A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture: Project Update
Paper Presented at the 2004 Annual meeting of the Middle Atlantic Archaeological Conference in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware.
In 2003, a consortium of researchers at various institutions undertook the project, ‘A Comparative Archaeological Study of Colonial Chesapeake Culture,’ funded by grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. This project is designed to document and interpret the interactions between the multiple groups that made up the Chesapeake society by comparing material culture recovered from various colonial sites in Maryland and Virginia. The project can also serve as a methodological guide for similar collaborative studies in the future. Our primary objective is to re-examine artifact patterning and intrasite spatial organization of eighteen 17th to 18th century rural plantation sites located in the Chesapeake region. Several institutions are participating in this project by providing archaeological site information, financial support, and/or staff time. These institutions include the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory at the Jefferson Patterson Park and Museum, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Anne Arundel County’s Lost Towns Project, the Virginian Department of Historic Resources, George Washington’s Ferry Farm Foundation, Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, Monticello, University of Mary Washington, and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities Jamestown Rediscovery Project. Dr. Julia A. King is the project supervisor who along with Ed Chaney has given invaluable information and technical support to me as the Lead Project Archaeologist and Mandy Ranslow, the Project Assistant. In the presentation today I will be outlining the concept, methodology, and current progress of this research project.
Through analysis of material culture patterning at these sites, particularly its spatial organization, we are beginning to see patterns discerning the ways in which Europeans, Indians, and Africans created boundaries and forged new identities in a radically new natural and social environment. Such cultural boundaries, which emerged from pre-existing understandings prior to contact, were established in an attempt to define what was the appropriate behavior between planters and laborers, men and women, and the individuals of different social, economic, and ethnic groups. It was on the plantation that individuals from these groups were in relatively constant contact, and therefore, this study will compare data retrieved from various rural colonial occupation sites. The project is organized to examine these interactions through three major categories:
- The organization of labor and the rise of race-based slavery. We will attempt to better understand how spatial segregation of the planter’s household and the laborer community was established through analysis of architecture, fence lines, features, and plow zone artifact distributions.
- Intercultural Contact and Relations. By examining selected artifact types such as shell and glass beads, Indian ceramics, and terra cotta pipes and comparing them among the different sites, we hope to gain further knowledge on the cultural collisions in Chesapeake society.
- Living Standards and the Consumer Revolution. We will attempt to evaluate the demonstration of social status through material possession and accumulation. We are focusing on this concept by examining the percentages of utilitarian ware and finer ceramics at each site, as well as by detailing the amount and types of small finds excavated.
Sites
Most of the eighteen archaeological sites included in this project were excavated using similar recovery methods and the artifact cataloging process and database generation has been completed for all. The sites represent a combined occupation range from circa 1620 to circa 1750. Camden and Posey, which are located in the Rappahannock and Potomac drainages respectively, represent Native American households, while the other sixteen sites were plantations occupied by English colonists. The plantation sites selected for this project were occupied variously by wealthy planter families, middling planters, tenant farmers, indentured servitude, and slaves. Depending on the location either the more expensive sweet-scented tobacco or the less expensive oronoco tobacco was grown. The Sandys, Carter’s Grove, Reverend Buck, Rich Neck, and Jordan’s Journey sites are all located in the James River drainage near Williamsburg. The Old Chapel Field and Clifts Plantation sites are located in the Potomac River drainage. The Compton, Patuxent Point, Matapany, and King’s Reach sites are located in the Patuxent River drainage. Burle’s Town Land, Homewood’s Lot, Chaney’s Hills, Chalkley and Bennet’s Point are found along the Chesapeake Bay drainage.
Methods
I began working on this research project in mid-September 2003, and over the last six months we have made significant progress. We have begun by compiling historical and biographical information about each site and its inhabitants, as well as the excavation strategies. Furthermore, the majority of the institutions participating in this study have sent to me their digital information concerning artifact catalogs by provenience. I have begun to assemble these databases in a similar format and compile them into Microsoft Access; this process increases the research potential of site comparison for the project staff and other researchers. The goal of this project is not only to answer the primary research questions posed in the initial grant proposal, but to make this collection of databases accessible for future research as well. This alone makes the project significant and substantial.
