perforation (Lot 254); scrap (Lot 258); rivet, possibly from a kettle (Lot 247). Knolls I; top row, l-r: tinkling cone (Lot 237); perforated
Table 20. Copper alloy triangle measurements, Windy Knolls I.
Table 20. Copper alloy triangle measurements, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 82. Perforated iron AAIUMACULUYICal CVIUCHICG MlUlCdwo Uldt, il oO LCYLUlio, triangle from test unit, Windy metal points may have begun to replace stone points through the 17" Knolls I (Lot 245). century. Archaeologist Barry Kent provided estimated brass-to-stone point ratios for 17"-century Susquehannock Indian sites in Pennsylvania. Brass points began to appear in very low numbers during the Washington Boro phase (1600-1625) of Susquehannock culture history, with a ratio of about one for every 200 stone points. By the Strickler phase (1645-1665), the brass-to-stone ratio was about 1:1, with isosceles brass points most common. At sites of the Leibhart phase (1665-1680), K ent found, that brass points outnumbered those of stone by about 2:1 with unperforated points predominating, although by Conestoga (1690-1763), perforated points were the norm (Kent 1984:18, 191-192). contact with the copper. Several of these hafted triangles have been recovered from Susquehannock sites in the lower Susquehanna River valley, a Delaware Indian site in Croton, New York, and a number of other sites in the northeast (Curry n.d.; Veit and Bello 2001:49-50). Perforated points were lashed to the arrow shaft with either plant fibers or animal sinew, while unperforated triangles may have been held in the split shaft with a native-made glue or a cord/sinew wrapping around the shaft just below the base of the triangle, creating a “vice grip of the split shaft on the point” (Kent 1984:190-193).
Figure 82. Perforated iron AAIUMACULUYICal CVIUCHICG MlUlCdwo Uldt, il oO LCYLUlio, triangle from test unit, Windy metal points may have begun to replace stone points through the 17" Knolls I (Lot 245). century. Archaeologist Barry Kent provided estimated brass-to-stone point ratios for 17"-century Susquehannock Indian sites in Pennsylvania. Brass points began to appear in very low numbers during the Washington Boro phase (1600-1625) of Susquehannock culture history, with a ratio of about one for every 200 stone points. By the Strickler phase (1645-1665), the brass-to-stone ratio was about 1:1, with isosceles brass points most common. At sites of the Leibhart phase (1665-1680), K ent found, that brass points outnumbered those of stone by about 2:1 with unperforated points predominating, although by Conestoga (1690-1763), perforated points were the norm (Kent 1984:18, 191-192). contact with the copper. Several of these hafted triangles have been recovered from Susquehannock sites in the lower Susquehanna River valley, a Delaware Indian site in Croton, New York, and a number of other sites in the northeast (Curry n.d.; Veit and Bello 2001:49-50). Perforated points were lashed to the arrow shaft with either plant fibers or animal sinew, while unperforated triangles may have been held in the split shaft with a native-made glue or a cord/sinew wrapping around the shaft just below the base of the triangle, creating a “vice grip of the split shaft on the point” (Kent 1984:190-193).
Figure 83. Lead shot from test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 83. Lead shot from test units, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 84. Possible lead net-sinker from test units Windy Knolls I (Lot 245). A few examples of lead shot appear to have been worked or altered in different ways. Two pieces of shot, for instance, have V-shaped cuts. The function of these objects is unclear, but they may have functioned as net sinkers. Additionally, another piece of shot was compressed and partially flattened.
Figure 84. Possible lead net-sinker from test units Windy Knolls I (Lot 245). A few examples of lead shot appear to have been worked or altered in different ways. Two pieces of shot, for instance, have V-shaped cuts. The function of these objects is unclear, but they may have functioned as net sinkers. Additionally, another piece of shot was compressed and partially flattened.
Figure 87. Iron nails from test units, Windy Knolls I. Nails formed the largest category of iron artifact recovered. Two possible iron knives and a gur trigger were also recovered in addition to an unidentified square-bodied “‘s-shaped” iron fragment whicl may have functioned as a handle.
Figure 87. Iron nails from test units, Windy Knolls I. Nails formed the largest category of iron artifact recovered. Two possible iron knives and a gur trigger were also recovered in addition to an unidentified square-bodied “‘s-shaped” iron fragment whicl may have functioned as a handle.
Figure 88. Iron knife fragment from test unit, Windy Knolls I (T.at 247).
Figure 88. Iron knife fragment from test unit, Windy Knolls I (T.at 247).
Table 21. Average weight per bone fragment based on taxon, Windy Knolls I. Another process affecting the assemblage is plowing. The greatest impact plowing has on bone preservation as well as on artifacts of all kinds is in its fragmentation. In general, assemblages from plow zone contexts tend to be highly fragmented with a high number of unidentifiable bones (Lyman and
Table 21. Average weight per bone fragment based on taxon, Windy Knolls I. Another process affecting the assemblage is plowing. The greatest impact plowing has on bone preservation as well as on artifacts of all kinds is in its fragmentation. In general, assemblages from plow zone contexts tend to be highly fragmented with a high number of unidentifiable bones (Lyman and
Figure 90. pH readings for test units from the knoll, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 90. pH readings for test units from the knoll, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 91. Bone fragment counts for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I. Analysis. With all of the preservation biases in this assemblage, plow zone zooarchaeology may seem like an exercise in futility. Nonetheless, it has been shown at other sites in the Chesapeake region that the analysis of faunal remains from the plow zone can provide useful information if sample bias is understood (Barber 1978; Landon and Shapiro 1998). The Posey site, which has been discussed in
Figure 91. Bone fragment counts for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I. Analysis. With all of the preservation biases in this assemblage, plow zone zooarchaeology may seem like an exercise in futility. Nonetheless, it has been shown at other sites in the Chesapeake region that the analysis of faunal remains from the plow zone can provide useful information if sample bias is understood (Barber 1978; Landon and Shapiro 1998). The Posey site, which has been discussed in
Figure 92. Bone weights for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 92. Bone weights for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I.
comparison with Windy Knolls I throughout this report, shares a similar context, period of occupation, and preservation issue. Posey is located approximately 20 miles west of Windy Knolls I and has been interpreted as a Native American occupation, probably Mattawoman, dating from 1650-1680 (Harmon 1999). The animal bone from Posey also comes from plow zone deposits, all pieces were highly fragmented, and a significant proportion of the assemblage had been heat altered. Despite these biases, Landon and Shapiro (1998:17) were still able to demonstrate that the assemblage was significantly different from that of an English household of the same period and showed many of the elements of an expected Native diet. Landon and Shapiro’s (1998) study serves as an important comparative data set for the Windy Knolls I assemblage, especially since it dates to a slightly earlier period and allows for the examination of change in diet over time. Additionally, the analysis of the Posey site fauna illustrates that plow zone zooarchaeology can be interpretively powerful if research questions are formulated while being mindful of the limitations of an assemblage.
comparison with Windy Knolls I throughout this report, shares a similar context, period of occupation, and preservation issue. Posey is located approximately 20 miles west of Windy Knolls I and has been interpreted as a Native American occupation, probably Mattawoman, dating from 1650-1680 (Harmon 1999). The animal bone from Posey also comes from plow zone deposits, all pieces were highly fragmented, and a significant proportion of the assemblage had been heat altered. Despite these biases, Landon and Shapiro (1998:17) were still able to demonstrate that the assemblage was significantly different from that of an English household of the same period and showed many of the elements of an expected Native diet. Landon and Shapiro’s (1998) study serves as an important comparative data set for the Windy Knolls I assemblage, especially since it dates to a slightly earlier period and allows for the examination of change in diet over time. Additionally, the analysis of the Posey site fauna illustrates that plow zone zooarchaeology can be interpretively powerful if research questions are formulated while being mindful of the limitations of an assemblage.
The faunal assemblage consists of a total of 8,269 bone and shell fragments (Table 23). The Windy Knolls I assemblage was analyzed using standard zooarchaeological methods. Fragments were identified to species, where possible, and element, portion, and side of the bone were recorded. Bone modification, such as butchering marks and burning were noted and all bone was weighed. NISP (number of identified specimens present), MNI (minimum number of individuals), and biomass were all calculated for the assemblage (White 1953; Reitz and Cordier 1983; Reitz et al. 1987; Reitz and Wing 1999:72). Of the total, only 452 fragments (or five percent of the assemblage) are identifiable below the class level. When oyster shell is excluded from these totals, only 151 fragments are identifiable below the class level (or less than two percent of the assemblage). Nevertheless, at least nine species of mammal, two species of fish, one species of reptile, and two species of invertebrate are represented in the collection.
The faunal assemblage consists of a total of 8,269 bone and shell fragments (Table 23). The Windy Knolls I assemblage was analyzed using standard zooarchaeological methods. Fragments were identified to species, where possible, and element, portion, and side of the bone were recorded. Bone modification, such as butchering marks and burning were noted and all bone was weighed. NISP (number of identified specimens present), MNI (minimum number of individuals), and biomass were all calculated for the assemblage (White 1953; Reitz and Cordier 1983; Reitz et al. 1987; Reitz and Wing 1999:72). Of the total, only 452 fragments (or five percent of the assemblage) are identifiable below the class level. When oyster shell is excluded from these totals, only 151 fragments are identifiable below the class level (or less than two percent of the assemblage). Nevertheless, at least nine species of mammal, two species of fish, one species of reptile, and two species of invertebrate are represented in the collection.
Figure 94. NISP for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 94. NISP for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 95. MNI for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 95. MNI for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 96. Biomass for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 96. Biomass for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 97. Midden areas selected for further analysis, Windy Knolls I.
Figure 97. Midden areas selected for further analysis, Windy Knolls I.
Table 25. Selected artifact categories from Middens A, B, and C, Windy Knolls I.
Table 25. Selected artifact categories from Middens A, B, and C, Windy Knolls I.
Table 26. Lithic, copper alloy, and gun artifacts, Middens A B, and C, Windy Knolls I.
Table 26. Lithic, copper alloy, and gun artifacts, Middens A B, and C, Windy Knolls I.
SE eA YY RAAT oh OM Ete ME MMMM eM) Table 28. Total artifacts recovered from shovel glazed earthenwares or delft, Staffordshire slip- tests, Windy Knolls II. decorated wares, Rhenish blue and gray stonewares, and white salt-glazed stonewares. The absence of these materials indicates that the site was not occupied during the first half of the 18" century. The presence of the Rhenish brown and English stoneware fragments, however, as well as the two black glass beads raises questions about this site’s association with Windy Knolls I. Rhenish brown stonewares are rarely recovered on sites post-dating the 17" century, although only one possible fragment of Rhenish brown was recovered from Windy Knolls I. On the other hand, a number of English brown stoneware fragments were recovered from the nearby 17”-century site. The two simple black glass beads recovered from Windy Knolls II (one from the core of the site and the other along the site’s western edge) are similar in size and form to the black beads recovered from Windy Knolls I. Table 28. Total artifacts recovered from shovel ¢ tests, Windy Knolls II. (
SE eA YY RAAT oh OM Ete ME MMMM eM) Table 28. Total artifacts recovered from shovel glazed earthenwares or delft, Staffordshire slip- tests, Windy Knolls II. decorated wares, Rhenish blue and gray stonewares, and white salt-glazed stonewares. The absence of these materials indicates that the site was not occupied during the first half of the 18" century. The presence of the Rhenish brown and English stoneware fragments, however, as well as the two black glass beads raises questions about this site’s association with Windy Knolls I. Rhenish brown stonewares are rarely recovered on sites post-dating the 17" century, although only one possible fragment of Rhenish brown was recovered from Windy Knolls I. On the other hand, a number of English brown stoneware fragments were recovered from the nearby 17”-century site. The two simple black glass beads recovered from Windy Knolls II (one from the core of the site and the other along the site’s western edge) are similar in size and form to the black beads recovered from Windy Knolls I. Table 28. Total artifacts recovered from shovel ¢ tests, Windy Knolls II. (
Table 29. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Random Finds. Three of the artifacts recovered from Windy Knolls II, including the two black glass beads and the two stoneware fragments, are of special interest and may suggest some association with Zekiah Fort. Shovel tests at Windy Knolls II were excavated at intervals of 50 feet, making it difficult to conclude whether or not this area, while clearly occupied in the late 18" century, is also associated with the occupation of Zekiah Fort. Nonetheless, the evidence is intriguing, and given that as many as 90 to 300 people were congregated at the fort during times of alarm, it is feasible that Windy Knolls II represents a multi-component site. Even if the potentially earlier artifacts were materials found and curated by the site’s late 18"-century occupants, this area, and indeed all of the area between Piney Branch and the freshwater spring, was part of the Zekiah Fort landscape.
Table 29. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Random Finds. Three of the artifacts recovered from Windy Knolls II, including the two black glass beads and the two stoneware fragments, are of special interest and may suggest some association with Zekiah Fort. Shovel tests at Windy Knolls II were excavated at intervals of 50 feet, making it difficult to conclude whether or not this area, while clearly occupied in the late 18" century, is also associated with the occupation of Zekiah Fort. Nonetheless, the evidence is intriguing, and given that as many as 90 to 300 people were congregated at the fort during times of alarm, it is feasible that Windy Knolls II represents a multi-component site. Even if the potentially earlier artifacts were materials found and curated by the site’s late 18"-century occupants, this area, and indeed all of the area between Piney Branch and the freshwater spring, was part of the Zekiah Fort landscape.
NE EN, RS Creek and otter Late WoOOdland/COntact-penlod Ceramics were found in considerable quantity at the Steffens property, no Indian-made ceramics were recovered during our project. This finding suggests that, while surface collections can be an important source of information about an archaeological site, they must still be used with caution. It is also the case, according to the Steffens family, that the farm has been previously collected, extensively so. Collectors rarely recover flakes and shatter, however, so that material provides a Clearer picture of lithic density at the site. Indeed, when compared with the materials recovered from the Hogue property (a property that has also been extensively collected), the density of stone artifacts at Steffens does appear lighter. Table 31. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property.
NE EN, RS Creek and otter Late WoOOdland/COntact-penlod Ceramics were found in considerable quantity at the Steffens property, no Indian-made ceramics were recovered during our project. This finding suggests that, while surface collections can be an important source of information about an archaeological site, they must still be used with caution. It is also the case, according to the Steffens family, that the farm has been previously collected, extensively so. Collectors rarely recover flakes and shatter, however, so that material provides a Clearer picture of lithic density at the site. Indeed, when compared with the materials recovered from the Hogue property (a property that has also been extensively collected), the density of stone artifacts at Steffens does appear lighter. Table 31. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property.
Table 30. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property.
Table 30. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property.
Figure 98. Stone tools recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property; left: quartz biface (Lot 118); right: quartz projectile point base (Lot 14).
Figure 98. Stone tools recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property; left: quartz biface (Lot 118); right: quartz projectile point base (Lot 14).
One North American salt-glazed stoneware body fragment was found in association with the majority of the refined earthenwares. American-made “blue and gray” stoneware was ubiquitous through the 19" century (Noél Hume 1969:101). Three unidentified black lead-glazed coarse earthenware sherds and a single sherd of undecorated porcelain were also recovered. Approximately one-third of the brick (n=148.9 grams) and two of the three iron nails were also recovered from this general area. Although not = ff sy. Figure 99. Nineteenth-century artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property; left: North American salt- glazed stoneware (Lot 167); top row, I-r: polychrome painted whiteware (Lot 175); blue painted pearlware (Lot 169); bottom row, |-r: unidentified refined earthenware base (T.ot 171): black lead-alazed earthenware (T.ot. 167).
One North American salt-glazed stoneware body fragment was found in association with the majority of the refined earthenwares. American-made “blue and gray” stoneware was ubiquitous through the 19" century (Noél Hume 1969:101). Three unidentified black lead-glazed coarse earthenware sherds and a single sherd of undecorated porcelain were also recovered. Approximately one-third of the brick (n=148.9 grams) and two of the three iron nails were also recovered from this general area. Although not = ff sy. Figure 99. Nineteenth-century artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property; left: North American salt- glazed stoneware (Lot 167); top row, I-r: polychrome painted whiteware (Lot 175); blue painted pearlware (Lot 169); bottom row, |-r: unidentified refined earthenware base (T.ot 171): black lead-alazed earthenware (T.ot. 167).
Table 32. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property.
Table 32. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property.
Figure 100. Quartzite tools and points recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; l-r: possible Broad Spear type (Lot 15fA)- Rare Tsland ar small Savannah River (T.at 14:7). hiface
Figure 100. Quartzite tools and points recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; l-r: possible Broad Spear type (Lot 15fA)- Rare Tsland ar small Savannah River (T.at 14:7). hiface
Figure 101. Flint fragments recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; clockwise from left: T.nt 214. T.at 221. T.at 327
Figure 101. Flint fragments recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; clockwise from left: T.nt 214. T.at 221. T.at 327
Figure 102. Native ceramics recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; top row: all Potomac Creek; bottom row: unidentified FT , i ee Fourteen ceramic fragments were recovered from the Hogue property during shovel testing, including one Pope’s Creek, ten Potomac Creek, and three unidentified fragments (Figure 102). Pope’s Creek, a sand-tempered ware often found with a cord-marked exterior, dates to the Early Woodland (1000 BC-200 AD). In the Potomac and Patuxent drainages, Pope’s Creek ceramics have been more tightly radiocarbon-dated to between 500 BC and 50 BC (Curry and Kavanagh 1994).
Figure 102. Native ceramics recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property; top row: all Potomac Creek; bottom row: unidentified FT , i ee Fourteen ceramic fragments were recovered from the Hogue property during shovel testing, including one Pope’s Creek, ten Potomac Creek, and three unidentified fragments (Figure 102). Pope’s Creek, a sand-tempered ware often found with a cord-marked exterior, dates to the Early Woodland (1000 BC-200 AD). In the Potomac and Patuxent drainages, Pope’s Creek ceramics have been more tightly radiocarbon-dated to between 500 BC and 50 BC (Curry and Kavanagh 1994).
Figure 104. Distribution of Native ceramics, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Figure 104. Distribution of Native ceramics, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Figure 105. Distribution of European flint, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Figure 105. Distribution of European flint, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Figure 106. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Figure 106. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Steffens and Hogue properties.
Site’s occupants were involved in some capacity with the long-distance trading networks that brought exotic stones from the interior to the Coastal Plain. Occupation appeared to have intensified at the site, given the large numbers of Potomac Creek ceramics recovered, suggesting a use of the property beginning as early as 1300 AD. Finally, a single sherd of colonoware reported by Wanser for a collection from the Hogue property, presumably because the fragment had a plain surface, little to no tempering, and possibly a form mimicking a European vessel.
Site’s occupants were involved in some capacity with the long-distance trading networks that brought exotic stones from the interior to the Coastal Plain. Occupation appeared to have intensified at the site, given the large numbers of Potomac Creek ceramics recovered, suggesting a use of the property beginning as early as 1300 AD. Finally, a single sherd of colonoware reported by Wanser for a collection from the Hogue property, presumably because the fragment had a plain surface, little to no tempering, and possibly a form mimicking a European vessel.
Table 35. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I.
Table 35. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I.
Levanna points like the one recovered from the 2002 investigations at 18CH694 are small, triangular points and are believed to have served as genuine arrow points. They are common during the Late Woodland period and were manufactured into the Contact period.
Levanna points like the one recovered from the 2002 investigations at 18CH694 are small, triangular points and are believed to have served as genuine arrow points. They are common during the Late Woodland period and were manufactured into the Contact period.
Figure 109. Stone tools recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I; l-r: rhyolite biface (Lot 43); quartz biface (Lot 33); rhyolite Kanawha point (Lot 75); quartz point, possibly Halifax (Lot 64).
Figure 109. Stone tools recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I; l-r: rhyolite biface (Lot 43); quartz biface (Lot 33); rhyolite Kanawha point (Lot 75); quartz point, possibly Halifax (Lot 64).
Figure 108. Tertiary flint fragment recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I (Lot 73).
Figure 108. Tertiary flint fragment recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I (Lot 73).
Figure 110. Native ceramics recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I; l-r: Potomac Creek cord-marked (Lot 73); Potomac Creek (Lot 76); Mockley (Lot 43). | surface (Figure 110). These fragments include a single body sherd each of Mockley net-impressed, Potomac Creek cord-marked, and Potomac Creek plain from the shovel tests. The surface-collected ceramic fragment appears to be Potomac Creek plain. The Mockley ceramic indicates that the Jordan Swamp | site was probably used during the Middle Woodland (200 AD-900 AD), while the Potomac Creek ceramics confirm the observations made by Barse, Eichinger, and Scheerer (2000).
Figure 110. Native ceramics recovered from shovel test, Jordan Swamp I; l-r: Potomac Creek cord-marked (Lot 73); Potomac Creek (Lot 76); Mockley (Lot 43). | surface (Figure 110). These fragments include a single body sherd each of Mockley net-impressed, Potomac Creek cord-marked, and Potomac Creek plain from the shovel tests. The surface-collected ceramic fragment appears to be Potomac Creek plain. The Mockley ceramic indicates that the Jordan Swamp | site was probably used during the Middle Woodland (200 AD-900 AD), while the Potomac Creek ceramics confirm the observations made by Barse, Eichinger, and Scheerer (2000).
Figure 112. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Jordan Swamp I.
Figure 112. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Jordan Swamp I.
Figure 111. Distribution of Native ceramics, Jordan Swamp I.
Figure 111. Distribution of Native ceramics, Jordan Swamp I.
Site Number refers to the numerical designation assigned the site by the Maryland Historical Trust. If a shovel test pit was excavated in an area where no artifacts were recovered and the test pit is not included in a site, no site number is assigned. Artifacts recovered outside of the site boundaries are assigned an “X” number, in this case, 18CHX0067. Lot refers to the lot number assigned each provenience generating archaeological materials. The lot number is unique by site, and each site begins its lot number listing at “1,” unless prior survey of the area produced artifacts. In such cases, lot numbers are continued from those assigned during the property’s original survey. Lot numbers for site 18CH0808 may appear non- sequential due to additional shovel testing after artifact cataloging had begun. Deposits without artifacts were not assigned a lot number.
Site Number refers to the numerical designation assigned the site by the Maryland Historical Trust. If a shovel test pit was excavated in an area where no artifacts were recovered and the test pit is not included in a site, no site number is assigned. Artifacts recovered outside of the site boundaries are assigned an “X” number, in this case, 18CHX0067. Lot refers to the lot number assigned each provenience generating archaeological materials. The lot number is unique by site, and each site begins its lot number listing at “1,” unless prior survey of the area produced artifacts. In such cases, lot numbers are continued from those assigned during the property’s original survey. Lot numbers for site 18CH0808 may appear non- sequential due to additional shovel testing after artifact cataloging had begun. Deposits without artifacts were not assigned a lot number.
AGIOEINDIA It, ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM DRY-SCREENED TEST UNITS WINDY KNOLLS I (18C H0808)
AGIOEINDIA It, ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM DRY-SCREENED TEST UNITS WINDY KNOLLS I (18C H0808)
APPENDIA Ill, ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM WATER-SCREENED COLUMN SAMPLES WINDY KNOLLS I (18C H0808)
APPENDIA Ill, ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM WATER-SCREENED COLUMN SAMPLES WINDY KNOLLS I (18C H0808)
APPENDIX VI. ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM SHOVEL TESTS JORDAN SWAMP I (18C H0694)
APPENDIX VI. ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM SHOVEL TESTS JORDAN SWAMP I (18C H0694)

Related papers

“Massacre at Hurtleberry Hill: Christian Indians and English Authority in Metacom's War.” William and Mary Quarterly 53:3 (July 1996): 459-486.
Jenny Hale Pulsipher
View PDFchevron_right
A Brief History of the Pequot War (1736)
Paul Royster

Electronic Texts in American Studies, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
A Brief History of the Warr with the Indians in New-England (1676): An Online Electronic Text Edition
Paul Royster

Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries, 2006

: An Online Electronic Text Edition The following pages represent a new edition of Increase Mather's influential contemporary account of King Philip's War, between the English colonists in New England (and their Native allies) and the Wampanoag, Naragansett, and other Indian nations of the region, beginning in 1675. Mather's account runs through August of 1676, when hostilities in southern, central, and western New England ended; fighting continued in the region of Maine until 1678. The war was disastrous for both sides, but particularly for the hostile Native Americans, who were brought very close to extermination. Mather describes his history as "brief " (it runs to 89 pages in this edition) and "impartial"-a claim that may ring false to modern ears. Mather was not a direct participant, but was an associate of most of the colonial leadership and a spiritual advisor to the war effort. His History has the advantage of being freshly written during the conflict, and reflects the alternating hopes and disappointments that accompanied each bit of news that arrived in Boston. He argues that the United Colonies (Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut) waged a defensive war against a treacherous enemy who assaulted their settlements and plantations without provocation. He does, however, blame the English colonists for their neglect of religion (including efforts to Christianize the natives) and for the sins of apostacy, inordinate pride of apparel and hair, drunkenness, and swearing-all of which gave God adequate cause to raise enemies against them as a "Scourge" to punish them and motivate them to repentence and reformation. The Brief History does deliver many telling truths about the conflict: that the English conducted search-and-destroy campaigns against both persons and provisions, slaughtered (Mather's word) large numbers of women and children as well as men, executed captured leaders by firing squad (on Boston Common and at Stonington, Ct.); and that their "armies" were on several occasions routed or entirely wiped out by Native fighters. This online electronic text edition is based on the first printed edition published at Boston in 1676, and it retains the spelling, punctuation, and orthography of the original. Some explanatory notes have been added (at the end), along with a bibliography, and a note on the textual history of the work, the editorial rationale employed, and a list of all emendations. Mather's work contains slightly more than 30,000 words; it is published here as a PDF file that can be printed out in landscape format on 52 lettersize pages.