While our project has lofty research goals, before we can begin to address these questions, we need to be sure that the sites we are analyzing are as well documented as possible. This has necessitated a re-examination not just of plow zone artifacts, but architecture and site phasing. For example, at the Compton site a series of postholes were identified but not excavated, making it difficult to interpret building form and chronology. Archaeologists from Louis Berger Associates, Inc. determined that there were four primary structures at the site; however, in consultation with project staff and architectural historians from the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, we re-analyzed the evidence and concluded that there were two buildings, both with add-on sheds, and possibly a third structure. We were able to come to this conclusion by examining artifact distributions in the plow zone, such as brick, white clay pipes, and European ceramics.
At Patuxent Point, a site roughly contemporary with Compton, there is one primary dwelling structure, and a possible second building. Posts were identified west of the dwelling but the information was not substantial enough to determine the exact location or layout of a second structure. The distribution maps of Patuxent Point consistently show a clean or low concentration area west of the main dwelling, hinting that there could have been a building in that area. The distribution maps also suggest a midden area immediately to the west and south of the dwelling. This is particularly evident in the maps showing the location of European ceramics, white clay pipes, and faunal material in the plow zone.
Examination of artifact distribution in the plow zone has been and will continue to be an invaluable method to make inter- and intra-site comparisons. However, this information was not collected at each site, such as at Jordan’s Journey, where instead a controlled surface collection of the plowed field was conducted. At this site there are several large features that were created during the colonial occupation; comparisons of material collected from the surface and from the features show spatial separation, indicating that the artifacts located in the plow zone are not merely plowed and disturbed materials from the features. This is particularly evident with the terra cotta pipe fragments. When we compare the European ceramic types collected from the plowed surface and from the features, differences become apparent, such as the virtual lack of North Devon ceramics in the features. Again, in order to fully interpret the occupation of a site the plow zone must be included in the excavation process. However, analysis of the features has also been useful. This is true particularly with structure four, which was originally identified as a building of early construction. Yet running a quick query within the database showed that the building had to have been constructed later, based on the large number of European artifacts excavated from the post hole features. Compared to Buck and Sandys, Jordan’s Journey has a grater percentage of a weaponry and armor component as well as flint. However, there appears to be comparatively less European ceramics or brick at Jordan’s Journey.
Comparisons between Camden and Posey suggest that the occupants did interact on some level with the European colonists. White clay pipes, European ceramics, and metal artifacts were found at both sites. 95% of the total artifacts excavated from Camden, however, included Native American Pottery, and 4% included Terra Cotta pipe. At Posey, Native American material again dominated the assemblage, yet comparatively more European items were found there than at Camden. We recognize that it would be advantageous to compare the material excavated at other 17th-18th century Native American occupation sites in the Chesapeake region and are actively pursuing this.
We can also measure the interactions of Indians and Europeans through analysis of Native American material, such as hand made red clay pipes, found at the colonists’ occupation sites. At this point in the research project we are able to show the percentages of terra cotta and white clay pipes retrieved from the sites. While I understand that terra cotta pipes by no means immediately indicates Native American manufacture, it can be used as a marker for further analysis which would include going back to the collections to determine how many of the these pipes were hand-made. As expected, there is significantly more terra cotta pipes excavated at Camden than white clay. Yet, at Posey, white clay pipes represent 55% of the pipe material found at the site.1 Terra cotta pipe were found at several of the European sites as well, such as at Patuxent Point, Compton, and Old Chapel Field, where 70% of the pipe material excavated is made of red clay. We have also begun to compare Native American and European ceramics at various sites. The Indian pottery type used for this comparison were the Late Woodland types Potomac Creek, Townsend, Rapphanock, Yecomico, and Camden. Again these are being used as markers that could identify European interactions with Indians. Not surprisingly, nearly 100% of the pottery found at Posey and Camden were of Native Indian pottery types and there is a clear majority of European ceramics found at the plantation sites. However, excluding Burle’s, there is a presence of Late Woodland pottery to varying degrees at the European settlements. At Old Chapel Field, for example, 25% of the ceramic assemblage was Native American. As shown earlier, 70% of the pipe material excavated at Old Chapel Field was terra cotta. This site was the headquarters of the Jesuit mission effort in Maryland, and the prevalence of these pipes markers suggest that the priests might have interacted with the Indian population more regularly than the inhabitants of the other plantation sites.