View PDFchevron_right
Pageants of Sovereignty: ‘Merciless Indian Savages’ and American Nation-State Formation on the Northern Borderlands, 1774-1775
Loren Michael Mortimer
View PDFchevron_right
“OF CHUSINGE AND TAKINGE SOME PLACE OF ADVANTAGE, AND THERE TO MAKE SOME PALLYSADOES”: ATLANTIC CONNECTIONS AT THE NANSEMOND FORT, VIRGINIA
Luke Pecoraro

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts iv McCartney shared her research on the history of the site, and both Barbara Heath and Fraser Neiman were helpful in providing me with hard to find site reports. Insight into the ceramic vessels from the site's artifact assemblage from David Gaimster encouraged a different way of interpreting trading patterns and ware distribution. I have benefitted from, and enjoyed discussions of the site with Eric Deetz, Sean Devlin, Dave Givens, Hank Lutton, and Jamie May, as well as with others already acknowledged here. My professors and classmates at Boston University were helpful in shaping the direction of the thesis, ranging from suggestions on interpretation of artifacts in the collection to thinking about the site's occupants on a broader scale. Map production could not have been done without the help of Al Wesolowsky, who taught me how to use Adobe Illustrator, and the many conversations we had about illustrations and aesthetics. I am deeply indebted to my thesis committee, Mary Beaudry and Bill Kelso, whose comments on several drafts of the thesis, and discussions about the Nansemond Fort led me to think about the site interpretation in different ways. Both offered much encouragement for continued research, and suggestions on how to strengthen my writing. Lastly, I thank Casey, for her support in the research and writing process, reading over drafts, and listening to far too many details about the life of Daniel Gookin Jr.! v ABSTRACT English colonization of Virginia has been characterized as boldly intrusive, spreading out quickly from the first toehold at Jamestown into the hinterlands and leading to open hostility with native peoples almost from the start. The tactics used and methods employed in colonizing Virginia were not new; many of the Jamestown venturers were themselves involved in plantation efforts in the late 16th/early 17th centuries in Ireland.

View PDFchevron_right
The Canses Indians, a French Fort, and Non-English Influences on the Early American Republic.docx
Paul T Schwennesen
View PDFchevron_right
A Village Built over a Battlefield: Urban Archaeology and Preservation at the Battle of the Wabash (1791)
Christine Thompson, Kevin C. Nolan

Indiana Archaeology, 2018

The Battle of the Wabash in 1791 and the Battle of Fort Recovery in 1794, at modern-day Fort Recovery, Ohio, were two of the largest engagements of the Northwest Indian War. This war was the result of decades of conflict in what became the Northwest Territory in 1787. The Northwest Indian War was fought between the U.S. military and an American Indian alliance of a dozen or more tribes, with a bit of assistance from the British. Michikinikwa (Little Turtle) of the Miami and Weyapiersenway (Blue Jacket) of the Shawnee were the leaders of this alliance, also known as the Western Confederacy. There were multiple small skirmishes and raids in the late 1780s bringing unrest and renewed conflict to the whole area. In 1790, President Washington ordered General Josiah Harmar to march from Fort Washington, modern-day Cincinnati, Ohio, to Kiihkayonki, modern-day Fort Wayne, Indiana, which was a Miami stronghold and the site of Miami, Shawnee, and Delaware villages. Harmar’s campaign was unsuccessful, and he was defeated by the American Indian alliance in every battle. Washington then appointed Major General Arthur St. Clair to lead the U.S. Army and to build a series of forts from Fort Washington to Kiihkayonki (Figure 1).

View PDFchevron_right
Cherokees and Franco-British Confrontation in the Tennessee Corridor, 1730–1760
Kristofer Ray

Native South, 2014

South Carolina governor James Glen was alarmed in the summer of 1754. In July he received news from Virginia governor Robert Dinwiddie that a confrontation had occurred between George Washington's Virginia militia and French forces near the forks of the Ohio River. He was appalled that Dinwiddie had had to employ "these remarkable Words 'Th e French have got the Advantage by Capitulation. '" 1 Such a defeat, he feared, could have wide-ranging consequences for the British Empire in North America. At the least, he warned Sir Th omas Robinson, secretary of state for the Southern Department, this "small Spark may kindle a great Fire, and. .. if the Flame bursts out all the Water in the Ohio will not be able to extinguish it. " 2 It would soon become clear that Glen's fears were accurate-Washington's capitulation at the hastily built Fort Necessity was the catalyst for the French and Indian War, the North American theater of what would become known in Europe as the Seven Years' War. 3 A year later the war seemed only to become more problematic for South Carolinians. In July 1755 General Edward Braddock, commanderin-chief of British forces, was killed along with half his army when they attempted once again to march on the forks of the Ohio. Th ereafter, Cherokee trader Ludovic Grant noted that France's "endeavours to the Northward is a plain proof of their Intentions, and ought to put the Southward upon their guard. " 4 Believing that nothing remained to check French control of the upper portion of the Ohio, he speculated that they would move down the valley and challenge South Carolina on two critical issues: its ability to project British interests beyond the Appalachians, and its long-standing eff ort to maintain a relationship with Cherokees. native south volume 7 2014 34 Th ese two issues were carefully interwoven. Since the early eighteenth century Carolinians had seen themselves as the standard bearers of British-Indian diplomacy in the trans-Appalachian south, a position to which royal governors in Virginia, North Carolina, and eventually Georgia generally acceded. In this capacity they quickly came to understand the importance of a Cherokee alliance, and in the aft ermath of the Yamasee War actively encouraged the development of a "Chain of Friendship" with them. 5 As described in a 1730 treaty, Carolinians-and Britain's imperial leadership-felt that the Chain would establish exclusive commercial networks and access to Cherokee territory. Th rough it Carolina could extend British sovereignty across the trans-Appalachian south and into the lower Ohio valley. A central geographic element of this projection was the Tennessee River-it could be used by Cherokees to challenge France and French-allied Indians along the Mississippi, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers. In the British mind the Tennessee River and Cherokees were an essential combination contributing to their imagined empire in North America. More specifi cally, Overhill Cherokees were critical. In the mid-eighteenth century Cherokees divided into fi ve locations: Lower towns, Middle towns, Out towns, Valley towns, and Overhill towns. Because Overhill towns were on the Little Tennessee River, nearest both the Tennessee River and the French presence at Fort Toulouse, they were in a position of tremendous geopolitical importance. 6 Th roughout the 1730s and 1740s Overhill residents used the Tennessee as an avenue to assert their presence in the trans-Appalachian south and lower Ohio valley, in the process acquiring intelligence, harassing French trade, and generally convincing French offi cials that an Anglo-Cherokee connection existed. By 1754 their extended presence was so common that, as Governor Glen put it, "Th ere never passes one year that the Cherokees do not take a Boat or two belonging to the French on the Mississippi and destroy most of the Crew. " Earlier that year, he noted, Cherokees had "killed eight People belonging to one Boat, and brought two People alive into their Nation, and this Year they killed most of the Crew of another Vessel upon that River, and brought in three Prisoners. " 7 Carolinians considered French Illinois within their conception of British North America because of the region's connection to the Tennessee, Ohio, and Wabash Rivers. However weak and disorganized,

View PDFchevron_right
A Relation of the Indian War, by Mr. Easton, of Rhode Island, 1675
Paul Royster

Faculty Publications, UNL Libraries, 2006

View PDFchevron_right
“Dark Cloud Rising from the East”: Indian Sovereignty and the Coming of King William's War in New England
Jenny Pulsipher

The New England Quarterly, 2007

View PDFchevron_right

References (410)

  1. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River Valley, c. 1680 ...................................................
  2. John Smith's Map of Virginia, 1608 (published 1612) ......................................................................
  3. Augustine Herrman's Map of Maryland and Virginia, 1670 (published 1673) ..................................
  4. The political landscape of the lower Potomac River Valley, c. 1695-1700 ........................................
  5. Reconstructed boundaries of Zekiah Manor .......................................................................................
  6. Plat of His Lordship's Favor, Zekiah Manor, 1705 ............................................................................
  7. Project area .........................................................................................................................................
  8. Council for Maryland Archeology Regional Research Units .............................................................
  9. The Windy Knolls property ................................................................................................................
  10. 1963 USDA Aerial Photograph of the Windy Knolls property ..........................................................
  11. Perennial spring located on the Windy Knolls property .....................................................................
  12. Northeast face of south knoll, Windy Knolls property .......................................................................
  13. Unnamed tributary along base of the south knoll, Windy Knolls property ........................................
  14. c. 1970 house located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property ...........................................................
  15. Abandoned tobacco barn located on south knoll, Windy Knolls property .........................................
  16. Man-made ditch, Windy Knolls property ...........................................................................................
  17. Soil types at the Windy Knolls property .............................................................................................
  18. The Steffens and Hogue properties .....................................................................................................
  19. The Lindens, c. 1840, built by John Francis Gardiner ........................................................................
  20. Wheat field surveyed at the Steffens property, facing south toward Zekiah Run...............................
  21. A small knoll surveyed at the Hogue property ...................................................................................
  22. View of fields at the Hogue property ..................................................................................................
  23. View of lower-lying areas near Zekiah Run at the Hogue property ...................................................
  24. View of fields along Piney Branch, Hogue property ..........................................................................
  25. Soil types at the Steffens and Hogue properties .................................................................................
  26. The St. Peter's Catholic Church property/Jordan Swamp I ................................................................
  27. Unnamed stream, the Jordan Swamp I site .........................................................................................
  28. Beaver Pond, the Jordan Swamp I site ...............................................................................................
  29. Power lines, the Jordan Swamp I site .................................................................................................
  30. View of Maryland Route 5 from the Jordan Swamp I site .................................................................
  31. Soil types at the St. Peter's Catholic Church Property .......................................................................
  32. Areas of previous archaeological survey in the project area ..............................................................
  33. Projected location of "Zekiah Town" described by Dennis Husculah, 1682 ......................................
  34. Excavating a shovel test ......................................................................................................................
  35. Screening shovel test fill .....................................................................................................................
  36. Location of shovel tests at the Windy Knolls property .......................................................................
  37. Location of shovel tests at the Steffens (18CH0093) and Hogue (18CH0103) properties .................
  38. Location of shovel tests at the St. Peter's Catholic Church/Jordan Swamp I property ...................... vi
  39. Using the RTK system to establish the archaeological grid ...............................................................
  40. Location of test units, Windy Knolls I ................................................................................................
  41. Overall view of test units, Windy Knolls I .........................................................................................
  42. Excavating test units at Windy Knolls I .............................................................................................
  43. Screening plow zone excavated from test units, Windy Knolls I .......................................................
  44. Distribution of lithics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property .......................................................
  45. Distribution of colonial artifacts from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property ......................................
  46. Distribution of refined earthenware from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property .................................
  47. Distribution of brick from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property ........................................................
  48. Site boundaries for Windy Knolls I (18CH0808) and Windy Knolls II (18CH0809) ........................
  49. Distribution of colonial artifacts from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ................................................
  50. Distribution of Native and colonial ceramics from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ............................
  51. Distributions of red and white tobacco pipes from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I .............................
  52. Distribution of colonial bottle glass from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ...........................................
  53. Distribution of glass beads from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I .........................................................
  54. Distribution of European flint from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ....................................................
  55. Distribution of animal bone fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ......................................
  56. Distribution of oyster shell fragments from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I .......................................
  57. Distribution of square iron nails from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ................................................
  58. A contemporary drawing of the 1675 Susquehannock Fort .............................................................
  59. Conjectured fort location, Windy Knolls I .......................................................................................
  60. Contour map of the south knoll top, Windy Knolls I .......................................................................
  61. Plan view of possible colonial features, south knoll top, Windy Knolls I ........................................
  62. Plan view of Test Unit 340235, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  63. Plan view of Test Unit 345230, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  64. Plan view of Test Unit 405325, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  65. Plan view of Test Unit 465230, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  66. Plan view of Test Unit 470235, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  67. Selected stone tools from test units, Windy Knolls I ........................................................................
  68. Gunflints and debitage from test units, Windy Knolls I ...................................................................
  69. Selected Native ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I ...............................................................
  70. Possible colonoware from test units, Windy Knolls I .......................................................................
  71. European ceramics from test units, Windy Knolls I .........................................................................
  72. Red clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I ...................................................................
  73. Fossil shark's tooth from test unit, Windy Knolls I ..........................................................................
  74. White clay tobacco pipes from test units, Windy Knolls I ...............................................................
  75. Distribution of pipe stem bore diameters from test units, Windy Knolls I .......................................
  76. Comparison of pipe stem bore diameter distributions, multiple sites ...............................................
  77. Possible flakes from the working of bottle glass, from test units, Windy Knolls I .......................... vii
  78. Glass bead types from Windy Knolls I using Kidd and Kidd typology ...........................................
  79. Glass beads from test units, Windy Knolls I ....................................................................................
  80. Glass buttons from test units, Windy Knolls I ..................................................................................
  81. Copper artifacts from test units, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................
  82. Perforated iron triangle from test unit, Windy Knolls I ....................................................................
  83. Lead shot from test units, Windy Knolls I ........................................................................................
  84. Possible lead net-sinker from test unit, Windy Knolls I ...................................................................
  85. Possible lead cross fragment from test unit, Windy Knolls I............................................................
  86. Silver scabbard hook, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................................................
  87. Iron nails from test units, Windy Knolls I ........................................................................................
  88. Iron knife fragment from test unit, Windy Knolls I ..........................................................................
  89. Iron trigger from test unit, Windy Knolls I .......................................................................................
  90. pH readings for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I .........................................................
  91. Bone fragment counts for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I .........................................
  92. Bone weights for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I .......................................................
  93. Artifact counts for test units from the knoll top, Windy Knolls I .....................................................
  94. NISP for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I ...................................................................
  95. MNI for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I ....................................................................
  96. Biomass for bones identified below class, Windy Knolls I ..............................................................
  97. Midden areas selected for further analysis, Windy Knolls I .............................................................
  98. Stone tools recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property ..............................................................
  99. Nineteenth-century artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property ...................................
  100. Stone tools recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property ................................................................
  101. Flint fragments recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property ..........................................................
  102. Native ceramics recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property ........................................................
  103. Distribution of lithic artifacts, Steffens and Hogue properties .........................................................
  104. Distribution of Native ceramics, Steffens and Hogue properties .....................................................
  105. Distribution of flint, Steffens and Hogue properties .........................................................................
  106. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Steffens and Hogue properties ....................................................
  107. Distribution of 19 th -century artifacts, Steffens and Hogue properties ..............................................
  108. Tertiary flint fragment recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I ..............................................
  109. Stone tools recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I ................................................................
  110. Native ceramics recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I ........................................................
  111. Distribution of Native ceramics, Jordan Swamp I ............................................................................
  112. Distribution of fire-cracked rock, Jordan Swamp I ..........................................................................
  113. Distribution of lithics, Jordan Swamp I ............................................................................................ . LIST OF TABLES
  114. Middle Atlantic culture periods ............................................................................................................
  115. Chain of title for the Windy Knolls property ......................................................................................
  116. Chain of title for Thomas A. Dyson's "Indian Town" property .........................................................
  117. Chain of title for the Steffens property (His Lordship's Favor) .........................................................
  118. Chain of title for the Hogue property ..................................................................................................
  119. Chain of title for the St. Peter's Catholic Church property .................................................................
  120. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls property ..................................................
  121. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ............................................................
  122. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls I ..........................................................
  123. Total artifacts recovered from test units, Windy Knolls I ................................................................
  124. Lithic debitage recovered from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I .........................................
  125. Flint artifacts and debitage recovered from Windy Knolls I ............................................................
  126. Gunflints from east coast Indian sites ...............................................................................................
  127. Total ceramics recovered from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I ..........................................
  128. Ceramics from the Windy Knolls I, Posey (18CH0281), and Camden (44CE0003) sites ...............
  129. Tobacco pipes from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I ...........................................................
  130. Bead types recovered from Windy Knolls I and Heater's Island (18FR0072) .................................
  131. Glass beads recovered from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I ..............................................
  132. Copper alloy artifacts from dry-screened test units, Windy Knolls I ...............................................
  133. Copper alloy triangle measurements, Windy Knolls I ......................................................................
  134. Average weight per bone fragment based on taxon, Windy Knolls I ...............................................
  135. Number of bones identified below class based on bone type, Windy Knolls I ................................
  136. Taxa from Windy Knolls I ................................................................................................................
  137. Presence and absence of species, Windy Knolls I and Posey (18CH0281) ......................................
  138. Selected artifact categories from Middens A, B, and C, Windy Knolls I .........................................
  139. Lithic, copper alloy, and gun artifacts, Middens A, B, and C, Windy Knolls I ................................
  140. Summary of differences, Middens A, B, and C, Windy Knolls I .....................................................
  141. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Windy Knolls II ...........................................................
  142. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Random Finds ..............................................................
  143. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property..........................................................
  144. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Steffens property ........................................................
  145. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property ............................................................
  146. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Hogue property ..........................................................
  147. Total artifacts recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I ...........................................................
  148. Lithic debitage recovered from shovel tests, Jordan Swamp I ......................................................... References Cited Primary Sources Charles County Land Records Inventories and Accounts Prince George's County Land Records Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1636-1667 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1681-1685/6 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1687/8-1693 Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1666-June 1676
  149. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Federal Census Slave Schedules of 1860
  150. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Federal Census of 1840
  151. Secondary Sources Alexander, Allison, et al. 2010 The Westwood Manor Archaeological Collection: Preliminary Interpretations. Report prepared for Mr. and Mrs. Phillip Harrison. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland.
  152. Anderson, Virginia DeJohn 2004 Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  153. Andrefsky, Jr., William 2004 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge, UK: University Press.
  154. Andrews, Charles M., ed. 1915 Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  155. Arber, Edward, ed. 1884
  156. Captain John Smith, Works 1608-1631. Birmingham: England.
  157. Austin, John C. 1994 British Delft at Williamsburg. Williamsburg, VA: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  158. Baart, Jan M. 1987 Dutch Material Civilization: Daily Life Between 1650-1776 Evidence from Archaeology. In Roderick H. Blackburn and Nancy A. Kelley, eds., New World Dutch Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America, 1609-1776, pp. 6-7. Albany, NY: Albany Institute of History and Art.
  159. Ballweber, Hettie L. 1990 Final Report: Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Welsh Property, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared for Charles County Sand and Gravel Company and Chaney Enterprises. 1997
  160. Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Middleton Farm Property, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by ACS Consultants. Banister, John 1970 John Banister and His Natural History of Virginia, 1678-1692. Joseph and Nesta Ewan, eds. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  161. Barber, Michael B. 1978 The Vertebrate Faunal Analysis of JC27 (James City County, Virginia): An Exercise in Plowzone Archaeology. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 32(4):94-100.