Of the European ceramics assemblage, we separated the ware types that are commonly used for either utilitarian or non-utilitarian vessels, we did not include the ceramic wares that are often used in both forms. Again this is presently a marker and we will have to re-examine the collections to determine vessel form for a complete analysis. I had expected that at both Camden and Posey the European ceramics assemblage would largely be of Non-Utilitarian wares. However, at Posey, 81% of the European ceramic types were utilitarian wares such as Buckley and coarse Earthenware. Yet, North Devon was not found at Camden or Posey. Also I was surprised to see that a majority of the ceramic types at Mattapany was utilitarian (67%). Mattapany, King’s Reach and Bennent’s Point were occupied by wealthy families; yet at both King’s Reach and Bennet’s Point the assemblages consist mostly of non-utilitarian wares, 64 and 62 percent respectively.
We are also paying particular attention to human behavior at the sites by comparing the function of certain artifacts and their spatial relatedness with the structures. We have recently begun to reexamine the collections to identify the ceramic vessel forms. For example, we have identified 32 vessels at Compton, of which both bowl and skillets are prevalent, being 19% each. The majority of the ceramic sherds where vessel form was identifiable were excavated from the features. However, we have also been able to identify the location of various forms in the plow zone. We are also interested in what is commonly called ‘small finds’; these include locks, keys, weaponry components, and evidence of personal adornment, home beautification, and much more. In order to meet the full research potential of this project, we will at times have to re-examine these artifacts as we have done for the ceramic vessel form.
At this point in the research process the most difficult aspect of the project has been to make valuable comparisons between sites where the excavation methodologies were not conducted in similar manners. For example, as previously stated, the plow zone was excavated at most but not all of the sites included, and therefore comparison of all the sites based on horizontal distribution of artifacts is limited. As evident at Compton and Jordan’s Journey, both the plow zone and features must be excavated in order to fully interpret past activity and behavior at the site.
A second major issue to contend with has been poor recording standards in the field. I have come across instances where excavators failed to give the coordinates for features, or have given coordinates that appear to be drawn from different datum points. I have even had to contend with sites where no coordinates were given at all. Obviously, this makes plotting artifact distributions extremely difficult. In most cases, I have been able to work around these obstacles through careful analysis of the maps included in the records. Yet in doing so, I have spent a great deal of time trying to extrapolate the general location of features or structures at a site.
It is imperative that excavation methods be standardized to the degree possible that they meet a minimal level of completeness, and that each step is completely recorded while in the field. It is equally important that analysis results are written in a timely and accurate manner and made readily accessible. When these basic measures are not met, it excludes a site from being a part of collaborative studies such as this one. In order to be a part of this momentum, and for the maximum interpretive potential of a site, the excavation processes must be similar and well recorded.
Closing Statements
To conclude, this ambitious research project is involving multiple institutions in order to evaluate and compare the artifact collections and spatial organization of eighteen colonial sites found in Maryland and Virginia. Primarily, we are looking for patterns that will suggest how the different groups in colonial Chesapeake society interacted, evolved, merged, and formed boundaries. Through the study of these patterns we intend to interpret (1) the organization of labor and the rise of race-based slavery, (2) intercultural contact and relationships, and (3) the living standards and the Consumer Revolution.
At this point one of the greatest achievements of this project has been the compilation of databases from multiple institutions, which can be easily accessed for this project and future research. As well, through analysis of artifact distributions, we have already achieved a grater understanding of structural architecture, phasing, and function. Finally, this project has highlighted several issues concerning excavation methodology, which must be considered when organizing a comparative project. Therefore, in the six months of active research for this project, this study has repeatedly proven its potential and will continue to do so.
Endnotes
1 Following the presentation of this paper I realized
that a large portion of red clay pipes had not been included in this
analysis. Based on the final numbers, white clay pipes account for 42%
of the total tobacco pipe assemblage from Posey.