  162. Barker, David 2001 "The Usual Classes of Useful Articles:" Staffordshire Ceramics Reconsidered. In Robert Hunter, ed., Ceramics in America 2001, pp. 72-93. Milwaukee, WI: Chipstone Foundation.
  163. Barse, William P. 1985 A Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Naval Ordnance Station, Indian Head. Unpublished report prepared for the Department of the Navy, Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities, Washington, DC.
  164. Barse, William P., Daniel B. Eichinger, and E. Madeleine Scheerer 2002 Phase I Terrestrial Archaeological Survey, US 301 Southern Corridor, Charles and Prince George's Counties, Maryland. (URS Corp.) Prepared for the Maryland State Highway Administration, Report Number 229.
  165. Bauer, Skylar, and Julia A. King
  166. Archaeological Investigations at Fair Fountain or, the Hawkins Gate Site (18CH0004), La Plata, Maryland. Prepared for Steuart Bowling and the Smallwood Foundation. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland. Baumgartner-Wagner, Norma A. 1979 An Ethnohistorical Investigation of Maryland Indians, A.D. 1600-1800. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC.
  167. Bidwell, Percy Wells, and John I. Falconer 1941 History of Agriculture in the Northern United States, 1620-1860. New York: Carnegie Institute of Washington. Binford, Lewis R. 1962 A New Method of Calculating Dates from Kaolin Pipe Stem Samples. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 9(2):19-21.
  168. Blair, Elliot H., Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Peter J. Francis, Jr. 2009 The Beads of St. Catherine's Island. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Blanchette, Jean-François 1975 Gunflints from Chicoutimi Indian Site (Quebec). Historical Archaeology 9: 41-57.
  169. Bradley, James W. 1987 Evolution of the Onondaga Iroquois: Accommodating Change, 1500-1655. New York: Syracuse University Press.
  170. Brodhead, John R., ed. 1853 Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, vol. 3. Albany, New York.
  171. Brown, Anne S. 1965
  172. Charles Calvert's House in the Manor of Zekiah, Charles County, Md. Privately printed.
  173. Brown, Ian W. 1989 The Calumet Ceremony in the Southeast and its Archaeological Manifestations. American Antiquity 54(2):311-331.
  174. Brown, Gregory J., Catherine L. Alston, Edward E. Chaney, C. Jane Cox, Julia A. King, Al Luckenbach, David F. Muraca, and Dennis J. Pogue 2005 A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture. Website available online at http://www.chesapeakearchaeology.org/; accessed August 9, 2011.
  175. Busby, Virginia R. 2010 Transformation and Persistence: The Nanticoke Indians and Chicone Indian Town in the Context of European Contact and Colonization. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
  176. Carr, Lois Green, and David W. Jordan 1974 Maryland's Revolution of Government, 1689-1692. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  177. Carr, Lois Green, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh 1991 Robert Cole's World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  178. Carson, Cary, Norman F. Barka, William M. Kelso, Garry Wheeler Stone, and Dell Upton 1981 Impermanent Architecture in the Southern American Colonies. Winterthur Portfolio 16(2- 3):135-196. Cavallo, Katherine D. 2004 An Analysis of Marked and Decorated White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the Lower Patuxent Drainage. Available online (http://www.chesapeakearchaeology.org/Interpretations/CavalloPaper.htm);
  179. Chaney, Edward E. 1999 "A Fair House of Brick and Timber": Archaeological Excavations at Mattapany-Sewall (18ST390), Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, St. Mary's County, Maryland. Report prepared for the Department of Public Works, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River. Manuscript on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard. Cissna, Paul B. 1986 The Piscataway Indians of Southern Maryland: An Ethnohistory from Pre-European Contact to the Present. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC. 1990 Historical and Archaeological Study of the George Washington Memorial Parkway from the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge to the Lorcom Lane Turnabout on Spout Run Parkway, Arlington, Virginia. Occasional Report No. 4. Regional Archaeology Program, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Washington, DC.
  180. Clark, Wayne E., and Helen Rountree 1993 The Powhatans and the Maryland Mainland. In Helen C. Rountree, ed., Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722, pp. 112-135. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press.
  181. Cornwall, I.W. 1956 Bones for the Archaeologist. London: Phoenix House.
  182. Colman, S.M., J.P. Halka, and C.H. Hobbs 1992 Patterns and Rates of Sediment Accumulation in the Chesapeake during the Holocene Rise in Sea Level. Quarternary Coasts of the United States 48:101-110.
  183. Cotton, Jane B., ed. 1906 The Maryland Calendar of Wills, Volume II. Baltimore: Kohn and Pollock.
  184. Cox, C. Jane, Al Luckenbach, Dave Gadsby, and Shawn Sharpe 2005 Comparative Analysis of Tobacco-pipes and Clays from Colonial Chesapeake Sites. Report submitted to the Maryland Historical Trust. On file, Anne Arundel County Office of Environmental and Cultural Resources, Annapolis, MD.
  185. Cranfill, Mary Rhonda 2006 Colonial Ceramic Wares: Comparison Based on Mineralogical, Petrological, and Compositional Data. M.S. Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
  186. Currey, Cathy 2000 Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties Form, CH-126, Western View. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville.
  187. Curry, Dennis C. 1999 Feast of the Dead: Aboriginal Ossuaries in Maryland. Crownsville, MD: The Archaeological Society of Maryland, Inc. and The Maryland Historical Trust Press. 2008 Site Summary 18FR72 Heater's Island 1699-c.1712. Available online (http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/small%20finds/Site%20Summaries/18FR72HeatersIsland.htm) accessed December 10, 2011.
  188. n.d. "We Have Been With the Emperor of Piscataway, at His Fort": Archaeological Investigations of the Heater's Island Site (18FR72). Manuscript in preparation, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville, Maryland. Custer, Jay F. 1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
  189. Davey, Peter and Dennis J. Pogue, eds. 1991 The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series 566.
  190. Davidson, Thomas E. 1998 Indian Identity in Eighteenth Century Maryland. Oklahoma City University Law Review 23:133- 140. 2004 The Colonoware Question and the Indian Bowl Trade in Colonial Somerset County. In Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, eds. Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, pp. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
  191. Davis, Jr., R.P. Stephen, Patrick Livingood, H. Trawick Ward, and Vincas Steponatis 1998 Excavating Occaneechi Town: Archaeology of an Eighteenth Century Indian Village in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Available online (http://www.ibiblio.org/dig) accessed December 10, 2011.
  192. de Dauphine, Durand 1934 A Huguenot Exile in Virginia. New York: The Press of the Pioneers, Inc.
  193. Deagan, Kathleen A. 1987 Artifacts of the Spanish Colonies of Florida and the Caribbean, 1500-1800, Volume I: Ceramics, Glassware, and Beads. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  194. Dent, Richard J. 1995 Chesapeake Prehistory: Old Traditions, New Directions. New York: Plenum.
  195. Dent, Richard J., and Christine Jirikowic 2000 Accokeek Creek: Chronology, the Potomac Creek Complex, and Piscataway Origins. Paper presented 67th Annual Meeting of the Eastern States Archaeological Federation, Solomons, MD. Department of Natural Resources 2003 Lower Patuxent River in Calvert County Watershed Characterization. Available online (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00007285.pdf);
  196. Dewhurst, Kenneth 1963 Prince Rupert as a Scientist. The British Journal for the History of Science 1(4): 365-373.
  197. Egloff, Keith, and Stephen R. Potter 1982 Indian Ceramics from Coastal Plain Virginia. Archeology of Eastern North America 10: 95-17.
  198. Erichsen-Brown, Charlotte 1989 Medicinal and Other Uses of North American Plants: A Historical Survey with Special Reference to the Eastern Indian Tribes. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications.
  199. Faulkner, Alaric 1986 Maintenance and Fabrication at Fort Pentagoet, 1635-1654: Products of an Acadian Armorer's Workshop. Historical Archaeology 20(1): 63-94.
  200. Fausz, J. Frederick 1984 Present at the "Creation:" The Chesapeake World that Greeted the Maryland Colonists. Maryland Historical Magazine 79(1):7-20. Federal Communications Committee [FCC] 2010 Local Sunrise / Sunset Calculations. Available online (http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/srsstime.html);
  201. accessed November 20, 2011. Ferguson, Alice L.L. 1941 The Susquehannock Fort on Piscataway Creek. Maryland Historical Magazine 36(1): 1-9.
  202. Ferguson, Alice L.L., and Henry G. Ferguson 1960 The Piscataway Indians of Southern Maryland. Privately printed. Ferguson, Alice L.L., and T. Dale Stewart 1940 An Ossuary Near Piscataway Creek, a Report on the Skeletal Remains. American Antiquity 6(1):4-18. Fogelman, Gary 1991 Glass Trade Beads of the Northeast. The Pennsylvania Artifact Series No. 70. Turbotville, PA: Fogelman Publishing Company.
  203. Fortescue, J.W., ed. 1898 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1681-1685. London.
  204. Francis, Jr., Peter 2009a The Glass Beads of the Margariteri of Venice. In Elliot H. Blair, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Peter J. Francis, Jr., eds., The Beads of St. Catherine's Island, pp. 59-64. New York: American Museum of Natural History. 2009b The Glass Beads of the Paternostri of the Netherlands and France. In Elliot H. Blair, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Peter J. Francis, Jr., eds., The Beads of St. Catherine's Island, pp. 73-80. New York: American Museum of Natural History.
  205. Galke, Laura J. 2004 Perspectives on the Use of European Material Culture at Two Mid-to-Late 17th-Century Native American Sites in the Chesapeake. North American Archaeologist 25(1):91-113.
  206. Gardner, William M. 1978 Comparison of Ridge & Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont and Coastal Plain Archaic Period Site Distribution: An Idealized Transect (Preliminary Model). Paper presented to the 9th Middle Atlantic Archaeology Conference, March 1978.
  207. Gardner, William M., and Charles W. McNett, Jr. 1970 Problems in Potomac River Archaeology. Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Unpublished manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington, DC.
  208. Gibson, Susan G., ed. 1980 Burr's Hill: A 17 th Century Wampanoag Burial Ground in Warren, Rhode Island. Studies in Anthropology and Material Culture Vol. 2, Haffenreffer Museum of Anthropology. Providence, RI: Brown University.
  209. Gijanto, Liza 2011 Personal Adornment and Expressions of Status: Beads and the Gambia River's Atlantic Trade. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15(4):637-668.
  210. Godden, Geoffrey A. 1999 Godden's Guide to Ironstone Stone and Granite Wares. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Antique Collectors' Club Ltd. Golden Software, Inc. 2002 Surfer 8: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and Engineers: User's Guide. Golden, CO: Golden Software, Inc. Gordon, Claire C. and Jane E. Buikstra 1981 Soil pH, Bone Preservation, and Sampling Bias at Mortuary Sites. American Antiquity 46(3):566- 571.
  211. Graham, Willie, Carter L. Hudgins, Carl R. Lounsbury, Fraser D. Neiman, and James P. Whittenburg 2007 Adaptation and Innovation: Archaeological and Architectural Perspectives on the Seventeenth- Century Chesapeake. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 64(3):451-522.
  212. Green, Chris 1999 John Dwight's Fulham Pottery, Excavations, 1971 -79. London: English Heritage.
  213. Grigsby, Leslie B. 1993 English Slip-Decorated Earthenware at Williamsburg. Williamsburg, VA: The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  214. Hack, John T. 1957 Submerged River Systems of the Chesapeake Bay. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 68:817-830. Hall, Clayton C., ed. 1910 Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  215. Hamell, George R. 1992 The Iroquois and the World's Rim: Speculations on Color, Culture, and Contact. American Indian Quarterly 16(4):451-469.
  216. Hamilton, T.M. 1980 Colonial Frontier Guns. Chadron, Nebraska: The Fur Press.
  217. Hammett, J.E., and B.A. Sizemore 1989 Shell Beads and Ornaments: Socioeconomic Indicators of the Past. In C.F. Hayes and L. Ceci, eds., Proceedings of the 1986 Shell Bead Conference, 125-137. Rochester, NY: Rochester Museum and Science Center.
  218. Hamilton, T.M. and K.O. Emery 1988 Eighteenth-Century Gunflints from Fort Michilimackinac and Other Colonial Sites. Archaeological Completion Report Series No. 13. Mackinac Island, Michigan: Mackinac Island State Park Commission.
  219. Harmon, James M. 1999 Archaeological Investigations at the Posey Site (18CH281) and 18CH282. Prepared for Environmental Division, Indian Head Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Charles County Maryland. Draft report on file at Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland.
  220. Harrington, J.C. 1952 Glassmaking at Jamestown-America's first industry. Richmond, VA: Dietz Press. 1954 Dating Stem Fragments of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Clay Tobacco Pipes. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 9(1):10-14.
  221. Harris, E., and R.K. Liu.
  222. Henry, Susan L. 1979
  223. Terra-Cotta Tobacco Pipes in 17 th Century Maryland and Virginia: A Preliminary Study. Historical Archaeology 13:14-37.
  224. 1980 Physical, Spatial, and Temporal Dimensions of Colono Ware in the Chesapeake, 1600-1800.
  225. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, the Catholic University of America.
  226. Hickey, Joseph A. 1970 The Prehistory of Southeastern Charles County, Maryland: An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Zekiah Swamp. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Holme, Randle 1688 The academy of armory, or a storehouse of armory and blazon. 2nd vol. 1688 (ed. by I. H. Jeayes, Roxb. Cl. 1905).
  227. Hopkins, Joseph W., III 2006 Phase I Archaeological Survey Investigation of the Phase 3 Mining Portion of the Gardiner Tract, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared for Chaney Enterprises. 2007
  228. Phase I Archaeological Survey Investigation of the Phase 2 Mining Portion of the Gardiner Tract, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared for Chaney Enterprises. Hopwood, Lisa Eileen 2009 Glass Trade Beads from an Elmina Shipwreck: More than Pretty Trinkets. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of West Florida. Available online (http://etd.fcla.edu/WF/WFE0000186/Hopwood_Lisa_Eileen_200912_MA.pdf);
  229. accessed November 15, 2011. Hurry, Silas, and Robert W. Keeler 1991 A Descriptive Analysis of the White Clay Tobacco Pipes from the St. John's Site in St. Mary's City, Maryland. In P. Davey and D. Pogue, eds., Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe XII: Chesapeake Bay, pp. 37-72. British Archaeological Research International Series 566.
  230. Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum [JPPM] 2012
  231. Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland; available online at www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/index.htm. Jennings, Francis 1968
  232. Glory, Death, and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 112(1):15-53.
  233. 1984 The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Tribes with English Colonies from its beginnings to the Lancaster Treaty of 1744. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Karklins, Karlis 1985 Early Amsterdam Trade Beads. Ornament 9 (2):36-41.
  234. Karklins, Karlis, and Roderick Sprague 1980 A Bibliography of Glass Trade Beads in North America. Moscow, Idaho: South Fork Press. Available online (http://beadresearch.org/pages/bibliography.pdf);
  235. Susquehanna's Indians. Anthropological Series No. 6. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. 1983 More on Gunflints. Historical Archaeology 17(2):27-40.
  236. Kenyon, Ian, and Thomas Kenyon 1983 Comments on Seventeenth Century Glass Trade Beads from Ontario. In C.F. Hayes, ed., Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Rochester Museum and Science Center Research Records, vol. 16, pp. 59-74. Rochester, NY.
  237. Kidd, Kenneth E. 1979 Glass Bead-Making From the Middle Ages to the Early 19th Century. History and Archaeology 30. Ottawa: Parks Canada.
  238. Kidd, Kenneth E., and Martha A. Kidd 1970 A Classification System for Glass Trade Beads for the Use of Field Archaeologists. Canadian Historic Sites Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History 1:45-89.
  239. King, Julia A., Catherine L. Alston, Gregory J. Brown, Edward E. Chaney, John C. Coombs, C. Jane Cox, David Gadsby, Philip Levy, Al Luckenbach, David F. Muraca, Dennis J. Pogue, Benjamin J. Porter, and Shawn Sharpe 2006 A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture: Final Report. Prepared for the National Endowment for the Humanities (RZ-20896-02). Available online at http://www.chesapeakearchaeology.org/Interpretations/NEHFinalReport.cfm; accessed July 7, 2012.
  240. King, Julia A., Christine Arnold-Lourie, and Susan Shaffer 2008 Pathways to History: Charles County, Maryland, 1658-2008. Mount Victoria, MD: The Smallwood Foundation.
  241. King, Julia A., and Edward E. Chaney 1999 Lord Baltimore and the Meaning of Brick Architecture in Seventeenth-Century Maryland. In Geoff Egan and Ronald L. Michael, eds., Old and New Worlds, pp. 51-60. Oxford, England, Oxbow Books. 2004 Did the Chesapeake English Have a Contact Period? In Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, eds., Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, pp. 193-221. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
  242. King, Julia A. and Dennis C. Curry 2009 'Forced to Fall to Making of Bows and Arrows:' The Material Conditions of Indian Life in the Chesapeake, 1660-1710. Paper presented at the Omohundro Institute for Early American History and Culture: The Early Chesapeake: Reflecting Back, Projecting Forward. Conference held at St. Mary's City, Maryland.
  243. King, Julia A., and Henry M. Miller 1987 The View from the Midden: An Analysis of Midden Distribution and Composition at the van Sweringen Site, St. Mary's City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 21(2):37-59.
  244. King, Julia A. and Scott M. Strickland 2009a In Search of Zekiah Manor: Archaeological Investigations at His Lordship's Favor. Report prepared for the Citizens of Charles County. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland. 2009b A Phase I Archaeological Survey of Prospect Hill, La Plata, Maryland. Report prepared for Mrs. Norma Weightman. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland.
  245. King, Julia A., Scott M. Strickland, and Kevin Norris 2008 The Search for the Court House at Moore's Lodge: Charles County's First County Seat. Report prepared for the Citizens of Charles County. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland. King, Julia A., and Douglas H. Ubelaker 1996 Living and Dying on the 17 th -Century Patuxent Frontier. Crownsville: Maryland Historical Trust Press. Kingsbury, Susan M., ed. 1933 The Records of the Virginia Company of London Volume III. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1935 The Records of the Virginia Company of London Volume IV. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
  246. Klein, Michael J., and Douglas W. Sanford 2004 Analytical Scale and Archaeological Perspectives on the Contact Era in the Northern Neck of Virginia. In Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, eds., Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, pp. 47-73. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
  247. Koch, Ronald P. 1977 Dress Clothing of the Plains Indians. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
  248. Kraft, John C. 1977 Late Quaternary Paleogeographic Changes in Coastal Environments of Delaware, Middle Atlantic Bight, Related to Archaeological Settings. In W.S. Newman and Bert Salwen, eds., Amerinds and Their Paleoenvironments in Northeastern North America, pp. 35-69. New York Academy of Sciences. Krohn, Matthew R. 2010 Innovation and Identity in Seneca Iroquois Lithic Debitage: Analysis of Stone Tools from the White Springs and Townley-Read Sites, Circa 1688-1754. M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
  249. Lapham, Heather A. 2001 More Than "a few blew beads": The Glass and Stone Beads from Jamestown Rediscovery's 1994-1997 excavations. Journal of the Jamestown Rediscovery Center 1. Available online (http://apva.org/rediscovery/pdf/lapham.pdf);
  250. Landon, David B., and Andrea Shapiro 1998 Analysis of Faunal Remains from the Posey Site (18CH281). Manuscript on file, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, MD. Leder, Lawrence H., ed. 1956 The Livingston Indian Records, 1666-1723. Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Historical Association.
  251. LeeDecker, Charles H., and Ingrid Wuebber 1988a Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Charles County Sanitary Landfill No. 2, Charles County, Maryland: Field Report. Prepared for Whitman, Requardt, and Associates. Prepared by Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1988b Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Billingsley Road from Landfill No. 2 to Maryland Route 5, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.
  252. Lightfoot, Kent G. 1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51(3):484-504.
  253. A Defense of Shovel-Test Sampling: A Reply to Shott. American Antiquity 54(2):413-416.
  254. Lippson, Alice J. 1979 Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary. Prepared for the Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore: The Environmental Center, Martin Marietta Corporation. Lipsedge, Karen 2006 A Place of Refuge, Seduction or Danger: The Representation of the Ivy Summer-House in Samuel Richardson's Clarissa. Journal of Design History 19(3):185-196.
  255. Lisburn City Council 2007 History Comes to Life in Castle Gardens. Press release, February 5, 2007. http://www.lisburncity.gov.uk/news-and-events/press-releases/?id=340; accessed August 5, 2009.
  256. Looker, Reginald B., and Carl Manson 1960 Prelimary Survey -Zekiah Swamp. Archaeological Society of Maryland, Miscellaneous Papers 3:11-13. Looker, Reginald B., and W. A. Tidwell 1963 An Hypothesis Concerning Archaic Period Settlement of Zekiah Swamp Based Upon an Analysis of Surface Collections of Projectile Points. Archaeological Society of Maryland Miscellaneous Papers 5:7-13. Loren, Diana DiPaolo 2008 In Contact: Bodies and Spaces in the Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Eastern Woodlands. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  257. Lowery, Darrin L. 1995 Early 17 th Century Sites in the Upper Chesapeake Bay Region: An Analysis of Five Archaeological Sites in Queen Anne's and Talbot Counties. Maryland Archaeology 31(1&2): 59-68.
  258. Lyman, R. Lee 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  259. Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O'Brien 1987 Plow-zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentation and Identifiability. Journal of Field Archaeology 14:493-498. Luckenbach, Al 1995 Providence 1649: The History and Archaeology of Anne Arundel County Maryland's First European Settlement. Annapolis, MD: The Maryland State Archives and the Maryland Historical Trust. 2002 The Clay Tobacco-Pipe in Anne Arundel County, Maryland (1650-1730). Anne Arundel County Trust for Preservation, Inc. Annapolis, MD: Anne Arundel County's Lost Towns Project.
  260. MacCord, Sr., Howard A. 1969 Camden: A Postcontact Indian Site in Caroline County. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 24(1):1-55.
  261. Main, Gloria L. 1982 Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  262. Mallios, Seth and Shane Emmett 2004
  263. Demand, Supply, and Elasticity in the Copper Trade at Early Jamestown. The Journal of the Jamestown Rediscovery Center 2. Available online (http://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/pdf/mallios_low.pdf) accessed 2011.
  264. Mancall, Peter C. 1997 Deadly Medicine: Indians and Alcohol in Early America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  265. Marcoux, Jon Bernard 2008 Chronology from Glass Beads: The English Period in the Southeast, ca. A.D. 1607-1783. Draft submitted to Southeastern Archaeology. Charles R. Cobb, ed. Available online (http://aum.academia.edu/JonMarcoux/Papers/383154/Chronology_from_Glass_Beads_The_English_Per iod_in_the_Southeast_ca._A.D._1607_-_1783) accessed December 2011.
  266. Marshall, Brad 1976 An Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of St. Charles Communities, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared for Greiner Engineering Services, Inc.
  267. Marye, William B. 1935 Piscattaway. Maryland Historical Magazine 30(3):183-239.
  268. Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory 2003 In Depth: Tacks vs. Leather Ornaments. On Diagnostic Artifacts in Maryland Website, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard Maryland. Available online (http://www.jefpat.org/diagnostic/Small%20Finds/leather%20escutcheons/Web%20Pages/Difference%20 between%20Tacks%20and%20leather%20ornaments.htm) accessed December 10, 2011. Maryland Historical Society 1889 The Calvert Papers. Number 1. Baltimore: John Murphy and Co. Massachusetts Historical Society 1836 Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society Volume 5 of the Third Series. Boston.
  269. McDaniel, R. E. "Mac" 1976 Letter in possession of the Maryland Historical Trust, Maryland Department of Planning, Crownsville, Maryland.
  270. McMillan, Lauren 2011 "His Pipe smoak'd out with aweful Grace:" John Hallowes, Tobacco Pipes, and the Atlantic World. Paper presented at the 2011 Meeting of the Archeological Society of Virginia, Staunton, VA. McNamara, Joseph P. 1981 Maryland Archeological Field Survey Forms for Site 18CH0231. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville.
  271. Merrell, James H. 1979 Cultural Continuity among the Piscataway Indians of Colonial Maryland. The William and Mary Quarterly 36: 548-570.
  272. Miller, Christopher L., and George R. Hamell 1986 A New Perspective on Indian-White Contact: Cultural Symbols and Colonial Trade. The Journal of American History 73(2):311-328.
  273. Miller, Henry M. 1983 A Search for the "Citty of Saint Maries": Report on the 1981 Excavations in St. Mary's City, Maryland. St. Maries Citty Archaeology Series No. 1. St. Mary's City Commission, St. Mary's City, MD. 1984 Colonization and Subsistence Change on the 17th Century Chesapeake Frontier. PhD. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing. 1988 An Archaeological Perspective on the Evolution of Diet in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1620-1745.
  274. Miller, Henry M., and Robert W. Keeler 1978 An Analysis of Gunflints, Tools, and Flint Debitage from the St. John's Site (18ST1-23) in St. Mary's City, Maryland. Manuscript on file, St. Mary's City Commission, St. Mary's City, Maryland.
  275. Miller, Henry M., Dennis J. Pogue, and Michael A. Smolek 1983 Beads from the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake. In Charles F. Hayes III, ed., Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference, pp. 127-144. Rochester, New York: Rochester Museum and Science Division.
  276. Moore, N. Hudson 1924 Old Glass: European and American. New York: Tudor Publishing.
  277. Morgan, Edmund S. 1975
  278. American Freedom, American Slavery: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: W. W.
  279. Norton & Co.
  280. Mouer, L. Daniel, Mary Ellen N. Hodges, Stephen R. Potter, Susan L. Henry Renaud, Ivor Noël Hume, Dennis J. Pogue, Martha W. McCartney, and Thomas E. Davidson 1999 Colonoware Pottery, Chesapeake Pipes, and 'Uncritical Assumptions.' In Theresa A. Singleton, ed., 'I, Too, Am America :' Archaeological Studies of African American Life, pp. 83-115. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. National Climate Data Center 2012 Historical monthly temperatures for the Washington, DC Region. Available online at http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/climate/dca/dcatemps.txt; accessed January 8, 2012. National Research Council of the National Academies 2004 Nonnative Oysters in the Chesapeake Bay Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Neill, Edward D. 1876 The Founders of Maryland as Portrayed in Manuscripts, Provincial Records and Early Documents. Albany, NY.
  281. Neiman, Fraser D. 1980 Field Archaeology of The Clifts Plantation Site, Westmoreland County, VA. Report on file Robert E. Lee Memorial Association, Inc. Stratford VA. Available online at http://www.chesapeakearchaeology.org/Reports/Stratford%20Field%20Archaeology.pdf; accessed July 29, 2012.
  282. Ninni, Irene 1991 L'impiraressa: The Venetian Bead Stringer. Lucy Segatti, trans. Beads: Journal of the Society of Bead Researchers 3:73-82. Ottawa.
  283. Noël Hume, Ivor 1962 An Indian Ware of the Colonial Period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 17(1):2-14.
  284. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 2001 If These Pots Could Talk: Collecting 2000 Years of British Household Pottery. Milwaukee, WI: Chipstone Foundation.
  285. Oberg, Michael Leroy, ed. 2005
  286. Samuel Wiseman's "Book of Record": The Official Account of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, 1676-1677. Lexington Books.
  287. Orr, Charles, ed. 1897 History of the Pequot War: The Contemporary Accounts of Mason, Underhill, Vincent, and Gardener. Reprinted from the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Helman-Taylor Company, Cleveland, Ohio.
  288. Palmer, William P., ed. 1875 Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, 1652-1781 Volume I. Richmond, VA. Pearce, J. 1992 Post-Medieval Pottery in London, 1500-1700: Border Wares. London: HMSO.
  289. Pendergast, James F. 1991 The Massowomeck: Raiders and Traders into the Chesapeake Bay in the Seventeenth Century. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 81(2): i-vii+1-101.
  290. Pendleton, Lorann S. A., and Peter J. Francis, Jr. 2009 Introduction to Bead Manufacture and Origins. In Elliot H. Blair, Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Peter J. Francis, Jr., eds., The Beads of St. Catherine's Island, pp. 1-2. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Pennsylvania Gazette, The 1769 Extract of a Letter from Shamokin, on Susquehanna, dated August 23, 1769. Philadelphia, 7 September 1769. Accessed on Accessible Archives database.
  291. Percy, David O. 1977 Corn: The Production of Subsistence Crop on the Colonial Potomac. The National Colonial Farm Research Report 2. Bryans Road, MD: The Accokeek Foundation. Peterson, Harold L. 2000 Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications.
  292. Pogue, Dennis J. 1987 Seventeenth-Century Proprietary Rule and Rebellion: Archaeology at Charles Calvert's Mattapany-Sewall. Maryland Archeology 23(1): 1-37.
  293. Porter, Benjamin 2006 A Comparison of the Posey and Camden Archaeological Sites. St. Mary's Project, St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, MD.
  294. Potter, Stephen R. 1993
  295. Commoners, Tributes, and Chiefs: The Development of Algonquian Culture in the Potomac Valley. Charlottesville, VA: The University of Virginia Press.
  296. 2006 Early English Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute in the Tidewater Potomac. In Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and Tom Hatley, eds., Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, pp. 216-241. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
  297. Publicover, Amy 2010 "The Most Proper Place:" The Search for the Zekiah Fort. St. Mary's Project, St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, Maryland.
  298. R. Christopher Goodwin & Associates, Inc. 1991
  299. Phase I Archaeological Investigations of Billingsley Road, US Route 301 to the Charles County Sanitary Landfill No. 2, Waldorf, Maryland. Prepared for Whitman, Requardt and Associates.
  300. Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Dan Cordier 1983 Use of Allometry in Zooarchaeological Analysis. In C. Grigson and J. Clutton-Brock, eds., Animals in Archaeology. Vol. 2, Shell Middens, Fishes and Birds, pp. 237-252. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports International Series No. 183.
  301. Reitz, E. J., I. R. Quitmyer, H. S. Hale, S. J. Scudder, and E. S. Wing 1987 Application of Allometry to Zooarchaeology. American Antiquity 52(2):304-317.
  302. Reitz, Elizabeth J. and Elizabeth S. Wing 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  303. Reynolds, Elmer R. 1883 Memoir on the Pre-Columbian Shell Mounds at Newburg, Maryland and the Aboriginal Shell- fields of the Potomac and Wicomico Rivers. Compte-Rendu du Congrès International Des América- nistes. 5 th Session, Copenhagen. Available online at www.archive.org/stream/proceedingsinter1883inte#page/310/mate/2p; accessed July 28, 2012.
  304. Rice, James D. 2009 Nature and History in the Potomac Country: From Hunter-Gatherers to the Age of Jefferson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  305. Richter, Daniel K. 1983 The Iroquois Experience. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series 40(4):528-555.
  306. 1992 The Ordeal of the Longhouse: the Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
  307. Rivoire, Richard J. 1989 National Register of Historic Properties Form, CH-49, The Lindens. On file, Maryland Historical Trust, Crownsville.
  308. Rogers, Frances and Alice Beard 1937 5,000 Years of Glass. New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company.
  309. Rountree, Helen C. 1993 The Powhatans and the English: A Case of Multiple Conflicting Agendas. In Powhatan Foreign Relations: 1500-1722.
  310. Helen C. Rountree, ed. Charlottesville: The University of Virginia Press. 1998 Powhatan Indian Women: The People Captain John Smith Barely Saw. Ethnohistory 45:1-29.
  311. Rountree, Helen C., and E. Randolph Turner III 2005 Before and After Jamestown: Virginia's Powhatans and their Predecessors. Paperback edition. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
  312. Samford, Patricia M. 2011 Walking Softly and Carrying a Big Stick: Being Fashionable on Maryland's Western Shore in the Late 17th-Century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland.
  313. Scharf, John Thomas 1967 History of Maryland from the Earliest Period to the Present Day. Hatboro, PA: Tradition Press.
  314. Scudder, S.J. 1993 Human Influence on Pedogenesis: Midden Soils on a Southwest Florida Pleistocene Dune Island. MA, Thesis, Department of Soil and Water Science, University of Florida, Gainesville.
  315. Seifert, Betty L. 2005 Technical Update No. 1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. Revised. St. Leonard: Maryland Historical Trust. Semmes, Raphael 1937 Captains and Mariners of Early Maryland. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  316. Shaffer, Gary D., and Elizabeth J. Cole 1994 Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Technical Report No.
  317. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust. Shlasko, Ellen 1989 Delftware Chronology: A New Approach to Dating English Tin-Glazed Ceramics. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
  318. Silliman, Stephen W. 2005 Culture Contact or Colonialism? Challenges in the Archaeology of Native North America. American Antiquity 70(1):55-74.
  319. Slattery, Richard G., and Douglas Woodward 1992 The Montgomery Focus: A Late Woodland Potomac River Culture. Crownsville, MD: Maryland Historical Trust.
  320. Smith, Marvin T. 1983 Chronology From Glass Beads: The Spanish Period in the Southeast c. A.D. 1513-1670. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Rochester Museum and Science Center Research Records 16:147-158. C.F. Hayes, ed. Rochester, NY.
  321. Sobolik, Kristin D. 2003 Archaeobiology. Oxford: AltaMira Press.
  322. Stephenson, Robert L., Alice L. L. Ferguson, and Henry G. Ferguson 1963 The Accokeek Creek Site: A Middle Atlantic Seaboard Culture Sequence. Anthropological Papers No. 20, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
  323. Stewart, R. Michael 1989 Trade and Exchange in Middle Atlantic Prehistory. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 17: 47-78. Stone, Lyle M. 1974
  324. Fort Michilimackinac 1715-1781: An Archaeological Perspective on the Revolutionary Frontier. Publications of the Museum, Michigan State University, Anthropological Series 2. East Lansing, MI. Strickland, Scott M., and Julia A. King 2011 An Archaeological Survey of the Charleston Property: Josias Fendall's Dwelling Plantation. St. Mary's City: St. Mary's College of Maryland.
  325. Tayac, Gabrielle 1988 "So Intermingled With This Earth": A Piscataway Oral History. Northeast Indian Quarterly 5(4): 4-17. Thompson, Peter 2006 Bacon's Rebellion: Empire and the Making of Virginia. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  326. Todd, Vincent H., ed. 1920 Christoph von Graffenried's Account of the Founding of New Bern. North Carolina: North Carolina Historical Commission, Raleigh.
  327. Turner, J. Randolph 1992 The Virginia Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland Period. In Theodore R. Reinhart and Mary Ellen N. Hodges, eds., Middle and Late Woodland Research in Virginia. Council of Virginia Archaeologists, Richmond, Virginia.
  328. Tyler, Lyon G. 1893
  329. Col. John Washington: Further Details of His Life from the Records of Westmoreland Co., Virginia. The William and Mary Quarterly 2(1):38-49.
  330. Van Doren, Carl and Julian P. Boyd, eds. 1938 Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin Franklin, 1736-1762. Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
  331. Veech, Andrew S. 1996 Considering Colonoware from the Barnes Plantation: A Proposed Colonoware Typology for Northern Virginia Colonial Sites. Northeast Historical Archaeology 26:73-86.
  332. Veit, Richard and Charles A. Bello 2001 Tokens of Their Love: Interpreting Native American Grave Goods from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. Archaeology of Eastern North America 29: 47-64.
  333. Vrabel, Deborah M., and Paul B. Cissna, eds.
  334. d. Archeological Survey of Piscataway Park. Ms. on file, National Park Service, National Capital Region, Washington, D.C. Walker, Iain C. 1977 History and Archaeology 11D: Clay Tobacco-Pipes, With Particular Reference to the Bristol Industry. Ottawa, Canada: National Historic Parks and Sites Branch.
  335. Wall, Robert D., and Dana Kollman 2007 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Gardiner Road Mining Site, Parcel # 7, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by TRC Environmental, Inc. for Chaney Enterprises.
  336. Wall, Robert D., and Eric Schmidt 2008 Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Gardiner Road Phase 6 Project Area, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by TRC Environmental, Inc. for Chaney Enterprises.
  337. Wall, Robert D., Eric Schmidt, and Dana Kollman 2007a Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Gardiner Road Mining Site, Parcel # 4, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by TRC Environmental, Inc. for Chaney Enterprises. 2007b Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Gardiner Road Mining Site, Parcel # 8, Charles County, Maryland. Prepared by TRC Environmental, Inc. for Chaney Enterprises.
  338. Wanser, Jeffrey C. 1982 A Survey of Artifact Collections from Central Southern Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Manuscript Series No. 23. Maryland Historical Trust and the Coastal Resource Division, Tidewater Administration, Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.
  339. Watson, Judith Green 2007 A Discovery: 1798 Federal Direct Tax Records for Connecticut. Prologue Magazine 39(1). Available online at http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2007/spring/tax-lists.html; accessed July 10, 2012.
  340. White, Andrew, S.J. 1847 A Relation of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore, in Maryland, Near Virginia. A Narrative of the First Voyage to Maryland. NC Brooks, trans.
  341. White, Stephen W. 1975 On the Origins of Gunspalls. Historical Archaeology 9:65-73.
  342. White, Theodore E. 1953 A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 18:396-398.
  343. White, W.T. 2003 Hemipristis elongata. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Red List of Threatened Species. Available online at (www.iucnredlist.org) accessed Fall 2011. William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research 2009 Return to Potomac Creek (44ST2): Archaeology at a Late Prehistoric Native American Village. Available online (http://www.wm.edu/wmcar/Potomac.html) accessed November 29, 2011.
  344. Williams, Scott E. 2010 Monhantic Fort Gunflints: Continuity or Change in Mashantucket Pequot Lithic Manufacturing Patterns Due to European Contact. Masters Thesis, University of Connecticut. Available at University of Connecticut Digital Commons. Available online (http://www.digitalcommons.uconn.edu/gs_theses/13) accessed 2011.
  345. Williamson, Margaret 2007 Powhatan Lords of Life and Death: Command and Consent in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
  346. Wilke, Steven and Gail Thompson 1977 Prehistoric Archaeological Resources in the Maryland Coastal Zone. Report prepared for the Energy and Coastal Zone Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, Maryland. Witthoft, John 1966 A History of Gunflints. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 36(1-2): 12-49.
  347. Wood, Marilee 2000 Making Connections: Relationships Between International Trade and Glass Beads from the Shashe-Limpopo Area. South Africa Archaeological Society, Goodwin Series 8:78-90.
  348. World Climate 2011 Climate, Global Warming, and Daylights Charts and Data. Available online (http://www.climate- charts.com/USA-Stations/MD/MD185080.php#data) accessed December 2011.
  349. Wray, C.F. 1983 Seneca Glass Trade Beads, circa A.D. 1550-1820. Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference. Rochester Museum and Science Center Research Records 16: 41-49. C.F. Hayes, ed. Rochester, NY.
  350. Yentsch, Anne E. 1994 A Chesapeake Family and Their Slaves: A Study in Historical Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  351. Zawadzka, Dagmara 2011 Spectacles to Behold: Colours in Algonquin Landscapes. Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, 19(1). The Berkeley Electronic Press. Available online (http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol19/iss1/2/) accessed December 2011. 18CH0808 148 328950 1349300 1 possible crushed quartz-tempered unidentified Indian ceramic sherd, burnt 18CH0808 149 328950 1349350 1 iron concretion fragment 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349400 No Artifacts 18CH0808 150 328950 1349450 1 buff pasted creamware body spall; 1 iron concretion fragment 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349500 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349550 No Artifacts 18CH0808 151 328950 1349600 /green- tinted flat glass fragment, possibly window glass 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349700 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349750 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1349800 No Artifacts 18CH0808 153 328950 1349850 1 quartzite fire-cracked rock
  352. 18CH0808 N/A 328950 1350100 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1348950 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1348975 No Artifacts 18CH0808 155 328900 1349000 2 unidentified iron clay/stone fragments, possible bog iron 18CH0808 156 328900 1349025 7 unidentified iron clay/stone fragments, possible bog iron 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349050 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349075 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349100 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349125 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349150 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349175 No Artifacts 18CH0808 157 328900 1349200 1 unidentified Indian ceramic body sherd with minor sand temper 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349225 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349250 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349275 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349300 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349325 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328900 1349350 1 quartz rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  353. 18CH0808 N/A 328650 1349325 No Artifacts 18CH0808 25 328650 1349350 1 red-painted black Cornaline D'Alleppo glass bead (0.25"x 0.19")
  354. 18CH0808 26 328650 1349425 1 Potomac Creek cord-marked body sherd; 1 unidentified iron fragment, flat 18CH0808 27 328650 1349450 4 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded);
  355. 1 English flint fragment 18CH0808 N/A 328650 1349475 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328650 1349500 2 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded) 18CH0808 28 328650 1349525 1 white clay tobacco pipe bowl fragment, undecorated
  356. 18CH0808 N/A 328650 1349550 3 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded)
  357. 18CH0808 N/A 328650 1349575 No Artifacts 18CH0808 29 328650 1349600 21 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded); 1 terra cotta pipe stem fragment, Indian manufacture, 9/64" bore diameter;
  358. N/A 328650 1349625 No Artifacts 18CH0808 30 328650 1349650 1 chert secondary flake; 5 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded) 18CH0808 225 328600 1349125 1 white clay tobacco pipe stem fragment, unmeasurable bore; 1 green bottle glass fragment, thin and heavily patinated, possibly colonial; 2 wrought iron nail fragments 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349150 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349175 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349200 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349225 No Artifacts 18CH0808 44 328600 1349250 1 wrought iron nail fragment 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349275 No Artifacts 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349300 1 chert rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  359. 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349325 No Artifacts 18CH0808 45 328600 1349350 1 quartzite fire-cracked rock; 1 chert rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  360. 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349475 1 chert rock, non-cultural (discarded) 18CH0808 47 328600 1349500 1 possible quartzite fire-cracked rock
  361. 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349525 No Artifacts 18CH0808 48 328600 1349550 1 quartzite fire-cracked rock; 7 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded)
  362. N/A 328600 1349575 No Artifacts 18CH0808 49 328600 1349600 2 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded); 1 chalcedony rock; 1 oyster shell fragment (11.9 grams)
  363. 18CH0808 50 328600 1349625 2 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded); 1 white clay tobacco pipe stem fragment, unmeasurable bore 18CH0808 51 328600 1349650 15 chert rocks, non-cultural (discarded); 2 possible chert secondary flakes; 1 quartz rock, non-cultural (discarded); 1 white clay tobacco pipe bowl fragment with incised rim 18CH0808 52 328600 1349675 1 possible quartz shatter 18CH0808 53 328600 1349700 1 chalcedony tertiary flake, possibly flint; 9 chert rocks, 1 burnt; 2 colorless glass fragments 18CH0808 N/A 328600 1349725 No Artifacts 18CH0808 54 328600 1349750 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 brown bottle glass fragment, modern; 1 asphalt roof shingle fragment; 1 ashphalt fragment □465230A 1 quartzite secondary flake (large), possibly utilized; 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 quartz tertiary flake N/A 344000 1351275 No Artifacts 18 344000 1351300 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 quartz tertiary flake N/A 344000 1351325 No Artifacts N/A 344000 1351350 No Artifacts N/A 344000 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344025 1351225 No Artifacts 19 344025 1351250 2 quartz primary flakes 20 344025 1351275 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartz secondary flake; 3 quartz tertiary flakes 21 344025 1351300 1 quartz secondary flake; 2 quartz tertiary flakes N/A 344025 1351325 No Artifacts N/A 344025 1351350 IN STREAM
  364. N/A 344025 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344025 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344025 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344025 1351450 No Artifacts 22 344050 1351200 1 quartzite secondary flake, possibly utilized 23 344050 1351225 1 quartz core; 3 quartz tertiary flakes N/A 344050 1351250 No Artifacts N/A 344050 1351275 No Artifacts 24 344050 1351300 1 quartz tertiary flake
  365. N/A 344050 1351325 No Artifacts N/A 344050 1351350 No Artifacts N/A 344050 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344050 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344050 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351200 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351225 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351250 No Artifacts 25 344075 1351275 1 quartz projectile point fragment, base missing; 2 quartz secondary flakes; 2 quartz tertiary flakes; 1 quartzite secondary flake; 1 rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  366. N/A 344075 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344075 1351450 No Artifacts 26 344100 1351175 1 quartz tool, possible unifacial scraper N/A 344100 1351200 No Artifacts N/A 344100 1351225 No Artifacts 27 344100 1351250 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 quartz tertiary flake; 1 rhyolite tertiary flake N/A 344100 1351275 No Artifacts 28 344100 1351300 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 quartz tertiary flake; 1 quartzite secondary flake; 1 chert rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  367. N/A 344100 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344100 1351450 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351175 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351200 No Artifacts 29 344125 1351225 , possibly retouched 33 344125 1351325 1 quartz biface, broken; 1 quartz secondary flake N/A 344125 1351350 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344125 1351450 No Artifacts N/A 344150 1351150 No Artifacts 34 344150 1351175 2 quartz shatter; 1 rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  368. N/A 344150 1351200 SKIPPED 35 344150 1351225 1 chert rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  369. N/A 344150 1351250 No Artifacts 36 344150 1351275 1 rhyolite shatter; 1 quartz primary flake N/A 344150 1351300 No Artifacts 37 344150 1351325 1 quartz tertiary flake 38 344150 1351350 1 quartz primary flake
  370. N/A 344150 1351450 No Artifacts N/A 344175 1351150 No Artifacts N/A 344175 1351175 No Artifacts 39 344175 1351200 1 banded chert secondary flake 40 344175 1351225 1 possible quartzite fire-cracked rock 41 344175 1351250 1 quartzite tertiary flake, possibly retouched or possible triangular point N/A 344175 1351275 No Artifacts 42 344175 1351300 1 quartz tertiary flake
  371. N/A 344175 1351325 No Artifacts 43 344175 1351350 1 net-impressed Mockley body sherd; 1 rhyolite biface fragment; 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartz rock, non-cultural (discarded)
  372. N/A 344175 1351450 No Artifacts N/A 344200 1351150 No Artifacts 44 344200 1351175 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartz secondary flake N/A 344200 1351200 No Artifacts N/A 344200 1351225 No Artifacts 45 344200 1351250 2 chert rocks, non-cultural 46 344200 1351275 1 quartz tertiary flake, possibly retouched; 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartzite tertiarty flake; 1 rock, non-cultural (discarded) 47 344200 1351300 1 quartz secondary flake, possibly utilized
  373. N/A 344200 1351325 No Artifacts 48 344200 1351350 2 quartz shatter; 1 snail shell
  374. N/A 344200 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344200 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344200 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344200 1351450 No Artifacts N/A 344225 1351150 No Artifacts 49 344225 1351175 1 quartz secondary flake; 1 unidentified rock, possibly fire-cracked
  375. N/A 344225 1351200 No Artifacts N/A 344225 1351225 No Artifacts 50 344225 1351250 1 quartz biface base fragment 51 344225 1351275 1 quartzite secondary flake 52 344225 1351300 1 quartz tertiary flake; 1 quartzite fire-cracked rock 53 344225 1351325 1 unidentified fire-cracked rock, possibly chert 54 344225 1351350 1 quarzite primary flake, large
  376. N/A 344225 1351450 No Artifacts 55 344250 1351150 1 quartz shatter; 2 chert cobble, cracked, probably non-cultural; 1 rock, non-cultural
  377. N/A 344250 1351225 No Artifacts 1351300 1 quartz shatter; 1 quartzite primary flake; 1 rhyolite tertiary flake; 2 rocks, non-cultural N/A 344300 1351325 No Artifacts 73 344300 1351350 1 possible quartzite fire-cracked rock; 1 English flint flake; 1 sand-tempered Potomac Creek cord-marked body sherd; 7 rocks, non-cultural (discarded)
  378. N/A 344300 1351375 No Artifacts N/A 344300 1351400 No Artifacts N/A 344300 1351425 No Artifacts N/A 344300 1351450 No Artifacts 74 344325 1351325 3 quartz shatter; 1 quartzite shatter; 3 rocks, non-cultural (discarded)
  379. N/A 344325 1351350 No Artifacts N/A 344325 1351375 No Artifacts 75 344062 1351278 1 rhyolite projectile point, possible Kanawha type 76 344088 1351203 1 sand-tempered Indian ceramic body sherd, probably Potomac Creek SKYLAR A. BAUER EDUCATION Masters in Anthropology Projected Graduation 2014
  380. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology Graduated Spring 2011
  381. St. Mary's College of Maryland, St. Mary's City, MD Summa Cum Laude Member of the Council for Maryland Archaeology, Member of Psi Beta Kappa and Lambda Alpha, Martin E. Sullivan Museum Scholar 2010-2011, Garry Wheeler Stone Award 2011
  382. FIELD AND LAB EXPERIENCE (seasonal) 2012 Field Intern, Fort St. Joseph Archaeological Project (Niles, MI)
  383. 2012 Field Technician, TRC Environmental (Martinsburg, WV)
  384. 2012 Field Technician, AK Environmental (New Milford, PA)
  385. 2012 Field and Lab Technician, Applied Archaeology and History Associates (Anne Arundel County, MD)
  386. 2011 Field and Lab Supervisor, Notley Hall (St. Mary's County, MD) 2010-2011 Field Technician, Zekiah Archaeological Project (Charles County, MD) 2008-2011 Lab Assistant and Fellowship, Historic St. Mary's City Archaeology Lab (St. Mary's City, MD)
  387. 2010 Field Technician, Clohamon Castle (Clohamon, Co. Wexford, Ireland)
  388. 2010 Field Technician, Anne Arundel Hall Archaeological Project (St. Mary's City, MD)
  389. 2009 Field School Student, Historic St. Mary's City Archaeological Field School (St. Mary's City, MD WRITING EXPERIENCE Present Co-authoring Two Site Reports: Notley Hall (18ST074) and Hawkins Gate (18CH004).
  390. 2010 Co-authored "The Clay Tobacco Pipes Recovered from Westwood Manor" found in the Archaeological Preliminary Site Report titled: The Westwood Manor Archaeological Collection: Preliminary Interpretations 2010, Alexander et al.
  391. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS 2012 "Archaeology of 17 th -century Politics Along Maryland's Wicomico River," Annual Society for Historical Archaeology Conference, Baltimore, Maryland. 2011 "From Old Hall to Great Hall: Thomas Notley and His Life as Governor," Annual Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference, Ocean City, Maryland. DANNY BRAD HATCH EDUCATION: Currently Enrolled Ph.D. Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Advisor: Barbara Heath 2009 M.A. Anthropology/Historical Archaeology, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Advisor: Fred Smith. Thesis Title: "Bottomless Pits: The Decline of Subfloor Pits and Rise of African American Consumerism in Virginia" 2007 B.A. Magna Cum Laude, Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Advisor: Doug Sanford. TEACHING EXPERIENCE Fall 2011-Present Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Knoxville, TN. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 2003-Present Several field crew and supervisor positions, including Ferry Farm, Stratford Hall, Zekiah Fort, and Indian Camp. October 2008-July 2009 Staff Archaeologist/Lab Manager, Dovetail Cultural Resource Group. Fredericksburg, VA.
  392. PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS (SELECTED): 2011 Bones, Pans, and Probates: A Faunal Analysis of the Newman's Neck Site (44NB180). Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 27:75-91. 2011 A Report on the Faunal Remains from Wingo's Quarter. Appendix to A Summary of Archaeology at Wingo's Quarter. By Barbara Heath, Eleanor Breen, and Crystal Ptacek. 2009 Phase I Archaeological Survey of a 5-Acre Parcel (GPIN: 8188- 67-7083) in the Town of Dumfries, Prince William County, Virginia. By Brad Hatch and Marco A. Gonzalez. Served as Principal Investigator. 2009 Archaeological Investigations on the Enchanted Castle (44OR0003) at Germanna, Orange County, Virginia: A Summary, 1984-1995" By Kerri Barile, Sean Maroney, and Brad Hatch. 2009 Phase I Archeological Survey of the Proposed Buried Waterline Corridor Within the Spotsylvania Court House Battlefield, Spotsylvania County, Virginia. By Brad Hatch and Marco Gonzalez. Served as Principal Investigator. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS December 2009-Present Member, Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference April 2009-Present Member, Society for Historical Archaeology. July 2009-Present Member, Register of Professional Archaeologists JULIA ANN KING EDUCATION: Ph.D., 1990, Historical Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
  393. M.A., 1981, Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee. B.A., 1978, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: 2006-present, Associate Professor of Anthropology, St. Mary's College of Maryland St. Mary's City, Maryland, 20686. 2008-present, Coordinator, Museum Studies Program, SMCM. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1996 to 2006: Director, Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, Maryland Historical Trust, St. Leonard, Maryland, 20685. 1987 to 1996: Director of Research, Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, St. Leonard, Maryland. 1978-1986: Numerous field crew and field supervisor positions, including Flowerdew Hundred, Governor's Land, St. Augustine, St. Mary's City.
  394. OTHER POSITIONS: 2003 President, Society for Historical Archaeology (www.sha.org). 2003-2011 Member, President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (www.achp.gov).
  395. GRANTS, AWARDS, and FELLOWSHIPS: 2005-2007 National Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Preservation and Access. : Developing a Records Database for the State of Maryland's Archaeological Collections. 2002-2005 National Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Collaborative Research. A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture. 2002 Research Fellow, Henry Francis duPont Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Delaware. 2001-2003 National Endowment for the Humanities, Division of Preservation and Access. Developing a Digital Catalog for the State of Maryland's Archaeological Collections. 2000
  396. Andrew Mellon Fellow, Virginia Historical Society, Richmond. 1999 Research Associate, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Va. 1994 Fellow in Landscape Architecture Studies, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS and SERVICE: Society for Historical Archaeology, Member, Director (1997-2000), President (2003) Society for American Archaeology, Member Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology, Member, Director (1991-94, 1995-98)
  397. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Life Member Register of Professional Archaeologists, Member American Anthropological Association, Member Associate Editor, Historical Archaeology PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS: 2012 Archaeology, Landscape, and the Politics of the Past: The View from Southern Maryland. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
  398. 2009 Archaeological Collections, Government Warehouses, and Anxious Moderns: The Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory. Archaeologies, Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 4(2):264-285.
  399. 2007 Still Life with Tobacco: The Archaeological Uses of Dutch Art. In Diana DiPaolo Loren and Uzi Baram, editors, Between Art and Artifact: Approaches to Visual Representations in Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 41(1):6-22.
  400. 2006 Household Archaeologies, Identities, and Biographies. In Mary C. Beaudry and Dan Hicks, editors, Cambridge Companion in Historical Archaeology, pp. 293-313. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  401. 1997 Tobacco, Innovation, and Economic Persistence in Nineteenth Century Southern Maryland. Agricultural History 71(2):207-236. 1996 'The Transient Nature of All Things Sublunary': Romanticism, History and Ruins in Nineteenth Century Southern Maryland. In Rebecca Yamin and Karen Bescherer Metheny, eds., Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape, pp. 249-272. Knoxville, University of Tennessee Press.
  402. 1994 Rural Landscape in the Mid-Nineteenth Century Chesapeake. In Barbara J. Little and Paul A. Shackel, eds., Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake Region, pp. 283-299.
  403. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press.
  404. 1984 Ceramic Variability in Seventeenth Century St. Augustine, Florida. Historical Archaeology 18(2):75-82.
  405. with Dennis B. Blanton, co-editors 2004 Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
  406. with Edward E. Chaney 2004 Did the Chesapeake English Have a Contact Period? In Dennis B. Blanton and Julia A. King, eds., Indian and European Contact in Context: The Mid-Atlantic Region, pp. 193- 221. Gainesville, University Press of Florida.
  407. 1999 Lord Baltimore and the Meaning of Brick Architecture in Seventeenth Century Maryland. In Geoff Egan and Ronald L. Michael, eds., Old and New Worlds, pp. 51-60. Oxford, CT, Oxbow Books.
  408. with Henry M. Miller 1987 The View from the Midden: An Analysis of Midden Distribution and Composition at the van Sweringen Site, St. Mary's City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 21(2):37-59.
  409. with Thao T. Phung and Douglas H. Ubelaker 2009
  410. Alcohol, Tobacco, and Excessive Animal Protein: The Question of an Adequate Diet in the 17th-Century Chesapeake. Historical Archaeology 43(2):62-83.

Related papers

REVIEW: The Divided Dominion: Social Conflict and Indian Hatred in Early Virginia
Keith Pluymers
View PDFchevron_right
Discovering a Palisade: Indigenous-Anglo Interactions In the Seventeenth Century Northern Neck
Rebecca J . Webster, Katherine G . Parker

Bulletin of the Northumberland County Historical Society, 2020

Popular histories of life in the seventeenth-century Chesapeake typically begin with the founding of the Virginia colony in 1607 at Jamestown and the establishment of the colony of Maryland at St. Mary's City in 1634. Until recently, these histories have highlighted the experiences of English colonists, depicting Virginia Indians and the Indigenous peoples of Maryland as background actors who were either violently opposed to, or peacefully supportive of, the colonists' goals. By the 1640s, when organized warfare between the two groups ceased in Virginia, Native peoples largely fade from the narrative, only to reappear, briefly, as antagonists who helped set in motion the intra-colonial conflict known as Bacon's Rebellion. The seventeenth century, in these depictions, is a simplified story of English conquest and Indigenous defeat and assimilation.

View PDFchevron_right
A Frontier of Fear: Terrorism and Social Tension along Virginia's Western Waters, 1742–1775
B. Scott Crawford

West Virginia History: A Journal of Regional Studies, 2008

On a summer day in the wake of General Braddock's defeat along the Monongahela, a small band of Shawnee warriors prepared to strike the Draper's Meadows settlement, located on the western waters of Virginia's frontier. This settlement represented English expansion and foreshadowed the movement of more Europeans into the region. While no major concentration of Amerindians was present in the immediate vicinity, Draper's Meadows was positioned in an area that the Iroquois had claimed until the 1744 Treaty of Lancaster in which they relinquished their purported control over the region and made the area open for European settlement. While the Shawnee raid on Draper's Meadows became the most famous Amerindian attack along Virginia's western waters, due mainly to Mary Draper Ingles's account of her dramatic escape from captivity and fourhundred-mile trek back home, such raids along the backcountry were quite common throughout the French and Indian War.

View PDFchevron_right
Southern Indians in the American Revolution
Henry Malone

The American Historical Review, 1975

View PDFchevron_right
Alan Taylor, The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution, American Historical Review 111:5 (2006): 1506-07
Evan Haefeli
View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved